Abstract
Conservation
Faunal remains have been examined from archaeological contexts to such a degree
that it has its own subfield, Zooarchaeology. Zooarchaeology has answered
questions on terrestrial sites concerning topics such as animal domestication, site
use, and hunting patterns. However, the zooarchaeology concerning shipwrecks
has been limited to little more than describing what was eaten during voyages.
This poster will illustrate the conservation, identification, and examination of
fauna remains from shipwrecks, specifically the Emanuel Point wrecks, including
food remains as well as the remains of other non-human passengers. It will also
illustrate how cut marks and breakage can be identified, as well as any evidence of
disease. An overview of possible applications of this data and how it can be used
to answer questions about the wrecks and the people living aboard the ships at the
time is also provided.
The first step in conserving waterlogged bone is to remove any soluble salts.
As the bone dries, any salts left in the bone may cause damage. Most organic
or inorganic stains on the bone can also be removed. Before waterlogged bone
can be extensively handled for examination, it must first be stabilized. As the
cellular structure of has become soft, a diluted solution of Elmer’s Glue All is
used to impregnate and strengthen the internal structure. Once dry, the bone is
strong and can be handled safely.
It may seem obvious that sailors ate fish, since it would have been the most
abundant source of fresh food during the voyage, but any fish remains
found in a shipwreck must have cut marks or they are considered intrusive.
Very few fish bones with cut marks have been identified. Recent research
shows that “despite the fact that fish are a common component of coastal
and other aquatic archaeological sites, cut marks are rarely reported on
archaeological fish remains” and that they can be easily missed (Willis et
al. 2008:1438).
Because the intention of the Luna expedition was to establish a colony, they had provisions
on board that ships with a different purpose would probably not have had. One of those
provisions would have been livestock that were too young to be eaten during the voyage, but
necessary for establishing a farmstead. These remains are incompletely fused, meaning they
came from a juvenile pig.
Introduction
In 1559, a fleet of ships led by Don Tristán
de Luna y Arellano landed in Pensacola, FL
to establish a colony for Spain. A mere two
months after their arrival, a hurricane struck
the area, destroying most of their ships and
supplies, as well as any chance for the
colonies’ survival.
Maritime archaeologists have located two of
the nine ships reportedly sunk during the
hurricane. The two wrecks are located on the
same 4 meter depth contour in Pensacola
Bay, just off of Emanuel Point, the point of
land for which they are named.
While Emanuel Point I is the larger of the two vessels, Emanuel Point II is better
preserved, due to an abundance of clay in which it is buried, which also provides
more potential for cultural material and hull structure to study. They are unique
in nature because they are the only 16th-century ships that represent multiple
vessels from the same fleet, let alone a colonizing fleet to the New World.
In order to feed the colonists and sailors during the voyage as well as to establish
the colony, a large quantity of sturdy foods were needed. Historical documents
illustrate what foods and supplies were popular for voyages, so archaeologists
have an idea of what they can expect to find. Smoked and salted meats were
popular, as they could survive the long voyage without spoiling, and were easily
transported inside containers [1]. There were also non-human passengers that
were not used as food aboard the ships, pets such as cats, or pests such as rats and
cockroaches. Over time, however, any soft tissue would decay, leaving only the
bones or any insect’s exoskeleton behind in the archaeological record.
Zooarchaeology
Zooarchaeology is the study of animal remains
from archaeology sites. Approximately 70
percent of bone is composed of an inorganic
lattice of calcium phosphate and various
carbonates and fluorides, also known as
compact bone. The other 30 percent of the total
weight of bone is an organic tissue called
[6]
collagen, referred to as spongy bone.
In archaeological sites, spongy bone is decomposed by hydrolysis, and acids
disintegrate the inorganic framework. In arid sites, bones become dry, brittle, and
fragmented. In waterlogged sites however, they can be reduced to a soft, spongelike material. It is also possible for bone to become fossilized as the collagen is
replaced by silica and mineral salts. Archaeological bone can usually only be
cleaned, strengthened, and stabilized; satisfactory restoration is often impossible
[2].
Analysis
Faunal Application
The animal remains are identified as best as possible down to the lowest taxonomic level to determine what
exactly was carried aboard the vessels. Some of the animals identified include pig (Sus scrofa), Cow (Bos
taurus), and goats or sheep (Order Artiodactyla). The bones are also examined for
butchery marks, physical proof of human interaction on the bones with
a tool. These marks can be divided into two simple categories, chopmarks and cut-marks. Chop-marks are the result of chopping the
muscle and bone using a tool such as a cleaver or axe. Cut-marks
represent the use of a smaller tool such as a knife to remove meat from
the bone [3]. Some of the faunal remains recovered from the Emanuel
Point wrecks also show evidence of breakage, including angular
fractures and spiral fractures [4].
Where ever humans go, pests will follow. Both the remains of Black rats (Rattus rattus) as well as cockroaches
(Periplaneta americana) were recovered from the Emanuel Point sites. Rats needed something to eat while
living aboard the ships, and proof of their scavenging can be seen in the faunal remains as well. There is also
evidence of the disease rickets in the rat bones that were recovered.
There is also evidence for at least one cat (Felis domesticus) aboard the Emanuel Point 1 wreck.
[7]
Traditionally, the faunal remains from shipwrecks have only been used to infer what sailors
ate aboard ship. While this is useful and important information, it may be possible for the
animal bones to tell us more, especially on the Emanuel Point wrecks. Since we have two
ships from the same fleet, it may be possible to compare the ships. Some of the questions
that may be worth asking include:
•
Was there a difference in social structure on the two ships that can be seen through the faunal remains?
•
What percentage of animals were butchered aboard ships versus what was butchered on shore and
packed as cargo? Is it even possible to tell?
•
Does the presence of disease in pest animals indicate anything about human health aboard ship?
•
What was the earliest introduction of certain animals (pigs, rats, cockroaches, etc.) into the New World?
•
What can the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) and the Number of Individual Specimens (NISP)
tell us?
•
Does the presence of certain animal remains indicate any unknown stops in the voyage or possibly
black-market cargo?
•
How does the diet of sailors compare to the diets of their home country? Is there a major change in the
food or diet in order to make it seaworthy?
•
Should fish bones be re-examined using the new methods and insight provided by Willis et al.?
References
1. Philips, C. R.
1992 Six Galleons for the King of Spain: Imperial Defense in the Early Seventeenth Century. The Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore.
2. Donny L. Hamilton
1998. Methods of Conserving Underwater Archaeological Material Culture. Conservation Files: ANTH 605,
Conservation of Cultural Resources I. Nautical Archaeology Program, Texas A&M University, World Wide Web,
http://nautarch.tamu.edu/class/ANTH605.
3. O’Connor, Terry
2008 The Archaeology of Animal Bones. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
4. Smith, Roger C., James Spirek, John Bratten, and Della Scott-Ireton
1998 The Emmanuel Point Ship: Archaeological Investigations 1992-1995. Florida Department of State, Division
of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research.
5. Willis, L. M., Metin I. Eren, and Torben C. Rick
2008 Does butchering fish leave cut marks? Journal of Archaeological Science 35:1438-1444.
6. www.york.ac.uk/res/btr/Image%20Library/Bone%20structure.jpg
7. www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/biosystematics/invertebrates/invertid/images/AmericanCockroach1.jpg
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr. J. Bratten and Greg Cook for their support and advice. Thanks are also
due to Dr. P. L. Armitage, Kathy Parker, Barry Baker and Lee Presley for their identification of the faunal
remains, and to Eric Hinote for the use of his portrait of the Emanuel Point ship.