Final Report

December 28th 2016 to July 27th 2017

Presented to:
Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research

For Permit:
MB 514 Melbourne Beach Site
2014.04

Presented by:
Seafarers Quest, LLC.

Prepared By:
James J. Sinclair, MA, Primary Investigator,
Consulting Archaeologist, Seafarers Quest, LLC.

Sea Rex Inc.

15 Brigantine Ct
St Augustine, FL 32080

239-218-1622
A. General Description.

Seafarers Quest is a corporation affiliated with Seafarer Exploration Corp. (A publicly traded company) based in Tampa Florida
whose business model is to research, locate and recover historically and intrinsically significant historic period shipwrecks.
Seafarer Exploration Corp. has held a number of permits with the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research (FBAR) in other
areas off the coast of Florida. Seafarers Quest was formed by Seafarer Exploration Corp. (SFRX) to address a business model
that included an agreement with Heartland Treasure Quest (HTQ) Holders of a large permit area off of Brevard County Florida.
The agreement between these two entities portioned and area for investigations by Seafarers Quest.

In July 2014 the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research issued a permit

(2014.04) to Seafarers Quest to conduct exploration and preliminary testing of the
southern area of the HTQ permit that had been agreed to be sectioned off of the
larger HTQ permit exclusively for Seafarers Quest activities. This particular phase
of permitting is an amendment to an Exploration Permit as detailed under the
Florida Administrative Code 1A-31. This years work has also served to further
Seafarers Quests research and exploration contractual requirements for the State
of Florida. Time consuming and extensive surveys, research, exploration, dig and
identify searches have been conducted by Seafarer and others in this area since CTRL + Click to
2000. The current work depends on the results of surveys and investigations link to chart
utilizing state-of-the-art remote sensing survey equipment and diver investigations.
Artifacts found in previous years reflect strong evidence of an association with the
Spanish 1715 New Spain (Mexico) fleet, or other unidentified period and/or
nationality salvage vessel or vessels, or even ships involved in official or illicit
salvage, sunk by tropical storm activity or other strong weather event in the interval
between the year 1715 and the 19th-century. The artifacts were located and
recovered while remote-sensing surveys and target verification were conducted in The above link is a chart reflecting all
surveys turned over to Seafarers Quest
the area under an Exploration Contract issued by the FBAR, and permits issued by by Heartland. Boundary lines are
the FL FDEP and US ACOE. indicated in red with areas labeled.

Seafarers Quest acknowledges FBARs active participation in assisting, providing

guidance, advice, and cooperation with HTQ and others in this research design and survey efforts over the past years work.

Seafarers Quest acknowledges that this permit is issued under the authority of Section 276.031(1) and 267.031(5)(n), Florida
Statutes, and Rules 1A-31.0012 through 1A-31.090, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and is administered by the Florida
Bureau of Archaeological Research (BAR), Florida Division of Historical Resources (DHR), Florida Department of State (DOS).
All activities carried out pursuant to this permit must be conducted in accordance with those regulations and laws.

B. Archival Research.

Seafarer Exploration Corp. has been involved in conducting archival research in an effort to uncover historical data that may lead
to the identification of Doa Juana Isabel de Chves Espinosa de los Monteros, the name inscribed on the silver charger
discovered on the E-155D contract site. E-155D is located within the County of Brevard in the State of Florida. More specifically,
it is closely associated with the Melbourne-Satellite Beach area of Brevard County.

Research in Spanish archives, in particular the Archivo General de Indias (AGI), in Seville, Spain, has uncovered evidence that
on February 4, 1715, a Don. Joseph de Espinosa de los Monteros consigned two hundred and fifty-seven cow hides and a
crate/box of presents (regalos) aboard the Santisima Trinidad y Nuestra Seora de la Concepcin, Captain Don Juan Antonio
de Laviosa, docked in the port of Veracruz. This particular ship, also simply known as la Concepcin, was part of the Nueva
Espaa (New Spain) Fleet under the command of General don Juan Estebn de Ubilla (AGI, Consulados, 854). The family name
Espinosa de los Monteros is not a common name and originates from a locality of the same name in Cantabria, and suggests a
possible connection to Doa Juana Isabel de Chves Espinosa de los Monteros (de Bry 2010:20). Additionally, a set of manuscript
documents located at the AGI in Seville, Spain (AGI, Contratacin, 668), refers to the enquiry and trial in 1711 of a captain by
the name of Francisco de Chves Espinosa de los Monteros, owner of the Nuestra Seora del Rosario, San Francisco Xavier y
las Animas. The same ship, owner and captain don Francisco de Chves Espinosa de los Monteros, was part of the Nueva Espaa
Fleet of Captain General Juan de Ubilla that sailed from the port of Cdiz, Spain, on September 16, 1712. The family name of
this captain is the exact same as the one inscribed on the silver charger found off the Melbourne Beach site and there is a
possibility that Juana Isabel was the wife of Francico de Chves Espinosa de los Monteros. This points to a likely connection of
the Melbourne Beach site to the Nueva Espaa Fleet of Ubilla. The archival researcher has expanded his search to the Cuban
National Archives in Havana.
Based on manuscript documents not related to the 1715 Plate Fleet but dealing with maritime traffic of the period and
collaboration between France and Spain during the 18th-century, Seafarer Exploration Corp.s archival researcher decided to
further expand his search to the Archives Nationales in Paris to investigate the possibility that some manuscripts dealing with
this event might be located. This research has been ongoing and many manuscript documents pertaining to the 1715 Plate Fleet
have been located, particularly documents dealing with the French warship Griffon, the sole survivor of the 1715 Plate Fleet.

Prehistoric Overview

Paleoindian Period (12,000-10,000 B.P.)

Prehistoric native peoples entered Florida at least 12,000 years ago. While there is abundant archaeological evidence for an early
occupation of northern and central Florida (Milanich 1994), there is only limited evidence for people inhabiting southeast Florida
at this early time. Discoveries of human skeletal remains near Vero Beach in 1915 and Melbourne in 1925 were presumed to be
of early origin because of their inferred association with extinct Pleistocene mammals (Gidley and Loomis 1926; Sellards 1916,
1917). Analysis of the Vero Beach finds by Hrdlika (1918, 1922) concluded that the human remains were intrusive into
Pleistocene deposits. However, more recent analyses of the skeletal remains (Stewart 1946) and a comparison of the geological
context of those finds with similar discoveries in southwest Florida (Cockrell and Murphy 1978), indicate that the original
interpretations may have been correct. To date, the Helen Blazes site (8BR27) is the only archaeological site in the immediate
vicinity to be associated with this time period. Due to changes in hydrology, (e.g., rising sea levels, increased rainfall and
subsequent increase in ground and artesian water) it is probable that Paleoindian Period settlement or activity areas were close
to, or adjacent to, water sources that may not exist or be accessible in a modern climate (e.g., inundated sites or lands that have
been altered as a result of alluvial or aeolian deposition).

Early Archaic Period (10,000-7000 B.P.)

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

Middle Archaic Period (7000-5000 B.P.)

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

Late Archaic Period (5000-2500 B.P.)

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

Post-Archaic Period (2500-500 B.P.)

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

500-250 Period III

Introduction of European artifacts. St. Johns Check Stamped continues.
750-500
1000-750
1250-1000

Period II
St. Johns Check Stamped appears in combination with St. Johns Plain. Sand-tempered plain remains at about 10%. Belle Glade
Plain remains a minority type.1500-1250 Late Period I St. Johns Plain returns to dominance as sand-tempered plain decreases to
about 10%. Slight increase in Belle Glade Plain (3%).
1750-1500
2000-1750

Middle Period I
St. Johns Plain is still predominant but sand-tempered plain increases to about 30-40% of assemblages. Belle Glade Plain present
in very small amounts (less than 1%).
2250-2000
2500-2250

Early Period I
Decrease in fiber-tempered pottery. St. Johns Plain is the dominant ware. Minor representation of sand-tempered plain.
2750-2500

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

Both interior and coastal sites are known in the Indian River region. Site types in the interior include small, special use campsites
and larger, multi-component sites that possess extensive midden deposits and were probably used for permanent habitation.
Russos (1986, 1988) analysis of faunal remains from interior sites indicates a dependence on aquatic resources (turtle, ducks,
fish, and fresh water mussels). Throughout the post-Archaic period, wetland resources expanded and water sources became
deeper providing suitable habitats for more and larger fish, such as bass and pickerel. However, during the dry months of the
year (winter and spring), these water sources shrank providing habitat for fish species that favor shallow, muddy bottomed ponds,
such as bowfin and gar. Terrestrial animals (deer, raccoon, and rabbit) also were exploited, but the emphasis was clearly on
acquiring most of the diet from freshwater wetlands. Coastal sites were once present in many locations along the Indian River
lagoon, the adjacent uplands, and on the barrier islands. Modern development has destroyed many of these sites, but a few have
been investigated and provide information on costal adaptations. At present, it appears that the coast was utilized seasonally
during the winter and spring months of the year when interior wetlands were less abundant. The data indicate that some sites
were small, extractive sites occupied by only a few individuals while other, larger sites served as habitations sites. Marine fish,
shellfish (especially coquina), and some terrestrial animals were exploited for food (Milanich 1994:252-253). What is unknown
at present is how the coastal and interior sites relate to one another. For example, it is not clear whether the same people occupied
both locations during different parts of the year or whether different groups occupied each area year round.

Contact Period

In the Indian River region, the historic period (referred to as Period III) is marked by the presence of European goods in otherwise
native assemblages. The St. Johns ceramic series remains the dominant native pottery. The native groups encountered by
Europeans at this time on the Atlantic coast were the Ais. The Ais appear to have been an independent tribe, but large amounts
of St. Johns pottery and other artifacts from the Indian River and St. Johns areas during this time suggests that their cultural
influences may have come from the north instead. Dickinson also observed that the Jeaga were forced to hand over shipwrecked
cargo to the Ais, their neighbors to the north (Andrews 1985). Of course, European contact marked the beginning of the end for
the native populations throughout Florida. It has been estimated that there were about 20,000 natives in southern Florida when
the Spanish arrived (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980). By 1763, when the English gained control of Florida, the population had
been reduced to several hundred. These tribal remnants were reported to have migrated to Cuba with the Spanish (Romans 1775).
However, it is likely that the Spanish Indians who raided Indian Key in 1840 were the mixed-blood descendants of the Calusa,
and/or refugees from the northern Florida missions that were raided by the English in the early 18th century (Sturtevant 1953).
These Spanish-Indians became part of the Seminoles, who had fled into southern Florida after the 1838 Battle of Okeechobee.
Historical Overview

Early Spanish Exploration

For nearly half a century, ships of various origins have passed through the coastal waters of what is now Brevard County. In the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the region served as an important stage for many early European expeditions in North
America. Some historians believe that the Italian captain, John Cabot, sailed south along the Brevard coast during his 1498
explorations (Dovell 1952; Eriksen 1994). There is also evidence that Spanish slave traders raided the indigenous villages of the
coast, for when Juan Ponce de Leon came to Florida he found a native who understood Spanish. Ponce de Leon left Puerto Rico
on March 3, 1513, with three ships. After sailing on a northwesterly course for 30 days, the ships landed either north of Cape
Canaveral (Milanich 1995) or in the vicinity of modern day Melbourne Beach (Eriksen 1994; Gannon 1996). The Cape is found
on many sixteenth century maps and is one of the oldest place names in North America (Eriksen 1994). Ponce remained at this
initial landing place for six days before pulling anchor and sailing southward to explore the remainder of the peninsula (Gannon
1996; Milanich 1995). The Gulf Stream, located off the Brevard coast, was an important thoroughfare for the transportation of
New World supplies to Europe. Old World powers engaged in a bitter struggle to control it. Spanish treasure galleons rode the
current from Havana through the Bahama Channel, passing the coast of Florida in route to Spain. Wrecks were common in the
treacherous shoals around Cape Canaveral and the local Indian tribe, the Ais, often recovered lost cargoes. The Spanish crown
realized the importance of this trade route, so when they heard that the French were developing a colony, Fort Caroline, on the
St. Johns River near Jacksonville they decided to act. In 1565, Pedro Menndez de Avils , a highly respected officer in the
Spanish navy, was issued the task of eradicating the French influence in the area (Milanich 1995). Cape Canaveral became an
early target in this larger effort. By the time the Spanish ships arrived, the French had already built a wooden fort on a small
island anchored at the entrance of the St. Johns River (present-day Jacksonville), and a fleet of ships had arrived from France a
few days before, carrying, weapons, supplies, tools and hundreds of soldiers and would-be colonists. Challenged, the French cut
their anchor cables and gave chase to the Spanish who found refuge within a natural inlet (St. Augustine). As the tide was low,
the French ships were unable to cross the large sandbar and decided to wait for more favorable conditions to enter the inlet and
engage the Spaniards, but a hurricane blew over the region, pushing the French ships toward the shoals of Cape Canaveral to the
south where they were all lost. While most onboard those ships survived, they were tricked by Pedro Menndez de Avils into
surrendering and were quickly put to the swords. Menndez and his men then marched north toward the French fort. Under
pressure from both a naval and a ground forces, the Frenchmen, who numbered about 170, eventually surrendered to Menndez,
but not before 132 of them were killed as they came out of their lodgings as the Spaniards swarmed into the forts encampment
(Lyon 1974:113-124). The expedition to Cape Canaveral was a victory for the Spanish and expanded their knowledge of the
region that later became Brevard County (Eriksen 1994; Milanich 1995). Over the course of the seventeenth century, the Spanish
became more familiar with the eastern coast of Florida including present-day Brevard County. In 1605, the Spanish sent a
delegation under the command of Alvaro Mexia to the Brevard area. The diplomat was charged with placating the aggressive
Ais and mapping the region. His mission was considered a success. Mexia was named an honorary chief of the tribe and the
Indian and Banana Rivers (which the Spanish called Rio de Ais and Ulumay Lagoon) were explored and recorded. His maps
detail many Indian settlements along the shores of Mosquito Lagoon (at the north end of the Banana River). Some have speculated
that Mexia and his entourage also spread orange seeds along the banks of the Indian River (Eriksen 1994). While these
developments were significant, they did not encourage the Spanish to sponsor further settlement of Florida. The waters along the
eastern coast of Florida continued to present dangers to sailing vessels in the eighteenth century. On July 24, 1715, a flotilla of
eleven Spanish ships carrying 14 million pesos in gold, silver, and jewels left Havana for Europe. A few days into the voyage,
on 31 July 1715, eleven ships wrecked along the East Florida coast between St. Lucie County and St. Johns County.
Approximately 700 sailors perished and an additional 1500 became castaways. The Ais aided the Spaniards by providing them
with supplies and instructions for gathering food in the dunes. The Spanish government, desperate to recover the lost treasure,
established an encampment of salvers in the vicinity of present-day Sebastian State Park. Salvers recovered only one-third of the
lost cargo. In the mid-twentieth century, treasure hunters made a concerted effort to finish the job (Burgess and Clausen 1982;
Eriksen 1994).

The British Period and the Second Spanish Period

Through much of the eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries, white men possessed a poor understanding of Brevard County
which was then known as the Mosquito Coast. When the British came under control of Florida after the Seven Years War ended
in 1763, new explorations occurred (Figure 5). The botanist John Bartram and his son William documented the region in the
course of their search for the headwaters of the St. Johns River (Eriksen 1994; Tebeau 1971). Their reports, which depicted a
sprawling wilderness full of alligators and Indians, inspired no new attempts at settling the area. In 1783, the Treaty of Paris
restored Florida to Spain, whose control of the territory was quite tenuous over the following decades (Tebeau 1971). Immigrants
from the Indian tribes north of Florida had replaced those who succumbed to European diseases and warfare. They now numbered
from five to six thousand in the colony. Zespedes, the Spanish Governor, wrote to the king in 1785 that isolated groups of
Americans were trickling into Florida (Eriksen 1994; Tebeau 1971). The Crown may have viewed themselves as the ruler of
Florida, but in truth their position in the peninsula was dependent upon an alliance with local Indian tribes which held a much
greater influence on affairs (Frank 2005).
The Territorial Period
Even after the American acquisition of Florida in 1821, the Mosquito Coast was the realm of Indians. Seeking to establish a
boundary between white settlement and Indian Territory, the Americans designated four million acres of the interior of Florida
as a reservation for the Seminoles. This area included the southwestern corner of modern day Brevard County (Mahon 1985).
Two counties, Escambia to the west and St. Johns to the east, were also formed. In 1824, the area encompassing most of 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

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 settlers, became more prominent in the 1870s when citizens elected it as the permanent seat of government. By
the 1880s, steamships were traveling the Indian River with regularity (Nance 1962:258-259). They hauled lumber in and
agricultural products out of the region in the years before the railroad (Eriksen 1994:95-96). The population of the Indian River
area was expanding due to a solid economic base of agriculture and fishing (Eriksen 1994). In addition to these stable sources of
income, the occasional shipwreck offered a bonus of sorts. Following the wreck of the steamer Ladona in 1870, the coastal
residents of Brevard gathered the lost cargo which consisted of French shoes (Wooley 2002:9-10). Many of the early settlers
acquired lumber by collecting driftwood and other goods from shipwrecks (Nance 1962:257-258). Other wrecks offered cloth
and consumer goods (Wooley 2002:9-10).
 Table 2. Brevard County Population.
Date Population Date Population
1860 246 1930 13,283
1870 1,216 1940 16,142
1880 1,478 1950 23,653
1890 3,401 1960 111,435
1900 5,158 1970 230,006
1910 4,717 1980 272,959
1920 8,505 1990 398,978

Despite the popularity of oceanfront living in the current day, settlers to Brevard County in the late 19th century were most
interested in settling the inland areas. Settlement in this era was situated around the Indian River. In 1880, Melbourne, founded
by Richard W. Goode, obtained a post office. Titusville was chosen as a stop on the Jacksonville, Tampa and Key West Railway
in 1885. Columbus Willard established Cocoa in 1882 and by 1887 the town had six stores and was quickly expanding around
its deep-water landing. In 1890, a group of wealthy Harvard graduates founded the 18,000 acre Canaveral Club, which is now
the Merritt Island National Wildlife Preserve. In 1893, the Flagler East Coast Railway line came to Titusville and Eau Gallie. In
1895, a double blast of freezing temperatures devastated the areas citrus industry. The orange and pineapple groves recovered
by 1897. The economy of the area boomed with the rejuvenated citrus industry and the new railway. In 1899, with the aid of a
new state road building fund, Brevard County began a road building campaign. During this project many Indian shell middens
and mounds were borrowed for shell that was then crushed and hard packed over palmetto fiber. As the turn of the century
approached, Brevard County had a population of 5,158 people, a new road system, and 35 public schools (Eriksen 1994).
Extensive as the Brevard County coastline was, an ocean port failed to develop until the 20 th century. The main reason was
geography, as there were no navigable channels that connected the sea with the north-south Indian River. In the late-nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, attempts were made to connect the two (Eriksen 1994:132, 155). By the late 1910s the Sebastian
Inlet was somewhat navigable although it had to be dredged often. County residents petitioned for a harbor at Cape Canaveral
but their plea went unfulfilled (Eriksen 1994:156-160).

The Twentieth Century

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

Brevard County Historic Shipwrecks

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

Date 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 Esteban (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
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 de Ais
1778 Otter (British naval sloop) Lost off Cape Canaveral
1835 Noble (Brig) Went ashore near Cape Canaveral
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) Stranded 12 miles south of Cape

Canaveral (South Cocoa Beach)
1871 H. Burg (Brig) Stranded 12 miles south of Cape
Canaveral (South Cocoa Beach)

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

1890 Ethel (Schooner) Foundered off Cape Canaveral

1891 Orrie V. Drisco (Schooner) Lost off Cape Canaveral

1913 Huntress (Gas vessel, yacht) Burned at Cape Canaveral

1918 Lizzie E. Dennison (Schooner) Stranded at Hetzel Shoal

1925 Mohican (Steamer) Burned off Cape Canaveral;

Located at 28 23.900, 080 32.200

1928 Orca Burned off Canova Beach

1930 Dunham Wheeler Foundered off Melbourne in 60

(5-mast schooner) feet of water; Located at 28 11.166, 080 19.666

1942 Key West (Oil vessel) Burned at Cocoa Beach

(WWII)

1942 Elizabeth Massey (British freighter) Located at 28 09.166,

(WWII) 080 00.666

1942 Cities Service Empire (Steam tanker) Located at 28 23.792,

 (WWII) 080 02.799

1942 Korsholm (Freighter) Located at 28 12.350,

080 28.650

1942 Laertes (Dutch freighter) Located at 28 28.670,

known as the Dutch Wreck (WWII) 080 21.605

1942 Ocean Venus (British freighter) Located at 28 23.391,

known as the Lead Wreck (WWII) 080 17.324

1942 Leslie (Freighter) Located at 28 36.211,

080 16.363

1952 Jackie Faye (Oil vessel, steel hull) Foundered two miles
offshore, five miles north of Melbourne

1952 Helen C (Oil vessel) Burned off Cocoa

1959 Capt. Tap (Oil vessel) Foundered off Cape

Canaveral

1977 Miss Eileen (Oil vessel) Foundered off Cape

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

Research Design.

Research Goals and Objectives

Project Goal
This phase of the investigation will further define the elements of the shipwreck site and recover significant information about
the nature of the ship and its contents and cargo. Commented [PMR1]: No introduction to the site. Which
shipwreck? A final report should be stand-alone, meaning
Project Objective any outside reader can review it and know what is the subject
A phased investigation will better define the nature of the wreck or wrecks and provide more detailed information for the of study.
management of the shipwreck site(s) and possible full recovery at some future date.

Field Objectives
Maintain a high degree of context control for the recovery by re-locating and reestablishing the survey grid at the site.

Define and record all surviving hull architecture and fittings in the investigation area in order to determine vessel form and
type.

Determine the distribution of cargo and shipboard functions by conducting systematic investigation of grid blocks or swing
circles near the apparent amidships area and the apparent stern area.

Further characterize site internal structure by completing investigation along the keel, or on either side of the keel, linking the
apparent bow, amidships and stern areas as time and budget permit.

General Research Questions

What type of vessel foundered on the shoals off Lewes beach?

Why did the vessel sink?

When precisely did the vessel sink?

What was the name of the vessel?

What was the origin and destination of the vessel?

Were any lives lost during the sinking and are the remains of seamen and passengers still at the wreck site?

What was the precise nature of the cargo?

How was the vessel cargo hold loaded?

Was the vessel salvaged in part after the sinking by Lewes residents and others?

What do the vessel and its cargo tell us about political, social and economic life in Spain and its New World colonies?

What does the vessel reveal about regional and coastal trade and its link with the wider Atlantic world?

Methods

To answer the research questions above and to meet the stated goals and objectives a sampling strategy has been developed based
on previous research conducted on the site.

Additional Remote Sensing Survey (As needed)

The remote sensing survey will utilize state-of-the-art equipment to gather data prior to dive operations. This preliminary survey
will utilize a Marine Magnetics Explorer Magnetometer with a Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) for sub-meter
accuracy. Seafarers Quest will incorporate software to ensure the accurate collection of all data.

A series of track lines will be plotted over the position of the wreck site prior to the remote sensing survey. Spaced at 50-foot
intervals, each of the track lines length will be based to ensure complete coverage of the permitted area.

Results of the additional remote sensing surveys will provide data critical to understanding the condition and extent of the wreck
site as well as bottom conditions and sediments. The magnetometer will provide a comparative example to the data recorded by
Gregg Bounds, Aquasurvey et al in previous years. This will assist in identifying any site formation changes that may have
occurred since the initial site investigation. Commented [PMR2]: Why is this written in future tense?
This is a final report that is supposed to recount what has
Context Control already happened on the site. As an outside reader, I am
unsure if these methods have already been employed on the
The first objective for this project will be to maintain a high degree of context control for the recovery by relocating and re- site, or if these methods will be used in future research
establishing the survey grid at the wreck site. This survey grid, using the State of Florida Plane Coordinate System, was endeavors. Was this information copied over from a project
designated during the previous Phase I/II investigation of the wreck site in 2005. Attempts will be made to first relocate and re- proposal?
establish the remnants of the original baseline anchor points placed onsite during the initial investigation. If the original baseline
cannot be relocated or has been compromised by environmental factors it will be re-established using the same methods used
during the initial investigation by HTQ et al. A baseline, 100 feet in length will be established from N0/E0 east to N0/E100. This
polypropylene baseline, tagged at 10-foot increments will serve as the guide for establishing the primary baseline. This 110-foot
baseline, oriented parallel to the exposed hull remains or ballast deposit mound, when found, will serve as the main baseline for
the current investigation. All baselines and transect lines will be secured to the seafloor using large screw anchors. All grid lines
will be tagged in 10-foot intervals to assist in establishing the grid blocks to be investigated during the current investigation. Line
tags will consist of differing colors for orientation on the site. Once the primary baseline has been established, subsequent
perpendicular temporary transect lines will be placed over the wreck site depending upon the area of the wreck to be investigated.
This will reduce the amount of transect lines on the wreck site at any one time. These transects will then be used to position the
rigid frame grid squares over the wreck site. Each rigid grid square will be 10 feet by 10 feet square and anchored in the seafloor
with vertical anchor points driven into the seafloor. In an effort to manage the acquisition of data and maintain context control
of the artifact assemblage, the 10-foot by 10-foot grid square will be further divided into four, 5-foot square quadrants. This will
allow divers to control the horizontal and vertical position of hull components and artifacts during the excavation. Smaller 1-foot
drawing grids will also be utilized to record details in the grid squares. To ensure accurate placement of transect lines and the
placement of rigid frame grid squares, buoys will be drop placed with sub-meter accuracy at the end of each transect line prior
to establishing the transect. This will allow divers more accuracy when anchoring transect lines in the seafloor. All grids will be
established in relation to the on-site baseline.

Determination of Extant Hull Remains

To delineate the hull remains a hydro-probe survey will be carried over the entire wreck site. Hydro-probing, similar to shovel
testing in terrestrial archaeology, allows divers to quickly and non-intrusively determine the extent of buried hull remains. Review
of the previous investigation indicates hull structure approximately 2-3 feet beneath the sand bottom. The most effective method
to determine the amount of lower hull remains is to utilize a hydro-probe in a grid format, spaced at 10-foot intervals
perpendicular to the established N40 baseline. Proceeding from the baseline and hydro-probing every 10 feet perpendicular to
the baseline, the diver will be able to determine the extent of lower-hull remains by either negative or positive hits. Once
obtaining a negative return with the hydro-probe, the diver will then work back toward the baseline at 1-foor intervals until a
positive return is obtained. The results of the hydro-probing will assist archaeologists with recommendations relative to future
investigations and allow for a better delineation of the remaining hull structure, if found, associated with the suspected Shipwreck.

Preliminary Surface Collection of Exposed Artifacts

In conjunction with the hydro-probing survey, a controlled surface collection/mapping will be carried out of any exposed artifacts.
Divers will inspect the bottom in 2-foot arcs at each hydro-probe location. Artifact types and descriptions will be logged on the
surface as well as positions prior to removal. This survey will document the site formation process of disturbances due to dredging
and/or natural storm and sedimentation events. Tight context control will ensure artifact distributions across the site will be
documented for analysis.

Recordation of Hull Architecture and Fittings

All surviving hull architecture and fittings will be recorded in the areas investigated to assist in determining the vessel form and
type. It is anticipated that a systematic approach to the investigation of various grids will allow archaeologists to record the extant
hull construction and fittings of the shipwreck. Recordation of the vessel construction will include measured drawings/sketches
and/or verbal measurements reported by Surface Supplied Air divers to the surface dive control station. The method of
recordation will depend upon the underwater environment onsite during the investigation. Environmental elements affecting the
method of hull recordation may include visibility, current/surge, or sediments within the water column.

All structural features and artifact concentrations will be fully recorded and shall be mapped and integrated into a composite site
plan. Prior to field work, all grid locations will be determined in consultation with the State of Floridas Bureau of Archaeological
Research (FBAR). The locations of recovery and mapping may shift.

Assessment of Hull Structure along the Keel

An assessment of the extant hull structure along the keel will be made after the aforementioned grid blocks have been successfully
documented. Systematic investigations will be undertaken along one side of the keel assembly to tie in hull construction features
between the excavated grid blocks. The scope and extent of these excavations will be dependent upon time and budget and will
be decided upon in consultation with the FBAR.

Provenience Control and Excavation

The excavation methods are designed to maintain tight control of spatial data for artifacts and all features across the site in order
to perform interpretation and guide future management decisions and recovery efforts. Excavation of the sandy overburden will
be undertaken with 3-inch induction dredges within gridded, 5-foot by 5-foot quadrants of each 10-foot by 10-foot grid square.
All dredge effluent will be pumped to the surface and run through a sluice system of screens decreasing in size. The sluice will
be located along the starboard side or near the stern of the research vessel (Iron Maiden). The screens will be monitored
continually with archaeologists bagging artifacts in water-filled bags and tagging them with appropriate provenience information.
Caution will be used during all dredging operations to ensure that artifacts, features, and changes in sediment are observed during
the dredging process. When observed, dredging activity will stop and appropriate procedures followed to ensure that artifacts
and features are not disturbed by the dredge head and that necessary methods for any special recovery needs of particular artifacts
are established and that spatial and stratigraphic data are properly recorded and assessed.

Artifacts and features encountered during dredging operations will remain in situ for mapping. Artifacts and features will be
plotted using triangulation within each 10 foot by 10 foot grid square, and its disposition mapped prior to recovery. Photographs
of artifacts and features in situ will also be taken if visibility permits. Archaeologists will map on mylar sheets pre-labeled with
grid and scale marks corresponding to the grid inserts. After mapping, each artifact will be tagged upon recovery with appropriate
provenience information including grid square, quadrant and sub grid location. Once properly tagged, artifacts will be taken to
the surface and placed in immediate care of the Seafarers Quest conservator for proper storage and processing.

In areas that contain concentrations of very small artifacts observed by the excavator (less than 2 inches), 1 gallon buckets will
be used to scoop the sediment containing the artifacts. This process will take place in discrete, recorded locations so that each
bucket will have a solid provenience. The tagged buckets will be brought to the surface for screening and the artifacts tagged
with corresponding provenience information.
Conservation and Curation of Artifacts

The Project Archaeologist will be on the research vessel daily to take custody of all artifacts and associated materials from the
site. All artifacts and associated materials brought to the surface will be immediately placed in appropriate containers to ensure
artifacts remain in a wet environment and that all provenience data remains with the artifact. Processing on the research vessel
will be conducted by the Project Archaeologist. Seafarers Quest will care for, analyze, and provide conservation and long term
curation for all recovered artifacts.

Discovery of Human Remains

Due to the age of the artifacts the possibility of human remains are remote. If during the exploration of or permitted area
Seafarers Quest does discover human remains all diving operations will stop, USCG and DHR will be notified and procedures
followed in accordance with Section 872.05, F.S.

Analysis

Hull Analysis

All surviving hull architecture, when found) and fittings will be located and recorded in the areas investigated to assist in
determining the vessel form and type. Detailed analysis of the surviving hull components is critical to estimating vessel size and
function, and can offer conclusions on the vessels origins and the vessel type. The surviving hull may also provide clues as to
how the vessel was wrecked, why the vessel sank and if the vessel was salvaged. Hull analysis can also detail how cargo was
loaded and stored while at sea. Seafarers Quest will incorporate available literature for comparative analysis with the vessel
remains. Such literature includes several 18th century ship construction treatises as well as archaeological 18th century shipwreck
site comparisons and syntheses. Examples from this extant body of literature include: Mungo Murrays A Treatise on
Shipbuilding and Navigations (1765), William Hutchinsons A Treatise on Naval Architecture (1794), and David Steels The
Elements and Practices of Naval Architecture (1805). Archaeologically recorded 18th century vessel remains that may be
appropriate for comparisons include but are not limited to: 44YO88, the British brig Betsey sunk at Yorktown, Virginia in 1781
during the American Revolution (Morris 1991); the English-built merchantman San Felipe wrecked in 1733 off of Florida
(Beeker and James 1995); the British sloop Industry wrecked in 1764 off Florida (Franklin et al. 1999); the British Transport
located off Chub Heads Cut, Bermuda (Krivor 1998); the El Nuevo Constante built in England in 1764 (Pearson and Hoffman
1995); and the 18th century Readers Point wreck, located in St. Annes Bay, Jamaica (Cook and Rubenstein 1995). Additionally,
modern syntheses of 18th century vessel construction practices based on archaeological remains such as Morris, Watts and
Franklins The Comparative Analysis of 18th-Century Vessel Remains in the Archaeological Record: A Synthesized Theory of
Framing Evolution (1995) will aid in a more thorough analysis of the archaeological and hull remains (if found) of the project.

Artifact Spatial Analysis

Analysis of the spatial grouping of artifacts across the site is a major objective in the research design of this project. The control
of provenience information for artifact mapping and recovery has been addressed in the excavation methods section and it is
acknowledged that Seafarers Quest will provide detailed artifact inventories including provenience, material type, weight, and
size, with associated records to the State. The integration of the provenience data, the physical type data, and function data of the
artifacts into a geo-referenced, digital layout that allows varying arrangements of this data, is critical to this aspect of the projects
research design. For purposes of intra-site spatial analysis, artifacts will be catalogued using a system closely following the
system developed by Stanley South for artifact pattern analysis (1977) on British Colonial sites in the United States. This
approach offers a systematic way to label artifacts in order to observe potential patterns of shipboard function, and has been used
with success in prior shipwreck analyses (see Moore 2002, Meade 2001, Wilde-Ramsing 2006). The categories used to label
artifacts are relevant to shipboard functions and include: ship architecture, food ways (onboard), personal items, tools, armament,
cargo, and intrusive artifacts. All identifiable artifacts shall be assigned a functional category within the main artifact database.
In order to discern patterning across the site based upon these categories, each artifact location will be transferred into the site
plan in associated with the site grids / Lat and Long lines. For visual referencing, all artifacts will be displayed in the site plan
using a color coded to the category to which the artifact was assigned. Pattern analysis can then be conducted using frequency
within excavation grids to discern relationships between the categories and their frequency and location. Statistical significance
of these frequencies can be analyzed using chi square distributions and the t-test. The t-test is a mathematical test that assesses
if observed differences in means are statistically significant and so are not likely to be chance. Both are mathematical probability
calculators that serve as barometers of significance in statistical testing. The pattern analysis can help discern the relationship of
artifact types and their frequency between units and help to reveal patterns related to the ships layout, and its site formation
processes. These distribution analyses will also be applied to additional attributes of the artifacts in order to assess patterns not
specifically associated with shipboard function. For example, analyzing the distribution of heavier artifacts versus lighter artifacts
across a gridded location may suggest patterns associated with post-wrecking processes that have affected the site layout over
time. Concretions represent a special consideration on the wreck with regards to analysis of shipboard functions. The artifact
types embedded in the concretions, and the identification of the concretions themselves shall be an important component of
pattern analysis. Seafarers Quest will integrate visual recording and concretion data into the frequency analysis to the greatest
extent possible given the parameters of the work associated with large concretions during this phase of the project. Ultimately,
the analysis of artifact spatial patterning across the site, in association with the known elements of the hull structure or structures,
will significantly help to address questions about the ships layout. This data can also help address questions about ship type,
wrecking processes, and site formation processes.

Artifact Processing and Analysis

Archaeologists and laboratory staff from Seafarers Quest will be on the recovery vessel to take custody of all artifacts and
associated materials on a daily basis and will be responsible for immediate care, maintenance of provenience/contextual data,
stabilization, curation and conservation in consultation with FBAR. Seafarers Quest will provide a complete inventory of artifact
types, styles and distributions on a weekly basis in order to assist in guiding the recovery operations. Detailed artifact analysis
by Seafarers Quest Project Archaeologist, and archival researcher will answer questions pertaining to time periods, the origin
and destination of the vessel, the origin and destination of the cargo as well as the possible name of the vessel. This information
combined with the historical research can detail the political, social and economic life in the Middle Atlantic Colonies and reveal
information about the regional, coastal and international trade networks in the colonial world.

Reporting and Dissemination of Results

Seafarers Quest will compile and produce graphically illustrated and scientifically sound technical reports that conform to the
Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Archeological Documentation and the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Researchs
Guidelines for Architectural and Archaeological Surveys in Florida. A popular report intended for a wide audience will also be
prepared for public distribution, as well as commercially marketable publications.

Presentation at Professional Conferences

At the discretion of the Department of State, Seafarers Quest will present the project background, previous investigations, vessel
history, and investigative findings at public conferences in the Florida and nationwide.

Conclusion

The initial E-155 Project, Block 1 fieldwork is expected to be completed at the end of December 2016. The entire effort will be
conducted in collaboration with the State of Florida Department of State, Bureau of Archaeological Research, and as such, any
changes to field objectives, methodology or data recovery will be made in consultation with the State to ensure that the best
interests of the project are served. Commented [PMR3]: Was this information copied over
from a project proposal? This should have already been
completed and the results should be discussed here.
Archaeological Fieldwork.

Seafarers Quests initial analysis of the diving conditions was used to determine the best
methodology to conduct underwater investigations. All divers were trained in Seafarers
Basic Search, Locate and Identify Magnetic Anomaly Procedure using hand held metal
detectors. This procedure was created taking into account the depth of the water within
the permitted area, visibility, bottom type, and the ability to accurately identify an object
and report its position. Each 2-person dive teams tools consist of a center pike with a
line reel to be used for circle searches and a AQUAPULSE AQ1B metal detector with
an 18 inch Submersible coil for a broad search and 8 to 10 inch coil for precise locating.
They are instructed to make over lapping circles, starting at the pike and moving outward
extending out to a 50 foot radius as measured from center pike. All divers are routinely
reminded of the need for investigations of anomalies to be in situ and with minimal
disturbance.
HTQ Turn Over Chart
Work on the site was aimed at the investigation with minimal disturbance of targets
acquired in magnetometer surveys that were conducted as stated in the original permit application. To this end, three vessels
were utilized, the main vessel of Seafarers Quest, MV Iron Maiden, the Headhunter a dive fishing vessel chartered by Seafarers
Quest and the Neptune a vessel owned by Terry Tate.

Seafarers Quest, LLC., working under the 1A-31 permit has undertaken investigations that are sensitive to the nature of finds
underwater and also the idea of in situ preservation. All objects so far investigated have been left in situ. This is due to several
reasons:
1. Their origin from time periods not associated with the target vessel of our investigations
2. The lack of diagnostic qualities of the investigated objects
 3. The fragility and/or problematic nature of the conservation process for large multi-component objects (large structural
fragments as an example).
We have found it much more effective, less time consuming and cost effective to record most of the objects encountered on the
seabed.

The three areas 1, 2, and 3 that are parts of the whole MB514 area are being investigated, however, excavation or the dig and
identify modification has only been applied to Area 2. Therefor excavation that utilizes any more than diver investigation (i.e.
circle search, hand fanning and the like) has been only used in area 2.

A number of objects (pins, through hull fittings, deadeye strapping and nails have been seen. Also found were a number of
relatively large sections of structure. One was still articulated others single timber pieces, with nails or fittings and also treenails.
These objects seem to be forming a trail of material that we hope to follow once the dig and identify modifications for area 1 and
3 are in place.

During the initial diving operatons, diving was cordinated around the radius of the suspected cannon orginal location, working
towards the targets listed in our priority listing. During these dives, a pattern / trail started to develop towards the south and
west leading into area 1 (MB 514 A1). This trail is scattered and still in development and so boundaries or subareas can not be
yet identified. At this point the decision was made to investigate targets along and surrounding this trail under the conditions
set forth in the permit 2014.04. At this time diving on the targets of our initial priority listing was deferred leaving 2 of 16 not
investigated. Commented [PMR4]: The link included below (and the
rest of the inserted document links throughout the report) do
not work. This information should be easily accessible and
appended to the report.

2014.04 Priority Listing

Dredging (Encountered Drawbacks)

In August 2014, while investigating target MB386 using basic manual digging and hand fanning the divers were able to uncover
a small feature which appeared to be a wooden timber. The bottom composition in this area is thick mud / clay overburden about
10 to 16 inches in depth. It was determined that to fully uncover the object, mechanical means were required. The dredge was
deployed consisting of a P250 pump, 3-inch supply & section line and a 6-inch discharge hose. Using the dredge to fully uncover
the target, which was determined to be more modern than the time period being investigated, took 4 days of 2-man dive teams
diving up to 4 dives daily. The dredge was very ineffective in this bottom type. We experienced continual discharge hose
clogging, limited to no visibility, and the consistency of the bottom prevent material flow into the nozzle. The best metaphor to
envision this is trying to suck pudding with a straw. After 4 days of work it was determined by the project archeologist that the
object was more modern and appeared to be a large oak rum barrel.

Targets investigated during the period of this report

A complete listing including the: Date investigated, Target number, longitude / Latitude, Gamma Strength, Dive finds, and
pictures of any potentially historic Shipwreck material is provided via the link below. Targets noted as No Find were not
located using hand held metal detector. This does not necessarily mean that theres is no anomaly; the target is most likely
deeper than the hand held metal detector can detect but is within the range of the magnetometer.

2014 Dive Spreadsheet

During the period of this report Seafarers Quest investigation was primarlary in area 2 which is outlined Topic General
Description giving priorty on on targets provided to the State for the initial permit request. The first order of investigation for
Seafarers Quest was the conformation of the cannons current location and feature which remained on the site. This would Commented [PMR5]: Vague; grammatical errors. Not
normally have been considered an important marker for the investigation of the wreck, however, we had heard through various professional.
sources that the cannon had been moved and after relocating the cannon and investigating the immediate vicinity the validity of
the move became apparent. No other shipwreck associated artifacts were found. It should be noted here that the cannon, although
not in its original location, was left as found in situ. The fact that the cannon was moved made our investigation much more
challenging in that the original area where the most diagnostic of the artifacts were found is not known precisely. Further
investigation and research has narrowed down the area, however the exact coordinates are still unknown at this time.

Cannon Feature MB514-B Trunnion

(Muzzle)

Anomaly Investigations

Utilizing the main work vessel (the Iron Maiden) and then two subsequent vessels (Neptune and Headhunter) The Seafarers
Quest crew began the task of anomaly identification, The anomalies that were checked coincide with those that were detailed in
the permit application as well as some that were adjacent to areas that were felt to be high probability areas based upon the
accumulating evidence from the target identification.

Starting in the permitted area that had a dig and identify amendment (MB514-A2) the early anomalies were mostly modern in
nature and were recorded as such, those that were felt to be historic period materials were found to be leading into the area south
of the permitted area. Since we had submitted a research design for all three areas the North (MB514-A1), Central (MB514-A2)
and South (MB514- A3) and in as much as we had the agreement for Exploration falling under the HTQ permit in all areas we
conducted target investigations into area MB514-A1, the southernmost of the sites under current investigation. A research design
was presented to the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research for all three areas. MB514-A1 Investigations.

Map of MB514 circled blue anomalies are

Note: The 2015 Chart is coving periods from Dec 28 2014 to potential period finds
Jul 27 2015 is extensive. It requires a high processor to prevent
lag. Each Target that Seafarer has indicated as explored has
extracts from Field Notes attached as Comments giving date
dived, Boat (IM=Iron Maiden, N=Neptune, HH=Headhunter)
and what was discovered.
Control Click Chart to Link to End of
2014 Chart
Due to the perceived trajectory of scatter, the decision was made
to begin investigations into the southernmost area of MB-514.
Materials associated with an historic shipwreck had been reported
as being found in this area, in fact there seemed to have been a
number of potentially associated objects found in this area by
other groups (Amelia Research and Recovery and Florida
Research and Recovery) in the past.

Diver investigations began around the anomaly numbered 611 as this was in an area that had previously produced historic period
shipwreck materials and expanded from there to the surrounding anomalies.
Fasteners

These anomalies were mostly highly degraded iron fasteners of various sizes, many with some wooden material still encrusted
along with the fastener. As this was an area that had not been approved for artifact recovery, all such materials were left in situ
after having been photographed on the seabed. However, such photographs, illustrate the types of construction elements that are
being observed and are associated with the scattered debris field identified for this wreck. As yet no primary ballast area has been
identified, however this may be closer into shore.

MB514-1A (Target 567) Fastener w/ wood MB514-1A (Target 658) Iron Fastener

Also found in MB514-1A were highly degraded timbers. Wood identification is being undertaken to ascertain the genus and
species of the wood in the hopes of further identifying a likely place of construction for this vessel. Unfortunately, photographs
of the timber fragments were unsuccessful due to extremely limited visibility.

Deadeye Strap

Another object investigated was a part of the standing rigging of the

vessel, the iron components of a deadeye ring and the strap that attached
it to the side of the vessel. This object (A-22), was part of the standing
rigging of the ship (i.e. the rigging that was stationary). A deadeye was
a block with three holes uses to receive the lanyard of a shroud or a stay
and provide some purchase to adjust tension, to the masts. This object,
remains in situ, however its relative importance is obvious. These
objects were attached to the upper structure of the vessel above the water
line. We can surmise from this object that at least a part of the upper
decking was moving through this area during the wrecking process.

Cupreous Buckle

As the smaller magnetic anomalies were being investigated utilizing the

circle search method, on September 15th, one of the divers uncovered a
small copper alloy buckle (MB660).

The buckle SEA 00360, is pictured here. This sort of a utilitarian buckle is common in the colonial period and examples have
been recovered of nearly identical artifacts from shipwrecks associated with the 1715 fleet. Buckles of this sort were used for a
variety of uses, this particular objects is likely not a shoe buckle. It may have been part of a strap assembly for a soldiers uniform,
or it may have been a part of a harness for a horse. While its particular usage may be ambiguous, the fact that the object is clearly
from the time period of the vessel we have as an intended target is quite important.
Buckles of this sort are described in both
Ivor Noel Humes A Guide to Artifacts of
Colonial America pp. 84-88 (University
of Pennsylvania Press, 1969) as well as
Kathleen Deegans Artifacts of the
Spanish Colonies of Florida and the
Caribbean 1500 1800 Volume 2 pp. 180
192. ((Smithsonian Institution Press,
2002)

The raising of the object off of the seabed

in area MB514-1A is due to internal
confusion over what permit we were
operating under. It was unfortunately
unclear that we were not operating under
the same guidelines and restrictions that
we were operating under permit MB514
2. A report on the inadvertent recovery of the buckle was submitted to the state and Seafarers Quest offered to return the buckle
to the site. However, the diagnostic nature of the object is very important in our ongoing investigations and interpretation of this
highly scattered and degraded site. FBAR graciously agreed that it could remain on the surface as part of the collection from this
site. Commented [PMR6]: There needs to be a discussion
about the conservation aspects of this. Where is the artifact
July 28th to December 27th 2015 stored? Where is the lab located? Who serves as the
conservator?
Seafarers Quest LLC has been working through this report period investigating magnetic anomalies on site MB514, a site
suspected to hold the remains of an historic period shipwreck. Seafarers Quest employs 3 vessels for this effort, the main vessel
of Seafarers Quest, MV Iron Maiden, the No Limit a vessel owned by Marvin Crumbliss and the Neptune a vessel owned by
Terry Tate.

This reporting period there were 26 days spent on site. We continued investigating anomalies in areas A1, A2 and A3 following
a trail of targets that runs north to south through all three areas. The vessels were manned by dive teams with a primary mission
to investigate anomalies through diver reconnaissance using the circle search and hand fanning methodologies discussed in the
previous reports. This is in addition to continuing investigation of anomalies on the perimeter of the debris trail in areas A1 and
A2 identified earlier.

Seafarers Quest has identified 5 additional potentially time period finds in all three areas. These items include numerous
encrusted objects, iron pins, iron pins with wood, and a wooden timber with eye. All items have remained in an in situ.
Investigation equipment and procedures employed were outlined in Interim Report 2014 and have been strictly followed and
enforced as well as the conditions set forth in the permit 2014.04

During this report period, Seafarers Quest determined that a magnetometer survey was needed to aid in our continued
investigation in the areas of A1 and A2 in which either No Finds were reported or were barren of anomalies on the prior
surveys. In addition, the anomalies that were prior identified by divers will act as a control for both the accuracy of the GPS
and the analysis of the data obtained during the survey. The primary intent of this survey is to add additional information to the
existing surveys. The survey boundaries are:

North East 2804.000 -8032.150

North West 2803.790 -8032.800
South East 2802.420 -8031.430
South West 2802.200 -8032.080

The intervals between lines were set to 30 feet for a total of 81 lines. A Geometrics 822
magnetometer was employed for this survey using Geometrics software for data
analysis. Survey Area D listing

In August the No Limit began the survey and was able to complete 42 of the 81 lines prior to sea states hindering the operation.
After analyzing the data and a cross check of prior surveys, an additional 45 anomalies were located and 2 anomalies previously
listed as No Find remain valid. Once all lines are complete a detailed report of the findings will be provided to the State per
Florida Division of Historical Resources Performance Standards for Submerged Remote Sensing Surveys Version 2.1, last
updated 05/17/01. A link to the preliminary listing of the additional 45 anomalies is provided below.

D Target Listing

During the final optimal diving days of the 2015 season Seafarers Quest elected to take wood samples for genus/specie testing.
A total of 9 samples were taken, seven of which are possible time period and 2 were thought to be modern. The modern samples
were taken for a control of the testing. Samples were taken in accordance with Seafarers Quest Wood Sampling Process
submitted to the State with the 2015 Year End Report. Once analysis is complete a copy of the findings will be provided to the
State.

Target Lat Lon SEA # Date

1 A-131 2803.715 -8032.533 00439 10/13/15
2 A-317 2802.723 -8032.170 00440 10/13/15
3 A-22 2803.752 -8032.347 00442 10/13/15
4 A-85 2803.855 -8032.035 01166 10/13/15
5 534 2803.742 -8032.572 01713 10/13/15
6 A-567 2802.728 -8032.114 00433 10/14/15
7 829 2802.427 -8031.745 00434 10/14/15
8 730 2803.010 -8032.501 00444 10/14/15
9 731 2802.985 -8032.463 00443 10/14/15

Samples were mail to:

Alden Identification Service

3560 Brookeside Drive
Chesapeake Beach, MD 20732

The last day of diving for the 2015 season was devoted to exploring the new D survey targets. A total of 5 dives were conducted
at 8 of the newly identified anomalies. All anomalies were found to be modern which was expected. The primary strategy was
to verify the accuracy of the survey and distance from the drop of the diver buoy to the target. The divers reported that all targets
were within feet of the drop buoy and the item found reflects the gamma indicated.

Seafarers Quest has taken a methodical approach in our investigations. Once an anomaly or a group of anomalies potentially of
the historic period have been identified (sub-boundaries) we start investigating anomalies surrounding the area. This radius of
the search (boundaries) is increased until it either runs into an area we have already investigated or is void of anomalies.
Additionally, weather and underwater visibility play a major role when selecting areas to investigate.

Note: The 2015 Chart is coving periods from Dec 28 2014 to Dec 28 2015 is extensive.
It requires a high processor to prevent lag. Each Target that Seafarer has indicated as
explored has extracts from Field Notes attached as Comments giving date dived, Boat
(IM=Iron Maiden, N=Neptune, HH=Headhunter) and what was discovered.
The link below is complete listing of targets investigated during the period of this report
including the: Date investigated, Target number, Longitude / Latitude, Gamma Strength,
Commented [PMR7]: This report contains a multitude of
grammatical errors. The purpose of the final report is not
MB514 Chart only to satisfy permit requirements, but also to serve as
July 2014 thru Dec 2015 reference material and data for researchers who may wish to
study the area in the future. These errors detract from the
reports professional tone.
Dive finds, and pictures of any potentially historic Shipwreck material. Targets noted as No Find were not located using hand
held metal detector. This does not necessarily mean that theres is no anomaly; the target is most likely deeper than the hand
held metal detector can detect but is within the range of the magnetometer.

2015 Interim Dive Spreadsheet

December 28th to July 27th 2016 (End of Year)

Over the course of the last two years of work on the Melbourne permit MB-514 area, a number of features were discovered that
looked to be fragments of ships wooden structure. These were duly reported to the State of Florida per the requirements of 1A-
31.

As the project Archaeologist for the Seafarers Quest group, I instructed the crew to obtain, where possible without removing
objects from the in-situ placement, small samples of the wood for analysis. This analysis was purely to determine the type of
wood being seen on the site. The intent was to determine, if possible, the woods area of origin. This in turn might give us more
information on the possible origin of the fragments we have been seeing in various areas along the seabed.

Samples were obtained and sent to Dr. Harry Alden of Alden Identification Service, 3560 Brookeside Drive, Chesapeake Beach,
MD 20732 443-624-5712, http://woodid.homestead.com/ais.html aldenid@comcast.net. As an archaeologist for different
projects I have used Dr. Aldens services in the past and a link to his report is attached below.

# Target Lat Lon SEA # Area

1 A-567 2802.728 -8032.114 00433 MB514 2016.05 Area 1
2 829 2802.427 -8031.745 00434 MB514 2016.05 Area 1
3 A-131 2803.715 -8032.533 00439 MB514 2014.04 Area 2
4 A-317 2802.723 -8032.170 00440 MB514 2016.05 Area 1
5 A-22 2803.752 -8032.347 00442 MB514 2014.04 Area 2
6 731 2802.985 -8032.463 00443 MB514 2016.05 Area 1
7 730 2803.010 -8032.501 00444 MB514 2016.05 Area 1
8 A-85 2803.855 -8032.035 01166 MB514 2014.04 Area 2
9 534 2803.742 -8032.572 01713 MB514 2014.04 Area 2

All Wood Samples Taken in Area 1 and Area 2

(Area 2 Samples)

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

Alden Identification Service Report

Both of these samples lead to a possible conclusion that the subject wood, if from the same vessel, may be from a ship that was
likely constructed in Europe, with possible modifications made in the tropics. This would fit in well with the theory that we
are working on a site that may have been involved with trade in the new world in the Colonial period. Any ship that worked in
tropical waters for any amount of time likely needed repairs. If in an area where tropical hardwoods were the materials used to
construct those vessels, then one might expect that there would be a mix of both European and new world sourced woods.

This theory can only be answered by further site investigation and further analysis of wood samples both of the current tropical
hardwood object (#0439) and any future samples that may be revealed though the methodical investigation of the anomalies
detected in the remote sensing surveys completed in the past.

Seafarers Quest commenced this years (2016) exploration of areas 1 and 2 the last few weeks of July. During this period we
have been exploring the Priority Targets submitted to FBAR.

Master Chart Master Diving

Record

Out of the 46 targets listed in our Area 2 priority listing 3 have been explored. All exploration results have been submitted in
our Daily Field Logs.

Area 2 (Zoomed)
Explored Area

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

Debris Area

July 28th 2016 to Jan 27th 2017

Seafarers Quest commenced this years (2016) exploration of areas 1 and 2 the last few weeks of July. During this period we
have been exploring the Priority Targets submitted to FBAR.

Master Chart Master Diving

Area 2 Record

Out of the 45 targets listed in our Area 2 priority listing 19 have been explored. All exploration results have been submitted in
our Daily Field Logs. Out of the 19 targets investigated 7 were reported as No Find. Once again, with this large percentage
of targets being unable to locate Seafarers Quest operational team has determined that additional magnetometer surveying was
required. The remaining target listed on the first priority listing have been placed on hold and a survey was conducted in Areas
1 and 2 shoreline.

Area 2 Priority Targets

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

Chart of Survey Area

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

MS Survey Results Anomalies Listing

Removed

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

Historical Material Historical Material

Area 1 & 2 Area 2 (Only)

December 28th 2016 to July 27th 2017 (Final Report)

During this period Seafarer Quest has been researching a Priority Targets anomaly trail appearing to run across the southern end
of Area 2 from east to west and dips down into the north western corner of Area 1. These anomalies were investigated using
hand held metal detectors. After conducting a search of each target, completing a 40 foot search circle, it was determined that 4
out of 4 of the anomalies were either too deep to locate with hand held metal detectors or no longer in the indicated location. It
has been determined that additional magnetometer surveys need to be conducted.

Investigation Master MB514

Area Chart Chart

Seafarers Quest has started re-surveying across the lower area of permitted Area 2 and the upper area of permitted Area 1. Our
records indicate that the artifacts surrendered to the State by HTQ were retrieved from this area. The surveys are being conducted
using a Geometrics 882 magnetometer with altimeter using 30 foot lane spacing. Once the survey has been completed and data
analyzed the State will be provided a copy of the report and any findings.

Historical Fieldwork. - Omitted

Under the current scope of the permit 2014.04 Seafarers Quest investigations in MB-514 do not fall under the requirements of
this topic. At this time no actions have been undertaken for the purpose of recovering data about or from a building(s) or
structure(s) to evaluate and determine eligibility; or to document using the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) or
Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards and guidelines prior to proposed alteration or destruction.
In accordance with 1A-46.001, paragraph (3) Reports states For projects of limited scope, topics that are not applicable may be
omitted when a justification for this decision is provided.

Archaeological Results and Conclusions.

It appears very clearly that there are the remains of historic period vessel(s) are extant in the area under investigation. The
presence of previously recovered items that the State retains title to makes this clear. Further investigations have revealed a
number of other objects, all of which have been left in situ that confirm that the highly scattered remains of at least one historic
period shipwrecks are present. Commented [PMR8]: Discussion of these objects? This
section is brief and vague.
Recommendations for the remainder of the season are to continue investigations focused on the apparent track lines of dispersal.
This would be done through diver recon as well as focused excavation on those areas where targets are unreachable by unassisted
means. As always, only the minimum excavation to identify the target is undertaken and when utilizing the prop wash deflection
method a staged procedure using only as much down flow as necessary to reach the target will be used.

December 28th 2014 to July 27th 2015

There are currently 2 theoretical historical anomalies trails, one which is in the center of area A2
leading south west into area A1. The other runs north to south-southeast in the eastern quadrant of
areas A3, A2, and A1. The north south trail has been more difficult to confirm during our
investigation. The anomalies in the southern area of A1 were easier to locate and identify than those
in other areas. In this area the seabed is mostly shell rubble and the objects were very close to the
surface as well as better visibility. As we moved north we started to have more reports of No Find
than findings and of visibility decreasing to almost zero. This was primarily due to seabed becoming
more of a mud / silt combination that can be anywhere from 6-inches to 2 or more feet thick. The
different types of permits (Exploration and Dig and Identify) have hindered Seafarers Quest Historic Ship Debris
dramatically, as have the restrictions of Prop Wash Deflection by the State. The management of the
different types of permits within an area of operations has become a burden on the entire operation and has delayed daily
operations while the divers reconfirm the requirements of their current location. The inability to provide the divers with clear
water has limited us in preparing drawings or providing pictures to the State as well as being able to report, without a doubt, the
identification of object(s) found during the dive.

The majority of the MB514 area seabed is a collection of mud, slit, or muck. This is primarily due to the land topography of the
area. The Gulf Stream which travels up the coast of Florida provides a continued flow of water providing sometimes limitless
visibility and the shell rubble seabed which is apparent south of the Sebastian Inlet.

In the Melbourne beach areas, the Gulf Stream is driven to the east by the extension of land of the Cape
Canaveral area. This causes a low-flow area which provides a dumping area for all sediment and material
traveling with the Gulf Stream in the MB514 area. This is both an obstacle to overcome and a benefit. This
same sediment has encapsulated any wreck material, sealing it from both air and saltwater, which is apparent
with the large collection of wood features discovered to date.

Recommendations for the remainder of the season are to continue investigations focused on the apparent
track lines of dispersal. This would be done through diver reconnaissance as well as focused excavation on those areas where Commented [PMR9]: The remainder of 2015? Was this
targets are unreachable by unassisted means. Seafarers Quest will be requesting, from the State of Florida, release from the section copied from an earlier report?
restriction placed on prop wash deflectors in Permit 2014.04, page 3, Topic Requirement & Conditions, paragraph 3.c. The
use of propwash deflectors, clamshell dredges, cutterhead dredges, and explosives is prohibited for this permit. In accordance
with 1A-31.060 Requirements for All Permits, paragraph (13) states, Notice that the use of clamshell dredges, cutterhead
dredges, explosives and suction dredges greater than 10 inches in diameter is prohibited. Propwash deflectors are not addressed
in this paragraph. However, paragraph (14) Notice the conditions under which the use of propwash deflectors is allowed. This
does allows this operation as long as a procedure provides guidance for its use. Seafarers Quest is providing our procedure for
the States review of this operation as well as the report Prop wash deflection excavation on Historic Shipwreck Sites.
 Propeller Wash Deflector Prop Wash Deflection
Operational Procedures excavation on Historic
Shipwreck Sites
Until the use of Propeller Wash Deflector Operational Procedures are approved, only the
minimum excavation to identify any targets will be undertaken and set forth by the requirements and restrictions of the permit
2014.04.

With the increased finding of wooden material we will be taking small wood samples for genealogy testing during the next
reporting period. Both a listing of recommended targets at this time and the process we will follow are linked below.

Wood Sampling Wood Sampling

Target List Procedures

July 28th to December 27th 2015

Seafarers Quest started following a trail of magnetic anomalies that appear to run through the eastern side of all three sites from
North to South as outlined in the last report. During our investigations we found that the anomalies in area A1 were a mixture
of possible time period and modern which is noted on both the daily field logs submitted to the State and Charts provided with
this report. The areas investigated in areas A2 and A3 proved to be more difficult to locate with handheld metal detectors as was
outlined in the Seafarers Quest Year End Report 2015. To date, divers have investigated 45 anomalies in the A3 area with 25
of these being listed as No Finds. With the large number of No Finds reported by the divers we first re-tested our detectors
as well as taking additional detectors down which resulted in the same No Finds. We can only presume; Commented [PMR10]: A lot of this seems unorganized
and like it was copied over from previous reports or
(a) The anomalies are no longer there, (or) proposals.
(b) The anomalies are deeper that the metal detectors can sense (most likely).

After a meeting between Seafarers Quest Archaeologist, Program Manager, and Senior Divers we have decided to add this area
in A3 to conduct additional magnetometer surveying during the 2016 season. Once survey has been conducted and if anomalies
still are indicated during that survey then additional digging methods such as a propeller wash deflection may be required to
locate.

As discussed in the previous report Seafarers Quest theorizes there are 2 historical anomaly trails,
one which is in the center of area A2 leading south west into area A1 and is starting to form a banana
pattern which is indicative of wreckage being spread about during the passing of a major storm.
The other runs north to south-southeast in the eastern quadrant of areas A3, A2, and A1. Seafarers
Quest needs to be allowed a more in-depth investigation of the possible time period anomalies, No
Finds and the surrounding area to solidify this presumption and to provide the State with additional
facts in Seafarers Quests pursuit of a full salvage permit.

Historic Ship Debris

December 28th 2016 to July 27th 2017
Seafarers Quest is requesting a renewal of the current exploration permit with dig and identify addendum for the
purpose of continued research in this area.

The work on the Melbourne area site(s) has continued through the three year period that the current permit
covers. The debris is wide spread throughout both areas 1 and 2. While it would be very satisfying to report that
the identity of the scattered wreckage has been positively identified this has not been the case. Seafarers Quest is
very mindful of the fact that any recoveries under the dig and identify amendment that was granted by the State
requires us to recover only diagnostic artifacts that will assist in the explication of the wreck, i.e. the nationality
and time period. Iron fasteners, scattered and highly degraded wooden components, while compelling have been
less than diagnostic for the identification of this wreckage. The analysis that was done by Dr. Alden on the wood
identified two species of wood that provide some insight. One was the European derived sample and the other
was the tropical hardwood, indicative of at least some interaction of the vessel in those latitudes. The one object
that was recovered that helps define this wreckage and was recovered was the brass buckle that seems to date to
the colonial period. Other than this, to date evidence of this sort has been lacking. We do however have materials
that provide a direction of debris scatter that lead to area 1.

Seafarers Quest is requesting that the current permit for area two be renewed so that further magnetometer
survey can be carried out and the continued investigation of targets be allowed. It is only through the continued
investigation of these highly scattered anomalies that we may discern the trajectory of the initial wrecking
process. No objects will be recovered unless they are highly diagnostic in nature, otherwise, they will documented
and left in-situ as has been done over the course of the permit. It is hoped that, when permitted, investigation in
area one will reveal a more complete picture the wrecking process of this vessel and more importantly if this
wreckage does indeed represent the remains of an early 18th Century mercantile vessel associated with ship
losses in the hurricane event of July 31 1715. Commented [PMR11]: This should have been discussed
(and in more detail) prior to the Research Design and
Historical Results and Conclusions. General Research Questions sections.

At this time there are not enough coherent archaeological remains to determine with any degree of certainty the nationality or
type of vessel or vessels contained within the permit area. Before a conclusion and historical perpective can be reached a
shipwreck context has to be found and analyzed. Although artifacs previously discovered on this site seem to point to a shipwreck
of the Nueva Espaa Flota that was part of the 1715 Plate Fleet, so far the artifacts are only part of a scatter and a clear dispersion
pattern has not been established.

C. Florida Master Site File (FMSF) Requirements:

a. FMSF Survey Log Sheets (Form HR6E066R0107). Not Applicable, per permit 2014.04, Topic Requirements
& Conditions sub-pargraph 4 states to submit Daily Field Note and Activity Logs (Form HR6E067,
Revsed 06/08) monthly. These forms, Signed, have been submitted to the State monthly and a link to the
draft reports is provided for reference only (Daily Field Logs).
b. FMSF archaeological site forms (Form HR6E045R0107). Based on the scope of our current project this is Not
Applicable for underwater Archaeological fieldwork.
FMSF historical structure forms (Form HR6E046R0107). Based on the scope of our current project this is Not Applicable
for underwater Archaeological fieldwork.
c. FMSF historical bridge forms (Form HR6E0052R0107). Based on the scope of our current project this is Not
Applicable for underwater Archaeological fieldwork.
d. FMSF historical cemetery forms (Form HR6E048R0107). Based on the scope of our current project this is Not
Applicable for underwater Archaeological fieldwork.
e. FMSF shipwreck forms (Form HR6E0051R0705). Based on the scope of our current project this is Not
Applicable at this time but may become revelant if the main portion of hull is found.
FMSF archaeological short form (Form HR6E04906-92, effective 12-1-95). Based on the scope of our current project this is
Not Applicable for underwater Archaeological fieldwork. Additional this form has been recommended for removal by
Carlos A. Rey, the proposed rule changed approved by Timothy Parsons 02/09/16
f. FMSF resource group forms (Form HR6E057R0107). Based on the scope of our current project this is Not
Applicable for underwater Archaeological fieldwork.
g. An original or photocopy portion of U.S. Geological Survey (1:24,000) Based on the scope of our current project
this is Not Applicable, topographical maps for off shore are not available. An extensive search of the U.S.
Geological Survey with filters of Coastal and Florida resulted in 0 returns. The only Charts that are available
are produced from NOAA and the only scales available are 1:466,940, 1:80,000, and 1:40,000. Charts with
areas permitted as well as know anomalies with completed investigations have been provided within this
report. The scale for the chart is 1:80,000. This chart was used due to the 1:40,000 does not completely cover
eastern area of the permitted area, this chart is main used for the intercoastal waterway.