City of Sinners

An Archaeological Study of Port Royal, Jamaica

What can archaeological excavation reveal about life, trade and piracy in a

17th-century port?

by Thomas J. H. DurbinStudent Number: 1015673

School of History, Archaeology and Religion, Cardiff UniversitySupervisor: Professor John Hines

Date of Submission: 13th May 2013 (Spring Semester)

Contents! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page

List of Figures! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3List of Abbreviations! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4

Acknowledgements! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4

Chapter One: Wickedest City! Introduction! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5

! The Western Design: The English Conquest of Jamaica! ! 7! Port Royal: Rise and Fall! ! ! ! ! ! ! 9

Chapter Two: City Beneath the Sea!! The Romance of Port Royal! ! ! ! ! ! ! 12

! Excavations 1956-1967! ! ! ! ! ! ! 12! Excavations 1981-1990! ! ! ! ! ! ! 17

! HMS Swan!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 22! Notes on Method and Technique! ! ! ! ! ! 23

Chapter Three: Trader Town! Chinese Porcelain: The ‘Dogs of Fo’! ! ! ! ! 25

! Not Made in China: Delftware at Port Royal! ! ! ! 27! Pewter and Simon Benning! ! ! ! ! ! ! 30

! Clay Smoking Pipes: White and Red! ! ! ! ! 33Chapter Four: Pirate Port

! The Port Royal Wrecks!! ! ! ! ! ! ! 36! A Pirate’s Life: Bartholomew Roberts! ! ! ! ! 37

! Ranger and the Archaeology of Piracy! ! ! ! ! 39! Conclusion: Where are the Pirates? ! ! ! ! ! 44

References! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 472

List of Figures

Figure!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Page1! Map of Jamaica Showing Port Royal! ! ! ! ! ! 62! Plan Showing INA/TAMU Excavations and Changing Shoreline! ! 133! Photograph of Onion Bottle! ! ! ! ! ! ! 144! Plan showing Marx and INA/TAMU Excavations! ! ! ! 165! Reconstructive Drawing of Buildings 1-5! ! ! ! ! 176! Plan of Building 1! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 187! Reconstructive Drawing of Excavated Buildings! ! ! ! 198! Plan of Building 4/5 Complex! ! ! ! ! ! ! 219! Drawing of Chinese Porcelain ‘Fo Dog‘! ! ! ! ! ! 2510! Photograph of Delftware Vase! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2711! Photograph of Delftware Plate Rim! ! ! ! ! ! 2912! Photograph of Delftware Cup ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2913! Photograph of Delftware Jar Lid! ! ! ! ! ! ! 2914! Photograph of 3 Pewter Plates! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3115! Simon Benning’s Mark! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 3216! Drawing of Type 1.73 Pipe Bowl, Marked ‘LE’! ! ! ! ! 3317! Charles Johnson’s Engraving of Bartholomew Roberts! ! ! 3718! Photograph Showing Ranger Site Grid and Baseline! ! ! ! 3919! Photograph Showing Ranger Site Planning! ! ! ! ! 4020! Contour Map of Ranger Site! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4021! Contour Maps of Ranger Site! ! ! ! ! ! ! 4122! Underwater Photograph of Onion Bottle A1 from Ranger! ! ! 4223! Drawing and Photograph of Onion Bottle A1 from Ranger! ! ! 4324! Drawing and Photograph of Onion Bottle A3 from Ranger! ! ! 4325! 1721 and 1722 Onion Bottles from Hume’s Typology! ! ! ! 43

Cover image: An illustration of Port Royal before the earthquake of 1692. From On the Spanish Main by John Masefield; originally published in 1906, now in the public domain through Project Gutenberg.

3

List of Abbreviations

INA! ! Institute of Nautical ArchaeologyTAMU!! Texas A&M University

Acknowledgements

! I extend many thanks to my supervisor Professor John Hines, who has been a source of such great help and advice to me throughout the whole dissertation process. He has approached the subject with much enthusiasm despite it not being his particular area of expertise and has been a pleasure to work with.! I would also like to thank Chad Gulseth of Texas A&M University, director of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology’s ‘Pirate Shipwrecks of Port Royal’ project. Despite a busy schedule, he has kindly answered a number of my queries and provided me with currently unpublished material from his thesis, without which my section on the Ranger shipwreck in Chapter Four would not have been possible.

4

Chapter One: Wickedest City

The History of Port Royal

‘The ground opened at Port Royal, where I dwell, with a shake and swallowed whole houses, nay, the street I dwell in was in less than three hours after, four fathoms under water, and nothing of my house to be seen nor any other, only one timber house which George Philips lived in. The shake opened the earth, the water flew up and carried the

people in quick. I lost my wife, my son, a 'prentice, a white maid and six slaves and all that ever I had in the world'.

John Pike on the 1692 earthquake1

Introduction

! Port Royal, Jamaica. You may be familiar with the name from the opening scenes of the 2003 Disney blockbuster Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Indeed, a number of people to which I have mentioned the city have immediately made the connection with piracy based on this fact alone. In this case, fantasy entertainment has drawn upon historical fact - Port Royal is likely the most well known ‘pirate city’, famous for its wild nights of violence, drinking and debauchery that caused it to be known as ‘the wickedest city on earth’.! Situated at the end of the peninsula known as the Palisadoes on the southern coast of Jamaica, Port Royal was built on a sandy cay2 at the entrance to one of the best natural harbours one could hope to find, with enough space to fit hundreds of ships (Figure 1). In fact Kingston Harbour, as it is now known, is the seventh largest natural harbour in the world (Port Authority of Jamaica 2006). Its potential as a port was first seen by Christopher Columbus, who discovered Jamaica on the 5th of May 1494, calling it ‘the fairest island that eyes have beheld’ (Jobling 1987a, p. 2) and naming it Santa Gloria. His son Diego built the first colonial settlement there, New Seville, on the northern coast, bringing livestock and working with the native hunter-gatherer Arawaks to produce exports. Few Spaniards could be persuaded to move there however, and the Arawaks were quickly

5

1 Cited in Cordingly 1992.

2 A cay is a small, low-lying island usually of sand, coral or rock.

Figure 1: Map of Jamaica showing the location of Port Royal, the Palisadoes peninsula and Kingston Harbour. Map data: Google 2013, compiled by the author.

wiped out, subject to religious purging, new diseases, overworking and even suicide (Marx 2003, pp. 33-34)3.! The town was abandoned less than forty years after its foundation and in 1532 a new settlement, Villa de la Vega, was set up in the more fertile south. This second settlement was no more of a success; there were never more than 1500 people living there at a time and as mainland New World colonies became self sufficient there was no need for Jamaica’s exports.! Jamaica never became a major part of Spanish colonisation and in the mid-17th century there were still only around one and a half thousand Spanish residents on the island. It was this low population and resulting defencelessness that interested the English, for which Jamaica would become a key dependency in the West Indies. Relying

6

3 A source in the Seville Papers written in the mid-17th century states that no Arawaks remained on the island at the time of writing (Taylor 1965, p. 45).

entirely on imports of essential items from England, Jamaica was the ideal colony, devoting all of its productive efforts to export ‘commodities not to be had elsewhere’ (D’Avenant 1771, p. 20) and becoming England’s richest sugar colony (Zahedieh 1986, p. 206). It stimulated the development of trade networks and soon became the mercantile capital of the New World.

The Western Design: The English Conquest of Jamaica

! The story of the tremendous rise of Jamaica begins with a failure. 17th-century English colonies in the New World were privatised, populated and run by companies and people for a fee. The one exception was Jamaica, which was not only taken through military conquest but backed by the English government (Sarson 2005, p. 107).! The English conquest of Jamaica was an unplanned and rather spontaneous event that was part of Cromwell’s ‘Western Design’, in which he intended to set up colonies in the West Indies in the name of Protestant imperialism. Led by General Venables and Admiral Penn, the English fleet was ordered to take the Spanish-controlled island of Hispaniola in 1655. The island was well defended and its Spanish defenders were prepared for the attack, resulting in a crushing defeat at Santo Domingo City. So as not to return to Cromwell having achieved nothing, Venables and Penn decided instead to turn their attention to the much less defended island of Jamaica which, as a rather mineral-poor colony, was sparsely populated with only two towns (Jobling 1987a, p. 2). Demoralised and dangerously low on rations, the English wanted an easy victory.! Prior to 1655 there were a number of English raids on the island, one notable raid being carried out by Captain William Jackson in 1643 on Villa de la Vega. The residents became terrified after this and supposedly fled the town whenever they saw a ship (Taylor 1965, pp. 44-45).! This was certainly the case with the English attack, which commenced on the 10th of May 1655. The fleet was spotted at dawn by a lookout atop Port Henderson Hill, who proceeded to raise the alarm. Once informed, Governor Don Juan Ramirez asked for the church bells to be rung and drums to be played throughout the town. Spanish accounts state twice the actual number of English ships and soldiers, which was likely to be an overestimate due to fear4 .

7

4 The English fleet attacking Jamaica consisted of 38 ships and around 7,000 soldiers; the Spanish wrote that there were at most 76 vessels (of which 50 were large ships) and 14,000 troops (Taylor 1965, p. 52).

! The port was very lightly defended, with a single small fort and only three mounted guns. After a mostly ineffective barrage of gunfire between the 12-gun English vessel Martin and the port’s defenders, the fleet approached the coast and the soldiers disembarked, forming up and storming the fort. The Spanish quickly realised their chances were low and retreated, giving Penn and Venables the victory they desired with no English blood spilled.! The soldiers marched on Villa de la Vega the next morning, meeting no resistance en route but were soon approached by the Spaniard Antonio de Salina, carrying a truce flag. He proposed that the Spanish could provide the English with whatever food they needed in return for their departure. Venables refused, stating that they had come “not to pillage, but to plant”, and to seize Jamaica in England’s name (Taylor 1965, p. 55).! The English began to establish themselves in the town, with Venables taking the governor’s residence. Ramirez, who was now based in a sugar mill six miles to the west, sent Francisco de Carvajal to discuss terms with Venables, who demanded first that the town should be supplied with goats and sheep to feed his men. England’s right to Jamaica was discussed and Venables’ chaplain Thomas Gage stated that though the Pope had formally ‘given’ Jamaica to the Spanish, it was not his to give away and that England could take Jamaica just as Spain had taken the island from its natives.! After much debate about English intentions, Ramirez decided to go to the town on the 15th of May and on the 16th he agreed to Venables’ terms, which among others included the presenting of all soldiers, weapons, forts and ships to him and the decision that Spanish residents could either leave the island with very few belongings or subject themselves to English rule. As could be expected, the Spanish reaction was not good and the capitulations were rejected, sparking a guerrilla war between the English and the Spanish, aided by their African slaves. Spanish opposition ended in 1658 when Juan de Bolas, chieftain of the Jamaican Maroons5, surrendered to Edward D’Oyley, the first English governor of Jamaica (Aarons 1983, p. 114).

8

5 The term ‘Maroon’ was used to refer to escaped slaves and their descendants. Many slaves attained freedom this way after the English attacked Jamaica.

Port Royal: Rise and Fall

! In the 17th century there was a 60-acre cay at the western end of the Palisadoes, known as Cayo de Carina by the Spanish, and Caguaya by the English6. As an attack from Cartagena was possible, construction of a fort named Fort Cromwell began here to defend the harbour in 1656. As many soldiers and workmen were present, it was decided that a town should be founded in the vicinity of the cay and the settlement was soon populated by an array of sailors, merchants, craftsmen and prostitutes, who saw opportunities in this new land (Pawson and Buisseret 2000, p. 7). Originally called Point Cagway, it became Port Royal with the Restoration of Charles II in 1660; at the same time Fort Cromwell was renamed Fort Charles. Upon the Restoration, rather than returning or ignoring Jamaica, its potential for sugar-planting was seen and the king was persuaded to keep it as an English colony (Sarson 2005, p. 109).! The cay was also seen as being strategically important - it could be well defended and its water was very deep, allowing large ships to be careened7 and loaded (Hamilton 2000a). Development was very quick and demand for land was high; incoming ships were ballasted with bricks to provide enough building material and by 1658 there was already a small settlement of 3 housing rows, a market, a store, a forge and a church (Jobling 1987a, p. 2). The port continued to grow and became England’s most important economic centre in the New World.! At its height Port Royal had a population between 7000 and 8000 (Hamilton 2006, p. 16), rivalling Boston, Massachusetts, which had a population of 6000 in 1690 (Hamilton 2000a). By 1692, the city had 2000 buildings of up to 4 storeys and a large number were brick which, as the material was more expensive than timber, were lived in by wealthy people. It was said in fact that one of the more high-end houses in Port Royal could cost as much as a similar building in Mayfair (Aarons 1983, p. 114). It was a very rich city; in 1682 Francis Hanson wrote that there was more wealth per resident in Port Royal than in London (Hanson 1683) and probate inventories reveal that the average estate value of a merchant was £1,096, incredibly high considering that in Boston the highest value was £170 in 1687 (Thornton 1991, p. 7).

9

6 ‘Caguaya’ was the Spanish name for the harbour, but was wrongly believed by the English to be the name of the cay (Taylor 1965, pp. 130-131).

7 Careening is a process of cleaning and repairing a ship, during which it is turned on its side.

! Along with trade (both official trade and illicit trade with the Spanish), privateering, a legalised form of piracy commissioned by a government, was responsible for a vast amount of wealth in Port Royal which in turn fuelled the city’s rapid development. In 1657 D’Oyley invited the Brethren of the Coast, a group of buccaneers who resided on the island of Tortuga, to come to Port Royal and protect the colony from the Spanish (Sarson 2005, p. 108) as Charles II had moved the majority of the English fleet away from Jamaica and had also significantly cut its stationed military force (Marx 2003, pp. 52-53). The buccaneers wanted revenge on Spain for a brutal attack on Tortuga and needed somewhere to live as the French, who had taken the island, banned them from living there. These buccaneers were made privateers and were given letters of marque legalising attacks on Spanish ships and ports, the most famous perhaps being Henry Morgan’s attack on Panama City which yielded £70,000 of loot8.! Privateering was a significant part of life in Port Royal and almost the entire population was directly or indirectly involved9. Privateers brought huge amounts of plunder back to Port Royal and there were celebrations upon their return. This money was then blown on the city’s infamously ‘wicked’ nights, on gambling, prostitutes and the notoriously potent ‘kill-devil’ rum. After the 1670 Treaty of Madrid ended hostilities between England and Spain, many former privateers decided to refuse letters of marque, going against the law and becoming pirates. Though more emphasis was being placed on trade post-1670, privateering and piracy continued to be the source of a vast amount of wealth.! At 11:43 am on the 7th of June 169210, Port Royal was hit by a devastating earthquake, causing 33 of the city’s 51 acres to sink beneath the sea in a matter of minutes. It was so destructive that around 2000 people died immediately and 3000 shortly after from injuries and disease (Hamilton 2000a; Pawson & Buisseret 2000). Great cracks opened in the ground, engulfing people and crushing them as tsunamis swept through the city.

10

8 Buccaneers should not be confused with pirates or privateers. Early 17th-century buccaneers were French, including many fugitives from the Spanish who, with a hatred of them, were initially only involved with recriminations against Spain but began to attack Spanish vessels in the middle of the century (Burl 1997, p. 9; Konstam 2002, pp. 10-11). Privateers were sovereign-licensed to attack enemy nations’ vessels but not their own (Cordingly 1995, p. 6; Konstam 2002, p. 11) whereas pirates were enemies to everyone, plundering any vessel they could (Burl 1997, p. 9).

9 In 1689, Port Royal’s population was 4000 and almost half were directly involved with privateering (Zahedieh 1986, p. 220). Many others funded voyages of plunder or, if they had the money, invested further in them by purchasing a ship (Marx 2003, p. 57).

10 The exact time of the event is recorded on a pocket watch recovered from the site. This will be discussed in Chapter Two.

! Though Port Royal was probably no more ‘wicked’ than any other port city, despite the prominence of pirates and privateers (Cordingly 1992), it was widely known to be disreputable and many believed that the earthquake was God’s punishment on this city of sinners11. Some even went as far as predicting its doom - John Taylor, who visited Port Royal in 1688, wrote that ‘the badness of this place [would result in its destruction]’12.! The extent of the destruction was due to where and how Port Royal was built. With its foundations built on loose, waterlogged sand 120 feet above bedrock13 and the many multi-storey buildings in close proximity, the city was incredibly unstable. The town was in fact located on an earthquake belt and seismic waves occurred frequently. The Spanish were used to earthquakes and built their settlements on stable ground, using mainly one-storey buildings (Marx 2003, p. 29). The English were not prepared for this and liquefaction of the sand bed caused a large proportion of the settlement to become submerged very quickly (Clifford 1993, p. 1; Hamilton 1990a, p. 4). Though they did not know the physical reasons for its imminent ruin, the doomsayers were right in foreseeing the end.! Port Royal never returned to how it was and after centuries of rebuilding and destruction by various disasters it still exists today, albeit nothing like its 17th-century self. The peninsula actually has a greater area of land today than it did before the earthquake due to natural and artificial silt deposition (Link 1960, p. 167; Mayes & Mayes 1972, pp. 102-103; Figure 2). Present-day Port Royal is a small fishing settlement of 2000 people with a British naval base and a coastguard headquarters building. Very little evidence of the wickedest city on earth remains above ground, but underwater is a different story. Like Pompeii, Port Royal is a unique 17th-century example of a catastrophic site (Hamilton 1990a, p. 4). Due to its sudden end and liquefaction resulting in minimal horizontal movement, most of the site remains as it was before the earthquake. Thanks to preservation by the aquatic environment, materials can be recovered that would not survive in the archaeological record outside of water and an extensive collection of contemporary documents are available, notably in the Jamaica Archives (Thornton 1988). It is through underwater archaeology that Port Royal is returning to life.

11

11 The city’s sordid reputation can be seen in the writings of visitors. For example, Ned Ward called it ‘The Dunghill of the Universe’ (Sarson 2005, p. 112).

12 From the Taylor Manuscript, written in 1688 and kept on file at the Institute of Jamaica, Kingston. Cited in Marx 2003, p. 16).

13 The cay on which Port Royal was built partly consisted of sand and gravel deposited on an underwater reef and partly on peat beds (Taylor 1965, pp. 135-136). It could never have been stable and was indeed doomed from the start.

Chapter Two: City Beneath the Sea

The Underwater Excavations of Port Royal

The Romance of Port Royal

! From the very moment that the earthquake ended, the site of Port Royal was subjected to wracking, the removal of treasure by both normal people seeking easy riches and professional treasure hunters (Jobling 1987b; Mayes & Mayes 1972, p. 101). The process was extensive and continued for decades; in some places the city was less than 20 feet below water and good visibility meant that treasure could be relatively easily taken using nets, fishing poles, diving bells or by hiring free divers who could hold their breath for 5 minutes (Marx 2003, pp. 83-84).! Though looting became less prevalent over the years, interest in the sunken city of treasure never died. Many legends and tales appeared, of divers finding chests bursting with gold, the giant sea creatures which guarded them and the eerie ringing of the bell of St. Paul’s cathedral, the location of which was supposedly marked by the Church Beacon. In 1859 J. D. Murphy dived at the Church Beacon and found that the ruins beneath it were instead of Fort James. This however did not quell the legend and though it was an investigative dive, it ignited people’s dreams of treasure. The romantic aspect of the story was especially popular in the first half of the 20th century and in 1953 the film City Beneath the Sea was released, telling the story of divers who search for lost gold in the sunken city.

Excavations 1956-1967

! For many, the objective of a dive at Port Royal was pirate treasure. However, there were some who, like Murphy, saw the potential of investigating the site. In 1956, inventor and treasure hunter Edwin Link arrived in Port Royal with a team of divers to explore Fort James. Deciding that they did not have good enough equipment, they raised a cannon then left, returning in 1959 sponsored by the National Geographic Society, the Smithsonian Institution and the Institute of Jamaica.

12

Figure 2: Plan showing location of INA excavations and changing shoreline of Port Royal.Plan: D. L. Hamilton, Port Royal Project.

13

! Drawing upon his experience as an inventor, Link constructed Sea Diver, the first ship to be built for underwater archaeology. Crewed by 12 people, it featured a compressor to provide air for the divers, a 10-inch airlift for removing sediment from the sea floor and a diving compartment to allow divers to enter and leave the water (Link 1960, p. 161).! It was decided that a map was needed to guide the excavation and investigate the most promising areas. A chart was compiled by Link using a post-Earthquake map found in the British Museum and survey data from the Jamaican government including original property deeds so the streets and buildings of old Port Royal could be located. Echo-sounding equipment was also utilised to map the underwater city (Link 1960, pp. 165;

168).! At first the ‘King’s Warehouse’ was chosen to investigate, but when it proved unsuccessful a new location was chosen near Fort James’ east wall, an area of shops and houses. Here there were numerous finds, including ‘onion bottles’ for storing rum or wine (Figure 3)14, clay pipes, pewter ware, a brass ladle, tiles and wall plaster. A copper cooking pot containing bones with cut marks was found, suggesting a stew was cooking at time of earthquake. The area was thought to be a kitchen due the presence of pots, cutlery,

platters, a fireplace and a grindstone; Link’s chart showed it could have been Fort James’ cookhouse or a kitchen or tavern belonging to a James Littleton (Link 1960, pp. 173-174).! One of the most significant finds of Link’s project was a pocket watch, almost missed due to its size as it was ejected from the airlift pipe. Its face was covered in a black calcareous layer; this was removed to reveal the watch’s numerals but the hands had disintegrated. An x-ray image of the watch however showed traces of the hands at the time of 11:43 which, as it is likely the mechanism would have stopped working as the earthquake hit, supports the time of the event described in the written accounts as just before noon. On the inside of the case the maker’s name was inscribed - Paul Blondel

14

14 Onion bottles, often of dark olive-green glass, were named after their deterioration process in which layers of the poor-quality glass flake off like an onion. Mostly from England and elsewhere in Europe, they were commonly used at Port Royal from the 1680s for many purposes, holding oil or water as well as alcohol (Smith 2008, p. 271). They were the predominantly-used bottle for wine and spirits until the ‘mallet’ style emerged in around 1730 (Lindsey 2013).

Figure 3: An onion bottle representing those recovered from Port Royal.Photo: Museums of History and Ethnography, The Institute of Jamaica.

(Link 1960, p. 173; 178-180). Link brought the watch to London’s Science Museum, from where he sent the following message:

‘WATCH AUTHENTICATED BY SCIENCE MUSEUM TO BE BY PAUL BLONDEL AMSTERDAM 1686 WHO WAS HUGUENOT REFUGEE FROM CHALONS STOP TIME SHOWN BY WATCH 17 MINUTES TO NOON IS REGARDED AS AUTHENTIC TIME OF

EARTHQUAKE’

! Blondel was a French watchmaker living in the Netherlands and did not make watches after 1686, meaning the Port Royal watch could not have been made after this date. It seems likely that this was a personal belonging brought to Port Royal when its owner moved there.! As it became internationally famous through newspapers and magazines, the expedition was extremely significant. Being the first official project of its type, it increased awareness of the archaeological potential of Port Royal, establishing it as a site of importance rather than a treasure-seeker’s paradise.! Link could not return to excavate the site and no excavation was carried out for 6 years. In 1965 further excavation was deemed necessary by the Jamaican government and the project was given to Robert F. Marx, who had carried out a number of exploratory dives and much research on Port Royal. Overcoming problems such as conflict with the Port Royal Company of Merchants, disagreements with the government and the illegal stealing and selling of artefacts by American divers, the work undertaken by Marx was fundamental in establishing the site’s importance and need for excavation.! A planned dredging operation for a future development project forced Marx to map and excavate a different area than he had intended. The location appeared to be less promising - it sank slower and was more violently destroyed, meaning there was more horizontal displacement15 and many bricks had been salvaged for the building of an early 19th-century naval hospital. The main excavation began on 1st May 1966, with the excavated area being 15 feet underwater and 120 feet from the shore (Figure 4).! Marx utilised a 4-inch airlift, smaller than Link’s, to prevent the loss and damage of larger objects. The sediment removed by it was deposited on to a barge with a fine mesh so that it did not contaminate areas to be worked on in the future. Visibility was low and shifting sediments made it difficult to determine stratigraphic depth, so marks were made

15

15 This was evidenced through finds: for example half of a Delftware plate was found 400 feet away from its other part (Marx 2003, p. 150).

on the airlift allowing the team on the barge to note the depth of excavation, with the position recorded in relation to 4 buoys (Marx 2003, pp. 122-123, 133-134).! From the start of the excavation numerous finds were retrieved, including clay smoking pipes, pot sherds, onion bottles and concretions16. Pewter objects including plates, cutlery, a porringer and a tankard were found beneath a fallen wall; 5 similar walls were later found to be part of the same building along with 7 preserved wooden roof beams. The building’s owner was thought to be a resident named Richard Collins due to his initials being present on 2 plates, 2 spoons and a fork - it was not uncommon for dinnerware to be inscribed with the initials of its owner. It was also thought to be a tavern due to the numbers of broken wineglasses, mugs, onion bottles and clay pipes. The fact that the pipes showed 66 different maker’s marks confirmed it was more likely a tavern than a store; it is known that people would own multiple pipes and leave them at places they frequented (Marx 2003, pp. 131-148). A second tavern was also later discovered by Marx.

16

16 Concretions are dense conglomerates that form when material is bonded to corroding ferrous metal, notably iron (Robinson 1998, pp. 45-56). At Port Royal, copper, lead and silver concretions also frequently appear (Smith 1990, p. 11).

Figure 4: Plan showing locations of Marx and INA excavations.Plan: D. L. Hamilton, Port Royal Project.

! Other important discoveries relating to life in Port Royal included an apothecary’s shop, revealed by a small chest containing medicine bottles protected by preserved straw, and two turtle crawls for keeping live turtles, evidence for one of the main meats consumed (Hunter, C. 1987). One of the most spectacular finds was a vast collection of Spanish pieces of eight, kept in a wooden chest bearing the Spanish coat of arms. In August 1691, 4 Spanish treasure galleons wrecked on the Pedro Shoals. The Spaniards offered payment to those from Port Royal who salvaged the treasure and gave it to them. Though the English agreed, some secretly kept treasure chests. This chest could possibly be one of them, making it a genuine archaeological example of buried treasure, albeit not in the popular pirate sense (Marx 2003, pp. 155-156, 181-182). Marx also discovered the remains of three shipwrecks, which will be discussed in Chapter Four.! Though not a large-scale archaeological project, the Marx excavations showed that investigation of the site could reveal significant information about 17th-century Port Royal and, more importantly, reinforced its need for extensive future work.

Excavations 1981-1990

! The most extensive and longest-running underwater excavation of Port Royal ran from 1981 to 1990 and was carried out by Donny L. Hamilton alongside the Institute of Nautical Archaeology, Texas A&M University and the Jamaican National Heritage Trust. As an academic project simultaneously used to train nautical archaeology students (Hamilton 1987) it was a very significant undertaking, even though the initial primary objective was to simply find out if controlled excavation could be carried out considering the stratigraphic, visibility and other problems faced by prior investigators. It was found very quickly that

17

Figure 5: Reconstructive drawing of the 5 main Lime Street buildings excavated in the INA/TAMU project. Drawing: O. Cox, Port Royal Project.

these problems were mostly non-existent in the excavated area, with a good visibility of 4-10 feet allowing photography and grid-based plan-drawing to take place and confirming that the site could be excavated similarly to a land-based project (Hamilton 1984, pp. 15-16).! Maps of historic Port Royal were used to determine a location to excavate. It was decided that the excavation would focus on Lime Street, where it intersected Queen Street and High Street, an area of commercial activity (Figures 2 & 4). This area would have been relatively far from Port Royal’s harbour and would have not shifted horizontally to a great extent, giving it much archaeological potential as objects will have settled in the same place they were when the earthquake occurred (Hamilton 2000b).! During the 10 years of excavation, 8 buildings were explored and 5 were fully excavated (Figure 5). These demonstrated the variety of different building types that were present in Port Royal and ranged from small temporary constructions to large, multi-storey brick structures not unlike those that would have been seen in London and Boston

18

Figure 6: Plan of Building 1. Plan: S. Clifford, Port Royal Project.

(Hamilton 1990a, p. 4)17. Some buildings started small and were extended with additional rooms as needed, as seen in Buildings 1 and 5. The study of such buildings is vital in obtaining information about town planning, architecture and daily life in Port Royal.! Building 1, a two-phased brick structure, consisted of three pairs of two rooms on the ground floor (Figure 6). Originally a three-roomed building, another three rooms were later constructed behind, forming the units. Evidence of wooden stairwells in two of the front rooms and the number of fallen bricks present suggest that each unit also had an upper storey. It is likely that each pair of rooms had its own front door and a separate function. A lathe, leather pieces and shoe remains suggest that a cobbler and wood turner worked in Rooms 1 and 2; vessels for drinking and storing alcohol seem to identify Rooms 3 and 4 as a tavern and the large number of clay pipes, unused, in Rooms 5 and 6 hint at a pipe shop (Hamilton 2001a).! Building 2 was unfortunately badly preserved so little information on its form or function could be obtained, other than that it was a plaster-floored frame building with an upper storey, suggested by the one-and-a-half brick thick main walls (Hamilton 2000b).

19

17 It must be noted that due to the nature of the settlement’s destruction, the potential upper storeys of buildings are not immediately visible and their original presence must be determined through other factors, as mentioned below.

Figure 7: Reconstructive drawing of the excavated buildings in relation to Queen and Lime Streets and showing the Building 4/5 complex Lime Street extension.Drawing: D. L. Hamilton, Port Royal Project.

Building 3 has a mortar foundation with raised sills and plaster-floored rooms with the exception of one sand-floored room. Its function could also not be determined, though the presence of scales along with various objects such as clay pipes and bottles could indicate a storage area (Hamilton 2001b).! Buildings 4 and 5, found to be part of a single complex and sharing a common wall, were the major foci of the whole excavation period. Building 5 extended over 40 feet off the limit of Lime Street detailed on contemporary maps, indicating the presence of an extension of the street not depicted in the cartographic evidence and emphasising the importance of archaeology in complimenting historical records (Figure 7; Hamilton 1990b, pp. 14-16).! The complex as excavated is 65 by 40 feet and consists of 6 rooms, 4 for Building 5 and at least 2 for Building 4 (Figure 8). 5 brick-paved yards were excavated; Yard 5 for Building 5, Yards 4a and 4b for Building 4 and two yards, 6 and 7, for a building behind, fronting Fisher’s Row. A cistern was possibly shared between Yards 5 and 7 (Hamilton 1990b).! Like Building 1, Building 5 has a multi-phase construction. Starting with only Rooms 1 and 2, Room 3 was added later to connect the building to an exterior kitchen, Room 4, which contains evidence of a hearth and oven. This began to happen more towards the end of the 17th century; kitchens were separate before to keep the heat and smoke from the house, which had no chimney, and to prevent fire (Thornton 1991, p. 8; Marx 2003, p. 13). A stairwell in Room 2 confirms Building 5 as multi-storey and both of the front rooms had a front door.! The functions of each of Building 5’s rooms have been inferred. Room 1 is thought to have been a dining room (known at the time as a parlour) where guests were served food, supported by the additional front door, a number of pewter plates and a plastered floor. Probate inventories have shown that the parlour was the best-furnished room in a house (Thornton 1991, pp. 7-8). Room 2 has been interpreted as a general entrance and storage area; 25 pewter plates were found in a cupboard under the stairs and clay pipes and bottles were found by the door. Room 3 appears to have been a food preparation area, due to various types of cooking pot, a spice grater a strainer and other finds related to food processing. This makes sense as the room links with Room 4, the kitchen area. Weights for measuring wheat were found close to the hearth, evidence for bread-making (Hamilton 2001c).! Building 4 was smaller, less well-built and was constructed later than Building 5. Unlike Building 5, its half-brick thickness dividing walls indicate that it was single-storey

20

(Hamilton 1990a). Hamilton’s interpretation is that there were 2 units side by side, each consisting of two rooms, one behind the other, with a yard and hearth behind (Hamilton 1990b). Objects and tools related to domestic work and manual labour as well as the quality of construction have raised the theory that Building 4 accommodated the servants or slaves of the Building 5 residents (Hamilton 2001c).

21

Figure 8: Plan of Building 4/5 complex. Plan: S. Clifford, Port Royal Project.

! Through the study of spatial patterns, the distribution of artefacts found in these buildings, information about life in Port Royal could be retrieved. For example, it was discovered that tableware was in front rooms rather than near kitchen hearths, showing that eating was not carried out in the kitchen. Animal bones were found near hearths or outside the buildings, suggesting that food waste was disposed of by being thrown outside. (Schroeder 1990). Analysis of animal bones was also found to be useful, in that the majority of animals killed for food were cattle and, to a lesser extent, sea turtles (Hunter 1987). Cattle, along with horses and pigs, were brought to the Caribbean by the Spanish, whereas sea turtles were native. Both were important to the economy as hides and turtle shells were exported, the latter being desirable as a material for jewellery.

HMS Swan

! It was amongst the remains of Building 4 that one of the most important discoveries of the excavation was made: the shipwreck believed to be HMS Swan, her 74-foot keel lying on top of the structure (see Figure 8). The identity of Swan was originally given to one of the wrecks discovered by Marx (see Figure 4), however the Building 4 wreck is a more likely candidate (Hamilton 2006, pp. 20-21).! The wreck has been interpreted as Swan due to a number of factors. The size of the timbers match the ship’s recorded weight of 246-305 tonnes, beam length of 25 feet and keel length of 74 feet18, her construction seems closer to a warship than a merchant vessel and her location suggests she was wrecked during the earthquake and thrown into the city (Clifford 1991).! Defence was very important for Port Royal and from 1668 warships began to be permanently stationed there. Records show that Swan was the only English warship to wreck on 7th June 1692; she was being careened at the time which explains the fact that no ballast was found on the wreck and therefore the distance she was carried into Port Royal by the wave. One historical account says that the ship landed on top of the house of a resident called ‘Lord Pike’ and many clung to her for survival:

‘Several Ships and Sloops were over-set and lost in the Harbour. Among the rest a Man of War, the Swan Frigat that lay by the Wharf to careen. The violent Motion of the Sea and

22

18 These numbers are given to us by Samuel Pepys, who also states that Swan was a 5th rate frigate with 32 guns (Clifford 1990, p. 10).

sinking of the Wharf, forced her over the Tops of many Houses, and passing by that where a Person called my Lord Pike lived, Part of it fell upon her and beat in her Round-house;

she did not over-set, but helped some Hundreds in saving their Lives.’(Oldmixon 1969, p. 324)

! The walls and floors of the building beneath this wreck appear to have been disrupted near the ship’s keel, the result of a collision between the incoming vessel and the building (Clifford 1990 & 1991). It is possible therefore that the Building 4/5 complex was the residence of Lord Pike, though it is far from certain. More evidence, both historical and archaeological, will need to be found in order for this interpretation to be seriously considered.

Notes on Method and Technique!! Underwater archaeology, often termed ‘maritime’ archaeology when relating to human activity on the sea or ‘nautical’ archaeology when relating specifically to boats and their related equipment, is very different from terrestrial archaeology and has its own set of problems that must be faced. Underwater archaeologists must overcome their effective weightlessness that affects the applying of force to something as well as the impairment of the senses of smell, hearing and of course visibility.! Not only does wearing a face mask cause refraction, which distorts vision, and loss of colour due to the filtering of the light spectrum (Muckelroy 1978, p. 24), the amount of unsettled sediment floating in the water can severely limit the diver’s perception (Linder & Raban 1975, p. 22). Despite the generally good visibility of the later INA and TAMU excavations, Marx writes that the visibility at Port Royal was sometimes only a few inches (Marx 2003, p. 91) and for much of the time he and his team were working in relative darkness, relying heavily on their sense of touch to carry out the excavation and identify objects. Link’s wife Marion colourfully describes her experience of diving at Port Royal as being ‘alone in an opaque world of gloom’ (Link 1960, p. 172).! Marine archaeology is very adaptive; generally the same techniques and equipment used in terrestrial archaeology can be used underwater, with some changes (Linder & Raban, p. 72). The seabed is usually less consolidated than soil on land and is therefore best manipulated and removed by hand rather than with a tool such as a trowel. Plans can still be made using pencils and plastic film and photographs can still be taken, providing

23

there is acceptable visibility on the day. The main difference in terms of equipment is the generally very effective use of airlifts discussed above.! Being underwater does cause problems with certain methods, such as the filling up of trenches with loose settlement and the difficulty in using measuring tape, considering it can easily be moved by currents and cannot be pulled taut by divers. Problems such as these can often be solved in a number of ways and individual archaeologists are known to experiment with new solutions. A significant advantage of working underwater is that when material moves through the water and therefore when emitted from an airlift, heavier sediments fall faster causing automatic separation and making spoil easier to sort through (Muckelroy 1978, pp. 43-44; 49-50).! Exclusive to underwater archaeology are concretions, which are conglomerates that form around ferrous metal artefacts and are difficult and time-consuming to conserve (Robinson 1998, pp. 54-56). During the 1981-1990 excavations, radiography was used to see through concretions as x-rays can penetrate the material, creating an image of what is inside. Through this method the extent of preservation can be determined and conservation planned. For example, at Port Royal a concreted wooden box was x-rayed, revealing fragile navigational instruments within (Smith 1990).

24

Chapter Three: Trader Town

Archaeological Evidence for Trade in Port Royal

! The following chapter will discuss particular groups of finds recovered during the INA and TAMU excavations of 1981 to 1990. The main categories of artefacts that will be considered are Chinese porcelain, Delftware, clay smoking pipes and pewter, focusing on what they can reveal about trade in Port Royal as well as daily life in general.

Chinese Porcelain: The ‘Dogs of Fo’!! Chinese ceramic, notably of the blanc de Chine and blue-and-white types, was commonly sent from China as so-called ‘Chinese export porcelain’, being manufactured specifically for trade with Europe and the Americas.! Blanc de Chine, also known as Dehua ware, was manufactured at Dehua, Fujian Province, from the end of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644)19 and is character ised by i ts fine-grained translucent white body and thick white or bluish-white glaze (Valenstein 1975, p. 203). Its aesthetic qualities and practical properties made the exported objects extremely desirable; it was an expensive product that was attainable only by wealthy individuals willing to part with a considerable sum of money for the pleasure of being able to display such items in their homes (Schumaker &

25

19 Although kiln evidence at Dehua suggests blanc de Chine was first made in the Song Dynasty (960-1279), its distinctive form was established in the 17th century (Litzenburg & Bailey 2003; Valenstein 1975).

Figure 9: Drawing of one of the smaller pair of Fo Dogs recovered from Port Royal.Drawing: H. Dewolf, INA Newsletter 17 (2).

Donachie 2001). Particularly popular amongst Western buyers were figure models, including representations of Buddhist and Taoist deities, people and animals, as well as other objects such as incense burners and writing table items (Litzenburg & Bailey 2003, p. 14; Valenstein 1975, p. 203).! Traded throughout the 17th century, Chinese export porcelain reached its peak in the 18th century, during which over 60 million articles of porcelain were sent to Europe (Litzenburg & Bailey 2003, p. 11). As England was forbidden direct trade relations with China between 1640 and 1680 (Dewolf 1988), porcelain was exported through companies such as the Dutch Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC), which transferred the goods to the hands of English merchants to ship across the world20. It is through these merchants that Chinese ceramic would have come to Port Royal.! The most notable examples of Chinese porcelain recovered from Port Royal are two pairs of blanc de Chine figurines known in the West as ‘Dogs of Fo’ (Figure 9)21. Traditionally called ‘Shi’, they do not actually depict dogs and should be given the more accurate name of ‘guardian lions’, being seen in China flanking the entrances to temples. This idea is retained in the figurines found at Port Royal as the two pairs, one smaller than the other, are mirror images of each other, as their larger relatives would have been outside a Buddhist temple. Pairs in China involved a male, shown with a ball, and a female, shown with a cub (Encyclopaedia Britannica Online 2013). The examples at Port Royal however are all male; the characteristic ball can be seen in Figure 9. This is evidence that the desire for this design was purely aesthetic and that the owner was probably not Chinese.! The figurines (one intact and the others fragmentary) were recovered from a fallen wall in front of Building 5, either having fallen from Building 5 or, more likely, Building 8 to the north, which was on Queen Street (see Figure 6; Dewolf 1988 & 1998; Hamilton 2000b). Queen Street is known to have been inhabited by traders and richer individuals, so the ‘dogs’ were likely either in the house as the owner’s belongings or as goods to be traded. Serving as incense holders, the figurines would have been seen as exotic objects that a wealthy person would be proud to display, especially considering a whole set was present. At least 28 Chinese vessels including cups and bowls were found nearby, which could indicate stock to be sold in a specialty shop or a personal collection. Either way, their presence indicates that there was a market for such exquisite goods in Port Royal, which

26

20 The English dominated the trade in Chinese export porcelain until 1784, when they were overtaken by the Americans (Litzenburg & Bailey 2003, p. 11).

21 The spelling of ‘Fo’ varies between publications, alternatively being written as ‘Fu’ or ‘Foo’.

perhaps is not surprising considering the amount of wealth in the town. Importantly, this discovery shows that there was demand for Chinese porcelain in the New World as early as the 17th century; as noted above the export of these items is thought to have been most extensive in the 18th century. Unfortunately blanc de Chine is very difficult to date as the style remained the same for a long time, with moulds and designs being reused (Valenstein 1975, p. 203; Dewolf 1988). However, because a terminus ante quem of 6th June 1692 can be given to the articles of Chinese porcelain at Port Royal, this evidence could aid future attempts to date similar material from other sites (Dewolf 1998, p. 72).

Not Made in China: Delftware at Port Royal!! The large quantities of blanc de Chine and other types of Chinese export porcelain arriving in the West inspired European craftsmen to p roduce the i r own im i ta t i ons (Litzenburg & Bailey 2003, p. 14); Chinese porcelain itself was only produced in Europe from 1709 onwards (Dewolf 1998, p. 61).! Tin-glazed earthenware, more commonly known as Delftware22, was the first white clay pottery to be produced in England, though it was also being made in Holland and had originated in the Middle East (Britton 1982, p. 13). Containing tin oxide in its lead glaze, Delftware had a white surface meaning it looked like blanc de Chine but was much more affordable (Schumaker & Donachie 2000), a realisation which resulted in

27

22 ‘Delftware’ is a modern term, named after the city of Delft, Netherlands; during the 17th and 18th centuries the material was known as ‘galleyware’, a name thought to have come from the word ‘galley’, the ship that transported the finished items, or the Dutch word ‘glei’, which means ‘porcelain’ (Britton 1982, p. 13).

Figure 10: Late 17th-century English flower vase. Photo: TAMU, Port Royal Project.

a boom in Delftware manufacture (Britton 1982, p. 167). Due to the fact that Chinese porcelain was so desirable and Delftware was a good alternative, it became very popular.! It is only after around 1650 that more English pottery makers worked in England; before this most operating in the country were Dutch or Flemish. In terms of design, the English makers, notably working in London and Bristol, copied the styles of both Holland and China, with the latter being more in demand due to the connotations that the Chinese aesthetic had. The most prominent style of Chinese imitation in the 17th and 18th centuries was known as ‘Chinoiserie’ and was characterised by its blue and white colour, oriental style patterns and figures such as the Chinese person sitting amongst rocks that was common at the end of the 17th century (Britton 1982, p. 167).! A large quantity of Delftware was found at Port Royal during the ten years of excavation. 1,165 sherds, 30% of all ceramic finds, were recovered and 22 vessels were either found unbroken or could be pieced together to form the complete object (Dewolf 1998, p. 64). It seems to have been a very popular material at Port Royal and was used for almost every kind of vessel including plates and bowls for eating and cups for drinking.! Some recovered articles are very elaborately decorated implying that they were not used for practical reasons but rather for display. A late 17th-century English decorated flower vase (reconstructed from 75 fragments, Figure 10) is very elaborate with its fluted rim and ram horn handles. Very little glaze remains, but the blue-green colour of the patches that survive suggests it was probably decorated in a Chinese style (Schumaker & Donachie 2000).! Similarly, the blue-green glaze on the rim of a late 17th-century Dutch thin plate (Figure 11) shows Chinese style decoration and a recognisably Chinese human figure. The pattern of flowers belongs to a Chinese style called the ‘tulip pattern’. Flowers are an important Chinese motif, as evidenced by their presence in the culture’s stories and art. Another highly decorative cup also uses flower motifs (Figure 12). Evidently not for general use due to its fragility, it shows a quatrefoil (four-leafed) design. A distinctive feature of the Song Dynasty, the four-leafed flower, the begonia, is an important symbol in Chinese legend (Schumaker & Donachie 2000).! The motif of the figure sitting by rocks is demonstrated on a highly detailed fragmentary jar lid (Figure 13). The man holds a parasol, typical in style of parasols on 17th-century Chinese pottery, and the decoration is polychrome.! Plainer objects on the other hand were probably used very frequently. A plain white salt stand distinctly reflects English tradition and there are numerous varying sizes of

28

Figure 11: Late 17th-century Dutch plate rim. Photo: TAMU, Port Royal Project.

Figure 12: Mid-to-late 17th-century English cup. Photo: TAMU, Port Royal Project.

Figure 13: Fragments of a late 17th-century jar lid. Photo: TAMU, Port Royal Project.

29

pharmaceutical jars, porringers and other general containers. Significantly, monteith23 sherds were found which, considering they only began to be made in England around the time of the 1692 earthquake, means that Port Royal kept up to date with the latest fashions and could get new items shipped there very quickly (Schumaker & Donachie 2000). The variety of types of Delftware that are present also shows the range of goods that could be obtained by a colony.! The Port Royal Delftware collection is important in a wider context as, though millions of Delftware objects were made in England, only a small amount survives (Britton 1982, p. 15). Its fragility meant it chipped and broke easily and so it would have been discarded, especially if it was an everyday vessel with little value. In this sense the catastrophic nature of Port Royal is very important as there are large collections of Delftware that had not been thrown away. Only minutes before the earthquake put them on the sea bed, they were proudly on display in their owner’s home, or perhaps in a shop waiting to be sold.

Pewter and Simon Benning

! Pewter, a tin alloy24, was a relatively cheap material that appeared more expensive than it was, especially when shiny. Because of this it was a popular material, becoming increasingly so with the rise of the middle class (Wadley 1985, p. 7) and was used for many things including dinnerware, utensils, cutlery and drinking vessels. Hanson wrote that almost every house had ‘a rich cupboard of plate’ (Hanson 1683).! The assemblage from Port Royal, mostly of English origin, is the world’s largest 17th-century pewter collection, as well as the earliest example from an English colony (Gotelipe-Miller 1987, p. 7). The English pewter industry began to be geared towards export to the New World as the demand there increased and local demand fell due to the competing glass and ceramic industries (Gotelipe-Miller 1990, p. 18). This makes it very significant, especially considering water preservation means the makers’ and owners’ marks are visible25.

30

23 Monteiths held iced water and were used to keep glasses of wine cold.

24 The alloy can contain, in addition to tin, one or more of antimony, bismuth, copper, lead or zinc.

25 Makers’ marks were used for both self-advertisement and quality control (Gotelipe-Miller 1987, p. 7). The rules of the Pewterers’ Guild were that each pewterer’s mark was unique so that their products may be traced to them (Wadley 1985, p. 36).

Figure 14: An example of pewter plates (flatware) recovered from Port Royal. These are 3 of the 61 pewter pieces to bear Simon Benning’s mark. Photo: TAMU, Port Royal Project.

! Pewter was also made locally in Jamaica. Three Port Royal pewterers are known from historical records: we hear of Simon Benning from 1667, John Childermaus from 1670 and John Luke from 1679 (Pawson & Buisseret 2000, p. 144). Of the 75 articles recovered, the objects bearing these makers’ marks are mostly single mould flatware26 (Figure 14); it seems that simple objects were made locally and more complex items imported (Gotelipe-Miller 1987, pp. 7-8).! 23 pewter plates were found in Room 2 of Building 5 that bore the makers’ mark of the initials ‘SB’ flanking a pineapple, surrounded by a rope ring (Figure 15). Though the mark had not been seen before, it was assigned to Simon Benning as no other recorded English pewterer would fit and the pineapple was a Jamaican symbol (Hamilton 2000c).! Through the study of historical documents it was found that Benning was an English pewterer who worked abroad, though it seems he did not have official guild training in London. His London will27, written in 1656, says he was to move to Barbados in 1656, possibly so he would be allowed to work as a freeman. After spending 6 or 7 years in Barbados he moved to Jamaica, purchased a small piece of land on Queen Street in 1663

31

26 At Port Royal, 59 flatware artefacts were found. 80% of these were plates, the other 20% were 3 basins, a dish, charger and saucer (Gotelipe-Miller 1990, pp. 40-41).

27 Simon Benning’s London will is available at: http://nautarch.tamu.edu/portroyal/Londonwill.html [Accessed: 1 May 2013].

and in 1665 was patented the land for his High Street shop. Benning’s Jamaican will28, written in 1683, mentions his wife Susanna, his children Symon, Thomas and Sarah, his niece Mary Benning and his pewter shop on High Street (Hamilton 2000c).! ! He owned a number of other properties and pieces of land indicating he was wealthy, successful and invested his money in land along with many of his contemporaries29. His probate inventory30 reveals that he was wealthier than most pewterers in England31 and owned luxuries such as mirrors. His very large

stock of 2957 plates shows his was a much larger-scale operation than his contemporaries in England and was the most important and respected pewterer in Port Royal (Hamilton 2000c).! 20 of the Benning plates from Building 5 can potentially identify the residents of the house. These feature the owners’ marks 'NCI' and 'IC', which historical records suggest could have belonged to Nathaniel Cook and his wife Jane. Knife marks indicate that the 11 plates marked 'IC' were considerably less used and were probably made for Jane after Nathaniel passed away. Since Benning died in 1687, these were probably made by his son and successor Symon and purchased shortly before the earthquake, hence their limited use (Hamilton 2000c).! Thanks to the discovery of a total of 61 of Simon Benning’s products during the excavation, much information has been learned about him and the local pewter trade that could have remained hidden otherwise. This highlights the potential of archaeology in the study of life in a settlement like Port Royal. More generally, the pewter assemblage shows that the inhabitants of the excavated area were relatively prosperous and a number of decorative articles in particular indicate they had access to the latest fashions (Gotelipe-Miller 1990, p. 50).

Figure 15: Simon Benning’s mark. Image: TAMU, Port Royal Project.

32

28 Simon Benning’s Jamaican will is available at: http://nautarch.tamu.edu/portroyal/Jamaicanwill.html [Accessed: 1 May 2013].

29 In the 18th century this land became used for sugar planting.

30 Simon Benning’s probate inventory is available at: http://nautarch.tamu.edu/portroyal/benn-inv.html [Accessed: 1 May 2013]

31 Simon Benning’s estate was valued at £360, the average in England being between £100 and £400 (Hamilton 2000c).

Clay Smoking Pipes: White and Red!! The practice of smoking was discovered by Europeans in the New World as early as 1492, when two of Columbus’ group witnessed native Americans inhaling the smoke from burning leaves (Walker 1977, p. 25). Smoking was quickly adopted in Europe and resulted in the creation of the pipe-making industry, which developed rapidly. Originally solely based in London, the industry grew and spread to other cities in England, notably Bristol, Gateshead and York (Gardner 1987, p. 12). Bristol in particular was extensively involved with the pipe trade; makers there focused on exports from the very start (Walker 1977, p. 658).! Pipes produced in Europe were made of kaolin, a white clay. A total of 18,537 17th-century kaolin pipe pieces, including fragments and complete articles, were found during the INA and TAMU excavations, the vast majority of which were English and made in Bristol (Fox 1998, pp. 22-24)32, a result of strict trade regulations over Jamaica (Gardner 1987, p. 12).! 299 recovered pipes were marked and there were 39 distinguishable makers’ marks across the assemblage, 20 of which could be linked to Bristol33. These are very important as they can be used to find out where the artefacts came from through the study of historical records. It was also noticed that some marks seemed to be associated with certain styles and four particular types of pipe are most common among these34, suggesting that these styles were either preferred by the makers manufacturing them or the smokers buying them (Fox 1998, p. 39-40).! The three marks that appear on the most pipes are ‘LE’ (141 pipes; Figure 16), ‘IB’ (30 pipes) and ‘WE’ (22 pipes). Llewellin Evans, a Bristol pipe-maker working 1661-1684, was the only man with the

33

32 Additionally 1 was made in Brosely, 2 or 3 in London and 6 were Dutch (Fox 1998, p. 24).

33 Though they were not very common in the 17th century, makers’ marks appeared more frequently on white clay pipes from 1670 (Fox 1998, p. 39).

34 52 examples of the Type 1.73 pipe were found (Figure 16), 42 of the Type 1.74, 20 of the Type 1.91 and 17 of the Type 1.63. Information about these particular types can be found in Fox 1998.

Figure 16: One of the 47 Type 1.73 kaolin pipe bowls found at Port Royal that display the makers’ mark of Llewellin Evans.Drawing: G. L. Fox (1998, p. 244).

initials ‘LE’ working in the pipe industry in Britain during the 37 years of Port Royal occupation prior to the earthquake (Gardner 1987, p. 13). Llewellin Evans was the apprentice to James Fox, the earliest pipe-maker to export to North America, and he expanded his master’s business by also exporting to Jamaica (Walker 1977, pp. 657-658). ‘LE’ pipes were distributed across the excavated area but most highly concentrated in Building 1 where there were 6,894 pipes, mostly in Rooms 5 (5,622 pipes) and 6 (657 pipes). As many of these pipes were unsmoked and over 100 onion bottles were also present, this two-room unit has been interpreted as a combination wine and pipe shop (Fox 1988, p. 79).! ‘WE’ can be attributed to one of the father and son pair of William Evans I and II, who worked between 1660 and 1697 and of which one was probably the brother of Llewellin Evans (Walker 1977, p. 659). It is difficult to distinguish between the products of the two as they used the same mark (Fox 1998, p. 43). Like the pipes of ‘LE’, the ‘WE’ pipes are also found at a number of other colonial sites. ‘IB’ is more difficult to assign a maker to. Potential candidates are John Bladen I, his sons John and James, James Bull and Joseph Butt. 11 of the 35 pipes bearing this mark were found in Room 2 of Building 3, a storage area (Fox 1998, p. 42-43).! The fact that certain Bristol pipe-makers are very prevalent amongst the assemblage and that few of the pipes show evidence of having been smoked35 could suggest the presence of a single group of products brought into Port Royal shortly before the city was destroyed. Considering that no detailed accounts of English pipe-making techniques exist before the 19th century (Walker 1977, p. 134), studying collections of English pipes such as that at Port Royal and what they can reveal about the trade is essential.! Also at Port Royal a large number of crude red clay pipes were found, handcrafted rather than moulded. This type is nearly exclusively found in Jamaica and was produced by African slaves in Port Royal (Heidtke 1987); examples have also been found at contemporary slave house sites on Jamaica’s northern coast (Armstrong 1999, p 177). The 200 plus different geometric markings on the pipe stems of 707 pipes, in most cases thought to be some form of makers’ marks (Heidtke 1992, p. 74), indicate that they were made locally by a lot of different people using a readily accessible material, a red clay found in the Liguanea plain and in the vicinity of Spanish Town (Pawson & Buisseret 2000, p. 144).

3435 This can be identified easily - the inside of the bowl of a smoked pipe will be blackened (Fox 1998, p. 73).

! Tobacco was a native American crop, although it spread to Africa and a distinctly African pipe-making style evolved, seen for example at other Caribbean sites such as Newton Cemetery, Barbados. At Port Royal these pipes became influenced by European styles, resulting in a fusion of European, African and Native American technology (Armstrong 1999, p. 177). The pipes were distributed across the whole island; fragments have been recovered for example at the slave area of Seville plantation, including two that had marks linked to Port Royal pipe-makers. This indicates an industry of pipes produced in and for Jamaica which seemed to decline over time as the availability of imported English pipes rose.! Documentary evidence shows that red pipes were used by people of lower social rank, such as pirates and prostitutes. John Taylor wrote of Port Royal’s prostitutes:

‘in their smockes ore linnen peticotes, bare-footed without shoes or stockins, with a straw hatt and a red tobacco pipe in their mouths, [they would] trampouse about their streets in

this their warlike posture, and thus arrayed will booze a cupp of punch cumly with anyone’.36

! A deed dated 1st June 1680 is the only other written document to refer to red pipes, mentioning John Pope the younger, the only Port Royal pipe-maker recorded and possibly the man behind the operation (Pawson & Buisseret 2000, p. 144)37.! When the distribution of red pipes is studied, it is noticed that the majority of them were found outside Building 5 (Schroeder 1990). Whether or not this implies the presence of lower rank people is unclear, though it could suggest that people smoked outside the building.

35

36 From the Taylor Manuscript, written in 1688 and kept on file at the Institute of Jamaica, Kingston. Cited in Pawson & Buisseret 2000, p. 144.

37 For a detailed discussion about John Pope, see Heidtke 1992, pp. 82-87.

Chapter Four: Pirate Port

Piracy at Port Royal and Conclusion

‘Since I have dipped my hands in muddy water and must be a pirate, it is better to be a commander than a common man'.

Bartholomew Roberts on being made captain38

‘In an honest service, there is thin commons, low wages and hard labour; in this, plenty and satiety, pleasure and ease, liberty and power; and who would not balance creditor on

this side, when all the hazard that is run for it, at worst is only a sour look or two at choking. No, a merry life and a short one, shall be my motto’.

Bartholomew Roberts on being a pirate39

The Port Royal Wrecks

! During his work at Port Royal, Marx discovered three wrecks: one he wrongly identified as HMS Swan (discussed in Chapter Two), another he suggested was a French ship taken as a prize and the third he called the ‘1722 Wreck’ based on the finding of a coin dated to 1721 (Marx 2003; Hamilton 2006). Records recount of a catastrophic hurricane that hit Port Royal on 28th August 1722, wrecking 26 ships in the harbour. Marx may have been wrong about Swan, but the ‘1722 Wreck’ was indeed one of the ships that was sunk on this day that effectively ended the city’s chances of returning to its former glory.! Historical records were searched to find the identity of the ships; the most significant was James Cascoigne’s 1724 map ‘An Exact Plan of Chocolata Hole and the South End of the Town of Port Royal in Jamaica’. The map shows three shipwrecks wrecked in the 1722 hurricane, marked ‘N’, ‘O’, and ‘P’, in the same positions as those found by Marx. Marx’s ‘Swan’ is labelled as ‘N the wreck of the Lewis hulk’, ‘The French Prize’ as ‘O the wreck of a Galeon taken by James Littleton, Esq. (Since a Flag Officer)’ and, more interestingly, the ‘1722 Wreck’ as ‘P the wreck of the Ranger a pirate ship taken by Capt Chalenor Ogle (since Knighted)’ (Hamilton 2006, pp. 21-33). Ranger was used by

36

38 Johnson 1998, p. 162.

39 Johnson 1998, p. 214.

the notorious and successful Welsh pirate Bartholomew Roberts and is to date the only evidence for piracy at Port Royal. Because of this it is vital to study, even though the ship wrecked 30 years after the 1692 earthquake.

A Pirate’s Life: Bartholomew Roberts

! The Welsh pirate Bartholomew Roberts is one of the most well-known figures of the Golden Age of Piracy, spanning the period from 1650 to 1730 (Rediker 2011, p. 8)40. Though he is known today as Black Bart, the name was first used as the title of a poem by I. D. Hooson, a 20th-century Welsh poet (Sanders 2007, p. 18). Though the poem’s portrayal of him as a hero is inaccurate, Roberts has good reason to be famous. Said to be the most successful pirate of the period (Konstam 2002, p. 106) and the 5th highest-

37

40 This period can be broken down into three more defined phases: the period from 1650 to 1680, characterised by the buccaneers and Henry Morgan; the last decade of the 17th century and the pirates operating in the Indian Ocean, notably Henry Avery and William Kidd; and most extensively 1716 to 1726, the age of Blackbeard and Bartholomew Roberts that would give pirates the place they hold today in popular culture (Rediker 2011, pp. 8-9).

Figure 17: Copper engraving of Bartholomew Roberts.Image: C. Johnson, from his General History of the Pirates, 2nd edition (1724).

earning (Woolsey 2008), his death in battle in 1722 effectively ended the Golden Age of Piracy and the event’s importance is evidenced by the fact that his killer, Sir Chalenor Ogle, was the only man to have been knighted for efforts against piracy (Pringle 2001).! It is known that Roberts was born John Roberts in Casnewydd Bach41, Pembrokeshire in 1682, though at the age of 13 he went to sea and subsequently disappears from history until 1718, when he is heard of working on a Barbados sloop (Breverton 2004, p. 86). In 1719 while serving on Princess, a slave ship, the vessel was taken by the pirate Howell Davis. Although initially reluctant (Johnson 1998, p. 161), Roberts joined the pirate crew, changing his name to Bartholomew42. Piracy would have been appealing considering his wage as a merchant was £3 a month and there were no prospects of being promoted to captaincy (Breverton 2004, p. 88); indeed it seems that the majority of pirates were previously professional sailors (Cordingly 1995, p. 21)43. When Davis was attacked and killed in a Portuguese ambush on Prince’s Island off the coast of Guinea44, Roberts was elected as captain for his courage and navigational skills, despite having only been a pirate for six weeks.! In the following years, Roberts gained reputation as a strict and ruthless leader, not allowing gambling or fighting amongst the crew and having a ‘lights out by 8pm’ rule. He also became known for his successes, taking at least 470 prize vessels in his career (Breverton 2004, p. 172).! In June 1721 Roberts’ ship Royal Fortune was attacked by two French warships. Bearing more arms than the French expected, Roberts captured the ships, one of which he renamed Ranger. In February 1722, while engaging Swallow, a ship sent by Captain Chalenor Ogle, Ranger was taken. Swallow returned 5 days later and attacked Royal Fortune, killing Roberts, gaining Ogle his knighthood and signalling the end of the Golden Age.

38

41 Also known as Little Newcastle.

42 Many pirates used pseudonyms, perhaps most famously Blackbeard, whose real name was most probably not Edward Teach. One of the reasons pirates did this was so that they could return to their family homes if they ever decided to leave their lives of piracy behind (Lee 1998, pp. 7-8).

43 In a study of 700 pirates from 1600 to 1640, 73% were found to be professional sailors (Cordingly 1995, p. 21). Considering that the life expectancy of a seaman was already low due to the dangers of the profession, the riches that could be obtained from a life of piracy would have made turning from the law an easy choice.

44 Davis brought his ships here to careen, telling the Portuguese that they were English Navy. The Governor of the settlement likely suspected them to be pirates, setting up an ambush for Davis and a number of his men (Breverton 2004; Burl 1997; Johnson 1998).

Ranger and the Archaeology of Piracy

! It is not currently known why Ranger was at Port Royal when the 1722 hurricane occurred. The fact is that it was and it remains the only archaeological evidence for piracy at the site.! Similarly to Port Royal, shipwrecks are archaeologically unique as they complete when they are destroyed and become part of the archaeological record, functioning normally right up to this moment (Gibbins and Adams 2001). Therefore, shipwreck archaeology is essential in the study of maritime activity in any location or period.! At the time of writing, little work has been done on the Ranger wreck and almost nothing has been published. Though no major excavation has been carried out, in June 2012 the INA project ‘Pirate Shipwrecks of Port Royal’ led by C. Gulseth of TAMU aimed to map and survey the wreck site. A grid of 5 metre squares along a 15 metre baseline (Figure 18) was used to take measurements in order to start creating both a physical (Figure 19) and digital map of the site and bathymetry readings were taken to generate a

39

Figure 18: A grid is set up along the baseline of the Ranger wreck. This is used to take measurements and make plans of the site. Photo: INA, Pirate Shipwrecks of Port Royal.

40

Figure 20: Digital contour map of the seafloor around the Ranger wreck.Plan: INA, Pirate Shipwrecks of Port Royal.

Figure 19: A plan is drawn of the wreck using the measurements taken.Photo: INA, Pirate Shipwrecks of Port Royal.

topographical plan of the sea bed (Figures 20 & 21; Albertson 2012). This was an essential starting point for the archaeological study of Ranger.! Although the project objective was to record artefacts in situ, it was decided that they should be removed, recorded and reburied at the end of the season in a large bag for their protection. 20 artefacts were recovered and 6 were chosen to be conserved: 2 onion bottles, a lead scupper pipe45, a fragment of red earthenware, a pair of scissors and a cloth that was later found to be modern (Gulseth 2013).

4145 Ships’ scupper pipes drained water from the deck.

Figure 21: Contour maps of the seafloor around the Ranger wreck.Plan: INA, Pirate Shipwrecks of Port Royal.

! As onion bottles were used for around 50 years, during which there were various styl ist ic changes, a typology can be used to date them relatively. The team working on the wreck compared the recovered bottles (A1, Figures 22 & 23; and A3, Figure 24) to the typology composed by I. N. Hume (1969) and noticed that they very closely resembled the bottle styles dating to 1721 and 1722 (Figure 25). This seems to indicate that the bottles belong to Ranger rather than being older objects from the 1692 earthquake and were likely used either by Roberts’ crew or the ship’s subsequent captors (Gulseth 2013).! Other finds also support that

the shipwreck could be Ranger. For example, one of the 5 clay pipe fragments directly associated with the wreck fits closely with the Type 1.73 bowl of Fox’s typology (Fox 1998), which dates between 1680 and 183046. Since this period includes both the 1692 and 1722 disasters, the fact that the pipe is associated with the wreck supports the 1722 date (Gulseth 2013).! Shipwrecks represent the best archaeological evidence for pirates. Though an instantly recognisable pattern that links a wreck with the practice of piracy has not yet been found and perhaps cannot exist, finds can be studied alongside historical records to

42

46 This is the same type of clay smoking pipe that appeared commonly in the TAMU/INA excavations with the initials ‘LE’ (see Chapter Three). This particular fragment however does not have a makers’ mark (Gulseth 2013).

Figure 22: C. Gulseth with onion bottle A1, recovered from Ranger. Photograph: INA, Pirate Shipwrecks of Port Royal.

43

Figure 23: Onion bottle A1, recovered from the Ranger wreck.Drawing and Photograph: C. Gulseth (2013).

Figure 25: 1721 and 1722 onion bottles from Hume’s typology.Drawings: I. N. Hume (1969, p. 64).

Figure 24: Onion bottle A3, recovered from the Ranger wreck.Drawing and Photograph: C. Gulseth (2013).

gain information about pirate activity (Durbin 2012)47. This was evidenced during the work that began in 1996 off the coast of North Carolina, on the wreck of Blackbeard’s Queen Anne’s Revenge. During the excavations, certain artefacts that fitted with the historical circumstances of the ship confirmed the vessel as Queen Anne’s Revenge, such as an apothecary weight bearing the fleur-de-lis symbol and probably belonging to Blackbeard’s French surgeon48.! Considering the potential of pirate archaeology as a recently-emerged discipline and that work on Ranger has only just begun, future investigation and analysis of the historical and archaeological evidence will be essential in the study of piracy at Port Royal. Though Ranger wrecked 30 years after the earthquake, pirates not unlike Bartholomew Roberts as well as privateers frequented the town prior to its destruction and the information obtained will be vital to the study of Golden Age pirates in general. Records also state that two of Roberts’ other ships, Little Ranger and Royal Fortune, along with a merchant ship wrecked below Salt Pond Hill in the 1722 hurricane (Albertson 2012). The INA project aims to locate these in the future, promising even more information.

Conclusion: Where are the Pirates?

! As has been discussed in Chapters Two and Three, archaeological evidence can reveal a lot of information about life and trade in Port Royal. However, as mentioned in Chapter One, a vast amount of wealth came into Port Royal through piracy, either in its legalised form by privateers or by the lawless pirates. Since this was the case, why is it that the only visible evidence for piracy in the archaeological record of Port Royal is a single ship that wrecked in a hurricane three decades after the city’s extensive destruction in 1692?! This question is in fact not so difficult when one considers the prices of goods in Port Royal and the nature of the pirates and privateers that brought plunder into the city. Inflation caused by the tremendous influx of wealth meant that products were very

44

47 Both historical and archaeological evidence must be used to identify a pirate ship as pirates were only different to other seamen for legal reasons. This is why the archaeology of a wreck alone will not show that it was a pirate ship (Babits et al. 2006, p. 271). Pirates did however convert their prizes in particular ways for their use such as piercing the lower deck for additional cannon and the removal of bulkheads and decorative railings to maximise space (Konstam 2003, pp. 12-15). Future archaeological excavation could lead to these modifications being recognised.

48 For more on the archaeology of Queen Anne’s Revenge see Wilde-Ramsing 2006.

expensive, with prices perhaps as much as five times what they were in London (Marx 2003, p. 17). This meant that a significant quantity of wealth was being constantly rotated.! Popular culture may suggest otherwise, but one of the many inaccuracies of pirate fiction is that pirates did not bury their treasure (Cordingly 1992). Rather, they came ashore after a voyage of looting and immediately auctioned off valuable objects during their celebration of return (Marx 2003, pp. 63-64). Henry Morgan’s incredibly successful attack on Porto Bello, Panama in 1668 yielded 250,000 pieces of eight amongst a substantial booty. The celebration upon his return to Port Royal lasted a whole month, during which the wealth attained by the privateers soon ended up in the hands of the town’s inhabitants.! After this, privateers and pirates always did the same thing. On the very night of their return, they would head to the taverns and blow their share of the spoils on copious amounts of kill-devil rum, gambling and of course the many prostitutes that lived in Port Royal for this exact reason. Alexandre Exquemelin, author of The History of the Bucaniers of America, wrote when he visited Port Royal that:

‘[a pirate would spend] two or three thousand pieces of eight in a night49, not leaving themselves a good shirt to wear in the morning. I saw one of them give a common

strumpet 500 pieces of eight to see her naked.’(Exquemelin 1777, p. 67)

! This account could of course be an exaggeration, but even so it shows the sheer amount of money pirates invested into a single night of merriment and how quickly their wealth passed into the hands of others. In this sense a pirate’s wealth was transient, not staying with them for long and passing on to others very quickly (Hamilton 2006, p. 26). Even though piracy was responsible for such a considerable portion of the riches in Port Royal, it was the merchants who were integral to and had control over the city’s economy. This wealth was not only transient at an individual level but also on a much broader level; over time, money was transferred from the occupation of piracy to the new plantations that were emerging and developing, moving towards Jamaica’s dominance of sugar exportation in the 18th century (Hamilton 2000a). It was these planters who would hold the economic power when the Golden Age of Piracy began to dwindle and ended with the death of Bartholomew Roberts.

4549 Roughly £750 in modern British currency (Sarson 2005, p. 112).

! It is because of the transient nature of wealth that piracy cannot be seen archaeologically at Port Royal and is probably the same case with similar contemporary sites, emphasising the importance of shipwrecks in the study of pirate archaeology. This is not really surprising considering that pirates were likely not very distinguishable from the rest of society, much in the same way as modern gangsters (Skowronek 2006, p. 297). The amount of wealth in the city however, along with the sudden catastrophic end of Port Royal, means that unparalleled information can be yielded about colonial trade that other terrestrial locations simply cannot give. Port Royal is perhaps the ideal archaeological site: a snapshot of human life, frozen in time.

46

References

Aarons, G. A. 1983. Port Royal, Jamaica: from cataclysm to renaissance. Museum International 35 (2), pp. 114-118.

Albertson, J. 2012. Pirate Shipwrecks of Port Royal [Online]. Available at: http://nauticalarch.org/blogs/pirates-port-royal/ [Accessed: 29 April 2013].

Armstrong, D. V. 1999. Archaeology and ethnohistory of the Caribbean plantation. in T. A. Singleton (ed.) I, Too, Am America: Archaeological Studies of African-American Life. Virginia: University Press of Virginia, pp. 173-192.

Babits, L. E., Howard, J. B. and Brenckle, M. 2006. Pirate imagery. In: Skowronek, R. K. & Ewen, C. R. (eds). X Marks the Spot: The Archaeology of Piracy. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 271-281.

Breverton, T. 2004. Black Bart Roberts. St Athan: Glyndŵr Publishing.

Britton, F. 1982. English Delftware in the Bristol Collection. London: Sotheby Publications.

Burl, A. 1997. That Great Pyrate: Bartholomew Roberts and his crew, 1718-1723. Port Talbot: Alun Books.

Clifford, S. 1990. The Port Royal ship. INA Newsletter 17 (2).

Clifford, S. 1993. An Analysis of the Port Royal Shipwreck and its Role in the Maritime History of Seventeenth-Century Port Royal. MA Thesis, Texas A&M University.

Cordingly, D. 1992. Pirates and Port Royal. History Today [Online] 42 (5). Available at: http://www.historytoday.com/david-cordingly/pirates-and-port-royal [Accessed: 29 April 2013].

Cordingly, D. 1995. Life Among the Pirates: The Romance and the Reality. London: Abacus.

47

D’Avenant, C. 1698. On the plantation trade. in C. Whitworth (ed.) The Political and Commercial Works of Charles D’Avenant. London: R. Horsfield, T. Beckett, P. A. de Hondt, T. Cadell & T. Evans.

Dewolf, H. 1988. Port Royal’s dogs of Fo. INA Newsletter 15 (2), p. 8.

Dewolf, H. 1998. Chinese Porcelain and Seventeenth-Century Port Royal, Jamaica. PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University.

Durbin, T. J. H. 2012. Marine Archaeology and the Golden Age of Piracy (unpublished). Undergraduate Study, Cardiff University.

Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. 2013. Lion of Fo. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Available at: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/342714/Lion-of-Fo [Accessed: 27 April 2013]

Exquemelin, A. O. 1777. The History of the Bucaniers of America: Exhibiting a Particular Account and Description of Porto Bello, Chagre, Panama, Cuba, Havanna, and Most of the Spanish Possessions on the Coasts of the West Indies, and Also Along the Coasts of the South Sea: with the Manner in which They Have Been Invaded, Attempted, Or Taken by These Adventurers. 5th ed. London: T. Evans; & Richardson and Urquhart.

Fox, G. L. 1998. The Study and Analysis of the Kaolin Clay Tobacco Pipe Collection from the Seventeenth-Century Archaeological Site of Port Royal, Jamaica. PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University.

Gardner, K. 1987. Abundant pipe remains attest to the popularity of smoking. INA Newsletter 14 (1&2), pp. 12-13.

Gibbins, D. and Adams, J. 2001. Shipwrecks and maritime archaeology. World Archaeology 32(3), pp. 279-291.

Gotelipe Miller, S. 1987. Unique pewter set sheds light on life and trade. INA Newsletter 14 (1&2), pp. 7-10.

48

Gotelipe Miller, S. 1990. Pewter and Pewterers from Port Royal, Jamaica: Flatware Before 1692. MA Thesis, Texas A&M University.

Gulseth, C. 2013. Pirate Shipwrecks of Port Royal, Jamaica (unpublished). MA Thesis, Texas A&M University. Kindly supplied by C. Gulseth.

Hamilton, D. L. 1984. Preliminary report on the archaeological excavations of the submerged remains of Port Royal, Jamaica 1981-1982. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 13 (1), pp. 11-25.

Hamilton, D. L. 1987. The Port Royal Project: A 17th-century learning laboratory for future underwater archaeologists. INA Newsletter 14 (1&2), pp. 4-6.

Hamilton, D. L. 1990a. A decade of underwater research at Port Royal. INA Newsletter 17 (2), pp. 4-7.

Hamilton, D. L. 1990b. Port Royal 1990: the last excavation season. INA Newsletter 17 (4), pp. 14-17.

Hamilton, D. L. 2000a. History of Port Royal. The Port Royal Project [Online]. Available at: http://nautarch.tamu.edu/portroyal/PRhist.htm [Accessed: 29 April 2013].

Hamilton, D. L. 2000b. Archaeological excavations. The Port Royal Project [Online]. Available at: http://nautarch.tamu.edu/portroyal/archhist.htm [Accessed: 29 April 2013].

Hamilton, D. L. 2000c. Historical research. The Port Royal Project [Online]. Available at: http://nautarch.tamu.edu/portroyal/research.htm [Accessed: 29 April 2013].

Hamilton, D. L. 2001a. Excavated buildings, Building 1. The Port Royal Project [Online]. Available at: http://nautarch.tamu.edu/portroyal/archives/Bldg1.htm [Accessed: 29 April 2013].

Hamilton, D. L. 2001b. Excavated buildings, Building 2. The Port Royal Project [Online]. Available at: http://nautarch.tamu.edu/portroyal/archives/Bldg2.htm [Accessed: 29 April 2013].

49

Hamilton, D. L. 2001c. Excavated buildings, Building 4/5. The Port Royal Project [Online]. Available at: http://nautarch.tamu.edu/portroyal/archives/Bldg4-5.htm [Accessed: 29 April 2013].

Hamilton, D. L. 2006. Pirates and merchants: Port Royal, Jamaica. in R. K. Skowronek & C. R. Ewen (eds.) X Marks the Spot: The Archaeology of Piracy. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 13-30.

Hanson, F. 1683. Account of the island and government of Jamaica. in The Laws of Jamaica, Passed by the Assembly And Confirmed by His Majesty in Council, February 23, 1683. To which is Added, a short Account of the Island and Government thereof. With an Exact Map of the Island. London: H. Hills.

Heidtke, K. 1987. Crude red pipes reflect local traditions. INA Newsletter 14 (1&2), p. 13.

Heidtke, K. 1992. Jamaican Red Clay Tobacco Pipes. MA Thesis, Texas A&M University.

Hume, I. N. 1969. A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hunter, C. 1987. Bones offer clues to everyday habits. INA Newsletter 14 (1&2), p. 14.

Jobling, J. 1987a. Historic Port Royal: A glorious rise and a tragic fall for the wickedest city on earth. INA Newsletter 14 (1&2), pp. 2-3, 14.

Jobling, J. 1987b. The city has a history of “wracking”. INA Newsletter 14 (1&2), p. 6.

Johnson, C. 1998. A General History of the Robberies and Murders of the Most Notorious Pirates. London: Conway Maritime Press.

Konstam, A. 2002. The History of Pirates. Guildford: The Lyons Press.

Konstam, A. 2003. The Pirate Ship, 1660-1730. Oxford: Osprey.

50

Lee, R. 1998. Blackbeard: The Story of Edward Teach, the Real Pirate of the Caribbean. Stroud: The History Press.

Linder, E. and Raban, A. 1975. Marine Archaeology. London: Cassell.

Lindsey, B. 2013. Historic Glass Bottle Identification and Information Website [Online]. Available at: http://www.sha.org/bottle/index.htm [Accessed: 4 May 2013].

Link, M. C. 1960. Exploring the drowned city of Port Royal. National Geographic 117 (2), pp. 151-183.

Litzenburg, T. V. & Bailey, A. T. 2003. Chinese Export Porcelain in the Reeves Center Collection at Washington and Lee University. London: Third Millennium Publishing

Marx, R. F. 2003. Port Royal: The Sunken City. 2nd ed. Essex: AquaPress.

Mayes, P. & Mayes, P. A. 1972. Port Royal: Jamaica: the archaeological problems and potential. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 1 (1), pp. 97-112.

Muckelroy, K. 1978. Maritime Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oldmixon, J. 1969. The British Empire in America. New York: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers.

Pawson, M. & Buisseret, D. 2000. Port Royal, Jamaica. 2nd ed. Mona: University of West Indies Press.

Port Authority of Jamaica. 2006. History [Online]. Available at: http://www.portjam.com/nmCMS.php?p=history [Accessed: 28th April 2013].

Pringle, P. 2001. Jolly Roger: The Story of the Great Age of Piracy. Mineola: Dover Publications.

Rediker, M. 2011. Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age. Boston: Beacon Press.

51

Robinson W. 1998. First Aid for Underwater Finds. Portsmouth: Nautical Archaeology Society.

Sanders, R. 2007. If a Pirate I Must Be...: The True Story of “Black Bart,” King of the Caribbean Pirates. New York City: Skyhorse Publishing.

Sarson, S. 2005. British America, 1500-1800. London: Hodder Education.

Schroeder, E. K. 1990. Spatial patterns at Port Royal. INA Newsletter 17 (2), pp. 14-15.

Schumaker, J. & Donachie, M. J. 2000. Tin glazed earthenware from Port Royal, Jamaica. The Port Royal Project [Online]. Available at: http://nautarch.tamu.edu/portroyal/tinglaze/index.htm [Accessed: 29 April 2013].

Skowronek, R. K. 2006. The origins and continuity of fiction and fact in the study of piracy. In: Skowronek, R. K. & Ewen, C. R. (eds). X Marks the Spot: The Archaeology of Piracy. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 282-298.

Smith, C. W. 1990. Radiography at Port Royal. INA Newsletter 17 (2), pp. 11-13.

Smith, C. W. 2008. Preservation of waterlogged archaeological glass using polymers. in M. E. Leshikar-Denton & P. L. Erreguerena (eds.) Underwater and Maritime Archaeology in Latin America and the Caribbean. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 271-282.

Taylor, S. A. G. 1965. The Western Design: An Account of Cromwell’s Expedition to the Caribbean. Kingston: Institute of Jamaica & Jamaica Historical Society.

Thornton, D. 1988. The Jamaica archives. INA Newsletter 15 (4), pp. 10-11.

Thornton, D. 1991. A tour of a Port Royal house. INA Newsletter 18 (1), pp. 7-9.

Valenstein, S. G. 1975. A Handbook of Chinese Ceramics. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

52

Wadley, C. A. 1985. Historical Analysis of Pewter Spoons Recovered from the Sunken City of Port Royal, Jamaica. MA Thesis, Texas A&M University.

Walker, I. C. 1977. Clay Tobacco Pipes, with Particular Reference to the Bristol Industry. Ottawa: Parks Canada.

Wilde-Ramsing, M. U. 2006. The Pirate Ship Queen Anne’s Revenge. In: Skowronek, R. K. & Ewen, C. R. (eds). X Marks the Spot: The Archaeology of Piracy. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 160-195.

Woolsey, M. 2008. Top-earning pirates (Online). New York City: Forbes. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/18/top-earning-pirates-biz-logistics-cx_mw_0919piracy.html [Accessed 2 May 2013].

Zahedieh, N. 1986. Trade, plunder, and economic development in early English Jamaica, 1655-89. Economic History Review 4 (2), pp. 205-222.

53