Fig. 24. This wrought-iron anchor was discovered buried near the ship’s bow.
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.
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.
Fig. 25. This encrusted pintle, once attached to the rudder, formed the male component of the rudder hinge.
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.
Fig. 26. Once fastened to the sternpost of the ship, this gudgeon formed the female component of the rudder hinge.
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.
Fig. 27. Gudgeon and pintle profiles. Gudgeon 00,321 shown partially conserved; gudgeon 01,171 and unrecovered gudgeon (lower left) shown concreted. Pintle 00,920 (lower right) shown concreted.
Fig. 28. Square fasteners of different shank sizes were used in the construction of the ship
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.
|Type||Count||Length (range in mm)|
|* Adapted from South, et al. (1988)|
|Escora mayor||3||204 -305|
|Media Escora||15||125 -168|
|Media barrote||5||57 -73|
|Quarto de barrote||4||less than 57|
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.
Fig. 29. Textile was bedded between this lead patch and the hull, leaving the weave impression.
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.
Fig. 30. Lead sheathing from sternpost area demonstrates typical fastening pattern (three rows with tack head impressions).
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.
Fig. 31. Lead patch with impression of gudgeon strap end.
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.
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.
|*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|
|felsic (siliconrich)||aphanite porphyry (rhyolite?)||quartz and alkali feldspar phenocrysts or feldspar rich||2|
|crystal tuff||weakly aligned feldspar||1|
|gray burrowed laminated micrite||6|
|clastic||tan to buff colored quartz arenite||possibly quartzite or rhyolitic volcanic||6|
|gray quartz-richarenite||possibly quartzite, thin quartz veins||12|