The Pepper Wreck, an Early 17Th-Century Portuguese Indiaman at the Mouth of the Tagus River, Portugal

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2003) 32.1: 6–23 doi:10.1006/ijna.2003.1067

The Pepper Wreck, an early 17th-century Portuguese Indiaman at the mouth of the Tagus River, Portugal

Filipe Castro Nautical Archaeology Program, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4352 USA

Found in 1993 off the rocks of the fortress Saõ Juliaõ da Barra, at the mouth of the Tagus River, the SJB2 shipwreck—or Pepper Wreck—was tentatively identified as the Portuguese Indiaman Nossa Senhora dos Ma´rtires, lost at this location on its return voyage from Cochin, in India, on 14 September 1606. Its archaeological excavation disclosed a collection of artefacts from the late 16th and the early 17th centuries and allowed the study of the surviving hull structure. The evidence suggests that the Pepper Wreck was a typical Portuguese Indiaman, similar to those described in Portuguese 16th century ship treatises, with a keel of around 27·7 m and an overall length of nearly 40 m. 2003 The Nautical Archaeology Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Key words: Pepper Wreck, Nossa Senhora dos Ma´rtires, Portugal, 17th-century shipbuilding, India Route, Portuguese Nau.

History of the project uring a survey at the mouth of the Tagus River, near Lisbon, Portugal, in 1994, a D team lead by Francisco Alves (then direc- tor of the National Museum of Archaeology) found the remains of a wooden ship, wrecked some time in the early 17th century near the fortress of Saõ Juliaõ da Barra, covering an area of roughly 200100 m. Subsequent excavation uncovered part of the bottom of the ship, iron and bronze guns, pottery, lead straps, and many small artefacts, all contained within a dark, muddy layer incorporating many peppercorns. This site was given the name SJB2, since another shipwreck site, of the late 17th century, had already been found nearby (Fig. 1). Figure 1. Location of the SJB2 site. (Drawing: Filipe Castro) A search in the database of the National Museum showed the nau Nossa Senhora dos Ma´rtires as the most probable identification of Nossa Senhora dos Ma´rtires arrived in sight of this shipwreck. She was lost in front of the fortress Lisbon on 13 September 1606. However, a storm of Saõ Juliaõ da Barra on 15 September 1606, forced her captain Manuel Barreto Rolim to returning from India with a cargo of peppercorns. anchor off Cascais, a small village a few miles Documents pertaining to her loss and to the from the Tagus River mouth. Here the nau Salva- salvage operations that followed provided a çaõ, returning from India in the same fleet, was number of clues which led to its probable also struggling with the southerly gale. Dragging identification.[1] her anchors in the direction of the beach, the After a 9-month voyage from Cochin, India, Salvaçaõ was too heavy to be towed against the which included a 3-month stop in the Azores, the wind by the galley Santiago that was sent to help,

1057–2414/03/010006+18 $30.00/0 2003 The Nautical Archaeology Society F. CASTRO: THE PEPPER WRECK

Figure 2. Plan of the SJB2 site. (Drawing: Filipe Castro) and was beached in Cascais Bay. Aboard the to be a consequence of the construction of Ma´rtires Captain Rolim decided to head for the the new fortress of Saõ Lourenço da Cabeça Seca, mouth of the Tagus River, hoping to escape made the northern channel too narrow and the storm in the calmer waters of the estuary. shallow to shelter in, and too crooked for any To get past the Tagus sandbar in a storm was a galley to tow a large vessel out of (Vasconceles, difficult task, and the falling tide made waters run 1960: 89). dangerously fast between the shores and the two In the middle of the passage, the Ma´rtires lost large sandbanks that constricted the entrance of her headway and dragged onto a submerged rock. the Tagus mouth. Captain Rolim headed for the She sank in front of the Saõ Juliaõ da Barra northern channel, the best entrance for those fortress in a matter of hours, and broke up into coming from the north. However, a silting such small pieces so quickly that witnesses com- process which became evident in the last two mented it looked as if she had sunk long ago. Her decades of the 16th century, at the time thought main cargo of pepper, which had been stored

7 NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 32.1

Figure 3. The three astrolabes found on the SJB2 site. Diameters 167 mm, 175 mm, and 174 mm respectively. The right hand one has the date 1605 and is marked ‘G’. (Photos: Pedro Goncalves, CNANS)

Figure 5. The Pepper Wreck’s hull in 1997. (Photo: Fran- Figure 4. Japanese tsuba from the Momoyama period (1573– cisco Alves, CNANS) 1603), 5754 mm. (Photo: Pedro Goncalves, CNANS)

they certainly rescued cables, anchors and guns.[2] Then, just as many other wrecks that occurred in loose in small holds, spilled out upon wrecking this dangerous channel, the Nossa Senhora dos and formed a black tide that extended for several Ma´rtires was forgotten. The three large tidal kilometres along the coast and into the Tagus waves that followed the earthquake of 1755— estuary. A large amount of pepper was saved and which levelled Lisbon—rolled heavy rocks over its laid out to dry by the king’s officers. The popula- remains, and in 1966 a codfish trawler was tion also salvaged a considerable quantity, in spite wrecked near the site, covering a large area with of the efforts of the soldiers to stop them. Despite debris. the dreadful weather conditions many went to the Stories of treasure trove around the fortress of sea at night in small craft to salvage what they Saõ Juliaõ da Barra were transmitted through could. generations, and the spread of scuba diving, from During the subsequent summers, the officers of the early 1950s on, heightened interest in the area. Philip III of Spain (1598–1621)—who was also In the late 1970s two surveys were carried out by Philip II of Portugal—may have salvaged a great sport divers who produced a map of the site and part of the cargo from the shallow waters, and many artefacts, but no government action was

8 F. CASTRO: THE PEPPER WRECK

Figure 6. Hull plan. (Drawing: Filipe Castro)

9 NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 32.1

Table 1. Units in use in Portuguese shipyards on the 16th and 17th centuries

Unit 16th/17th c. equivalent Metric equivalent

Palmo de vara 1/7 of a rumo 220 mm Palmo de goa 1/6 of a rumo 256·7 mm Vara 5 palmos de vara 1·10 m Goa 3 palmos de goa 770 mm Rumo 2 goas,6palmos de goa,or7palmos de vara 1·54 m Polegada comum 1/8 of a palmo de vara 27·5 mm Polegada de goa 1 palmo de goa—1 palmo de vara 36·7 mm

Table 2. Scantlings of the Pepper Wreck

Timber Wood species Horizontal dimensions Vertical dimensions

Keel Cork oak 250 mm Not preserved Floors Cork oak 230–250 mm 230–240 mm Futtocks Cork oak 210–250 mm 230–240 mm Planking Stone pine 200–350 mm 110 mm Apron Cork oak 380 mm 250 mm Room-and-space 462 mm on average

taken to protect the wreck site. As a result it was pewter, silver and gold objects. One of the three heavily looted by sports divers during the 1980s. astrolabes bore the date 1605, the year of depar- In 1996 and 1997 excavations were conducted ture of the Nossa Senhora dos Ma´rtires to India on the SJB2 site under the direction of Dr Alves (Fig. 3). Among the organic materials many peach and the writer (Fig. 2). An area of approximately pits were recovered along with ropes, fabrics, 100 square meters was excavated and the wooden leather and straw, the latter found between seven hull was recorded. Many artifacts were recovered stacked porcelain dishes. from directly below a blanketing layer of pepper- Several of these artefacts were exhibited in the corns. These included three nautical astrolabes Portuguese pavilion at EXPO’98, the World and two pairs of dividers, several sounding leads, Exposition held in Lisbon during the summer of as well as Chinese porcelain, Burmese stoneware, 1998 (Afonso, 1998). A historical investigation led Chinese and Japanese earthenware, brass, copper, by the team of the Portuguese Pavilion at EXPO’98 brought to light information about the lives of some of Ma´rtires’ crew and passengers. Among them were Aires de Saldanha, 17th vice- roy in India (1600–1605), who died just before reaching the Azores on his return trip to the kingdom; Manuel Barreto Rolim, the ship’s captain who was trying to make a fortune in the India trade after being disinherited by his father in consequence of a controversial marriage;[3] the cabin boy Cristo´vaõ de Abreu, who survived this shipwreck and the wrecks of the naus Nossa Senhora da Oliveira in 1610, Nossa Senhora de Bele´m in 1635 and S. Bento in 1642, and died at sea in 1645, returning from India as boatswain of the nau S. Lourenço.[4] No less interesting is the Figure 7. The bolt that connected the keel to the keelson story of Father Francisco Rodrigues, a Jesuit through floor timber C7. (Drawing: Filipe Castro) priest who lost his life in the wreck, coming from

10 F. CASTRO: THE PEPPER WRECK

Figure 10. Square scarves in the connection between ﬂoor timber C3 and futtock B3E (see Fig. 6). (Photo: Miguel Aleluia, CNANS)

Figure 8. Remains of the apron. (Drawing: Filipe Castro)

Figure 11. Turn of the bilge mark on ﬂoor timber C7. (Photo: Filipe Castro)

In the summers of 1999 and 2000 the Instituto Portugueˆs de Arqueologia, through its Centro Nacional de Arqueologia Naútica e Subaqua´tica, and Texas A&M University’s Institute of Nautical Archaeology, sponsored two excavation seasons on this site, aiming at what is perhaps the most significant part of this wreck: its hull remains (Fig. 5). Figure 9. Counter-sunk hole that housed the head of one of the fore-and-aft spikes fastening floors and futtocks. The associated groove appears elsewhere on this wreck, and has also been noticed on the Angra D shipwreck, but has not yet Description of the hull remains been explained. (Photo: Filipe Castro) As mentioned above, a portion of the bottom of the ship was preserved, including a section of the Japan with a young Catholic boy of Japanese keel, an apron, eleven frames, and some of the origin named Miguel to see the Pope on matters planking extending over an area measuring concerning the future of the Japanese Jesuit 712 m (Alves et al., 1998). After analysis it was mission (Fig. 4).[5] All their stories have been found that this is the portion of the ship’s bottom published in the catalogue of the Portuguese immediately forward of the midship frames pavilion at EXPO’98 (Afonso, 1998). (Fig. 6).

11 NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 32.1

Figure 12. Mark on the base of ﬂoor C3, possibly marking the end of the futtock. (Photo: Filipe Castro)

The keel, frames and apron were of cork oak the keel a minimum of 12 cm. Before and abaft (Quercus suber) and the hull planks of stone each keel scarf an iron bolt connecting the keel to pine (Pinus pinea), the common timbers used in the keelson ran through the floors, inserted from Portugal in the 16th and 17th centuries for build- underneath. The futtocks were 22 cm square, the ing ocean-going ships. The scantlings closely fitted measure of 1 palmo de vara, and were fastened to the units in use in Portuguese shipyards during the forward face of the floors with three or four this period (Tables 1 and 2). The keel was 25 cm iron spikes, which were inserted from the floors’ wide, roughly 1 palmo de goa (256.7 mm), and was side and clenched on the futtocks’ side. Both the not preserved to its full depth. A bolt preserved spikes’ heads and clenched portions were embed- underneath suggested a maximum depth of 46 cm ded in countersunk holes, allowing the frames (Fig. 7). However, this bolt could have been to lean against each other with no space in pulled out after the keelson shattered and we between (Fig. 9). Floor and futtock fastenings cannot be absolutely sure about this value. The showed double rectangular dovetails, a common preserved portion of the keel was assembled from feature in Iberian Atlantic shipbuilding tradition very short sections of oak fastened together by (Fig. 10). means of flat vertical scarves with two transverse Spike marks on the planking indicated the spikes per scarf. The tables of the scarves were position of a total of 25 frames. Construction caulked with an animal felt. Rabbets were cut all sirmarks inscribed on the surfaces of the floor along its extension, 5 cm deep and 9 cm high. The timbers yielded important information about their apron was bolted from the keel and was notched design. These marked the keel axis and keel sides, to receive the feet of the Y-frames (Fig. 8). the turn of the bilge (Fig. 11), and showed the The floor timbers were 25 cm wide, again position of each floor over the keel by a Roman about 1 palmo de goa, and 25 cm deep at their numeral. Three other marks were either less well extremities. The floor’s height over the keel preserved or less deeply incised on the aft sides increased as it moved away from the master and bases of floor timbers C2 and C3. One frames. All floors were fastened to the keel with coincided with the position of the tip of the iron spikes with square shanks penetrating into futtock, and seems to only have served as an aid

12 .CSR:TEPPE WRECK PEPPER THE CASTRO: F.

Figure 13. Marks on ﬂoor timber C3, possibly marking the beginning of the turn of the bilge arc. (Drawing: Filipe Castro) 13 NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 32.1

Table 3. Scrive marks found on the Pepper Wreck*

Floor Number Other marks Keel Lines

C1 — — — — C2 ‘X’ Curved groove on PS Axis & edges 63 cm to port side C3 ‘VIIII’† Curved groove on PS 159 cm to port side (vertical) and 108 cm (on the base) C4 — — — 189 cm to starboard§ C5 — — — 193 cm to starboard§ C6 — — — 197 cm to starboard§ C7 ‘V’‡ — — 200 cm to starboard§ C8 ‘IIII’ — — — C9 ‘III’ — Axis & edges — C10 — — Axis & SB edge —

*Positions: all marks on the aft face of the timber, except the one on the base of C3. †Incomplete. ‡Inverted. §Presumed to mark the turn of the bilge. used by the shipwright during the construction treenails may be related to the process of con- process (Fig. 12). The other two seem to indicate struction, rather than any type of permanent the area to be trimmed with adzes in the transition fastening (Figs 16 and 17). between the bottom and the side, later called turn No ceiling planking was found and the disposi- of the bilge arc (Fig. 13)(Table 3). tion of the nail holes on the upper surface of the The planking, of which 28 strakes were partially frames did not define clearly the runs of the preserved, was 11 cm thick and was fastened to bottom stringers. The keelson was lost, and no the frames with two iron spikes per frame per traces of the mast step were visible around strake (Fig. 14). It was caulked in an interesting the area of the position of the three master way. A lead strap twisted into a string was frames, which were only evidenced by the inserted into each seam, and two layers of oakum nail holes preserved on the planking. No ballast were pressed against it from the outside. The was found over the hull, or nearby. However, the seams were then covered with another lead strap, river bed is composed of pebbles with diameters nailed either through the seam, or on both sides of around 8 to 12 cm, and there is no way of the seams with iron tacks with circular heads (Fig. telling if the Pepper Wreck ballast is among 15). At some points a layer of oakum was also these stones. One single round granite stone was found on the interior of the lead string. No found on the site, with dimensions similar to the straight strake running along the turn of the bilge, pebbles that formed the lower layer of sediments and thus marking the lower armadoura—the rib- on the site. band used to define the shape of the hull before and abaft the central portion of pre-designed frames—was clearly evident. This could be, how- Hull analysis and reconstruction ever, a consequence of the limited preservation of the hull planking at the turn of the bilge Information derived from an analysis of the tim- level—around strakes 9 or 10. There were evident bers’ dimensions and carpenters’ marks allowed a signs of charring on the exterior. reconstruction of the hull to be attempted, helped All fastenings were made of iron. Spikes with by a collection of Iberian texts on shipbuilding square shanks fastened the floor timbers to the from the late 16th and early 17th centuries. A keel and apron, the futtocks to the floors, and the number of these texts suggest explanations for planking to the frames. Bolts with round heads both the dimensions and the shipwrights’ marks fastened the keel to the keelson, inserted from found on the SJB2 ship. below (Table 4). A treenail was found on the fore The first text considered was Fernando face of three of the floor timbers, cut flush with Oliveira’s Liuro da Fabrica das Naus of 1580, a the surface. Their positions and the fact that they translation of a previous work of the same author, were flush with the surface suggest that these Ars Nautica,ofc. 1570. The second was an

14 .CSR:TEPPE WRECK PEPPER THE CASTRO: F.

Figure 14. Planking plan. (Drawing: Filipe Castro) 15 NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 32.1

wards was the hull planked. These 39 pre- designed central frames were cut in a precise manner. The three master frames were flat and their width was obtained from the maximum breadth using a simple proportion (generally between one third and one half of the maximum breadth). The 18 frames to be mounted over the keel to each side of the master frames gradually became higher and narrower at its outer tips to form the shape of the hull (Fig. 18). These outer- most frames were called almogamas (tailframes). This gradual rising and narrowing was obtained through a very simple and old geometric algorithm called besta in Portugal but known for centuries in Italy as mezzaluna. The scale obtained by this algorithm was known as graminho in Portugal and was used to cut the frames directly Figure 15. Caulking arrangement. (Drawing: Filipe Castro) from the master frame’s template, without any additional drawings (Fig. 19). When checked against the measurements found anonymous list of the timbers necessary to build a on the Pepper Wreck, the model proposed by three-decked, 600-ton nau for the India route Fernando Oliveira in his Liuro da Fabrica das included in the Livro Naútico, a codex of Lisbon’s Naos seemed to fit fairly well if this was a nau of National Library, dating from the 1590s. The 18 rumos of keel (27·72 m). The unit in Portuguese third was the manuscript titled Livro Primeiro de shipyards of the late 16th and early 17th centuries Arquitectura Naval,byJoaõ Baptista Lavanha, was the rumo (1·54 m). For a nau of 18 rumos written sometime around 1610, which includes Oliveira prescribes three master frames and 18 two contracts for the building of India naus by pre-designed frames, before and abaft the master two well-known shipwrights, Valentim Loureiro frames. The total rising forward should be equal and Gonçalo Roiz, dating from 1598. The fourth to the measure of the room-and-space, and one was Manoel Fernandez’ Livro de Traças de and a half times that value aft. The total narrow- Carpintaria, dated to 1616. ing should be one sixth of the flat of the master All these texts—as well as Spanish contem- floor to each side. porary treatises—describe vessels that were put With a room-and-space of 47 cm (1 palmo de together in the same way: a central portion of goa plus 1 palmo de vara) the values obtained on pre-designed, pre-assembled frames was mounted the Pepper Wreck for the rising and narrowing over the keel and posts, a number of ribbands was match very closely the values expected from then placed along these frames, hitting the posts Oliveira’s model if the flat amidships (the width of at specific pre-defined heights, and the remaining the master floor) was 4·11 m (16 palmos de goa) frames were cut from these templates. Only after- (Tables 5 and 6).

Table 4. Fastenings—types of spikes and bolts found on the Pepper Wreck’s timbers (∅=diameter)

Joinery Length Section Head Counter sink

∅=4–6 cm Planking to frames ]25 cm =16–18 mm =40 mm, w/round corners 1–2 cm deep ∅=5–7 cm ]50 cm =20–25 mm =50 mm, w/round corners 1–3 cm deep ∅=6 cm Floors to futtocks ]60 cm =20–25 mm =35 a 40 mm, w/round corners 2·0 cm deep Floors to keel ]60 cm =20–25 mm ?? Keel to keelson >1 m ∅=35–40 mm ∅=70 mm ? Apron to keelson >1 m ∅=35–40 mm ∅=70 mm ?

16 F. CASTRO: THE PEPPER WRECK

Figure 16. Futtock B3E showing the place where the treenail was found. (Drawing: Filipe Castro)

The maximum breadth indicated by Oliveira notable coincidences, given the reduced portion of for a nau of 18 rumos of keel is vague: between 1/3 the hull preserved, the hull reconstruction of the and 1/2 of the keel length on the second deck. In Pepper Wreck is a purely academic exercise, an other words, between 6 and 9 rumos (9·24 to educated guess at best. The truth is that we simply 13·86 m). Oliveira states that 8 rumos,or48pal- do not know how many sets of instructions to mos de goa (12·32 m), is a fair value. Still accord- build India naus existed in the early 17th century, ing to Oliveira, the flat of the master frames and in the present study we cannot even state with should again be between 1/3 and 1/2 of the absolute certainty that the remains under analysis maximum breadth or, theoretically, between a are a portion of the bow of such a vessel. How- minimum 2 rumos (3·08 m) and a maximum of ever, once Oliveira’s model was chosen for the 4·5 rumos (6·93 m). If we take his recommended bottom of the vessel, the preserved portions of the value of 48 palmos de goa, however, we get 16 to frames could be placed over the body plan of 24 palmos de goa (4·11 to 6·16 m) for the flat the lines drawing, and faired (Fig. 20). The amidships, an interval that includes the Pepper remaining hull was then reconstructed from the Wreck probable flat of 4·11 m at its lowest end. list of proportions supplied by Oliveira (Fig. 21) We must not forget that in spite of these (Table 7).

17 NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 32.1

from Texas A&M University’s Department of Mathematics. It showed that the futtocks’ arcs varied, showing smaller radii as we move away from the midship frame, as suggested in Oliveira’s drawings (Fig. 22). This came as a surprise since it is generally accepted that in this period all futtocks tended to present more or less the same radii. According to most early 17th-century texts on shipbuilding the shape of the weather deck was obtained by either tilting out or sliding down the futtocks over the tips of ﬂoor timbers in order to gain deck space above. A drawing in Oliveira’s Ars Nautica suggests otherwise (Fig. 23), and so does the data of this—rather small but never the less signiﬁcant—preserved sample of futtocks’ curves (Table 8).

Tonnage Although we have a fair knowledge of the systems of units in use in Portugal at the time, the calculation of a ship’s tonnage in the early 17th century is not an easy matter. Oliveira mentions 600 tone´is (barrels) as the size of a nau of 18 rumos with three decks. We know that these tone´is were 1 rumo (1·54 m) high and 4 palmos de goa (1·03 m) across at its maximum diameter. This gives an approximate capacity of 1·2 m3 for one tonel. There is no information about the tonnage of the Nossa Senhora dos Ma´rtires in the records, Figure 17. Treenail extracted from futtock B3E. (Drawing: and we do not even know whether she had three Brian Jordan, INA) or four decks. There are no known formulas for the calculation of the tonnage in Portugal in this period. The tonnage seems to have been estab- An analysis of the shape of the futtocks was lished by a team of experts with standard barrel performed with the help of Dr Thomas Vogel hoops and gauges after ships were built.

Figure 18. Pre-designed frames after Fernando Oliveira’s Livro da Fa´brica das Naus (c. 1580). (Drawing: Filipe Castro)

18 F. CASTRO: THE PEPPER WRECK

Figure 19. Scheme of the rising and narrowing of the pre-designed frames on this type of ships. (Drawing: Filipe Castro)

An estimation of the displacement of this vessel gave a displacement of around 1100 tons. For the was obtained from the lines drawing at the level of load waterline, at the level of waterline 4, which the lower wale (waterline 3), and at the presumed runs 6·16 m above the bearding line amidships, load waterline level (waterline 4). Waterline 3 runs the displacement obtained was around 1700 tons. 4·62 m above the bearding line amidships, and The volumes before and abaft the midship section are more or less the same for both theoretical load Table 5. Height of the ﬂoor timbers measured over the keel waterlines, the after part displacing 49% of the total volume below the theoretical load water- Height over Theoretical values lines. This suggests that the vessel sat almost ﬂat Floor Number the keel after Oliveira

Table 6. Narrowing of the bottom as measured to the preserved C11 I — 258 mm scrive marks C10 II 310 mm 264 mm C9 III 250 mm 272 mm Distance C8 IIII 270 mm 285 mm turn-of-the-bilge Theoretical values C7 V 360 mm 300 mm Floor Number to keel after Oliveira C6 VI 310 mm 319 mm C5 VII 350 mm 340 mm C4 VIII 370 mm 365 mm C4 VIII 189 cm 189 cm C3 VIIII 390 mm 392 mm C5 VII 193 cm 193 cm C2 X 420 mm 421 mm C6 VI 197 cm 196 cm C1 XI 460 mm 454 mm C7 V 200 cm 199 cm

19 NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 32.1

Figure 20. Preserved frames. Tentative fairing. (Drawing: Filipe Castro) on the keel, with a minor drag, the true load difference was compensated at the level of the waterline running almost horizontally. main deck by a greater rake of the sternpost in Fernandez’ design. The inclusion of another deck in Fernandez made the quarterdeck higher, and Conclusions its hanging abaft the square tuck is much less The most striking conclusion of this study is that exaggerated to our eyes, in spite of the fact that we know very little about Portuguese Indiamen in these two models have roughly the same overall the 16th and 17th centuries. Iconography is scarce length. and so is the information contained in the con- As a consequence of the small dimensions of temporary texts and treatises on shipbuilding. the portion of hull preserved, this study raises Archaeology has much potential towards further- more questions than those it answers. We do not ing the understanding of the shape and perform- know for sure if there was only one standard ance of Portuguese India naus. However, because for the India naus in Portugal, during the 16th of the nature of their cargoes, it is more likely that and early 17th centuries. We do not know shipwrecks of Portuguese Indiamen will continue exactly what these ships looked like, or how they to be destroyed by treasure hunters as has evolved over time. We do not know much about happened already to many such shipwrecks. We their construction sequence, and we are almost can only hope that the recent approval of wholly ignorant about their structural strength. the UNESCO convention for the protection of the The Pepper Wreck was a patchwork of small underwater cultural heritage will impact upon the timbers, scarfed together to create the large protection of these shipwrecks in a positive way. timbers necessary to built such a large ship. We do The attempted reconstruction looks quite plaus- not know what kind of reinforcements were used ible, and more so if we ignore the disproportionate on the inside of these hulls, how the deck beams overhanging of the poop deck. In spite of having were fastened to the hull structure, how many been reconstructed as a three-decker, the lines stanchions were placed between decks, or how the drawing fitted very well over the four deckers hogging problem was addressed by Portuguese represented in Manuel Fernandez’ 1616 treatise shipwrights. On another level, we do not know (folios 70 and 84). The similarities were striking, much about the rigging of these ships, and even with only a few minor differences. The keel of less about their performance under sail. Perhaps Fernandez’ nau was 3 palmos de goa (77 cm) archaeology will someday yield answers for some shorter than the one in Oliveira’s treatise, but this of these questions.

20 .CSR:TEPPE WRECK PEPPER THE CASTRO: F.

Figure 21. Lines drawing reconstruction. (Drawing: Filipe Castro) 21 NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 32.1

Table 7. Basic measures for the construction of Oliveira’s India nau

Element Rule of proportion Value (m)

A. Keel 18 rumos for 600 tone´is 27·72 B. Spring of the stem post 1/3 of A 9·24 C. Height of the stem post 1/3 of A 9·24 D. Rake of the stern post 1/4 of A/3 2·31 E. Height of the transom 1/3 of A 9·24 F. Maximum breadth 1/3 to 1/2 of A 12·32 G. Flat amidships 1/3 to 1/2 of F 4·10 H. Room and space 1 palmo de goa+1 palmo de vara 0·48 I. Rising of the bottom Forward: H; Aft: 1·5 H 0·48/0·72 J. Narrowing of the bottom 1/6 of G 0·68 K. Height of the fashion pieces Start at 1/3 of E 3·08 L. Breadth of the transom 1/2 of F 6·16 M. Maximum breadth on main deck F—(]1+1 palmos de goa) 11·81 N. Depth of the hold 14 palmos de goa 3·59 O. Depth of the second deck 9 palmos de goa 2·31 P. Depth of the gun deck 9 palmos de goa 2·31 Q. Length of the quarter deck 1/2 of length of deck (D+A+B) 20·46 R. Height of the quarter deck 8 palmos de goa 2·05 S. Length of the poop deck 1/2 of Q 13·86 T. Height of the poop deck 7 palmos de goa 1·80 U. Length of the forecastle 1/2 of M 5·90 W. Height of the forecastle 1/3 of M 3·94 V. Height of bulwarks on the deck 1 rumo 1·54 X. Height of bulwarks on the castles 3 palmos de goa 0·77 Y. Length overall A+B+D 39·27 Z. Depth in hold N+O+P 8·21

Figure 22. Shape of the frames after Fernando Oliveira’s Figure 23. Shape of the frames after Fernando Oliveira’s Ars Livro da Fa´brica das Naus (c. 1580). (Drawing: Filipe Castro) Nautica (c. 1570). (Drawing: Filipe Castro)

Table 8. Futtocks—radii of the curves (pg=palmos de goa)

Futtock Central portion (5 points) Average of the best-ﬁt curves

B3E 4·70 m=18·3 pg 4·73 m=18·4 pg B4E 3·77 m=14·7 pg 3·73 m=14·5 pg B5E 4·81 m=18·7 pg 4·90 m=19·1 pg B6E 4·85 m=18·9 pg 4·75 m=18·5 pg B7E 5·22 m=20·3 pg 5·03 m=19·6 pg B8E 6·05 m=23·6 pg 6·17 m=24 pg

22 F. CASTRO: THE PEPPER WRECK

Notes [1] Arquivo General de Simancas, Guerra y Marina, 668, and Arquivo General de Simancas, Estado, 203, in Afonso, Simonetta Luz, ed., 1998, Nossa Senhora dos Ma´rtires: The Last Voyage, Lisbon: Verbo/EXPO’98: 265–268. [2] Arquivo Histo´rico Ultramarino, Reino, 2 June 1618. [3] Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo, Chancelaria de D. Filipe II, Doaço˜es, Book XXVI, Fl. 6, in Afonso, Simonetta Luz, ed., 1998, Nossa Senhora dos Ma´rtires: The Last Voyage, Lisbon: Verbo/EXPO’98: 157–163. [4] Arquivo Histo´rico Ultramarino, India, Box 22a, doc. 122, 13 August 1654, in Afonso, Simonetta Luz, ed., 1998, Nossa Senhora dos Ma´rtires: The Last Voyage, Lisbon: Verbo/EXPO’98: 268–269. [5] Guilhermy, Father Esteban de, Meńologe de la Compagnie de Jesus. Assistence de Portugal, Poitiers, 1867, and Archivum Romanorum Societatis Iesu, Jap-Sin, 14 II, fl.333, in Afonso, Simonetta Luz, ed., 1998, Nossa Senhora dos Ma´rtires: The Last Voyage, Lisbon: Verbo/EXPO’98: 175–181.

References Afonso, S. L. (Ed.), 1998, Nossa Senhora dos Ma´rtires: The Last Voyage. Lisbon. Alves, F., Castro, F., Rodrigues, P., Garcia, C. & Aleluia, M., 1998, Archaeology of a Shipwreck. In S. L. Afonso, Nossa Senhora dos Ma´rtires: The Last Voyage. Lisbon. Castro, F., 2001, The remains of a Portuguese Indiaman at Tagus mouth, Lisbon, Portugal (Nossa Senhora dos Ma´rtires, 1606?). In F. Alves (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Symposium ‘Archaeology of Medieval and Modern Ships of Iberian-Atlantic Tradition’, Lisbon, 1998, 381–404. Lisbon. Fernandez, M., 1616, Livro de Trac¸as de Carpintaria, 1616, facsimile, 1989, Lisbon; transcription and translation into English, 1995. Lisbon. Lavanha, J. B., c. 1610, Livro Primeiro de Architectura Naval, facsimile, transcription and translation into English, 1996, Lisbon. Oliveira, F., 1580, O Liuro da Fabrica das Naos, facsimile, transcription and translation into English, 1991, Lisbon. Rieth, Eric, 1988, Remarques sur une se´rie d’illustrations de L’Ars Nautica de Fernando Oliveira. Neptunia 169: 36–43. Paris. Vasconcelos, J. A. Fraza˜o de, 1960, Subsı´deos para a histo´ria da Carreira da India no tempo dos Filipes. Boletim da Ageˆncia Geral do Ultramar. Lisbon.