Hello Gentlemen,
Stevemc and Rusty Sailor, your comments on the paleogeography of ancient Florida and its relation to human settlement along the coastline shed additional light on the very complex issue of interpreting historical documents as well as archaeological evidence when faced with comparison with our modern littoral shorelines. In conjunction with TR's observations with respect to Haiti and the Dominican Republic (I am, academically speaking, envious), the consensus appears to be that the modern geographic reality of many potential archaeological sites may have changed radically and in unexpected ways. Thank you for your insights!
However, I now feel a little self-conscious about not commenting on Dutch Wrecks off Florida. I am far from an expert on this subject, but here are some observations that may be of interest:
I know for all of you reading this thread, the 1628 capture of the Habsburg Treasure fleet by Piet Pieterzoon Hein, Admiral Dutch West Indies Company (WIC) is basic knowledge; however, it may be of interest to focus on Admiral Hein's sailing instructions for the Dutch fleet while on station positioning to intercept the Spanish vessels. The Dutch captains were ordered to patrol between Cabo San Antonio ( between the Yucatan channel and the gulf of Guanahuacabibes) and the what we now call the Dry Tortugas. Pinance and shallop vessel types were used close to Cabo San Antonio because of their speed, shallow draft, and low sail profile on the horizon. Additionally, these smaller vessels moved between the larger vessels of the Dutch fleet in relays. When Admiral Hein drove the Spanish fleet inshore at Matanzas Bay in 1628, the shallow draft Dutch vessels played a major roll in relieving the Spanish of their loot.
Needless to say, Piet Hein had a difficult time keeping his fleet on station, wooded, watered, and otherwise supplied in hostile territory. Squadrons of shallops under the protection of larger Dutch vessels were sent into the Floridas for provisions.
Now when one compares Dutch navigational charts against Spanish navigational charts for the 17th century, there are some noticeable differences between the two. These differences may in part be related to the very different sailing traditions and shipdesigns in use by the two nations. The Dutch, owing to the sand shoals proximate to their coastline and their long tradition of Baltic sailing, lofted vessels of much shallower draft, generally, than the Spanish. Moreover, large Dutch vessels (Flyboots for example) were often equipped with a yacht that was used to venture over hazardous shoals and reefs, and in some cases, far upriver. What follows from this type of navigation and sailing equipment is that Dutch maps show what the Dutch consider usable ports in areas where the Spanish maps show dangerous shoals. Very often, because the Dutch were actively engaged in circumventing the Habsburg monopoly on trade within Spanish possessions, the Dutch charts will show a port or anchorage within 20 nautical miles of a major deep-water Spanish port. Interestingly, all of the Dutch smuggler-ports (forgive the phrase) are all bounded by shoals or reefs but have a navigable entrance (a break within the shoal or reef system) that affords passage at certain stages of the tide when wind conditions are right. Lastly, most of these Dutch anchorages were situated with easy access to a river navigable by indigenous watercraft at least.
It is likely that understanding the Dutch methodology of sailing and transacting on the Caribbean could lead a treasure hunter to identify previously unnoticed sites of interest along the Florida Keys or elswhere where a Dutch vessel may have met its untimely end.
Very Best Regards,
Ursula Utrecht
).
