More information : Method of Fix: EDM (1)(4)
Advice Boat wrecked on Sussex coast, 10 guns. (1)
16-FEB-1984: Obstruction, least depth 0.4m, shown in 50 44 39.0N, 000 50 18.5W. (1)(4)
17-APR-1990: Approximately 80ft of wooden keel (12ft beam at widest point) and other timbers located in 50 44 29.0N, 00 50 18.0W, approximately. Musket balls and buttons also found. Possibly the remains of the EAGLE. Application for designation of site. (1)(4)
27-JUL-1990: Nothing found in position reported above. Search area being widened. (1)(4)
14-DEC-1990: Not found during echosounder, magnetometer and diving search in position reported. (1)(4)
Previously charted in position 50 44.650N 000 50.308W (datum not given, presumably OSGB); position now given as 50 44.685N 000 50.397W by WGS 84. (4)
A flake of brass, 2 clay pipe stems, and 2 pins recovered from a wreck thought to be the EAGLE, Bracklesham Bay. (Droit A/4067). (2)
Seen to be located approximately 0.75 mile south of the holiday village east of Marsh Farm, in the marine zone, within Bracklesham Bay. Charted as partial wreck, EAGLE (POSSIBLY) with obstruction symbology. (3)
ADU report 1992:
Summary:
Inspection of the site showed that it was partially exposed. A length of keel and floor timbers were visible. No artefactual material was noted, and no positive conclusions could be reached as to the identity of the wreck.
Short history of the site:
See report ADU 077.
ADU Operations:
Dived on 17-JUL-1992.
Archaeological Remains:
An area of the site approximately 10.5m x 4m was partially exposed. A length of keel overlain by eroded floor timbers was noted. The ends of the floor timbers and the underlying planking were seen to be undermined by scour for most of the length of the exposed area. The few existing spaces between the frames were filled with cobbles and sand. No artefactual material was observed.
Site environment:
The site is at a depth of 4-6m in an area of flat sand. There was no weed cover.
Threats to the site:
Exposure of the structure indicates that sand levels can vary considerably and continued exposure of the timbers would put them at risk from factors such as natural erosion and fishing activity. There was no evidence of easily accessible remains, consequently the site is probably not vulnerable to sport divers.
Conclusions:
The surviving elements of the site observed by the ADU are fairly robust. It seems to contain little artefactual material. The hull remains do not appear to be diagnostic of a close date or positive identity.
Future proposals:
The site, as it is exposed at present, does not appear to require designation. This may have to be revised if further evidence is revealed.
ADU August 1992. (5)
Armament: 10 guns (1)
Date of Loss Qualifier: Actual date of loss |