He explained the difference in corrosion: the Port- 

 au-Prince anchor had lain in alluvial river soil, where it 

 was seldom, if ever, exposed to salt; while our anchor had 

 been exposed constantly to the electrolytic action of sea 

 water for nearly five centuries. Very little corrosion takes 

 place in fresh water or mud, he said. 



The two anchors were of the same type of construc- 

 tion, Pete found. The arms and shank were of the same 

 approximate weight and cross-sectional size. The Port-au- 

 Prince anchor measured sixty inches from fluke to fluke, 

 while our anchor — ^minus the flukes, which had completely 

 corroded away — measured fifty-five inches. The complete 

 anchor was 117% inches long, while the broken one meas- 

 ured 78 inches. The missing section of shank and ring 

 would easily make up this difference. The two anchors 

 originally could have been duplicates. 



"I beheve these anchors definitely came from a ship- 

 wreck," Pete declared, "for it is most unhkely that a ship 

 would otherwise lose its two main anchors in the same har- 

 bor. As the Santa Maria was probably the only ship of that 

 period to go down in Cap Haitien harbor, it seems very 

 logical that both anchors came from her." 



He later took samples of the metal from both relics 

 to be tested by the U.S. Bureau of Standards. Their reports 

 confirmed that the two anchors were fashioned from iron 

 of the same type and period. 



It was Ed's intention to continue his search for the 

 Santa Maria during this second visit to Cap Haitien. But 

 he had not reckoned on the weather. This time, instead 

 of high winds and rough seas, he found that tlie rainy 

 season had commenced, and that swollen rivers and 

 streams were dumping quantities of mud into the harbor. 

 The water, which had been clear in the spring, was so 



Search for the Santa Maria 225 



