Romans map

Thanks! Followed Roberts link, blew up map.

Couple things..1) Romans shows the Banana River and Sykes Creek converging at the mouth of the "Sebastian River". Could have he been thinking of Melbourne/Eau Gallie? 2) The St. Lucie Inlet is shown NORTH of its present location, near the house of Refuge. 3) There are -2- wrecks shown north of the Cape..one 1768, 0ne 1769. I guess this map POST dates these finds??
 

#2 the river to sea (inlet) opening has changed over the years--- the old and new are in differant areas a bit apart--#3 of course the map had to be marked with the wrecksites AFTER THEY WRECKED / so either the map had to made after they wrecked OR the map was a eariler map and "updated" some time later after the wrecks had occured -- good ole common senses says this must be so
 

as for 2)..the general belief in our area is that the inlet was south of todays location, at pecks lake. This is the first reference I've seen of the inlet North of todays location.

3) some people (Peg Leg?) had asked for specifics about wrecks north of the Cape.
 

billinstuart said:
There are -2- wrecks shown north of the Cape..one 1768, 0ne 1769. I guess this map POST dates these finds??
Click to expand...

I think Romans map was charted in 1775!

Robert
 

Apparently Romans map was released in 1781. Just spent an hour at Library of congress site, looking at old Florida maps. No Sebastian Inlet ever shown, St. Lucie Inlet was north of present location, then closed for decades. Never saw a Pecks Lake location, even tho that is the rumor here. Jupiter Inlet moves around. Ft. Pierce was indeed well north of the present location. "Bleech yard" apparently was so named because of appearance, not function. Frankly, I'm confused by Romans depiction of the Banana River merging with the Indian river at Sebastian..there is a large discrepency there.
 

yes a "bleeching yard"--- it was where they would lay out the sails in the sun --- drying them or "bleeching" them in the sun === spare sails had to be aired out now and then to prevent their molding and mildewing which thus made the sails weak -- they were pegged out and sun dried -- a good salt water scrub down followed by being fully air dried in the bright sunlight which killed off the mold and mildew that often forned on the stowed spare sails in the dank , musty and humid holds ---aaarrrgghhh --- Ivan
 

Frankly, I'm confused by Romans depiction of the Banana River merging with the Indian river at Sebastian..there is a large discrepency there.


I am puzzled as well. Is it possible that Merritt Island, which separates the Indian and Banana rivers, extended much further south is 1775, or does Romans just have the scale all screwed up?
(which would go for the rest of the map as well)
 

Romans map was drawn in 1774, 59 years after the wrecking of the 1715 fleet, and is not very accurate. However, this map was instrumental in the identification of the shipwrecks discovered by Kip Wagner in the early 1960's. The way the map reads, Romans Map shows the southern tip of present day Merritt Island, also known as Dragons Point, and this would put the 1715 Fleet just off Conova Beach (Eau Galle Blvd at A1A), in the town Indian Harbour Beach on the Barrier Island, and about 5 miles south of my home. I have searched extensively along this stretch of coast, and found nothing to indicate any of the 1715 ships went down near this location.

In 1715 Sebastian Inlet did not exist. The first of many attempts to create the inlet took place in 1872, and it was not until 1895 that water flowed freely between the Atlantic and the Indian River. However, this was short lived and more attempts were made in 1918, 1919. It was in 1924 that a 400 foot rock jetty was created with limited success, and between 1924 - 1941 the Inlet was closed and reopened many times. The inlet was closed by Mother Nature in 1941 and remained closed until 1947.
In 1947, new construction of the Inlet was moved a little to the south to its present day location and opened again in 1948, and has remained open ever since. In the 1950's the north and south jetties are lengthened and strengthened with concrete.
In 1965 the A1A Bridge over the inlet was completed.
In 1961 Kip Wagner discovered the survivor's camp (actually it was his dog); two and a half miles south of the inlet at the site that is currently the McLarty Treasure Museum. The fresh water well is still located on that property in the wooded area between the Museum and A1A, well north of the site of Kip's cabin.

Tom
 

Thanks Wreckdiver..you answered my question about the possible location of the lead shipwreck (Ubilla). About the inlets..I've heard so many speculations about their locations, it was interesting to see the historic maps which showed the actual locations. Other than reference points to historical events, their presence has little to do with treasure hunting.

I still question the "Bleech yard", tho. Was it strictly a visible landmark, or was it actually used as a drying area? If it was used, how did they access it? The nearest inlets were miles away. Why not use the sand hills north of Ft. Pierce, which were also noted, and were much more accessible?
 

the brits took over florida in 1763 from the spanish in exchange for cuba which they had taken in a recent war (the english used the term Bleeching yards) ---being a old salt sea dog (27 years a merchant marine sailor) I understands the term--- this just before the map be drawn matey's and the brit term "bleeching yard" was put on the map--aarrgghh ----- unrest in the colonies made the brits want spain out of "florida" ---oddly florida was the only british colony not to to openly revolt during the american revolt it said loyal to england --- thus florida was a safe spot for english loyalist or tories --and many of them fled to florida seeking safety hoping that "mother" england would win the war --after the english lost the war --- they got rather quickly grew tired of having to defend florida ( plus it not a highly profitible colony really) and the constant problems with the united states / georgia over the borderline was a pain in the neck -- so in 1783 england tired of the hassle and cost of the upkeep of florida gave florida back to spain ---spain kept it until 1819 whem america got it for 5 million from spain--- ;) Ivan
 

Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Mystery Ship of the 1715 Treasure Fleet

Mystery Ship of the 1715 Treasure Fleet

By Bob "Frogfoot" Weller



As salvors we have been salvaging the 1715 Spanish treasure fleet since Kip Wagner days in 1960. After 39 years one would believe all the mysteries of the fleet had been resolved. Of the six 1715 sites that we have located, over the years we have methodically salvaged several, and certainly done our homework in the research department. And, over the years, we have managed to put names to these historic ballast piles that lie scattered along the east coast of Florida. Yet, with all the efforts of some of the best historians and Old Spanish legajos translators, we have reached an impasse on nailing down the exact locations and names of four of the six sites.

The impasse begins with the "mystery" ship, the "Urca de Lima". To better understand the problem it might help to summarize that dramatic night of July 30, 1715 when the Spanish treasure fleet was driven on to the Florida reefs. It was sunrise the morning of July 24, 1715 when the treasure convoy of 12 ships set sail from Havana Harbor to begin the long voyage back to Spain. It had been a lucrative voyage for General Ubilla on board the fleet Capitana "Regala". His hold was full of treasure, as was his Almiranta "San Roman", sailing in the rear of his small fleet of 5 vessels. The other vessels in his fleet were the patache "Nieves", the "Urca de Lima", and a small balandrita "Maria Galante" that Ubilla had purchased in Havana to carry back a cargo of tobacco and sugar. General Echeverz headed up the second feet with 6 vessels. The 12th vessel in this convoy was the French vessel "Grifon" under command of captain Dare. The Grifon was allowed to travel with the fleet, rather than leaving Havana earlier and risk capture and leaking information to possible enemy warships that the treasure fleet was about to leave.

When the hurricane struck the fleet the evening of July 30th, the Grifon had taken a tack slightly to the northeast and Urca de Limawas able to miss the hurricane altogether. That ship arrived in Brest, France unaware that the eleven ships of the convoy had all been sunk. The eleven ships of Spain sank along the east coast of Florida, scattered from Cape Canaveral southward some 50 miles. Of the eleven ships, only one managed to survive intact...you guessed it our "mystery" ship the Urca de Lima. the Urca managed to anchor close to shore in 16 feet of water, slipping between the outer reefs, a miracle by itself.

In the process of trying to save the ship from capsizing in the mountainous waves, captain Lima ordered the masts cut down. The crew had trouble cutting away the rigging of the main mast, and as a result it clung to the side of the hull as the ship struggled to stay afloat. It was a relief to find the ship still afloat after the hurricane passed, and the crew made every effort to free itself of the main mast as it thumped against the hull. Lima was congratulating himself on how "stout his ship was to have survived such a disastrous hurricane", when the following evening another strong storm passed through the area. The rigging, pulling on the stump of the mainmast, opened the hull...and the Urca promptly sank on the spot.

The topside structure of the Urca remained above water and most of the provisions on board were saved. In fact, Lima on 19 October 1715 wrote a letter to the Viceroy of Mexico in which he stated, "At the time of the disaster I was able to recover not only enough victuals for the men of my ship, but also to sustain all the people who escaped from the patache which wrecked two leagues from my ship". The registered treasure on board, 252,171 silver pesos, was also recovered by the crew. There was a bit of sin registrada aboard, mostly buried in the ballast, and this was recovered during the Kip Wagner salvage efforts. Survivors accounts placed the Urca "at the mouth of a river" and the huge ballast pile that Wagner worked in 1960 lay opposite the old Ft. Pierce inlet. The patache "Nieves" has been generally considered by everyone as the "Colored Beach Wrecksite" that lies 2 1/2 miles south of the present Ft. Pierce inlet, or about 3 1/2 miles from the ballast pile Wagner worked. ( The Spanish always overestimated distances ) the Nieves site is certainly one of the 1715 vessels. More gold and silver coins dated1690 to 1715 have been recovered from this site than all other 1715 sites combined.

The controversy among modern day salvors is seeded in an old chart drawn by Bernard Romans in 1774. The chart is of the east coast of Florida, with a notation near the inlet at Sebastian " Opposite this river perished the Admiral commanding the Plate fleet 1715...the rest of the fleet 14 in number between this and ye bleech yard". the "bleech yard" is located at Jenson Beach, on the side of a hill, and is a sand patch where sailors would lay out their sails to bleach in the sun. It is a very prominent landmark that can bee seen from the ocean. This is 30 miles south of the Ft. Pierce inlet. Some salvors claim to have a copy of an old chart with the 1715 sites located on it, but the author has never seen the chart and cannot determine how far to the south the sites indicated on the "chart" are located. So, in some circles of the salvage community it is considered a very real possibility that the Urca actually sank opposite the St. Lucie inlet, and not the Ft. Pierce inlet. To add fuel to the controversy, Lima stated that "My ship is at Palmar de Ayz in 27 degrees, 15 minutes latitude." This would put the Urca very close to the St. Lucie inlet.

It is my personal opinion that Bernard Romans reported hearsay about the whereabouts of the 1715 fleet shipwrecks. It was nearly 60 years after the hurricane drove the ships ashore and scattered debris over miles of shallow reefs. There was absolutely no evidence of shipwrecks when Romans visited the area. When Lima took an astrolabe bearing on the noon time position of the sun one or two days after the hurricane to determine his position, I am sure that the weather was terrible, and trying to take a sun line at exactly noon with clouds scudding overhead was more than difficult. The pilot probably gave Lima his best "estimate" of their position, which is all Lima needed to send for help from Havana. And if the Urca was at the St. Lucie inlet, then that would put the Nieves somewhere just south of the St. Lucie inlet. If that were the case then "What two ships are located near the Ft. Pierce inlet?" They are certainly 1715 shipwrecks, and if that is the case then there are too many 1715 sites accounted for.

It is a curious conflict of accounts, one that will keep the fire burning for salvors that are willing to search south towards the St. Lucie inlet for undiscovered 1715 sites. But, treasure is where you find it...and we'll never find it all. Frogfoot.
 

Yes, I've read that account several times. At the time "St. Lucie Inlet" (assuming he meant Stuart, not ft. Pierce) was about where the house of refuge is today..a couple miles north of its' present location. Maps of that era also show the inlet south of its present location..local history places it at "Pecks Lake". In any case, access to the "bleech yard" would have been poor. Perhaps he meant the "bleech yard" was actually the sand hills directly west of the (then) location of the Ft. Pierce inlet?

I just drove by the "bleech yard" yesterday. I can't see the ocean from the top of them. The Indian river lagoon is pretty shallow in that area. Frankly, I'm skeptical about the locations myself.

More thoughts??
 

When Lima took an astrolabe bearing on the noon time position of the sun one or two days after the hurricane to determine his position, I am sure that the weather was terrible, and trying to take a sun line at exactly noon with clouds scudding overhead was more than difficult. The pilot probably gave Lima his best "estimate" of their position, which is all Lima needed to send for help from Havana. And if the Urca was at the St. Lucie inlet, then that would put the Nieves somewhere just south of the St. Lucie inlet.
Click to expand...

This statement by Bob would be one that I would have trouble with. The weather typically after a hurricane is usually very clear and sunny for several days. Plus, I would have to say that if he were on land and able to keep steady, he would have given a more accurate position rather than on a rocking ship.

I also find it interesting that he mentions another storm that passed the following day that sank the Urca. This would possibly give some indication that the Hurricane may have move inshore but stalled or moved North and possibly back out into the Atlantic.

Very Interesting!

Robert
 

True ... the weather is typically calm after the storm but the storm could have stalled or turned and as soon as it hit land it would have slowed down. I think that it is very possibly that the storm did stall and hit the shore in the late pm, such as Frances did in 2004, I know for days after it was very nasty outside and hell I couldn't take a bearing from my driveway to the street.

Depending on the time of the storm would play a major factor in Lima's readings and what the next day would have looked like. If the storm hit in the late evening and lasted until the late am it would have been a gloomy day. Why is it that most hurricanes tend to hit shore at nite?

Fact of the matter is, No one really knows the exact location, direction and speed and probably never well. All we can do is speculate and listen to all the many professional ideas and reasoning that come through this forum, Only then can we come to draw our on conclusions!
 

It was probably just some drunk navigator on the lead ship that signaled to the other ships: "Hey, I know a shortcut. Follow me." ;D
 

mad4wrecks said:
It was probably just some drunk navigator on the lead ship that signaled to the other ships: "Hey, I know a shortcut. Follow me." ;D
Click to expand...

Tom,

You really have been full of it lately! ;D ;D ;D ;D
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Need side scan

⬅️ Previous Thread

nails & spikes ?

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Simplex Metal Detector

Latest Discussions

Back
Top