2014.03.26 - Seafarer E-155 Recovery Permit Application

E-155 Recovery Permit Application
Recovery Permit Application

For E-155 Southern Section
South Brevard County, Florida
Prepared for the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research

Tallahassee, Florida
By
James J. Sinclair, MA
Project Archaeologist
Seafarer Exploration Corp.
March 2014
Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES _______________________________________________________________ 3
ABSTRACT ____________________________________________________________________ 4
E-155D CONTRACT LOCATION ____________________________________________________ 5
SUPPLEMENTAL RESEARCH DESIGN _______________________________________________ 7
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ______________________________________________________ 7
MODERN ENVIRONMENT/GEOMORPHOLOGY AND GEOLOGY OF THE BREVARD SHORELIN __ 7
PALEOENVIRONMENT __________________________________________________________ 8
CULTURAL SETTING ____________________________________________________________ 8
PREHISTORIC OVERVIEW ________________________________________________________ 8
EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD (10,000-7000 B.P.) _________________________________________ 9
MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD (7000-5000 B.P.) ________________________________________ 10
LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD (5000-2500 B.P.)___________________________________________ 11
POST-ARCHAIC PERIOD (2500-500 B.P.) ___________________________________________ 12
CONTACT PERIOD _____________________________________________________________ 14
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ________________________________________________________ 15
EARLY SPANISH EXPLORATION __________________________________________________ 15
THE BRITIS PERIOD AND THE SECOND SPANIS PERIOD _______________________________ 16
THE TERRITORIAL PERIOD ______________________________________________________ 17
STATEHOOD AND THE CIVIL WAR ________________________________________________ 17
THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY ________________________________________________ 18
THE TWENTIETH CENTURY______________________________________________________ 20
BREVARD COUNTY HISTORIC SHIPWRECKS ________________________________________ 21
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH __________________________________________________________ 26
THE 1715 SPANISH PLATE FLEET _________________________________________________ 26
SURVEY OF E-155D SOUTHERN SECTION __________________________________________ 31
PREVIOUS ACTIVITIES _________________________________________________________ 49
METHODOLOGY ______________________________________________________________ 54
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA _________________________________________ 56

REFERENCES CITED ____________________________________________________________ 61
INTERPRETATION OF DATA ____________________________________________________ 112
Classes of Artifacts ________________________________________________________ 117
Ships Construction Elements __________________________________________________ 117
Armament _________________________________________________________________ 118
Cargo ___________________________________________________________________ 121
Ceramics ________________________________________________________________ 121
Personal Items ___________________________________________________________ 122
Silver Platters __________________________________________________________________ 122
Conclusion _________________________________________________________________ 124

Sand Tempered Plain Pot Sherd ________________________________________________ 125
BOAT & EQUIPMENT ______________________________________________________ 127
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Brevard County, FL, location ............................................................................................ 5
Figure 2 E-155 Contract Area .......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Page of manifest from the Santisima Trinidad y Nuestra Seora de la Concepcin listing
FDon Joseph Espinosa de los Monterod as having consigne 257 cowhides and a crate of prsents
(AGI Consulados, 854) ................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 4. Page (detail) of manifest from the Santisima Trinidad y Nuestra Seora de la
Concepcin (AGI Consulados 854)................................................................................................. 30
Figure 5. Signature page (detail{ of the Santisima Trinidad y Nuestra Seora de la Concepcins
manifest (AGI Consulados 854) ..................................................................................................... 31
Figure 6. E-155 Prioritized anomalies ............................................................................................ 33
Figure 7. E-155 Prioritized anomalies, Area 1 ............................................................................... 34
3
Figure 10. E-155 Prioritized anomalies, Area 4 ............................................................................. 37

Figure 16. E-155 Prioritized anomalies, Area 10 ........................................................................... 43
Figure 22. he 2010-2012 survey vessel during 2010 remote sensing operations ......................... 49
Figure 23. Geometrics G882 Magnetometer, EdgeTech 4200FS Side scan sonar deployment .... 50
Figure 24. Data Acquisition computers in survey vessel ............................................................... 50
Figure 25. Survey data acquisition screen showing side scan imagery data, sensors and
magnetometer data ...................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 26. Side scan sonar imagery mosaic of sonar data collected overlaid onto nautical chart of
area 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 27. 3D Magnetometer data representation of data collected with G882 magnetometer 53
Figure 28. . Magnetometer data collected during 2010 survey of E-155...................................... 56
Figure 29. Magnetometer data collected during 2010 survey of E-155D ..................................... 57
Figure 30. . Magnetometer & Side Scan Sonar target distribution data collected during survey of
E-155D ........................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 31. Inscription on silver plate (courtesy of the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research).
....................................................................................................................................................... 59
ABSTRACT
Seafarer Exploration Corp. conducted an historic assessment, terrestrial, and submerged
cultural resources investigation relative to a suspected early 18th-century shipwreck
4
located off Melbourne Beach and Indialantic, Brevard County, Florida in an effort to
locate, identify, and assess the potential significance of cultural resources within the
project area E-155D. More specifically the investigation included archival research,
terrestrial cultural resources overview, and a remote sensing survey of BLOCK 1 of E155D, in an effort to locate associated shipwreck material, analysis and interpretation of
remote sensing data, followed by report preparation to meet the Florida Bureau of
Archaeological Researchs (FBAR) requirements.
E-155D CONTRACT LOCATION

Starting at a point hereafter referred to as the Point of Beginning and located along the
mean low water line of the Atlantic Ocean at Latitude 28 02.420 North and Longitude 80
32.600 West. Thence run North to a point at Latitude 28 05.300 North and Longitude
80 31.750 West; Thence run west to a point at Latitude 28 05.300 North and Longitude
80 33.050 West Thence run northerly at a distance of .7 of a nautical mile offshore from
the mean low water line approximately 13 nautical miles to a point located at Latitude 28
18.000, North and Longitude 80 35.660 West; Thence run West in a line to a point
located along the mean low water line at Latitude 28 18.000 North and Longitude 80
36.400 West; Thence run southerly, following the sinuosity of the mean low water line
to the Point of Beginning. E-155D is located within the County of Brevard in the State of
Florida. More specifically, it is closely associated with the Melbourne-Satellite Beach
area of Brevard County.
FIGURE 1. BREVARD COUNTY, FL, LOCATION

5
FIGURE 2 E-155 CONTRACT AREA
SUPPLEMENTAL RESEARCH DESIGN

In 2013 both permitting and contractual issues were resolved to allow further
investigation of this site. The 2012 season was completed following ten (10) years of
exploration, with a remote sensing survey (magnetometer & side scan sonar) of the
southern area of E-155D at closer lane spacing than the previous magnetometer
investigation of the whole Area of E-155 Contract that was completed in 2004 at the time
when the shipwreck or shipwrecks was/were discovered. The decision to resurvey was
deemed necessary due to subcontractor changes, some technical database problems with
the magnetometer survey performed from 2000 to 2004, better technology presently
available. Following FBAR review of the present report and relevant data from this past
two-years surveys, Seafarer Exploration Corp. is requesting to be granted a recovery
permit for the southern portion of E-155 Contract area where the 1715 Plate Fleet-related
artifacts were found.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Mid-Reach of the Brevard County Shore Protection Project is located on the east
coast of Florida south of Cape Canaveral. The Mid-Reach extends from the south end of
Patrick Air Force Base to just north of Indialantic; BLOCK 1 of E-155D Contract Area is
located south of the of the southernmost portion of the Mid-Reach. The length of the
Mid-Reach is approximately 12.5 km (7.78 miles) long. The Mid-Reach incorporates
three municipalities (Satellite Beach (including South Patrick), Indian Harbour Beach,
and Melbourne (including Eau Gallie Beach, and Indialantic) and portions of
unincorporated Brevard County.
MODERN ENVIRONMENT/GEOMORPHOLOGY AND

GEOLOGY OF THE BREVARD SHORELIN
The beaches of Brevard County have experienced variable erosion over the past several
decades. The Mid-Reach has not been re-nourished however due to the presence of near
shore rock. This rock, sometimes referred to as reef rock or live rock are exposures
of the Anastasia Formation. The Anastasia Formation is composed of, a mixture of shell
fragments and quartz grains bound together by calcium carbonate cement (Lovejoy
1998:7). Live Rock is the name given to the reefs of tube building polycheate worms
(Phragmatopoma lapidosa) on top of the exposed Anastasia Formation (Barile et al.
2001). The reefs have been extensively mapped throughout the Mid-Reach and vary in
width from 300 feet in the north to sporadic patches in the south. The reefs effect on
shoreline erosion is also variable. As a whole, between 1972-2005, the Mid-Reach has
exhibited an erosional pattern losing an average of .2 feet per year (USACE 2007).
Erosion near the plotted location of E-155D to the south has averaged 7.8 feet since 1968.
Hurricanes have also contributed and sped up the erosion rates over time. In response to
the 2004 hurricane season, emergency dune restoration was carried out by Brevard
County in 2005 in the Mid-Reach resulting in the placement of over 300,000 cubic yards
of sand and the re-sculpting of dunes throughout the north portion of E-155D project area
(USACE 2007). Behind there-sculpted dunes, sea walls and other coastal construction
has altered the natural dune system throughout the project area.
PALEOENVIRONMENT
Prior to 5000 before present (B.P.) the environment of central Florida was considerably
different from today. In general, water resources were more limited and sea level was
lower than today, although fluctuations in both the water table and sea level did occur.
Xeric vegetation dominated, particularly along the upland ridge systems. By 5000 B.P.,
modern wetland habitats had become established and upland vegetation achieved its
present configuration (Watts and Hansen 1988). At this time, the Indian River paleolagoon was re-flooded by sea level transgression, which rose to modern levels from a low
of about 100 m below present at about 18,000 B.P. (Bader and Parkinson 1990). Prior to
5000 B.P., the lagoon was a dry, linear depression where quartz sand, similar to that
which comprises the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, accumulated (Bader and Parkinson
1990:210).
CULTURAL SETTING
PREHISTORIC OVERVIEW
Paleoindian Period (12,000-10,000 B.P.)
Prehistoric native peoples entered Florida at least 12,000 years ago. While there is
abundant archaeological evidence for an early occupation of northern and central Florida
(Milanich 1994), there is only limited evidence for people inhabiting southeast Florida at
this early time. Discoveries of human skeletal remains near Vero Beach in 1915 and
Melbourne in 1925 were presumed to be of early origin because of their inferred
association with extinct Pleistocene mammals (Gidley and Loomis 1926; Sellards 1916,
1917). Analysis of the Vero Beach finds by Hrdlika (1918, 1922) concluded that the
human remains were intrusive into Pleistocene deposits. However, more recent analyses
of the skeletal remains (Stewart 1946) and a comparison of the geological context of
those finds with similar discoveries in southwest Florida (Cockrell and Murphy 1978),
8
indicate that the original interpretations may have been correct. To date, the Helen Blazes
site (8BR27) is the only archaeological site in the immediate vicinity to be associated
with this time period. Due to changes in hydrology, (e.g., rising sea levels, increased
rainfall and subsequent increase in ground and artesian water) it is probable that
Paleoindian Period settlement or activity areas were close to, or adjacent to, water
sources that may not exist or be accessible in a modern climate (e.g., inundated sites or
lands that have been altered as a result of alluvial or aeolian deposition).
EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD (10,000-7000 B.P.)

The beginning of the archaic period coincides with the onset of the Holocene at
approximately 10,000 B.P. This period can be divided into two horizons, based on
differences in stone tool types: Side-Notched, or Bolen (10,000-9000 B.P.) and Stemmed,
or Kirk (9000-8000 B.P.). Both horizons are well represented in northern and central
Florida (Milanich 1994). The earliest firm evidence for human occupation in southeast
Florida dates to about 10,000-9500 B.P. At the Cutler site in Miami, side-notched stone
projectile points, called Bolen points, were recovered in association with animal bones
and a hearth feature (Carr 1986). Based on radiocarbon dates from a cultural stratum
believed to be associated with the Bolen points, the Cutler site is believed to date to
around 9600 B.P. At this time, south Florida was just emerging from a period that was
much drier than at present (Brooks 1974; Gleason et al. 1974). Lake Okeechobee and the
Everglades did not exist, sea levels were much lower than at present, surface water was
limited, and extensive grasslands probably existed, which may have attracted mammoth,
bison, and other large grazing mammals. This bleak landscape inhibited intensive human
habitation except perhaps along the coast; however, any coastal sites are probably now
inundated by higher sea levels. By the Early Archaic period, or the time that the Cutler
site was occupied, precipitation had begun to increase in frequency and duration,
resulting in an increase in surface water. In addition, sea levels were rising which
inundated formerly dry land off shore. The large Pleistocene mammals died off and
native peoples in southeast Florida adapted their lifestyles to the hunting and gathering of
more modern species. The Kirk Horizon is not well represented on the lower east coast,
although the mortuary pond at Windover in Brevard County may contain a Kirk
component. Radiocarbon dates associated with human bone or wooden artifacts range
from 8120 70 B.P. to 6980 80 B.P. (Doran 2002), placing it at the terminal end of the
Kirk Horizon as it has been defined throughout the rest of the southeastern United States
(Chapman 1985; Sherwood et al. 2004). Three possible Kirk Stemmed projectile points
were associated with the burials. The Windover site provides some of the best
information on Early Archaic burial practices and non-lithic material culture. It is a
wetland cemetery, which, when excavated, revealed the remains of 168 individuals along
with numerous perishable items such as bone pins, awls, incised tubes, shell tools and
beads, an antler weight, wooden stakes, cordage, mats, and fabric. The radiocarbon dates
indicate that the interments were made over a long period of time, and suggest that the
9
pond was used repeatedly for interments for more than a millennium. The high degree of
preservation of the bodies, and the lack of any evidence for scavenging of the remains by
animals, suggests that they were placed in the cemetery within a few days or even hours
after death (Dickel 2002). The interments were apparently placed in five or six discrete
groups within the pond, and individual clusters may have been marked by stakes (Dickel
2002:80). The presence of marine shells at the site would seem to support the hypothesis
that these people moved from the coast, which at this time was much farther away from
the site than it is today, to the interior on a relatively regular basis. Analysis of
archaeobotanical remains from the site indicate occupation during the late summer-early
fall (Newsom 2002:208; Tuross et al. 1994:297-298).
MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD (7000-5000 B.P.)

A dramatic increase in precipitation and runoff in south Florida is indicated by peat
deposits in the Everglades that began to form about 6000-5000 BP (McDowell et al.
1969). This enabled native peoples to expand into formerly inhospitable locations. Sea
levels reached modern levels and may have exceeded them for short periods (Dorsey
1997; Tanner 1991). Modern estuaries began to form and exploitation of coastal
resources began in earnest, particularly along the northern Atlantic coast (Ste. Claire
1990). The expansion of populations into new locations resulted in a variety of settlement
and subsistence strategies, each adapted to local conditions. Sedentary settlements were
established along productive rivers, such as the St. Johns, or in coastal areas in southwest
and northeast Florida (e.g., Russo 1991; Ste. Claire 1990). In other areas, a more mobile
lifestyle was practiced (Austin 1996, 1997). Locally, sea level rise is indicated by the
deposition of coastal marsh mud in the Indian River lagoon at approximately 6000-5000
B.P. (Bader and Parkinson 1990). Yet there is limited archaeological evidence for Middle
Archaic occupation of southeast Florida. Pre-ceramic Archaic sites have been
documented in the interior around Lake Okeechobee (Gleason and Stone 1994; Hale
1989:48, 55-56), and one documented Middle Archaic site has been identified at the
Westridge site on Pine Island Ridge in Broward County (Carr et al. 1992). The Gauthier
site in Brevard County contains a Middle Archaic cemetery (Carr and Jones 1981; SiglerEisenberg 1984). This lack of Middle Archaic sites in southeast Florida may be due in
part to their low archaeological visibility. The lack of any lithic raw materials for tool
production in south Florida forced a greater emphasis on the use of perishable materials
such as wood, bone, and shell. The highly acidic soils of the region would have destroyed
these organic materials, leaving very little behind for archaeologists to discover. The
dependence on perishable materials for much of the material culture of Archaic peoples is
reflected by the abundance of organic artifacts recovered from Windover Pond and the
near absence of lithic artifacts (Dickel 2002).
10
LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD (5000-2500 B.P.)

By 5000 B.P., the climate and environments of Florida had reached essentially modern
conditions. This allowed further regionalization of cultures throughout Florida, as
individual societies developed increasingly sophisticated adaptations to their local
environments (Milanich 1994). During the Late Archaic period, the first pottery was
made by the native peoples of Florida. In southern Florida, two separate late Archaic
cultures can be identified archaeologically: the Orange culture and, for lack of a better
term, the Glades Archaic culture. The Orange culture is known primarily from northeast
Florida, including both the Atlantic coast and the St. Johns River drainage basin. The
Orange peoples made a distinctive pottery tempered with fiber. Other artifacts include
whelk shell (Busycon spp.) adzes and conch shell celts (Strombus spp.). It is likely that
the Busycon adzes found in northeast Florida at this time were of local origin, while the
Strombus celts were traded into the area from southeastern Florida (Wheeler 1992). Site
types are generally oyster and coquina shell middens along the coast and freshwater pond
snail middens along the inland rivers and streams. Some coastal shell rings also have
been observed (Newman and Weisman 1992). Recent work in St. Lucie County provides
evidence of a Late Archaic culture in this region. At the Ten Mile Creek project area, four
sites (8SL0007, 8SL1180, 8SL1181, 8SL1182) that have fiber tempered or fiber/mixed
pottery indicative of a Late Archaic component were identified (New South Associates
2003). In Martin County, Orange populations were present and were almost exclusively
coastal (Carr et al. 1995). Only semi-fiber-tempered shards were recovered from the Mt.
Elizabeth site (8MT30), and Orange populations may have migrated to that area from the
Indian River estuary farther north. The Joseph Reed shell ring (8MT13) on Jupiter Island
may represent something of an anomaly as it is Late Archaic in age but possesses a
ceramic assemblage characterized by spiculate and sand tempered pastes. Although the
Joseph Reed has been damaged by storm surges, it was once probably a constructed ring
made up mostly of oyster shell. In this respect, it seems quite similar to other Orange
period shell rings located farther north (Newman and Weisman 1992). Pepe (Carr et al.
1995) suggests that a separate Late Archaic culture, which he refers to as the Glades
Archaic, also was present in southern Florida, and probably had only limited ties to
the Orange culture (Carr et al. 1995). The presence of this culture is suggested by nonceramic bone middens now recognized as typical on nearly every interior tree island or
former tree island and in nearly every marsh or former marsh in southern Florida (e.g.,
Carr and Steele 1993; Ehrenhard et al. 1978, 1979, 1980). Several of these types of sites
also have been identified in the Loxahatchee Slough and Allapatah Flats of Martin and
Palm Beach Counties (Carr et al. 1995). Faunal remains from these sites are mainly
freshwater species, such as turtle, fish, and pond apple snail, which were plentiful in the
surrounding marshes.
11
POST-ARCHAIC PERIOD (2500-500 B.P.)

By 2500 B.P., regional adaptations had become so well established that it is possible for
archaeologists to subdivide the state by geographic areas that share similar archaeological
traits. The Palmer PUD project area is located near the interface of what has been termed
the Indian River region of the East and Central Lakes District (Rouse 1951; Milanich
1994) and the East Okeechobee Culture area (Carr and Beriault 1984). The Indian River
region extends from the Indian River-St. Lucie county line northward along the Atlantic
coast to Merritt Island in Brevard County. The western boundary extends about 20 miles
inland and to the St. Johns River drainage and tributaries. Rouse (1951) referred to the
regional culture as Malabar and this term is still used in some reports (e.g., SiglerEisenberg 1985). Irving Rouse (1951) was the first to describe the archaeological cultures
in the Indian River area, referring to them as Malabar. His chronology paralleled that of
the St. Johns Region with St. Johns Check Stamped pottery indicating the break between
Malabar I and Malabar II. However, there also are significant amounts of sand-tempered
pottery in the Indian River area and, instead of indicating influence from adjacent culture
areas, at least some of this sand-tempered pottery appears to have been made from the
same local clays as the St. Johns wares (Espenshade 1983). Cordells (1985) analysis of
pottery from several sites in Brevard County resulted in the ceramic sequence shown in
Table 2 and the sequence appears to hold for other portions of the Indian River region as
well (Milanich 1994:250). The dates assigned to these periods are estimates and have
been extrapolated from Milanichs chronology for the entire East and Central Lakes
District (Milanich 1994:247). Cordell takes Rouses original Malabar I Period and
divides it into three sub periods based on changes in ceramic frequencies. Early Period I
(ca. 2500-2000 B.P.) is recognized by the introduction of non-fiber-tempered wares to the
ceramic assemblages of local native peoples. St. Johns Plain dominates these early
components, but sand-tempered plain also is present in small amounts. Middle Period I
(ca. 2000-1500 B.P.) is distinguished by a substantial increase of sand-tempered plain
ceramics in middens, a decrease in the proportion of St. Johns Plain, and the introduction
(albeit in very small quantities) of Belle Glade Plain at some sites. Late Period 1 (ca.
1500-1250 B.P.) is marked by the return to dominance of St. Johns Plain and the
corresponding decrease of sand-tempered plain pottery. There also is a slight increase in
the amount of Belle Glade Plain. The appearance of St. Johns Check Stamped pottery is
the marker for Period II (ca. 1250-500 B.P.). It, along with St. Johns Plain, is the major
pottery type during this period. Sand- Tempered Plain comprises about 10% of most
assemblages and Belle Glade Plain remains a minority ware.
12
500-250 Period III

Introduction of European artifacts. St. Johns Check Stamped
continues.
750-500
1000-750
1250-1000
Period II
St. Johns Check Stamped appears in combination with St. Johns Plain. Sand-tempered
plain remains at about 10%. Belle Glade Plain remains a minority type.1500-1250 Late
Period I St. Johns Plain returns to dominance as sand-tempered plain decreases to about
10%. Slight increase in Belle Glade Plain (3%).
1750-1500
2000-1750
Middle Period I
St. Johns Plain is still predominant but sand-tempered plain increases to about 30-40% of
assemblages. Belle Glade Plain present in very small amounts (less than 1%).
2250-2000
2500-2250
Early Period I
Decrease in fiber-tempered pottery. St. Johns Plain is the dominant ware. Minor
representation of sand-tempered plain.
2750-2500
SOURCES: (Carr et al. 1995; Cordell 1985; Milanich 1994).
Both interior and coastal sites are known in the Indian River region. Site types in the
interior include small, special use campsites and larger, multi-component sites that
possess extensive midden deposits and were probably used for permanent habitation.
13
Russos (1986, 1988) analysis of faunal remains from interior sites indicates a
dependence on aquatic resources (turtle, ducks, fish, fresh water mussels). Throughout
the post-Archaic period, wetland resources expanded and water sources became deeper
providing suitable habitats for more and larger fish, such as bass and pickerel. However,
during the dry months of the year (winter and spring), these water sources shrank
providing habitat for fish species that favor shallow, muddy bottomed ponds, such as
bowfin and gar. Terrestrial animals (deer, raccoon, rabbit) also were exploited, but the
emphasis was clearly on acquiring most of the diet from freshwater wetlands. Coastal
sites were once present in many locations along the Indian River lagoon, the adjacent
uplands, and on the barrier islands. Modern development has destroyed many of these
sites, but a few have been investigated and provide information on costal adaptations. At
present, it appears that the coast was utilized seasonally during the winter and spring
months of the year when interior wetlands were less abundant. The data
indicate that some sites were small, extractive sites occupied by only a few individuals
while other, larger sites served as habitations sites. Marine fish, shellfish (especially
coquina), and some terrestrial animals were exploited for food (Milanich 1994:252-253).
What is unknown at present is how the coastal and interior sites relate to one another. For
example, it is not clear whether the same people occupied both locations during different
parts of the year or whether different groups occupied each area year round.
CONTACT PERIOD
In the Indian River region, the historic period (referred to as Period III) is marked by the
presence of European goods in otherwise native assemblages. The St. Johns ceramic
series remains the dominant native pottery. The native groups encountered by Europeans
at this time on the Atlantic coast were the Ais. The Ais appear to have been an
independent tribe, but large amounts of St. Johns pottery and other artifacts from the
Indian River and St. Johns areas during this time suggests that their cultural influences
may have come from the north instead. Dickinson also observed that the Jeaga were
forced to hand over shipwrecked cargo to the Ais, their neighbors to the north (Andrews
1985). Of course, European contact marked the beginning of the end for the native
populations throughout Florida. It has been estimated that there were about 20,000
natives in southern Florida when the Spanish arrived (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). By
1763, when the English gained control of Florida, the population had been reduced to
several hundred. These tribal remnants were reported to have migrated to Cuba with the
Spanish (Romans 1775). However, it is likely that the Spanish Indians who raided
Indian Key in 1840 were the mixed-blood descendants of the Calusa, and/or refugees
from the northern Florida missions that were raided by the English in the early 18th
century (Sturtevant 1953). These Spanish-Indians became part of the Seminoles, who had
fled into southern Florida after the 1838 Battle of Okeechobee.
14
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
EARLY SPANISH EXPLORATION
For nearly half a century, ships of various origins have passed through the coastal waters
of what is now Brevard County. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the region
served as an important stage for many early European expeditions in North America.
Some historians believe that the Italian captain, John Cabot, sailed south along the
Brevard coast during his 1498 explorations (Dovell 1952; Eriksen 1994). There is also
evidence that Spanish slave traders raided the indigenous villages of the coast, for when
Juan Ponce de Leon came to Florida he found a native who understood Spanish. Ponce de
Leon left Puerto Rico on March 3, 1513, with three ships. After sailing on a
northwesterly course for 30 days, the ships landed either north of Cape Canaveral
(Milanich 1995) or in the vicinity of modern day Melbourne Beach (Eriksen 1994;
Gannon 1996). The Cape is found on many sixteenth century maps and is one of the
oldest place names in North America (Eriksen 1994). Ponce remained at this initial
landing place for six days before pulling anchor and sailing southward to explore the
remainder of the peninsula (Gannon 1996; Milanich 1995). The Gulf Stream, located off
the Brevard coast, was an important thoroughfare for the transportation of New World
supplies to Europe. Old World powers engaged in a bitter struggle to control it. Spanish
treasure galleons rode the current from Havana through the Bahama Channel, passing the
coast of Florida en route to Spain. Wrecks were common in the treacherous shoals around
Cape Canaveral and the local Indian tribe, the Ais, often recovered lost cargoes. The
Spanish crown realized the importance of this trade route, so when they heard that the
French were developing a colony, Fort Caroline, on the St. Johns River near Jacksonville
they decided to act. In 1565, Pedro Menndez de Aviles, a highly respected officer in the
Spanish navy, was issued the task of eradicating the French influence in the area
(Milanich 1995). Cape Canaveral became an early target in this larger effort. By the time
the Spanish ships arrived, the French had already built a wooden fort on a small island
anchored at the entrance of the St. Johns River (present-day Jacksonville), and a fleet of
ships had arrived from France a few days before, carrying, weapons, supplies, tools and
hundreds of soldiers and would-be colonists. Challenged, the French cut their anchor
cables and gave chase to the Spanish who found refuge within a natural inlet (St.
Augustine). As the tide was low, the French ships were unable to cross the large sandbar
and decided to wait for more favorable conditions to enter the inlet and engage the
Spaniards, but a hurricane blew over the region, pushing the French ships toward the
shoals of Cape Canaveral to the south where they were all lost. While most onboard those
ships survived, they were tricked by Pedro Menndez de Avils into surrendering and
were quickly put to the swords. Menndez and his men then marched north toward the
French fort. Under pressure from both a naval and a ground forces, the Frenchmen, who
numbered about 170, eventually surrendered to Menndez, but not before 132 of them
15
were killed as they came out of their lodgings as the Spaniards swarmed into the forts
encampment (Lyon 1974:113-124). The expedition to Cape Canaveral was a victory for
the Spanish and expanded their knowledge of the region that later became Brevard
County (Eriksen 1994; Milanich 1995). Over the course of the seventeenth century, the
Spanish became more familiar with the eastern coast of Florida including present-day
Brevard County. In 1605, the Spanish sent a delegation under the command of Alvaro
Mexia to the Brevard area. The diplomat was charged with placating the aggressive Ais
and mapping the region. His mission was considered a success. Mexia was named an
honorary chief of the tribe and the Indian and Banana Rivers (which the Spanish called
Rio de Ais and Ulumay Lagoon) were explored and recorded. His maps detail many
Indian settlements along the shores of Mosquito Lagoon (at the north end of the Banana
River). Some have speculated that Mexia and his entourage also spread orange seeds
along the banks of the Indian River (Eriksen 1994). While these developments were
significant, they did not encourage the Spanish to sponsor further settlement of Florida.
The waters along the eastern coast of Florida continued to present dangers to sailing
vessels in the eighteenth century. On July 24, 1715, a flotilla of eleven Spanish ships
carrying 14 million pesos in gold, silver, and jewels left Havana for Europe. A few days
into the voyage, on 31 July 1715, eleven ships wrecked along the East Florida coast
between St. Lucie County and St. Johns County. Approximately 700 sailors perished and
an additional 1500 became castaways. The Ais aided the Spaniards by providing them
with supplies and instructions for gathering food in the dunes. The Spanish government,
desperate to recover the lost treasure, established an encampment of salvers in the
vicinity of present-day Sebastian State Park. Salvers recovered only one-third of the lost
cargo. In the mid-twentieth century, treasure hunters made a concerted effort to finish the
job (Burgess and Clausen 1982; Eriksen 1994).
THE BRITISH PERIOD AND THE SECOND SPANISH PERIOD

Through much of the eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries, white men possessed a
poor understanding of Brevard County which was then known as the Mosquito Coast.
When the British came under control of Florida after the Seven Years War ended in 1763,
new explorations occurred (Figure 5). The botanist John Bartram and his son William
documented the region in the course of their search for the headwaters of the St.
Johns River (Eriksen 1994; Tebeau 1971). Their reports, which depicted a sprawling
wilderness full of alligators and Indians, inspired no new attempts at settling the area. In
1783, the Treaty of Paris restored Florida to Spain, whose control of the territory was
quite tenuous over the following decades (Tebeau 1971). Immigrants from the
Indian tribes north of Florida had replaced those who succumbed to European diseases
and warfare. They now numbered from five to six thousand in the colony. Zespedes, the
Spanish Governor, wrote to the king in 1785 that isolated groups of Americans were
16
trickling into Florida (Eriksen 1994; Tebeau 1971). The Crown may have viewed
themselves as the ruler of Florida, but in truth their position in the peninsula was
dependent upon an alliance with local Indian tribes which held a much greater influence
on affairs (Frank 2005).
THE TERRITORIAL PERIOD

Even after the American acquisition of Florida in 1821, the Mosquito Coast was the
realm of Indians. Seeking to establish a boundary between white settlement and Indian
territory, the Americans designated four million acres of the interior of Florida as a
reservation for the Seminoles. This area included the southwestern corner of modern day
Brevard County (Mahon 1985). Two counties, Escambia to the west and St. Johns to the
east, were also formed. In 1824, the area encompassing most of east-central Florida
including Brevard County was organized as Mosquito County. Colonel James Gadsen led
a survey party through the eastern portion of the county in 1825 to find a route for a road
from St. Augustine to what is now Dade County. Several dozen plantations, some of
which were holdovers from the previous Spanish period, operated along the Indian River.
The majority of new settlement in Florida remained focused on the northern part of the
state with the exception of Key West (Eriksen 1994; Fernald and Purdum 1992).
Increasing tensions between American settlers and the Seminoles erupted into the Second
Seminole War. Mosquito County became a prominent theater in this conflict. On
Christmas day 1835, Indian forces razed plantations in the area. Along with a severe
freeze in 1835, the war decimated Mosquito Countys population as they fled to safe
havens outside the county (Shofner 1995:36). The military erected forts throughout the
Brevard area. Six hundred mounted militiamen, under General Joseph Hernandezs
command, constructed Fort Ann a mile south of modern day Haulover Canal. Camp
Hernandez was erected south of present day Scottsmoor in northern Brevard. General
Hernandez collected his troops at the camps on January 3, 1838 and proceeded to
advance south along the eastern coast. Their path followed the high ground along the
western side of the Indian River Lagoon before swinging west to meet Fort Taylor on
Lake Winder then southeast paralleling what is now I-95. Of all the military trails created
in Brevard, this is the only one historians are able to pinpoint accurately (Eriksen
1994:38-39). Naval forces were used during the Second Seminole War, but there appears
to have been no sizable expeditions along the coast of todays Brevard County. The war
ended in 1842, and on March 14, 1844, Saint Lucie County (whose name soon changed
to Brevard County) was carved out of Mosquito County (Carter 1962:994-995;
Dunn 1998:34).
STATEHOOD AND THE CIVIL WAR

17
On March 3, 1845, Florida became the 27th state admitted to the Union (Eriksen 1994).
As in centuries before, the coastal waters of eastern Florida remained treacherous. The
state therefore erected a lighthouse on Cape Canaveral in 1848 (Wooley 2002:9-10).
During this period, development of St. Lucie County was hindered because of the lack of
adequate roads in the region. The Indian River, which was more of an elongated lagoon,
served as the primary means of transportation (Shofner 1995:63-64). Hoping that a new
name might invite wider interest in the region, Saint Lucie County was renamed Brevard
in 1855. Its namesake was Judge Theodore Washington Brevard who had been state
comptroller for Florida. The new county encompassed more than 7000 square miles and
had its seat of government at Fort Pierce, although most simply referred to it as Indian
River (Eriksen 1994; Shofner 1995:62). John Houston established the first permanent US
settlement in south Brevard County, Arlington, in 1854. This town was located on land
fronting the Indian River and Elbow Creek (Eriksen 1994). Between 1850 and 1860, the
population of Brevard County doubled although there were still only 267 people in
residence. Most were cattlemen and subsistence farmers (Shofner 1995:65). The Civil
War began another chapter of intrigue along the Coast of Brevard County as blockade
runners attempted to transport goods in and out of Confederate Florida. They received no
help from the Cape Canaveral lighthouse which, along with other lights, was ordered to
be extinguished early in the war. The keeper at Canaveral, Mills Burnham, was a Union
sympathizer. Fearing that the lamp and other mechanisms might be apprehended by
Confederates, he boxed them up and buried them in his orange grove. Union vessels
patrolled the waters along Brevard County throughout the duration of the war. From New
Smyrna (Volusia County) southward, approximately 32 blockade-running vessels were
captured between 1862 and 1865 (Shofner 1995:70). Aside from the occasional blockade
runners, Brevard County was far removed from the action of the war but still played a
visible role in the war as a supplier of beef. The Confederate government estimated that
three fourths of the cattle from Floridawhich had become the main supply of beef for
the Confederacywas from Brevard and Manatee Counties. Settlers in Brevard also
engaged in salt production for the Confederate Army (Shofner 1995:72).
THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY

Brevard County remained one of Floridas least populated counties in the decades
following the Civil War. The region was far removed from the growing centers of
population in the state and overland transportation routes were still poorly developed. In
the years before the arrival of the railroad, water transportation was the dominant mode
of travel in Brevard County (Brown 1991:13-14) (Figure 6). Until the railroad arrived in
the 1880s, the Indian River was the primary corridor of transportation into the region.
Those were the days when a mans approach and arrival were heralded by the cut and
rig of his sail, wrote one historian (Nance 1962:258-259). Nevertheless, there were
individuals who saw opportunity in this frontier. Titusville, once a small cluster of
18
settlers, became more prominent in the 1870s when citizens elected it as the permanent
seat of government. By the 1880s, steamships were traveling the Indian River with
regularity (Nance 1962:258-259). They hauled lumber in and agricultural products out of
the region in the years before the railroad (Eriksen 1994:95-96). The population of the
Indian River area was expanding due to a solid economic base of agriculture and fishing
(Eriksen 1994). In addition to these stable sources of income, the occasional shipwreck
offered a bonus of sorts. Following the wreck of the steamer Ladona in 1870, the coastal
residents of Brevard gathered the lost cargo which consisted of French shoes (Wooley
2002:9-10). Many of the early settlers acquired lumber by collecting driftwood and other
goods from shipwrecks (Nance 1962:257-258). Other wrecks offered cloth and consumer
goods (Wooley 2002:9-10).
Brevard County Population.
Date Population Date Population
1860 246 1930 13,283
1870 1,216 1940 16,142
1880 1,478 1950 23,653
1890 3,401 1960 111,435
1900 5,158 1970 230,006
1910 4,717 1980 272,959
1920 8,505 1990 398,978
Despite the popularity of oceanfront living in the current day, settlers to Brevard County
in the late 19th century were most interested in settling the inland areas. Settlement in this
era was situated around the Indian River. In 1880, Melbourne, founded by Richard W.
Goode, obtained a post office. Titusville was chosen as a stop on the Jacksonville, Tampa
and Key West Railway in 1885. Columbus Willard established Cocoa in 1882 and by
1887 the town had six stores and was quickly expanding around its deep-water landing.
In 1890, a group of wealthy Harvard graduates founded the 18,000 acre Canaveral Club,
which is now the Merritt Island National Wildlife Preserve. In 1893, the Flagler East
Coast Railway line came to Titusville and Eau Gallie. In 1895, a double blast of freezing
temperatures devastated the areas citrus industry. The orange and pineapple groves
recovered by 1897. The economy of the area boomed with the rejuvenated citrus industry
and the new railway. In 1899, with the aid of a new state road building fund, Brevard
County began a road building campaign. During this project many Indian shell middens
and mounds were borrowed for shell that was then crushed and hard packed over
palmetto fiber. As the turn of the century approached, Brevard County had a population
of 5,158 people, a new road system, and 35 public schools (Eriksen 1994). Extensive as
the Brevard County coastline was, an ocean port failed to develop until the 20th century.
The main reason was geography, as there were no navigable channels that connected the
19
sea with the north-south Indian River. In the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
attempts were made to connect the two (Eriksen 1994:132, 155). By the late 1910s the
Sebastian Inlet was somewhat navigable although it had to be dredged often. County
residents petitioned for a harbor at Cape Canaveral but their plea went unfulfilled
(Eriksen 1994:156-160).
THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

Brevard County was in the midst of a massive program of internal improvements during
the first twenty years of the new century. Municipal governments constructed water
towers, sewage lines, and new roads. The county purchased a large trenching machine in
1911 and began to drain the floodplain east of the St. Johns to open land for new
development. The Dixie Highway route of 1915 brought an infusion of tourists to the
area. In 1917, Brevard achieved its modern day dimension when the southern portions of
the county became St. Lucie and Okeechobee counties and the western portion Osceola
County (Fernald and Purdum 1992). The center of population in the county shifted from
Titusville in the north to Eau Gallie, Cocoa, and Melbourne in the south. In 1920, 1445
people lived in Cocoa, 1361 people resided in Titusville, and 533 people called
Melbourne home (Table 2). A bridge constructed from Cocoa to
Merritt Island opened a link to the many small communities on the coast. Another toll
bridge from Melbourne to Merritt Island followed four years later and by the midtwenties four bridges spanned the river. New developments sprouted up along the
beaches as result of these bridges (Eriksen 1994). Canova Beach was one such
development. Around 1923, Carlos Canova of Eau Gallie had aspirations to establish a
marine biology laboratory on his oceanside property. After the completion of the bridge
from Eau Gallie to the beach, he abandoned those plans and opened Canova Beach which
consisted of a hotel, fishing pier, and casino (Shofner 1996:40, 47) (Figure 7). Canova
intended his resort to be quiet, non-alcoholic, and rustic (Kjerulff 1972:97). After the
Eighteenth Amendment prohibited alcohol sales, the inlets along the Indian River once
again became smuggling hotbeds. The Chicago gangster Al Capone coordinated rum
running from the Bahamas to the States at a small hideaway in Eau Gallie (Eriksen 1994).
Also well-known was Captain William H. McCoy, a former steamboat captain from Eau
Gallie. The expression the real McCoy originated during this period as a reference to
the quality of his products (Eriksen 1994:164, 169-170). After the Stock Market crash of
1929, the numbers of tourists visiting Brevard dramatically waned. This decline crippled
the economy and bankrupted the government. The area received aid from the Civil Works
Administration (CWA) which employed 800 people from December 1933 to March 1934
to repair roads, build schools, and excavate Indian mounds. In 1935, the Works Progress
Administration replaced the CWA. This agency constructed the Canaveral port and the
Melbourne airport and dredged the Intracoastal Waterway from Cumberland Sound in
Georgia to Miami in 1936. As World War II approached in 1939, the military chose land
20
south of Cocoa Beach to build the Banana River Naval Air Station (Eriksen 1994).
Shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, German submarines became
active off the coast of Florida. They sunk several tankers and cargo ships early in the war.
Brevards coastline was soon littered with the wreckage of the commercial ships, and
crewmen from sunken ships were plucked from ocean waters or found exhausted on the
beaches, wrote one historian (Eriksen 1994). On one exceptionally active day, three
merchant ships were torpedoed off of Cape Canaveral (Stone 1988:52). After the
completion of the Banana River and Melbourne airbases in 1942, shipping lanes were
patrolled by Navy airplanes. Later in that year, beach patrols were established to monitor
the horizon and blackouts were initiated at inland communities as a preventative measure
against attacks. By the end of the war, German subs had torpedoed 25 ships between
Miami and Daytona Beach (Eriksen 1994:194-196). In 1949, the U.S. Air Force
developed a long range missile testing ground at the former Banana River Air Station.
The base was renamed Patrick Air Force Base in 1950 and was the sight of experimental
launches of hybrid rockets. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration began
operations on the Cape in 1958 and in 1963 the agency received 88,000 acres on Merritt
Island on which to build the Kennedy Space Center. A complex of more than 50
buildings was constructed on the island including the largest building in the world, a 52story rocket assembly hangar. The space industry had a drastic effect on the area. Brevard
County grew by 371 percent from 1950 to 1960 and the population doubled again during
the 1960s (Tebeau 1971).
BREVARD COUNTY HISTORIC SHIPWRECKS

There has been documented maritime activity in Brevard County since the early 16th century.
Since that time, there have been thousands of shipwrecks along the Florida coast and Brevard.
Brevard Countys maritime history is evident in the waters along Melbourne Beach and
Indialantic. Bob Gross, historian at the Florida Historical Society and a longtime resident of
Brevard County, shared information about shipwrecks in this area. Gross knowledge comes from
personal experiences as well as extensive research on the subject in local newspapers. Gross
knew of two possible wrecks in the vicinity of the current project area. The first was a Spanish
wreck that dated to the early to mid-eighteenth century and the second was the 1928 wreck of a
ship called the Oraca (Gross, personal communication, 2006; 2010). Gross reported that artifacts
of Spanish origin had been found on the shore and in the water along Melbourne Beach, in the
vicinity of Spessard Holland Park, Melbourne Beach, and Canova Beach, Indialantic, in the
1960s. During that decade, Gross (who was then a boy) knew a gentleman who had a box of
Spanish artifacts that he had collected at Canova Beach. The collector is now deceased. Gross
claimed to have found a few artifacts along the beach and in the water during the same period, but
reported that they have since been misplaced. Gross description of the location of these various
recoveries of Spanish artifacts coincided with the general location of the current project area
(Spessard Holland Park, Melbourne Beach and Canova Beach). He speculated that the wreck
dated to no later than the first half of the eighteenth century based on what he described as a
Pillar Dollar found near the old pier at Canova Beach. Gross also remembers seeing a salvage
21
boat working off Spessard Holland Park back in the early 1960s (Gross, personal communication,
22 December 2010). Newspaper reports from December 1928 described the wreck of the cruiser
Oraca along Canova Beach. The wreck occurred on the evening of December 5 after an engine
backfired and set the ship aflame. The crew of five attempted to fight the blaze with fire
extinguishers but they were unsuccessful. They ignited flares and abandoned ship. In the
meantime, keepers of the Cape Canaveral lighthouse and observers along Canova Beach had
noticed the flares from the sinking ship. The lighthouse keeper telephoned a local fisherman who
hurried to the scene as residents of Canova Beach notified the chief of police. The fisherman
rescued one survivor from the water. Another survivor appeared on the beach near Melbourne
sometime thereafter. In the meantime, the chief of police at Melbourne had requested aid from the
Coast Guard base in Fort Lauderdale. Five patrol boats were ordered to Canova Beach. Despite
the efforts of the fisherman and the Coast Guard, the three remaining sailors were not found alive.
The body of one of them later washed ashore near Melbourne. The other two were never
recovered (New York Times 6 December 1928; Cocoa Tribune 13 December 1928). Newspaper
accounts do not describe what the vessel was transporting. Nor do they describe the ships port or
origin or its destination. Records of the Fort Lauderdale Coast Guard base are not available. Local
histories do not provide specific information on wrecks in the Canova Beach area or the
Melbourne Beach area. Existing accounts indicate that the wreck of the Oraca occurred along
Canova Beach. The Florida Star described that the wreck was a short distance off shore between
Eau Gallie and Melbourne. The New York Times was more specific, noting that the ship was
located five miles off Canova Beach. Also, the latter account mentions that residents at Canova
Beach were able to see the flare signals sent up by the crew of the Oraca (New York Times 6
December 1928; Cocoa Tribune 13 December 1928). Finally, an entry in the 1929 volume of
Merchant Vessels of the United States (MVUS) lists the Orca as lost by fire on December 6, 1928
(United Stated Department of Commerce [USDC] 1929). It should be noted that newspaper
accounts referred to the ship as the Oraca while the MVUS source refer to the ship as the Orca.
Regardless of spelling, the records refer to the same ship. While further information on the actual
wreck of the cruiser Oraca and its crew has not been found, other details relating to the vessel are
available in the Merchant Vessels of the United States volumes from the period. This information
tells that the Orca was built in Neponset, Massachusetts, in 1917 as a 260-horsepower gas yacht.
The Orca was based out of New York City during the first half of the 1920s. After 1926, the
Orca is described as a fishing vessel. In the years immediately preceding its demise along Canova
Beach, the vessel had undergone improvements that raised its horsepower to over 450. This
alteration coincides with its transfer of ownership from Robert W. Thompson of Edgewater, New
Jersey to John Little of Jacksonville, Florida. When the Orca was lost in 1928, the owner was
A.C. Hardy. Information on the various owners of the Orca over time is minimal. Of Robert W.
Thompson (the owner as of 1926) and John Little (the owner as of 1927), nothing has been
discovered in census records and national newspapers of the era as well as Jacksonville local
histories and business directories. However, information has been found on A.C. Hardy who
appears to have been fairly prominent in the realm of marine engineering. He was an editor of
volumes on the subject and a member of the Institute of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
(New York Times 20 November 1927). During the 1920s and later, his opinion was sought on a
number of issues dealing with marine architecture (New York Times 17 January 1928; New York
Times 30 January 1928). Although the likelihood seems high that this A.C. Hardy was the same
individual of Jacksonville, Florida who is listed as the owner of the Orca in the USDC source
from 1929, no document discovered during the course of this research has indicated with
certainty that they are the same individual. Harry Goode, Mayor of Melbourne, a lifelong resident
22
of that city, also remembers hearing of Spanish artifacts being found around Spessard Holland
Park as well as north and south of that location; he also knows that old iron cannon were
recovered along that coast and melted down during WWII (Harry Goode, personal
communication 2003).
Brevard County Shipwreck Inventory (Offshore; Cape Canaveral to Melbourne)

Date
Name/Type
Information
1551
San Nicolas (Nao)
200 tons, wrecked near Ais (The

coast of the Ais tribe stretches from
Cape Canaveral to St. Lucie Inlet)
1554
San Estevan (Nao)
Sank near Ais
1556
The Armada of Nueva Espaa
Ais
1563
La Madelena (Galleon)
Wrecked on a shoal near Cape

Canaveral
Before 1564
Three ships of Juan Menndez
Coast of Ais
1565
Three ships of Jean Ribaults fleet Cape Canaveral or north of
Before 1570
Vizcayo (Ship)
Wrecked near Ais
Before 1570
El Mulato (Urca)
At Ais
1571 or 1572
Two ships
Off Cape Canaveral
1572
Two small tenders of Pedro
1 wrecked near Cape Canaveral
Menendez de Aviles
1 wrecked in the province of Ais
1582
Spanish merchant (Nao)
Lost off Cape Canaveral
1589
Spanish ship
Wrecked at Cape Canaveral
1592
Frigate
Sank on the coast near Cape

Canaveral
1618
Almiranta of Honduras
10 leagues (30 miles) south of Cape

Canaveral
1715
Spanish Plate Fleet c. 11 ships
1773
Liberty (Schooner)
Rio d Ais
1778
Otter (British naval sloop)
1835
Noble (Brig)
Went ashore near Cape Canaveral
23
1870
Col. J.T. Sprague (Schooner)
Wrecked near Cape Canaveral
1871
Pomona (Brig)
Stranded 12 miles south of Cape

Canaveral (South Cocoa Beach)
1871
S.W. Walsh (Brig)

1871
H. Burg (Brig)

1880
City of Vera Cruz (Wooden hulled Located at 28 43.115, 080 22.752

brigantine steamship)
1890
Ethel (Schooner)
Foundered off Cape Canaveral
1891
Orrie V. Drisco (Schooner)
1913
Huntress (Gas vessel, yacht)
Burned at Cape Canaveral
1918
Lizzie E. Dennison (Schooner)
Stranded at Hetzel Shoal
1925
Mohican (Steamer)
Burned off Cape Canaveral;

Located at 28 23.900, 080 32.200
1928
Orca
Burned off Canova Beach
1930
Dunham Wheeler
Foundered off Melbourne in 60
(5-mast schooner)
feet of water; Located at 28 11.166,

080 19.666
Key West (Oil vessel)
Burned at Cocoa Beach
1942
(WWII)
24
1942
1942
1942
Elizabeth Massey (British freighter)
Located at 28 09.166,
(WWII)
080 00.666
Cities Service Empire (Steam tanker)
(WWII)
080 02.799
Korsholm (Freighter)
080 28.650
1942
1942
1942
Laertes (Dutch freighter)
known as the Dutch Wreck (WWII)
080 21.605
Ocean Venus (British freighter)
known as the Lead Wreck (WWII)
080 17.324
Leslie (Freighter)
080 16.363
1952
Jackie Faye (Oil vessel, steel hull)
Foundered two miles

offshore, five miles north
of Melbourne
1952
Helen C (Oil vessel)
Burned off Cocoa
1959
Capt. Tap (Oil vessel)
Foundered off Cape

Canaveral
1977
Miss Eileen (Oil vessel)
Foundered off Cape

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

25
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
THE 1715 SPANISH PLATE FLEET
Eleven of the twelve known ships that comprised the 1715 Plate Fleet were driven ashore
and sunk by the July 30-31, 1715 hurricane and scattered along the East coast of Florida.
One particular deposition by a survivor, recorded by a royal court notary, stated that he
floated on a hatch cover for three days in sight of land; this deposition is in the
Contratacin section of the Archivo General de Indias (AGI), Seville, Spain:
... Captain Sebastian Mendez, pilot of the ship...he departed from Havana on the 24th
day of July in company of the Galleons and the Flota, and he was lost on Wednesday the
31st, at two o'clock in the morning, because of a hurricane that came on from the eastnortheast so strongly that although he has sailed the seas for many years and suffered
through many tempests he has never seen another like it for violence, and his ship and all
the rest were lost, some before and some after Palmar de Ays (Cape Canaveral), at 28
degrees 10 minutes (North Latitude)...in an area nine leagues (36 nautical miles or 41.42
statute miles)* from north to south...
* During the late 17th-century and first quarter of the 18th-century, one Spanish nautical
league was equal to 4 nautical miles; 17.5 Spanish leagues were equal to 1 degree of
latitude.
Other historical data shows there were visual reports of shipwrecks and scattered
wreckage in the wake of this hurricane northwest toward the lower mouth of the Banana
River which is at 28 degrees 08 minutes. The southern area of E-155D is just south of the
lower mouth of the Banana River. Artifacts have been found both north and south of this
location by beachcombers for many years, and many cannons and anchors from this area
were recovered during the 1930s and 940s, sold for scrap metal or sold to individuals,
restaurants, motels, and public parks, across Florida, as revealed by Harry Goode, Mayor
of Melbourne (personal communication, 2003). Over the past fifty years, five to six
wrecks have been located and tentatively identified as having being part of the 1715 Plate
Fleet or as contemporaneous salvage vessels. Artifacts from these ships have been
recovered in projects conducted before the development of current underwater state-ofthe-art scientific archaeological technologies and techniques (de Bry 1995).
It has long been recognized by scholars, archaeologists and the historians that if one of
the as-yet to be located ships from the 1715 Fleet or other yet unidentified vessels were
found relatively in a good state of in situ preservation with a high degree of integrity, it
would present an unique opportunity for educational institutions, State and local
communities, for undertaking archaeological investigations using state-of-theart
equipment and technologies; conservation of the cultural material and surviving elements
of ship architectural remains would be done using the latest conservation techniques,
26
such as the one outlined by Texas A & M Universitys conservation team. Studying the
finds for scholarly purposes, placing the artifacts in their historical context for
public/student education, appreciation of the rich history of Florida and European
colonies of the Americas, assembling artifacts in a non-profit museum collection
environment, not only for display but also for research all in a facility within the State of
Florida, are the stated goals of Seafarer Exploration Corp. Such a collection would not be
dispersed and would remain whole for present and future generations of researchers to
study. Seafarer Exploration Corp. subscribes to the principle that any significant cultural
material recovered as mutually agreed upon with the State of Floridas Bureau of
Archaeological Research should be for the benefit of the public at large. This project is
being carried out in compliance with these principles and with private funding.
The area in which recent finds are located is within 4.8 km (3 miles) of Florida's shores
more or less, and are thus within the area in which the State of Florida has ownership
and/or control of abandoned shipwrecks, debris, or abandoned cargo, under the Federal
Abandoned Shipwreck Act. The recent finds south of Cape Canaveral indicate that
remains of one or more of the missing 1715 Plate Fleet vessels may in fact be present in
this area. The excellent state of preservation of the artifacts found on this particular site,
such as the pistol with working parts and intact wooden grip, containing two lead shot
wired together (split shot), dated 1709 and bearing the stamped name of a gunsmith
known to have worked in Mexico then, two silver ornate communion or platters/chargers
inscribed with name of a Spanish noble woman, a silver dagger or knife handle, a silver
miniature cannon, an iron cannon, many other period artifacts including ceramic, iron and
copper-based fasteners, and wooden element of ship structures and fittings, all suggest
one or more historic shipwrecks. This particular shipwreck or shipwrecks is/are located in
a deep layer of heavy anaerobic clay, covered with sandy, marl seabed and layers of sea
shells; low visibility and the presence of sharks in murky waters contribute to the difficult
task of exploring and investigating. However, these conditions suggest to Seafarer
Exploration Corp.'s archaeologists and biologist / conservator the possibility of excellent
in situ preservation of the material culture contained within the site.
This has created an unprecedented opportunity for the use of state-of-the-art
archaeological techniques to study this site and implement a systematic program of
archaeological and environmental investigation of the site and surrounding areas. A
comprehensive research design, survey, testing, conservation and study of the artifacts,
and as Seafarer Exploration Corp. has insisted upon, the retention of the majority of the
unique artifacts not represented in the State of Floridas collection from other shipwreck
sites, will allow for continuing research, preservation, and public benefits through public
outreach programs by Seafarer Exploration Corp. or other recognized institutions (such as
non-profit museum display).
27
Ongoing Research on Doa Juana Isabel Chaves Espinosa de los Monteros

The Espinosa de los Monteros family originates from the small locality of the same name
in Cantabria. The village (N 43 04 37.74 W 03 33 08.78) is located southeast of
Santander. The origin of the name of this village is linked to the Hunt Masters of the
royal Court of Castile who traditionally originated from there. To reward the people from
this locality (first simply named Espinosa) for their loyal service to the Court, de los
Monteros was added to the place name. Los Monteros designates persons who
administer royal hunting grounds. The Espinosa de los Monteros family expanded
throughout the entire Iberian Peninsula, and many members of this illustrious family
were decorated with the Order of Alcantara, the Order of Calatrava, and the Order of
Carlos III.
Archival evidence reveals that a Captain Don Francisco de Chaves (sometimes spelled
Chabez) Espinosa de los Monteros but the relationship, if any, has not been established,
although it must be kept in mind that in Spain, the name of the husband is always first,
followed by the family name of the wife, in this case Espinosa de los Monteros. Capt.
Don Francisco de Chaves Espinosa de los Monteros is a possible relative; he was listed as
residing in Sant Domingo in 1711 and was involved in a legal procedure pertaining to the
ship he owned, the Nuestra Seora del Rosario San Francisco y las Animas (AGI,
Contratacin 668); he was present in Veracruz in 1715. A Don Joseph Espinosa de los
Monteros consigned merchandises, including a box of presents in Veracruz aboard the
Santissima Trinidad y Nuestra Seora de la Concepcin on February 1st, 1715; the
master of the ship was Don Juan Antonio de Laviosa (AGI, Consulados 854).
28
FIGURE 3. PAGE OF MANIFEST FROM THE SANTISIMA TRINIDAD Y NUESTRA SEORA DE LA CONCEPCIN LISTING
DON JOSEPH ESPINOSA DE LOS MONTEROS AS HAVING CONSIGNED 257 COWHIDES AND A CRATE OF PRESENTS
(AGI CONSULADOS, 854)
29
FIGURE 4. PAGE (DETAIL) OF MANIFEST FROM THE SANTISIMA TRINIDAD Y NUESTRA SEORA DE LA
CONCEPCION (AGI CONSULADOS 854)
The Espinosa de los Monteros seem to have been well established in New Spain
(Mexico), and still present around 1800. A captain Espinosa de los Monteros was with
the 2nd Company of Nueva Vizcaya (New Biscay), which capital is Victoria de Durango.
Numerous silver mines are located in this region. Foremost was the Royal Silver Mine of
Chalchihuites, followed by the Minas de Coreto, Minas de Mapimi, Minas de Chindea,
Minas de Santa Barbara, Minas de Guanacevi , Minas de Topia, Minas de San Andrs,
Minas de Dihastla, Minas de Maloya, and Minas de Pnico. It was a fashionable and easy
thing for affluent families in this region to commission personalized silverware, silver
chargers, silver platters, and silver dishes, engraved with their names before returning to
30
Spain. The family is also present in Mizquiahuala y Tetepango where we find one
important mayor in 1758 by the name of Bartolom Espinosa de los Monteros.
FIGURE 5. SIGNATURE PAGE (DETAI){ OF THE SANTISIMA TRINIDAD Y NUESTRA SEORA DE LA CONCEPCIONS
MANIFEST (AGI CONSULADOS 854)
SURVEY OF E-155D SOUTHERN SECTION

The area surveyed was Block 1 which begins at the southernmost point of E-155 and runs
north for 3 miles and extends out to sea for approximately 2 miles. Survey line spacing
was set to 20 Meters wide and ran parallel to the shore-line for the length of Block1. The
equipment used in this survey consisted of a Geometrics 882 Cesium Vapor
Magnetometer, an Imagenex Sport Scan Side Scan Sonar and a Syqwest Strata Box SubBottom Profiler.
The remote sensing survey in Block 1 produced over 1000 magnetic and acoustic
anomalies. To better understand the potential of any significant cultural re-sources or
shipwreck debris in this area this priority list was compiled to try and facilitate the
identification of these anomalies. Although not every anomaly can be visually identified
the identification of the selected anomalies should give a better understanding of the
potential for shipwreck debris.
The anomalies chosen for identification were picked because of their magnetic signatures
which are conducive of shipwreck debris. Not every anomaly that may represent
shipwreck assemblage could be chosen but a broad enough range of anomalies were
31
picked to conclude whether or not further study should be conducted, or if the patterns
reflected in the survey warranted a full-scale recovery. Many of the larger anomalies
chosen give a classic signature of 18th-century cannon scatter while the small anomalies
appear to be assemblage such as ballast stones, spikes, cannonballs and iron pins.
Although many of these anomalies appear to be shipwreck related the identification can
only be established and confirmed until visual inspection is conducted. The majority of
acoustic anomalies were not chosen for visual identification because most represent the
signature of modern debris.
Coverage of the survey area, i.e. E-155D, BLOCK 1, was monitored using the Geometric
MagLog NT software application. This software receives geographic positional
information from a high accuracy state-of-the-art Furuno DGPS receiver cycling 1 time
per second and then correlates each magnetic point recorded by the magnetometer to
produce a 3D plot for all recorded points. The software renders this data visually on a
display with a continuous track line and user-created reference marks. The display was
continuously monitored by the pilot of the survey vessel to ensure steady and accurate
navigation. All positional information, including delineation of target zones and
individual targets were corroborated using redundant GPS receivers, Maptech
Navigation software, and paper charts. This allows for precise positioning and recording
with sub-meter accuracy. For the side scan Sonar Wiz Map 5 from Chesapeake
Technology was used. Microsoft Excel and AutoCAD MAP 3D are used for data
manipulation and create final drawings.
Acute changes in the magnetic field indicate the presence of ferrous material (Fe). While
small or gradual changes in the magnetic field are common, magnetic anomalies are
typically noticeable by the amplitude of the change (x>2nT) in a small period of time (y<
10s-20s). The magnetometer operator marked all possible targets at the time of the event
as well as during playback of saved data. The positions of all magnetic anomalies were
noted in standard degree/minute notation. In addition to geographic positional
information, depth, amplitude ( x) and specific characteristics of the data trace was
noted for each target.
The signatures, as noted below for each area, are consistent with 18th-century shipwrecks
such as the shipwrecks of the 1715 Plate Fleet; the presence of early 18th-century artifacts
in the area are a strong indication that this material culture may be associated with a
shipwreck from that fleet. Silver coins have been found on the beach adjacent to the E155D Contract area, and appear to have a terminus post quem date that does not go
beyond 1714. A 1715-era royal gold escudo coin has been reported found on that same
Spessard Holland Park beach. It should be noted that in this area (Brevard, Indian River,
and St. Lucie Counties), only 1715 Fleet shipwrecks have yielded such coins.
32
E-155DBLOCK 1
PRIORITIZED ANOMALY AREAS
FIGURE 6. E-155 PRIORITIZED ANOMALIES

33
E-155D BLOCK 1
ANOMALY AREA 1
FIGURE 7. E-155 PRIORITIZED ANOMALIES, AREA 1
The remote sensing survey in this area of Block 1 produced approximately 12 magnetic
anomalies and no acoustic targets. The magnetic anomalies identified in this area are in
clusters which exhibit the characteristics of scattered shipwreck debris or other
potentially significant cultural resource. The size of these anomalies is similar to the
magnetic signatures of iron pins, spikes, cannon balls, rigging and ballast stones. The
high priority magnetic anomalies in this area to be identified first are:
Should visual identification of the previous anomalies confirm shipwreck debris then
further identification of the remaining anomalies should be conducted.
34
E-155D BLOCK 1
ANOMALY AREA 2
magnetic signatures of iron pins, spikes, cannon balls and ballast stones. This particular
scatter appears to be a ballast pile. The high priority magnetic anomalies in this area to be
identified first are:
35
E-155D BLOCK 1
ANOMALY AREA 3
clusters exhibiting the characteristics of scattered shipwreck debris or other potentially
significant cultural resource. The size of these anomalies represent the magnetic
signatures of cannons, iron pins, spikes, cannon balls, rigging and ballast stones.
The high priority magnetic anomalies in this area to be identified first are:
ag # 323
36
E-155D BLOCK 1
ANOMALY AREA 4
clusters exhibiting the characteristics of scattered shipwreck debris or other potentially
significant cultural resource. The size of these anomalies is similar to the magnetic
signatures of cannons, iron pins, spikes, cannon balls, rigging and ballast stones. These
anomalies appear to be cannon scatter.
37
E-155D BLOCK 1
ANOMALY AREA 5
anomalies and 1 acoustic target. The magnetic anomalies identified in this area are in
magnetic signatures of iron pins, spikes, cannon balls, rigging and ballast stones. The 1
acoustic anomaly represents modern debris due to its shape and appearance but further
investigation should be considered.
The high priority magnetic and Sonar anomalies in this area to be identified first are:
38
E-155D BLOCK 1
ANOMALY AREA 6
potentially significant cultural resource. The size of these Anomalies is similar to the
magnetic signatures of iron pins, spikes, cannon balls, rigging and ballast stones as well
as modern debris such as pipes, barrel, and miscellaneous Fe targets.
further identification of the remaining anomalies should be conducted
39
E-155D BLOCK 1
ANOMALY AREA 7
potentially significant cultural resource. The size of these Anomalies is similar to the
magnetic signatures of cannons, iron pins, spikes, cannon balls, rigging and ballast
stones. This particular cluster appears to be cannon scatter.
40
E-155E BLOCK 1
ANOMALY AREA 8
anomalies and 1 acoustic targets. The magnetic anomalies identified in this area are in
stones. The acoustic anomaly does not display enough detail due to its proximity to the
magnetic clusters
# 244
41
E-155D BLOCK 1
ANOMALY AREA 9
stones.
42
E-155D BLOCK 1
ANOMALY AREA 10
anomalies and 1 acoustic targets. The magnetic anomalies identified in this area exhibit
the characteristics of scattered shipwreck debris or other potentially significant cultural
resource.
43
E-155D BLOCK 1
ANOMALY AREA 11
anomalies and no acoustic targets. The magnetic anomalies identified in this area exhibit
resource. The size of these anomalies is similar to the magnetic signatures of a cannon,
iron pins, spikes, cannon balls, rigging and ballast stones.
44
E-155D BLOCK 1
ANOMALY AREA 12
The remote sensing survey in this area of Block 1 produced no magnetic anomalies and 1
acoustic targets. The acoustic anomalies identified in this area exhibit the characteristics
of scattered shipwreck debris or other potentially significant cultural resource. Although
no magnetic signature was recorded mainly because this anomaly fell between survey
lanes there is an appearance of scattered debris along the sea floor. This debris appears to
be a possible ballast pile/deposit. This anomaly is in close proximity to a known cannon.
Further investigation should be considered.
The high priority acoustic anomalies in this area to be identified first are:
45
E-155D BLOCK 1
ANOMALY AREA 13
anomalies and 1 acoustic targets. The magnetic anomalies identified in this area exhibit
resource. The size of these anomalies is similar to the magnetic signatures of cannons,
iron pins, spikes, cannon balls, rigging and ballast stones. The acoustic anomaly appears
to be modern debris because of its size and lack of large magnetic signature. Further
investigation should be considered.
46
E-155D BLOCK 1
ANOMALY AREA 14
resource. The size of these anomalies is similar to the magnetic signatures of iron pins,
spikes, cannon balls, rigging and ballast stones.
47
E-155D BLOCK 1
ANOMALY AREA 15
resource. The size of these anomalies is similar to the magnetic signatures of iron pins,
spikes, cannon balls, rigging and ballast stones and because of their close proximity to
other anomalies.
48
PREVIOUS ACTIVITIES
2010-2012 SCOPE OF WORK
The first activities undertaken in the 2010 season was to complete a high-tech remote
sensing survey from the southern to the northernmost area of Contract E-155D. This is
described in more detail, along with photographs below. This survey encompassed an
area approximately 1.12 km (0.7 mile) wide except for reef areas, west to east, by 24 km
+/- (15 miles) long, south to north. The four corners of the survey are as indicated above.
FIGURE 22. HE 2010-2012 SURVEY VESSEL DURING 2010 REMOTE SENSING OPERATIONS
49
FIGURE 23. GEOMETRICS G882 MAGNETOMETER, EDGETECH 4200FS SIDE SCAN SONAR
DEPLOYMENT
FIGURE 24. DATA ACQUISITION COMPUTERS IN SURVEY VESSEL
50
FIGURE 25. SURVEY DATA ACQUISITION SCREEN SHOWING SIDE SCAN IMAGERY DATA, SENSORS AND
MAGNETOMETER DATA
South to Northern Survey Area (actual)

To accomplish this work, as shown in the above photographs, an Imagenex Sport Scan
Full Spectrum side scan sonar twas selected for use, operating at 2-3.5 knots (with an
overall average of 2.5 knots) in high speed 333 KHZ high resolution mode
simultaneously towing a Geometrics G882 Cesium Magnetometer tow fish on a 9 m +/trailing tow cable behind the side scan sonar tow fish and Syqwest Strata Box 10 KHZ
Sub-Bottom Profiler. Due to the working depths of 1.8- 18 m +/- (6-60 ft) in the
designated survey area, the side scan tow fish, magnetometer, and Sub-Bottom Profiler
were towed on 70 m +/- (200 ft) of Kevlar coaxial signal tow cable. Sonar, side scan
imagery data, and magnetometer data were simultaneously collected, displayed and
digitally stored. A Trimble NT 300D DGPS unit was linked to a Navigation suite
51
providing all navigation data, displays, and survey line planning and operation. When sea
conditions allowed, daytime survey operations were conducted. In the case of sea
conditions negatively impacting data quality and ability to maintain straight survey lines,
remote sensing equipment was retrieved and stowed on deck and the survey vessel was
returned to dock until such time weather conditions improved. As survey data was
collected, it was reviewed, summarized and checked for quality. Possible man made
anomalies (targets) were identified and selected for further analysis and scrutiny in the
later stages of the remote sensing survey, when additional closer 10-20 m (32-65 ft)
survey passes on the priority targets were performed, confirming and collecting more
images and location fixes on the targets. This was done in order to rule-out targets that
after closer and more thorough investigation with the remote sensing equipment were
deemed modern and/or not associated with any historic shipwreck. The survey area was
divided up into four (4) smaller, manageable survey blocks with sub blocks required for
management of large amounts of data. After the survey data was collected in each of the
four (4) survey blocks, the acquired remote sensing survey data was reviewed, analyzed,
processed and summarized into reports (ongoing at the time of this writing); a target
priority list for future target investigation and later identification by diver inspections will
be generated on final analysis has been completed. No diver testing or inspections was
performed during this research design survey study. Different software tools were used in
order to process the survey data collected. Sonar Wiz Map was used to build sonar
mosaics of all the collected side scan and sub-bottom sonar imagery data and Surfer was
used to build 3D graphical representation maps of all the collected magnetometer data.
All raw and final data was backed up on additional stand-alone hard drives. These
additional tools were instrumental in assisting in the identification, understanding,
mapping and selection of priority targets for the next phase of investigation and
identification of those targets, including divers inspection and full-scale recovery.
52
FIGURE 26. SIDE SCAN SONAR IMAGERY MOSAIC OF SONAR DATA COLLECTED OVERLAID ONTO NAUTICAL CHART
OF AREA 1
FIGURE 27. 3D MAGNETOMETER DATA REPRESENTATION OF DATA COLLECTED WITH G882 MAGNETOMETER
53
The First (1st) Block that was block #1 and is 1.8 NM+/- wide by 3 NM +/- long. It is
comprised of 164 +/- survey lines, 20 m (65 ft) spaced apart, on a heading of 350/170
degrees. With a survey speed of 42-3.5 knots, each line took approximately 60+ minutes
to complete including turnaround. If a cluster anomaly or large target was found, survey
lanes were then reduced to 10 m (32 ft) apart. This required 20+/- 8 hour days. Additional
budget of 10 days for bad weather days and 7 day for completing additional survey
passes on targets, confirming and collecting more images and location fixes in order to
rule-out targets that after closer, more thorough investigation with the remote sensing
equipment, do not have the characteristics expected of the sought after shipwreck target,
was allocated. To complete remote sensing survey of Block #1 required some 37 days. A
priority target list is will be established during the second phase of the remote sensing
operation in 2011 for divers inspection at a later date.
The Second (2nd) Block was surveyed in 2011 (block #2, immediately north of block
#1) is .7 NM wide (less in no work reef area 303 m (994 ft) east of the mean low water
mark from Patrick AFB south to Indialantic) by 4NM +/- long. It was comprise of 50+/survey lines, 20 m+/- (65 ft) spaced apart, on a heading of 346/166 degrees. With a
survey speed of 2-3.5 knots, each line took approximately 60+ minutes to complete
including turnaround. If a cluster anomaly or large target was found, survey lanes were
readjusted to 10-20 m (32-65 ft) apart. This required 10 to 8 hour days. Additional 10
days for bad weather days and 7 days for completing additional survey passes on targets
confirming and collecting more images and location fixes were be allocated as was the
case for the 2010 survey. To complete remote sensing survey of Block #2 approximately
27 days were required, after which a priority target list was assembled for divers
inspection.
METHODOLOGY
As stated in the objectives, a primary goal for the 2010 season was the conducting of a
current and accurate remote sensing survey in an effort to locate shipwreck distribution
clusters and patterns. A search grid was established running lane spacing of 20 meters or
less on 340 degree by 160- degree headings. The baseline for this survey was centered
from the southern area to the extreme northern area. At the completion of the initial
survey, the data was logged, mapped, and interpreted by the Consulting Archaeologists,
with input requested from various remote sensing experts, and the FBAR to determine
distribution patterns of anomalies and clusters. The identified clusters of anomalies were
further investigated via remote sensing by using tighter spacing at 10 meters or less. The
second survey employed 10-meter (32 ft) line spacing on 340 degree by 160-degree
headings to further pinpoint magnetic anomalies. This process was completed for each
cluster and selected isolated anomalies. Upon completion, this data was processed and
interpreted. As stated in the above objectives, the primary goal of the 2010-2012 seasons
was the further pinpointing of magnetic anomalies of each cluster in the E-155Dsouthern
54
area. To determine the exact location of targeted anomalies, the use of a hand-held proton
magnetometer or underwater detectors will be employed during the upcoming 2014
season to conduct testing and, later, to conduct full scale excavation, and GPS locations
noted. Testing will be conducted utilizing an induction dredge (Venturi) six inches in
diameter with all sediment screened (screen size not to exceed inches) or an airlift with
a filter/screen, and in the event large amount of overburden is encountered, prop-wash
deflector will be gently used until such time artifact layer is reached . The artifacts
uncovered will be photographed and accurately recorded in situ, if conditions allow, and
will be brought up once authorization has been received from the Project Archaeologist
and/or FBAR. Hydraulic prop wash will be utilized to bring clear water to the sea bottom
in an attempt to increase visibility without disturbing the context; this will not be used for
excavations. During the initial exploratory phase preceding full scale recovery, after all
data is reviewed and analyzed by Seafarer Exploration Corp., and the FBAR for
prioritizing targets, Seafarer Exploration Corp., will engage in limited testing for the
purposes of identification and to establish the spatial relationship of relevant artifacts
associated with and early 18th-century shipwreck. Testing of artifacts (after position
recorded and photographed) will only be completed if the anomalies represent artifacts
from a non-modern period wreck; large items that represent context from non-modern
period shipwrecks such as cannon, anchors, hull structure or ballast, per the FBAR
requirements, will be left in situ for mapping purposes and possible site identification as
prescribed. If Seafarer Exploration Corp., encounters any major structural remains or
significant clusters of non-modern shipwreck material, the FBAR will be notified
immediately and given the opportunity to assess and assist in the investigation of these
remains. All artifacts and samples will be tagged using a numbering system on plastic
tags. These tags will be attached to artifacts and samples by wire or mono filament line in
situ and those recovered will be kept in wet storage until archaeologists, conservator, and
agents of the FBAR have a chance to assess the objects. The artifacts will be kept in a
secured laboratory facility located in Tampa, Florida. Seafarer Exploration Corp.s
Project Archaeologist or Seafarer Exploration Corp.s consulting archaeologist will be
present for testing of non-modern remains. A primary and secondary experienced data
recorder (DR) trained in FBAR archaeological procedures will be on site at all times. All
anomalies investigated during any survey of E-155D will be recorded on the FBAR's
Daily Field Notes / Activity Logs. This is done in strict compliance of FBARs
guidelines. In addition, monthly and annual reports that Seafarer Exploration Corp.,
produces will have all work listed and available on an electronic database. As a general
rule for any given field season, Seafarer Exploration Corp. will work a minimum of
twenty-five to forty-five+/- days in the E-155D Contract area depending on weather
condition and hurricane activity. Seafarer Exploration Corp. estimates that this state-ofthe-art design is the most cost effective use of its time on for site for 2010-2012 seasons
and upcoming 2014 season.
55
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

The 2010, 2011, and 2012 magnetometer and side scan sonar surveys of E-155 Contract
area, and more specifically Block #1, resulted in the discovery of magnetic anomalies and
above sediment targets displaying a south to north scatter pattern; many of the magnetic
anomalies appear to correlate to side scan sonar targets. This distribution pattern is
parallel to wreckage distribution observed on known shipwrecks sunk during the July
1715 hurricane (Burgess & Clausen 1982).
FIGURE 28. . MAGNETOMETER DATA COLLECTED DURING 2010 SURVEY OF E-155
56
FIGURE 29. MAGNETOMETER DATA COLLECTED DURING 2010 SURVEY OF E-155D
57
FIGURE 30. . MAGNETOMETER & SIDE SCAN SONAR TARGET DISTRIBUTION DATA COLLECTED DURING SURVEY
OF E-155D
58
There seems to be two different periods represented in the cultural material from E-155
Contract area; on one hand we have copper-based fasteners that dictate a dating between
the terminal part of the 18th-century and up to the middle part of the 19th-century, and on
the other, artifacts that represent early 18th-century manufacture. Some of the artifacts
recovered during the past years are clearly associated with 1715 Plate Fleet shipwrecks; a
pistol dated 1709 manufactured in Mexico, with a parallel having been excavated and
securely provenienced to a 1715 Plate Fleet shipwreck; a silver platter or charger bearing
an engraved family name encountered in manifests and documents pertaining to the
above mentioned lost ships (see Archival Research above); a miniature noon cannon
made out of silver; an Fe cannon (presently in situ) that appears to date to the 18thcentury; and some Fe ship fittings that are tentatively dated to the 18th-century. Various
ceramic shards are not diagnostic enough to be assigned a definite type or date. The
mixture of the above mentioned cultural material is not understood at this time. While
artifacts of both periods are present in the same area within the southern portion of the E155, a clear shipwreck context has not been identified due to the lack of ballast deposit,
however, it must be kept in mind that certain Spanish colonial ships carried sand and
other heavy material in lieu of ballast stones
FIGURE 31. INSCRIPTION ON SILVER PLATE (COURTESY OF THE FLORIDA BUREAU OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESEARCH).
59
Seafarer Exploration Corp., also intends on continuing archival research in the

ArchivoGeneral de Indias (AGI), Seville, the Archivo General de Simancas (AGS),
Valladolid, el Museo Naval, Madrid, Spain, the Bibiothque Inguimbertine, Carpantras,
France, the Archivo General de la Nacin, Mexico City, Mexico, and the Archivo
Nacional de Cuba, Havana, in an effort to uncover additional information on Doa Juana
Isabel de Chavez Espinosa de los Monteros and her family, and to bring to light any
relevant archival evidence of wrecking of a 1715 Plate Fleet ship or ships and subsequent
contemporaneous salvage in the southern portion of E-155 Contract area.
We will be investigating and accessing the site on the basis of the magnetometer survey
results. We will begin in the South of the permit area with anomaly clusters 1, 2, 12, 13
and 14 and work to the North. Time taken on each area will be dependent on the bottom
conditions on each anomaly.
Seafarers Exploration Corp, therefore requests that an Exploration Contract with a dig
and identify addendum attached be awarded to Seafarers Quest LLC. If and when
significant clusters of cultural material are encountered the Florida Bureau of
Archaeological Research will be noticed immediately.
Submitted March 2014
Project Archaeologist
Kyle Kennedy, President

Seafarer Exploration Corp.
60
REFERENCES CITED
Andrews, Evangeline Walker and Charles McLean Andrews (editors)
1985
[1699] Jonathan Dickinsons Journal or, Gods Protecting Providence. Being

the Narrative of a Journey from Port Royal in Jamaica to Philadelphia between
August 23, 1696 and April 1, 1697. Florida Classics Library, Port Salerno,
Florida.
Austin, Robert J.
1996
Prehistoric Chert Procurement and Mobility Strategies on the Lake Wales
Ridge. The Florida Anthropologist 49:211-223.

1997
The Economics of Lithic Resource Use in South-Central Florida. Ph.D.

dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida. University
Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Bader, Sharon F., and R. W. Parkinson

1990
Holocene Evolution of the Indian River Lagoon in Central Brevard County,

Florida. Florida Scientist 53:204-215.
Baer, Robert
1996
Historic Property Investigation Pursuant to Canaveral Sand Bypass Brevard

County, Florida. A Report Prepared by Morgan & Ecklund, Inc. for Olsen
Associates, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida.
Barile, Peter, John Brandon and Taffi Fisher-Abt

2001
Assessment of Historical Shipwreck Excavation Activities on Worm Reefs

(Sabellariidae) of the East-Central Coast of Florida. Electronic document,
http://www.imacdigest.com/turbid.html, accessed 6 June 2001.
Barnette, Michael C.
2003
Shipwrecks of the Sunshine State: Floridas Submerged History. Association of

Underwater Explorers, Tampa, Florida.
61
Berman, Bruce D.
1972
Encyclopedia of American Shipwrecks. The Mariners Press, Boston,

Massachusetts. Brooks, H. K. 1974 Lake Okeechobee. In Environments of South
Florida: Present and Past, edited by P. J. Gleason, pp. 256-286. Miami
Geological Society Memoir 2, Miami.
Breiner, S.
1973
Applications Manual for Portable Magnetometers. Geometrics Technical Report

MMTR1, Palo Alto, California.
Brown, Jr., Canter

1991
The Florida, Atlantic and Gulf Central Railroad. Florida Historical Quarterly
69(4).
Burgess, Robert F. and Carl J. Clausen

1982
Floridas Golden Galleons: The Search for the 1715 Spanish Treasure Fleet.
Florida Classics Library, Port Salerno, Florida.
Carr, Robert S., and J. G. Beriault

1984
Prehistoric Man in South Florida. In Environments of South Florida: Present and

Past (2nd Edition), edited by P. J. Gleason, pp. 1-14. Miami Geological Society
Memoir 2, Miami.
Carr, Robert S., D. Dickel, and M. Masson

1995
Archaeological Investigations at the Ortona Earthworks and Mounds. The

Florida Anthropologist 48:227-264.
Carr, Robert S., Amy Felmley, Richard Ferrer, W. Steele, Jorge Zamonillo
1992
An Archaeological Survey of Broward County, FL. Survey #2933. On file at the

Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.
Carr, Robert S., and B. Calvin Jones

1981
Florida Anthropologist Interview with Calvin Jones, Part II: Excavations of an

Archaic Cemetery in Cocoa Beach, Florida. The Florida Anthropologist 34:8189.
Carr, Robert S., and W. S. Steele

1993
An Archaeological Assessment of the Hutchinson Island Site (8MT37), Martin

County, Florida. Technical Report No. 68, Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy, Miami.
Carter, Clarence Edwin
62
1962
The Territorial Papers of the United States, Volume XXVI, The Territory of
Florida, 1839-1845. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Chapman, Jeffrey
1985
Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge-and-Valley Province.

In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by R. S. Dickens,
Jr. and H. T. Ward, pp. 137-153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Cockrell, Wilburn A., and Larry Murphy

1978
Pleistocene Man in Florida. Archaeology of Eastern North America 6:1-12.
Cordell, Ann S.
1985 Pottery Variability and Site Chronology in the Supper St. Johns River Basin. In
Archaeological Site Types, Distributions, and Preservation Within the Upper St.
Johns River Basin, Florida, edited by Brenda Sigler-Eisenberg, pp. 114-134. Florida
State Museum Miscellaneous Project and Report Series Number 27, Gainesville.
De Bry, John A.
1995
The Order of the Holy Spirit: An important Decoration from a 1715 Plate Fleet
Wreck. In The Florida Historical Quarterly, Volume LXXIV, Number 1, Tampa.
Dickel, David N.
2002
Analysis of Mortuary Patterns. In Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of

an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery, edited by G. H. Doran, pp. 73-96. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Doran, Glen H.
2002
The Windover Radiocarbon Chronology. In Windover: Multidisciplinary

Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery, edited By G. H. Doran, pp.
59-72. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Dorsey, R. A.
1997
Predicted Sea Level Changes, Florida Gulf Coast Over the Past 21,000 Years.
Research Series Number 9, Gulf Archaeological Research Institute, Crystal
River.
Ehrenhard, J.E., R.S. Carr, and R.C. Taylor

1978
The Archaeological Survey of the Big Cypress National Preserve, Phase 1.

Southeastern Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.
1979
The Big Cypress National Preserve: Archaeological Survey Season 2.

Southeastern Archaeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.
Ehrenhard, John E., and Robert C. Taylor

63
1980
The Big Cypress National Preserve: Archeological Survey Season 3. National

Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
Eriksen, John M.
1994
Brevard County: A History to 1955. The Florida Historical Society Press, Tampa.
Espenshade, C. T.
1983
Ceramic Ecology and Aboriginal Household Pottery Production at the Gauthier

Site, Florida. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Fernald, Edward A. and Elizabeth D. Purdam

1992
Atlas of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Frank, Andrew K.
2005
Taking the State Out: Seminoles and Creeks in Late-Eighteenth Century Florida.
Florida Historical Quarterly 84:1 (pp.10-27).
Gannon, Michael, editor

1996
The New History of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
General Land Office Survey (GLOS)

1859
Township 26 South, Range 37 East. General Land Office Survey, Tallahassee.

Electronic document, http://www.glorecords.blm.gov.
Gidley, J. W., and E. B. Loomis

1926
Fossil Man in Florida. American Journal of Science 12:254-264.
Gleason, P. J., A. D. Cohen, W. G. Smith, H. K. Brooks, P. A. Stone, R. L. Goodrick, and W.

Spackman, Jr.
1974
The Environmental Significance of Holocene Sediments from the Everglades and

Saline Tidal Plain. In Environments of South Florida: Present and Past, edited
by P. J. Gleason, pp. 287-341. Miami Geological Society Memoir 2, Miami.
Gleason, P. J., and P. Stone

1994
Age, Origin, and Landscape Evolution of the Everglades Peatland. In

Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Reconstruction, edited by S. M. Davis and J.
C. Ogden, pp. 149-197. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.
Hale, Stephen
1989
Prehistoric Subsistence Strategies and Settlement Patterns in the Lake

Okeechobee Basin of the South Florida Peninsula. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
64
Hall, Wes
1992
A Cultural Resources Magnetometer Survey of Canaveral Sand Bypass Borrow

Site and Jetty Extension. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville District.
1995
An Underwater Archaeological Investigation of Two Potentially Significant

Magnetic Anomalies near Canaveral Harbor, Brevard County, Florida. Prepared
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District.
1998
Underwater Archaeological Investigations of Four Potentially Significant

Remote Sensing Targets, Canaveral Harbor Entrance Channel Widener, Brevard
County, Florida. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville
District.
2001
A Cultural Resources Marine Remote Sensing Survey of the Offshore Borrow and
Re-Handling Areas South Reach, Brevard County Shore Protection Project,
Brevard County, Florida. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Harnett, Charles
1965
Preliminary Report: Discovery and Excavation of a 17th Century Wreck off

Cape Canaveral. Florida Anthropologist 18:33-48
Hrdlika, Ale
1918
Recent Discoveries Attributed to Early Man in America. Bureau of American

Ethnology Bulletin 66:1-67.
1922
The Anthropology of Florida. Florida State Historical Society, Publications 1,

Jones, Edmunds & Associates
1978
Report of Investigation: Magnetometer Survey of a Proposed Borrow Area Near

Cape Canaveral, Florida. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Kjerulff, Georgiana G.
1972
Tales of Old Brevard. South Brevard Historical Society, Inc., Melbourne.
Lovejoy, Donald W.
1998
Classic Exposures of the Anastasia Formation in Martin and Palm Beach

Counties, Florida. Miami Geological Society, South Miami, Florida.
Lyon, Eugene
1974
The Enterprise of Florida Pedro Menndez de Avils and the Spanish Conquest
of 1565-1568. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Mahon, John K.
65
1985
History of the Second Seminole War, 1835-1842. Revised Edition. University of

Florida Press, Gainesville.
Marx, Robert F.
1985
Shipwrecks in Florida Waters: A Billion Dollar Graveyard. The Mickler House

Publishers, Chuluota, Florida.
McDowell, L.L., J.C. Stephens, and E.H. Stewart

1969
Radiocarbon Chronology of the Florida Everglades Peat. Soil Science Society of

America Proceedings 33:743-745.
Milanich, Jerald T.
1994
Precolumbian Archaeology of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
1995
Florida Indians and the Invasion from Europe. University Press of Florida
Gainesville.
Milanich, Jerald T., and Charles Fairbanks

1980
Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.
Nance, Ellwood C., ed.

1962
In the East Coast of Florida: A History, 1500-1961, Volume I. The Southern

Publishing Company, Delray Beach.
Newman, Christine, and Brent Weisman

1992
Prehistoric and Historic Settlement in the Guana Tract, St. Johns County, Florida.
The Florida Anthropologist 45:162-171.
Newsom, Lee A.
2002
The Paleoethnobotany of the Archaic Mortuary Pond. In Windover:

Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery, edited by
G.
New York Times

1927
Defends Ship Board on Diesel Program. 20 November . New York.
1928
Coast Guard Speeds to Ship Off Florida. 6 December. New York.
1928
Engineer Defends Diesel Motor Costs. 17 January. New York.
1928
Fears Liners' Age Bars Renovation. 30 January. New York.
Oceanprobe, Inc.
66
1988
Cultural Resources Magnetometer Survey Brevard County/Canaveral Harbor,

Florida. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District.
Pearson, Charles E. and Thomas C.C. Birchett

2001
The History and Archaeology of Two Civil War Steamboats: The Ironclad
Gunboat USS Eastport And The Steamer Ed. F. Dix. Prepared for the U.S. Army
Corps ofEngineers, Vicksburg District. Submitted by Coastal Environments, Inc.,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Robert, H.H., C. Wilson and J. Supan

2000
Acoustic Surveying of Ultra-Shallow Water Bottoms (<2.0 m) for both

Engineering, and Environmental Applications. Paper presented at the Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 1-4, 2000.
Romans, Bernard
1775
A Concise Natural History of East and West Florida. Reprint of the 1775 New
York edition, with modernized typography and corrected errata. New Orleans:
Pelican Publishing, 1961.
Rouse, Irving
1951
A Survey of Indian River Archaeology. Yale University Publications in

Anthropology, New Haven.
Russo, Michael
1986
The Coevolution of Environment and Human Exploitation of Faunal Resources

in the Upper St. Johns River Region. Non-thesis M.A. Project, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
1988
Coastal Adaptations in Eastern Florida: Models and Methods. Archaeology of

Eastern North America 16:159-176.
Sellards, E. H.
1916
Discovery of Fossil Human Remains in Florida in Association with Extinct

Vertebrates. American Journal of Science 192:1-17.
1917
Further Notes on Human Remains from Vero, Florida. American Anthropologist

19:239-251.
Shofner, Jerrell H.
1996
History of Brevard County: Volume 2. Brevard County Historical Commission,

Cocoa.
Singer, Steven D.
1998
Shipwrecks of Florida: A Comprehensive Listing. Pineapple Press, Sarasota,

Florida.
Ste. Claire, Dana

67
1990
The Archaic in East Florida: Archaeological Evidence for Early Coastal

Adaptations. The Florida Anthropologist 43:189-197.
Stewart, T. Dale
1946
A Re-examination of the Fossil Human Skeletal Remains from Melbourne,

Florida, with Further Data on the Vero Skull. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections 106:1-28.
Stone, Elaine
1988
Brevard County: From Cape of the Canes to Space Coast. Windsor Publications,
Inc, Northridge.
Sturtevant, William C.
1953
Chakaika and the Spanish Indians: Documentary Sources Compared with

Seminole Tradition. Tequesta 13:35-73
Tebeau, Charlton W.
1971
A History of Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables.
Tuross, N., M. L. Fogel, L. Newsom, and G. H. Doran

1994
Subsistence in the Florida Archaic: The Stable-Isotope and

ArchaeobotanicalEvidence from the Windover Site. American Antiquity 59:288303. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
2007
Appendix A: Engineering Analysis and Design Brevard County, Florida General

Reevaluation Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

1920
Merchant Vessels of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington.
1921
1922
1923
1925
1926
1927
1929
Merchant Vessels of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington

68
Watts, Gordon P.
1999
A Submerged Cultural Resources Remote Sensing Survey of Four Proposed

Borrow Areas and Archaeological Diver Identification and Evaluation of Eight
PotentiallySignificant Submerged Targets for the Brevard County Shore
Protection Project, Brevard County, Florida. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Jacksonville District.
2000
Archaeological Diver Identification and Evaluation of Fourteen Potentially

Significant Submerged Targets for the Brevard County Shore Protection Project,
Brevard County, Florida. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Watts, W. A., and B. C. S. Hansen

1988
Environments of Florida in the Late Wisconsin and Holocene. In Wet Site

Archaeology, edited by B. A. Purdy, pp. 307-324. Telford Press, New Jersey.
Wheeler, Ryan J.
1992
The Riviera Complex: An East Okeechobee Archaeological Area Settlement. The

Florida Anthropologist 45:5-17.
69
APPENDIX I
70
Magnetometer Anomaly Report

ID
Identity
Gamma
Latitude
Longitude
1.00
1.3
28 04.1430' N
080
32.3623' W
2.00
7.9
28 03.6655' N
080
32.4663' W
3.00
0.5
28 03.4729' N
080
32.3753' W
4.00
4.7
28 04.2123' N
080
32.6592' W
5.00
10.3
28 04.0013' N
080
32.5698' W
6.00
1.3
28 03.9227' N
080
32.5356' W
7.00
4.2
28 02.7828' N
080
32.0754' W
8.00
60.4
28 04.0039' N
080
32.5539' W
9.00
3.9
28 04.0069' N
080
32.5442' W
10.00
31.6
28 02.9543' N
080
32.1077' W
11.00
16
28 04.1722' N
080
32.5979' W
12.00
1
28 04.1988' N
080
32.6080' W
13.00
1.3
28 04.1597' N
080
32.5852' W
14.00
0.5
28 03.4655' N
080
32.2798' W
15.00
1.1
28 03.2194' N
080
32.1791' W
16.00
1.1
28 02.7328' N
080
31.9840' W
71
17.00
1.3
28 04.0921' N
080
32.5183' W
18.00
5.2
28 04.1870' N
080
32.5575' W
19.00
2.4
28 03.8516' N
080
32.4113' W
June 2009-2012
Page 1 of 34
72
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
20.00
2.2
28 03.5546' N
080
32.2898' W
21.00
1.2
28 02.6265' N
080
31.9182' W
22.00
3.2
28 03.7524' N
080
32.3469' W
23.00
2.6
28 02.5116' N
080
31.8474' W
24.00
3
28 02.6740' N
080
31.9004' W
25.00
1.3
28 04.1852' N
080
32.4987' W
26.00
2.7
28 04.1609' N
080
32.4881' W
27.00
0.5
28 04.0863' N
080
32.4579' W
28.00
0.9
28 03.3058' N
080
32.1435' W
29.00
5.4
28 04.2251' N
080
32.5025' W
30.00
0.7
28 04.0613' N
080
32.4268' W
31.00
1.2
28 03.4953' N
080
32.1979' W
32.00
0.6
28 02.6856' N
080
31.8567' W
33.00
1.1
28 03.2407' N
080
32.0816' W
34.00
0.7
28 03.3272' N
080
32.1166' W
35.00
3
28 04.2352' N
080
32.4763' W
36.00
1.5
28 03.3277' N
080
32.1048' W
37.00
1.8
28 03.3429' N
080
32.1112' W
38.00
39.9
28 04.0749' N
080
32.3939' W
39.00
1.7
28 03.3455' N
080
32.0994' W
40.00
1.8
28 03.3389' N
080
32.0964' W
June 2009-2012
Page 2 of 34
73
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
41.00
1.8
28 03.3340' N
080
32.0944' W
42.00
1.3
28 03.3112' N
080
32.0868' W
43.00
2.4
28 03.2285' N
080
32.0527' W
44.00
0.9
28 02.8133' N
080
31.8867' W
45.00
2.6
28 03.2080' N
080
32.0332' W
46.00
1.1
28 03.2561' N
080
32.0516' W
47.00
2.1
28 03.3233' N
080
32.0785' W
48.00
2.5
28 03.3302' N
080
32.0815' W
49.00
3.6
28 03.3339' N
080
32.0831' W
50.00
1.3
28 03.3454' N
080
32.0878' W
51.00
1.4
28 04.0175' N
080
32.3605' W
52.00
4.4
28 04.0741' N
080
32.3837' W
53.00
8.8
28 04.0796' N
080
32.3709' W
54.00
2
28 04.0667' N
080
32.3660' W
55.00
1.8
28 03.3454' N
080
32.0780' W
56.00
2.1
28 03.3422' N
080
32.0769' W
57.00
3.7
28 03.3368' N
080
32.0749' W
58.00
1.4
28 03.3319' N
080
32.0730' W
59.00
1
28 02.8240' N
080
31.8667' W
60.00
1.9
28 03.3390' N
080
32.0620' W
61.00
1.5
28 03.3435' N
080
32.0639' W
June 2009-2012
Page 3 of 34
74
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
62.00
0.5
28 04.1226' N
080
32.3676' W
63.00
0.8
28 03.5128' N
080
32.1215' W
64.00
4.4
28 03.3467' N
080
32.0534' W
65.00
1
28 03.3449' N
080
32.0526' W
66.00
1.5
28 03.3418' N
080
32.0512' W
67.00
0.8
28 03.0054' N
080
31.8660' W
68.00
0.5
28 04.1188' N
080
32.3064' W
69.00
1.6
28 02.5574' N
080
31.6659' W
70.00
1
28 02.6143' N
080
31.6842' W
71.00
0.8
28 02.6166' N
080
31.6750' W
72.00
19.3
28 03.6977' N
080
32.0894' W
73.00
5.8
28 04.0391' N
080
32.2149' W
74.00
1.7
28 03.1058' N
080
31.8368' W
75.00
0.7
28 02.7428' N
080
31.6904' W
76.00
2.7
28 04.1346' N
080
32.2398' W
77.00
0.8
28 04.1645' N
080
32.2535' W
78.00
2.7
28 03.8410' N
080
32.1100' W
79.00
0.3
28 03.4229' N
080
31.9286' W
80.00
103.9
28 02.5169' N
080
31.5694' W
81.00
0.4
28 02.9020' N
080
31.7087' W
82.00
1.1
28 03.4714' N
080
31.9261' W
June 2009-2012
Page 4 of 34
75
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
83.00
1.6
28 03.0760' N
080
31.7299' W
84.00
0.4
28 04.2718' N
080
32.2041' W
85.00
1.5
28 03.8549' N
080
32.0345' W
86.00
0.2
28 03.2914' N
080
31.7950' W
87.00
0.4
28 04.3045' N
080
32.1904' W
88.00
0.6
28 04.1403' N
080
32.1244' W
89.00
1
28 02.7103' N
080
31.5475' W
90.00
0.7
28 02.7083' N
080
31.5114' W
91.00
26.3
28 03.9968' N
080
32.0083' W
92.00
0.8
28 03.9612' N
080
31.9938' W
93.00
2.1
28 03.8385' N
080
31.9322' W
94.00
0.9
28 03.9171' N
080
31.9655' W
95.00
3.3
28 03.9206' N
080
31.9670' W
96.00
0.3
28 04.0571' N
080
32.0171' W
97.00
0.4
28 03.8203' N
080
31.9124' W
98.00
1.9
28 04.1293' N
080
32.0269' W
99.00
0.7
28 04.1086' N
080
32.0051' W
100.00
0.3
28 03.9911' N
080
31.9458' W
101.00
0.3
28 03.9957' N
080
31.9478' W
102.00
0.2
28 04.0010' N
080
31.9498' W
103.00
0.7
28 04.2753' N
080
32.0484' W
June 2009-2012
Page 5 of 34
76
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
104.00
1.6
28 03.2192' N
080
31.6095' W
105.00
0.4
28 02.7713' N
080
31.4179' W
106.00
0.3
28 03.0384' N
080
31.5257' W
107.00
22.9
28 03.2176' N
080
31.5974' W
108.00
1.4
28 03.2238' N
080
31.5999' W
109.00
17.7
28 03.2218' N
080
31.5887' W
110.00
0.8
28 03.7803' N
080
31.8025' W
111.00
1.1
28 03.8040' N
080
31.8121' W
112.00
0.5
28 02.9954' N
080
31.4632' W
113.00
1
28 03.1747' N
080
31.5333' W
114.00
2.6
28 04.0192' N
080
31.8764' W
115.00
1.8
28 04.2246' N
080
31.9555' W
116.00
10.1
28 04.0331' N
080
31.8695' W
117.00
8.7
28 03.6668' N
080
32.4663' W
118.00
26.2
28 04.0012' N
080
32.6130' W
119.00
3.4
28 02.7302' N
080
32.1117' W
120.00
0.8
28 03.3919' N
080
32.3795' W
121.00
17.9
28 03.6981' N
080
32.5042' W
122.00
0.6
28 03.7999' N
080
32.5443' W
123.00
0.9
28 04.1515' N
080
32.6955' W
124.00
0.6
28 04.0023' N
080
32.6377' W
June 2009-2012
Page 6 of 34
77
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
125.00
0.3
28 03.7298' N
080
32.5268' W
126.00
0.4
28 03.7042' N
080
32.5185' W
127.00
5.8
28 03.2865' N
080
32.3487' W
128.00
12.6
28 02.9677' N
080
32.2159' W
129.00
0.5
28 02.8975' N
080
32.2038' W
130.00
6.3
28 02.9419' N
080
32.2216' W
131.00
9.5
28 03.7154' N
080
32.5332' W
132.00
0.1
28 02.3063' N
080
32.2863' W
133.00
0.2
28 02.3063' N
080
32.2863' W
134.00
0.4
28 02.3063' N
080
32.2863' W
135.00
0.3
28 02.3218' N
080
32.3235' W
136.00
0.3
28 02.4008' N
080
32.3599' W
137.00
0.4
28 02.4833' N
080
32.3922' W
138.00
0.3
28 02.7638' N
080
32.5045' W
139.00
1.1
28 02.7958' N
080
32.5174' W
140.00
3.4
28 02.9472' N
080
32.5795' W
141.00
7.7
28 02.9729' N
080
32.5892' W
142.00
0.4
28 03.1209' N
080
32.6513' W
143.00
0.4
28 03.3409' N
080
32.7376' W
144.00
6.7
28 03.3516' N
080
32.7416' W
145.00
0.6
28 03.4408' N
080
32.7783' W
June 2009-2012
Page 7 of 34
78
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
146.00
0.8
28 03.7534' N
080
32.9063' W
147.00
2.2
28 03.9784' N
080
32.9951' W
148.00
0.4
28 03.8612' N
080
32.9367' W
149.00
1.4
28 03.7599' N
080
32.8944' W
150.00
0.6
28 03.7261' N
080
32.8816' W
151.00
7.4
28 03.3563' N
080
32.7328' W
152.00
0.8
28 03.0778' N
080
32.6173' W
153.00
3.3
28 03.0389' N
080
32.6032' W
154.00
0.6
28 03.0153' N
080
32.5941' W
155.00
3.5
28 02.9211' N
080
32.5586' W
156.00
18.9
28 02.8763' N
080
32.5402' W
157.00
24.1
28 02.8686' N
080
32.5369' W
158.00
15.6
28 02.7276' N
080
32.4780' W
159.00
0.4
28 02.5448' N
080
32.4067' W
160.00
0.8
28 02.5237' N
080
32.3992' W
161.00
0.3
28 02.5110' N
080
32.3941' W
162.00
1.8
28 02.4657' N
080
32.3727' W
163.00
0.4
28 02.4107' N
080
32.3521' W
164.00
0.5
28 02.2806' N
080
32.2865' W
165.00
1.2
28 02.3611' N
080
32.3193' W
166.00
4.3
28 02.3769' N
080
32.3257' W
June 2009-2012
Page 8 of 34
79
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
167.00
0.5
28 02.5684' N
080
32.4024' W
168.00
1.3
28 02.7467' N
080
32.4750' W
169.00
8.3
28 02.9793' N
080
32.5699' W
170.00
3.8
28 02.9938' N
080
32.5759' W
171.00
6.4
28 03.3577' N
080
32.7210' W
172.00
0.5
28 03.5568' N
080
32.8002' W
173.00
0.9
28 03.7575' N
080
32.8819' W
174.00
1.9
28 03.8834' N
080
32.9342' W
175.00
0.8
28 03.7601' N
080
32.8754' W
176.00
3.6
28 03.3994' N
080
32.7265' W
177.00
2.6
28 03.3630' N
080
32.7108' W
178.00
7.4
28 03.3582' N
080
32.7091' W
179.00
0.5
28 03.2553' N
080
32.6686' W
180.00
28.8
28 02.8848' N
080
32.5183' W
181.00
1.1
28 02.7923' N
080
32.4817' W
182.00
2
28 02.4137' N
080
32.3162' W
183.00
4.6
28 02.5245' N
080
32.3616' W
184.00
0.6
28 02.5362' N
080
32.3662' W
185.00
0.3
28 02.6534' N
080
32.4138' W
186.00
0.5
28 02.7866' N
080
32.4682' W
187.00
0.9
28 02.9619' N
080
32.5362' W
June 2009-2012
Page 9 of 34
80
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
188.00
15.4
28 03.3623' N
080
32.6982' W
189.00
0.6
28 03.3749' N
080
32.7035' W
190.00
2.3
28 03.5708' N
080
32.7845' W
191.00
0.9
28 04.0162' N
080
32.9523' W
192.00
1
28 03.1183' N
080
32.5899' W
193.00
0.3
28 02.9825' N
080
32.5337' W
194.00
0.9
28 02.9580' N
080
32.5236' W
195.00
0.5
28 02.6845' N
080
32.4116' W
196.00
1
28 02.6741' N
080
32.4083' W
197.00
2.4
28 02.4541' N
080
32.3214' W
198.00
0.7
28 02.5069' N
080
32.3157' W
199.00
3.5
28 02.5349' N
080
32.3285' W
200.00
7.6
28 02.6092' N
080
32.3594' W
201.00
2.3
28 02.7642' N
080
32.4225' W
202.00
18.3
28 03.0298' N
080
32.5289' W
203.00
0.7
28 03.2521' N
080
32.6199' W
204.00
0.9
28 03.9433' N
080
32.8985' W
205.00
0.8
28 03.8156' N
080
32.8583' W
206.00
0.3
28 03.6075' N
080
32.7755' W
207.00
0.7
28 03.3553' N
080
32.6737' W
208.00
9.3
28 03.2062' N
080
32.6120' W
June 2009-2012
Page 10 of 34
81
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
209.00
5.9
28 02.9000' N
080
32.4901' W
210.00
4.3
28 02.5092' N
080
32.3315' W
211.00
1.9
28 02.6249' N
080
32.3542' W
212.00
3.2
28 02.6399' N
080
32.3610' W
213.00
0.8
28 02.6778' N
080
32.3763' W
214.00
1.4
28 02.7311' N
080
32.3962' W
215.00
19.1
28 02.7706' N
080
32.4126' W
216.00
26.8
28 03.4392' N
080
32.6829' W
217.00
1.6
28 02.9475' N
080
32.4726' W
218.00
0.5
28 02.8939' N
080
32.4516' W
219.00
0.8
28 02.3926' N
080
32.2353' W
220.00
4.6
28 02.6513' N
080
32.3400' W
221.00
2.7
28 03.8255' N
080
32.8163' W
222.00
1.4
28 03.4669' N
080
32.6597' W
223.00
1.7
28 03.3853' N
080
32.6253' W
224.00
26.1
28 02.9868' N
080
32.4648' W
225.00
0.6
28 02.7815' N
080
32.3825' W
226.00
1.8
28 02.6121' N
080
32.3114' W
227.00
5.7
28 02.7460' N
080
32.3588' W
228.00
1.6
28 02.7944' N
080
32.3752' W
229.00
0.8
28 02.8685' N
080
32.4039' W
June 2009-2012
Page 11 of 34
82
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
230.00
0.7
28 02.9348' N
080
32.4310' W
231.00
0.6
28 02.9922' N
080
32.4551' W
232.00
0.4
28 03.4218' N
080
32.6308' W
233.00
2.7
28 03.4910' N
080
32.6581' W
234.00
0.7
28 03.8894' N
080
32.8060' W
235.00
2.1
28 03.8812' N
080
32.8028' W
236.00
5
28 02.9365' N
080
32.4211' W
237.00
0.9
28 03.8325' N
080
32.7596' W
238.00
3.6
28 03.4547' N
080
32.6068' W
239.00
21.7
28 03.0651' N
080
32.4503' W
240.00
1.4
28 02.8972' N
080
32.3813' W
241.00
13.4
28 02.7022' N
080
32.3029' W
242.00
0.9
28 02.5501' N
080
32.2419' W
243.00
17.2
28 02.4395' N
080
32.1956' W
244.00
4.1
28 02.7204' N
080
32.2977' W
245.00
1.3
28 02.8579' N
080
32.3542' W
246.00
0.8
28 03.0236' N
080
32.4198' W
247.00
1.8
28 03.3331' N
080
32.5430' W
248.00
5.6
28 03.8889' N
080
32.7677' W
249.00
12.2
28 02.3558' N
080
32.0923' W
250.00
5
28 03.8906' N
080
32.7577' W
June 2009-2012
Page 12 of 34
83
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
251.00
0.7
28 03.8460' N
080
32.7296' W
252.00
1.6
28 03.4725' N
080
32.5778' W
253.00
9.7
28 03.3545' N
080
32.5296' W
254.00
0.6
28 02.9236' N
080
32.3575' W
255.00
0.6
28 02.8731' N
080
32.3364' W
256.00
1.2
28 02.7697' N
080
32.2944' W
257.00
0.5
28 02.5361' N
080
32.2012' W
258.00
4.4
28 02.9070' N
080
32.3368' W
259.00
1.1
28 02.9250' N
080
32.3444' W
260.00
1.1
28 03.0380' N
080
32.3924' W
261.00
0.5
28 03.4875' N
080
32.5702' W
262.00
0.4
28 03.9003' N
080
32.7379' W
263.00
4.4
28 03.9575' N
080
32.7622' W
264.00
0.7
28 04.0288' N
080
32.7892' W
265.00
2.2
28 03.9942' N
080
32.7635' W
266.00
1.1
28 03.9213' N
080
32.7349' W
267.00
0.6
28 03.7353' N
080
32.6603' W
268.00
0.5
28 03.6467' N
080
32.6225' W
269.00
1.1
28 03.6331' N
080
32.6149' W
270.00
0.6
28 03.4731' N
080
32.5543' W
271.00
0.4
28 03.0265' N
080
32.3752' W
June 2009-2012
Page 13 of 34
84
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
272.00
1.9
28 02.9648' N
080
32.3504' W
273.00
1.5
28 03.5829' N
080
32.5857' W
274.00
0.8
28 03.7460' N
080
32.6404' W
275.00
0.5
28 03.3477' N
080
32.4797' W
276.00
15.1
28 02.8152' N
080
32.2656' W
277.00
7.2
28 02.6708' N
080
32.2083' W
278.00
17.3
28 02.6783' N
080
32.1981' W
279.00
2.4
28 03.2412' N
080
32.4250' W
280.00
3.6
28 03.5906' N
080
32.5665' W
281.00
1.1
28 04.0137' N
080
32.7244' W
282.00
0.8
28 04.0103' N
080
32.7232' W
283.00
2.7
28 04.0001' N
080
32.7196' W
284.00
1.2
28 03.5892' N
080
32.5552' W
285.00
2.1
28 03.0584' N
080
32.3409' W
286.00
1.3
28 02.6794' N
080
32.1881' W
287.00
1.1
28 02.8207' N
080
32.2334' W
288.00
0.4
28 02.9286' N
080
32.2765' W
289.00
1.1
28 02.9674' N
080
32.2915' W
290.00
27.8
28 03.9769' N
080
32.6981' W
291.00
0.8
28 04.0057' N
080
32.7099' W
292.00
1.6
28 04.0847' N
080
32.7311' W
June 2009-2012
Page 14 of 34
85
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
293.00
3.3
28 03.9870' N
080
32.6916' W
294.00
15.1
28 03.8503' N
080
32.6354' W
295.00
1.5
28 03.6662' N
080
32.5621' W
296.00
5.6
28 03.2607' N
080
32.3980' W
297.00
1
28 03.2508' N
080
32.3938' W
298.00
0.5
28 02.9756' N
080
32.2821' W
299.00
10
28 02.9334' N
080
32.2666' W
300.00
0.4
28 02.7328' N
080
32.1852' W
301.00
0.6
28 02.6832' N
080
32.1653' W
302.00
0.7
28 02.5321' N
080
32.2461' W
303.00
0.8
28 02.8846' N
080
32.3870' W
304.00
1
28 04.1070' N
080
32.8692' W
305.00
0.6
28 03.5298' N
080
32.6374' W
306.00
5.4
28 03.4535' N
080
32.6066' W
307.00
7.2
28 02.8987' N
080
32.3795' W
308.00
12.8
28 02.7017' N
080
32.3027' W
309.00
15.2
28 02.4396' N
080
32.1968' W
310.00
3.8
28 02.7203' N
080
32.2977' W
311.00
0.9
28 02.8552' N
080
32.3530' W
312.00
0.6
28 03.0235' N
080
32.4205' W
313.00
0.7
28 03.3301' N
080
32.5445' W
June 2009-2012
Page 15 of 34
86
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
314.00
1.2
28 03.5788' N
080
32.6433' W
315.00
7.1
28 03.8844' N
080
32.7665' W
316.00
4.5
28 04.1240' N
080
32.7385' W
317.00
1.5
28 02.7228' N
080
32.1698' W
318.00
1.2
28 03.0352' N
080
32.2830' W
319.00
6.6
28 03.3240' N
080
32.1130' W
320.00
4.4
28 03.3053' N
080
32.1040' W
321.00
1.4
28 03.3322' N
080
32.1075' W
322.00
4.4
28 03.3252' N
080
32.1039' W
323.00
0.8
28 03.3071' N
080
32.0988' W
324.00
1.6
28 03.3093' N
080
32.1360' W
325.00
2.7
28 03.3320' N
080
32.1008' W
326.00
2.4
28 03.3263' N
080
32.0982' W
327.00
2.8
28 03.2811' N
080
32.0886' W
328.00
54.2
28 03.2422' N
080
32.0869' W
329.00
2
28 03.3381' N
080
32.0991' W
330.00
1.5
28 03.3311' N
080
32.0952' W
331.00
3.9
28 03.3242' N
080
32.0923' W
332.00
1.2
28 03.2925' N
080
32.1245' W
333.00
1.1
28 03.3385' N
080
32.0914' W
334.00
2
28 03.3344' N
080
32.0891' W
June 2009-2012
Page 16 of 34
87
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
335.00
0.6
28 03.2668' N
080
32.1175' W
336.00
2.6
28 03.3396' N
080
32.0829' W
337.00
2.6
28 03.3358' N
080
32.0813' W
338.00
0.8
28 03.3327' N
080
32.0801' W
339.00
1.2
28 03.3151' N
080
32.0760' W
340.00
1.4
28 03.3099' N
080
32.0752' W
341.00
1.7
28 03.3066' N
080
32.1089' W
342.00
1
28 03.3392' N
080
32.0805' W
343.00
1.4
28 03.3364' N
080
32.0780' W
344.00
14.5
28 03.3001' N
080
32.1146' W
345.00
1.8
28 03.3121' N
080
32.1142' W
346.00
1
28 03.3208' N
080
32.1141' W
347.00
1.5
28 03.3274' N
080
32.1140' W
348.00
1.7
28 03.2591' N
080
32.0552' W
349.00
1.1
28 03.2195' N
080
32.0542' W
350.00
1.7
28 03.3125' N
080
32.1023' W
351.00
1.1
28 03.3263' N
080
32.1025' W
352.00
0.5
28 03.2389' N
080
32.0655' W
353.00
0.9
28 03.1698' N
080
32.0154' W
354.00
0.7
28 03.1698' N
080
32.0154' W
355.00
0.7
28 03.1698' N
080
32.0154' W
June 2009-2012
Page 17 of 34
88
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
356.00
0.7
28 03.1698' N
080
32.0154' W
357.00
0.5
28 03.1698' N
080
32.0154' W
358.00
0.9
28 03.8146' N
080
32.4196' W
359.00
1.1
28 03.8138' N
080
32.4203' W
360.00
12.4
28 03.6751' N
080
32.4004' W
361.00
4.1
28 03.6730' N
080
32.3998' W
362.00
0.6
28 03.8272' N
080
32.4175' W
363.00
0.7
28 03.7234' N
080
32.4111' W
364.00
1.8
28 03.2713' N
080
32.2632' W
365.00
0.6
28 03.2270' N
080
32.2480' W
366.00
0.5
28 03.7483' N
080
32.3911' W
367.00
1.3
28 03.8295' N
080
32.4218' W
368.00
0.6
28 03.7372' N
080
32.4271' W
369.00
0.8
28 03.6200' N
080
32.3893' W
370.00
1.8
28 03.3459' N
080
32.2665' W
371.00
0.7
28 03.8260' N
080
32.4284' W
372.00
13.4
28 03.3546' N
080
32.7302' W
373.00
0.6
28 03.4395' N
080
32.7776' W
374.00
1.5
28 03.4946' N
080
32.8097' W
375.00
2.1
28 03.5195' N
080
32.8249' W
376.00
1.2
28 03.3555' N
080
32.6749' W
June 2009-2012
Page 18 of 34
89
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
377.00
4.1
28 03.3581' N
080
32.7165' W
378.00
0.5
28 03.4674' N
080
32.7820' W
379.00
3.5
28 03.5641' N
080
32.8356' W
380.00
3.6
28 03.3706' N
080
32.6778' W
381.00
0.3
28 03.4827' N
080
32.7901' W
382.00
7.4
28 03.3562' N
080
32.7222' W
383.00
0.8
28 03.5701' N
080
32.7929' W
384.00
0.5
28 03.4408' N
080
32.7118' W
385.00
2.1
28 03.3929' N
080
32.6841' W
386.00
10.3
28 03.3716' N
080
32.6722' W
387.00
0.7
28 03.3405' N
080
32.6956' W
388.00
16.9
28 03.3598' N
080
32.7113' W
389.00
1.3
28 03.3700' N
080
32.7181' W
390.00
0.4
28 03.4554' N
080
32.7685' W
391.00
0.5
28 03.5540' N
080
32.7737' W
392.00
18.2
28 03.3575' N
080
32.7046' W
393.00
10.1
28 03.3620' N
080
32.7075' W
394.00
1.3
28 03.3976' N
080
32.7289' W
395.00
0.4
28 03.4887' N
080
32.7817' W
396.00
5
28 03.3627' N
080
32.6549' W
397.00
20
28 03.3627' N
080
32.6997' W
June 2009-2012
Page 19 of 34
90
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
398.00
0.8
28 03.3982' N
080
32.7230' W
399.00
9.6
28 03.3650' N
080
32.6951' W
400.00
0.5
28 03.5355' N
080
32.7419' W
401.00
1.3
28 03.4450' N
080
32.6886' W
402.00
1.3
28 03.5571' N
080
32.8014' W
403.00
0.9
28 03.5833' N
080
32.8128' W
404.00
0.4
28 03.5940' N
080
32.7881' W
405.00
31.1
28 03.4433' N
080
32.6811' W
406.00
0.4
28 03.3733' N
080
32.6413' W
407.00
0.5
28 03.3644' N
080
32.6838' W
408.00
0.4
28 03.4185' N
080
32.7165' W
409.00
0.3
28 03.5237' N
080
32.7765' W
410.00
0.4
28 03.3760' N
080
32.6316' W
411.00
1.2
28 03.4565' N
080
32.6819' W
412.00
0.6
28 03.5772' N
080
32.6853' W
413.00
2.3
28 03.3841' N
080
32.6244' W
414.00
0.6
28 03.4355' N
080
32.6583' W
415.00
0.5
28 03.5009' N
080
32.6957' W
416.00
0.3
28 03.5275' N
080
32.7102' W
417.00
0.5
28 03.5979' N
080
32.7495' W
418.00
1.3
28 03.4524' N
080
32.6059' W
June 2009-2012
Page 20 of 34
91
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
419.00
0.4
28 03.6041' N
080
32.6937' W
420.00
3.2
28 03.4070' N
080
32.6275' W
421.00
0.4
28 03.4185' N
080
32.6342' W
422.00
0.6
28 03.4293' N
080
32.6404' W
423.00
1.1
28 03.4618' N
080
32.6593' W
424.00
1.6
28 03.5502' N
080
32.7097' W
425.00
1.1
28 03.6162' N
080
32.7439' W
426.00
0.4
28 03.6275' N
080
32.7267' W
427.00
0.3
28 03.3824' N
080
32.6012' W
428.00
1.1
28 03.4229' N
080
32.6311' W
429.00
87
28 03.4651' N
080
32.6550' W
430.00
0.5
28 03.5561' N
080
32.6459' W
431.00
0.4
28 03.5131' N
080
32.6222' W
432.00
10.3
28 03.4203' N
080
32.6228' W
433.00
0.2
28 03.5796' N
080
32.7141' W
434.00
0.6
28 03.6023' N
080
32.6699' W
435.00
0.6
28 03.4915' N
080
32.6574' W
436.00
0.9
28 03.5337' N
080
32.6821' W
437.00
1
28 03.5352' N
080
32.6831' W
438.00
11.6
28 03.5792' N
080
32.7084' W
439.00
1.5
28 03.5779' N
080
32.6474' W
June 2009-2012
Page 21 of 34
92
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
440.00
0.9
28 03.6256' N
080
32.7252' W
441.00
0.6
28 03.6315' N
080
32.6176' W
442.00
1.3
28 03.5847' N
080
32.5873' W
443.00
6.2
28 03.4707' N
080
32.5780' W
444.00
3.9
28 03.6283' N
080
32.6243' W
445.00
0.8
28 03.4686' N
080
32.5690' W
446.00
2.1
28 03.5953' N
080
32.6413' W
447.00
7.9
28 03.5861' N
080
32.5837' W
448.00
0.5
28 03.5179' N
080
32.5928' W
449.00
0.5
28 03.4248' N
080
32.5294' W
450.00
0.5
28 03.4882' N
080
32.5691' W
451.00
0.4
28 03.6351' N
080
32.6516' W
452.00
5.2
28 03.4709' N
080
32.5520' W
453.00
2.8
28 03.5889' N
080
32.5528' W
454.00
4.9
28 03.5940' N
080
32.5683' W
455.00
0.6
28 03.4817' N
080
32.4978' W
456.00
0.4
28 03.6183' N
080
32.5616' W
457.00
0.6
28 03.6213' N
080
32.5176' W
458.00
0.9
28 03.6268' N
080
32.5600' W
459.00
0.7
28 03.6198' N
080
32.5215' W
460.00
0.5
28 03.5285' N
080
32.4736' W
June 2009-2012
Page 22 of 34
93
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
461.00
1.6
28 03.6635' N
080
32.5650' W
462.00
0.9
28 03.6660' N
080
32.5271' W
463.00
4.1
28 03.9937' N
080
32.0107' W
464.00
0.7
28 04.0632' N
080
31.9884' W
465.00
0.5
28 04.0142' N
080
31.9708' W
466.00
0.4
28 04.0073' N
080
31.9692' W
467.00
0.5
28 04.0054' N
080
31.9688' W
468.00
0.6
28 04.0027' N
080
31.9682' W
469.00
0.4
28 03.9993' N
080
31.9674' W
470.00
0.4
28 03.9969' N
080
31.9669' W
471.00
1.9
28 03.8009' N
080
31.9271' W
472.00
0.6
28 03.9569' N
080
31.9976' W
473.00
2.1
28 03.9948' N
080
32.0050' W
474.00
0.3
28 04.0567' N
080
32.0173' W
475.00
1.8
28 03.9995' N
080
31.9566' W
476.00
0.4
28 03.9274' N
080
31.9871' W
477.00
1.8
28 03.9577' N
080
31.9940' W
478.00
0.6
28 03.9618' N
080
31.9821' W
479.00
0.3
28 04.0063' N
080
31.9423' W
480.00
0.8
28 03.9725' N
080
31.9345' W
481.00
1.8
28 03.8302' N
080
31.9468' W
June 2009-2012
Page 23 of 34
94
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
482.00
1
28 03.9189' N
080
31.9678' W
483.00
0.4
28 03.9528' N
080
31.9743' W
484.00
0.8
28 04.0250' N
080
31.9891' W
485.00
0.4
28 03.9718' N
080
31.9280' W
486.00
0.8
28 04.0202' N
080
31.8766' W
487.00
0.8
28 04.0139' N
080
31.8753' W
488.00
0.4
28 04.1060' N
080
31.9215' W
489.00
7.4
28 04.0328' N
080
31.8740' W
490.00
2.6
28 04.0219' N
080
31.8715' W
491.00
4.2
28 04.0335' N
080
31.8682' W
492.00
0.3
28 04.0214' N
080
31.8541' W
493.00
0.5
28 03.8687' N
080
31.8108' W
494.00
2
28 03.8788' N
080
31.8622' W
495.00
0.8
28 03.9524' N
080
31.8166' W
496.00
1.8
28 03.8795' N
080
31.8577' W
497.00
23.1
28 04.0177' N
080
31.8250' W
498.00
0.9
28 04.0183' N
080
31.8811' W
499.00
1.1
28 04.0600' N
080
32.5864' W
500.00
469.8
28 04.0087' N
080
32.5668' W
501.00
2.1
28 03.9046' N
080
32.5279' W
502.00
2.5
28 03.8331' N
080
32.5742' W
June 2009-2012
Page 24 of 34
95
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
503.00
9.3
28 04.0011' N
080
32.5713' W
504.00
0.9
28 03.8129' N
080
32.5065' W
505.00
1.1
28 03.9707' N
080
32.6121' W
506.00
1.4
28 03.8047' N
080
32.5366' W
507.00
2.5
28 03.9984' N
080
32.6161' W
508.00
170
28 04.0080' N
080
32.5617' W
509.00
121.5
28 03.9226' N
080
32.5321' W
510.00
0.8
28 03.8334' N
080
32.5504' W
511.00
9
28 04.0018' N
080
32.6115' W
512.00
3.7
28 04.0605' N
080
32.6312' W
513.00
95.3
28 04.0101' N
080
32.5564' W
514.00
1.1
28 03.9245' N
080
32.5266' W
515.00
1.7
28 03.8333' N
080
32.5428' W
516.00
10.8
28 04.0715' N
080
32.5746' W
517.00
10.7
28 04.0102' N
080
32.5509' W
518.00
1.1
28 04.1102' N
080
32.5989' W
519.00
0.5
28 03.9952' N
080
32.5855' W
520.00
0.8
28 03.9623' N
080
32.5684' W
521.00
27.3
28 03.8501' N
080
32.4074' W
522.00
0.8
28 04.1400' N
080
32.5107' W
523.00
12
28 03.8519' N
080
32.3904' W
June 2009-2012
Page 25 of 34
96
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
524.00
1.1
28 04.1350' N
080
32.5048' W
525.00
2.3
28 03.8923' N
080
32.3978' W
526.00
0.6
28 03.8464' N
080
32.3825' W
527.00
2.3
28 04.0910' N
080
32.5186' W
528.00
1.4
28 03.8754' N
080
32.4311' W
529.00
1.4
28 04.0876' N
080
32.5061' W
530.00
1.4
28 03.8487' N
080
32.4110' W
531.00
12.8
28 03.8499' N
080
32.4087' W
532.00
11.4
28 04.0790' N
080
32.3639' W
533.00
0.8
28 04.1202' N
080
32.3778' W
534.00
20.6
28 04.0717' N
080
32.3951' W
535.00
102.6
28 04.0733' N
080
32.3904' W
536.00
1.1
28 04.0591' N
080
32.3215' W
537.00
3.3
28 03.8854' N
080
32.3140' W
538.00
4.9
28 04.0356' N
080
32.3719' W
539.00
10
28 04.0752' N
080
32.3852' W
540.00
4.7
28 04.0764' N
080
32.3802' W
541.00
140.3
28 04.0783' N
080
32.3754' W
542.00
6.6
28 04.0640' N
080
32.3640' W
543.00
8.9
28 04.0745' N
080
32.3680' W
544.00
19.6
28 04.0767' N
080
32.3623' W
June 2009-2012
Page 26 of 34
97
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
545.00
1.6
28 04.0768' N
080
32.3558' W
546.00
1.3
28 04.1125' N
080
32.3062' W
547.00
2.2
28 04.1673' N
080
32.3054' W
548.00
0.8
28 04.0373' N
080
32.2148' W
549.00
0.6
28 03.9009' N
080
32.2213' W
550.00
1.1
28 04.1323' N
080
32.2420' W
551.00
0.8
28 04.2319' N
080
32.2884' W
552.00
0.8
28 04.2319' N
080
32.2884' W
553.00
0.6
28 03.1723' N
080
31.5794' W
554.00
0.7
28 03.0730' N
080
31.5634' W
555.00
0.6
28 03.0284' N
080
31.5059' W
556.00
5.4
28 02.9234' N
080
32.1833' W
557.00
0.4
28 02.9492' N
080
32.1932' W
558.00
4.1
28 03.0362' N
080
32.2624' W
559.00
2.6
28 02.7536' N
080
32.1622' W
560.00
2
28 02.6433' N
080
32.1111' W
561.00
1
28 02.5932' N
080
32.0889' W
562.00
1.3
28 02.7298' N
080
32.1079' W
563.00
60.4
28 02.9648' N
080
32.2139' W
564.00
0.7
28 03.0318' N
080
32.2891' W
565.00
0.7
28 02.9714' N
080
32.2693' W
June 2009-2012
Page 27 of 34
98
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
566.00
0.8
28 03.0120' N
080
32.2750' W
567.00
3.3
28 02.7282' N
080
32.1135' W
568.00
0.5
28 02.8504' N
080
32.1688' W
569.00
7.5
28 02.9634' N
080
32.2183' W
570.00
0.4
28 02.9835' N
080
32.2794' W
571.00
1578.8
28 02.4977' N
080
32.0587' W
572.00
3.9
28 02.9425' N
080
32.2282' W
573.00
2.5
28 02.9420' N
080
32.2203' W
574.00
0.8
28 02.8519' N
080
32.2520' W
575.00
19.6
28 02.8230' N
080
32.2378' W
576.00
26.3
28 02.8059' N
080
32.2325' W
577.00
3
28 03.0338' N
080
32.2808' W
578.00
1.9
28 02.9065' N
080
32.2833' W
579.00
3
28 02.8693' N
080
32.2673' W
580.00
8.3
28 02.7762' N
080
32.2920' W
581.00
228.7
28 02.7280' N
080
32.2706' W
582.00
9.8
28 02.7068' N
080
32.2605' W
583.00
1.6
28 02.5824' N
080
32.2048' W
584.00
2.5
28 02.6770' N
080
32.1874' W
585.00
2.7
28 02.8657' N
080
32.2710' W
586.00
1.2
28 02.9570' N
080
32.3116' W
June 2009-2012
Page 28 of 34
99
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
587.00
0.5
28 02.8959' N
080
32.3368' W
588.00
11.9
28 02.8667' N
080
32.3242' W
589.00
0.8
28 02.6790' N
080
32.2415' W
590.00
4.2
28 02.6755' N
080
32.1927' W
591.00
2.9
28 03.0239' N
080
32.3663' W
592.00
0.8
28 02.7698' N
080
32.2946' W
593.00
27.9
28 02.6162' N
080
32.2263' W
594.00
0.9
28 02.6514' N
080
32.1897' W
595.00
88.2
28 02.6764' N
080
32.1983' W
596.00
1
28 02.9301' N
080
32.3704' W
597.00
1.2
28 02.8103' N
080
32.3176' W
598.00
1.3
28 02.7370' N
080
32.2860' W
599.00
58.5
28 02.6746' N
080
32.2042' W
600.00
66.7
28 02.8132' N
080
32.2655' W
601.00
0.9
28 02.9779' N
080
32.3389' W
602.00
2
28 03.0216' N
080
32.3739' W
603.00
6.8
28 02.9892' N
080
32.3918' W
604.00
1.4
28 02.9802' N
080
32.3915' W
605.00
11.2
28 02.6685' N
080
32.2072' W
606.00
1.2
28 03.0210' N
080
32.3770' W
607.00
1.2
28 02.8589' N
080
32.3532' W
June 2009-2012
Page 29 of 34
100
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
608.00
8.7
28 02.7157' N
080
32.2888' W
609.00
0.7
28 02.6770' N
080
32.2721' W
610.00
0.4
28 02.6425' N
080
32.2567' W
611.00
0.6
28 02.6636' N
080
32.2114' W
612.00
0.7
28 02.6711' N
080
32.2147' W
613.00
2.5
28 02.7830' N
080
32.2649' W
614.00
1.1
28 02.9529' N
080
32.3404' W
615.00
1.5
28 02.7589' N
080
32.3141' W
616.00
55.3
28 02.7224' N
080
32.2982' W
617.00
0.6
28 02.5429' N
080
32.2184' W
618.00
0.6
28 02.6341' N
080
32.2040' W
619.00
1
28 02.6450' N
080
32.2095' W
620.00
1.3
28 02.8380' N
080
32.2946' W
621.00
2
28 02.9633' N
080
32.3493' W
622.00
14.1
28 02.8968' N
080
32.3820' W
623.00
0.5
28 02.9416' N
080
32.3466' W
624.00
0.6
28 02.9447' N
080
32.4052' W
625.00
0.9
28 02.9334' N
080
32.4012' W
626.00
4
28 02.9064' N
080
32.3374' W
627.00
26.9
28 02.6995' N
080
32.3060' W
628.00
3.2
28 02.8835' N
080
32.3868' W
June 2009-2012
Page 30 of 34
101
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
629.00
0.3
28 02.9606' N
080
32.4635' W
630.00
75.5
28 02.9525' N
080
32.4626' W
631.00
0.6
28 02.7625' N
080
32.3882' W
632.00
123.9
28 02.6565' N
080
32.3400' W
633.00
1.3
28 02.5476' N
080
32.2444' W
634.00
0.6
28 02.6185' N
080
32.2761' W
635.00
3
28 02.9507' N
080
32.4577' W
636.00
1.7
28 02.7637' N
080
32.3826' W
637.00
0.5
28 02.6097' N
080
32.3146' W
638.00
1.1
28 02.5470' N
080
32.2866' W
639.00
1.6
28 02.4772' N
080
32.2255' W
640.00
0.8
28 02.7251' N
080
32.3286' W
641.00
0.5
28 02.7590' N
080
32.3440' W
642.00
4.5
28 02.8294' N
080
32.3749' W
643.00
8.9
28 02.9338' N
080
32.4214' W
644.00
0.4
28 02.9844' N
080
32.4604' W
645.00
0.4
28 02.9138' N
080
32.4397' W
646.00
0.7
28 02.7582' N
080
32.3508' W
647.00
0.9
28 02.8187' N
080
32.3771' W
648.00
2.8
28 02.9510' N
080
32.4346' W
649.00
0.9
28 02.9682' N
080
32.4427' W
June 2009-2012
Page 31 of 34
102
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
650.00
2
28 03.0060' N
080
32.4538' W
651.00
2
28 02.9864' N
080
32.4564' W
652.00
0.5
28 02.9683' N
080
32.4543' W
653.00
9.4
28 02.9397' N
080
32.4445' W
654.00
0.4
28 02.9103' N
080
32.4343' W
655.00
0.5
28 02.8973' N
080
32.4285' W
656.00
0.4
28 02.8134' N
080
32.3913' W
657.00
2.6
28 02.7573' N
080
32.3666' W
658.00
3.3
28 02.7463' N
080
32.3614' W
659.00
0.8
28 02.7407' N
080
32.3587' W
660.00
0.6
28 02.7584' N
080
32.3549' W
661.00
6.5
28 02.8102' N
080
32.3787' W
662.00
1.5
28 02.8178' N
080
32.3818' W
663.00
1.1
28 02.8663' N
080
32.4034' W
664.00
1.5
28 02.9338' N
080
32.4314' W
665.00
22.1
28 02.9890' N
080
32.4584' W
666.00
1.2
28 02.7492' N
080
32.3578' W
667.00
13.6
28 02.7739' N
080
32.4101' W
668.00
0.4
28 02.8283' N
080
32.4347' W
669.00
0.7
28 02.9701' N
080
32.5106' W
670.00
34.2
28 02.9613' N
080
32.5108' W
June 2009-2012
Page 32 of 34
103
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
671.00
4.5
28 02.9014' N
080
32.4951' W
672.00
0.5
28 02.5836' N
080
32.3549' W
673.00
0.7
28 02.5335' N
080
32.3330' W
674.00
2.6
28 02.5066' N
080
32.3184' W
675.00
1.2
28 02.5771' N
080
32.3160' W
676.00
2.4
28 02.9740' N
080
32.5058' W
677.00
0.9
28 02.9577' N
080
32.5050' W
678.00
6.2
28 02.9017' N
080
32.4891' W
679.00
1.7
28 02.6121' N
080
32.3622' W
680.00
1
28 02.5080' N
080
32.3161' W
681.00
0.7
28 02.4069' N
080
32.2637' W
682.00
1.7
28 02.6514' N
080
32.3613' W
683.00
2.4
28 02.7330' N
080
32.3967' W
684.00
3.4
28 02.7719' N
080
32.4141' W
685.00
2.4
28 02.8667' N
080
32.4567' W
686.00
5.4
28 02.7643' N
080
32.4247' W
687.00
5.8
28 02.6128' N
080
32.3577' W
688.00
1.5
28 02.7963' N
080
32.4323' W
689.00
2.5
28 02.6942' N
080
32.3866' W
690.00
4.2
28 02.4866' N
080
32.3412' W
691.00
1.1
28 02.5250' N
080
32.3591' W
June 2009-2012
Page 33 of 34
104
ID
Longitude
Latitude
Gamma
Identity
692.00
9.1
28 02.8812' N
080
32.5181' W
693.00
21
28 02.9550' N
080
32.5315' W
694.00
2.3
28 02.6767' N
080
32.4030' W
695.00
0.7
28 02.5416' N
080
32.3420' W
696.00
1.1
28 02.5116' N
080
32.3293' W
697.00
1
28 02.4987' N
080
32.3236' W
698.00
6
28 02.4330' N
080
32.2946' W
699.00
29.8
28 02.9571' N
080
32.5319' W
700.00
4.8
28 02.6846' N
080
32.4125' W
701.00
0.8
28 02.6291' N
080
32.3883' W
702.00
0.4
28 04.1162' N
080
32.3519' W
703.00
1.4
28 04.1433' N
080
32.3624' W
704.00
8.9
28 03.6663' N
080
32.4667' W
705.00
2.6
28 03.9992' N
080
32.5768' W
706.00
2.8
28 03.9984' N
080
32.5765' W
707.00
5.4
28 04.2121' N
080
32.6590' W
June 2009-2012
Page 34 0f 34
105
The boundary area and anomalies of principal interest are as follows:
155-30-South:
28 02.950
28 03.100
80 32.600
80 32.300
28 02.400
28 02.560
80 32.360
80 32.050
ID
Latitude
Longitude
Gamma
508
28 04.0080
80 32.5617
170
560
28 .02.6433
80 32.1111
2.0
561
28 02.5932
80 32.0889
1.0
562
28 02.7298
80 32.1079
1.3
564
28 03.0318
80 32.2891
0.7
565
28 02.9714
80 32.2693
0.7
566
28 03.0120
80 32.2750
0.8
570
28 02.9835
80 32.2794
0.4
Identity
575
28 02.8230
80 32.2378
19.6
576
28 02.8059
80 32.2325
26.3
577
28 03.0338
80 32.2808
3.0
578
28 02.9065
80 32.2833
1.9
580
28 02.7762
80 32.2920
8.3
583
28 02.5824
80 32.2048
1.6
586
28 02.9570
80 32.3116
1.2
588
28 02.8667
80 32.3242
11.9
589
28 02.6790
80 32.2415
0.8
590
28 02.6755
80 32.1927
4.2
591
28 03.0239
80 32.3663
2.9
594
28 02.6514
80 32.1897
0.9
595
28 02.6764
80 32.1983
88.2
596
28 02.9301
80 32.3704
1.0
599
28 02.6746
80 32.2042
58.5
600
28 02.8132
80 32.2655
66.7
107
601
28 02.9779
80 32.3389
0.9
602
28 03.0216
80 32.3739
2.0
603
28 02.9892
80 32.3918
6.8
605
28 02.6685
80 32.2072
11.2
608
28 02.7157
80 32.2888
8.7
609
28 02.6770
80 32.2721
0.7
610
28 02.6425
80 32.2567
0.4
611
28 02.6636
80 32.2114
0.6
612
28 02.6711
80 32.2147
0.7
613
28 02.7830
80 32.2649
2.5
614
28 02.9529
80 32.3404
1.1
615
28 02.7589
80 32.3141
1.5
616
28 02.7224
80 32.2982
55.3
617
28 02.5429
80 32.2184
0.6
619
28 02.6450
80 32.2095
1.0
622
28 02.8968
80 32.3820
14.1
108
623
28 02.9416
80 32.3466
0.5
624
28 02.9447
80 32.4050
0.6
625
28 02.9334
80 32.4012
0.9
629
28 02.9606
80 32.4635
0.3
630
28 02.9525
80 32.4626
75.5
632
28 02.6565
80 32.3400
123.9
633
28 02.5476
80 32.2444
1.3
634
28 02.6185
80 32.2761
0.6
635
28 02.9507
80 32.4577
3.0
639
28 02.4772
80 32.2255
1.6
640
28 02.7251
80 32.3286
0.8
641
28 02.7590
80 32.3440
0.5
642
28 02.8294
80 32.3749
4.5
643
28 02.9338
80 32.4214
8.9
645
28 02.9138
80 32.4397
0.4
648
28 02.9510
80 32.4346
2.8
109
649
28 02.9682
80 32.4427
0.9
650
28 03.0060
80 32.4538
2.0
651
28 02.9864
80 32.4564
2.0
653
28 02.9397
80 32.4445
9.4
654
28 02.9103
80 32.4343
0.3
657
28 02.7573
80 32.3666
2.6
665
28 02.9890
80 32.4584
22.1
667
28 02.7739
80 32.4101
13.6
668
28 02.8283
80 32.4347
0.4
670
28 02.9613
80 32.5108
34.2
671
28 02.9014
80 32.4951
4.5
675
28 02.5771
80 32.3160
1.2
676
28 02.9740
80 32.5058
2.4
678
28 02.9017
80 32.4891
6.2
110
682
28 02.6514
80 32.3613
683
28 02.7330
80 32.3967
2.4
684
28 02.7719
80 32.4141
3.4
685
28 02.8667
80 32.4567
2.4
686
28 02.7643
80 32.4247
5.4
687
28 02.6128
80 32.3577
5.8
688
28 02.7963
80 32.4323
1.5
689
28 02.6942
80 32.3866
2.5
690
28 02.4866
80 32.3412
4.2
692
28 02.8812
80 32.5181
9.1
693
28 02.9550
80 32.5315
21.0
694
28 02.6767
80 32.4030
2.3
698
28 02.4330
80 32.2946
6.0
699
28 02.9571
80 32.5319
29.8
700
28 02.6846
80 32.4125
4.8
704
28 02.6663
80 32.4667
8.9
111
1.7
INTERPRETATION OF DATA
The above clusters are believed to have the best potential for yielding historical artifacts
associated with an unknown mercantile shipwreck of the colonial period foundered in
waters off Spessard Holland Park, in south Brevard County, Florida. The ship appears to
have sunk and broken apart on an 80 azimuth reading from 28 33 N 80 33W line.
112
APPENDIX II
113
HISTORIC PERIOD SHIPWRECK ASSESSMENT

Performed By
James Sinclair, MA SeaRex Inc.
For
Amelia Research and Recovery Inc.
For Site
ON E- 155D
As designated in State Of Florida Permitting System
Prepared By:
James Sinclair, MA
Principle Investigator
SeaRex Inc.
15Marlin Dr.
St. Augustine, FL 32080
Background of Reviewer
114
SeaRex Inc. is a Cultural Resource Management consulting firm specializing in historic period
shipwreck sites. James J. Sinclair is the principal investigator for SeaRex, Inc., as well as Project
Archaeologist for Seafarer Exploration Corp.
James Sinclair, MA, is an internationally recognized marine archaeologist, who started
his career in 1980 working with shipwreck salvager Mel Fisher in his quest for the
Nuestra Seora de Atocha, 1622. The search culminated in the 1985 discovery of the
primary cultural deposit of this shipwreck. As director of the laboratories charged with
the conservation of this exceptional find Mr. Sinclair oversaw the conservation of over
500,000 archaeological objects and helped in developing techniques currently used in
many laboratories around the world today.
In 1980 Sinclair also assisted in the archaeological recovery of the sister ship of
the Atocha, the Santa Margarita. In 1982 recovery efforts were renewed on the 1715
Plate Fleet off of the East coast of Florida, Sinclair became the lead archaeologist
overseeing that project. All of these projects are still ongoing and Mr. Sinclair is still
involved in as the Primary Investigator on both the 1622 Fleet Shipwrecks as well as the
1715 Fleet in addition to other projects as well.
In 1984. Sinclair took part in expeditions off the State of Vera Cruz, Mexico
investigating possible ship losses in that region. This work would eventually culminate in
the location of the U.S. Summers which was the only United States Naval vessel to ever
experience a mutiny aboard.
Sinclair has been the chief archaeologist on projects searching for a legendary
shipwreck in Indonesia, the Portuguese Shipwreck the Flor de la Mar, 1511. His work
has taken him to the U.S. territory of Guam where recoveries were made on the
shipwreck of the Nuestra Seora del Pilar, 1691, and also throughout the Caribbean. Jim
has worked on the Dutch protectorate island of St. Eustatius, NA investigating part of a
sunken city and wharf complex associated with colonial trade at this the earliest
Freeport in the New World. He has also conducted investigations on the islands of
Barbuda and Anguilla.
Sinclair has also overseen investigations on the San Miguel de Archangel, 1654
off of Jupiter Florida and on the suspected Viscyana Columbuss wreck off of Nombre de
Dos in Panama on a very early ship of exploration.
In the year 2000 Mr. Sinclair became the first professional archaeologist to visit
the wreck site of the RMS Titanic, utilizing the MIR submersible Sinclair performed the
first archaeological survey of the stern artifact scatter (debris field). In 2001 Sinclair was
the lead archaeologist on a historic period shipwreck discovered in 16,300 feet of water
in the Blake Basin in the mid-Atlantic, to date the deepest archaeological recovery of
historic period shipwreck remains.
115
Sinclair has worked in Canada on the wrecks of le Chameau, 1731 and that of a
Fleet of ships lost off of Prospect, Nova Scotia, thought to be carrying plunder from the
sacking of Washington, DC in 1814
In 2008 Sinclair was part of a team of archaeologists investigating the Lusitania
off of Ireland, and in 2009 Sinclair was the PI for investigations of a possible privateer
wrecked off the coast of Angelesy, Wales.
Sinclair has been a voice of moderation in what are the normally divisive factions
of archaeologists and the private sector community. He has been politically active in
trying to bring these two disparate groups to a common ground for the benefit of the
shipwrecks themselves. In this capacity he has given testimony to panels that range from
the Presidents Commission on Ocean Policy, NOAA and the State Department of the
United States as a prelude to their participation in the conferences held by UNESCO on
the Treaty for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. He is a member of the
Historic Shipwreck Salvage Policy Council (HSSPC), which along with the Florida
Bureau of Archaeology (FBAR) helped to formulate new rules for commercial activities
aimed at historic shipwreck resources in the State of Florida.
Sinclair has given presentations in over 150 States and at professional symposia ranging
from the Society for Historical Archaeology, Underwater Intervention, Oceanology
International and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Sinclair holds a Masters degree and is a past member of the Registry of Professional
Archaeologists. In recognition of his years of work he was elected to the prestigious New
York Explorers Club.
116
Classes of Artifacts
Artifacts from Historic Period Shipwrecks fall into a number of different classes these
can be differentiated into general categories that include: (1) Ships Construction
Elements, (2) Armament, both heavy ordnance and small arms (3) Cargo, and (4)
Personal items.
Ships Construction Elements
While in ideal circumstances some of the ships wooden hull structure would survive, this
is very rarely the case on shallow water high energy sites such as the one under
consideration. The impacts of storms, anthropogenic activities and chemical and
biological deterioration make the likelihood of such preservation unlikely in this sort of
dynamic and hostile environment. What is normally left are the metallic fasteners that
once held the wooden components together, these consist of bolts, nails, tacks, straps and
the like. At times small sections of wood will still be attached to such objects. At times
there will be a larger section of hull structure trapped under weighty objects such as
ballast. This was the case on the Nuestra Seora de Atocha, 1622, the Santa Margarita,
1622, the wreck of the San Martin, 1618 and the Capitana, 1733. To date on the current
site under consideration no such section of articulated hull structure has been located.
Indeed, on the Seafarer Exploration Corp.s site, to date, the type of fasteners that have
been located fall into the category of iron pins, nails and one example of a broken bronze
nail.
(Encrusted iron pin)
(Square headed nail with wood)
(Bronze Fastener)
Square nail impression in matrix

117
Round pin impression in matrix
While it is clear as to the type of fasteners being utilized on the wreck site the unfortunate
fact regarding fasteners is that they are not as diagnostic as far as chronological
determinations or to a greater degree the place of origin of such objects. However, what
is clear is that those items that have been recovered are of the wrought iron type and
therefore were handmade examples this method of manufacture was gradually replaced
as the industrial revolution came more into force. Once mass produced fasteners became
available they replaced the more expensive, and labor-intensive hand wrought types.
Certainly by the first half of the first half of the 19th century most nails were no longer
produced by hand forging. The advent of the machine-made cut nail produced a
massive drop in the number of nailors making hand-forged nails in places like Britain.
Cut nails suddenly and widely replaced wrought nails throughout the industry, but not in
some specialized forms of carpentry, or in ship building. (McCarthy, M, Ships
Fastenings, Texas A&M University Press, 2005, p. 88).
Armament
Shipboard armament aboard an historic period vessel can be classed into two general
subcategories of ships ordnance, this would include cannon and associated shot as well as
possible rail guns and their associated shot. The next category would be small arms this
would include individual weaponry such as muskets, pistols, swords, cutlasses, daggers
and knifes, although the edged weapons may be considered a separate category unto
themselves. On earlier vessels such as those of the earliest European explorations into the
New World, long shaft weapons such as halberds and spears are at times present as well
as the remains of crossbow mechanisms.
In the current consideration we need deal with only two such items, one cannon and one
pistol. The Cannon has been left in situ and the pistol was recovered and conserved by
the State of Florida Conservation facility at the RA Gray Building in Tallahassee. Both of
118
these items were discovered previous to the activities of Seafarer Exploration Corp., but
are indeed important to the assessment of this vessel.
Although only available as a rough sketch the above shows the placement of the cannon in
relation to other important artifacts that will be discussed in later sections of this assessment.
The cannon is a 8-foot cast iron example with trunnions placed slightly below the mid-line this
offsetting of the trunnions gives us an earlier date as after the 1750s trunnion placement was
on the midline to reduce firing stress.
Iron Cannon from Site

The bore diameter of approximately 3 inches (3) corresponds to a 4 lb shot. While not the
largest of guns on historic shipwrecks it is a common size and the fact that the trunnions are off
the mid-line put our vessel into a period before 1750. Cannon measurements on the sketch above
are approximate due to encrustation. This cannon has been left in situ and may in the future be
the subject of further studies.
The pistol is a fascinating piece. Its excellent state of preservation has allowed markings, not
usually seen on objects submerged for long period of time in sea water, to be discernable.
Full flint lock Pistol from site
119
Incised into the pistol are markings that represent the name of the gunsmith and the date of
manufacture.
The Markings spell out on two lines RAMIRES (this is a typical sort of hyphenating that one
can expect on objects that have a Spanish based influence), this sort of abbreviation has been
seen on rings, platters and religious objects from the wrecks of the 1715 Fleet. While this is a
fascinating design element the most diagnostic mark for our purpose is the clearly visible date
of 1709.
As the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research reported in the Report to Florida

Historical Commission, 2006 annual report, page 6:
The Bureau of Archaeological Researchs Conservation Research Laboratory (including
collections) is currently working on the processing the 21st accession of 2006, including
an interesting flintlock pistol from a Brevard County 1715 shipwreck (emphasis mine).
The pistol has the makers name (Ramires, an early Spanish/Mexican gun maker), and a
date (1709) inscribed in the preserved hardware. This is quite a compelling statement
coming from the Bureau that oversees these endeavors.
http://www.flheritage.com/archaeology/FHCMarch2006.pdf
120
Cargo
Cargo from historic period shipwrecks falls into many categories, products of different
lands and activities in the New World, Certainly metallic objects such as gold and silver
specie and bullion were important objects to the functioning of economies during the
colonial period and are of course highly diagnostic in the interpretation. Cargos were
often also agricultural in nature and most in shallow water high-energy environments
such as the case with E-155D, are unlikely to have survived, others may have been
disbursed and scattered from several filtering actions that take place immediate to the
sinking event and thereafter. In some instances trace evidence of this organic class of
artifact will survive, such as indigo, a valuable dye that was regularly transported, in
other areas peppercorns have survived. In the case of E-155D, no such evidence has yet
come to light. However, the ceramic containers that held some of these items or were
utilized for other purposes have survived and gives us yet more clues as to the nature and
origin of the wreckage represented on site E-155D.
Ceramics
Ceramics represent one of the most durable objects created during humankind history and
present one of the most diagnostic classes of material available to the archaeologist.
Much study has been put forward toward the classification of different ceramic wares
their stylistic changes as well as changes in production technique and methodology
through time. These studies have been fundamental to assigning chronological periods to
sites as well as origin of the objects themselves.
Two ceramic shards have been recovered recently from E-155D that are instrumental in
the assignation of origin if not date:
The light colored earthenware shard is typical of the class of ceramic container known as
Olive Jar, these shards. These jars known as botijas in Spain were mostly produced in the
Andalusia region of Spain. This is representative of a type of ceramic container that is
ubiquitous on Spanish colonial sites. John Goggin, an archaeologist who worked in
Florida in the 1960s fairly described them as the 5 gallon gas can of the Spanish
Empire. As such, when encountered on shipwreck sites, it is one of the hallmarks in
assigning origin. Along with the red earthenware shard that may be of aboriginal origin
outside of local Floridian Indian ware types.
121
Further studies on the aboriginal shard will undoubtedly render a more precise location of
manufacture. However, taken in context with the rest of the collection the presence of
both the olive jar and the non-local aboriginal ware we seem to have an origination of
somewhere in Spanish Colonial America outside of the local Florida area. The olive jar
shard and the heavy aboriginal pottery are consistent with early 18th century shipwrecks
that occur in the general area, i.e. the 1715 Plate fleet wrecks off of Indian River County.
Personal Items
This class of artifact, in this instance is the most telling, while no personal items were
recovered from the most recent recovery efforts, the permit holder has recovered a
number of items that have unmistakable associations with time periods, nationalities and
perhaps even specific events.
Silver Platters
Examples of silver wares were recovered from the area directly associated with the
Cannon. These platters are of a size that decorative style to class them as rosewater
platters or chargers:
Rosewater dish were used from medieval times. At table, after a meal, servants would
bring a dish to the table along with a Ewer (pitcher) in which would be scented water.
This water most often was infused with the essence of roses; hence the large dish was
called a Rosewater Dish. The scented water was poured into the dish and guests would
then wash their hands in it to remove the odor of the foods just eaten. Because the
development of the rosewater dish took place in a time when there were no forks or
napkins and hygiene was questionable this was at least a small way to clean up.
Although forks had made their appearance on the European culinary scene they had yet
to really catch on, so these types of dishes were still in favor, and although these dishes
would eventually lose their original function the form and degree of decoration would
persist down to modern times. A famous rosewater dish from modern times is that
awarded to the Womens Tennis Champion at Wimbledon known as the Venus Rosewater
Platter.
(Sinclair, J 2009 http://www.melfisher.com/Investors/Newsletters/News_09_06.asp)
The current artifact under consideration bears similar dimensions to others of its kind
recovered in the past and from shipwrecks of the Spanish Colonial period:
122
As can be seen the current platter is nearly 17 inches across, it is the design elements that
put this object in the class of Rosewater platter/dish:
Floral design from platter
Example of platter
The raised central boss and the floral design in the bowl area as well as repeated on the
rim put this highly decorative silver object into the realm of personal items, cargo of this
nature is only really found from certain sorts of vessels and the design is quite typical of
the early 1700s Spanish influenced design.
On yet another platter recovered from the site a more telling sort of design has been
located. This comes in the form of an inscription:
This is a wealthy womans name inscribed along the rim of this deteriorated platter. Her
name appears as Doa Juana Isabel de Chabes Espinosa de los Monteros. The Espinosa
de los Monteros family originates from the small locality of the same name in Cantabria,
located southeast of Santander (see Archival Research section above). This is
undoubtedly Spanish colonial silverware; this type of writing is seen on many objects that
have been recovered through the years on the 1715 Fleet.
123
Conclusion
When viewed as an archaeological collection there can be little doubt that this vessel is
an early (first quarter) 18th century Spanish vessel and that with the addition of the high
value personal items it appears to have been on a mercantile activity. There is nothing
from this site that I have reviewed that shows artifact recovered or recorded are from any
other time period or source.
Finally the remote sensing survey that was conducted in the area from which these
objects were recovered have revealed clusters of ferrous material analogous with the
scatter pattern (or debris field/pattern) of an historic period shipwreck breaking up in
shallow water. This sort of pattern replicates to some degree those signatures of other
vessels lost in this same time period.
The 1715 Fleet, lost on July 31st of that year consisted of 11 recorded vessels, six of
which have been mostly identified, these stretch from Sebastian Inlet in the North to just
south of the Fort Pierce inlet in the South, four of the Fleet remain missing. The remains
of the wreck at E-155D may very well be the seventh vessel in the fleet to be located.
Nothing found to date can contraindicate that this is the case, in fact, the proximity to the
other wrecks from the fleet, the pistol and the silver platters, especially the rim with the
inscribed name of the wealthy woman, are almost proof positive that this vessel is one of
the lost 1715 Fleet. The clusters of magnetometer hits the variety of materials recovered
all suggest a highly concentrated area of wreck material that may well represent the
primary cultural deposit. Careful excavation, recording, conservation, analysis, reporting
and publishing are in order.
I personally will look forward to learning about future work and finds on this very
exciting shipwreck.
Respectfully submitted,
Project Archaeologist.
15 Marlin Dr.
St Augustine, FL 32080
124
Sand Tempered Plain Pot Sherd

Temper:
This sherd is gritty, tempered with generous amounts of very fine to course quartz sand. There
also appears to be some unintentional mica inclusions in the past, although this description is
based only on observations made with the naked eye.
Color:
This sherd has a mottled orange color on both sides and the core is black. Despite having been
submerged for a considerable length of time, the paste is fairly compact and non-friable.
Surface Finish / Decoration:

There is no evidence of any kind of surface finish or decoration on the sherd. Both sides are
irregular and there are very faint drag marks on both sides of the sherd which are uniform in
direction and were probably caused by granules of sand being pulled along the vessel surface as it
was haphazardly smoothed before firing.
The shade of this sherd indicates that it is part of the base of perhaps a bowl. The method of
manufacture was most probably coiling. Considering the combinations of all of these attributes, it
is my opinion that this sherd probably represents an early variety of thick very gritty sand
tempered plain pottery. This sort of sand tempered plain pottery is typical of the pottery found at
many aboriginal archaeological sites in south Florida.
The possible presence of mica in the paste however, my suggest that this sherd represents some
sort of utilitarian sand tempered trade ware as mica is not known to occur near the locality where
this sherd was collected, but instead, typical of NW Florida and SW Georgia.
Because sand tempered plain aboriginal pottery is so common in Florida, and occurs throughout
the cultural sequence, I will make a very broad general temporal assignment for this sherd of 500
BC-AD 1513, with the understanding that his thick, gritty sherd is probably earlier in the
sequence than later.
Further, I would like to stress that this sherd also has some characteristics of Spanish Earthenware
and that more research is needed.
Dorothy Block, MA
125
APPENDIX III
126
BOAT & EQUIPMENT
FIGURE 32. THE IRON MAIDEN
The Iron Maiden was built by T.D. Vinette Co. in 1978; length 46'6" beam 15'4" Draft 7';
steel hull, powered by twin Diesel Allice Chalmers 25000 MK2, 425hp; Westerbeke
25kw Genset generator. Navionics include a RayMarine E120 Navigation System (depth,
Radar and GPS). Port of Call is St. Petersburg, FL.
Coltri MCH 11/EM Standard Compact Breathing Air Compressor has the following
diving compressor specifications:
CHARGING RATE: 195 L/min 11 m/h 7 CFM

FILLING TIME: cylinder 10L (0-200 Bar) 11 min
WORKING PRESSURE: 225 Bar - 3200 Psi 330 Bar - 4700 Psi
DRIVEN BY: Single-phase electric
POWER: (230 V - 50/60 Hz) 4 Kw
DIMENSIONS:
height 88 cm / 35"
127
width 92 cm / 36"
depth 61 cm / 24"
DRY WEIGHT: 141 Kg / 311 lbs
NOISE (ISO 3746): 78 dB
NUMBER OF STAGES: 3
NUMBER OF CYLINDERS: 3
LUBRICATING OIL CAPACITY: 1600 cc (1,6 L) / 0,42 US Gallon
LUBRICANT: Coltri oil CE 750
FRAME: Powder coated steel
OIL / MOISTURE SEPARATOR: 2
FILTRATION: Maxifilter active carbon and molecular sieve
SAFETY VALVE: 2 interstage, 1 last stage
INTERSTAGE COOLERS AND AFTER COOLERS: Stainless steel
BREATHING AIR: DIN 3188 EN 12021 CGA E
Prop-Wash Deflectors x 2 @ 39 each

Venturi Induction dredge with associated hose
Aquapulse Pulse Induction Metal Detectors Model Aq-1b
Diving Gear for 9 Divers
Emergency Equipment (First Aid Kit for minor to traumatic injuries, Lifesavers, etc.);
DAN (Diver Alert Network) Oxygen kit.
Magnetometer
128
129

2014.03.26 - Seafarer E-155 Recovery Permit Application

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2014.03.26 - Seafarer E-155 Recovery Permit Application

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

E-155 Recovery Permit Application

Recovery Permit Application

Prepared for the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA _________________________________________ 56

Conclusion _________________________________________________________________ 124

Figure 10. E-155 Prioritized anomalies, Area 4 ............................................................................. 37

E-155D CONTRACT LOCATION

FIGURE 1. BREVARD COUNTY, FL, LOCATION

FIGURE 2 E-155 CONTRACT AREA

SUPPLEMENTAL RESEARCH DESIGN

MODERN ENVIRONMENT/GEOMORPHOLOGY AND

EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD (10,000-7000 B.P.)

MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD (7000-5000 B.P.)

LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD (5000-2500 B.P.)

POST-ARCHAIC PERIOD (2500-500 B.P.)

500-250 Period III

SOURCES: (Carr et al. 1995; Cordell 1985; Milanich 1994).

THE BRITISH PERIOD AND THE SECOND SPANISH PERIOD

THE TERRITORIAL PERIOD

STATEHOOD AND THE CIVIL WAR

THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

BREVARD COUNTY HISTORIC SHIPWRECKS

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

San Nicolas (Nao)

200 tons, wrecked near Ais (The

San Estevan (Nao)

Sank near Ais

The Armada of Nueva Espaa

Wrecked on a shoal near Cape

Three ships of Juan Menndez

Three ships of Jean Ribaults fleet Cape Canaveral or north of

Wrecked near Ais

Off Cape Canaveral

Two small tenders of Pedro

1 wrecked near Cape Canaveral

1 wrecked in the province of Ais

Spanish merchant (Nao)

Lost off Cape Canaveral

Wrecked at Cape Canaveral

Sank on the coast near Cape

10 leagues (30 miles) south of Cape

Spanish Plate Fleet c. 11 ships

Otter (British naval sloop)

Lost off Cape Canaveral

Went ashore near Cape Canaveral

Col. J.T. Sprague (Schooner)

Wrecked near Cape Canaveral

Stranded 12 miles south of Cape

S.W. Walsh (Brig)

Stranded 12 miles south of Cape

Stranded 12 miles south of Cape

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

Foundered off Cape Canaveral

Orrie V. Drisco (Schooner)

Lost off Cape Canaveral

Huntress (Gas vessel, yacht)

Burned at Cape Canaveral

Lizzie E. Dennison (Schooner)

Stranded at Hetzel Shoal

Burned off Cape Canaveral;

Burned off Canova Beach

Foundered off Melbourne in 60

feet of water; Located at 28 11.166,