

Blackbeard's Ship Confirmed Off North Carolina (2011) - Vigier
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110829-blackbeard-shipwreck-pirates-archaeology-science/

======
smoyer
I tried sailing my (small) yacht in Pamlico sound a few years ago. It's really
shallow (in some parts due to the deposit of dredged material. I can't imagine
a naval battle with any serious ships occurring there ... I ran aground
repeatedly while almost five nautical miles from Hatteras Village. I'd love to
find a history of that battle!

~~~
scrapcode
I took it as they hit a sandbar really hard. That's why they had to bail. Am I
wrong?

~~~
smoyer
I believe the battle in the Pamlico sound is where Blackbeard was finally
defeated ... the sinking of his other ship occurred on the Atlantic side of
the barrier islands.

------
hownottowrite
There's still ongoing debate about the identity of the ship claimed to be the
Queen Anne's Revenge. In fact, some researchers have called into question the
entire methodology used to identify the majority of wrecks, indicating it
falls under the idea of "Ruling Theory".[0]

As regards the Queen Anne's Revenge: [1]

 _Ruling theory is when a hypothesis is so aRrac &ve that researches may
consciously or unconsciously record data in favor of the hypothesis. “Ruling
Theory can be applied in many fields, including archaeology” (Railsback,
1990). An example of an archaeological site applying the Ruling Theory is the
Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck. On November 21, 1996 a team of inves&gators from
Intersal Inc. discovered an 18th century shipwreck about a mile and a half off
of the coast of Beaufort Inlet. Shortly aMer discovering this ship the ques&on
of this ship being the Queen Anne’s Revenge, Blackbeard’s flagship, started to
arise. Today many communi&es on the Outer Banks, like Ocracoke Island, use the
Queen Anne’s Revenge to aRract tourist. Is the Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck really
the Queen’s Anne’s Revenge? Or have researches been too hasty when gathering
their informa&on about the Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck?_

[0] Harpster, Matthew. "Shipwreck Identity, Methodology, and Nautical
Archaeology." Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 20.4 (2013):
588-622.
[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10816-012-9131-x#p...](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10816-012-9131-x#page-1)

[1] Collier, Carson. "Ruling Theory Applied at the Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck."
(2014).
[http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...](http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=uresposters)

------
bengali3
i love the scientific explanation for maintaining the label 'thought to be',
which indicates the scientific scrutiny required to be certain. However,
ultimately they didn't remove the disclaimer because they had more data or a
new find. Merely that label is deemed not necessary for monetary reasons:

> _There were two reasons for dropping the official doubt about the identity
> of the shipwreck_ ...

> _First, the museum recently opened "Blackbeard's Queen Anne's Revenge," a
> greatly expanded exhibit_

> _Also, removing the official caveat could help the museum secure private
> funding_

I guess I wasn't expecting that after the defense of the scrutiny in the first
part.

------
a3n
[2011]

