shipbuilding in bermuda

Post-Medieval Archaeology 45/1 (2011), 74–92

© Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology 2011 DOI: 10.1179/174581311X12983864588025

74

Ships, slaves and slipways: towards an archaeology of shipbuilding in Bermuda

By PAUL BELFORD

SUMMARY: The Bermudian shipbuilding industry was an important part of the local economy, and made a particular international contribution to trade and maritime design during the 18th century. Whilst its importance has long been recognized by historians, little archaeological attention has hitherto been paid to the extant remains. This paper describes archaeological survey of two ship-building sites, undertaken in 2004 and 2006. The project found that extensive remains of Bermuda’s important shipbuilding industry survive; future directions for research are outlined.

INTRODUCTION

Shipbuilding has always been inextricably linked to the history of Bermuda. Indeed, Bermuda owes its origins as an English settlement in the New World to the island’s ability to supply shipwrecked mariners with the necessary materials and environ-ment to build new vessels. From the earliest days of colonial settlement in the 17th century, shipbuild-ing was at the heart of the Bermudian economy, and in the 18th and early 19th centuries this indus-try thrived as a result of geographical necessity, abundant supply of low-cost labour, and ingenuity of design.

This paper reports on two surveys of 18th- and 19th-century shipbuilding sites on Bermuda’s North Shore. These revealed that substantial archaeological evidence survives for shipbuilding activity, which has tremendous significance in the post-medieval development of the Atlantic world. Extensive historical research has been undertaken on the general economic significance of the ship-building industry in Bermuda, principally by Michael Jarvis.1 Some historical and architectural research has also been undertaken on specific sites associated with known shipyards; however, these studies have tended to focus on the houses occu-pied by the sites’ owners rather than the shipbuild-ing itself.2 In contrast to such historically framed

approaches, the surveys described in this paper sought to apply a distinctly archaeological meth-odology derived from the disciplines of landscape and industrial archaeology as they had developed in the United Kingdom. This attempted a more holistic examination of land- and seascapes rather than focusing on the buildings and owners: treat-ing the shipbuilding foreshore as ‘a document recording the lives of countless past generations’.3 The approach builds on W.G. Hoskins’ idea of the landscape as palimpsest, to develop what Marilyn Palmer and Peter Neaverson have described as a ‘greater understanding of the inter-relationship of the factors that have shaped past industrial landscapes’.4

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The significance of the remains of the shipbuilding industries along Bermuda’s North Shore were first highlighted by Diana Chudleigh during her researches into Hamilton and Smith’s Parishes for the Bermuda National Trust’s Architectural Heritage Series.5 Previous historical research has explored the technological development of the Bermuda rig, and the industry’s importance to the development of the Bermudian economy and society.6 More recently, architectural analysis has been undertaken on upstanding remains associated

SHIPBUILDING IN BERMUDA 75

with the shipyards, such as the ruins at Crawl Point and Shelly Bay, as well as the homes of influential shipbuilders such as Callan Glen.7 This paper describes the results of two seasons of field survey on Bermuda, which emerged tangentially as a result of work on other archaeological projects.8 The work described here was undertaken as part of a wider research project sponsored by the Bank of Butterfield Foundation and the Bermuda National Trust. The shipyard survey was jointly devised by Diana Chudleigh and Paul Belford and was carried out by a team involving overseas and Bermudian volunteers, with the support of Richard Lowry and the Bermuda National Trust Archaeology Committee.

A preliminary examination was made of a series of shipbuilding sites to identify those with potential as a case study for both upstanding remains and archaeological features. These included sites at Bailey’s Bay, Crawl Point, Shelly Bay, Flatts, Magnolia Hall and Stilwell (Fig. 1). Two sites were selected, the main criteria being accessibility, well-researched documentary evi-dence and apparent compactness. Only limited time and resources were available for the surveys, the first exploration of this aspect of Bermuda’s archaeology within broader projects. The first site was Shelly Bay, where shipbuilding by the Outer-bridge family had been undertaken on a large scale in the later 18th and early 19th centuries. This site was chosen for its upstanding remains, and the emphasis here was on detailed standing building

recording of shipyard buildings. Fieldwork was undertaken by Paul Belford in October 2004.9 The second site was at Stilwell, which was chosen for the compact nature of the cut features associated with a well-known shipbuilding concern run by the Tynes family in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Fieldwork here was undertaken by Paul Belford, Kate Page-Smith, Stephen Copeland and Tom McCutcheon, during a four-day period in April 2006.10

SHIPBUILDING IN BERMUDA

The story of shipbuilding in Bermuda is as old as English settlement on the islands. In 1609 the shipwrecked crew of the Sea Venture began the construction of two ships, Sir George Somers’ Patience and Sir Thomas Gates’ Deliverance. Accounts suggest that much of the fabric, and cer-tainly all the fittings for these vessels were salvaged from the Sea Venture wreck.11 However, it is likely that the cedar ‘for which the island was soon to be noted’ would also have been used in these ships.12

Apart from the Deliverance and Patience, the earliest organized shipbuilding in Bermuda dates to the governorship of Nathaniel Butler, who engaged a Dutch carpenter in c. 1620 to build much-needed boats. He apparently constructed over a hundred boats in three years, and allegedly sold them ‘at unreasonable rates’ for his own profit.13 Shipbuilding was officially discouraged

FIG. 1

Bermuda: the location of the main sites mentioned in the text; the sites indicated by stars are those described in detail in this article (drawing by P. Belford).

76 PAUL BELFORD

during the remainder of the Somers Island Com-pany administration, as the Company preferred the islanders to concentrate on tobacco produc-tion.14 Nevertheless, a large number of vessels were in fact constructed, and several important ship-building enterprises were established during the 17th century.15 The environmental impact of the industry was significant: as early as 1683 the last Company-appointed Governor declared that the timber was ‘wholly destroy’d what with building Vessels and selling them to Foreigners’.16

Michael Jarvis has described the dissolution of the Somers Island Company as a ‘watershed in the history of the colony’, provoking a ‘maritime revolution’ in which Atlantic trade (of varying degrees of legality) became the mainstay of the Bermudian economy.17 With Bermuda under Crown control from 1684, maritime trade and shipbuilding increased significantly. In 1680 there were fourteen Bermudian-owned vessels.18 A report of 1687 recorded 42 ships ranging in size from under 20 tons to over 90 tons.19 By 1700 there were 50 ‘Shipp Wrights’ who between them were responsible for ‘76 Vessells . . . all of Cedar of which 4 are ships of about 100 Tuns’.20 By 1716 the Ber-mudian fleet numbered 92 vessels, and during this period the shipyards on the island were producing between 20 and 30 vessels a year.21 Thus in a generation the Bermudian fleet had grown by over 600%, and shipbuilding activity had increased commensurately. Bermuda cedar was durable, especially in the warm worm-infested Caribbean waters, and the island’s boats gained a reputation for solid and long-lasting construction.

As well as the early use of local materials, a distinct tradition of ship design also emerged during the 17th century. The Bermuda rig was first recognizably described by John Hardie in a verse of 1671:

. . . the Island Boats we see . . .With tripple corner’d Sayls they always float, About the Islands, in the world there areNone in all points that may with them compare.22

The origins of the Bermuda rig have been the sub-ject of much discussion.23 It was possibly derived from the 17th-century Dutch ‘lateen’ rig, which would have been familiar to the boat-builder engaged by Butler. Arguably the most significant factor in developing a boat that could sail close to the wind would have been the conditions on Bermuda itself: an island ‘strung to windward and leeward with a prevailing south-west wind’.24 Essentially the Bermudians eliminated the poor

tacking abilities of the lateen rig by removing the mast, using the yard in an upright position, and introducing a pole (in modern parlance, the boom) to control the lower edge of the sail.25 This resulted in a fast, manoeuvrable vessel. The classic Ber-muda sloop had tall, steeply raked masts and long bowsprits, enabling her to carry a large area of canvas and thus achieve great speeds. The Ber-muda rig was applied to a wide range of craft from small inshore dinghies to three-masted 400-ton warships, and, although modifications and addi-tions were made to the details during the 18th and 19th centuries, the basic layout survived as the ancestor of all modern sailing vessels.26 However, the modern interpretation of the Bermuda rig is rather less adventurous, with shorter booms, masts and bowsprits and a consequently reduced sail area.

The technical superiority of the Bermuda-built and Bermuda-rigged ships was part of the key to their success. Speed and longevity alone were not sufficient for Bermuda to emerge as the most important carrier on the fiercely competitive trade routes of the North American eastern seaboard and the Caribbean. As Michael Jarvis has shown, the use of slaves as crew was a key component in harnessing the ‘open-ended potential of com-merce’.27 In the first decade of the 18th century, between 14% and 20% of the crew of Bermudian vessels was made up of black slaves, and this pro-portion increased during the next few decades so that in many vessels black and Indian slaves formed the majority of crewmen. The case of the William — a sloop seized in 1725 by Bermuda’s collector of customs and found to have a crew of one white and three black seamen — resulted in an official ruling that for the purposes of the Navigation Acts Bermudian slaves were considered to be British subjects.28 This did not otherwise affect their status or legal rights; rather the ruling represented reco g-nition of the importance of slave crews in the increasingly profitable Bermuda trade. After the William case, the use of black slaves continued to increase, so that by the 1740s they accounted for at least 25% to 50% of the crew on every vessel.29

The use of slaves to crew the ships was only part of the story; slaves also provided skilled labour for shipbuilding. By c. 1700 the slave popu-lation of Bermuda was around 25% of the total. Unlike elsewhere in North America and the Carib-bean, this population was ‘made up almost entirely of island-born creoles’, who were ‘owned in small numbers’ and well integrated with the white major-ity.30 This labour force was another key factor in the economic success of the Bermuda shipbuilding industry, enabling ships to be produced to higher standards at lower costs than elsewhere. Between


1698 and 1708 Bermuda shipyards built a total of 237 vessels, including three ships, and by the 1730s the shipyards were producing up to 30 sloops per year.31 The industry not only required timber, it also needed iron, rope, canvas, tar and other mate-rials — further assisting Bermuda’s emergence as a significant hub in the Atlantic trade.

SHELLY BAY

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The survey site is located approximately 300 me-tres west of Shelly Bay, on Bermuda’s North Shore (for location, see Fig. 1). It lies on the foreshore between the Railway Trail and the sea. The site comprises the remains of a building, consisting of a chimney and associated walls (Fig. 2), which formed part of the Davis and Outerbridge ship-building complex of the 19th century. Other extant remains of the shipyard are evident to the north and west of this structure, and include further building remains and slipways.

Shipbuilding at Shelly Bay is recorded from 1664, when the Bermoodian Adventure was con-structed there. Thomas Outerbridge was a ship-wright of the 1670s whose descendants undertook shipbuilding operations in Shelly Bay for nearly 200 years.32 The Outerbridge yard subsequently constructed larger sailing ships of up to 300 tonnes

and over 30 metres in length.33 In its later years the concern became known as Davis and Outerbridge, and produced fast clipper ships — three-masted barques such as the Sir George F. Seymour of 1853, which once sailed from Bermuda to Cork in thirteen days, or the record-breaking Kohinoor of 1855.34 The shipyard remained in use into the 1880s.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

According to the Bermuda National Trust’s Archi-tectural Heritage volume on Hamilton Parish, the upstanding remains are ‘said to have been a ship-building forge and blacksmith’s shop’.35 However, this long-standing assertion had not been deter-mined from historical sources, nor has it been supported by detailed examination of the building fabric. Therefore, the Shelly Bay survey applied archaeological historic building recording method-ology, and specific knowledge of small-scale iron-working operations, to investigate the original form, appearance and function of the building.36

The building remains consisted of a sub-rectangular cellar cut into the Bermuda soft lime-stone bedrock, with an upstanding chimney and wall fragments at the south-western corner (Figs 2 and 3). The rock-cut cellar was oriented east–west and measured 6.40m long and 4.60m wide at the western end, tapering to 4.43m at the southern end. Due to the natural slope, the cellar was deeper on the southern side. The cellar was largely filled with limestone rubble, although a flat bedrock base was exposed in the far north-western corner, approxi-mately 1.50m below the survey datum. Other cuts had also been made into the bedrock immediately surrounding the building. On all sides of the cellar, the underlying bedrock had been shaped to pro-vide level footings for the upstanding structure. An entranceway onto the foreshore was situated on the northern side, 0.73m to the west of the north-eastern corner. This cut was oriented north–south, and was 3m long and on average 1.33m wide. It led out to a meandering path running east–west along the foreshore: the path had also been cut into the bedrock and appears to have connected various components of the shipbuilding complex. The south-western corner of this entranceway, internal to the building, had been angled leaving a face 0.37m long at an angle of 45°.

The upstanding remains at the south-western corner were constructed of Bermuda soft limestone blocks and measured approximately 2m north-south and 1m east-west in plan (Figs 2, 3 and 4). The entire structure was of a single phase of con-struction, with no additions or alterations evident in the extant stonework. The structure comprised

FIG. 2

Shelly Bay: overall plan of the site. The main cut cellar is shown as a bold line; upstanding walls (see Fig. 3) are

shaded (drawing by P. Belford).

78 PAUL BELFORD

the remains of the western gable end of a two-storey building. The chimney was integral with the gable wall. The return of the southern wall of the building was evident at the south-western corner and survived to a maximum length of 0.54m from the corner. The north wall, facing the sea, showed evidence of a chamfered stringer course, a largely decorative feature on the main front of the build-ing. The eastern gable wall survived to a length of approximately 2.50m north–south and stood 3.72m from the external base of the chimney to the surviving chimney top. The chimney was in the characteristic Bermudian vernacular style, being constructed of limestone blocks with stepped shoulders at eaves height (Fig. 4).

The chimney was unusual in that its base appeared to extend below the original first floor level, but the hearth was situated well above what would have been the floor in the room. This created a very deep ‘hearth’, and it is this feature — reminiscent of a deep smithing hearth — which appears to have given rise to the suggestion that it may have been a blacksmith’s forge.

The evidence of the remainder of the building suggests that this was not the case. Firstly, immedi-ately to the north of the chimney, one edge of the former window opening was evident (Fig. 5). Traces of the mortar show where the window-case for a vertically hung sash window was secured into the opening, flush with the outer wall. Such a

FIG. 3

Shelly Bay: elevations of the standing building (drawing by P. Belford).

FIG. 4

Shelly Bay: exterior elevation of the chimney, view looking north-east (photograph by P. Belford).


window would not have been provided in a forge, for blacksmiths traditionally preferred darker working spaces so they could better see (and judge the quality of) the fire and the hot metal being worked. Moreover, when windows are provided in forges, they are usually of relatively simple and inexpensive construction and are intended for ven-tilation; glass was not widely used until the 20th century. Secondly, locating a blacksmith’s forge on the first floor of a wooden-floored building is unlikely — not only would the weight of the anvil(s) prove detrimental to the structure of the building, but the movement of potentially quite heavy raw materials and finished products would also have been difficult. Thirdly, the hearth is not a black-smith’s hearth. There are no fixtures or fittings which would be associated with a tuyere, nor any means of emptying and relining the hearth. Rather, this feature can be interpreted as the upper part of a chimney leading from a fireplace which partly protruded into the room, possibly a heating stove. The use of a heat source without a naked flame could point to other uses for the room — such as a joinery workshop or a building associated with the manufacture of cloth or rope.

The upper floor contained sophisticated windows, suggesting a non-industrial (or at least light-industrial) function, and the semi-cellar was probably used for storage (Fig. 6). There are paral-lels for this arrangement elsewhere on Bermuda: for instance at the so-called ‘slave’ cottages at Verdmont House.37 The chimney is similar to that at Crawl Point Cottage, another former shipbuild-ing complex in operation from the late 17th to the late 19th century.38 Therefore, on the basis of the archaeological evidence, the Shelly Bay structure would appear to be either a domestic building, or a workshop associated with activities other than the working of metal.

STILWELL

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The Stilwell shipyard (for location, see Fig. 1) has clear associations with the well-known Tynes family of shipbuilders. In 1795 Nathaniel Tynes, shipbuilder of Devonshire Parish, acquired the adjacent property now known as Spruce Cottage. This building appears to have started life as a ‘storehouse . . . with a dome top water tank’, and was passed to James Tynes from his father in 1797.39 By 1801 James had purchased the neigh-bouring site now known as Stilwell. It is not clear whether the house itself was built by Tynes or by

FIG. 5

Shelly Bay: detail of the former window opening on the western elevation, showing scar from removal of the

window (photograph by P. Belford).

FIG. 6

Shelly Bay: interpretive cross-section showing the original layout of the building (drawing by P. Belford).

80 PAUL BELFORD

the previous owner Captain John Steed Jr, but the historic core of the property was probably in existence by c. 1810.40

The shipyard at Stilwell was certainly estab-lished by 1808 when the Patriot, a 184-ton brig, was launched there.41 The labour for Tynes’ ship-building enterprise was provided by slaves. Five slaves who were probably associated with the ship-yard are recorded in 1821, ‘some or all’ of whom may have lived in the cellars at Stilwell. These were: Peter (carpenter), Peter (sawyer), Tom (caulker), Sam (labourer) and Ben (sailor).42 Other vessels known to have been constructed at the yard includ-ed a variety of sloops for local traders, as well as a 45-ton yacht for Governor Sir James Cockburn and a 169-ton warship named Morgiana.43

Large-scale shipbuilding had probably ceased by 1824, when Tynes mortgaged his North Shore properties. However, the foreshore on the Spruce Cottage site was still described as ‘an excellent Spot for Ship building’ in 1847.44 It seems unlikely that there would have been much scope for extensive shipyards from the later 19th century due to the improvement of North Shore Road (formerly the North Longitudinal Public Road) from that time, although a road along much the same alignment had existed since at least the 1790s.45 After Tynes’ death in 1833, the house and land at Stilwell passed through several owners, none of whom had any direct association with shipbuilding. At some stage, probably during the 19th century, it became known as Vancefort. In the 1930s, under the ownership of Marjorie Critten, the house was renamed Stilwell. The house was remodelled several times, most notably in the 1960s by the current owner.46

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Unlike the Shelly Bay site, there were no upstand-ing buildings. Instead, the principal aim of the Stil-well survey was to investigate the rock-cut features associated with the shore area. The approach was developed from that used by the English Heritage landscape investigation team, namely a measured ‘earthwork’ survey of the site.47 Such an approach had not hitherto been used to examine the Bermu-dian shipyards. The survey identified 294 separate cut features in an area approximately 30m east–west by 15m north–south. Traditional techniques resulted in a hand-drawn plan which was supple-mented with notes and conventional and digital photographs.48

The wealth of features identified in such a small survey area represents several phases of use, reuse and adaptation of the site (Fig. 7). Three broad phases of activity were identified: a ship-building phase (Phase I), a phase of later use and

modification (Phase II) and a 20th-century phase during which the present road alignment and con-crete path and jetty were created (Phase III). The extent of the site was defined by the Phase II and Phase III activities: Phase II had created a possible fishpond to the south and east of the site, which partly reused earlier shipyard features; and Phase III effectively truncated the original southern and western extent of the site.

The shipbuilding activity in Phase I was clearly the result of several distinct sub-phases of activity. Identifying these sub-phases and under-standing the relationships between them was difficult, since in most cases each cut feature was physically and stratigraphically isolated from the others. In some places clear relationships could be determined: the eastern base cut of Slipway 1 evi-dently truncated some earlier postholes ([21], [51], [52] and [54]) suggesting it had been enlarged at least once. However, these cases were quite rare, and it was not possible to arrive at a meaningful stratigraphic sequence for the site as a whole. This is one of the issues discussed at greater length below.

The Phase I shipbuilding phase contained two major slipways and their associated cut features. These could be divided into several main groups. The most common features were postholes (Fig. 8), with a total of 267 identified in the survey area as a whole. Of these, the majority (a total of 211, or 79%) were circular postholes 200mm or less in diameter. About three-quarters of these were 180–200mm in diameter, but a significant minority were around 150mm in diameter and some were as small as 100mm. A further group of 45 large circular or sub-circular postholes was identified, representing approximately 17% of the total; they are greater than 200mm in diameter, and some-times as large as 350mm. There was also a very small group of six square postholes. Five further postholes could not be measured due either to erosion (as in the case of [232], formerly two post-holes), or to later developments (as with postholes [218], [219] and [220], which had been filled with concrete). In addition, a series of larger rock-cut features were recorded, usually approximately rectangular in plan, and possibly representing engine- and/or capstan-bases. Non-cut features included iron fittings which had been hammered directly into the rock, such as [41b], [42] and [43].

SLIPWAY 1

Slipway 1 was located at the western end of the site and was oriented approximately north to south, measuring 15.8m from low-water mark to the southern edge of the site. This was the largest and


FIG. 7

Stilwell: overall plan of the site, showing all cut features. Due to the scale of reproduction not all features are numbered, only those referred to specifically in the text (drawing by K. Page-Smith and P. Belford).

82 PAUL BELFORD

most intensively used of the slipways at the Stilwell site, and was clearly the result of several phases of use and adaptation. The slipway cut was between 0.30m and 0.75m deep, and extended approxi-mately 8m to the south of the low-water mark. The slipway measured 3.40m wide at its seaward end, widening slightly to 4.10m upslope. It was associ-ated with numerous circular postholes, which would have been used as sockets for the supporting beams to hold the vessel upright during construc-tion. The eastern edge of the slipway had evidently been re-cut more than once in order to widen it, and several partly truncated vertical postholes appear to have predated this enlargement ([54], [52], [51] and [21]; Fig. 9). Several lines of postholes were evident running parallel to the main slipway cut, perhaps suggesting vessels of different dimen-sions. A line of postholes running roughly along the centre-line of the slipway ([58], [61], [44], [40], [41a], [36], [35], [32] and [31]) may have been the

locations for ‘splitting blocks’, which supported the false keel of a vessel under construction.49

To the south of the slipway proper was a broad and relatively flat area which contained a wide range of different cut features. The area was bound to the east by the continuation of the eastern cut of the slipway, which re-orientated to a more easterly direction at 7.60m from the low-water mark, running for 4.80m and terminating in a sub-rectangular pit [273]. This pit measured 1.10x1.34m in plan, and was located immediately to the north of an upstanding ‘wall’ of limestone marking the northern end of the slipway area. The wall itself contained several cut features, including a thin groove [266] which ran roughly north–south and returned east–west, and was possibly the foundation trench for a wall (Fig. 10).

Although the southern part of Slipway 1 con-tained a large number of circular postholes, it was also associated with a number of other cut features.

FIG. 8

Stilwell: examples of circular postholes, showing a 300mm-diameter hole [34] in the background, a 200mm-diameter hole [35] in the left foreground, and two 150mm-diameter holes [32] and [31] in the right foreground. Arrow points

north; scale shows 12 inches and 30cm (photograph by P. Belford).


Of these, the largest was [258], a rectangular pit 1.70m long, oriented roughly east–west and mea-suring 0.60m wide at its western end and 0.95m wide at its eastern end. It had been extended with the addition of a further pit to the north (0.50x0.90m in plan), and incorporated several postholes (Fig. 11). The construction of pit [258] had also truncated an earlier shallower cut feature, possibly also originally rectangular. This pit clearly accommodated a substantial piece of equipment, possibly an engine or winch. This rather putative interpretation is supported by the proximity, and possible association, of two features to the east. These are a linked pair of postholes [255], located 1m to the east of [258], and a shallow square pit [245]. Pit [245] measured 0.40x0.40m in plan, and contained an iron object (approximately 0.27m square) embedded in its base (Fig. 12).

Other notable features in the area to the south of Slipway 1 included two sub-rectangular pits

located on either side of the slipway and oriented east–west. These pits ([67] to the east and [100] to the west) may also have been associated with winching operations. Several unusual posthole emplacements were also evident. These included paired settings ([255] already noted above, but also [81], [89] and [107], and [19a] and [19b]), and a single triple posthole ([250a]).

SLIPWAY 2 AND OTHER FEATURES

Slipway 2 was at the western end of the site, and was oriented almost directly east–west. In its sur-viving form it appeared to be much smaller than Slipway 1, being a maximum of 3.10m wide and 9.85m long. However, it was partly truncated by the Phase III concrete jetty and associated path to the west, and had been overlain during road-widening and other improvements to North Shore Road. As with Slipway 1, Slipway 2 was associated

FIG. 9

Stilwell: the seaward end of the eastern cut of Slipway 1, showing earlier postholes [54] and [52] truncated by the enlargement (widening) of the slipway. Arrow points north; scale shows 12 inches and 30cm

(photograph by P. Belford).

84 PAUL BELFORD

with a number of postholes, particularly evident along the eastern side. An interesting feature was a central groove [209b] in the northern (seaward) end of the slipway (Fig. 13). This appears to have been a socket for a false keel, on which the keel proper of the vessel was laid. Associated with this were a series of sub-rectangular slots ([209a], [215], [216] and [217]) on its eastern side, which may have been sockets for ‘splitting blocks’ or for transverse beam supports.

Other features included a possible third slipway [2], located to the east of Slipway 1. This feature was oriented south-east to north-west, and measured 3.50m long by 1.15m wide. Only one posthole [4] was associated with this putative slip-way. To the south was a large rectangular pit [3], oriented north-east to south-west and measuring 1.80m (east–west) by 1.20m (north–south). Its rela-tionship to the possible slipway was not evident, and indeed it appeared to be connected to the later possible fishpond to the east. The absence of post-holes suggest that this slipway was not used for shipbuilding, although it is possible that pit [3]

housed a winch, enabling it to be used for short-term repair such as recaulking or repainting operations.

Later features, as noted above, included a possible series of fishponds to the north and east of Slipway 1. The identification of these as fish-ponds was suggested by the site owner, Ronnie Watlington, although she was not able to recall their use as such: this would suggest a putative date (if the interpretation is correct) in the early 20th century. It is not clear whether these would have been temporary holding pools for ocean-caught fish, or more sophisticated fish-farming installa-tions. Later 20th-century features included a con-crete jetty and associated path. This was installed in the 1960s,50 and in fact reused some of the postholes of the earlier slipway.

DISCUSSION

UNDERSTANDING THE REMAINS

The application of archaeological survey methods to Bermudian shipbuilding sites was an interesting exercise. At Shelly Bay, deployment of an archaeo-logical rather than an architectural perspective enabled the conventional interpretation of the building to be challenged. Here, the combination of archaeological investigation with technical knowledge of industrial processes was important. More difficult is interpretation of the form and function — and ability to understand the absolute chronological sequence — of the remains of the Stilwell shipyard. The rock-cut slipways are un-usual in English contexts: published excavated examples tend to be found on silty estuarine banks rather than rocky foreshores, and many of the slip-way structures in these examples comprise timber revetments. These frequently consist of reused ships’ timbers secured to a row of stakes or posts.51 In these cases a neat row of postholes is usually encountered, marking the edge of the slipway itself. Later, in shipyards employing convict labour in Tasmania, similar use was made of timber in building extensive shipyards on reclaimed land.52 There are parallels for rock-cut slipways in Eng-land, as at Dartmouth (Devon), Pendennis and St Mawes (Cornwall) or elsewhere in the English West Country. Other limestone islands, such as Malta, also have a long tradition of rock-cut fore-shore features, associated with industry, fishing and leisure pursuits (Fig. 14).

The most numerous features found in associa-tion with the slipways are postholes. Despite some suggestions prior to the survey that these had been formed by the roots of Palmetto trees,53 it is clear from a close examination that they are artificial features. These postholes would have supported

FIG. 10

Stilwell: groove [266], with the southern end of sub-rectangular pit [273] in the background. Arrow

points north; scale shows 12 inches and 30cm (photograph by P. Belford).


various temporary structures, most obviously the classic ‘upright scaffold poles ranged along the sides of the slip’, as shown in 18th-century engrav-ings and paintings.54 Such scaffolds not only supported the framework of the vessel during construction, but also enabled access to the ship by the various trades employed at the shipyard. They were substantial structures in their own right, being in place for months or even years in the case of a large vessel, and ‘must have consumed much second-quality timber’.55 In many cases, old ships’ timbers or other woodwork will have been reused as shoring posts, as with the component parts of a capstan and windlass recovered from excavations at the East India Company shipyards in London.56

The keel of the vessel would either have been built up from a false keel, or laid on ‘splitting blocks’ set along the centre of the slipway.57 Both systems were evident at Stilwell, together with possible evidence for more substantial timber

transverse beams on Slipway 2. Excavations at Woolwich found such beams in association with the earlier slipways, and these were secured by sub-stantial iron bolts rammed into the bedrock or into earlier phases of timber lining.58 The iron bolts found in Slipway 1 may have been part of such an arrangement. Some of the paired or multiple post-hole settings may have been associated with lifting equipment; sheerlegs (derricks) were simple com-binations of poles which would have been used to lift substantial timbers such as bow and stern assemblies.59

Other cut features were less easily interpreted. Some of the larger sub-rectangular cuts may have been associated with machinery. The apparent pairing of [67] and [100] on either side of Slipway 1 is suggestive, but not conclusive. Portable capstans would have been used to provide motive power. The square feature with an iron base [243] (see Fig. 12) is suggestive of a setting for a capstan winch such as that found at Adlards Wharf in

FIG. 11

Stilwell: large pit [258], looking west, with the east–west oriented cut of the earlier truncated feature evident in the foreground. Arrow points north; scale shows 12 inches and 30cm (photograph by P. Belford).

86 PAUL BELFORD

London, consisting of a large circular hole in a square timber box anchored by four postholes.60

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Despite the stratigraphic issues which make inter-preting some of the very complex multiple phases of activity extremely difficult, there are a number of potentially fruitful directions for research.

SHIPYARD LOCATIONS

The location of shipyards on the North Shore resulted from a combination of factors. The pre-vailing wind is south-westerly, so the North Shore is the closest thing to a lee shore.61 As Dr Harris has shown, defences were concentrated on the south-ern and western coasts, leaving the North Shore in Devonshire, Smith’s and Hamilton Parishes relatively free for commercial development.62 The history of the Stilwell site suggests that fragmented

FIG. 12

Stilwell: square feature [245], showing iron object embedded in the base. Arrow points north; scale shows 12 inches and 30cm (photograph by P. Belford).

patterns of modern land ownership could be hiding links between seemingly separate sites. Conversely, a ‘site’ may contain several smaller shipyards that may not be easily distinguished on the ground. Further research could identify the ownership of shipyards and associated properties through historical documentation and map regression.

ORGANIZATION AND LABOUR SUPPLY

Shipbuilding was an enormously complex process, requiring several specialized skills. The shipwright oversaw work on the hull, the caulker ensured that the vessel remained watertight, and the sawyer was responsible for ensuring the correct supply, pre-paration and fitting of timber.63 The process became increasingly sophisticated during the 18th and 19th centuries, as mathematical and scientific knowledge was brought to bear. The larger ship-yards, such as the Royal Navy establishment at Woolwich or the East India Company’s site at


Blackwall, were substantial and highly structured organizations, employing up to 1,000 men at peak times.64 Bermudian shipyards, by contrast, were smaller and presumably more informal establish-ments; nevertheless, they needed to bring together a similarly diverse range of materials, skills and expertise to create their well-founded vessels.

The spatial organization of the yard itself is an important consideration, and future research might do much to improve understanding of this aspect. At Stilwell, a small and partly truncated site, it was not possible to do much more than to identify ‘slip-way’ and ‘associated’ areas. No standing remains were recorded in the surveyed area, although there may have been evidence for these between the sur-vey area and North Shore Road. At Shelly Bay, in contrast, it has been possible to identify potential functions for the standing building, although the work described here has not attempted to place this

in a wider landscape context. A well-contained site with evidence of both cut features and standing buildings, such as those at Bailey’s Bay and Crawl Point, would be a useful case study.

A more sophisticated archaeological interro-gation of the technical operation of Bermudian shipyards would enhance understanding of the social world of the workplace. The physical rela-tionships between different trades would not only reflect the flow of technological processes, but may also shed light on the complex relationships between shipyard owner, free workers and slaves. Slave labour was used extensively in Bermudian shipbuilding throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries. Indeed, it seems likely that without the contribution of slaves, the industry would not have been as successful or long-lived, and it would cer-tainly have not been as lucrative for the shipyard owners.65

FIG. 13

Stilwell: Slipway 2, detail showing the rock-cut groove for the false keel. The lighter area to the right of the photograph is the Phase III concrete path to the jetty. Arrow points north; scale shows 12 inches and 30cm

(photograph by P. Belford).

88 PAUL BELFORD

Only limited historical research has been undertaken on the use of slaves in the shipyards, and this has been mainly confined to extracting names from slave registers. Sawyers, carpenters and caulkers appear to be the only trades dis-tinctively identified. Some slaves undertook more than one trade, such as 50-year-old Sam (‘Sawyer and Carpenter’) and 19-year-old Tom (‘Caulker and Carpenter’) in the Hamilton Parish shipyards of Robert Hill Sr, in 1821.66 It seems likely that those listed simply as ‘labourers’ also performed a variety of other tasks. Slaves were also rented or leased from neighbouring shipbuilders when addi-tional labour was required.67 Further historical research, and more detailed analysis of existing data, would be extremely helpful. It would also be helpful to compare the use of slave labour in Bermuda with forms of labour supply in other colonial contexts. Potentially illuminating

comparisons could be made with Michael Nash’s work on the use of convict labour in shipbuilding in Tasmania. During the 1820s and 1830s, for example, Sarah Island was the largest shipyard in Australia, employing and training up to 35 con-victs in various trades in association with paid subcontractors.68

The extent to which paid labour was used by the shipbuilders is not clear. However, the absence of trades such as smiths, ropemakers and riggers from the slave registers suggests that at least some of these tasks were contracted out to existing busi-nesses. Alternatively, it is possible that separate specialized industries developed to supply some of these items.

ANCILLARY INDUSTRIES

Although the main skills required for building wooden boats are principally those concerned with

FIG. 14

St Julian’s Bay, Malta: rock-cut features associated with foreshore industrial activities, including cut features, postholes and wall foundations. The rectangular cut feature in the centre-left middle ground measures approximately

3mx1m (photograph by P. Belford).


carpentry, there are a number of other important industries which contribute to the finished prod-uct. These include metalworking, blockmaking, ropemaking and sailmaking. The history of Ber-mudian ironworking has yet to be told; neverthe-less, it is an important story as undoubtedly much smithing work would have been associated with the shipbuilding industry. Iron was recovered from a wrecked French ship in the 1680s by setting fire to it, allegedly by the blacksmith Francis Dickin-son.69 It seems likely that some blacksmiths began to specialize in supplying iron to the shipbuilding industry. By 1700 Bermuda had ‘5 Smith Forges for Shipp worke’.70

In the 18th century blockmaking was one of many processes being undertaken in the shipyard. Increasingly however, this specialized task was contracted out. In Liverpool, for example, there were over 40 independent blockmaking firms by the mid 19th century.71 Most of this work was still being done by hand, even into the 1870s. However, many large-scale shipbuilders and outfitters (such as the Royal Navy) had introduced mechanization at an early stage. The Portsmouth dockyard, for example, installed a mechanized blockmaking production line between 1801 and 1808, in which ten men did the work of 110, producing 140,000 blocks per year.72 It is not yet clear to what extent the production of blocks on Bermuda was central-ized, or mechanized; it is also probable that quanti-ties of blocks were imported either from Britain or from North America.

Other essential ancillary industries included sailmaking and ropemaking, both requiring spe-cialized skills and premises. In the larger English shipyards, such as Chatham, there were extensive purpose-built sail lofts and a 346m-long Ropery building — requiring over 200 men to make and lay a cable 20 inches (508mm) thick before the advent of steam power in the 1830s.73 The Cha-tham rope-walk was exceptional: ropemaking was often done outdoors on a smaller scale and it seems probable that on Bermuda, with its continuous and intensive relationship with seafaring, this was once a widespread activity. The production of tar would also have been important. As noted above, the evidence for occupations of slaves employed in the shipyards is ambiguous. Such work could be undertaken by those described as ‘carpenters’, or even ‘labourers’; and it is possible that these trades were undertaken by hired labour rather than slaves. Further research is required on ancillary industries such as metalworking, ropemaking and the manu-facture of block and tackle. Ropemaking in par-ticular results in distinctive linear features, which may be easily distinguished on historic maps.

CONCLUSION

In 1620, Nathaniel Butler stated that ‘boats, next [to] fortifications, are the most important, benefi-cial and useful instruments that thes Iland [sic] can possibly have’.74 The history and archaeology of Bermudian fortifications has been comprehen-sively examined over many years, and research on this aspect of Bermuda’s history is ongoing.75 There is no question about the international importance of the Bermudian shipbuilding industry — both in terms of Bermuda’s connections with the outside world as part of the development of Atlantic trade, and for its influence on modern sailing boat design. However, unlike fortifications, the archaeology of shipbuilding remains relatively under-investigated. Historical research, notably by Michael Jarvis and Diana Chudleigh, has left us with a number of questions which can only be answered through archaeological investigation.

It is clear that substantial archaeological remains of Bermuda’s historic shipbuilding indus-try do survive, and the study described here sug-gests that these rock-cut slipways, low ruined walls and complex arrays of postholes can serve as more than just a picturesque backdrop to a well-known story. Although there are problems in dealing with the stratigraphy, and a comparative paucity of material culture evidence, these are problems that have been overcome in other areas of archaeology. Part of the difficulties in dealing with the Ber-mudian shipbuilding landscape stems from its location: both physically, and in the context of historical and archaeological study. It is a liminal landscape, physically located between land and sea, and the scene of activities — such as shipbuild-ing — which connected the two. This liminality is also reflected in the types of people who worked in the foreshore area; not part of society, but essential for its survival.

By bringing together documentary sources, standing buildings and landscape archaeology, there is an opportunity to arrive at a new under-standing of the technical and social organization of the Bermudian shipbuilding industry. The brief examination of known shipbuilding sites along the North Shore suggests that this archaeological resource has tremendous potential. The archaeo-logical investigation of such sites can also have a part to play in the strategic development of Ber muda’s heritage as a cultural resource. It can help in bringing together the largely terrestrial work of the Bermuda National Trust and the underwater enthusiasms of Bermuda Maritime Museum. This liminal shore, with such importance for Bermuda’s past, may also hold the key to the future development of Bermudian archaeology.

90 PAUL BELFORD

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was only possible thanks to the dedi-cation and enthusiasm of colleagues in Bermuda — notably Diana Chudleigh (for whom this paper is a mere footnote to her long-standing interest in the subject), and Richard Lowry (Chairman of the Archaeology Committee of the Bermuda National Trust, who facilitated both seasons of fieldwork and was unstinting in his generosity throughout). Other Bermudians who assisted included Nigel Chudleigh, Stephen Copeland, Nicola O’Leary, Charlotte Andrews, Edward Harris, Anna Lowry, Charles Tatum and Linda Abend. Fieldwork at Stilwell was generously encouraged by the site owner Ronnie Watlington, and undertaken by the author with Kate Page-Smith, Stephen Copeland and Tom McCutcheon. I am extremely grateful to Kate Page-Smith for her assistance both in the field and in preparing this paper; many thanks also to Brent Fortenberry and Marley Brown for the opportunity to publish the results of this work, and to the two anonymous referees for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

NOTES

1 Jarvis 1992; 1995; 2002a.2 Chudleigh 2002; 2005.3 EH 2007, 2.4 Hoskins 1955; Palmer & Neaverson 1998, 16.5 Chudleigh 2002; 2005.6 Jarvis 1995; Trimingham 1990.7 Chudleigh 2002, 19, 125.8 The main project in 2004 was excavation of

the State House in St George’s; in 2006 the principal fieldwork took place at Verdmont House and Government House.

9 Belford 2004.10 Belford 2006. The site archive has been deposited

with the Bermuda National Trust at the Archaeology Lab in St George’s, Bermuda.

11 Kennedy 1971, 34–6.12 Craven 1990, 17.13 Kennedy 1971, 142; Lefroy 1877, I, 272.14 Jarvis 1995, 31–2.15 Jarvis 1995, 32–3.16 Lefroy 1877, II, 549.17 Jarvis 2002b, 592.18 Jarvis 2002b, 593.19 Jarvis 1995, 37.20 Report to the Committee of Trade and Plantations,

cited in Bernhard 1999, 181.21 Jarvis 2002b, 593; Bernhard 1999, 181–2.22 Cited in Lefroy 1877, II, 341.23 Arnell 1982; Trimingham 1990; Jarvis 1992.24 Trimingham 1990, 127.

25 Trimingham 1990, 134–5.26 Jarvis 1995, 31–4; Arnell 1982, 12–18.27 Jarvis 2002b, 595.28 Jarvis 2002b, 598. The Navigation Acts required

that three-quarters of the crew of British vessels should be British subjects; in the 1725 case Bermudian ship owners cited custom and the service of slaves in the militia as reasons for considering slaves as British subjects.

29 Jarvis 2002b, 598–9.30 Jarvis 2002b, 590.31 Bernhard 1999, 182.32 Chudleigh 2002, 62.33 Belford 2004, 2; Jarvis 1992.34 Chudleigh 2002, 62.35 Chudleigh 2002, 62.36 Approaches to historic building recording were

informed by RCHME 1996 (superseded after the survey was undertaken by English Heritage 2006), and by the present author’s own experience of record-ing metalworking and other industrial complexes in the UK.

37 See Baylay & Brady this volume. 38 Chudleigh 2002, 81. An architectural building

survey of Crawl Point Cottage was undertaken by Edward Chappell and is held by the Bermuda National Trust, but this has not been seen by the present author.

39 Chudleigh 2005, 98–9.40 Chudleigh 2005, 95–7.41 Chudleigh 2005, 96.42 Chudleigh 2005, 96.43 Wilkinson 1973, 250, 281.44 Royal Gazette, cited in Chudleigh 2005, 99.45 Map by Durnford 1793, in Chudleigh 2005, 14.46 Chudleigh 2005, 95–8.47 EH 2007, 6–15.48 Belford 2006.49 Dodds & Moore 1984, 58–62.50 Ronnie Watlington, pers. comm.51 Divers 2002; Divers 2004.52 Nash 2007, 53 Diana Chudleigh, pers. comm.54 Courtney 1974, 21.55 Goodburn 1999, 177.56 Divers 2004, 64–5.57 Dodds & Moore 1984, 58–62.58 Courtney 1974, 24–5.59 Dodds & Moore 1984, 62–3.60 Divers 2002, 57–9.61 Trimingham 1990, 127.62 Harris 1987, 229.63 Dodds & Moore 1984, 39–46.64 Dodds & Moore 1984, 40–1; Ferreiro 2007;

Hobhouse 1994, 553–65.65 Jarvis 1995, 41–2; 2002b, 589–98.66 Packwood 1975, 30.67 Packwood 1975, 31.


68 Bannear 1991; Nash 2003, 85–8; 2007, 91–104.69 Lefroy 1877, II, 564.70 Bernhard 1999, 181.71 Stammers 1973, 149.72 Cooper 1982, 28–30; Coad 2005, 49–99.73 MacDougall 1994, 35.74 Cited in Packwood 1975, 29.75 Harris 1997; Triggs 2006.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnell, J.C. 1982, Sailing in Bermuda: Sail Racing in the Nineteenth Century, Royal Hamilton Amateur Dinghy Club.

Bannear, D. 1991, King River to Kelly Basin Archaeo-logical Survey, Occas. Pap. 29, Hobart: Depart-ment of Parks, Wildlife and Heritage and Forestry Commission, Tasmania.

Belford, P. 2004, ‘Archaeological Building Survey at the Site of the Davis and Outerbridge Shipyard, Shelly Bay, Hamilton Parish, Bermuda’, unpubl. rep. for Bermuda National Trust (November 2004).

Belford, P. 2006, ‘Shipbuilding in Bermuda: the Research Potential of Archaeological Remains Associated with the Shipbuilding Industry’, unpubl. rep. for Bermuda National Trust (July 2006).

Bernhard, V. 1999, Slaves and Slaveholders in Ber-muda 1616–1782, Columbia: University of Missouri Press.

Chudleigh 2002, Hamilton Parish, Bermuda’s Archi-tect. Herit. Ser. 4, Hamilton: Bermuda National Trust.

Chudleigh 2005, Smith’s Parish, Bermuda’s Architect. Herit. Ser.5, Hamilton: Bermuda National Trust.

Coad, J. 2005, The Portsmouth Block Mills, Swindon: English Heritage.

Cooper, C.C. 1982, ‘The production line at Ports-mouth Block Mill’, Ind. Archaeol. Rev. 6:1, 28–42.

Courtney, T.W. 1974, ‘Excavations at the Royal Dockyard, Woolwich’, Post-Medieval Archaeol. 8, 1–28.

Craven, W.F. 1990, An Introduction to the History of Bermuda (reprint of 1937 and 1938 articles), Bermuda: Bermuda Maritime Museum.

Divers, D. 2002, ‘The post-medieval waterfront development at Adlards Wharf, Bermondsey, London’, Post-Medieval Archaeol. 36, 39–117.

Divers, D. 2004, ‘Excavations at Deptford on the site of the East India Company dockyards and the Trinity House almshouses’, Post-Medieval Archaeol. 38:1, 17–133.

Dodds, J. & Moore, J. 1984, Building the Wooden Fighting Ship, London: Hutchinson.

Egan, G. & Michael, R.L. (eds) 1999, Old and New Worlds, London: Oxbow Books.

EH 2006, Understanding Historic Buildings: a Guide to Good Recording Practice, Swindon: English Heritage.

EH 2007, Understanding the Archaeology of Land-scapes: a Guide to Good Recording Practice, Swindon: English Heritage.

Ferreiro, L.D. 2007, Ships and Science: the Birth of Naval Architecture in the Scientific Revolution 1600–1800, Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

Goodburn, D. 1999, ‘Echoes of adzes, axes and pitsaws’, in Egan & Michael 1999, 171–9.

Harris, E.C. 1987, ‘The defences of the Bermuda dockyard’, Post-Medieval Archaeol. 21, 227–56.

Harris, E.C. 1997, Bermuda Forts 1612–1957, Ber-muda: Bermuda Maritime Museum.

Hobhouse, H. 1994, Survey of London: Volumes 43 and 44: Poplar, Blackwall and Isle of Dogs, London: English Heritage.

Hoskins, W.G. 1955, The Making of the English Landscape (8th imp., 1969), London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Jarvis, M.J. 1992, ‘Cedars, Sloops and Slaves: the Development of the Bermuda Shipbuilding Industry 1680–1750’, unpubl. MA thesis, The College of William and Mary.

Jarvis, M. 1995, ‘The fastest vessels in the world — the origin and evolution of the Bermuda sloop 1620–1800’, Bermuda J. Archaeol. Marit. Hist. 7, 31–50.

Jarvis, M. 2002a, ‘Shipbuilding in Hamilton Parish’, in Chudleigh 2002, 19.

Jarvis, M. 2002b, ‘Maritime masters and seafaring slaves in Bermuda, 1680–1783’, William Mary Q., 3rd ser. 59:3, 585–622.

Kennedy, J. 1971, Isle of Devils — Bermuda under the Somers Island Company 1609–1685, Glasgow: Collins.

Lefroy, J.H. 1877, Memorials of the Discovery and Early Settlement of the Bermuda or Somers Islands 1515–1685, 1981 edn (2 vols), London: Bermuda Historical Society.

MacDougall, P. 1994, Chatham Dockyard in Old Photographs, Stroud: Alan Sutton.

Nash, M. 2003, ‘Convict shipbuilding in Tasmania’, Pap. Proc. Tasmanian Hist. Res. Assoc. 50:2, 83–106.

Nash, M. 2007, ‘A survey of maritime infrastructure at the Sarah Island penal settlement’, Bull. Australasian Inst. Marit. Archaeol. 31, 91–104.

Packwood, C.E. 1975, Chained on the Rock — Slavery in Bermuda, Bermuda: The Island Press.

Palmer, M. & Neaverson, P. 1998, Industrial Archae-ology: Principles and Practice, London: Routledge.

RCHME 1996, Recording Historic Buildings: a Descriptive Specification, Swindon: Royal

92 PAUL BELFORD

Commission on the Historical Monuments of England.

Stammers, M.K. 1973, ‘Liverpool’s last blockmaking company’, Indust. Archaeol. 10:2, 148–51.

Triggs, J.R. 2006, ‘Archaeological Excavations at Fort Bruere, Bermuda’, unpubl. rep. for Bermuda Maritime Museum.

Trimingham, E.H. 1990, ‘The development of the Bermuda Rig’, Bermuda J. Archaeol. Marit. Hist. 2, 127–42.

Wilkinson, H.C. 1973, Bermuda from Sail to Steam — the History of the Island from 1784 to 1901 (2 vols), London: Oxford University Press.

ABBREVIATIONS

EH English HeritageRCHME Royal Commission on the Historical

Monuments of England

SUMMARY IN FRENCH, GERMAN, ITALIAN AND SPANISH

RÉSUMÉNavires, esclaves et cales sèches: vers une archéolo-gie de la construction navale dans les BermudesL’industrie de la construction navale bermudienne constituait une part importante de l’économie locale et contribuait internationalement au com-merce et à la conception maritime au cours du XVIIIe siècle. Bien que son importance ait long-temps été reconnue par les historiens, l’archéologie a jusqu’à présent peu prêté attention aux vestiges existants. Cet article décrit la prospection archéologique de deux sites de construction navale, menée en 2004 et 2006. Le projet a montré l’existence de nombreux vestiges de l’importante industrie de la construction navale des Bermudes; des orientations futures pour la recherche sont définies.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNGSchiffe, Sklaven und Gleitbahnen: Archäologie des Schiffsbaus in den BermudasDer Schiffbau war ein wichtiger Teil der örtlichen Industrie der Bermudas, und liefert einen beson-deren internationalen Beitrag zum Handel und nautischen Design des 18. Jahrhunderts. Während aus historischer Sicht die Bedeutung schon lange bekannt war, wurde bislang in der Archäologie in dieser Hinsicht wenig Aufmerksamkeit den Funden gewidmet. Dieser Artikel beschreibt archäologische Begutachtung zweier Schiffsbau-plätze, die in 2004 und 2006 ausgeführt wurden. Das Projekt fand heraus, dass erhebliche Überreste des Schiffbaus in den Bermudas überlebt haben; zukünftige Untersuchungs-Richtlinien sind umrissen.

RIASSUNTONavi, schiavi e attracchi: verso un’archeologia navale nelle Bermude L’industria navale delle Bermude costituiva parte importante dell’economia locale e apportò uno specifico contributo internazionale al commercio e al design marittimo durante il XVIII secolo. Sebbene la sua importanza sia stata a lungo ricon-osciuta dagli storici, finora è stata prestata poca attenzione dal punto di vista archeologico ai resti materiali ancora esistenti. Il presente articolo tratta la ricognizione archeologica condotta nel 2004 e nel 2006 nei siti di due cantieri navali. Il progetto ha mostrato che sono sopravvissuti resti consis-tenti dell’importante cantiere navale delle Ber-mude; sono indicati futuri percorsi di ricerca.

RESUMENNaves, esclavos y gradas: hacia una arqueología de la construcción naval en las BermudasLa industria de la construcción naval de las Ber-mudas fue una parte importante de la economía local e hizo una contribución especial internacio-nal para el diseño comercial y marítimo del siglo XVIII. Mientras su importancia ha sido ya recono-cida por los historiadores, los restos todavía exis-tentes no han atraído la atención de la arqueología hasta el momento. Este artículo describe el estudio arqueológico de dos yacimientos de construcción naval, realizado en 2004 y 2006. El proyecto per-mite demostrar que todavía sobreviven restos ex-tensos de lo que fuera la importante industria de construcción naval de las Bermudas. Igualmente se definen las líneas de investigación futuras.

Nexus Heritage, Unit 6, Coppice House, Halesfield 7, Telford TF7 4NA, UK[[email protected]]

shipbuilding in bermuda

Documents