mazinga habs survey report - st. eustatius / statia
Post on 17-May-2022
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
�
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
4
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological 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
info@secar.org
grant.gilmore@secar.org
Tel:599/��80066
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�
Developers:Leontine&AntonneDurby
Contact data: #4 PleasuresRoad
Oranjestad
St.EustatiusEUX
mazingastatia@yahoo.com
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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).
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
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.��.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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.��.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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-��.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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.��.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
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)
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
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).
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
�. 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?
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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
�.�.�.�.�.Southernwall
�.�.�.�.�.Northernwall
3.2.3.3. Zone III
�.�.�.�.�.Northernwall
�.�.�.�.�.Easternwall
�.�.�.�.�.Southernwall
�.�.�.�.4.Westernwall
�.�.�.�.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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�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,
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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
�.�.�.�.�.Northernwall
�.�.�.�.�.Easternwall
�.�.�.�.�.Southernwall
�.�.�.�.4.Westernwall
3.2.3.2. Zone II
�.�.�.�.�.Archeddoorways
�.�.�.�.�.Southernwall
�.�.�.�.�.Northernwall
3.2.3.3. Zone III
�.�.�.�.�.Northernwall
�.�.�.�.�.Easternwall
�.�.�.�.�.Southernwall
�.�.�.�.4.Westernwall
�.�.�.�.5.Roof
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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
St. Eustatius Center for A
rchaeological Research
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)
St. Eustatius Center for A
rchaeological Research
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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
St. Eustatius Center for A
rchaeological Research
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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
6�
0 1 meter
S82
S83
S84
S84
S85
S86
S84
S87
S88
SE_343_Mazinga_Warehouse?5.3. Outside
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
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
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�0
Maker’smarksontheheelofkaolinclaypipesarehelpfulindatingarchaeologicalcontexts.NineteendifferentmarkswererecoveredatSE�4�.OnemustconsiderthatsomemarkswereusedformanyyearsandthusarenottobeusedforanythingotherthanaTPQ.Thesewere identified using volumes published and written by D. Duco.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
(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)
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
North(top)andSouth(bottom)isometricelevationsoftheproposedreconstructionoftheMazingaWarehouse.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
NorthlineelevationoftheproposedreconstructionoftheMazingaWarehouse.Thereisplenty of room in the upper floors for various uses.
St. Eustatius Center for A
rchaeological Research
�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.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
�6
NortheastandsouthwestisometricelevationsoftheproposedreconstructionoftheMazingaWarehouse.
St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
��
PlanoftheproposedreconstructionoftheMazingaWarehouse.
top related