The Discovery and Identification of Site 31CR314


The link between popular culture and historical research is also prevalent in the identification and excavation of site 31CR314. The public adoration for pirates not only helped to spur the search for the shipwreck in North Carolina, but also may have heavily influenced the identification process of the ship itself. There is an argument to be made that without the presence of pirates, and Blackbeard, within popular culture, the ship may have never been researched, located, investigated, identified, or excavated. The cultural significance of pirates and their way of life permeates through every aspect of the discovery and investigation of the Queen Anne’s Revenge.

Original Research in North Carolina

The emergence of the quest to locate Queen Anne’s Revenge started in 1979 when the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources started to expand their historical research beyond Civil War era ships. The Underwater Archeology Branch of the department was captivated by the lore of pirates in the state and conducted field research to try and discover shipwrecks relating to the historic North Carolinian culture. They first investigated Bath, a harbor that was likely a major economic hub during the early 1700s, as there were legends about how Blackbeard used to roam there.1 Mark U. Wilde-Ramsing, the eventual director of the Queen Anne’s Revenge shipwreck project, says that, “Underwater Archeology Branch staff and students arrived that summer with the expectation that their thorough combing of the dark waters of Bath Creek would produce tangible evidence of the famous pirate captain.”2 The impact of popular culture on the whole of maritime archeology is prevalent here as the focus of the Underwater Archeology Branch was to find pirate-centric artifacts and wrecks. The idea that this expedition could reveal information and evidence of Blackbeard was the driving force for the research as opposed to solely historical value. Eventually, investigation found a man-made wharf of ballast stones in the area. These stones were likely placed in the cargo space of mercantile, or potentially pirate, ships in order to steady the boat before they could be switched out for more valuable goods and commodities that would fulfill the same purpose.3 However, ballast is not super valuable for archeological and historical information as it can be very difficult to identify its origin.4 Yet, the archeologists investigating Bath were able to use historical maps and documents to conclude that this wharf may have possibly been used by Blackbeard and other pirates to access a secret underground passage to move across North Carolina undetected.5 This is interesting because this conclusion is heavily reliant upon popular culture and lore. Although the historical deed connecting the wharf to the governor of the providence at the time is likely accurate, the legendary tunnel that Blackbeard supposedly used is just that, a legend.

Underwater Archeology Branch members investigating Bath Creek.6 Click to view full-size.

Pamlico Sound

Several years later, the Underwater Archeology Branch investigated the Pamlico Sound and surrounding areas based on lore from the nearby town of Oriental. That lore claimed that the area used to be a camping spot for Blackbeard. Although the actual mission was to make sure construction projects in the area would not disturb possible wreckage sites, local lore and culture proved useful in locating ship wreckage.7 The researchers were able to find a frame of a sunken ship that, through later analysis, was determined to not be a pirate ship, but rather a mercantile ship.8 This showcases how important lore and popular culture can actually be to the preservation of shipwrecks and the historical value they contain. This lore actually proved crucial insight into where shipwrecks could possibly be, helping to not only discover a wreck, but to make sure cultural heritage was not destroyed. This wreckage also showcases the importance of pirates to the popular culture of North Carolina, the United States, and the Americas in general as this discovery was widely circulated through newspapers. Notably, although the ship was dated to be from much after Blackbeard could have ever possibly used it or been aboard it, the article opens by describing how it was found in his hideout before further explaining that the ship was built after his death.9 It was not a pirate shipwreck, yet the newspaper still connected it to pirates as they were, and are, so popular. It is evident how much of a push there is for shipwrecks in North Carolina to be those of pirates due to public interest and culture.

Washington Post article written by Martin Murphy on the discovery of wreckage found near the Pamlico Sound.10

The Discovery

In this general location, however, would eventually be the discovery of site 31CR314 which would later be identified as Queen Anne’s Revenge by the private salvaging company that initially found the site. Through a combination of his own historical research into the El Salvador and previous research into wrecks in the area conducted by North Carolinian archaeologists, historian Phillip Masters hypothesized that the El Salvador was located somewhere in the Beaufort Inlet. Thus, Masters obtained a permit in 1987 to allow the private salvage company he founded, Intersal Inc., to survey the North Carolinian waters for the El Salvador.11 The director of the Underwater Archeology Branch, Richard Lawrence, soon told Masters that Intersal could potentially find other shipwrecks, including the Queen Anne’s Revenge, in their search area, leading Masters to conduct further research on the area to try and determine where the shipwreck could possibly be.12 The data for this presumption was years in the making and was a combination of historical and archeological work from numerous sources. Information from East Carolina Graduate student David Moore’s proposed location,13 the prior research in the North Carolina area,14 historical stories of Blackbeard’s adventures, Masters’ cartography,15 and official documentation from the 1700s of pirate depositions,16 were all able to be used to predict where the ship was located. Specifically David Harriot’s testimony, a former crewmate of Blackbeard, helped to determine that the ship was run aground intentionally as well as narrowing the possible location of the ship.17 

The importance of this court record to the discovery of the Queen Anne’s Revenge proves the importance of actually preserving and analyzing historical documents. This information and research led Masters to obtain a permit in 1989 for the Queen Anne’s Revenge specifically within the Beaufort Inlet.23 It is interesting to note that Masters was likely very interested in the potential profit that could be made from finding a culturally significant ship in addition to the potential treasure that is so often presumed to be in shipwrecks. Furthermore, it is likely that a factor in the issuing of these permits by the North Carolina government is how important these ships are to the local culture and community. 

Through all of the historical and archeological information, Intersal was able to narrow their search for the Queen Anne’s Revenge. Specifically they focused on the entrance channel of the Beaufort Inlet that was thought to have often been used by ships in the 1700s.24 Eventually, in November 1996 Intersal located wreckage that aligned with the research. This site, dubbed “Site 31CR314” would eventually be identified by archeologists and historians as the Queen Anne’s Revenge

Map of the location of Site 31CR314.25 Click to view full-size.

Part of the reason the presumed wreck of Queen Anne’s Revenge was able to be located was because of folklore in the area. The popular culture surrounding pirates spurred some of the initial expeditions of The North Carolina Underwater Archeology Branch which would later be used as a base to determine the location of the ship wreck. Additionally, the oral legends about where Blackbeard used to hideout within North Carolina were crucial to the initial searches, proving the importance of preserving cultures and lore while also acknowledging their use in historical research. Popular culture had an impact on the desire to find this wreck, but at the same time it also had major importance on the research that went into locating it. It could be argued that without the lore about pirates that persists due to popular culture significance, the wreck may not have been located, or at least not as quickly or efficiently as it was. 

The Announcement and Early Findings

Items that were first initially observed in the wreck location included anchors, cannons, and ballast stones.26 Importantly, a large bronze bell which was also found and was dated as being from 1705. This is a time before Balckbeard’s death in 1718.27 Therefore, the initial evidence of the wreckage was in line with Masters’ research regarding the ship. Historical timelines remained intact based upon the dating of various artifacts from the initial discovery. Masters, and members from Intersal, believed that this ship was indeed the Queen Anne’s Revenge based upon this information coupled with that the location in the Beaufort Inlet adhered to historical documentation. Within four months, it would be announced to the public that this site was most likely to be the Queen Anne’s Revenge.28 The North Carolina governor of the time, James Hunt, held a press conference in March 1997 where he claimed that site 31CR314 was likely the Queen Anne’s Revenge.29

It looks as if the graveyard of the Atlantic yielded one of the most exciting and historically significant discoveries ever located along our coast.

James Hunt30

This feels like a premature claim but Hunt never said that it was certain that the wreck was certainly the Queen Anne’s Revenge. Yet, popular culture and the excitement of a pirate ship being potentially found influenced the reporting of the story in the media. The ambiguity of the wreck tended to be lost as the public had an innate desire for the wreck to indeed be Blackbeard’s, despite the lack of conclusive evidence.31 This push for confirmation put archeologists, historians, and researchers in a tough position as excavation processes take time and do not produce quick results. Yet, the funding of the excavation would all but be guaranteed to continue if the wreck was confirmed to be Queen Anne’s Revenge due to the importance of pirates to North Carolinian culture.32 

The essential widespread and continued public support for the project that facilitated access to funding was underpinned by popular culture and local lore that embraced Blackbeard, Queen Anne’s Revenge, and the Golden Age of Piracy.

North Carolina Maritime Museum Staff Member Paul Fontenoy33
Presentation of various artifacts recovered from the wreckage.34

The Official Management Summary

Through the first two years of investigation, the evidence found from the wreckage site aligned with historical information about the Queen Anne’s Revenge. The Management Plan for North Carolina Shipwreck 31CR314 eventually was put into place in order to successfully excavate material from the shipwreck.

“Based on their findings, there can be little doubt that this shipwreck is Blackbeard’s flagship Queen Anne’s Revenge, lost at Beaufort Inlet in 1718. The location of the shipwreck, its tantalizing array of early eighteenth-century artifacts, and the lack of any other possible candidates from the historical record strongly support this conclusion.” 

The Official Management Summary of Site 31CR31440

Intersal’s Agreement

After the initial discovery of the wreck in 1996, historical analysis and excavation was mainly conducted over the next twenty years.41 Although Intersal was the group that originally discovered the wreck, the actual excavation and analysis of site 31CR314 was spearheaded by the Underwater Archeology Branch and the office of State Archaeology, both sections of the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.42 This was due to the legality surrounding the rights to the submerged ship itself. Site 31CR314 belongs to the state of North Carolina because the wreck was found within a three mile boundary of the coast, thus meaning it is fully contained within state waters.43 Therefore, the state wanted control over the site to ensure artifact preservation, likely given the ability of the potential pirate ship and its artifacts to drive tourism even if other groups, including Intersal, contributed to excavation and investigation. Due to the unique nature of the site, and the cultural importance of the wreck, a unique agreement was made.44 Intersal gave up their claims to any precious or valuable materials found in the wreck, such as coins and precious metals, in exchange for media rights to the “Blackbeard’s Queen Anne’s Revenge Shipwreck Project”.45 This agreement was likely only made partly because of the influence of pirates on popular culture. It gave motivation to the state of North Carolina to negotiate to be able to retain all of the cultural artifacts of the site within one comprehensive collection as it could provide benefits for the tourism sector. Intersal was confident that the significance of Queen Anne’s Revenge to popular culture would be enough to allow it to turn a profit despite giving up valuable material. It could also be assumed that the excitement surrounding pirates influenced Intersal to care less about making a profit and more about gaining, and sharing, new knowledge about Blackbeard and pirates in general.

As the management plan claims, “Excavation of the shipwreck and exhibits displaying its remains will bring tourists to eastern North Carolina and can produce substantial economic benefits for the region and the state.”46 The motive of the actual excavation by the state of North Carolina was rooted in economic and touristic reasons, but also by the educational value the site could have surrounding Blackbeard. The management plan also states that, “Since the public recognizes the pirate and romantic interest in the subject of piracy is keen, particularly among students, the shipwreck will create interest in classroom subjects relating to history, biology, geology, cartography, underwater archaeology, and artifact conservation.”47 These direct quotes from the management plan help showcase how important popular culture surrounding pirates was to the actual excavation project. It gave researchers a major reason to investigate the site beyond just the quest for knowledge as artifact excavation would have a significant and lasting effect on the future. North Carolina’s economy could be strengthened and the next generation of historians and scientists would be captivated by the process of, and the information found from the shipwreck excavation. The popular culture significance of Blackbeard and the Queen Anne’s Revenge helped to fuel the government’s drive to excavate and preserve the site for excitement, but also economic reasons.

The North Carolina Maritime Museum now has a major exhibition of artifacts from the wreck helping to educate the public and draw in many tourists.48 This museum has even been expanded twice since its opening to continue to justify the government funding of the wreck’s excavation.49

Promotional Video for the Queen Anne’s Revenge Artifact Tour50

Excavation Troubles and Full Removal

The location and nature of the shipwreck greatly impacted the ability for the excavation process to proceed smoothly. Yet, the excavation of site 31CR314 continued despite major challenges due to the connection of the wreck to pirates and popular culture and the importance of the ship for North Carolina. Beyond just impacting the planning of the project and the initial investigation of the site, popular culture also played a major role in the sustainment of the project after it had already commenced. The romanticism of pirates helped on-site researchers to overcome challenging conditions during the excavation process. Additionally, funding to continue the project over almost two decades was able to be secured in part because of the lasting impacts a collection of artifacts could have on the economy. The location of the shipwreck, being in an inlet, greatly impacted the actual excavation of the project as well as the preservation of the artifacts. The dynamics of an inlet caused the site to repeatedly be buried by sand and then unburied.51 At the time of discovery, the site was losing sand which could potentially expose important artifacts to waves and thus potential degradation.52 The importance of these artifacts for historical research and their importance to popular culture helped to spur the excavation to commence quickly to protect artifacts from the flux conditions in and around the site. Eventually, in 2004, an official identification of the site as the wreck of the Queen Anne’s Revenge was made by North Carolina.53 This official identification of site 31CR314 did not come until almost a decade after the original discovery of the wreck, yet the idea that it could be the wreck of Blackbeard’s ship drove the public approval of the excavation. Later in 2004, due to the nature of the site and the importance of the ship to popular culture, the decision was made to fully excavate any cultural material possible from the wreck.54 This is a pretty rare decision to be made for shipwreck excavation and popular culture played a role in the decision-making process. If the cultural material was not so important to the public culture surrounding pirates, the cost and time likely would not have been spent on retrieval. 

[A hurricane] moved a wave of sand onto the site covering much of the southern expanse and reburying numerous features recorded the year before. 

David Moore55

The sandy location of the shipwreck impacted the archeological process of the site and put important cultural artifacts in danger. The weather conditions within the Beaufort Inlet also directly impacted the researchers working on the wreck, in addition to just the artifacts themselves. Hurricanes and water surges would often hamper the ability for divers to excavate the site.56 The nature of these storms usually impacted the amount of work that was actually able to be done on any given day of the excavation process. An average of 30% of time was lost due to the ocean environment negatively affecting work.57 Yet, “local lore, archival research, and the lure of the history of piracy sustained the search for the wreck of Queen Anne’s Revenge.”58 The storms greatly extended the timeline of the project and necessitated more funding. Despite this, because of the public support for the project and the eventual economic benefits the artifacts could bring North Carolina, massive amounts of funding were obtainable for the research crew.59 Popular culture allowed for the excavation of the wreck to continue as it influenced public opinion of the project in a positive direction, thus helping to convince the government to fund the project even if it moved slowly.

The Ship’s True Identity

Popular culture surrounding Blackbeard and pirates had a massive impact on the search for and discovery of site 31CR314. It is evident how popular culture and historical and archeological analysis intersected in the search for pirate wrecks in North Carolina. But beyond just giving many motivation to search for wrecks, the fondness for pirates and their adventurous lifestyle significantly impacted the actual identification of site 31CR314. Through the years of excavation, there has yet to be a definitive piece of evidence that confirms the identity of the site as the Queen Anne’s Revenge, yet there is not conclusive evidence to the contrary. Early artifacts from the site lined up with the theory that the wreck was indeed the Queen Anne’s Revenge, but did not definitively prove the wreck’s identity.60 Currently, two main schools of thought persist around site 31CR314. The more prominent theory of course being that the wreck is indeed that of Queen Anne’s Revenge. The rebuttal to this however, is that the identification of the ship fell into the idea of ruling theory. An article in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching explains that, “a ruling theory is defined as an explanation which is held to be correct so strongly that investigation, observation, and interpretation are controlled by it.”61 One of the main sources that goes against site 31CR314 actually being the Queen Anne’s Revenge comes from archeologists Bradley Rodgers, Nathan Richards, and Wayne Lusardi. They argue in a journal article released shortly after the original identification of the shipwreck that the on-site researchers fell into the trap of ruling theory. They claim that the site became so synonymous with Queen Anne’s Revenge that evidence was always used to fit the story and was not looked at objectively.62 Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi analyze many different pieces of evidence from the wreck and propose other theories about what the ship could be. 

Map of the location of the shipwreck.63 Click to view full-size.

They first note that the orientation of the ship does indeed line up with the idea that the Queen Anne’s Revenge was run aground. Yet, they also claim that the same orientation could also have been caused by a ship turning back into the Beaufort Inlet due to inclement weather and storms.64 Additionally, they note that the depth of the wreckage does not actually align with what would be expected of a ship that was run aground. Rather than being submerged at a distance similar to the ships maximum depth as would be expected, it was found around 25 feet underwater.65 Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi explain that this discrepancy should promote the formation of questions surrounding ship wreckage as opposed to unlikely theories that keeps the story of the Queen Anne’s Revenge intact.66 A 2012 report co-authored by Wilde-Ramsing and archeologist Charles Ewen help to showcase that this idea may need to be reconsidered due to more recent evidence. They claim that the site was exposed to tidal currents that could impact the sediment around the wreck, causing it to sink even further than the level where it was originally grounded.67 This would explain the discrepancy in the depth of the wreckage, while aligning with the claim that the site is the Queen Anne’s Revenge.

A map of the shipwreck detailing the locations of various artifacts.68 Click to view full-size.

Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi also discuss the interpretation of the ship’s hull. Specifically, its construction. They claim that the current knowledge of shipbuilding practices is limited, so the hull can not really support the theory of the wreck being the Queen Anne’s Revenge.69 They do note however, that the futtocks of the ship were butt-scarfed and not scarf-chocked together.70 They say that, “it is clear that many of the characteristics of 0003BUI’s build (including its butt scarfs) appear to be more modern than can be currently explained if the vessel is the QAR.”71 It is interesting to see that the authors of this article are trying to prove that the construction of the ship can not be used as evidence for identification, yet also try to use that same evidence to prove that the wreck may not be the Queen Anne’s Revenge. David Moore takes direct aim at this proposition arguing that these authors may have fallen into the trap that they claimed site 31CR314 researchers did.72 He notes that the source used by Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi does not really note when butt scarfs were replaced.73 Additionally, he points out that Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi do not mention any of the other characteristics that appear to be more modern.74 Essentially, the current understanding of historical shipbuilding does not provide enough evidence to confirm or deny an identification. Though it is very possible that butt scarves could have not been widely used until after the ship’s original construction, there is also no evidence that they definitely were not used at the time of the ship’s construction.

Depiction of the C-4 cannon.75 Click to view full-size.

The variety and amount of cannons that have been found in the wreck are often used as information to prove that the wreck is the Queen Anne’s Revenge, according to Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi.76 They note however, that many of the cannons were likely used as ballast and only several were mounted, making it less likely to be a pirate ship. Furthermore, they point out that many other merchant ships that were used during wartime had more cannons on board than have been found in the wreck.77 This helps to support the theory that the wreck could just be that of a mercantile ship. One cannon in particular helps to solidify the argument proposed by Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi. They claim that, “Of all the artifacts recovered from the site, perhaps none is more important than cannon C-3, marked with a partially-indecipherable figure interpreted as ‘1730’ or possibly ‘1737’ running between the breech and the trunnions.”78 This number could represent a multitude of things including the weight of the cannon or potentially the year of its manufacturing. If it is indeed the year of its construction, it would mean the ship could not possibly be the Queen Anne’s Revenge. But, there is no conclusive evidence that the number is indeed a year. Moore also refutes these ideas. He claims that the estimated amount of cannons on merchant ships of the time is likely much lower than discussed as Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi used data from ships that were captured by privateers. Ships that likely were larger and thus had more cannons.79 Furthermore, Moore cites an armament consultant that claims that foundry numbers were not used until the late 18th century. Additionally, marking cannons with years was likely not a scenario that occurred as that information would be practically useless to those who used the cannons.80 The number of cannons, and the number on the C-3 cannon itself, are most likely evidence for the wreck being the remains of a pirate ship, rather than disproving that theory.

Depiction of the Spanish bell.81 Click to view full-size.

Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi also question why the bell that was discovered early during the site’s excavation has Spanish origins. They agree that the 1705 dating of the bell does indeed fit the timeline for the site to be the Queen Anne’s Revenge, but they are unsure, “why a bell inscribed with the Spanish words ‘Jesus and the Virgin Mary’,” was found in the wreck.82 The authors feel that not enough attention has been focused upon cultural material, including this bell taken from the wreck. Wilde-Ramsing and Ewen say that the bell could have easily been a pirate’s private possession or the ship’s main bell.83 Although the bell likely has Spanish origins, it could have been taken from a different ship and from there been used aboard the Queen Anne’s Revenge. Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi note that the massive funding for the project could also play a role in how identification seemed to be the focus, as opposed to objective research.84 Essentially, site 31CR314 was identified as the Queen Anne’s Revenge, “because, among other reasons, no other site in the vicinity had the appropriate suite of characteristics that fit the historical perception,”85 in contrast to conclusive evidence to prove the wreck’s identity. Yet, nothing that these authors claimed proves that the wreck is not the Queen Anne’s Revenge.

Moore explains in his rebuttal against the claims of Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi, “We assume that they are accusing the project of using the possibility that the site is associated with Blackbeard to somehow trick the general public into maintaining a high level of interest, and various funding sources into providing monies to continue the project. To this we will readily plead guilty and counter with the question: why not? If we can use media attention and public interest to help drive the project and raise funding during a period of tight budgetary constraints and dwindling public funds for both historical and archaeological projects worldwide, then why not take advantage of this inherent public interest in pirates to help continue work on what the ‘Ruling Theory’ authors themselves admit to be a significant colonial-period shipwreck?”86 This presents a very intriguing idea and showcases how maritime archeological research and popular culture are inevitably intertwined. Popular culture can be utilized by archeologists in order to secure funding to allow for more research to be conducted.

Overall, popular culture played a role in the identification of the Queen Anne’s Revenge. Some early identification reports were possibly premature due to conscious or unconscious bias. The lure of securing funding, obtaining public support for the excavation, and researching a sunken pirate vessel, were possible motivators that are undeniably linked to the popular culture surrounding pirates. Yet, even if the site identification was rushed, it is still all but certain that site 31CR314 is the Queen Anne’s Revenge. It could be a different ship but that possibility is very unlikely. Based on the overwhelming evidence that fits the story of site 31CR314 being the wreck of the Queen Anne’s Revenge, it is almost certainly the correct hypothesis.

The ‘right’ artifacts have been found. The wreck is in the ‘right’ place and it dates to the ‘right’ time; and yet, we still can’t rule out the possibility that the wreck is an unrecorded, heavily armed, merchant ship.

Mark Wilde-Ramsing and Charles Ewen87

It is not so much that the evidence has failed to support an identity of Queen Anne’s Revenge, but indeed, after eight years of combined historical and archaeological research, there exists a definite lack of evidence to support anything else.

David Moore88


Overall, popular culture played a massive role in every aspect of the Queen Anne’s Revenge project. From the initial research into the ship, to the funding for the project, to the identification of the site, popular culture acted as a form of motivation and potentially bias. The romanticism of pirates and their presence and lore in popular culture impacts not only what historians and marine archaeologists research, but also how they research. It can be said that without the significance of Blackbeard in local lore, the ship may have never been located. Furthermore, without its significance in popular culture, the excavation may have never been funded and artifacts may have never been preserved as well as they were. The story of site 31CR314 shows how impactful popular culture is on the locating of shipwrecks, shipwreck identification and maritime research as a whole.

References for Text:

  1. Mark U. Wilde-Ramsing and Linda F. Carnes-McNaughton, Blackbeard’s Sunken Prize: The 300-Year Voyage of Queen Anne’s Revenge (North Carolina: UNC Press Books, 2018), 4.
  2. Wilde-Ramsing and Carnes-McNaughton, Blackbeard’s Sunken Prize, 4.
  3. D P S Peacock, Jennifer Mincham, and Susan Wright, “Ballast,” In The Archaeology of Stone: A Report for English Heritage, DGO-Digital original., (Liverpool University Press, 1998), 13.
  4. Peacock, Mincham, and Wright, “Ballast,” 14.
  5. Wilde-Ramsing and Carnes-McNaughton, Blackbeard’s Sunken Prize, 4-5.
  6. Wilde-Ramsing and Carnes-McNaughton, Blackbeard’s Sunken Prize, 4.
  7. Wilde-Ramsing and Carnes-McNaughton, Blackbeard’s Sunken Prize, 5.
  8. Wilde-Ramsing and Carnes-McNaughton, Blackbeard’s Sunken Prize, 5-6.
  9. Martin Murphy, “Sunken Ship Hull Yields Wealth of Data,” Washington Post, August 28, 1988.
  10. Murphy, “Sunken Ship.”
  11. John W. Morris III, “The Site History of 31CR314, ‘Queen Anne’s Revenge’: A Retrospective Assessment,” The North Carolina Historical Review 95, no. 2 (April 2018): 221.
  12. Wilde-Ramsing and Carnes-McNaughton, Blackbeard’s Sunken Prize, 5-8.
  13. Samir S. Patel, and Marion P. Blackburn, “Blackbeard Surfaces.” Archaeology 61, no. 2 (March/April 2008): 23-24.
  14. Wilde-Ramsing and Carnes-McNaughton, Blackbeard’s Sunken Prize, 4-6.
  15. Wilde-Ramsing and Carnes-McNaughton, Blackbeard’s Sunken Prize, 7-8.
  16. Mark U. Wilde-Ramsing and Charles R. Ewen, “Beyond Reasonable Doubt: A Case for ‘Queen Anne’s Revenge.’” Historical Archaeology 46, no. 2 (2012): 113-4.
  17. Wilde-Ramsing and Ewen, “Beyond Reasonable Doubt,” 114.
  18. Peter Force, The tryals of Major Stede Bonnet and other pirates, London: Printed for Benj. Cowse, 1719, PDF.
  19. Force, The tryals.
  20. Force, The tryals.
  21. Force, The tryals.
  22. Force, The tryals.
  23. Morris III, “The Site History,” 221-2.
  24. Wilde-Ramsing and Carnes-McNaughton, Blackbeard’s Sunken Prize, 4.
  25. Wayne R. Lusardi, “The Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck Project,” The International Journal of Nautical  Archaeology 29, no. 1, (2000): 58. 
  26. Paul E. Fontenoy, “Queen Anne’s Revenge: A Very Lore-Ful Site,” Journal of Maritime Archeology 15, (2020): 308.
  27. Patel and Blackburn, “Blackbeard Surfaces,” 22-4.
  28. Wilde-Ramsing and Ewen, “Beyond Reasonable Doubt,” 110.
  29. Wilde-Ramsing and Ewen, “Beyond Reasonable Doubt,” 110.
  30. Wilde-Ramsing and Ewen, “Beyond Reasonable Doubt,” 110.
  31. Wilde-Ramsing and Ewen, “Beyond Reasonable Doubt,” 110-3.
  32. Wilde-Ramsing and Ewen, “Beyond Reasonable Doubt,” 110.
  33. Fontenoy, “Queen Anne’s Revenge,” 309.
  34. C-SPAN, “Queen Anne’s Revenge Shipwreck,” YouTube, December 4, 2012, educational video, 0:00 to 1:47,
  35. Mark Wilde-Ramsing and Wayne Lusardi, Management Summary for North Carolina Shipwreck 31CR314, Queen Anne’s Revenge, Manuscript on file, Kure Beach, NC. North Carolina Underwater Archaeology Branch, 1999, Queen Anne’s Revenge Project Natural and Cultural Resources.
  36. Mark Wilde-Ramsing and Wayne Lusardi, Management Summary
  37. Mark Wilde-Ramsing and Wayne Lusardi, Management Summary
  38. Mark Wilde-Ramsing and Wayne Lusardi, Management Summary
  39. Mark Wilde-Ramsing and Wayne Lusardi, Management Summary
  40. Mark Wilde-Ramsing and Wayne Lusardi, Management Summary
  41. Morris III, “The Site History,” 222.
  42. Morris III, “The Site History,” 221-2.
  43. Fontenoy, “Queen Anne’s Revenge,” 308-9.
  44. Mark Wilde-Ramsing and Wayne Lusardi, Management Summary
  45. Fontenoy, “Queen Anne’s Revenge,” 308-9.
  46. Mark Wilde-Ramsing and Wayne Lusardi, Management Summary
  47. Mark Wilde-Ramsing and Wayne Lusardi, Management Summary
  48. Fontenoy, “Queen Anne’s Revenge,” 315.
  49. Fontenoy, “Queen Anne’s Revenge,” 315.
  50. The News & Observer, “Blackbeard’s Queen Anne’s Revenge artifact tour opening,” YouTube, February 28, 2014, educational video, 0:00 to 1:10,
  51. Mark Wilde-Ramsing and Wayne Lusardi, Management Summary
  52. Patel and Blackburn, “Blackbeard Surfaces,” 24.
  53. Morris III, “The Site History,” 223-6.
  54. Morris III, “The Site History,” 226.
  55. David D. Moore, “Blackbeard’s Queen Anne’s Revenge: Archaeological Interpretation and Research Focused on the Fiull Remains and Ship-related Accoutrements Associated with Site 31-CR-314,” Tributaries 11 (October 2001): 51.
  56. Patel and Blackburn, “Blackbeard Surfaces,” 24.
  57. Morris III, “The Site History,” 222.
  58. Fontenoy, “Queen Anne’s Revenge,” 309.
  59. Fontenoy, “Queen Anne’s Revenge,” 309.
  60. Wayne R. Lusardi, “Do the Artifacts Identify the Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck as the Pirate Blackbeard’s Flagship Queen Anne’s Revenge?” Underwater Archaeology (1999): 130-1.
  61. Anton E. Lawson, Elizabeth A. Reichert, Kenneth L. Costenson, Patricia M. Fedock, Kathleen K. Litz, “Advancing research beyond the ruling theory stage,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26, no. 8 (November 1989): 680.
  62. Bradley A. Rodgers, Nathan Richards, and Wayne R. Lusardi, “‘Ruling Theories Linger’: Questioning the Identity of the Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck,” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 34, no. 1 (April 2005): 24-6.
  63. Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi, “Ruling Theories,” 24.
  64. Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi, “Ruling Theories,” 27.
  65. Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi, “Ruling Theories,” 27.
  66. Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi, “Ruling Theories,” 27.
  67. Wilde-Ramsing and Ewen, “Beyond Reasonable Doubt,” 117.
  68. Lusardi, “The Beaufort Inlet,” 59.
  69. Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi, “Ruling Theories,” 29.
  70. Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi, “Ruling Theories,” 28.
  71. Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi, “Ruling Theories,” 29.
  72. David D. Moore, “Technical Comments Relating to ‘Ruling Theory’ and the Identification of the Beaufort Inlet Wreck,” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 34, no. 2 (October 2005): 338.
  73. Moore, “Technical Comments,” 336.
  74. Moore, “Technical Comments,” 336.
  75. Lusardi, “The Beaufort Inlet,” 62.
  76. Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi, “Ruling Theories,” 29-31.
  77. Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi, “Ruling Theories,” 29-30.
  78. Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi, “Ruling Theories,” 30.
  79. Moore, “Technical Comments,” 337.
  80. Moore, “Technical Comments,” 338.
  81. Lusardi, “The Beaufort Inlet,” 60.
  82. Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi, “Ruling Theories,” 32.
  83. Wilde-Ramsing and Ewen, “Beyond Reasonable Doubt,” 123.
  84. Rodgers, Richards, and Lusardi, “Ruling Theories,” 35.
  85. Matthew Harpster, “Shipwreck Identity, Methodology, and Nautical Archaeology,” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20, no. 4 (December 2013): 594.
  86. Moore, “Technical Comments,” 338.
  87. Wilde-Ramsing and Ewen, “Beyond Reasonable Doubt,” 129.
  88. Moore, “Technical Comments,” 338.

References for Timeline:

  1. Wilde-Ramsing, “Blackbeard’s Sunken Prize,” 4-5.
  2. Patel, “Blackbeard Surfaces,” 23.
  3. Wilde-Ramsing, “Blackbeard’s Sunken Prize,” 5.
  4. Morris III, “The Site History of 31CR314,” 221.
  5. Morris III, “The Site History of 31CR314,” 221.
  6. Morris III, “The Site History of 31CR314,” 221-2.
  7. Wilde-Ramsing, “Beyond Reasonable Doubt,” 110.
  8. Morris III, “The Site History of 31CR314,” 226.
  9. Price, “More Than Meets the Eye,” 167.
  10. Morris III, “The Site History of 31CR314,” 226.
  11. Patel, “Blackbeard Surfaces,” 24.