The Florida anthropologist

U OFF LIBRARY

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

Published by the FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.

VOLUME 62, NUMBERS 3-4 September-December 2009

0 1
Meter

Feet

Unexcavated Unit: iJ. "Filler Pieces"
containing ballast .. . between ships' frames:.
and artifacts characteristic of 16th century
Keelson Iberian ship construction

fo" Stanchion .
for supporting deck structure

Test Trench excavated across the Emanuel Point II Shipwreck, Summer, 2007.

E
78
.F6
F58

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST is published by the Florida Anthropological Society, Inc., P.O. Box 357605, Gainesville, FL 32635.
Subscription is by membership in the Society. Membership is NOT restricted to residents of the State of Florida nor to the United
States of America. Membership may be initiated at any time during the year, and covers the ensuing twelve month period. Dues shall
be payable on the anniversary of the initial dues payment. Members shall receive copies of all publications distributed by the Society
during the 12 months of their membership year. Annual dues are as follows: student $15, individual $30, family $35, institutional $30,
sustaining $100 or more, patron $1000 or more, and benefactor $2500. Foreign subscriptions are an additional $25 U.S. to cover added
postage and handling costs for individual, family, or institutional membership categories. Copies of the journal will only be sent to
members with current paid dues. Please contact the Editors for information on recent back issues.

Requests for information on the Society, membership application forms, and notifications of changes of address should be sent to the
Membership Secretary. Donations should be sent to the Treasurer or may be routed through the Editors to facilitate acknowledgment in
subsequent issues of the journal (unless anonymity is requested). Submissions of manuscripts should be sent to the Editors. Publications
for review should be submitted to the Book Review Editor. Authors please follow The Florida Anthropologist style guide (on-line at
www.fasweb.org) in preparing manuscripts for submission to the journal and contact the Editors with specific questions. Submit four (4)
copies for use in peer review. Only one set of original graphics need be submitted. The journal is formatted using Adobe In Design. All
manuscripts must be submitted in final form on CD in Microsoft format. Address changes should be made AT LEAST 30 DAYS prior to
the mailing of the next issue. The post office will not forward bulk mail nor retain such mail when "temporary hold" orders exist. Such
mail is returned to the Society postage due. The journal is published quarterly in March, June, September, and December of each year.

OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY

President: Robert J. Austin, P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568-2818 (bob@searchinc.com)
First Vice President: Steven Martin, 4642 St. Augustine Rd., Monticello, FL 32344 (smartin@tin-top.com)
Second Vice President: Theresa Schober, 15770 Lake Candlewood Drive, Fort Myers, 33908 (theresa@fortmyersbeachfl.gov)
Corresponding Secretary: Antoinette Wallace, 104 Lincoln St., St. Augustine 32084 (ab wallace@bellsouth.net)
Membership Secretary: Pat Balanzategui, P 0 Box 1434, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549-1434 (wnpbal@cox.net)
Treasurer and Registered Agent: Joanne Talley, P.O.Box 788, Hobe Sound, FL 33475 (jo@whiticar.com)
Directors at Large: Bill Lucus, 333 Persimmon St., Freeport, FL 32439; Chris Hardy, 1668 Nantucket Ct., Palm Harbor 34683
(kasotagirl@yahoo.com); Debra Wells, Southeastern Archaeological Research, Inc., 315 NW 138 Terrace, Jonesville, Florida 32669
(debra@searchinc.com)
Immediate Past President: Patty Flynn, P. 0. Box 11052 Ft. Lauderdale Fl. 33339 (pflynn@pbmnh.org)
Newsletter Editor: David Burns, 15128 Springview St., Tampa, FL 33624 (davebums@prodigy.net)

JOURNAL EDITORIAL STAFF

Co-Editors: Deborah R. Mullins, P.O. Box 357605, Gainesville, FL 32635-7605 (dmullins.fl.anthropologist@gmail.com)
Andrea P. White, Department of Anthropology, University of New Orleans, 2000 Lakeshore Drive, New Orleans, LA 70148
(awhite.fl.anthropologist@gmail.com)
Book Review Editor: Jeffrey T. Moates, FPAN West Central Regional Center, 4202 E. Fowler Ave NEC 116, Tampa FL 33620
(jmoates@cas.usf.edu)
Editorial Assistant: George M. Luer, 3222 Old Oak Drive, Sarasota, FL 34239-5019 (gluer@grove.ufl.edu)
Technical Assistant: Kaitlyn T. Brouwer, 315 NW 138 Terrace, Jonesville, Florida 32669 (kaitlyn.brouwer@gmail.com)
Printer: Durra-Print, 717 South Woodward Ave., Tallahassee, FL 32304
Bulk Mail: TCB Marketing, 2818 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301

EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD

Albert C. Goodyear, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208
(goodyear@sc.edu)
Jerald T. Milanich, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 (jtm@flmnh.ufl.edu)
Jeffrey M. Mitchem, Arkansas Archeological Survey, P.O. Box 241, Parkin, AR 72373 (jeffmitchem@juno.com)
Nancy Marie White, Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-8100
(nwhite@chumal .cas.usf.edu)
Robert J. Austin, P.O. Box 2818, Riverview, FL 33568-2818 (bob@searchinc.com)

NOTE: In addition to the above Editorial Review Board members, the review comments of others knowledgeable in a manuscript's
subject matter are solicited as part of our peer review process.

VISIT FAS ON THE WEB: www.fasweb.org

uo.

THE FLORIDA

ANTHROPOLOGIST

Volume 62 Numbers 3-4
September-December 2009

V
ii
0

K 0
N

~ A~O~

TABLE OF CONTENTS

From the Editors

ARTICLES

Luna's Fleet and the Discovery of the First Emanuel Point Shipwreck. 79
Roger C. Smith, with contributions by Gregory D. Cook

Documenting Tristain de Luna's Fleet, and the Storm that Destroyed It. 83
John E. Worth

Luna's Ships:
Current Excavation on Emanuel Point II and Preliminary Comparisons with the First Emanuel Point Shipwreck. 93
Gregory D. Cook

Recovery Techniques and Preliminary Analysis of Plant and Animal Remains
from the Emanuel Point II Shipwreck. 101
Colleen Reese Lawrence and Jacob D. Shidner

Mesoamerican Component of the Emanuel Point Ships:
Obsidian, Ceramics, and Projectile Points. 109
John R. Bratten

Preliminary Ceramic Analysis of the Emanuel Point II Ship. 115
Scott Sorset

ABOUT THE AUTHORS 123

Cover: The midships trench on Emanuel Point II. Drawing by Gregory Cook, Archaeology Institute, University of West
Florida. See the Cook article beginning on page 93 for more information.

Published by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
ISSN 0015-3893

FROM THE EDITORS

In this issue, we focus on the Emanuel Point II shipwreck site that lies on the bottom of Pensacola Bay in Escambia County,
Florida. Emanuel Point II (or EPII) is the second sixteenth-century ship found in Pensacola Bay, and its study compliments the
discovery and subsequent excavation of the first Emanuel Point shipwreck (EPI), whose excavation and analysis is summarized here
in an introductory essay from State of Florida Underwater Archaeologist Roger Smith.
Both ships were part of an ill-fated settlement expedition lead by Don Tristin de Luna y Arellano that left Mexico for La
Florida in June of 1559 with all necessary supplies and every intention of establishing a self-sustaining and permanent colony at
Pensacola. Unfortunately, the fleet and colonists were overcome by a disastrous hurricane within five weeks of their entrance into
Pensacola Bay, with many lives lost and all but three ships sunk. The loss of supplies and ships essentially doomed the first Spanish
colony founded in Florida, and the permanent reestablishment of Pensacola did not take place until the founding of Presidio Santa
Maria de Galve along the bay bluffs in 1698.
Though the Luna colony ended in tragedy, the remains of two fleet ships associated with the settlement expedition have served
as the launching point for an amazing array of studies. John Worth's article is a noteworthy addition to the literature addressing the
evolution of Iberian colonization during the first century of conquest and expansion in the New World. Worth's article details not
only the complex political wrangling and economic maneuverings that went into an expedition of this size, but gives us an idea of
the full range of people that would have been onboard these ships, with all of their baggage in tow.
Following Worth's article is a presentation and analysis of the ship's hull remains by Gregory Cook, Co-Principal Investigator for
the archaeological investigations at EPII. Field investigations thus far indicate that EPII is significantly smaller than the previously
excavated EPI ship. Architectural differences across EPI and EPII indicate two very different vessel types, the study of which will
continue to shed light on sixteenth-century Iberian ship construction and seafaring traditions.
The last three articles in this issue are focused on specific classes of material goods that were meant to both sustain the
soldiers and colonists during their initial voyage from Mexico to Pensacola, and serve as the building blocks of the new colony
after establishment. Colleen Reese Lawrence and Jacob Shidner present a methodological and findings overview of the variety
of well-preserved botanical and faunal artifacts recovered from EPII. Reese-Lawrence and Shidner also call on other maritime
archaeologists to expand their expectations of what can be learned from this scale of analysis and to refine field and laboratory
methodologies with these expectations in mind. John Bratten discusses artifacts from both vessels with Mesoamerican origins
including obsidian blades and small-mouthed jars made by Indian potters in Cuauhtitlin, Mexico, and the contextual importance
of these artifacts in understanding the cultural interactions taking place between the Spanish and indigenous populations of New
Spain. Lastly, Scott Sorset discusses the ceramic assemblage thus far recovered from the EPII site and highlights the special utility
of carefully controlled shipwreck excavations to the larger field of historical archaeology. For instance, the in situ discovery of El
Morro coarse earthenware pottery fragments from both EPI and EPII have pushed the earliest manufacturing date for this style back
by several decades.
All of the articles presented here underscore the hugely collaborative efforts involved in a research project of this scale. While
investigations are on-going, the information presented here was made possible through the efforts of professional archaeologists,
historians, ethnohistorians, student researchers, and volunteers at all levels ofthe project. We are confident The Florida Anthropologist
readership will find much of interest in this volume, and it is our hope that other maritime scholars will submit manuscripts to the
FA that focus on our state's amazing underwater cultural resources.
The March 2010 issue will include a stylistic and compositional analysis of two ceremonial tablets from the Blueberry site in
Highlands County, an article discussing the patterns of degenerative joint disease among males and females at the Windover site in
Brevard County, and a bioarchaeological analysis of Late Archaic Period individuals from the Pine Island Ridge in Broward County,
among other features. The Editors are happy to say that we have some interesting articles to share in the journal throughout 2010.
However, we are asking the readership to send us their manuscripts for inclusion in the journal so that others may benefit from your
hard work!

Enjoy and stay tuned!

Deborah Mullins and Andrea White

VOL. 62(3-4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2009

SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2009

VOL. 62(3-4)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

LUNA'S FLEET AND THE DISCOVERY OF THE FIRST EMANUEL POINT SHIPWRECK

ROGER C. SMITH, WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM GREGORY D. COOK

Bureau ofArchaeological Research, B. Calvin Jones Center for Archaeology at the Governor Martin House,
1001 de Soto Park Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32301
Email: rsmith@dos.state.fl.us

The expedition of Tristan de Luna has been a forgotten
chapter in the history of Latin American colonization. Under
Luna's command, a fleet of eleven ships embarked from
Mexico in 1559 to establish a colony in Florida and secure the
northern frontier of New Spain for the crown (Priestley 1936).
Aboard the ships were 1,000 settlers and servants, 500 cavalry
and foot soldiers, and 240 horses. Aside from clergymen,
Aztec mercenaries accompanied the expedition to help
reduce the local Florida natives to subservience (Scott-Ireton
1998a, 1998b). Equipped with livestock and agricultural and
construction tools, the colonists disembarked at Pensacola,
only to suffer a hurricane that destroyed all but three of the
ships anchored in the harbor, some of which had not yet been
unloaded (Priestley 1928). This catastrophe doomed the Luna
colony, which eventually was abandoned in 1561. Pensacola
was forgotten by Spain until 1698, when a permanent presidio
finally was established.
The well-preserved remains of the first vessel identified
as belonging to the Luna fleet were discovered in 1992 during
a pilot survey of sunken ships in Pensacola Bay, Florida
(Franklin et al. 1992; Spirek et al. 1993). The ship apparently
had grounded violently during a severe storm on a shallow
sand bar off Emanuel Point in the central part of the bay.
Two multi-year campaigns of excavation, conducted through
a partnership between the Florida Bureau of Archaeological
Research, the Historic Pensacola Preservation Board, and the
University of West Florida, gathered evidence to support the
hypothesis that the ship was one of the larger vessels in the
fleet of Tristan de Luna, which brought the first European
colonists to Florida in 1559 (Smith et al. 1995; Smith et al.
1998).
Despite being located in only four meters of warm Florida
waters, the shipwreck's remarkable degree of preservation was
due to a compact and discreet stratigraphy. The ship's lower hull
and ballast stones were protected from erosion and storms by a
stratum of oyster, clam, and mussel shells bound in compacted
silt. This layer was the result of gradual accumulation of
generations of marine organisms that thrived and died on the
artificial reef created by the remains of the ship. Below the
shell cap was a complex layer of loose silt and shell, which
represented the original deposition of marine sediments that
entered the hull as it wrecked and disintegrated. Artifacts and
other remains associated with the demise and collapse of the
ship were found in this layer, while those that accumulated in
the bottom of the vessel during its sailing career were trapped

in a dense but soft organic deposit between the ship's frames
and in its bilge. This deposit produced a surprising array of
floral and faunal remains, as well as other organic debris.
Below the ship's hull were sediments of clean, compacted sand
that represented the original bar upon which the ship came to
rest.
Initial excavations in the center of the ballast mound
revealed articulated ship structure in a pattern that has
become familiar to archaeologists working on early European
shipwrecks on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean: an expanded
keelson, with mortise and chock to house the foot of the
mainmast, pump wells to house the shafts of the ship's bilge
pumps, and perpendicular buttresses to laterally support this
critical area of the hull (Smith 1994). Removable bilge boards
were let into the spaces between the buttresses to protect this
area from ballast and trash that might clog the bilge. The stern
architecture of the ship was explored, exposing the after end of
the keelson, eleven tail frames, four lower hull strakes, and the
sternpost and stern knee (Spirek 1995). In addition, the rudder
was encountered nearby, along with its fittings. The rudder
was fashioned from two heavy planks of wood and appeared
to have hung slightly below the keel.
The first campaign of excavations at the Emanuel Point
Ship produced hundreds of objects and specimens, including
European and Native American ceramics, Old World and
New World botanical and faunal remains, wooden tools,
iron fasteners, stone and lead ammunition, and copper galley
wares, as well as remains of insects and rodents that inhabited
the bilge during the sailing career of the vessel (Bratten 1995;
Pugh 2001; Scott-Ireton 1995; Wells 1995). Conservation
and analysis of recoveries were conducted in a laboratory
established at the T. T. Wentworth State Museum (C. Smith
1995). Plans for a second campaign of investigations were
discussed with the University of West Florida, which sought to
further develop its research capabilities with the establishment
of a program in maritime archaeology (R. Smith 1995).
Meantime, a major search for archival documents on the Luna
expedition in Spanish archives was completed (Lakey 1996).
Sponsored by the City of Pensacola, copies of more than 160
documents were placed in the special collections of the Pace
Library at the University of West Florida. In addition, a major
display of artifacts from the Emanuel Point Ship became
the centerpiece of a new exhibit on Pensacola's history and
archaeology, which opened to the public in 1996 in the city's
historical district.

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

VOL. 62(3-4)

SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2009

TH LRD NHOOOGS 09VL 234

A second campaign of excavations in the bow of the
shipwreck revealed a surprising amount of the vessel's wooden
hull fabric preserved on the starboard side. This appears to
have collapsed quickly, perhaps under the weight of the anchor,
during or just after the wrecking event. Just below the waterline
on the starboard bow, the hull had breached. The upper portion
fell away onto the sand and was buried rapidly, preserving the
wooden architecture from deterioration and worm damage.
Two gun port covers of different sizes were found beneath the
lower part of the starboard bow, where they must have fallen
before it collapsed. These findings demonstrated that the ship
was larger than initially expected (Cozzi 1998).
In the forward part of the ship, copper utensils for
food preparation were found. The ship's cooking cauldron,
discovered in 1993, and the ship's anchor were raised to be
conserved for display. Other copper galley utensils included
the remains of a skillet, a saucepan, a funnel, a bronze pestle,
and a small mortar (Rodgers 2003). In addition to fragments
of olive jar containers, ceramic tablewares were discovered in
the forward portion of the ship. These included lead-glazed
plate and bowl fragments, and an intact majolica plate, which
was found beneath the crown of the anchor as it was being
prepared for recovery (Bratten 1998). Other food-related
materials included animal bones, primarily beef, that were
associated with fragments of wooden casks in the bow. The
predominance of plainer utensils, tablewares, and ordinary
cuts of meat reflected a common, rather than affluent, fare
aboard the ship.
Military-related artifacts also were found. Four copper
crossbow bolt heads and several examples of small lead shot
indicate that shoulder arms were carried aboard the ship.
Recovery of two small obsidian blades possibly reflected the
presence ofAztec soldiers, known to have been recruited for the
Luna expedition. Together with previous discoveries of stone
ammunition and a steel breast plate, these items demonstrated
a gradual colonial transition in military technology from older
to newer forms of weaponry.
A chronological chart was developed to demonstrate the
relationship between artifacts recovered from the shipwreck
and the 1559 expedition of Tristim de Luna. General beginning
and ending dates for occurrences of similar artifacts on other
archaeological sites were plotted along a timeline for visual
reference. Dateable material culture from the site converge in
a significant cluster during the middle years of the sixteenth
century, with a tapering effect on either end of the timeline.
For example, the presence of mercury in the ship's bilge is
an important terminus post quem, since quicksilver was not
imported in quantity to the Americas until 1556. On the other
hand, a terminus ante quem is provided by the early rim
forms of the middle style olive jars, which do not appear on
shipwreck sites dated to 1588 and later.
Only a fraction of the Emanuel Point Ship site was explored
during two campaigns of excavation, but more than 3,000
artifacts and field specimens were recovered, and a substantial
portion of the hull architecture was recorded. The ship was
a large vessel in comparison with other sixteenth-century
Iberian shipwrecks reported in the professional literature. The
hull appears to have been well constructed, with substantial

timbers and fastenings (Collis 2008). There is evidence that
economy at the shipyard was a concern. At the time of its last
voyage as a "moving van" for settlers and their supplies, the
ship must have been a veteran of the Atlantic trade. Extensive
use of lead to cover planking seams and patch leaks, as well as
apparent repairs at both bow and stern, indicate that the vessel
was quite old at the time of sinking.
Although its official name and prior history have yet to
be determined, the Emanuel Point Ship, the earliest shipwreck
found in Florida's waters, has provided new perspectives
on the shipbuilding and seafaring traditions that helped to
establish the Iberian seaborne empires. With the discovery of
a second vessel from the fleet by University of West Florida
archaeologists and students in 2006, an unprecedented
opportunity to examine two different vessels from this early
fleet of colonization presents itself. The remainder of this
volume focuses on the recent investigations of the latter vessel,
dubbed the "Emanuel Point II shipwreck." Many thrilling
discoveries lie buried and preserved under the soft sediments
of Pensacola Bay, and this ongoing research is poised to add
to our knowledge of the Luna colonization attempt, as well as
sixteenth-century ship construction in general.

Reference Cited

Bratten, John R.
1995 Olive Pits, Rat Bones, and Leather Shoe Soles: A
Preliminary Report on the Organic Remains from
the Emanuel Point Shipwreck, Pensacola, Florida.
Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the
Society for Historical Archaeology Conference
1995, edited by Paul Johnson, pp. 49-54, Society for
Historical Archaeology, Washington, D.C.
1998 Recent Artifact Finds from the Emanuel Point Ship.
Underwater Archaeology, edited by L. E. Babits, C.
Fach, and R. Harris, pp. 38-44, Society for Historical
Archaeology, Tucson.

Collis, James D.
2008 Empire 's Reach: A Structural and Historical Analysis
of the Emanuel Point Shipwreck. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Cozzi, J.
1998 Hull Remains of the Emanuel Point Ship. Underwater
Archaeology, edited by L. E. Babits, C. Fach, and R.
Harris, pp. 25-30, Society for Historical Archaeology,
Tucson.

Franklin, Marianne, John W. Morris, III, and Roger C. Smith
1992 Submerged Historical Resources of Pensacola Bay,
Florida. Florida Archaeological Reports, 27. Bureau
of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Lakey, Denise
1996 Don Tristan de Luna y Arellano, The Expedition
to Florida: A Catalog of Documentary Sources.

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

SMITH INTRODUCTION, EMANUEL POINT I SHIPWRECK

Submitted to the Historic Pensacola Preservation
Board. On file at the John C. Pace Library special
collections, University of West Florida, the P.K.
Young Library of Florida History, University of
Florida, and the Florida State Archives, Tallahassee.

Priestley, Herbert Ingram
1928 The Luna Papers 1559-1561: Volumes I & II. Eighth
Edition. Florida State Historical Society, Deland.
1936 Tristan de Luna: Conquistador of the Old South: A
Study of Spanish Imperial Strategy. Arthur H. Clark
Co., Glendale, California.

Pugh, David W.
2001 A Study of Iron Fasteners from the Emanuel Point
Ship. Research paper in partial fulfillment for Master's
degree, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Rodgers, Ree R.
2003 Stale Bread and Moldy Cheese: A Historical and
Archaeological Study of 16th-Century Foodways at
Sea Using Evidence Collected from The Emanuel
Point Shipwreck. Unpublished Master's thesis,
Department of History, University of West Florida,
Pensacola.

Scott-Ireton, Della A.
1995 Unique Artifacts from the Emanuel Point Shipwreck.
Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the
Society for Historical Archaeology Conference
1995, edited by Paul Johnson, pp. 60-63, Society for
Historical Archaeology, Washington, D.C.
1998a An Examination of the Luna Colonization Fleet.
Underwater Archaeology, edited by L. E. Babits, C.
Fach, and R. Harris, pp. 25-30, Society for Historical
Archaeology, Tucson.
1998b An Analysis of Spanish Colonization Fleets in the
Age of Exploration Based on the Historical and
Archaeological Investigation of the Emanuel Point
Shipwreck in Pensacola Bay, Florida. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of History, University of
West Florida, Pensacola.

Smith, Clifford E.
1995 Conservation of Cultural and Biological Remains: An
Integral Part of the Archaeological Process Required
to Preserve and Protect the Cultural Resources from
the Emanuel Point Shipwreck. Unpublished Master's
thesis, Department of History, University of West
Florida, Pensacola.

Smith, Roger C.
1994 The Emanuel Point Ship: An Examination ofFlorida's
Earliest Shipwreck. Underwater Archaeology
Proceedings from the Society for Historical
Archaeology Conference 1994, edited by Robyn
Woodward and Charles D. Moore, pp. 14-18, Society
for Historical Archaeology, British Columbia.

1995 The Emanuel Point Ship: A Florida Experiment
in Research, Development, and Management.
Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the
Society for Historical Archaeology Conference
1995, edited by Paul Johnson, pp. 40-42, Society for
Historical Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Smith, Roger C., James Spirek, John Bratten, and Della Scott-
Ireton
1995 The Emanuel Point Ship: Archaeological
Investigations, 1992-1995. Florida Department of
State, Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Smith, Roger C., John R. Bratten, J. Cozzi, and Keith Plaskett
1998 The Emanuel Point Ship: Archaeological
Investigations, 1997-1998. Florida Department of
State, Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Spirek, James
1995 Pinned to the Bottom: Emanuel Point Hull Remains.
Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the
Society for Historical Archaeology Conference
1995, edited by Paul Johnson, pp. 43-48, Society for
Historical Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Spirek, James, Della Scott, Charles Hughson, Mike Williamson,
and Roger C. Smith
1993 Submerged Historical Resources of Pensacola
Bay, Florida, Phase Two. Florida Department of
State, Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Wells, Debra J.
1995 Examples of Ceramics from the Emanuel Point
Shipwreck. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings
from the Society for Historical Archaeology
Conference 1995, edited by Paul Johnson, pp. 55-59,
Society for Historical Archaeology, Washington,
D.C.

SMITH

INTRODUCTION, EMANUEL POINT I SHIPWRECK

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST FUND

An Endowment to

Support production of
The Florida Anthropologist,
the scholarly journal published quarterly by
the Florida Anthropological Society since 1948.

Donations are now being accepted from
individuals, corporations, and foundations.

Inquiries and gifts can be directed to:

The Editors
The Florida Anthropologist
PO Box 357605
Gainesville, FL 32635-7605

The Florida Anthropological Society is a non-profit organization under section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Contributions are tax-deductible as provided by section 170 of the code.

DOCUMENTING TRISTAN DE LUNA'S FLEET, AND THE STORM THAT DESTROYED IT

JOHN E. WORTH

Department ofAnthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida 32514
Email: jworth@uwf edu

A Failed Colony

On the night of September 19 1559, Pensacola Bay was
struck by a violent hurricane that raged incessantly for the next
24 hours. What made this hurricane different from all previous
storms in this area was the presence of a fleet of 10 Spanish
sailing vessels anchored alongside the recently-established
colonial settlement of Don Tristan de Luna y Arellano,
consisting of some 500 soldiers and 1,000 civilian colonists,
including a diversity of Spaniards, Africans, and Mexican
Indians, as well as a handful of Dominican missionaries. The
fleet consisted of a wide range of vessels, small and large, old
and new, some privately-owned and some royally-owned.
During the course of the storm, most of the largest ships broke
loose from their anchors and floated free, ultimately grounding
or sinking with considerable loss of life. The contents of the
vessels, many of which apparently broke apart, were inundated
and scattered in the storm waters. One vessel was pushed
inland by the storm surge and deposited intact in a dense grove
of trees. Surviving colonists and sailors scavenged the shores
for days, but the loss of the fleet ultimately proved to be a fatal
blow for the Luna expedition, because in those ships was the
one item most pivotal to the success of the colony: food.
Luna's 1559 colonial venture was a carefully planned
expedition, financed by the Spanish crown, organized in
Mexico, and intended to become the first successful Spanish
colony in what is now the present-day southeastern United
States (Shea 1886:256-260; Lowery 1901:351-377; Priestly
1928,1936; Hudson et al. 1989). It would have been a
launching-point for overland expeditions to the Atlantic coast
of modem-day South Carolina, and would have established
a firm foothold for Spain in North America. In 1558, a small
fleet of reconnaissance craft was sent to scout potential
settlement locations along the northern Gulf of Mexico, and
when the colonial fleet comprised of 11 ships finally sailed
on June 11, 1559, the 1,500 colonists were supplied not just
with the equipment, supplies, and armament they would need
to establish a new settlement on Pensacola Bay, but also
with more than a year's worth of food packed into the many
large merchant vessels that formed part of the fleet (Luna y
Arellano 1559; Velasco 1559a, 1559b; Ybarra 1561, 1564;
Yugoyen 1569; DAvila Padilla 1955; Childers 1999a, 1999b).
Where previous expeditions such as that of Hernando de Soto
had failed in part due to their reliance on local food stores
either bartered or taken from neighboring Native American
communities, the Luna expedition was specifically designed to
avoid such potential tensions by providing more than enough

food for all the colonists to be able to sustain themselves
until a colonial town was built, and crops were planted and
harvested. This had been the most important advice provided
by four southeastern Indian women, originally captured during
the Soto expedition, who were brought along on the expedition
as advisors and interpreters.
So important were these food stores that when the fleet
entered Pensacola Bay on August 15, most of the food was
left on board the ships until a secure warehouse could be
constructed on land. Based on Luna's initial reports, the
Viceroy of New Spain believed Pensacola Bay to be completely
safe for Spanish ships, claiming extravagantly that "the port
is so secure that no wind can do them any damage" (Velasco
1559a). Though one fortunate galleon was sent back to
Mexico on August 25 with news of the expedition's successful
landfall, the rest of the ships were unloaded gradually over
the course of the first month, focusing first on soldiers and
colonists, along with their equipment, supplies, and weapons.
During this time, two exploratory expeditions were sent inland
to reconnoiter the countryside while two vessels were outfitted
for a voyage directly to Spain, awaiting only the return of the
reconnaissance parties. When the winds began to below during
the night of September 19, however, the Spaniards were caught
completely by surprise.
After the storm, only 3 ships were still afloat, including
two small barks and the expedition's only caravel. Though
Luna's colonists scavenged whatever they could from the
remnants of the fleet, the damage was done, and news of the
calamity was sent to Mexico on one of the remaining barks,
which was dispatched on September 29. When news finally
arrived in Veracruz on October 5, the Luna expedition was
instantly transformed from a bold colonial venture into a rescue
operation, and all subsequent ship traffic between Veracruz
and Pensacola focused on sending food and other supplies
to the hapless colonists. The colonists ultimately became so
hungry that they moved inland to the nearest large Indian
town along the Alabama River, and were ultimately forced
to send a detachment of soldiers hundreds of miles upriver
to the edge of the Appalachian summit in northwest Georgia,
trading whatever they owned in exchange for corn and other
food supplies (e.g., Hudson et al. 1989). When the remnants of
the expedition were finally withdrawn in 1561, Luna's colony
joined the ranks of all previous failures by Spanish adventurers
in the southeastern United States, though Luna was actually the
first expedition leader to survive his attempt (Ponce, Ayll6n,
Narvdez, Soto, and Cancer all perished). Over the course of
the next decades and centuries, the wrecks of Luna's seven

VOL. 62(3-4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2009

SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2009

VOL. 62(3-4)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

ships dissolved quietly into the sand and mud of Pensacola
Bay, hidden from the modem world. But within these ships
remained a moment in time, captured and preserved as a result
of the hurricane of September 19-20, 1559, waiting only for
the light of modem underwater archaeology to rediscover this
forgotten era of Spanish explorers and colonists along the
northwest Florida Gulf coast.

Documenting Luna's Fleet

Prior to the 1992 and 2006 discoveries of the Emanuel
Point I and II wrecks in Pensacola Bay, Spanish documentary
sources were the only viable source of information about the
colonization fleet of Tristan de Luna. From very early on, the
most widely-utilized account of the Luna expedition was the
detailed narrative contained in the volume published in 1596
by Fray Agustin Davila Padilla (1955). Despite its authorship
and late date, Davila Padilla's account probably represents in
part a firsthand recollection, since the relevant portion may
have been originally written by Luna expedition participant
Fray Domingo de la Anunciaci6n, who is listed by Davila
Padilla among the prior authors and reviewers of sections of his
final edited manuscript (Davila Padilla 1955:653). Though this
source and a limited range of additional primary documents
relating to the Luna expedition had previously been employed
in secondary historical accounts of early Spanish colonization
in the United States (e.g., Gonzalez de Barcia Carballido y
Zufiiga 1723:32-41; Shea 1886:256-260; Lowery 1901:351-
377), it was not until the publication of Herbert Priestly's The
Luna Papers that widespread access to an extensive assortment
of primary Luna sources from the Archivo General de Indias
(originally transcribed by Irene Wright) was finally made
possible (Priestly 1928, 1936, 2010). Priestley's work was all
the more significant because it included a diverse and nearly
exhaustive range oforiginal correspondence and administrative
paperwork dating to the time of the Luna colony itself, and
in many cases written in Florida during the discourse of the
expedition (though in many cases transcribed later for legal
processes). Priestley's Luna volumes had a substantial impact
on scholarship about the Luna expedition, and were employed
by subsequent scholars for many purposes, ultimately including
detailed reconstructions of the location of Luna's landing and
movements into the interior (e.g., Hudson et al. 1989). Their
upcoming single-volume republication is an acknowledgment
of their continuing significance (Priestley 2010).
Not surprisingly, the discovery of the first Emanuel
Point wreck prompted a flurry of new archival research and
documentary transcriptions and translations. During the early
1990s, diverse work was carried out in Spain, Mexico, Florida,
and other archival repositories by researchers including Roger
Smith, Paul Hoffman, John H. Hann, Denise Lakey, Walter
Cardona Bonet, Genaro Rodriguez Morel, and Jorge Herrera
(Smith et al. 1995:9-12; 1998:3; Lakey 1994, 1995). As a
result of this cumulative body of new research, a substantial
amount of documentation relative to the Luna expedition is
now available at the University of West Florida, including
microfilm copies of original documents as well as subsequent
translations of substantial portions of this material by R.

Wayne Childers (e.g., Childers 1999a, 1999b). While some
of this material is simply original imagery for documents
already transcribed and translated in the Luna Papers, other
material is wholly new, including substantial and detailed
financial information regarding the expenses incurred before
and during Luna's expedition (provided in the form of an audit
of original records). This documentary data, when combined
with previously-available material noted above, provides
many important clues regarding the nature of Luna's ill-fated
colonial fleet, as well as its cargo, passengers, and crew.
While continued examination of pertinent documentary
material is still ongoing as part of this project, a few preliminary
interpretations may be offered at this stage, providing a greater
degree of detail and accuracy regarding the Luna fleet than
has previously been possible. Financial records of the Luna
expedition have already been used, for example, to begin
reconstructing a comprehensive list of the ships that comprised
the fleet, including information regarding the names, types, and
size of the vessels, as well as their principal officers (Smith et
al. 1995:12). Based in large part on detailed re-examination
of these financial records, including both the Childers
translations (1999a, 1999b) as well as microfilm copies of the
original records also acquired by this author in Seville in 1999
(as part of separate research into Luna's 1560 detachment
sent to Coosa in northwest Georgia, conducted with the
Coosawattee Foundation, Inc. in Calhoun, Ga.), a much more
complete record of the original Luna fleet is now emerging
(Table 1). Apart from the additional level of detail, the roster
of eleven ships compiled for the present study (2008) differs
somewhat from the 1995 roster (Smith et al. 1995:12), which
also contained eleven ships. When the two lists are compared,
the differences are seen to consist in the presence of three
ships on the 1995 list (San Anton, Santiago, and an unnamed
frigate) which based on present research do not appear to have
been present on the original 1559 colonial expedition, and the
absence of three ships which do (the flagship Jesus, and two
ships with identical names to others already listed in the fleet,
the San Juan de Ulua and the Santi Espiritu). Although the
financial records are indeed very difficult to sort out, detailed
re-examination of these records (particularly the lengthy audits
in legajo Contaduria 877) provides a number of clues which
clarify the situation considerably.
A first task of any reconstruction of the Luna fleet is to
determine the exact number of ships that originally sailed
with Luna on June 11, 1559, as well as the exact number
that remained in Pensacola Bay on September 19 when the
hurricane destroyed the fleet (Luna 1559; Velasco 1559b).
Two numbers are stated or implied in the existing documents:
thirteen and eleven. While Divila Padilla (1955:190, 192)
explicitly notes that thirteen vessels were selected for the
voyage, a combination of figures based on reports from
Tristan de Luna himself imply the number was actually
eleven. In his first letter to Viceroy Luis de Velasco after the
hurricane on September 24, Luna (1559) himself noted that
only three vessels survived, including "one caravel and two
barks which escaped," while a subsequent letter written to
Luna by the Viceroy stated that based on another subsequent
letter by Luna (dated September 28, and yet undiscovered), he

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

WORTH TRISTAN BE LUNA FLEET

Table 1. The Fleet of Tristan de Luna.

Urca Jesus Flagship (lost in hurricane)
Tonnage: 570 tons
Crew: 40-50 (estimated)
Owner: Francisco de Ecija
Master: Diego L6pez
Pilot: Alonso Beltrin
Notes: Leased Jan. 24, 1559 for Luna
expedition;
crew discharged Sept. 9, 1559 in Pensacola.

Galleon San Juan de Ulua Vice Flagship (lost in
hurricane)
Tonnage: not less than 220 tons
Crew: 45
Owner: Spanish Crown
Master: Pedro de Andonasgui
Pilot: Diego Perez
Notes: Bought February 22, 1559 for Luna
expedition.

Galleon San Juan de Ulua (returned before
hurricane)
Tonnage: unknown
Crew: unknown
Owner: Spanish Crown
Master: Hemrn P6rez
Pilot: Constantin de San Remo
Notes: Built for expedition;
returned to Mexico Aug. 25-Sept. 9, 1559;
crew discharged Sept. 10, 1559 in Veracruz;
led subsequent relief efforts.

Ship San Andris (lost in hurricane)
Tonnage: 492 V2 tons
Crew: 33 (estimated)
Owner: Salvador Hernmndez
Master: Alonso Moraio
Pilot: Francisco Martin
Notes: Leased Jan. 24, 1559 for Luna
expedition;
crew discharged Sept. 9, 1559 in Pensacola.

Ship Santi Espiritu (lost in hurricane)
Tonnage: unknown
Crew: 18 (estimated)
Owner: Spanish Crown
Master: Juan de Puerta
Pilot: Juan Valenciano
Notes: Bought Feb. 14, 1559 for Luna
expedition;
crew discharged Sept. 13, 1559 in
Pensacola.

Ship San Amaro (lost in hurricane)
Tonnage: 145 tons
Crew: 18 (estimated)

Owner: Felipe Boquin
Master: Christ6bal de Escobar
Pilot: Ant6n Mangera
Notes: Leased Jan. 25, 1559 for Luna
expedition;
crew discharged Sept. 13, 1559 in
Pensacola.

Ship Santa Maria de Ayuda (lost in hurricane)
Tonnage: 100 tons
Crew: 17 (estimated)
Owner: Ant6n Martin
Master: Lazaro Morel
Pilot: Ant6n Martin Cordero
Notes: Leased Jan. 23, 1559 for Luna
expedition.

Caravel Santi Espiritu (survived hurricane)
Tonnage: 242 tons
Crew: 24-25 (estimated)
Owner: Alonso Carillo
Master: Alonso Carillo
Pilot: Gonzalo Gay6n
Notes: Leased Jan. 24, 1559 for Luna
expedition.

Bark Corpus Cristi (survived hurricane)
Tonnage: unknown
Crew: 11 (estimated)
Owner: Spanish Crown
Master: Francisco de Guadalupe
Pilot: Christ6bal Rodriguez
Notes: Bought May 20, 1559 for Luna
expedition;
crew discharged Sept. 19, 1559 in
Pensacola.

Bark San Luis Aragdn (survived hurricane)
Tonnage: unknown
Crew: unknown
Owner: Spanish Crown
Master: Hemrnn Rodriguez
Pilot: Gaspar GonzAlez
Notes: Built for expedition;
returned to Mexico Sept. 29-Oct. 5, 1559.

Bark La Salvadora (lost in hurricane)
Tonnage: unknown
Crew: 10 (est.)
Owner: Spanish Crown
Master: Vicente Femrnndez
Pilot: Vicente Femrndez
Notes: Built for expedition;
crew discharged Sept. 11, 1559 in
Pensacola.

WORTH

TRISTAN DE LUNA FLEET

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

summed up a total of seven vessels that were lost, including
"five topsail ships, with the galleon of Andonaguin [sic] and
one of the barks" (Velasco 1559b). Given Velasco's (1559a,
1559b) specific reference to the fact that one of the ships (the
new galleon San Juan de Ulua) in the original fleet had been
dispatched back to Veracruz shortly after the landing, adding
this absent ship to the total of seven ships which were lost and
three ships which survived results in a total of eleven ships
in Luna's original fleet. Since both these figures were based
on Tristan de Luna's own firsthand written accounts dating to
within nine days of the hurricane itself, they must be given
priority over the much later recollection of thirteen ships in
Divila Padilla's account.
Fortunately, detailed account records for the expedition
provide additional confirmation of the number of ships that
likely accompanied Luna's colonial fleet, as well as their
identities, owners, officers, and crew in some cases (Ybarra
1564; Yugoyen 1569; Childers 1999a, 1999b). Individual
entries exist for many specific payments, among which are
(1) purchase prices and contract rentals for existing privately-
owned ships that were acquired for the expedition, (2)
construction expenses associated with building several new
ships for the expedition, or for outfitting and repairing older
vessels, and (3) salaries for pilots, masters, and other officers
and crew, including partial payments in advance, and cash
issued for final salary payment upon vessel unloading and crew

discharge (see selections in Table 2). Importantly, each entry
generally included not just the date, amount, and recipient of
the payment, but also at least some brief description of the
purpose of the payment, including details such as when service
was rendered or work was performed, and for what purpose.
For this reason, careful review of the account section dedicated
to the expenses of the Luna expedition allows a relatively
detailed portrait of the fleet to be constructed, including all
eleven of the vessels indicated in Table 1.
Several key points should be emphasized here. First,
ships were generally identified by both name and master (or
owner), normally making it possible to distinguish between
two vessels with the same name. In addition, pilots were also
regularly singled out among other officers and crew, providing
yet another distinguishing feature for some entries, or sets of
entries. As a result of these facts, once all entries had been
reviewed for the entire account, only eleven ships stood
out with a consistent series of payments that reflected their
participation in the original colonization voyage of Tristan de
Luna between June 11 and September 19 (when all but four of
the original vessels were destroyed). Of these eleven vessels,
two pairs had identical names, including the royal galleon San
Juan de Ulua originally owned by Pedro de Andonasgui (who
sold the ship to the Spanish Crown but nonetheless remained
as master) and the newly-constructed royal galleon San Juan
de Ulua (master Hemrnin P6rez), as well as the privately-

Table 2. Selected expense records for Luna fleet (based on Ybarra 1564).

Before June 11 departure

January 23-25, 1559: Leases initiated for urca Jesuis, caravel Santi Espiritu, and ships San
Andres, San Amaro, and Santa Maria de Ayuda.

February 14, 1559: Purchase of ship Santi Espiritu.

February 22, 1559: Purchase of galleon San Juan de Ulua.

May 20, 1559: Purchase of bark Corpus Cristi.

May 30-31, 1559: Crews paid half in advance for 8 vessels.

June 7-9, 1559: Leases paid for 5 vessels above, half in advance; advance pay issued for crews of
6 vessels.

June 9, 1559: Pilots paid half-salary in advance, for 11 ships.

After August 14 arrival

September 9, 1559: Crews of urca Jestis and ship San Andres discharged at Ochuse after
offloading.

September 10, 1559: Crew of galleon San Juan de Ulua discharged in Veracruz.

September 11, 1559: Crew of bark La Salvadora discharged at Ochuse after offloading.

September 13, 1559: Crews of ships Santi Espiritu and San Amaro discharged at Ochuse after
offloading.

September 19, 1559: Crew of bark Corpus Christi discharged at Ochuse after offloading; at
night, hurricane strikes fleet.

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

WORTH TRISTAN DE LUNA FLEET

owned caravel Santi Espiritu (master Alonso Carrillo) and the
recently-purchased royal ship by the same name (master Juan
de Puerta). Multiple independent payment entries for all four
of these vessels confirm their distinct identities.
The final Luna fleet was comprised of a total of six
royally-owned vessels and five privately-owned vessels, all
the latter of which were leased between January 23 and 25,
1559. Three of the six royal vessels were bought specifically
for the Luna expedition, on February 14 and 22, and May 20.
The other three royal vessels were specifically constructed in
a shipyard at the port of San Juan de Ulua at Veracruz, and for
which there are numerous payment entries in the Luna account
between the fall of 1558 and the spring of 1559. Notably,
however, there were actually four vessels built there for the
Luna expedition: the galleon San Juan de Ulua, the barks San
Luis Aragon and La Salvadora, and also an unnamed frigate,
for all of which there are numerous entries for payments
related to construction. Curiously, only a single expedition-
related payment was ever recorded for this frigate: an advance
payment on June 9 of half the anticipated salary for Bernardo
Peloso, pilot of the "new frigate" under master Juan Martin.
Since all other vessels are documented to have had different
pilots and different masters on the Luna expedition, this does
not appear simply to be a mistranscription by the auditor
or notary. It was indeed a distinct vessel, almost certainly
identical to the one built at San Juan de Ulua for the Luna
expedition. Nevertheless, no other salary payments of any sort
were recorded for this vessel in association with the original
Luna expedition. All eleven vessels in Table 1 have multiple
salary payment entries explicitly stated to be for Luna's June
fleet, but the anonymous "new frigate," which had clearly
been built alongside three other vessels that actually did make
the voyage, does not appear at all in the financial records
beyond this one advance payment. Apparently, the vessel did
not accompany the fleet when it departed, since nobody was
ever paid for actual service rendered on this vessel, in contrast
to all others.
One possible explanation may lie in the fact that despite the
purchase and rental of seven privately-owned vessels between
January 23 and February 22, 1559, and the construction
of four additional vessels throughout that same fall, winter,
and spring, as late as May 20, just three weeks before the
expedition departed, an additional privately-owned bark, the

Corpus Christi, was purchased for the Luna expedition. Since
the royally-constructed vessels must have all been complete
or nearly complete by that time, it is entirely possible that the
"new frigate" was experiencing construction delays, or was
somehow deemed unfit for the voyage, forcing the last-minute
purchase of the Corpus Christi in order to fill in the gap and
bring the fleet up to a total of eleven ships. While this does
not explain the extraneous salary advance to pilot Bernardo
Peloso (unless the ship was anticipated to be ready to sail upon
completion, even though it never did), it certainly provides
one possible explanation for the late purchase of the Corpus
Christi, and the eventual absence of the "new frigate." Perhaps
not coincidentally, in the latter of the two account audits for
the Luna expedition expenses (Ybarra 1569), among other
items sold off at auction as "unused" from the Luna expedition
was an unnamed "frigate belonging to His Majesty." There is
no way to demonstrate that this was the same vessel, but the
coincidence is nonetheless striking.
With the composition of the fleet relatively well-
established, the task remains to elaborate additional details
regarding each vessel. The vessel-type of each ship in the
fleet is generally consistent in the payment records, although
certain designations (navio, and nao, for example) seem to
have been relatively interchangeable. The capitana (flagship)
of the fleet was the massive urca (storeship) named Jesuts,
while the almiranta (vice-flagship) was the older galleon San
Juan de Ulua. These two ships had sailed together before as
merchant vessels in the trans-Atlantic fleet of General Pedro
de las Roelas, which had sailed from Spain to Veracruz
between February 1 and May 23, 1558 (Chaunu and Chaunu
1955:552; Ybarra 1564; see also the full passenger list for the
Jesus in Paz 1558). The remainder of the fleet consisted of
another galleon, a large caravel, four naos or navios (a generic
designation for transport/cargo vessels), and three small barks
barcass). The diverse composition of the fleet reflected both
the expedient nature of the vessel construction, selection, and
acquisition process during the previous year, as well as the
diverse needs of the colonizing fleet, which would be called
upon both for cargo and passenger transport, as well as for
shallow-draft exploration duty in bays and rivers.
The exact sizes of the vessels are documented for only five
of the eleven vessels, and then only because the monthly rental
rate of the leased vessels was based on tonnage (Table 3). The

Table 3. Tonnage and crew information for the Luna fleet.
Ship (master) Tonnage Monthly Crew Salary Crew Size
galleon San Juan de Ulua (Andonasgui) -500-600 273-277 ducats 45
new royal galleon San Juan de Ulua (Perez) ? ? ?
urca Jesus (Ecija) 570 249-306 ducats 40-50 (est.)
nao San Andrds (Morafio) 492 203 ducats 33 (est.)
nao Santi Espiritu (Puerta) -100-150 113 ducats 18 (est.)
navio San Amaro (Escobar) 145 108 ducats 18 (est.)
navio Santa Maria de Ayuda (Morel) 100 104 ducats 17 (est.)
caravel Santi Espiritu (Carillo) 242 149-152 ducats 24-25 (est.)
barca Corpus Christi (Guadalupe) -50-70 68 ducats 11 (est.)
barca San Luis Aragon (Rodriguez) ? ? ?
barca La Salvadora (Femrnndez) -50-70 62 ducats 10 (est.)

WORTH

TRISTkN DE LUNA FLEET

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

vessels ranged widely in size, extending from the moderately-
sized 100-ton Santa Maria de Ayuda to the immense 570-ton
Jesus. Neither galleon has tonnage figures, nor do all three of
the barks and one of the naos. For this reason, only estimates
can presently be provided. Since at present no records have
been identified which give direct clues as to the relative size
of these vessels, an indirect method was employed to provide
hypothetical figures based on reconstructed crew size, for
which relatively good information exists. As can be seen in
Table 3, for most of the vessels in the Luna fleet it is possible
to calculate an average monthly pay rate for the entire crew of
the vessel. Although specific breakdowns of crew composition
and individual pay rates are generally not provided, in one case
they are, for the almiranta of the fleet, the galleon San Juan
de Ulua. Using this and a few other contemporary pay lists in
the same audits (to fill in gaps), it is possible to reconstruct a
typical scale of pay for the officers and crew of Spanish vessels
such as those used in the Luna fleet (Table 4). Since most of
the crew was comprised of sailors, who were paid at a rate of
6 ducats per month, or less in the case of ship's boys or cabin
boys, the larger salaries of higher-ranking officers (such as the
ship's master, generally paid 16 ducats per month) does not
significantly raise the average per-capita salary rate for crews,
which in the case of the San Juan de Ulua is roughly 6.15
ducats per month. This average figure, then, was used to divide
the documented total crew pay per month into a very rough
estimate of the total crew size (Table 3).
These figures were then used to generate a chart plotting
known tonnage (for five ships) against the estimated and known
crew complements of these ships (Figure 1). The resultant
configuration of this chart seemed to demonstrate a prior
assumption regarding the relationship between tonnage and
crew size, namely that larger vessels generally required larger
crews, but that there was a minimum crew that could effectively
operate a sailing vessel of any size larger than a bark. In other
words, the "curve" demonstrating the relationship between
tonnage and crew size was not necessarily linear, nor did it
trend directly toward the "zero" point of crew size. Finally, this
chart was used to permit a tentative placement of additional
"data points" representing the four ships for which no tonnage
figures have been found, but for which crew size estimates
were calculated. The resulting chart, while based on multiple
layers of estimates, nonetheless provides a broad overview of
some nine of eleven ships comprising Tristan de Luna's 1559
colonial fleet. The remaining two vessels, including the new
galleon San Juan de Ulua and the new bark San Luis Aragdn,
both survived the hurricane, and thus their absence does not
hinder the potential usefulness of this chart for characterizing
the possible array of Luna shipwrecks somewhere in Pensacola
Bay (beyond the two already discovered).
Using this chart, it is now possible to suggest that Luna's
fleet was minimally comprised of six smaller vessels less than
150 tons in size (including the five ships noted in Figure 1 as
well as the bark San Luis Arag6n, which was doubtless also
within this size category), at least three larger vessels between
450 and 600 tons in size, and at least one mid-sized vessel in-
between the two groupings. The newly-constructed San Juan
de Ulua was probably also in this mid-sized category, though

Table 4. Reconstructed pay rates for the Luna expedition
(based on Ybarra 1564 and Yugoyen 1569).

Master
Ship's Clerk
Boatswain
Steward
Notary
Diver
Lombardero
Carpenter
Water Bailiff
Artilleryman
Caulker
Sailor
Ship's Boy
Cabin Boy

16 ducats per month
12-15 ducats per month
12 ducats per month
12 ducats per month
12 ducats per month
12 ducats per month
10 ducats per month
9-12 ducats per month
8 ducats per month
7 '/2 ducats per month
6 ducats per month
6 ducats per month
3 to 4 ducats per month
3 to 4 ducats per month

it might also have been larger. The implications of these
conclusions for past and ongoing underwater archaeological
work at the Emanuel Point I and II wrecks are relatively
straightforward: Emanuel Point I seems to have been one of
the larger vessels, while Emanuel Point II was likely one of
the smaller vessels. Based in larger part on the reconstructed
configuration of the Emanuel Point I vessel as a large galleon
which had been used previously, the most likely candidate
for this wreck is the San Juan de Ulua captained by Pedro
de Andonasgui (Collis 2008). The Emanuel Point II wreck
could be any one of the three largest vessels in the smaller size
category, including the Santi Espiritu, the San Amaro, and the
Santa Maria de Ayuda, all of which had been previously-used
by private merchants. In any case, it certainly was not the sole
bark that was lost, particularly since the La Salvadora was a
new vessel, and because of its size it may indeed have been
the one described by Davila Padilla (1955:194-195) as having
floated inland to be discovered completely intact within a
forest.
Additional research into these and other possible
documentary sources relative to the Luna expedition is clearly
warranted, particularly in order to explore and elaborate
upon the cargo that was loaded onto the Luna vessels, as
well as their crew and passengers. Since eight of the eleven
Luna expedition ships had seen previous usage, additional
documentation may well surface regarding their previous
histories. In addition, similar documentation may also exist
for one or more of the four surviving vessels during the years
after the Luna expedition, possibly providing insight into the
ships and their standard crew complements. Ultimately, the
comparatively voluminous documentary record of the Luna
expedition represents a remarkable opportunity to combine
archaeological and historical data in new and creative ways,
augmenting what can be learned from the archaeological
investigation of the wrecks off Emanuel Point.

Tracking the Luna Hurricane

Given that the locations oftwo ofTristdn de Luna's doomed
vessels are now known, and archaeological investigations

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

THF FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

60

KEY lost survived
documented tonnage E I
50 interpreted tonnage 0 0

MgJesus
San Juan de Ulua
40

Crew 30 *San Andres

Sancti Espiritus
20 -
2 ,San Amaro
Santa Maria Sancti Espiritus

10 ID Corpus Cristi
La Salvadora

I I I I I I
100 200 300 400 500 600

Tonnage

Figure 1. Reconstructed tonnage and crew size for the Luna fleet vessels.

have revealed and are continuing to reveal details about the
exact circumstances of their grounding and destruction on
the sandbar off Emanuel Point, historical details regarding
the storm that destroyed Luna's fleet have become even more
important, not only with respect to the circumstances of the
wrecking event for the two known ships, but also with respect
to the continuing search for the five other vessels known to
have been lost during the same storm. A great deal is now
known about the behavior of tropical cyclones such as the one
that was undoubtedly responsible for the devastation of the
Luna fleet, including not just their movement and tracks, but
also the effects of wind circulation, tides, and storm surges. For
this reason, a more detailed examination of the documentary
record of the Luna storm was undertaken as a part of the
present research.
The few brief mentions of the storm that destroyed
Luna's fleet in published translations have long been known
to scholars (e.g., Priestley 1928:I:xxxvi) and provide only a
few details of specific relevance to tracking the storm, though
in retrospect, one now seems crucial. As related by Tristan de
Luna himself in his initial report to the King, "During the night
of the nineteenth of this month of September, there arose from
the north a fierce storm which, running for twenty-four hours
with winds in all [directions] up to the same hour that it began,
not ceasing but instead always increasing" (Luna y Arellano
1559). The later Divila Padilla account (likely derived from
or even partially written by eyewitness Fray Domingo de la
Anunciaci6n) noted that "On the twentieth of August [sic],

... there began the most terrible storm, and the wildest north
wind that man has ever seen" (Divila Padilla 1955:194). Other
eyewitness accounts are generally less specific, noting only the
strength of the storm, such as that in testimony by expedition
survivor Alonso de Montalban (1561), who stated that "...
within twenty or twenty-five days, a little more or less, there
struck a hurricane, which was a very great storm ...." Using
all these accounts, several basic facts about the storm emerge.
First, the storm began at night on September 19, and
apparently without sufficient warning to allow much, if any,
significant preparation. This suggests the storm was likely
moving fast. Second, the storm lasted approximately twenty-
four hours (through September 20), during which Luna
personally noted that the winds shifted directions, apparently
coming from "all" directions during the course of the storm.
Apart from confirming that the storm was probably fast-
moving, this description also suggests that the storm was
indeed a tropical cyclone, most likely a hurricane, and that its
eye probably passed over or very close to Pensacola Bay itself,
accounting for the notable shifts in wind direction. Third, and
perhaps most importantly for our purposes here, the storm was
specifically noted by Luna himself to have begun with winds
out of the north, a fact that is confirmed by the Divila Padilla
narrative as well. Given the velocity and strength of the storm,
and the fact that the winds began out of the north, the counter-
clockwise rotation of a hurricane would strongly suggest that
the storm moved into Pensacola bay generally from the east,
since approaches from the south or west would have begun

WORTH

TRISTAN DE LUNA FLEET

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

with winds out of the east or south, respectively, not from the
north.
This fact was brought home to me most vividly by the
approach of Tropical Storm Fay during late August 2008,
which was coincidentally during the period when I was
conducting documentary research for the Luna project. Just
as would be expected, as the storm approached from the
east-southeast, wind speed began to pick up out of the north,
increasing in velocity as the storm moved westward toward
Pensacola Bay. Although (thankfully) Fay failed to maintain
its strength and organization, and had only minimal impact in
Pensacola, the passage of this storm prompted me to review
historical storm tracks for Pensacola (focusing on the month of
September) based on records from the U.S. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (2009). Based on available
documentation regarding westward-moving September
hurricanes with major impact on Pensacola Bay, one storm
stood out: the "Great Miami Hurricane" of 1926 (e.g.,
Mitchell 1926; National Weather Service 2009). Though the
eye of the storm passed just offshore to the south of Pensacola
itself, the damage to Pensacola Bay was significant, in part
due to a storm surge that was measured at 9.4 feet at the city
of Pensacola, and as high as 14 feet at Bagdad farther to the
east (Mitchell 1926:413), causing considerable devastation to
boats and shoreline structures throughout the Pensacola Bay
system. Even more significant, however, was the track of the
storm, which originated in the Atlantic and passed just north
of Puerto Rico on September 14 and 15, moving rapidly west-
northwest to devastate Miami on September 18, and finally
stalling off Pensacola on September 20 before moving inland to
the northwest. The Great Miami Hurricane therefore represents
a good example of a westward-moving major hurricane that
impacted Pensacola Bay in the month of September.
Using this storm as a model, I hypothesized that it was
possible, though perhaps improbable, that the storm which
Luna experienced on September 19-20, 1559 might have had a
similar track, and thus mighthave impacted Spanish settlements
in the northern Caribbean during the previous week. The fast-
moving Great Miami Hurricane took no more than 6 days
to traverse the distance between Puerto Rico and Pensacola,
suggesting that if Luna's hurricane followed a similar track,
Spanish documentation from Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, or
Cuba might possibly make reference to such a storm during
the days and week preceding September 19, unless the storm
took a more northerly track across the Florida peninsula,
as-yet unsettled by Spaniards. Starting with the most likely
candidate, I began to review gubernatorial correspondence
from the Governor of San Juan del Puerto Rico, Diego de
Carasa, during the weeks and months following the Luna
storm, many of which are available online at the website of the
Archivo General de Indias in Seville, Spain. Fortunately, I was
rewarded almost immediately with a pivotal clue in a letter
from Carasa to the Spanish Crown dated October 15, 1559, in
which he made note of the fact that "... on this past twelfth of
September, there came a storm that carried off everything [the
people] had in the countryside... [such that] nothing remained
to eat, and great hunger is being experienced." While it is
impossible to be absolutely certain that this is the same storm,

given all available evidence, it seems likely that the storm
which struck Puerto Rico on September 12, 1559 was the same
storm that struck Pensacola Bay from the east on September
19, 1559. Taking only a day longer than the 1926 Great Miami
Hurricane to traverse the same distance, the Luna storm may
be hypothesized to have moved west-northwest from Puerto
Rico, traversing the Bahamas to cross the southern Florida
peninsula before emerging into the northeastern Gulf of
Mexico, regaining strength as it zeroed in on Pensacola Bay,
where Luna's unwitting fleet lay at anchor. A victim of tragic
misfortune, Luna was of course unaware of the devastation
wrought seven days earlier on the island of Puerto Rico, falling
victim to an historic hurricane that would change the fate of
Spain in Florida forever.
While the implications of this hypothetical storm track
remain to be explored more fully, and may only be known once
(and if) additional Luna wrecks are identified by continuing
archaeological survey, it is tempting to speculate that a fast-
moving hurricane out of the east or east-southeast might first
have drawn down the water levels in Pensacola Bay as a result
of the strong north wind documented by both Luna and Divila
Padilla (not coincidentally just as Tropical Storm Fay did on
a smaller scale in 2008), subsequently followed by a rapid in-
filling of the bay system as a result of the incoming storm surge
(such as that experienced during the Great Miami Hurricane in
1926), as well as the abrupt shift of the winds out of the south
upon the passage ofthe storm's eye. Though purely speculative,
such a scenario might first leave Luna's largest ships initially
grounded at anchor during the storm's final approach (and thus
unable to move), followed by a catastrophic surge of water
from the south which pushed at least one vessel some distance
inland, leaving the rest (and presumably the largest) broken
and irretrievably embedded in the shallow sediments of the
bay's northern shore. Though this is just one among several
possible alternatives, it could provide one explanation for the
fact that the two known Luna wrecks (Emanuel Point I and II)
were both run aground in the same general orientation along
the same shallow sandbar on the northern margin of lower
Pensacola Bay. Whether or not they began their experience
with the storm at anchor in this same general vicinity, they
may both ultimately have been rammed into these shallower
waters by the same storm surge that presumably accompanied
the fast-moving 1559 storm. Among the biggest remaining
questions is whether these wrecks are located near the original
anchorage for the Luna fleet, or whether they were dispersed
from another location. Only further archaeological and
documentary research may provide an answer, but in the final
analysis, careful reconstruction of the Luna fleet, as well as
the storm that destroyed it, will provide the kind of detailed
contextual information that brings further light to a poorly-
known chapter of Florida's earliest colonial history.

References Cited

Carasa, Diego de
1559 Letter to the Spanish Crown, October 15, 1559.
Archivo General de Indias, Santo Domingo 155,
Ramo 5, No. 22.

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

WORTH TRISTAN DE LUNA FLEET

Chaunu, Huguette, and Pierre Chaunu
1955 Siville et l'Atlantique (1504-1650), Premiere Partie:
Partie Statistique, Le movement des navires et des
marchandises entire l 'Espagne et l'Amerique, de 1504
& 1650, Tome II, Le Trafic, de 1504 a 1560. Libraire
Armand Colin, Paris.

Childers, R. Wayne
1999a Translation of Ybarra (1564), September 5, 1999.
Manuscript on file, Archaeology Institute, University
of West Florida, Pensacola.
1999b Translation of Yugoyen (1569), October 18, 1999.
Manuscript on file, Archaeology Institute, University
of West Florida, Pensacola.

Collis, James Daniel
2008 Empire 's Reach: A Structural and Historical Analysis
of the Emanuel Point Shipwreck. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Divila Padilla, Agustin
1955 Historia de la Fundaci6n y Discurso de la Provincia
de Santiago de M6xico de la Orden de Predicadores.
Editorial Academia Literaria, Mexico City (originally
published 1596).

Gonzalez de Barcia Carballido y Zufiiga, Andr6s
1723 Ensayo Cronol6gico para la Historia General de la
Florida. NicolAs Rodriguez Franco, Madrid.

Hudson, Charles, Marvin T. Smith, Chester B. DePratter, and
Emilia Kelley
1989 The Tristan de Luna Expedition, 1559-1561.
Southeastern Archaeology 8(1): 31-45.

Lakey, Denice C.
1994 A Proposal for Documentary Research: The Tristan
de Luna y Arellano Expedition to Florida. Proposal
submitted to Historic Pensacola Preservation
Board, October 7. Manuscript on file, Department
of Anthropology, University of West Florida,
Pensacola.
1995 Interim Report, Search for Documentary Sources,
Tristan de Luna y Arellano Expedition. Report
submitted to Historic Pensacola Preservation Board,
December 21. Manuscript on file, Department
of Anthropology, University of West Florida,
Pensacola.

Lowery, Woodbury
1901 The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits
of the United States, 1513-1561. The Knickerbocker
Press, New York.

Luna y Arellano, TristAn de
1559 Letter to the Spanish Crown, September 24, 1559.
Archivo General de Indias, Patronato 179, No. 5,

Ramo 1. Transcription/translation in Priestly (1928:
II, 243-247).

Mitchell, Charles L.
1926 The West Indian Hurricane of September 14-22,
1926. Monthly Weather Review 54(10): 409-414.
Online copy hosted by the Atlantic Oceanographic
and Meteorological Laboratory, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration at http://www.aoml.
noaa.gov/general/lib/libl/nhclib/mwreviews/1926.
pdf.

Montalban, Alonso de
1561 Testimony regarding the Luna expedition, August 11,
1561. In Ybarra (1561).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
2008 Realtime data from Station PCLF1 8729840 -
Pensacola, Fl., August 21-23, 2008. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, National Data Buoy
Center. Electronic document, http://www.ndbc.noaa.
gov/stationpage.php?station=PCLF 1.
2009 Historical Hurricane Tracks. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Services
Center. Electronic document, http://csc-s-maps-q.csc.
noaa.gov/hurricanes/index.jsp.

National Weather Service
2009 Memorial Web Page for the 1926 Great Miami
Hurricane. National Weather Service, Weather
Forecast Office, Miami, Florida. Electronic document,
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mfl/?n=miami hurricane.

Paz, Sancho de
1558 List of passengers on the ship Jeszus, January 22,
1558. Archivo General de Indias, Contrataci6n 5219,
No.1, Ramo 11.

Priestly, Herbert Ingram
1928 The Luna Papers 1559-1561: Volumes I & II. Eighth
Edition. Florida State Historical Society, Deland.
1936 Tristan de Luna: Conquistador of the Old South: A
Study of Spanish Imperial Strategy. Arthur H. Clark
Co., Glendale, California.
2010 The Luna Papers 1559-1561: Volumes I & II. Edited
by John E. Worth, University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.

Shea, John Gilmary
1886 Ancient Florida. Chapter IV in Narrative and Critical
History ofAmerica, edited by Justin Winsor, pp. 231-
297, Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, New York.

Smith, Roger C., James Spirek, John Bratten, and Della Scott-
Ireton
1995 The Emanuel Point Ship: Archaeological
Investigations, 1992-1995. Florida Department of

WORTH

TRISTkN DE LUNA FLEET

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

State, Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Smith, Roger C., John R. Bratten, J. Cozzi, and Keith Plaskett
1998 The Emanuel Point Ship: Archaeological
Investigations, 1997-1998. Report of Investigations,
No. 68, Archaeology Institute, University of West
Florida, Pensacola.

Velasco, Luis de
1559a Letter to the Spanish Crown, [September 24?].
Archivo General de Indias, Patronato 19, Ramo 9.
Incomplete transcription/translation in Priestly (1928:
II, 270-276).
1559b Letter to Tristan de Luna y Arellano, October
25. Archivo General de Indias, Justicia 1013.
Transcription/translation in Priestly (1928:1, 56-79).

Ybarra, Hortuhio de
1561 Interrogation of soldiers from the Luna expedition,
August 11-12, 1561. Archivo General de Indias,
Patronato 19, Ramo 10.
1564 Audit of the accounts of Pedro de Yebra, Deputy
Treasurer of Veracruz, November 4, 1559 August
31, 1563. Archivo General de Indias, Contaduria 877.
Translation in Childers (1999a).

Yugoyen, Martin de
1569 Audit of the accounts of Alonso Ortiz de Urrutia,
Deputy Treasurer of Veracruz, March 21, 1554
January 31, 1559 (and through November 4,
1559). Archivo General de Indias, Contaduria 877.
Translation in Childers (1999b).

LUNA'S SHIPS: CURRENT EXCAVATION ON EMANUEL POINT II AND
PRELIMINARY COMPARISONS WITH THE FIRST EMANUEL POINT SHIPWRECK

GREGORY D. COOK

Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida 32514
Email: gcookl@uwf edu

The Emanuel Point II (8ES3345) Investigations

Archaeologists and students from the University of
West Florida (UWF) have now conducted three seasons of
excavation on Emanuel Point II, the second ship discovered
from the 1559 fleet of Don TristAn de Luna y Arellano. Along
with hundreds of artifacts, portions of the hull have been
exposed, providing insight into the construction of this ship and
the overall site extents. Considering two vessels from the Luna
expedition have now been identified, and that the possibility
exists for the discovery of additional vessels associated with
the expedition, an unprecedented opportunity exists to study
this single sixteenth-century Spanish colonization fleet.
The Emanuel Point II shipwreck was one of several
magnetic anomalies initially investigated as part of UWF's
maritime archaeology field school in the summer of 2006. The
ten-week field school typically involves the investigation of
one or two known abandoned or wrecked vessels, along with
remote-sensing survey and diver investigation of anomalies.
These activities combine hull recording and site assessment
tasks, providing students with real-world skills in basic
nautical archaeology, with the potential that other significant
historic underwater sites may be discovered (Figure 1).
Most activities focus on Pensacola Bay and nearby rivers;
thus, diving conditions generally involve shallow water with
limited visibility. To prepare students for these conditions, they
undergo a week of training prior to the beginning of field school
that includes instruction in UWF diving procedures, compass
navigation, conducting searches in low visibility, underwater
assembly ofthe water induction dredge, underwater excavation
procedures, underwater communications, hull recording, and
artifact processing. After receiving this training on the surface
and in UWF's natatorium, students are tested in open water
conditions in Pensacola Bay. By the end of the ten week field
course, students are well versed in conducting scientific diving
in challenging conditions.
One of the more demanding tasks undertaken by field
school participants involves the investigation of underwater
magnetic and sonar anomalies. This typically involves a two-
person dive team, who descend on GPS coordinates of the
particular anomaly located during survey. Divers must "task-
load" to maintain neutral buoyancy while swimming the circle
search and monitoring their air and time underwater, while
also probing or using the metal detector to find the source of
the anomaly. Anomalies are assigned target numbers based

on whether they constitute magnetometer, a side scan sonar,
or sub-bottom sonar "hit," and then a numeric designation is
assigned based on the number of targets in a particular area.
During the course of magnetometer survey in 2006, the
survey crews located numerous anomalies in the same depth
range as the first Emanuel Point shipwreck. Near the end of the
field season, student divers conducted a routine circle-search
investigation of a small anomaly designated as EPM- 17, or the
seventeenth magnetic target in the Emanuel Point survey area.
They almost immediately began finding compelling evidence
that another early ship had been found.
Preliminary assessment of EPM-17 revealed the presence
of an almost completely submerged ballast pile measuring at
least 14 m in length. Fragments of lead strips that had been
tacked over the vessel's outer hull planking (identical to those
found on the Emanuel Point I ship) were also located along with
concreted iron fasteners, Spanish olive jar sherds, and one sherd
of tin-glazed pottery identified as Columbia Plain majolica.
Test excavations conducted in the fall of 2006 exposed intact
hull timbers below the ballast in two areas. Of particular note,
divers recorded the presence of filler pieces fitted between
frames and on the upper limits of ceiling planking, which
have been noted on several other sixteenth-century Iberian
wreck sites (Oertling 2001:234). UWF conducted additional
excavations on the site from 2007 to 2009 as part of the
underwater archaeology field methods course. This work has
helped define the site extents and confirm the vessel's origins
and historical associations with Luna and northwest Florida's
first European settlers.
UWF archaeologists and students excavated 38 lx1 meter
units on the site, conforming generally to the bow, amidships,
and stem areas of the vessel (Figure 2). Provenience is
maintained through the use of an arbitrary coordinate system,
based on a datum point defined as 100 North, 500 East. The
northeast comer of each excavation unit designated appropriate
coordinates relating to this datum. The datum is referenced to
real-world coordinates by plotting its location with a global
positioning system on the surface. A baseline oriented north-
south provides additional reference for divers, and aids in site
navigation during low visibility conditions.
Once the ship was verified as dating to the sixteenth
century through test excavations, the research design for the
past three summers has involved a Phase II strategy, including
establishing the site extents, recording the limits of hull
preservation, determining whether there is cultural material

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

VOL. 62(3-4)

SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2009

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

Figure 1. Graduate student supervisor Bill Neal recording artifact positions in an excavation grid on Emanuel Point II.

outside the hull in a debris field or scatter area, and assessing
the general integrity of the hull. Targeted areas for excavation
during the summers of 2007 and 2008 included the middle
and northern end of the hull. Divers investigated the midships
area by excavating a trench across the site (Figures 3 and
4), revealing portions of the vessel's keelson, frames, filler
planks, outer hull planking, and ceiling planking. Excavations
in the bow revealed the keel where it would have attached or
"scarfed" to the stem (which is missing), a collapsed section
of the port bow composed of frames, outer hull and ceiling
planking, and a fragmentary knee timber. Most of the work
conducted in 2009 centered on the southern extent of the site,
which exposed the intact sternpost and gudgeon straps (part
of the hinge assembly which allowed the vessel's rudder to
function). This discovery allowed archaeologists to verify the
orientation (bow and stem) of the ship. Exposure of the stem
structure also provides key information about the shape of the
hull at the "run" of the vessel, where it narrows significantly
near the stempost, and about the stempost construction itself.
No evidence of the rudder has been found to date, however, it
likely lies nearby, broken off during the hurricane.
Scantlings from these timbers were compared to the
Emanuel Point I ship and are noted in Table 1. With the

placement of other units and extensive probing of the site,
archaeologists determined that the preserved hull measures
approximately 20 m in length with a maximum width of 5 m.
UWF divers also conducted a metal detector survey of the site,
finding a considerable number of hits outside the hull that may
represent a spill area where the ship broke apart during the
hurricane, but this will require further investigation to verify.

Bow Structure

Investigations in 2008 revealed two meters of the forward-
most portion of the keel, including the vertical scarf where it
would have attached to the (missing) stem. The top surface
of the keel measures 20 cm sided, and the rabbets extend out
5 cm on each side, making the maximum sided measurement
30 cm'. The bottom of the keel appears somewhat rounded,
possibly resulting from wear and tear of previous voyages in
the vessel's life, or due to the impact of the vessel with the
sand bottom where it grounded during the 1559 hurricane. The
molded height of the keel measures 27 cm. Divers noted lead
sheathing on the side of the keel and running along the rabbet.
A wood sample recovered from the top surface of the keel
has been identified as belonging to the white oak anatomical

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

104N 5 45 8N
499E 499E
Fo- f T- 4-

_J

F 7
I

-'5,4

H
L J

- -
I P
L___

L -
L _ l -

0 1 2 3 4 5
Meters
0 5 10 15
Feet
o Ballast Stone
+ Metal Anomaly

104N 8 4N
481E __ 481E
+ +

Figure 2. Site plan of Emanuel Point II, showing excavated
Cook, Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida.

Table 1. Scantling comparisons from the Emanuel Point
wrecks.

Emanuel Point I* Emanuel Point II
Preserved hull length: 34.6 Preserved hull length: 23 meters
meters

Keel Keel
29 cm molded, 27 cm molded,
31 cm sided 30 cm sided

Keelson Keelson
34 cm molded, 15 cm molded,
22 cm sided 20 cm sided
Frames Frames
16 cm molded, 16-18 cm molded,
19-22 cm sided 18-22 cm sided
41-45 cm on center spacing 40-45 cm on center spacing
Hull Planking Hull Planking
5.5 cm x 25 cm 5.5 cm x 23 cm

Ceiling Planking Ceiling Planking
6 cm x 19 cm 5 cm x 19 cm
Lead sheathing present Lead sheathing present

Data from Emanuel Point I (Smith et al. 1998:32, 34, 61).

areas in the bow, midships and stern. Drawing by Gregory

group, genus Quercus (Lee Newsom, personal communication
2008).
Although the stem was not articulated to the keel, divers
did note a vertical scarf that would have joined the two timbers.
The type of vertical joint that would have secured these two
timbers has been noted on other contemporary sites, such as
the wreck of the Basque whaling vessel San Juan which sank
in Labrador in 1565 (Loewen 2007). While the distal end of
the scarf shows considerable erosion, the preserved length of
the scarf extends approximately 40 cm from the forward end of
the keel. Two iron fasteners were driven horizontally through
the scarf to attach the stem, and two additional fasteners were
driven down at an angle from the top of the timber inward
where they would have entered the stem.
Metal detector surveys suggested that significant material
lay to the west or port side, of the foremost extent of the site,
and several test excavation units were conducted in this area.
This produced intact hull remains that were relatively shallow
and poorly preserved, representing fragmented frames and
outer hull planking of what is presumed to be the port bow
of the vessel. Concreted fasteners and numerous narrow
Spanish bricks, or ladrillos, were recovered from this area.
While more work remains to be done in this portion of the
site, the missing stem and disarticulated bow section suggest

COOK

HULL ANALYSIS OF EMANUEL POINT II

TH LRD NHOOOGS 09VL 234

S. Stanchion
for supporting deck structure

Figure 3. The midships trench on Emanuel Point II. Drawing by Gregory Cook, Archaeology Institute, University of
West Florida.

Figure 4. Profile of the hull at the midships trench. Drawing by Gregory Cook, Archaeology Institute, University of West
Florida.

C~J.

0 1
Meter

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

COOK HULL ANXLi SIS OF EXIANL ii PoINT II

considerable trauma to this area of the hull due to the 1559
hurricane event.

Midships Area

The midline trench excavated in the summer and fall
of 2007 provided a detailed look at the midships area of the
vessel and exposed well-preserved timbers that extend more
than I in below the top layer of ballast. On both the eastern and
western extents of the trench, divers uncovered intact frames
with filler pieces in situ, outer hull planking, five strakes of
ceiling planking on either side of the keelson, and an intact
keelson with a stanchion preserved to a height of 35 cm-.
Frames measure 18-22 cm sided and 16-18 cm molded, with
an average spacing of 20-22 cm between frames. The filler
pieces measure 20 cm wide, 5 cm thick, and 35 cm in length
on average. Their upper inboard edges are beveled to run
smoothly with the upper surface of ceiling planks. Some were
fastened with small iron nails, while others appear simply to
be lodged in place. In general, there is a notch in the ceiling
planks where they meet filler planks to allow a snug fit. Filler
pieces have been seen on other sixteenth-century shipwrecks
(for a list, see Oertling 2001) and were evidently an attempt
by shipwrights to enclose the space created between frames
and under ceiling planking. This enclosing would thus reduce
the amount of detritus that could fall between the frames and
potentially clog movement of bilge water to pump locations.
The keelson runs along the inner centerline of the vessel,
and measures 20 cm sided and 10 cm molded from the top of
the keelson to the top of abutting ceiling planks. Since the
ceiling averages 5 cm thick, the conservative estimate for the
molded dimension ofthe keelson is 15 cm. Since keelsons were
often notched to fit over floors, it is impossible to determine
the maximum molded thickness without disassembly of the
hull structure. Archaeologists discovered the fragmented
remains of a stanchion extending from the upper surface
of the keelson near the southern wall of the midline trench.
Likely used to support the deck covering the cargo hold, this
stanchion measures 9.5 cm fore-and-aft, 14.5 cm athwartships,
and is preserved to a height of 37.5 cm above the keelson.
A 7 x 7 cm tenon at the base of the stanchion secured it to
a correspondingly-sized mortise in the top/inboard face of
the keelson, with no apparent iron fastenings to help fix it in
place.
Planking on the Emanuel Point 11 ship corresponds
closely with dimensions noted from the Emanuel Point I
investigations. Outer hull planking measures 5.5 cm thick,
and ranges from 20-25 cm in width, with an average of 23 cm.
Ceiling planking is 5 cm thick, and averages 19 cm in width.
Divers collected wood samples from several hull timbers
for species identification and comparison to the Emanuel Point
I ship. According to Lee Newsom (personal communication
2008), all timbers including ceiling, frame, keelson and
filler pieces are from the white oak anatomical group, which
has species on both sides of the Atlantic that cannot be
distinguished to species based on wood anatomy alone.

Stern Construction

Ten I x I m units in the vessel's stern provide a glimpse of
the aft structure as it approaches the sternpost. The centerline
hull structure is considerably deeper in the stern (over I m) than
the bow (20-30 cm). suggesting a considerable longitudinal
slope of the wreckage, and making it likely that the ship's
bow grounded and the vessel settled stern-downward on the
bay bottom. Divers uncovered the sternpost at the end of the
field season in 2009. Only the top portion of the sternpost
structure was exposed. Gudgeon straps were felt lower in
the sediment still attached to the stern of the vessel, and a
disarticulated gudgeon strap lay aft of the sternpost. When
studied closely, gudgeon straps can provide significant data
regarding the shape of the stern, as they were fastened securely
to the sternpost and their straps generally extended forward
in excess of a meter, providing key structural data for upper
areas of the stern construction that are no longer preserved.
The Emanuel Point II gudgeon strap is composed of heavily
concreted iron, with regularly spaced fasteners that would have
attached it to the upper stern structure of the ship. The hole
where the corresponding pintle on the rudder would have set
into the gudgeon, allowing the rudder to pivot, is concreted,
but its general shape can be felt.

Discussion

Although only small portions ofthe hull have been exposed
thus far, it appears that the Emanuel Point II ship is significantly
smaller than the Emanuel Point I ship. The preserved hull
of the latter extends 34.6 m (Smith et al. 1998:61), while
Emanuel Point II measures approximately 20 m in length. The
vessels' keels are similar in cross section; the slightly smaller
dimensions evident on the Emanuel Point II wreck may reflect
the fact that only the foremost portion of the keel was visible.
Other examples of sixteenth-century Iberian ship construction
suggest that the distal ends of the keel are often smaller than
the midships sections, thus these comparisons must remain
tentative until more of the keel is exposed in future excavations
(Loewen 2007: Smith et al. 1998:32).
The small keelson on Emanuel Point II, measuring less
than half of the larger Emanuel Point I vessel's keelson in
its molded dimension, is also indicative of a smaller vessel.
Frames and spacing are comparable, and both exhibit filler
planks between frame locations where ceiling planking begins,
as seen on several other sixteenth-century wreck sites (Oertling
2001:234). The vertical scarf that joined the keel to the stem
seems relatively weak: shipwrights allowed only 40 cm of
overlap to secure this critical joint forming the bow of the ship,
and judging by the fastener holes remaining in the keel, it was
also lightly fastened. Again, this is seen in other contemporary
sites as well: the stem/keel juncture of the 1565 Basque whaling
ship San Juan is surprisingly weak for an ocean-going vessel
(Loewen 2007).
It is clear that by 1559, Spanish shipwrights sought to
limit the impact of marine borers, such as Teredo navalis,
by applying lead sheathing below the waterline on the hulls

COOK

HULL ANALYSIS OF ENIANI FI, POINT 11

THE FLORIDA ANThROPOLOGIsT 2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

of ships sailing into warm tropical waters. This may in fact
be a chronological indicator for sixteenth-century Iberian
vessels, as they have been found on the 1554 Padre Island
vessels (Arnold and Weddle 1978:222; Rosloff and Arnold
1984:293) among others. These marine pests were seen as
early as Columbus' ventures into the New World, when three
ships were lost to leaks resulting from marine mollusks on his
fourth voyage, essentially turning ships into leaking "sieves"
(Morison 1942:634, 635). By the mid-sixteenth century,
Spanish and Portuguese shipwrights apparently experimented
with lead strips attached with small tacks in an effort to
combat this problem, and both Emanuel Point vessels exhibit
this technique.
Both vessels still contain an extensive amount of stone
ballast, though the ballast and hull of Emanuel Point 11 appear
to have been buried to a greater extent by bay sediment
than Emanuel Point 1. The top layer of ballast stone in each
case is covered by a layer of oyster shell, suggesting that at
some point, the ballast piles were more exposed than under
current conditions. Preliminary ballast studies from both
sites have been completed. Forty-six stone samples analyzed
from Emanuel Point I contain ballast that can be traced to a
Caribbean origin (Smith et al. 1998:70). For the Emanuel Point
II investigations, 43 samples were analyzed by Dr. Christopher
Kelson in the Department of Geology at SUNY Potsdam.
While most of the ballast is considered indeterminate as to
origins, several samples were identified as coming from the
Azores, Canary, or Cape Verde islands (Christopher Kelson,
personal communication 2009).
Both vessels are oriented with their bows facing toward
shore, in a north/northeast direction, and listing slightly to
the port, in 4 m of water. While the location of these two
vessels in the same vicinity may suggest that others lie nearby,
it still cannot be determined if the ships were blown to this
location by the hurricane, or grounded near their anchorage.
Any implications as to what this means relative to the landing
site of the Luna expedition is beyond the scope of this paper.
The investigations of Emanuel Point I and II ships provide a
rare glimpse of at two distinct vessels from a single sixteenth-
century colonization fleet. Future investigations will no doubt
help elucidate further differences between these two vessels,
and provide insight into the cargo and construction of the
Emanuel Point 11 wreck.

Notes

1. Conventions in ship component measurements stipulate
that the width of a timber is known as its sided dimension,
and the thickness corresponds to the molded dimension.
The rabbet refers to the groove cut into the top or side of
the keel, stem, and sternpost that would support the outer
hull planks that attached to them (Steffy 1994:6, 277).
2. Ceiling planking was attached to the top surfaces of
frames, and served as the flooring of the ship on which
ballast and cargo would be packed in the cargo hold. The
keelson formed part of the internal backbone of a wooden
vessel, running longitudinally along the vessel's length,

and was the counterpart to the keel, which extended the
length of the vessel on the outside of the hull. Stanchions
are vertical timbers that support deck structure (Steffy
1994:269, 280).

Acknowledgments

This project has been financed in part with Historic
Preservation Grant assistance provided by the Bureau of
Historic Preservation, Division of Historic Resources, Florida
Department of State, assisted by the Florida Historical
Commission. The author would like to thank the University of
West Florida field school staff and students for their assistance
with this research. We owe our Marine Services staff, Director
Steve McLin, Dive Safety Officers Lloyd Oubre and Dwight
Gievers, and Robert Delosantos a great deal of gratitude for
helping with the project and keeping the boats running. Finally,
the author would like to acknowledge the assistance of the UWF
Archaeology Institute, which helps fund the field schools, and
in particular Director Elizabeth Benchley and office manager
Karen Mims.

References Cited

Arnold, J. Barto Ill, and Robert Weddle
1978 The Nautical Archaeology of Padre Island: the
Spanish Shipwrecks of 1554. Academic Press, New
York.

Loewen, Brad
2007 The Stein, Keel and Sternpost: Projecting the Profile
of the Hull. In The Underwater Archaeology of Red
Bay: Basque .'i'.,,,/..'ig and Whaling in the 16"'
Century Vol. III, edited by Robert Grenier, Marc-
Andre Bernier, and Willis Stevens, pp. 25-53, Parks
Canada, Ottawa.

Morison, Samuel Eliot
1942 Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher
Columbus. Little, Brown and Company, Boston.

Oertling, Thomas
2001 The Concept of the Atlantic Vessel: Proceedings of
International Symposium onArchaeology of Medieval
and Modern Ships of Iberian-Atlantic Tradition.
In Hull Remains, Manuscripts and Ethnographic
Sources: A Comparative Approach, edited by F.
Alves, pp. 233-240. IPA, Lisbon.

Rosloff, Jay, and J. Barto Arnold III
1984 The Keel of the San Estehan (1554): Continued
Analysis. The International Journal of
Nautical Archaeology 13(4):287-296.

Smith, Roger, James Spirek, John Bratten, and Della Scott-
Ireton
1995 The Emanuel Point Ship: Archaeological

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

HULL ANALYSIS OF EMANUEL POINT II

Investigation, 1992-1995. Florida Department of
State, Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Smith, Roger C., John R. Bratten, J. Cozzi, and Keith Plaskett
1998 The Emanuel Point Ship: Archaeological
Investigations, 1997-1998. Report of Investigations,

No. 68, Archaeology Institute, University of West
Florida. Pensacola.

Steffy, Richard
1994 Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpretation of
Shipwrecks. Texas A&M University Press, College
Station.

COOK

A Video on lorida's Native Peopes

"Shadows and Reflections:
Florida's Lost People"
Produced by the Florida
t mi Anthropological
Funded by the
Florida Department
,~.of State

A Florida Heritage Production
Produced and Directed by Chaos Productions
Executive Producer: Brent Weisman
Written by Marshall Riggan
Artwork by Theodore Morris

1998 Florida Anthropological Society and the Florida Department of State

To obtain copies please send $20 (includes shipping and handling) to
Terry Simpson, 9907 High Meadow Ave., Thonotosassa, FL. 33592-2458.
Please specify DVD or VHS. Make checks payable to the Florida Anthropological Society.
Special reseller price available.

_ -.i^ ..

RECOVERY TECHNIQUES AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF PLANT AND ANIMAL REMAINS
FROM THE EMANUEL POINT II SHIPWRECK

COLLEEN REESE LAWRENCE' AND JACOB D. SHIDNER2

Department of, i,.I,,. ....'.:.. University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida 32514
Email: 'colleenpaddles@agmail. com, -'jshidner@aTgmail. coin

Macro-botanical and faunal remains (e.g., wood, seeds
fragments, bone, hair,) and micro-botanical remains (e.g.,
pollen, phytoliths), have been recovered from numerous
shipwrecks and can aid in answering questions about various
types ofpast human activity (Gorham and Bryant 200 1; Haldane
1991; Robinson and Aaby 1994; Ward 2003; Weinstein 1992,
1996). These "ecofacts" provide insights into such issues as
provisioning, conditions onboard ships, potential destinations
and intentions of a voyage, identification of cargoes, and even
the types of fibers used in rope making, baskets, and caulking
(Charlton 1996; Robinson and Aaby 1994; Rodgers 2003;
Weinstein 1996). The plant and animal remains recovered
from most sixteenth-century Spanish shipwrecks specifically,
are usually listed by species or are mentioned and perhaps
accompanied with a brief interpretation in publications (Arnold
and Weddle 1978; Keith et al. 1984; Keith and Simmons 1985;
Morris 1993; Oertling 1989a; Oertling 1989b; Smith 1978;
Waddell 1985; 1986; Watts 1993). The above literature
indicates that a wide range of methodologies have been used
to collect and to study botanical and faunal remains from
shipwreck sites. The authors of this study wish to contribute to
this crucial element of archaeological shipwreck interpretation
by outlining current methods used in examining plant and
animal remains from the Emanuel Point II shipwreck. This
work constitutes the Master of Arts thesis topics of both
authors, and therefore results and conclusions are necessarily
tentative as research continues.

Field Collection Methods
for Animal and Plant Materials

During the three seasons of excavation on the Emanuel
Point 11 wreck site, divers have utilized a water-induction dredge
as the primary excavation tool, removing sediment through the
"venturi" effect in the suction nozzle, which is then directed
through an exhaust hose into mesh bags to collect small finds
for screening on the surface after the dive. This allows ship
structure and artifacts to be uncovered and recorded while
sediment trapped around ballast stones is channeled away. As
the ship structure becomes exposed, samples from specific
hull components have been recovered by divers and analyzed
for species identification. Macro plant and animal remains
are mostly recovered from the dredge spoil bags, as they are
often too small to be seen and hand collected by excavators in
the poor visibility conditions that characterize Pensacola Bay.

During the 2008 field season, excavators began to use doubled
mesh bags to ensure the collection of smaller artifacts. This
change was initiated when students screening material on the
surface discovered a wooden rosary bead among the dredge
spoil which was small enough to have passed through the
collection bag, had it not been caught up in other material.
The doubled mesh bags are roughly equivalent to one-eighth-
inch holes, although sometimes, due to flexibility of the bags,
the actual holes filtering the sediment vary in size. Also, once
a layer of shell or sediment is collected in the exhaust bags,
items much smaller than the mesh bag holes are often trapped
in the matrix. Thus, the mesh bag collection system is an
effective if somewhat variable means of collecting small finds
removed by dredging activities.
From 2006 through 2008, the objects collected in the
mesh dredge exhaust bags were sorted for artifacts in a
uniform manner. They were emptied onto solid trays or
tables and each piece was individually sorted by hand at the
end of the day by scientific divers. This method was adapted
slightly in 2009 and, at first observation, appears to have had
a positive impact on the amount of material collected from
the dredge exhaust. Similarly, exhaust bags were emptied onto
one-sixteenth-inch screens and sorted by hand by the divers,
but running water was used to help channel away sediment
adhering to larger objects. Although no statistical analysis has
been done, it appears that this technique is yielding higher
artifact recovery than methods used during the first two years
of excavation. Certainly, excavations in 2009 have produced
more seed and animal remains than either of the two prior
excavation seasons; however, a striking majority of these was
recovered from the depths of the stern end of the vessel, an
area previously unexcavated. This deposit could be another
source of variability in the overall amount of plant material
collected by year.
Excavation on Emanuel Point II1 has included collection
of sediment samples from some units to be screened more
thoroughly by hand for plant and animal remains, as well as
other smaller artifacts. Sediment samples collected in 2008
were selected from areas of the vessel deemed to have been
less disturbed by tidal fluctuations and modem sediment
deposition. These were primarily located near or alongside the
hull structure in the bow and stem areas of the ship, covered
by a large amount of ballast. In 2009, sediment samples were
collected from the amidships and stern areas, typically with
samples coming from near the surface, at mid-depth, and at

VOL. 62(3-4) THF Fi ORIDA ANTIIROPOLOGI%1 SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2009

VOL. 62(3-4)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOCIST

SEPTEMBER-DECEVIRER 2009

TIW Fi oiui'x AN I HROP0I O(.l5I 2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

screening flotation samples from shipwreck

figure i. iviariiime neu school sluemns iviautlw muilu
sediments. Photo by Colleen Reese.
depth along hull structure in each open unit. By collecting
samples from different vertical areas, we intended to achieve
some insight to what types of plant material may be intrusive
to the site at higher, perhaps less pristine, depths.
A portion of each of these sediment samples was sorted
for plant and animal remains because it is generally recognized
that there is a recovery bias toward larger fragments due to
screening methodologies commonly used on both terrestrial
and underwater sites (Pearsall 2000:12-15). Plant items from
sediment samples were recovered using bucket flotation and
fine-screened (Kenward et al. 1980; Ward 1996). The technique
used for i1...]ii,4" waterlogged remains from the sediment
samples follows closely the methods that Cheryl Ward used
on the Sadana Island shipwreck (Ward 1996).
A one-liter section of each collected sample was used
for flotation to ensure consistent sample size and to allow
for a portion of the sample to remain intact for other studies.
Students at the University of West Florida (UWF) 2009
Maritime Archaeology Field School assisted with the bucket
flotation process, making the process quite efficient (Figure
1). The one-liter sample of sediment was placed into a bucket
of water and stirred until a vortex was created. As is noted
in Ward (1996), the waterlogged plant remains did not float,

but rather achieved neutral buoyancy. These were then poured
through a series of screens into a collection bucket. Because
of the lower density of the waterlogged remains, depending
on the sediment type of the sample, it usually took five to ten
series of stirring and pouring to catch all plant materials in the
sieves.
We used nested 2 mm, I mm, and 500 pmn screens to
facilitate sorting in the lab. As an extra precaution, collection
bucket water was re-screened. Each sample was placed into
separate labeled containers which are currently being sorted
and identified in the Archaeology Conservation Laboratory
at the UWF and the Paleoethnobotany Laboratory at Penn
State University. Heavy fractions that remained in the pour
bucket were then sorted, and artifacts within were numbered
and recorded. Only sterile sand was left in the collection
bucket at the end of the process, and this was sorted through,
typically just by eye, but occasionally by microscope as well,
to ensure that no artifacts or ecofacts were being discarded.
Bucket flotation of waterlogged remains appears to have
been as successful on Emanuel Point II as it was reported to
be by Ward (1996), as we found no plant or animal materials
in either the heavy fraction (except for a few large pieces of
dense wood) or the collection bucket.

TIJE FiowDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2009 Voi.. 62(3-4)

LAWRENCE AND SumNER PLANT AND ANIMAL REMAINS FROM EPIT

Figure 2. Control core locations in relation to the Emanuel
Point II shipwreck site. Drawing by Colleen Reese.

With anyrecovery ofarchaeological material, consideration
must be given to intrusive artifacts or ecofacts that are found
in association with a site. In addition to the considerable
sampling that took place within the wreck, divers took four
sediment cores, each located 100 m off-site, to act as a control
to reveal species found naturally in this area of Pensacola Bay
(Figure 2). Samples were assigned a unit number, representing
a fairly accurate estimation of provenience despite being
located relatively far off the site grid. Divers manually sank
the cores using 7.6 cm aluminum tubes to a depth of 1 m below
the bay floor. This was considered sufficient, as the deepest
part of the hold excavated thus far is no deeper than 1.3 m
below the sediment surface. Aluminum coring pipes were cut
to a length of roughly 1.5 m and a 1 m line was marked on the
pipe with a permanent marker so divers could tell at a glance
when the core was at the appropriate depth. Divers pushed the
cores as far into the sediment by hand as possible, and then
used hammer blows to vibrate them down to the proper depth.
Because there was roughly 0.5 m of water above the sediment
within the core, a large sponge was then inserted into the core
down to the level of the sediment surface to prevent the water
left in the top of the core from disturbing the core during
transport. Divers secured the top of the pipe with a plumbing
pressure plug to maintain suction, and then manually removed
the pipe and capped the bottom with a second plug. With a bit
of refinement, this became a fairly efficient process taking no
more than 25 minutes per core. After retrieval, archaeologists
divided the core into 10 cm sections for vertical provenience
control. The materials recovered within the cores are currently
being studied at the Archaeological Conservation Laboratory
at UWF.

Macro-botanical Identifications

Thus far, the plant remains recovered and identified from
the shipwreck have both New and Old World origins and fall
into several categories of shipboard use, including wood from
ship structures, wood used in cargo on the vessels (such as

100N 390E Baseline 100N590E
Emanuel
82N 390E Point II 82N 590E
Scale: l m N
0 Meters 50 /
Sediment core locations (symbol not depicted to
Scale)

dunnage and barrel withies), and plant foods. Plant remains
have been identified from the 2006 through 2008 field seasons,
while preliminary work on sorting and identifying dredge spoil
materials, as well as sediment samples, from 2009 is currently
in its early stages. All plant remains from Emanuel Point II
that are identified and included in this article were analyzed by
Dr. Lee Newsom, of Penn State University, to ensure accuracy
and consistency of identifications.
Hull components exposed on the Emanuel Point II
shipwreck include keel, keelson, frames, ceiling planking,
filler planks, and a stanchion. All items were constructed of
oak (Quercus sp.) in the white anatomical group except one
piece of ceiling planking of an indeterminate anatomical group
(Lee Newsom, personal communication 2008, 2009; Cook et
al. 2008b:55-56). White anatomical group oaks occur in both
the Old and New Worlds (Newsom 1995) and represent some
of the most commonly used woods for ship construction due to
their strength, durability, and straight grain (Steffy 1994:258).
Unfortunately, as in the case of Emanuel Point II, specimens in
this group are frequently not identifiable to continent of origin
based on anatomy.
Wood cargo items recovered from the wreck include
dunnage, to keep cargo packed tightly in place, and withies
from wooden storage barrels. Barrel withies were fashioned
from hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana) (Lee Newsom, personal
communication 2008) and have a distinct half-cylinder shape,
and one has been recovered with its wrappings intact. Dunnage
pieces identified by Newsom so far are persimmon (Diospyros
sp.). Several pieces of a tropical, brightly red-colored wood
have been excavated as well, which are still in analysis and
have not been identified to a genus yet, but which could be
rosewood (Dalbergia sp.) or a species being used as dyewood
(Lee Newsom, personal communication 2008). It is necessary
to complete the analysis before any sort of substantiation can
be given to these preliminary identifications.
Old and New World species are also well represented
among plant food remains recovered. Old World species
include olive (Olea europaea), possible cherry (Prunus sp.),
plum (Prunus sp.), walnut (Juglands sp.), hazelnut (Carya
sp.), almond (Prunus sp.), wine grape (Vitis vinifera), apple
or pear (Malus or Pyrus sp.) and a tentative identification of
peach (Prunus sp.) (Lee Newsom, personal communication
2008, 2009). American plants found are persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana), hickory (Carya sp.), and acorn (Quercus sp.)
(Lee Newsom, personal communication 2008, 2009). While
this list is impressive, it must be kept in mind that very little
of the extensive amount of plant remains recovered in the
2009 season have been analyzed, and our conception of plant
use onboard Emanuel Point II may very well expand as this
research progresses.

Faunal Identifications

Much of the methodology noted above relating to the
sampling of sediments on the Emanuel Point II shipwreck
applies to the techniques followed for faunal analysis. As an
experiment during the 2009 field school, sediment samples
were initially examined under a microscope without first

LAWRENCE AND SHIDNER

PLANT AND ANIMAL REMAINS FROM EPI1

Tm FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

being sorted to see if any minute artifacts or ecofacts existed
within the sample. This technique proved impractical, as the
microscope required constant refocus to examine objects of
various sizes. After some trial and error, we determined that
the best method involved first screening the samples through a
set of stacking screens, ranging from 2 to 0.5 mm. By placing
the stacked screens and sample in a large plastic container
and screening with water, material was quickly sorted by
size, and remaining material that passed through the smallest
screen remained at the bottom of the container. This process
sorted the material into four sizes, and each size could be
examined under the microscope separately to avoid constant
refocusing. It also made identifying artifacts much simpler
since everything was roughly the same size; any object could
be quickly distinguished from sand and sediment particles
based upon its shape or color.
One spoonful of the sorted sample is placed on a Petri dish
and examined under a dissecting microscope. The material is
slowly sorted with a dental pick, and any artifacts are removed
and sorted based on their visible type, such as bone, insect,
plant or unidentified. If the artifact can be identified further,
such as mammal or fish bone, or is a specific part of an insect,
such as the complete head or abdomen, it is sorted further.
No artifacts recovered from the sediment samples have been
formally identified at this point.
As ecofacts of this size and nature are rarely noted
archaeologically, the storage and conservation issues of these
"micro-ecofacts" also required some experimentation. It was
found early in the process of sorting through the sediment
samples that any recovered objects could not simply be stored
in small plastic bags, as the weight of the bag alone is enough
to damage some of the small, fragile remains. Also, while
removing the artifact and the water from the bag, the bag
tends to squeeze together, which also can damage the artifact.
This problem was rectified by storing the artifacts in small
glass vials with leak-proof screw tops. Bacteria and algae
growth presented another problem as this research progressed.
Normally, artifacts recovered from salt water are stored in
fresh water, to slowly remove the chlorides from the artifact.
Bacteria and algae growth can be controlled by adding various
chemicals, and this typically has little impact on the artifacts
themselves. However, the materials recovered from the
sediment samples are so small that they are actually devoured
by the bacteria and algae, and can be destroyed if either are
allowed to grow. Therefore, all of the faunal remains, such as
bone and insect remains, are placed in 70% ethyl alcohol. The
micro-plant remains and the unidentified artifacts are stored in
tap water, however, as alcohol would dry out the plant material,
and may do unknown damage to any unidentified artifacts.
The largest ofthe sorted samples (the 2 mm size screen) has
thus far primarily consisted of shell material, but occasionally
contains small bits of ceramics, nut shells, small concretions,
and animal bones. The next two sizes (1 mm and 0.5 mm)
typically contain the majority of ecofacts recovered. Each
sample has been different in the number and types present, but
every sample examined thus far has contained insect remains,
predominantly cockroach fragments (Figure 3). Surprisingly,
remains of weevils, hide beetles, and pellet-shaped objects

have been determined upon close inspection to be from
feces, likely of mice or rats, composed of digested insect
parts. Other ecofacts include mammal and fish bones, along
with various plant remains and seeds (Figure 4). There also
are unidentified organic objects in various sediment samples.
The smallest sample is comprised of material so minute that it
flowed through the 0.5 mm screen. Primarily, this consists of
sediment so small that it stays suspended within the water, and
only after a few days of letting the water sit does the sediment
settle to the bottom. Out of every sample sorted so far, nothing
but very fine grains of sand and water have been recovered,
which suggests that this screening method has successfully
removed all cultural material from the sediment samples.
The primary focus of this work was to determine if there
was any material that may pass through a sixteenth inch
screen, and if so, what that material was. Now it has been
determined that there is in fact material to be discovered,
and that in many cases the material should be identifiable to
species. This research is posed to provide new insights into
the conditions onboard the Emanuel Point II ship, particularly
relating to vermin, insect and other unintended "stowaways"
on the vessel. It also serves as a caution to other researchers
conducting work on well-preserved underwater sites, in that a
great deal of microscopic data remains in situ if care is taken
to remove and to study the sediment samples from secure
contexts.

Discussion

A collection of financial records located in the Archivo
General de Indias in Seville, Spain, called Contaduria 877,
includes accounts from the deputy treasurer of the treasury
in Veracruz from March 1554 to January 1559 that offer
information about some of the plant foods and animals that
were packed on the vessels of the Luna expedition (Childers
1999). It details payments made to particular drovers for
provisions purchased for and transported on the colonial
vessels. Ree Rodgers (2003) compiled a list of provisions for the
expedition that were mentioned in the Contaduria 877. Plants
listed include maize, olive oil, several types of wine, water,
two types of hardtack, frijoles, cheese, vinegar, salt, raisins,
chickpeas, fava beans, pumpkins, almonds, rice, sweet cane
(for the horses and slaves), and sugar. Preserved meats such
as salt port, salt fish, and dried beef were carried onboard, and
live animals included hens, oxen, horses and sheep (Rodgers
2003:42-43). This does not constitute an all-inclusive list of
what foods were used on board these vessels, since items may
have been procured at stops along the way or by other means
(Priestly 1936:103; Super 1986:58). Furthermore, it does not
reflect plant or animal ecofacts that may have been present on
the ship from previous voyages.
Documentary and archaeological evidence indicates
that Emanuel Point II likely had previous owners and had
undergone voyages prior to the Luna expedition (Cook et
al. 2008b:70-76). Although it is possible that the ship was
cleaned out and reballasted in Mexico prior to the 1559
voyage to Florida, at this time it must be kept in mind that at
least some ballast, artifacts, and ecofacts may have remained

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

LAWRENCE AND SHunNER PLANT AND ANIMAL REMAINS FROM EPTI

Figure 3. Miscellaneous insect fragments, primarily cockroach wings, recovered from sediment samples taken from the
Emanuel Point II shipwreck site. Photo by Jake D. Shidner.

Figure 4. Mus musculus (house mouse) molar recovered
from sediment sample, less than 2 mm wide. Photo by Ja-
cob D. Shidner.

in the ship from previous voyages. Therefore, artifacts found
on the vessel cannot be immediately identified with one
specific activity, and it is possible that plant remains and other
artifacts found on board are not associated exclusively with
this colonial expedition. Rather, they may reflect a mosaic of
information from the ship's life history. Currently, excavators
are conducting further research on the vessel to explore this
possibility.
Archaeological investigations of Emanuel Point II have
yielded a variety of well-preserved organic artifacts, which
appear to reflect site formation process and excavation
methods. The ballast stones in the vessel protected its lower
hull, which was further enclosed and protected by the layer of
shellfish which took residence on the wreck. Layers of sand
and silt of the bay floor were deposited within and on top of
the site and oyster colony, creating protection from hurricanes,
fishermen, and the constant movement of tide (Smith et al.
1995:19-20; Cook et al. 2008a). It is fortunate that there is
such a high level of preservation of plant and animal materials
on the Emanuel Point II shipwreck, and that archaeologists
have had exclusive access to its excavations. This provides the
opportunity to capitalize on a rich and sometimes overlooked

LAWRENCE AND SHIDNER

PLANT AND ANIMAL REMAINS FROM EP11

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

dataset through field methods and laboratory analysis tailored
specifically toward recovering plant and animal materials from
a historic wreck site.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Lee Newsom
and the Environmental Archaeology Laboratory in the
Department of Anthropology at Penn State University, for help
in the identification of plant species discussed in this article.
Thanks also go to Dr. John Bratten, Dr. John Worth and Greg
Cook for their guidance in our research and their help in putting
this article together. Finally, we want to thank Dr. Elizabeth
Benchley and the University of West Florida Archaeology
Institute for supporting UWF's maritime archaeology field
schools. Without this support, our research would not be
possible.

References Cited

Arnold, J. Barto, III, and Robert Weddle
1978 The Nautical Archaeology of Padre Island. Academic
Press, New York.

Charlton, W. H.
1996 Rope and the Art of Knot-Tying in the Seafaring of
the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Texas
A&M University, College Station.

Childers, R. Wayne, translator.
1999 Archivo GeneraldelndiasdeSeville (AGI) Contaduria
877 Ramo 1, 1558-1559. Unpublished letters
translated from the original Castilian manuscripts,
Archaeological Conservation Laboratory, University
of West Florida, Pensacola.

Cook, Gregory, John Bratten, and John E. Worth
2008a The Emanuel Point Ship II: Investigation of a
Newly Discovered 16th-Century Spanish Vessel
in Pensacola, Florida. In ACUA Underwater
Archaeology Proceedings 2008, edited by Victor
Mastone and Susan Langley, Advisory Council on
Underwater Archaeology, Columbus, Ohio.

Cook, Gregory D., John Bratten, John E. Worth, Kendra
Kennedy, Dean Nones, and Scott Sorset
2008b Emanuel Point II Underwater Archaeology: Grant
No. SC716. Florida Department of State, Division
of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological
Research, Tallahassee.

Gorham, L. Dillon, and Vaughn M. Bryant
2001 Pollen, Phytoliths, and Other Microscopic Plant
Remains in Underwater Archaeology. International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 30(2):282-298.

Haldane, C.
1991 Recovery and Analysis of Plant Remains from Some
Mediterranean Shipwreck Sites. InNewLight on Early
Farming: Recent Developments in Paleoethnobotany.
Edited by J. M. Renfrew, pp. 213-223, Edinburgh
University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Keith, Donald H., J. A. Duff, S. R. James, Thomas J. Oertling,
and Joe J. Simmons
1984 The Molasses Reef Wreck, Turks and Caicos Islands,
B.W.I.: A Preliminary Report. International Journal
of Nautical Archaeology 13(1):45-63.

Keith, Donald H., and Joe J. Simmons
1985 Analysis of Hull Remains, Ballast, and Artifact
Distribution of a 16th-Century Shipwreck, Molasses
Reef, British West Indies. Journal of Field
Archaeology 12(4):411-424.

Kenward, H. K., A. R. Hall, and A. K. G. Jones
1980 A Tested Set of Techniques for the Extraction of
Plant and Animal Macrofossils from Waterlogged
Archaeological Deposits. Science and Archaeology
22:3-15.

Luna y Arellano, Don Tristan
1928[1559] Don Tristan de Luna y Arellano to His
Majesty, Port of Santa Maria, September
24, 1559. In The Luna Papers 1559-1561,
Volume 2, edited and translated by Herbert
I. Priestly, pp. 245-247, Florida State
Historical Society, Deland.
1928 [1561] Don Tristan de Luna y Arellano Concerning
What Happened in La Florida. In The Luna
Papers 1559-1561, Volume 1, edited and
translated by Herbert I. Priestly, pp. 3-9,
Florida State Historical Society, Deland.

Morris, John William, III
1993 The Preliminary Analysis of the 16th Century Vessel
Remains Recovered from the Western Ledge Reef,
Bermuda. Bermuda Journal of Archaeology and
Maritime History 5:58-69.

Newsom, Lee A.
1995 Series of Three Short Reports on Emanuel Point Plant
Remains. Reports onfile, DepartmentofAnthropology,
University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Oertling, Thomas J.
1989a The Highborn Cay Wreck: The 1986 Field Season.
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology
18(3):244-253.
1989b The Molasses Reef Wreck Hull Analysis: Final
Report. InternationalJournalofNauticalArchaeology
18(3):229-243.

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

LAWRENCE AND SHIDNER PLANT AND ANIMAl. REMAINS FROM EPIT

Pearsall, Deborah M.
2000 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures,
Second Edition. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego,
California.

Priestly, Herbert Ingram
1928 The Luna Papers 1559-1561: Volumes I & II. Eighth
Edition. Florida State Historical Society, Deland.
1936 Tristan de Luna: Conquistador of the Old South: A
Study of Spanish Imperial Strategy. Arthur H. Clark
Co., Glendale, California.

Robinson, David, and Bent Aaby
1994 Pollen and Plant Macrofossil Analyses from the
Gedesby Ship A Medieval Shipwreck from Falster,
Denmark. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
3:167-182.

Rodgers, Ree R.
2003 Stale Bread and Moldy Cheese: A Historical and
Archaeological Study of Sixteenth-Century Foodways
at Sea Using Evidence Collected from the Emanuel
Point Shipwreck. Unpublished Master's thesis.
Department of History, University of West Florida,
Pensacola.

Scott-Ireton, Della Aleta
1998 An Analysis of Spanish Colonization Fleets in the
Age of Exploration Based on the Historical and
Archaeological Investigation of the Emanuel Point
Shipwreck in Pensacola Bay, Florida. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of History, University of
West Florida, Pensacola.

Smith, Roger C.
1978 New World Shipwrecks, 1500-1800: A Compendium
of Sites Salvaged or Excavated. State of Florida,
Division of Archives, History and Records
Management, Tallahassee.

Smith, Roger C., James Spirek, John Bratten, and Della Scott-
Ireton
1995 The Emanuel Point Ship: Archaeological
Investigations, 1992-1995, Preliminary Report.
Florida Department of State, Division of Historical
Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research,
Tallahassee.

Smith, Roger C., John R. Bratten, J. Cozzi, and Keith Plaskett
1998 The Emanuel Point Ship: Archaeological
Investigations, 1997-1998. Florida Department of
State, Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Steffy, Richard J.
1994 Wooden Shipbuilding and the Interpretation of
Shipwrecks. Texas A&M University Press, College
Station.

Super, John
1986 Spanish Diet in the Atlantic Crossing, the 1570s.
Terrae Incognitae 16:57-70.

Waddell, Peter J. A.
1985 The Pump and Pump Well of a 16th Century Galleon.
The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology
14(3): 243-259.
1986 The Disassembly of a 16th Century Galleon. The
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 15(2):
137-148.

Ward, Cheryl
1996 Bucket Flotation Procedures to Recover
Archaeobotanical Remains. Electronic document,
http://www.adventurecorps.com/sadana/flotation.
html, accessed April 13, 2009.
2003 Pomegranates in Eastern Mediterranean Contexts
during the Late Bronze Age. World Archaeology
34(3):529-541.

Watts, Gordon P., Jr.
1993 The Western Ledge Reef Wreck: A Preliminary
Report on Investigation of the Remains of a 16th
Century Shipwreck in Bermuda. International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 22(2):103-124.

Weddle, Robert S.
1985 Spanish Sea: The Gulf of Mexico in North American
Discovery, 1500-1685. Texas A & M University
Press, College Station.

Weinstein, E. N.
1992 The Recovery and Analysis of Paleoethnobotanical
Remains from an Eighteenth Century Shipwreck.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M

LAWRENCE AND SHIDNER

PLANT AND ANIMAL REMAINS FRom EP11

Chapters of the Florida Anthropological Society

9 4

1. Archaeological Society of Southern Florida
2495 N.W. 35th Ave., Miami, FL 33142 14

2. Central Florida Anthropological Society
P.O. Box 947544, Maitland, FL 32794

3. Central Gulf Coast Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 1563, Pinellas Park, FL 33780

4. Emerald Coast Archaeological Society
c/o Indian Temple Mound Museum
139 Miracle Strip Pkwy SE, Fort Walton Beach, 32548

5. Gold Coast Anthropological Society
PO Box 11052, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33339 3

6. Indian River Anthropological Society
3705 S. Tropical Trail, Merritt Island, FL 32952

7. Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy
195 Huntley Oaks Blvd., Lake Placid, FL 33852 1 5

8. Panhandle Archaeological Society at Tallahassee
P.O. Box 20026, Tallahassee, FL 32316

9. Pensacola Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 13251, Pensacola, FL 32591 12

10. St. Augustine Archaeological Association
P.O. Box 1301, St. Augustine, FL 32085

11. Southeast Florida Archaeological Society
P.O Box 2875, Stuart, FL 34995

12. Southwest Florida Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 9965, Naples, FL 34101

13. Time Sifters Archaeology Society .-'-"
P.O. Box 25642, Sarasota, FL 34277 o ,"~.

14. Volusia Anthropological Society
P.O. Box 1881, Ormond Beach, FL 32175

15. Warm Mineral Springs/Little Salt Spring Archaeological Society
P.O. Box 7797, North Port, FL 34287

THE MESOAMERICAN COMPONENT OF THE EMANUEL POINT SHIPS:
OBSIDIAN, CERAMICS, AND PROJECTILE POINTS

JOHN R. BRATTEN

Department ofAnthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida 32514
Email.:jbratten@uwf.edu

Analysis of the architecture and artifacts from the
Emanuel Point ships have demonstrated a solid association of
the vessels with the fleet of Tristan de Luna, which was struck
by a hurricane in 1559 during the first major European attempt
to colonize present-day Florida. Historical documents indicate
that the Spanish fleet departed from Veracruz, Mexico, enroute
to Pensacola. Among the 1,500 colonists and soldiers who
accompanied Luna from Mexico were a number of Aztecs and
Tlaxcalans. Various other Indian groups in New Spain were
employed by the Spanish to aid in the outfitting of the fleet.
Artifacts recovered from the Emanuel Point ships confirm the
interaction of the Spanish with the indigenous populations
of New Spain. This paper will examine the Mesoamerican
component of the artifact assemblage.

Obsidian

During the 1997 field campaign at the site of Emanuel
Point I ship, two obsidian artifacts were recovered from the
bow of the ship (Figure 1). Similar in form to specimens
described by Flint (1997:64), Arnold (1978:287), and
Lopez Cruz (1997:236), the artifacts have been identified
as prismatic blades or razors (navajas). Both specimens are
noticeably longer than they are wide and were obviously
fabricated from two distinct sources of obsidian. The obsidian
is almost certainly of Mesoamerican origin: they are typical
in their manufacture, form, and size (William Parry, personal
communication 1999). The larger of the two artifacts is
typical of pieces that the Aztecs hafted in wooden handles to
make "swords" (such swords were encountered by some of
Columbus's men onboard a trading vessel they intercepted in
the Gulf of Honduras) (Dan Healan, personal communication
1999).
The platform is the most diagnostic feature on obsidian
blades and can suggest the date of manufacture. After A.D.
900, the platforms were prepared by pecking and grinding.
Unfortunately both specimens are fragmentary and lack their
striking platform. Therefore, no specific date can be assigned
to the specimens and they could date any time between
1000 B.C. and A.D. 1559. The larger blade appears to be a
midsection and the smaller opaque blade a distal fragment
with its termination evident.
Usewear analysis was performed on both artifacts by Dr.
Kenneth Hirth at Penn State University (Hirth 1999). The
midsection was found to be very heavily striated as a result of

use. Striations are very heavy along the right side of the dorsal
surface and the left side of the ventral surface that correspond
to the same activity. According to Hirth, these striations reflect
a cutting or sawing activity parallel to the edge of the blade.
Heavy angled striations at the left-proximal edge of the ventral
side of the blade indicate that the cutting motion was one of
drawing the blade through a material using a single directional
motion, probably pulling the blade across the material toward
the worker. Lighter longitudinal striations parallel to the
cutting edge of the blade were also noted on the right-dorsal
and left-ventral sides, but they were less patterned than those
mentioned above. There are also striations across the surface
of the blade that cannot be attributed to usewear and probably
represent post-depositional alteration (e.g., sand abrasion).
The density of striations along the face of the blade is
nearly continuous, approaching a polish. This fact, combined
with the lack of heavy micro-flaking along the edge of the
blade, indicates that the material being worked was relatively
soft. Otherwise the brittle edge of the obsidian would have
broken long before the striations were formed. The material
being cut was also thick. This is indicated by the fact that the
striations are distributed along the ventral side of the blade,
fully 3 mm back from the edge. Striations over this area are
only formed when the blade enters the material. The angled
striations at the left-proximal edge of the ventral side are 8
mm in width, indicating that the leading edge of the blade was
penetrating deeply into the material being cut. Hirth suggests
that the blade may have been used to cut heavy sailcloth or
hemp rope, although without experimentation it cannot be
stated with certainty. The exposed fibers of hemp rope like
that found on sailing ships of the time may have been abrasive
enough to have striated the blade surface. The artifact was
heavily used, but not to the point of complete exhaustion as
a usable tool.
The second blade shows evidence of light usewear along
the edge as well as miscellaneous striations and micro-pitting,
which are products of abrasion. Striations are short and
largely oriented perpendicular to the cutting edge of the blade.
This indicates that the artifact was used for slicing or more
probably, scraping. Small crescent shaped microflaking is
found on the reverse, dorsal side of the blade. Crescent flaking
of this type in combination with perpendicular striations is
common with scraping. The striations are relatively long, but
several were observed to descend into old microflake scars
indicating creation during the active use-life of the blade. A

VOL. 62(3-4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2009

SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2009

VOL. 62(3-4)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

Figure 1. Obsidian blade from the Emanuel Point I shipwreck.

few longitudinal striations parallel to the edge of the artifact
were also noted, which suggests the blade was also used for
light cutting.
The majority (80-90%) of Aztec blades from central
Mexico are made from a distinctive greenish-gold obsidian
from the Sierra de Pachuca, Hidalgo (William Parry, personal
communication 1999). It is interesting that these blades are
gray or black obsidian, from other sources. Provenance for
the obsidian was determined by Dr. Michael Glascock using
an abbreviated neutron activation analysis at the Missouri
University Research Reactor (MURR). The Archaeometry
Laboratory at MURR has collaborated on about 200
archaeological research projects requesting trace element
analysis (Glascock 2009). The majority of these have been
the characterization and compilation of obsidian sources in
Mesoamerica. More than 10 years of research has produced
a resultant obsidian database which contains chemical
"fingerprints" for 25 to 27 elements for each of the major and
most minor obsidian sources in Guatemala, Honduras, and
central Mexico. Of the thousands of Mesoamerican obsidian
artifacts characterized to date, greater than 99% have been
successfully assigned to one of the sources in the MURR
data base. Glascock's analysis of the Emanuel Point obsidian
indicates that the two shipwreck artifacts came from two well-
known sources in central Mexico, namely Paredon, Puebla
and Zaragoza, Puebla. Archaeological research and trace-
element analyses have shown that different peoples exploited
these sources for several thousand years. The Paredon (artifact

#1) and Zaragoza (artifact #2) sources were relatively popular
throughout all periods and are not terribly far from the coast.
In fact, they are the nearest pair of sources to the coast of
central Mexico. The most popular source by far was Sierra de
Pachuca, Hidalgo, but with such a small number of artifacts
not much can be said about the absence of Pachuca obsidian.

Aztec Ware

Six fragments of highly-burnished redware were collected
in the stem of the Emanuel Point I ship in 1995. Comparable
to vessels depicted in 1564 El C6dice de los Alfareros de
Cuauhtitlan, these sherds have been identified as negro grafitto
rojo pulido (Nogurea 1975:187; Smith et al. 1995). The type
is also called Aztec IV to mark its sequence in the progression
of Mesoamerican pottery traditions (Pasztory 1983). It is
characterized by a buff paste with a highly burnished red-to-
orange slipped exterior, frequently seen with graphite-based
paint applied in geometric patterns.
Three of the sherds are hand-painted (Figure 2). The first
depicts a downward grimacing mouth with the lips in relief
and the teeth painted in with graphite. A molded left eye and
cheek with facial decorations appear on the second. The third
is decorated with geometric lines, triangles, and dots. Lines
and dots also appear on the effigy sherds and may represent
facial decorations or tattoos.
The pieces are most likely the remains of small-mouthed
jars manufactured by sixteenth-century Indian potters from

0 INCH

0 I 2

CENTIMETERS

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

BATTEN MESOAMERICAN ARTIFACTS FROM LUNA'S EXPEDITION

Figure 1. Hand-painted Aztec wares recovered from the Emanuel Point I shipwreck.

Cuauhtitlin, in the Central Valley of Mexico during the
Aztec Colonial Period (1524 to 1564). Ceramics of this type
are extremely rare and have been recovered in very limited
numbers from only two archaeological sites in Mexico. The
decoration found on the ceramics--dots and lines, and to a
lesser extent, triangles--are typical of other Aztec decorated
wares. Molded vessels, such as these, were often used for
ceremonial purposes, as in the consumption of pulque, a
fermented beverage made from the maquey plant (Thomas
Charlton, personal communication 1999).

Crossbow Quarrels

Four copper crossbow quarrels, or bolt points, were also
found in the bow of the Emanuel Point I ship (Figures 3 and
4). In design, they are similar to an iron quarrel recovered
from the first winter encampment of Hernando de Soto at the
Martin Site in Tallahassee, Florida (Ewen 1998:80), eight
iron bolt heads recovered from Fort San Felipe in Georgia
(South et. al. 1988:103), and a handful of copper specimens
found at various archaeological sites in Texas associated with
the Coronado expedition (Rhodes 1997:53). All four points
exhibit a square, pyramidal tip which gradually widens into a
cylindrical socket or ferule, with which the bolt head could be
connected to a wooden shaft approximately 1 cm in diameter.
Examination of these and other specimens indicate that the tips

may have been formed by repeated hammering and annealing
of the copper stock (Ellis 1957:264). The bases seem to have
been hammered thin for cutting and rolling.
Unlike the iron bolts used by the Soto entrada and the
military garrison at Santa Elena, the quarrels associated with
the Luna expedition are thought to have originated in New
Spain and may have been the product of Mexican Indian
artisans and metallurgists who manufactured projectile points
for their Spanish conquerors. Indigenous craftsmen, working
with metals and techniques familiar to them but following
Spanish patterns of manufacture, rapidly produced vast
numbers ofquarrels to a "degree ofperfection [which] exceeded
the pattern" (Rhodes 1997:50). Cort6s utilized copper as a
substitute for iron bolt heads during the conquest of Mexico
(Maudslay 1928:505; Ellis 1957:211; Gagn6, 1997:18). He
ordered and received the delivery of 8,000 bolt heads in a span
of eight days. The feat was successfully accomplished by the
native groups, thus assisting him in his successful assault on
Tenochtitlan (Maudslay 1928:505; Ellis 1957:211).
By the time of the Luna expedition, the popularity of
the crossbow as an infantry weapon was already waning,
as evidenced by the growing number of harquebusiers
(musketeers) recorded in the muster rolls of conquistadors such
as Coronado and Pizarro (Rhodes 1997:46). While extremely
powerful, the slow firing rate of crossbows made them an
ineffective weapon particularly against Indians who could fire

BRATTEN

MESOAMERICAN ARTIFACTS FRom LUNA'S EXPEDITION

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

Figure 3. Copper crossbow quarrels recovered from the bow of the Emanuel Point I shipwreck.

three or more arrows in the time it took a crossbowman to load
and fire one bolt. The presence of quarrels on the Emanuel
Point I vessel would seem to indicate that crossbows, while
undoubtedly being superseded by harquebuses and other
firearms, were still considered an important component of
the Luna expedition's military arsenal. Recently transcribed
documents include among other items related to the fleet's
arms and munitions, "a leather-covered chest in which were
packed 12 crossbows with their quivers and accouterments for
shooting" (Childers 1999). Fragments of what appear to be
the wooden shafts for the quarrels have been found in large
numbers on the second Emanuel Point ship.

Conclusion

There are several interesting issues that relate to the
obsidian. First, it has been suspected (based on both historic
documents and the archaeology) that the Aztecs continued
to make and use obsidian blades after the Spanish Conquest
(William Parry, personal communication 1999). The find
from the first Emanuel Point Ship confirms that blades were
still being used at least 40 years after the Conquest. Second,

despite many claims about Mesoamerican contacts with
the prehistoric United States, this is one of the few finds in
the United States of Mesoamerican obsidian blades from a
controlled excavation.
The discovery of the blades in the bow of the ship
suggests that they were used as razors, perhaps for cutting
line or cutting meat in the galley. One researcher has even
suggested that the Spanish used them to shave (Susan M.
Norris, personal communication 1999). Arnold (1978:287)
suggests such domestic uses for the obsidian blades recovered
from the Padre Island shipwrecks. An additional hypothesis
is offered by Lopez Cruz (1997:236), who speculates that an
obsidian blade recovered from the sixteenth-century Ines de
Soto Cay Reef Wreck in Cuba was used by Spanish soldiers to
make surgical incisions.
The discovery of Aztec pottery, previously unreported
from a shipwreck context, bears further investigation, as well
as comparison with similar examples from terrestrial sites in
Mexico, if they exist (Smith et al. 1995:105). It is unlikely that
these vessels represent cargo, since these unusual ceramics
have not been reported elsewhere on colonial shipwreck
sites. The native pottery may have belonged to a person, or

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

MESOAMERICAN ARTIFACTS FROM LUNA'S EXPEDITION

INCHES
O I 2

0 1 2 3 4 5
CENTIMETERS

Figure 4. Drawing of copper crossbow quarrels recovered
from the Emanuel Point I shipwreck.

persons, on board the ship. The pottery style is indicative of
a ceremonial, rather than utilitarian, vessel that would have
been used on special occasions by persons of special status.
Whether the owner, or owners, of the pottery were Aztecs or
Spaniards is, at this point, a topic for speculation (Smith et al.
1995:138).
The presence of the copper bolt heads in the Emanuel
Point I ship indicates that crossbows were still considered
useful weapons in the New World, although military use of the
weapon in general was declining in this period. The quarrels
recovered from the Emanuel Point ship are of particular interest
because they appear to be the only specimens manufactured
from copper to be recovered in the southeastern United States.
Presumably these were made in Mexico where copper was
plentiful.
The presence among the field specimens ofsapote, papaya,
and perhaps the coconut shell and tree resin also demonstrates
that the Emanuel Point I ship operated in the American tropics.
Examples of native plants common to the temperate northern
Gulf of Mexico, and/or in the direct vicinity of Pensacola
include common persimmon, hickory nuts, and acorns; the
latter two could have served as fodder for pigs and other captive
animals. A bottle gourd may have come from anywhere in the
Caribbean, Florida, or from Africa. Additional information
concerning the Mesoamerican influence on the colonization

attempt of 1559 will undoubtedly come to light with the
continued transcription of historic documents. Other artifacts
of Mexican origin may yet lie on the bottom of Pensacola Bay
as four other ships from Tristan de Luna's ill-fated fleet await
discovery.

References Cited

Arnold, J. Barto, and Robert S. Weddle
1978 The NauticalArchaeology of Padre Island. Academic
Press, New York.

Barlow, Robert H.
1951 El C6dice de los Alfareros de Cuauhtitlin. Revista
Mexicana de Estudios Antroplogicos 12:5-8.

Childers, R. Wayne
1999 Translation of Ybarra (1564), September 5, 1999.
Manuscript on file, Archaeology Institute, University
of West Florida, Pensacola.

Ellis, Bruce T.
1957 Crossbow Boltheads from Historic Pueblo Sites. El
Palacio 64 (July, August):259-264.

Ewen, Charles R., and John H. Hann
1998 Hernando de Soto Among the Apalachee: The
Archaeology of the First Winter Encampment.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Flint, Richard
1997 Armas de la Tierra: The Mexican Indian Component
of Coronado Expedition Material Culture. In The
Coronado Expedition to Tierra Nueva: The 1540-
1542 Route Across the Southwest, edited by Richard
Flint and Shirley Cushing Flint, pp. 47-59, University
Press of Colorado, Niwot.

Gagn6, Francis Roland, Jr.
1997 Spanish Crossbow Boltheads of Sixteenth Century
NorthAmerica: A ComparativeAnalysis. Unpublished
Master thesis, Department of Anthropology, Wichita
State University, Wichita, Kansas.

Glascock, Michael D.
2009 Archaeometry Laboratory at MURR. Electronic
document, http://archaeometry.missouri.edu/,
accessed August 12, 2009.

Hirth, Kenneth
1999 Review of Obsidian Artifacts from the Emanuel Point
Shipwreck. Report on file, Archaeology Institute,
University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Lopez Cruz, Abraham
1997 Naufragio en Ines de Soto. Un Hallazgo de Cuatro
Siglos, Carisub, Havana.

BRATTEN

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

Maudslay, A.P.
1928 BernalDiazdel Castillo: The Discovery and Conquest
of Mexico, 1517-1521. Harper and Brothers, New
York.

Nogurea, Eduardo
1975 La Cercimica Arqueol6gica de Mesoamerica.
Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de M6xico, Mexico
City.

Pasztory, Esther
1983 Aztec Art. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York.

Rhodes, Diane Lee
1997 Coronado Fought Here: Crossbow Boltheads as
Possible Indicators of the 1540-1542 Expedition.
In The Coronado Expedition to Tierra Nueva: The
1540-1542 Route Across the Southwest, edited by
Richard Flint and Shirley Cushing Flint, pp. 37-46,
University Press of Colorado, Niwot.

Smith, Roger C., James Spirek, John Bratten, and Della Scott-
Ireton
1995 The Emanuel Point Ship: Archaeological
Investigations, 1992-1995. Florida Department of
State, Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Smith, Roger C., John R. Bratten, J. Cozzi, and Keith Plaskett
1998 The Emanuel Point Ship: Archaeological
Investigations, 1997-1998. Report of Investigations
No. 68, Archaeology Institute, University of West
Florida, Pensacola.

South, Stanley, Russell K. Skowronek, and Richard E.
Johnson
1988 Spanish Artifacts from Santa Elena. Occasional
Papers of the South Carolina Institute ofArchaeology
and Anthropology, Anthropological Studies No. 7.,
University of South Carolina, Columbia.

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

PRELIMINARY CERAMIC ANALYSIS OF THE EMANUEL POINT II SHIP

SCOTT SORSET

Department ofAnthropology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida 32514
Email:scott sorset@hotmail.com

The Emanuel Point II shipwreck site represents a
significant discovery for nautical and historical archaeology,
as it is the second vessel from the ill-fated 1559 Tristan de
Luna expedition to be discovered. This article will discuss
the ceramics recovered thus far from the Emanuel Point II
shipwreck, and provide some tentative comparisons with
the ceramic assembly from the first Emanuel Point ship.
Excavations on this site are not yet complete, therefore the
ceramic study is essentially a work in progress. Where most
shipwreck studies are limited to only one shipwreck, our
access to two vessels from the same fleet allows comparisons
between the two ships and provides a much broader picture of
maritime life in the sixteenth century.
TristAn de Luna's fleet originated from Veracruz, with
many supplies being sent from various parts of Mexico and
Seville (Priestly 1971:15). When Luna arrived at Pensacola,
he thought the bay would provide excellent protection for the
ships from storms and praised the bay as the best of the Indies
discovered thus far (Priestly 1971:xxxv). However, many
ships sank in a hurricane on Monday the 19th of September,
1559 (Smith et al. 1995:6).
What was a disaster for Luna and the entire 1559
settlement effort has provided an unparalleled glimpse of
Spanish colonial life in 1559 for contemporary archaeologists.
Luna's fleet included vessels of colonization used for the
transportation of supplies, people, and their ideas far away
from their homelands. Most Iberian ships discovered thus far
have been ships of exploration, war, or treasury ships. Very
little is known about what constituted a Spanish colonizing
ship of the sixteenth century (Scott-Ireton 1998:2-3).
For voyages of colonization, the storage, transportation,
and preservation of food was very important. Foods were
dried, salted, cured, pickled, and fermented, in an attempt
to preserve them for the voyage across the seas (Rodgers
2003:80). For protection and preservation, food items were
placed in containers that would ensure that dry goods stayed
dry and remaining items would be protected from the constant
onslaught of the elements aboard the ship.
The most common form of ceramic storage vessel is the
Spanish olive jar (Figure 1). It is a vessel that derived from
the Greco-Roman amphora (Goggin 1964:255), and had a
relatively long use-span from about 1490 until 1800 (Deagan
1987:31). The olive jar was not waterproof, and if untreated
its coarse earthenware matrix led to some degree of leakage
of its contents. The evaporative process, in turn, also cooled
its contents (Deagan 1987:32, 36). Alternatively, when being

used as a more permanent storage container, interior treatments
served to make the matrix more waterproof. One method of
sealing the vessel was the use of pine resin, this was referred
to as pez (SAnchez Cortegana 1994:102). The other method
was the use of glazing referred to as vidriera (Mena Garcia
2004:462-463). Spanish olive jars were very heavy when
filled, making them useful as ballast as well as for storage
during ocean voyages (Smith et al. 1995:97).
Along with the ubiquitous olive jar, various types of
majolica are considered indicative of Spanish or Iberian origin,
and several types have been recovered from the Emanuel Point
II site. Majolica is, by definition, a coarse earthenware that
had a special treatment of tin glaze applied to its surfaces
(Lister and Lister 1982:vii). Spanish majolica was produced
in Spain (mostly Seville) and Mexico. It was named by Italians
in the fourteenth century after the island of Majorca. Much of
what is known about early majolica production comes from
Cipirano Piccolopasso who in 1557 wrote three treatises about
the techniques used by majolica potters. This included shapes,
colors, glaze recipes, and decorations (Cooper 1972:159).
There is considerable variety in majolica production over
geographical region and time, leading to multiple forms and
decorations. Examples from the Emanuel Point II wrecksite
are classified as either Columbia Plain or Isabela Polychrome
(Figures 2 and 3).
The second most common type of majolica found on the
Emanuel Point II shipwreck, Columbia Plain, is mostly white
with flared rims (Lister and Lister 1982:48). It was named by
John Goggin for the county (Columbia) in Florida in which
it was first discovered (Goggin 1968:117). Almost all the
examples ofmajolicas from Emanuel Point II are representative
of the escudilla form.
Isabela Polychrome represents the most common majolica
pottery type from Emanuel Point II. This majolica is typically
elaborately decorated with cobalt blues and manganese purples
(Lister and Lister 1982:52). The designs are most often found
on plato forms and contain parallel bands of purple and blue.
One of the best locations for the study of Isabela Polychrome
is the Spanish colony of Santa Elena in present-day South
Carolina. At this site, Isabela Polychrome only comes in
two forms, the plato and the escudilla. Examples of Isabela
Polychrome have been found to be slightly larger than the
Columbia Plain examples from the same site (South et al.
1988:228).
The largest of all vessels recovered from the Emanuel
Point II shipwreck are the Spanish coarse earthenware storage

VOL. 62(3-4) THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2009

VOL. 62(3-4)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER 2009

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

Figure 1. Olive Jar with resin, recovered from Emanuel Point II.

jars. Unfortunately, less is generally known about this ceramic
type (Deagan 1987:36). The term is actually non-descript and
its forms can range from pitcher-like to large and globular.
Samples recovered from Emanuel Point II represent very
large bacin-like vessels that have a similar paste and coloring
to that of olive jar ceramics (Figure 4). They are excluded
from the olive jar category due to the thickness of the walls.
It is theorized that these containers were mostly used to store
water. They are found throughout the Caribbean and the dates
of these vessels are largely unknown (Deagan 1987:36-37). It
is hoped that additional excavations from the Emanuel Point
ships will reveal new insight into this vessel form.
University of West Florida archaeologists and students
excavated numerous sherds of thick-walled green lead-glazed
coarse earthenware with a high shine finish. When initially

recovered, they exhibited a very black or tan metallic finish.
Once in the conservation lab, however, baths of diluted
hydrogen peroxide revealed the original deep green shiny
glaze located beneath the tarnish (Figure 5). The green lead-
glazed coarse earthenwares are very large and thick utilitarian
wares, usually found in bacin and lebrillo forms.
Lead-glazed coarse earthenware can be found in a variety
of types or styles. Many of the fragments from Emanuel Point
II represent different vessel forms but do not correspond to
any named type. One definable type recovered from both
Emanuel Point I and II is classified as El Morro ware (Smith et
al. 1995:100). El Morro ware was wheel-thrown and usually
hand-shaped. The glazing exists only on the interior and was
typically either orange or olive green. While previous studies
(Deagan 1987:50) placed these ceramics between 1600 and

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

SORSET EPTI CERAMIC ANALYSIS

Figure 2. Columbia Plain majolica from Emanuel Point
II.

Figure 3. Isabela Polychrome majolica from Emanuel
Point II.

1770, the Emanuel Point shipwrecks refine these dates, placing
El Morro ware at least as early as the 1559 expedition.
As of November 2009, the collection of ceramics
recovered from Emanuel Point II numbered approximately
928 sherds. From this total by count, 82.5% represent olive jar,
5.7% Columbia Plain, 4.44% El Morro ware, 2.9% Melado
ware, 1.6% green lead-glazed coarse earthenware, 0.96% lead
glazed coarse earthenware, 0.1% Isabela Polychrome, 0.1%
Yayal Blue on White, and the remaining ceramic sherds were
indeterminate coarse earthenwares at 1.7%.
The ceramic collection from Emanuel Point II weighed
approximately 25,390.74 grams. From this total by weight,
90.5% represented olive jar, 5.04% green lead-glazed coarse
earthenware, 1.76% lead glazed coarse earthenware, 1.07%
Columbia Plain, 0.62% Melado ware, 0.47% El Morro ware,
0.01% Isabela Polychrome, 0.01% Yayal Blue on White,
and the remaining ceramic sherds of indeterminate coarse
earthenware accounted for 0.52%.

Figure 4. Spanish storage jar sherd from Emanuel Point
II.

Comparisons between the ceramics of the first and second
Emanuel Point ships will be of great use to archaeologists.
Since only approximately 10% of the Emanuel Point II ship
has been excavated thus far, any comparisons must remain
tentative pending further excavation, but some meaningful
comparisons between the Emanuel Point ships can be made.
There are significantly fewer El Morro ware and majolica
ceramics onboard Emanuel Point II compared to Emanuel Point
I. The vast majority of indeterminate coarse earthenwares are
too small to be classified further. Five sherds in particular,
however, stand out as being different in style, color, and
paste. Since they differ so significantly from the others in
this category, special attention was given to their analysis.
No known examples have been seen in any recorded Spanish
colonial sites, shipwrecks, or in European contexts. Therefore
it may be possible that they were produced by indigenous
potters from Mexico. The Emanuel Point I shipwreck contained
unusual Aztec pottery, so the presence of other indigenous
pottery among the collection recovered from Emanuel Point II
must be considered a possibility (Smith et al. 1998:101-105).
The unidentified sherds are dark ash in color and their paste
appears to contain felsic volcanic inclusions. These inclusions
are the result of many years of volcanic ash sifting down into
the soil and permeating the clay (Lister and Lister 1982:80-94;
Renfrew and Bahn 2000:359). The Oaxaca region of Mexico
is known to have produced a similar type of ware known as
Barro Negro (Renfrew and Bahn 2000:358-359, 500-508).
The black clay used to make these wares is exclusive to this
specific location in Mexico and therefore is linked to Oaxaca
(Chariez 2000). Unfortunately, it can be quite difficult to
distinguish pottery produced in Mexico from that produced
in Seville. Potters from Seville migrated to Mexico relatively
early (Lister and Lister 1982: 90). Only a few studies have
explored Seville ceramic production; however, many early
examples of Seville wares were used onboard Spanish ships
(Peleguezuelo-Hernandez 1993:39-50).

SORSET

EPI1 CERAmic ANALYSIS

Ti~ir FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

Figure 5. Green lead-glazed coarse earthenware from Emanuel Point II.

As with any scientific endeavor, additional data allow more
precise analysis and, therefore, more informed conclusions. The
Emanuel Point II shipwreck contains an unparalleled glimpse
of Spanish colonial life in the sixteenth century. As Emanuel
Point II continues to be excavated, additional discoveries
will be made which will require previous conclusions and
assumptions about Spanish colonial life to be reexamined and
new questions to be addressed.

References Cited

Chariez, Arturo
2000 Mud Black Oaxaca, M6xico Desconocido. Electronic
document, http://www.mexicodesconocido.com.mx/
notas/4031 -Barro-Negro-(Oaxaca), accessed October
30, 2007.

Cooper, Emmanuel
1972 A History of Pottery. Butler and Tanner Ltd.,
London.

Deagan, Kathleen
1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and
the Caribbean, 1500-1800, Volume 1: Ceramics,

Glassware, and Beads. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.

Florida Museum of Natural History
2004 Historical Archaeology Digital Type Collection,
Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville,
Florida. Electronic document, http://www.flmnh.ufl.
edu/histarch/gallery_types/, accessed December 9,
2007.

Goggin, John M.
1964 Indian and Spanish Selected Writings. University of
Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida.
1968 Spanish Majolica in the New World. Yale University
Publications in Anthropology, No. 72, New Haven,
Connecticut.

Lister, Florence C., Robert H. Lister
1982 Sixteenth Century Maiolica Potter in the Valley of
Mexico. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Marken, Mitchell W.
1992 Pottery from Spanish Shipwrecks 1500-1800.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2009 VOL. 62(3-4)

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST

SORSET EPII CERAMIC ANALYSIS

Mena Garcia, Maria del Carmen
2004 Nuevos datos sobre bastimentos y envases en armadas
y flotas de la Carrera. Revista de Indias 64(231): 447-
484.

Peleguezuelo-Hernandez, Alfonso
1993 Seville Coarsewares, 1300-1650: A Preliminary
Typological Survey. Medieval Ceramics 17:39-50.

Priestly, Herbert Ingram
1928 The Luna Papers 1559-1561: Volumes I & II. Eighth
Edition. Florida State Historical Society, Deland.
1936 Tristan de Luna: Conquistador of the Old South: A
Study of Spanish Imperial Strategy. Arthur H. Clark
Co., Glendale, California.
1971 The Luna papers: Documents Relating to the
Expedition of Don Tristin De Luna Y Arellano for
the Conquest of La Florida in 1559-1561 Volume
I, Herbert Ingram Priestly, translator. Books for
Libraries Press, Freeport, New York.

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn
2000 Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice.
Thames and Hudson, New York.

Rodgers, Ree
2003 Stale Bread and Moldy Cheese: A Historical and
Archaeological Study of Sixteenth Century Foodways
at Sea Using Evidence Collected from the Emanuel
Point Shipwreck. Unpublished Master's thesis,
Department of Anthropology, University of West
Florida, Pensacola.

Sanchez Cortegana, Jos6 Maria
1994 El Oficio de Ollero en Sevilla en el Siglo XV1. Sevilla:
Diputaci6n Provincial de Sevilla, John E. Worth,
translator.

Scott-Ireton, Della
1998 An Analysis of Spanish Colonization Fleets in the
Age of Exploration Based on the Historical and
Archaeological Investigation of the Emanuel Point
Shipwreck in Pensacola Bay. Master's thesis,
Department of History, University of West Florida,
Pensacola.

Smith, Roger C., James Spirek, John Bratten, and Della Scott-
Ireton
1995 The Emanuel Point Ship: Archaeological
Investigation, 1992-1995. Florida Department of
State, Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of
Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Smith, Roger C., John R. Bratten, J. Cozzi, and Keith Plaskett
1998 The Emanuel Point Ship: Archaeological
Investigations, 1997-1998. Report of Investigations,
No. 68, Archaeology Institute, University of West
Florida, Pensacola.

South, Stanley, Russell K. Skowronek, and Richard E.
Johnson
1988 Spanish Artifacts from Santa Elena. Occasional
Papers of the South Carolina Institute ofArchaeology
and Anthropology, Anthropological Studies No. 7.,
University of South Carolina, Columbia.

SORSET

EP11 CERAmic ANALYSIS

Join the Florida Anthropological Society

Florida Anthropological Society memberships:
Student $15 (with a copy of a current student ID)
Regular and Institutional $30
Family $35
Sustaining $100
Patron $1000
Benefactor $2500 or more
Student membership is open to graduate, undergraduate and high school students. A
photocopy of your student ID should accompany payment
Add $25.00 for foreign addresses
Membership forms also available at www.fasweb.org
The Society publishes journals (The Florida Anthropologist) and newsletters, normally quarterly,
and sponsors an annual meeting hosted by a local chapter.

Name:
Address:
Apt:
City:
State:
ZIP:
Telephone:
E-mail:
FAS Chapter:

___ I agree to abide by the Code of Ethics of the Florida Anthropological Society.

MAIL TO:
Florida Anthropological Society
c/o Pat Balanzategui
P 0 Box 1434
Fort Walton Beach, FL 32549-1434

THE FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGIST 123

About the Authors:

John R. Bratten is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Anthropology at the University of West Florida. His
research interests are artifact conservation and preservation and maritime archaeology.

Gregory D. Cook is a Research Associate at the Archaeology Institute at the University of West Florida. His specializa-
tion is nautical archaeology, particularly ship construction and maritime trade in the Atlantic world. He has worked on
shipwreck sites throughout North America, the Caribbean and West Africa, and currently is co-Principal Investigator on
the Emanuel Point II shipwreck project.

Colleen Reese Lawrence is a graduate student in Anthropology at the University of West Florida. She is currently working
on her thesis which focuses on the macrobotanical remains from the Emanuel Point shipwrecks.

Jacob D. Shidner is a graduate student at the University of West Florida focusing on maritime archaeology. His thesis
examines the living conditions and hygiene aboard two sixteenth-century Spanish ships through the faunal and insect
remains recovered from the shipwrecks.

Roger C. Smith is the State Underwater Archaeologist for Florida. He has conducted research on numerous projects
throughout the Southeast and Caribbean for over two decades. He has published many scholarly and technical manu-
scripts focused on underwater sites dating to the early decades of Iberian exploration and colonization in the New World.

Scott Sorset is a graduate student at the University of West Florida focusing on maritime archaeology. He has worked for
the State of Florida's Division of Historical Resources and the Maritime Division of Panamerican Consultants. His inter-
ests include the Spanish colonial period, maritime history, diving, travel, and tennis.

John E Worth is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of West Florida. He has published many schol-
arly books and articles. His research interests include ethnohistory, prehistoric/historic archaeology, ceramics and ethnic-
ity, and European colonization and indigenous culture change in Spanish Florida, the southeastern U.S., and Cuba.

FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, JNC :
POST OFFICE BOX 357605 ':' 2
GAINESVILLE, FL 32635-7605

NON-PROFIT
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
TALLAHASSEE, FL
PERMIT NO. 801

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

Volume 62 Numbers 3-4
September-December 2009

CONTENTS

From the Editors

ARTICLES

Luna's Fleet and the Discovery of the First Emanuel Point Shipwreck.
Roger C. Smith, with contributions by Gregory D. Cook

Documenting TristAn de Luna's Fleet, and the Storm that Destroyed It.
John E. Worth

Luna's Ships:
Current Excavation on Emanuel Point II and Preliminary Comparisons with the First Emanuel Point Shipwreck.
Gregory D. Cook

Recovery Techniques and Preliminary Analysis of Plant and Animal Remains
from the Emanuel Point H Shipwreck.
Colleen Reese Lawrence and Jacob D. Shidner

Preliminary Ceramic Analysis of the Emanuel Point H Ship.
Scott Sorset

Mesoamerican Component of the Emanuel Point Ships:
Obsidian, Ceramics, and Projectile Points.
John R. Bratten

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Cover: The midships trench on Emanuel Point I. Drawing by Gregory Cook, Archaeology Institute, University of West Florida.
See the Cook article beginning on page 93 for more information.

Copyright 2009 by the
FLORIDA ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
ISSN 0015-3893

	Front Cover
	Table of Contents
	From the editors
	Luna’s Fleet and the discovery...
	Documenting Tristan de Luna’s Fleet,...
	Luna’s ships: Current excavation...
	Recovery techniques and preliminary...
	Mesoamerican component of the Emanuel...
	Preliminary ceramic analysis of...
	Back Matter
	About the authors
	Back Cover

MILLISECOND	CLASS.METHOD	MESSAGE
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor	Application State validated or built
0	sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor	Navigation Object created from URI query string
0	sobekcm_database.verify_item_lookup_object
0	sobekcm_page_globals.display_item	Retrieving item or group information
0	sobekcm_page_globals.get_entire_collection_hierarchy	Retrieving hierarchy information
0	sobekcm_assistant.get_entire_collection_hierarchy
0	cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation
0	cached_data_manager.retrieve_item_aggregation	Found item aggregation on local cache
0	item_aggregation_builder.get_item_aggregation	Found 'all' item aggregation in cache
0	system.web.ui.page.page_load (ufdc.page_load)
0	sobekcm_page_globals.constructor.on_page_load
0	html_echo_mainwriter.add_style_references	Adding style references to HTML
0	html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page	Reading the text from the file and echoing back to the output stream
32	html_echo_mainwriter.add_text_to_page	Finished reading and writing the file