Preface

This report is intended by the authors to present, in a preliminary manner, the results of investigations carried out on a sixteenth-century Spanish shipwreck over a period of two and one half years. Discovered in 1992 by state archaeologists during a submerged cultural resource survey of Pensacola Bay, the Emanuel Point Ship is the earliest colonial vessel to be found in Florida’s waters. Although only a portion of the site has been investigated thus far, artifacts and field specimens recovered during initial excavations suggest that the ship may have been associated with the first European attempt to colonize Florida in 1559.

The document is a preliminary presentation of archaeological data and the results of initial analyses to be circulated for both professional and public review. A formal report, based on critical responses to this draft and subsequent data derived from additional analyses, will be published in due course. In the meantime, the authors would like to invite your input and to receive your comments on the material contained herein. Please address your responses to:

Dr. Roger C. Smith
Bureau of Archaeological Research
500 South Bronough Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Acknowledgments

In addition to the authors of this report, staff of the Pensacola Shipwreck Survey included Gigi Bertsch Naggatz, Charles Hughson, Jeff Lockwood, Amy Mitchell, and Michael Williamson. Participants of the 1993 University of West Florida field school included Janet Bancroft, Stuart Derrow, Sandra Johnson, Sheryl Kennedy, Bill Kerr, Shea McLean, Kyle Mueller, Beth Padgett, Monti Sommer, Greg Townsend, and Debra Wells. Graduate student interns who worked on the Emanuel Point Ship included Stuart Derrow (East Carolina University), David Pugh (University of West Florida), Michael Scafuri (Texas A&M University), Jinky Smalley (East Carolina University), Clifford Smith (University of South Florida), and Debra Wells (University of West Florida). The latter two chose to write their masters theses on topics related to the shipwreck. Individuals who generously donated their efforts as volunteers on the project included Gigi Bertsch, David Breetzke, Daniel Brimmer, Ashley Chapman, J. Cozzi, Jonathan Decker, Harv Dickey, E. L. Franklin, Glenn Grimm, John Ireton; Davis Janowski, Chuck Lapp, Alexandra Lee, Joseph Neville, Harvey Oyer, David Pugh, Martha Riddlehoover, KC Smith, Monti Sommer, Debra Wells, Brian Yates, Rudy Vizsla, and Terry Vose.

The authors wish to thank George Percy, Director of the Florida Division of Historic Resources, and Dr. James Miller, Chief of the Bureau of Archaeological Research, for their guidance and support. Equally important was the assistance of Mable Revell, Carolyn Moore, Jim Dunbar, Robert Vickery, and other Bureau staff, including John Hann of San Luis Archaeological and Historic Site, Herb Bump and James Levy of the Research and Conservation Laboratory, and especially photographer Roy Lett. Crucial to the project were the participation and support of John Daniels, Tom Muir, Dora Johnson, and the staff of the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board. Throughout the research, Dr. Judy Bense, Margo Stringfield, and Steven Mitchell of the Institute of Archaeology at the University of West Florida supplied essential aid and advice at critical intervals.

Professional input and assistance were provided by Christopher Amer, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology; Dr. Philip Armitage; Barto Arnold, Texas Historical Commission; George Avery, University of Florida; Barry Baker, Texas A&M University; Robert Bell, Redell Akins, and staff of the Florida Department of State Graphics Lab; J. Earle Bowden and staff of the Pensacola News Journal; Daniel Brimmer, Emerald Coast X-Ray; Shirley and Ted Brown, Gary Bryan and staff of Brown Marine Services, Inc.; John de Bry, Center for Historical Archaeology; Frank Cantelas, East Carolina University; Walter Cardona Bonet; Earl Caudell, Caudell Associates; Carl Clausen; Captain Jeff Clopton; Dr. William Coker, University of West Florida; David J. Cooper, State Historical Society of Wisconsin; J. Cozzi, Texas A&M University; Dr. Alan Craig, Florida Atlantic University; Caleb Curren, Pensacola Archaeology Lab; Dr. Kathleen Deagan and Maurice Williams, Florida Museum of Natural History; Dr. Dean Debolt, Pace Library, University of West Florida; Cdr. Jeff Devonchik, Adm. Kihune, and Lt. Sam Black, Pensacola Naval Air Station; Foster Dickard, Champion International; Major Calvin Dixon, and the staff of Florida Marine Patrol District 11; Alan Drouin, A&A Research; Thomas Dykstra and Dr. Philip Koehler, Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida; Marianne Franklin and John Morris, Southern Oceans Archaeological Research; Fred Gaske and Robert Taylor of the Florida Bureau of Historic Preservation; Robert Grenier and Brad Loewen, Parks Canada; Dr. Donny Hamilton, Texas A&M University; Victor Henry, DVM; Dr. Paul Hoffman, Louisiana State University; John Ireton; Paula Jenkins and Daphne Hills, The Natural History Museum, London; Sandra Johnson, Pensacola Historical Society; Bill Kaczor, The Associated Press; Dr. John Kleeberg and Dr. Alan Stahl, American Numismatic Society; Dr. Donald Keith and Denise Lakey, Ships of Discovery; James Ladd; Cathy Laird and Sandra Windham, Fiesta of Five Flags Association, Inc.; Allessandro López Pérez, CARISUB of Cuba; Dr. Pilar Luna and John Joseph Temple, Institute of Anthropology and History, Mexico City; Don McMahon, McMahon and Associates; Corey Malcom and David Moore, Mel Fisher Maritime Heritage Society; John Maseman, South Florida Conservation Center; Dr. Ralph Meldahl, Auburn University; Larry Murphy and Mathew Russell, National Park Service Submerged Cultural Resource Unit; Jeffrey Naggatz; Dr. Lee Newsom, Southern Illinois University; Tom Oertling; Dr. Stephen Pollock and Dennis Bratten, University of Southern Maine, Anna Lee Presley, Texas A&M University; Dr. Al Riddlehoover; Joe Simmons; June Swan, M.B.E.; and Bonnie C. Yates, National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory.

Research funding was, in part, provided by the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program with funds from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In addition to constant support from the Florida Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research, funding assistance was also obtained through a historic
preservation grant provided to Historic Pensacola, Inc., and a legislative appropriation from monies collected by the Florida Department of Commerce from sales of Quincentenary auto tags. Sponsorship of graduate student internships and two summer lecture series was generously provided by the Fiesta of Five Flags Association, Inc. Additional funding for artifact analysis and conservation, and the production of this report was provided by the City of Pensacola, Historic Pensacola, Inc., Pensacola Maritime Preservation Society, Fiesta of Five Flags Association, Inc., and the University of West Florida.

Additional support for the research was obtained from Basic Chemicals Inc.; Bell Steel Company; Bogan Supply Company, Inc.; Brown Marine Service, Inc.; Building Supply Center; Byfield Marine Supply; E&B Boatgear Discount Marine; Emerald Coast X-ray; Florida Drum Company, Inc.; Gulf Coast Dive Pros, Inc.; Gulf Power Company; Johnson Supply Company; Killinger Marine, Inc.; Lamar Advertising Company; Licon, Inc.; Monsanto Company; Pensacola Hardware Company; Pensacola Rubber and Gasket Company; Pitt Slip Marina; Renfroe Pecan Company; Soule Marine Enterprises, Inc.; Subway Sandwiches & Salads; SunBank of West Florida; T-Square Reprographics; and The Boat.

The authors would also like to acknowledge the involvement of the Gulf Breeze Historical Society, Gulf Coast Dive Pros, Inc., Gulf Power Company, Pensacola Archaeological Society, Pensacola Historical Society, Pensacola Welcome and Information Center, and Pensacola Yacht Club in helping to host the Fiesta of Five Flags summer lectures series, which featured several prominent speakers in the field of marine archaeology.

Text, graphics layout, and cover were composed by Redell Akins. The cover was adapted from a chart of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean from an anonymous
atlas, c. 1540 (in Cummins, et al. 1971:plate 54).

List of Illustrations

• Fig. 1. Project location map
• Fig. 2. Map of 1597 showing Bahía de Santa María (Pensacola Bay)
• Fig. 3. Spanish map of Siguënza dated 1693 depicts Emanuel Point as Pta. de Vibero (Viper Point)
• Fig. 4. Emanuel Point Ship location map.
• Fig. 5. Timbers of the Emanuel Point Ship were recorded with the help of a digital carpenter’s level in an underwater housing.
• Fig. 6. This area at the starboard bow of the ship contained a copper pitcher that had fallen down between the frames.
• Fig. 7. Diagram of the mainmast step assembly on the keelson, showing the extent of midships excavations.
• Fig. 8. Timber arrangement of the midship hull structure.
• Fig. 9. Underwater view of the forward section of the mainmast step.
• Fig. 10. This small cross was carved into the bottom of the mast step mortise .
• Fig. 11. Overhead view of port pump sump.
• Fig. 12. The ship’s port pump shaft was housed in this pump sump to clear water from the bilge.
• Fig. 13. Looking inboard at footwale, ceiling plank, buttresses and bilge boards.
• Fig. 14. Port wrong heads, left wrong head represents master couple frame.
• Fig. 15. Midships cross section of the port side of the hull.
• Fig. 16. A large length of hemp line was found lying outboard of the port hull structure.
• Fig. 17. Stern site plan of the Emanuel Point Ship.
• Fig. 18. Stern frame cross sections.
• Fig. 19. Inboard profile of starboard hull planking, showing the positions of frames and stern knee.
• Fig. 20. The ship’s rudder was found lying on its side near the sternpost.
• Fig. 21, Emanuel Point Ship site plan
• Fig. 22. Sixteenth-century architectural plans, showing the principal dimensions of a 400-ton ship’s hull in codos (Palacio 1944).
• Fig. 23. Cross sectional view of a 400-ton Spanish nao of the 16th century (after Etayo, 1971).
• Fig. 24. This wrought-iron anchor was discovered buried near the ship’s bow.
• Fig. 25. This encrusted pintle, once attached to the rudder, formed the male component of the rudder hinge.
• Fig. 26. Once fastened to the sternpost of the ship, this gudgeon formed the female component of the rudder hinge.
• Fig. 27. Gudgeon and pintle profiles
• Fig. 28. Wrought-iron fasteners, of different shank sizes, were used in the construction of the ship.
• Fig. 29. Textile was bedded between this lead patch and the hull, leaving the weave impression.
• Fig. 30. Lead sheathing from sternpost area demonstrates typical fastening pattern (three rows with tack head impressions).
• Fig. 31. Lead patch with impression of gudgeon strap end.
• Fig. 32. This large copper pitcher with a flat bottom was probably used for cooking, or for heating liquids.
• Fig. 33. A container with features similar to the copper pitcher is shown at the lower left in this engraving by Peter Breugel the Elder, entitled “The Alchemist,” dated 1558. (From Klein 1963:171)
• Fig. 34. A brass ring of unknown function was recovered in pristine condition.
• Fig. 35. The handle and rim of a large copper cooking cauldron, photographed in situ, appears as shiny and new as the day it was lost, over 400 years ago.
• Fig. 36. Remarkably preserved in the waters of Pensacola Bay, this cork is undoubtedly a stopper for an olive jar.
• Fig. 37. A wooden tool handle, with a square implement hole, possibly for an awl or gimlet, was found in the ship’s bilge.
• Fig. 38. This wooden peg, or tool, of unknown function was recovered near the mast step.
• Fig. 39. Softwood peg of unknown function.
• Fig. 40. A craftsman left behind this small carved silhouette of a 16th-century galleon in the bottom of the ship.
• Fig. 41. Galleon model dated 1540 in the Museo Navel in Madrid. Emanuel Point silhouette carving
• Fig. 42. The sole of a small shoe , possibly a woman’s platform shoe, called a “chapin,” is typical of Spanish style shoes popular in the 1540s.
• Fig. 43. Part of a shoe sole broken across the tread. The straight cut may indicate a repair.
• Fig. 44. A large shoe or boot fragment, with 3 to 4 stitches per centimeter, indicating that it was quality footwear.
• Fig. 45. Animal bones, some with butcher marks, indicate food sources available to the crew. (left, cow bones; upper right, chicken; lower right, pig).
• Fig. 46. Analysis of these rat bones has revealed population size and makeup, evidence of cannibalism, and abnormal skeletal pathology.
• Fig. 47. Drawing of a rat skeleton showing outlines of bones recovered.
• Fig. 48. Black Rat tibiae. Healthy modern specimen compared with specimen from the Emanuel Point Ship.
• Fig. 49. Two left mouse tibiae were found inter-mixed among the other rodent remains.
• Fig. 50. The remains of stowaways—cockroaches and hide beetles—were found in the ship’s bilge.
• Fig. 51. This seed, identified as sapote (zapote), comes from a large tropical fruit found throughout the Caribbean.
• Fig. 52. Papayas were often grown in tropical home gardens for their edible fruit and for medicinal purposes.
• Fig. 53. The recovery of over 400 olive pits demonstrates how important the olive and olive oil were to the Spanish cuisine.
• Fig. 54. The Spanish Olive Jar was a common form of ceramic container for olive oil, wine, and other foodstuffs.
• Fig. 55. Olive Jar interiors were frequently coated with resin to prevent liquids from seeping out of the containers.
• Fig. 56. Profiles of these Olive Jar rims depict an inverted teardrop form characteristic of the early Middle Style.
• Fig. 57. Olive Jar, found at the early Spanish townsite of Concepción de la Vega (1495-1562), Dominican Republic (courtesy of George Avery).
• Fig. 58. Lead-glazed earthenwares of the Melado variety were popular from 1490 to 1550.
• Fig. 59. Majolica ceramics of the Seville Blue on Blue variety date between 1492 and 1600.
• Fig. 60. This 1564 Aztec codex depicts pottery in the shape of human heads from the Central Valley of Mexico. From El Códice de los Alfareros de Cuauhtitlán, Biblioteque Nationale, Paris. (courtesy of John de Bry).
• Fig. 61. These remarkable ceramic sherds, depicting a grimacing mouth, eye and cheek bone in relief, and decorated with geometric lines and dots of graphite paint, were made by Aztec potters.
• Fig. 62. This curious piece of coarse earthenware may have been part of a handle to a large jar or the foot of a cooking brazier.
• Fig. 63. These hand-chiseled limestone cannonballs were deadly weapons, since they tended to shatter upon impact into sharp projectiles.
• Fig. 64. Composite lead shot, known as bodoques, were fashioned with an iron cube in the center, which has long since corroded away in the salt water environment.
• Fig. 65. Iron shot may have been ammunition for a common 16th-century wrought-iron cannon called a bombardeta.
• Fig. 66. An encrusted breast plate; found and recorded in situ next to the ship’s rudder.
• Fig. 67. This breast plate, once worn by a Spaniard, would have been attached to a back plate with buckles and straps.
• Fig. 68. Prior to conservation this fragile artifact was drawn and measured. Once the encrusted breast plate is x-rayed, epoxy resin will be used to create a replica of the completely oxidized iron for display purposes.
• Fig. 69. The breast plate found on the Emanuel Point Ship may be similar to this foot soldier’s armor, which was made in Northern Italy, circa 1580 (After Karcheski 1990).
• Fig. 70. Once the concretion was removed from this encrusted Spanish coin, details emerged which helped identify and date this copper coin, a blanca, minted between 1471 and 1474 during the reign of Henry IV.
• Fig. 71. Type 28 blanca minted in Cuenca, Spain 1471-1474 (Cayon and Castan 1991).
• Fig. 72. This small amber-colored glass sherd was recovered from excavations amidships.
• Fig. 73. Hundreds of illustrations have been drawn of the artifacts before and after conservation in the laboratory.
• Fig. 74. Documentation and study of artifacts, such as this analysis of lead sheathing, is a routine part of laboratory work.

List of Tables

• Table I. Ships of the Luna Fleet
• Table II. Shipwreck Sites Recorded by the Penscola Shipwreck Survey
• Table III. Hull Scantling Measurements from the Emanuel Point Ship
• Table IV. Comparison of Fasteners with South’s Spanish Nail Model
• Table V. Ballast Stone Indentifications from the Emanuel Point Ship
• Table VI. Vertebrate Taxa Identified from the Emanuel Point Ship
• Table VII. Summary of Black Rat (Rattus rattus) Identified Bone Elements
• Table VIII. Faunal Specimens Identified from the Emanuel Point Ship
• Table IX. Wood and Dunnage Identifications from the Emanuel Point Ship
• Table X. Archaeobotanical Identifications from the Emanuel Point Ship
• Table XI. Chronological Chart of Shipwreck Olive Jar Rim Profiles
• Table XII. Ceramics Recovered from the Emanuel Point Ship
• Table XIII. Shot Recovered from the Emanuel Point Ship
• Table XIV. Summary of Artifacts Recovered from the Emanuel Point Ship

Introduction

Discovery in October, 1992 of a small mound of ballast stones in shallow water during an underwater survey of Pensacola Bay has opened a forgotten chapter of Florida’s early maritime history. Initial testing of the site by its discoverers, the Pensacola Shipwreck Survey team, revealed the remains of a wooden sailing ship, and produced samples of ceramics that appeared to be older than those from other sites recorded in the bay. The state team, composed of James Spirek, Della Scott-Ireton, and Charles Hughson, and led by Dr. Roger Smith, interrupted its survey operations to investigate the site during the winter months of 1992-93. The source of the magnetic signal that led to the site’s discovery turned out to be a large anchor, buried fluke-down at the shoreward edge of the ballast mound. The ship’s hull architecture was found preserved beneath a mantle of shell and stones in the center of the mound. The anchor and the vessel’s internal features appeared strikingly similar to those of 16th-century shipwrecks recorded in Europe and the New World. Field specimens of organic materials, such as rope, leather, and plant remains gathered during initial testing, revealed that the shipwreck and its contents were in an unusual state of preservation. A growing collection of clues suggested that the ship had been Spanish, and that it grounded violently on a sand bar near Emanuel Point sometime in the 16th century. Lying undisturbed for centuries, accumulating generations of shellfish whose remains sealed the site, the shipwreck represented an unprecedented find.

Early in 1993, Smith and Bureau Chief Dr. James Miller briefed Division Director George Percy on the importance of the site. Percy expressed his strong support for a state-sponsored program to investigate, develop, and interpret the Emanuel Point Ship, and to invite the participation of the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board and the University of West Florida in the project. The Secretary of State was briefed on the new discovery, as were members of the West Florida legislative delegation. Smith prepared a five-year plan and preliminary budget that included the continued investigation of the shipwreck, the conservation and display of its recovered remains in a public exhibit, and the gradual development of a university program in marine archaeology.

The site’s discovery represented an opportunity for Florida to attempt a new strategy for the development and management of a shipwreck for research and for public benefit, in a cooperative partnership between the public and private sectors. The Historic Pensacola Preservation Board with its direct support organization, Historic Pensacola, Inc., is situated in the city’s waterfront historic district, manages three state museums as well as a number of historic buildings and exhibits, and has established a strong local community support network. Given its public mission and central role in historic preservation, the Board, under the direction of John Daniels, agreed to become an active partner in the project. Plans were made to establish a conservation laboratory in the historic district to treat waterlogged materials from the shipwreck and to prepare a major public exhibit of the conserved artifacts for Pensacola’s citizens and visitors.

The University of West Florida agreed to become an academic partner in the multi-year project, not only for the shipwreck’s obvious research potential for students, but due to the University’s record of public-oriented archaeology in the Pensacola community. This arrangement also was seen as a way in which the university could increase its academic capabilities in marine as well as terrestrial archaeology. Together with Dr. Judy Bense, director of the University’s Archaeology Institute, a plan was developed to offer students from UWF and other universities opportunities to enroll in formal courses and underwater fieldwork focused on the Emanuel Point Ship.

Public impact of the shipwreck discovery on Pensacola was immediately demonstrated by expressions of intense interest, support, and involvement. In a region of Florida noted for its participation in historical preservation and archaeological research, the project soon became a favorite topic of media coverage and public attention. As investigations at the site progressed, wire service, print media, and television satellite transmitted research results beyond Pensacola to a wider world. In response to continuous requests, public lectures by project staff to regional historical and archaeological societies, civic and business groups, and to local schools, created an enthusiastic network of volunteers and sponsors for the project.

The joint project began in May, 1993 with a field school of eleven graduate and undergraduate students from several universities under the supervision of Dr. Smith and his staff. Based from project headquarters in the historic district, the six-week field school began systematic test excavations at the site, uncovering the ship’s central mast step architecture and portions of the galley. Visiting archaeologists familiar with other early Spanish shipwrecks were invited to examine the site, to lecture to students, and to give presentations to the Pensacola public in a series of summer lectures. After the field school was completed, excavation continued at the site until October, when test units were backfilled and the site sealed for the winter. Field specimens were cataloged and underwent preliminary cleaning, analysis, and conservation.

At the conclusion of the first season of excavations, several facts concerning the Emanuel Point Ship (8Es1980) became apparent: (1) it is the earliest shipwreck thus far encountered in Florida; (2) it may be associated with one of the first European attempts to colonize what is now the United States—the 1559 expedition of Tristán de Luna; (3) careful study of the site and its contents would expand the early colonial story of Florida and its association with Spanish-America; (4) the Division of Historical Resources, while committed to the long-range development of the site for the public benefit, would require the assistance of a major university to conduct research; (5) the people of Pensacola possess a special appreciation for their history and for their archaeology, as evidenced by their enthusiasm and support for the project; (6) the shipwreck site and its contents should be developed into a major historical attraction for both tourists and scholars; and (7) additional funding would be needed to continue investigation and interpretation of the shipwreck (Smith 1995).

Initially, the Shipwreck Survey was partially supported by a grant of federal NOAA funds administered by the Florida Coastal Management Program of the Department of Community Affairs. With the discovery of the Emanuel Point Ship, increased state support was made available by the Division, an Historic Preservation Grant was awarded to Historic Pensacola, Inc., and a legislative appropriation of funds collected by the Florida Department of Commerce from sales of Quincentennial automobile license plates was made to the project for fiscal year 1994-1995. Meanwhile, support from Pensacola’s private sector grew in direct proportion to the project’s public exposure. To date, over 25 local businesses have become corporate sponsors of the research, providing cash, goods, and in-kind services.

This increased support for the investigation of the Emanuel Point Ship allowed project staff additions of conservator John Bratten and Gigi Bertsch Naggatz, and the establishment in 1994 of a conservation laboratory, dedicated to the shipwreck. Under the auspices of the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board, the laboratory is housed in the T. T. Wentworth State Museum, situated near the project headquarters. Equipped to stabilize and treat waterlogged objects, the laboratory represents, aside from a facility for research and analysis, a staging point between the shipwreck site and the public display of recovered artifacts at the museum.

At the same time, a graduate student internship program was inaugurated to provide field and laboratory opportunities for promising students from universities nationwide. The program was jointly sponsored by the Bureau of Archaeological Research and Pensacola’s Fiesta of Five Flags Association, and involved a total of six graduate interns from various universities, each of whom worked on the project for a period of twelve weeks in return for a modest stipend. Two interns chose to write Master’s theses on the archaeology of the Emanuel Point Ship; the first thesis was completed early in 1995 (C. Smith 1995). In addition to its intern sponsorship, Fiesta of Five Flags continued to host a second summer lectures series, which allowed outside archaeologists to visit the project, to work with staff and students, and to share their professional perspectives with the public at large.

To address its partnership role in the project, the University of West Florida established an Archaeology Steering Committee, which was charged with seeking public and private funding to enhance the university’s current archaeology program, to expand it to include marine capabilities, and to support continuing investigation of the shipwreck. Appointed by President Morris Marx, committee members included prominent local business leaders and community patrons, and university administrators and foundation officers. Aside from soliciting local support through the university foundation, a plan to seek additional legislative appropriations with the help of local delegates was announced. Between January, 1994 and May, 1995 the committee met on numerous occasions. One productive offshoot of the committee was the decision by a few of its members to create the Pensacola Maritime Preservation Society, an independent, non-profit entity with the intention of raising funds for the shipwreck, and eventually for a maritime museum.

Meanwhile, excavations at the shipwreck site continued to produce unique discoveries. The stern section of the ship was opened up to reveal the articulated structure of a seagoing vessel that appears to be much larger than initially anticipated. Sediments in and around the hull produced a variety of plant remains and animal bones, including rats and mice. Ammunition, crudely fashioned from stone, lead, and iron, demonstrated that the ship had been substantially armed with various types of cannon. Investigation of the stern, complete with its rudder, provided clues to the original size and shape of the vessel. The discovery of curiously molded and painted Aztec ceramics, identified with the help of Mexican archaeologists, represented a unique thread in the growing evidence that suggests the Emanuel Point Ship was part of the fleet of Tristán de Luna, which arrived in Pensacola from Mexico in 1559.

Culmination of the second phase of investigations was accompanied by the discovery of a breast plate of Spanish armor, buried in sediments next to the ship’s rudder. Unique in the archaeological record of colonial Spanish sites, this fragile artifact, as well as the thousands of other individual objects and specimens recovered over two campaigns at the shipwreck, will require expert treatment and analysis. As the end of the fiscal year approached, with no additional concrete funding in place for the next season, field activities were discontinued. In June, 1995 the site was backfilled, excavation apparatus was dismantled, the headquarters packed up, and the field crew let go.

Fortunately, with the help of the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board and the Pensacola Maritime Preservation Society, funding was obtained to continue treatment and analysis of the shipwreck collection in the laboratory for an additional year, in preparation for a major public display of artifacts. In addition, the City of Pensacola has agreed to sponsor an archival research effort to collect copies of documentation concerning the Luna expedition from several archives in this country and abroad. Together with the archaeological record of finds presented in this report, the documents should help to illuminate a forgotten chapter in the early colonial history of Florida and the United States.

Historical Background

Early Spanish Explorations

At Pensacola, the first European contact with local inhabitants was reported by the survivors of the expedition of Pánfilo de Narváez who entered the bay in 1528 aboard five small makeshift boats to look for water and food (Leonard 1939: 2, 3). Narváez had begun his entrada into Florida in April, by landing four hundred persons and forty horses in the vicinity of Tampa Bay. He immediately sent a small ship northward to find a bay that his pilot, Diego de Miruelo, had recommended as a future rendezvous point for the army and the fleet. When the vessels did not return, Narváez decided to send the other ships to find the harbor (Apalachee Bay) and to wait for the soldiers to march overland to meet them. This decision, protested by expedition treasurer Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca, who told the captain-general that they would never see the ships again, was to prove fateful. For a year, the ships searched the coast for Narváez and his men; at last they gave up and sailed for New Spain.

Marching northward toward Apalache territory, the army found no gold, only depopulated villages, and mosquito-filled lakes and swamps. By late July, with no sign of sails along the coast and a threat of mutiny from the horsemen, the officers decided to build boats and put to sea. Using arms and horse tack to make tools and nails on a makeshift forge, and killing a horse every third day for food, the men built five crude boats at a place they called Bahía de los Caballos (near Ochlockonee Bay). They set sail westward through the barrier islands in late September. Beyond Cape San Blas along the open Gulf coast, a storm temporarily marooned the boats on a waterless island near Santa Rosa Sound; several men died from drinking brackish water. Seeking shelter, the boats entered Pensacola Bay, where the natives who at first seemed friendly, soon killed three men and wounded all fifty soldiers who guarded their withdrawal (Weddle 1985:193). West of the Mississippi, the boats became scattered; the one commanded by Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca eventually was cast ashore on an island near Galveston. Eight years later, Nuñez and three other survivors of the expedition were found by Spanish slavers along the frontier of northern New Spain. Their story, however desperate, served to whet the appetites of other adventurers eager to attempt the conquest of Florida (Cabeza de Vaca 1964).

The next foray into Florida was commanded by Hernando de Soto, who landed his army of some 600 soldiers and servants, and over 200 horses, on the west coast in May 1539. After arriving at Apalache (modern-day Tallahassee) that winter, Soto ordered Captain Francisco de Maldonado and pilot Gómez Arías to sail west in two small vessels along the coast to investigate the entrance of every creek and river, and to find a suitable harbor where Soto expected to march his army (Biedma 1922: 8, 9). Sixty leagues distant in the winter of 1539-1540, they reached a province called Ochuse with a sheltered, deep harbor (Pensacola Bay) (Swanton 1985: 163, 169). According to Garcilaso de la Vega, the bay was sheltered from all winds, was capable of harboring many ships, and had such a good depth up to shore that Maldonado could bring his ships close to land and disembark “without putting out a gangplank” (Vega 1951: 247, 248).

The reconnaissance party returned to report their discovery, bringing with them an Indian chief of a village situated on the shore of the bay. Maldonado was put in charge of the ships and sent back to Havana for provisions to be brought to Ochuse. Should Soto’s men not meet up with the fleet there by the following summer, Maldonado was to return to Havana and attempt another rendezvous the next summer. The rendezvous never came about; Maldonado and Arías returned to Ochuse in the fall of 1540 and waited until winter set in (Weddle 1985: 225). For two years afterward, they searched the Gulf and Atlantic coasts to no avail; Soto’s army had marched elsewhere into history.

The Expedition of Tristan de Luna y Arellano

The failure of Soto’s entrada to actualize the riches of La Florida did nothing to cool Spanish determination to conquer and pacify the region. The northern frontier of New Spain required the establishment of military colonies, both on the Gulf and in the Atlantic, to prevent encroachment by European powers and to make the region secure for Spanish navigation. But unlike those of Mexico, Florida’s natives were semi-nomadic, disinclined to accept imposed labor, and not hesitant to fight intruders (as León, Narváez, and Soto found out). In addition, the region had unusual geographical limitations, with an interior full of swamps, no fields for farming and grazing, and dense forests. Offshore reefs, shoals, and sandbars had caused disastrous shipwrecks in 1545, 1551, and 1554; at least two thousand Spaniards had perished on the shores of La Florida before an attempt to occupy them was made (Priestley 1936: 51).

The very first attempt at Spanish colonization north of New Spain had occurred earlier along the Atlantic seaboard. The enterprise was a private venture undertaken by Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón, a wealthy, slave-trading lawyer from Santo Domingo. In July 1526, his fleet of six ships, carrying 500 to 600 men, women, children, priests, soldiers, and slaves, set sail from Hispañiola for Chicora, a region (on the present-day Carolina coast) his slavers had visited five years before. While approaching land, the flagship grounded on a shoal at the mouth of a river called Jordan, and sank with most of the colonists’ supplies. After placing the remainder of the disheartened expedition ashore, Ayllón decided to move his colony down the coast until he came to a place (near St. Catherines Island, Georgia) that he christened San Miguel de Gualdape (Hoffman 1990:73). However, hunger, cold, disease, and attacks from natives caused the deaths of half the settlers, including Allyón himself, which prompted a murderous mutiny that effectively ended the first attempt to colonize the present-day United States. Of the would-be colonists, only about 150 people managed to return to tell the story four months later. Despite its failure, the episode fueled beliefs in legendary riches and put the region on the map, which now included a prominent cape called Santa Elena.

By 1555, no less a person than the archbishop of Mexico urged the pacification of Florida, writing Philip II to urge the salvation of souls there, “since we have it so near at hand, and know the numberless people which are lost therein from having none to preach to them the Holy Gospel” (Lowery 1901: 354). New Spain’s second viceroy, Luis de Velasco (1550-1556), wrote the following year, urging that the region be reduced to the faith. Dr. Pedro de Santander in 1557 avidly asserted to the King his scheme for colonizing the Florida coast at various points, by claiming that the land was promised to the faithful, who ought to put all its idolatrous inhabitants to the knife, “leaving no living thing save maidens and children, their cities robbed and sacked, their walls and houses leveled to the earth” (Lowery 1901: 355). Other advocates, such as mariner Pedro Menéndez de Avilés (whose plans would later become a crucial part of Spanish strategy) suggested to Philip that a fortress should be built “where ships damaged by storm in the Bahama Channel might take refuge from the Indians” (Weddle 1985: 251).

Late in 1557, Philip II ordered Velasco to appoint a governor for Florida and the Punta de Santa Elena and to carry out the establishment of strong settlements at both locations (Philip to Velasco, December 29, 1557. In Priestley 1928 1:46-52). The viceroy had already chosen a favorite, Don Tristán de Luna y Arellano, to become adelantado. Luna was not unknown in the colony of New Spain. He first came to Mexico in company with the famous conqueror Hernán Cortés in 1530. As a cavalry officer, Captain Luna was second in command and maestre de campo (major) to Francisco Vásquez de Coronado on the march for Cibola (Priestley 1936:43). Later, he put down native rebellions at Coatlán and Tetiepa in 1548. He was a cousin of the first viceroy Antonio de Mendoza, a cousin of the wife of Hernán Cortés, and a personal friend of the second viceroy Luís de Velasco, who kept Luna’s son in the viceroyal household. His wealthy wife Doña Isabel de Rojas had been twice widowed; she was previously married to conquistador Juan Velasquez, then to Francisco de Maldonado (Priestley 1936: 65). Doña Isabel died well before Luna’s expedition, leaving him her vast estates and encomiendas.

Velasco gave Luna authority extending eastward to the Atlantic Ocean from a north and south line 50 leagues west of the Rio del Espiritú Santo (Mississippi River); there was no northern boundary to his mandate for conquest and settlement. Detailed instructions had been drawn up to construct regular Spanish towns, and to appoint town councilmen, judges, and bailiffs. The first town at Ochuse was to have a fortress large enough to contain 100 settlers, and to include inns, storehouses, jails, and slaughterhouses (Instructions of the Viceroy to Don Tristán. In Priestley 1928 1: 18-33).

Velasco began to prepare for the expedition. He gathered 400 soldiers, half footmen and half horsemen, 100 craftsmen and tradesmen, and a contingent of friars and secular clergy (Hoffman 1990: 155). The viceroy then dispatched Guido de Lavazares from Veracruz with three small vessels and sixty soldiers and sailors to select a suitable harbor on the coast of Florida and to explore the vicinity of Cape Santa Elena (Lowery 1901: 356). During a three month voyage, the vessels touched along the Texas coast, discovering a bay, of which Lavazares took possession, calling it Bahía de San Francisco (Matagorda Bay). Attempting to sail eastward, the flotilla was plagued by contrary winds and eventually sighted the shallow coastline east of the Mississippi River. Ten leagues farther east they entered a large bay, which Lavazares named Bahía Filipina (Mobile Bay) after Philip II, calling it “the largest and most commodious in all that coast” (Hoffman 1990: 155). From there, the vessels attempted twice to continue eastward but were only able to reach the vicinity of Choctawhatchee Bay; bad weather prevented them from entering Pensacola Bay (Weddle 1985: 259).

The explorations of Lavazares, however, did not determine the site of Luna’s landing in Florida. A subsequent reconnaissance voyage in a single ship commanded by Juan de Rentería departed Veracruz sometime in 1558 to discover the Florida ports in advance of the Luna fleet. Historian Robert Weddle discovered previously unknown archival testimony of Gonzalo Gayón, who served as pilot for Rentería and later as chief pilot for Luna. According to Gayón, they discovered the port of Polonza [Pensacola], the port of Filipina [Mobile], the coast of Apalache, and the Costa de Médanos [Padre Island] (Weddle 1985: 259, 264).

The Luna expedition assembled at the Veracruz port of San Juan de Ulúa during April and May, 1559. Eleven ships were loaded with supplies of corn, hardtack biscuit, bacon, dried beef, cheese, oil, vinegar, wine, and live cattle, as well as arms, armor, and tools for construction and for agriculture. When the armada departed for Florida on June 11, it carried 540 soldiers (200 horsemen and the rest arquebus men, shield bearers, and crossbow men) and 240 horses, and more than 1,000 other colonists, including women and children, Negro servants, and Aztecs and Tlaxcalans. The latter were to serve as farmers. Compared with those who ventured to sea before them on the ships of Ayllón, Narváez, and Soto, Tristán de Luna and his people embarked with a certain knowledge of where they were going and what they were supposed to do.

For seventeen days, the ships sailed with a fair wind; on June 28 the pilots calculated their longitude as being the same as Rio del Espiritú Santo. From there, the ships were carried southwest to the reefs of Alacrán off the Yucatán peninsula, where they caught a fair wind to the northeast for eight days, sighting land (around Cape St. George or Cape San Blas) on July 12. After anchoring for five days to collect water, wood, and grass for the horses, the ships continued westward; a frigate was sent ahead to search for Ochuse. Evidently, the frigate’s pilot failed to recognize the port and led the fleet 20 leagues beyond to Lavazares’ Bahía Filipina (Mobile). Luna sent the frigate back eastward to find Ochuse and disembarked the horses (110 had not survived the voyage) and some soldiers to continue to their objective by land.

On August 15, the armada entered the sheltered waters of Maldonado’s Ochuse and Gayón’s Polonza. Luna quickly renamed the bay Santa María Filipina for the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and in honor of King Philip. He and his pilots considered it to be one of the best ports yet discovered in America. As Velasco relayed Luna’s description of Pensacola Bay to Philip,

. . . the lowest water it has at the entrance is eleven cubits, and inside it has from seven to eight fathoms. It is a very spacious port and has a width of three leagues fronting the spot where the Spaniards now are. The entrance over the bar is half a league wide, and has very good marks at the entrance, there being a reddish ravine on the eastern side, dividing the bay. The ships can anchor in four to five fathoms a crossbow shot from land. The port is so secure that no wind can do them any damage at all. There were some Indian huts, which seemed to be for fishermen. The country is apparently very good. It has many walnuts, grapes, other trees, which bear fruit, and much forest, much game and wild fowl, and many fish of numerous varieties and good. They also found a cornfield (Velasco to Philip, September 24, 1559. In Priestly 1928 2:275).

Having come to anchor, the colonists went ashore to pick a suitable site to build a town for eighty to a hundred people, the remainder were to go inland toward Santa Elena. The town would have 140 house lots; forty of these were for the plaza, church and monastery, and the governor’s fortified residence and treasury, which was to be in the middle of the central plaza, and large enough to hold and to protect all of the town’s residents in case of attack. The town’s four gates were to be visible from the central plaza. The remaining hundred lots were for the same number of heads of families, who would be sufficient to defend the town (Velasco to Philip, May 22, 1559. In Priestley 1928 2:225). Luna reported to the King that he had chosen the town site on “a high point of land which slopes down to the bay where the ships come to anchor” (Luna to Philip, May 1, 1559 [erroneous date]. In Priestley 1928 2:212).

Luna dispatched the galleon San Juan back to Veracruz on August 25 with letters to notify the Viceroy of his safe arrival and ask for more horses and supplies. He then ordered scouting parties to look for food, since the fleet’s supplies were calculated to last only eighty days. One party went up the Escambia River by boat, the other made an entry by land. The captain of one party, Alvaro Nieto, had been a Soto veteran; he took with him as interpreter an Indian woman named Lacsohe, a native of the region who had been captured by Soto’s army (Weddle 1985: 268). The reconnoitering parties went up the river for twenty leagues, finding a small Indian village at a distance of ten leagues before returning to the anchorage after twenty days. There, they learned of a calamitous event that had occurred during their absence. As Luna reported in a letter to the King,

. . . on Monday, during the night of the nineteenth of this month of September, there came up from the north a fierce tempest, which, blowing for twenty-four hours from all directions until the same hour as it began, without stopping but increasing continuously, did irreparable damage to the ships of the fleet. [There was] great loss by many seamen and passengers, both of their lives as well as of their property. All the ships which were in this port went aground (although it is one of the best ports there are in the Indies), save only one caravel and two barks, which escaped. . . . we lost, on one of the ships which went aground, a great part of the supplies which were collected in it for the maintenance of this army, and what we had on land was damaged by the heavy rains . . . (Luna to Philip, September 24, 1559. In Priestly 1928:2:245).

When news of the disaster at Pensacola reached the Viceroy in Mexico, the first of four relief voyages to the Florida colony began. Meanwhile Luna sent soldiers up the Alabama River to search for food. They found an abandoned Indian village with corn and bean fields (Nanipacana), which had been largely destroyed by Soto’s army in 1540. Plans were made to move the colonists to Nanipacana, and then northward to Coosa, a larger native town also visited by Soto, in hopes that it could become a station on the way to Santa Elena. Leaving a small garrison at Pensacola to wait for relief ships, the settlers moved to Nanipacana in February 1560. An advance party reached Coosa, but found none of the fabled resources reported by the Soto veterans. Meanwhile, Luna had fallen ill with fever, his colonists were slowly starving, and discontent began to turn to mutiny in Nanipacana. Luna yielded to complaints and petitions; the Spaniards abandoned their camp in mid-summer and retreated to Mobile, then Pensacola, where eight days later, a fleet arrived, not to take them back to New Spain, but with a royal order for Luna to occupy Santa Elena at once to keep it from the French. Three small ships were sent to sea to sail around the peninsula and search for Santa Elena, but storms drove them back to Veracruz.

Reports of mutiny at Pensacola, and Luna’s inability to retain firm control of the Florida enterprise caused Viceroy Velasco to replace the ailing governor with Angel de Villafañe, who brought 50 men and fresh supplies to the port in March 1561. Villafañe discharged Luna and sailed toward Santa Elena with four ships and 60 people; however, the expedition failed to find a suitable landing place on the Atlantic coast and suffered a hurricane that sank two of the ships. The sea had defeated both Luna and Villafañe; the successful occupation of La Florida some four years later by Pedro Menéndez de Avilés was made possible to a large extent by his experience as a mariner, but also the knowledge that had accumulated by the failures of two governors before him.

Later Spanish Explorations

The western portion of Florida, including the bay called Santa María de Ochuse, was forgotten by Spanish colonial strategists for over a century. In 1686 pilot Juan Jordán de Reina entered Pensacola Bay while searching for a rumored French colony in the Gulf. Natives, who called the place Panzacola, were hospitable, although suffering from recent warfare with tribes at nearby Mobile. Reports of Cavelier de La Salle’s explorations of the Mississippi in 1682 had caused panic in New Spain, prompting a recommendation to the King in 1689, by Captain Andrés de Pez, that Pensacola Bay be occupied to prevent the French from using it as a naval base to threaten Spanish commerce (McGovern 1974:18).

A scientific expedition, led by Pez in 1693, conducted a reconnaissance of the bay, which was renamed Santa María de Galve in honor of the new Viceroy of New Spain. Pez was accompanied by the Creole scientist, Carlos de Siguënza y Góngora, whose map of Pensacola Bay shows details of water depth, landmarks, and sites of native villages encountered by the survey party. Five years after this expedition, a royal decree required that Pensacola be occupied and fortified. A fleet led by pilot Jordán de la Reina, joined by ships of Andrés de Arriola, arrived in November 1698 to establish a presidio garrisoned by soldiers (McGovern 1974:29). A wooden fort with outlying huts, named San Carlos de Austria, was built along the shore at the site of the present-day Naval Air Station, which overlooks the bay entrance. The site’s reddish ravine had been identified as a prominent landmark by the pilots of the Luna expedition over 130 years previously as una barranca vermeja a la banda del Leste abriendo la bahía (Velasco to Philip, September 24, 1559. In Priestly 1928 2:274-275). This feature came to be known as las barrancas by the Spaniards who were stationed at the Pensacola outpost, hence the name of the American fort which occupies the site today.

Luna’s Ships

Some confusion has existed about the number, types, and names of the ships that brought Luna’s colonists from Veracruz to Pensacola. However, a study of two collections of archival documents sheds some light on the composition of the fleet. The first source (Priestley 1928), is a collection of correspondence and testimonies that remains the only published transcription and translation of primary documents on the Luna expedition. The second is a series of accounting documents (Contaduría 877) collected by Dr. Paul Hoffman and partially transcribed and translated by John Hann (1993). Both sets of documents are from the Archivo General de Indias (AGI) in Seville.

The fleet that anchored in Pensacola Bay that summer day in 1559 included a strategic and multi-functioned array of vessels that had been established through trial and error on previous discovery voyages to serve as scouts, transports, suppliers, and defenders of newly found territories (Smith 1992b). The combination of large and small craft reflected in the nautical makeup of Luna’s fleet was formalized soon afterward in the official ordenanzas de poblaciones of 1563, in which the King of Spain required every discoverer to take at least two vessels of less than sixty tons each, in order to enter inlets, cross the bars of rivers, and pass over shoals (Swanton 1985:99). Larger ships, if employed by an expedition, were required to remain in a safe harbor until another secure port was found by the small craft. Thirty men and no more were to go in every ship, and the pilots must write down what they encountered for the benefit of other pilots.

Luna’s fleet was composed of vessels called galeones, naos, caravelas, frigatas, and barcas. The galleon was a new ship to appear in American waters, developed in the sixteenth-century in response to a need for transatlantic speed and security. Early galleons essentially were similar to merchant freighters, but more heavily armed. As carrying capacity of the ships increased, decks often were added to house additional artillery and passengers. Supporting large fore- and sterncastles, as well as three or four masts, mid sixteenth-century galleons tended to be top-heavy in rough seas, especially when overloaded, and were prone to capsize in storms (Smith 1986b).

The term nao has been considered by some writers to be a contraction of navio, (ship); but, in Spain and Portugal the nao was a well defined type of merchant vessel. Born of medieval Mediterranean origins, naos had become the preferred cargo carriers of the sixteenth century. Their beamy workhorse hulls, rigged with a combination of square and triangular sails on three masts carried colonists, arms, tools, and provisions in the wakes of smaller craft to build commercial maritime empires in the East and West Indies (Smith 1992a).

Caravels are known in literature as early as the thirteenth century in association with fishing, and river and coastal trade. The vessel as a distinctive type emerged during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries when it became the principal craft of oceanic exploration. Built for seaworthiness rather than cargo capacity, caravels were adapted from different regions by the Portuguese through seagoing trial and error to become an efficient sailing machine in deep water, yet nimble enough to venture into shallow bays and up narrow rivers (Smith 1986c). The most famous caravels, Columbus’s Niña and Pinta, were followed by others employed by many of the explorers who charted the Americas, such as Ponce de León, who first sighted Florida from the deck of his caravel Santiago in 1513.

Smallest member of the galley family, the fragata was an open, undecked longboat with six to twelve benches for oarsmen, and one or more masts (Manucy 1962). The early Spanish frigate is not to be confused with the later, larger warship that is known from colonial times until today. Fragatas probably were ideal for use by explorers in the Americas, and especially the Gulf of Mexico with its shallow bays and rivers. Equipped to carry more canvas, and square sails rather than triangular to catch following winds, these vessels undoubtedly were very fast, even under oars alone.

Sometimes a generic term for any small watercraft, barcas, as sixteenth-century exploratory vessels, were adapted from a class of open coastal commerce and fishing boats. The barca gavarra was the largest, with main- and foretopsails; the barco longo was the smallest, with a single square sail and a low freeboard that made the boat easy to row (Manucy 1983:101). Barcas were ideal watercraft for the transport and disembarcation of of soldiers and horses along protected shores and river banks.

There were, as nearly as can be determined from the sources above, eleven vessels in Luna’s fleet. They included a new galleon San Juan de Ulua, named after the port of Veracruz, where the vessel may have been built just prior to the expedition. Ten days after the fleet arrived at Ochuse, San Juan was sent back to Veracruz to announce the landing and collect more supplies. The hurricane of September 19 caught the remaining ships at anchor in the port. According to Luna all of the vessels went aground in the storm except one caravel and two barks (Luna to Philip, September 24, 1559. In Priestley 1928 2:245). Writing back to Luna, Velasco confirmed “that five ships with main topsails (navios de gavía), the galleon of Andonaguín, and one of the three barks were lost.” (Velasco to Luna, October 25, 1559. In Priestley 1928 1:61).

The “galleon of Andonaguín” is not mentioned in the Contaduría documents; however, there are five naos, which are named: San Antón, Sant Andrés, Santa María de Ayuda, Santiago, Santo Amaro. The terms navio and nao seem to have been used interchangeably in the documents as generic classifications for ships. Newly purchased for the King’s service, San Antón apparently was not in port when the hurricane struck, since she participated on later resupply missions to Pensacola.

A caravel named Espirítu Santo is also referred to as a nao and navio in the documents. This vessel may have been the caravel described as having been driven up into a clump of brushwood on shore with its cargo intact. Padre Augustín Dávila Padilla, who wrote of the expedition years later, related that the survivors went to see it as a wonder, and each recovered their belongings, “for not a pin was missing.” Dávila claimed that the phenomenon was the work of demons, because they were seen in the air during the storm (Priestley 1928 1:xxxvi).

While preparing for the Luna expedition, Velasco wrote to the King that he was having six large 100-ton barcas (barks) built, each to carry 100 men and four pieces of artillery. The vessels were designed to draw only four palmos (one meter) of water, so that they could enter the rivers and bays of Florida that he was told would be defended by Indians in canoes (Velasco to Philip, September 30, 1558. In Priestley 1928 2:257-261). Apparently only three barcas were sent with Luna; their names in the documents are San Luís, La Salbadora, and Corpus Cristi. The latter vessel probably was the one lost in the hurricane, since the petition of one of her crewmen states that he served on the barca until September 19, the date of the storm.

Alonso de Montalván, who was one of Luna’s soldiers, testified in 1561 that “all the ships that were anchored in the port were lost except two barks, one caravel and one frigate, which escaped in the said port . . . “ (Testimony and report given by certain soldiers . . . In Priestley 1928 2:285). The Contaduría documents mention an unnamed frigata associated with the expedition. Having escaped damage from the storm, this vessel may have been dispatched to Veracruz with Luna’s report of the disaster (Hoffman 1990:159). According to Montalván, one of the surviving barcas was sent back to New Spain with the news; it returned to Pensacola in consort with San Juan to bring supplies to the colonists (Testimony and report given by certain soldiers . . . In Priestley 1928 2:289).

Based on these primary sources, it appears that of the fleet of eleven vessels that arrived in Pensacola in August, 1559, six or seven were lost in the September storm: a galleon (Andonaguín’s), a barca, and either four or five navios. Study of additional archival documentation about the Luna expedition may further clarify the fates of these vessels, as well as particulars about their lading and resulting loss of cargos and equipment.

Table I

Ships of the Luna Fleet, 1559*

Name	Type	Disposition
San Juan de Ulua	galleon, or nao	His Majesty’s ship (the new galleon) built in Veracruz for the expedition, sent back before the hurricane, became a relief ship
San Anton a.k.a.Tanton	nao	His Majesty’s ship, purchased for expedition, probably sent back to Veracruz, participated in relief voyage
San Andrés	nao (498 tons)	master Salbador Fernández, pilot Francisco Martín, to carry people, horses, and munitions
Espiritu Santo, a.k.a. Santo Espiritu	nao, navio, or caravel (42 tons)	His Majesty’s ship, master Alonso Carillo or Jn° de Guerto, pilot Joan Balenciano, to carry people, horses, and provisions
Santa María de Ayuda	nao (100 tons)	master Antón Martín, to carry people, horses, and provisions
Santiago	nao	may have survived hurricane, a patax (patache) named Santiago was a relief ship
Santo Amaro	nao	master Cristóbal de Sobar
San Luís	barca	master Hernán Rodríguez, pilot Gaspar Gonçales
La Salbadora a.k.a. Salvadora	barca	built new, in Veracruz?
Corpus Cristi	barca	His Majesty’s ship, master Francisco Guadalupe, pilot Cristóbal Rodríguez, probably lost in hurricane,
unknown	frigata	built in Veracruz

* Data complied from AGI Contaduría 877 documents gathered in Spain by Dr. Paul Hoffman, and partially translated by John Hann.

Archaeological Background

Previous Research

The original concept of an underwater survey of Pensacola Bay was expressed by the late G. Norman Simons, former curator of the Pensacola Historical (Society) Museum. For years, Simons carefully collected and collated records of ship losses, old charts and maps, reports of wreck sites, oral histories, and artifacts recovered by divers, to form a body of data which has served as a departure point for many researchers interested in the bay’s maritime history. Designation of the Gulf Islands National Seashore in 1971 led to an archaeological survey conducted by Florida State University of the Florida portions of the new park, primarily at the Naval Live Oaks Reservation, Santa Rosa Island, and the area around Ft. Barrancas. With local assistance of Simons and others, eight ship-related sites were recorded in shallow water and on land (Tesar 1973). Meanwhile, a brief offshore reconnaissance by the National Park Service was conducted with a magnetometer near Santa Rosa Island; however, upon underwater investigation divers encountered no cultural materials (Lenihan 1974).

Over a decade later, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a remote sensing survey of the Pensacola harbor channel and turning basin in front of the Navy Yard for the Navy Strategic Homeporting Project. The two-week survey in 1986 located 173 magnetic targets, of which 56 were associated with side-scan sonar images (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1986). Twelve were selected for additional investigation prior to dredging the port. The following year, a private firm, Tidewater Atlantic Research, was contracted to investigate the targets, but none were found to be significant. An unrelated shipwreck Convoy, previously thought by a local diver to be the Judah, was recorded (Tidewater Atlantic Research 1987).

In 1988, a local Milton resident, Warren Weeks, guided the state underwater archaeologist, Roger C. Smith, to the site of a well-preserved, two-masted coastal schooner abandoned in a back bayou of the Blackwater River. Almost a hundred feet in length, the submerged early 19th-century vessel was found to be intact from rails to the keel, with her pump and windlass still in place. In May of that year, Smith and Simons organized Pensacola’s first Conference on Maritime History and Marine Archaeology. The conference was jointly sponsored by the Florida Division of Historical Resources, the Pensacola Historical Society, the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board, and the University of West Florida. The conference brought together, for the first time, a network of amateur historians and archaeologists, recreational divers, commercial fishermen, and university and state employees, who began to focus on local maritime history and the potential for marine archaeology in Pensacola Bay. Concurrent with the conference was the opening of an exhibit of shipwreck artifacts from the Convoy at the Historical Museum.

As one of the sponsors of the conference, the University of West Florida acknowledged an interest in the potential significance of the area’s submerged cultural resources, but admittedly lacked the knowledge and expertise to pursue research and training in marine archaeology as it had with terrestrial archaeology. However, within months of the conference UWF archaeologists conducting a survey of Deadman’s Island for the City of Gulf Breeze encountered the remains of a small colonial ship eroding from the beach in shallow water. Dr. Judy Bense contacted Smith in Tallahassee to help conduct a preliminary investigation of the site with students and volunteers (Bense 1988). Smith was invited to join the university’s adjunct faculty, and together with Bense organized a class in marine archaeology, which was taught in the spring of 1989. The class included field investigations of a fishing smack buried under the sand at Perdido Key (Williamson 1991).

A university field school was organized in the summer of 1989 to excavate the Deadman’s Wreck with the co-sponsorship of the City of Gulf Breeze under the direc-tion of Smith, Robert Finegold and Marianne Franklin. Ten undergraduate students from several universities received classroom and field training at the shallow-water site. They discovered that the small British vessel had been in the process of careening, when she was found to be unseaworthy and was apparently abandoned (Smith 1990; Finegold 1990). A permanent exhibit with artifacts and interpretive materials was installed in the South Santa Rosa County Recreation Center at Gulf Breeze. Concurrent with the field school, a team of volunteers under the direction of David Baumer thoroughly documented the Blackwater schooner, which was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. the following year (Baumer 1990).

In the fall of 1989, a brief magnetometer survey and underwater investigation took place at the site of a proposed pier at the confluence of the Blackwater River and Pond Creek, near the site of the old Bagdad Saw Mill. Conducted by a private firm, Underwater Archaeological Consortium, in accordance with permit compliance requirements for the proposed construction, the investigation determined that no significant resources would be impacted by the new pier (James 1989). Early in the following year, during dredging operations to deepen the entrance channel to Pensacola Bay for the Strategic Homeporting Project, a bronze artillery piece became lodged in the pump of the dredge Carolina. A concerned crew member released the news to local media, prompting temporary relocation of dredging activities. A visit to the dredge by Corps of Engineers archaeologist, Dorothy Gibbens, and state underwater archaeologist Smith concluded that the piece was an eighteenth-century howitzer, and that additional materials, such as a broken anchor and several broken ship’s timbers, had also been impacted by the dredge. The State Historic Preservation Office requested that the area be resurveyed to locate the source of the materials, which appeared to represent a shipwreck. A brief visual and magnetic search, under Corps supervision at the location provided by the dredging contractor, failed to locate any historic materials (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1990).

Additional dredging of the bay in 1990 during the construction of a new pier to accommodate a larger aircraft carrier at the Navy Yard encountered a massive submerged object. The dredge operator, after pulling up several copper-sheathed timbers, personally dived on the site, and with the assistance of navy divers determined that it was over 120 ft in length and 50 ft in width. Again, the State Historic Preservation Office requested that dredging cease until an archaeological determination of the object’s identity and significance was obtained. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., was contracted to assess the submerged structure, which was partially excavated to reveal a large wooden container filled with stone, clay, and sand. Concurrent archival research in government records revealed details of a large caisson constructed and intentionally sunk by the Navy in the early 1830s. It was agreed that, after sufficient documentation and additional historical research, the structure could be removed, which occurred early in 1991. The project was completed after extensive recording of the caisson remains, collection and conservation of artifacts, and the construction of a scale model of the structure for public exhibit (Mistovich et al.1991).

Pensacola Shipwreck Survey

In 1990, the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research received the first of a series of federal grants through the Florida Coastal Management Program to begin a pilot study of Pensacola Bay shipwrecks and to prepare a regional model for their management and protection. The Pensacola Shipwreck Survey was formed under the direction of Smith, with staff members Marianne Franklin and John Morris working with local volunteers. The project was housed in the city’s waterfront historical district in conjunction with the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board. During the first phase of the survey thirty-three sites of wrecked or abandoned vessels, ranging from colonial to modern in age, were located, recorded, and assessed. A survey report with classifications of sites and recommendations was published by the Bureau (Franklin et al. 1992). Included in the recommendations for future work were additional remote sensing surveys, and a formal survey of the USS Massachusetts, which had been nominated by local diver Larry Broussard to become Florida’s fourth Underwater Archaeological Preserve (Smith 1991).

The second phase of the Pensacola Shipwreck Survey began in 1992 with an expanded staff consisting of James Spirek, Della Scott, Michael Williamson, and Charles Hughson. Systematic mapping of the USS Massachusetts produced site plans with which to compare 1910 refit construction drawings of the ship. These archaeological data, combined with historical and archival materials, helped survey staff to produce a formal proposal for the new preserve, which was delivered to the public during a Second Conference on Maritime History and Archaeology in May 1992. The preserve officially opened the following year.

The primary goal of the second phase was to conduct remote sensing operations in the bay, with the intention of locating and recording additional colonial vessels. During planning of electronic survey operations, emphasis was placed on identifying areas of the bay associated with colonial maritime activities in Pensacola, especially those relating to the First and Second Spanish periods. Discussions as to the possibility of locating remains of the lost ships of the Tristán de Luna expedition prompted staff to design a survey strategy toward that end. Historical, geographical, and local knowledge were gathered to determine which areas of the bay should be prioritized for electronic scrutiny that might turn up sites dating to the targeted time periods. Areas selected were the northwest and southwest shores of Pensacola Bay near its entrance, the northwest and southwest extremities of the Gulf Breeze peninsula, and Emanuel Point near the mouth of Bayou Texar (Spirek et al. 1993).

Remote sensing operations began in early June 1992 and continued to September, followed by ground-truthing of accumulated targets through October. The magnetic survey package consisted of an EG&G Geometrics G-866 Proton Precession Recording Magnetometer with towed array, a SI-Tex LORAN-C position finder, and a Marine Tech fathometer. Side-scan sonar operations were conducted using a Klein Model 590 sonar with dual track recorder, and a Trimble Geographic Positioning System (GPS). The sonar equipment and its technical support were provided under contract by Alan Druin of A&A Research. To transport the electronic sensing equipment, a 21-foot survey boat with a crew of three persons was employed. Another 22-foot boat was used as a diving platform from which to investigate targets.

Casting a wide survey net over selected portions of the bay yielded many targets, both natural and manmade. However, the vast majority of targets that could be verified were revealed to be modern, ranging from metal cables to pizza ovens, from car bodies to construction debris, as well as dumped military and commercial trash. Many of these objects represented artificial reefs, intentionally deposited by fishermen to attract fish. Despite the preponderance of these byproducts of industrial Pensacola, the bay also contains the remains of its maritime past. Both electronic tools—the magnetometer and side-scan sonar—detected early shipwrecks.

Following remote-sensing operations at several survey tracts in Pensacola Bay, operations shifted in August to the shallow waters off Emanuel Point, which is one of the suspected Luna landfall locations in the bay. The search centered on a submerged sandbar extending from the bluff into the bay. The survey required two days to complete, the 27th and 30th of August 1992. Magnetometry covered a survey tract slightly under one 1.6 km2, and survey transects totaled over 15.5 linear km. Sampling interval for the magnetometer was set at two seconds and boat speed varied between 4 and 6 knots. LORAN, along with marker buoys, was used as positioning controls for the survey. Transects ran east to west and were spaced from 9 m to 12 m to ensure maximum coverage of the area under investigation. Moving from deeper water to the shallow sandbar, water depths in the survey area ranged from 1.5 m to 7.3 m. Approximately 55 magnetic anomalies were detected, of which slightly under 20 percent represented probable multiple encounters of the same object. Ground-truthing of the anomalies did not occur until a month later following side-scan sonar operations at the lower end of the bay in September. Unfortunately, bad weather combined with the shallow depths off Emanuel Point, rebuffed sonar attempts to obtain acoustical data on several promising magnetic anomalies. In October, divers visually inspected three primary anomalies in the survey area and discovered a tubular-steel tower for shrimp net rigging at one. Another magnetic target initially proved to be elusive, however later scrutiny determined that metal cable was the anomaly’s source. Investigation of the third anomaly revealed a low mound of ballast stones that appeared promising. Efforts immediately focused on assessing the ballast mound’s archaeological potential and the source of the 400-gamma magnetic beacon that had initially signaled its presence.

Discovery of the Emanuel Point Ship

The ballast mound is situated ca. 0.8 km south of the bluff that extends westward from Emanuel Point. Its longitudinal axis runs southeast to northwest, from the outer edge of the sandbar in 4 m of turbid water shoreward to a depth of 3 m at the center of the mound. Exposed ballast stones consist of small to medium-sized river cobbles and some quarried rock, all overgrown with large oysters. A preliminary visual inspection of the site revealed no obvious cultural material. Similar but smaller deposits of ballast stones had been encountered during the survey at known anchorages in the bay; they represent ballast that was discharged by ships preparing to take on cargo. However, this consolidated pile of stones was found in shallow water, on a sand bar that provides poor holding ground and a unprotected anchorage for ships of any size. It was obvious that the stones had become incorporated into the bottom over a long period, providing a substratum for succeeding generations of shellfish to find a home.

Removal of several stones at the northeastern edge of the ballast pile uncovered an eroded wooden timber that appeared to be a ship’s ceiling plank. To control further testing of the site, a baseline was laid along the longitudinal axis of the mound, which measures 16 m in length and 8 m in breadth. Three test units were opened into the ballast stones to determine if additional wooden ship elements, or artifacts, were present. The first revealed bones, ceramics, and wooden ship structure. Timbers included a ceiling plank, footwale, and frames buried under a meter of overburden. The second test unit produced more bone, shoe leather, ceramics, and a footwale. A third unit exposed the ship’s keelson, where the main mast had been stepped, along with additional ceramics, bone, and leather. The presence of a well-preserved shipwreck had been confirmed; attention then centered on finding a source for the magnetic anomaly by conducting a systematic metal detector survey.

Protruding slightly above the sand, a concreted knob marked the tip of an anchor fluke at the shoreward extremity of the site. Removal of sediments revealed a large wrought-iron anchor, buried fluke down in the sand. The shank of the anchor was found to be twisted and broken off, just below the lugs that would have held its wooden stock in place. The broken portion of the shank with its hawser ring was not encountered; however, a squared timber, possibly representing a bow cant frame, was found lying next to the anchor crown. The metal detector survey, which extended 6m on either side of the ballast mound, confirmed the anchor as the major source of the 400-gamma anomaly. Although no additional large metal items were encountered, many smaller targets were detected in and around the periphery of the mound, suggesting that the spatial extent of the site’s contents was confined in a concentration associated with the stones. Removal of overburden at one of the smaller metal targets revealed a trail of concreted ship’s fasteners, as well as additional pieces of wood.

These initial glimpses of the Emanuel Point Ship’s hull structure, hardware, and associated artifacts offered a tentative time period and cultural affiliation for the shipwreck. Features of the central architecture (keelson, mast step, and footwales) closely resemble examples recorded on sixteenth‑century shipwreck sites at Highborn Cay, Bahamas (Oertling 1989a), Western Ledge, Bermuda (Watts 1993), and Red Bay, Labrador (Grenier 1988). The anchor is similar in shape and construction to others found at the sites of Spanish ships wrecked off Padre Island, Texas, in 1554 (Arnold 1976). Ceramic sherds provided additional diagnostic clues; at first, sediment stains masked their characteristics. Early assessments of the ceramics suggested a temporal range in the 1700s, a time-frame rather incongruous with the ship’s construction pattern. However, after application of hydrogen peroxide to remove stains, a darkened glazeware, incorrectly identified as a black lead-glaze type common to the 18th century, proved instead to be tin-enameled majolica, of a type more consistent with earlier usage. A preponderance of coarse unglazed earthenware sherds were also recognized as fragments of early colonial Spanish olive jars.

Site Stratigraphy

The site’s compact and discreet stratigraphy accounts for its astonishing degree of preservation. The modern surface of the sandbar consists of loose coarse sand and fine silt, which migrates along the bottom depending on seasonal tides and occasional storms. The top of the ballast mound protrudes above this surface, serving as a substratum for oyster growth and a haven for stone crabs and fish. Below the sand is a second stratum, consisting of a dense matrix of oyster, clam, and mussel shells bound in compacted silt. This layer is the result of gradual accumulation of generations of marine organisms that thrived and died on the artificial reef created by the remains of the ship. The dense stratum of shell has effectively capped the upper portion of the site, protecting it over the years from erosion by waves and currents. Below the shell cap is a complex layer of loose silt and shell which represents the original deposition of marine sediments that entered the hull as it wrecked and disintegrated. Artifacts and other remains associated with the wrecking and subsequent slow collapse of the ship are found within this layer, while those that accumulated in the bottom of the vessel during its sailing career are trapped in a dense but soft organic deposit between the ship’s frames and in its bilge. This deposit has produced a surprising array of floral and faunal remains, as well as other organic debris. Below the ship’s hull are sediments of clean, gray sand with occasional remnants of ancient shells and worms, that represent the original sand bar upon which the ship came to rest.

Research Strategy

Results of these preliminary investigations at the Emanuel Point Ship, carried out between October 1992 and February 1993, led to several conclusions. The well-preserved shipwreck is one of the earliest found in Florida’s waters. Dating from the First Spanish Period (1513-1763), the site could be associated with the first European attempts to colonize Florida, perhaps even the remains of a vessel lost during the Luna expedition of 1559. Located near shore, in a region of the state noted for its historical attractions, the shipwreck site and its contents should be developed and interpreted in a cooperative effort for the public benefit. Opportunities for research and publication, in conjunction with a long-term project, would attract scholars and students from a number of academic disciplines.

With these initial considerations in mind, a research strategy for additional investigation of the site was developed. The plan called for further test excavations at specific locations of the site to determine the extent and document features of the ship’s hull, and to determine the cause of the vessel’s wrecking and the mechanics of its subsequent disintegration. Aside from the remains of the ship, its contents would be studied to determine where it came from, what its career had been, and why it came to be in Pensacola. Cultural clues to the people who lived and worked aboard the ship, from the time it first set sail, would be analyzed to learn more about early maritime customs that were adapted from Europe to the Americas.

Research strategy also called for a highly public investigation to involve university students and private volunteers in both field and laboratory procedures. A university field school and graduate student intern program were organized, and a system of volunteer registration and orientation was devised. A conservation laboratory, dedicated to the shipwreck, would be established in Pensacola to analyze and treat artifacts and to prepare them for local exhibition. Project activities were to be accompanied by public lectures and presentations, workshops, and laboratory tours. Media was to be given access to the project’s operations to help to share the progress of the investigation with the public. Periodic public and professional publications were scheduled, and a major exhibition of shipwreck materials was planned.

Excavation Strategy

During the 1993 field season, a comprehensive metal detector survey focused on obtaining more information about metal objects associated with the site, which had been divided into quadrants by a grid system. A detailed metal detector survey of each quadrant located a number of targets which were plotted on the site map for future reference. Hand fanning of sand revealed that some of the targets were intrusive metal cable and chain links, while those buried below in the shell hash were left undisturbed and plotted on the site plan. Over the course of July to October 1993, seven one-meter test units exposed central features of the hull and a wide variety of artifacts and floral and faunal specimens (Smith 1994). The first five units revealed the main mast step assembly, pump sump, and port hull components. Forward, beyond visible ballast, removal of overburden from a one-meter unit exposed a metal pitcher and a starboard section of the lower hull. Hand fanning slightly forward and to port of the pitcher revealed a large copper cauldron that was recorded but left in situ. Aft of the ballast mound, work at another test unit exposed some concretions and a fragment of wood. Hand fanning of another metal detector target in the same region uncovered a concretion determined to be a gudgeon strap and the upper remnants of the stern post. Measuring between the gudgeon strap and amidships at the master couple frame revealed a length of 12 m between the two points, and a starting point from which to gauge the extant remains of the vessel. At the end of the season all exposed units were lined with plastic and backfilled to protect the wooden features.

The next season’s excavation strategy called for uncovering the stern section of the wreck to determine if it was continuous with the midship structure, and to record architectural features that might help to explain the ship’s wrecking process. However, before continuing excavation, more magnetometry was conducted in the months of May and June 1994 around the site. Results of the survey were mixed, in that no associated sixteenth-century material was found, but a number of other relics were, such as a car body surrounded by beer cans, metal cable and wire, among other items. One artifact of a maritime nature was located, an iron fisherman’s anchor with an iron stock.

From June until August, 1994, specialized equipment was under construction to facilitate the dredging activities, among other preparatory tasks before excavation could begin. Incessant thunderstorms for the better part of June also hindered the pace of work. From mid-August until early December, four 2 m units in the stern were opened. These units revealed the lower stern structure, loose gudgeon straps, artillery shot, disarticulated timbers and concretions, as well as many other artifacts. After completing these four units in late February 1995, an additional seven 2 m units were opened. Two noteworthy finds from these units are the remains of the rudder and a concreted breastplate. All excavation at the site was halted in June. The hull was backfilled with sand, while the outer area around the hull was lined with plastic before backfilling to distinguish the limits of the excavation. The grid system was dismantled, but metal datums were left in place for future reference.

Grid Coordinate System

In order to record intra-site spatial relationships a fixed series of datums was established at the site. The metal detector survey had determined that targets ceased to be acquired approximately 10 m beyond the ballast mound. Therefore, to allow for undetected features, a 30 m by 40 m grid was superimposed over the wreck site. The grid system also was conceived to readily accept the possibility of additional discoveries of associated material in the Emanuel Point vicinity. To this end, an arbitrary point in deeper water to the south and west of the ballast pile was chosen for a zero northing and zero easting datum from which to superimpose a grid system over the main area of the site and surrounding area. The 30m by 40m grid was aligned with the axis of the ship’s keelson was determined to lie along a bearing of 270 degrees magnetic north. The rectangular control grid was delineated around the site by placing eight primary datum rods into the sand bar. Aligned with the keelson, and the main mast mortise as the midpoint, the grid was laid out by triangulation.

The grid was further subdivided into four equal quadrants. Subdatums were placed in the center of each of the four quadrants for the purpose of acquiring triangulation points in close proximity to features throughout the site. Polypropylene line was then laid to connect the eight primary datums. In conditions of poor underwater visibility, this line functioned as a pathway to the datums, and as a boundary line to contain errant divers. Each datum corresponded to an arbitrary northing and easting value, although the grid was aligned to the ship’s hull remains, rather than a magnetic direction. For example, the southwestern corner of the grid was numbered 100 N and 100 E. Moving northward along the grid, the Northing number increased until reaching the northwestern corner, which was numbered 130 N and 100 E, while the Easting number increased, moving eastward to the southeastern corner, which was 100 N and 140 E. Individual excavation units were numbered according to their position in the grid and were identified by their southwestern corner number, for example, 114 N/131 E.

Logistics and Equipment

Located in Pensacola’s Historic District on the shore of the bay, the project headquarters occupied a two-story house adjacent to the Pensacola Historical Museum. The conservation laboratory was housed in the basement of nearby T. T. Wentworth, Jr. Museum. Access to and from the shipwreck site was a short commute by boat from Pitt Slip marina, or the Marine Patrol dock at the mouth of Bayou Texar. Close proximity to the city also enabled the team to quickly assemble parts and supplies for malfunctioning equipment. Due to the lack of a suitable work platform to store gear, all equipment was hauled on and off the site daily. Moving gear, setting-up and breaking-down, accounted for at least a quarter of an eight-hour work day. A typical day (7:30 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday) involved conducting a morning briefing, loading gear into the vehicles, transshipping it to the boat, off loading excavation equipment onto the work platform, dropping the first set of divers in the water, eating lunch, dropping second set of divers in the water, breaking down the equipment from work platform to boat to vehicle to headquarters, recording the artifacts, debriefing of the day’s progress, and planning the events for the next day.

Personnel for the majority of the project consisted of the project director, in charge of the overall management of the project; the field director, responsible for the daily activity at the site; a conservator, who managed the acquisition, analysis, and conservation of artifacts; a field supervisor/dive safety officer, whose duties included logistical control and diving operations; and a field technician, charged with vehicle and equipment maintenance. Each of these members were employed by the Bureau of Archaeological Research. Over the course of the project six graduate student interns and a number of volunteers assisted in the field and in the lab. Constraints imposed by the size of the available watercraft and excavation strategy limited the crew size to never more than ten team members, and usually no more than six, on the site at any given time.

At the onset of investigations the survey team used a 21-foot research boat from which to deploy divers. As the project developed, additional watercraft included a 22-foot research boat, a 12 by 30 foot wooden barge, a dredge pontoon, and a floating dredge screen. The latter two craft were adapted from a pontoon boat and Hobie catamaran by the team to provide sturdy and rugged platforms for the dredge screens. For the most part, SCUBA was the primary air supply, but was also complemented by two Brownie Third Lung hookah systems that could each accommodate three divers supplemented with Spare Airs in the event of an emergency ascent. Working during the summer in the 80-degree-plus water required some form of body protection from oysters and sea nettles, while working comfortably in the winter in waters ranging in the low 60s was accomplished with dry suits.

Work on the site was conducted using relatively simple and time-tested underwater archaeological digging and recording tools. Removal of sediments and ballast stones to open the initial test pits was accomplished by hand. Later, an 8 hp Briggs and Stratten engine harnessed to a Gold Divers circle jet pump, and a 5 hp Honda trash pump, each forced water to a Gold Divers couple jet to create two independent water induction dredge systems to remove overburden from the site. Sediments removed from the site were deposited onto a floating screen with 1/4-inch mesh and then hand-sorted to retrieve small objects missed by the excavator down below. When working in the sediments between the ship’s frames, the mesh was covered with a 1/16-inch screen to further aid in recovering small objects from the dredge’s outflow. Other tools included trowels, paintbrushes, metric tapes and folding-rules, various types of levels (line, bubble, carpenter’s, including a goniometer—an electronic carpenter’s level encased in a waterproof housing), slates faced with mylar sheets, PVC grids, plumb bobs, and calipers.

Recording the site in plan view was accomplished by triangulation. Depths of the hull and elevations of artifacts were recorded in relation to the anchor’s upper fluke tip. This was accomplished by stretching a bubble-level from the anchor tip to the desired object. Once a point on the stern knee had been entered, elevations of artifacts and disarticulated timbers in the stern area were taken from this point. In addition to recording articulated remains, samples of sediments and odd-looking deposits from inside the hull structure and ballast mound were retrieved using both plastic bags and bottles.

Ships Architecture

Limited excavations at selected areas of the site have revealed the presence of a well‑preserved ship’s lower hull, extending from the bow to the stern and athwartships to just below the turn of the bilge (Spirek 1995). Surviving hull length is estimated to be between 23 m and 25 m, with a breadth of 1.8 m on the port side, and a breadth of about 2.8 m on the starboard side. The wreck lies on the sand bar at a slight list of 4 to 7 degrees to port. Scattered timbers and fasteners—remnants of the ship’s upper structure that disintegrated over time—lie buried around the periphery of the ballast mound. Throughout the process of recording the vessel’s architectural remains, fine craftsmanship was noted in the construction of the hull, especially at the mast step assembly, and also in the general finished appearance (i.e., no traces of bark or other evidence of haste) of the ship’s timbers. The following description of the Emanuel Point hull is divided into areas of the ship uncovered during excavations.

Forward Structure

Investigation of a metal target located 10 m forward of amidships revealed a concreted metal pitcher and a portion of the ship’s starboard bow structure. The structure consists of three cant frames (forcazes), and associated hull planking. Frame dimensions range from 20 cm to 22 cm in sided thickness, and 14 cm to 16 cm in molded height. On center spacing of frames is approximately 45 cm. Fastener concretions protruding through the timbers indicate that first futtocks, which are no longer present, were mated to the forward edge of the cant frames.

In this area of the hull, the planks are 25 cm wide and 5 cm thick. Loose bits of wood were noted between the frames, and a severely degraded plank, probably a ceiling (internal planking) board, was observed lying across two frames. A copper cauldron located nearby suggests that the ship’s galley may have been located in this area of the hull.

Midship Structure

Six test units excavated in the center of the ballast mound revealed well-preserved and articulated lower hull remains that are quite similar to the architecture of other shipwrecks that have been studied in Europe and America: an expanded keelson, with mortise and chock to house the foot of the mainmast; a pump well and sump to house the shaft of the ship’s bilge pump; and perpendicular buttresses to laterally support this critical area of the hull.

Mainmast Step/Keelson

The mainmast step (carlinga) is an area in the center of the hull which supported the heel of the largest mast, which was stepped into the keelson (contraquilla). To create a sturdy base, the carpenters carefully shaped the longitudinal timber so that it was larger and thicker than the rest of the keelson. This critical architectural feature displays fine workmanship, especially at the flaring transition point from keelson to mast step, and in the carving of the sunken rectangular mortise into which the mast was stepped. Although the entire mast step feature was not completely uncovered during excavation, the observed length of the expanded portion of the keelson is approximately 2.1 m. Sided thickness of the keelson abaft the step is 35 cm which expands to 47 cm at the step. The raised and expanded section of the keelson, from abaft the pump shaft to just forward of the mortise, measures 1.42 m in length, and 39 cm in thickness. Notched to fit over the floors, the keelson was fastened to the keel with iron bolts, but only one, which was placed through the after rise in the mast step, is visible. An adze or broad ax gouge mark was noted on the port side of the step, possibly indicating the midpoint of the vessel.

The mainmast mortise is large, measuring 94 cm in length, 22 cm in width, and 20 cm deep. At the bottom of the mortise a hole, 35 mm in diameter, is situated 41.5 cm forward of the after end. The hole, which extended 42 cm into a floor frame below the keelson, appears to have been a fastener position that was drilled but not used. At the forward end of the mortise, a distinctive cross, 6 cm by 10 cm, was gouged into the wood. While the meaning of this mark is unclear, it may have had religious significance, much like the secular practice of depositing a coin in the step for good luck. It also is located at the ship’s point of maximum breadth, since the floor of the master couple frame lies directly below the carving. At either end of the mortise are lodged two wood pieces once used to firmly wedge the mast heel in place. The forward piece is a shim that measures 8 cm long, 22 cm wide, and 23.5 cm high. The after piece is a mast chock measuring 33 cm long, 20 cm wide, and 19 cm high. The space between these two wooden elements would have allowed a mast heel tenon of a maximum length of 53 cm to be fitted. According to contemporary Spanish shipwright practice, as evidenced on the Basque whaling galleon, San Juan, that sank in Red Bay, Labrador, in 1565, the width of the mast step mortise was equal to the sided thickness of the keel, and also corresponded to one‑half the diameter of the mainmast (Grenier 1994, pers. comm.). This relationship also is reflected in the equal dimensions of the Emanuel Point mortise width (22 cm) and the thickness of the keel amidships (22 cm); however, a space of 53 cm for the mainmast tenon would seem too large for a mast of 44 cm in diameter. Perhaps there was an additional chock or wedge in the mortise that became dislodged from the step, along with the mast, after the wrecking event. Or, perhaps the builders of the Emanuel Point Ship may not have followed a standard convention in shaping the mainmast heel.

Two smaller mortises in the mast step may have housed tenons for vertical timbers supporting the lower deck or pump well assembly. Just forward of the mast step mortise shim is the remnant of a tenoned stub, 8 cm long and 17 cm wide, still in its mortise. The stub may represent the remains of a pillar, or stanchion, used to support a lower deck beam. Aft of the mainmast step, there is a smaller mortise let into the keelson, perhaps intended for a framing timber for the pump well housing. The mortise measures 12 cm long, 8 cm wide, and 4.5 cm deep.

Pump Sumps

Aft of the mainmast mortise and on either side of the step are two carved-out pump shaft receptacles, each approximately 32 cm in radius, leading into the bilge. Since every wooden ship leaks, especially at sea, functional pumps (bombas) to clear water from the lower hull are a critical part of seafaring and require constant attention and care. The pump sumps extend between two floors to the garboard strake, and are situated 30 cm abaft the mainmast mortise. Only the port sump was excavated; the starboard was left undisturbed. Width of the mast step between the two sumps measures 23 cm. Each sump once held a pump shaft (mangueta), fashioned from the hollowed-out trunks of trees to form a tube. Water in the bilge was manually forced up the shafts by various types of piston rods and valves to the main deck, where it was allowed to run overboard. Pumping the bilge (achicar la bomba) was a routine chore aboard a ship; on older vessels continual leakage had to be monitored carefully for the sake of cargo below and the safety of the ship. Crewmen on the first daylight watch took a keen interest in the color of water coming up from the bilge. If it was dark and foul, they were glad; if it was clear and green, they began to worry.

A similar dual pump arrangement was recorded on another Basque galleon found near San Juan in Red Bay, Labrador (Grenier 1988:76, Fig. 14), while San Juan only had one pump. The early 16th-century Spanish wreck at Highborn Cay, Bahamas had two pump sumps; however, both were situated on the port side of the step, and the aftermost one appeared to be unfinished, or aborted (Smith 1993:71). To improve safety at sea, one of the many maritime edicts of Philip II required in 1552 that newly-constructed ships were to have two pumps (Casado Soto 1991:99). Enforcement of this requirement may have taken time to become widespread. Unlike the single pump sump in San Juan, which was found to be rather crudely fashioned (Waddell 1985: 257), the sumps in the Emanuel Point Ship appear to have been carefully carved with forethought and finished with care.

Although no remnants of pump shafts or hardware were found, a small square board, 21 cm in length, 18.5 cm in width, and 2 cm in thickness, with a nail at each corner, was discovered lying on the garboard strake. This board may have provided a bed on which a pump foot valve (morterete) rested. A similar board was found in the bilge of the Fuxa wreck in Cuba, thought to be Nuestra Señora del Rosario, which ran aground in 1590. It displayed a distinctive circular impression of the foot valve base on one side ( Smith 1993, pers. comm.; Lopez, Perez 1993). The lack of pressure marks on the Emanuel Point board suggests that perhaps the pump tube rested not on the board against the hull, but rather was braced on the exposed floors on either side of the pump shaft (Oertling 1993, pers. comm.; Lopez, Perez 1993). A smaller section of the tube, around 22 cm in diameter, could have extended the pump bore into the sump and onto the valve and its board. Arranged in this fashion, stress created by downward tube pressure would have been taken by the floors, instead of the board.

To protect pump sumps from becoming clogged by ballast stones or bilge debris, a pump well (arca), or wooden enclosure, was constructed around the pump shafts. Several disarticulated structural remnants discovered around the sump probably represent baseboards from the pump well. One baseboard remnant, lying to port and parallel with the pump sump, was found in place; a portion of it extended over the buttresses and bilge boards. Others were not sufficiently preserved to reconstruct the architectural features of the pump well. As mentioned above, the small mortise at the transition from the step to the keelson may have housed a pump well framing timber.

Buttresses and Bilge Boards

The mainmast step is supported laterally by buttresses, four of which were uncovered on the port side of the keelson. The buttresses were intended to brace the step, preventing its movement athwartships as the ship sailed on various tacks, or rolled from side to side. Three removable bilge boards are let into the spaces between the buttresses to protect this area from trash that might clog the bilge, and subsequently the pump. Timbers partially visible on the unexcavated starboard side of the keelson revealed the same arrangement as the port side. A similar number of buttresses and bilge boards were found on San Juan (Stevens 1983:7, Fig. 1) while the Highborn Cay Wreck mast step was supported by only three buttresses per side (Smith 1993: 68-69. Figs. 3.7, 3.8). The thicker end of each buttress rests against the mast step, while the outboard end butts up to a ceiling plank. Each timber is toe‑nailed in place to the mast step and fastened to the floor at the opposite end with square-shanked iron spikes. The outboard ends of the buttresses are let into the adjacent ceiling plank, which has been sawn with 7.5 cm-deep cutouts to accept them, thus preventing the assembly from shifting under stress.

Buttresses are 63 cm in length, and taper in molded height from approximately 25 cm at the mast step to 6.5 cm at the ceiling. Sided thicknesses are 11.5 cm for the first or forwardmost buttress, 12.5 cm for the second, and 17 cm for the last two. An adze mark 8 cm in length and parallel to the keelson was noted on the second buttress. Rabbets (grooves), approximately 2.5 cm in depth and between 3 cm to 4.5 cm width, were cut on the interior and upper edge of each buttress to allow bilge boards to fit between, and even with the tops of, the four timbers.

Lying between, and at one time even with, the four port buttresses are three bilge boards (tablas de la canal), fashioned so that they could easily be removed to inspect the lower bilge area. Although still in place, the boards have been mashed down and broken by a ballast stone spill that apparently occurred at the time of the ship’s wrecking. In addition to the buttress rabbets, the port side of the mast step’s upper edge is slightly notched out to accept the inboard edges of the first and second bilge boards. This allowed for a tighter seam between the boards and the mast step. The two forward bilge boards are 70 cm in length and 21 cm in width. The third is broken, with its upper half missing, and is 17 cm in width. Each board is 2.5 cm in thickness.

Ceiling

Runs of ceiling planks (amuradas) were fastened to frames on the interior of wooden ships’ hulls to prevent ballast stones, or shifting cargo, from damaging the integrity of the outer hull planks. Midships ceiling uncovered on the port side of the mast step consisted of seven common planks, totaling four strakes (continuous longitudinal runs of planks). Ceiling widths are approximately 31 cm to 34 cm with thicknesses ranging from 5 cm to 7 cm. One extremely narrow board (only 5 cm wide) was noted running along the outboard side of the pump sump; it may have been inserted after the wider planks were laid. A butt joint between ceiling planks is visible next to the after section of the mast step. Three square iron fasteners, 2 cm in cross section, fasten the two outermost planks to the frames below. Inner ceiling runs lie unfastened on the frames. Additionally, two large knots were noted on the outer two ceiling planks, suggesting that a lower grade of wood was utilized in this area.

Outboard of the third run of ceiling planks is a chamfered foot wale (a thicker ceiling plank), which served to strengthen the hull where elements of the framing (floors and futtocks) are joined. The width of the footwale is 18.5 cm, and its thickness estimated at 15 cm to 16 cm. The top of the footwale is beveled on both inboard and outboard edges; dimensions of the bevels are 4 cm, and 9 cm on the flat part. Two fasteners in squared recesses, 70 cm apart, secured the footwale to frames.

Framing

Midships framing is composed of alternating floor timbers (varengas) and first futtocks (genoles), which represent the “ribs” (ligaçon) of the ship’s skeleton. Floors are laid at intervals across the top of the keel. Central waterways, or limber holes (groeras), were cut through the bottom edge of the floors and run parallel to the keel. The waterways allowed circulation of bilge water through the hull to the pump sump; they measure 6 cm in width and 1.5 cm in height. The waterway of the floor forward of the pump well appears to be blocked by a concretion.

Outboard, and between each floor are fastened futtocks to form an interlocking and alternating band of timbers that curve outwards and upwards from the keel to form the framework of the hull. On-center spacing of floor timbers is 36 cm to 38 cm, and floor dimensions are 18 cm to 20 cm in sided width, and 18 cm of molded thickness at the wrong head and 25 cm at the keel. Each wrong head (palmejar, the outboard end of the floor timber) was notched out where small iron fasteners were driven into the first futtock. The main connection point between floors and futtocks, however, was obscured by ceiling and bottom planking. Interlocking dovetail scarphs were a common method of connecting floors and futtocks on ships of the 16th century (Oertling 1989c:102); although their presence is suspected here, dovetail scarphs could not be confirmed without disassembling the ceiling planking. A treenail hole on the forward molded face of the master couple frame extends horizontally to connect the first futtock.

Based on a point at which the direction of the notches in the wrong heads changed (from facing aft to facing forward), the ship’s main frame (quaderna maestre) was determined. Located at the broadest part of the hull (below the forward end of the mainmast step mortise), the main frame is distinguished by a master couple, where the main floor has two futtocks attached to it, instead of one. At this point, futtock placement changes, i.e., forward of the main frame, futtocks are fastened to the forward edge of each floor, and abaft the main frame, they are attached to the after edge of each floor. In this way, the ship’s interlocking framework was given uniform integrity and strength. Deadrise (the amount of elevation above the horizontal plane) in the midship floor, from centerline to the outboard edge of the port footwale, is flat, rising at around one degree. Beyond the footwale, the floor curved upwards to begin the turn of the bilge.

First futtocks are placed approximately 65 cm away from the center of the keel. Futtock sided widths are between 16 cm and 18 cm, and their molded thicknesses are 19 cm. The aft futtock of the master couple extends for a length of 87 cm, from its tapered inboard heel to a splintered outboard end that terminated abruptly, along with the ceiling planking. At this point, continued outboard excavations for some two meters, following a one-meter wide trench, encountered no additional ship’s hull structure. Instead, only loose ballast stones, ceramic sherds, and a single length of heavy rope, running parallel to the hull, were found. Below, only sterile sand was found. Apparently, the ship suffered from a violent pounding on the sand bar, which caused severe damage to this portion of the hull.

Hull Planking

Although hull structure was absent on the port side beyond the outer ceiling plank, removal of sediment underneath the broken frames revealed a 7.5 cm thick hull plank, heavily concreted with barnacles and corrosion. Pillars composed of iron corrosion and sand, reminiscent of Titanic’s “rusticles” (Ballard 1989:208), extend downwards from the fastener heads into the sterile sediments below the hull. A segment of the garboard strake (traca de aparadura), where it joins the keel at the bottom of the pump sump, was found to be 28.5 cm in width.

Keel

The only opportunity to examine the ship’s keel occurred during test excavation of the port pump well. The keel has a sided thickness of 22 cm, which corresponds to the width of the mainmast mortise.

Stern Structure

Excavations between the ballast mound and a partially exposed gudgeon (the female part of the rudder hinge), revealed the articulated remains of the tail of the ship, from the after end of the keelson to the sternpost. This portion of the lower hull was the narrowest part of the vessel, which ran aft below the waterline towards the rudder. A total of eleven 2 m2 excavation units were opened between August 1994 and June 1995 revealing articulated and disarticulated ship structure, rudder fittings, lead sheathing, and iron fastener concretions, as well as many other artifacts.

The stern architecture of the ship was exposed over a distance of 4.5 m, and included the after end of the keelson, eleven tail frames, lower hull planking, and the sternpost and stern knee. In addition, the rudder was encountered, along with its fittings. The surviving height of the stern structure is estimated to be 1.4 m, from the bottom of the keel to the eroded tops of the frames. The whole structure lists to port some 4 to 7 degrees, which corresponds to the port list measured amidships.

Keel

At the stern of the hull, the keel has a 20 cm sided thickness, which is 2 cm less than at midships. Heavy concentrations of corrosion products from the rudder gudgeon straps prevented measurements to determine the molded height of the keel, as well as the manner in which the sternpost was joined to the keel.

Sternpost

This straight timber (codaste) was the principal backbone of the stern of the ship, where the planking terminates, and on which the rudder was hung. Originally rounded at the after edge, the sternpost measures 35 cm in sided thickness and has a surviving molded height of 25 cm. Rabbets were cut 10 cm into the forward sided face, and 5 cm into the molded thickness, of the sternpost to let in hood‑ends of the planks and to provide a backing on which to fasten them with square-shanked iron spikes. The sternpost has an estimated rake (lançamiento) of 60 degrees of arc, measured upward from an imaginary horizontal extension of the keel (or, 30 degrees aft of vertical). San Diego, a Manila galleon lost off the Philippines in 1600, has the same sternpost rake (Carré et al. 1994: 148), while the more contemporary San Estéban, a Spanish nao wrecked in 1554 off Padre Island, Texas, had a slightly lesser rake of 65 degrees (Rosloff and Arnold 1984: 291).

Stern Knee

The stern knee served both as a brace between the sternpost and keel, and as a base for the after most frames. Fayed (fitted smoothly) to both the sternpost and keel, the stern knee is 21 cm in sided thickness and 20 cm in molded height at the forward end (lower limb), and 18 cm sided and 10 cm molded at the upper end (upper limb). The knee occupies a horizontal distance of 2.5 m and an estimated vertical distance of 65 cm. Two visible fasteners, an iron fastener 7 mm in diameter and a wooden treenail (cabilla de palo) 3.5 cm in diameter, fasten the stern knee to the keel. The iron fastener is located in a triangle-shaped recess at the forward and beveled end of the stern knee between Frames 7 and 8, and the treenail is situated between Frames 2 and 3. Fabricated from a naturally-curved timber, the stern knee has a thickened forward end which slopes downwards, forming a slight dip, before rising to meet the sternpost. A portion of the rising section, on the port side between Frames 1 and 2, has been beveled, possibly to remove an unwanted segment of spoiled wood. The vertical end is finished and smoothed.

Framing

Eleven frames were recorded in the tail section. The frames were given numbers from 1 to 11 for recording purposes. Frame 1 is located forward of the sternpost and upper limb of the stern knee, while Frame 11 is located at the aft end of the keelson. All the frames in this section are made of compass timbers (naturally curved pieces) to shape the concave after end of the ship. The first ten frames in this section of the hull were at one time Y‑shaped, while Frame 11 is V‑shaped in appearance. Only Frame 10 retained the original worked crook between the two frame arms. Environmental factors, i.e., natural decay and shipworm (Teredo navalis) activity, have degraded the crooks of the other frames and subsequently the rising line (gradual longitudinal rise in height of the frames to effect a narrow stern) from Frame 11 to Frame 1. On the after side of Frame 10 is a curious, but distinctive hole, 3 cm in diameter and 5 cm deep, the function of which is unclear.

Keelson

The after end of the keelson is located approximately 7.6 m from the cross gouged in the mainmast mortise. Notched over and let into Frame 11, the keelson measures 22.5 cm in sided thickness and 29 cm in molded height. On either side of the keelson parallel to the frame are two indentations. Perhaps these were deliberately scalloped from the keelson, or alternately, are the result of ballast rock abrasion across the timber’s surface.

Ceiling Planking

Only the tip of a common ceiling board was noted during excavation of the stern area. The board protruded from sediments adjacent to the keelson on the starboard side of the hull; its dimensions are 20 cm in width and 6 cm in thickness. The timber terminates in a roughly 45-degree angle.

Hull Planking

Both starboard and port sides of the ship’s tail section have four runs of surviving outer strakes. No stealers (short planks inserted between strakes) were observed. Plank dimensions are between 14 cm and 33 cm in width, and between 5 cm and 8 cm in thickness. At their hood-ends, the lower stern planks are 5 cm in thickness, equal to those of San Estéban (Rosloff and Arnold 1984: 293).

Curiously, no treenails have been encountered in the stern planking excavated thus far. These wooden dowels typically were used to fasten planks to frames below the waterline, since they were non-corrosive and swelled to make a tight fastening connection. Rather, iron fasteners were recorded in a pattern of two or three round-headed, square-shanked planking nails aligned vertically to fasten planks to frames. However, on the second plank below the eroded frame tops on the port side, an additional fastener was placed aft and between the aligned fasteners. Original fastener positions also are evident on some of the eroded frame tops, such as those on Frames 2 and 3, where planking nail grooves are still present. Corrosion products from iron fasteners between the frames and on the interiors of the planks, along with sediment buildup, have combined to mildly distort the hull’s original fair lines. Caulking samples from between hull planking were removed for analysis.

Rudder

By the 15th century, the axial, or stern, rudder had become a key component in the development of seagoing sailing ships. Made from dry beams of straight timber bolted together, the rudder (timón) hung from the sternpost on iron hinges and was operated by a long tiller (caña) that ran inboard to the main deck. To protect the rudder from accidentally becoming unshipped if the vessel ran aground, shipwrights sometimes fashioned the after most end of the keel into a skeg that sloped back to the forward edge of the rudder, which was curved accordingly. If the rudder did become unshipped due to unforeseen circumstances, it was saved from becoming lost by a rudder pendant (barón del timón) consisting of chains or ropes attached to the hull on each side of the rudder, or by a piece of rope that passed through a hole in the rudder and was made fast to the ship.

The ship’s rudder was found lying behind and to starboard of the sternpost. It appears to have fallen from the sternpost onto its port side sometime after the wrecking incident. Maximum surviving length of the rudder is 2.8 m. Maximum breadth of the rudder is 91 cm, slanting upwards from the leading edge to an eroded terminus. Three pintles, the pins that hung in gudgeons on the sternpost to form hinges, are still fastened to the rudder. A more detailed discussion of the rudder hardware and the information it contains about the shape of the stern is in the following chapter.

The rudder was constructed from two thick planks of wood, similar to the rudder of Mary Rose, flagship of Henry VIII that sank in 1545 (Rule 1982:71). Other rudders from the sixteenth-century such as the Villefranche wreck, an early 16th-century Genoese carrack sunk off the French Mediterranean, had at least four composite pieces (Guérout et al. 1989: 33-34). San Diego’s rudder was constructed from three timbers (Carré et al. 1994: 148), and San Juan’s was built from one timber (Grenier 1995 pers. comm.). Wood samples were taken from each plank and await analysis. Much effort and craftsmanship, from the carpenter to the blacksmith, went into constructing a ship’s rudder.

The two wooden pieces are edge-joined with at least three large (ca. 5 cm in diameter) wrought-iron drift pins, driven in from the aft edge of the after plank to join the forward plank. The forwardmost plank (called the main piece) represents the principal structure of the rudder, tapering in width from the lower forward edge which is 73 cm to the uppermost surviving portion. Overall length of this plank is 2.7 m. The forward edge of this plank has been beveled to a sharp point. At the location of each pintle, this edge has been hollowed out on the starboard side to form a recess 30 cm in length and between 8 cm to 10 cm in depth. In cross section the recess is L-shaped, with more of the port side half remaining, which partially encloses the gudgeon where its joins the pintle (see inset C, Fig. 20). A similar arrangement is also shared by San Diego’s rudder at its pintle positions (Carré et al. 1994:140), whereas San Juan’s rudder has less depth of wood removed along the pintle shaft, but is widened and deepened where the gudgeon supported the pintle (Parks Canada 1995, pers. comm.).

The after most plank (called the after piece) is much narrower than the main piece, averaging 18 cm in width, and surviving for a length of 2.68 m. Thickness of both rudder planks averages 5 cm at the eroded top of the rudder, to 18 cm at the leading edge, to 21 cm at the after edge of the rudder. At a distance of 2.45 m above its base, the aft end of the main piece is recessed 3.5 cm for a distance of 43 cm to let in the forward end of the after piece. Mary Rose’s rudder also was constructed in this fashion, although its main piece was let into the after piece (Friel 1994:90).

Remnants of surviving rudders from this period on the Mary Rose, San Diego, and San Juan, reveal that they were constructed of straight timbers, which, when joined together, assumed the rake of the sternpost. However, Emanuel Point Ship rudder’s main piece is not straight, sloping at a 5-degree angle from the forward and lowermost end towards the uppermost end. A preliminary reconstruction of the rudder’s juxtaposition with the sternpost suggests that, when the rudder was shipped (hung) to the 60-degree raked sternpost, it descended below the longitudinal axis of the keel. Although the forward edge of the rudder base has been diagonally sawn to fit on top of a skeg at the after end of the keel, the presence of a skeg was not verified during excavations, due to the large amount of corrosion products adhering to the lower portion of the sternpost and keel. In comparison, the rudder of San Juan is safely situated level with the keel and protected by its skeg (Grenier 1995, pers. comm.); however, the rudders of both San Diego and the Dramont “H” wreck, an 18th-century vessel located off France, descended below the plane of the keel and skeg (Carré et al. 1994: 141; Michel L’Hour 1995, pers. comm.). A possible explanation for the design of the low-slung rudder is that its drag through the water and vulnerability to unshipping were offset by the additional steering capabilities provided by an extra “bite” into water below the hull. Such a rudder is depicted on a contemporary drawing of a typical 16th-century Italian galley, in which quick and responsive maneuvering was necessary (Dotson 1994:160).

Disarticulated Outboard Hull Remains

A number of wooden elements from the ship’s hull were found adjacent to the stern, lying in a jumble together with iron rudder and hull fastenings, and other artifacts. Several, which retained remnants of lead sheathing, appear to be the remains of planking that came loose from the lower hull. Others may have been portions of the internal framing of stern upperworks that fell as the hull disintegrated, such as a composite timber of two pieces found immediately perpendicular to the sternpost. In addition, many small pieces of wood of unknown function were recorded. Most of the wood is severely degraded, although some pieces still retain their general shapes. Barnacles, oysters, and fasteners buried in the sediments reflect the presence of other timbers, which have long since disintegrated.

Table III
Hull Scantling Measurements from the Emanuel Point Ship

Hull Overall

length (estimated): 29.5 m
beam (estimated): 9.48 m
depth of hold (estimated): 4.55 m
length to beam ratio (estimated): 3.11:1
capacity (estimated): 418 - 441 tons

Preserved Hull Measurements

length (estimated): 23 m - 25 m
port side breadth amidships (estimated): 1.8 m
starboard breadth (estimated): 2.8 m (midships)
height of hull remains at stern (estimated): 1.4 m

Keel

length (estimated): 20.14 m
molded height: undetermined
sided thickness amidships: 22 cm
sided thickness aft: 20 cm

Keelson

length (estimated): 15.2 m
molded height: 29 cm at stern,
sided thickness: 22 cm at stern, 34 cm amidships

Mainmast Step

length: +2.1 m
molded height: 39 cm
sided thickness: 47 cm

Step Mortise

length: 94 cm
width: 22 cm
depth: 20 cm

Floor Frames (forward)

molded height: 14 - 16 cm
sided thickness: 20 - 22 cm
average on center spacing: 45 cm

Floor Frames (midships)

molded height: 25 cm at keel, 18 cm at wronghead
sided thickness: 18 - 20 cm
average on center spacing: 36 - 38 cm

Floor Frames (aft)

average preserved height: 70 - 90 cm
sided thickness: 10 - 30 cm
average on center spacing: 32 - 44 cm

First Futtocks (midships)

molded height: 19 cm
sided thickness: 16 - 18 cm
preserved length on port side: 87 cm

Buttresses

maximum molded height inboard: 25 cm
minimum molded height outboard: 6.5 cm
sided thickness: 11.5 - 17 cm
length at their base: 63 cm

Hull Planking

thickness: 5 - 7 cm
width: 14 - 33 cm
garboard width amidships: 28.5 cm

Footwale (on port side amidships)

molded height: 15 - 16 cm
sided thickness: 18.5 cm

Ceiling

thickness: 5 - 7 cm
width: 31 - 34 cm

Sternpost

molded height (preserved): 25 cm
sided thickness: 35 cm
length (estimated ): +70 cm
rake (estimated): 60° from horizontal (30° aft of vertical)

Stern Knee

forward end molded height: 20 cm (lower limb)
forward end sided thickness: 21 cm
aft end molded height: 10 cm (upper limb)
aft end sided thickness: 18 cm
length overall: 2.5 m
height (estimated): 65 cm

Discussion

As will be noted from the scantling list above, the dimensions of several critical architectural components of the Emanuel Point Ship hull remains have been estimated, since only portions of the site were uncovered during limited investigations. Certain measurements, such as the length of keel, length of keelson, maximum breadth of hull, etc., can only be accurately obtained by further excavation of the site. Despite this lack of information, a preliminary estimation of the ship’s original size and cargo capacity can be hypothesized by comparing available data from the hull remains with contemporary 16th-century sources on naval architecture, and recent studies of the topic. While any resulting conclusions can, at this point, only be considered as tentative, the exercise offers a glimpse of the size and volume of what once was a large sailing ship that carried people, arms, and supplies to Pensacola.

The basic unit of measurement used by medieval Spanish shipwrights was the codo, or cubit. Depending on regional usage through time, the value of the codo varied somewhat, causing a certain amount of confusion among modern students of maritime history. Standardization of weights and measures periodically was attempted by the government of Spain, but traditional (as well as colonial) values often persisted far from central authority. According to one scholar (Phillips 1987b:72), the modern value of the official shipbuilding codo (codo real, or royal cubit) is 56.5 cm. Another scholar (Casado Soto 1991:105), defines two kinds of codos: the codo real (also known as the codo cantabrico, or Cantabrian cubit) of 57.5 cm, and the codo castellano (Castilian cubit) of 55.7 cm. These differences in values, while slight, can become compounded to create diverging dimensional estimates, unless a standard unit is used for computation. For the purpose of this discussion, the codo value of 56.5 cm will be used (it falls almost exactly between the values of codos cantabricos and castellanos).

For mariners, the most important conceptualization of a ship’s size is its tonnage, expressed in tons. Medieval tonnage referred not to a ship’s weight, or the amount of water its hull displaced, but to the internal volume of the hold, i.e., the ship’s cargo carrying capacity. Therefore, a ton (from the wooden container called tun) was a unit of volume, rather than weight, and a vessel’s tonnage represented the hypothetical number of containers it could ship at sea. The Spanish unit of volume measurement, tonel, was the equivalent of two pipes (pipas) of wine, or eight cubic codos. Another unit, tonelada, originally was a unit of accounting, which was obtained by adding 20% to 25% to the estimated tonnage in toneles of a ship to increase its rate of pay when hired by the Spanish Crown. By the mid-16th century, the distinction between the two gradually became blurred; fraudulent abuses of customs fees and royal subsidies prompted a royal decree in 1590 that required the tonel macho to be used to measure gross cargo tonnage (Casado Soto 1991:103). Hence, calculation of cargo space (arqueamiento) in the complex and irregular shape of a ship’s hull was subject to varying interpretations, and also was dependent mainly on whether a vessel was outfitted for merchant or naval use. Basically, tonnage calculation evolved to become expressed in arithmetical formulas based on principal dimensions of ships’ constructional components, such as length of keel, maximum breadth, or beam, width of the floor, depth of hold, and overall length. These dimensions were also useful in characterizing the general shape of a ship’s hull by expressing ratios between them, for example, the ratio between overall length and beam.

One of the first published treatises on Spanish shipbuilding was Diego García de Palacio’s Instrucción náutica para navegar, which appeared in Mexico in 1587. Palacio’s discussion of the principal architectural dimensions required to build a nao of 400 tons is a useful template with which to approach a hypothetical reconstruction of the Emanuel Point Ship. The first step is to determine the keel length (quilla), a measurement which is lacking at present. Palacio stated that the midship frame should be placed two codos forward of the midpoint of the keel (Palacio 1944: fols. 92-92v). The site plan of another Spanish shipwreck, San Diego, indicates that the position of this 300-ton galleon’s main frame on the keel was close to Palacio’s recommendation (Carré et al. 1994:147). On the Emanuel Point hull, the distance between the center of the main frame and the estimated point of the keel’s aft terminus is calculated at 11.2 m (19.82 codos). Moving two codos, or 1.13 m, aft from the center of the main frame gives a keel midpoint of 17.82 codos, or 10.07 m. Adding the two halves of the keel together brings the total length of the keel to 20.14 m, or 35.6 codos.

According to Palacio, the beam (manga) of the ship, measured between the outer sides of the main frame without hull planking, should be almost half the keel length (Palacio 1944: fol. 90v). A keel length to beam ratio of 2.125:1 (for every 2.125 codos of keel length there is a corresponding codo of beam), figured from Palacio, produces a beam of 16.77 codos, or 9.48 m. A check to the relative accuracy of this measurement is the floor dimension (plan), or the distance along the flat part of the midship floor to the bottom of the curve signaling the turn of the bilge. Palacio recommended that this distance should be about one third of the ship’s beam, or 0.32 codos for every one of beam ((Palacio 1944: fol. 91). Fortunately, the floor dimension is available on the Emanuel Point Ship. It was determined by recording a cross section of the port side of the hull at the main frame, which measured 1.5 m. When doubled to include the starboard side, the floor equals 3 m, or 5.31 codos, which is just under a third of the ship’s estimated beam. This value provides a ratio of .31 codos of beam to every one codo of floor. A Spanish shipbuilder of the time may have obtained a greater or smaller value depending on his rule-of-thumb.

Depth of hold (puntal), according to Palacio and reinterpreted by Phillips (1993:295) puts forth a ratio of 0.48 codos to one codo of beam. This equals 8.05 codos, or 4.55 m, for depth of hold, and was measured from the top of the floors to the top of the lower deck planks. Overall depth of the hull in the midships section, using the ratio 0.71 codos of depth for one of beam (Phillips 1987b:72), equals 11.9 codos, or 6.72 m.

To the Spanish shipwright, the overall length (esloria) of the vessel was expressed as the distance from the stem to sternpost along the lower most deck, or the deck above the hold. This measurement was crucial in calculating the tonnage of the vessel. Palacio explained that to extend the hull beyond the keel, the stem post should rake forward one-third the distance of the keel length, while the stern post should rake aft one-sixth the length of keel. Another source on contemporary shipbuilding, Fernando de Oliveira, illustrated how the stem and stern post rakes could be obtained (Smith 1993:58). According to Oliveira, the height of the stem, as well as the stern, should equal one-third of the keel’s length, which corresponds with Palacio’s estimation of the stem post’s rake. To obtain the bow shape, a height of 11.9 codos, or 6.72 m, is measured from the bottom of the keel upwards. A compass is then placed at this point, and an arc is drawn from the bottom of the keel to a height equal to the above mentioned height. Excavations revealed that the stern post has a rake of 60 degrees, which was documented by an electronic leveling machine. By extending a line aft from the proposed end of the keel upwards to the height suggested by Oliveira, the basic outline of the hull begins to take shape.

At this point, the overall length of the ship can now be estimated. Although the molded height of the keel is unknown, by taking into account its known sided thickness of 22 cm, and using this figure as a minimal height of the keel, then adding the height of the floors (25 cm), the depth of hold can be computed. The estimated depth of hold is 4.55 m, or 8.04 codos, which when measured from the top of the floors, provides a point from which to draw a level line to the bow and to the stern. The distance equals 29.5 m, or 52.21 codos.

These computations, based on actual measurements of the Emanuel Point hull remains and the extrapolated dimensions of timbers that could not be measured, when guided by contemporary 16th-century shipbuilding proportions, appear to harmonize with those of Palacio’s 400-ton model. Palacio wrote that a ship of 400 tons should have 34 codos of keel and 16 codos of beam, 11.5 codos depth of hold (which is a third of said keel), and a length of 51.33 codos (1944: fols. 90-91v). The Emanuel Point Ship is estimated to have had 35.65 codos of keel and 16.77 codos of beam, 8.05 codos depth of hold, and a length of 52.21 codos. The shallower estimated depth of hold compared to that listed by Palacio may be due to his depth measurement of all the enclosed area of the hull, including the upper deck, which was 3 codos above the lower deck (Phillips 1987c:194).

Given these calculations of the basic hull dimensions (length of keel, beam, depth of hold, and overall length), the tonnage of the Emanuel Point hull can be estimated. Using a formula common in Spain during the 16th and 17th centuries—depth of hold times beam, the result divided by 2, times length on deck, the result divided by 8 (Phillips 1993:236)—gives a tonnage of 441 toneladas. Using a Cantabrian formula prevalent from 1520 to 1590 in northern Spain—length on deck times (beam divided by 2, plus depth of hold, the result divided by 2)2, the result divided by 8 (Casado Soto 1991:106, Table 2)—and converting the metric hull dimensions to the codo cantabrico, the Emanuel Point Ship had a tonnage of 418 toneles machos. Using yet another formula used in Seville and Cadiz around 1560—length of keel times beam times depth of hold, times two-thirds, the result divided by 8 (Casado Soto 1991:106, Table 2)—and converting the metric into codo castellano, produces a tonnage of 419 toneles.

The Emanuel Point Ship’s hypothetical tonnage, according to these three formulas, ranges from 418 toneles to 441 toneladas. Comparison with another formula reported by Jean-Pierre Proloux, working in conjunction with the Basque galleon project in Red Bay—beam divided by 2, times overall length, times depth, all divided by 8, the result multiplied by 0.95 (Morris 1993: 13)—using the codo real of 56.5 cm as the basis of measurement, produces a tonnage of 418 toneladas. This formula is similar to an official formula for warships—depth times beam, divided by 2; the result times length on deck; minus 5%; the result divided by 8, plus 20% (Phillips 1990:62)—which subtracted 5% to account for reduced cargo capacity due to heavier internal bracing, but added 20% to account for increased weight of men and munitions. Using the warship formula, the Emanuel Point Ship’s tonnage is estimated at 418 toneladas, increased by 84 to become 502 toneladas.

Ship's Hardware

Anchor

A broken wrought-iron anchor (ancla) was found buried fluke-down on the shoreward side of the wreckage, just to starboard of the vessel’s axis. The overall length of the anchor’s shank (asta) is 3.14 m, from crown to the broken end, which appears to have been twisted under heavy stress. The missing portion of the shank would have included stock lugs, around which a two-piece wooden stock (cepo) would have been fastened, and an iron anchor ring. The shank is square in cross section, tapering from 10 cm, where it joins the crown, to 5 cm at the broken end. Despite the break, dimensions and proportions of the remainder of the anchor are of diagnostic importance. The lengths of the arms, from crown to fluke tips, measure exactly 1 m.; and the distance from fluke tip to fluke tip, measured across the shank one meter above the crown, is 90 cm—forming an approximate equilateral triangle from tip to crown to tip. Similarly, the flukes’ palms are shaped in equilateral triangles, measuring 35 cm in length and 35 cm in width. The palms are welded to the upper surfaces of the arms, occupying roughly one-third of their extremity, but are set back 8 cm from their pointed tips. The thicknesses of the arms from crown to tips decreases gradually from 10 cm to 8 cm.

By the 15th and 16th centuries, anchors had assumed rough proportions that had been developed through trial and error. Tomé Cano (1611) claimed that the shank of an anchor should be three times the length of one of its arms, or even longer, if the anchor was to be effective. In addition, the anchor stock should be the same length as the shank. To ascertain whether a given anchor had the proper proportions, he recommended using a rod to gauge three critical distances: from the point where the arm joined the shank (crown) to the tip of the fluke; from the tip of the fluke perpendicularly to the shank; and from that point on the shank down to where the arm joined the shank. If all three distances were equal (forming an equilateral triangle), he considered it to be “an anchor of good measurement” (Cano 1611: fol. 30r).

Cano complained about the “softness” of anchors made in Italy and Spain, which required their shanks to be longer to provide better holding power. He also advised against using Flemish anchors made of “sour” iron, which tended to break under stress (Cano 1611: fol. 29v). Spanish anchors were noted for their structural weakness; “as meager as a Spanish anchor” is said to have been a Dutch expression of the times (van Nouhuys 1951: 44). Of ten anchors found in association with the remains of the 1554 Spanish fleet wrecked on Padre Island, Texas, three were found to have been broken at the shank, similar to the Emanuel Point Ship anchor, and the shanks of several others had been bent at least twice under stress of use (Arnold and Weddle 1978:224-227). The dimensions and proportions of these anchors are quite similar to the Emanuel Point anchor; another close parallel is the sheet (largest of a ship’s) anchor found on an early 16th-century Spanish shipwreck at Molasses Reef, in the Turks and Caicos Islands (Keith 1987:162-164). In addition, both anchors have a chip broken from one of their flukes—another example of the brittleness of the iron used by blacksmiths of the time to forge ship anchors.

The anchor’s location on the site suggests that it may have been a starboard bower anchor, catted to the forward gunwale. Although its situation on the bottom—one fluke dug into the sandbar—would be the normal position for an anchor which had been intentionally deployed from the ship, its proximity to the vessel’s remains suggests otherwise, since a longer scope of anchor cable would be required, even in shallow water. In addition, the anchor’s shank appears to have been broken at some time in antiquity below the wooden stock, and thereafter could not have been a functional device to secure the ship. And, had the anchor been deployed without its wooden stock, the arms would have lain flat on the bottom, instead of digging into it. Perhaps the anchor was fast in the sandbar and broke just before the ship came to wreck and settle near it. Alternately, the anchor may have been deployed and broken in an attempt to kedge the vessel off the sandbar after it wrecked; however, its position close to the starboard bow, rather than offshore in deeper water, does not support this conclusion. The presence of the remains of a cant frame in association with the anchor further confounds the question. Perhaps future discovery of the missing anchor segment, with its ring and stock remains, can help to reconstruct the role of the anchor in the ship’s demise.

Rudder Fittings

Pairs of wrought-iron pintles and gudgeons were bolted to the rudder and sternpost to act as attachment points and hinges for the rudder’s movement from side to side. These assemblages were called by the Portuguese machefemeas due to their male-female relationship (Smith 1993:91). The female gudgeons (hembras del timón) were long iron straps embracing the sternpost, each with an eye to receive a male pintle (macho del timón), which had a vertical pin attached to the leading edge of the rudder. The rudder was fashioned with its several pintles to be hung into corresponding sternpost gudgeons, but was left unsecured so that it could be unshipped for repairs by hoisting it upward.

Four pairs of rudder pintles and gudgeons were found during excavation of the stern. Three concreted pintles were discovered fastened to the surviving portion of the rudder, although the strap of the uppermost pintle has deteriorated, those of the lower two are still extant. The ends of the straps appear to have been designed to extend completely around the after edge of the rudder, where they were joined together; although, strap ends of the two complete pintles have since become slightly separated (see inset B, Fig. 20). Pintles are spaced, (center to center) top pintle to middle pintle 95 cm, and middle to bottom 70 cm. The bottom pintle, which is the most intact, has a strap length of 97 cm along the starboard side of the rudder. The strap varies in width from 13 cm at its forward edge, to 12 cm at its midsection, and widening to 16 cm at its after end. The shaft of the pintle has been slightly wrenched forward, and measures 13 cm in length and between 8 cm and 12 cm in diameter. The middle pintle exhibits signs of having been severely distorted; its pin is contorted upwards with the lower portion broken off. The top pintle, with its starboard strap missing, consists of the forward shaft area measuring 35 cm in overall length and 9 cm in thickness.

An example of the fastening pattern of the pintle straps was observed on the top pintle, due to the absence of the starboard strap: a series of four or five square-shanked fasteners, 2 cm square, were used to fasten the strap to the rudder. The fasteners are not in line with each other, but alternate up and down, and are spaced between 13 cm to 18 cm apart. Due to the eroded nature of the wood at this area, one or more of the these fasteners may represent a port side fastener protruding through the rudder.

A fourth pintle (00,920) was found abaft the sternpost on the port side of the ship. This pintle appears to be smaller and different in construction than those on the rudder, and most likely is an uppermost pintle on the ship. It has a smaller length (50 cm, not including the pin) and pin diameter (11 -12 cm), and its straps are not joined as were the others. The pintle’s arms are 20 cm apart at their extremities, and 13 cm apart close to the pin. Arm widths are 12 cm near the pin, and 8 cm at their ends.

Four rudder gudgeons were found in association with the sternpost, although only one remains attached to the ship’s hull. Two others appear to have fallen downwards onto each other as the sternpost deteriorated after the wrecking event. A fourth gudgeon may have become disarticulated from the sternpost along wth the rudder, since it was found broken in two behind the hull.

The lower most gudgeon remains fastened to the hull, with four round-headed, square-shanked fasteners that were driven through both planking and frames. Gudgeon arms slope diagonally downward toward the ring. The forward extremities of the arms appear to have been hammered to a round flat shape to provide larger attachment surfaces at their ends.

A second gudgeon (unrecovered) was situated just above the lower articulated one, but free of the sternpost, from which it appears to have fallen. Since the angle of its arms is much wider than that of the lowermost gudgeon (and wider than a third gudgeon found on top of it), this second gudgeon may have been the third from the bottom fitting on the sternpost. It was left in-situ, concreted to the sterpost assembly.

The third gudgeon (00,321) from the bottom actually was the first to be discovered; it was located only 10 cm below the sand during preliminary metal detector surveys of the site. Remnants of lead and cloth were discovered on the starboard arm, which was broken, and stress cracks were noted on the arms on either side of the gudgeon ring.

The gudgeon has been partially conserved and restored. Its overall length, measured along the port arm, is 1.4 m; the length of the surviving starboard arm is 35 cm. Outer diameter of the gudgeon ring is 14 cm; inner diameter is 11 cm. The thickness of the iron used to make the ring and straps is 1.5 cm; strap widths are 8 cm. Two fastener holes, 9.5 cm (center-to-center) apart were noted on the port arm; the aftermost hole is quite close to the ring, whereas a corrsponding fasterner hole in the starboard arm is farther forward of the ring. The estimated width of the ship’s hull between the ends of the gudgeon‘s arms is approximately 78 cm; at the ring it is 20 cm Due to the narrow angle of its arms, and the fitting’s close proximity to the sternpost, this gudgeon may originally have been the second from the bottom.

A fourth gudgeon (01,171) was found to port abaft the stern post asssembly. The angle of its arms cannot be determined, since the arms are broken and missing their ring. The longest arm is 1.18 m in length; the other is 1.08 m. Both arms are concreted with corrosion products and the remains of lead sheathing. This fitting could have been the third or fourth gudgeon from the bottom of the sternpost.

No gudgeons that would have fit on a flat stern transom were found; the arms of the gudgeons do not angle away to fit flush against a flat surface, rather they appear to have been fastened to a narrow and rounded stern. In comparison, gudgeon shapes from the 1554 Padre Island, Texas, shipwrecks (Arnold and Weddle 1978:221, 236, 311; Olds 1976:44), and the Molasses Reef Wreck (Oertling 1989b:238), indicate that those ships had a square tuck, flat transom. The Basque galleon, San Juan, which had five sets of rudder fittings, also had a flat transom (Grenier 1985:68); however, the uppermost gudgeon is an eyebolt fastened to the sternpost. This raises the question of whether the four pairs of rudder pintles and gudgeons found on the Emanuel Point Ship represent a complete set for the vessel, or only those that were located at and below the waterline, where the ship narrowed towards the rudder.

Fastenings

One of the largest single artifact categories in the Emanuel Point collection is iron fasteners (clavazon), numbering more than 500 examples. Some are whole, but show stress and distortion caused by the ship’s wrecking and subsequent disarticulation; others, including many of the smaller fasteners, are broken and fragmentary examples. All fasteners are heavily encrusted with corrosion products, and most have lost their original metal composition. After over four centuries of submersion, the iron has converted to a black iron-sulfide slush. However, in most cases, the original shape of the fastener, whether whole or broken, has been preserved in its concretion, which can serve as a mold to cast an epoxy replica for study and display. The process of recording, cleaning, and casting fastener concretions requires time and care to produce faithful replicas; to date, less than a hundred whole fasteners have been replicated.
A collection of 65 whole fasteners has been asssembled for analysis in this report.

Spanish shipwrights employed a number of standardized iron fasteners in their trade. A study of Basque shipbuilding contracts (Barkham 1981) indicates that iron fasteners were sold by weight, according to the number it took to make a pound, and that estimates of the total weight of fasteners required to build a ship of a certain tonnage were used in the purchasing negotiations of a shipyard. For example, mid-16th-century shipwrights understood by rule-of-thumb that a ship of 200 tons would require 50 quintals (hundredweights) of iron fasteners, which was the case when fasteners were purchased for the construction of a vessel named Santa María in 1559 (Barkham 1981:29).

The Basque contracts specified 12 different types of fasteners that were used
for shipbuilding. Four of these were round (clavo redondo) and referred to as bolts (pernos), while the other eight were square (clavo cuadrado), and referred to as spikes (pregos) (Barkham 1981:29). García de Palacio wrote in 1587 that fasteners used to build ships were classified as pernos de punta (pointed drift bolts), pernos de chaveta (forelock bolts), clavos de barrote (scantling nails), clavos de escora (bottom nails) and medio escora (medium bottom nails), and clavos de costado (nails for the ship’s sides) (Palacio 1944:fol. 110). A study of Spanish ship contruction contracts and an 18th-century illustrated naval dictionary (Lyon 1979) also has shown that spikes and nails were classified as clavos de peso, as opposed to bolts and wooden treenails (cabillas). Among the clavos are distinguished larger fasteners, named encolamiento, cinta, costado, and escora. Each of these came in varying sizes, from the largest (major) to the smallest (quarto). Aside from clavos de peso, there were smaller fasteners, such as barrotes, tillados, and estoperoles (tacks).

A preliminary study of over a thousand fasteners from the Molasses Reef Wreck (Keith 1987) was the first to attempt to catalog actual fastener remains from a 16th century shipwreck. Each example was categorizes by differences in head shape and diameter, shank length, shank cross-section shape and diameter, and point config-uration. Rather than attempting to assign contemporary 16th-century nomenclature to the different types of fasteners, the study divided examples into bolts (large, long, round-shanked fasteners with added-on heads), drift pins (long, square-shanked, peen-headed fasteners with beveled ends), nails (slender, headed, square or octangonal-shanked fasteners with fine drawn or flat points), and tacks (small, short-shanked, sharp-pointed nails with broad flat heads) (Keith 1987:110-114).

Recovery of numerous examples of iron fasteners from the 16th-century terrestrial sites of Santa Elena and Fort San Felipe has resulted in the formulation of a hypothetical model for the classification and typology of Spanish nails (South et al. 1988). Analysis of field specimens was compared with Lyon’s (1979) documentation of 18th-century ship fasteners to see if there was a pattern of colonial nails by type and size that could be useful to archaeologists. The nail model differentiates between nails used by a ship’s carpenter (carpintero de ribera) and those used by a joiner, or building carpenter (carpintero de blanco). Although both kind of nails were known by the same names and had similar dimensions, nails used in joining had flatter heads than those used in shipbuilding.

Preliminary measurement of 65 fastener casts of whole nails recovered in concretions from the Emanuel Point Ship suggests that they can be readily applied to South’s Spanish nail model. Those chosen for study were measured in overall length from the peak of the head to the end of the point; cross- sectional dimensions of the shank were taken at the base of the head and at the point. Each example has a square shank, and can generally be classified as a ship’s nail. Since the Emanuel Point examples are epoxy casts, their weights are not applicable to the model.

Table IV - Comparison of Reconstructed Whole Fasteners from the Emanuel Point Ship with South's Spanish Nail Model*

Type	Count	Length (range in mm)
* Adapted from South, et al. (1988)
Escora mayor	3	204 -305
Escora	10	168 -204
Media Escora	15	125 -168
Alfaxia	17	90 -125
Barrote	11	73 -90
Media barrote	5	57 -73
Quarto de barrote	4	less than 57

Lead Sheathing

European wooden sailing ships plying the South Atlantic and the Americas were subject to predations of the shipworm (Teredo navalis) which quickly devoured outer hull planking below the waterline. To combat this marine borer and to prevent fouling of ship’s hulls by other organisms, shipyard workers devised several methods of coating and sheathing exposed planks. One relatively inexpensive method employed an outer layer of fir planking, backed by felt and caulking, nailed to a ship’s hull to serve as sacrificial sheathing, which was replaced when consumed. A more permanent method used thin lead sheets to cover vulnerable portions of the hull, such as the seams between planks and around through-hull fittings, such as rudder gudgeons. This method appears to have been employed by Spanish ships in the 16th-century, and is evidenced by the remains of lead sheathing found in association with the wreck of San Estéban (Arnold and Weddle 1978; Rosloff and Arnold 1984), the wrecksite at Molasses Reef (Keith 1987), and the Emanuel Point Ship.

A large number of pieces of drawn lead sheets (planchas de plombo tirado) or patching material have been recovered to date in the stern portion of the shipwreck. They range in length from fragments of 7 cm to long strips of 75 cm. Widths vary from 6 to 21 cm, and thickness fluctuates between 1 and 3 mm. All have holes left by sheathing tacks (estoperoles), most have tack head impressions, and a few have impressions of caulking fabric. Thirty-five pieces of lead are considered diagnostic, since they are relatively straight and flat, and to varying degrees, they retain their original shapes. Additionally, there are nearly 200 small, mangled, and twisted fragments of lead. One of the smaller fragments (01,028) looks like a flattened tube and has no fastener holes. Most of the lead was recovered loose in sediments outside the hull; other pieces were found still attached to the hull, and were left in place. From shapes and sizes of the lead, the number and arrangement of fastener holes, and preserved impressions, a general pattern of sheathing can be deduced.

All of the diagnostic pieces have regular rows of sheathing tack holes. Of these, twenty-two have three distinct rows of holes. Spacing between these rows varies according to the widths of the lead strips, but all have a row along the upper and the lower edge, and a row along the middle of the strip. These lead strips appear to have been used to cover the seams (comentos) between hull planks and keep the caulking (estopa) from working out of the seams. One piece was observed in place, covering the hood ends of planks where they joined the sternpost. The outer rows of tacks would have been driven into the wooden planks, while the center row were driven directly into the caulked seam between the planks. Varying widths of the strips reflect differing widths of planks; strips with three rows of holes vary in width between 6 cm and 17 cm, while planks widths in the stern vary between 14 cm and 33 cm in width. Five other diagnostic strips probably belong in this category as well. Although they only have two rows of holes, their edges appear to have been ripped; originally they could have been wider, containing the usual three rows. Lead strips for seam sheathing have been reported on the wreck of San Estéban (Arnold and Weddle 1978:263); however, the strips were much narrower, covering only the seams between the planking with one row of fasteners, instead of three.

Five other diagnostic lead strips all have two rows of tack holes. Two of these pieces (00,545 and 00,321) were sheathing for a rudder gudgeon arm, beaten flush with the surrounding planking and tacked in place. They are 15 cm and 17 cm in width respectively and retain the raised impression of the gudgeon arm. The fastener rows run alongside the gudgeon and encircle it at the end. Two other strips (00,511 and 00,547) probably represent gudgeon sheathing as well. They are 13 cm and 17 cm in width respectively, and appear to be unripped. The remaining piece (01.031) is curious. Only 6.2 cm wide, with one edge ripped along a row of fastener holes, the unripped edge has no evidence of fasteners, and could have been partially overlapped by another strip.

Sheathing tack sizes range from 4 mm in cross section with a head of 2 cm in diameter, to 5.5 mm to 6.3 mm in cross section with a head of 2.4 cm. These measurements are based on the dimensions of the undistorted holes and head impressions, and the few remaining nail fragments. Spacing between the tacks on a row varies from 3 cm to 7 cm, measured from center to center. On some rows the spacing was quite regular, while on others it varied greatly, giving the impression of neat and sloppy—possibly the work of different individuals, or work carried out under different conditions or time constraints. In no case, however, were fastener holes close enough together for the heads to touch, as observed with examples of seam sheathing found on San Estéban (Arnold and Weddle 1978:236).

Three additional diagnostic lead sheets have no clear pattern of tack holes. One of these (01,073) measures 21 cm in width; the other two (00,015 and 00,027) are both 16 cm in width. These sheets may have been used as patching materials. Palacio (1944:110) listed lead and sheathing nails as necessary repair stores taken to sea aboard a ship. He also described the process of patching a warship that has just received a shot below the waterline and is leaking. He advised the captain to break away from the battle, and

. . . put the ship on the opposite tack, and with that, the ship will heel to the other side, and the leak will remain above water . . . . The hole being covered, caulked, and a sheet of lead, lined with canvas . . . applied over it the ship will be able to navigate and return to fight, if such is agreeable (Palacio 1944:126).

Examination of lead sheathing and patching materials from the stern of the Emanuel Point Ship suggest that use of lead on this vessel’s hull was more extensive than on those of other sixteenth-century ships excavated so far. The English-built Woolwich ship, dated to the first half of the century, was kept watertight by wooden seam ribbands, and had lead sheathing only on the butt of the garboard strake (Salisbury 1961:85). Another early site, the Cattewater wreck, yielded one piece identified as lead sheet (Rednap 1984:47-48). On San Estéban, somewhat more lead was used. Narrow strips, only slightly wider than the diameter of the fastener heads, were used only to cover the edges of the gudgeon arm and the seams between deadwood timbers of the keel (Arnold and Weddle 1978: 261-263). Larger amounts of lead were found on the Molasses Reef Wreck; some were apparently forced into seams between strakes, rather than fastened over them, others may represent patching materials (Keith 1987:104-105).

The amounts of lead thus far observed on the Emanuel Point Ship suggest extensive, though not total, sheathing of the hull, primarily to protect planking seams and areas where the rudder hardware was fastened to the stern. Widths of lead sheets were more than sufficient to cover seams, but not to overlap adjacent pieces of lead sheathing. This practice may have been a practical compromise between protection against loss of caulking and shipworm attack and the expense and weight of total sheathing. The irregularity of strip and tack dimensions may indicate that partial resheathing of seams was necessary after an initial application. Lastly, the ship was in use long enough to require at least some patching of leaks that developed over its sailing career.

Ballast

Dr. Stephen Pollock and Dennis Bratten of the University of Southern Maine, Geology Department slabbed and visually examined 46 stones randomly picked from the shipwreck’s ballast mound. A small number of stones was initially chosen as a good starting point to determine preliminary rock classes and types.

Table V. lists the rock classes and types identified thus far. The most common ballast encountered in the sample consists of a quartzite-like mineral known as arenite (39.12%) followed by the sedimentary rock, micrite (19.55%); and the igneous rock, basalt (13.03%). Other types in the sample include: quartz (8.68%), tuff (4.34%), and single examples of aphanite, granite, calcarenite, jasper, and one unidentified specimen. Based on this suite of types, the sample is not inconsistent with rocks and minerals associated with the Caribbean basin or a Mediterranean region. Further analysis may allow the determination of a more precise location.

In the very near future, the samples will be thin-sectioned and examined by X-ray crystallography and microscopically under polarized light. These techniques permit the determination of minerallic composition and texture (size and orientation of crystal grains). Using this data, geologists can more precisely describe and correlate the ballast geographically.

Table V
Ballast Stone Identifications From Emanuel Point Ship*

Type	Class	Subclass	Example	Comments	Quantity
*Data and analysis by Stephen Pollock and Dennis Bratten, Department of Geology, University of Southern Maine, July, 1995.
Igneous	extrusive	mafic (iron rich)	amygdaloidal basalt		1
			fine-grained basalt/diabase		1
			porphyritic basalt/diabase		4
		felsic (siliconrich)	aphanite porphyry (rhyolite?)	quartz and alkali feldspar phenocrysts or feldspar rich	2
			crystal tuff	weakly aligned feldspar	1
			welded tuff	shards?	1
	intrusive		granite	equigranular hollocrystalline	1
Sedimentary		carbonate	buff-colored micrite		1
			“vuggy” micrite		2
			gray burrowed laminated micrite		6
			calcarenite	fine-grained	1
		clastic	tan to buff colored quartz arenite	possibly quartzite or rhyolitic volcanic	6
			gray quartz-richarenite	possibly quartzite, thin quartz veins	12
Other			milky-veined quartz		4
			jasper	breccia?	1
			unidentified		1

Galley Features

Limited testing of metallic targets in the forward portion of the ballast mound in line with the keel revealed two associated artifactual deposits that are thought to represent the location and contents of the ship’s galley.

Copper Pitcher

A one-meter test pit was excavated at grid coordinates 115N/109E through coarse sand, shell hash, and compacted silt. The feature was progressively exposed to reveal a large encrusted metal container, a small brass ring, fragments of hemp rope and other organic debris, and small ballast stones, which appear to have fallen down between the worm-eaten remains of two starboard bow frames, coming to rest against another piece of wood and the outer hull planking. All materials, except for the wooden remains, were recovered for analysis.

The metal container (07,852) is a crudely fashioned pitcher with a heavy handle and thickened rim, which appears to have been soldered as one piece to a thinner cone of metal. This tapers to an extremely wide base, to which has been lap-soldered a concave disk of metal. The lower end of the handle may have been riveted to the body of the pitcher; the doughnut-shaped mouth has a subtle indentation to serve as a pouring spout. The container is 27.8 cm in height and 31.8 cm in diameter at the base. The inner diameter of the mouth is 8.7 cm; the outer diameter measures 9.8 cm. The 2.5 cm thick handle, opposite the spout, extends from the top of the opening to approximately 13 cm down the body of the jug at the point of attachment.

After removal from the site, contents of the container (silt, mud, and shell) were sifted; however, no evidence of any foodstuffs could be discerned. Pinholes were noted in the wall of the vessel, as were a larger hole and cracks in the bottom. Dark coloration, visible throughout the metal’s encrustation, suggested initially that the pitcher may have been made of tin or pewter. A radiograph of the entire object revealed that there is little parent metal left; the majority of the fabric of the pitcher appears to be corrosion products.

In order to determine the composition of the original metal, a sample of the fabric was sent to the Western Australia Maritime Museum to be analyzed by the Chemistry Centre; analysis was performed using a scanning electron microscope. Results of this test concluded that the pitcher was made of copper. Further testing by the Western Australia Maritime Museum indicated traces of sulfur, tin, and iron which would be consistent with contamination from nearby objects (Ian MacLeod to Herb Bump, 16 December, 1993). Analysis of another sample of the pitcher’s outer fabric was performed by the Winterthur Museum Analytical Laboratory using X-ray fluorescence. These results confirmed that the vessel was made of copper with small amounts (less than 1%) of trace metals such as tin, antimony, silver and lead. However, analysis of a sample from the interior of the vessel revealed much higher concentrations of tin, up to three times as high as that found in the exterior samples (Janice Carlson to J. Bratten, 2 November, 1994). This finding suggests that the interior of the container may have been coated or lined with tin.

Fashioned with a relatively small mouth and large flared base, the pitcher may have been employed to heat liquids on the ship’s galley stove. Its thin concave bottom would have collected heat without burning, and its wide base would have lowered its center of gravity to enhance stability and to prevent the pitcher from tipping at sea. To date, no parallels for this artifact have been found, either on contemporary archaeological sites, or in various museum collections consulted. However, a similarly shaped container appears in a woodcut by Peter Breugel the Elder. Based on a 1558 drawing depicting an alchemist’s laboratory, the woodcut includes a glimpse of a pitcher of corresponding size and matching features with the one recovered from the Emanuel Point Ship.

Brass Ring

A small copper alloy ring was found in association with the pitcher. Both the ring and the pitcher were found to be resting on what are probably forward starboard cant frames of the vessel, under an overburden of sand and shell hash common to the wreck location. The ring is 5mm thick, with an inner diameter of 3.6 cm and an outer diameter of 4.7 cm. The artifact is in pristine condition and, when first recovered, was shiny. A similar brass ring of unknown usage was recovered from San Estéban off Padre Island, although it was smaller, measuring less than 03 cm in diameter (Arnold and Weddle 1978:292). The function of the ring has not been determined, although it may be associated with galley wares. Iron and copper alloy rings were found at excavations of La Isabela, in the Dominican Republic (Deagan 1992: 62), and are believed to have been horse bridle hardware.

Copper Cauldron

A large copper cauldron was discovered less than 2 m from the copper pitcher and ring feature. Although not completely exposed during testing, certain attributes of the container were noted. The thin-walled container features a built-up rim, 8 cm high and 1 cm thick; the mouth of the cauldron is ca. 34 cm in diameter. Two heavy lugs (each 2 cm wide and 1 cm thick) are attached to thick straps at opposite sides of the shoulder, each of which are fastened to the body of the cauldron with two copper rivets. The lugs support the tapered ends of a heavy, solid copper handle (15 cm at the thickest part), which pass through the eyes of the lugs, but are bent back in opposing directions. The cauldron appears to have been mashed on the port outboard side, perhaps by the ship’s wrecking process. Although the metal is in good condition, several holes and tears in the thin body of the container were noted. One small copper rivet (08,753) was recovered during the testing, and the feature was reburied after being measured and documented. The close proximity of the pitcher and cauldron, both of which are cooking ware, suggests that this area of the bow was the location of the galley, which would have housed the ship’s cook stove and other related utensils.

Organic Ship’s Debris

Below midships ballast and between frames in the stern, the Emanuel Point Ship’s bilge sediments had preserved a surprising array of organic debris that had accumulated over time throughout the vessel’s sailing career. Materials recovered in these deposits include wooden packing materials (dunnage), rope and cordage, animal remains, and a variety of botanical specimens, such as leaves, nuts, and seeds. Examples of each of these materials are discussed in respective chapters below. This chapter deals with other artifacts also found in association with bilge sediments, such as wooden objects and the remains of leather shoes.

Cork

Two cork stoppers were found in association with several olive jar sherds. The most complete cork would have fit the mouth of a jar with a 6.6 cm maximum opening. The cork measures 1.9 cm in thickness and has been trimmed to a tapered width of 4.8 cm at its charred lower end. A resinous deposit was found adhering to its upper surface with a color and odor very similar to pine pitch. Additionally, two smaller corks were recovered

Wooden Implements

A small tapered wooden tool handle (08,825) with a square hole and associated iron concretion was found on top of the port bilge boards at the main mast step. The handle is circular in cross section; it measures 20.8 cm in length, 4 cm thick at the middle, tapering to approximately 2 cm in width at the extreme ends. The hole that once held the iron tool measures 1.1 by 1.8 cm. The placement of hole, the overall shape of the handle, and its provenience suggest a small auger, or shipwright’s gimlet, that may have been discarded in the bilge, perhaps at the time of the ship’s construction.

A smaller piece of worked wood (07,843) may also have been associated with the ship’s construction. The object is a carved stick, 14.2 cm in length and circular in cross section, with a notched end, which may have been an attachment point for a string or other implement. Speculation as to this artifact’s function includes a line level or plumb bob handle; however it could also have been the product of idle whittling.

Also intermixed among the bilge debris were several other small wooden artifacts. Three appear to have been either stoppers or small wooden plugs. One of these (00,285) is similiar to a wooden plug recovered from the English Tudor warship Mary Rose. It had been used to stopper a leather flask (Rule 1982:187). This hardwood artifact from the Emanuel Point Ship was found during stern excavations between the two frames located immediately at the aft end of the keelson. Measuring 7.2 cm in length, the “plumb bob” shaped peg tapers from a rounded end of 0.45 cm to 2.2 cm wide cut top. Two of the upper surfaces have been cut on both sides to provide flat surfaces for gripping or decoration. The artifact may have been used as a stopper or perhaps as a touch hole plug for a cannon. The other peg-like artifacts (00,286.1 and 00,286.2) measure 6.6 cm and 3.6 cm in length. Each tapers from a rounded end of 0.45 cm to rounded tops of 1.3 cm and 1.2 cm diameters respectively. The larger piece appears to have been fashioned from a hard wood and the second, which is fragmented, from a soft wood. Their exact functions are not known, but like the larger peg they may have served as bottle or flask stopper, a type of closure peg for a cabinet or storage box, or possibly as cannon touch hole stoppers.

The fourth wooden artifact (00,282) is a softwood peg that resembles a “tinker toy” or a tuning knob for a musical instrument. The lower end of the piece is a small diameter (1 cm) dowel, 2.3 cm long terminating into a rectangular “nut” (1.9 cm x 1.7 x 1.1 cm) providing an overall length of 3.3 cm. At the top of the nut-like portion a mortise has been carved and a small remnant of a tenon (0.85 cm x 0.5 cm) has been inserted. The tenon is a dissimilar wood type and its eroded end projects only 2 mm above the top of the nut. The function of this artifact is unknown.

Ship Silhouette Carving

Deep in the bilge among scraps of wood and other carpenters’ debris just abaft the port pump sump a curious and unique object was discovered: the small carved silhouette of a ship in the shape of a classic galleon. Stained dark from the sediments in which it was buried, the miniature carving (07,754) measures 11.3 cm in length, 4.4 cm in height, and 4 mm to 7 mm in thickness. Fashioned from fir, classic features of a typical 16th-century Spanish galleon, such as the heavy beakhead in the bow, a pronounced forecastle, high freeboard, and towering sterncastle and gallery are faithfully reproduced in silhouette by someone who was quite familiar with contemporary hallmarks of naval architecture.

The carving‘s discovery beneath ballast and bilge sediments suggests that it probably was deposited in the ship at the time of its construction, perhaps inadvertently left behind by an apprentice shipwright as he resumed his work. The only other known image of a Spanish galleon found in the New World is a graffiti-like rendering on a plank discovered on the Red Bay galleon San Juan (Grenier 1988:75).

Leather

Eight fragments of leather were recovered during excavation of the main mast step. The three largest pieces are the remains of shoes; each piece exhibits stitching holes along its outer edge, and many of the holes retain traces of the original thread that secured parts of the shoe (Bratten 1995). According to a study by David Breetzke (1995), the leather fragments are cow hide, that were probably tannin treated. Shoes represented by the three fragments were either of turnshoe, or of turn-welt, construction. The first is one of the oldest methods of shoemaking: the shoe is made wrong side out; after stitching, the shoe is turned right side out and reshaped for finishing. Turn-welt construction was a transitional point between the turnshoe and the welted shoe; the turnshoe is made with an extra wide rand (strip of leather) sewn in the seam so that this becomes a welt to which a first sole, or later repair sole, can be stitched.

Shoe fragment 07,701 is the sole of a small shoe or mule, with four stitches per cm.. The number of stitches per centimeter can indicate the quality of craftsmanship and the price of the shoemaker’s product (Cliff Pequet to D. Breetzke, pers. comm., April 1995). Lacking a heel, the sole is comparable in size to a modern woman’s 5 1/2 to 6 1/2 b shoe. According to June Swann, a consultant on the history of shoes and shoemaking, the sole may have belonged to a woman’s or girl’s platform shoe, known as a “chapin,” of typical Spanish style (J. Swann to David Breetzke, 15 April, 1995).

Shoe fragment 07,799 is part of a shoe sole broken across the tread (the area of greatest wear). At the other end, the sole has been cut just in front of the seat (rear end of the sole where the heel rests). The straight cut suggests a repair to the shoe. Two of the outer edges of the sole seam are turned over, with what appears to be a fragment of the rand surviving. The sole has three to four stitches per cm.

Shoe fragment 08,809 is from a larger shoe or boot, either part of a vamp (front upper section) which was originally square with rounded corners, or part of a heel. Wear marks suggest that it was worn on the left foot. This fragment has four to five stitches per cm.

Prior to the discovery of these shoe fragments, the earliest recorded European footwear found in North America was represented by the shoe remains recovered from the Basque ship, San Juan, which sank in Red Bay, Labrador in 1565 (J. Swan to David Breetzke, 14 February, 1995).

The remaining leather fragments consist of small pieces of various thickness and texture. One fragment appears to be felt and another, recovered from the port pump well, may be a remnant of the sump pump’s flapper valve (Bratten 1995).

Vertebrate Faunal Remains

Beginning in 1992 when test excavations were initiated on the Emanuel Point Ship, faunal remains were collected from all test and excavation units. All samples were collected either directly from the excavation units or from a 1/4-inch screen situated at the outflow of a water-induction dredge. Testing with floatation procedures and smaller mesh-screen sorting of bilge sediments provided no substantial increase in recovery over the 1/4-inch screen. Preservation of faunal materials was generally very good, perhaps because of effluents (silts and tannin) from a nearby bayou and the general compactness of the overlying sand, ballast pile, and built up mound of oyster shells. Materials were recovered from both within and without the surviving ship structure.

All obvious rodent materials were sent to Dr. Philip L. Armitage, Sanibel Island, Florida for identification and analysis. Non-rodent faunal specimens were examined by Barry W. Baker and Anna Lee Presley, Physical Anthropology Department, Texas A&M University. Identification of the remains was aided by the Zooarchaeological Research Collection, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University and Dr. Philip L. Armitage’s personal collection of rat skeletons (British and North American). One fish vertebra was also identified in materials sent for botanical identification (Newsom 1995:4). Analysis of the vertebrate material was accomplished using standard zooarchaeological procedures. Specimens were identified as precisely as possible based on structural features, animal biogeography, and the temporal setting of the site (Baker 1995:1). Information such as sex, age criteria, age, and taphonomic processes (burning, cut marks, rodent gnawing, and breakage) (Presley 1995:1) was noted for all materials along with limited morphometric data.

A total of 339 complete or fragmented bones and teeth were identified from this phase of excavation at the Emanuel Point Ship. Faunal specimens collected from the ship’s bilge appear to represent deposits of discarded bones from shipboard provisions, as well as the remains of organisms that died in or near the ship. These specimens include the bones of domestic pig, cow, even-toed ungulates (e.g., sheep and goat) and chicken, which were undoubtedly used as food aboard the ship. Fragments of various fish are present in the faunal assemblage, however they are believed to be intrusive, having been deposited after the ship ran aground. Similarly, a beak fragment from a shore bird (sandpiper family) may have found its own way aboard the ship. The largest collection of faunal remains is that of stowaway rats who both bred and died in the ship during its career at sea. No bone artifacts were found (Presley, 1995:1).

At least 10 taxa are represented in the assemblage, reflecting 4 vertebrate classes. These classes include: Elasmobranchiomorphi (sharks), Osteichthyes (bony fishes), Aves (birds), and Mammalia (mammals).

Table VI
Vertebrate Taxa Identified From The Emanuel Point Ship

	Scientific Name	Common Name
VERTEBRATES	Medium/Large vertebrata	Medium/Large vertebrata
SHARKS AND RAYS	Selachii	Shark
	Rajiformes	Sawfish and rays
	Carcharinidae	Requiem or sand sharks
FISH	Osteichthyes (Small)	Small bony fish
	Osteichthyes (Medium)	Medium-sized bony fish
	Osteichthyes	Bony fish
	Siluriformes	Catfish
	Ariidae	Marine catfish
	Sciaenidae	Drums, croakers
	Lutjanidae	Snappers
BIRDS	Aves (Large)	Large birds
	Gallus gallus	Domestic chicken
	Family Scolopacidae	Sandpipers
MAMMALS	Mammalia (Medium)	Medium-sized mammal
	Mammalia (Medium/Large)	Medium/large mammal
	Mammalia (Large)	Large mammal
	Mammalia (Large/very large)	Large/very large mammal
	Mammalia (Very large)	Very large mammal
	Sus scrofa	Domestic pig
	Sus	indeterminate
	Artiodactyla (Small)	Small even-toed ungulates
	Artiodactyla (Medium)	Medium-sized even-toed ungulates
	Bovidae genus cf. Bos taurus	Domestic cow
RODENTS	Rattus rattus	Black rat
	Mus musculus	House mouse

Taphonomy

The scientific excavation of shipwrecks is a relatively new science, therefore, little taphonomic research has been conducted on vertebrate assemblages from submerged sites (Baker 1995:1). The sample from Emanuel Point does allow for several taphonomic observations. In general, the sample is well preserved with little degradation apart from a few specimens which exhibit abrasion (Baker 1995). Slight exfoliation was expected and is typical of artifacts requiring extensive dehydration and soaking to remove water and salts.

Several specimens were stained brown, presumably from marine sediments, and in a few cases required cleaning with a three percent solution of hydrogen peroxide. Other specimens exhibited a light bluish-gray discoloration sometimes associated with burning (Baker 1995:1-2; Shipman et al. 1984). Only one specimen (00,084.2) was clearly identified as burned because of its charred black color. Reitz and Scarry (1985:85) suggest that if cut bones are found unburned they were probably prepared by boiling.

Six specimens exhibited cut marks. Of these, five were from mammals. One specimen, a domestic Pig (Sus scrofa) humerus, was completely sawed through. The other specimens appear to have been cut with a metal knife. Seven specimens exhibited rodent gnawing.

Sixty-eight of the bones present show some type of breakage. The majority of broken elements exhibit angular fractures. Angular fractures occur after the bone has dried. Sixteen of the specimens have spiral fractures. This type of fracture suggests that they were broken while they retained a relatively high degree of collagen, in other words, they were still fresh.

Subsistence Information

Though the non-rodent sample size is small (n=135), a few subsistence observations can be made. Taxa apparently serving as food sources include domestic chicken (Gallus gallus) (n=8), cow (cf. Bos taurus) (n=8), domestic pig (Sus scrofa) (n=6). The chicken coracoid shows a transverse cut mark on its shaft. Two additional large bird elements may also represent chicken, and the majority of the mammal bones are very likely cow (Baker 1995:2). In fact, the presence of vertebrae and vertebral ends of left ribs of a sub-adult cow appear to represent a rib cut from a left side of beef similar to specimens illustrated by Lyman (1977:70; Fig. 7j). None of these specimens are sawed, though many show green bone fractures that may have resulted from butchering. Pig bones exhibit cut marks and spiral fractures characteristic of food remains (Presley 1995:2).

Undoubtedly, many of the other specimens are probably food items as well, but a medium-sized mammal (dog-sized) rib remains difficult to interpret. A sub-adult goat-sized artiodactyl metapodial is also present in the sample. Baker (1995:2) believes that the majority of the mammal remains are representative of sub-adult individuals.

The non-fish specimens represented in this assemblage, with exception of the Scolopacid element, can be safely described as food remains. Further, specimens within these taxa also exhibit rodent gnawing; thus, these specimens must have been available for the stowaway rats to gnaw.

In contrast, none of the fish elements exhibit cut marks, spiral fractures, or rodent gnawing. The majority of these remains show very little degradation and most appear very recent suggesting that they are intrusive (Baker 1995:2; Presley 1995:1). The remaining bird and mammal remains, in contrast, appear associated with the ship. The identifiable taxa present in this assemblage can all be found in the Gulf of Mexico (Presley 1995:2; Briggs 1958). This is not to say that the crew or passengers on the vessel did not eat fish, only that clearly defined food remains could not be identified among the fish elements.

Black Rats and House Mice

A total of 206 bone specimens were recognized as black rat (Rattus rattus) and two small tibiae were identified as belonging to the common house mouse (Mus musculus L.). Table VII. provides a summary of the identified bones.

Like the other faunal material, preservation of the rodent material is very good, though certain of the more fragile specimens (crania and vertebral spinous processes) have suffered some damage in antiquity (Armitage 1995a:2). Identification of rodent specimens was undertaken using Dr. Armitage’s modern comparative collections of rat skeletons (British and North American) and those of The Natural History Museum in London, England and Booth Museum of Natural History, Brighton, East Sussex, England. Determination of species was based on three primary diagnostic criteria: appearance of the temporal ridges of the neurocranium, mandibular diastema shape, and anatomical features of postcranial elements (Armitage 1995a:5).

Table VII Summary of Black rat (Rattus rattus) Identified Bone Elements*

Bone element	No. of specimens N	No. of elements NISP	Minimum no. of individuals MNI
* Adapted from Armitage 1995. ** vertebrae: atlas 1; axis 3; cervical 1; thoracic 3; lumbar 30; caudal 4; unident 1.
HEAD
cranium	21	indeterminate	indeterminate
mandible	13	14	14
isolated teeth	15	15	indeterminate
FORELIMB
scapula	5	5	5
humerus	13	12	11
radius	5	5	5
ulna	6	6	6
HINDLIMB
innominate bone	11	11	10
femur	21	21	19
tibia	24	23	21
EXTREMITY
metapodial bone	4	4	indeterminate
AXIAL
vertebrae**	43	43	indeterminate
sacrum	14	indeterminate	indeterminate
RIBS
rib	11	11	indeterminate
	Total no. of specimens = 206

Osteological Analysis

Based on the stages of epiphyseal fusion as seen in the humerus, innominate, femur, and tibia specimens, a range of age classes was recognized: newborn, very young, young, young/subadult, subadult/adult, and indeterminate. A MNI (minimum number of individuals) count of 21 was calculated from the totals of unpaired and paired skeletal elements (Armitage 1995a:6,23). Sex was distinguished by
morphological criteria of innominate bones and by comparison with modern specimens of known gender. Two males and a female were identified.

Oral Pathology

Analysis of mandible and maxilla specimens revealed ancient evidence of moderate to severe abscesses and infections in the rat population (Armitage 1995a:19). In several specimens the teeth had fallen out partially or entirely due to the loosening of their roots from swelling of the alveoli (teeth sockets). Whether their actual loss took place antemortem or postmortem (postdeposition) can not be determined.

Rickets

During the examination of the rodent material, it was noticed that six limb bones, “all from very young (immature) rats, are noticeably stunted (i.e., abnormally shortened) and have a distinctive, abnormally “flaring”or ”cup-like” outgrowth of the end of the shaft; either proximally or distally, depending on the type of skeletal element involved (Armitage 1995a:20).” These pathological changes are typically associated with rickets, as discussed by Baker and Brothwell (1980:49).

Cannibalism

One black rat tibia exhibited numerous shallow grooves over its surface. According to Armitage (1995a:23), these depressions were made by rodent incisor teeth indicating that the specimen had been gnawed by another rat or rats. Similar markings were found also found on the non-rodent faunal material (see above).

House Mice

Two left tibiae of the house mouse were found intermixed among the other faunal material. Mus musculus L., or more properly, Mus domesticus, is the European house mouse (Armitage 1995b:1; Berry 1981:92).

Armitage considered “the finding of two or more mice” aboard the ship as “unexpected” considering the large black rat population (Armitage 1995b:1). According to Berry (1981: 93, 111 &113), “mice are certainly predated by rats . . . and “infestation [of buildings, and presumably ships] by rats keeps down mouse numbers to some extent, but situations where rats can live usually provide conditions for a large population of mice.”

Discussion

“As contemporary sources reveal, rats were commonplace on European sailing ships voyaging to the New World in the 16th and later centuries. In modest numbers these vermin were merely a nuisance to mariners; the greatest damage done by them on ships resulted from the gnawing into the casks of stored foodstuffs and contaminating the contents within with their urine and feces. Under exceptional circumstances, however, their depredations of the ship’s provisions could represent a very real danger to the well-being and even survival of the crew and passengers” (Armitage 1995a:23). A rat plague besieged the returning Spanish Indies fleet of 1622 and on one vessel alone several thousand rats were caught and killed both in port and during the voyage (Phillips 1986:157).

An analysis of rat remains from the Emanuel Point ship has identified all the specimens aboard as the species, Rattus rattus, commonly known as the black rat. As for the population size of the rats on board, several factors make an accurate estimate impossible.

Bone remains found at the wrecksite account for a minimum of 21 individuals, probably far fewer than the total population prior to the vessel’s sinking. It seems most likely that many of the rodents would have tried to swim to shore at the time of sinking, some perhaps drowning at the site. However, the remains found at the site should not be assumed to have perished at the time of sinking.

Previous studies have shown that ships typically supported a population of animals that spent their entire lives aboard, from birth to death—meaning that some of the remains could have been the result of natural mortality perhaps preceding the time of the ship’s demise. Others might have been merely unlucky passengers taken aboard with provisions.

“Analysis does reveal, however, that there must have been a well-established, core rodent-population on the ship, as evidenced by the presence of very young, subadult, and mature individuals, and both males and females” (Armitage 1995a:24). Confinement in the “dark recesses of the ship’s hull, away from the sunlight, and with a restricted diet (probably lacking in certain minerals and vitamins essential for normal metabolism/growth) clearly took its toll on some of these rats, especially the immature individuals, as evidenced by the limb bones afflicted by rickets, and by the poor dental health of some of the older individuals.”

Table VIII
Faunal Specimens Identified From The Emanuel Point Ship

Class	Order	Taxon	Element	No. of Specimens
Vertebrata	indeterminate	indeterminate	fragments	4
Vertebrata	indeterminate	small indet.	long bone	1
Vertebrata	indeterminate	medium indet.	rib fragment	1
Vertebrata	indeterminate	medium indet.	rib fragment
Vertebrata	indeterminate	medium indet.	fragment	1
Mammalia	indeterminate	very large indeterminate	rib shaft fragment	6
Mammalia	indeterminate	large/very large indeterminate	fragment	3
Mammalia	indeterminate	large indeterminate	rib fragment	1
Mammalia	indeterminate	large indeterminate	long bone shaft fragment	3
Mammalia	indeterminate	large indeterminate	flat bone fragment	1
Mammalia	indeterminate	medium indeterminate	rib fragment	1
Mammalia	indeterminate	med./large indeterminate	epiphysis indeterminate	1
Mammalia	indeterminate	med./large indeterminate	pisiform	1
Mammalia	indeterminate	med./large indeterminate	fragments	10
Mammalia	indeterminate	med./large indeterminate	long bone shaft fragment	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	small indeterminate	condyle	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	medium indeterminate	lumbar vertebra	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Sus scrofa	rib fragment	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Sus scrofa	humerus	2
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Sus scrofa	tibia	2
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Sus scrofa	lower tooth PM3	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Sus indet.	scapula fragment	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Bovidae sp.	rib fragment	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Bovidae c.f. Bos taurus	ribs, vertebral end	4
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Bovidae c.f. Bos taurus	rib epiphysis	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Bovidae c.f. Bos taurus	thoracic vertebra	2
Mammalia	Rodentia	Rattus rattus	See Table VII	206
Mammalia	Rodentia	Mus musculus	tibia	2
Aves	Galliformes	Gallus gallus	tibia	2
Aves	Galliformes	Gallus gallus	ulna	1
Aves	Galliformes	Gallus gallus	femur	1
Aves	Galliformes	Gallus gallus	tarsometatasus	1
Aves	Galliformes	Gallus gallus	humerus	1
Aves	Galliformes	Gallus gallus	coracoid	1
Aves	Galliformes	Gallus gallus	second phalange	1
Aves	Charadriiformes	Scopacidae	upper beak cover/sheath	1
Aves	indeterminate	Scopacidae	coracoid	1
Aves	indeterminate	Scopacidae	cervical vertebra	1
Chondrichthyes	Lamniformes	Carcharinidae	vertebra indeterminate	2
Chondrichthyes	Selachii	indeterminate	vertebra indeterminate	2
Chondrichthyes	Rajifomes	family indeterminate	pharyngeal plate	4
Osteichthys	indeterminate	family indeterminate	spine indeterminate	6
Osteichthys	indeterminate	family indeterminate	scale indeterminate	2
Osteichthys	indeterminate	family indeterminate	vertebra indeterminate	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	family indeterminate	fragment	2
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	scale indeterminate	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	ctenoid scale	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	cycloid scale	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	atlas vertebra	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	thoracic vertebra	2
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	precaudal vertebra	5
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	caudal vertebra	4
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	centrum vertebra	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	ultimate vertebra	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	vertebra indeterminate	3
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	hyomandibular	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	dorsal spine	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	haemal spine	2
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	spine indeterminate	4
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	fragment	2
Osteichthys	indeterminate	Small fish indet.	centrum vertebra	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	Small fish indet.	spine indeterminate	1
Osteichthys	Perciformes	Sciaenidae	caudal vertebrae	2
Osteichthys	Perciformes	Lutjanidae	dorsal spine	1
Osteichthys	Siluriformes	Ariidae	prefrontal	1
Osteichthys	Siluriformes	Ariidae	parasphenoid	1
Osteichthys	Siluriformes	Ariidae	pectoral spine	1
Osteichthys	Siluriformes	indeterminate	pectoral spine	1

Oral Pathology

Analysis of mandible and maxilla specimens revealed ancient evidence of moderate to severe abscesses and infections in the rat population (Armitage 1995a:19). In several specimens the teeth had fallen out partially or entirely due to the loosening of their roots from swelling of the alveoli (teeth sockets). Whether their actual loss took place antemortem or postmortem (postdeposition) can not be determined.

Rickets

During the examination of the rodent material, it was noticed that six limb bones, “all from very young (immature) rats, are noticeably stunted (i.e., abnormally shortened) and have a distinctive, abnormally “flaring”or ”cup-like” outgrowth of the end of the shaft; either proximally or distally, depending on the type of skeletal element involved (Armitage 1995a:20).” These pathological changes are typically associated with rickets, as discussed by Baker and Brothwell (1980:49).

Cannibalism

One black rat tibia exhibited numerous shallow grooves over its surface. According to Armitage (1995a:23), these depressions were made by rodent incisor teeth indicating that the specimen had been gnawed by another rat or rats. Similar markings were found also found on the non-rodent faunal material (see above).

House Mice

Two left tibiae of the house mouse were found intermixed among the other faunal material. Mus musculus L., or more properly, Mus domesticus, is the European house mouse (Armitage 1995b:1; Berry 1981:92).

Armitage considered “the finding of two or more mice” aboard the ship as “unexpected” considering the large black rat population (Armitage 1995b:1). According to Berry (1981: 93, 111 &113), “mice are certainly predated by rats . . . and “infestation [of buildings, and presumably ships] by rats keeps down mouse numbers to some extent, but situations where rats can live usually provide conditions for a large population of mice.”

Discussion

“As contemporary sources reveal, rats were commonplace on European sailing ships voyaging to the New World in the 16th and later centuries. In modest numbers these vermin were merely a nuisance to mariners; the greatest damage done by them on ships resulted from the gnawing into the casks of stored foodstuffs and contaminating the contents within with their urine and feces. Under exceptional circumstances, however, their depredations of the ship’s provisions could represent a very real danger to the well-being and even survival of the crew and passengers” (Armitage 1995a:23). A rat plague besieged the returning Spanish Indies fleet of 1622 and on one vessel alone several thousand rats were caught and killed both in port and during the voyage (Phillips 1986:157).

An analysis of rat remains from the Emanuel Point ship has identified all the specimens aboard as the species, Rattus rattus, commonly known as the black rat. As for the population size of the rats on board, several factors make an accurate estimate impossible.

Bone remains found at the wrecksite account for a minimum of 21 individuals, probably far fewer than the total population prior to the vessel’s sinking. It seems most likely that many of the rodents would have tried to swim to shore at the time of sinking, some perhaps drowning at the site. However, the remains found at the site should not be assumed to have perished at the time of sinking.

Previous studies have shown that ships typically supported a population of animals that spent their entire lives aboard, from birth to death—meaning that some of the remains could have been the result of natural mortality perhaps preceding the time of the ship’s demise. Others might have been merely unlucky passengers taken aboard with provisions.

“Analysis does reveal, however, that there must have been a well-established, core rodent-population on the ship, as evidenced by the presence of very young, subadult, and mature individuals, and both males and females” (Armitage 1995a:24). Confinement in the “dark recesses of the ship’s hull, away from the sunlight, and with a restricted diet (probably lacking in certain minerals and vitamins essential for normal metabolism/growth) clearly took its toll on some of these rats, especially the immature individuals, as evidenced by the limb bones afflicted by rickets, and by the poor dental health of some of the older individuals.”

Table VIII
Faunal Specimens Identified From The Emanuel Point Ship

Class	Order	Taxon	Element	No. of Specimens
Vertebrata	indeterminate	indeterminate	fragments	4
Vertebrata	indeterminate	small indet.	long bone	1
Vertebrata	indeterminate	medium indet.	rib fragment	1
Vertebrata	indeterminate	medium indet.	rib fragment
Vertebrata	indeterminate	medium indet.	fragment	1
Mammalia	indeterminate	very large indeterminate	rib shaft fragment	6
Mammalia	indeterminate	large/very large indeterminate	fragment	3
Mammalia	indeterminate	large indeterminate	rib fragment	1
Mammalia	indeterminate	large indeterminate	long bone shaft fragment	3
Mammalia	indeterminate	large indeterminate	flat bone fragment	1
Mammalia	indeterminate	medium indeterminate	rib fragment	1
Mammalia	indeterminate	med./large indeterminate	epiphysis indeterminate	1
Mammalia	indeterminate	med./large indeterminate	pisiform	1
Mammalia	indeterminate	med./large indeterminate	fragments	10
Mammalia	indeterminate	med./large indeterminate	long bone shaft fragment	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	small indeterminate	condyle	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	medium indeterminate	lumbar vertebra	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Sus scrofa	rib fragment	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Sus scrofa	humerus	2
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Sus scrofa	tibia	2
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Sus scrofa	lower tooth PM3	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Sus indet.	scapula fragment	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Bovidae sp.	rib fragment	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Bovidae c.f. Bos taurus	ribs, vertebral end	4
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Bovidae c.f. Bos taurus	rib epiphysis	1
Mammalia	Artiodactyla	Bovidae c.f. Bos taurus	thoracic vertebra	2
Mammalia	Rodentia	Rattus rattus	See Table VII	206
Mammalia	Rodentia	Mus musculus	tibia	2
Aves	Galliformes	Gallus gallus	tibia	2
Aves	Galliformes	Gallus gallus	ulna	1
Aves	Galliformes	Gallus gallus	femur	1
Aves	Galliformes	Gallus gallus	tarsometatasus	1
Aves	Galliformes	Gallus gallus	humerus	1
Aves	Galliformes	Gallus gallus	coracoid	1
Aves	Galliformes	Gallus gallus	second phalange	1
Aves	Charadriiformes	Scopacidae	upper beak cover/sheath	1
Aves	indeterminate	Scopacidae	coracoid	1
Aves	indeterminate	Scopacidae	cervical vertebra	1
Chondrichthyes	Lamniformes	Carcharinidae	vertebra indeterminate	2
Chondrichthyes	Selachii	indeterminate	vertebra indeterminate	2
Chondrichthyes	Rajifomes	family indeterminate	pharyngeal plate	4
Osteichthys	indeterminate	family indeterminate	spine indeterminate	6
Osteichthys	indeterminate	family indeterminate	scale indeterminate	2
Osteichthys	indeterminate	family indeterminate	vertebra indeterminate	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	family indeterminate	fragment	2
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	scale indeterminate	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	ctenoid scale	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	cycloid scale	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	atlas vertebra	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	thoracic vertebra	2
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	precaudal vertebra	5
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	caudal vertebra	4
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	centrum vertebra	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	ultimate vertebra	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	vertebra indeterminate	3
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	hyomandibular	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	dorsal spine	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	haemal spine	2
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	spine indeterminate	4
Osteichthys	indeterminate	med. fish indet.	fragment	2
Osteichthys	indeterminate	Small fish indet.	centrum vertebra	1
Osteichthys	indeterminate	Small fish indet.	spine indeterminate	1
Osteichthys	Perciformes	Sciaenidae	caudal vertebrae	2
Osteichthys	Perciformes	Lutjanidae	dorsal spine	1
Osteichthys	Siluriformes	Ariidae	prefrontal	1
Osteichthys	Siluriformes	Ariidae	parasphenoid	1
Osteichthys	Siluriformes	Ariidae	pectoral spine	1
Osteichthys	Siluriformes	indeterminate	pectoral spine	1

Invertebrate Remains

Insects

During excavation a number of chitinous fragments resembling insect wings were uncovered in situ in deposits associated with olive pits and brown organic material above the port buttresses in the ballast. Samples of these remains were sent to the Entomology department at Texas A&M University for identification. Dr. Horace Burke identified the most abundant insect parts as belonging to cockroaches. The remainder of the sample consisted of elytra (wing covers) from a species of Dermestes, most likely Dermestes maculatus De Geer, commonly known as the hide beetle.

In order to identify the specific species of cockroach represented on the shipwreck a second examination of the cockroach fragments was made at the U.S.D.A. research station in Gainesville, Florida. Analysts at that laboratory identified the wing, pronotum (thoracic segment), and ootheca (egg case) of the American cockroach (Periplaneta americana).

In 1573, Eugenio de Salazar detailed his voyage from Spain to Santo Domingo. In this interesting narrative he jokingly refers to the numerous cockroaches aboard his ship as "game birds" which he called curianas (Phillips 1987a:8). Cockroaches have also been called the "world’s most persistent stowaways" (Peterson 1977:734). The latter statement should not come as any surprise to anyone who can imagine the hold of a sixteenth-century wooden ship. These active, fast-running insects would have fed on any number of food sources while living in the darkened areas of the vessel and hiding in the many cracks and crevices.

Fragments of sixteen cockroaches and five egg cases were found in five of the encrusted artifact conglomerates raised from the site of the San Estéban, wrecked off Padre Island in 1554 (Durden 1978:407). Articulated wings and bodies, wings, and empty oothecae were also found preserved between the stone cobbles of the ballast and hidden in the rope lashings of a gun carriage. Two species were present: Blatta orientalis and Periplaneta americana. A single American cockroach egg case was also recovered from the Spanish vessel San Antonio that sank off Bermuda in 1621 (Peterson 1977:734; Roth 1981:1).

Despite its misleading name, the American cockroach is not endemic to the Americas. According to Roth (1981:1), Periplaneta americana is believed to have originated in tropical Africa and was transported to South America, the West Indies, and the Southern United States on slave ships sailing from the west coast of Africa. However, evidence from the above Spanish shipwrecks and the Emanuel Point shipwreck shows that the American cockroach reached the Americas before the slave trade reached large proportions.

Unlike the cockroach, the hide beetle has a cosmopolitan distribution (Hinton 1963:262). Hide beetles produce larvae which are very active and strongly, negative phototrophic. Full-grown beetles bore a pupal chamber into any almost compact substance. Larvae bore into hard woods, as well as into soft woods and have been known to damage cork, books, tobacco, tea, linen, cotton, woolens, salt, and even lead (Hinton 1963:265). It is the beetle’s indiscriminate boring into various materials that they do not use for food that has been most frequently noted. Perhaps the earliest reference to this activity may be found in The Last Voyage of Thomas Cavendish (Quinn 1975). In 1593 one of Admiral Cavendish’s ships, the Desire, pressed for a food source was obliged to carry some 14,000 improperly dried penguins aboard (Quinn 1975:37). A member of the crew, John Jane, wrote

 " . . . [that] after we came neere unto the sun, our dried Penguins began to corrupt, and there bred in them a most lothsome & ugly worme of an inch long. This worme did so mightily increase, and devoure our victuals, that there was in reason no hope how we should avoide famine, but be devoured of these wicked creatures: there was nothing that they did not devour, only yron excepted: our clothes, boots, shoes, hats, shirts, stockings: and for the ship they did so eat the timbers, as that we greatly feared they would undo us, by gnawing through the ships side" (Hakluyt 1927:256).

Both larvae and adult hide beetles feed on a variety of substances with a high protein content, e.g., bones, carcasses, skins, meats, cheese, etc. (Hinton 1963: 265). The presence of numerous hide beetles aboard the Emanuel Point Ship suggests that they may have been brought aboard with a cargo, possibly leather hides.

Shells

Examples of shells were collected during excavation; although many of the species represented have large ranges, all of them are also native to Pensacola Bay. The samples come from the phylum Mollusca. There are 184 species of mollusks native to the bay, including 96 from the class Gastropoda, and 80 from the class Bivalvia (Cooley 1978:17). All of the samples in the collection come from these two classes. By far the most common bivalve is the ubquitous oyster. At least three species are present including the Common Oyster (Cassostrea virginica), the Crested Oyster (Ostrea equestris), and an unidentified species, possibly Coon Oyster (Ostrea frons). Other bivalves include Southern Quahog (Mercenarius mercenarius), Common Cockle (Trachycardium muricatum), Disk Shell (Dosinia discus), Elegant Disk Shell (Dosinia elegens), Mottled Chione (Chione intepupurea), Cross-barred Chione (Chione cancellata), Ponderous Ark (Noetia ponderousa), and Vanhyning’s Heart Cockle (Dinocardium robustum vanhyningi) (Morris 1975).

Gastropods range in size from a large Lightning Welk (Busycon contarium) 25 centimeters in length to a tiny Olive Nerite (Neritina reclivata) only 8 millimeters in diameter. Between these two extremes are the Florida Rock Shell (Thais haemastoma floridana), Hay’s Rock Shell?? (Thais haemastoma canaliculata), the Florida Cerith (Cerithium floridana), The Florida Auger (Terebra floridana), the Common Eastern Nassa or Mottled Dog Welk (Nassarius Vibex), and a species of Tagelus.

All the samples in the collection vary from the average to the smalles of the sizes given for their respective species. This may indicate a degredation of the environment of Pensacola Bay to an extent that few individuals reach adult size.

Other Invertebrates

In addition to shells and insect remains, several other types of invertebrate remains were found within, or just outside, the hull remains. Eighteen pieces of coral were recovered from the dredge screen. Whitish tan in color, the coral appears to be all of one type (Oculina, ivory bush or tree coral). Coral is not found growing on the site today. These remains most likely represent remnants from earlier growths, when the bay was capable of supporting coral, or they may represent fragments of coral which found its way into the ship’s ballast. Wooden timbers along the outside of the hull were often found covered with numerous barnacles. Considering that these timbers were often buried under nearly a meter of sediments, the barnacles probably represent accumulations while the ship was still in service. Very minute barnacle growths were also found on the lead fragments. Their small size suggests that their growth was arrested by the effects of lead poisoning. Other small invertebrate remains include bivalve hinge parts and limpet exoskeletons which were occasionally found during dredging in most of the excavation units. Three shark teeth were also recovered.

Botanical Remains

An ongoing analysis of the botanical remains is being conducted by Dr. Lee Newsom at the Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Even though the hull of the Emanuel Point Ship has only been partially excavated, the botanical remains found thus far are "quite diverse" and "include taxa from both the Eastern and Western hemispheres, as well as tropical and temperate species" (Newsom 1995:1). Tables IX and X list the specimens and their identifications.

In general, the plant materials from the shipwreck fall into six categories: 1) ship timbers, 2) dunnage, 3) rope or cordage, 4) food remains, 5) other useful plant materials, and 6) miscellaneous (possibly intrusive) materials from the coastal environment.

Timber Identifications

All ship timbers examined to date, except for stern Frame 6, are exclusively oak (Quercus sp.) (see Table IX.). According to Newsom (1995:1), the cellular structure of the samples is consistent with the white oak anatomical group. White-type oaks are found on both sides of the Atlantic and are often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish. The use of white oak in ship construction, including 16th-century practices, has been well documented.

Dunnage

Interspersed in the ship’s ballast were examples of rough-hewn wood that appear to represent a portion of the ship’s dunnage that was used to pack and cushion cargo in the ship’s lower hold atop the ballast stones. The small wooden branches occur in various lengths and range in diameter from 2 cm to 6 cm. A considerable number retain a golden-colored bark. Two species of wood were identified from samples sent for identification: persimmon and hornbeam (Newsom 1995:1-2).

The persimmon-type dunnage exhibits a definite ring-porous structure indicative of a temperate species. Newsom (1995:1), relying on geographic range and history of cultivation, believes that there are four possible candidates for the actual species match: Diospyros virginiana (common persimmon), Diospyros texana (Texas persimmon), Diospyros kacki (Chinese date-plum, persimmon), and Diospyros lotus (date-plum). The latter two originated in Asia; unfortunately, it is not known how long these particular species were known or cultivated by Europeans. However, persimmon seeds from the wreck (see below) have dimensions (17 mm - 18 mm long by 9mm - 12 mm wide) that fit the range for common persimmon (12 mm - 20 mm long by 7mm - 12 mm wide), but are much too large for Texas persimmon (06 - 8 mm long). Therefore, the presence of common persimmon seeds is a possible indication that the wood is from the same species. If in fact this vessel was supplied with common persimmon dunnage the Emanuel Point Ship may have been provisioned (or reprovisioned) in the New World prior to its voyage to Florida.

The second dunnage type, Carpinus sp. (hornbeam) compares well with Carpinus caroliniana (ironwood, blue beech), a tree found in bottomlands, swamps, and river margins of eastern North America, including the Florida panhandle. A second possibility is European hornbeam (Carpinus betulus). However, this species varies slightly (frequent presence of biseriate rays) from the archaeological specimens (whereas the latter conform in every detail with North American C. caroliniana).

Table IX
Wood and Dunnage Identifications from the Emanuel Point Ship

Specimen	Taxa	Common Name	Origin
* Data and analysis by Lee Newsom, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, June 1995.
Keelson* Mast Chock Foot Wale Miship Ceiling Midship Frame Buttress Bilge Board** Keel Pillar Midship Floor Miship Futtock Mast Shim Hull Planks Sternpost Stern Knee Tail Frames 1-5 Tail Frames 7-10	Quercus sp., white group	white oak anatomical group	Old World and New World
Tail Frame 6	Unidentified	hardwood
Dunnage*	Diospyros sp.	persimmon	OW&NW
Dunnage*	Carpinus sp. (C. caroliniana)	ironwood, blue beech	North America

Rope or Cordage

Eight rope fragments ranging in length from 21 to over 70 cm were found in test pits near the bow and midships. Examination with a light microscope revealed two distinct fiber types: hemp (Cannabis sativa) and grass.

The larger rope fragments are composed of hemp fibers worked into several threads 15 cm in diameter. These threads are right-hand laid and form three yarns, each 1.5 cm to 2.0 cm in diameter. By lying the yarns left-handed, ropes approximately 3.5 cm to 4 cm in diameter were fashioned. Two other lengths of rope (07,850.1 and 07,850.2) are each approximately 21 cm long and composed of three interwoven strands of relatively stiff, linear fibers forming a 2.6 cm diameter rope. "In contrast with the hemp fiber, the 07,850 fibers are incompletely retted, with epidermal and other tissues largely intact. These plant tissues derive from a grass (Poaceae, grass family), and may consist of stems, leaves, or both" (Newsom 1995:2).

The finding of hemp rope fragments in the shipwreck was not unexpected; the European manufacture of hemp rope is well documented. Spanish shipyards used hemp (cáñamo) that was exported from France, Flanders, and sometimes Germany; however, the Iberian region of Navarre also supplied hemp for the rigging of ships (Barkham 1981:47). The excellent preservation of the rope fragments is due in part to the presence of iron corrosion products that allowed individuals fibers of the rope to remain in place. Sometimes Spanish shipyards used the grass fiber esparto instead of hemp (Smith 1993: 4, 98). Discovery of a second type of cordage fashioned from grass is therefore also not unexpected.

Food Remains

The majority of archaeobotanical remains from the shipwreck consist of seeds and nuts from both tropical and temperate trees. Edible soft fruits from three American species and three European domesticates have been identified (Newsom 1995:2-3). The American taxa are common persimmon, as mentioned above, sapote (or zapote, Pouteria spp.), and tentatively identified papaya (cf. Carica papaya). Each species has a long history of use by different Native American peoples. Similarly, sapotes and papaya were often grown in neotropical home gardens for their large, edible fruits and medicinal uses. Each are found throughout the circum-Caribbean region.

The three European fruit trees represented in the ship remains included: olive (Olea europaea), plum/prune (Prunus domestica), and cherry (Prunus cerasus). "The cherry seeds are similar to seeds of North American wild plums (e.g. Prunus angustifolia) and would therefore represent native/wild species as opposed to a European domesticate, but the general morphology conforms better with domesticated cherry (Newsom 1995:3)" Over 400 hundreds olive have been recovered from the wreck. Second in frequency is persimmon with 12 seeds, followed by cherry (8 seeds) and cf. papaya (3 stems). The rest of the soft fruit types—plum and sapote—are represented by single seed specimens.

Several edible nut species appear in the Emanuel Point sample assemblage. European almond (Prunus amygdalus) is present (4 shell fragments), as is hazelnut (Coryleus sp.) that most likely represents the European cultivar (Coryleus avellana; 13 shell fragments). Two American nut-producing genera are identified: hickory (Carya sp.; four shell fragments) and oak (Quercus sp.; one acorn half, one aborted acorn). Finally, a single fragment of coconut (Cocos nucifera) shell was recovered. Coconut is considered pantropical, but it is uncertain whether it was present in the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean prior to the European presence on the American continents.

Other Useful Plant Materials

Two fragments of bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria) rind were recovered (07,821 and 07,786). According to Newsom (1995:3) "bottle gourd was originally native to Africa, but is known from archaeological contexts on the American continents, including Florida, from at least as early as 7,000 years before present." She suggests that the hard-shelled fruits would have been useful aboard the ship as containers or that the seeds of some varieties could have been eaten or processed into seed oil.

During excavations in Grid A1, a mass of resinous material (approximately 1 cm by 1.1 cm) was recovered from the dredge screen. This substance, which has since dissaggregated into a loose, amorphous mass, is deep reddish in color and somewhat tacky. According to Newsom (1995:3):

the presence of dissociated large-diametered vessel elements with scalariform perforation plates (a diagnostic cell type and structure in woody plants) that have thick, widely spaced bars, indicates the resinous material is from a tree, but not a coniferous species (e.g., pine); this cell type is exclusive to hardwoods, e.g., red mangrove).

Without a positive identification, the presence of this material aboard ship is somewhat problematical. Considering the other botanical materials found aboard the ship, it is likely that the material derives from a tropical American species. Newsom (1995:4) suggests that its presence aboard the ship could represent “glue or other sealing material (e.g. `gum elemi’ [Bursera simaruba] in balled up form.” Alternatively, the substance may have been used as a “medicinal and/or aromatic tree resins (e.g., copal, Burseraceae and other families).” For example, a native circum-Caribbean tree, lignum vitae (Guaiacum officinale, “wood of life”), became a very early article of the Spanish trade by 1508 (Record and Hess 1943:556-558). “The actual product from lignum vitae was the copius resin, known as `guaiac’ or 'Guaiaci,’ which was thought to have great medicinal value. Lignum vitae, like the Burseraceae (including gum elemi and copal), lacks scalariform perforation plates, but several other families and genera of the resinous tropical trees have them” (Newsom 1995:4).

One scholar of Mexican medicine, Schendel (1968:15, 62-80), notes that the Spanish were amazed at Aztec knowledge and employment of medicinal herbs. Evidence of this can be seen in Santa Maria de Yciar’s 1554 register where two medicinal substances were being shipped to Spain: tacamahaca, a type of gum or resin and sarsaparilla which the Aztecs used in treating respiratory diseases (Arnold and Weddle 1978:269-70). Organic chemical analyses are tentatively planned in cooperation
with the SIUC Geology department to help further discriminate and resolve the identification of this material.

Miscellaneous Plant Remains

Five of the plant identifications from Emanuel Point are probably intrusive into the site, having washed in from adjacent coastal areas. These remains are few in number, have no value as food items, and occur throughout the Gulf Coastal Plain biogeographic region (Newsom 1995:4). Botanical specimens in this group include fragments of bark (cf. Pinus sp., pine), seeds from two native trees (southern magnolia [Magnolia grandiflora] and swamp tupelo [Nyssa aquatica or N. ogeche], probably also the aborted acorn mentioned above, several small twigs, and two leaves (maple [cf. Acer rubrum [red maple] and oak cf. Quercus sp.]).

Discussion

The large number of olive pits found intermixed among the olive jar sherds confirms that olives were being carried aboard the ship in storage vessels. Olive remains have been a common find in Spanish shipwreck and land sites. Several olive pits were recovered from San Estéban (Arnold and Weddle 1978:368), the sixteenth-century Western Ledge wreck found off Bermuda (Franklin et al. 1994:59), and in sixteenth-century levels at St. Augustine and Santa Elena (Reitz and Scarry 1985:55). According to Reitz and Scarry (1985:35) "olives, grapes, and products derived from them, olive oil and wine, were important elements in the traditional cuisine. While survival did not depend upon these products, Spaniards felt deprived if they were absent from their daily diet."

The presence of nutshells and fruit remains may represent supplements to the official rations carried aboard the vessel. Aside from fruits and vegetables, spices and condiments, such as cinnamon, cloves, mustard, parsley, pepper, and saffron, were used to supplement voyages. Similar botanical remains were recovered from the Western Ledge wreck: almonds, plum or cherry stones, a coconut hull fragment, European walnut shells, and the base of a pumpkin stem (Franklin et al. 1994:59). Food remains found on San Estéban included almond shells and hazelnuts (Arnold and Weddle 1978:368).

In summary, archaeobotanical analyses from the shipwreck show diverse examples of plant remains that help to establish the ship’s cultural association, its original region of embarkation, and subsequent travels (Newsom 1995). European (Old World) taxa, such as almond, cherry, hazelnut, olive, and plum/prune are traditional Mediterranean food items. The absence of European wine grape specimens is curious, considering their presence on other early shipwrecks and frequent mention in documentary records, but wine residues or grape seeds may have been missed by sampling thus far. The presence, among the field specimens, of sapote, papaya, and perhaps the coconut shell and tree resin, demonstrates that the ship operated in the American tropics. Examples of native plants common to the temperate northern Gulf of Mexico, and/or in the direct vicinity of Pensacola include common persimmon, hickory nuts and acorns; the latter two could have served as fodder for pigs and other captive animals. Bottle gourd may have come from anywhere in the Caribbean, or from Africa.

Pollen Analysis

To test the feasibility of recovering pollen from the shipwreck, several sediment samples were collected from bilge debris in the pump wells, mast step mortise, and between the floors and buttresses of the ship. Four sediment samples were sent to the Palynology Laboratory at Texas A&M University for pollen processing and a presence/absence analysis. Before processing, each sediment sample was given a known quantity of an exotic tracer spore (Lycopodium, 11,300 ± 400 spores/tablet) so that concentration values could be determined (Weinstein 1994:2).

Pollen preservation of the samples ranged from fair to good. A number of grains, pines in particular, showed evidence of maceration, collapse, and fragmentation. These effects indicate that pollen grains were subject to some type of mechanical stress. At this site, "these probably include abrasion, grinding, and maceration due to the proximity of the shipwreck to the north shore of the bay, wave action, the shallow depth of the site, and periodic high energy storm events" (Weinstein 1994:4). However, each sample contained a large amount of pollen, a variety of taxa, few indeterminate grains, and high concentration values. The fossil pollen recovered in the samples was dominated by pine with lesser contributions of pecan, walnut, maple, oak, Ambrosia-type (ragweed) and Helianthus-type (sunflower) composites, non-Zea grasses, and Cheno-Ams (Weinstein 1994:3).

According to Weinstein (1994:3), pollen types recovered in the Emanuel Point Ship sediment samples reflect the contributions of floral types that are indigenous to the areas bordering Pensacola Bay. Although pollen grains in all of the samples exhibited evidence of mechanical and biological degradation, the presence/absence analysis confirmed that sufficient quantities of identifiable pollen are preserved in the bilge sediments to warrant statistically valid 200-300 grain counts. A complete analysis of these samples and future samples taken from the wreck may yield more specific information pertaining to the environment at the time the wreck occurred, shipboard diet, and cargo.

Table X
Archaeobotanical Identifications from the Emanuel Point Ship*

Specimen	Taxa	Common Name	Count	Origin**
* Data and analysis by Lee Newsom, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, June 1995. ** NA = North America; NW = New World (American continents); NWT = New World Tropical (Neotropics); OW - Old World; PT = Paleotropics; UC = uncertain origin (genera exists in both hemispheres).
Pits	Olea europaea	olive	434	OW
Pits	Prunus cerasus	cherry	8	OW
Pit	Prunus domestica	plum/prune	1	OW
Pits	Prunus amygdalus	almond	3	OW
Seeds	Diospyros virginiana	persimmon	12	NA
Seed	Magnolia grandiflora	southern magnolia	1	NA
Seed	Nyssa aquatica /N. ogeche	water or swamp tupelo	1	NA
Spiny seed/fruit	(unidentified)	-	1
Seed fragment	Pouteria sp.	sapote	1	NWT
Seed fragments	Diospyros virginiana	persimmon	8	NA
Seed fragment	Diospyros virginiana	persimmon	1	NA
Nutshells	Carya sp.	hickory	2	NA
Nutshell	Coryleus sp. (C. avellana)	hazelnut	1	OW
Nutshell fragment	Coryleus sp. (C. avellana)	hazelnut	9	OW
Nutshell fragment	Carya sp.	hickory	1	NA
Nutshell fragment	Cocos nucifera	coconut	1	PT
Acorns	Quercus sp.	oak	2	UC
Gourd rind	Lagenaria siceraria	bottle gourd	2	OW/NW
Stems	cf. Carica papaya	papaya (tentatively)	3	NWT
Leaf	cf. Acer sp.	maple (red maple, tentatively)	1	NA
Leaf	Quercus sp.	oak	1	UC
Twigs	(unidentified)	-	5
Bark	cf. Pinus sp.	pine (tentatively)	1
Bark fragments	(unidentified)	-	2
Rope sample	Cannabis sativa	hemp	± 25 ml	OW
Rope sample	Poaceae	grass family	± 20 ml	UC
Resinous mass	(unidentified)	disaggregated resin?	-
Misc. organic	unidentified)	inner bark?	4

Ceramics

The ceramic assemblage recovered to date from the Emanuel Point Ship includes coarse earthenwares of the olive jar variety, lead-glazed earthenwares, tin enamelwares, and colonial Aztec wares. In addition, brick or galley tile and what may be a portion of cooking brazier were found. Most of the materials in the ceramic assemblage recovered during excavations were stained by the dark tannin-bearing water and sediments. However, they slowly became identifiable over time after soaking in a solution of hydrogen peroxide. A study of the collection by Debra Wells, who is writing her Master's thesis on the topic, has typed the ceramics by attributes (color, paste, temper, coatings, shape and thickness), and compared them with similar examples from other archaeological sites to suggest a chronological range for the wrecking of the ship.

Olive Jars

The ceramic assemblage is predominately characterized by fragments of Spanish coarse earthenware of the olive jar variety. Descendent from Mediterranean wine amphorae, olive jars (known as botijas, botijuelas, and botijas peruleras) were used as containers for wine, olive oil, vinegar, honey, and other foodstuffs. They are frequently found on Spanish colonial sites, and are especially common on Spanish shipwrecks. Depletion of wood resources in Southern Europe, caused by centuries of shipbuilding and domestic usage, required an equally stable and versatile alternative to the wooden cask or barrel. Highly portable, and shaped in such a way that they could easily be stacked in the hold of a ship, olive jars had the benefits of strength and the ability to be reused. On transoceanic voyages these storage vessels served a dual function of cargo and ballast; once the voyage was complete, the jars could be emptied, washed, and refilled for a return voyage.

Storing liquids in earthenware containers can result in seepage, as the coarse, low-fired wares tended to absorb their contents. One method of solving this problem was to coat the interior of the vessel with a waterproof substance. Many olive jar sherds from the Emanuel Point Ship were found to be coated on the interior with two different kinds of sealant: a clay slip on some, and pine pitch on others (Wells 1994). Most of the sherds exhibit a white effluorescence on the exterior surface, which may have been a result of the unfired vessel having been washed with a saltwater slurry and then fired, causing the calcium within the clay to rise to the surface.

The traditional typology of olive jars is the work of Goggin (1960), who divided the containers into three distinct styles (early, middle, and late), based on vessel form and rim shape. Goggin also was able to establish separate date ranges for the different styles. Based on paste characteristics and sherd thickness, most of the Emanuel Point olive jar sherds fit within Goggin’s Middle Style; however, based on rim style, they appear to be of an early variety that has since been noted by more recent researchers on shipwrecks of the mid-16th century (Marken 1994; Avery 1993, 1994). The rim shapes correspond to what Marken has defined as Type 2, examples of which have been found on the St. John’s Bahamas wreck (1500-1550) and the Padre Island, Texas wrecks (1554) (Skowronek 1987; Marken 1994: 50-57).

A recent comparative study of olive jar rim shapes from shipwrecks, which are securely dated if their year of sinking is known, documents, for the first time, a gradual change in rim styles over time (Avery 1993). Using examples of rimsherds from the St. Johns wreck (1500-1550), the Padre Island wrecks (1554), the Spanish Armada wrecks (1588), Rosario (1590), San Martín (1618), an unidentified wreck believed to be from the 1622 fleet, Concepción (1641), the 1715 fleet wrecks, Tolosa and Guadalupe (1724), and the 1733 fleet wrecks, Avery has recorded the transition from an early to mid 16th-century inverted teardrop rim shape, to a curved, triangular-inprofile rim shape that begins in the 1580s, and evolves through the 17th century to an elongated, “question-mark” shape, culminating in a fat, donut rim profile.

Table XI. Chronological Chart of Middle Style Olive Jar Rim Profiles from Shipwrecks *

* Courtesy of George E. Avery (1993) 1588

Compared with Avery’s chronological outline, rimsherds from the Emanuel Point collection unlike those from sites dated 1588 and later; rather they are similar in profile to examples from the St. Johns and Padre Island sites, which date from the early to middle of the 16th century. This shape (Marken’s Type 2), however, has turned up on the wrecks of the Spanish Armada, but it represents an isolated example among the predominance of Marken Type 3 Middle Style rims (Martin 1979; Marken 1994). And in turn, there are some examples of thicker, Middle Style rims in the Padre Island, aside from the Type 2 shape (Skowronek 1987; Olds 1976). Based on his research, Avery suggests that the date for the Middle Style olive jar can be pushed back to 1554; he is also attempting to discover a connection between rim shape and container usage (Avery 1994).

Analysis of body sherds in the Emanuel Point collection indicates that the ship carried, in addition to early Middle Style jars, another variety of container with thinner body walls. The thin-walled sherds have a reddish paste, large quartz inclusions, a clay slip on the interior, and effluorescence on the exterior. They are probably from an Early Style vessel, since vertical rather than horizontal rilling patterns (the impressions left by a potter’s fingers or tools) are evident on several partially reconstructed sherds. However, no handle remnants or breakage scars appear on the portions thus far recovered. Avery suggests that the Early style container defined by Goggin is not of the Olive Jar variety but rather a form of cantina (Avery 1994, pers. comm.). Known as a cantimplora, an early style ceramic vessel with handles descended from the Near Eastern pilgrim bottle, this portable container fell into disuse in mid-16th century (Lister and Lister 1987:132).

Lead-Glazed Earthenwares

The second group of ceramics recovered from Emanuel Point is lead-glazed coarse earthenware. Sherds of this group include two diagnostic types, Melado and El Morro. Date ranges of usage for these two types have been established in archaeological contexts at St. Augustine and Santa Elena as well as other colonial sites within the Caribbean area (Deagan 1987:28). Melado (1490-1550), a lead-glazed pottery with a white underslip, is distinctively honey colored and is associated with Spanish colonial sites from the early to mid-sixteenth century. Seven Melado sherds are represented in the collection; a handle fragment with an apple-green glaze variant compares favorably with a similar sherd in the Lister type collection at the Florida Museum of Natural History. El Morro ware (1550-1770) is characterized by a thick, shiny green or rust colored glaze and has some temper inclusions in the ceramic paste. Thirteen sherds of this type are represented in the collection.

Tin Enamelwares

The third group of ceramics found at Emanuel Point consists of tin-glazed enamelware, first introduced during the fifteenth century in Italy, and which became vastly popular throughout Europe. Referred to as maiolica (Italian) or majolica (Iberian), faience (French), and delft (Dutch and British), the original Italian form had a thick white tin slip, was hand painted (usually with a floral or geometric design) and overglazed with a clear glossy finish (coperta), then fired. Two of the four enamelware sherds from the shipwreck have been tentatively identified. One appears to be of a style known as Sevilla Blue-on-White or Blue-on-Blue, with a light-gray background color and a dark-blue sprig and flower design, and dating between 1492 and 1600 (Deagan 1987:62-4). Another sherd appears to be from a Yayal Blue-on- White bacín container (utility basin or chamber pot) with a blue on white design on the interior base surface.

Aztec Ware

A unique group of ceramics were collected close together in the stern section of the ship. This group consists of six sherds of postclassic Aztec wares. The type is called negro grafitto sobre rojo pulido (Noguera 1975:187), and is characterized by a buff paste with a highly burnished red-to-orange slipped exterior, frequently seen with graphite-based paint applied in geometric patterns. The type also is called Aztec IV to mark its sequence in the progression of Mesoamerican pottery traditions (Pasztory 1983). The first sherd to be found at the shipwreck has a geometric design, consisting of black zigzag lines and dots. This motif occurs in various Aztec art forms, but, to date, no pottery parallels have been found to suggest the size, shape, or function of the container represented by this sherd.

Two curious, molded effigy sherds, one with a downward grimacing mouth filled with outlined teeth and surrounding facial decoration, the other with a molded left eye and cheek with facial decorations, also appear to be of the Aztec IV tradition. Photographs of the sherds were sent to Dr. Pilar Luna Erreguerena, of the National Institute of Anthropology and History in Mexico City, who showed them to her colleague, John Joseph Temple. According to Temple, the molded facial forms, burnished on one side with red to orange color, and unburnished (black) on the interior, were described by Barlow (1951) in relation to a codex made by 16th-century Indian potters from Cuauhtitlán, in the Central Valley of Mexico. Among their wares, the potters fabricated examples that showed the faces of Africans and Spaniards.

Barlow found the codex in the Aubin-Goupil collection of the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris; his interpretation of the codex was that it represented a legal plea by four potters (who were Chicimecan refugees) to the resident Spanish judge in 1564 for reimbursement, since their wares had not been paid for by the local alcalde (mayor), who had ordered them. On the codex, the potters illustrated in color the forms and numbers of the ceramics in question, along with their value in pesos and tomines, completing the document with iconographic portraits of themselves as signatures. Apparently the Cuauhtitlán potters stopped making pottery after a massive epidemic of cocoliztli (plague) occurred in 1576. This information was relayed to historian John de Bry, who happened to be working in the Bibliotheque Nationale. De Bry found the codex, and was able to copy portions containing illustrations of pottery decorated in the shapes of human heads.

Three additional Aztec pottery fragments subsequently were found in adjacent excavations at the stern. One is a small fragment which joins the earlier sherd with a grimacing mouth. Whether these examples of colonial native Aztec wares are from Cuauhtitlán, or whether they represent the faces of Africans, as shown on the codex, is not certain. Their enigmatic discovery in the stern of the vessel suggests that the ceramics were not cargo, but belonged to a high-ranking occupant of the ship. According to one Aztec ceramic specialist, wares of this type often were used for ceremonial purposes, as in the consumption of pulque, a fermented Mexican beverage (Thomas Charlton 1995, pers. comm.)

Other Ceramics

A single ceramic fragment of unknown type was recovered early during testing of the ballast mound. Of thick, soft paste, this poorly tempered piece was at first thought to be a portion of a lug handle for a large earthenware storage jar. Alternately, it could represent a portion of one of the legs of a cooking brazier. Its provenience among the ballast raises the possibility that it may have been introduced as debris, along with a load of stones sometime during the sailing career of the Emanuel Point Ship.

Discussion

Analysis of the ceramic assemblage from the Emanuel Point Ship, and its comparison with that of other dated archaeological sites suggests that the shipwreck may have occurred between 1550 and 1580. Certainly, the discovery of Aztec pottery, previously unreported from a shipwreck context, bears further investigation, as well as comparison with similar examples from terrestrial sites in Mexico, if they exist. However, ceramics can be used for other purposes than to establish a chronology for the site. In the case of the Emanuel Point ceramics, an interesting result of attempts to mend Olive Jar sherds has demonstrated the potential to shed light on the ship’s wrecking process. While cross-mending sherds from various proveniences, a trend seemed to occur in one particular vessel. A partial rim and shoulder was recovered from the outer port footwale, upper body sherds were found inboard, and middle body sherds came from above the keel. Tracking the positions of the cross mends suggests that the jar fell toward the port and broke, depositing the sherds in a linear pattern. Perhaps by tracking patterns such as this, aspects of the ship’s wrecking process can be reconstructed (Wells 1995).

Table XII
Ceramics Recovered from the Emanuel Point Ship

Ceramic Type	No. of Sherds	Weight of Sherds	% of Sherds
Olive Jar (unglazed)	712	13,813.2 gr	92.2%
Olive Jar (lead glazed)	9	171.1 gr	1.1%
cantimplora	10	556.9 gr	1.3%
Majolica	4	104 gr	0.5%
El Moro	13	58 gr	1.7%
Melado	7	51.3 gr	0.9%
Aztec	6	126.8 gr	0.8%
Unidentified	8	575 gr	1.0%
Brick	2	588.8 gr	0.3%
Tile	1	134.8 gr	0.1%
Total	772	16,179.9 gr	100%

Ordnance

To date, no artillery pieces or firearms have been found at the wreck site. However, the recovery of a variety of balls, or shot, provides clues to the types of ordnance that were most likely carried aboard the Emanuel Point Ship. Four types of shot are represented in the collection: stone, composite lead/iron, lead, and iron.

Stone

Eleven stone cannon balls, or bolaños, were discovered at the stern of the ship. The balls appear to have been fashioned by hand from limestone, probably with the aid of a template to guide the process of chipping the surface of the stone to a sphere of uniform size. Nine of the balls appear to have been manufactured from the same type of stone, of similar texture, color, and weight. Ball 01,000, however, is of a much coarser stone of lighter weight, while ball 00,775 is of similar weight and texture but of a much darker color. Although several of the balls in the collection exhibit flat areas, none being truely spherical, the similarity in diameter of all the balls (ranging from 10.03 cm to 11.02 cm) suggests that they may have been intended for the same weapon (Scott 1995).

Stone shot were fired from various large guns called pedreros (stone-throwers), or bombardas (lombards), and some of smaller caliber. They required less powder than other heavier ammunition to achieve their target; upon impact, the limestone balls tended to shatter into sharp projectiles that helped to destroy rigging and injure personnel. Two large pedreros were raised from the Manila galleon San Diego, which sank off the Philippines in 1600. Both are heavy muzzle-loading cast-bronze cannons with four lifting rings (Carré et al. 1994:208, 209). They fired stone balls of much larger caliber than those found on the Emanuel Point Ship. Elsewhere, a number of stone shot, varying greatly in diameter from 8.2 cm to 27.3 cm were found in association with wrought-iron lombard-type guns on the Villefranche wreck (Guérout et al. 1989). The smaller balls were probably ammunition for a bow-chaser, since they were found in the forward part of the ship; larger stone shot were found amidships with heavier artillery.

In the Americas, similar stone cannon balls are associated with the Spanish fleet that sank in 1554 off Padre Island, Texas. Five, ranging from 9.9 cm to 12.6 cm in diameter and weighing between 1,289 to 2,693 grams, were found at the wrecksite of Espíritu Santo (Olds 1976:85-86). A single stone ball was recovered from the San Estéban site; it weighed 1,147 grams and measured 9.9 cm in diameter (Arnold and Weddle 1978:250-252). Two stone balls also have been found at another sixteenth-century wrecksite (called St. John’s) in the Bahamas; they range between 9.2 cm and 9.8 cm in diameter (Malcom 1992). A single stone shot is alleged to have been found at the early 16th-century Molasses Reef wreck before the site was systematically excavated, but no record of its characteristics was made (Keith 1987:218).

Composite Lead/Iron

Smaller ammunition, fashioned from lead with an iron core, was also collected from the stern excavation area. Two lead balls, recovered with adhering ferrous concretions, was recognized as a type of shot characteristic of other 16th-century shipwrecks. Known by Spanish gunners as bodoques (Vigón 1947:45), these balls of composite con-struction were propelled from rapid-firing, breechloading swivel guns called versos. Each lead shot contained a cube of iron as a core, which has since completely oxidized, leaving a squared cavity visible through the lead shell. Shot 00,073, with a diameter of 4.05 cm, contained an iron cube which measured approximately 1.8 x 1.8 x 1.7 cm; shot 00,784 with a diameter of 3.96 cm, contained a cube of 3 x 2 x 2.1 cm. According to Vigón, the iron core was to be one-sixth to one-third the total weight of the ball.

Similar bodoques have been found on the Mary Rose, Henry VIII’s flagship, which sank in 1545 (Rule 1982), the 1554 Padre Island shipwrecks (Olds 1976; Arnold and Weddle 1978), a Portuguese wreck believed to date from the second half of the sixteenth century (Blake and Green 1986), as well as on the early Spanish wrecks at Highborn Cay (Peterson 1974) and Molasses Reef (Keith 1987). On the latter site, a number of iron cubes, or “dice,” cut from wrought-iron bar stock, were found, as well as a bronze shot mold.

The reasons why shot were designed in this manner are not yet fully understood, although several hypotheses have been offered. One is that they were intended to fly apart upon firing, producing multiple projectiles; or, that the iron core helped to mushroom the lead upon ignition and create a tighter gas seal in the cannon barrel for increased velocity and range (Keith 1987: 218). Another theory suggests that lead shot, as opposed to iron, created less internal wear and stress on the barrel from which they were fired (Blake and Green 1986:13). Perhaps the composite makeup of the shot creat-ed a double impact that resulted in greater damage to the target; certainly the inclusion of iron in a lead shot reduced the mass of the projectile, and may have required less powder to propel it at the same velocity as a solid lead shot (Simmons 1992:18).

Studies of composite lead/iron shot from the Molasses Reef wreck suggest that, rather than wrought or wrapped by hand, the balls were cast in a mold. Simmons (1992) noted that all of the iron cubes in composite shot from this site and others were characteristically off-center, having migrated into one hemisphere. He reasoned that the eccentric location of the iron cores resulted from the lighter iron “floating” on the molten lead within the mold before the shot cooled. To test this theory, he conducted an experiment using a bronze shot mold recovered from the wreck. After placing an iron cube into the mold, molten lead was added and allowed to solidify. Repeated replication of shot demonstrated that the iron cores did not float, but remained at the bottom of the mold in a consistant manner. Replica shot were sectioned for comparison with sectioned examples from the wreck; the positions of the iron cores in relation to the lead shells were identical, confirming that bodoque shot probably were fabricated in a mold in a quick and uncomplicated manner, with little regard for the eccentric situation of the iron core (Simmons 1992:17, 18).

Lead

In addition to composite shot, a single example of solid lead shot also was recovered. While heavier in weight, its diameter, 4.04 cm, is quite close to those of the bodoque shot, suggesting that it was also intended to be fired from a verso-type swivel gun. Versos were the most common type of light artillery aboard ships of the 16th century. These portable, rapid-firing weapons, were served by interchangeable powder chambers, and could be strategically mounted in sockets along the rails of a vessel wherever they were needed. First to be studied from an archaeological context, several examples were recovered from the 1554 Padre Island wrecks (Olds 1976; Arnold and Weddle 1978). Versos with their chambers were also found at the Highborn Cay Wreck (Peterson 1974), and on the Molasses Reef Wreck (Keith, 1987). The latter site produced 16 versos of three distinct types: the verso normale, which was the most common; the verso doble, a longer and heavier version; and the verso liso, a shorter and lighter version. Typical bore diameter of these weapons was approximately 4.5 cm (Keith 1987:197), and their ammunition around 4 cm, or nine-tenths the diameter of the bore of the guns.

Iron

A single example of cast- iron shot, of larger caliber than the verso shot, was found near the other balls. Its diameter, 6.23 cm, suggests that it may have been ammunition for a heavy wrought-iron gun. During the late 15th and early 16th centuries seige artillery went to sea for the purpose of bombarding enemy ships. During an age when the technology for casting large iron objects had not yet been developed, cannon tubes were hand wrought, or built up from smaller, forged pieces of iron welded together to form a reinforced barrel with a corresponding powder chamber. Essentially, a series of long, flat iron staves were laid up and welded parallel around a mandrel to form a tube, open at both ends. Then, a series of alternating iron sleeves and hoops were slid over the tube (barrel) and welded in place to provide reinforcement to the barrel. At least two of the hoops were fitted with lifting rings to facilitate moving and mounting the weapon to a wooden carriage. Powder chambers that mated to the breech end of the barrel were constructed in a similar fashion; a single gun may have had several interchangeable chambers to facilitate rapid reloading.

The most common type of built-up wrought-iron heavy guns found on 16th-century shipwrecks are called bombardetas. Examples from Mary Rose , the 1554 Padre Island wrecks, the Highborn Cay Wreck, the Molasses Reef Wreck, and the St. John’s Bahamas Wreck were found with their corresponding breech chambers and solid-iron ammunition. Bombardeta barrel lengths varied between 0.64 m and 2.65 m; bore diameters ranged from 7 cm to 11 cm; a pair of matched bombardetas from Molasses Reef exemplify the type, measuring 2.65 m in barrel length and 8 to 9 cm in bore diameter (Keith 1987:181)

The single iron shot from the Emanuel Point Ship may have been intended for use in a small bombardeta; its diameter (6.23) is almost nine-tenths the diameter of the smallest bombardeta bore. Alternately, it may have been intended for a shorter, smaller type of wrought-iron built-up cannon, called a cerbatana. A weapon like this was noted to have been on the Molasses Reef Wreck site, but was removed by treasure hunters before archaeologists could study its features (Keith 1987:182).

Discussion

Evidence of the ship’s artillery thus far is confined to the recovery of ammunition, examples of which indicate that the ship was armed with heavy, stone-throwing cannons, perhaps bombardas or pedreros, medium wrought-iron ordnance, such as bombardetas or cerbatanas, and smaller swivel guns called versos. All examples of artillery shot were recovered from the stern of the ship, suggesting that they were stored near their respective guns, mounted in the stern. Perhaps the Emanuel Point Ship carried stern chasers, which fired through gunports in the stern transom. The Basque galleon, San Juan, had one stern gunport, located on the main deck to starboard of the rudder (Grenier 1988:80). Discovery of ammunition in the stern alternately suggests that perhaps the shot locker was located there, although other areas of the shipwreck have yet to be investigated. However, if the shot were stored in the same location as gunpowder, their location should have been farther forward in the ship, since a royal ordinance of 1552 directed that a special chamber for the powder should be constructed below deck in the bows of all Spanish ships sailing to and from the Indies (Haring 1964:274). On the other hand, a mid-18th-century dictionary illustrating the of outfitting of Spanish ships shows the powder magazine in the poop (upper stern), under the cabins (Phillips 1986:70). The magazine was called the rancho de Santa Barbara, after the patron saint of gunners who offered protection against thunderstorms, fires, and sudden death.

The 1552 ordinance also listed the types of artillery, men, arms, and munitions that ships should carry, according to their respective tonnage. Ships of between 100 and 170 tons were to carry two brass cannons (sacre and falconete), six wrought-iron lombards (bombardetas), and twelve versos. Ships of between 170 and 220 tons were to carry three brass cannons (media culebrina, sacre, and falconete), eight lombards, and eighteen versos. And, ships of between 220 and 320 tons should carry four brass cannons (media culebrina, two sacres, falconete), ten lombards, and twenty-four versos (Haring 1964:274). According to these regulations, the Emanuel Point Ship could have been quite heavily armed, although artillery usually was loaded according to the specific mission of a ship, as were stores and provisions, rather than as an integral or permanent part of a vessel’s equipment. There is a question of whether any artillery still remains at the shipwreck site, since its situation in shallow water close to shore would have offered every opportunity to salvage this expensive and essential equipment.

Table XIII
Shot Recovered from the Emanuel Point Ship

Type	Number	Max. Dia. (cm)	Weight (grams)
Stone shot	00,090	10.86	1,808.0
Stone shot	00,280	11.02	1,821.8
Stone shot	00,299	10.71	1,709.8
Stone shot	00,300	10.65	1,792.1
Stone shot	00,549	10.88	1,854.4
Stone shot	00,601	10.89	1,748.2
Stone shot	00,775	10.98	2,078.0
Stone shot	00,975	10.03	1,768.1
Stone shot	00,983	10.85	1,710.2
Stone shot	00,985	10.71	1,727.8
Stone shot	01,000	10.51	1,540.0
Lead/iron shot	00,611	4.12	332.8
Lead/iron shot	00,784	3.96	179.0
Lead shot	00,073	4.04	395.0
Iron shot	00,515	6.23	775.0

Armor

An iron breast plate (peto) was discovered adjacent to the after edge of the rudder in the starboard stern area. Heavily encrusted, the plate was carefully recorded in situ and removed from context for transit to the laboratory. However, due to its extreme weight and fragile condition, the plate cracked upon recovery, and arrived in three pieces. Upon examination in the laboratory, it was determined that almost none of the original metal remains inside the heavy concretion.
It was also noted that the left sleeve area appears to have been broken in antiquity. The pieces were partially consolidated with plaster so that photographs and illustrations of the plate could be produced, and then placed in a storage solution of sodium sesqui-carbonate, along with several smaller associated encrustrations that are thought to be buckles or fasteners.

The breast plate has an overall length of 51 cm, from neck to waist skirt. At the waist, the plate’s maximum width is 41 cm; when lying on its back, the plate measures 19 cm in depth. Partial circumference arc is 59.5 cm at the waist. The bottom flange skirt is 4.5 cm wide; a second flange appears to have been riveted to the interior and has the same width. The entire object is covered with a light to dark gray sandy concretion which varies in thickness between 0.35 cm and 4.3 cm. Because the encrustation has broken, it is possible to gauge the original thickness of the metal plate at approximately 2.8 mm.

On the right interior of the waist are two concreted knobs 8 cm apart and located just above the flange. On the left interior, in the same position, is a large bulbous concretion, 13 cm in length, 11 cm in width, and 10 cm in thickness. These concretions are thought to be the remains of the buckling arrangement that fastened the breast plate to a back plate, which was not found on the site. The arm sleeve portions of the plate appear to have been rectangular in shape, rather than circular. Along with the neck portion, their edges were rolled back around what must have been a metal wire (ca. 4 m in diameter) to blunt and reinforce the edges of the plate where it came into contact with the arms and neck of the wearer. At this time, it is impossible to determine if the sides of the breast plate were similarly worked.

The deteriorated condition of this medieval armor warrants careful treatment to attempt further examination of details on the original surface of the piece. Since there is very likely no original metal left in the breast plate concretion, it is impossible to treat the object with electolysis. Therefore, a replica of the breast plate will be made by casting with hysol epoxy. In this case, the object will be reassembled as accurately as possible with plaster of paris. A large amount of plaster will be added to the front side of the plate to both encase and strengthen of object. At this time, the plate will be turned over and the concretion/iron sulfide corrosion products will be removed from the back side with an air scribe and dental picks. Hysol epoxy will then be painted into this large concave mold. This process will continue until a thickness approximating the original object has been achieved. The next step will involve filling the back side plaster to strengthen the epoxy shell. Once the plaster has hardened and the object is turned over, the plaster and concretion from the front will be removed exposing an epoxy cast of the original front. Lastly, the plaster will be removed from the interior surface of the epoxy. In this manner, a close dimensionally-correct copy of the front side of the breast plate can be fashioned with a very good chance of retaining diagnostic markings, such as decoration or proof marks, if they are present.

Discussion

The unexpected discovery of a breast plate at the Emanuel Point Ship offers an unusual opportunity to study one of the few surviving examples of metal body armor to be found in the Americas. Laboratory casts from the armor’s remains hopefully will allow detection of any decorations, or armorer’s or proof marks, should they exist. Undoubtedly, the breast plate holds a few secrets that can be interpreted by scholars. However, comparative examples of breast plates that are housed in European museums tend to represent the finest of the armorer’s art, owned by royalty or nobility, but rarely used in combat. Nonetheless, this relic of the Spanish imperial entrada into Florida, may provide clues to the identity and station of its original owner.

By the mid-16th century, metal body armor had generally been discarded by the Spaniards in America in favor of padded cloth armor. Made of canvas and stuffed with cotton, escaupiles, as the padded garments were called, were patterned after those worn by Aztecs, who, the Spaniards noted, were well protected from arrows. The men of Narváez had seen their armor repeatedly pierced by Florida arrows, and by the time Soto’s army arrived on the peninsula, they were equipped with quilted armor. Practical, lightweight and inexpensive, padded armor became in the 1570s a standard issue for soldiers at Santa Elena and St. Augustine (Peterson 1956:125).

Other Materials

Coin

A small coin was recovered outside the hull under a piece of lead abaft the sternpost on the starboard side. Dull gray in color, and highly encrusted with corrosion products, the coin (00,544) is in very poor and fragmentary condition. When placed in a storage solution of sodium sesquicarbonate, it tinted the solution green, suggesting that the coin was made of copper. Rather than attempting to clean the piece by mechanical or electrolytic means, a decision was made to treat it in an air-tight container with a solution of alkaline dithionite for two weeks in an attempt to reduce the corrosion products back to the parent metal. However, due the the apparent lack of core metal, the treatment was only successful in loosening the outer corrosion products from the sulfided core. Once the concretion was removed, the coin and its encrustation still retained sufficient detail to be drawn and photographed for tentative numismatic identification. Both the core and outer concretion were consolidated in acryloid B-72 folowing dehydration by a series of alcohol baths.

Photographs of the coin and encrustation were sent to Dr. John Kleeberg, Associate Curator of Modern Coins at the American Numismatic Society, who showed them to his colleague, Dr. Alan Stahl. They identified the coin as a billon blanca, minted between 1471 and 1474, possibly at the Cuenca mint during the reign of Henry IV (1454-1474) of Castille and León (John Kleeberg to R. Smith, 6 July, 1995) The term billon (vellón) refers to coinage made from an alloy of silver heavily debased with copper. Blanca was the lowest denomination of coins minted during this medieval monarch’s reign.

Features discernible at the upper right quadrant on the obverse side of the fragmentary coin are the edge of the castle (symbol of Castille) within a lozenge (diamond) encircled by a beaded ring. At one o’clock are visible the letters H E, which are part of the legend HENRICUS DEI GRACIA. On the reverse side of the coin, visible also on its encrustation in a mirror image, is the rampant lion (of León) within a lozenge surrounded by a beaded ring. At the top corner of the lozenge is the Cross of Jerusalem, and at 11 o’clock the letters R E, which are part of the legend XPS VINCIT XPS REG. On both sides of the coin various annuletes (punch marks) can be discerned at the sides of the lozenges, a characteristic of Henry IV blancas.

A similar blanca is described in two standard Spanish numismatic catalogs as a dinero (Castan and Cayon 1980:202; Cayon and Castan 1991:279). However, Dr. Stahl believes this designation is incorrect; his study of medieval mint decrees indicates that blancas of this type replaced earlier coins in 1471, and continued to be minted until 1474, when Henry was succeeded by his half-sister Isabella, who married Ferdinand (A. Stahl, pers. comm., 1995). During their reign, no other copper-based coins were issued until the coinage reform of 1497.

Fifty-nine blancas of this type were unearthed during excavations at La Isabela in the Domincan Republic, the first European settlement in the New World, which was founded by Christopher Columbus in 1494 (Stahl 1992; Deagan 1992). A single blanca of Henry IV also was found at the Long Bay site on San Salvador Island in the Bahamas, which is argued to have been the first American landfall of Columbus in 1492. Analysis by atomic absorption and emmission spectography of the San Salvador coin determined that it contained 3.97% silver and 95.7% copper (Brill 1987).

According to Dr. Stahl, Henry IV blancas were a principal medium of exchange that was used in the Americas upon the arrival of Spaniards. Circulation of these coins probably decreased in Europe after the minting reforms of Ferdinand and Isabella in 1497, and ended in the Americas after 1535, when the Mexico City mint began a large coinage output (John Kleeberg to R. Smith, 6 July, 1995). Discovery of this late medieval example of “small change” at the stern of the Emanuel Point Ship prompts questions as to the longevity of circulation of these coins by Europeans in the New World. By the 1550s, this would have been an old coin of little negotiable value; perhaps its provenience aboard the sailing ship was that of a keepsake or pocket-piece belonging to a passenger or crew member. Or, the coin came aboard very early in the ship’s career, was lost by its owner, and continued with the ship to its last port of call. Another possibility is that the coin may have been present among older ballast stones that were loaded aboard the ship at an established port, where dumps of recycled stones were available to vessels in need of additional ballast.

Glass

Two shards of thin glass were recovered from excavations amidships. One (08,776) is an amber or yelowish-brown color, comparable in shade to Munsell #10YR 5/8. It measures 9.2 mm by 11.2 mm and is 1.6 mm in thickness. A single similarly amber-colored glass shard (2.6 mm in thickness), slightly curved and badly abraded was found on the Molasses Reef Wreck (Smith 1986a:4).

The second shard (08,796) is quite thin, and light greenish-gray in color, comparable to Munsell #5GY 7/1. It measures 15 mm by 25.5 mm, and is .5 mm in thickness. This shard corresponds to the pale green “lightbulb glass” found at Santa Elena, South Carolina. The Santa Elena glass ranged from .5 mm to 1.55 mm in thickness, averaging at .81mm (South et. al. 1988:25). The pieces probably were household items, from stemmed glass ware. Shipboard examples of this pale green glass have turned up at Molasses Reef with the recovery of the bottoms of two nearly identical pharmaceutical vials (Keith 1987:255). These were similar to others found at the sixteenth-century offshore colony of Nueva Cádiz, Venezuela, which are described containers for medicines from Southern Spain (Willis 1976:63-64,
appendix 2).

Mercury

Tiny droplets of mercury (azogue) initially were noticed adhering to small concretions recovered from the mast step assembly, and again from the sternpost area of the site. As excavations progressed at the stern, larger quantities of mercury were discovered in sediments along the port and starboard sides and between the last three frames of the ship. To date, approximately 250 milliliters (3,270 grams) of mercury have been recovered.

Mercury, or quicksilver, was employed in mining to separate precious metals from baser metals in crude ores. Smelted itself from cinnabar ore, the liquid metal formed an amalgam with nobler metals when heated in a mixture of their ores. It was then extracted through distillation for reuse. Quicksilver also was used in small quantities for medicinal purposes (Biringuccio 1943:81). First transported to the New World by Columbus in 1494 in the search for gold in the Antilles, liquid mercury has been recovered from excavations at La Isabela, Dominican Republic, where 155 grams were collected from the sediments inside the storehouse (Deagan 1992: 63). Apparently, it had escaped into the soil when a container broke apart or rotted. Ceramic crucibles, used to melt gold, were also found.

Quicksilver was not transported to the Spanish colonies in quantity until the mid-sixteenth century when it was imported to Mexico, under royal monopoly, for the amalgamation of silver from ore by a new method called the “patio process.” The process is generally credited to Bartolomé de Medina, a native of Seville, who received permission to import the metal in 1556 (Haring 1964:158). Sources for mercury in Europe at that time were Almadén, Spain, site of one of the most extensive deposits of cinnabar, and Idria in the Austrian Alps (Whitaker 1941:5).

Mercury first came to Florida with the expedition of Luna in 1559. Viceroy Velasco wrote to Luna that he was sending a special red stone (cinnabar) of quicksilver metal (piedra del metal del açogue) and the pellet (gauarro) that went with it, as well as instructions on how to use them to find gold and other precious metals in the new colony (Velasco to Luna, October 25, 1559. In Priestley 1928: 1:77)

The presence of mercury in the bilge of the Emanuel Point Ship suggests that, at one time, the vessel had carried a cargo which included quantities of quicksilver, which may have leaked from containers and gravitated into the bottom of the hold. Transport of mercury was a tricky business, since the metal oxidizes very quickly, resulting in corrosion of containers and resultant leakage, which is difficult to recover, especially at sea.

Quicksilver has been found on other sixteenth-century shipwrecks, although not in the quantity recovered from the Emanuel Point Ship. Tests conducted at a shipwreck site in the Bay of Campechy produced brass pins with mercury adhering to them (Smith 1988:88); small pools of quicksilver were also found in the hull of the Fuxa wreck, thought to be Nuestra Señora de Rosario, which sank on the northeastern coast of Cuba in 1590. By far the greatest quantity of mercury was found on the remains of two quicksilver transports Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe and Conde de Tolosa, which wrecked in a hurricane on the north coast of the Dominican Republic in 1724. They were carrying 400 tons of mercury, enough to supply the mines of Mexico for a full year. The galleons had been specially strengthened to carry their precious but unstable cargo by installation of shelves in the bottom of the holds upon which boxes of the mercury were stacked. The cargo of quicksilver was poured into sheepskin bags, then sealed in wooden casks. Each cask held a half a quintal (hundredweight) of metal; three such casks were packed into a wooden box padded with thick grass matting. Each box held 1 1/2 quintals of (about a gallon and a half) quicksilver, and was painted on the top with the royal arms of the Spanish Crown (Smith 1988:104).

Intrusive Material

Three types of objects, which appear to have been deposited at the site subsequent to the ship’s wrecking, were recovered during the initial testing phase. They are all associated with fishing activities. Several pyramid-shaped lead fishing weights were found among the ballast stones in the central portion of the site. They are of a modern type, molded with small wire rings for attaching them to fishing line.

During examination of the ship’s anchor, two encrustations were collected, which upon electrolytic reduction appear to be associated with shrimp trawling activities over the site. One encrustation consisted of several small steel chain links, that were fashioned with a threaded closure fitting; the other encrustation contained a slender piece of wire rope. These modern objects may have been part of a
shrimping net, which at some time in the past may have become caught on the
anchor’s fluke.

Conservation

During the initial testing and excavation of the Emanuel Point ship both the numbers and types of artifacts recovered from the Emanuel Point ship were small. Preliminary cleaning, analysis, and stabilization of the first artifacts was conducted at a temporary field laboratory (kitchen) in the Pensacola Shipwreck Survey headquarters (Mitchell 1993). By the end of the season, however, enough artifacts had been recovered from the wreck to require the services of a full-time conservator, additional laboratory space, and equipment.

Courtesy of the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board, laboratory space was made available in the basement of the T.T. Wentworth, Jr. Museum in Pensacola’s historic district. Previously, this space had functioned as a dry laboratory during the excavation of a nearby British-period site and was also suitable for a wet laboratory as it was equipped with a large amount of counter space and running water.

Once full-scale excavations resumed in 1994, the large number of concretions and other artifacts being recovered from the field each day required the use of a second room just for storage. Between July 1994 and July 1995, these two rooms were equipped with storage vats, indispensable Tupperware containers, refrigerators, an air scribe (pneumatic air chisel) and compressor, an X-ray machine, conductivity and pH meters, titration apparatus, computer, and the thousand‑and‑one items necessary to begin the analysis and treatment of the artifacts. Equally important was the installation of drafting and photography areas to document the artifacts.

In addition to a conservator, the laboratory was staffed by graduate student interns, an illustrator, and a host of extremely interested and talented volunteers from the Pensacola Archaeological Society, Inc. and the local community. A wide variety of chemicals, equipment, and technical support were also donated by an enthusiastic business community.

Generally, all laboratory treatment procedures followed standard methods for underwater sites as outlined by Hamilton (1994) and Pearson (1987). As noted below, certain treatments and techniques were slightly modified for various artifacts due to their condition or composition.

Ceramics

To date, the most numerous artifact type recovered has been ceramics. Well over 90 percent of the ceramic collection consists of unglazed coarse earthenwares. Conservation treatments, therefore, have been minimal: removal of soluble salts, organic stains, and some marine growth.

The most effective treatment for removing stains (tannin and/or metallic sulfides) has been immersion in hydrogen peroxide or citric acid. Hamilton recommends immersion in 10-25% hydrogen peroxide for 24-36 hours (1994:19). In practice, however, it was found that a three percent solution was very effective in removing organic stains in a relatively short time (1-3 hours). A three percent solution of hydrogen peroxide is very inexpensive and can be obtained locally at any grocery or drug store. More stubborn stains (black metallic sulfides) and some adhering marine growths required treatment in citric acid (5 percent) for anywhere from three to forty-eight hours.

A few ceramics were found with varying amounts of iron oxide corrosion products adhering to their surfaces. These required mechanical cleaning with dental picks and soaking in five percent solutions of EDTA (ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid [di-sodium salt]) or oxalic acid. The use of oxalic acid was terminated when it proved too effective and over-cleaned one fragment of tin-glazed earthenware. Fortunately, the few glazed ceramics that were recovered appeared to be less susceptible to staining and usually only required rinsing.

A number of Spanish olive jar fragments retained traces of pine resin or pitch on their interior surfaces. If these sherds were allowed to dry the resin would spall off from the surface. Consolidation with PVA (polyvinyl acetate) or acryloid B-72 was impractical since the resin dissolved in alcohol, acetone, or toluene. Therefore, the water soluble consolidant, PVAL (polyvinyl alcohol) was added to the final rinse water. A fifteen percent solution of PVAL/distilled water effectively consolidated the resin to the sherd.

Soluble salts were removed after cleaning by placing the sherds in a series of distilled or de-ionized water baths. Rinsing continued until conductivity readings stabilized below 20µs as monitored by a conductivity meter.

Iron

Over 600 concretions have been recovered from the ship. Because of the pH, depth, and mineral contact of the seawater and seafloor, the composition of the concretions are friable and sandy in texture. Consequently, many of the smaller fastener concretions were found broken, possibly from prior storm and wave events at the site. All of the concretions, regardless of size, had to be handled with care especially during transport.

In nearly every case, the concretions have lost all of their original iron. Various corrosion processes have converted the iron to a very black iron-sulfide slush. As is commonly the case, concretion molds were formed preserving details of the original form. A pneumatic chisel was used to inscribe a line along or around the concretions. By hitting along this line with a chisel and a hammer, the concretion were broken in a predetermined manner. Oddly-shaped concretions were X-rayed and the resulting radiographs used as direction maps for cleaning. Corrosion residues were removed by simply washing them out with water and/or by dental picks and stainless steel wire. After the residue was removed, the concretion voids were filled with epoxy (Hysol 1301).

Often, wood remnants from the ship’s planking or timbers have been incorporated into the concretion. Considerable care had to be taken when cleaning the mold cavities so that the wood, which is still very soft and porous, was not removed. Without care, additional spaces in the concretion could be created and, thereby, cause casting compounds to flow into the new areas and distort the original shape of the artifact. A few concretions contained wood riddled with teredo holes. Once these specimens had been cast, and the remaining concretion removed, replica artifacts were produced surrounded by epoxy-cast teredo worm casings.

One iron shot (00,515) was recovered from the wreck. Due to its compact and spherical mass, a substantial iron core was found underneath approximately 2.5 cm of built-up concretion. After the concretion was removed the iron was successfully treated with a standard electrolysis treatment as outlined by Hamilton (1994 and 1976). Similarly, one large composite concretion composed of five fasteners was found to contain both molds and corroded iron. In this case, the molds were first filled with hysol epoxy and after the concretion was removed, the iron/epoxy artifacts were treated by electrolysis.

Lead

During stern excavations well over 200 fragments of lead sheathing or patching were recovered. Since the corrosion products of lead are stable (Hamilton 1994:102), conservation treatments have been minimal. Selected lead fragments have been cleaned by electrolysis or placed in a ten percent solution of hydrochloric acid (HCl) to reveal surface details that occasionally were obscured by a thin layer of calcium carbonate, lead sulfide and/or lead oxide. Chemical cleaning or electrolytic cleaning is non-abrasive and, in this case, permitted surface impressions of what was very likely sail cloth to be revealed.

Several lead objects, notably the bodoques (lead-covered iron shot), were found with adhering concretion. These pieces were easily freed of concretion with an air scribe, polished with baking soda, and sprayed with a protective coating of acrylic spray.

Cupreous Artifacts

Only four cupreous artifacts were found: a brass ring (08,824), a copper pitcher (07,852), a copper coin (00,544), and a copper cooking cauldron. The latter was found during test excavations and was intentionally left on the site until full scale excavations could resume in what is very likely the galley area of the vessel. A small rivet from the cauldron was recovered for examination.

The brass ring, which may be associated with the ship’s rigging, required a short term cleaning in electrolysis, rinsing, and a gentle polish with baking soda. As a final stabilization step the ring was placed in a solution of one percent BTA (benzotriazole) for twenty-four hours. BTA forms an insoluble, complex compound with cupric ions and forms a barrier against any moisture that could cause future corrosion such as “bronze disease” (Hamilton 1994:92).

A copper pitcher (07,852) was found heavily corroded into copper sulfide. Due to its fragile nature, a long-term, passive treatment in a three percent sodium sesquicarbonate bath was chosen. By placing the artifact in an alkaline solution, soluble cuprous chlorides may be passively removed. This treatment is likely to last from one to two years. Because a custom made aquarium was used as a the treatment vat, it was possible to display and treat the object at the same time. The solution is periodically monitored for chloride counts and, when necessary, changed. Once it has been determined that the chloride levels are at an acceptable level (below 100 ppm) the vessel will be carefully dehydrated, treated with BTA, and consolidated.

As mentioned earlier, the copper coin also received passive conservation. Prior to treatment, it was not known whether the coin was silver, copper, or an alloy of both. In this case, an alkaline dithionite (see Pearson 1987:242 and Hamilton 1994:100) was chosen as the method most likely to preserve original details of the coin and equally suitable for either type of metal.

Faunal Materials

Bones and teeth were recovered from the wreck in very good condition except for some slight organic staining. In a few cases, bones were cleaned in 3% solution of hydrogen peroxide as outlined above for ceramics. Like the ceramics, all faunal materials were of rinsed in a series of de-ionized water baths until a conductivity reading below 20µs was achieved. Following the removal of salts, all faunal materials were dehydrated in a series of alcohol baths followed by acetone. Immediately afterwards, faunal specimens were placed in a 10 percent solution of acryloid B-72/acetone for consolidation. This treatment procedure proved very effective for the smallest rat vertebra to the largest cow ribs. Only very slight exfoliation and/or cracking was observed on some of the larger bone fragments.

Botanical Materials

The majority of the botanical remains (olive pits, nutshells, seeds, leaves, etc.) have only recently been analyzed. In consultation with paleobotantist Lee Newsom, it was decided that these specimens should be identified before any conservation treatments were applied. Therefore, all specimens were stored wet. To retard any fungal or bacterial decomposition the specimens were placed in refrigerated storage in a 20% solution of ethanol/D.I. water. Should these materials be displayed at a later time, selected specimens will be dehydrated and consolidated with a suitable resin such as PVA or acryloid B-72.

Textiles and Rope

Only one fragment of textile has been recovered from the ship. When a large lead fragment was removed from a gudgeon concretion a small piece of textile was found preserved between the outer lead covering and the corroded iron arm of the gudgeon. Undoubtedly, the infusion of iron corrosion products from the gudgeon and the close proximity of the lead allowed the piece to survive. The textile fragment has been cleaned in a weak solution of hydrochloric acid (10 percent) and placed in refrigerated storage until identification can be attempted.

Two types of rope or cordage have been recovered from the wreck: hemp and grass fiber. Both rope types were found more or less covered with an orange-colored iron-type corrosion. To more accurately measure and determine the rope’s composition it was decided to place the fragments into a 5% solution of EDTA (di-sodium salt) for cleaning. In the case of the hemp fibers the treatment proved very effective and left the rope intact with its more natural lighter color. Unfortunately, the grass fibers which turned out to have been fashioned from short sections of linear fibers quickly dissociated from their original form and separated into hundreds of short segments once the iron corrosion was removed. If fibers of this type are found during later excavations it is planned to consolidate them prior to removing any concretion, if any attempt is made to remove concretions at all.

Insects

Because the samples of insects (American cockroach wings, othecas, and egg cases, as well as hide beetle wing covers) appeared extremely fragile, the only con-servation treatment applied to them was placement of samples into 100% ethanol for storage. Study specimens were then obtained by placing selected specimens on microscope slides and sealing the insect remains between the glass slide and a cover slip with a thin solution of PVA glue.

Stone

Stone artifacts, such as the shot, required only a small amount of mechanical cleaning with an air scribe or dental pick to remove small amounts of adhering concretion or shell. A few small spots of black surface discoloration were removed by spot treating with a mild solution of HCl applied with cotton swabs.

Ballast stones recovered from the ship’s hull were generally covered with marine growth. Those ballast stones chosen for identification were slabbed so that their natural surfaces could be examined without the use of chemical treatments.

Wood and Leather

Various items of wood recovered in 1993 required more elaborate conservation techniques than were available at the Pensacola Shipwreck Survey headquarters (Mitchell 1993). These included two dunnage specimens, two tool handles, a galleon carving, a cork, and small timber recovered from the port pump well. Each of these specimens was treated by freeze-drying at the South Florida Conservation Center in Pompano Beach, Florida. Prior to freeze-drying each artifact was given a pre-treatment in PEG (polyethylene glycol, 30% PEG 300, 20% PEG 1000, and 10% PEG 400 in distilled water) for six weeks (Maseman 1994).

Similarly, all leather artifacts were treated by freeze-drying following a pre-treatment in 15% glycerol for four months (Maseman 1994). Both the PEG and glycerol pre-treatments were designed to “bulk” up the wood and leather prior to freeze drying. The methods successfully prevented subsequent cellular collapse (that could have led to extreme shrinkage and deformation).

Other Artifacts

Certain artifacts such as shell, coral, stone, and a large number of the lead fragments required essentially no treatment beyond simple washing and air drying. Approximately, 250 ml of mercury was also recovered and likewise required no special care other than carefully pouring off a small amount of seawater which had been recovered along with it. In consideration of the potential health hazards associated with mercury, the very heavy liquid was placed in a tightly sealed polyethylene bottle and placed in a secured location where it cannot be accidently dropped.

Future Considerations

It is estimated that at least one more year will be required to finish the analysis and conservation of the remaining untreated artifacts. The majority of the this time will necessarily be spent casting nearly 400 concretions. Several of these are quite large (gudgeon arms and a pintle), and at least one is also very challenging: the breast plate (00,712). Undoubtedly, as these “excavations” continue in the laboratory many more exciting finds will be revealed.

If excavation of the ship continues at a later date some future considerations for the laboratory are necessary. A freeze drier, vacuum chamber (for consolidation and casting uses), and one or two more air scribes are required. If it is decided that the copper kettle and the anchor are to be raised it will necessary to obtain suitable vats for their treatment and storage.

Table XIV
Summary of Artifacts Recovered From The Emanuel Point Ship

Type	Sub-type	1993	1994	1995	Total
Ceramics	Unglazed sherds	370	142	210	722
	Glazed sherds	20	9	4	33
	Aztec	0	5	1	6
	Brick	1	1	0	2
	Tile	1	0	0	1
	Unidentified	0	0	0	8
	Subtotal				772
Concretions	Iron (fasteners, etc.)	12	128	471	611
	Lead	0	0	3	3
	Subtotal				614
Metal	Lead (sheathing or patching)	5	143	109	257
	Lead (intrusive fishing weights)	3	0	0	3
	Iron (fasteners, etc.)	15	11	3	29
	Iron (shot)	0	0	1	1
	Iron and Lead (composite shot)	0	1	2	3
	Brass (ring)	1	0	0	1
	Copper (pitcher)	1	0	0	1
	Copper (coin)	0	0	1	1
	Copper (rivet)	1	0	0	1
	Mercury (ca. 250 ml)	0	0	2	2
	Wire rope (intrusive)	5	0	0	5
	Other (slag, intrusives, etc.)	37	0	0	37
	Subtotal				341
Wood	Dunnage	38	0	0	38
	Plugs or stoppers	0	4	0	4
	Peg with tenon	0	1	0	1
	Tool handles	2	0	0	2
	Corks	2	0	0	2
	Galleon carving	1	0	0	1
	Pump well board	1	0	0	1
	Samples	157	61	20	238
	Subtotal				324
Organic	Bone (mammal, fish, rodent, etc.)	64	326	31	421
	Teeth (pig, shark)	0	1	3	4
	Botanical specimens	50	36	9	95
	Olive pits	406	26	2	434
	Invertebrate remains	0	0	7	7
	Insect remains	8	3	0	11
	Leather	7	0	0	7
	Rope	8	0	0	8
	Textile	0	0	1	1
	Caulking samples	2	0	0	2
	Unknown	2	10	1	13
	Subtotal				1,011
Glass	Green and amber fragments	2	0	0	2
Stone	Ballast	81	23	6	110
	Shot	0	4	7	11
	Other	4	6	4	14
	Cut	1	0	0	1
	Subtotal				136
Coral	N/A	18	0	1	19
Shell	Bivalves	43	0	0	43
	Gastropods	9	0	0	9
	Barnacles	2	0	0	2
	Subtotal				54
Total		1,394	937	898	3,230

Conclusion

In the shallow waters off Emanuel Point, the lower hull of what was once a large, wooden sailing ship, weighed down by ballast stones, gradually settled into the sand, and became entombed for centuries by layers of shells and sediments. A violent storm had caused the ship to strike the outer edge of a sandbar, and repeated pounding of the hull, as it lay on its port side, caused planks and frames to break open, sealing the vessel’s fate. Grounded in less than three brazas (fathoms) of water at Bahía de Santa María de Filipina, in the Mar del Norte, the ship had reached its last port of call. Fortunately, after the storm abated, some of the vessel’s equipment and cargo were accessible below decks, and could be salvaged.

The ship’s keel had been laid some years earlier in a Spanish shipyard; its shipwrights and carpenters followed the traditional methods of building blue-water merchant vessels for the Atlantic trade. They chose seasoned timbers of white oak, tested over centuries of seafaring for its soundness and durability. According to the construction contract, they were to build a nao or galeón of just over 400 toneladas, equipped for safety with two pumps, instead of one. Prefabricated frames, shaped to templates, were erected at primary stations along the keel to give the hull its general form. Then secondary frames, each carefully carved to follow the hull’s gradual rising and narrowing body, were inserted between the principal frames from bow to stern. Those at the stern, where the hull narrowed to meet the sternpost, were notched out to fit over the keel. The last few tail frames also fit over a long, curved knee, which braced the sternpost to the keel.

A heavy keelson, notched along the bottom at the prescribed intervals, was set into place over the frames and bolted to the keel. The thickest part of the keelson was fashioned with a large mortise to hold the heel of the ship’s mainmast. At the bottom of the mortise, a shipwright chiseled a cross, perhaps to mark the location of the main frame at the widest part of the hull. Just behind the mortise, carpenters had cut out concavities for a pump shaft on either side of the keelson. Once in place, the mast step area of the keelson was supported on each side by four small transverse buttress-es to prevent lateral shifting of the assembly under the stress of sail. Between the buttresses, carpenters fashioned thin boards, which covered the open spaces to the bottom of the hull, but could be lifted to inspect the area for trash that might clog the bilge. As this work progressed, one of the men inadvertently left a small gimlet, or auger, behind; later, he could not remember what had become of it.

Other workmen laid internal planking inside the hull, fastening it to the frames below. Strakes of ceiling planks, on either side of the thick footwale, would help to protect the frames and outer hull planking from shifting cargo and ballast stones. Some had to be custom fit, especially around the buttresses and pump sumps. To isolate the sumps from ballast and cargo that might interfere with the pumps, carpenters constructed a box to enclose the area. As this job was being completed, scraps of wood, one of which had been idly whittled into the shape of a ship, found their way into the pump well.

Meanwhile, a team of men on the outside of the hull bent long strakes of planking to the frames and pinned them in place with hundreds of wrought-iron nails. After each was securely fastened, the caulkers began their work. Seams between planks were scraped and scored to allow the insertion of tarred oakum, which was pounded home with irons and mallets. At the stern, wrought-iron rudder fittings, or gudgeons, were bolted to the sternpost. They had been made to fit the hull by blacksmiths, who bent and welded straps of bar stock over forged rings to serve as hinges for the rudder, which was being fitted with corresponding fittings called pintles. The pintles were similarly forged, but with a pin instead of a ring.

Once the ship had been framed, decked, and planked, it was ready to be launched into the water, and fitted with masts, rigging, and superstructure. Before launching, the hull was partially filled with fixed ballast culled from cartloads of the larger stones delivered to the shipyard by the ballast mongers. The mongers collected stones where they could, from rock quarries, river banks, beaches, and ballast dumps. Cobbles of dense, water-worn stone were placed at the bottom of the hold; between them were spread smaller cobbles and pebbles to form the initial layer of ballast that would keep the ship upright while its fitting out was completed dockside.

Shipowners and shipwrights knew from sorry experience that ships entering the Indies trade quickly were besieged by worms that found their way into the wood below the waterline and soon consumed it. Warm waters of American ports, where a merchantman might lay idle between ladings, accelerated the shipworms’ inevitable attack; prevention was less expensive than remedy. Worms would enter the hull at the vulnerable open-grain ends of the planks, and at the seams between them. While the newly-built ship was still on the ways, sheets of lead were unrolled and cut into long strips; barrels of wrought-iron, flat-headed tacks were brought from the yard storehouse; old sailcloth was collected, and tar buckets made ready. Workers set about laying up the tarred cloth along planking seams below the anticipated water-line of the hull. Next, they nailed the strips of lead over vertical and horizontal seams, taking care to pound an additional row of tacks directly into the oakum-filled seams. The sheathing not only covered seams, but would serve to prevent their caulking from coming loose as the ship’s hull worked at sea. As an added measure of protection, the arms of the gudgeons also were covered with sheathing, since the fasteners to these fittings tended to work in the wooden hull and eventually offer opportunity for worm infestation at this critical area.

When the expensive and labor-intensive task of sheathing was completed, the ship was launched, and its rudder installed. Made of two heavy balks of straight timber let into each other, joined on edge, and through-bolted, the rudder (like the ship it would serve) was a marvel of craftsmanship. Designed to capture water currents delivered to it by the narrowing of the hull below the waterline, the rudder was just wide enough to serve as a foil, but not so wide as to become unwieldy to operate. Custom-fitted with pintles that wrapped around the entire structure, the rudder was hung into gudgeons at the sternpost. The task of hanging the rudder involved careful alignment and coordinated engineering, since the rudder’s forward face had been designed with recessed slots at each pintle that would only allow the pins to fit into their respective gudgeon rings when the rudder was inserted into place from the port side of the ship. This clever arrangement allowed not only a close fit with little tolerance in the hinges, but maximized the juxtaposition of wood surfaces between the sternpost and rudder.

Masts were inserted into the hull and made fast with standing rigging, which was fine tuned, then tarred to make it weatherproof. Spars to carry sails were fixed to the masts and rove with the tackle of running rigging, made of hemp and Spanish esparto grass. At the same time, carpenters finished their tasks of installing internal bulkheads, taking care to strengthen the powder storeroom (rancho de Santa Barbara), and building the superstructure above the main deck. The forecastle (tilla) rose above the heavy beak (espolón) that projected from the stempost. On top, an open platform (castillo), surrounded with a low bulwark and rail, offered a strategic location for mariners to work the rigging of the foresail and spritsail, and to deploy weapons during a sea battle. The sterncastle (tolda) consisted of a half deck that served as an open bridge, from which the captain and officers commanded the vessel and the mariners worked the running rigging. Below it was a partially enclosed area for the rudder tiller and navigational apparatus. Above the tolda was the quarter deck (cuadra cubierta), the highest part of the superstructure, which was used for conning the ship. Below it was an enclosed roundhouse (chupeta), where the commander of the ship had his private cabin. The quarter deck and the roundhouse made up the toldilla, which encompassed the after portion of the half deck, immediately above the steering station on the main deck.

To complete fitting out of the ship, hemp cables (guindalesas) for mooring, anchoring, and docking were taken aboard, as well as wrought-iron anchors ranging in size from the large, sheet anchor (ancla de salvación) to a small grappling hook (cloque). Forward of the mainmast in the hold, the ship’s galley was equipped with a cookstove (fogone) mounted on tiles, a large, copper cauldron (caldera), and various other cooking implements, including a copper pitcher lined with tin for heating liquids. The ship was now ready for its first voyage. A universe of other items, such as arms, artillery, and ammunition, spare nautical equipment and utensils, and medical supplies, all would be added to the ship’s complement, as would crew, passengers and provisions, according to the purpose and destination of the new vessel.

The ship’s sailing career took it to Spanish-American waters, where it deliver-ed European goods and products needed in the colonies. One product, quicksilver, was delivered to the port of San Juan de Ulua to be used in the silver mines of New Spain. Difficult to transport, the liquid mercury had to be loaded at the last minute in Spain, since its corrosive nature tended to rot its packing, causing leakage. Poured into sheepskin bags bound with hemp rope, the mercury was placed in a small oak cask, which was nailed shut. Three such casks fit into a rectangular wooden chest, with a tightly nailed lid. The King’s coat-of-arms was painted on a linen cloth attached to each chest, since mercury was a strictly controlled royal monopoly. Bound with heavy rope, each chest was wrapped in coarse matting and bound again. Nonetheless, before the voyage was over, some of the King’s mercury had managed to escape and work its way to the bottom of the ship, where it could not be recovered.

On another voyage, the ship carried New World products back to Spain. One of these products may have been cowhides, loaded in either New Spain or the island of Hispaniola, where cattle industries thrived. Accompanying this cargo were hungry-beetles, of a species that feeds on stored leather goods, and other substances with a high protein content. Several of these hide beetles remained with the ship after the cargo reached its destination; their wing covers had migrated down into the bilge.

Passengers and crews on Spanish vessels in the 16th century depended on sea rations that consisted of wine, salted pork and fish, beans and peas, oil, vinegar, garlic, rice, and sometimes cheese or beef. Evidence of these staples aboard the ship includes the bones of domestic pig, cow, sheep or goat, and chicken. Several specimens exhibit butchering marks, suggesting that they were part of standard provisions prepared before the voyage by boiling and salting. Chickens may have come aboard live to be consumed by their passenger owners. Although fish probably was among the staple diets on the ship, fish elements found among the materials at the bottom of the hold are typical of Gulf of Mexico varieties, and probably were deposited in the ship after it wrecked. Thus far, no evidence of wine, indicated by the presence of grape seeds or other residues, has been found.

Supplementary to sea rations, edible fruits and nuts were consumed aboard the ship during its sailing career. Traditional Mediterranean food items, such as olives, plums or prunes, cherries, and hazelnuts, are represented by dietary remains found in the ship’s bilge. Other fruits, such as papaya and sapote, and nuts, such as coconuts, hickory, and acorn, reflect the ship’s operation in the Caribbean tropics and in the temperate northern Gulf of Mexico. Although the latter two nut varieties may be intrusive to the shipwreck, they could have been carried as fodder for live animals, such as pigs.

Inevitably, unwelcome stowaways boarded the ship along with provisions. Their eggs, perhaps borne in hampers of sea biscuit from the bakers, hatched in the darkness of the bread locker below decks. Despite every effort to rid the vessel of the uninvited pests, cockroaches (curianas) multiplied in the dim and humid recesses of the hold, taking over the galley at night, after the cookstove was extinguished. Jokingly called “game birds” by the crew, they competed for sustenance at sea with larger stowaways—the rodents. Black wharf rats (ratones) colonized the ship’s bilges, constantly gnawing into foodstuffs that became partially consumed and contaminated during the voyage. Apart from being a nuisance, the rats also carried disease, and for this reason they periodically were hunted down by the ship’s crew under direction of the boatswain. Compared with the “game birds,” these larger “game” had a harsher existence aboard the ship. Their remains exhibit evidence of rickets (a growth-stunting condition caused by lack of essential vitamins), poor dental health, and cannibalism. Aside from cockroaches and rats, the ship was occupied by common house mice, whose remains also were present in the bilge. This discovery, in light of the more numerous rat population, suggests that mice had developed their own niche in the floating ecosystem, and perhaps should be called ship mice, instead of house mice.

As with most wooden sailing vessels, the Emanuel Point Ship required constant maintenance and repairs during its career at sea. Many larger ports along the Spanish-American trade route offered facilities and manpower with which to clean ship’s bottoms and to patch or replace worm-eaten and leaking planks. Some leaks could be stopped at sea in an emergency by divers, who descended below while the ship lay to, with tarred lead patches that were quickly nailed to the hull. However, in the safety of a harbor, more permanent repairs could be effected between voyages. The ship was tied broadside to a wharf in shallow water, its ballast laboriously offloaded by hand to lighten the hull, and then hauled over with winches and tackle to expose the hull below the waterline. During this careening operation, marine growth, such as barnacles and weed, was scraped away by gangs of local laborers, who also applied fire with torches passed over bare planks in an attempt to kill shipworms by heat and smoke. Worn lead sheathing was removed and replaced; the old lead probably was recycled at the repair yard, or sold as scrap to the lead mongers. Planks judged beyond repair were replaced by others, custom-fit into place, then caulked and tarred. When one side of the hull had been cleaned and repaired, the tackle was relieved to allow the hull to come back on an even keel, and rotated 180 degrees. The same process then was repeated on the opposite side of the hull.

Although accumulations of rotting marine organisms, fouled wood and caulking, and hot tar made these tasks unpleasant, especially in tropical ports, the concurrent job of clearing the hold of slimy ballast stones could become unbearable, even with all the hatches opened. Stenches from the bilge, trash, and the panic of scurrying pests, conspired to discourage even the most hardened workers in the darkness of the lower hold. Once cleared, the bilges were doused with diluted vinegar in an attempt to offset the effects of their rank recesses on the repairmen, who began to inspect waterways, pumps, and internal framing. During one such inspection of the interior of the Emanuel Point Ship, workmen may have discovered a tailframe in need of replacement. The sixth frame forward of the sternpost was noted during excavation of the stern to have a forward rake, compared to the others, which raked slightly aft. Perhaps Frame 6 was installed subsequent to the others, by different shipwrights, perhaps at a later date during repairs. This frame also was fashioned from a different type of hardwood, as yet not conclusively identified.

Careening completed, the ship was reballasted. Depending on its next mission, the amount of stones was adjusted accordingly. Although the hull required a standard amount of “permanent” ballast to offset the effects of wind and waves, a heavy complement of artillery and ammunition on board, or a cargo of quicksilver in the hold, would require less additional ballast than a lightly-armed merchantman carrying a consignment of leather goods and dyestuffs. With most of the larger stones in place, “filler” stones from the ballast dump were brought aboard and distributed in the hold, until the attitude of the hull in the water was gauged appropriate for its anticipated load. Perhaps it was at this point that a small copper coin, out of circulation for years, made its way into the ship along with recycled ballast that had served a succession of ships over time.

On its last voyage, the Emanuel Point Ship appears to have been lightly ballasted, as would have been appropriate for an armed ship, carrying heavy cargo. Judging from the overall extent and depth of ballast stones present on the shipwreck site, the ballast alone would not have been sufficient to adequately stabilize the vessel under sail. Although no remains of ship’s cargo are visible on the surface of the ballast mound, clues to the cargo composition may turn up, since only a small portion of the site has thus far been investigated. Similarly, although no cannons have yet been found, a variety of ammunition (stone, composite, lead, and iron shot) recovered from excavations in the ship’s stern, indicates that the ship carried a battery of heavy shipboard artillery, some of which may have been mounted to fire from the stern. In addition, the discovery of ammunition for rapid-firing swivel guns suggests that these weapons were present on the ship, either deployed from gunwales in the sterncastle, or housed there in storage for eventual use. Finally, discovery of body armor (an encrusted breast plate) in the stern suggests that at least a few persons on board were prepared for personal combat, either at sea or ashore.

Putting aside for a moment the question of Emanuel Point Ship’s destination, there are clues to its port of embarkation. Ceramic sherds from at least three different pots, identified as a post-classic native Aztec style made in the Central Valley of Mexico, were found in close proximity at the stern of the vessel. Unlikely as cargo, since the presence of these unusual ceramics has not been reported elsewhere on colonial shipwreck sites, the native pottery may have belonged to a person, or persons, on board the ship. The pottery style—especially the burnished and painted, molded facial design—is indicative of a ceremonial, rather than utilitarian, vessel that would have been used on special occasions by persons of special status. Whether the owner, or owners, of the pottery were Aztecs or Spaniards is, at this point, a topic for speculation. However, this personal connection with the Aztec (and subsequent Spanish) capital of Mexico suggests that the ship embarked from the principal Mexican port of San Juan de Ulua (Veracruz).

Although only approximately 15% of the shipwreck site, as surveyed, has been excavated, sufficient clues have been revealed to provide a general date for the Emanuel Point Ship. Based on limited investigations of the site and analysis of finds reported herein, the ship’s last voyage occurred no later than the third quarter of the 16th century. The earliest datable artifact thus far recovered is, of course, the Henry IV coin, minted in Spain between 1471 and 1474. This find provides an absolute, if eccentric, terminus post quem (date after which) for the ship’s arrival in Pensacola. A more realistic, if general, earliest date after which the voyage occurred is 1556, when mercury began to be imported to New Spain in quantity aboard ships from Spain. As for a terminus ante quem (date before which) for the ship’s last voyage, examples of ceramics offer the best clues. The Aztec pottery sherds, if actually associated with Cuauhtitlán potters, would have been from pots made prior to 1576, when a massive epidemic of plague caused a sudden decline in production. More significantly, the larger collection of Spanish Olive Jar fragments recovered from the site consists predominantly of a type that was superseded by another style by 1580. A smaller number of lead-glazed sherds of the Melado variety are dated from Spanish sites inhabited between 1492 and 1550. These preliminary clues suggest that the ship embarked on its last voyage sometime between the 1550s and 1570s.

The identity of the Emanuel Point Ship remains a mystery. One hypothesis proposes that the vessel was sailing from Veracruz to Havana, along the traditional maritime route back to Spain, when it strayed off course far to the north and entered Pensacola Bay, perhaps seeking shelter, or water and wood. Inside the bay, it was trapped by a storm, which stranded the ship near Emanuel Point. The wreck’s location, well into the recesses of the bay, suggests that the ship had come into the bay before it grounded on the sandbar. Damage to the hull, as noted on the port side during midships excavations, could have resulted from striking a coral reef or rocky shoal; however, neither of these features is known to exist in Pensacola Bay. Rather, the ship appears to have grounded during a violent storm of sufficient severity to break open its hull by pounding on the sandbar during heavy seas. Unable to be refloated, the vessel was salvaged of its cargo and nautical apparel. Survivors of the incident may have been rescued; accounts of their ordeal and the loss of their ship would have been duly recorded in the files of Spanish maritime commerce. Archival research of mid-sixteenth-century shipping records, as well as correspondence between the viceroyalty of New Spain and the Casa de Contratación (House of Trade) in Seville, may disclose details of this isolated episode and perhaps the identity of the ship.

A much more likely hypothesis asserts that the Emanuel Point Ship was one of the vessels of Tristán de Luna’s fleet, which succumbed to a hurricane in September 1559. Evidence for this is circumstantial: the ship’s location inside the bay suggests that Pensacola was its destination, and the characteristics of its violent deposition on a sandbar near shore are consistent with a hurricane loss. Having reached their intended objective, Luna’s ships were anchored near the site chosen for settlement when the storm struck. Apparently, not all of the ships had been unload-ed; a large portion of the supplies for the soldiers were lost as one ship grounded. In the aftermath of the hurricane, many usable materials undoubtedly were salvaged from the partially sunken wrecks, other objects were irretrievable and supplies were spoiled by water damage. Although investigation of the shipwreck is far from complete, the absence of cargo materials on the surface of the site suggests that portions of the ship’s contents not carried away during the wrecking event were subsequently salvaged. Proximity to shore and the shallow water depth would have facilitated this task, although many objects, such as the copper pitcher and cauldron, the breast plate and ammunition, were not recovered from the wreck.

Analyses of artifacts recovered during limited excavations also have provided a proposed date range (1550s to 1570s) for the ship’s last voyage, which narrowly encompasses that of the Luna expedition (1559-1561). In addition, discovery of Aztec pottery provides a link with the Central Valley of Mexico, from which the Luna venture initially was organized and staffed. Assuming for a moment that the ship was part of Luna’s fleet, it must have been one of the larger vessels, if preliminary estimates of its tonnage (418 - 441 tons) are reliable. As outlined earlier, it appears that six or seven of the fleet of eleven ships were lost in the September storm: the Andonaguín galleon, a barca, and either four or five naos. The tonnage of only three of Luna’s ships is known from initial perusal of several documents relating to their lading: nao San Andrés (498 tons), nao or caravel Espiritu Santo (42 tons), and nao Santa María de Ayuda (100 tons). Tonnage of the galleon and other naos San Antón, Santiago, and Santo Amaro are, as yet, unknown. Assuming that the remains of the hull are too large to represent those of a barca, frigata, or caravel, the most likely candidates for the Emanuel Point Ship are either a galleon or nao. But which one?

To solve the mystery of the Emanuel Point Ship, collection of additional archaeological and archival evidence is necessary. Continued exploration of the shipwreck and the waters around it will undoubtedly produce a myriad of clues to the ship’s size, function, and final voyage, as well as its association with the potential remains of other early shipwrecks in this part of Pensacola Bay. To date, only 15% of the shipwreck site has been investigated to produce a preliminary picture that firmly establishes only its obvious antiquity and cultural affiliation. As with any archaeological site, this amount of evidence is insufficient to attempt conclusions as to the identity of the vessel and its role in the early European exploration of Florida. As a rule, archaeological research on a historic site cannot provide adequate and accurate interpretation without the benefit of concurrent archival investigation with which to compare material findings. To date, only a few documents concerning the Luna expedition have been consulted, providing a partial glimpse of a forgotten episode that does not include sufficient particulars of the ships and their loss to support a conclusion that places the Emanuel Point Ship in the Luna fleet. Additional collection of archival data, aimed at filling in these historical gaps will provide a fuller record with which to compare the archaeological discoveries.

Hopefully, the discovery and initial exploration of Emanuel Point Ship, as detailed in this report, will help to encourage further archival research and additional underwater archaeological investigations. Recommendations to these ends are outlined in the following section, and if implemented, will help to determine whether the shipwreck is, indeed, what it appears to be—one of the larger ships of the Luna fleet that wrecked in Pensacola Bay in 1559.

Recommendations

Given the well-preserved nature of this early Florida shipwreck, the story that is emerging through investigation of its remains, and the close proximity and historical affiliation of the site to the City of Pensacola, the following recommendations are offered:

1. The shipwreck site should be monitored by state and local authorities to prevent unauthorized disturbances. Local citizens should be encouraged to report unusual activities at the location of the shipwreck. In addition,

   1. the site should be included in the National Register of Historic Places. A formal nomination already has been prepared for submission to the state advisory board in November, 1995.

   2. the site should be nominated as a National Historic Landmark.

2. The Governor and the Cabinet of the State of Florida should designate the Emanuel Point Ship and its immediate environs, as well as other 16th-century shipwrecks to be found in Pensacola Bay as state archaeological preserves to be actively managed for scientific archaeological research and for public use and access.

3. Continued archaeological investigations should be conducted at the Emanuel Point Ship, in conjunction with additional survey of this region of the Pensacola Bay. These activities can best be accomplished if:

   1. there is a continuation of a commitment of partnership between the public and private sectors that is further developed with concrete, longrange goals.

   2. sufficient funding is sought by each of the partners from grants, governmental appropriations, corporate sponsorships, and private donations.

   3. a small full-time staff of archaeologists, conservators, and technicians is employed by the partnership to supervise graduate student interns and volunteers.

4. Continued archival research should be conducted to collect documents pertaining to the 1559 expedition of Tristán de Luna. To date, a program for the collection of documents from Spain, Mexico, and the United States has been inaugurated through the sponsorship of the Pensacola City Commission, in conjunction with the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board. Archival researcher Denise Lakey has begun to assemble copies of archival materials from several repositories. Aside from initial collection of documents,

   1. a Luna Study Group, made up of professional and amateur scholars should be organized to address research needs as they pertain to archival documentation as well as archaeological research.

   2. transcriptions and translations of selected documents should be published for the benefit of future researchers and made available in a format suitable for the general public.

5. Continued conservation and analysis of artifacts from the Emanuel Point Ship and others in Pensacola Bay should be undertaken by the Division of Historical Resources in cooperation with academic and private sector partners. To fulfill this goal,

   1. the conservation facility and staff should be expanded to include additional equipment, work space, and storage containers.

   2. the laboratory should provide access for public visitation at appropriate occasions.

   3. funding for specialized analysis, such as dendrochronology, spectromicroscopy, etc. by other institutions should be arranged.

6. Results of the activities recommended above should be incorporated into a major permanent exhibit that will offer a reconstruction of the Emanuel Point Ship and its role in the early history of the United States as an historical attraction for Pensacola. Plans for a preliminary exhibit featuring materials recovered to date already are being formalized by the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board. In addition,

   1. an illustrated, interpretive booklet should be prepared to accompany the exhibit.

   2. workshops and educational programming should accompany the exhibit.

References

• Armitage, Philips L.
  • 1995a. Report on the Black Rat Bones from the Emanuel Point Shipwreck, Pensacola Bay, Florida. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
  • 1995b. Report on the Bones of House Mice from the Emanuel Point Shipwreck, Pensacola Bay, Florida. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Arnold, J. Barto, III.
  • 1976. An Underwater Archaeological Magnetometer Survey and Site Test Excavation Project off Padre Island. Texas Antiquities Committee, Austin, Texas.
• Arnold, J. Barto, III, and Robert S. Weddle
  • 1978. The Nautical Archaeology of Padre Island: The Spanish Shipwrecks of 1554. Academic Press, New York.
• Avery, George
  • 1993. A Chronological Framework for Middle Style Olive Jar Rims. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Florida Anthropological Society, Clearwater, Florida.
  • 1994. Olive Jar Production (16th–18th Century): A Multidisciplinary Approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Vancouver, British Columbia.
• Baker, Barry W.
  • 1995. Emanuel Point Shipwreck Faunal Analysis. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Baker, J., and Brothwell, D.
  • 1980. Animal Diseases in Archaeology. Academic Press, London.
• Ballard, Robert D.
  • 1989. The Discovery of the Titanic. Warner Books, Inc., New York.
• Barkham, Michael
  • 1981. Report on 16th-Century Spanish Basque Shipbuilding c. 1550 to c.1600. Parks Canada Manuscript Report Series No. 422. Parks Canada, Ottawa.
• Barlow, Robert H.
  • 1951. El Códice de los Alfareros de Cuauhtitlán. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antroplógicos 12:5-8.
• Barlow, Robert H.
  • 1951. El Códice de los Alfareros de Cuauhtitlán. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antroplógicos 12:5-8.
• Baumer, David R.
  • 1990. Bethune Blackwater Schooner Report. Florida Archaeological Reports 21. Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Bense, Judith A.
  • 1988. Deadman's Shipwreck, Gulf Breeze, Florida: Preliminary Investigation and Evaluation. Report of Investigation 18. Office of Cultural and Archaeological Research, University of West Florida, Pensacola.
• Berry, R.J.
  • 1981. Town Mouse, Country Mouse: Adaptation and Adaptability in Mus domesticus (M. musculus domesticus). Mammal Review 11 (3):91-136.
• Biedma, Luys Hernández de
  • 1922. Relación, translated by Buckingham Smith. In Narratives of the Career of Hernando de Soto, edited by Edward Bourne, pp. 3-40. Allerton, New York.
• Biringuccio, Vannoccio
  • 1943. The Pirotechnia of Vannoccio Biringuccio, translated from the 1540 edition by Cyril S. Smith and M. T. Gnudi. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
• Blake, W., and Jeremy N. Green
  • 1986. A Mid-XVI Century Portuguese Wreck in the Seychelles. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 15(1):1-23.
• Bratten, John R.
  • 1995. Olive Pits, Rat Bones, and Leather Shoe Soles: A Preliminary Report on the Organic Remains from the Emanuel Point Shipwreck, Pensacola, Florida. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1995:49-54. Paul Johnson, editor. Washington, D.C.
• Breetzke, David
  • 1995. The History, Archaeology, and Conservation of 16th-century Spanish Shoe Fragments. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Briggs, J. C.
  • 1958. A List of Florida Fishes and Their Distribution. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum Biological Sciences 2(8). University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
• Brill, Robert H. et al.
  • 1987. Laboratory Studies of Some European Artifacts Excavated on San Salvador Island. Columbus and His World: Proceedings of the First Annual San Salvador Conference, 1986: 247-267. Donald T. Gerace, editor. Bahamian Field Station, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
• Cabeza de Vaca, Alvar Núñez
  • 1964. The Journey of Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca and His Companions from Florida to the Pacific, 1528-1536, translated by Fanny Bandelier. Reprint of 1905 edition. Rio Grande Press, Chicago.
• Cano, Tomé
  • 1611. Arte para fabricar, fortificar, y apareiar naos de guerra, y merchante; con las reglas de achearlas; reduzido a toda cuenta y medida; y en grande utilidad de la navigacion. Casa de Luis Estupiñan, Seville.
• Cano, Tomé
  • 1611. Arte para fabricar, fortificar, y apareiar naos de guerra, y merchante; con las reglas de achearlas; reduzido a toda cuenta y medida; y en grande utilidad de la navigacion. Casa de Luis Estupiñan, Seville.
• Carré, Dominique, Jean-Paul Desroches, and Franck Goddio
  • 1994. Le San Diego. Un trésor sous la mer. Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Paris.
• Casado Soto, José Luis
  • 1991. Atlantic Shippping in Sixteenth-Century Spain and the 1588 Armada. In England, Spain and the Gran Armada 1585-1604, edited by M. J. Rodreiguez-Salgado, and Simon Adams, pp. 95-133. Barnes & Noble Books, Savage, Maryland.
• Castan, Carlos, and Juan R. Cayon
  • 1980. Las Monedas Hispano Musulmanas y Cristianas 711-1981. Artigraf, S. A., Madrid.
• Cayon, Juan R., and Carlos Castan
  • 1991. Monedas Españolas. Tenth Edition. Privately Printed, Madrid.
• Cayon, Juan R., and Carlos Castan
  • 1991. Monedas Españolas. Tenth Edition. Privately Printed, Madrid.
• Cooley, Percy A.
  • 1978. An Inventory of the Estuarine Fauna in the Vicinity of Pensacola, Florida. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Marine Research Laboratory, St. Petersburg, Florida.
• Cummins, W. P., R. A. Skelton, and D. B. Quinn
  • 1971. The Discovery of North America. American Heritage Press, New York.
• Deagan, Kathleen
  • 1987. Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1550-1800. Vol. 1, Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
  • 1992. Preliminary Report on Laboratory Analysis of Archaeological Collections from La Isabela, Dominican Republic, 1989-1992. Manuscript on file, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida.
• Dotson, John E.
  • 1994. Treatises on Shipbuilding Before 1650. In Cogs, Caravels, and Galleons: The Sailing Ship 1000-1650, edited by Robert Gardiner, pp. 160-68. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland.
• Dunn, William Edward
  • 1917. Spanish and French Rivalry in the Gulf Region of the United States 1678-1702. University of Texas, Austin.
• Durden, Christopher J.
  • 1978. Fossil Cockroaches from a 1554 Spanish Shipwreck. In J. Barto Arnold III and Robert Weddle, The Nautical Archaeology of Padre Island: The Spanish Shipwrecks of 1554, Appendix H, pp. 407-416. Academic Press, New York.
• Etayo Elizondo, Carlos
  • 1971. Naos y Carabelas de los Descubrimientos y las Naves de Colón. Industrial Gráfica Aralar, Pamplona
• Finegold, Robert J.
  • 1990. The Deadman's Island Sloop: Excavation of a Colonial Careenage. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland.
• Franklin, Marianne, John W. Morris, III, and Roger C. Smith
  • 1992. Submerged Historical Resources of Pensacola Bay, Florida. Florida Archaeological Reports 27. Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Franklin, Marianne, John W. Morris, III, John Broadwater, and Gordon P. Watts
  • 1994. A Preliminary Description of the Excavation, Timber Recording, Hull Construction, and Cultural Material Analysis of a Sixteenth- Century Vessel Wrecked on Western Ledge Reef, Bermuda. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1994:47-62. Robyn P. Woodward and Charles D. Moore, editors. Vancouver, British Columbia.
• Friel, Ian
  • 1994. The Carrack: The Advent of the Full-Rigged Ship. In Cogs, Caravels, and Galleons: The Sailing Ship 1000-1650, edited by Robert Gardiner, pp. 77-90. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland.
• Goggin, John M.
  • 1960 The Spanish Olive Jar: An Introductory Study. Papers in Caribbean Anthropology, Nos. 57-65, Yale University Publications in Anthropology 62:25-50, New Haven, Connecticut.
• Grenier, Robert
  • 1985. Excavating a 400 year-old Basque Galleon, National Geographic 168(1): 58-68.
  • 1988. Basque Whalers in the New World: The Red Bay Wrecks. In Ships and Shipwrecks of the Americas, edited by George F. Bass, pp. 69-84. Thames and Hudson, Ltd., London.
  • 1994. Personal Communication, January 8, 1994. Parks Canada, Ottawa.
  • 1995. Personal Communication.
• Guérout, Max, Eric Rieth, and Jean-Marie Gassend
  • 1989. Le Navire Génois de Villefranche: un naufrage de 1516? Archaeonautica 9. Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.
• Hakluyt, Richard
  • 1927. Hakluyt Voyages: A Selection of The Principal Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation by Richard Hakluyt, 1552-1616, edited by Laurence Irving. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
• Hamilton, Donny L.
  • 1976. Conservation of Metal Objects from Underwater Sites: A Study in Methods. Texas Memorial Museum and the Texas Antiquities Committee, Austin, Texas.
  • 1994. Methods of Conserving Archaeological Material Culture. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
• Hann, John
  • 1993. Report on Contaduría 877 . Documents on the Luna Expedition. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Haring, Clarence Henry
  • 1964. Trade and Navigation Between Spain and the Indies in the Time of the Hapsburgs. Reprint of 1918 edition. Peter Smith, Gloucester, Massachusetts.
• Hinton, H. E.
  • 1963. A Monograph of the Beetles Associated with Stored Products. Vol. 1. Reprint of 1945 edition. Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York.
• Hoffman, Paul E.
  • 1990. A New Andalucia and a Way to the Orient; The American Southeast During the Sixteenth Century. Louisiana University Press Baton Rouge.
• L'Hour, Michel
  • 1995. Personal Communication, August 12, 1995. Département des Recherches Archéologiques sous-marines, Marseille, France.
• James, Stephen R.
  • 1989. Underwater Cultural Resources Investigations, Blackwater River, Bagdad, Florida. Report prepared by The Underwater Archaeological Consortium, Memphis, Tennessee. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Historic Preservation, Tallahassee.
• Karcheski, Walter J., Jr.
  • 1990. Arms and Armor of the Conquistador, 1492-1600. Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida.
• Keith, Donald H.
  • 1987. The Molasses Reef Wreck. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, Texas A&M University, College Station. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
• Kleeberg, John M.
  • 1995. Personal Communication, July 6, 1995. American Numismatic Society, New York.
• Klein, H. Arthur
  • 1963. Graphic Worlds of Peter Bruegel the Elder. Dover Publications, New York.
• Lenihan, Daniel
  • 1974. Preliminary Archeological Survey of the Offshore Lands of Gulf Islands National Seashore. In Underwater Archeology in the National Park Service, 34-40. Sante Fe, New Mexico.
• Leonard, Irving A.
  • 1939. Spanish Approach to Pensacola, 1689-1693. The Quivira Society, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
• Lister, Florence C., and Robert H. Lister
  • 1987. Andalusian Ceramics in Spain and New Spain: A Cultural Register from the Third Century B.C. to 1700. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
• López Pérez, Alessandro
  • 1993. Sobre el Maderamen de la Estructura del Pecio de Fuxa. Departamento de Arqueología, Carisub, Havana, Cuba. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Lowery, Woodbury
  • 1901. The Spanish Settlements Within the Present Limits of the United States 1513-1561. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York.
• Lyman, R. L.
  • 1977. Analysis of Historic Faunal Remains. Historical Archaeology 11:67-73.
• Lyon, Eugene
  • 1979. Toward a Typology of Spanish Colonial Nails. Unpublished manuscript, on file, St. Augustine Foundation, Inc., St. Augustine, Florida.
• McGovern, James R.
  • 1974. Colonial Pensacola. The Pensacola Series Commemorating the American Revolution Bicentennial, Vol. 1. Pensacola/Escambia Development Commission, Pensacola, Florida.
• McGrail, Sean
  • 1987. Ancient Boats in N.W. Europe. The Archaeologoy of Water Transport to AD 1500. Longman, London.
• Malcom, Corey
  • 1992. The St. John's Bahamas Wreck Research and Excavation Plan. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Manucy, Albert
  • 1962. Notes on the fragata. Manuscript on file, Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board, St. Augustine, Florida.
  • 1983. Florida's Menéndez: Captain General of the Ocean Sea. Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board, St. Augustine, Florida.
• Marken, Mitchell W.
  • 1994. Pottery from Spanish Shipwrecks 1500-1800. University of Florida Presses, Gainesville, Florida.
• Martin, Colin J.M.
  • 1979. Spanish Armada Pottery. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 8(4):279-302.
• Maseman, John
  • 1994 Conservation Treatment Reports: Emanuel Point Shipwreck Site. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Mistovich, Tim S., Brina Agranat, and Stephen R. James, Jr.
  • 1991 Brodie's Wharf: Maritime Archaeological Investigation of an Early Nineteenth Century Sunken Caisson at the Pensacola Naval Air Station, Florida. Report prepared by Pan American Consultants, Inc., Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Submitted to Bureau of Historic Preservation, Tallahassee.
• Mitchell, Amy
  • 1993. Preliminary Conservation of the 1993 Emanuel Point Field Specimens. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Morris, John W., III
  • 1993. The Preliminary Analysis of the 16th-Century Vessel Remains at the Western Ledge Reef Site. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Morris, Percy A.
  • 1975. A Field Guide of Shells of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and the West Indies. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
• Newsom, Lee
  • 1995. Archaeobotanical Identifications from Emanuel Point Shipwreck Site. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Noguera, Eduardo
  • 1975. La Cerámica Arqueológica de Mesoamérica. UNAM, Mexico City.
• Oertling, Thomas J. (editor)
  • 1989a. The Highborn Cay Wreck: The 1986 Field Season. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 18(3):244-253.
  • 1989b. The Molasses Reef Wreck Hull Analysis: Final Report. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 18(3):229-243.
  • 1989c. The Few Remaining Clues . . . Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1989:100-103. J. Barto Arnold, editor. Baltimore, Maryland.
  • 1993. Personal Communication.
• Olds, Dorris L.
  • 1976. Texas Legacy from the Gulf. Texas Antiquities Committee, Austin, Texas.
• Palacio, Diego García de
  • 1944. Instrucción Náutica para navegar. Facsimile reprint of the 1587 edition. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica.
• Pasztory, Esther
  • 1983. Aztec Art. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York.
• Pearson, Colin
  • 1987. Conservation of Marine Archaeological Objects. Butterworth & Co., Ltd., London.
• Peterson, Harold L.
  • 1956. Arms and Armor in Colonial America, 1526-1783. Bramhill House, New York.
• Peterson, Mendel
  • 1974. Exploration of a 16th-century Bahaman Shipwreck. In National Geographic Research Reports, 1967 Projects, 231-242.
• Phillips, Carla Rahn.
  • 1986. Six Galleons for the King of Spain: Imperial Defense in the Early Seventeenth Century. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
  • 1987a. Life at Sea in the Sixteenth Century: The Landlubber's Lament of Eugenio de Salazar. The James Ford Bell Lectures No. 24, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota.
  • 1987b. Sizes and Configuations of Spanish Ships in the Age of Discovery. In Columbus and His World. Proceedings of the First Annual San Salvador Conference 1986, 69-98. Donald T. Gerace, editor. Bahamian Field Station, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
  • 1987c. Spanish Ship Measurements Reconsidered: The Instrucción Náutica of Diego García de Palacio (1587) Mariner's Mirror 73:293-296.
  • 1990. Los Tres Reyes 1628-1634: The Short Life of an Unlucky Spanish Galleon. The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
  • 1993. The Evolution of Spanish Ship Design From the 15th to the 18th Century. American Neptune 53(4):229-238.
• Presley, Anna Lee
  • 1995. Analysis of Faunal Remains from the Emanuel Point Shipwreck. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Priestley, Herbert Ingram (editor)
  • 1928. The Luna Papers. Two volumes. Florida State Historical Society, Deland, Florida.
  • 1936. Tristán de Luna, Conquistador of the Old South: A Study of Spanish Imperial Strategy. The Arthur H. Clark Company, Glendale, California.
• Quinn, David Beers
  • 1975. The Last Voyage of Thomas Cavendish, 1591-1592: The Autographed Manuscript of his own Account of the Voyage Written Shortly Before his Death. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Record, Samuel J., and Robert W. Hess
  • 1943. Timbers of the New World. Yale University Press, New Haven.
• Reitz, Elizabeth J., and C. Margaret Scarry
  • 1985. Reconstructing Historic Subsistence with an Example from Sixteenth- Century Spanish Florida. Special Publication Series, No. 3. Society for Historical Archaeology. Tucson, Arizona.
• Rednap, M.
  • 1984. The Cattewater Wreck: The Investigation of an Armed Vessel of the Early Sixteenth Century. Archaeological Series No. 8. National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, England.
• Rosloff, Jay, and J. Barto Arnold III
  • 1984. The Keel of the San Estéban (1554): Continued Analysis. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 13(4):287-296.
• Roth, Louis M.
  • 1981. The American Cockroach, edited by William J. Bell and K. G. Adiyodi. Chapman and Hall, New York.
• Rule, Margaret
  • 1982. The Mary Rose: The Excavation and Raising of Henry VIII's Flagship. Conway Maritime Press, Greenwich.
• Salisbury, W.
  • 1961. The Woolrich Ship. Mariner's Mirror 47(2):281-90.
• Schendel, Gordon
  • 1968. Medicine in Mexico. University of Texas Press, Austin.
• Scott, Della
  • 1995. Unique Artifacts from the Emanuel Point Shipwreck. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1995: 60-63. Paul Johnson, editor. Washington, D.C.
• Shipman, P., G. Foster, and M. Schoeninger
  • 1984. Life History of a Fossil: An Introduction to Taphonomy and Paleoecology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
• Simmons, Joe J. III
  • 1992. Replicating Fifteenth — and Sixteenth-Century Ordnance, Historical Archaeology 26(1):14-20.
• Skowronek, Russell K.
  • 1987. Ceramics and Commerce: The 1554 flota Revisited. Historical Archaeology 21(2):101-111.
• Smith, Clifford E., Jr.
  • 1995. Conservation of Cultural and Biological Remains: An Integral Part of the Archaeological Process Required to Preserve and Protect the Cultural Resources from the Emanuel Point Shipwreck. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa.
• Smith, Roger C..
  • 1986a. Glass Recovered from the Molasses Reef Wreck, Turks and Caicos Islands, B.W.I. Manuscript on file, Institute of Nautical Archaeology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
  • 1986b. The Spanish Galleon. In Early Modern European Ship-types, 1450-1650. The Newbury Library Slide Set No. 6, Newbury Library, Chicago.
  • 1986c. The Portuguese Caravel. In Early Modern European Ship-types, 1450-1650. The Newbury Library Slide Set No. 6, Newbury Library, Chicago.
  • 1988. Treasure Ships of the Spanish Main: The Iberian-American Maritme Empires. In Ships and Shipwrecks of the Americas, edited by George F. Bass, pp. 85-106. Thames and Hudson, New York.
  • 1990. Marine Archaeology Comes of Age in Florida: Excavation of Deadman's Shipwreck, A Careened British Warship in Pensacola Bay. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1989:110-116. Toni L. Carrell, editor. Tucson Arizona.
  • 1991. Florida's Underwater Archaeological Preserves. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1991:43- 46. John D. Broadwater, editor. Richmond, Virginia.
  • 1992a. Ships in the Exploration of La Florida. Gulf Coast Historical Review 8 (1):18-29.
  • 1992b. Early Spanish Shipping in Pensacola Bay, 1559-1561. In The Columbus Legacy in Pensacola, edited by Virginia Parks, pp. 47-58. Pensacola Historical Society, Pensacola, Florida.
  • 1993. Vanguard of Empire: Ships of Exploration in the Age of Columbus. Oxford University Press, New York.
  • 1993. Personal Communication.
  • 1994. The Emanuel Point Ship: An Examination of Florida's Earliest Shipwreck. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1994:14-18. Robyn Woodward and Charles D. Moore, editors. Vancouver, British Columbia.
  • 1995. The Emanuel Point Ship: A Florida Experiment in Research, Development, and Management. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1995:14-18 Paul Johnson, editor. Washington, D.C.
• South, Stanley, Russell K. Skowronek and Richard E. Johnson
  • 1988. Spanish Artifacts from Santa Elena. Anthropological Studies 7. Occasional Papers of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology. The University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.
• Spirek, James
  • 1995. Pinned to the Bottom: Emanuel Point Hull Remains. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1995:43-48. Paul Johnson, editor. Washington, D.C.
• Spirek, James, Della Scott, Charles Hughson, Mike Williamson, and Roger C. Smith
  • 1993. Submerged Historical Resources of Pensacola Bay, Florida, Phase Two. Report prepared by Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida. Submitted to Coastal Management Program, Florida Department of Community Affairs.
• Stahl, Alan M.
  • 1992. The First Coins in the New World. The Numismatist 105(10):1399-1402.
• Stevens, Willis (editor)
  • 1983. Underwater Research at Red Bay, Labrador: A Summary of the 1981 Field Season. Parks Canada Research Bulletin 194. Parks Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
• Swanton, John R. (editor)
  • 1985. Final Report of the United States De Soto Commission. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
• Tesar, Louis D.
  • 1973. Archaeological Survey and Testing of Gulf Islands National Seashore. Part 1: Florida, edited by Hale G. Smith. Department of Anthropology, Florida State University. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Tidewater Atlantic Research
  • 1987. Underwater Archaeological Investigations: Gulf of Mexico and Pensacola Bay, Florida. Report prepared by Tidewater Atlantic Research. Submitted to U. S. Navy, Southern Division, Navy Facilities Engineering Command, Charleston, South Carolina.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
  • 1986. Underwater Remote Sensing Survey, U.S. Navy Homeport Site, Pensacola, Florida. Report prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. Submitted to U.S. Navy, Southern Division, Navy Facilities Engineering Command, Charleston, South Carolina.
  • 1990. Underwater Archaeological Investigation. Pensacola Harbor Entrance Channel. Report prepared by Mobile District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. Submitted to U.S. Navy, Southern Division, Navy Facilities Engineering Command, Charleston, South Carolina.
• van Nouhuys, J. W.
  • 1951. The Anchor. Mariner's Mirror 37: 17-47
• Vega, Garcilaso de la
  • 1951. The Florida of the Inca, translated by John G. Varner and Jeanette J. Varner. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.
• Vigón, Jorge
  • 1947. Historica de la Artillería Española. Vol. 1. Instituto Jeronimo Zurita, Madrid.
• Waddell, Peter J. A.
  • 1985. The Pump and Pump Well of a 16th-century Galleon. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 14(3):243-259.
• Watts, Gordon P., Jr.
  • 1993. The Western Ledge Reef Wreck: a Preliminary Report on Investigation of the Remains of a 16th-century Shipwreck in Bermuda. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration, 22(2):103-124.
• Weddle, Robert S.
  • 1985. Spanish Sea: The Gulf of Mexico in North American Discovery 1500-1685. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas.
• Weinstein, Eri
  • 1994. Presence/Absence Pollen Analysis of Samples Recovered from the Emanuel Point Shipwreck, Pensacola Bay, Florida. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
• Wells, Debra J.
  • 1994. Analysis of the Ceramic Assemblage: 8ES1980, Emanuel Point Wreck. Manuscript on file, Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee, Florida.
  • 1995. Examples of Ceramics from the Emanuel Point Shipwreck. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1995:55-59. Paul Johnson, editor. Washington, D.C.
• Whitaker, Arthur P.
  • 1941. The Huancavelica Mercury Mine. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
• Williamson, Michael H. (editor)
  • 1991. Jack's Wreck, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Perdido Key, Florida. Manuscript on file, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola.
• Willis, Raymond
  • 1976. The Archaeology of 19th-century Nueva Cádiz. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Appendix

Artifact Inventory of the Emanuel Point Ship, 1993-1995
1993
(All Numbers are Prefixed by 93.668)

Number	Category	Subcategory	Grid	Quantity	Description
07,700	Organic	Wood	Test Pit C	3	Wood fragments
07,701	Organic	Leather	Test Pit B	1	Shoe Sole fragment
07,702	Metal	Rope	Anchor Pit	1	Wire Wrapped Rope
07,703	Metal	Fe	Anchor Pit	1	Chain Link, Intrusive
07,704	Metal	Rope	Anchor Pit	1	Wire Wrapped Rope
07,705	Metal	Fe	10' Off Strbrd	1	Concretion
07,706	Metal	Fe	Test Pit C	3	Wafers, Intrusive
07,707	Metal	Fe	None	2	Chain Links, Intrusive
07,708	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,709	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	2	Olive Jar sherds
07,710	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	3	Olive Jar sherds
07,711	Ceramic	Cew	10' Off Strbrd	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,712	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	2	Olive Jar sherds
07,713	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	4	Olive Jar sherds
07,714	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	2	Olive Jar sherds
07,715	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit B	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,716	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit B	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,717	Ceramic	Glz	Test Pit A	3	Bacínware
07,718	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	3	Olive Jar sherds
07,719	Ceramic	Cew	Surface	2	Olive Jar sherds (one rim)
07,720	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	3	Olive Jar sherds
07,721	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,722	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,723	Ceramic	Glz	Test Pit C	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,724	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	1	Handle or Brazier? fragment
07,725	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,726	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,727	Organic	Bone	Anchor Pit	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal Bone
07,728	Metal	Fe	Mast Step	1	Strap-like Concretion
07,729	Stone	Other	Test Pit C	2	Stones
07,730	Stone	Other	10' Off Strbrd	2	Stones
07,731	Organic	Rope	5-6 ft. off Stbd	1	Slowmatch, Rope
07,732	Organic	Leather	Test Pit C	1	Fragment
07,734	Ceramic	Cew	Dredge Spoil Test Pit C	2	Sherds
07,735	Ceramic	Cew	Dredge Spoil Test Pit C	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,736	Metal	Unknown	Mast Step	2	Slag
07,737	Metal	Rope	Anchor Pit	1	Wire Wrapped Rope
07,738	Metal	Rope	Anchor Pit	1	Wire Wrapped Rope
07,739	Organic	Wood	Mast Step	8	Wood fragments
07,740	Ceramic	Cew	Dredge Spoil	2	Olive Jar sherds
07,741	Ceramic	Cew	Metal Fea. #1	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,742	Metal	Fe	Metal Fea. #1	1	Concretion
07,743	Encrust	Fe	Metal. Fea. #1	1	Concretion
07,745	Metal	Fe	Metal Fea. #1	2	Concretions
07,746	Metal	Fe	Metal Fea. #1	1	Concretion
07,747	Metal	Fe	Metal Fea. #1	1	Concretion
07,748	Metal	Fe	Metal Fea. #1	1	Concretion
07,750	Metal	Unknown	A1	1	Concretion
07,752	Ceramic	Cew	Metal Fea. #1	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,753	Metal	Fe	Metal Fea. #1	1	Fragment
07,754	Organic	Wood	D1, Port Pump	1	Galleon Carving
07,755	Organic	Wood	A1	1	Dunnage
07,756	Organic	Bone	A1	1	Small Fish Spine
07,757	Organic	Olive Pit	A1	1	Olive Pit
07,758.01	Metal	Fe	Metal Fea. #1	2	Concretions
07,759	Ceramic	Cew	A1	2	Olive Jar sherds
07,760	Ceramic	Cew	A1	2	Sherds
07,761	Ceramic	Cew	A1	2	Olive Jar sherds
07,762	Ceramic	Cew	A1	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,763	Ceramic	Cew	A1	1	Olive Jar Rim sherd
07,764	Ceramic	Cew	A1	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,765	Ceramic	Cew	A1	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,766	Ceramic	Cew	A1	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,767	Organic	Bone	A1	1	Fragment
07,767.01	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Maple Leaf
07,767.02	Organic	Botanical	A1	6	Olive Pits
07,767.03	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Cherry Pit
07,767.04	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Hazelnut Shell fragment
07,767.05	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Hickory Nutshell fragment
07,768	Ceramic	Cew	A1	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,769	Stone	Other	A1	1	Stone
07,770	Ceramic	Cew	A1	2	Olive Jar sherds
07,771	Ceramic	Cew	A1	10	Sherds
07,772	Ceramic	Cew	A1	1	Olive Jar sherd, interior pitch
07,773	Stone	Other	A1	1	Stone
07,774	Ceramic	Cew	A1	5	Olive Jar sherd
07,775	Ceramic	Cew	A1	14	Olive Jar sherds
07,776	Ceramic	Cew	D1	2	Olive Jar sherds
07,777	Organic	Sample	A1	1	Pitch Sample
07,777	Organic	Olive Pit	A1	1	Olive Pit
07,778	Organic	Sample	A1	1	Bilge Sample from mast step
07,779	Organic	Sample	D1	1	Bilge Sample
07,780	Ceramic	Cew	D1	3	Olive Jar sherds
07,781	Organic	Wood	D1	1	Withy?
07,782	Ceramic	Cew	D1	2	Olive Jar sherds, interior pitch
07,783	Organic	Wood	A1	1	Branch with golden bark
07,784	Organic	Wood	A1	1	Wood fragment, golden bark
07,785	Ceramic	Cew	A1	26	Sherds
07,786.01	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Bottle Gourd fragment
07,786.02	Organic	Olive Pit	A1	1	Olive Pit
07,786.03	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Amorphous Resinous Mass
07,786.03	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Olive Pit
07,787.1	Organic	Bone	A1	2	Shark Vertebrae
07,787.2	Organic	Bone	A1	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal
07,788	Ceramic	Cew	A1	16	Olive Jar sherds (one Rim)
07,788	Ceramic	Mel	A1	1	Melado sherd
07,789	Metal	Unknown	D1	1	Metal fragment
07,790	Organic	Botanical	A1	7	Persimmon Seed fragments
07,791	Ceramic	Cew	A1	3	Olive Jar sherds
07,791	Ceramic	Mel	A1	1	Melado sherd
07,792	Organic	Olive Pit	A1	15	Olive Pits
07,792.01	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Hazelnut Shell fragment
07,792.02	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Persimmon Seed fragment
07,792.03	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Seed fragment
07,792.04	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Leaf
07,792.05	Organic	Botanical	A1	3	Seeds, Miscellaneous
07,793	Ceramic	Mor	A1	1	El Morro sherd
07,793	Ceramic	Mel	A1	1	Melado sherd
07,794.01	Ceramic	Cew	D1	7	Olive Jar sherds
07,794.02	Ceramic	Cew	D1	1	Unidentified
07,795.01	Organic	Botanical	D1	1	Leaf
07,795.02	Organic	Wood	D1	1	Wood fragment, bark
07,796	Organic	Olive Pit	D1	6	Olive Pits
07,796.01	Organic	Botanical	D1	2	Leaf, Maple?
07,796.02	Organic	Botanical	D1	2	Shells, Walnut or Pecan
07,796.03	Organic	Botanical	D1	2	Seeds
07,797	Organic	Olive Pit	A1	6	Olive Pits
07,798	Organic	Olive Pit	A1	6	Olive Pits
07,798	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Hazelnut Shell fragment
07,799	Organic	Leather	Test Pit C	1	Inner Sole fragment
07,800	Organic	Botanical	Unknown	1	Caulking (Plant)
07,801	Organic	Sample	A1	1	Organic Sample White
07,802	Ceramic	Cew	Cleanup	1	Olive Jar Rim sherd
07,804	Ceramic	Cew	A2	1	Roofing Tile
07,805	Ceramic	Cew	A2	3	Olive Jar sherds
07,806	Organic	Olive Pit	A2	1	Olive Pit
07,808	Organic	Sample	A2	1	Clay/Chalk Sample
07,809	Ceramic	Cew	A2	4	Olive Jar sherds
07,810	Organic	Botanical	A3	2	Caulking (Plant)
07,811	Ceramic	Cew	A2	9	Olive Jar sherds (one Rim)
07,812	Organic	Botanical	A2	1	Caulking (Plant)
07,813	Ceramic	Cew	A2	2	Sherds
07,817	Ceramic	Cew	A2	2	Olive Jar sherds
07,818	Organic	Olive Pit	A2	3	Olive Pits
07,819	Ceramic	Cew	A2	3	Olive Jar sherds (pitched)
07,821	Organic	Olive Pit	A2	11	Olive Pits
07,821	Organic	Botanical	A2	1	Bottle Gourd fragment
07,821	Organic	Botanical	A2	1	Hazelnut Shell
07,822	Ceramic	Cew	A2	2	Olive Jar sherds
07,823	Ceramic	Cew	A2	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,824	Organic	Olive Pit	A2	21	Olive Pits, nine whole
07,824.01	Organic	Botanical	A2	3	Almond Shell fragments
07,824.02	Organic	Botanical	A2	2	Hazelnut Shell fragments
07,825	Organic	Rope	A1	1	Hemp Rope, two twist
07,826	Organic	Sample	A2	1	White Substance, Sample
07,827	Ceramic	Cew	A1	2	Ceramic sherds
07,827	Ceramic	Glz	A1	1	Sherd
07,828	Organic	Olive Pit	A1	1	Olive Pit
07,829	Organic	Olive Pit	A1	82	Olive Pits
07,830	Organic	Olive Pit	A1	54	Olive Pits
07,831	Ceramic	Cew	A1 and B1	3	Olive Jar sherds (pitched)
07,832	Metal	Unknown	Pitcher Grid	1	Metal Pitcher flake
07,833	Organic	Sample	A3	1	Unknown Sample
07,834	Ceramic	Cew	A1	4	Olive Jar sherds
07,835	Ceramic	Glz	D1	1	Sherd
07,835	Ceramic	Cew	D1	1	Sherd
07,837	Ceramic	Cew	Pitcher Grid	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,838	Organic	Olive Pit	A1	70	Olive Pits
07,838	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Seed, Unidentified
07,839	Ceramic	Glz	A1	1	Sherd (Rim)
07,840	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Coconut Shell fragment
07,840	Organic	Bone	A1	1	Fish
07,840	Organic	Olive Pit	A1	49	Olive Pits
07,841	Ceramic	Cew	A1	3	Ceramic sherds
07,841	Ceramic	Mor	A1	1	El Morro sherd
07,842	Organic	Olive Pit	A2	18	Olive Pits
07,844	Ceramic	Cew	A2	3	Olive Jar sherds (pitched)
07,845	Stone	Other	A2	1	Flat Stone
07,847	Organic	Olive Pit	A2, B1	1	Olive Pit
07,847	Organic	Botanical	A2, B1	1	Hickory Shell fragment
07,848	Ceramic	Cew	A2	1	Sherd
07,849	Metal	Unknown	A2, B1	2	C-Clips or washers
07,850	Organic	Rope	A3	1	Hemp Rope fragment
07,850	Organic	Rope	A3	2	Grass Rope fragments
07,851	Organic	Leather	A3	1	Swatch
07,852	Metal	Cu	Pitcher Grid	1	Copper Pitcher
07,853	Ceramic	Cew	A3	1	Olive Jar sherd
07,854.01	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Fragment, Unidentified
07,854.02	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Domestic Cow Rib
07,854.03	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal
07,855	Ceramic	Cew	A3	3	Olive Jar sherds
07,856	Organic	Olive Pit	A1, A2, A3	9	Olive Pits
07,858.01	Organic	Bone	A1, A2, A3	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal
07,858.02	Organic	Bone	A1, A2, A3	1	Fish Spine, Order Indeterminate
07,859	Ceramic	Cew	A1, A2, A3	5	Olive Jar sherds
07,860.01	Organic	Bone	A3	3	Fragments
07,860.02	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Domestic Cow Rib Epiphysis
07,860.03	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Chicken-Sized Coracoid
07,860.04	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal Bone
07,861	Ceramic	Cew	A3	2	Olive Jar sherds
07,864	Organic	Shell	A3	1	Olive Shell?
07,864	Organic	Shell	A3	1	Limpet Exoskeleton
07,865	Organic	Olive Pit	A3	1	Olive Pit
07,866.01	Organic	Bone	A3	3	Bone fragments
07,866.02	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal fragment
07,866.03	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal fragment
07,867	Ceramic	Cew	A3	3	Sherds
07,868	Organic	Olive Pit	A1, A2	27	Olive Pits
07,869	Stone	Other	A3	1	Quartz
07,870	Metal	Unknown	A3	1	Unidentified
07,872	Ceramic	Cew	A1, A2	2	Sherds
07,873	Ceramic	Cew	A4	2	Olive Jar sherds
07,874	Ceramic	Cew	A3	3	Olive Jar sherds (slipped)
07,876	Ceramic	Cew	A3	2	Olive Jar sherds
07,877	Organic	Botanical	A3	1	Root Casing Hickory
07,878.01	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Domestic Cow Rib
07,878.02	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal Bone
07,879	Ceramic	Glz	A3	1	Sherd
07,880	Ceramic	Cew	A3	6	Olive Jar sherds
07,881	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal Bone
07,882	Ceramic	Cew	A3	14	Olive Jar sherds (pitched)
07,884	Ceramic	Cew	A3	4	Olive Jar sherds
07,885.01	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Fragment
07,885.03	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal Bone
07,885.04	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Domestic Cow Vertebra
07,885.05	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Domestic Cow Rib
07,885.06	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Domestic Cow Vertebra
07,887	Organic	Botanical	A3	1	Shell fragment
07,887	Organic	Olive Pit	A3	7	Olive Pits, two whole
07,888	Metal	Unknown	A3	4	Modern Plastic fragments
07,889	Ceramic	Cew	A3	4	Olive Jar sherds
07,890	Ceramic	Cew	A3, A4	6	Sherds
07,891	Organic	Botanical	A3, A4	2	Persimmon Seeds
07,892	Organic	Other	A2	2	Caulking
07,893	Ceramic	Cew	A2	3	Olive Jar sherds
07,894	Ceramic	Cew	A4	3	Ceramic sherds
07,896	Organic	Bone	A1, A2	1	Medium Fish Verterbra
07,897	Organic	Olive Pit	A3	3	Olive Pits
07,898	Organic	Wood	A3	1	Wood fragment, Dunnage
08,700	Organic	Wood	Gudgeon	2	Wood fragments
08,701	Organic	Botanical	A3	1	Sapote Seed fragment
08,702	Ceramic	Cew	A4	2	Olive Jar sherds
08,703	Organic	Wood	Gudgeon	2	Wood fragments, with Mercury
08,704.01	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal fragment
08,704.02	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Indeterminate Vertebrate Bone
08,705	Organic	Wood	A1 -A4, D1	1	Wood fragment, with Mercury
08,706.01	Organic	Bone	A3	2	Bone fragments
08,706.02	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Domestic Cow Rib
08,707	Ceramic	Mor	A3	1	El Morro sherd
08,708	Ceramic	Cew	A3	8	Olive Jar sherds
08,709	Organic	Olive Pit	A3	1	Olive Pit
08,710	Organic	Wood	A3	13	Wood fragments
08,711	Organic	Wood	A3	1	Wood, charred
08,712	Organic	Olive Pit	A3, A4	2	Olive Pits
08,713	Organic	Wood	A3. A4	2	Dunnage, Blue Beech
08,714	Metal	Unknown	A3, A4	3	Concretions
08,715	Metal	Unknown	A3, A4	2	Metal fragments
08,716	Stone	Other	A3, A4	2	Roundish Mud or Coal
08,717.01	Organic	Bone	A3, A4	1	Bone fragments
08,717.02	Organic	Bone	A3, A4	1	Goat-Sized Condyle
08,717.03	Organic	Bone	A3, A4	1	Indeterminate Mammal fragment
08,717.04	Organic	Bone	A3, A4	1	Rib, Medium-Sized Mammal
08,717.05	Organic	Bone	A3, A4	1	Domestic Chicken Coracoid
08,717.06	Organic	Bone	A3, A4	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal fragment
08,717.07	Organic	Bone	A3, A4	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal fragment
08,718	Organic	Botanical	A3, A4	2	Root Casings
08,719	Ceramic	Cew	A3, A4	27	Olive Jar sherds
08,720	Organic	Botanical	A3, A4	1	Resin Lump
08,721	Metal	Unknown	Dredge Screen	1	Metal fragment
08,722	Organic	Wood	Dredge Screen	1	Wood fragment
08,723	Organic	Bone	Dredge Screen	1	Chicken-Sized Vertebra
08,724	Organic	Other	Dredge Screen	1	Coprolite?
08,725	Organic	Wood	A3, A4	1	Wood fragment
08,726	Metal	Unknown	A3, A4	2	Metal fragments
08,727	Organic	Botanical	A3, A4	1	Hickory Shell fragment
08,728	Organic	Bone	A3, A4	1	Marine Catfish Spine
08,729	Ceramic	Cew	A3, A4	6	Olive Jar sherds
08,730	Ceramic	Cew	A3	5	Olive Jar sherds
08,731	Organic	Olive Pit	A3	2	Olive Pits
08,732	Organic	Bone	A3	2	Indeterminate Mammal fragments
08,733.01	Organic	Botanical	All Grids	1	Seed Nut Shell
08,733.02	Organic	Botanical	All Grids	1	Cherry Pit
08,734	Ceramic	Cew	All Grids	1	Olive Jar sherd (pitched)
08,735	Stone	Other	All Grids	1	Stone
08,736	Ceramic	Cew	A3	13	Olive Jar sherds
08,737	Ceramic	Cew	Gudgeon	2	Sherds
08,738	Metal	Unknown	Gudgeon	4	Metal fragments
08,739	Metal	Unknown	Gudgeon	2	Metal fragments
08,740	Organic	Botanical	Gudgeon	1	Leaves, Intrusive
08,741	Ceramic	Cew	A3	1	Olive Jar sherd ( Shoulder)
08,742	Organic	Wood	A1 -A4, D1	6	Wood fragments, sawn
08,743	Organic	Olive Pit	A1-A4, D1	2	Olive Pits
08,744	Metal	Pb	Gudgeon	4	Lead Sheathing pieces
08,745	Ceramic	Cew	Gudgeon	2	Olive Jar sherds
08,746	Organic	Wood	Gudgeon	2	Wood fragments, sawn or planed
08,747	Stone	Other	Gudgeon	1	Flint-Like Material
08,748	Metal	Pb	Gudgeon	1	Weight or Shot
08,749	Metal	Unknown	A4	1	Metal fragment
08,750	Ceramic	Cew	A4	1	Galley Tile?
08,751	Ceramic	Brick	A3	1	Brick fragment
08,752	Encrust	Fe	Dredge Spoil	1	Fastener
08,753	Metal	Cu	Copper Kettle	1	Copper Rivet
08,754	Metal	Pb	A2	1	Weight, intrusive
08,755	Ceramic	Cew	Pitcher Grid	1	Sherd
08,756	Encrust	Fe	5' Off Strbrd	1	Concretion
08,756	Metal	Unknown	5' Off Strbrd	2	Thin sheets, intrusive
08,756	Stone	Other	5' Off Strbrd	10	Rock/Slate
08,756	Stone	Coral	5 ft. off Stbd	2	Coral
08,757	Ceramic	Cew	5' Off Strbrd	2	Sherds
08,758.02	Metal	Fe	5' Off Strbrd	4	Concretions
08,759	Ceramic	Cew	Mast Step	2	Sherds
08,760	Stone	Other	Mast Step	32	Stones
08,760	Stone	Coral	Mast Step	14	Coral
08,761	Stone	Other	Dredge Spoil	3	Stones
08,762	Organic	Botanical	Dredge Spoil	3	Leaf fragment
08,763	Metal	Fe	Dredge Spoil	3	Corroded Objects
08,764	Organic	Wood	10' Off Strbrd	2	Wood fragments
08,765	Ceramic	Cew	10' Off Strbrd	1	Sherd
08,766	Metal	Unknown	10' Off Strbrd	1	Metal Ball, 1.3 mm dia.
08,767	Metal	Unknown	Metal Fea. #1	1	Metal fragment
08,768	Stone	Other	A1	6	Stones
08,769	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Acorn
08,769	Stone	Coral	A1	1	Coral
08,770	Stone	Other	A1	7	Stones
08,771	Organic	Bone	A1	1	(Concreted)
08,771	Ceramic	Other	A1	1	Unindentified
08,772	Organic	Wood	A1	1	Wood fragment
08,773	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Cherry Pit
08,773	Stone	Other	A1	8	Stones
08,774	Organic	Wood	A1	1	Wood fragment, golden bark
08,775	Organic	Wood	A1	1	Wood fragment
08,776	Glass	Unknown	A1	1	Glass fragment, amber
08,777	Organic	Wood	A1	5	Wood fragments
08,778	Stone	Other	Metal Fea. #1	3	Stone
08,779	Organic	Wood	Metal Fea. #1	1	Wood, Concreted
08,780	Organic	Olive Pit	D1	1	Olive Pit
08,782	Ceramic	Cew	A1	1	Sherd
08,783	Organic	Olive Pit	A1	1	Olive Pit
08,783	Organic	Botanical	A1	1	Persimmon Seed
08,784	Ceramic	Glz	D1	3	Sherds
08,785	Ceramic	Cew	D1	12	Sherds
08,786	Organic	Leather	D1	1	Fragment
08,787	Organic	Wood	A1	4	Wood fragments
08,788.01	Organic	Bone	A1	1	Medium Fish Spine
08,788.02	Organic	Bone	A1	1	Medium Fish Vertebra
08,789	Ceramic	Cew	A1	9	Sherds
08,790	Organic	Wood	A1	3	Wood fragments
08,791	Metal	Unknown	A1	3	Metal fragments
08,792	Metal	Unknown	D1	1	Metal fragment
08,793	Organic	Bone	A1	2	Indeterminate Vertebrate Bones
08,794	Organic	Wood	D1	1	Wood fragment
08,795	Organic	Bone	D1	1	Bone fragment
08,796	Glass	Unknown	D1	1	Glass fragment, light green
08,797	Organic	Wood	A1	5	Wood fragments
08,798	Organic	Leather	A1	1	Strip
08,799	Ceramic	Cew	A1	8	Olive Jar sherds
08,800	Stone	Other	Metal Fea. #1	1	Stone
08,801	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	1	Olive Jar sherd
08,802	Organic	Wood	Metal Fea. #1	1	Wood fragment
08,803	Organic	Bone	D1	2	Indeterminate Vertebrate Bones
08,804	Metal	Unknown	D1	1	Concretion
08,805	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit A	1	Olive Jar sherd
08,806	Ceramic	Cew	10' Off Strbrd	1	Olive Jar sherd
08,807	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	2	Olive Jar sherds
08,808	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit A	1	Olive Jar sherd
08,809	Organic	Leather	Test Pit C	1	Shoe Sole fragment
08,810	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit A	1	Sherd (Rim)
08,811	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit A	1	Olive Jar sherd
08,812	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit A	1	Olive Jar sherd
08,813	Ceramic	Glz	Test Pit C	1	Olive Jar sherd
08,814	Ceramic	Cew	Ballast	1	Olive Jar sherd
08,815	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit B	1	Olive Jar sherd
08,816	Ceramic	Cew	Near Pit A	1	Olive Jar sherd
08,817	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit A	1	Olive Jar sherd
08,818	Ceramic	Cew	Ballast	1	Olive Jar sherd
08,819	Organic	Wood	Test Pit C	1	Board Found in pump well
08,820	Metal	Rope	Anchor Pit	1	Wire Wrapped Rope
08,821	Organic	Olive Pit	A2	2	Olive Pits
08,822.02	Organic	Bone	A2	1	Catfish Spine
08,822.03	Organic	Bone	A2	1	Small Fish Spine
08,823	Organic	Wood	A3	8	Wood fragments
08,824	Metal	Brass	Pitcher Grid	1	Brass Ring
08,825	Organic	Wood	A1	1	Tool Handle
08,826	Ceramic	Mor	Test Pit C	1	El Morro sherd
08,827	Stone	Other	A1	1	Quartz fragment
08,827	Stone	Coral	A1	1	Coral
08,828	Metal	Unknown	Pitcher Grid	1	Slag
08,829	Stone	Cut	Ballast	1	Tessera from Mosaic?
08,830	Metal	Pb	Gudgeon Fea.	1	Lead Sheathing piece
08,831	Organic	Insect	A2 Dredge	6	Parts and Wings
08,831.01	Organic	Bone	A2	1	Catfish Spine
08,831.02	Organic	Bone	A2	1	Black Rat Metapodial
08,831.03	Organic	Bone	A2	1	Unidentified
08,831.04	Organic	Bone	A2	1	Unidentified
08,832	Organic	Bone	A2	2	Black Rat Mandible
08,833	Organic	Bone	Dredge Spoil	1	Medium Fish Vertebra
08,834	Organic	Wood	Test Pit C	1	Wood fragment
08,835	Organic	Botanical	Test Pit C	1	fragment
08,836	Organic	Bone	A2	1	Fish Spine, Order Indeterminate
08,837	Organic	Insect	Spoil	2	Hide Beetle Wing Covers
08,839	Metal	Pb	Mast Step	1	Fishing Weight
08,840	Organic	Other	A3	1	Organic Material
08,841	Organic	Bone	A3	1	Fragment
08,842	Stone	Chipped	A-1	2	Stone, chipped lithic
08,844	Organic	Bone	Ep-Af-1	1	Bone fragment, Pig Femur
08,845	Organic	Bone	Dredge Spoil	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal Bone
08,846	Organic	Bone	Dredge Spoil	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal Bone
08,847	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	1	Sherd
08,848	Ceramic	Cew	Test Pit C	1	Sherd
08,884	Organic	Bone	Dredge Spoil	1	Indeterminate Large Mammal Bone
8,760	Organic	Shell	Mast Step	1	Shell
8,781	Organic	Shell	D1	1	Shell fragment
8,822.01	Organic	Bone	A2	1	Domestic Chicken Phalange
8,838	Organic	Sample	A3	1	Fiber Samples
8,843	Organic	Bone	Ep-Bf-2,	1	Sheep-Size Vertebra

Artifact Inventory of the Emanuel Point Ship, 1993-1995
1994
(All Numbers are Prefixed by 94.125)

Number	Category	Subcategory	Grid	Quantity	Description
00,001	Organic	Wood	114n,131e	1	Wood fragment
00,002.01	Ceramic	Brick	114n,131e	1	Brick fragment, small
00,002.02	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	3	Sherds
00,003	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,004	Metal	Hg	114n,131e	1	Mercury droplets
00,005	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd
00,006	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,007	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd, sand tempered
00,008	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,009	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd, dark gray
00,010	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	2	Sherds
00,011	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	2	Lead Sheathing fragments
00,012	Organic	Sample	114n,131e	1	Soil Sample
00,013	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,014	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Strap (molded)
00,015	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing with rivet hole
00,016	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd
00,017	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,018	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,019	Organic	Wood	114n,131e	1	Bark
00,020	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing curled at edges
00,021	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	sherd, sand tempered
00,022	Organic	Wood	114n,129e	3	Pine Bark (tentatively)
00,023	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Olive Jar sherd, rilling
00,024	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	1	Lead Sheathing, folded
00,025	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener Point (molded)
00,026	Organic	Wood	114n,131e	6	Wood Scraps
00,027	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing, fifteen square tack holes
00,028	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,029	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener (molded)
00,030	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion and Lead Sheathing
00,031	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherds
00,032	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener Point (molded)
00,033	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd, sand tempered, gray
00,034	Encrust	Fe	114n,129e	1	Concretion
00,035	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	1	Sherd
00,036	Encrust	Fe	114n,127e	1	Bolt fragment (molded)
00,037	Ceramic	Cew	114n,125e	1	Olive Jar Rim sherd
00,038	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,039	Organic	Wood	114n,131e	1	Wood fragment with square Fastener
00,040	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Mammal Bone, Class Indeterminate
00,040	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Mammal Bone, Class Indeterminate
00,041	Organic	Wood	114n,131e	1	Wood fragment
00,042	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,043	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretio
00,044	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing, six holes
00,045	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Piece
00,046	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	2	Fastener fragment
00,047	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,048	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener Head (molded)
00,049	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener Head (molded)
00,050	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd, dark gray
00,051	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener (molded)
00,052	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Mammal Bone, Class Indeterminate
00,052	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Mammal Bone, Class Indeterminate
00,053	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, dark
00,054	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,055	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing, curled at edges
00,056	Encrust	Fe	114n,127e	1	Concretion
00,057	Encrust	Fe	114n,127e	1	Concretion with Ballast Stone
00,058	Encrust	Fe	114n,127e	1	Concretion
00,059	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	1	Lead Sheathing fragment with two tack holes
00,060	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	1	Olive Jar sherd
00,061	Encrust	Fe	114n,127e	1	Concretion
00,062	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	2	Sherds, gray-brown color
00,063	Encrust	Fe	114n,127e	1	Concretion
00,064	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Olive Jar sherd, sand tempered, throw marks
00,065	Encrust	Fe	114n,127e	2	Concretion
00,066	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Olive Jar sherd, sand tempered
00,067	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Concretion, Fastener Head
00,068	Ceramic	Cew	114n,133e	1	Olive Jar sherd
00,069	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Bovine Rib
00,069	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Bovine Rib
00,070	Ceramic	Aztec	114n,131e	1	Ceramic fragment, red interior, design
00,071	Ceramic	Melado	114n,131e	1	Melado sherd, dark brown lead glaze
00,072	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,073	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	1	Lead Shot, no mold marks or sprue marks
00,074	Ceramic	Cew	114n,133e	1	Sherd, dark colored, sand tempered
00,075	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener (molded)
00,076	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	4	Lead Sheathing fragments with square holes
00,077	Stone	Ballast	114n,129e	1	Ballast, gray sedimentary rock
00,078	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	2	Lead Sheathing, folded
00,079	Organic	Wood	114n,127e	1	Wood Scrap with notch
00,080	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Domestic Chicken Leg Bone
00,080	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Domestic Chicken Leg Bone
00,081	Encrust	Fe	114n,127e	1	Fastener fragment (molded)
00,082	Encrust	Unknown	114n,129e	1	Bilge Concretion
00,083	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,086	Organic	Wood	114n,129e	1	Twig
00,086.01	Organic	Olive Pit	114n,129e	4	Olive Pits, three whole, half fragment
00,086.02	Organic	Botanical	114n,129e	1	Hazelnut Shell
00,086.03	Organic	Botanical	114n,129e	1	Cherry Pit
00,086.04	Organic	Botanical	114n,129e	1	Twig, Unidentified
00,087	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	4	Unidentified (two Mammal, two Fish)
00,087	Organic	Insect	114n,129e	1	Cockroach Egg Case
00,087	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	4	Unidentified (two Mammal, two Fish)
00,087.01	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,087.01	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,087.02	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,087.02	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,087.03	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	House Mouse Tibia
00,087.03	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	House Mouse Tibia
00,088	Ceramic	Glz	114n,129e	1	Olive Jar sherd, black-brown colored
00,090	Stone	Shot	114n,131e	1	Stone Shot, gray Limestone
00,091	Metal	Hg	114n,129e	1	250 millileters of Mercury
00,092	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Concretion
00,093	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	2	Concretions
00,094	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, gray
00,095.12	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,095.13	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Osteichthyes
00,095.14	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Maxilla
00,095.15	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Caudal Vertebra
00,095.16	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Vertebrate, Class Indeterminate
00,095.17	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,095.18	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Skull
00,095.19	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Ulna
00,095.20	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Osteichthyes
00,095.21	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,095.22	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Incisor Tooth
00,095.23	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Radius
00,095.24	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Osteichthyes
00,095.25	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Unidentified
00,095.26	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Unidentified
00,095.27	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Unidentified
00,095.28	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Osteichthyes
00,095.29	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Maxilla
00,095.32	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Unidentified
00,095.33	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Unidentified
00,095.34	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Unidentified
00,095.35	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Radius
00,095.36	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Caudal Vertebra
00,095.37	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Sacrum
00,095.38	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Skull (Premaxilla)
00,095.39	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Domestic Pig Bone
00,095.40	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Scapula
00,095.41	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,095.42	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Unidentified
00,095.43	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Unidentified
00,095.44	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Incisor Tooth
00,096	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,097	Stone	Other	114n,129e	1	Shale or Slate with leaf impression
00,098	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Rib, Unidentified
00,099	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,100	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Mammal Bone, Class Indeterminate
00,101	Organic	Botanical	114n,127e	1	Leaf, dark brown, Prob Intrusive
00,102	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,103	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Croaker Otolith
00,104	Organic	Botanical	114n,129e	1	Caulking Material, Wool or Cotton?
00,105	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd, sand tempered
00,106	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	2	Lead Sheathing
00,107	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	2	Lead Sheathing
00,108	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	1	Sherd, sand tempered
00,109	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd
00,110	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, red-brown, sand tempered
00,111	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	1	Sherd, sand tempered, dark
00,112	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	1	Sherd, rilling
00,113	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd
00,114	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd sand tempered
00,115	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	2	Sherds, sand tempered, gray
00,116	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd, brown
00,117	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	4	Lead Sheathing
00,118	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,119	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Vertebra, Osteichthyes
00,120	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd, calcareous deposit
00,122	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,123	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, sand-tempered
00,124	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Piece with multiple folds
00,125	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Olive Jar sherd, thick
00,126	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Mammal Bone, Class Indeterminate
00,127	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	3	Lead Sheathing
00,128	Ceramic	Morro	114n,131e	1	El Morro Rim sherd, dark glaze
00,129	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	2	Sherds, mustard slip over red
00,130	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	2	Sherds
00,131	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	3	Lead Sheathing
00,132	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd, curved Rim
00,133	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Bone, Probably an Otilith
00,134	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	6	Sherds, sand tempered, yellow-hued
00,135	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	2	Lead fragments, crumpled
00,135	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	2	Lead fragments, crumpled
00,136	Ceramic	Aztec	114n,131e	2	Sherds, black interior, red-brown slip
00,137	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, fine grain, red clay
00,138	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing, folded once
00,138	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing, folded once
00,139	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion with Wood
00,140	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	2	Sherds, one black, two handle
00,141	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	1	Lead Sheathing, folded over
00,141	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	1	Lead Sheathing, folded over
00,142	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Bone, Order Lamniformes
00,143	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,143	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,144	Organic	Unknown	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,145.01	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Osteichthyes
00,145.02	Organic	Bone	114n,127e		Black Rat Tibia
00,146	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	4	Lead Sheathing fragments
00,146	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	4	Lead Sheathing fragments
00,147	Stone	Other	114n,129e	1	Bead or Fish Otilith
00,148	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, mustard slip over red
00,149	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,149	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,150	Organic	Botanical	Dredge Spoil	1	Nut Shell fragment
00,151	Encrust	Fe	114n,129e	1	Fastener fragment (molded)
00,152	Organic	Unknown	114n,129e	2	Ray Fish Mouth Parts
00,153	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,154	Stone	Chipped	114n,127e	1	Stone, modified lithic
00,155	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd with mustard colored slip
00,156	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Humerus
00,157	Stone	Ballast	114n,131e	1	Ballast Chip
00,158	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener point (molded)
00,159	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	2	Lead Sheathing, folded
00,159	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	2	Lead Sheathing, folded
00,160	Organic	Unknown	114n,129e	1	Bivalve Hinge Part
00,161	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd
00,162	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd
00,163	Organic	Wood	114n,131e	1	Wood with Square fastener hole
00,164.01	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Mammal, Class Indeterminate
00,164.02	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Black Rat Innominate
00,165	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	9	Lead fragments
00,165	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	9	Lead fragments
00,166	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, sand tempered
00,167	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	3	Sherds
00,168	Metal	Fe	114n,129e	1	Metal Pin (intrusive?)
00,169	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	2	Sherds, rilling
00,170	Stone	Other	114n,129e	1	Rock, Porous, burgandy in color
00,171	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	2	Concretions
00,172	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, sand tempered
00,173	Organic	Unknown	114n,131e	1	Unidentified dark brown organic
00,173.01	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Bone, Order Rajiformes
00,173.02	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Bone, Order Rajiformes
00,174	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Fish Mouth Part
00,175	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	5	Lead Sheathing fragments
00,175	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	5	Lead Sheathing fragments
00,176	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing, folded and twisted
00,176	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing, folded and twisted
00,177	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Bone, Order Rajiformes
00,178	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd, orange clay with mustard slip
00,179	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	1	Lead Sheathing fragment, curled
00,179	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	1	Lead Sheathing fragment, curled
00,180	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Bone, Rat Incisor Tooth
00,181	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Unidentified
00,181	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Unidentified
00,182	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	2	Lead Sheathing fragments
00,182	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	2	Lead Sheathing fragments
00,183	Encrust	Fe	114n,129e	3	Concretions, probably nails
00,184	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,184	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,185	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd, Rim with slip
00,186	Ceramic	Glz	114n,129e	4	Sherds, sand tempered
00,187	Stone	Other	114n,131e	1	Unidentified
00,188	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	3	Lead Sheathing, folded and bent
00,188	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	3	Lead Sheathing, folded and bent
00,189	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,189	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,190	Encrust	Fe	Cleanup	1	Concretion, square nail
00,191	Encrust	Fe	Cleanup	1	Concretion
00,192	Ceramic	Cew	Cleanup	1	Sherd with mustard-colored slip
00,193	Stone	Ballast	Cleanup	1	Prob Ballast, dark gray Shale
00,194	Encrust	Fe	114n,127e	2	Concretions
00,195	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	2	Lead Sheathing
00,195	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	2	Lead Sheathing
00,196	Encrust	Fe	114n,127e	1	Concretion
00,197	Encrust	Fe	114n,127e	1	Concretion of nail
00,198	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	5	Bones
00,198	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	5	Bones
00,198.01	Organic	Botanical	Dredge Spoil	4	Inner Bark?
00,199	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd, sand tempered
00,200	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	6	Sherds
00,201	Encrust	Fe	114n,127e	1	Concretion
00,202	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	2	Sherds, sand tempered
00,203	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion with sherd
00,204	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	3	Lead fragments
00,204	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	3	Lead fragments
00,205	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	3	Sherds, sand tempered
00,207	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, sand tempered
00,209	Stone	Ballast	114n,131e	15	Ballast Chips
00,210	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, sand tempered
00,211	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd
00,212	Organic	Sample	114n,127e	1	Sample, Clay
00,213	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,213	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,214	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	1	Sherd, light gray
00,215	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	1	Lead fragment
00,215	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	1	Lead fragment
00,216	Organic	Wood	114n,127e	1	Wood fragment, white oak?
00,217	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	1	Olive Jar sherd, gray-green color
00,218	Organic	Wood	114n,127e	2	Wood Scraps
00,219	Encrust	Unknown	114n,127e	1	Bilge Concretion
00,220	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Unidentified
00,220	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Unidentified
00,221	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, brown
00,222	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,222	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,223	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	5	Concretions
00,224	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Bivalve Hinge Piece
00,224	Organic	Botanical	114n,127e	2	Oak Leaves
00,224	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Bivalve Hinge Piece
00,225.01	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,225.01	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,225.02	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,225.02	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,226	Organic	Wood	114n,125e	1	Wood Scrap
00,227	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	1	Lead Fishing Weight, probably intrusive
00,227	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	1	Lead Fishing Weight, probably intrusive
00,228	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, brown, sand tempered
00,229	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	4	Concretions, three nail-like, one Fastener
00,230	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	4	Lead fragments
00,230	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	4	Lead fragments
00,231	Organic	Sample	114n,127e	1	Sample, Bilge (Clay)
00,232	Organic	Sample	114n,127e	1	Sample, Pollen, Bilge
00,235	Organic	Sample	114n,127e	1	Sample of Bilge Material
00,236	Organic	Sample	114n,127e	1	Sample of Bilge/Clay Material
00,237	Organic	Wood	114n,127e	10	Wood fragments, some with cut marks
00,238	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,238	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,239	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	2	Olive Jar sherds, throw marks
00,240	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	1	Sherd
00,241	Encrust	Unknown	114n,127e	1	Bilge Concretion
00,242	Ceramic	Aztec	114n,131e	1	Mouth with decoration
00,243	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	10	Vertebrae
00,243	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	10	Vertebrae
00,243.01	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,243.01	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,243.02	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,243.02	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,243.03	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Drum or Croaker Vertebra
00,243.03	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Drum or Croaker Vertebra
00,243.04	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Skull (Parietal)
00,243.04	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Skull (Parietal)
00,243.05	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Bone, Class Osteichthyes
00,243.05	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Bone, Class Osteichthyes
00,243.06	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Ulna
00,243.06	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Ulna
00,243.07	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,243.07	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,243.08	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Skull (Parietal)
00,243.08	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Skull (Parietal)
00,243.09	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,243.09	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,243.10	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Sacrum
00,243.10	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Sacrum
00,243.11	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Mandible
00,243.11	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Mandible
00,243.12	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Vertebrate, Class Indeterminate
00,243.12	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Vertebrate, Class Indeterminate
00,243.13	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Bone, Class Osteichthyes
00,243.13	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Bone, Class Osteichthyes
00,243.14	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Bone, Class Osteichthyes
00,243.14	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Bone, Class Osteichthyes
00,243.15	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Mandible
00,243.15	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Mandible
00,243.16	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,243.16	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,243.17	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Incisor Tooth
00,243.17	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Incisor Tooth
00,243.18	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Cranial fragment, Black Rat
00,243.18	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Cranial fragment, Black Rat
00,243.19	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,243.19	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,243.20	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Rib
00,243.20	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Rib
00,243.21	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,243.21	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,244	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	1	Sherd
00,245.01	Organic	Olive Pit	114n,127e	2	Olive Pit Halves
00,245.02	Organic	Botanical	114n,127e	1	Cherry Pit
00,246	Organic	Wood	114n,129e	1	Wood Scrap with tool marks
00,247	Organic	Wood	114n,129e	1	Wood Scrap with tool cuts
00,248	Organic	Wood	114n,129e	1	Wood Scrap with tool marks
00,249	Organic	Wood	114n,129e	1	Wood Scrap, pyramidal shaped
00,250	Ceramic	Cew	114n,133e	1	Olive Jar sherd, gray color
00,251	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Unidentified
00,251	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Unidentified
00,252	Metal	Pb	114n,113e	4	Lead Sheathing
00,252	Metal	Pb	114n,113e	4	Lead Sheathing
00,253	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener point (molded)
00,254	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Concretion
00,255	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Concretion
00,256	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener Head (molded)
00,257	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Concretion of Tack Head
00,258	Organic	Wood	114n,129e	1	Bark
00,258.01	Organic	Botanical	114n,129e	1	Cherry Pit
00,258.02	Organic	Botanical	114n,129e	2	Unidentified Bark fragments
00,258.03	Organic	Olive Pit	114n,129e	6	Olive Pits, three whole, three half pits
00,259	Ceramic	Cew	114n,133e	1	Sherd
00,260	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, dark brown
00,261	Ceramic	Cew	114n,133e	1	Sherd
00,262	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, sand tempered, dark brown
00,263	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	5	Lead Sheathing
00,263	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	5	Lead Sheathing
00,264	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Tack Concretion
00,265	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Nail Concretion
00,266	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	5	Lead Sheathing
00,266	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	5	Lead Sheathing
00,267	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	2	Concretions
00,268	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, dark colored, sand tempered
00,269	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,269	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,269.01	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Bone, Class Osteichthyes
00,269.01	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Bone, Class Osteichthyes
00,269.02	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Skull (Premaxilla)
00,269.02	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Skull (Premaxilla)
00,269.03	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,269.03	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,269.04	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Mammal Bone, Class Indeterminate
00,269.04	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Mammal Bone, Class Indeterminate
00,269.05	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Skull (Occipital)
00,269.05	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Skull (Occipital)
00,269.06	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Bone, Class Osteichthyes
00,269.06	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Bone, Class Osteichthyes
00,269.07	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Bone, Class Osteichthyes
00,269.07	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Bone, Class Osteichthyes
00,269.08	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,269.08	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,269.09	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,269.09	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,269.10	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Sacrum
00,269.10	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Sacrum
00,269.11	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,269.11	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,269.12	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Incisor Tooth
00,269.12	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Incisor Tooth
00,269.13	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Skull (Occipital)
00,269.13	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Skull (Occipital)
00,269.14	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Skull (Frontal)
00,269.14	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Skull (Frontal)
00,269.15	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,269.15	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,269.16	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,269.16	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,269.17	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,269.17	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,269.67	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Incisor Tooth
00,269.68	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Metapodial
00,269.69	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Metapodial
00,269.70	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,269.71	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Incisor Tooth
00,270	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Fish Otilith
00,271	Organic	Invertebr	Dredge Spoil	1	Barnacle fragment
00,272	Organic	Botanical	Dredge Spoil	1	Twig, Unidentified
00,273	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	8	Concretions
00,274	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	6	Lead fragments, folded
00,274	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	6	Lead fragments, folded
00,275	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	3	Bones, Rat Type, Teeth
00,275.01	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Scapula
00,275.02	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Humerus
00,275.03	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Skull (Bulla)
00,275.04	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Skull (Bulla)
00,275.05	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Scapula
00,275.06	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Humerus
00,275.07	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Humerus
00,275.08	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Innominate
00,275.09	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Humerus
00,275.10	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Innominate
00,275.11	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Humerus
00,275.12	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,275.13	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,275.14	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Unidentified
00,275.15	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Skull (frontal)
00,275.16	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,275.17	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Maxilla
00,275.18	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,275.19	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Innominate
00,275.20	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Sacrum
00,275.21	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,275.22	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,275.23	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,275.24	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,275.25	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,275.26	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,275.27	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Mandible
00,275.28	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Innominate
00,275.29	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,275.30	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,275.31	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,275.32	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,275.33	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,275.34	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Innominate
00,275.35	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,275.36	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,275.37	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,275.38	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,275.39	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Humerus
00,275.40	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,275.41	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Innominate
00,275.42	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Innominate
00,275.43	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Mandible
00,275.44	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Mandible
00,275.45	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Mandible
00,275.46	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Maxilla
00,275.47	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Incisor Tooth
00,275.48	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Radius
00,275.49	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Radius
00,275.50	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Rib
00,275.51	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Radius
00,275.52	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,275.53	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Rib
00,275.54	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Rib
00,275.55	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,275.56	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Ulna
00,275.57	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Rib
00,275.58	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Metapodial
00,275.59	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Rib
00,275.60	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,275.61	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Sacrum
00,275.62	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.63	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.64	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.65	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Sacrum
00,275.66	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Sacrum
00,275.67	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.68	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.69	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Sacrum
00,275.70	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.71	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.72	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Sacrum
00,275.73	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.74	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.75	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,275.76	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.77	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.78	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.79	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.80	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.81	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.82	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Sacrum
00,275.83	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.84	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.85	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Sacrum
00,275.86	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.87	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Sacrum
00,275.88	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.89	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.90	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Class Osteichthyes
00,275.91	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Class Osteichthyes
00,275.92	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Class Osteichthyes
00,275.93	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Class Osteichthyes
00,275.94	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Class Osteichthyes
00,275.95	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Class Osteichthyes
00,275.96	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Class Osteichthyes
00,275.97	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,275.98	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Vertebra
00,275.99	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Humerus
00,276.01	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Vertebrate, Class Indeterminate
00,276.02	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Domestic Chicken Bone
00,276.03	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Mammal Bone, Class Indeterminate
00,276.04	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,276.05	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Unidentified
00,276.06	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Unidentified
00,277	Organic	Botanical	114n,127e	1	Spiny Seed/Fruit
00,278	Organic	Botanical	114n,127e	1	Aborted Acorn
00,279	Ceramic	Aztec	114n,131e	1	Effigy, Eye, Eyebrow, & Cheek
00,280	Stone	Shot	114n,133e	1	Stone Shot, gray Limestone
00,281.1	Organic	Botanical	114n,127e	6	Hazelnut Shell fragments
00,281.2	Organic	Botanical	114n,127e	1	Cherry Pit fragment
00,282	Organic	Wood	114n,129e	1	Wood Peg with mortise
00,283	Organic	Wood	114n,127e	3	Twigs
00,283.01	Organic	Olive Pit	114n,127e	4	Olive Pit halves
00,283.01	Organic	Bone	Dredge Spoil	1	Fish Vertebrae
00,283.2	Organic	Botanical	114n,127e	3	Olive Pits
00,283.3	Organic	Botanical	114n,127e	1	Cherry Pit
00,283.4	Organic	Botanical	114n,127e	3	Almond Pits
00,283.5	Organic	Botanical	114n,127e	1	Hazelnut Shell fragments
00,283.6	Organic	Botanical	114n,127e	3	Twigs, Unidentified
00,284	Organic	Botanical	114n,127e	3	Papaya Stem (tentatively)
00,285	Organic	Wood	114n,127e	1	Carved Wooden Stopper
00,286	Organic	Wood	114n,127e	1	Carved Wooden Plug/Stopper
00,287.01	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Domestic Chicken Bone
00,287.02	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Mammal Bone, Class Indeterminate
00,287.03	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Domestic Chicken Bone
00,287.04	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Mammal Bone, Class Indeterminate
00,288	Ceramic	Glz	114n,127e	1	Sherd
00,289	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead fragment with tack hole
00,289	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead fragment with tack hole
00,290	Organic	Wood	114n,131e	2	Twigs
00,290	Organic	Botanical	114n,131e	2	Nut Shell fragments
00,290	Organic	Olive Pit	114n,131e	1	Olive Pit fragment
00,291	Encrust	Pb	114n,133e	1	Concretion with Lead Shot
00,292	Organic	Botanical	114n,127e	1	Leaf (Unknown)
00,293	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	5	Sherds, one light gray, porous
00,294	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing fragment
00,294	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing fragment
00,295	Organic	Wood	114n,131e	1	Bark, brownish-black
00,295	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Order Rajiformes
00,295	Organic	Botanical	114n,131e	1	Pit, Peach
00,296	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Unidentified
00,297	Organic	Unknown	114n,129e	1	Unidentified Organic
00,298	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	5	Sherds, two Rims
00,299	Stone	Shot	114n,131e	1	Stone Shot, gray Limestone
00,300	Stone	Shot	114n,131e	1	Stone Shot, gray Limestone
00,300	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener Head (molded)
00,301	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener fragment (molded)
00,302	Encrust	Fe	Stern	2	Concretions
00,303	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener Head and Fastener fragment (molded)
00,304	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Concretion
00,305	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener Point & Fastener fragment (molded)
00,306	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener fragments (molded)
00,307	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Bolt fragment (molded)
00,308	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener Head (molded)
00,309	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener Point (molded)
00,310	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener (molded)
00,311	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener Head and Fastener fragment
00,312	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,313	Ceramic	Cew	114n,133e	1	Olive Jar sherd, light gray with throw marks
00,314	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener Point
00,315	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener Head (molded)
00,316	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener (molded)
00,317	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener Head (molded)
00,318.01	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Domestic Chicken Bone
00,318.02	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Sus Genus Indeterminate
00,319	Encrust	Fe	114n,127e	1	Fastener fragment (molded)
00,320	Encrust	Fe	114n,127e	1	Concretion
00,321	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Gudgeon
00,322	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	1	Lead Sheathing fragment
00,322	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	1	Lead Sheathing fragment
00,323	Organic	Wood	114n,127e	2	Wood fragments
00,324	Organic	Wood	Dredge Spoil	2	Wood fragments
00,325	Stone	Ballast	Dredge Spoil	2	Ballast Chips
00,325	Encrust	Unknown	114n,129e	1	Bilge Concretion
00,325	Stone	Ballast	Dredge Spoil	2	Ballast Chips 1 lava-like
00,327	Encrust	Unknown	114n,131e	1	Bilge Concretion
00,328	Organic	Sample	114n,129e	1	Sample of Bilge Sediment
00,329	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Olive Jar sherd, light brown, throw marks
00,330	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	2	Sherds, light brown
00,330	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,331	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,332	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	2	Lead Sheathing
00,332	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	2	Lead Sheathing
00,401.01	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Molar
00,401.02	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Tibia
00,401.03	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Mandible
00,402	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	4	Olive Jar sherds, dark brown, throw marks
00,403	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	4	Olive Jar Rim sherds (two), dark brown (one)
00,404	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	1	Olive Jar sherd
00,405	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	3	Olive Jar sherds, gray, sand tempered
00,406	Organic	Olive Pit	114n,129e	1	20
00,407	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd
00,408	Organic	Unknown	114n,129e	2	Unidentified brown Plastic
00,408	Organic	Wood	114n,129e	1	Wood fragment, charred end
00,409	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	2	Lead fragments
00,409	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	3	Concretions
00,409	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	2	Lead fragments
00,410	Ceramic	Cew	114n,127e	4	Sherds, reddish paste, olive-green
00,411.01	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Domestic Pig Bone
00,411.02	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Mammal Bone, Class Indeterminate
00,411.03	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Mouse Tibia
00,411.04	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,411.05	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Black Rat Femur
00,411.06	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,412	Organic	Olive Pit	114n,127e	4	Olive Pit, one whole & three half pits
00,413	Organic	Wood	114n,127e	2	Wood, Stoppers
00,414	Organic	Olive Pit	114n,127e	4	Olive Pits, two whole, two fragments
00,415	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Bone, Class Osteichthyes
00,416	Organic	Unknown	114n,127e	1	Unidentified Resin
00,417	Stone	Ballast	114n,127e	1	Quartz or Quartzite Ballast
00,418	Organic	Wood	114n,127e	1	Bark (c.f. pine) dark colored
00,419	Ceramic	Glz	114n,133e	1	fragment, interior blue-black glaze
00,420	Ceramic	Cew	114n,133e	2	Olive Jar sherds, brown-green exterior
00,421	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener Head (molded)
00,422	Ceramic	Cew	114n,133e	2	Sherds, red paste
00,423	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	1	Lead fragment, twisted
00,423	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	1	Lead fragment, twisted
00,424	Metal	Fe	114n,131e	1	Tack
00,425	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	2	Lead Sheathing
00,425	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	2	Lead Sheathing
00,426	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	4	Sherds, two with red paste
00,427	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	2	Lead Sheathing, small folded
00,427	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	2	Lead Sheathing, small folded
00,428	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener (molded)
00,429	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Concretion
00,430	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener (molded)
00,431	Ceramic	Cew	114n,133e	1	Sherd, red paste, reddish-green
00,432	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	5	Lead Sheathing
00,432	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	5	Lead Sheathing
00,433	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Vertebrate, Class Indeterminate
00,434	Organic	Unknown	114n,129e	1	Unidentified brown Chitinous Leaf
00,435	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	2	Sherds, red paste, olive green
00,436	Metal	Fe	114n,129e	9	Tack Heads
00,436	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	6	Lead Sheathing fragments
00,436	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	6	Lead Sheathing fragments
00,437	Encrust	Fe	114n,129e	1	Concretion
00,438	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	3	Concretions
00,439	Ceramic	Cew	114n,133e	2	Sherd, dark brown Rim
00,440	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd, red paste, badly chipped
00,441	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing fragment, bent
00,441	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing fragment, bent
00,442	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Tack Head
00,443	Organic	Bone	114n,133e	1	Shore Bird Beak
00,444	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	2	Lead Sheathing
00,444	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	2	Lead Sheathing
00,445	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	2	Sherds, red paste
00,446	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	4	Tack Concretion
00,447	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	6	Lead fragments, folded and twisted
00,447	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	6	Lead fragments, folded and twisted
00,448.01	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Bone, Sus Genus Indeterminate
00,448.02	Organic	Bone	114n,127e	1	Domestic Chicken Bone
00,449	Organic	Botanical	114n,127e	2	Pit, Prunus Type, one Fiberous
00,449	Organic	Wood	114n,127e	1	Bark fragment
00,449	Stone	Other	114n,127e	1	Unidentified
00,450	Organic	Insect	114n,127e	2	one Cockroach Ootheca, one Insect Egg Case
00,451	Organic	Wood	Dredge Spoil	4	Wood fragments
00,452	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener Concretion
00,453	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Piece, folded
00,453	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Piece, folded
00,454	Encrust	Fe	9	1	Concretion, broken end
00,456	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	2	Lead fragments
00,456	Metal	Pb	114n,127e	2	Lead fragments
00,456	Encrust	Fe	114n,127e	2	Concretions
00,457	Organic	Sample	114n,131e	1	Sample of black Organic Soil
00,458	Organic	Wood	9	8	Wood fragments

Artifact Inventory of the Emanuel Point Ship, 1993-1995
1995
(All Numbers are Prefixed by 94.125)

Number	Category	Subcategory	Grid	Quantity	Description
00,1022	Ceramic	Aztec	112n,131e	1	Sherd with Dots, fits 00,242
00,501	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	1	Lead Sheathing fragment
00,502	Metal	Pb	114n,129e	1	Lead Sheathing, Nail Hole
00,503	Ceramic	Cew	114n,129e	1	Sherd
00,504	Encrust	Fe	114n,129e	1	Bolt or Fastener Head
00,505	Organic	Bone	114n,129e	1	Stingray Barb
00,506	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Concretion
00,507	Metal	Fe	114n,131e	5	Bolt & four Fastener fragments
00,507	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener Head and fragment (molded)
00,508	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener (molded)
00,509	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener (molded)
00,510	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener (molded)
00,511	Metal	Pb	114n,135e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,512	Stone	Ballast	114n,131e	1	Ballast Stone
00,513	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener Head and fragment (molded)
00,514	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,515	Metal	Fe	114n,131e	1	Shot
00,516	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener (molded)
00,517	Encrust	Pb	114n,131e	1	Concretion with Lead Sheet
00,518	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener (molded)
00,519	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,520	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	2	Fastener fragments (molded)
00,521	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener fragment (molded)
00,522	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Bone fragment, butcher marks
00,524	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	2	Lead Sheathing
00,526	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Concretion
00,527	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener (molded)
00,528	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener fragment (molded)
00,529	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Concretion
00,530	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Concretion with Mercury droplets
00,531	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	5	Concretions
00,532	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	1	Lead fragment
00,533	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Concretion
00,534	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener Point (molded)
00,535	Encrust	Fe	114n,137e	1
00,536	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	1	Lead Sheathing, Fastener Holes
00,536	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	1	Lead Sheathing, Nail Holes
00,537	Metal	Pb	114n,133e	2	Lead Sheathing
00,537	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener fragment (molded)
00,538	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Concretion
00,539	Encrust	Fe	114n,133e	1	Fastener Head (molded)
00,540	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing, Fastener Holes
00,541	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener fragment
00,542	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	2	Concretion with Mercury droplets
00,543	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,544	Metal	Cu	114n,131e	1	Copper Coin (Henry IV blanca )
00,545	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing, Fastener Holes
00,546	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,548	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Tack Head
00,549	Stone	Shot	114n,131e	1	Stone Shot
00,551	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	3	Lead Sheathing
00,553	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Concretion
00,554	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	2	Small Concretion
00,555	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Small Fastener Concretion
00,556	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Bolt (molded)
00,557	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Small Fastener Concretion
00,558	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Small Fastener Concretion
00,559	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Small Concretion
00,560	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Small Fastener Concretion
00,561	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Fastener or Bolt fragment (molded)
00,562	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Small Fastener Concretion
00,563	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Small Fastener Concretion
00,564	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Small Concretion
00,565	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Small Broken Concretion
00,566	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Fastener Concretion
00,567	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	1	Fastener Concretion
00,568	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	2	Broken Fastener Concretions
00,569	Encrust	Fe	116n,135e	1	Fastener (molded)
00,570	Encrust	Fe	116n,135e	1	Concretion
00,571	Encrust	Fe	116n,135e	1	Small Fastener Concretion
00,572	Encrust	Fe	116n,135e	1	Fastener fragment (molded)
00,573	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	1	Small Concretion
00,574	Encrust	Fe	116n,135e	1	Small Concretion
00,575	Encrust	Fe	116n,135e	1	Fastener fragment (molded)
00,576	Encrust	Fe	116n,135e	1	Small Fastener Concretion
00,577	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	1	Fastener Shaft, probable
00,578	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	1	Fastener Shaft (discarded)
00,579	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	1	Fastener Concretion
00,580	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	2	Small Fastener Concretion
00,581	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	1	Small Fastener Concretion
00,582	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	1	Fastener fragment (molded)
00,583	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	1	Two Parallel Fasteners
00,584	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	1	Probable Fastener
00,585.01	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Broken Fastener shaft
00,585.02	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	1	Complete Fastener Concretion
00,586	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	1	Fastener Head (molded)
00,587	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	1	Fastener Concretion
00,588	Encrust	Fe	116n,135e	1	Small Concretion
00,589	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	1	Fastener Concretion
00,590	Encrust	Fe	116n,133e	1	Small Fastener Concretion
00,591	Metal	Pb	116n,133e	1	Lead fragment
00,593	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Fastener fragment (molded)
00,594	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Fastener Concretion
00,595.01	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Fastener Shank with bent tip
00,595.02	Encrust	Fe	Rudder	1	Concretion
00,596	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Fastener fragment (molded)
00,597	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Broken Concretion
00,598	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Fastener (molded)
00,599	Encrust	Fe	116n,131e	1	Fastener Point fragment (molded)
00,600	Metal	Pb	116n,131e	2	Lead Sheathing/Mercury droplets
00,601	Stone	Shot	114n,131e	1	Stone Shot
00,602	Organic	Bone	Cleanup	1	Black Rat Femur
00,603	Ceramic	Cew	Cleanup	1	Sherd, dark gray paste
00,604	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,605	Ceramic	Glz	114n,133e	1	Handle remnant
00,605	Ceramic	Cew	114n,133e	1	Sherd
00,606	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	2	Concretions
00,607	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Bone fragment
00,608	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Bone, Vertebra
00,609	Organic	Botanical	114n,129e	1	Seed Pod, dark black
00,610	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	2	Bone fragments
00,611	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Shot ( Bodoque)
00,612	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead fragment
00,613	Encrust	Fe	Cleanup	1	Fastener Head (molded)
00,614	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Large Mammal Long Bone fragment
00,615	Encrust	Fe	Cleanup	1	Concretion
00,616	Ceramic	Cew	Cleanup	2	Sherds, one gray and one buff
00,617	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener Point (molded)
00,618	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	1	Stingray Mouth Part
00,619	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	4	Lead Sheathing
00,620	Organic	Wood	114n,131e	2	Wood fragments
00,621	Ceramic	Cew	112n 131e	4	Olive Jar sherds, one Rim & three other
00,622	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	6	Fastener Head and fragments
00,623	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Concretion
00,624	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Olive Jar sherd, throw marks
00,625	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	4	Concretions
00,626	Organic	Bone	114n,131e	4	Bone fragments, brown
00,627	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,628	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	3	Concretions
00,629	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener fragment (molded)
00,630	Ceramic	Cew	112n,133e	9	Coarse sherds, various colors
00,631	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	2	Concretions
00,632	Organic	Wood	114n,131e	2	Wood, planed surfaces
00,633	Encrust	Fe	112n,133e	3	Concretions
00,634	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	2	Concretions/Mercury droplets
00,635	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,636	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	2	Sherds
00,637	Ceramic	Cew	112n,131e	34	Sherds, mostly small
00,638	Encrust	Fe	112n,131e	1	Concretion
00,639	Metal	Pb	112n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,640	Organic	Other	112n,131e	1	Stingray Spine
00,641	Ceramic	Cew	114n,131e	1	Sherd, pitch on interior
00,642	Encrust	Fe	114n,131e	1	Fastener fragment (molded)
00,643	Organic	Olive Pit	114n,131e	1	Olive Pit
00,644	Metal	Pb	114n,131e	1	Lead Sheathing
00,645