Charles Ewen, professor of anthropology at ECU, was on the Cape Fear and watched as the anchor was brought up. He said the research and vast number of items matching the date of the QAR leaves little doubt of the artifacts’ origin.
“A few years ago, a couple of colleagues in the maritime studies program and another in a book on the archaeology of piracy that I wrote questioned whether this was indeed the Queen Anne’s Revenge, saying maybe some of the archaeologists had jumped the gun a little bit on it. And I think that was a great thing for them to do. It challenged everybody’s assumptions and it kicked the project into higher gear, more specialists were brought in,” said Ewen, who is co-editor of “X Marks the Spot: The Archaeology of Piracy.”
“I think we’re at the point now, several years later, where we’ve got the data, it’s the right size ship, it’s in the right place, dates to the right time period, and there are no other documented candidates that are even close to being this, so I think you have to say the rebuttal presumption, the working hypothesis, is the Queen Anne’s Revenge. The burden of proof has shifted over to the naysayers,” he said.