Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

Quarterly Report 2016

July 6th to October 5th 2016

Presented to:
Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research
For Permit:
MB 514 Melbourne Beach Site
2016.05
Presented by:
Seafarers Quest, LLC.
Prepared By:
James J. Sinclair, MA, Primary Investigator,
Consulting Archaeologist, Seafarers Quest, LLC.
Sea Rex Inc.
15 Brigantine Ct
St Augustine, FL 32080
239-218-1622

A. General Description.
Seafarers Quest is a corporation affiliated with Seafarer Exploration Corp. (A publicly traded company) based in Tampa Florida
whose business model is to research, locate and recover historically and intrinsically significant historic period shipwrecks.
Seafarer Exploration Corp. has held a number of permits with the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research (FBAR) in other
areas off the coast of Florida. Seafarers Quest was formed by Seafarer Exploration Corp. (SFRX) to address a business model
that included an agreement with Heartland Treasure Quest (HTQ) Holders of a large permit area off of Brevard County Florida.
The agreement between these two entities portioned and area for investigations by Seafarers Quest.
The Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research issued permits (2014.04 and 2016.05)
to Seafarers Quest to conduct exploration and preliminary testing of the southern area
of the HTQ permit that had been agreed to be sectioned off of the larger HTQ permit
exclusively for Seafarers Quest activities. This particular phase of permitting is an
amendment to an Exploration Permit as detailed under the Florida Administrative
Code 1A-31. This years work has also served to further Seafarers Quests research
and exploration contractual requirements for the State of Florida. Time consuming and
extensive surveys, research, exploration, dig and identify searches have been
conducted by Seafarer and others in this area since 2000. The current work depends
on the results of surveys and investigations utilizing state-of-the-art remote sensing
survey equipment and diver investigations. Artifacts found in previous years reflect
strong evidence of an association with the Spanish 1715 New Spain (Mexico) fleet, or
other unidentified period and/or nationality salvage vessel or vessels, or even ships
involved in official or illicit salvage, sunk by tropical storm activity or other strong
weather event in the interval between the year 1715 and the 19 th-century. The artifacts
were located and recovered while remote-sensing surveys and target verification were
conducted in the area under an Exploration Contract issued by the FBAR, and permits issued by the FL FDEP and US ACOE.
Seafarers Quest acknowledges FBARs active participation in assisting, providing guidance, advice, and cooperation with HTQ
and others in this research design and survey efforts over the past years work.
Seafarers Quest acknowledges that this permit is issued under the authority of Section 276.031(1) and 267.031(5)(n), Florida
Statutes, and Rules 1A-31.0012 through 1A-31.090, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and is administered by the Florida
Bureau of Archaeological Research (BAR), Florida Division of Historical Resources (DHR), Florida Department of State (DOS).
All activities carried out pursuant to this permit must be conducted in accordance with those regulations and laws.
B. Archival Research.
Seafarer Exploration Corp. has been involved in conducting archival research in an effort to uncover historical data that may lead
to the identification of Doa Juana Isabel de Chves Espinosa de los Monteros, the name inscribed on the silver charger
discovered on the E-155D contract site. E-155D is located within the County of Brevard in the State of Florida. More specifically,
it is closely associated with the Melbourne-Satellite Beach area of Brevard County.
Research in Spanish archives, in particular the Archivo General de Indias (AGI), in Seville, Spain, has uncovered evidence that
on February 4, 1715, a Don. Joseph de Espinosa de los Monteros consigned two hundred and fifty-seven cow hides and a
crate/box of presents (regalos) aboard the Santisima Trinidad y Nuestra Seora de la Concepcin, Captain Don Juan Antonio
de Laviosa, docked in the port of Veracruz. This particular ship, also simply known as la Concepcin, was part of the Nueva
Espaa (New Spain) Fleet under the command of General don Juan Estebn de Ubilla (AGI, Consulados, 854). The family name
Espinosa de los Monteros is not a common name and originates from a locality of the same name in Cantabria, and suggests a
possible connection to Doa Juana Isabel de Chves Espinosa de los Monteros (de Bry 2010:20). Additionally, a set of manuscript
documents located at the AGI in Seville, Spain (AGI, Contratacin, 668), refers to the enquiry and trial in 1711 of a captain by
the name of Francisco de Chves Espinosa de los Monteros, owner of the Nuestra Seora del Rosario, San Francisco Xavier y
las Animas. The same ship, owner and captain don Francisco de Chves Espinosa de los Monteros, was part of the Nueva Espaa
Fleet of Captain General Juan de Ubilla that sailed from the port of Cdiz, Spain, on September 16, 1712. The family name of
this captain is the exact same as the one inscribed on the silver charger found off the Melbourne Beach site and there is a
possibility that Juana Isabel was the wife of Francico de Chves Espinosa de los Monteros. This points to a likely connection of
the Melbourne Beach site to the Nueva Espaa Fleet of Ubilla. The archival researcher has expanded his search to the Cuban
National Archives in Havana.
Based on manuscript documents not related to the 1715 Plate Fleet but dealing with maritime traffic of the period and
collaboration between France and Spain during the 18 th-century, Seafarer Exploration Corp.s archival researcher decided to
further expand his search to the Archives Nationales in Paris to investigate the possibility that some manuscripts dealing with

this event might be located. This research has been ongoing and many manuscript documents pertaining to the 1715 Plate Fleet
have been located, particularly documents dealing with the French warship Griffon, the sole survivor of the 1715 Plate Fleet.
Prehistoric Overview
Paleoindian Period (12,000-10,000 B.P.)
Prehistoric native peoples entered Florida at least 12,000 years ago. While there is abundant archaeological evidence for an early
occupation of northern and central Florida (Milanich 1994), there is only limited evidence for people inhabiting southeast Florida
at this early time. Discoveries of human skeletal remains near Vero Beach in 1915 and Melbourne in 1925 were presumed to be
of early origin because of their inferred association with extinct Pleistocene mammals (Gidley and Loomis 1926; Sellards 1916,
1917). Analysis of the Vero Beach finds by Hrdlika (1918, 1922) concluded that the human remains were intrusive into
Pleistocene deposits. However, more recent analyses of the skeletal remains (Stewart 1946) and a comparison of the geological
context of those finds with similar discoveries in southwest Florida (Cockrell and Murphy 1978), indicate that the original
interpretations may have been correct. To date, the Helen Blazes site (8BR27) is the only archaeological site in the immediate
vicinity to be associated with this time period. Due to changes in hydrology, (e.g., rising sea levels, increased rainfall and
subsequent increase in ground and artesian water) it is probable that Paleoindian Period settlement or activity areas were close
to, or adjacent to, water sources that may not exist or be accessible in a modern climate (e.g., inundated sites or lands that have
been altered as a result of alluvial or aeolian deposition).
Early Archaic Period (10,000-7000 B.P.)
The beginning of the archaic period coincides with the onset of the Holocene at approximately 10,000 B.P. This period can be
divided into two horizons, based on differences in stone tool types: Side-Notched, or Bolen (10,000-9000 B.P.) and Stemmed,
or Kirk (9000-8000 B.P.). Both horizons are well represented in northern and central Florida (Milanich 1994). The earliest firm
evidence for human occupation in southeast Florida dates to about 10,000-9500 B.P. At the Cutler site in Miami, side-notched
stone projectile points, called Bolen points, were recovered in association with animal bones and a hearth feature (Carr 1986).
Based on radiocarbon dates from a cultural stratum believed to be associated with the Bolen points, the Cutler site is believed to
date to around 9600 B.P. At this time, south Florida was just emerging from a period that was much drier than at present (Brooks
1974; Gleason et al. 1974). Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades did not exist, sea levels were much lower than at present,
surface water was limited, and extensive grasslands probably existed, which may have attracted mammoth, bison, and other large
grazing mammals. This bleak landscape inhibited intensive human habitation except perhaps along the coast; however, any
coastal sites are probably now inundated by higher sea levels. By the Early Archaic period, or the time that the Cutler site was
occupied, precipitation had begun to increase in frequency and duration, resulting in an increase in surface water. In addition,
sea levels were rising which inundated formerly dry land off shore. The large Pleistocene mammals died off and native peoples
in southeast Florida adapted their lifestyles to the hunting and gathering of more modern species. The Kirk Horizon is not well
represented on the lower east coast, although the mortuary pond at Windover in Brevard County may contain a Kirk component.
Radiocarbon dates associated with human bone or wooden artifacts range from 8120 70 B.P. to 6980 80 B.P. (Doran 2002),
placing it at the terminal end of the Kirk Horizon as it has been defined throughout the rest of the southeastern United States
(Chapman 1985; Sherwood et al. 2004). Three possible Kirk Stemmed projectile points were associated with the burials. The
Windover site provides some of the best information on Early Archaic burial practices and non-lithic material culture. It is a
wetland cemetery, which, when excavated, revealed the remains of 168 individuals along with numerous perishable items such
as bone pins, awls, incised tubes, shell tools and beads, an antler weight, wooden stakes, cordage, mats, and fabric. The
radiocarbon dates indicate that the interments were made over a long period of time, and suggest that the pond was used repeatedly
for interments for more than a millennium. The high degree of preservation of the bodies, and the lack of any evidence for
scavenging of the remains by animals, suggests that they were placed in the cemetery within a few days or even hours after death
(Dickel 2002). The interments were apparently placed in five or six discrete groups within the pond, and individual clusters may
have been marked by stakes (Dickel 2002:80). The presence of marine shells at the site would seem to support the hypothesis
that these people moved from the coast, which at this time was much farther away from the site than it is today, to the interior on
a relatively regular basis. Analysis of archaeobotanical remains from the site indicate occupation during the late summer-early
fall (Newsom 2002:208; Tuross et al. 1994:297-298).
Middle Archaic Period (7000-5000 B.P.)
A dramatic increase in precipitation and runoff in south Florida is indicated by peat deposits in the Everglades that began to form
about 6000-5000 BP (McDowell et al. 1969). This enabled native peoples to expand into formerly inhospitable locations. Sea
levels reached modern levels and may have exceeded them for short periods (Dorsey 1997; Tanner 1991). Modern estuaries
began to form and exploitation of coastal resources began in earnest, particularly along the northern Atlantic coast (Ste. Claire
1990). The expansion of populations into new locations resulted in a variety of settlement and subsistence strategies, each adapted
to local conditions. Sedentary settlements were established along productive rivers, such as the St. Johns, or in coastal areas in
southwest and northeast Florida (e.g., Russo 1991; Ste. Claire 1990). In other areas, a more mobile lifestyle was practiced (Austin
1996, 1997). Locally, sea level rise is indicated by the deposition of coastal marsh mud in the Indian River lagoon at
approximately 6000-5000 B.P. (Bader and Parkinson 1990). Yet there is limited archaeological evidence for Middle Archaic
occupation of southeast Florida. Pre-ceramic Archaic sites have been documented in the interior around Lake Okeechobee
(Gleason and Stone 1994; Hale 1989:48, 55-56), and one documented Middle Archaic site has been identified at the Westridge

site on Pine Island Ridge in Broward County (Carr et al. 1992). The Gauthier site in Brevard County contains a Middle Archaic
cemetery (Carr and Jones 1981; Sigler-Eisenberg 1984). This lack of Middle Archaic sites in southeast Florida may be due in
part to their low archaeological visibility. The lack of any lithic raw materials for tool production in south Florida forced a greater
emphasis on the use of perishable materials such as wood, bone, and shell. The highly acidic soils of the region would have
destroyed these organic materials, leaving very little behind for archaeologists to discover. The dependence on perishable
materials for much of the material culture of archaic peoples is reflected by the abundance of organic artifacts recovered from
Windover Pond and the near absence of lithic artifacts (Dickel 2002).
Late Archaic Period (5000-2500 B.P.)
By 5000 B.P., the climate and environments of Florida had reached essentially modern conditions. This allowed further
regionalization of cultures throughout Florida, as individual societies developed increasingly sophisticated adaptations to their
local environments (Milanich 1994). During the Late Archaic period, the first pottery was made by the native peoples of Florida.
In southern Florida, two separate late Archaic cultures can be identified archaeologically: the Orange culture and, for lack of a
better term, the Glades Archaic culture. The Orange culture is known primarily from northeast Florida, including both the Atlantic
coast and the St. Johns River drainage basin. The Orange peoples made a distinctive pottery tempered with fiber. Other artifacts
include whelk shell (Busycon spp.) adzes and conch shell celts (Strombus spp.). It is likely that the Busycon adzes found in
northeast Florida at this time were of local origin, while the Strombus celts were traded into the area from southeastern Florida
(Wheeler 1992). Site types are generally oyster and coquina shell middens along the coast and freshwater pond snail middens
along the inland rivers and streams. Some coastal shell rings also have been observed (Newman and Weisman 1992). Recent
work in St. Lucie County provides evidence of a Late Archaic culture in this region. At the Ten Mile Creek project area, four
sites (8SL0007, 8SL1180, 8SL1181, 8SL1182) that have fiber tempered or fiber/mixed pottery indicative of a Late Archaic
component were identified (New South Associates 2003). In Martin County, Orange populations were present and were almost
exclusively coastal (Carr et al. 1995). Only semi-fiber-tempered shards were recovered from the Mt. Elizabeth site (8MT30), and
Orange populations may have migrated to that area from the Indian River estuary farther north. The Joseph Reed shell ring
(8MT13) on Jupiter Island may represent something of an anomaly as it is Late Archaic in age but possesses a ceramic assemblage
characterized by spiculate and sand tempered pastes. Although the Joseph Reed has been damaged by storm surges, it was once
probably a constructed ring made up mostly of oyster shell. In this respect, it seems quite similar to other Orange period shell
rings located farther north (Newman and Weisman 1992). Pepe (Carr et al. 1995) suggests that a separate Late Archaic culture,
which he refers to as the Glades Archaic, also was present in southern Florida, and probably had only limited ties to the Orange
culture (Carr et al. 1995). The presence of this culture is suggested by non-ceramic bone middens now recognized as typical on
nearly every interior tree island or former tree island and in nearly every marsh or former marsh in southern Florida (e.g., Carr
and Steele 1993; Ehrenhard et al. 1978, 1979, 1980). Several of these types of sites also have been identified in the Loxahatchee
Slough and Allapatah Flats of Martin and Palm Beach Counties (Carr et al. 1995). Faunal remains from these sites are mainly
freshwater species, such as turtle, fish, and pond apple snail, which were plentiful in the surrounding marshes.
Post-Archaic Period (2500-500 B.P.)
By 2500 B.P., regional adaptations had become so well established that it is possible for archaeologists to subdivide the state by
geographic areas that share similar archaeological traits. The Palmer PUD project area is located near the interface of what has
been termed the Indian River region of the East and Central Lakes District (Rouse 1951; Milanich 1994) and the East Okeechobee
Culture area (Carr and Beriault 1984). The Indian River region extends from the Indian River-St. Lucie county line northward
along the Atlantic coast to Merritt Island in Brevard County. The western boundary extends about 20 miles inland and to the St.
Johns River drainage and tributaries. Rouse (1951) referred to the regional culture as Malabar and this term is still used in some
reports (e.g., Sigler-Eisenberg 1985). Irving Rouse (1951) was the first to describe the archaeological cultures in the Indian River
area, referring to them as Malabar. His chronology paralleled that of the St. Johns Region with St. Johns Check Stamped pottery
indicating the break between Malabar I and Malabar II. However, there also are significant amounts of sand-tempered pottery in
the Indian River area and, instead of indicating influence from adjacent culture areas, at least some of this sand-tempered pottery
appears to have been made from the same local clays as the St. Johns wares (Espenshade 1983). Cordells (1985) analysis of
pottery from several sites in Brevard County resulted in the ceramic sequence shown in Table 2 and the sequence appears to hold
for other portions of the Indian River region as well (Milanich 1994:250). The dates assigned to these periods are estimates and
have been extrapolated from Milanichs chronology for the entire East and Central Lakes District (Milanich 1994:247). Cordell
takes Rouses original Malabar I Period and divides it into three sub periods based on changes in ceramic frequencies. Early
Period I (ca. 2500-2000 B.P.) is recognized by the introduction of non-fiber-tempered wares to the ceramic assemblages of local
native peoples. St. Johns Plain dominates these early components, but sand-tempered plain also is present in small amounts.
Middle Period I (ca. 2000-1500 B.P.) is distinguished by a substantial increase of sand-tempered plain ceramics in middens, a
decrease in the proportion of St. Johns Plain, and the introduction (albeit in very small quantities) of Belle Glade Plain at some
sites. Late Period 1 (ca. 1500-1250 B.P.) is marked by the return to dominance of St. Johns Plain and the corresponding decrease
of sand-tempered plain pottery. There also is a slight increase in the amount of Belle Glade Plain. The appearance of St. Johns
Check Stamped pottery is the marker for Period II (ca. 1250-500 B.P.). It, along with St. Johns Plain, is the major pottery type
during this period. Sand- Tempered Plain comprises about 10% of most assemblages and Belle Glade Plain remains a minority
ware.

500-250 Period III


Introduction of European artifacts. St. Johns Check Stamped continues.
750-500
1000-750
1250-1000
Period II
St. Johns Check Stamped appears in combination with St. Johns Plain. Sand-tempered plain remains at about 10%. Belle Glade
Plain remains a minority type.1500-1250 Late Period I St. Johns Plain returns to dominance as sand-tempered plain decreases to
about 10%. Slight increase in Belle Glade Plain (3%).
1750-1500
2000-1750
Middle Period I
St. Johns Plain is still predominant but sand-tempered plain increases to about 30-40% of assemblages. Belle Glade Plain present
in very small amounts (less than 1%).
2250-2000
2500-2250
Early Period I
Decrease in fiber-tempered pottery. St. Johns Plain is the dominant ware. Minor representation of sand-tempered plain.
2750-2500
SOURCES: (Carr et al. 1995; Cordell 1985; Milanich 1994).
Both interior and coastal sites are known in the Indian River region. Site types in the interior include small, special use campsites
and larger, multi-component sites that possess extensive midden deposits and were probably used for permanent habitation.
Russos (1986, 1988) analysis of faunal remains from interior sites indicates a dependence on aquatic resources (turtle, ducks,
fish, and fresh water mussels). Throughout the post-Archaic period, wetland resources expanded and water sources became
deeper providing suitable habitats for more and larger fish, such as bass and pickerel. However, during the dry months of the
year (winter and spring), these water sources shrank providing habitat for fish species that favor shallow, muddy bottomed ponds,
such as bowfin and gar. Terrestrial animals (deer, raccoon, and rabbit) also were exploited, but the emphasis was clearly on
acquiring most of the diet from freshwater wetlands. Coastal sites were once present in many locations along the Indian River
lagoon, the adjacent uplands, and on the barrier islands. Modern development has destroyed many of these sites, but a few have
been investigated and provide information on costal adaptations. At present, it appears that the coast was utilized seasonally
during the winter and spring months of the year when interior wetlands were less abundant. The data indicate that some sites
were small, extractive sites occupied by only a few individuals while other, larger sites served as habitations sites. Marine fish,
shellfish (especially coquina), and some terrestrial animals were exploited for food (Milanich 1994:252-253). What is unknown
at present is how the coastal and interior sites relate to one another. For example, it is not clear whether the same people occupied
both locations during different parts of the year or whether different groups occupied each area year round.
Contact Period
In the Indian River region, the historic period (referred to as Period III) is marked by the presence of European goods in otherwise
native assemblages. The St. Johns ceramic series remains the dominant native pottery. The native groups encountered by
Europeans at this time on the Atlantic coast were the Ais. The Ais appear to have been an independent tribe, but large amounts
of St. Johns pottery and other artifacts from the Indian River and St. Johns areas during this time suggests that their cultural
influences may have come from the north instead. Dickinson also observed that the Jeaga were forced to hand over shipwrecked
cargo to the Ais, their neighbors to the north (Andrews 1985). Of course, European contact marked the beginning of the end for
the native populations throughout Florida. It has been estimated that there were about 20,000 natives in southern Florida when
the Spanish arrived (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). By 1763, when the English gained control of Florida, the population had
been reduced to several hundred. These tribal remnants were reported to have migrated to Cuba with the Spanish (Romans 1775).
However, it is likely that the Spanish Indians who raided Indian Key in 1840 were the mixed-blood descendants of the Calusa,
and/or refugees from the northern Florida missions that were raided by the English in the early 18th century (Sturtevant 1953).
These Spanish-Indians became part of the Seminoles, who had fled into southern Florida after the 1838 Battle of Okeechobee.

Historical Overview
Early Spanish Exploration
For nearly half a century, ships of various origins have passed through the coastal waters of what is now Brevard County. In the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the region served as an important stage for many early European expeditions in North
America. Some historians believe that the Italian captain, John Cabot, sailed south along the Brevard coast during his 1498
explorations (Dovell 1952; Eriksen 1994). There is also evidence that Spanish slave traders raided the indigenous villages of the
coast, for when Juan Ponce de Leon came to Florida he found a native who understood Spanish. Ponce de Leon left Puerto Rico
on March 3, 1513, with three ships. After sailing on a northwesterly course for 30 days, the ships landed either north of Cape
Canaveral (Milanich 1995) or in the vicinity of modern day Melbourne Beach (Eriksen 1994; Gannon 1996). The Cape is found
on many sixteenth century maps and is one of the oldest place names in North America (Eriksen 1994). Ponce remained at this
initial landing place for six days before pulling anchor and sailing southward to explore the remainder of the peninsula (Gannon
1996; Milanich 1995). The Gulf Stream, located off the Brevard coast, was an important thoroughfare for the transportation of
New World supplies to Europe. Old World powers engaged in a bitter struggle to control it. Spanish treasure galleons rode the
current from Havana through the Bahama Channel, passing the coast of Florida in route to Spain. Wrecks were common in the
treacherous shoals around Cape Canaveral and the local Indian tribe, the Ais, often recovered lost cargoes. The Spanish crown
realized the importance of this trade route, so when they heard that the French were developing a colony, Fort Caroline, on the
St. Johns River near Jacksonville they decided to act. In 1565, Pedro Menndez de Avils , a highly respected officer in the
Spanish navy, was issued the task of eradicating the French influence in the area (Milanich 1995). Cape Canaveral became an
early target in this larger effort. By the time the Spanish ships arrived, the French had already built a wooden fort on a small
island anchored at the entrance of the St. Johns River (present-day Jacksonville), and a fleet of ships had arrived from France a
few days before, carrying, weapons, supplies, tools and hundreds of soldiers and would-be colonists. Challenged, the French cut
their anchor cables and gave chase to the Spanish who found refuge within a natural inlet (St. Augustine). As the tide was low,
the French ships were unable to cross the large sandbar and decided to wait for more favorable conditions to enter the inlet and
engage the Spaniards, but a hurricane blew over the region, pushing the French ships toward the shoals of Cape Canaveral to the
south where they were all lost. While most onboard those ships survived, they were tricked by Pedro Menndez de Avils into
surrendering and were quickly put to the swords. Menndez and his men then marched north toward the French fort. Under
pressure from both a naval and a ground forces, the Frenchmen, who numbered about 170, eventually surrendered to Menndez,
but not before 132 of them were killed as they came out of their lodgings as the Spaniards swarmed into the forts encampment
(Lyon 1974:113-124). The expedition to Cape Canaveral was a victory for the Spanish and expanded their knowledge of the
region that later became Brevard County (Eriksen 1994; Milanich 1995). Over the course of the seventeenth century, the Spanish
became more familiar with the eastern coast of Florida including present-day Brevard County. In 1605, the Spanish sent a
delegation under the command of Alvaro Mexia to the Brevard area. The diplomat was charged with placating the aggressive
Ais and mapping the region. His mission was considered a success. Mexia was named an honorary chief of the tribe and the
Indian and Banana Rivers (which the Spanish called Rio de Ais and Ulumay Lagoon) were explored and recorded. His maps
detail many Indian settlements along the shores of Mosquito Lagoon (at the north end of the Banana River). Some have speculated
that Mexia and his entourage also spread orange seeds along the banks of the Indian River (Eriksen 1994). While these
developments were significant, they did not encourage the Spanish to sponsor further settlement of Florida. The waters along the
eastern coast of Florida continued to present dangers to sailing vessels in the eighteenth century. On July 24, 1715, a flotilla of
eleven Spanish ships carrying 14 million pesos in gold, silver, and jewels left Havana for Europe. A few days into the voyage,
on 31 July 1715, eleven ships wrecked along the East Florida coast between St. Lucie County and St. Johns County.
Approximately 700 sailors perished and an additional 1500 became castaways. The Ais aided the Spaniards by providing them
with supplies and instructions for gathering food in the dunes. The Spanish government, desperate to recover the lost treasure,
established an encampment of salvers in the vicinity of present-day Sebastian State Park. Salvers recovered only one-third of the
lost cargo. In the mid-twentieth century, treasure hunters made a concerted effort to finish the job (Burgess and Clausen 1982;
Eriksen 1994).
The British Period and the Second Spanish Period
Through much of the eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries, white men possessed a poor understanding of Brevard County
which was then known as the Mosquito Coast. When the British came under control of Florida after the Seven Years War ended
in 1763, new explorations occurred (Figure 5). The botanist John Bartram and his son William documented the region in the
course of their search for the headwaters of the St. Johns River (Eriksen 1994; Tebeau 1971). Their reports, which depicted a
sprawling wilderness full of alligators and Indians, inspired no new attempts at settling the area. In 1783, the Treaty of Paris
restored Florida to Spain, whose control of the territory was quite tenuous over the following decades (Tebeau 1971). Immigrants
from the Indian tribes north of Florida had replaced those who succumbed to European diseases and warfare. They now numbered
from five to six thousand in the colony. Zespedes, the Spanish Governor, wrote to the king in 1785 that isolated groups of
Americans were trickling into Florida (Eriksen 1994; Tebeau 1971). The Crown may have viewed themselves as the ruler of
Florida, but in truth their position in the peninsula was dependent upon an alliance with local Indian tribes which held a much
greater influence on affairs (Frank 2005).

The Territorial Period


Even after the American acquisition of Florida in 1821, the Mosquito Coast was the realm of Indians. Seeking to establish a
boundary between white settlement and Indian Territory, the Americans designated four million acres of the interior of Florida
as a reservation for the Seminoles. This area included the southwestern corner of modern day Brevard County (Mahon 1985).
Two counties, Escambia to the west and St. Johns to the east, were also formed. In 1824, the area encompassing most of eastcentral Florida including Brevard County was organized as Mosquito County. Colonel James Gadsen led a survey party through
the eastern portion of the county in 1825 to find a route for a road from St. Augustine to what is now Dade County. Several dozen
plantations, some of which were holdovers from the previous Spanish period, operated along the Indian River. The majority of
new settlement in Florida remained focused on the northern part of the state with the exception of Key West (Eriksen 1994;
Fernald and Purdum 1992).
Increasing tensions between American settlers and the Seminoles erupted into the Second Seminole War. Mosquito County
became a prominent theater in this conflict. On Christmas day 1835, Indian forces razed plantations in the area. Along with a
severe freeze in 1835, the war decimated Mosquito Countys population as they fled to safe havens outside the county (Shofner
1995:36). The military erected forts throughout the Brevard area. Six hundred mounted militiamen, under General Joseph
Hernandezs command, constructed Fort Ann a mile south of modern day Haulover Canal. Camp Hernandez was erected south
of present day Scottsmoor in northern Brevard. General Hernandez collected his troops at the camps on January 3, 1838 and
proceeded to advance south along the eastern coast. Their path followed the high ground along the western side of the Indian
River Lagoon before swinging west to meet Fort Taylor on Lake Winder then southeast paralleling what is now I-95. Of all the
military trails created in Brevard, this is the only one historians are able to pinpoint accurately (Eriksen 1994:38-39). Naval forces
were used during the Second Seminole War, but there appears to have been no sizable expeditions along the coast of todays
Brevard County. The war ended in 1842, and on March 14, 1844, Saint Lucie County (whose name soon changed to Brevard
County) was carved out of Mosquito County (Carter 1962:994-995;
Dunn 1998:34).
Statehood and the Civil War
On March 3, 1845, Florida became the 27th state admitted to the Union (Eriksen 1994). As in centuries before, the coastal waters
of eastern Florida remained treacherous. The state therefore erected a lighthouse on Cape Canaveral in 1848 (Wooley 2002:910). During this period, development of St. Lucie County was hindered because of the lack of adequate roads in the region. The
Indian River, which was more of an elongated lagoon, served as the primary means of transportation (Shofner 1995:63-64).
Hoping that a new name might invite wider interest in the region, Saint Lucie County was renamed Brevard in 1855. Its namesake
was Judge Theodore Washington Brevard who had been state comptroller for Florida. The new county encompassed more than
7000 square miles and had its seat of government at Fort Pierce, although most simply referred to it as Indian River (Eriksen
1994; Shofner 1995:62). John Houston established the first permanent US settlement in south Brevard County, Arlington, in
1854. This town was located on land fronting the Indian River and Elbow Creek (Eriksen 1994). Between 1850 and 1860, the
population of Brevard County doubled although there were still only 267 people in residence. Most were cattlemen and
subsistence farmers (Shofner 1995:65). The Civil War began another chapter of intrigue along the Coast of Brevard County as
blockade runners attempted to transport goods in and out of Confederate Florida. They received no help from the Cape Canaveral
lighthouse which, along with other lights, was ordered to be extinguished early in the war. The keeper at Canaveral, Mills
Burnham, was a Union sympathizer. Fearing that the lamp and other mechanisms might be apprehended by Confederates, he
boxed them up and buried them in his orange grove. Union vessels patrolled the waters along Brevard County throughout the
duration of the war. From New Smyrna (Volusia County) southward, approximately 32 blockade-running vessels were captured
between 1862 and 1865 (Shofner 1995:70). Aside from the occasional blockade runners, Brevard County was far removed from
the action of the war but still played a visible role in the war as a supplier of beef. The Confederate government estimated that
three fourths of the cattle from Floridawhich had become the main supply of beef for the Confederacywas from Brevard
and Manatee Counties. Settlers in Brevard also engaged in salt production for the Confederate Army (Shofner 1995:72).
The Late Nineteenth Century
Brevard County remained one of Floridas least populated counties in the decades following the Civil War. The region was far
removed from the growing centers of population in the state and overland transportation routes were still poorly developed. In
the years before the arrival of the railroad, water transportation was the dominant mode of travel in Brevard County (Brown
1991:13-14) (Figure 6). Until the railroad arrived in the 1880s, the Indian River was the primary corridor of transportation into
the region. Those were the days when a mans approach and arrival were heralded by the cut and rig of his sail, wrote one
historian (Nance 1962:258-259). Nevertheless, there were individuals who saw opportunity in this frontier. Titusville, once a
small cluster of settlers, became more prominent in the 1870s when citizens elected it as the permanent seat of government. By
the 1880s, steamships were traveling the Indian River with regularity (Nance 1962:258-259). They hauled lumber in and
agricultural products out of the region in the years before the railroad (Eriksen 1994:95-96). The population of the Indian River
area was expanding due to a solid economic base of agriculture and fishing (Eriksen 1994). In addition to these stable sources of
income, the occasional shipwreck offered a bonus of sorts. Following the wreck of the steamer Ladona in 1870, the coastal
residents of Brevard gathered the lost cargo which consisted of French shoes (Wooley 2002:9-10). Many of the early settlers
acquired lumber by collecting driftwood and other goods from shipwrecks (Nance 1962:257-258). Other wrecks offered cloth
and consumer goods (Wooley 2002:9-10).

Table 2. Brevard County Population.


Date Population Date Population
1860 246
1930 13,283
1870 1,216
1940 16,142
1880 1,478
1950 23,653
1890 3,401
1960 111,435
1900 5,158
1970 230,006
1910 4,717
1980 272,959
1920 8,505
1990 398,978
Despite the popularity of oceanfront living in the current day, settlers to Brevard County in the late 19th century were most
interested in settling the inland areas. Settlement in this era was situated around the Indian River. In 1880, Melbourne, founded
by Richard W. Goode, obtained a post office. Titusville was chosen as a stop on the Jacksonville, Tampa and Key West Railway
in 1885. Columbus Willard established Cocoa in 1882 and by 1887 the town had six stores and was quickly expanding around
its deep-water landing. In 1890, a group of wealthy Harvard graduates founded the 18,000 acre Canaveral Club, which is now
the Merritt Island National Wildlife Preserve. In 1893, the Flagler East Coast Railway line came to Titusville and Eau Gallie. In
1895, a double blast of freezing temperatures devastated the areas citrus industry. The orange and pineapple groves recovered
by 1897. The economy of the area boomed with the rejuvenated citrus industry and the new railway. In 1899, with the aid of a
new state road building fund, Brevard County began a road building campaign. During this project many Indian shell middens
and mounds were borrowed for shell that was then crushed and hard packed over palmetto fiber. As the turn of the century
approached, Brevard County had a population of 5,158 people, a new road system, and 35 public schools (Eriksen 1994).
Extensive as the Brevard County coastline was, an ocean port failed to develop until the 20 th century. The main reason was
geography, as there were no navigable channels that connected the sea with the north-south Indian River. In the late-nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, attempts were made to connect the two (Eriksen 1994:132, 155). By the late 1910s the Sebastian
Inlet was somewhat navigable although it had to be dredged often. County residents petitioned for a harbor at Cape Canaveral
but their plea went unfulfilled (Eriksen 1994:156-160).
The Twentieth Century
Brevard County was in the midst of a massive program of internal improvements during the first twenty years of the new century.
Municipal governments constructed water towers, sewage lines, and new roads. The county purchased a large trenching machine
in 1911 and began to drain the floodplain east of the St. Johns to open land for new development. The Dixie Highway route of
1915 brought an infusion of tourists to the area. In 1917, Brevard achieved its modern day dimension when the southern portions
of the county became St. Lucie and Okeechobee counties and the western portion Osceola County (Fernald and Purdum 1992).
The center of population in the county shifted from Titusville in the north to Eau Gallie, Cocoa, and Melbourne in the south. In
1920, 1445 people lived in Cocoa, 1361 people resided in Titusville, and 533 people called Melbourne home (Table 2). A bridge
constructed from Cocoa to Merritt Island opened a link to the many small communities on the coast. Another toll bridge from
Melbourne to Merritt Island followed four years later and by the mid-twenties four bridges spanned the river. New developments
sprouted up along the beaches as result of these bridges (Eriksen 1994). Canova Beach was one such development. Around 1923,
Carlos Canova of Eau Gallie had aspirations to establish a marine biology laboratory on his oceanside property. After the
completion of the bridge from Eau Gallie to the beach, he abandoned those plans and opened Canova Beach which consisted of
a hotel, fishing pier, and casino (Shofner 1996:40, 47) (Figure 7). Canova intended his resort to be quiet, non-alcoholic, and
rustic (Kjerulff 1972:97). After the Eighteenth Amendment prohibited alcohol sales, the inlets along the Indian River once again
became smuggling hotbeds. The Chicago gangster Al Capone coordinated rum running from the Bahamas to the States at a small
hideaway in Eau Gallie (Eriksen 1994). Also well-known was Captain William H. McCoy, a former steamboat captain from Eau
Gallie. The expression the real McCoy originated during this period as a reference to the quality of his products (Eriksen
1994:164, 169-170). After the Stock Market crash of 1929, the numbers of tourists visiting Brevard dramatically waned. This
decline crippled the economy and bankrupted the government. The area received aid from the Civil Works Administration
(CWA) which employed 800 people from December 1933 to March 1934 to repair roads, build schools, and excavate Indian
mounds. In 1935, the Works Progress Administration replaced the CWA. This agency constructed the Canaveral port and the
Melbourne airport and dredged the Intracoastal Waterway from Cumberland Sound in Georgia to Miami in 1936. As World War
II approached in 1939, the military chose land south of Cocoa Beach to build the Banana River Naval Air Station (Eriksen 1994).
Shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, German submarines became active off the coast of Florida. They sunk
several tankers and cargo ships early in the war. Brevards coastline was soon littered with the wreckage of the commercial
ships, and crewmen from sunken ships were plucked from ocean waters or found exhausted on the beaches, wrote one historian
(Eriksen 1994). On one exceptionally active day, three merchant ships were torpedoed off of Cape Canaveral (Stone 1988:52).
After the completion of the Banana River and Melbourne airbases in 1942, shipping lanes were patrolled by Navy airplanes.
Later in that year, beach patrols were established to monitor the horizon and blackouts were initiated at inland communities as a
preventative measure against attacks. By the end of the war, German subs had torpedoed 25 ships between Miami and Daytona
Beach (Eriksen 1994:194-196). In 1949, the U.S. Air Force developed a long range missile testing ground at the former Banana
River Air Station. The base was renamed Patrick Air Force Base in 1950 and was the sight of experimental launches of hybrid
rockets. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration began operations on the Cape in 1958 and in 1963 the agency

received 88,000 acres on Merritt Island on which to build the Kennedy Space Center. A complex of more than 50 buildings was
constructed on the island including the largest building in the world, a 52-story rocket assembly hangar. The space industry had
a drastic effect on the area. Brevard County grew by 371 percent from 1950 to 1960 and the population doubled again during the
1960s (Tebeau 1971).
Brevard County Historic Shipwrecks
There has been documented maritime activity in Brevard County since the early 16th century. Since that time, there have been
thousands of shipwrecks along the Florida coast and Brevard. Brevard Countys maritime history is evident in the waters along
Melbourne Beach and Indialantic. Bob Gross, historian at the Florida Historical Society and a longtime resident of Brevard
County, shared information about shipwrecks in this area. Gross knowledge comes from personal experiences as well as
extensive research on the subject in local newspapers. Gross knew of two possible wrecks in the vicinity of the current project
area. The first was a Spanish wreck that dated to the early to mid-eighteenth century and the second was the 1928 wreck of a
ship called the Oraca (Gross, personal communication, 2006; 2010). Gross reported that artifacts of Spanish origin had been
found on the shore and in the water along Melbourne Beach, in the vicinity of Spessard Holland Park, Melbourne Beach, and
Canova Beach, Indialantic, in the 1960s. During that decade, Gross (who was then a boy) knew a gentleman who had a box of
Spanish artifacts that he had collected at Canova Beach. The collector is now deceased. Gross claimed to have found a few
artifacts along the beach and in the water during the same period, but reported that they have since been misplaced. Gross
description of the location of these various recoveries of Spanish artifacts coincided with the general location of the current
project area (Spessard Holland Park, Melbourne Beach and Canova Beach). He speculated that the wreck dated to no later than
the first half of the eighteenth century based on what he described as a Pillar Dollar found near the old pier at Canova Beach.
Gross also remembers seeing a salvage boat working off Spessard Holland Park back in the early 1960s (Gross, personal
communication, 22 December 2010). Newspaper reports from December 1928 described the wreck of the cruiser Oraca along
Canova Beach. The wreck occurred on the evening of December 5 after an engine backfired and set the ship aflame. The crew
of five attempted to fight the blaze with fire extinguishers but they were unsuccessful. They ignited flares and abandoned ship.
In the meantime, keepers of the Cape Canaveral lighthouse and observers along Canova Beach had noticed the flares from the
sinking ship. The lighthouse keeper telephoned a local fisherman who hurried to the scene as residents of Canova Beach notified
the chief of police. The fisherman rescued one survivor from the water. Another survivor appeared on the beach near Melbourne
sometime thereafter. In the meantime, the chief of police at Melbourne had requested aid from the Coast Guard base in Fort
Lauderdale. Five patrol boats were ordered to Canova Beach. Despite the efforts of the fisherman and the Coast Guard, the three
remaining sailors were not found alive. The body of one of them later washed ashore near Melbourne. The other two were never
recovered (New York Times 6 December 1928; Cocoa Tribune 13 December 1928). Newspaper accounts do not describe what
the vessel was transporting. Nor do they describe the ships port or origin or its destination. Records of the Fort Lauderdale Coast
Guard base are not available. Local histories do not provide specific information on wrecks in the Canova Beach area or the
Melbourne Beach area. Existing accounts indicate that the wreck of the Oraca occurred along Canova Beach. The Florida Star
described that the wreck was a short distance off shore between Eau Gallie and Melbourne. The New York Times was more
specific, noting that the ship was located five miles off Canova Beach. Also, the latter account mentions that residents at
Canova Beach were able to see the flare signals sent up by the crew of the Oraca (New York Times 6 December 1928; Cocoa
Tribune 13 December 1928). Finally, an entry in the 1929 volume of Merchant Vessels of the United States (MVUS) lists the
Orca as lost by fire on December 6, 1928 (United Stated Department of Commerce [USDC] 1929). It should be noted that
newspaper accounts referred to the ship as the Oraca while the MVUS source refer to the ship as the Orca. Regardless of spelling,
the records refer to the same ship. While further information on the actual wreck of the cruiser Oraca and its crew has not been
found, other details relating to the vessel are available in the Merchant Vessels of the United States volumes from the period.
This information tells that the Orca was built in Neponset, Massachusetts, in 1917 as a 260-horsepower gas yacht. The Orca was
based out of New York City during the first half of the 1920s. After 1926, the Orca is described as a fishing vessel. In the years
immediately preceding its demise along Canova Beach, the vessel had undergone improvements that raised its horsepower to
over 450. This alteration coincides with its transfer of ownership from Robert W. Thompson of Edgewater, New Jersey to John
Little of Jacksonville, Florida. When the Orca was lost in 1928, the owner was A.C. Hardy. Information on the various owners
of the Orca over time is minimal. Of Robert W. Thompson (the owner as of 1926) and John Little (the owner as of 1927), nothing
has been discovered in census records and national newspapers of the era as well as Jacksonville local histories and business
directories. However, information has been found on A.C. Hardy who appears to have been fairly prominent in the realm of
marine engineering. He was an editor of volumes on the subject and a member of the Institute of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers (New York Times 20 November 1927). During the 1920s and later, his opinion was sought on a number of issues
dealing with marine architecture (New York Times 17 January 1928; New York Times 30 January 1928). Although the likelihood
seems high that this A.C. Hardy was the same individual of Jacksonville, Florida who is listed as the owner of the Orca in the
USDC source from 1929, no document discovered during the course of this research has indicated with certainty that they are
the same individual. Harry Goode, Mayor of Melbourne, a lifelong resident of that city, also remembers hearing of Spanish
artifacts being found around Spessard Holland Park as well as north and south of that location; he also knows that old iron cannon
were salvaged along that coast and melted down during WWII (Harry Goode, personal communication 2003).

Brevard County Shipwreck Inventory (Offshore; Cape Canaveral to Melbourne)


Date
1551

Name/Type
San Nicolas (Nao)

Information
200 tons, wrecked near Ais (The
coast of the Ais tribe stretches from
Cape Canaveral to St. Lucie Inlet)
Sank near Ais
Ais
Wrecked on a shoal near Cape
Canaveral
Coast of Ais
Wrecked near Ais
At Ais
Off Cape Canaveral
1 wrecked near Cape Canaveral
1 wrecked in the province of Ais

1554
1556
1563

San Esteban (nao)


The Armada of Nueva Espaa
La Madelena (Galleon)

Before 1564
Before 1570
Before 1570
1571 or 1572
1572

Three ships of Juan Menndez


Vizcayo (Ship)
El Mulato (Urca)
Two ships
Two small tenders of Pedro
Menendez de Aviles

1582
1589
1592

Spanish merchant (Nao)


Spanish ship
Frigate

1618

Almiranta of Honduras

1715
1773
1778
1835
1870
1871

Spanish Plate Fleet c. 11 ships


Liberty (Schooner)
Rio de Ais
Otter (British naval sloop) Lost off Cape Canaveral
Noble (Brig)
Went ashore near Cape Canaveral
Col. J.T. Sprague (Schooner)
Wrecked near Cape Canaveral
Pomona (Brig)
Stranded 12 miles south of Cape
Canaveral (South Cocoa Beach)

1871

S.W. Walsh (Brig)

1871

H. Burg (Brig)

1880

City of Vera Cruz (Wooden hulled Located at 28 43.115, 080 22.752


brigantine steamship)

1890

Ethel (Schooner)

Foundered off Cape Canaveral

1891

Orrie V. Drisco (Schooner)

Lost off Cape Canaveral

1913

Huntress (Gas vessel, yacht)

Burned at Cape Canaveral

1918

Lizzie E. Dennison (Schooner)

Stranded at Hetzel Shoal

1925

Mohican (Steamer)

Burned off Cape Canaveral;


Located at 28 23.900, 080 32.200

1928

Orca

Burned off Canova Beach

1930

Dunham Wheeler
(5-mast schooner)

Foundered off Melbourne in 60


feet of water; Located at 28 11.166, 080 19.666

1942

Key West (Oil vessel)


(WWII)

Burned at Cocoa Beach

1942

Elizabeth Massey (British freighter)


(WWII)

Located at 28 09.166,
080 00.666

1942

Cities Service Empire (Steam tanker)

Located at 28 23.792,

Lost off Cape Canaveral


Wrecked at Cape Canaveral
Sank on the coast near Cape
Canaveral
10 leagues (30 miles) south of Cape
Canaveral

Stranded 12 miles south of Cape


Canaveral (South Cocoa Beach)
Stranded 12 miles south of Cape
Canaveral (South Cocoa Beach)

(WWII)

080 02.799

1942

Korsholm (Freighter)

Located at 28 12.350,
080 28.650

1942

Laertes (Dutch freighter)


known as the Dutch Wreck (WWII)

Located at 28 28.670,
080 21.605

1942

Ocean Venus (British freighter)


known as the Lead Wreck (WWII)

Located at 28 23.391,
080 17.324

1942

Leslie (Freighter)

Located at 28 36.211,
080 16.363

1952

Jackie Faye (Oil vessel, steel hull)

Foundered two miles


offshore, five miles north of Melbourne

1952

Helen C (Oil vessel)

Burned off Cocoa

1959

Capt. Tap (Oil vessel)

Foundered off Cape


Canaveral

1977

Miss Eileen (Oil vessel)

Foundered off Cape


Canaveral

Sources: (Barnette 2003; Berman 1972; Marx 1985; Singer 1998).


C. Research Design.
Research Goals and Objectives
Project Goal
This phase of the investigation will further define the elements of the shipwreck site and recover significant information about
the nature of the ship and its contents and cargo.
Project Objective
A phased investigation will better define the nature of the wreck or wrecks and provide more detailed information for the
management of the shipwreck site(s) and possible full recovery at some future date.
Field Objectives
Maintain a high degree of context control for the recovery by re-locating and reestablishing the survey grid at the site.
Define and record all surviving hull architecture and fittings in the investigation area in order to determine vessel form and
type.
Determine the distribution of cargo and shipboard functions by conducting systematic investigation of grid blocks or swing
circles near the apparent amidships area and the apparent stern area.
Further characterize site internal structure by completing investigation along the keel, or on either side of the keel, linking the
apparent bow, amidships and stern areas as time and budget permit.
General Research Questions;
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Why did the vessel sink?


When precisely did the vessel sink?
What was the purpose of the vessel in a larger economic system?
What was the nature of the cargo?
What does the vessel reveal about regional and coastal trade and its link with the wider maritime traditions and economic
patterns in the New World?

Methods for investigating magnetic anomalies

Additional Remote Sensing Surveys (As needed)


1.

2.

3.

4.

Additional remote sensing surveys will employ a Geometrics 882 cesium magnetometer with a differential global
positioning system (DGPS) for sub-meter accuracy. Seafarers Quest will incorporate software to ensure the accurate
collection of all data.
A series of track lines will be plotted over the position of the potential wreck site prior to the remote sensing survey being
conducted. Spaced at 50-foot intervals, each of the track lines length will be based to ensure complete coverage of the
permitted area.
Results of the additional remote sensing surveys will provide data critical to understanding the condition and extent of the
wreck site as well as bottom conditions and sediments. The magnetometer will provide a comparative example to the data
recorded by Gregg Bounds, Aquasurvey, et. al. in previous years.
Diver Investigations divers using hand held metal detection equipment will investigate each anomaly by deploying a
surface control buoy with a weighted downline on the exact GPS coordinates of the anomaly. Divers will then conduct a
circle search with a 50 foot radius around the downline until the anomaly source is located exactly within that radius.
Once the source of the anomaly is located, the buoy weight will be repositioned over the top of the anomaly and the surface
vessel will retake the GPS position. If the anomaly is visible, identification will be attempted in-situ. If buried, sediment
will be removed utilizing the least intrusive method, hand fanning and DPV fanning.
Preliminary Surface Collection of Exposed Artifacts IN THIS PHASE, ANY AND ALL ARTIFACTS LOCATED WILL
REMAIN IN-SITU - In conjunction with the survey, controlled mapping will be carried out of any exposed artifacts. Divers
will inspect the bottom in 2-foot arcs at each identified location. Artifact types and descriptions will be logged detail, along
with sketches and pictures as conditions allow. This survey will document the site formation process of disturbances due to
current and/or natural storm and sedimentation events. Tight context control will ensure artifact distributions across the site
will be documented for analysis.

1. Provenance Control - The investigation methods are designed to maintain tight control of spatial data for artifacts and all
features across the site in order to perform interpretation and guide future management decisions and identification efforts.
2. Artifacts and features encountered will remain in situ for mapping.

Discovered Artifact Tagging:


1. Seafarers Quest archaeological Data Recorders or the Project Archaeologist shall use the procedures outlined below when
dealing with artifacts that can be expected to be encountered and shall remain In-Situ:
a.

Large non-structural artifacts such as cannons and anchors will be tagged. A cannon or anchor will be photographed
(when possible), measurement data will be recorded and GPS locations taken.

b.

Structural remains tend to have more important associations than scattered materials, so that greater care may be
required in the recording of provenience data. Structural remains will be photographed (when possible) and will be
mapped at a scale sufficient to show the position of wood structural members, spikes, and other artifacts as well as
details of construction if visible. Detailed maps of structural remains, using a computer mapping systems, or other
accepted archaeological techniques, shall be produce. Structural remains will be tagged.

c.

All artifacts will be tagged individually, or as a group, when from a common provenience as described below. Tags
will be plastic with permanent imprinted numbers and affixed to artifacts by stainless steel wire or high test
monofilament fishing line. For small or delicate artifacts the tag may be placed in the same sealed protective container
or bag as the artifact. Small objects will be individually tagged if they are unique or have special value. Common
objects such as pottery sherds, spikes, barrel hoop fragments, musket balls, lead sheathing, etc., can be bagged as a
group and assigned a single tag number when they are from the same provenience. Bags will be of sufficient strength
so that they will not tear or break.

2. Artifact Care:

a.

Artifacts may be divided into five categories; large objects such as cannons, anchors and hull structures; miscellaneous
encrusted objects (E.O.s); miscellaneous small identified non-precious artifacts; identified unique or precious
artifacts; and coins and bullion. After tagging and recording, artifacts in each category shall be treated as follows:
i. Large Objects: Large objects such as cannons and anchors shall remain In-Situ.
ii. Miscellaneous Encrusted Objects (E.O.s): These fall into two categories:
1.
2.

General identifiable non-fragile E.O.s


Interesting or Fragile E.O.s
(a). The first category will generally include such artifacts as barrel hoops, spikes, cannon balls, general
ships rigging, fittings and hardware, etc. These items will be reported on the Daily Field Logs and turned
into the State on a monthly bases. All shall remain In-Situ.
(b). The second category may include such artifacts swords, firearms, small tools and implements, etc. All
E.O.s will remain In-Situ. These items will be reported to the State within 72 hours of discovery. All shall
remain In-Situ unless the State additional guidance.

3.

Common Miscellaneous Small Identified Non-Precious Artifacts: These may include such artifacts as pottery
sherds, barrel hoop fragments, musket balls, lead sheathing, etc. These may be bagged and tagged as a group
when from one point of excavation or the same provenience. If iron is included, these will be bags separately
and remain In-Situ.

4.

Identified Unique or Precious Artifacts: These may include such artifacts as jewelry items, lose gem stones,
intact ceramics or glass, various silver or pewter items such as plates, bowls or silverware, navigational
instruments, small personal items such as brass or pewter buckles or buttons, etc. These items will generally
be assigned individual tags. The State should be notified by quickest means for disposition guidance. Some
items such as large numbers of gem stones or even large numbers of items that are the same, such as buttons,
may be tagged as a group when from the same point of provenience.

5.

Coins and Bullion: These artifacts would include such items as gold and silver coins, gold and silver bars,
quoits, disks, gold flakes and nuggets, etc. Gold coins will be assigned individual tags. Gold and silver bars,
discs, etc., shall be assigned individual tags. Numbers of gold nuggets, flakes, etc. may be assigned a group tag
if from the same point provenience. Silver coins may also be tagged as a group if from the same point of
provenience. The State should be notified by quickest means for disposition guidance.

3. Discovery of Human Remains - Due to the age of the artifacts the possibility of human remains are remote. If during the
exploration of the permitted area Seafarers Quest does discover human remains all diving operations will stop, USCG and
DHR will be notified and procedures followed in accordance with Section 872.05, F.S.
4. Reporting and Dissemination of Results - Seafarers Quest will compile and produce reports that conform to the Secretary
of the Interiors Standards for Archeological Documentation and the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Researchs
Guidelines for Architectural and Archaeological Surveys in Florida.
5. Conclusion - The entire research effort will be conducted in collaboration with the State of Florida Department of State,
Bureau of Archaeological Research, and as such, any changes to field objectives, methodology or data will be made in
consultation with the State to ensure that the best interests of the project are served. An exact research completion date
cannot be determined at this time and will depend on the amount, type and analyses of all shipwreck material located.
6. Additionally, the MB 514 A1 area appears to contain physical evidence of potential Historic Shipwreck remains. Also,
scattered and disarticulated structural remains have been located (wood and fasteners), although some appear to represent
shipwreck material from a later period, it is very plausible that such modern intrusions are masking the footprint of an early
18th-century shipwreck.

7. It is recommended that exploration / dig and identify activities in this area be conducted by Seafarers Quest, its team of
archaeologists, historians, divers, and remote sensing specialists in an attempt to further investigate this wreck site and
identify additional Historic Shipwreck related artifacts as well as to locate a ballast stone deposit with associated
fragmentary hull remains, fasteners, ceramic shards, and other diagnostic artifacts that would confirm the actual presence
of an early 18th-century shipwreck, possibly intermingled with the late 18th-century or early 19th-century shipwreck.

Conclusion

The initial E-155 Project, Block 1 fieldwork is expected to be completed at the end of December 2016. The entire effort will be
conducted in collaboration with the State of Florida Department of State, Bureau of Archaeological Research, and as such, any
changes to field objectives, methodology or data recovery will be made in consultation with the State to ensure that the best
interests of the project are served.
D. Archaeological Fieldwork.
Over the course of the last two years of work on the Melbourne permit MB-514 area, a number of features were discovered that
looked to be fragments of ships wooden structure. These were duly reported to the State of Florida per the requirements of 1A31.
As the project Archaeologist for the Seafarers Quest group, I instructed the crew to obtain, where possible without removing
objects from the in-situ placement, small samples of the wood for analysis. This analysis was purely to determine the type of
wood being seen on the site. The intent was to determine, if possible, the woods area of origin. This in turn might give us more
information on the possible origin of the fragments we have been seeing in various areas along the seabed.
Samples were obtained and sent to Dr. Harry Alden of Alden Identification Service, 3560 Brookeside Drive, Chesapeake Beach,
MD 20732 443-624-5712, http://woodid.homestead.com/ais.html aldenid@comcast.net. As an archaeologist for different
projects I have used Dr. Aldens services in the past and a link to his report is attached below.

Target

Lat

Lon

SEA #

Area

A-567

2802.728

-8032.114

00433

MB514 2016.05 Area 1

829

2802.427

-8031.745

00434

MB514 2016.05 Area 1

A-131

2803.715

-8032.533

00439

MB514 2014.04 Area 2

A-317

2802.723

-8032.170

00440

MB514 2016.05 Area 1

A-22

2803.752

-8032.347

00442

MB514 2014.04 Area 2

731

2802.985

-8032.463

00443

MB514 2016.05 Area 1

730

2803.010

-8032.501

00444

MB514 2016.05 Area 1

A-85

2803.855

-8032.035

01166

MB514 2014.04 Area 2

534

2803.742

-8032.572

01713

MB514 2014.04 Area 2

All Wood Samples Taken in Area 1 and Area 2


(Area 1 Samples)

In reviewing the wood analysis, there are two samples that stand out, they are #0439 and #0443. Sample
#0439 appears to be a tropical hardwood and needs further investigation. This will require a slightly larger sample be sent for
further analysis. The second #0443 appears to be a type of European fir which is in Area 1.

Alden Identification Service Report

Both of these samples lead to a possible conclusion that the subject wood, if from the same vessel, may be from a ship that was
likely constructed in Europe, with possible modifications made in the tropics. This would fit in well with the theory that we
are working on a site that may have been involved with trade in the new world in the Colonial period. Any ship that worked in
tropical waters for any amount of time likely needed repairs. If in an area where tropical hardwoods were the materials used to
construct those vessels, then one might expect that there would be a mix of both European and new world sourced woods.
This theory can only be answered by further site investigation and further analysis of wood samples both of the current tropical
hardwood object (#0439) and any future samples that may be revealed though the methodical investigation of the anomalies
detected in the remote sensing surveys completed in the past.
Seafarers Quest commenced this years (2016) exploration of areas 1 and 2 the last few weeks of July. During this period we
have been exploring the Priority Targets submitted to FBAR.

Master Chart
Area 1

Master Diving
Record

Out of the 35 targets listed in our Area 1 priority listing 31 have been explored. All exploration results have been submitted in
our Daily Field Logs. Out of the 31 targets investigated 15 were reported as No Find. With this large percentage of targets
being unable to locate Seafarers Quest operational team has determined that additional magnetometer surveying is required.
The remaining 4 target listed on the first priority listing have been placed on hold and a survey was conducted in Areas 1 and 2
shoreline.

Area 1 Priority Targets


Explored Area
Seafarers Quest conducted an extensive survey of the shoreline area of Area 1 and 2 during the month of September. The
Melbourne Shoreline (MS) Survey identified 518 anomalies with in the area.

Chart of Survey Area


Once the survey was complete a comparison of the results with prior surveys with in the same area was conducted. Any
anomalies from prior surveys not reflected in the new survey were removed from the listing as well as from the chart. Any
anomalies that had been identified prior were retained as well as noted with the additional survey data. Any target listed as no
find with in the new survey area were removed from the chart, but retained on all diving records.

MS Survey Results

Anomalies Listing
Removed

Our theory that the historical material identified in the southwest corner of area 2 and the northern half of area 1 are of the same
time period and of the same vessel remains valid.

Historical Material
Area 1 & 2

Historical Material
Area 1 (Only)

E. Historical Fieldwork. - Omitted


Under the current scope of the permit 2016.05 Seafarers Quest investigations in MB-514 do not fall under the requirements of
this topic. At this time no actions have been undertaken for the purpose of recovering data about or from a building(s) or
structure(s) to evaluate and determine eligibility; or to document using the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) or
Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards and guidelines prior to proposed alteration or destruction.
In accordance with 1A-46.001, paragraph (3) Reports states For projects of limited scope, topics that are not applicable may be
omitted when a justification for this decision is provided.
F.

Archaeological Results and Conclusions.

It appears very clearly that there are the remains of historic period vessel(s) are extant in the area under investigation. The
presence of previously recovered items that the State retains title to makes this clear. Further investigations have revealed a
number of other objects, all of which have been left in situ that confirm that the highly scattered remains of at least one historic
period shipwrecks are present.
Recommendations for the remainder of the season are to continue investigations focused on the apparent track lines of dispersal.
This would be done through diver recon as well as focused excavation on those areas where targets are unreachable by unassisted
means. As always, only the minimum excavation to identify the target is undertaken and when utilizing the prop wash deflection
method a staged procedure using only as much down flow as necessary to reach the target will be used.
G. Historical Results and Conclusions.
At this time there are not enough coherent archaeological remains to determine with any degree of certainty the nationality or
type of vessel or vessels contained within the permit area. Before a conclusion and historical perpective can be reached a
shipwreck context has to be found and analyzed. Although artifacts previously discovered on this site seem to point to a shipwreck
of the Nueva Espaa Flota that was part of the 1715 Plate Fleet, so far the artifacts are only part of a scatter and a clear dipersal
pattern has not been established.
H. Florida Master Site File (FMSF) Requirements:
a.

b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.

FMSF Survey Log Sheets (Form HR6E06610-97, effective 9-1-97). Not Applicable, per permit 2016.05, Topic
Requirements & Conditions sub-pargraph 4 states to submit Daily Field Note and Activity Logs (Form
HR6E067, Revsed 06/08) monthly.
FMSF archaeological site forms (Form HR6E06401-97, effective 3-1-97). Based on the scope of our current
project this is Not Applicable for underwater Archaeological fieldwork.
FMSF historical structure forms (Form HR6E06308-96, effective 11-1-96). Based on the scope of our current
project this is Not Applicable for underwater Archaeological fieldwork.
FMSF historical bridge forms (Form HR6E06510-97, effective 10-1-97). Based on the scope of our current
project this is Not Applicable for underwater Archaeological fieldwork.
FMSF historical cemetery forms (Form HR6E04806-92, effective 8-1-98). Based on the scope of our current
project this is Not Applicable for underwater Archaeological fieldwork.
FMSF shipwreck forms (Form HR6E05006-92, effective 7-1-92). Based on the scope of our current project this
is Not Applicable but may become revelant if the main portion of hull is found.
FMSF archaeological short form (Form HR6E04906-92, effective 12-1-95). Based on the scope of our current
project this is Not Applicable for underwater Archaeological fieldwork.
FMSF resource group forms (Form HR6E05711-01, effective 7-1-00). Based on the scope of our current project
this is Not Applicable for underwater Archaeological fieldwork.
An original or photocopy portion of U.S. Geological Survey (1:24,000) Based on the scope of our current project
this is Not Applicable, topographical maps for off shore are not available.

Похожие интересы