Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9 (2016) 178–190

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep

A preliminary exploration of Santa Elena's sixteenth century colonial

landscape through shallow geophysics
Victor D. Thompson a,b,⁎, Chester B. DePratter c, Amanda D. Roberts Thompson d
a
Center for Archaeological Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
b
Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
c
South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA
d
Laboratory of Archaeology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, the founder and first governor of La Florida, established several outposts in what is
Received 4 March 2016 now the southeastern United States. One was at the now famed city of St. Augustine (1565) and another in
Received in revised form 27 June 2016 1566 at the former French outpost of Charlesfort, now known as Santa Elena, marking the first Spanish occupa-
Accepted 27 June 2016
tion of the locale that would become Spain's capital in the region. In total, the colony of Santa Elena lasted for little
Available online 28 July 2016
more than two decades, as the Spanish abandoned the town in 1587. In 2014, we began a shallow geophysical
Keywords:
survey of the site to explore its broader landscape. Given that Santa Elena is one of the best-preserved six-
Spanish colonialism teenth-century towns in the United States, it presented one of the best opportunities for shallow geophysics to
Ground penetrating radar aid in historic sites investigations of this time period. The results of our work indicate that there is still much to
Magnetic survey be learned at the site as our ground penetrating radar, magnetic, and resistance surveys include the discovery
Resistance survey and potential identification of structures, Spanish wells and paths, and at least one lost sixteenth century fort.
Military forts Our preliminary work at Santa Elena not only demonstrates the great potential of these techniques at this site,
but at historic sites in general.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
During the sixteenth century several European powers began their
endeavor to establish footholds in the New World. Along the Atlantic
Coast of the southeastern United States both the French and Spanish
vied for dominance in what are now the states of Georgia, Florida, and
South Carolina. One of the more significant places where this colonial
drama played out was on Parris Island, South Carolina (Fig. 1).
In 1562, Jean Ribault established Charlesfort on Parris Island and left
a garrison of 27 men, who eventually mutinied and returned to France
(South 1982a; DePratter and South, 1995). This was not the end of
France's incursion into the area, and just a year later another expedition
was mounted, this time lead by René Goulaine de Laudonnière to estab-
lish another fort (Fort Caroline), this time on the banks of the St. Johns
River near modern day Jacksonville (Lyon, 1983:33–35). The efforts by
the French posed a serious threat to Spanish interests in the region,
and in 1565 Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, the Adelantado of La Florida, ar-
rived there and made short work of the French occupation, capturing or
killing almost all of the soldiers (DePratter and South, 1995; Lyon, 1984;
McGrath, 2000).
⁎ Corresponding author at: Center for Archaeological Sciences, University of Georgia,
Athens, GA, USA
E-mail address: vdthom@uga.edu (V.D. Thompson).
Menéndez established several outposts in the region at this time in-
cluding: one at the now famed city of St. Augustine (1565) and another
in 1566 at the former French outpost of Charlesfort, now known as
Santa Elena, marking the first Spanish occupation of the locale
(DePratter and South, 1995; Lyon, 1984). The first Santa Elena fort,
San Salvador, whose location is unknown, was just one of a series of
forts constructed there (DePratter and South, 1995). A succeeding fort,
Fort San Felipe (I), was constructed over the previous French Charlesfort
in 1566 (DePratter et al., 1996).
During this first Spanish occupation at Santa Elena, the site emerged
as a burgeoning town with artisans, farmers, and Jesuit missionaries to
convert the local Native Americans to Catholicism, among others
(Lyon, 1984). By 1569 there were over 200 settlers and over 40 domes-
tic structures (DePratter and South, 1995:8; Lyon, 1984:4). From 1570
to 1571, the colonists experienced extreme hardships suffering both
from a shortage of food and several episodes of epidemic disease, forc-
ing them to rely on the local Native American groups for supplies
(DePratter and South, 1995:8).
Fort San Felipe (I) burned in 1570, and a new fort, also named San
Felipe (II), was constructed at a new location closer to the landing.
Menéndez arrived with his family in July of 1571 at Santa Elena now
considered to be the capital of La Florida. As Lyon (1984:6) describes
it, he arrived with all the goods and supplies necessary for a comfortable
life in the colony. In 1574, Menéndez died while on a mission to Spain,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.06.055
2352-409X/© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 V.D. Thompson et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9 (2016) 178–190 179

Fig. 1. The location of Santa Elena along the South Carolina Coast of the United States.
180 V.D. Thompson et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9 (2016) 178–190
and Don Diego de Velasco took over as interim governor continuing in
that role until 1576 when Hernando de Miranda, the appointed Gover-
nor arrived at Santa Elena (DePratter and South, 1995:8; Lyon, 1984).
The colony, however, continued to experience difficulties and in 1576
it was attacked by Native Americans and abandoned (South and
DePratter, 1996:3). The sacking of the fort and town was due to the
poor treatment of the Native Americans on the part of the acting Gover-
nor and some of the colonists and resulted in a brief abandonment of the
town (DePratter and South, 1995:8; Lyon, 1984). This marked the end of
the first period of Spanish occupation at Santa Elena.
The second Spanish occupation began a year later when a new fort,
San Marcos (I), was constructed using material brought, in part, by
ship from St. Augustine (South and DePratter, 1996:3; Connor,
1925:267; Lyon, 1984). A drawing of this fort shows it consisting of a
two-story blockhouse with casemates or towers at opposite corners
with a large triangular gun platform facing the east toward the river ac-
cess. This first San Marcos was built on open ground in the midst of the
burned town for better defense against Indian attack (Lyon, 1984). This
fort was eventually dismantled due to deterioration, and a second San
Marcos (II) was constructed closer to the marsh edge. This move was
largely predicated on the knowledge that the English were making
their first attempts at settlement in the area (i.e., the Roanoke colony
of 1584) and there was word that Sir Francis Drake, the famed privateer,
was headed toward Florida after marauding in the Spanish territories
farther south (Lyon, 1984).
In total, the colony of Santa Elena lasted for little more than two de-
cades, as the Spanish abandoned the town in 1587 (South and
DePratter, 1996:4). The cause of Santa Elena's abandonment is directly
tied to British attacks, led by Sir Francis Drake, in the Caribbean and
on the port of St. Augustine (DePratter and South, 1995:11; South and
DePratter, 1996:4; Wright, 1951; Covington, 1965). The Spanish, want-
ing to consolidate their resources along the coast, shifted their capital
farther south to St. Augustine (Lyon, 1984). This allowed them to better
defend their holdings against feared French or English intrusions. The
Fort San Marcos (II) strong house and all the residences and outbuild-
ings in the town were destroyed prior to abandonment of the settle-
ment (DePratter and South, 1995:11; Lyon, 1984:15).
1.1. The archaeology of Santa Elena
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Charlesfort/Santa
Elena site was cleared and used for plantation agriculture, and after
the Civil War, it was home to families of freed slaves (Wise and
Rowland, 2015). In the late nineteenth-century, there was a growing
military presence on Parris Island, and in 1915, work was initiated to
purchase the entire island. In 1918, Marines were trained for action in
Europe at the Maneuver Grounds, a tent and barracks complex built
on top of Charlesfort/Santa Elena (Rowland and Wise 2015; Wise and
Rowland, 2015). Currently, the site sits on what is now The Legends
Golf Course at Parris Island on the U.S. Marine Corps Recruit Depot.
Though now not an active part of the course, the U.S. Marine Corps con-
tinue their stewardship of the site.
The general location of Charlesfort has been passed down in histor-
ical accounts for over 300 years, and residents of nearby Beaufort, South
Carolina, made trips to Parris Island to excavate relics from a visible fort
there. In 1923, a Marine Corps Major, George Osterhout, excavated in
this fort and proclaimed it to be Charlesfort (Osterhout, 1923). Florida
historians refused to accept this identification, because they were sure
Osterhout's excavations had been the Spanish fortification, San Marcos
(II) (Connor, 1927; Salley, 1925, 1927). It 1957 Albert Manucy, a Nation-
al Park Service historian from St. Augustine, examined Osterhout's arti-
facts and identified them as Spanish rather than French (Manucy, 1957).
With funds from the National Geographic Society, Stanley South
returned to the area of Osterhout's excavations finding that it was not
the French fort, but rather San Marcos (II), the last of Santa Elena's Span-
ish forts. North along the shoreline, South discovered the location of
another one of its forts, San Felipe (I) constructed in 1566 (DePratter
et al., 1996:viii; South and DePratter, 1996). Following this initial explo-
ration South returned for a number of field seasons to explore the town
and its forts (South, 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1984, 1985). Beginning in
1991, Chester DePratter joined him in his work there, finding the oldest
European-style kiln in North America and excavating some 1400 shovel
test pits in an attempt to discern the layout of the town (South and
DePratter, 1996:vii; DePratter and South, 1995). To date, work has
been conducted in Forts San Felipe (I) and San Marcos (II), the kiln
area, the lots owned by Santa Elena's last Governor in 1580–1587, and
isolated block units in several parts of the site. Provisional roads and
plaza area have been identified, as have likely locations for Fort San
Marcos (I) and the residence area of Pedro Menéndez and his family.
1.2. Anthropological geophysics and the Santa Elena landscapes project
“Through archaeological excavation, historical archaeology goes be-
yond those fragments on which our history is based, to learn about the
events, the people, the things they used, and the places that history failed
to record” (South and DePratter, 1996:1). South's words are relevant
today and we add that, along with excavation, remote sensing, broadly
defined, is also part of a suite of tools that historical archaeologists may
use to learn about the missing parts of history. In particular, we suggest
that remote sensing can be a valuable tool to aid in the visualization of
the historic landscape as well as provide key information regarding the
nature of relationships that bound people together within the built envi-
ronment. In addition, in certain situations, the data from remote sensing
itself can aid in the interpretation of documentary evidence.
In the past 10 years, there has been a growth in the number of stud-
ies that integrate remote sensing, both airborne and shallow geophysi-
cal, with more anthropologically centered questions, usually with some
notion of landscape or the built environment at their center (see
Conyers, 2006, 2010; Conyers and Leckebusch, 2010; Thompson et al.,
2011; Kvamme, 2003, 2008). In particular, more recent projects tend
to cover more area and include portions of the landscape where archae-
ologists do not expect to find features or buildings—in other words the
between spaces of the built environment (see Thompson et al., 2014).
Most recently, in both Britain and the United States there have been a
number of landscape scale geophysical endeavors, such as the Stone-
henge Landscape Project (Gaffney et al., 2012) and the work that is cur-
rently being conducted at several large Mississippian Period (CE 900 to
1500) mound centers throughout the southeastern United States (e.g.,
Bigman and Lanzarone, 2014; Bigman et al., 2011; Davis et al., 2014;
Haley, 2014; King et al., 2011). The use of shallow geophysics and aerial
remote sensing on historic sites is increasing in the Americas, although
few studies are published in peer review journals or books compared
to their prehistoric counterparts (see Bevan, 1991; Doolittle and
Bellantoni, 2010; Ellwood, 1990; Hargrave et al., 2002; King et al.,
1993; Silliman et al., 2000). Some examples of the more recently pub-
lished work that falls into this category includes Harmon et al. (2006)
use of LiDAR (light detection and ranging) of an eighteenth century plan-
tation landscape in Maryland and the long-term work by the American
Museum of Natural History on St. Catherines Island regarding the Span-
ish mission period (Blair, 2013) and the recent work by Moore et al.
(2004; see also Moore et al., 2014) at Spanish Fort San Juan. Our study
here adds to this growing body of literature on historic sites geophysics.
It is with the ideas outlined above that we began the Santa Elena
Landscapes Project. The site itself represents a unique opportunity to
map an entire colonial town—one that served as the northern-most cap-
ital of the Spanish Empire at one time. In contrast to St. Augustine, the
history of land use at Santa Elena makes it a prime candidate for large-
scale geophysical survey. Certainly there are areas of St. Augustine
that would benefit from such geophysical survey, but it's over
450 years of continuous occupation makes for not only complicated
stratigraphy in a urban environment (see Conyers, 2016 for a summary
of geophysics in urban environments), but it also presents substantial
 V.D. Thompson et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9 (2016) 178–190 181

challenges to not only conducting geophysical surveys but also to
interpreting the resulting data. In contrast, the comparatively fewer
post-Spanish modifications of Santa Elena make data collection sub-
stantially easier, as the site is still maintained as part of the golf course,
offering probably the best conditions imaginable for geophysicists who
work in the densely vegetated, sub-tropical, coastal regions of the
American South.
1.3. Research design
We began the Santa Elena Landscapes Project in 2014 and have now
made two trips for fieldwork, with more planned for 2016. The first in-
cluded a simple one day evaluation of which instruments might be the
most productive to use at the site. During the second visit, we conducted
a more intensive survey that initiated the start of our goal to cover the
entire town with ground penetrating radar (GPR), magnetic, and resis-
tance surveys. The rationale for using each of these instruments was
more out of pragmatism than research design, as the primary author's
laboratory houses all of these machines. Our major research goal for
this project is to examine the changing use of space at this colonial
town over the course of its 20-year occupation. To date, the historic doc-
uments and archaeological research provide important clues as to the
potential layout and location of buildings and streets; however, we do
not have the exact location and internal layout of the vast majority of
the thousands of features and dozens of buildings underneath the
green of the golf course.
In this paper, we present the preliminary results of the Santa Elena
Landscapes Project. Our initial goal for this first phase of research was
to define some of the major yet undefined structures at the site, which
include one of the forts, the location of Menéndez's house, as well as
street plans and lots in the town. In addition, we covered areas of previ-
ously known structures to evaluate some of the earlier interpretations.
These results reveal much about the layout of the colonial town and
now include the definitive location of one of the early forts (San Marcos
I) constructed at the site, as well as the possible locations of some of the
streets and other features of the town. These results suggest that it is
possible that the whole town can be mapped via shallow geophysical
survey, towards leading to a better and more comprehensive view of
the built environment of an early capital outpost of the Spanish Empire
in the New World.
2. Methods
Our geophysical survey of Santa Elena utilized the existing site grid
set in by Stanley South in 1979. However, because the Santa Elena
grid is in the English system of measurement, we did not rely on the
previously established grid corners. Instead, we chose to setup an arbi-
trary metric grid that used the same baseline datum and orientation. For
both the magnetic and resistance survey we set in 20 m-x-20 m collec-
tion grids. As the GPR is more flexible in terms of the size and shape of
grid, we varied the size and shape of the grids depending on the nature
of obstacles and impediments (e.g., ditches with water) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Map of Santa Elena showing the approximate location and size of the survey areas for the site. These areas are approximate because the exact configuration of the survey grids for
each method varied making it difficult to depict the exact area and configuration at this scale. Exact coordinates for each of the survey grids is available in the final report.
182 V.D. Thompson et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9 (2016) 178–190

For the GPR survey we employed a Geophysical Survey Systems Inc.
SIR 3000 ground penetrating radar system. We collected all data for the
entire survey with a 400 MHz antenna. The 400 MHz antenna is the
most frequently used antenna for archaeological surveys, as it transmits
radar waves between three to four meters in depth with a resolution of
0.30–0.40 m (Conyers 2005). Collection of GPR data was in 50 cm
spaced transect lines. As outlined in previous publications (e.g.,
Thompson and Pluckhahn, 2010; Thompson et al., 2014), we processed
all data in GPR-SLICE and GPR viewer, presenting the data as either am-
plitude time slices or individual profiles depending on the nature of
phenomenon represented. For detailed information on the mechanics
of GPR, we refer the reader to Conyers (2006, 2016).
For the magnetic survey we used a Bartington Grad-601 Fluxgate
Gradiometer. All data was collected in 50 cm transects with 8 samples
per meter. We processed the gradiometer data using TerraSurveyor, ap-
plying the procedure outlined by Gater and Gaffney (2003: 104, Fig. 29).
For an in-depth explanation of magnetic survey in archaeology we refer
the readers to Kvamme (2006) and Gater and Gaffney (2003).
We used a Geoscan RM85 Advanced Resistance Meter for our electri-
cal resistance survey. For general information on the exact nature of this
technique in archaeology see Sommers (2006) and Gater and Gaffney
(2003). Briefly, we used a parallel twin probe array with a multiplexor,
allowing for the collection of two readings per insertion on either side of
the one-meter traverse transects. Our sample interval along transects
was 50-cm. The probe separation for both sides was 50-cm, allowing
for the recording of information approximately 50-cm below the sur-
face. As with the gradiometer survey, we processed all data using
TerraSurveyor, applying the procedure outlined by Gater and Gaffney
(2003: 104, Fig. 29) for resistance surveys. For an in-depth explanation
of electrical resistance survey in archaeology we refer the readers to
Kvamme (2006) and Gater and Gaffney (2003).
While we were confident that our imaging survey covered portions
of the first San Felipe, we had only a general idea of where to survey for
the second iteration of the fort. We surmised that we should be able to
image the excavated moat. We collected several GPR transects in an
area proposed by DePratter as the likely location of San Felipe (II).
There appears to be at least one locale that returns high amplitude re-
flections that are possibly commensurate with a ditch or moat (Fig. 5).
Fallen tree branches in this area precluded extensive coverage. We
plan to return to this area in the future for larger scale investigations.
3.2. San Marcos and the Casa de Menéndez?
There were two forts named San Marcos, I and II respectively. San
Marcos (II) was the structure excavated by Osterhout and initially
thought to be Charlesfort, but later determined to be the last Spanish
fort. San Marcos (I) was constructed in 1577 after the first abandonment
of Santa Elena in the previous year. What is most intriguing about this
fort is that we actually have a drawing of the structure (Fig. 6). In addi-
tion, based on shovel test survey, historic documents, and the fact that
we knew that the 5000 lbs. guns on the northwest platform of the fort
pointed toward San Felipe (II), one of us (DePratter and South,
1995:87) suspected the approximate location of structure.
Until our current survey, the exact location of San Marcos (I) had not
been confirmed. This is perhaps the most historically significant finding
of our current research. In our preliminary survey of this area during our
first research trip to the site we just happened to clip the area of the fort
along one of its walls with both our GPR and magnetic gradiometer

3. Results

In total, the amount of ground covered by each instrument separate-

ly was just over 1 ha covered by GPR, 0.5 ha of gradiometer survey, and
0.5 ha of resistance survey. Here, we present the results of the survey
based on the areas defined by the previous archaeological research.

3.1. San Felipe

There were two forts named San Felipe, referenced as I and II, at
Santa Elena. We now know that the one excavated by South is San
Felipe (I), which was in use between CE 1566 and 1570, though he in-
correctly identified it as San Felipe (II) (South 1982b, 1983, 1984;
South and DePratter, 1996:41). San Felipe (II) was in use between
1570 and 1576, and it has not yet been located. Regardless, the fort ex-
cavated by South shows that the Spaniards excavated a one-foot wide
ditch to form the outline of the northwest bastion in which they placed
vertical set posts just interior to the moat (South and DePratter,
1996:41). Inside this structure, South uncovered the remains of what
he calls a casa fuerte that had large post holes (ca. 120 cm in diameter),
in addition to two wells and other features. Based on this information,
South and DePratter (1996):50) provides a map of the San Felipe (I).
No remains of San Felipe (II) have ever been found, although DePratter
suspects that its location is between San Marcos (II) and San Felipe (I).
We conducted a GPR survey over what we thought was the area of
the southwest portion of the fort, including a bastion. Our results indi-
cate that almost the entire southwest bastion remains intact. The out-
line of the features appears as pattern of high amplitude reflections
(Fig. 3). In addition, there are point source high amplitude reflections
that may represent posts associated with the so-called casa fuerte. In ad-
dition, there are several large point source reflections of significant size
to possibly represent a Spanish well or other similarly large features Fig. 3. Amplitude slice map of San Felipe (I) showing the possible locations of the southern
(Fig. 4). This also had secondary returns and likely has metal associated bastion walls of the fort, interior posts, and a possible Spanish well. Black arrow line shows
with it. the location and direction of the GPR profile depicted in Fig. 4.
 V.D. Thompson et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9 (2016) 178–190 183

Fig. 4. GPR profile from the survey of San Felipe (I) showing the large high amplitude reflection possibly representing the Spanish well in Fig. 2. There are multiple secondary reflections for
this feature and some appear to represent metal. Such a pattern would fit well with what we currently know of previously excavated wells that sometimes have barrels with metal bands
around them.

survey. Our initial survey of this area stopped in the area of heavier veg-
etation in order to simplify data collection—these areas are represented
as blank spaces in our subsequent survey of the area described below.
During our second trip, we returned to this area with the intention of
covering the entire area of the suspected location of the fort.
All three geophysical methods (i.e., SIR 3000 GPR, RM-85, and Grad-
601) corroborate the existence of a large structure of the approximate
dimensions based on the historic descriptions of San Marcos (I) in the
exact predicted location of the fort. Our resistance survey of the area
located a roughly tapering area of both high and low resistance in the vi-
cinity of the fort (Fig. 7). Interestingly, there are areas of higher resis-
tance nearer to the front of the fort (southeastern extent) and nearer
to the back (northwestern extent) with lower resistance values in
between.
In the magnetic gradiometer results there are high gradient linear
anomalies that form two perpendicular lines in the data (Fig. 8). Inter-
estingly, there do not appear to be any high gradient anomalies corre-
sponding to the northern side of the fort. There are several reasons

Fig. 5. GPR profile from the survey in the hypothesized vicinity of San Felipe (II). GPR high amplitude reflections possibly represent the ditch associated with Fort San Felipe (II).
184 V.D. Thompson et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9 (2016) 178–190
Fig. 6. Drawing of San Marcos I showing the casemates and gun positions.
Archivo General de Indias, Seville, Mapas y Planos, Mexico 46. From Hoffman (1978):
Fig. 8.
why this might be the case. It is possible that the north wall may be
missing or damaged due to the construction of a modern drainage
ditch in the area. There are a few medium-to-high gradient anomalies
that lie inside the area of the fort that could represent wells. There is
one medium-to-high gradient anomaly in the southeastern portion of
Fig. 7. Resistance map showing the location of San Marcos (I), the 38BU81H excavation block by DePratter and South, and the possible location of Menéndez house lot structure. The fort is
denoted by high and moderate resistance values and seems to be tapering toward the southeast. The front triangular bastion seen in the drawing of the fort in Fig. 6 is likely located just
outside of our survey area.
one of the previous excavation units that is a confirmed Spanish well
(see Figs. 8; 9).
Our GPR survey perhaps provides the most comprehensive view of
the interior structure of the fort. There are numerous high amplitude
linear features in the data that likely represent the exterior and interior
wall of the fort itself. These linear features are present in multiple ampli-
tude time slice maps (Fig. 10). While the GPR amplitude slice image is
not a perfect representation of the fort, there are some prominent corre-
lations. There are several notable right angles that perhaps represent in-
terior walls and walkways inside the fort. It appears that the
southeastern triangular point of the structure lies outside of the survey
area to the east and may have been impacted by a modern sidewalk as-
sociated with the golf course. On the northwestern side of the fort, the
GPR amplitude slice map and radargram profile seem to indicate possi-
ble massive posts in this area likely for the two story casemate or tower
at this location (Fig. 11).
In addition to San Marcos (I), our survey in the area just south of this
structure provides information on the layout of the town during the
years 1570–1576. This area is thought to be on the southern side of a
plaza for the town at the time (DePratter and South, 1995). It was in
this locale that DePratter believed Pedro Menéndez de Avilés had his
residence and perhaps other associated buildings for the large number
of people in his extended family. In this area, DePratter and South
(1995:47-49) identified concentrations of daub as well as olive jar
sherds.
The results of our geophysical survey in this area show what could
possibly be a structure associated with the house lot of Menéndez. In
the resistance survey data there is a roughly rectangular area of high
 V.D. Thompson et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9 (2016) 178–190
Fig. 8. Magnetic gradiometer map showing the location of San Marcos (I), the 38BU51H and 38BU51G excavation blocks by DePratter and South, and the possible wells or other features.
resistance that corresponds to one of hypothesized locations of
Menéndez's house (see Fig. 7). The magnetic gradiometer data for this
area are not as clear; however, there do appear to be several low to
moderate gradient anomalies in this area as well. While the magnetic
footprint for a structure is not pronounced in this area, there are several
moderate to high magnetic gradient anomalies in the general vicinity
that could possible represent Spanish wells associated with Menéndez's
house lot or associated buildings (see Fig. 8).
The GPR survey results for the Menéndez house lot area corroborate
the existence of a possible structure in the area. In fact, the amplitude
slice map shows an area of high amplitude planar reflections in the
same area that the resistance survey shows an area of higher resistance
(Figs. 12 and 13). The GPR amplitude slice maps for this area are some-
what distorted due to an adjacent former golf green. Unfortunately, at
the time of the writing of this article we did not have access to elevation
data to correct for topography.
Finally, one of the more interesting aspects of the GPR survey in this
area is the possibility of paths or roads related to Spanish activities. We
185
do know that the Spanish divided the town at this time into house lots
and there were paths and “streets” associated with these divisions. In
fact, DePratter and South (1995) based on limited excavation of one of
these streets projected the location of other streets. The GPR data
shows linear planar reflections in several amplitude slice maps that cor-
respond to the projected general angle and direction for these features
(Fig. 14). We suggest that is exactly what these features represent; how-
ever, limited testing is necessary to confirm the pattern for these fea-
tures, as well as the hypothesized structure in this area of the site. In
addition, the larger survey of this area shows additional high amplitude
reflections that could also represent Spanish structures.
3.3. La Ciudad
During Santa Elena's later occupation (1566–1587), the focus of
town life shifted north of the area of San Marcos (I) and the plaza. In
this part of the site, there were numerous house lots, wells, and associ-
ated domestic structures and activities. We conducted a large 40 m-×-
186 V.D. Thompson et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9 (2016) 178–190
Fig. 9. Photograph of a known Spanish well feature in excavation block 38BU51G.
From DePratter (2014): Fig. 16.
40 m GPR survey in this area. This survey produced similar results as the
area in the vicinity of Menéndez's lot.
In several of the amplitude slice map, there are both point source
and planar high amplitude reflections that form right angles and
straight lines (Fig. 15). Several of these groupings of reflections might
possibly be the result of buried structures. In addition, some of the lon-
ger linear reflections may represent “streets” such as the ones observed
in the region south of San Marcos (I). Finally, some of the larger point
Fig. 10. GPR amplitude slice map showing the location of San Marcos (I) along with some
of the possible features represented in the data including a possible rear bastion and the
munitions room (compare to Fig. 5). Black arrow line shows the location and direction
of the GPR profile depicted in Fig. 11.
source reflections appear to represent Spanish wells (Fig. 16). This
area of our survey perhaps returned the most complex results. The rea-
son for this is because there is so much information, as well as the po-
tential for features that date to the post-Spanish occupation of the site.
We will need to do further testing to confidently correlate specific geo-
physical results with known archaeological features.
4. Discussion and conclusions
The coasts of the American Southeast were “ground zero” for colonial
entanglements (Thompson and Worth 2011:79), and by the mid-six-
teenth century Santa Elena was at the forefront of such interactions. As
Spain's capital in what is now the United States, it was more than simply
an outpost of a colonial power; it was an attempt to bring Spanish ideals
and values to this portion of the New World. Over the two decades of its
occupation, its inhabitants transformed this location into a European
town replete with a concejo (city government), soldiers, tailors, Jesuits
priests, potters, and money lenders, among others (see Lyon, 1984).
The occupation of Santa Elena did not occur in a vacuum, but rather
amidst the large Native polities of the Orista and other groups that reg-
ularly interacted with the fledgling capital. In addition, Santa Elena was
also embedded within a world system of global politics and its concom-
itant struggles to make claims and control resources in their expanding
exploration and conquest (see Lyon, 1984; Hoffman, 1990, 2001). These
various interactions certainly influenced the inner workings of Santa
Elena and thus it likely was not simply merely a total transposition of
a Spanish town, but rather a place that was a product of both global
and micro-histories.
While the historic documents associated with the settlement pro-
vide researchers with invaluable insight into the larger histories of
Santa Elena and even some of the individuals and roles that they played
in its story, the enactment of day-to-day living is found in the realm of
archaeology. In particular, the way in which space was constructed,
reimagined, and lived in the daily lives of the settlers is an important
piece of the story yet to be fully explored at the site, and indeed few pro-
jects have explored whole colonial settlements. Given the importance of
Santa Elena, large-scale excavation must be minimized. This is where
large-scale shallow geophysics can provide important data regarding
the use of space and architecture at such sites (see Thompson et al.,
2011).
 V.D. Thompson et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9 (2016) 178–190
Fig. 11. GPR profile from the survey of San Marcos (I) showing a large high amplitude reflection possibly representing large pots associated with one of the bastion gun platforms of the fort.
Our preliminary exploration of Santa Elena is revealing unknown
structures, new features of previously known structures, and poten-
tially the layouts of streets and other pathways in this colonial town.
Fig. 12. GPR amplitude slice map showing features associated with a possible Menéndez
house lot structure. Black arrow line shows the length, location, and direction of the
traverse depicted in Fig. 13.
187
This information coupled with archaeological excavation will be able
to provide us with insight into the daily lives of the people who occu-
pied Santa Elena. This is particularly interesting as we know that
there were several times the site was abandoned or forts had to be
reconstructed due to attacks. The repositioning and constructing of
new forts, such as San Marcos (I), was in part a response and strategy
to survive in the broader landscape of foreign powers, both Native
and others, that increasingly threatened the Spanish foothold in
the region.
At this point in our research, we have established that GPR, mag-
netic gradiometer, and resistance survey can provide important
data sets regarding the nature of space and architecture at Santa
Elena. Using these data sets in conjunction with historic documents,
we have now discovered San Marcos (I) and possibly a structure as-
sociated with the lot of Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, among other fea-
tures in the town. Our preliminary work at Santa Elena not only
demonstrates the great potential of these techniques at this site,
but at historic sites in general. While geophysical survey is not
new to historic site archaeology, its full potential has yet to be real-
ized. We suggest that if researchers have this in mind at the start of
their project then such surveys can be more productively carried
out in the context of a specific research question (see Thompson
et al., 2011).
In our current project, the question that is driving us is how
settlers in the town lived out their daily life through spatial
practices–that is how they enacted and used space on a day-to-
day basis. We report here on our preliminary results of the
Santa Elena Landscapes Project, which sought to establish which
techniques were most effective for the survey and then begin to
explore the use of space at the site by surveying areas of the land-
scape where we have documented structures. Our next phase of
the project is to cover the entire town of Santa Elena, exploring
not just its historic structures, but also the spaces in between in
order to better understand the Spanish colonial experiences and
its struggle in the New World.
Acknowledgments
This research is based upon work supported by the Santa Elena
Foundation. The South Carolina Institute for Archaeology and Anthro-
pology, University of South Carolina and the Department of
188 V.D. Thompson et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9 (2016) 178–190

Fig. 13. GPR profile from the survey of a possible Menéndez house lot structure showing a large high amplitude planar reflection possibly representing the floor of a structure.

Fig. 14. GPR amplitude slice map showing the broader area around the possible Menéndez house lot structure. Three linear features are present in the data and may represent Spanish
streets/paths. Two are apparent in this data set and run perpendicular to one another. There is a third that is much more subtle, but is readily apparent on other amplitude slice maps
that runs directly into the possible Menéndez house lot structure.
 V.D. Thompson et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9 (2016) 178–190 189

Fig. 15. GPR amplitude slice map of Santa Elena's town area. Again, there are linear features present in the data and many represent Spanish streets/paths. In addition, several of the shorter
linear features may possibly represent walls of structures, with large singular point-source reflections possibly representing Spanish wells. Black arrow line shows the location and
direction of the GPR profile depicted in Fig. 16.

Anthropology and Laboratory of Archaeology at the University of Geor- English, Taylor Davis, Isabelle Lulewicz, Jake Lulewicz, and Adam Coker
gia provided additional support for this research. We thank the U.S. Ma- tremendously helped with the remote sensing survey. Without them,
rine Corps of Parris Island for allowing us access to the site. Mary Scales the work would not have been possible.

Fig. 16. GPR profile from the survey of Santa Elena's town area showing the large high amplitude reflection possibly representing the Spanish well denoted in Fig. 15. Note the similarity to
the radargram in Fig. 3 also thought to possibly represent a Spanish well. Again, there are multiple secondary reflections for this feature.
190 V.D. Thompson et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 9 (2016) 178–190
References
Bevan, B.W., 1991. The search for graves. Geophysics 56 (9), 1310–1319.
Bigman, D.P., Lanzarone, P.M., 2014. Investigating construction history, labour investment
and social change at Ocmulgee National Monument's Mound A, Georgia, USA, using
ground‐penetrating radar. Archaeol. Prospect. 21, 213–224.
Bigman, D.P., King, A., Walker, C.P., 2011. Recent geophysical investigations and new in-
terpretations of Etowah's palisade. Southeast. Archaeol. 30, 38–50.
Blair, E.H., 2013. Native American landscapes of Mission Santa Catalina de Guale: thirty
years of geophysics at a Spanish colonial mission. In: Thompson, V.D., Thomas, D.H.
(Eds.), Life Among the Tides: Recent Archaeology on the Georgia Bight. Anthropolog-
ical Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, pp. 375–393.
Connor, J.T., 1925. Colonial Records of Spanish Florida: Letters and Reports of Governors
and Secular Persons. Volume I. Florida State Historical Society, Publication, Deland,
Florida Vol. 5.
Connor, J.T., 1927. The Whole and True Discovery of Terra Florida. Florida State Historical
Society, Deland.
Conyers, L.B., 2005. Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. AltaMira Press.
Conyers, L.B., 2006. Ground penetrating radar for landscape archaeology: methods and
applications. In: Campana, S., Piro, S. (Eds.), Seeing the Unseen. Taylor and Francis,
London, pp. 245–255.
Conyers, L.B., 2010. Ground-penetrating radar for anthropological research. Antiquity 84,
1–11.
Conyers, L.B., 2016. Ground-penetrating Radar for Geoarchaeology. John Wiley & Sons.
Conyers, L.B., Leckebusch, J., 2010. Geophysical archaeology research agendas for the fu-
ture: some ground-penetrating radar examples. Archaeol. Prospect. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/arp.379.
Covington, J.W., 1965. Drake destroys St. Augustine. Fla. Hist. Q. 44, 81–93.
Davis, J.R., Walker, C.P., Blitz, J.H., 2014. Remote sensing as community settlement analysis
at Moundville. Am. Antiq. 80, 161–169.
DePratter, C.B., 2014. Proposed Search for Governor's Lot on United States Marine Corps
Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina. Research Proposal. South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology; University of South Carolina, Columbia
DePratter, C.B., South, S., 1995. Discovery at Santa Elena: Boundary Survey. Research Man-
uscript Series Vol. 221. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology,
University of South Carolina, Columbia.
DePratter, C.B., South, S., Legg, J.B., 1996. The discovery of Charlesfort. Trans. Huguenot
Soc. S. C. 101, 39–48.
Doolittle, J.A., Bellantoni, N.F., 2010. The search for graves with ground-penetrating radar
in Connecticut. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 941–949.
Ellwood, B.B., 1990. Electrical resistivity surveys in two historical cemeteries in Northeast
Texas: a method for delineating unidentified burial shafts. Hist. Archaeol. 24, 91–98.
Gaffney, C., Gaffney, V., Neubauer, W., Baldwin, E., Chapman, H., Garwood, P., Doneus, M.,
2012. The Stonehenge hidden landscapes project. Archaeol. Prospect. 19, 147–155.
Gater, J., Gaffney, C., 2003. Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists. Tem-
pest, Wiltshire.
Haley, B.S., 2014. The big picture at Hollywood: geophysical and archaeological investiga-
tions at a Mississippian Mound Centre. Archaeol. Prospect. 21, 39–47.
Hargrave, M.L., Somers, L.E., Larson, T.K., Shields, R., Dendy, J., 2002. The role of resistivity
survey in historic site assessment and management: an example from Fort Riley,
Kansas. Hist. Archaeol. 36, 89–110.
Harmon, J.M., Leone, M.P., Prince, S.D., Snyder, M., 2006. Lidar for archaeological landscape
analysis: a case study of two eighteenth-century Maryland plantation sites. Am.
Antiq. 649–670.
Hoffman, P., 1978. Sixteenth Century Fortifications on Parris Island, South Carolina. Ms. on
file at the National Geographical Society Washington D.C.
Hoffman, P., 1990. A New Andalucia and a Way to the Orient: The American Southeast
During the Sixteenth Century. LSU Press, Baton Rouge.
Hoffman, P., 2001. Florida's Frontiers. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
King, J.A., Bevan, B.W., Hurry, L.J., 1993. The reliability of geophysical surveys at historic-
period cemeteries: an example from the plains cemetery, Mechanicsville, Maryland.
Hist. Archaeol. 27, 4–16.
King, A., Walker, C.P., Sharp, R.V., Reilly, F.K., McKinnon, D.P., 2011. Remote sensing data
from Etowah's Mound A: architecture and the re-creation of Mississippian tradition.
Am. Antiq. 355–371.
Kvamme, K.L., 2003. Geophysical surveys as landscape archaeology. Am. Antiq. 68,
435–457.
Kvamme, K.L., 2006. Magnetometry: nature's gift to archaeology. In: Johnson, J. (Ed.), Re-
mote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 251–268.
Kvamme, K.L., 2008. Archaeological prospecting at the double ditch state historic site,
North Dakota, USA. Archaeol. Prospect. 15, 62–79.
Lyon, E., 1983. The Enterprise of Florida. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Lyon, E., 1984. Santa Elena: A Brief History of the Colony. Research Manuscript Series Vol.
193. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia, South
Carolina.
Manucy, A., 1957. Report on Relics from 1923 Excavation of Fortification Site on Parris Is-
land, South Carolina (Manuscript) National Park Service, St. Augustine, Florida.
McGrath, J., 2000. The French in Florida: In the Eye of the Hurricane. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville.
Moore, D.G., Beck Jr., R.A., Rodning, C.B., 2004. Joara and Fort San Juan: culture contact at
the edge of the world. Antiquity 78, 1566–1568.
Moore, D.G., Beck Jr., R.A., Rodning, C.B., Sherwood, S.C., 2014. Continuing investigation of
the Fort San Juan Moat/Ditch at the Berry site. Paper Presented at the 71st Annual
Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Tampa, Florida.
Osterhout, G., 1923. After three hundred and fifty years-being the story of Charles' fort,
built by Jean Ribault in 1562 on what is now known as Parris Island, South Carolina.
Mar. Corps Gaz. 98–109 (June).
Rowland, L., Wise, S., 2015. Bridging the Sea Island's Past and Present, 1893–2006: The
History of Beaufort County, South Carolina, Volume 3. University of South Carolina
Press, Columbia South Carolina.
Salley, A.S., 1925. The Spanish settlement at port royal, 1565–1586. S. C. Hist. Geneal. Mag.
26, 31–40.
Salley, A.S., 1927. The site of Charlesfort. In: Connor, J.T. (Ed.), The Whole and True Discov-
ery of Florida. Florida State Historical Society, Deland, pp. 113–124.
Silliman, S.W., Farnsworth, P., Lightfoot, K.G., 2000. Magnetometer prospecting in histor-
ical archaeology: evaluating survey options at a 19th-century rancho site in Califor-
nia. Hist. Archaeol. 34, 89–109.
Sommers, L., 2006. Resistivity survey. In: Johnson, J.K. (Ed.), Remote Sensing in Archaeol-
ogy: An Explicitly North American Perspective. University of Alabama Press, Tusca-
loosa, pp. 109–130.
South, S., 1982a. A Search for the French Charlesfort of 1562. Research Manuscript Series
Vol. 177. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of
South Carolina, Columbia.
South, S., 1982b. Exploring Santa Elena 1981. Research Manuscript Series Vol. 184. South
Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina,
Columbia.
South, S., 1983. Revealing Santa Elena 1982a. Research Manuscript Series Vol. 188. South
Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina,
Columbia.
South, S., 1984. Testing Archaeological Sampling Methods at Fort San Felipe 1983. Re-
search Manuscript Series Vol. 190. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and An-
thropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
South, S., 1985. Excavation of the Casa Fuerte and Wells at Fort San Felipe 1984. Research
Manuscript Series Vol. 196. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropolo-
gy, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
South, S., DePratter, C.B., 1996. Discovery at Santa Elena: Block Excavation 1993. Research
Manuscript Series Vol. 222. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropolo-
gy, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Thompson, V.D., Pluckhahn, T.J., 2010. History, complex hunter-gatherers, and the
mounds and monuments of Crystal River, Florida, USA: a geophysical perspective.
J. I. Coast. Archaeol. 5, 33–51.
Thompson, V.D., Arnold, P.J.I.I.I., Pluckhahn, T.J., VanDerwarker, A.M., 2011. Situating re-
mote sensing in anthropological archaeology. Archaeol. Prospect. 18, 195–213.
Thompson, V.D., Worth, J., 2011. Dwellers by the Sea: Native American Adaptations along
the Southern Coasts of Eastern North America. J. Archaeol. Res. 19, 51–101.
Thompson, V.D., Marquardt, W.H., Walker, K.J., 2014. A remote sensing perspective on
shoreline modification, canal construction and household trajectories at pineland
along Florida's southwestern Gulf Coast. Archaeol. Prospect. 21, 59–73.
Wise, S., Rowland, L., 2015. Rebellion, Reconstruction, and Redemption, 1861–1893. The
History of Beaufort County. Volume 2. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia,
South Carolina.
Wright, I., 1951. Further English Voyages to Spanish America, 1583–1594. Hakluyt Socie-
ty, London.