mazinga habs survey report - st. eustatius / statia

�

Mazinga Warehouse: An

Archaeological and Architectural Survey at the Waterfront

Written by

G. Labiau (SECAR)

L. Nelson, PhD

(University of Virginia)

Principal Investigator

R. Grant Gilmore III, PhD

August 2008

St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research

�

Acknowledgements

TheSECARandtheAuthorswouldliketothankTonyandLeontineDurbyfortheir

foresightforhiringarchaeologistsandarchitectswiththeirprojectonthebay.Wewould

alsoverymuchappreciatetheirpatienceandunderstandingduringtheproductionofthis

report.Furthermore,wewouldliketoexpressourthankstoalltheindividualswhohave

helpedusalongtheway--includingthefamilyfromFrance!

WelookforwardtoworkingwiththeDurby’sasthismostambitiousofrestorations-

-the first of its kind on Statia moves towards completion.


�

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements �

ProjectOverview 5

�.Administrativedata 6�.�.ReasonforResearch 8�.�.ResearchGoal 8�.4.Introduction 9

�.Introduction �0�.�.Historicalcontext �0�.�.Environmentalcontext ��

�.�.LowerTown,pastresearch �4

�.�.�.LowerTown,historicalsources �4

�.�.�.LowerTown,archaeologicalresearch �8

�.�.�.MazingaWarehouse,knowndata �0 ��.4.ResearchMethods ��.5.ResearchQuestions ��.6.Reportorganization �4

�.HABSReport(DrawingsinAppendix�) �4�.�.HABSStandards �5�.�.Overviewofthedrawings(seeAppendix�-Thedrawing-numbersareidenticaltotheparagraph

numbers.) �5�.�.Measurements �6

4.MazingaWarehouse,HistoricalArchitecturalSurvey �94.�.Description �94.�.DiscussionofChronology ��4.�.Recommendations �5

5.WarehouseMazinga,anArchaeologicalSurvey/Excavation �8

(Appendix�,Appendix�(onCD)) �85.�.ZoneIandSouthernExterior(SeeAppendix�;5.�.) �85.�.ZoneIIandIII(SeeAppendix�;5.�.) 405.�.Exterior(SeeAppendix�;5.�.) 4�5.4.Researchquestions 4�

6.Conclusions 48

APPENDIX�-HABSDRAWINGS 50

APPENDIX�–ARCHAEOLOGICALDRAWINGS 65TerminiPostQuem 68Datesonthepipes 69


4


5

Project Overview

The“Mazinga”Warehouseprojecthasproventobeveryinformative,givingarangeofnewinsights

concerning the structure, its place in economy of St. E ustatius, and the central Benedendorp or

Lower Town. The most important conclusion coming from current research is the identification of

thestructureasbeingtheDutchGabledbuilding,knownfromseveral�8thand�9thcenturysketches,

which transforms it into a unique site with a high historical significance. Current archaeological

andarchitecturalresearchdescribedinthisreport,formsthebasisforfuturearchivalandhistorical

research.


6

1. Administrative data

Site Name: “Mazinga”Warehouse,Waterfront,LowerTown,St.Eustatius

Site Number: SE�4�

Title: “Mazinga”Warehouse,anArchaeologicalExcavationandanArchitecturalSurvey

atthewaterfront,S.E.C.A.R report 001-2008

Year of research & publication: �008

Author: G.Labiau

CO-Author: L.Nelson

Authorized Senior Archaeologist (ASA):Dr.R.G.GilmoreIII

Signature ASA:

Executive Archaeological Organization: SECAR,St.EustatiusCenterforArchaeological

Research

Contact data: RosemaryLaan

Oranjestad

St.EustatiusEUX

[email protected]

[email protected]

Tel:599/��80066


�

Developers:Leontine&AntonneDurby

Contact data: #4 PleasuresRoad

Oranjestad

St.EustatiusEUX

[email protected]

Tel:599��8�56�

Data & Artefact Archive: SECAR,St.EustatiusCenterforArchaeologicalResearch

RosemaryLaan

Oranjestad

St.EustatiusEUX

MadameTheatre

FortOranjestraat

Oranjestad

St.EustatiusEUX

�.�.SiteDescription

Site name:“Mazinga”Warehouse,Waterfront,LowerTown,St.Eustatius

Site number: SE�4�

Current use:vacant

Planned developing:Reconstruction,restoration

Research Area:Approximately9.89by�4.65meters/��.45by48feet

Site type:Standingstructure

Geographical characteristics:thesubsoilconsistsofsand.

Archaeological expectation:Post-Medieval,warehouse/otheruse,architecturalhistory.


8

1.2. Reason for Research

Inthenearfuture,developmentintheformofthereconstructionorrestorationofthestructurewill

takeplace.IncommunicationwiththeIslandArchaeologist,theownersofthewarehousedecidedto

recovertheavailablehistoricaldataaboutthebuilding;thisinordertocontributetothereconstruction

oftherichColonialpastofSt.Eustatius.

1.3. Research Goal

TheimportanceofthearchaeologicalremainsintheLowerTown,St.Eustatius,lieswithinthefact

thattheWaterfrontareausedtobetheeconomicheartoftheisland,andoftheentireCaribbeanfor

that matter. Since much of the commercial activity was performed illegally, and thus no -official-

dataareavailable, archaeological research in thisareacanprovideus, and futurehistorians,with

awholenewrangeof informationon theeconomic lifeand importanceof the -undoubtedlyvery

international- region during the Colonial period.The study of the archaeological remains in this

area, and consequently of “Mazinga” Warehouse, is essential for the further reconstruction and

understandingofSt.Eustatius’past.

Furthermore,conductingresearchonruins,andstudyingthepastofacommunityingeneralcreates

a feeling of timelessness and stability. It can create a feeling of collective pride and it confirms the

identityof thegroupwhichhistoryisbeinginvestigated.Therefore,oneof thecurrentgoals is to

communicatetheresultsofthisresearchtothelocalpeople.

Current researchhascreated thepossibility tostudyastandingstructure fromthecolonialperiod

inallitsaspects.Botharchaeologicalasarchitecturalresearchtookplace,resultinginaverybroad

spectrumofavailabledatatotellthebuilding’shistory.


9

1.4. Introduction

TheSt.EustatiusCenterforArchaeologicalResearchhasconductedarchaeologicalandarchitectural

researchatthe”Mazinga” Warehouse,Lowertown,St.Eustatius.ResearchtookplacefromFebruary

�st toAugust5th�008.In thenearfuture thestructurewillberestored,andwillbeserveasagift

shopandloft.IncommunicationwiththeiIslandArchaeologist,R.G.GilmoreIII,theownersofthe

building,T.&L.Durby,decidedtodocumentthesite;inordertocontributetothereconstructionof

St.Eustatius’past.

The site consistsof a standing structuremeasuring9.89by�4.65meters (��.45by48 feet).The

structureislocatedatOranjeBay,andissurroundedbythebeachtothewest,astreettotheeast,

an oldwarehouse -currently used as a dive shop- to the north and a hotel complex to the south.

Thesubsoilinthisareaconsistsofroughsand.Thebuildingincorporates�00yearsofconstruction

history.

The research has been executed by G. Labiau (Field archaeologist,Medior archaeologist), under

supervisionofR.G.GilmoreIII(PhD,Director,PrincipalInvestigator).Thefollowingpeoplehave

assistedinthedocumentingofthesite:L.Durby(Owner),T.Durby(Owner),C.Corely(Volunteer),A.

So(Intern),D.Dinardo(Intern),E.Ellis(Volunteer),T.Cooper(Volunteer),K.Gibbons(Volunteer),

K. Guest (Volunteer), J. Haggy (Volunteer), I. Hock (Volunteer), S. Jastrzebska (Volunteer), A.

Kreitzer (Volunteer), J. Rattcliff (Volunteer), K. Riemersma (Volunteer), G. Ricci (Volunteer), R.

Sajor (Volunteer), M. Shugar (Volunteer), V. Soady (Volunteer), K. Paranjape (Volunteer), A.

Stigina (Volunteer),M.Tise (Volunteer),D.Zobel (Volunteer),P.Zobel (Volunteer) andS.Daily

(Volunteer).

QualitycontrolhasbeenperformedbyR.G.GilmoreIII.Aftercompletionoftheresearchthecollected

data and artifacts are stored at the S.E.C.A.R headquarters and at the MadamTheatre (Charlie’s

Place),OranjestadSt.Eustatius.Partoftheartifactswillbeusedasexhibitionmaterialbytheowners

ofthewarehouse.


�0

2. Introduction

2.1. Historical context

St.Eustatius, located in theLeewardIslandGroup,partof theNetherlandsAntilles, isavolcanic

islandmeasuring��km².ItissituatedintheLesserAntillesbetweenSabaandSt.Kitts.Theisland

hasknownPrehistoricoccupationbetweenapproximately4000BPand��00BP.Afterahiatusin

the inhabitance for over nine centuries, French colonists were the first new people to settle on the

islandtemporarilyin�6�9.St.Eustatiusglorioushistoricalpast,however,startswiththearrivaland

settlementoftheDutchin�6�6.

UndertheDutchWestIndiesCompany,St.Eustatiusbecameimportantasatradecenter,moresothen

asasettlementoranagriculturalcenter.Theislandhadbeengiventhisroleduetoseveralcauses.

Foremost,theDutchWestIndiesCompany’sprimaryfocuswastrade.Thepresenceofasheltered

The harbour of St. Eustatius as depicted by N.Pocock in a journal kept by him in the

1760s. (Original held by the Mariner’s Museum, Newport News Virginia).


��

bayontheCaribbeansideoftheisland,alongsideitsidealpositionwithintheCaribbeanandbetween

Europe, Africa and the New World, stimulated the development of a large harbor. Although the first

Dutchsettlerssimilarlyconcentratedontheconstructionoftobacco,cottonandsugarcaneplantations,

strict monopoly measurements from the homeland made them change their focus onto -mostly-

illegaltradebetweenSt.Eustatius,theotherEuropeanColoniesinWestIndiaandNorthAmerica.�

Additionally,giventhefactthatSt.Eustatius’environmentalandclimaterelatedcircumstancesdidn’t

allowagricultureonalargescale�,thegrowthofaharborandanintensivetradingcenterontheisland

wasamanifestconsequence.�

Duringthe��thand�8th century, St. Eustatius flourished as an important trade center, with

prosperityreachingitspeakafter��(TreatyofUtrecht).4ThesmallislandintheNorthEastern

Caribbeanperformed,asnotedabove,asahubinthetradenetworkbetweenEurope,Africaandthe

NewWorld5.Functioningasafreetradeport6undertheDutch,ittradedvirtuallyanytypeofgoods

withanynation�.Intrade,St.Eustatiusdidnottakepartinpoliticalissuesbetweentradingparties.

The islandundoubtedlyowespartof itsprosperity to thismarketingstrategy.Today, thematerial

precipitationofitspastprosperityistangibleintheformofnumeroushistoricalstructures-sugar

mills,plantationsites,warehouseandmilitarysites-,spreadacrosstheisland.

St.Eustatius’tradingactivitieswerelimitedtotheCaribbeancoastline,calledLowerTown8,onthe

� Attema(�988),p.��8.� Aproblemforlarge-scaleagricultureontheisland,uptilltoday,isthelackofrain-water.TherainingseasonlastsfromJunetoSeptember,butoccasionallythereisayearlongdraught.Alsothethreatofdestructivehurricanesdidn’tencouragelarge-scalecultivation.� Eastman(�996),p.�0;duetotheaboveoutlinedcausestheislandchangedhandsseveraltimesduringitshistorybetweentheDutch,EnglishandFrench,Attema(�9�6),p.�8.4 Eastman(�996),p.�0;duringthisperiodofprosperity,St.Eustatiusreceiveditsnickname“GoldenRock”.5 Especiallyduringthe�8thandearly�9thcenturytheislandwasparticularlyin-volvedwithAmerican-EnglishcoloniessuchasAlbany,VirginiaandNorthandSouthCarolina,Attema(�988),p.��.6 St.Eustatiusbecameafreeportin��56,Triplett(�995),p.�.� TheillegaltradewouldreachitspeakduringtheNorthAmericanWarofLiberty(��-��8�),Attema(�988),p.��8.8 WhereasthetradingareaonSt.EustatiusreceivedthenameLowerTown,thethendevelopingtown–Oranjestad-onthecliffoverlookingtheCaribbeancoaststripwascalled


��

Westsideoftheisland.Theharborwasequippedwithover600homes,taverns,brothels,warehouses,

cooperations,shiprepairfacilitiesandaslavedepot(bythemiddleofthe�9thcentury).Thehub’s

progressionleapedforwardbetween��40and��80.BythenSt.Eustatiushadclaimedtheleadership

positionintradethroughoutthewholeAtlanticWorld,leavinglargeharborssuchasCuraçao,New

York,Charleston,LondonandBordeauxbehind.9

St.Eustatius’ free tradingprincipleshowever,becamea thorn in thesideof theEnglish,when in

1776, under Johannes De Graaf, the island was the first nation to salute, and thus recognize, a ship

oftheAmericanrebels�0.TheEnglish’responsetothis“frankness”wasoneofrevenge.TheBritish

Admiral,LordG.B.Rodneysackedtheislandin��8�andstrippeditfromallitsresources.��

ThefollowingdecadeSt.Eustatius fought to regaineconomicalstrengthandrose toevengreater

heightsduring the��90s. Itspositionstabilized,butdue to taxes imposedby theFrenchin��95,

the idle attitude of the merchandisers and the island changing flags several times more, St. Eustatius

wouldneveragainreachthesamelevelofprosperity ithadonceknownquicklyreciededintoan

economicarmedgeddon.��

After�8�5,with the introductionof taxesduring theNapoleonicperiodand theestablishmentof

directtradingroutesbetweenAmericaandEurope,St.Eustatiusfellintoaperiodofisolation.The

secondquarterofthe�9thcentury-aftertheabolishmentofslavery-,broughtaperiodofdecline.The

plantationsgotabandonedandwarehousesweretorndown��.The�9th and first part of the 20thcentury

wasaneraofextremepovertyfortheisland.Sincethe�960sSt.Eustatiusisdevelopingagain,trying

toobtainandpreserveastablepositionwithinthemodernworld.�4

UpperTown.9 Eastman(�996),p.�9.�0 TheAndrew Doria.�� Attema(�988),p.��8.�� Ibid.�� Bricksandothermaterialfromthewarehouseswereoftenusedasspoliafortheconstructionofnewhousesinuppertown.�4 Eastman(�996),p.��.


��

2.2. Environmental context

The Lower Town, the trading zone of St. Eustatius, developed along the seasonal beach on the

Caribbeansideoftheisland.Asnotedpreviously,thisareaprovidedashelteredbayandthusanideal

positionfortheconstructionofaharbor.Beingaverynarrowstretchofland,thedistrictconsisted

ofonelongmainroad,withalengthoftwomiles,meanderingalongthebay.Inthesouth,asloping

beach,usedinthe�8thcenturyasacareenage�5,borderedtheLowerTown.Thenorthernboundaryof

thedistrictwasformedbyastretchofrisingcliffs,consistingofvolcaniclayers.�6Theisland’scapital,

Oranjestad,aroseontopofLowertown’sborderingcliffsandoverlookedthestirringactivitiestaking

placeonGallowsBayandOranjeBay.

�5 Tuchman(�988),p.��.�6 Triplett(�995),p.�9.


�4

2.3. Lower Town, past research

2.3.1. Lower Town, historical sources

Travel reports, drawings, pictures and archive material can give an impression of, and can help

reconstructSt.Eustatius’grandtradingpast.Thefollowingparagraphwillcontainalimitedselection

ofsuchsources,regardingthecommercialheartoftheisland.

Thefollowingarticlewasusedastheprimarybasisforthissection:

Attema,Y.(�988),‘FatsoenlijkeliedenhebbendehuijsenvanbinnenmetEngelspapierbehangen’,

LeefcultuurophetWestindischeeilandSintEustatiusaanheteindevande�8deeeuw,in:De Stenen

Droom, Opstellen over Bouwkunst en Monumentenzorg,Zutphen,p.��-�46.

The article is considered a reference for amore indepthoverviewconsideringhistorical sources

aboutSt.EustatiusandespeciallyLowerTown.Italsoprovidesagoodbasicbibliographyonthe

availablepastsources.

-In��60CommanderDeWindtinformedtheHerenXaboutEnglishpiracy:

… ‘Andere welke met swaare kosten en groote industrie uit de zee land hebbe anngewonnen

om daar pachuijsen op te bouwen ter bevordering en faciliteering van de commercie bevinde sigh nu,

door stremming van dien, ontbloodt van hare capitaale daar aan te kosten gelegt’…17

… ’Others who won land from the sea with a great deal of expense and hard work, and

built warehouses there to increase commerce, are now losing their capital, since trade is being

obstructed’…

-A travel reportwrittenby theScottishLadyJanetShaw,datingback to January��5describes

LowerTownasfollowing:

�� Attema(�9�6):p.��.


�5

… ‘It is however an instance of Dutch industry little inferior to their dykes; as the one half

of the town is gained off the Sea, which is fenced out by Barracadoes, and the other dug out of an

immense mountain of sand and rock; which rises to a great height behind the houses, and will one

day bury them under it’…. ‘The town consists of a two mile long road, but very narrow and most

disagreeable, as every one smokes tobacco’…. ‘From the one end of the town of Eustatia to the other

is a continued mart, where goods of the most different qualities are displayed before the shopdoors.

Here hang rich embroideries, painted silks, flowered Muslins, with all the manufactures of the Indies.

Just by hang Sailor’s Jackets, trousers, shoes, hats etc. Next stall contains most exquisite silver plate;

the most beautiful indeed I ever saw, and close by these iron-pots, kettles and shovels’18.

Bothsourcestalkabout‘half the town being gained off the Sea’.Contemporarydrawingsdon’tclearly

indicatethis.Althoughmostofthewarehousesanddykesaresincelongreclaimedbythesea;the

CaribbeanwesttoSt.Eustatius,uptilltodaycarriestheremaindersofwhatusedtobe.

Inadifferentsectionofhertravelreport,LadyShawnotesthatsheneverspenttimeinUpperTown;

therefore one can presume that, apart from warehouses and official buildings, there were also taverns

andinnsintheharbordistrictof�8thcenturySt.Eustatius.�9A��aquarellebyMitriani(cf.infra.)

locatesaRomanCatholicchapelinthecenterofLowerTown.A��4drawingshowstheWaterfort

(FortAmsterdam),locatedinLowerTown.�0

Anumberofestateinventoriesprovideanindicationonwhatlifewaslikedownatthewaterfront.

Occasionally, they offer a defined description of the range and arrangement of properties, and the

interiororganizationofthebayhouses.LowerTowndidn’tonlyconsistofwarehouses;peoplealso

usedtolivethere.Thearticleusedasthemainsourceforthisparagraphmentionsanestateinventory

�8 The travel report by Janet Shaw was first published in 1934; Walker Andrew, E. and McLeanAndrews,C.(eds.)(�9�4),Journal of a Lady of Quality; Being a Narrative of a Journey from Scotland to the West Indies, North Carolina and Portugal, in the years 1774 to 1776,NewHaven.�9 Kandle(�985):p.9�.�0 Foradescriptionofthisfort,anditslateruseasslavedepot;Triplett(�995):p.�6-��.


�6

establishedbyG(?)DuSartforthedeceasedlandownerWilliamHillandhiswifeMargarethaGravall,

datingfrom��86.TheoriginalinventoryiswritteninDutch:

‘Een huijs en erf’… Bestaande in Een voorhuijs/ naast het zelve Twee Bedkamer/, daar agter

Een Gallerij en naast dezelve Twee Klijndere Kamers/ Onder het huijs Een Kelder en Twee vertrekken/

Naast of agter dit huijs nog een Huijs twelk voorzien is van Een Gallerij daar uijtgaande in Een

Hall of Voorkamer en naast dezelve Twee Bedkamers. Onder dit Huijs Een Keuken en Drie Neeger

Vertrekken/ In de Yard is Een Huijs voorzien van Een Voorhuijs Een Bedkamer Een Klijne ditto Een

Gallerij Een Kelder en nog apart Een klijn Huijsje of Kamertje/ Voorts is op de plaats Een Paarde

Stal Een Smits Winkel Een plaats om Schildpadden te bewaaren Een Duijve hok met een bergplaats

eronder Een Reegebak Een secreet’.21

‘A house and property’…Consisting of a Front room/ besides which Two Bedrooms/ behind

which a Gallery besides which Two Smaller Rooms/Underneath the House Cellar and Two Spaces/

Next to or behind this house another House provided with a Gallery besides which a Hallway or

Front room and besides which two bedrooms/ Underneath this House A Kitchen and Three Negro

Quarters/ In the Yard there is A House provided with A Front room A Bedroom A Small Bedroom A

Gallery A Cellar and a separate Small House or Room/ Additionally on the place A Horse Stable A

Smiths Shop A place to keep Turtles A Dove Schack with storage space underneath A Goat trough A

toilet.’

Although,asmentionedbyAttema,WilliamHillandhiswifearesuspectedtobeofEnglishorigin,

estateinventoriesofDutchStatianswereverysimilartotheonestatedabove.Moreover,itisclear

that the intense contact betweenSt.Eustatius and theAmerican-English colonies has extensively

influenced the colonial architecture on the island.

�� Theoriginalcopyofthisinventorywasfoundin:O.A.S.E.�05��,inv.Nr.��(��86),fol.�48ro.-�49ro.


��

TheabovesourcesclearlyshowthatLowerTownwasaverycrowdedarea,whichprobablycreateda

veryunpleasantatmospherebytoday’sstandards.Thepastpresenceofbridgesconnectingbayhouses

atstorylevel��similarlyindicatesthis.

-In��4�CommanderHeyligercomplainsabouttheconditionoftheoldweighhouse,whichwas

locatedatthefootofthebaypath:

… ‘De houdtwerk vergaen, de murragien vervallen, alsmeede de waegh’…23

… ‘The wood-work is rotten, the walls crumbling and so is the weighing house’…

-Later,in��,JohannesdeGraaffinformedtheHerenthatanewWeighingHouseneededtobe

builtwhichthecompanyshouldpayfor:

…’Weegens de naauw bepaalde groote, onvoordeelige situatie en bouwvalligheyd van het

teegenwoordige waaghuys’…24

…’Because of the small size, unfortunate situation and poor state of the present weighing-

house’…

Thisnewweighinghousewasbuiltontheoppositeside,theseaside,oftheroadnearthebaypath.

Theplotwheretheoldweighhousehadstoodwaskeptclear.Today,thediveshop‘DiveStatia’is

identified as the new custom’s house.

-After�8�5manyinhabitantsofLowerTownchosetogoandlive inUpperTown.Thebaywas

abandoned,and thedeteriorationof theonce sowealthyharbordistrict commenced.Thisdecline

becomesvisibleinthecomparisonofanumberofimages.WhereasanaquarellebyGerardhusEmaús

deMicault(��89-�86�)�5,presents��4LowerTownasaverycrowdedandlivelyarea,adetailed

�� Theoriginalsourceforthisinformationis:Jong,de.C.(�80�),Reizen naar de Caraïbische Eilanden in de jaren 1780-1781,Haarlem.�� Attema(�9�6):p.�6.�4 Attema(�9�6):p.�6.�5 Theaquarelleisacopy,orinterpretationofanoriginalaquarelledatingfrom��4byA.Nelson.


�8

aquarelleofthedistrictdated�8�9,signedG.C.,illustrateshowtheearly�9thcenturypoliticalchanges

hadslowlyderivedSt.Eustatiusfromitseconomicstrength.

Bothdrawingshowever,showsimplestructureswithhippedandgabledroofs,andhighsetwindows.

Somestructureshaveoverhangingsecondstories.Thegeneralorientationofthestructuresasseenon

theaquarellesseemstohavebeeneastwest�6.A��8�planofFortOranje,however,portraysmany

structuresinLowerTownasbeingorientednorthsouth.

2.3.2. Lower Town, archaeological research

Untilthepresent,St.Eustatius’positionasamercantilehubthroughoutthecolonialperiodremains

observable inLowerTown.The island’scoastal striphasnotbeenalteredextensivelybymodern

development,andisthereforeundoubtedlyoneofthebest-preserved�8thcenturytradedistrictsin

theCaribbean.Despite the fact thatduring the�9th andearly�0th century,agreatdealof theold

constructionmaterialswereusedasspoliafortheassemblyofhousesinUpperTown-whichreduced

thecoastalstrip toasiteofruins-,despite the-sometimesdevastating-strengthof theocean,and

despitetheprobabilitythatmanystructuresarecurrentlyburiedunderneathalayerofdebriscoming

fromthecliffs,NormanBarka’s�985archaeologicalsurveyofthearea��pointsoutthattheremains

of��5structureswerestillvisibleinthelandscapeatthatmomentintime.

Mostvisiblewarehousestructuresdatefromthesecondhalfofthe�8thcentury.Theruinspredominantly

consistoffoundations,althoughfourstructuresactuallystillstand.Asurveyoftheareapointsout

thatthevastmajorityofthebuildingswereconcentratedaroundthefootofthebaypath�8,nearthe

old landingplace.Asmaller,butsubstantialconcentrationofbuildingswasfound in theProspect

�6 Triplett(�995):p.��;anorientationwiththenarrowestendofthewarehousespointingtowardstheoceanwouldhaveprovidedthelargestamountofstructurestohavewaterfrontaccess.TowardstheCliffside,thistypeoforientationwouldhaveallowedalargenumberofwarehousestobebuilt.�� Barka,N.(1985), Archaeology of St. Eustatius, Netherlands Antilles: an Interim Report on the 1981-1984 Field seasons, Manuscript,CollegeofWilliamandMary,Depart-mentofAnthropology.�8 Kandle(�985),p.�06;onecanseethesameconcentrationofoccupancyaroundthetopofthebaypathinUpperTown.


�9

areanearthenewlandingplace,andthenewbaypath.Towardsthesouth,inthedirectionofGallows

Baytheconstructionintensitywasmorelimited.Herehowevertheremainsofindustrialandmilitary

activitywerefound.�9

Therewasnoabsolutelinearorientationtothebuildingstobefound,andtherearenoindicationsfor

theexistenceofatownplan.�0Threetofourrowsofbuildingsalignednexttoeachotherbetween

thebeachandthecliffs.InoppositiontotownplanninginHollandandCuraçao,moststructuresin

LowerTownwerefreestandingentities.Therearesomeindicationsthatsomealleywaysinbetween

buildings were paved.�� Many warehouses had a hipped or vertical gabled roof��. Some of them

consistedoftwostories,builtentirelyoutoffacedorunfacedmortaredstone,limestoneblocks��and

volcanicstone.�4Someofthewallsshowevidenceofhavingbeenplastered.Others,wereentirely

assembledinyellow-andmorerarelyred-brick�5. The floor mostly existed of brick, natural stone or

a packed clay layer. Although on the first story the floor consisted of wood, one would seldom find a

wooden floor at ground level. The foundations of the warehouses were constructed of mortared stone

orlimestoneblocks.�6Woodwouldhavebeenregularlyused,especiallyforsecondstories.Duetothe

violentCaribbeanclimate,however,no�8thcenturywoodenstructureshavesurvivedintactinLower

Town.

TheCaribbeanclimateundoubtedlymadechanges in theEuropeanbuildingstylesnecessary.The

exteriorofmostwarehousesseemstobecolonialCaribbeanEnglish.��Furthermore,thearchaeological

precipitationonSt.Eustatiusingeneral,fortheendofthe�8thcentury,showsthepresenceofthe

Britishandtheirstrengthinindustryandmarketing.�8�9 Ibid,p.��4.�0 Itisplausiblethatatownplanoriginallyexisted,butseizedtofunctionduetothecontinuousexpansionoftheharborarea.Buildingswereadaptedtothespaceavailable.�� Triplett(�995),p.��:partialpavementsofcobblestonesbetweenstructureshavebeenfoundinthearea.�� WhichisnottypicallyDutch.�� ThelimestoneblockswereimportedfromBermuda.�4 Triplett(�995),p.��:Frequentlywallsshowacompositeconstructionofseveralofthesematerials.Brickwasoftenusedforspotrepairofastonewall.�5 Theyellowbrick-Ijsselsteen-wasimportedasballastforshipscomingfromHol-land.�6 Triplett(�995),p.�0.�� Kandle(�985),p.��.�8 Triplett(�995),p.��.


�0

Excavationsintheharborareahaveexposedsuccessivelevelsofconstruction.Underthecurrently

exposedwalls, foundationsof earlierbuildings are tobe found.Frequently there is no alignment

betweentwoormorebuildingstages.

Manyoftheartefactsfoundintheharbordistrict,appeartobefromthecollapseofthecliffedge

andareinfactfromUpperTown.ThereforetheyprovidelittleinformationtotheactivitiesinLower

Town.However,recentexcavationsbyR.G.Gilmore(�005-6)andthecurrentworkdemonstrate

there are primary fill layers to be discovered on the Bay.

2.3.3. Mazinga Warehouse, known data

ThewarehousecurrentlybeingresearchedislocatedatOranjeBay.Itissurroundedbythebeachto

thewest,astreettotheeast,anoldwarehouse-currentlyusedasadiveshop(DiveStatia)-tothe

northandahotelcomplex(TheOldGinHouse)tothesouth.Thesubsoilontheexaminedlocation

consistsofroughvolcanicbeachsand.

Thewarehouseconsistsof twobuildings (thesouthernbuildingwillbe referred toasZoneI, the

northernbuildingasZoneIII)andacoveredpassageway(ZoneII).

At this time, thereare fewavailabledocumentarydataabout thewarehouse.Most information is

offeredthroughoralhistory.

ZoneIisknowntohavebeenusedasadiveshop(TheHappyHooker)duringthelateseventiesand

earlyeightiesofthe�0th century. Zone III was used as a fish house during the first half of the 20th

century.Thestructurehasbeenoutofusesinceapproximately�990.�9

Recentownershipdocumentsgobackas faras�88�.At this time it isnotpossible to retrace the

�9 ThisinformationhasbeenprovidedbyTonyandLeontineDurby.


��

building’s owners into the �8th century. One recent drawing refers to the building as the Horton

building, but there are no written sources confirming this.40 Geneological evidence provided by

Professor RonWetteroth sheds some light on the professional and familial relations among these

owners(seecorrespondenceintheAppendices)

Barka’s�985surveyoffersaverybriefdescriptionof‘MazingaWarehouse’: standing warehouse.

“Happy Hooker”. Exterior measurements 52.5 x 32.2 ft. Oriented northwest southeast. Modern porch

with poured concrete piers added to west side (water side).4�

2.4. Research Methods

Currentresearchcontainsbotharchitecturalandarchaeologicalcomponents.Thestandingstructure

has been drawn in its current state, using the ‘Historic American Buildings Survey’ (HABS)4�

standardsasaguideline.Thebuilding’shistoryhasbeenresearchedbymeansofanumberoftest-

pitsstrategicallyplacedthroughoutthebuilding.Threetest-pitshavebeenexcavatedontheoutside

40 Museumbook.4� Eastman(�996),p.��0.Themodernporchdoesn’texistanymore.4� HABS/HAERStandards(�990).

Pencil and watercolour artwork by Nelson Delin (held in the Dutch National Archives (formerly the ARA)


��

ofthestructure.Thetest-pitsvariedindimensions.Theexcavationhasbeenconductedandexecuted

accordingtotheDutch‘KwaliteitsnormderNederlandseArcheologie’(KNA)4�standards.

2.5. Research Questions

Thisreportwillattempttogiveananswertothefollowingresearchquestions:

1. How many construction phases can be identified? Has the structure known a continuous use

sinceitserectionorarethereclearhiatusesinitshistory?

�. Aretherearchitectural/archaeologicalfeaturesgivinganinsightintothebuilding’spastuse?

Arethereotherindicationstowardsthebuilding’spastuse?

4� KNAStandards(�008).

Detail of the previous image depicting the Mazinga Warehouse building just be-yond #8 or the Waag/Weighhouse (held in the Dutch National Archives (formerly the ARA)). the inset shows another version recently found by Walter Hellebrand--this is likely the first version of the 1774 Delin image and depicts a window on the ground floor where it should be (courtesy of Walter Hellebrand Collection).


��

�. Howdeepdothefoundationsgo?

4. Whatdoesthestratigraphyoftheunderlyingsoilconsistof?Hasthesoilbeenelevatedon

oneormultipleoccasions?

5. Arethereobviousalterationsmadetothebuilding?

6. Arethereindicationsthatacompletelyseparatebuildingusedtoexistonthesamelocation?

�. Arethereobviousmodernrestorationsvisible?

8. Isitpossibletodatethecurrentlystandingstructurebystudyingthebrickwork/mortar?

9. Which types of natural deterioration to the building can be distinguished? What is the

conditionofthewalls?

�0. Isthestructureasawholetobeconsideredcontemporary?Ifnot,whichbuildingisyounger

thantheother?

��. Dothearchaeologicalremainspermittodividethebuilding’shistoryintoseparatephases?


�4

2.6. Report organization

The introductory chapter of this report covered the historical, geographical and archaeological

backgroundtothecurrentresearch.Theexcavationmethodshavebeendescribedandtheresearch

questions have been presented. In chapter �, the architectural and archaeological drawings are

presented,alongwithphotographsandlistsofmeasurements.TheHABSdrawingsarecollectedin

Appendix�.Chapter4isacontributionbyLouisNelson,givinganinsightinthehistoricalarchitecture

of thestructureandprovidingrecommendationsconcerning the future restorationof thebuilding,

Thearchaeologicalsectionofthereportgivesanoverviewofthearchaeologicalfeaturesuncovered

duringtheexcavationandtriestoanswertheresearchquestions.Archaeologicallistsanddrawings

arecollectedinAppendix�.Appendix�givesanoverviewofsomeoftheretrievedartefactsinthe

formofdrawingsandphotographs.Appendix4relatesthefamilyhistoryofsomeoftheprevious

owners.

Painting similar to the one from Hartog (1976) depicted in Attema (1976). The Dutch

Gabled building as well as “Kelly’s Kitchen” are clearly visible.


�5

3. HABS Report (Drawings in Appendix 1)

3.1. HABS Standards44

In order to provide a standardized method to document historical structures, the United States

National Park Service has developed the Historic American Building Survey (HABS)/Historic

AmericanEngineeringRecord(HAER)Standards.TheHABSstandardsconcernthedevelopmentof

documentationofhistoricbuildings,sites,structuresandobjects.Thisdocumentation,whichusually

consistsofdrawings,photographsandwrittendataprovidesimportantinformationonaproperty’s

significance for use by scholars, researchers, preservationists, architects, engineers and others

interestedinpreservingandunderstandinghistoricproperties.Documentationpermitsaccuraterepair

orreconstructionofpartsofapropertythatistobedemolished.

ThestandardsusedareintendedforuseindevelopingdocumentationtobeincludedintheHistoric

AmericanBuildingSurveyandtheHistoricAmericanEngineeringRecordcollectionsintheLibrary

of Congress. HABS/HAER in the National Park Service have defined specific requirements for

meetingthesestandardsfortheircollections.

3.2. Overview of the drawings (see Appendix 1-The drawing-numbers are identical to the

paragraph numbers.)

3.2.1. Plan view of the site

3.2.2. The Building’s Exterior

3.2.2.1. Northern wall

3.2.2.2. Eastern wall44 HABS/HAERstandards(�990),p.�.ForacompleteoverviewoftheHABS/HAERstandards,areferenceismadeto:Russel,C.H.(ed.)(�990),Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record, Cultural Resources Program, U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service,WashingtonD.C.


�6

3.2.2.3. Southern wall

3.2.2.4. Western wall

3.2.3. The Building’s Interior

3.2.3.1. Zone I

�.�.�.�.�.Northernwall

�.�.�.�.�.Easternwall

�.�.�.�.�.Southernwall

�.�.�.�.4.Westernwall

3.2.3.2. Zone II

�.�.�.�.�.Archeddoorways



3.2.3.3. Zone III





�.�.�.�.5.Roof

3.3. Measurements

The specific measurements for the representative plan view features are collected in the list down

below.Theyarebothinmetricandimperial.Theheightofthestandingwallscurrentlyvariesbetween

�.�5m(��.�0ft)and4.�5m(��.95ft).ThemeasurementsofthenichesinZoneIIIareirregularand


��

thereforeweren’tsubmittedtothelist.

Zone Features (Dimenions) Metric (M) Imperial (FT) Zone I Southern wall 8.92 29.26

Western wall 6.00 19.68 Eastern wall 6.00 19.68 Northern wall 8.92 29.26 Tile 0.22 x 0.22 0.72 x 0.72 Brick 0.22 x 0.10 x 0.04 0.72 x 0.32 x 0.13

Zone II Southern wall 8.92 29.26 Northern wall 8.92 29.26

Tile 0.22 x 0.22 0.72 x 0.72 Zone III Southern wall 8.92 29.26 Northern wall 8.92 29.26 Eastern wall 6.14 20.14 Western wall 6.14 20.14

Outside Southern wall 9.89 32.44 Northern wall 9.89 32.44 Western wall 14.63 48 Eastern wall 14.63 48


�8

The specific measurements for all windows and doors (on the plan view specified by a -W- and a

number)arecollectedinthelistdownbelow.Theyarebothinmetricandimperial.

Number Height in M Width in M Height in Feet Width in Feet W1 2.30 1.36 7.54 4.46W2 2.15 1.13 7.05 3.7W3 2.05 1.25 6.72 4.1W4 1.55 1.08 5.08 3.54W5 1.95 1.08 6.39 3.54

W6 1.48 1.12 4.85 3.67W7 1.90 1.36 6.23 4.46W8 1.82 1.12 5.97 3.67W9 1.85 1.08 6.06 3.54W10 1.85 1.12 6.06 3.67W11 1.70 1.12 5.57 3.67W12 2.25 1.36 7.38 4.46W13 1.70 1.12 5.57 3.67W14 2.35 1.12 7.7 3.67

W15 2.05 1.40 6.72 4.59W16 1.85 1.09 6.06 3.57W17 1.85 1.09 6.06 3.57W18 1.85 1.08 6.06 3.54W19 2.25 1.36 7.38 4.46W20 1.85 1.08 6.06 3.54

W21 2.70 108 8.85 3.54


�9

4. Mazinga Warehouse, Historical Architectural Survey

(Contribution by Louis Nelson)

Asnotedpreviously,thewarehousecurrentlyunderresearchconsistsof�zones.Thesouthernportion

ofthebuildingwillbereferredtoasZoneI,thepresentarchwayasZoneIIandthenorthernbuilding

asZoneIII.Thischapterwillopenwithawrittendescriptionofthebuilding.Thiswillbefollowedby

adiscussionofthebuilding’schronologyandchangeovertime.Thesectionwillconcludewithsome

recommendationsforstabilizationandrestorationofthebuilding.

4.1. Description

While the two major components of the building might imply two distinct building periods it is

clearuponcloseinspectionthatthebuildingfootprintaswenowseeitisasinglebuildingperiod.

(Insert picture of exterior)Thebestandnearconclusiveevidencetothiseffectistheconsistency

ofthebuilding’sEnglishbondmasonry:alternatingcoursesofstretchersandheaders(Insert detail

of brickwork).Thehigh-qualitybrickwork isunbrokenandconsistent around theentiretyof the

building. Fenestration heights are also consistent throughout. Although the present roof system

initially suggested that thewarehousewas originally two separate buildings connectedby a later

arch,thebrickbarrelvaultspringsdirectlyfromthehallwaywalls,andisunquestionablyintegralto

the first period of construction. The entire building as we see it today is a single building period.

ThenorthwallofZoneIII is theoriginalformalfaçadeof thebuildingwithawidecentraldoor

flanked by two windows, all with arched reveals above. Two of these three arches are now filled with

yellowbrick,whichmighthavebeenintendedasacontrastingdecorativeelementor,morelikely,is

later masonry intended to infill the once open arches (once the modern cement on the interior walls

hasbeenremovedtheevidencewillbecomeclearer).Mortaranalysiswouldlikelyindicatetheyellow


�0

brick is infill. Such arched windows appear on this elevation only. Closer inspection of the west wall

of Zone III indicates that the two centrally-located windows appear to be original to the first period of

construction.TheeastwallofZoneIIIhasawidedooropeningatitsnorthern-mostedgeandanother

narrowerdoorfurthersouth.Thenortherndooroftheeastelevationisthesamewidthasthecentral

door on the north elevation. The northern door was assumed on first pass to be a later opening, but the

survivalofasquarelintelbrickimmediatelyundertheleftendofthelintelinamannertypicalofthe

other openings suggests that it is in fact first period. The Southern wall of Zone III is unbroken save

asingledooropeningtothefarwestendofthewall.

Running through the room interior is an archaeologically uncovered foundation wall that runs

east-west about five feet south of the northern wall, but only along the two easternmost bays of the

northernelevation.Thatfoundationwallcouldhavebeensimplyintermediarysupportforthejoists

that originally spanned north south from joist pockets in the northern foundation wall.The joist

pocketsandonesurvivingjoistsuggestthatthesejoistswerefairlylarge,measuringapproximately

5inchesby6inches.Butthefactthatthewalldoesnotruntheentirewidthoftheroomthrowsthis

interpretationintoquestion.Thatlateralfoundationwallmightalsohavesupportedaframepartition

above.Werethiscross-wallsimplyafoundationwall,wewouldexpecttoseeanothercross-wallat

anotherintervalof5feet,yetnosuchcross-wallexists.Furthermore,thiswallterminatesfairlyclosely

tothesouthernedgeofthenorthernmostdooropeningintheeastwall,suggestingthatthisfoundation

supportedaframewallthatcreatedacross-passagealongthenorthelevationofZoneIII.

The roofing currently sheltering Zone III is old and very complex. It is a principal rafter roof framing

systemsecuredbypeggedmortiseandtenonjoints.Theprincipalraftersaresubstantialinsizeand

arenicelybeaded.Thehiprafterstothewesthaveasubstantialcollarbeamandrestonalargechord

that spans from north to south. There are also two first period diagonal braces that span from the

rafterstothechordateitherend.Thereisnowareplacementverticalmemberthatrisesfromthevery

centerofthechordtothecollarbeam.Pegholesandasubstantialmortiseindicatesthatthismember

replacesamuch largerverticalpost thatoncestood in thisposition.Emptymortises immediately

belowthecollarbeamonbothraftersareevidencefortwomorediagonalbracesthatspannedfrom


��

therafterstotheshouldersofthisnowmissingcentralpost.Therearetwolaterverticalpoststhatare

lapped over these members and are secured by nails. The rafters at the eastern hip reflect essentially

thesamesystemasthewestbutwithevenmorereplacementparts.Betweenthesehiprafterpairs

there are five pairs of rafters, three sets of common rafters and two more sets of principals. These two

principalslackthechordsofthepairsofendraftersbuthavealltheothermarkingsoftheendrafters,

suggestingthattheytoowereoncemorecomplexinformthantheynowappear.Alloftheserafter

setsareirregularlypositioned.

ThespacereferredtoasZoneIIisalongcentralhallthatstandsbetweenthetwolargerzonesofthe

warehouse.Itisroofedbyabrickbarrelvault.Whilebriefreturnsnowcreatedooropenings,both

endsofthecross-passagewereoriginallyopenwithnophysicalevidenceofagateordoor.Current

doorways at either end of the passage are clearly infill dating to a later period. No evidence can be

found of sockets for a gate on either end. Only the door into the office chamber of Zone III breaks

thenorthernwallofthepassage.Alongthesouthwallthepassagecontainsadoortoasmallereastern

chamber of Zone I and two large windows flanking a door into the larger western chamber of Zone

I.

Physicalevidenceforaprominentmasonrycross-walldividesZoneIintotwomajorsections:alarger

openchambertothewestandtwosmallerequallysizedchambersattheeastside.Awidehorizontal

scar on the center of the eastern wall suggests that back-to-back fireplaces separated the two eastern

chambers.Thecenterofthescarisanapproximately�’widejaggedbandofbrickthatruns5’up

from the floor. On either side of this central scar the springing point of a brick oven hood is clearly

evident.Atthefarsideofeachofthesearchspringsisapocketforagirtthatpresumablyextended

perpendicular from the east wall to the internal dividing wall, serving as the front edge of a fireplace

hoodthatspannedthewidthofeachsmallchamber.Thisscarindicatesthatahalf-heightbrickwall

dividedthischamberintotwoequalspaces,servedastherearofeachoven,andcarriedthehoodson

eithersidethatwouldexhaustthroughtheroof.Thesurvivingstonehearthinonechamberprovides

irrefutableevidencetothisreading.Thisarrangementofovenspacesthatshareapartialbrickwall

and vent into a shared flue is similar to early modern Dutch two-chamber house plans. Each of the


��

twospaceshadawindowthroughtheeasternelevationandadooronthenorthernorsouthernends

oftheroomsrespectively.Thereisnoevidencetosuggestthatthesedidordidnothaveaccessto

thelargerwesternchamber.Eachofthetwochambershasawindow,adoor,andcircularventilation

flue. In the southeastern chamber the door and window have since been switched. The east wall had a

windowandthesouthwallhadadoor.Initsoriginalstate,bothchambershadwindowsoverlooking

thestreet.

Thewesternchamberhasadoorandwindowalongthesouthwall,twowindowsalongthewestern

seaside wall, and a door symmetrically flanked by two windows along the Zone II passageway

entrance,suggestingthatthisistheprimary,publicentranceintothischamber.Theexteriorfaceof

thesoutherndoorhasashallow,segmentalarch.Thespacewasoriginally tiled, somesubstantial

portionofwhichsurvives.NoearlyroofremainsovertheZoneI.Itsexistinghippedroofdatestothe

late�9�0s.

4.2. Discussion of Chronology

Thephysicalevidenceofthebuildingsuggeststhatitiscertainlyaneighteenth-centurybuildingand

verypossiblyanearlyeighteenth-centurybuilding.Thebestevidencetothiseffectisthebuilding’s

masonry.Englishbondisthepredominantbondingpatternthroughtheseventeenthcenturyandearly

eighteenthcentury.Inhighlyfashionablequarters, it issupplantedbyFlemishbondin thesecond

quarteroftheeighteenthcentury,butbuildingsoftenretainedEnglishbondingintheirwatertables

orintheirsecondaryelevationsthroughthethirdquarteroftheeighteenthcentury.Inspectionofa

numberofbrickbuildingselsewhereintownsuggeststhatalthoughFlemishbondisclearlyintroduced

intheeighteenthcentury,EnglishbondmasonrypersistsasapreferredbrickbondinStatialaterthan

expected.TheEnglishbondmasonryofthe��9SynagogueonStatia—amajorpublicbuilding—is

anexcellentcaseinpoint.ItisworthnotingthattheadjacentbuildingthatcurrentlyservesDiveStatia

isayellowbrickEnglishbondbuildingwithstonequoinsnowthoughttobethe��CustomsHouse

(Insert picture of Customs House).ThisisevidenceoftheuseofEnglishbondthroughthethird


��

quarteroftheeighteenthcentury.ThesimpleuseofEnglishbondmasonry,then,suggeststhatthe

buildingiscertainlynotnineteenthcenturyandverylikelypredatesthe��80s,whentheuseofEnglish

bond—evenonawarehouseonStatia—wouldhavebeennoticeablyoutdated.Theshallowsegmental

arch over the door on the southern elevation and the two ends of the barrel vault that defines Zone II

arealsomasonrydetailsindicativeofearliereighteenth-centurymasonrydetailing.(Insert picture of

arch).Latereighteenth-centuryarchestendtobemorecloselysemi-circular—ahalf-circle—rather

thanshallowandonlyasegmentofacircle.Themasonrysuggeststhatthisbuildinglikelydatesfrom

the first half of the eighteenth century.

CarefulanalysisofpictorialevidenceofStatia’swarehousedistrictfromtheeighteenththroughthe

twentiethcenturysuggeststhatthiswarehouseistheprominentDutch-gabledbuildingthatappears

inanumberofearlyviewsofthelowertown.The��4paintingofOranjestadfromtheclifftothe

northoftowncapturesaspatialrelationshipbetweenthenewCustomshouseandtheDutch-gabled

buildingthatfromthatsamepointisfairlycloselyreplicatedbytherelationshipofthewarehouse

underconsiderationandthebuildingnowoccupiedbyDiveStatia.Anearlynineteenth-centuryview

ofthewarehousedistrictfromthewatershowsthesameDutch-gabledbuildingincloseproximity

to an archedopening just to the southof thebuilding.That archedopening is nowdamagedbut

stillevidentonthepropertyjusttothesouthofthewarehouseunderinvestigation.Theproximity

ofthewarehouseunderinvestigationtothesetwophysicallandmarksinearlyviewsprovidesnear

conclusive evidence that the warehouse under investigation is in fact the very prominent Dutch-

gabledwarehousethatappearsinearlyviewsofOranjestad.

There are a number of physical features on the building that further reinforce this interpretation.

The first is the orientation of the building. The primary elevation of the building faces the north,

not the east or west as might be first assumed if the building faced either the water or the road. This

orientation is a first a bit surprising, because it seems to ignore the road. But upon consideration it

seemsquiteobviousthattheprominentgabledendofthebuildingaddressedacross-axisaccessto

amajorwharfthatranbetweentheCustomshouseandthiswarehouse.Thesecondisthebuilding’s

Englishbondmasonry,whichclearlysuggeststhatthisbuildingdatesfromtheeighteenthcentury.


�4

Ifitdatesfromsoearlyaperiod,itmustappearintheseearlyimagesofthewarehousedistrictof

Oranjestadandtheresimplyisnotanotherbuildingofthisscaleandthisorientationinthoseimages

thatcouldbethewarehouseunderconsiderationexceptthelargeDutch-gabledbuilding.

The evidence to the contrary includes the waterfront image’s suggestion of many more window

openingsonthebuildingthanisevidentonthewallsastheystandtoday.Remarkably,alltheoriginal

window and door openings remain with very little alteration, suggesting that the building under

considerationcouldneverhavehadthefenestrationsuggestedbythepainting.Evenso,wefeelthat

thephysicalevidenceissoconvincingthatthisaberrationmustbewrittenofftoartisticlicense.

Thephysicalevidenceoffers somecompelling informationabout theorganizationof thebuilding

in its early configuration. The extreme positioning of the northern door on the east wall of Zone III,

togetherwithanarchaeologicallyuncoveredfoundationwallwhichmighthavesupportedatimber

framepartitionsuggestthatthewidedooronthenorthernelevationopenedintoalateralpassagethat

exitedthebuildingthroughthelargedoorattheextremenorthernendoftheeasternwall.Thecross-

wallcreatingthispassagecouldnothaverunthefullwidthofthebuildingasitwouldhaveterminated

intoawindowopeningonthewesternwall.ThissuggeststhatthewesternendofZoneIIIwasa

singlechamberthatranthefullnorth-southdepth,creatingtwochambersandacross-passageinZone

III.Thesoutheasternchamberwasfairlydarkwithnowindowsonitssouthernwall—thatsharedwith

the barrel-vaulted cross-passage identified as zone II—and only a single door to the west. The small

exteriordoorandthelackofwindowsimplythatitservedprimarilyasstorage.Thechamberatthe

westernendofZoneIII,conversely,waswell-lightedwithaccessfromtheinternalcross-passageat

the northern edge of Zone III and the cross-passage identified in this report as Zone II. This implies

that it served as an office or shop with abundant light and easy access to the spaces of Zones I, II,

andIII.Aseriesofjoistpockets,somearchaeologicallyuncoveredjoists,andanabundanceofnails

indicates that Zone III was floored in wood plank.

Careful examination of the roofing system in Zone III suggests that it is an eighteenth-century roof

from another building that has been retrofitted to this space. While the structure of the roof and


�5

its component parts are clearly of eighteenth-century date, their extensive reworking with newer

componentsandtheirregularitiesofitsinstallation,especiallythespacingofthetrusses,suggeststhat

itwasnotoriginallyinstalledoverthisspace.

The vaulted central passage identified as Zone II seems not to have changed much from is original

configuration. The office in Zone III had a door into the passage reaffirming that space’s importance

asaplaceofaccessandmanagement.Thesouthernwallofthepassagehastwodoors,eachgiving

access directly into the two major sections of Zone I. The door to the west is flanked by two large

windows in a shop-like configuration indicating that the passage was probably open to regular public

traffic and not a private, secured circulation route for a small community of people. Its is also well-

tiled,implyingthatitwasnotaresidualspace,butaprominentspace.

ZoneIhasthemostcomplexarchitecturalinformation.Theprominentmasonrycross-wallclearly

dividesthespaceintotwozones.Thelargerwesternchamberwasverywellilluminatedandboasted

fairlyopencirculation.Itseemslikelythatthisspacewasusedeitherasacommercialspaceorfor

lightmanufacturing.Thechambertotheeastofthecross-wallwassubdividedintotwochambersby

an intermediary half-wall that provided a skeleton for back to back fireplaces, each opening into a

smallchamber.Eachchamberhadanexternaldoortothenorth(intothecross-passage)ortothesouth.

Eachchamberalsohadwindowstotheeastoverlookingtheroad.Physicalevidenceindicatesquite

clearlythatthewindowandthedoorinthesouthernmostofthesetwochambershavebeenswapped.

The circular vent flue in each chamber suggests the likelihood that each contained its own small forge

andbellowsventedthroughthatholesupportingthepossibilitythatthissideofthebuildingwasused

forlightmanufacturing.

4.3. Recommendations

Thediscovery that thisbuildingwasoriginally theprominentDutch-gabledbuildingappearing in

manyoftheearlyviewsofOranjestadmeansthattherearemanypossibilitiesforrehabilitationand

restoration.Thecurrentownerwishestousethisbuildingasagiftshop,someresidentialspace,and


�6

ameeting space. If the current reworkingof thebuildingwere to emulate thebuilding’s original

envelope,onecaneasilyimagineagiftshopandmetingspacewithinthewallsofthecurrentbuilding

and an apartment incorporated into the tall spaces under a new steeply-pitched roof flanked at either

endbygables.Thatsaid,thisisaremarkablyimportantbuildingtoOranjestad,andpossiblythemost

importanthistoricbuildinginlowertown.Givenitsexpressivearchitecturalqualities,itwasacritical

landmark for the town and the restoration or renovation of this buildingmust not be undertaken

lightly. Given the building’s significance, I recommend the following guidelines be followed:

1) Preservation of the surviving masonry walls and the building’s rich archaeological context.

Thesurvivingmasonrywallsofthebuildingareverythick,largelyintact,andunalteredfromtheir

original construction.Save somebowingon thenorth faceof thenorth cross-wall of the interior

and some cracking at the southeastern corner of the building, themasonrywalls are in excellent

condition.Preservingthesewallsandmakingthemviableagainasthewallsofanotherwisenewly-

builtbuildingwillrequiretheskillsofamasonfamiliarwitheighteenth-centurymasonrytechniques.

Preservingthesewallsintactisofthehighestpriority.Thebuildingmustnotbemovedorremoved

fromitsarchaeologicalcontext.Normustthereconstructioninvolvedeconstructionofthesewalls

withthereuseofthebrickasaveneer.Suchtechniqueseviscerateabuilding’shistoricintegrity.It

wouldbebettertodemolishandbuildsomethingentirelynew.

Preservationofthesewallsextendsalsotothevariousstrategiesusedtocoolthebuildingandtothe

finish treatments used. The introduction of some temperature management systems and impermeable

finishes can extensively damage these walls. I STRONGLY recommend that the architect hire

a preservation engineer from or recommended by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, a team of

professionalswell-versedinmanagingthesekindsofchallenges.

2) Reconstruct the building’s original massing.

The confirmation that this building is the Dutch-gabled building seen in many early views means

wehaveagreatdealofinformationaboutthebuilding’soriginalcondition.Sourcesofinformation

ontheearlybuildingincludetheexcellentconditionofitssurvivingmasonrywalls, theextensive


��

archaeologicalexcavationfundedbytheowners,andtherepresentationofthebuildinginmultiple

earlyimagesofthecity.Thismeansthatthebuilding’scurrentownershavetheopportunitytoreturn

toOranjestadoneofthetown’smostimportanthistoriclandmarksbypreservingthoseportionsofthe

buildingthatremainandrecapturingthemassingofthebuilding’soriginalcondition.Thiswillmean

reconstructingthebuildingsgableendwallsandthesteeplypitchedrooftogetherwithitsdormers.

3) Integrate new and old.

Istronglyrecommendthatthereconstruction/restorationofthebuildingrespectthebuilding’ssurviving

historicfabric(asarguedinpoint�)whilesimultaneouslyallowingthebuildingtohaveanewand

contemporary life and use by avoiding an overly “Williamsburgified” restoration. It seems important

torecapturethebuilding’soriginalmassingbyre-erectingthegableendsandraisingtheroofpitchto

runfromendtoendasitdidintheeighteenthcentury.Itseemsequallyimportantthatthebuilding’s

new gable walls respond sensitively to the surviving brick walls without being indistinguishable

fromthem.Butbeyondthemassing,Irecommendthatallnewconstructionutilizethenewestand

bestavailablematerialssothatthehistoricmaterialscanbeeasilylegible.Forexample,itsseemsto

beabetterapproachtohaveastronglycontemporaryshopspaceinZoneIthatallowsthesurviving

fabrictotellthestoryofthebuilding’shistory:someexposedcomponentsofthearcheologicalpits

visible though a glass floor, for example. For those materials or architectural/engineering strategies

thatareundertheskinofthebuilding(thenewroofframing,forexample)theseshouldbeofthebest

andmostcurrentmaterialsthatbestsuitthevaluesofpreservingthehistoricfabricandsuitingthe

needs of the client. The final building should 1) highlight the surviving historic fabric, 2) recreate the

massingandenvelopeofthehistoricbuildingasitstoodintheeighteenthcenturyand�)meetthe

needsoftheclientusingcurrentdesignstrategiesandbuildingmaterialsinallnewconstruction.

Insum,IamverygratefultohavehadtheopportunitytopartnerwithSECARandtheownersonthe

investigation of this very important building and it is my hope that the owners and the designers find

waystopreservetheimportanthistoricfabricintactwhiletransformingthebuildingintoastructure

thatsuits theirneeds.And, lastly, Iamhappy tobeofservice toSECARor theowner for future

consultationshouldtheprojectmoreforwardwiththeserecommendationsinmind.


�8

5. Warehouse Mazinga, an Archaeological Survey/Excavation

(Appendix 2, Appendix 3 (on CD))

Prior to the archaeological survey performed on the inside of ‘Mazinga Warehouse’, a modern

concreteslab(S�)wasremovedmanuallyfromthesite.Priortotheexcavationoftheexteriorpartof

thebuilding,thetopsoillayer(S�000)wasremovedmechanically,usingasmallbackhoe.

Allfeaturesandcontextsarebroughttogetherintwolists,whichcanbeconsultedinAppendix�(on

CD).

5.1. Zone I and Southern Exterior (See Appendix 2; 5.1.)

After the removal of themodern concrete slab (S�) inZone I, numerous featureswere revealed,

givinginsightintothebuilding’shistory.Twotestpitswereexcavatedinthiszone(Testpit�andTest

pit5),uncoveringthesite’shistorypriortoitsfunctionasthepresent(�008)standingstructure.

The first important thing to be noted is the division of Zone I into three spaces. Features S8, S9 and

S��arepartofthebaseofaninteriorwallthatusedtodividethezoneintoaneasternandawestern

area. Directly underneath the concrete slab, the floor level of the widest, western area consisted of

a partly worn down earthenware tile floor (S14). The tile floor was missing in the center of this area

(it is likely that the missing tiles were reused elsewhere in or around the building). The floor had a

mortarfoundation(S�6andS�8).Underneaththismortarlayer,ahardbrownclaylayer(S�5and

S��)wasdetected.Theclaylayerwascutbyanashconcentrationinthemiddleoftheroom(S40).

The northwestern threshold (W12), connecting Zone I to Zone II consisted of a part of the tile floor

(S�4)andabrickstep(S45).Thedoorway(W�)connectingZoneItothesouthernexteriorofthe

buildingconsistedofathresholdmadeoutofbrick(S44).Atestpit(testpit5)wasexcavatedagainst

theborderoftheoriginalwesternroom,westtothefoundationdividingthewholeareaintotwoand

alongthesoutherninteriorwall.


�9

During the excavation of test pit 5, a part of the mortar for the tile floor (S13) was found. Underneath

this layer isalsoanaturalstonefooter(S��), formingthebasefor the interiorandsouthernwall.

UnderneaththisfoundationS��,someex situirregularbrickswerefound.Verynoteworthyfeatures

in test pit 5 are feature numbers S48 and S47. S48 is a brick floor, which was found underneath the

footerlevelofthecurrentlystandingstructure.S4�isaposthole,whichwasfoundatalevelbetween

S48andS��.Boththesefeaturesformthephysicalprooffortheexistenceofanearlierstructureonthe

currentbuilding’slocation.Onalowerleveltheexcavatedlayersbecomenatural(S�0�0and�0�0).

S�0�0isacleansandlayerinwhichthefragmentaryremainsoftwolargeturtleswerefound.

TotheeastoffeaturesS8,S9andS��,anarrowspacewasdividedintotwosmallerrooms.Anatural

stonehearth (S�)andamortarandbrickwall (S�9)arepartof the featuredividing thearea into

two.

The original southeastern room had an earthenware tile floor (S2). At some point an poorly built

‘temporary fire pit’ was cut into the center of this floor (S3, S4, S5, S6). This hearth is clearly

secondary.

The northeastern room had been stripped from its original floor level and consisted of several relatively

young fill-layers on top of the in situarchaeology.Asecondtestpit(testpit�)wasexcavatedhere,

down to the subsoil. A crumbly mortar layer (S21) indicates the former presence of a tile floor. S20,

S��andS�6arepartofanaturalstonefooter,supportingtheinteriorwalls.

W�4,thedoorwayconnectingthisnarrowspaceofZoneItoZoneIIconsistedofabrickthreshold

(S�8andS�0),underlainbyamortarlayer(S�9).

Duringtheexcavationoftestpit�,��contextsweredistinguished-Contextnumbers�,�,�,4,5,6,�,

9,12,13,14,15,18 and 19- (see profile drawing and context list, appendix 2). They all seem to be fill

layers.Therearenoindicationsinthistestpitfortheexistenceofanearlierstructureattheexamined

location.

After the removalof the topsoilaround thebuilding,a testpit (Isaac’sPit)wasexcavatedon the

southeastsideofthebuilding.Theremainingsouthernpartoftheexteriorwasstrippedandcleared,


40

exposingasmallstructure(Kelly’sKitchen)tothesouthwestofthe‘MazingaWarehouse’.

ThemostimportantfeaturebeingexposedduringtheexcavationofIsaac’spitwasanapproximately

50cmwideand�5cmdeepwellbuiltfooterforthebuidling’ssouthwall(Cxt�0).Thefooterwas

exposedbutnotexcavatedalongtheentirelengthofthiswall.Thefooterwasbuiltdirectlyonthe

beachsandsubsoil.Whetherthefoundationiscontinuousallaroundtheexteriorwallsofthestructure

hasn’tbeenestablishedduringthecurrentresearch.

Anotherimportantexposedfeaturewasafoundation-wall(Cxt�0)onthesouthsideofIsaac’spit.This

featureindicatestheformerpresenceofastructure,directlysouthoftheWarehousecurrentlyunder

research.Whetherbothstructureswereoncestandingcontemporaneouslyhasnotbeenestablished.

Amorerecentcompactedwalkingsurface(Cxt��)wasfoundonahigherlevelthanbothfoundation

walls.ThecollapseofthebuildingtothesouthoftheMazingaWarehouseoccuredrelativelyrecently

as is evidenced by the resulting rubble underlying fill deposited since the mid twentieth century.

Tothesouthwestof‘MazingaWarehouse’,ontheoppositesideofCxt�0,“Kelly’sKitchen”was

uncovered. “Kelly’s Kitchen” is a small structure measuring 350 cm by 285 cm. Two ash fills (Cxt

�8,�9)wereexcavatedontheinteriorofthestructure,indicatingthatthestructurehadapractical

function, presumably that of a kitchen.The structure ismost likely to be contemporarywith the

‘MazingaWarehouse’.Itisalsoclearlyvisibleineach�8�8paintingofthisareaofthebay.

5.2. Zone II and III (See Appendix 2; 5.2.)

DuringtheexcavationofZoneII -thehallwayconnectingZoneItozoneIII-anearthenwaretile

floor was uncovered (S31). The floor was very fragmentarily preserved and seems to have been

crushedtowardsthecenterandtheeastofthehallway(S��).Thismayhavebeenduetotheconcrete

and rubble installed on top of this flooring sometime in the 1950s. The doorway towards the west

(W�5) consisted of a brick doorsill (S�9).The threshold of the eastern doorwas preserved very

fragmentarily,butafewbrickfragments(S�8,S46)uncoveredinthisareaindicatethattheeastern

entrancemusthavehadasimilarappearanceas thewesternone.Noteworthyis therowofbricks


4�

(S90) between the southern edge of the tile floor and the southern wall of the alley, which indicates a

sense for detail during the construction of the floor. The tile floor was laid directly on top of a brown

graysiltyclaylayer(S��).Severalfooterstoneswereuncovered(S�6andS��),pointingtowardsthe

presenceofanaturalstonefootersupportingthecentralinteriorwallsofthestructure.Theexcavation

ofthedoorwayconnectingZoneIItoZoneIIIexposedtwolargefooters(S6�andS69)indicating

thatthispassagewaywassolidlybuilt,perhapsforthetransportofheavygoods.

A testpitwasexcavated in theeasternpartofZone II (Testpit�).Thisexcavation revealed the

presence of an older mortar and brick floor level (Cxt 38) underneath S33.

The unearthing of Zone III revealed the presence of a wooden floor in this area. Several fragments

oforiginalwood(likelyLignum vitaeor“ironwood”)wereretrievedfromtheexcavation(S58,S54,

S�4,S59andS80).Thewoodenplanksplaceduponthese joistswereorientedroughlyeast-west.

Againstthenorthernandsouthernwallseveralnicheswereexcavatedatregularintervals(S6�and

S64).Thebrickworkformingthesenicheswerenotintegralwiththewall,whichindicatesthatthey

may have been secondary alterations to the room, and thus the wooden floor as well. Several rows

of footers created a solid foundation for the wooden floor.45 S5� is an east-west oriented row of

naturalstonesinthenorthernpartofthezone.Thepresenceofasinglerowofbricks(S6�)ontop

of thenaturalstones is interpretedasa techniqueto level thefoundationfor theplacementof the

wooden floor. Another similar foundation row (S89) was observed in the southern area of Zone III.

ItisprobablethatfeaturesS5�,S5�,andpossiblyS56werealsooriginallypartoftheeast-western

oriented foundation for the wooden floor. Noteworthy here is that S53 (natural stone footer) cuts into

an earthenware tile (S49), indicating again that the wooden floor is a secondary alteration to this part

of thebuilding.Thewooden joistswere laiduponnorth-southoriented foundation rows--features

S5�,S8�,S�9,S�8,S��,S��,S�4,S�5,S�6,S��,S55,S68,S66andS65areallinterpretedasso.

TheclearestexampleconsistsofS��,S��,S�4,S�5andS�6.ThescatteredbricksaroundS80form

asecondgoodexample.Twomortarconcentrations(S�0andS��)directlyunderneaththewood,but

45 AtthetimeofLouisNelson’sresearchZoneIIIhadnotbeenentirelyunearthed.Nelsoninterpretsthenorthernrowoffootersasthefoundationofawalldividingtheinte-riorspaceintotwoarea’s.However,furtherexcavationbroughtmore,similarfeaturestolightthroughouttheentirearea.Archaeologicallythesefeaturesarethusallinterpretedasbeing the foundation for a wooden floor.


4�

abovethenaturalstonefootersindicatethatamortarslabcompletedthefoundationforthewooden

floor. A final feature provinding evidence for the existence of a brick floor prior to the wooden floor

onthislocationisS60,abrickfeaturecuttingintoS��,whichispartofthefoundationforthewooden

floor. This brick floor may have also been associated with a prior structure.

S50andS6�,rowofnaturalstonestotheeastofZoneIIIarepartoftheinteriorfootersupporting

theinteriorwallsofthispartofthestructure.Underneaththese,asandandsiltlayerwasuncovered

(S�080)spreadoutacrossthewholearea,andZoneIIaswell(S��).

AtestpitwasexcavatedinthecenterofZoneIII(testpit�),inwhichahardpackedlayer(Cxt��)

wasfoundunderneathS�080.

5.3. Exterior (See Appendix 2; 5.3.)

Thesouthernexteriorof‘MazingaWarehouse’waspreviouslytreatedunderparagraph5.�.

Theeasternexteriorof‘MazingaWarehouse’consistsofthepartialremainsofanearthenwaretile

floor, laid on top of a lime mortar slab (S82). It is possible that the tiles used for this exterior flooring

wereoriginallylocatedontheinsideofthebuilding(ZoneI)astheareaoftheseremainingtilesand

thoseinZoneIIarejustaboutequaltothesufaceareaofthemissingtilesfromZoneI.Towardsthe

north,apathwasexcavatedconsistingoflargeBermudastoneblocks(S84),locally,towardstheeast,

abrickpatch(S85)andnaturalstoneblocks(S86).Thispathhadbeenmorerecentlycoveredbya

concreteslab(S84).S88isamoderndisturbanceinthisarea.

Towardsthewestofthebuilding(ontheBay),anpathwasbuiltfromBermudalimestoneblocks

(S8�).Anumberofirregularlyplacedlargenaturalstones(S86)werefoundunderneaththebeach

sandbetweenS8�andtheocean.Thesestonesweremortaredtogetherarelikelytheremainsofa

seawallbuilttoprotectthebuildingagainsttheocean.S8�isamoderndisturbance.


4�

5.4. Research questions

1. How many construction phases can be identified? Has the structure known a continuous use

sinceitserectionorarethereclearhiatusesinitshistory?

Althoughthetwomajorcomponentsofthebuilding(ZoneIandIII)mightimplytwodistinctbuilding

periodsitisclearthatthebuildingfootprintaswenowseeitisasinglebuildingperiod.Thebestand

nearconclusiveevidence to thiseffect is theconsistencyof thebuilding’sEnglishbondmasonry.

Thearchitecturalandarchaeologicalresearchcouldnotgiveconclusiveevidenceaboutwhetherthe

structurehasknownacontinuoususesinceitserection,sometimeinthe��0’s.Howeverseveral

distinct phases could be identified through the archaeological record. There are some periods, which

donothaveanyarchaeologicalevidence(late�9thcentury).Thereishoweverdocumentaryevidence

providing informationfor theseperiods.Recentownershipdocumentsgobackasfaras�88�(cf.

KadastralegegevensSt.Eustatius).Thebuilding’slastfunctionhasbeenthatofadiveshopinthe

beginningofthe�980’s.

�. Aretherearchitectural/archaeologicalfeaturesgivinganinsightintothebuilding’spastuse?

Isthereotherevidenceregardingthebuilding’spastuse?

The exact past use of the building hasn’t been established thus far. However, there are several

architecturalandarchaeologicalfeaturesgivingsomeindicationsonthestructure’sformerfunction.

The archaeological research in Zone III has pointed out that a wooden floor once covered the ground

level.Althoughtheusageofwoodontheupperstorieswascommon,previousresearch(cf. supra

2.3.2)hasshownthatitwasseldomfoundatgroundlevel.Theusageofearthenwaretileswasrareas

well. In this building, however, we see red earthenware tile floors in each zone. In Zone I and II, the

tile floor is the most recent of the historical alterations. In Zone I, the tile floor was preceded by a brick

floor - this floor, however, was found underneath the buildings footer stones and thus likely belongs

to an earlier structure. In Zone II the tile floor underlain by a mortar and brick floor. The wooden

floor in Zone III may have been preceded by a red tile floor (S 49), however, there is no conclusive


44

archaeological evidence for this. A brick floor, which may have been part of a previous structure, does

underlie the fill below the wooden floor. The use of expensive materials indicates a rather exclusive

orhighstatususeforthebuilding.

TheeasterninteriorwallinZoneIisscarredfromthedemolitionandremovalofasubstantialbrick

hearth.Thehearthwasdivided into twoequalworkareasbyabrickwall connecting theeastern

interiorwalltotheinteriordividingwalltothewestofthisarea.Althoughtheexactfunctionofthe

hearthcouldnotbedeterminedfromarchaeologicalevidence,sometypeofcookingoperationsmust

havetakenplaceinthisarea.

The very substantial exterior foundation clearly indicates the desire to have a support for awall

weighingmuchmorethanwhatiscurrentlypresentonthesite.

Oneoftheexcavatedfeaturesoffersanindicationononeofthestructuressecondaryfunctions.Inthe

southeastern corner of Zone I, a poorly built firepit was unearthed. Several ceramic crucibles were

retrieved fromthehearth.TheTerminus Post Quem for this feature is��8�,whichprovidesa tie

betweenthefeatureandthearrivaloftheFrenchin��9�andthedemiseoftheSecondDutchWest

IndiesCompanyatapproximatelythesametime.

ThearchitecturalresearchhaspointedoutthatthestructureismostlikelytobetheDutchGabled

buildingasseenonseveraloftheearlyviewsofOranjestad.Althoughthisdiscoverydoesnotprovide

directinformationaboutthestructure’sformerfunctionan sich,itdoesofferthepossibilitytodovery

targetedarchivalresearch.

�. Howdeepdothefoundations/footersgo?

Themostinformativefoundationexposedduringtheexcavationwasanapproximately50cmwide

(thisisnotthetotalwidthofthefoundation)and�5cmdeepfoundation-wallsupportingthesouthern

exteriorwallofthebuildingandformingaverysolidbasefortheWarehouse.Thefooterwasseen

alongthewholesouthernwallofthestructure,andwasbuiltdirectlyonthebeachsand.Whetherthe

foundationiscontinuousallaroundtheexteriorwallsofthestructurehasn’tbeenestablishedduring

thecurrentresearch.Theverysubstantialfooter,however,clearlyindicatesthedesiretohavesupport


45

forawallweighingmuchmorethanwhatiscurrentlypresentonthesite.

Thearchaeologicalresearchpointedoutthattheinteriorwallsweresupportedbyirregularnatural

stone footers, all at an approximate depth of 30 cm beneath floor level.

4. What does the stratification of the underlying soil consist of? Has the soil been elevated on

oneormultipleoccasions?

Three of the excavated test pits give an insight in the site’s stratification. Evaluating the interior

stratification of the building, we can conclude that the structure was erected on top of several fill

layers (beingeither layersofdebrisordeliberately introduced layers).Theobservedremainsofa

brick floor and a posthole, being part of a structure preceding the currently standing building provide

evidenceforanintensivesiteformationprocessbeforetheerectionofthewarehouse(priorto��0).

The observed stratification on the inside of the building moreover confirms this image. The natural

subsoil (which consists of rough sea sand) was observed on a depth of 170 cm beneath floor level.

The stratification on the exterior of the building as seen in the southern test pit reveals a site formation

that is partly similar to the interior stratification, however with several deviations. As noted before,

the firm, exterior foundation has been built on top of the sea sand, which was observed here at

a depth of ��5 cmunder ground level.The foundation of another structurewas observedon the

southsideofthisexteriortestpit.Inbetweenbothstructurestheresearchhasshownthepresenceof

multiple flood layers, through several alluvial deposits. This indicates that the space in between both

buildingsmusthavebeenopenanduncoveredforacertainperiodoftime.Ontopofthosedepositsa

walkinglevelandseverallayersofdebriswerefound.Theupper50cmofsoilunderneaththeoriginal

modern ground level existed of modern fill around the whole building. Earlier research has pointed

outthatseveralofthedebrislayersfoundonexcavationsinLowerTownareactuallytheresultof

thecollapsingofthecliffborderingtheareaandarethusnotneccesarilycontemporaneouswiththe

structurestheyareassociatedwith.Basedonasmall-scaleexcavationsuchasthecurrentresearch,no

substantialconclusionscanbedrawninthisregard.Filllayers,howeverarealwaystobeapproached

withacriticaleyewhenitcomestointerpretingasite.


46

5. Arethereobviousalterationsmadetothebuilding?

Thebuildinginitscurrentstateshowsalargeamountofalterationshavingbeenmadetoitwithinits

�00yearsofhistory.

Thesurvivingmasonrywallsofthebuildingareverythick,largelyintact,andunalteredfromtheir

originalconstruction.

The original façade of the building, facing north, carries two arches filled with yellow brick. When the

modern concrete is completely removed from the interior of this structure, more confident conclusion

may be drawn regarding whether this infill is original to the structure.

TheroofcurrentlyshelteringZoneIIIisoldandverycomplex;itishoweveraneighteenth-century

roof from another building that has been retrofitted to this space. The existing hipped roof covering

ZoneIdatesbacktothelate�9�0s.

The floor-covering throughout the entire building is secondary.

BothdoorwaysinZoneII wereoriginallyopenwithnophysicalevidenceofagateordoor.The

entrances as seen today are clearly infill dating to a later period.

ZoneIwasoriginallydividedintothreerooms.Thewallsdividingthearea,however,wasremoved

at some point in history. The fireplace dividing the original eastern zone into two separate small

chambersisnowonlytoberecognizedbyawidehorizontalscaronthecenteroftheeasternwall.

InthesoutheasterncornerofZoneI,thedoorandwindowhavebeenswitched.Theeastwallhada

windowandthesouthwallhadadoor.

Partsofthebricksoftheoriginalwallswereverylikelyusedasspoliafortheconstructionofnew

buildingsinUpperTownduringthe�9thcentury.

Parts of the red tile floor as found in Zone I and Zone II were possibly reused on the outside of the

building.

6. Arethereindicationsthatacompletelyseparatebuildingusedtoexistonthesamelocation?

Thereareindeedsomeindicationsfortheexistenceofacompletelyseparatebuildingexistingonthe

site’slocationpriortotheconstructionofthewarehouse.


4�

In test pit 5, Zone I, the remains of a brick floor were observed underneath the foundation footers

ofoneof the interiorwalls, alongside aposthole.These features are likely tobelong to anolder

structure.Duetothelimitedsizeofthetestpit,however,nootherconclusionscanbedrawnbased

on the presence of these features. Similarly, the remains of a brick floor, possibly part of an earlier

structure, have been found underneath the wooden floor level in Zone III.

�. Arethereobviousmodernrestorationsvisible?

Priortotheexcavationoftheinteriorofthewarehouse,amodernconcreteslabwasremovedfrom

thesite.Thismodernalterationpresumablydatesbacktothe�950’sasaTerminusPostQuemdateis

providedbya�944DutchGuildercentexcavatedinthesoillayerjustbelowthislevel.

TheroofshelteringZoneIdatesbacktothelate�9�0’s.

8. Isitpossibletodatethecurrentlystandingstructurebystudyingthebrickwork/mortar?

Thebuilding’sEnglishbondmasonry -alternatingcoursesofstretchersandheaders-consistently

usedthroughoutthewholebuilding,suggeststhatthisstructuredatesfromtheeighteenthcentury,

andverypossiblyfromtheearlyeighteenthcentury.Theshallowsegmentalarchoverthedooronthe

southern elevation and the two ends of the barrel vault that defines Zone II are also masonry details

indicativeofearliereighteenth-centurymasonrydetailing.

9. Which types of natural deterioration to the building can be distinguished? What is the

conditionofthewalls?

ThesometimesviolentCaribbeanclimateandthebuilding’snearnesstotheoceancausedrelatively

little harm to the building. It is obvious that especially the brickwork on the ocean side has had

to stand firm against the impact of the climate and salt water. However, the masonry walls are in

excellentcondition.


48

�0. Isthestructureasawholetobeconsideredcontemporary?Ifnot,whichbuildingisyounger

thantheother?

Thestructureistobeconsideredcontemporaryasawhole.

��. Dothearchaeologicalremainspermittodividethebuilding’shistoryintoseparatephases?

Baseduponthephysicalarchaeologicalevidencethebuildingshistorycanbedividedinto6phases:

- Phase�,theconstructionofthebuildingasawhole.

- Phase 2, renovation, installing new floors in the building.

- Phase�,demolitionoftheinteriorwallsinZoneI.

- Phase 4, creation of the firepit in the southeastern corner of Zone I.

- Phase5,demolitionofDutchGablesandreplacementbya“new”oldroofinthelater

�9thcentury.

- Phase 6, introduction of modern fill and modern concrete layer throughout the

building.

6. Conclusions

The“Mazinga”Warehouseprojecthasproventobeveryinformative,givingarangeofnewinsights

concerning the structure and the central Lower Town area. The identification of the structure as

beingtheDutchGabledbuilding,knownfromseveralearlyartworks,makesitanoutstandingsite

with universal cultural value and a high historical significance. The archaeological and architectural

researchcanformthebasisforfurtherarchivalandhistoricalresearch.

Archaeologicallysixphasescanberecognizedinthebuilding’shistory.Priortothatthereisalsoan

olderstructureatthegivenlocation.Earlierexcavationsintheharborareahaveexposedsuccessive

levelsofconstructionbefore.Compaedtothoseexcavations,currentresearchhaspointedoutthatthere


49

isnorecognizablealignmentbetweentwoormoreseparatepresentbuildingsatthesamelocation.

Thearchaeologicalandarchitecturalsurveydatetheconstructionofthebuildingbacktotheearly

eighteenth century. Earlier archaeological research has pointed out that most warehouse ruins in

LowerTowndatebacktothesecondhalfoftheeighteenthcentury,making‘MazingaWarehouse’an

exceptionalstandingstructureinthatregardaswell.

Further details regarding the specifics of archaeological evidence recovered during this

projectwillbeprovidedinanupcomingaddendumtothisreport.


50

APPENDIX 1-HABS DRAWINGS

3.2.2. The Building’s Exterior

3.2.2.1. Northern wall

3.2.2.2. Eastern wall

3.2.2.3. Southern wall

3.2.2.4. Western wall

3.2.3. The Building’s Interior

3.2.3.1. Zone I





3.2.3.2. Zone II

�.�.�.�.�.Archeddoorways



3.2.3.3. Zone III





�.�.�.�.5.Roof


5�

St. E

usta

tius

Cen

ter f

or A

rcha

eolo

gica

l Res

earc

h

5�

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga3.2.2.1. Exterior, Northern Wall

The Northern exterior wall of the researched structure possesses two windows symmetrically flanking a central doorway. These three elements are all arched. The arches appear to be original features. At some point, however they were modified and filled up with IJselsteen, creating their current form.

The north wall is the original formal facade of the building.

St. Eustatius Center for A

rchaeological Research

5�

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga3.2.2.2. Exterior, Eastern Facade

The eastern facade of Warehouse Mazinga is the facade facing the street. As seen on the drawing, zone I (to the left) is separated of zone III (to the right) by an archway (zone II) . The entire building, as we see it today, was constructed during a single building period.

Detail brickwork outside wall zone I

Detail brickwork outside wall zone III

Arch above door zone II

Ventilation window and window shutters zone I

St. E

usta

tius

Cen

ter f

or A

rcha

eolo

gica

l Res

earc

h

54

View of the Southern facade, from the east

Detail of arched doorway

Typical features of the southern exterior wall of Mazinga Warehouse are the arched doorway, the ventilation hole to the right of the door, and the window to the right, which is a modified door. At the bottom here we see an opening, which probably provided air for a secondary improvised hearth on the inside of the building.

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga3.2.2.3. Exterior, Southern Facade

0 1 meter



55

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga3.2.2.4. Exterior, Western Facade

Detail of the arch above the central door

The western facade of the structure faces the ocean and has suffered some damage from attacks by nature. One can see the division between the two major zones (I&III), and an archway in the middle. The sloping concrete on the zone III windows indicate the more recent use of the building as a fisherman's warehouse.

Detail of fishermen's window. with slopedconcrete addition to allow fishermen’s nets to be pulled into Zone III with greater ease.

0 1 meter

St. E

usta

tius

Cen

ter f

or A

rcha

eolo

gica

l Res

earc

h

56

Detail of the brickwork. For the construction of this building, mainly red brick was used. Some restorations were done using the Dutch yellow IJselsteen.

0 1 meter

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga3.2.3.1.1. Zone I, Interior, Northern

Detail of the embedded wall

The northern interior wall of Zone I carries a couple important features. The remains of an embedded wall indicate that Zone I used to consist of two sections; a narrow space to the east -with a northern entrance-, and a large open space to the west. Two large windows sandwiching a wide doorway, to the north of the large open chamber, indicates that this passage used to be the primary entrance into this room. The woodwork may all be original.

Detail of the woodwork,(lintle of the window to the right of the doorway)



5�

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga3.2.3.1.3. Zone I, Interior, Southern Wall0 1 meter

The southern wall of Zone I, contains several distinctive features, regarding the building's construction history, and its function. From left to right: The beamed window is a modified door. The outline of the original doorway is very clear., and had its base on an original tile floor level , visible in the southeastern corner of the building. Next to the door, a ventilation hole, which is related to the oven that used to divide the eastern part of Zone I into two small chambers. To the right of the ventilation window, the remains of the embedded wall that used to devide the whole area into two spaces. In the center of the wall, a low door that has been modified at some point, alligned by an equally sized window to the west. The original door was longer, having its base on the original tile floor level (this floor slopes down towards the east) , visible in the western part of Zone I.

Detail of the embedded wall

Detail of the brickwork

1


58

0 1 meter

Detail of pocket for girt

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga3.2.3.1.2. Zone I, Interior, Eastern wall

Detail of ventilation window

Detail scar and pocket of former oven

The Eastern interior wall of zone I carries two distinctive features. On the one hand there is a ventilation hole next to the northern window, which linked to the second distinctive feature, namely the scar and pockets of a former hearth area. The hearth divided the space into two small chambers. A floor present in the southeast of Zone I, positioned 35 cm under the doorlevel, indicates that the doorway to the right of the drawing is a more recent modification having been converted from a doorway.


59

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga3.2.3.1.4. Zone I, Interior, Western Wall

The western interior wall of zone I has a very basic layout. Two same sized windows in the center of the wall provide an ocean view from the western chamber of zone I.

Detail of the brickwork

0 1 meter


60

The door connecting the alleyway to Zone III is at the west end of the northern wall in Zone II.

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga3.2.3.2.3. Zone II, Interior, northern wall0 1 meter

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga3.2.3.2.2. Zone II, Interior, Southern Wall

The southern interior wall of Zone II connects the passageway with Zone I. The eastern doorway leads to the eastern smaller chamber. Two windows flanking a central door, forming the main entrance into the larger chamber of Zone I.

0 1 meter

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga3.2.3.2.1. Zone II, Arched doorways

Western arched doorway Eastern arched doorway

The doorway at the western end of Zone II is a more recent alteration to the building. The other is orginal to the structure. Both doorways were originally open with no physical evidence of a gate or a door.

0 1 meter



6�

0 1 meter

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga 3.2.3.3.1. Zone III, Northern wall

The northern wall of Zone III has been covered with a layer of concrete in more recent times. The northern doorway at the center of this wall was the primary entrance to the building Iphoto below right). The doorway is also flanked by two symmetrically placed windows. Joist holes were built along the base of this wall using a variety of bricks indicating that the wooden floor that once lay here was not original to the structure (photo below left).

St. E

usta

tius

Cen

ter f

or A

rcha

eolo

gica

l Res

earc

h

6�

0 1 meter

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga3.2.2.3.3.Zone III, Interior, Southern Wall

The interior walls of zone III have all been covered with a layer of concrete in recent times. However, some impotant features are visible in this drawing, giving an insight in the buildings former organisation. A row of niches -of which only two are visible on this drawing-, form a stable foundation for a wooden floor that used to cover zone III's ground level. To the west there is a door conecting zone III to the archway (see picture). Large natural stones in the middle of the doorway form the foundation for the southern wall and the former wooden floor.


6�

The eastern wall of Zone III has been covered with a layer of concrete in recent times, and has a wide door opening at its northern most edge and another narrower door further south.

0 1 meter

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga3.2.3.3.2. Zone III, Interior, Eastern Wall

0 1 meter

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga3.2.3.3.4. Zone III, Interior, Western Wall

The western wall of Zone III has been covered with a concrete layer in recent times. Two symmetrically placed windows look out over the Caribbean Sea.

St. E

usta

tius

Cen

ter f

or A

rcha

eolo

gica

l Res

earc

h

64

0 1 meter

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga3.2.3.3.5. Zone III, roof

Western Truss drawn from the east

Western Truss drawn from the south

Eastern Truss drawn from the west

Eastern Truss drawn from the south

NORTH


65

W4 W5

W6

W7

W8

W9W10

W11

W12

W13

W14

Testpit 1

Testpit

S7

Testpit 1:Cxt 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19

0 1 meter

S2

S4

S5S6

S8S9

S10S11S12

S13

S14

S15

S16 S18

S47

S48

S2030

S42S43

S19

S20

S21

S23

S24

S25

S26

S27

S28S29

S30

S40

S45

Kelly's Kitchen; Cxt 28, 29

Isaac's Pit; Cxt 10, 11, 16, 17, 20, 21, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37

S8

S44

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga5.1. Zone 1, Southern exterior

Testpit 5

APPENDIX 2 – ARCHAEOLOGICAL DRAWINGS

Isaac's pit, Eastern profile

CCharcoalcxt30

Cxt 37

Cxt 35

Cxt27

Modern fill and debris

Alluvial deposit

Packed Clay Surface

Charcoal

Foundation

Foundation

0 1 meter

0 1 meter

Testpit 1, Northern profile

Fill and debris layers. Bottom layer, natural sand


66

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga5.2. Zone II and III0 1 meter

S62S63

S64

S63 and S64 are thefeature numbers forthe niches (S63) and the intervals (S64) between them.

S50

S51

S52

S53

S49

S54

S61

S70 S71

S81

S72

S73

S74 S75

S76

S78S79

S80S77

S60

S59

S58

S57

S56S65S66

S2080

S63

S64

S68

S67

S69

S55

S89

S31

S32

S33

S35

S34

S36S36

S37

S38

S39

S46

S45

S33

W15

W3W2W1

W16W17

W18

W19

W20

W21

W11

W13

W14

S90

Testpit2

Testpit 3

Testpit 4

Testpit 2: Cxt 32, 33, 34, 36, 38Testpit 3: Cxt 22, 23 Testpit 4: Cxt 8, 24, 25, 26

0 1 meter

Zone II, groundplan of testpit Mortar, brick and tile fragments


6�

0 1 meter

S82

S83

S84

S84

S85

S86

S84

S87

S88

SE_343_Mazinga_Warehouse?5.3. Outside


68

Termini Post Quem

Context TPQ Artifact1b 1616 Porcelain2b 1750 Creamware3b 1750 Creamware4b 1675 Staffordshire5b 1780 Pearlware6b 1780 Pearlware

7b 1720 Stoneware/ White Salt Glazed8b N/A 9b 1765 Stoneware/ Westerwald10b 1799 Annular Ware/ Mocha11b 1799 Annular Ware/ Mocha12b 1675 Staffordshire13b 1725 Astburry Ware

14b 1750 Creamware15b 1740 Faience16b 1800 Lusterware17b 1800 Mocha Ware Fire Speckled18b 1780 Pearlware19b 1675 Staffordshire20b-21b 1795 Pearlware/ Polychrome

21b 1785 Pearlware/ Shell Edged22 1780 Pearlware22b 1750 Creamware23b 1785 Pearlware/ Shell Edged24 1780 Pearlware24b 1780 Pearlware25b 1550 Tin Enamel Ware

28b 1785 Pearlware/ Shell Edged29b 1785 Pearlware/ Shell Edged30b 1780 Pearlware31b 1775 Stoneware/ American32b 1780 Pearlware35b (Bottom Isaac’s pit) 1760 Annular Ware/ Marbled36b N/A

37b (Bottom Isaac’s pit) 1675 Staffordshire combslip 40 N/A 47 (Posthole) 1550 Tin Enamel Ware2030 1675 Staffordshire2060 1750 Creamware2070 1780 PearlwareHearth 1787 Pearlware/ Transfer Printed


69

Dates on the pipes

CXT/TRACE FIND# Merken Duco # RangeCXT#17b 69, 70, 82 L gekroond 304 1726-1940TRACE#12 46, 129 27 gekroond 650 1731-1897

44 gekroond 667b 1727-184682 gekroond 710 1734-1940HKH 517 1727-1846meermin 104a 1665/1685-1846

drie lelies 5 1705-1846drie lelies 5 1705-1846drie potjes 158 1725-1774/1782

TRACE#10 639 16 gekroond 1719-1873CXT#6 121, 125 Wapen van Haarlem 122 1675-1846

D gekroond (oorspronkelijk ongekroond) 297 1682-1897CXT#36 Atlas 95 1710/1715-1753

orFortuyn, later versie 105b 1675-1897LD gekroond (Lammert Donker) gpnl 1739-1759

CXT#35 dubbel kruis 277 1695/1700-1851hoed gekroond 228 1710/1725-1798M gekroond 305 1657-1940

CXT#31 181, 180 A gekroond 295 1714-1842/1843

CXT#18 16 gekroond 639 1719-1873CXT#27 157 47 gekroond 670 1733-1825

CXT/TR# Earliest DateTR#10 1719TR#12 1665

CXT#6 1675CXT#17b 1726CXT#18 1719CXT#27 1733CXT#31 1714CXT#35 1695CXT#36 1675/1710


�0

Maker’smarksontheheelofkaolinclaypipesarehelpfulindatingarchaeologicalcontexts.NineteendifferentmarkswererecoveredatSE�4�.OnemustconsiderthatsomemarkswereusedformanyyearsandthusarenottobeusedforanythingotherthanaTPQ.Thesewere identified using volumes published and written by D. Duco.


��

(members of the British Royal Family and foreign monarchs).

The Order's primary emblem is a garter bearing the motto "Honi soit qui mal y pense" (which means "Shame on him who thinks ill of it") in gold letters. The Garter is an actual accessory worn by the members of the Order during ceremonial occasions. The emblem can also be found on a series of historical objects, such as clay pipes. The clay pipe carying the emblem found in a modern debris layer in zone III was manufactored in Gouda by Jan Danens on the occasion of the marriage between King Willem V of Oranje and Frederica Sophia Wilhelmina in 1776. (D.H. Duco (1987) De Nederlandse kleipijp, Handboek voor dateren en determineren, Leiden, p.51)


��

North(top)andSouth(bottom)isometricelevationsoftheproposedreconstructionoftheMazingaWarehouse.


��

NorthlineelevationoftheproposedreconstructionoftheMazingaWarehouse.Thereisplenty of room in the upper floors for various uses.



�4

EastelevationoftheproposedreconstructionoftheMazingaW

arehouse.

St. E

usta

tius

Cen

ter f

or A

rcha

eolo

gica

l Res

earc

h

�5

Wes

tele

vatio

nof

the

prop

osed

reco

nstru

ctio

nof

the

Maz

inga

War

ehou

se.


�6

NortheastandsouthwestisometricelevationsoftheproposedreconstructionoftheMazingaWarehouse.


��

PlanoftheproposedreconstructionoftheMazingaWarehouse.

mazinga habs survey report - st. eustatius / statia

Documents