Monleon's Other Santa Maria

In discussions about the appearance of the Santa Maria, a frequently discussed item is the shape of the hull. Aside from Julio Guillen y Tato's 1929 version (which he considered a caravel), the Santa Maria is usually considered to be a nao, a small carrack.

At this point, it would probably behoove us to explain exactly what a carrack is.

Carracks were vessels that first appeared in the Mediterranean area in the 15th century. They contained both northern and southern design elements. The square sail was reintroduced to the area after northern cogs visited southern Europe in the 14th century, in the form of pirates, apparently. The sail form and single stern rudder would soon be added to southern vessels, leading to what might be considered the proto-carrack. Unlike the northern ships, these vessels did not use clinker or lapstrake hull construction, where the planks overlap. Instead, these new vessels used the normal edge on planking over a frame, or what is sometimes referred to as carvel planking. Not only is the hull smoother, it is also stronger.

By the early 15th century, the carrack had grown to three masts; fore, main and mizzen. In the Iberian states, carracks were frequently referred to as naos (Spanish) or naus (Portuguese). 

The Santa Maria was one such nao.

Most of the reconstructions of the Santa Maria referred to the vessel as a nao. Even Rafael Monleon y Torres, who believed that the word "caravel" was simply a colloquialism to describe small vessels, referred to the Santa Maria as a nao (confusingly, not only did he believe that the term "carabela" was applied to most small vessels, he also believed that proper caravels did exist as well). When he was working with the Spanish Commission in the early 1890's, he collaborated with Cesareo Fernandez Duro in working out the appearance of Columbus' vessels, but not the Santa Maria. The official Santa Maria was a collaborative effort, and the resulting ship, while beautiful, was controversial; it had features that were from later periods.

Monleon, of course, had his own version. 

His Santa Maria was, on the whole, a better design.

Still, it had that square stern.

This was not his first Santa Maria, though.

In 1885, seven years earlier, he did a large number of paintings showing the history of ships. One of these showed Columbus' "armada de la Indies".

This Santa Maria shows perhaps a little too much decoration astern, but does capture the appearance of a nao very nicely.

It's the shape of the stern, though, that sets this version apart. Unlike his final version, this Santa Maria has a round tucked stern.

Enhanced view of Santa Maria's  stern.

In other words, his early attempt had some features more correct than his later work.

Monleon's Santa Maria  in "El Centenario", vol. II, 1892.

Why the change? We can only guess. The only reconstruction of the Santa Maria from that period that had a round stern was the E. A. d'Albertis version, which also had the honor of being the largest design. Monleon's earlier Santa Maria still had some details wrong, but it was a step in the right direction, and much closer than the officially sanctioned replica.

ADDENDUM - 10 January, 2016 -
A little further information. The painting is a watercolor, and depicts the fleet off of Palos. While it may not be a true design, I am adding it to a list of Santa Maria reconstructions as the very first serious attempt.
- RRL

Concerning the Topsail

As I continue my research into the ships of Juan Ponce de Leon, questions are beginning to arise about the vessel that served as his "capitana", his flagship. This caravel, the Santiago, undoubtedly carried the square rig that had become common on the larger of this class, and quite likely carried four masts as well. The question becomes one of total number of sails, and did it possibly carry a topsail.

Currently, there are a number of replicas of vessels from the late 15th and early 16th centuries. One of the newer ones is a replica of the Pinta, built in Brazil for the Columbus Foundation. Like their Niña, or Santa Clara, it was given four masts and standard square rig; fore and main masts square, mizzen and bonaventure masts carrying lateen. Not long after being launched, the larger Pinta was given a topsail, somewhat trapezoidal in form. The reason given had to do with handling and performance.

This is not the first time a "Pinta" was given a topsail; both Monleon (who believed that the Pinta was more of a nao than a caravel) and de Albertis gave their interpretations topsails at various times. Considering just how close the Pinta was to the size of the Santa Maria, this seems logical. She was in all likelihood a newer vessel, and had been rigged square even later. While many have illustrated the Pinta with a simple square rig (three masts, two carrying single square sails while the mizzen was lateen rigged), in truth there is not enough information to verify just what sort of rig the Pinta carried. In light of the discovery that the Niña carried four masts after conversion to a square rig, it is possible that the Columbus Foundation's replica is somewhat closer to the truth; if the smaller Niña needed four masts, the larger Pinta certainly would have needed to have carried more canvas. The Pinta had been mentioned as being a fairly fast caravel, and this replica is perhaps the closest approximation to Ponce de Leon's flagship.

But could it have carried a topsail, especially a trapezoidal one?

Some time in the mid fifteenth century, the steadily evolving square rigged ship developed a new type of sail. This was an interesting time in the development of the ship. In the span of a century, southern and northern European styles began to merge, and from this synthesis a truly seaworthy vessel began to emerge. By 1460, a variety of rig could be found; single, double and triple masted vessels were common, with the latter rapidly replacing the older, simpler rigs. A big change occurred sometime around mid century.

The large main mast had carried only one sail, and larger vessels frequently carried a flagstaff from the very top. Much like the way the fore mast evolved from a flagstaff, it was a logical step to try mounting a sail from the flag staff. 

These initial sails were quite small and quite simple in rig. The shape in some of the first illustrations can only be guessed at, as the sails are furled up to the new top sail yard.

One of the first illustrations from the 15th century that shows us not only the rig of a three masted vessel but the an unfurled topsail is an Italian engraving from circa 1475. The unusual thing here is the shape of the topsail; it is an inverted triangle, bent to a yard that lacks topping lifts.

As we move further into the fifteenth century, the sail evolves into one that is more rectangular, almost square. 

Many maritime historians believe that the main topsail would remain rectangular, or approximately thus, until at least the early sixteenth century. However, some sources point towards a change around the end of the fifteenth century. 

At that time, the topsail grew from rectangular to trapezoidal. This resulted in an increase in sail area that facilitated better rigging of the yard. These first changes were in the form of single line topping lifts. With the heavier trapezoidal sail, these lifts grew as well, with blocks appearing at the end of the topsail yards.

Many smaller vessels, or vessels that carried smaller topsails, show no topsail topping lifts at all, and in fact probably didn't need them. These smaller rectangular topsails were more than likely meant to be flown in very light weather and were possibly handled by a person in the top.

By at least 1482, though, this was changing. Two sources show us how the topmast was evolving. The first is a map by the cartographer Grazioso Benincasa from 1482. On this map is a small carrack or nao carrying a topsail whose shape is difficult to determine, but is hanging from a topmast that shows shrouds, standing rigging for steadying the mast.

The next source is a painting by Vittore Carpaccio from 1490. 

In the "Arrival of the Pilgrims in Cologne", we have several large Italian carracks, in remarkable detail. One shows a top mast with standing rigging again, but now with simple topping lifts. 

No sail is bent on this yard, but far in the background we see other carracks carrying rectangular topsails.

With the improvements in the topmast, it was inevitable that increasing the size of the topsail would be the next logical step.

From many of the illustrations of this period we find that the topsail normally had its sheet lines leading directly to the top. This again leads us to speculate that the smaller topsails were handled from the top. A modest increase in the size of the topsail put the lower corners, and therefore the sheets, further out from the top. Leading these lines back to the top would be illogical, so they were likely lead down to the mainsail yard. This step inevitably would allow the topsail to grow in size, with an increase in rigging that would now have to be handled from the deck below instead of the top. The outcome would be trapezoidal topsails.

If we assume that the Pinta had started life as a three masted caravela latina and then was converted into a four masted caravela redonda some time before 1490, it would be logical to assume that she would be rigged with the most modern rig possible.

But what of the Santa Maria?

If the Santa Maria had been built around 1460, then yes, the topsail would have started out small and rectangular, typical for the period. As to whether or not it remained thus is open to speculation, though we do have a drawing of three ships on a map of the island of Hispaniola from the very early 16th century, attributed to Ferdinand Columbus, that shows two square rigged vessels and a one lateen rigged. Both of the square rigged vessel carry topsails, with the larger one being very much a "nao" in appearance. This is the similar to the rigs the vessels carried when they left on the first voyage. 

These topsails are trapezoidal. 

It could be possible that, much like the Pinta, if the Santa Maria had been modernized prior to the voyage, a newer trapezoidal sail may have been fitted.

This is all clearly speculation, of course. 

By the time of Juan Ponce de Leon's voyage in 1513, the topsail was firmly established on all larger vessels, and by the 17th century, the topsail would grow to being of equal importance to the main.

"Portuguese Carracks of a Rocky Coast" , circa 1520. This painting shows a large carrack, possibly the Santa Catarina do Monte Sinai. Note the proportions to which the main topsail has grown in just a few decades.

The full rigged ship had truly arrived.

The Caravelon

The second largest ship in Ponce de Leon's little fleet, the Santa Maria de Consolacion, has been variously called a caravel and caravelon (or carabelon). Most sources point towards the latter, but what exactly was a caravelon?

According to later sources, a caravelon was a small caravel. The Portuguese name for the same class of vessel was caravelao. The suffix in both cases normally refers to something larger, but most caravelons were small vessels, running anywhere from twenty to fifty tonels (casks of wine). These vessels were about the size of the first caravels that Prince Henry of Portugal ran down the coast of Africa, starting in the mid 15th century. 

In Bjorn Landstroms "Bold Voyages and Great Explorers", he has various illustrations of these first generation caravels of exploration, and I think that they are very good representatives of how caravelons appeared. For myself, I see these caravelons of the second decade of the 16th century as being single decked with a small structure at the stern. Two masts are stepped, lateen rigged. They are light and nimble enough for the task of exploration. We know that by this time, the Caribbean had a number of caravelon serving in various capacities.

Unlike the bergantina, the caravelon is easier to guess at. These are still just studies, the color pencil one a little rougher than the pen drawing. Soon, I hope to have a final appearance set for this fascinating variant of the caravel family.

The Bergantina

Bergantina overtaking a felucca, by Henri Sbonski de Passebon,
ca. 1700.
Courtesy Harvard College Library

In maritime history, we are frequently faced with vessels for which no description beyond what type they are. Sometimes, there is just enough information to make informed guesses as to their appearance; caravels, for instance. Other times, you simply have a class name.

One such vessel is the bergantina. This vessel appears to fill the gap between pure sail and a oared. We know that they had one or two masts, and had anywhere between eight and sixteen benches with one or two oarsmen to a bench. This meant sixteen to thirty two oars, and seldom did these vessels reach more than forty feet (13 meters) in length. They were also shallow, drawing as little as eighteen inches (45 cm) of water. It was that latter attribute in particular that made the bergantina especially suited for exploration.*

It is likely that many bergantinas were built here in the New World in the first few decades after Columbus' arrival, but earlier they were probably carried over in knocked down form, and quite possibly consisted of only a keel, stem and stern, the rest being made from locally obtained sources.

Bergantinas played an important role in the European discovery of Florida. Juan Ponce de Leon needed one for his journey in 1513. He used three vessels on his voyage - 

Santiago - caravel, quite possibly square rigged.

Santa Maria De Consolacion - caravelon. This is a smaller caravel, though we do not know her rig.

San Cristobal - the bergantina.

We can at least guess as to how the San Cristobal appeared. In preparation for the five hundredth anniversary of the European discovery of Florida, I've begun a series of studies of these vessels. For the bergantina, I picture a single mast carrying a large lateen sail. A total of twenty oars provide propulsion when the wind is not strong enough, or for when sailing is not appropriate, such as exploring shallow waterways.

If we refer to the Sbonski de Passebon painting, it would be fairly easy to extrapolate the rest. Being as that painting is from circa 1700, it would be simply a matter of imagining what a less refined vessel would look like; oared vessels evolved differently than those that were pure sail, and many of their features were frozen in design centuries before.

Is it possible that this is how the San Cristobal appeared that spring day five hundred years ago as it approached this new found land?

(* - Morison, The European Discovery of America, The Southern Voyages 1492 - 1616, pages 549 - 550)

The Caravels of Rafael Monleon y Torres

(Elsewhere in this blog, I have mentioned the work of Rafael Monleon y Torres, but I feel that it is important to delve deeper into his ideas on the appearance of Columbus' vessels, mainly the Niña and Pinta - R.L)

In 1892, three replicas left Spain in hopes of sailing across the Atlantic to the Americas; only one of them did so. The replica of Columbus' flagship "Santa Maria" was capable of sailing, though it wasn't great at doing so. The remaining two, the Pinta and Niña, ended up needing to be towed.

The designs for these vessels came from the board of Rafael Monleon y Torres, an artist employed by the Museo Naval in Madrid. As an artist, he was talented. He was appointed by the Spanish Commission to assist in the design and construction of the vessels, as well as being an artist for the publications being produced. He concentrated on the two smaller vessels, and came to some interesting conclusions.

In the opinion of Monleon, caravels were not really a distinctive type of vessel. Instead, he felt that the word "caravel" was a blanket term applied to smaller vessels. In his opinion, even the Santa Maria could be considered a caravel, even though he also considered it to be a small nao. In his work on the Niña and Pinta this philosophy carried over with some interesting results.

There remains, though, some confusion as to what Monleon really believed the vessels to be. In a two part article he wrote for "El Centenario", "Las Carabelas de Colón", he states, repeatedly, that the Pinta left on the voyage as a lateener, which is to say with the large, triangular sails instead of square rig. This is not really unusual; the most common copy of his log at that time mentions that the Pinta was re-rigged in the Canaries. Later copies of the  Columbus' "Diario" corrected this mistake, and in various places so did Monleon. But in the article in context here, he refers to the Pinta as the lateen rigged vessel.

Monleon felt that this square rigged Niña was nothing more than a smaller nao, and rigged her thus. His lateen reconstructed Pinta, however, looked more like what a caravel should. In fact, on paper (and canvas) it doesn't look bad at all. Henceforth, we shall refer to Monleon's initial concept as the caravela latina, and it will be the primary focus here.

Before we look at his reconstruction, however, it must be necessary to look at the other sources he had on hand at the time. There are many images from the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century that show caravela latinas, including one on a chart of the island of Hispaniola. The image, brown with age, is faded in places. When the Commission recreated the image, they added details, namely a bowsprit. It is unclear whom the artist was who did this copy. The caravela latina is the vessel to the left.

From "La nao Santa María, capitana de Cristóbal Colón"

However, other recreations of that image are different. In E.A. d'Albertis' "Le Costruzioni Navali e l'Arte Della Navigazione al Tempo di Cristoforo Colombo", the same caravela latina is drawn without the bowsprit.

From "Le Costruzioni Navali e l'Arte Della Navigazione
al Tempo di Cristoforo Colombo"

A closer examination of the original also reveals that a bowsprit simply is not present.

From Casa/F. Colon map in the Biblioteca Columbina, Seville;
Image edited from National Geographic, November 1986

Consider that few other images of caravels rigged thus exist. Regardless, it was this style rig that Monleon used when he came up with some of his initial artwork showing such a vessel.

By the time the Spanish Commission began construction of the replicas, Monleon had returned to considering the Niña the lateen rigged vessel and set about designing it. In their initial designs, both the Niña and Pinta had the potential to be good sailers. When it came time to building them, however, short cuts were taken.

The person who oversaw their construction, an American naval Lieutenent C. McCarty Little, found that the budget would not allow for full construction. Working with the Miguel Cardona shipyard in Barcelona, they found two small vessels that had made trans-Atlantic passages before. In appearance, though, they were far from looking correct, so their hulls were shortened astern.

The end effect was dreadful. Both vessels proved difficult underway. Ultimately, they ended up being towed by naval ships to the Americas.

A quick look at the caravela latina, which was now the Niña, shows that while it looks good in profile and in rig, the hull, and in particular the below waterline and stern, are the wrong shape. This is actually the case with both vessels; their flat sterns go too deeply below the waterline, cutting the runs and producing poor qualities. The larger Santa Maria, while square sterned, did not have this problem.

The profile of the caravel found at the New York Public Library reveals much about the original thinking. 

Based upon the run of the wales, the stern appears to have been planned to end above the waterline. If the Segal Niña plans are acceptable evidence, that was the original intent.

The lines on the Segal drawing also appear to show a good run, certainly better than the replica, and the proportions are acceptable, though closer to a nao than a caravel.

That was not the fate that awaited the 1892 Niña. Instead, due in no small part to shortcuts taken, it was a miserable vessel. We have to rely on what information remains available to deduce whether the original plans could have produced much better results.

Just a little over twenty five years after being launched, both the 1892 Niña and Pinta were gone, followed in a few years by the larger Santa Maria. Oddly, these replicas left an unexpected legacy, in the form of artwork and models based upon the work of the Spanish Commission. 

In that sense, the Monleon caravel latina lives on.

Mislabeled Caravels

When it comes to maritime historical research, one can never be too cautious. 

Living as I do in northeast Florida, I lack access to many sources of information locally. Simply put, there is a serious dearth of such here in Jacksonville. Therefore, I rely on books and the Internet, as well as the libraries (which, sadly, seem to be on the decline lately). In any field, primary source information is always preferred, though not always practical to obtain.

In trying to confirm the validity of lateen rigged caravels with bowsprits, I made a mistake that many of us make.

That is to say, I took an Internet source at its word.

In truth, the source is probably unaware of the error as well; it is likely that this error has been propogated for a few years, and typical of such, has effectively developed a life all its own.

The problem to which I am referring is my recent discovery of a model of the caravel Niña that was attributed to a design by Julio F. Guillen y Tato, who is generally known for an interpretation of the Santa Maria. I did some research and located plans by Luis Segal for the same version of the Niña, and in examining them, felt that they looked feasible.

There remained an issue with confirming their authenticity, however. As much as I searched, I could find no evidence that Admiral Guillen y Tato ever made such a study.

Amazingly, whilst looking for something else at the New York Public Library Digital Collection site, I stumbled upon this - 

Below the image of Columbus you find two ships. On the left is the Santa Maria, and to its right you find a caravel, labelled "The Original Rig of the Niña and Pinta". This caravel looks familiar, and indeed appears to be the source of the Segal Niña plans. The image of the Santa Maria is of the Rafael Monleon y Torres interpretation. The style of both ships is similar.

As it turns out, the collections to which the image belongs predate Guillen y Tato's work by a few decades.

That is to say, the Niña that we see there is the Monleon y Torres version. If you compare an image of the 1892 replica to the Segal drawing, you can clearly see the strong similarity.

What does this mean for caravela latinas with bowsprits? There is still enough evidence to support an argument for their existence. However, there are other issues with Monleon's research that remain, and we will examine these later. 

The First Caravel Replicas

All three of the 1892 replicas, circa 1905
Background to foreground -
Pinta, Niña , Santa Maria - All images courtesy
U.S. Library of Congress

As previously mentioned in this blog, a caravel replica is under construction in St. Augustine, the Espiritu. This is being converted from the former fishing vessel "Apple Jack", and in many aspects looks like a decent enough project.

The first time caravel replicas were made from existing vessels, though, the results were less than satisfactory. 

We have to go back to 1892 and the work being done in preparation to the 400th anniversary celebration of Columbus' voyage. The Spanish Commission, under its chairman Fernandez Duro and chief researcher Rafael Monleon, had arrived at a final design for the replica Santa Maria. The caravels were treated almost like a secondary consideration. Monleon, an artist by training, felt that caravels were really just smaller vessels, not a separate class altogether. While quite a bit of attention was paid to the Santa Maria, little thought appears to have been given to the Niña and Pinta.

As the date approached, it was apparent that there were insufficient funds to build replicas of the two caravels from the keel up. An American naval officer attached to the project, Lt. C. McCarty Little, worked with the main shipyard involved with the project and found a simple solution. They chose two coaster vessels that had already proven capable of crossing the Atlantic. They were deemed satisfactory for the project, and the conversions commenced.

The problems began with the hull modifications. To make them appear more fifteenth century, the hulls of both vessels were shortened. The effect was a change in the runs below the waterline. The resultant vessels ended up being miserable sailers as a result.

Other problems also existed. 

Niña of 1892

While the Niña at least looked like a caravela latina, the Pinta more resembled a nao or small ship. It looked more like a smaller version of the Santa Maria, from the forecastle to the topsail. Again, this is in keeping with Monleon's belief that caravels were just smaller ships, not a different class.

Pinta of 1892

All three vessels proved to be difficult; while the Santa Maria did make the voyage under canvas, the caravels ended up being towed across the Atlantic. After the 1892 Columbian Exposition, they were to languish on the Great Lakes for the remainder of their days. By 1919, both caravels were gone, one being lost to fire, the other sinking.

Pinta, partially submerged

There are certain lessons here. First was Monleon's insistence that caravels were not a distinct class of vessel. His contemporary, Enrico d'Albertis, considered the caravel to be a wholly different type of vessel, distinct from naos, the class to which the Santa Maria belonged. While d'Albertis worked with the various commissions for the Columbus anniversary, his were not made in replica form, aside from models, though clearly being superior. It appears as if this lack of consideration led to the Niña and Pinta replicas being given secondary status in the reconstructions.

The next lesson has to do with the way sailing vessels operate. By this point in the 19th century, a better understanding of ship design certainly existed. Simply cutting off the rear of vessels, and as a result having runs that ended abruptly and fairly deep at flat sterns, is going to result in poor sailing. Even the flat sterned Santa Maria replica of 1892 had a run that ended closer to the waterline than did the two caravels. Somebody at the shipyards involved should have changed the hull runs; simply tucking the planking below the waterline up and narrowing off the sterns of the vessels would have resulted in better performance under sail. There were still plenty of caravel-like vessels afloat that should have served as reminders. Alas, they did not.

In the case of our Espiritu, the hull is fairly similar to what we might expect a caravel's to be. One major advantage, though, is the engine, something the 1892 replicas could have used but a necessary anachronistic consideration. 

It is not known if the Espiritu is going to be capable of truly sailing, but if the lessons of 1892 are an indicator, it is certainly superior, at least in hull build.