the pepper wreck, an early 17th-century portuguese ...nautarch.tamu.edu/shiplab/00-pdf/castro 2003 -...

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

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

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

Found in 1993 off the rocks of the fortress Sao Juliao da Barra, at the mouth of the Tagus River, the SJB2 shipwreck—orPepper Wreck—was tentatively identified as the Portuguese Indiaman Nossa Senhora dos Martires, lost at this location on itsreturn voyage from Cochin, in India, on 14 September 1606. Its archaeological excavation disclosed a collection of artefactsfrom the late 16th and the early 17th centuries and allowed the study of the surviving hull structure. The evidence suggests thatthe Pepper Wreck was a typical Portuguese Indiaman, similar to those described in Portuguese 16th century ship treatises, witha 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 Martires, Portugal, 17th-century shipbuilding, India Route, Portuguese Nau.

1057–2414/03/010006+18 $30.00/0

Figure 1. Location of the SJB2 site. (Drawing: Filipe Castro)

History of the project

D uring a survey at the mouth of the TagusRiver, near Lisbon, Portugal, in 1994, ateam lead by Francisco Alves (then direc-

tor of the National Museum of Archaeology)found the remains of a wooden ship, wreckedsome time in the early 17th century near thefortress of Sao Juliao da Barra, covering an areaof roughly 200�100 m. Subsequent excavationuncovered part of the bottom of the ship, iron andbronze guns, pottery, lead straps, and many smallartefacts, all contained within a dark, muddylayer incorporating many peppercorns. This sitewas given the name SJB2, since another shipwrecksite, of the late 17th century, had already beenfound nearby (Fig. 1).

A search in the database of the NationalMuseum showed the nau Nossa Senhora dosMartires as the most probable identification ofthis shipwreck. She was lost in front of the fortressof Sao Juliao da Barra on 15 September 1606,returning from India with a cargo of peppercorns.Documents pertaining to her loss and to thesalvage operations that followed provided anumber of clues which led to its probableidentification.[1]

After a 9-month voyage from Cochin, India,which included a 3-month stop in the Azores, the

Nossa Senhora dos Martires arrived in sight ofLisbon on 13 September 1606. However, a stormforced her captain Manuel Barreto Rolim toanchor off Cascais, a small village a few milesfrom the Tagus River mouth. Here the nau Salva-cao, returning from India in the same fleet, wasalso struggling with the southerly gale. Draggingher anchors in the direction of the beach, theSalvacao was too heavy to be towed against thewind by the galley Santiago that was sent to help,

� 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 theMartires Captain Rolim decided to head for themouth of the Tagus River, hoping to escapethe storm in the calmer waters of the estuary.

To get past the Tagus sandbar in a storm was adifficult task, and the falling tide made waters rundangerously fast between the shores and the twolarge sandbanks that constricted the entrance ofthe Tagus mouth. Captain Rolim headed for thenorthern channel, the best entrance for thosecoming from the north. However, a siltingprocess which became evident in the last twodecades of the 16th century, at the time thought

to be a consequence of the construction ofthe new fortress of Sao Lourenco da Cabeca Seca,made the northern channel too narrow andshallow to shelter in, and too crooked for anygalley to tow a large vessel out of (Vasconceles,1960: 89).

In the middle of the passage, the Martires losther headway and dragged onto a submerged rock.She sank in front of the Sao Juliao da Barrafortress in a matter of hours, and broke up intosuch small pieces so quickly that witnesses com-mented it looked as if she had sunk long ago. Hermain 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 handone has the date 1605 and is marked ‘G’. (Photos: Pedro Goncalves, CNANS)

Figure 4. Japanese tsuba from the Momoyama period (1573–1603), 57�54 mm. (Photo: Pedro Goncalves, CNANS)

8

Figure 5. The Pepper Wreck’s hull in 1997. (Photo: Fran-cisco Alves, CNANS)

loose in small holds, spilled out upon wreckingand formed a black tide that extended for severalkilometres along the coast and into the Tagusestuary. A large amount of pepper was saved andlaid out to dry by the king’s officers. The popula-tion also salvaged a considerable quantity, in spiteof the efforts of the soldiers to stop them. Despitethe dreadful weather conditions many went to thesea at night in small craft to salvage what theycould.

During the subsequent summers, the officers ofPhilip III of Spain (1598–1621)—who was alsoPhilip II of Portugal—may have salvaged a greatpart of the cargo from the shallow waters, and

they certainly rescued cables, anchors and guns.[2]

Then, just as many other wrecks that occurred inthis dangerous channel, the Nossa Senhora dosMartires was forgotten. The three large tidalwaves that followed the earthquake of 1755—which levelled Lisbon—rolled heavy rocks over itsremains, and in 1966 a codfish trawler waswrecked near the site, covering a large area withdebris.

Stories of treasure trove around the fortress ofSao Juliao da Barra were transmitted throughgenerations, and the spread of scuba diving, fromthe early 1950s on, heightened interest in the area.In the late 1970s two surveys were carried out bysport divers who produced a map of the site andmany artefacts, but no government action was


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

9


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 mmPalmo de goa 1/6 of a rumo 256·7 mmVara 5 palmos de vara 1·10 mGoa 3 palmos de goa 770 mmRumo 2 goas, 6 palmos de goa, or 7 palmos de vara 1·54 mPolegada comum 1/8 of a palmo de vara 27·5 mmPolegada 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 preservedFloors Cork oak 230–250 mm 230–240 mmFuttocks Cork oak 210–250 mm 230–240 mmPlanking Stone pine 200–350 mm 110 mmApron Cork oak 380 mm 250 mmRoom-and-space 462 mm on average

Figure 7. The bolt that connected the keel to the keelsonthrough floor timber C7. (Drawing: Filipe Castro)

taken to protect the wreck site. As a result it washeavily looted by sports divers during the 1980s.

In 1996 and 1997 excavations were conductedon the SJB2 site under the direction of Dr Alvesand the writer (Fig. 2). An area of approximately100 square meters was excavated and the woodenhull was recorded. Many artifacts were recoveredfrom directly below a blanketing layer of pepper-corns. These included three nautical astrolabesand two pairs of dividers, several sounding leads,as well as Chinese porcelain, Burmese stoneware,Chinese and Japanese earthenware, brass, copper,

10

pewter, silver and gold objects. One of the threeastrolabes bore the date 1605, the year of depar-ture of the Nossa Senhora dos Martires to India(Fig. 3). Among the organic materials many peachpits were recovered along with ropes, fabrics,leather and straw, the latter found between sevenstacked porcelain dishes.

Several of these artefacts were exhibited in thePortuguese pavilion at EXPO’98, the WorldExposition held in Lisbon during the summer of1998 (Afonso, 1998). A historical investigation ledby the team of the Portuguese Pavilion atEXPO’98 brought to light information about thelives of some of Martires’ crew and passengers.Among them were Aires de Saldanha, 17th vice-roy in India (1600–1605), who died just beforereaching the Azores on his return trip to thekingdom; Manuel Barreto Rolim, the ship’s cap-tain who was trying to make a fortune in the Indiatrade after being disinherited by his father inconsequence of a controversial marriage;[3] thecabin boy Cristovao de Abreu, who survived thisshipwreck and the wrecks of the naus NossaSenhora da Oliveira in 1610, Nossa Senhora deBelem in 1635 and S. Bento in 1642, and died atsea in 1645, returning from India as boatswain ofthe nau S. Lourenco.[4] No less interesting is thestory of Father Francisco Rodrigues, a Jesuitpriest who lost his life in the wreck, coming from


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

Figure 9. Counter-sunk hole that housed the head of one ofthe fore-and-aft spikes fastening floors and futtocks. Theassociated groove appears elsewhere on this wreck, and hasalso been noticed on the Angra D shipwreck, but has not yetbeen explained. (Photo: Filipe Castro)

Figure 10. Square scarves in the connection between floortimber C3 and futtock B3E (see Fig. 6). (Photo: MiguelAleluia, CNANS)

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

Description of the hull remainsAs mentioned above, a portion of the bottom ofthe ship was preserved, including a section of thekeel, an apron, eleven frames, and some of theplanking extending over an area measuring7�12 m (Alves et al., 1998). After analysis it wasfound that this is the portion of the ship’s bottomimmediately forward of the midship frames(Fig. 6).

Japan with a young Catholic boy of Japaneseorigin named Miguel to see the Pope on mattersconcerning the future of the Japanese Jesuitmission (Fig. 4).[5] All their stories have beenpublished in the catalogue of the Portuguesepavilion at EXPO’98 (Afonso, 1998).

In the summers of 1999 and 2000 the InstitutoPortugues de Arqueologia, through its CentroNacional de Arqueologia Nautica e Subaquatica,and Texas A&M University’s Institute ofNautical Archaeology, sponsored two excavationseasons on this site, aiming at what is perhaps themost significant part of this wreck: its hullremains (Fig. 5).

11


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(Quercus suber) and the hull planks of stonepine (Pinus pinea), the common timbers used inPortugal in the 16th and 17th centuries for build-ing ocean-going ships. The scantlings closely fittedthe units in use in Portuguese shipyards duringthis period (Tables 1 and 2). The keel was 25 cmwide, roughly 1 palmo de goa (256.7 mm), and wasnot preserved to its full depth. A bolt preservedunderneath suggested a maximum depth of 46 cm(Fig. 7). However, this bolt could have beenpulled out after the keelson shattered and wecannot be absolutely sure about this value. Thepreserved portion of the keel was assembled fromvery short sections of oak fastened together bymeans of flat vertical scarves with two transversespikes per scarf. The tables of the scarves werecaulked with an animal felt. Rabbets were cut allalong its extension, 5 cm deep and 9 cm high. Theapron was bolted from the keel and was notchedto receive the feet of the Y-frames (Fig. 8).

The floor timbers were 25 cm wide, againabout 1 palmo de goa, and 25 cm deep at theirextremities. The floor’s height over the keelincreased as it moved away from the masterframes. All floors were fastened to the keel withiron spikes with square shanks penetrating into

12

the keel a minimum of 12 cm. Before and abafteach keel scarf an iron bolt connecting the keel tothe keelson ran through the floors, inserted fromunderneath. The futtocks were 22 cm square, themeasure of 1 palmo de vara, and were fastened tothe forward face of the floors with three or fouriron spikes, which were inserted from the floors’side and clenched on the futtocks’ side. Both thespikes’ heads and clenched portions were embed-ded in countersunk holes, allowing the framesto lean against each other with no space inbetween (Fig. 9). Floor and futtock fasteningsshowed double rectangular dovetails, a commonfeature in Iberian Atlantic shipbuilding tradition(Fig. 10).

Spike marks on the planking indicated theposition of a total of 25 frames. Constructionsirmarks inscribed on the surfaces of the floortimbers yielded important information about theirdesign. These marked the keel axis and keel sides,the turn of the bilge (Fig. 11), and showed theposition of each floor over the keel by a Romannumeral. Three other marks were either less wellpreserved or less deeply incised on the aft sidesand bases of floor timbers C2 and C3. Onecoincided with the position of the tip of thefuttock, and seems to only have served as an aid


Fig

ure

13.

Mar

kson

floor

tim

ber

C3,

poss

ibly

mar

king

the

begi

nnin

gof

the

turn

ofth

ebi

lge

arc.

(Dra

win

g:F

ilipe

Cas

tro)

13


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 sideC3 ‘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.

14

Hull analysis and reconstructionInformation derived from an analysis of the tim-bers’ dimensions and carpenters’ marks allowed areconstruction of the hull to be attempted, helpedby a collection of Iberian texts on shipbuildingfrom the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Anumber of these texts suggest explanations forboth the dimensions and the shipwrights’ marksfound on the SJB2 ship.

The first text considered was FernandoOliveira’s Liuro da Fabrica das Naus of 1580, atranslation of a previous work of the same author,Ars Nautica, of c. 1570. The second was an

used by the shipwright during the constructionprocess (Fig. 12). The other two seem to indicatethe area to be trimmed with adzes in the transitionbetween the bottom and the side, later called turnof the bilge arc (Fig. 13) (Table 3).

The planking, of which 28 strakes were partiallypreserved, was 11 cm thick and was fastened tothe frames with two iron spikes per frame perstrake (Fig. 14). It was caulked in an interestingway. A lead strap twisted into a string wasinserted into each seam, and two layers of oakumwere pressed against it from the outside. Theseams were then covered with another lead strap,nailed either through the seam, or on both sides ofthe seams with iron tacks with circular heads (Fig.15). At some points a layer of oakum was alsofound on the interior of the lead string. Nostraight strake running along the turn of the bilge,and thus marking the lower armadoura—the rib-band used to define the shape of the hull beforeand abaft the central portion of pre-designedframes—was clearly evident. This could be, how-ever, a consequence of the limited preservation ofthe hull planking at the turn of the bilgelevel—around strakes 9 or 10. There were evidentsigns of charring on the exterior.

All fastenings were made of iron. Spikes withsquare shanks fastened the floor timbers to thekeel and apron, the futtocks to the floors, and theplanking to the frames. Bolts with round headsfastened the keel to the keelson, inserted frombelow (Table 4). A treenail was found on the foreface of three of the floor timbers, cut flush withthe surface. Their positions and the fact that theywere flush with the surface suggest that these

treenails may be related to the process of con-struction, rather than any type of permanentfastening (Figs 16 and 17).

No ceiling planking was found and the disposi-tion of the nail holes on the upper surface of theframes did not define clearly the runs of thebottom stringers. The keelson was lost, and notraces of the mast step were visible aroundthe area of the position of the three masterframes, which were only evidenced by thenail holes preserved on the planking. No ballastwas found over the hull, or nearby. However, theriver bed is composed of pebbles with diametersaround 8 to 12 cm, and there is no way oftelling if the Pepper Wreck ballast is amongthese stones. One single round granite stone wasfound on the site, with dimensions similar to thepebbles that formed the lower layer of sedimentson the site.


Fig

ure

14.

Pla

nkin

gpl

an.

(Dra

win

g:F

ilipe

Cas

tro)

15


Figure 15. Caulking arrangement. (Drawing: Filipe Castro)

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

Joinery Length Section Head Counter sink

Planking to frames �25 cm =16–18 mm =40 mm, w/round corners∅=4–6 cm1–2 cm deep

�50 cm =20–25 mm =50 mm, w/round corners∅=5–7 cm1–3 cm deep

Floors to futtocks �60 cm =20–25 mm =35 a 40 mm, w/round corners∅=6 cm2·0 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 ?

anonymous list of the timbers necessary to build athree-decked, 600-ton nau for the India routeincluded in the Livro Nautico, a codex of Lisbon’sNational Library, dating from the 1590s. Thethird was the manuscript titled Livro Primeiro deArquitectura Naval, by Joao Baptista Lavanha,written sometime around 1610, which includestwo contracts for the building of India naus bytwo well-known shipwrights, Valentim Loureiroand Goncalo Roiz, dating from 1598. The fourthwas Manoel Fernandez’ Livro de Tracas deCarpintaria, dated to 1616.

All these texts—as well as Spanish contem-porary treatises—describe vessels that were puttogether in the same way: a central portion ofpre-designed, pre-assembled frames was mountedover the keel and posts, a number of ribbands wasthen placed along these frames, hitting the postsat specific pre-defined heights, and the remainingframes were cut from these templates. Only after-

16

wards was the hull planked. These 39 pre-designed central frames were cut in a precisemanner. The three master frames were flat andtheir width was obtained from the maximumbreadth using a simple proportion (generallybetween one third and one half of the maximumbreadth). The 18 frames to be mounted over thekeel to each side of the master frames graduallybecame higher and narrower at its outer tips toform the shape of the hull (Fig. 18). These outer-most frames were called almogamas (tailframes).This gradual rising and narrowing was obtainedthrough a very simple and old geometric algor-ithm called besta in Portugal but known forcenturies in Italy as mezzaluna. The scale obtainedby this algorithm was known as graminho inPortugal and was used to cut the frames directlyfrom the master frame’s template, without anyadditional drawings (Fig. 19).

When checked against the measurements foundon the Pepper Wreck, the model proposed byFernando Oliveira in his Liuro da Fabrica dasNaos seemed to fit fairly well if this was a nau of18 rumos of keel (27·72 m). The unit in Portugueseshipyards of the late 16th and early 17th centurieswas the rumo (1·54 m). For a nau of 18 rumosOliveira prescribes three master frames and 18pre-designed frames, before and abaft the masterframes. The total rising forward should be equalto the measure of the room-and-space, and oneand a half times that value aft. The total narrow-ing should be one sixth of the flat of the masterfloor to each side.

With a room-and-space of 47 cm (1 palmo degoa plus 1 palmo de vara) the values obtained onthe Pepper Wreck for the rising and narrowingmatch very closely the values expected fromOliveira’s model if the flat amidships (the width ofthe master floor) was 4·11 m (16 palmos de goa)(Tables 5 and 6).


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

The maximum breadth indicated by Oliveirafor a nau of 18 rumos of keel is vague: between 1/3and 1/2 of the keel length on the second deck. Inother words, between 6 and 9 rumos (9·24 to13·86 m). Oliveira states that 8 rumos, or 48 pal-mos de goa (12·32 m), is a fair value. Still accord-ing to Oliveira, the flat of the master framesshould again be between 1/3 and 1/2 of themaximum breadth or, theoretically, between aminimum 2 rumos (3·08 m) and a maximum of4·5 rumos (6·93 m). If we take his recommendedvalue of 48 palmos de goa, however, we get 16 to24 palmos de goa (4·11 to 6·16 m) for the flatamidships, an interval that includes the PepperWreck probable flat of 4·11 m at its lowest end.

We must not forget that in spite of these

notable coincidences, given the reduced portion ofthe hull preserved, the hull reconstruction of thePepper Wreck is a purely academic exercise, aneducated guess at best. The truth is that we simplydo not know how many sets of instructions tobuild India naus existed in the early 17th century,and in the present study we cannot even state withabsolute certainty that the remains under analysisare a portion of the bow of such a vessel. How-ever, once Oliveira’s model was chosen for thebottom of the vessel, the preserved portions of theframes could be placed over the body plan ofthe lines drawing, and faired (Fig. 20). Theremaining hull was then reconstructed from thelist of proportions supplied by Oliveira (Fig. 21)(Table 7).

17


Figure 17. Treenail extracted from futtock B3E. (Drawing:Brian Jordan, INA)

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

18

TonnageAlthough we have a fair knowledge of the systemsof units in use in Portugal at the time, thecalculation of a ship’s tonnage in the early 17thcentury is not an easy matter. Oliveira mentions600 toneis (barrels) as the size of a nau of 18 rumoswith three decks. We know that these toneis were1 rumo (1·54 m) high and 4 palmos de goa (1·03 m)across at its maximum diameter. This gives anapproximate capacity of 1·2 m3 for one tonel.

There is no information about the tonnage ofthe Nossa Senhora dos Martires in the records,and we do not even know whether she had threeor four decks. There are no known formulas forthe calculation of the tonnage in Portugal in thisperiod. The tonnage seems to have been estab-lished by a team of experts with standard barrelhoops and gauges after ships were built.

An analysis of the shape of the futtocks wasperformed with the help of Dr Thomas Vogel

from Texas A&M University’s Department ofMathematics. It showed that the futtocks’ arcsvaried, showing smaller radii as we move awayfrom the midship frame, as suggested in Oliveira’sdrawings (Fig. 22). This came as a surprise since itis generally accepted that in this period all fut-tocks tended to present more or less the sameradii. According to most early 17th-century textson shipbuilding the shape of the weather deck wasobtained by either tilting out or sliding down thefuttocks over the tips of floor timbers in order togain deck space above. A drawing in Oliveira’sArs Nautica suggests otherwise (Fig. 23), and sodoes the data of this—rather small but never theless significant—preserved sample of futtocks’curves (Table 8).


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

Table 5. Height of the floor timbers measured over the keel

Floor NumberHeight over

the keelTheoretical values

after Oliveira

C11 I — 258 mmC10 II 310 mm 264 mmC9 III 250 mm 272 mmC8 IIII 270 mm 285 mmC7 V 360 mm 300 mmC6 VI 310 mm 319 mmC5 VII 350 mm 340 mmC4 VIII 370 mm 365 mmC3 VIIII 390 mm 392 mmC2 X 420 mm 421 mmC1 XI 460 mm 454 mm

Table 6. Narrowing of the bottom as measured to the preservedscrive marks

Floor Number

Distanceturn-of-the-bilge

to keelTheoretical values

after Oliveira

C4 VIII 189 cm 189 cmC5 VII 193 cm 193 cmC6 VI 197 cm 196 cmC7 V 200 cm 199 cm

An estimation of the displacement of this vesselwas obtained from the lines drawing at the level ofthe lower wale (waterline 3), and at the presumedload waterline level (waterline 4). Waterline 3 runs4·62 m above the bearding line amidships, and

gave a displacement of around 1100 tons. For theload waterline, at the level of waterline 4, whichruns 6·16 m above the bearding line amidships,the displacement obtained was around 1700 tons.The volumes before and abaft the midship sectionare more or less the same for both theoretical loadwaterlines, the after part displacing 49% of thetotal volume below the theoretical load water-lines. This suggests that the vessel sat almost flat

19


Figure 20. Preserved frames. Tentative fairing. (Drawing: Filipe Castro)

ConclusionsThe most striking conclusion of this study is thatwe know very little about Portuguese Indiamen inthe 16th and 17th centuries. Iconography is scarceand so is the information contained in the con-temporary texts and treatises on shipbuilding.Archaeology has much potential towards further-ing the understanding of the shape and perform-ance of Portuguese India naus. However, becauseof the nature of their cargoes, it is more likely thatshipwrecks of Portuguese Indiamen will continueto be destroyed by treasure hunters as hashappened already to many such shipwrecks. Wecan only hope that the recent approval ofthe UNESCO convention for the protection of theunderwater cultural heritage will impact upon theprotection of these shipwrecks in a positive way.

The attempted reconstruction looks quite plaus-ible, and more so if we ignore the disproportionateoverhanging of the poop deck. In spite of havingbeen reconstructed as a three-decker, the linesdrawing fitted very well over the four deckersrepresented in Manuel Fernandez’ 1616 treatise(folios 70 and 84). The similarities were striking,with only a few minor differences. The keel ofFernandez’ nau was 3 palmos de goa (77 cm)shorter than the one in Oliveira’s treatise, but this

20

difference was compensated at the level of themain deck by a greater rake of the sternpost inFernandez’ design. The inclusion of another deckin Fernandez made the quarterdeck higher, andits hanging abaft the square tuck is much lessexaggerated to our eyes, in spite of the fact thatthese two models have roughly the same overalllength.

As a consequence of the small dimensions ofthe portion of hull preserved, this study raisesmore questions than those it answers. We do notknow for sure if there was only one standardfor the India naus in Portugal, during the 16thand early 17th centuries. We do not knowexactly what these ships looked like, or how theyevolved over time. We do not know much abouttheir construction sequence, and we are almostwholly ignorant about their structural strength.The Pepper Wreck was a patchwork of smalltimbers, scarfed together to create the largetimbers necessary to built such a large ship. We donot know what kind of reinforcements were usedon the inside of these hulls, how the deck beamswere fastened to the hull structure, how manystanchions were placed between decks, or how thehogging problem was addressed by Portugueseshipwrights. On another level, we do not knowmuch about the rigging of these ships, and evenless about their performance under sail. Perhapsarchaeology will someday yield answers for someof these questions.

on the keel, with a minor drag, the true loadwaterline running almost horizontally.


Fig

ure

21.

Lin

esdr

awin

gre

cons

truc

tion

.(D

raw

ing:

Fili

peC

astr

o)

21


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

Element Rule of proportion Value (m)

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

Figure 22. Shape of the frames after Fernando Oliveira’sLivro da Fabrica das Naus (c. 1580). (Drawing: Filipe Castro)

22

Figure 23. Shape of the frames after Fernando Oliveira’s ArsNautica (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 pgB4E 3·77 m=14·7 pg 3·73 m=14·5 pgB5E 4·81 m=18·7 pg 4·90 m=19·1 pgB6E 4·85 m=18·9 pg 4·75 m=18·5 pgB7E 5·22 m=20·3 pg 5·03 m=19·6 pgB8E 6·05 m=23·6 pg 6·17 m=24 pg


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 Martires: The Last Voyage, Lisbon: Verbo/EXPO’98: 265–268.[2] Arquivo Historico Ultramarino, Reino, 2 June 1618.[3] Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo, Chancelaria de D. Filipe II, Doacoes, Book XXVI, Fl. 6, in Afonso, Simonetta Luz,

ed., 1998, Nossa Senhora dos Martires: The Last Voyage, Lisbon: Verbo/EXPO’98: 157–163.[4] Arquivo Historico Ultramarino, India, Box 22a, doc. 122, 13 August 1654, in Afonso, Simonetta Luz, ed., 1998, Nossa

Senhora dos Martires: The Last Voyage, Lisbon: Verbo/EXPO’98: 268–269.[5] Guilhermy, Father Esteban de, Menologe 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 Martires: TheLast Voyage, Lisbon: Verbo/EXPO’98: 175–181.

ReferencesAfonso, S. L. (Ed.), 1998, Nossa Senhora dos Martires: 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 Martires: The Last Voyage. Lisbon.Castro, F., 2001, The remains of a Portuguese Indiaman at Tagus mouth, Lisbon, Portugal (Nossa Senhora dos Martires,

1606?). In F. Alves (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Symposium ‘Archaeology of Medieval and Modern Ships ofIberian-Atlantic Tradition’, Lisbon, 1998, 381–404. Lisbon.

Fernandez, M., 1616, Livro de Tracas 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 serie d’illustrations de L’Ars Nautica de Fernando Oliveira. Neptunia 169: 36–43. Paris.Vasconcelos, J. A. Frazao de, 1960, Subsıdeos para a historia da Carreira da India no tempo dos Filipes. Boletim da Agencia

Geral do Ultramar. Lisbon.

23