See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/287644450

The Reconstruction of a Seventeenth-Century Spanish Galleon

Conference Paper · January 2014

CITATION READS
1 4,511

1 author:

Jose Luis Casaban

Institute of Nautical Archaeology
43 PUBLICATIONS 49 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jose Luis Casaban on 21 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Reconstruction of a Seventeenth-Century Spanish Galleon

The Spanish silver galleons of the Indies Run are probably the most famous and mythical ships of the 17th century,
but, what do we really know in relation to their design? Current perceptions of Spanish galleons have been determined
largely by the valuable cargo they transported. However, the design of these vessels was determined by economic, political,
technical, and social factors. This paper intends to outline the reconstruction of the research model of a 19 cubits breadth
Spanish silver galleon to obtain a better understanding of how these vessels were designed.

Introduction The 17th-Century Shipbuilding Ordinances

During the 16th century, Spain created an empire In 1580, a new type of galleon was conceived for the
whose territories spanned the world. Located in Europe, coastal defense of Spain (Armada del Mar Oceano),
America, and Asia, this empire lasted for four hundred and to provide escort to the fleets of the Indies Run
years, until the beginning of the 19th century, despite (Armada para la Guarda de la Carrera de Indias). The
the fact that after the 17th century, Spain was no lon- ideal dimensions and construction details for these
ger one of the main powers in Europe (Rahn-Phillips ships were discussed for over a year by various commit-
1986:8). During this period, Spain relied on its ships to tees of shipbuilding experts, naval commanders, and
maintain communication between the different parts of independent consultants (Casado Soto 1988:143–153).
the empire, and to protect them against other European Having provided their seaworthiness during the Armada
powers. Moreover, the economy of the Spanish crown, campaign in 1588, these ships became the prototype
and the rest of Europe, depended on the cargos of silver from which the Spanish galleons would evolve in the
transported by the Spanish ships from the New World following decades (Casado Soto 2003:52–65).
to Europe through the Indies run (La Carrera de Indias) Paralleling the constant innovations in shipbuilding
(Braudel 1995[2]:476–517). The Spanish silver galleons of the second half of the 16th century was the publi-
that formed the convoys making the Indies Run are cation of several shipbuilding treatises. In 1575, Juan
probably the most famous and mythical ships of the Escalante de Mendoza published Itinerario de navegación
17th century. This vessel became the workhorse of the de los mares y tierras occidentales, and a decade later, the
Spanish empire and its design evolved across the 16th Instrucción náutica para el buen uso, y regimiento de las
and 17th century (Rahn-Phillips 2007:6). naos, su traça, y gobierno conforme a la altura de Mexico of
The economic value of the gold and silver bullion Diego García de Palacio was released in 1587.
carried by these galleons has also made them the main The discussions on the ideal dimensions and con-
target of treasure hunters. Precious information related struction details of the late 16th-century galleons led
to the construction of these ships has been lost due to to the development of three different Ordenanzas
the salvage operations carried out by these individuals (Shipbuilding Ordinances) between 1607 and 1618.
and companies. Moreover, there is pejorative perception These Ordenanzas regulated the design and tonnage
in relation to the quality of the Spanish galleons despite of vessels with the objective of improving the ships’
the absence of systematic studies of comparative ship performance in the highly demanding oceanic sailing
design (Rahn-Phillips 1994:99). conditions. In the same way, the Ordenanzas specified
The design of a 17th-century Spanish silver galleon the dimensions of the different types of vessels which
was determined by technical, economic, political, social, were expressed in cubits (codos). According to Casado
and environmental factors. This paper intends to outline Soto (1988:60−67), each cubit equaled 0.5747 m. They
the reconstruction of a 19 cubits breadth Spanish silver were intended to define the most appropriate designs for
galleon based on the 1618 shipbuilding Ordenanzas both merchant and naval ships and thereby to assist in
(Ordinances) to obtain a better understanding of how meeting the crown’s increasing need for ships to main-
these vessels were designed. tain the communication between the different parts of
its overseas empire. The chronic shortage of armada
ships faced by the Spanish Crown required the merchant

2014 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 267

vessels to be built in a way that could be converted into the head of the futtocks with respect to their lower part
naval vessels. Thus, the Crown was able to press them without modifying their original curvature, which was
into service (embargo) for its armadas in case of war or defined by a mold. This scale was applied together with
to escort the Indies fleets (Apestegui 2001; Fernández the deadrise, the narrowing of the floor head and ship’s
González 2010). breadth to define the form of the hull, from the keel
The first Ordenanzas were issued in 1607, but were to the main deck. The joba increased the ship’s beam,
modified only four years later due to the complaints reducing its draft and ballast requirements, which pro-
received from shipwrights who argued that the standards duced a faster vessel (Fernández et al. 1992[1]:22).
led to the construction of flawed vessels (Rodríguez Despite these innovations, a new set of Ordenanzas
Mendoza 2008:85). The 1607 Ordenanzas required an had to be approved in 1618. The lengths of the ships’
increase of the length/beam ratio of the vessels to obtain hulls were lengthened in relation to the 1613 Ordenanzas
faster and more maneuverable vessels. However, this to improve the seaworthiness of the ship (Apestegui
variation in the length/beam ratio produced less stable 2001:166). All types of vessels were classified as Navíos
vessels. Shipwrights solved the problem by girdling the (ships). The new maximum tonnage for the Indies
ships hulls (embonar), adding planks to the sides of the run galleons was limited to 600 tons due to the same
ship below its main wale (O’Scanlan 1974:233). This aforementioned reasons. Additionally, the location of
increased the breadth of the ship and thereby its stabil- the main deck in relation to the maximum breadth be-
ity, but doubling of the hull also had the negative effect tween both merchant and naval vessels disappeared. The
on the ship of increasing its draft and weight (Serrano main deck was located half a cubit above the maximum
Mangas 1992:62). breadth in all vessels cases (Rubio Serrano 1991:121).
A shipbuilding treatise published in 1611 by Captain The girdling (embono) was still forbidden.The 1618
Thomé Cano, Arte para fabricar, aparejar naos de guerra Ordenanzas were in effect until 1679, when a new set
y merchant, contained some of the new regulations that of regulations were issued. The ships built after 1618
were introduced in the new set of Ordenanzas published included modifications in their dimensions and other
in 1613 (Apestegui 2001:163). technical characteristics, as several contemporary ship-
The 1613 Ordenanzas specified measurements for building contracts have showed (Apestegui 2001:166).
the different types of ships than the previous ones. The
vessels were classified in four groups: Pataches (pataxes), Reconstructing a 19 Cubits Breadth Spanish
Navíos (ships), Galeoncetes (small galleons), and Galeones Galleon
(galleons). The regulations also established a maximum
tonnage of 500 tons for the galleons due to the sand- The 1618 Ordenanzas provide the main dimensions
banks at the mouth of the Guadalquivir River which for the ships, which are classified according to their size
limited the draft of the ships sailing upstream to Seville, and tonnage. However, the design methods applied to
the final destination of the Indies Run (Parry 1990:54). the construction of the ships, such as how to obtain
According to the 1613 Ordenanzas, the only difference the curvature of the master frame or the radius of the
between the naval and merchant vessels was the location stem, are not described. The authors of the Ordenanzas
of the main deck with respect to the maximum breath assumed that these methods were already known by the
of the ship. In the case of naval ships, the main deck shipwrights. In addition, the Ordenanzas have to be
was located half a cubit above the maximum breadth to considered more as construction guidelines than actual
improve their stability because the weight of the artillery rules. The Ordenanzas can also be complemented with
was placed at this level, closer to the center of the ship the design methods proposed by various shipbuilding
(Rahn-Phillips 1986:55). The merchant vessels had the treatises published since the second half of the 16th
main deck at the same level as the maximum breadth. century.
This difference was related to the system for calculating
the tonnage of merchant ships when taken into service Dimensions
for the Crown (embargo) (Rubio Serrano 1991:44). The main dimensions and design specifications for a
The 1613 Ordenanzas also forbade girdling (embono), 19 cubits breadth galleon are listed in section 11 of the
and introduced the joba. This new design improved the 1618 Ordenanzas (Consejo de Indias 1943:346–347).
stability of the vessels, making unnecessary the girdling. They include breadth (manga), floor head (plan), depth
The joba was a scale, which determined the aperture of of hold (puntal), keel (quilla), and length (esloria)

268 Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology

 by Garrote in his shipbuilding treaty for the same
purpose (Hormaechea et al. 2012:219).

Tumblehome
The curvature of the tumblehome is defined in
sections 22 and 32 of the Ordenanzas (Consejo
de Indias 1943:351–352). The ship’s tumblehome
is important because it reduces the weight of the
vessel at the upper deck level while improving its
stability (Steffy 1994:281). In this case, the inward
curvature of the upper sides of the ship is equal to
the outward curvature of the hull at the orlop level.
However, there is a discrepancy between the in-
structions provided in both sections. According to
section 22, the orlop is located 3 ½ cubits below the
main deck. On the other hand, section 32 specifies
for 19 cubits breadth vessels and below, the orlop
beams are located in the middle of the depth of
FIGURE 1. DESIGNING THE MASTER FRAME (DRAWING BY AUTHOR, 2014).
hold or at a height equal to 4 ¾ cubits. Therefore,
the section 32 instructions have been followed
among many others (Table 1). The length of the vessel for this model. In addition, the bulwarks also have to
is measured at the main deck level (cubierta) while the straighten slightly at the upper deck level (Figure 1).
maximum breadth value is located ½ cubit below the Keel (quilla), rake of the stem (lanzamiento en proa),
main deck. The depth of hold is the distance from the rake of the sternpost (lanzamiento en popa), and length
ship’s floor to the maximum breadth of the vessel and to (esloria)
the top of the main deck, ½ cubit above the maximum According to section 11 (Consejo de Indias 1943:346),
breadth (Figure 1). the keel has a length of 48 cubits although its sided and
molded dimensions are not mentioned. The rakes of
Designing the Master Frame (Cuaderna Maestra) the stem and the sternpost are the horizontal distance
The design of the master frame is the first step to re- between the keel and the stem and sternpost at the
construct a hull of the galleon. According to section 15 of main deck level. The value for the rake of the sternpost
the 1618 Ordenanzas (Consejo de Indias 1943:349), the (9 cubits) is half of the rake of the stem (4 ½ cubits).
mold (grúa) of the master frame futtock (genol) defines Moreover, the length of the ship equals the sum of the
the curve of the rest of the ship’s futtocks as well as the keel’s length plus the stem and sternpost rakes at the
fashion pieces (aletas). The value of the joba is applied to main deck level (61 ½ cubits) (Figure 2).
this curve to configure the shape of the hull towards the The rakes determine the angle of the stem and stern-
tail frames. The master frame mold also determines the post at the main deck level with respect to the ship’s
ship’s draft and the ballast requirements (Fernández et keel (Cano 1964:67–68). Therefore, their values are not
al. 1992[1]:16). related to the radius of the stem’s arc or the length of
The master frame mold is defined by an arc whose the sternpost. The Spanish shipbuilding treatises do not
radius equals to the ship’s floor or the distance between provide any reference about the value for the radius of
the upward turns of its bilges at the master frame (Steffy the stem’s arc. It is probable that the design of the stem
1994:271) (Figure 1). The center of the arc is located depended on the shipwright’s experience and knowledge.
on the vertex at the top of an equilateral triangle whose However, according to Oliveira’s treaty, written ca.1580,
sides equal ship’s floor. Thus, the center of the arc is the radius equals to ⅓ of the keel’s length (Oliveira
on the line defined by the depth of hold (Fernández 1991:170). For this reason, Oliveira’s formula has been
et al. 1992[1]:16–21). This type of design is also rep- used to trace the ship’s stem.
resented in Gaztañeta’s 1688 shipbuilding manuscript
to explain how ships used to be designed (Fernández
et al. 1992:16). A similar illustration is used in 1691

2014 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 269

Main Dimensions Cubits (codos)
Breadth (manga) 19
Floor (plan) 9½
Depth of hold (puntal) 9 ½ on main deck
9 in the widest part of the hull
Keel (quilla) 48
Length (esloria) 61 ½
Rake of the bow (lanzamiento de proa) 9
Rake of the stern (lanzamiento de popa) 4½
Run (rasel de popa) 6⅓
Entry (rasel de proa) 2 1/9 (Run/3)
Wing transom (yugo) 9¾
Frames (maderas de cuenta) 39
Deadrise (astilla muerta) 1⅛
Master frame ¾ ([Deadrise/3]*2)
Tail frames ⅜ (Deadrise/3)
Joba 1⅛
Rising of the main deck (arrufadura de la cubierta) Bow ½
Stern 1
Rising of the wales (arrufadura de las cintas) Bow 1 ¾
Stern 2 ¼
Orlop height (altor baos vacíos) 4 ¾ (Depth of hold/2)
Main deck height (altor cubierta principal) 9½
Upper deck height from the main deck (altor puente) 3
Step (quebrado) 1
Forecastle height (altor castillo de proa) 3
Sterncastle height (altor alcázar) 3
Master frame mold (grúa del pie de genol) 9 ½ (Floor)
Fashion pieces (aletas de popa) 9 ½ (Master frame mold)
Bow Tail Frame location in cubits From stem (Leng/4)-1
Stern Tail Frame location in cubits From stern post (Length/4) + 2
Master Frame location Distance between tail frames/2
Frames Distance tail and master frames /19
Tail Frames Floor head (Floor/2) + ([Floor/2]/25)
Fore Tail Frame Breadth Breadth-1
Aft Tail Frame Breadth Breadth-2
Tumblehome Equal to the outward curvature the hull at the orlop level

Wing Transom (yugo) (Breadth/2) + ¼ cubit

Deck Transom Wing transom + ¼ cubit

270 Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology

 OPPOSING PAGE: TABLE 1. MEASURMENTS FOR A 19 CUBITS BREADTH GALLEON. A SOURCE: CONSEJO DE INDIAS (1943:346−347)
B
1 CUBIT EQUALS 0.5747 M. SOURCE: CASADO SOTO (1988:60−67).

FIGURE 2. DESIGNING THE HULL (DRAWING BY AUTHOR, 2014).

Location of the Master Frame (Cuaderna 1943:346). This value refers to the elevation of the floors
Maestra), Tail Frames (Redeles), and Frames heads at the turn of the bilge above the horizontal plane
(Maderas de Cuenta) defined by the top surface of the keel (Steffy 1994:270).
This value is 1-⅛ cubits, which is divided in three parts.
The location and number of frames is mentioned Two thirds correspond to the deadrise of the master
in section 20 of the Ordenanzas (Consejo de Indias frame while the other 1/3 has to be distributed between
1943:350). A galleon with 19 cubits breadth needs 39 the frames fore and abaft the master frame using the
frames (maderas de cuenta), including the master frame half-circle method (Figures 2, 3).
(cuaderna maestra), fore tail frame (redel de proa), and A semicircle with a radius equal to the amount of
stern tail frame (redel de popa). deadrise between the master frame and the tail frames
The method to distribute the frames along the ship’s (3/8 of a cubit) is traced using a compass. The result-
keel consists of dividing the ship’s length in four parts ing arc is then divided into the number of floors to be
by using a string of the same length. The fore tail frame projected (17) and the resulting points are joined with
is located at one fourth of the ship’s length minus one lines. The distance between each line on the radius of
cubit measured horizontally from the furthest end of the the semicircle (half-circle) corresponds to the increment
rake of the stem. The stern tail frame is also located at of the rising for each floor with the baseline representing
one fourth of the keel plus two cubits, but measured the total deadrise of the tail frame (Steffy 1994:98–99).
from the furthest end of the sternpost extension. Finally, Neither the Ordenanzas (1607, 1613, and 1618)
37 frames are distributed between both tail frames with nor the Spanish shipbuilding treatises written between
the master frame in the center (Figure 2). the second half of the 16th century and the early 17th
The Ordenanzas do not mention the number of frames century mention this method. On the other hand, the
that are needed between the tail frames, the bow (mura), half-circle is described by the Portuguese treatises pub-
and the stern (cuadra) sections of the galleon. However, lished between 1580 and 1616 (beesta, meia-lua), and
it is indicated that the mold used to trace the frames by Gaztañeta in 1688 (medio círculo) to determine the
located in these sections must be the same one used for distribution of the floors’ deadrise and narrowing as
the master frame, except in the case of the hawse pieces well as the joba value (Fernández et al. 1992[1]:20−21,
(espaldones). Their design probably depended again on 85−86). In fact, according to Oliveira (1580), Lavanha
the shipwright’s knowledge and experience. (1616), and Gaztañeta (1688), the half-circle was the
only method used to determine the shape of large vessels
Deadrise (Astilla Muerta) because the other methods, such as the rabo de espada,
The value of the floors’ deadrise (astilla muerta) is saltarella or incremental triangle, produced deformed
listed in section 11 of the Ordenanzas (Consejo de Indias hulls (Fernández et al. 1992[1]:22).

2014 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 271

 floors (Consejo de Indias 1943:350–351).
Therefore, it is possible to calculate the nar-
rowing of the floors and the frames’ breadth
at main deck level by subtracting these values
from the master frame’s floor and breadth.
Then, the resulting values can be distributed
among the frames in between by using the
half-circle method. Finally, the lines repre-
senting the frames’ floors and breadth are
FIGURE 3. JOBA AND DEADRISE (DRAWING BY AUTHOR, 2014). connected with an arc whose radius equals
the mold of the master frame (9-½ cubits)
Entry (Rasel de Proa) and Run (Rasel de Popa) (Consejo de Indias 1943:349). The final
The values for the entry (rasel de proa) and the design would be equal to the one obtained by applying
runs (rasel de popa) are also listed in section 11 of the the joba’s value to each frame (Figure 3).
Ordenanzas (Consejo de Indias 1943: 246). According
to Rahn-Phillips (1986:63), rasel defines the concave Main Deck (Cubierta Principal), Orlop (Baos
part of the hull above the keel from the fore tail frame Vacíos), and Upper Deck (Puente)
to the bow (rasel de proa), and from the stern tail frame The main deck has a rising of ½ cubit at the bow with
to the stern (rasel de popa). Both values are measured respect to its height at the master frame, whose height
perpendicularly to the keel at the furthest ends of the is determined by the depth of hold (9-½ cubits), and
stem and the sternpost. The resulting points and then a rising of 1 cubit at the sternpost (Consejo de Indias
connected to the tail frames with ribbands to define 1943:347) (Figures 1, 4).
the deadrise and narrowing of the cant frames (Steffy Section 32 explains how the orlop (baos vacíos) is
1994:278) (Figure 2). located at the middle of the depth of hold (4-¾ cubits)
in the master frame (Consejo de Indias 1943:352). The
Joba orlop consists of beams located 3 cubits apart from each
The value of the joba is 1-⅛ cubits, the same as the other. According to section 19, this distance equals to
deadrise although it is distributed in a different manner the length of the pipes (pipas) stored in the ship’s hold
(Consejo de Indias 1943:347). The total value of the carrying the water supplies of the crew (Consejo de
joba is divided from the first frame ahead of the master Indias 1943:349–350). The values of the rising of the
frame to the fore tail frame using the half-circle method. main deck have also been used for the orlop because the
On the other hand, only half of the total, 4/7 of a cubit, Ordenanzas do not provide any information about it
is divided from the 10th frame aft of the master frame to (Figures 1,4).
the stern tail frame. Finally, the height of the upper deck (puente) is given
The joba increments are applied at a determined in section 11 (Consejo de Indias 1943:347). This deck is
point along the length of the futtocks’ curve. However, located 3 cubits above the main deck at the master frame
the exact location of the joba is not specified by Cano’s and has to be completely flat without any curvature to
treaty or the Ordenanzas. According to the Gaztaneta’s facilitate the use of the artillery. Moreover, the bow and
shipbuilding manuscript, the joba was probably ap- stern sections of the upper deck are also raised one cubit,
plied on a point located somewhere between 6 and 6-¾ creating a step (quebrado). The limber holes of the upper
cubits along the length of the futtock (Fernández et al. deck are located in the central and lower section of the
1992[1]:30). upper deck (Consejo de Indias 1943:349) (Figure 4).
Despite the absence of information related to the
position of the joba on the futtocks, the Ordenanzas Wing Tramson (Yugo)
still provide enough indications about how to apply The length of the wing transom (yugo) and deck
the joba in the galleon’s reconstruction. The breadth of transom are listed in sections 11 and 23 respectively
the frames at the main deck level is determined by the (Consejo de Indias 1943:347, 351). The length of the
floors’ deadrise, narrowing and the tilt of the futtocks’ wing transom is equal to half of the ship’s breadth plus ¼
arc, which depends on the joba’s value. Section 21 lists of a cubit (9-¾), while the deck transom is ¼ of a cubit
the breadth of both tail frames as well as the width of the longer than the wing transom. Section 23 specifies that

272 Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology

 accuracy of the techni-
cal features represented
in the paintings must
be taken with caution.
F o r e c a s t l e
(Castillo de Proa) and
Sterncastle (Castillo de
Popa /Alcázar)
The heights of the
fore and sterncastle
are provided in section
11 of the Ordenanzas
(Consejo de Indias
1943:347). Both are
FIGURE 4. LONGITUDINAL SECTION (DRAWING BY AUTHOR, 2014).
located 3 cubits above
the deck transom is located between 2 and 2-½ cubits the 1 cubit step of the
below the wing transom. However, the Ordenanzas do upper deck. This is the only information listed in the
not mention the height of the wing transom with respect 1618 Ordenanzas about their dimensions. The length of
to the main deck or even in relation to the length of the the sterncastle is also mentioned in the 1607 Ordenanzas.
sternpost. According to them, the sterncastle must extend from
Section 11 gives the only indication related to the lo- the main mast until the stern of the ship (Rodríguez
cation of the wing transom when mentions that the tiller Mendoza 2008:96). The location of the main mast is
have to turn underneath the deck’s step. Additionally, provided by section 66 of the 1618 Ordenanzas. This
section 42 of the 1613 Ordenanzas explains that the section stipulates that the main mast has to be placed
helmport is located 2-½ cubits above the main deck in the middle of the keel (Consejo de Indias 1943:354).
(Rodríguez Mendoza 2008:115). Taking into account Therefore, it is possible to determine where the stern-
that the height of the main deck is 3 cubits with the step castle begins by tracing a perpendicular from the middle
of the upper deck, it is logical to locate the helmport be- of the keel up to the upper deck. Additionally, the 1607
tween 2 and 2-½ cubits because two gunports have to be Ordenanzas refer to the existence of a cabin on top
opened between the wing and deck transoms (Figure 4). of the sterncastle for the pilot and master of the ship
Additionally, the design of the fashions pieces (aletas) (Rodríguez Mendoza 2008:96). Finally, sections 46 and
is described in section 11. They are traced using the same 63 of 1618 Ordenanzas describe the location of a small
mold as the master frame (9-½ cubits). However, that gallery above the helmport and step (quebrado) of the
measure cannot be applied for the fashion pieces due upper deck (Consejo de Indias 1943:353–354).
to the length of the transoms and the distance between The Ordenanzas do not give more information about
the wing transom and the stern run. Therefore, the cur- the forecastles apart from its height above the upper deck.
vature of the transom was defined by an arc connecting The distance between the sterncastle and the forecastle
the three points provided by the ends of both transoms is not mentioned. However, Garcia de Palacio provides
and the stern’s run at the sternpost (Figure 4). An il- an indirect reference about this issue in his Instrucción
lustration in the 1616 Manuel Fernandes’ shipbuilding Náutica, published in 1587. According to him, the
treaty depicts the transom of a galizabra designed in this ships must have a longboat placed on the upper deck
manner (Fernandes 1989:109). between the fore and sterncastle whose length is equal
This hypothesis is also supported by iconographic to the breadth of the ship (García de Palacio 1944:108).
evidence such as the representations of galleons in Therefore, the forecastle of our galleon is located, at
the paintings of Juan de la Corte (Olesa-Muñido least, 19 cubits away from the sterncastle (Figure 4).
1981:138–139, 141, 143). The depicted galleons show
round transoms with the deck transom at the same level Conclusion
as the first wales, which run almost parallel to main deck
level. However, the helmport appears to be in a lower The 1618 Ordenanzas provide the main dimensions
position than the Ordenanzas suggested. In any case, the and the principal shipbuilding specifications required

2014 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 273

 2003 La invencion del galeón oceánico de guerra español.
to attempt the reconstruction of an early 17th-century In Naves, puertos e itinerarios marítimos en la época
Spanish Galleon. However, important information moderna, Luis Antonio Ribot García and Luigi De
related to the design of the vessel, such as the way to Rosa, editors, pp. 52–65. Editorial Actas, Spain.
obtain the master frame mold, apply the joba value, and
Consejo de Indias
calculate the length of the sternpost or the radius of the 1943 Recopilacion de leyes de los reynos de las Indias,
stem is not specified. For that reason, it is necessary to mandadas imprimir y publicar por la Magestad
examine previous shipbuilding regulations and treatises, Católica del Rey don Cárlos II. Nuestro Señor. 4.
iconographic evidence, and archaeological parallels to impresión, vol. 3. Graficas Ultra, Madrid, Spain.
add the data that the 1618 Ordenanzas do not provide. Escalante de Mendoza, Juan
The objective of the reconstruction is to provide a 1985 Itinerario de navegación de los mares y tierras
reasonable model of the galleon, but also to establish a occidentales, 1575. Museo Naval, Madrid, Spain.
research tool to study early17th-century Spanish ship- Fernandes, Manuel
building design. The main dimensions of the vessel, a 1989 Livro de tracas de carpintaria. Academia de Marinha,
tentative scantling list based on the data provided by the Lisboa, Portugal.
1618 Ordenanzas, and the 17th-century design methods
Fernández González, Francisco
can be combined using a CAD software package to 2010 The Spanish Regulations for Shipbuilding
produce a three-dimensional model of the galleon. The (Ordenanzas) of the Seventeenth Century.
resulting model can assist in developing an understand- International Journal of Naval History 8(3).
ing of the sequence of its construction, to determine the
García de Palacio, Diego
tonnage using contemporary formulas, and to assess the 1944 Instrucción náutica para navegar. Obra impresa en
mutual influence of technological, economic, environ- México. Ediciones Cultura Hispánica, Madrid,
mental, and social factors in ship design and outfitting. Spain. Fernández González, Francisco, Cruz
Moreover, a comparative analysis on ship design between Apestegui Cardenal, and Fernando Miguélez García
similar European vessels of the early 17th century could 1992 Arte de fabricar reales: edición comentada del
be conducted based on this model. manuscrito original de Don Antonio de Gaztañeta
Yturribalzaga, vol. 1.Lunwerg, Barcelona, Spain.
References Hormaechea, Cayetano, Isidro Rivera, and Manuel Derqui
2012 Los galeones españoles del siglo XVII, vol. 1,
Apestegui Cardenal, Cruz Documentación,Función, Diseño y Construcción.
2001 Arquitectura y construcción navales en la España Associació d'Amics del Museu Marítim de
Atlántica, el siglo XVII y primera mitad del XVIII. Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Una nueva sistematización. In Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Archaeology of Medieval Lavanha, Joao Baptista
and Modern Ships of Iberian-Atlantic Tradition: hull 1996 Livro Primeiro de Architectura Naval. Richard
remains, manuscripts and ethnographic sources: a Barker, editor. Academia de Marinha. Lisboa.
comparative approach, Francisco Alves, editor, pp. Portugal.
163–212. IGESPAR, Trabalhos de Arqueologia 18.
Lisboa, Portugal. Olesa-Muñido, Francisco
1981 La marina oceánica de los Austrias. In El Buque
Braudel, Fernand en la Armada española, Enrique Manera Regueyra,
1995 The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world in editor, pp. 109–145. Sílex, Madrid, Spain.
the age of Philip II, vol. 2.University of California
Press, Berkeley, CA. Oliveira, Fernando de
1991 Liuro da fabrica das naos. Academia de Marinha,
Cano, Thomé Lisboa, Portugal.
1964 Arte para fabricar y aparejar naos: 1611. Enrique
Marco Dorta, editor. Instituto de Estudios Canarios, O'Scanlan, Timoteo
La Laguna, España. 1974 Diccionario marítimo español : que ademas de la
definiciones de las voces con sus equivalentes en frances,
Casado Soto, Jose Luis ingles e italiano, contiene tres vocabularios de estos
1988 Los barcos españoles del siglo XVI y la Gran Armada de idiomas con las correspondencias castellanas : redactado
1588. San Martín, Madrid, Spain. por orden del Rey nuestro señor. Museo Naval,
Madrid, Spain.

274 Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology

 Parry, John Horace
1990 The Spanish Seaborne Empire. University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Rahn-Phillips, Carla
1986 Six galleons for the king of spain : imperial defense
in the early seventeenth century. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, MD.

1994 The Galleon. In Cogs, caravels, and galleons : the

sailing ship, 1000-1650, Robert Gardiner and
Richard W. Unger, editors, p. 99. Naval Institute
Press, Annapolis, MD.

2007 The treasure of the San José death at sea in the War of
the Spanish Succession. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, MD.

Rodriguez Mendoza, Blanca

2008 The Spanish Navy and the Ordenanzas of 1607,
1613, and 1618. In The Edge of Empire. Proceedings
of the Symposium held at SHA 2006, Sacramento,
California., Filipe Castro and Katie Custer, editors,
pp. 79–151. Caleidoscopio, Lisbon, Portugal.

Rubio Serrano, Jose Luis

1991 Arquitectura de las naos y galeones de las flotas de
Indias,vol. 2, (1590-1690). Seyer, Malaga, Spain.

Serrano Mangas, Fernando

1992 Función y evolución del galeón en la carrera de Indias,
Colección Mar y América. Editorial MAPFRE,
Madrid, Spain.

Steffy, John Richard

1994 Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of
Shipwrecks. Texas A&M University Press, College
Station, TX.

José Luis Casabán

Nautical Archaeology Program,
Department of Anthropology
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77840-4352

2014 Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 275

View publication stats