Deep Blue Marine (DPBE)

[jscot]

In June 1991, the Palm Beach Maritime Museum obtained a two year government contract for the rights to survey and excavate Columbus's vessels. Although their contract eventually was nullified for nonperformance, the group produced an interesting theory concerning the location of the wrecks. They hypothesized that while Isabela Bay was used as a "roadstead" to offload personnel and supplies, the bay to the west of Punta Rucia was employed by Columbus as the main anchorage for the settlement and therefore should be surveyed for the lost vessels. To bolster their theory, they cited several references. One from the log of Columbus' first voyage (1493) states that "In the shelter of this point I named Punta Roja, I anchored at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. I dared not depart from there at night because of the many reefs. The water inside is very deep and forms a secure anchorage against all winds" (Fuson 1987:169) Most scholars agree that Punta Roja is Punta Rucia. Another states that "Isabela had a very poor harbor, wide open on the north and northwest and so shallow that the larger ships of the fleet had to anchor more than half a mile offshore". However, one consideration not taken into account when considering Punta Rucia as an anchorage for the settlement, is the tenuous nature of Columbus' command and how this affected his need to supervise activities, a difficult task if the vessels were anchored at Punta Rucia while he was at La Isabela. Additionally, regularly beating against the prevailing easterly winds towards Isabela would have been a time-consuming operation.

Current Investigations
In 1993, Indiana University (IU) and the University of Indianapolis entered into an agreement with the Dominican Republic Government to search for and conduct archaeological investigations on Columbus era shipwrecks. Under the supervision of Charles Beeker, Director of IU Underwater Science and Educational Resources and Stephen James, nautical archaeologist with Panamerican Consultants Inc., two field investigations were conducted. These investigations included surveys of Punta Rucia and Isabela Bay.

Investigations at Punta Rucia consisted primarily of visual assessments of locally known sites obtained through oral interview of fishermen. After receiving positive responses from the fishermen to our inquiries about the presence of cannons, anchors and hills of round stone, we hired a "yola," the local fishing craft for the area, and the team was taken to numerous sites for inspection. Visual survey by towing a diver was conducted as well as a brief magnetometer survey of likely areas. The fishermen were quite familiar with the area and showed us a number of sites. Most turned out to be isolated anchors of either late eighteenth or nineteenth century origin. Our investigation at Punta Rucia was by no means comprehensive, but evidence supporting Punta Rucia as a potential Columbus anchorage was lacking. The majority of sites proved to be ground tackle in the form of anchors with chain. These had all been lost due to a foul bottom for anchoring, the bottom consisting of rock ledges covered with coral. The chain and anchors predominantly were situated in an alignment towards land. Our brief survey of Punta Rucia indicates the area is a poor storm anchorage due to a foul bottom and a lack of sea room if a vessel dragged or lost its anchor.

Although testing the Punta Rucia theory took several days, our main emphasis during this field period was the magnetometer survey of the southeastern portion of the Isabela bay, to the south of and partially overlapping the 1983 INA survey. This area was chosen because it had not been previously surveyed, and, like the Punta Rucia site, it appeared to be a possible anchorage. Identified by Jos‚ Cruxent during his excavations of the site, the remains of the original settlement's wharf lie beneath a modern wharf just north of the mainland site. The location of this structure would indicate anchorage of the vessels in the bay, at the very least during periods of loading or unloading. And given the findings concerning Punta Rucia, Isabela Bay would appear to be the only anchorage.

A Geometrics 866 proton precession magnetometer with a marine tow sensor was employed aboard a 16 foot, wooden-hulled "Yola." Positioning for the survey was accomplished through the use of a Trimble TransPak II GPS Navigation System, with a total of 43 survey track lines run and approximately 818 navigation way points recorded. Differential was not employed resulting in Selective Availability not being factored out of the received position.

The survey identified approximately 31 magnetic targets with at least 3 anomalies or anomaly groups exhibiting signature characteristics (duration/gamma strength) indicative of possible shipwreck sites and therefore warranting consideration in the form of archaeological testing. Logistical and time constraints, however, precluded anomaly investigation during our August field work. We returned briefly in November to assess two anomalies that appeared promising. These were broad based, multi-component signature anomalies located near the shore and bluff of El Castillo.

The November fieldwork was conducted aboard a 16 foot inflatable provided by Jerome Hall (who has been conducting work on the Pipe wreck in Monte Cristi to the west). Anomalies were repositioned with a Trimble Navigation Global Positioning System (GPS) and their positions were refined by running magnetometer transects, and then by swimming the magnetometer. Employing surface supplied air (SSA), we attempted to further refine the anomaly locations with an underwater metal detector. Unlike INA's excavations to the north, which encountered up to 3 meters of silty sand overburden, and our preliminary probing to the west which revealed at least 1 meter of overburden, the bottom in this area is composed of river cobble covered by 1 to 2 inches of silty sand. Because the tools employed were chosen anticipating the silt that had been observed in other areas of the bay, the presence of large cobble rather than silty sand precluded probing as well as dredging on these anomalies. Furthermore, metal detection revealed that some of the cobble consisted of magnetic rock, possibly marcosite, a local ferrous stone from which jewelry is made. Bottom searches over large areas indicated the widespread presence of magnetic rock in the bay.

Conclusions
The logistical and survey information obtained during the past two field endeavors will serve to guide our next effort which will be an extended season during the summer of 1994. We plan to resurvey the entire bay system with differential GPS, covering not only our own and INA's area, but the bay areas to the north and west. A resurvey will be conducted owing to the lack of total coverage during our initial survey, the destruction of INA's survey datum making replication of their data impossible, and the fact that a large percentage of the bay remains unsurveyed. A testing regime will be instituted on selected priority anomalies located during the previous field investigations, as well as additional anomalies located during the upcoming survey.

In closing, it should be stated that the archaeological and historical significance of these fifteenth-century Spanish vessels can not be overstated. These shipwrecks offer unique opportunities to research and interpret this important period of maritime history. Their discovery may provide answers to questions concerning historic Spanish ship construction, the economy of the Spanish explorers, and the social interaction of the European colonist between both themselves and the Native Americans. Although many controversies surround Columbus' colonization of the New World, this contact between distinct cultures forever changed
http://www.indiana.edu/~r317doc/dr/old/html/sha.html