Mazingareport SMLST

Mazinga Warehouse:
An
Archaeological and Architectural
Survey at the Waterfront
Written by
G. Labiau (SECAR)
L. Nelson, PhD
(University of Virginia)
Principal Investigator
R. Grant Gilmore III, PhD
August 2008

St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
Acknowledgements
The SECAR and the Authors would like to thank Tony and Leontine Durby for their
foresight for hiring archaeologists and architects with their project on the bay. We would
also very much appreciate their patience and understanding during the production of this
report. Furthermore, we would like to express our thanks to all the individuals who have
helped us along the way--including the family from France!
We look forward to working with the Durby’s as this most ambitious of restorations-
-the first of its kind on Statia moves towards completion.

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Project Overview 5
1. Administrative data 6
1.2. Reason for Research 8
1.3. Research Goal 8
1.4. Introduction 9
2. Introduction10
2.1. Historical context10
2.2. Environmental context 13
2.3. Lower Town, past research14
2.3.1. Lower Town, historical sources14
2.3.2. Lower Town, archaeological research18
2.3.3. Mazinga Warehouse, known data20

21
2.4. Research Methods21
2.5. Research Questions22
2.6. Report organization 24
3. HABS Report (Drawings in Appendix 1)24

3.1. HABS Standards25
3.2. Overview of the drawings (see Appendix 1-The drawing-numbers are identical to the paragraph
numbers.)25
3.3. Measurements 26
4. Mazinga Warehouse, Historical Architectural Survey29

4.1. Description29
4.2. Discussion of Chronology 32
4.3. Recommendations 35
5. Warehouse Mazinga, an Archaeological Survey/Excavation38
(Appendix 2, Appendix 3 (on CD))38

5.1. Zone I and Southern Exterior (See Appendix 2; 5.1.)38
5.2. Zone II and III (See Appendix 2; 5.2.) 40
5.3. Exterior (See Appendix 2; 5.3.) 42
5.4. Research questions 43
6. Conclusions 48
APPENDIX 1-HABS DRAWINGS 50
APPENDIX 2 – ARCHAEOLOGICAL DRAWINGS 65

Termini Post Quem 68
Dates on the pipes 69


Project Overview
The “Mazinga” Warehouse project has proven to be very informative, giving a range of new insights
concerning the structure, its place in economy of St. E ustatius, and the central Benedendorp or
Lower Town. The most important conclusion coming from current research is the identification of
the structure as being the Dutch Gabled building, known from several 18th and 19th century sketches,
which transforms it into a unique site with a high historical significance. Current archaeological
and architectural research described in this report, forms the basis for future archival and historical
research.

1. Administrative data
Site Name: “Mazinga” Warehouse, Waterfront, Lower Town, St. Eustatius
Site Number: SE 343
Title: “Mazinga” Warehouse, an Archaeological Excavation and an Architectural Survey
at the waterfront, S.E.C.A.R report 001-2008
Year of research & publication: 2008
Author: G. Labiau
CO-Author: L. Nelson
Authorized Senior Archaeologist (ASA): Dr. R.G. Gilmore III
Signature ASA:
Executive Archaeological Organization: SECAR, St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological
Research
Contact data: Rosemary Laan
Oranjestad
St. Eustatius EUX
info@secar.org
grant.gilmore@secar.org
Tel: 599/3180066

Developers: Leontine & Antonne Durby
Contact data: #4 Pleasures Road
Oranjestad
St. Eustatius EUX
mazingastatia@yahoo.com
Tel: 5993182562
Data & Artefact Archive: SECAR, St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research
Rosemary Laan
Oranjestad
St. Eustatius EUX
Madame Theatre
Fort Oranjestraat
Oranjestad
St. Eustatius EUX

1.1. Site Description
Site name: “Mazinga” Warehouse, Waterfront, Lower Town, St. Eustatius
Site number: SE 343
Current use: vacant
Planned developing: Reconstruction, restoration
Research Area: Approximately 9.89 by 14.65 meters / 32.45 by 48 feet
Site type: Standing structure
Geographical characteristics: the subsoil consists of sand.
Archaeological expectation: Post-Medieval, warehouse/other use, architectural history.

1.2. Reason for Research
In the near future, development in the form of the reconstruction or restoration of the structure will
take place. In communication with the Island Archaeologist, the owners of the warehouse decided to
recover the available historical data about the building; this in order to contribute to the reconstruction
of the rich Colonial past of St. Eustatius.
1.3. Research Goal
The importance of the archaeological remains in the Lower Town, St. Eustatius, lies within the fact
that the Waterfront area used to be the economic heart of the island, and of the entire Caribbean for
that matter. Since much of the commercial activity was performed illegally, and thus no -official-
data are available, archaeological research in this area can provide us, and future historians, with
a whole new range of information on the economic life and importance of the -undoubtedly very
international- region during the Colonial period. The study of the archaeological remains in this
area, and consequently of “Mazinga” Warehouse, is essential for the further reconstruction and
understanding of St. Eustatius’ past.
Furthermore, conducting research on ruins, and studying the past of a community in general creates
a feeling of timelessness and stability. It can create a feeling of collective pride and it confirms the
identity of the group which history is being investigated. Therefore, one of the current goals is to
communicate the results of this research to the local people.
Current research has created the possibility to study a standing structure from the colonial period
in all its aspects. Both archaeological as architectural research took place, resulting in a very broad
spectrum of available data to tell the building’s history.

1.4. Introduction
The St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research has conducted archaeological and architectural
research at the”Mazinga” Warehouse, Lower town, St. Eustatius. Research took place from February
1st to August 5th 2008. In the near future the structure will be restored, and will be serve as a gift
shop and loft. In communication with the iIsland Archaeologist, R. G. Gilmore III, the owners of the
building, T. & L. Durby, decided to document the site; in order to contribute to the reconstruction of
St. Eustatius’ past.
The site consists of a standing structure measuring 9.89 by 14.65 meters (32.45 by 48 feet). The
structure is located at Oranje Bay, and is surrounded by the beach to the west, a street to the east,
an old warehouse -currently used as a dive shop- to the north and a hotel complex to the south.
The subsoil in this area consists of rough sand. The building incorporates 300 years of construction
history.
The research has been executed by G. Labiau (Field archaeologist, Medior archaeologist), under
supervision of R. G. Gilmore III (PhD, Director, Principal Investigator). The following people have
assisted in the documenting of the site: L. Durby (Owner), T. Durby (Owner), C. Corely (Volunteer), A.
So (Intern), D. Dinardo (Intern), E. Ellis (Volunteer), T. Cooper (Volunteer), K. Gibbons (Volunteer),
K. Guest (Volunteer), J. Haggy (Volunteer), I. Hock (Volunteer), S. Jastrzebska (Volunteer), A.
Kreitzer (Volunteer), J. Rattcliff (Volunteer), K. Riemersma (Volunteer), G. Ricci (Volunteer), R.
Sajor (Volunteer), M. Shugar (Volunteer), V. Soady (Volunteer), K. Paranjape (Volunteer), A.
Stigina (Volunteer), M. Tise (Volunteer), D. Zobel (Volunteer), P. Zobel (Volunteer) and S. Daily
(Volunteer).
Quality control has been performed by R.G. Gilmore III. After completion of the research the collected
data and artifacts are stored at the S.E.C.A.R headquarters and at the Madam Theatre (Charlie’s
Place), Oranjestad St. Eustatius. Part of the artifacts will be used as exhibition material by the owners
of the warehouse.

2. Introduction
2.1. Historical context
St. Eustatius, located in the Leeward Island Group, part of the Netherlands Antilles, is a volcanic
island measuring 21km². It is situated in the Lesser Antilles between Saba and St. Kitts. The island
has known Prehistoric occupation between approximately 4000 BP and 1200 BP. After a hiatus in
the inhabitance for over nine centuries, French colonists were the first new people to settle on the
island temporarily in 1629. St. Eustatius glorious historical past, however, starts with the arrival and
settlement of the Dutch in 1636.
The harbour of St. Eustatius as depicted by N.Pocock in a journal kept by him in the
1760s. (Original held by the Mariner’s Museum, Newport News Virginia).
Under the Dutch West Indies Company, St. Eustatius became important as a trade center, more so then
as a settlement or an agricultural center. The island had been given this role due to several causes.
Foremost, the Dutch West Indies Company’s primary focus was trade. The presence of a sheltered
10
bay on the Caribbean side of the island, alongside its ideal position within the Caribbean and between
Europe, Africa and the New World, stimulated the development of a large harbor. Although the first
Dutch settlers similarly concentrated on the construction of tobacco, cotton and sugarcane plantations,
strict monopoly measurements from the homeland made them change their focus onto -mostly-
illegal trade between St. Eustatius, the other European Colonies in West India and North America.
Additionally, given the fact that St. Eustatius’ environmental and climate related circumstances didn’t
allow agriculture on a large scale, the growth of a harbor and an intensive trading center on the island
was a manifest consequence.
During the 17th and 18th century, St. Eustatius flourished as an important trade center, with
prosperity reaching its peak after 1713 (Treaty of Utrecht). The small island in the North Eastern
Caribbean performed, as noted above, as a hub in the trade network between Europe, Africa and the
New World. Functioning as a free trade port under the Dutch, it traded virtually any type of goods
with any nation. In trade, St. Eustatius did not take part in political issues between trading parties.
The island undoubtedly owes part of its prosperity to this marketing strategy. Today, the material
precipitation of its past prosperity is tangible in the form of numerous historical structures - sugar
mills, plantation sites, warehouse and military sites -, spread across the island.
St. Eustatius’ trading activities were limited to the Caribbean coastline, called Lower Town, on the
Attema (1988), p. 138.
A problem for large-scale agriculture on the island, up till today, is the lack of rain-
water. The raining season lasts from June to September, but occasionally there is a yearlong
draught. Also the threat of destructive hurricanes didn’t encourage large-scale cultivation.
Eastman (1996), p. 20; due to the above outlined causes the island changed hands
several times during its history between the Dutch, English and French, Attema (1976),
p.18.
Eastman (1996), p. 20; during this period of prosperity, St. Eustatius received its
nickname “Golden Rock”.
Especially during the 18th and early 19th century the island was particularly in-
volved with American-English colonies such as Albany, Virginia and North and South
Carolina, Attema (1988), p. 137.
St. Eustatius became a free port in 1756, Triplett (1995), p. 7.
The illegal trade would reach its peak during the North American War of Liberty
(1772-1783), Attema (1988), p. 138.
Where as the trading area on St. Eustatius received the name Lower Town, the then
developing town –Oranjestad - on the cliff overlooking the Caribbean coast strip was called
11
West side of the island. The harbor was equipped with over 600 homes, taverns, brothels, warehouses,
cooperations, ship repair facilities and a slave depot (by the middle of the 19th century). The hub’s
progression leaped forward between 1740 and 1780. By then St. Eustatius had claimed the leadership
position in trade throughout the whole Atlantic World, leaving large harbors such as Curaçao, New
York, Charleston, London and Bordeaux behind.
St. Eustatius’ free trading principles however, became a thorn in the side of the English, when in
1776, under Johannes De Graaf, the island was the first nation to salute, and thus recognize, a ship
of the American rebels10. The English’ response to this “frankness” was one of revenge. The British
Admiral, Lord G. B. Rodney sacked the island in 1781 and stripped it from all its resources.11
The following decade St. Eustatius fought to regain economical strength and rose to even greater
heights during the 1790s. Its position stabilized, but due to taxes imposed by the French in 1795,
the idle attitude of the merchandisers and the island changing flags several times more, St. Eustatius
would never again reach the same level of prosperity it had once known quickly recieded into an
economic armedgeddon.12
After 1815, with the introduction of taxes during the Napoleonic period and the establishment of
direct trading routes between America and Europe, St. Eustatius fell into a period of isolation. The
second quarter of the 19th century -after the abolishment of slavery-, brought a period of decline. The
plantations got abandoned and warehouses were torn down13. The 19th and first part of the 20th century
was an era of extreme poverty for the island. Since the 1960s St. Eustatius is developing again, trying
to obtain and preserve a stable position within the modern world.14
Upper Town.
Eastman (1996), p. 29.
10 The Andrew Doria.
11 Attema (1988), p. 138.
12 Ibid.
13 Bricks and other material from the warehouses were often used as spolia for the
construction of new houses in upper town.
14 Eastman (1996), p. 33.
12
2.2. Environmental context
The Lower Town, the trading zone of St. Eustatius, developed along the seasonal beach on the
Caribbean side of the island. As noted previously, this area provided a sheltered bay and thus an ideal
position for the construction of a harbor. Being a very narrow stretch of land, the district consisted
of one long main road, with a length of two miles, meandering along the bay. In the south, a sloping
beach, used in the 18th century as a careenage15, bordered the Lower Town. The northern boundary of
the district was formed by a stretch of rising cliffs, consisting of volcanic layers.16 The island’s capital,
Oranjestad, arose on top of Lower town’s bordering cliffs and overlooked the stirring activities taking
place on Gallows Bay and Oranje Bay.
15 Tuchman (1988), p. 22.

16 Triplett (1995), p. 19.
13
2.3. Lower Town, past research
2.3.1. Lower Town, historical sources
Travel reports, drawings, pictures and archive material can give an impression of, and can help
reconstruct St. Eustatius’ grand trading past. The following paragraph will contain a limited selection
of such sources, regarding the commercial heart of the island.
The following article was used as the primary basis for this section:
Attema, Y. (1988), ‘Fatsoenlijke lieden hebben de huijsen van binnen met Engels papier behangen’,
Leefcultuur op het Westindische eiland Sint Eustatius aan het einde van de 18de eeuw, in: De Stenen
Droom, Opstellen over Bouwkunst en Monumentenzorg, Zutphen, p. 137-146.
The article is considered a reference for a more in depth overview considering historical sources
about St. Eustatius and especially Lower Town. It also provides a good basic bibliography on the
available past sources.
- In 1760 Commander De Windt informed the Heren X about English piracy:
… ‘Andere welke met swaare kosten en groote industrie uit de zee land hebbe anngewonnen
om daar pachuijsen op te bouwen ter bevordering en faciliteering van de commercie bevinde sigh nu,
door stremming van dien, ontbloodt van hare capitaale daar aan te kosten gelegt’…17
… ’Others who won land from the sea with a great deal of expense and hard work, and
built warehouses there to increase commerce, are now losing their capital, since trade is being
obstructed’…
- A travel report written by the Scottish Lady Janet Shaw, dating back to January 1775 describes
Lower Town as following:
17 Attema (1976): p. 37.

14
… ‘It is however an instance of Dutch industry little inferior to their dykes; as the one half
of the town is gained off the Sea, which is fenced out by Barracadoes, and the other dug out of an
immense mountain of sand and rock; which rises to a great height behind the houses, and will one
day bury them under it’…. ‘The town consists of a two mile long road, but very narrow and most
disagreeable, as every one smokes tobacco’…. ‘From the one end of the town of Eustatia to the other
is a continued mart, where goods of the most different qualities are displayed before the shopdoors.
Here hang rich embroideries, painted silks, flowered Muslins, with all the manufactures of the Indies.
Just by hang Sailor’s Jackets, trousers, shoes, hats etc. Next stall contains most exquisite silver plate;
the most beautiful indeed I ever saw, and close by these iron-pots, kettles and shovels’18.
Both sources talk about ‘half the town being gained off the Sea’. Contemporary drawings don’t clearly
indicate this. Although most of the warehouses and dykes are since long reclaimed by the sea; the
Caribbean west to St. Eustatius, up till today carries the remainders of what used to be.
In a different section of her travel report, Lady Shaw notes that she never spent time in Upper Town;
therefore one can presume that, apart from warehouses and official buildings, there were also taverns
and inns in the harbor district of 18th century St. Eustatius.19 A 1772 aquarelle by Mitriani (cf. infra.)
locates a Roman Catholic chapel in the center of Lower Town. A 1724 drawing shows the Waterfort
(Fort Amsterdam), located in Lower Town.20
A number of estate inventories provide an indication on what life was like down at the waterfront.
Occasionally, they offer a defined description of the range and arrangement of properties, and the
interior organization of the bay houses. Lower Town didn’t only consist of warehouses; people also
used to live there. The article used as the main source for this paragraph mentions an estate inventory
18 The travel report by Janet Shaw was first published in 1934; Walker Andrew, E. and
McLean Andrews, C. (eds.) (1934), Journal of a Lady of Quality; Being a Narrative of a
Journey from Scotland to the West Indies, North Carolina and Portugal, in the years 1774
to 1776, New Haven.
19 Kandle (1985): p. 92.
20 For a description of this fort, and its later use as slave depot; Triplett (1995): p. 26-
27.
15
established by G (?) Du Sart for the deceased landowner William Hill and his wife Margaretha Gravall,
dating from 1786. The original inventory is written in Dutch:
‘Een huijs en erf’… Bestaande in Een voorhuijs/ naast het zelve Twee Bedkamer/, daar agter
Een Gallerij en naast dezelve Twee Klijndere Kamers/ Onder het huijs Een Kelder en Twee vertrekken/
Naast of agter dit huijs nog een Huijs twelk voorzien is van Een Gallerij daar uijtgaande in Een
Hall of Voorkamer en naast dezelve Twee Bedkamers. Onder dit Huijs Een Keuken en Drie Neeger
Vertrekken/ In de Yard is Een Huijs voorzien van Een Voorhuijs Een Bedkamer Een Klijne ditto Een
Gallerij Een Kelder en nog apart Een klijn Huijsje of Kamertje/ Voorts is op de plaats Een Paarde
Stal Een Smits Winkel Een plaats om Schildpadden te bewaaren Een Duijve hok met een bergplaats
eronder Een Reegebak Een secreet’.21
‘A house and property’…Consisting of a Front room/ besides which Two Bedrooms/ behind
which a Gallery besides which Two Smaller Rooms/Underneath the House Cellar and Two Spaces/
Next to or behind this house another House provided with a Gallery besides which a Hallway or
Front room and besides which two bedrooms/ Underneath this House A Kitchen and Three Negro
Quarters/ In the Yard there is A House provided with A Front room A Bedroom A Small Bedroom A
Gallery A Cellar and a separate Small House or Room/ Additionally on the place A Horse Stable A
Smiths Shop A place to keep Turtles A Dove Schack with storage space underneath A Goat trough A
toilet.’
Although, as mentioned by Attema, William Hill and his wife are suspected to be of English origin,
estate inventories of Dutch Statians were very similar to the one stated above. Moreover, it is clear
that the intense contact between St. Eustatius and the American-English colonies has extensively
influenced the colonial architecture on the island.
21 The original copy of this inventory was found in: O.A.S.E. 10513, inv. Nr. 127
(1786), fol. 148 ro.-149 ro.
16
The above sources clearly show that Lower Town was a very crowded area, which probably created a
very unpleasant atmosphere by today’s standards. The past presence of bridges connecting bay houses
at story level22 similarly indicates this.
- In 1743 Commander Heyliger complains about the condition of the old weigh house, which was
located at the foot of the bay path:
… ‘De houdtwerk vergaen, de murragien vervallen, alsmeede de waegh’…23
… ‘The wood-work is rotten, the walls crumbling and so is the weighing house’…
- Later, in 1771, Johannes de Graaff informed the Heren that a new Weighing House needed to be
built which the company should pay for:
…’Weegens de naauw bepaalde groote, onvoordeelige situatie en bouwvalligheyd van het
teegenwoordige waaghuys’…24
…’Because of the small size, unfortunate situation and poor state of the present weighing-
house’…
This new weighing house was built on the opposite side, the seaside, of the road near the bay path.
The plot where the old weigh house had stood was kept clear. Today, the diveshop ‘Dive Statia’ is
identified as the new custom’s house.
- After 1815 many inhabitants of Lower Town chose to go and live in Upper Town. The bay was
abandoned, and the deterioration of the once so wealthy harbor district commenced. This decline
becomes visible in the comparison of a number of images. Whereas an aquarelle by Gerardhus Emaús
de Micault (1789-1863)25, presents 1774 Lower Town as a very crowded and lively area, a detailed
22 The original source for this information is: Jong, de. C. (1807), Reizen naar de
Caraïbische Eilanden in de jaren 1780-1781, Haarlem.
23 Attema (1976): p. 36.
24 Attema (1976): p. 36.
25 The aquarelle is a copy, or interpretation of an original aquarelle dating from 1174
by A. Nelson.
17
aquarelle of the district dated 1829, signed G.C., illustrates how the early 19th century political changes
had slowly derived St. Eustatius from its economic strength.
Both drawings however, show simple structures with hipped and gabled roofs, and high set windows.
Some structures have overhanging second stories. The general orientation of the structures as seen on
the aquarelles seems to have been east west26. A 1787 plan of Fort Oranje, however, portrays many
structures in Lower Town as being oriented north south.
2.3.2. Lower Town, archaeological research
Until the present, St. Eustatius’ position as a mercantile hub throughout the colonial period remains
observable in Lower Town. The island’s coastal strip has not been altered extensively by modern
development, and is therefore undoubtedly one of the best-preserved 18th century trade districts in
the Caribbean. Despite the fact that during the 19th and early 20th century, a great deal of the old
construction materials were used as spolia for the assembly of houses in Upper Town -which reduced
the coastal strip to a site of ruins-, despite the -sometimes devastating- strength of the ocean, and
despite the probability that many structures are currently buried underneath a layer of debris coming
from the cliffs, Norman Barka’s 1985 archaeological survey of the area27 points out that the remains
of 135 structures were still visible in the landscape at that moment in time.
Most visible warehouse structures date from the second half of the 18th century. The ruins predominantly
consist of foundations, although four structures actually still stand. A survey of the area points out
that the vast majority of the buildings were concentrated around the foot of the bay path28, near the
old landing place. A smaller, but substantial concentration of buildings was found in the Prospect
26 Triplett (1995): p. 23; an orientation with the narrowest end of the warehouses
pointing towards the ocean would have provided the largest amount of structures to have
waterfront access. Towards the Cliffside, this type of orientation would have allowed a
large number of warehouses to be built.
27 Barka, N. (1985), Archaeology of St. Eustatius, Netherlands Antilles: an Interim
Report on the 1981-1984 Field seasons, Manuscript, College of William and Mary, Depart-
ment of Anthropology.
28 Kandle (1985), p. 106; one can see the same concentration of occupancy around the
top of the bay path in Upper Town.
18
area near the new landing place, and the new bay path. Towards the south, in the direction of Gallows
Bay the construction intensity was more limited. Here however the remains of industrial and military
activity were found.29
There was no absolute linear orientation to the buildings to be found, and there are no indications for
the existence of a town plan.30 Three to four rows of buildings aligned next to each other between
the beach and the cliffs. In opposition to town planning in Holland and Curaçao, most structures in
Lower Town were free standing entities. There are some indications that some alleyways in between
buildings were paved.31 Many warehouses had a hipped or vertical gabled roof32. Some of them
consisted of two stories, built entirely out of faced or unfaced mortared stone, limestone blocks33 and
volcanic stone.34 Some of the walls show evidence of having been plastered. Others, were entirely
assembled in yellow - and more rarely red- brick35. The floor mostly existed of brick, natural stone or
a packed clay layer. Although on the first story the floor consisted of wood, one would seldom find a
wooden floor at ground level. The foundations of the warehouses were constructed of mortared stone
or limestone blocks.36 Wood would have been regularly used, especially for second stories. Due to the
violent Caribbean climate, however, no 18th century wooden structures have survived intact in Lower
Town.
The Caribbean climate undoubtedly made changes in the European building styles necessary. The
exterior of most warehouses seems to be colonial Caribbean English.37 Furthermore, the archaeological
precipitation on St. Eustatius in general, for the end of the 18th century, shows the presence of the
British and their strength in industry and marketing.38

29 Ibid, p. 124.
30 It is plausible that a town plan originally existed, but seized to function due to the
continuous expansion of the harbor area. Buildings were adapted to the space available.
31 Triplett (1995), p. 21: partial pavements of cobblestones between structures have
been found in the area.
32 Which is not typically Dutch.
33 The limestone blocks were imported from Bermuda.
34 Triplett (1995), p. 21: Frequently walls show a composite construction of several of
these materials. Brick was often used for spot repair of a stonewall.
35 The yellow brick -Ijsselsteen- was imported as ballast for ships coming from Hol-
land.
36 Triplett (1995), p. 20.
37 Kandle (1985), p. 123.
38 Triplett (1995), p. 13.
19
Excavations in the harbor area have exposed successive levels of construction. Under the currently
exposed walls, foundations of earlier buildings are to be found. Frequently there is no alignment
between two or more building stages.
Many of the artefacts found in the harbor district, appear to be from the collapse of the cliff edge
and are in fact from Upper Town. Therefore they provide little information to the activities in Lower
Town. However, recent excavations by R. G. Gilmore (2005-6) and the current work demonstrate
there are primary fill layers to be discovered on the Bay.
2.3.3. Mazinga Warehouse, known data
The warehouse currently being researched is located at Oranje Bay. It is surrounded by the beach to
the west, a street to the east, an old warehouse -currently used as a dive shop (Dive Statia)- to the
north and a hotel complex (The Old Gin House) to the south. The subsoil on the examined location
consists of rough volcanic beach sand.
The warehouse consists of two buildings (the southern building will be referred to as Zone I, the
northern building as Zone III) and a covered passageway (Zone II) .
At this time, there are few available documentary data about the warehouse. Most information is
offered through oral history.
Zone I is known to have been used as a dive shop (The Happy Hooker) during the late seventies and
early eighties of the 20th century. Zone III was used as a fish house during the first half of the 20th
century. The structure has been out of use since approximately 1990.39
Recent ownership documents go back as far as 1887. At this time it is not possible to retrace the
39 This information has been provided by Tony and Leontine Durby.

20
building’s owners into the 18th century. One recent drawing refers to the building as the Horton
building, but there are no written sources confirming this.40 Geneological evidence provided by
Professor RonWetteroth sheds some light on the professional and familial relations among these
owners (see correspondence in the Appendices)
Barka’s 1985 survey offers a very brief description of ‘Mazinga Warehouse’: standing warehouse.
“Happy Hooker”. Exterior measurements 52.5 x 32.2 ft. Oriented northwest southeast. Modern porch
with poured concrete piers added to west side (water side).41
Pencil and watercolour artwork by Nelson Delin (held in the Dutch National Archives
(formerly the ARA)

2.4. Research Methods
Current research contains both architectural and archaeological components. The standing structure
has been drawn in its current state, using the ‘Historic American Buildings Survey’ (HABS)42
standards as a guideline. The building’s history has been researched by means of a number of test-
pits strategically placed throughout the building. Three test-pits have been excavated on the outside
40 Museum book.
41 Eastman (1996), p. 120. The modern porch doesn’t exist anymore.
42 HABS/HAER Standards (1990).
21
Detail of the previous image depicting the Mazinga Warehouse building just be-
yond #8 or the Waag/Weighhouse (held in the Dutch National Archives (formerly the
ARA)). the inset shows another version recently found by Walter Hellebrand--this is
likely the first version of the 1774 Delin image and depicts a window on the ground
floor where it should be (courtesy of Walter Hellebrand Collection).
of the structure. The test-pits varied in dimensions. The excavation has been conducted and executed
according to the Dutch ‘Kwaliteitsnorm der Nederlandse Archeologie’ (KNA)43 standards.
2.5. Research Questions
This report will attempt to give an answer to the following research questions:
1. How many construction phases can be identified? Has the structure known a continuous use
since its erection or are there clear hiatuses in its history?
2. Are there architectural/archaeological features giving an insight into the building’s past use?
Are there other indications towards the building’s past use?
43 KNA Standards (2008).

22
3. How deep do the foundations go?
4. What does the stratigraphy of the underlying soil consist of? Has the soil been elevated on
one or multiple occasions?
5. Are there obvious alterations made to the building?
6. Are there indications that a completely separate building used to exist on the same location?
7. Are there obvious modern restorations visible?
8. Is it possible to date the currently standing structure by studying the brickwork/mortar?
9. Which types of natural deterioration to the building can be distinguished? What is the
condition of the walls?
10. Is the structure as a whole to be considered contemporary? If not, which building is younger
than the other?
11. Do the archaeological remains permit to divide the building’s history into separate phases?
23
Painting similar to the one from Hartog (1976) depicted in Attema (1976). The Dutch
Gabled building as well as “Kelly’s Kitchen” are clearly visible.
2.6. Report organization
The introductory chapter of this report covered the historical, geographical and archaeological
background to the current research. The excavation methods have been described and the research
questions have been presented. In chapter 3, the architectural and archaeological drawings are
presented, along with photographs and lists of measurements. The HABS drawings are collected in
Appendix 1. Chapter 4 is a contribution by Louis Nelson, giving an insight in the historical architecture
of the structure and providing recommendations concerning the future restoration of the building,
The archaeological section of the report gives an overview of the archaeological features uncovered
during the excavation and tries to answer the research questions. Archaeological lists and drawings
are collected in Appendix 2. Appendix 3 gives an overview of some of the retrieved artefacts in the
form of drawings and photographs. Appendix 4 relates the family history of some of the previous
owners.
24
3. HABS Report (Drawings in Appendix 1)
3.1. HABS Standards44
In order to provide a standardized method to document historical structures, the United States
National Park Service has developed the Historic American Building Survey (HABS)/Historic
American Engineering Record (HAER) Standards. The HABS standards concern the development of
documentation of historic buildings, sites, structures and objects. This documentation, which usually
consists of drawings, photographs and written data provides important information on a property’s
significance for use by scholars, researchers, preservationists, architects, engineers and others
interested in preserving and understanding historic properties. Documentation permits accurate repair
or reconstruction of parts of a property that is to be demolished.
The standards used are intended for use in developing documentation to be included in the Historic
American Building Survey and the Historic American Engineering Record collections in the Library
of Congress. HABS/HAER in the National Park Service have defined specific requirements for
meeting these standards for their collections.
3.2. Overview of the drawings (see Appendix 1-The drawing-numbers are identical to the
paragraph numbers.)
3.2.1. Plan view of the site
3.2.2. The Building’s Exterior
3.2.2.1. Northern wall
3.2.2.2. Eastern wall

44 HABS/HAER standards (1990), p. 1. For a complete overview of the HABS/
HAER standards, a reference is made to: Russel, C. H. (ed.) (1990), Historic American
Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record, Cultural Resources Program, U.S.
Department of the Interior National Park Service, Washington D.C.
25
3.2.2.3. Southern wall
3.2.2.4. Western wall
3.2.3. The Building’s Interior
3.2.3.1. Zone I
3.2.3.1.1. Northern wall
3.2.3.1.2. Eastern wall
3.2.3.1.3. Southern wall
3.2.3.1.4. Western wall
3.2.3.2. Zone II
3.2.3.2.1. Arched doorways
3.2.3.3. Zone III
3.2.3.3.5. Roof
3.3. Measurements
The specific measurements for the representative plan view features are collected in the list down
below. They are both in metric and imperial. The height of the standing walls currently varies between
3.75 m (12.30 ft) and 4.25 m (13.95 ft). The measurements of the niches in Zone III are irregular and
26
therefore weren’t submitted to the list.
Zone Features (Dimenions) Metric (M) Imperial (FT)

Zone I Southern wall 8.92 29.26
Western wall 6.00 19.68

Eastern wall 6.00 19.68
Northern wall 8.92 29.26
Tile 0.22 x 0.22 0.72 x 0.72
Brick 0.22 x 0.10 x 0.04 0.72 x 0.32 x 0.13

Zone II Southern wall 8.92 29.26
Tile 0.22 x 0.22 0.72 x 0.72

Zone III Southern wall 8.92 29.26
Eastern wall 6.14 20.14
Western wall 6.14 20.14

Outside Southern wall 9.89 32.44

Western wall 14.63 48
Eastern wall 14.63 48
27
The specific measurements for all windows and doors (on the plan view specified by a -W- and a
number) are collected in the list down below. They are both in metric and imperial.
Number Height in M Width in M Height in Feet Width in Feet

W1 2.30 1.36 7.54 4.46
W2 2.15 1.13 7.05 3.7
W3 2.05 1.25 6.72 4.1
W4 1.55 1.08 5.08 3.54
W5 1.95 1.08 6.39 3.54
W6 1.48 1.12 4.85 3.67

W7 1.90 1.36 6.23 4.46
W8 1.82 1.12 5.97 3.67
W9 1.85 1.08 6.06 3.54
W10 1.85 1.12 6.06 3.67
W11 1.70 1.12 5.57 3.67
W12 2.25 1.36 7.38 4.46
W13 1.70 1.12 5.57 3.67
W14 2.35 1.12 7.7 3.67
W15 2.05 1.40 6.72 4.59

W16 1.85 1.09 6.06 3.57
W17 1.85 1.09 6.06 3.57
W18 1.85 1.08 6.06 3.54
W19 2.25 1.36 7.38 4.46
W20 1.85 1.08 6.06 3.54
W21 2.70 108 8.85 3.54
28
4. Mazinga Warehouse, Historical Architectural Survey

(Contribution by Louis Nelson)
As noted previously, the warehouse currently under research consists of 3 zones. The southern portion
of the building will be referred to as Zone I, the present archway as Zone II and the northern building
as Zone III. This chapter will open with a written description of the building. This will be followed by
a discussion of the building’s chronology and change over time. The section will conclude with some
recommendations for stabilization and restoration of the building.
4.1. Description
While the two major components of the building might imply two distinct building periods it is
clear upon close inspection that the building footprint as we now see it is a single building period.
(Insert picture of exterior) The best and near conclusive evidence to this effect is the consistency
of the building’s English bond masonry: alternating courses of stretchers and headers (Insert detail
of brickwork). The high-quality brickwork is unbroken and consistent around the entirety of the
building. Fenestration heights are also consistent throughout. Although the present roof system
initially suggested that the warehouse was originally two separate buildings connected by a later
arch, the brick barrel vault springs directly from the hallway walls, and is unquestionably integral to
the first period of construction. The entire building as we see it today is a single building period.
The north wall of Zone III is the original formal façade of the building with a wide central door
flanked by two windows, all with arched reveals above. Two of these three arches are now filled with
yellow brick, which might have been intended as a contrasting decorative element or, more likely, is
later masonry intended to infill the once open arches (once the modern cement on the interior walls
has been removed the evidence will become clearer). Mortar analysis would likely indicate the yellow
29
brick is infill. Such arched windows appear on this elevation only. Closer inspection of the west wall
of Zone III indicates that the two centrally-located windows appear to be original to the first period of
construction. The east wall of Zone III has a wide door opening at its northern-most edge and another
narrower door further south. The northern door of the east elevation is the same width as the central
door on the north elevation. The northern door was assumed on first pass to be a later opening, but the
survival of a square lintel brick immediately under the left end of the lintel in a manner typical of the
other openings suggests that it is in fact first period. The Southern wall of Zone III is unbroken save
a single door opening to the far west end of the wall.
Running through the room interior is an archaeologically uncovered foundation wall that runs
east-west about five feet south of the northern wall, but only along the two easternmost bays of the
northern elevation. That foundation wall could have been simply intermediary support for the joists
that originally spanned north south from joist pockets in the northern foundation wall. The joist
pockets and one surviving joist suggest that these joists were fairly large, measuring approximately
5 inches by 6 inches. But the fact that the wall does not run the entire width of the room throws this
interpretation into question. That lateral foundation wall might also have supported a frame partition
above. Were this cross-wall simply a foundation wall, we would expect to see another cross-wall at
another interval of 5 feet, yet no such cross-wall exists. Furthermore, this wall terminates fairly closely
to the southern edge of the northernmost door opening in the east wall, suggesting that this foundation
supported a frame wall that created a cross-passage along the north elevation of Zone III.
The roofing currently sheltering Zone III is old and very complex. It is a principal rafter roof framing
system secured by pegged mortise and tenon joints. The principal rafters are substantial in size and
are nicely beaded. The hip rafters to the west have a substantial collar beam and rest on a large chord
that spans from north to south. There are also two first period diagonal braces that span from the
rafters to the chord at either end. There is now a replacement vertical member that rises from the very
center of the chord to the collar beam. Peg holes and a substantial mortise indicates that this member
replaces a much larger vertical post that once stood in this position. Empty mortises immediately
below the collar beam on both rafters are evidence for two more diagonal braces that spanned from
30
the rafters to the shoulders of this now missing central post. There are two later vertical posts that are
lapped over these members and are secured by nails. The rafters at the eastern hip reflect essentially
the same system as the west but with even more replacement parts. Between these hip rafter pairs
there are five pairs of rafters, three sets of common rafters and two more sets of principals. These two
principals lack the chords of the pairs of end rafters but have all the other markings of the end rafters,
suggesting that they too were once more complex in form than they now appear. All of these rafter
sets are irregularly positioned.
The space referred to as Zone II is a long central hall that stands between the two larger zones of the
warehouse. It is roofed by a brick barrel vault. While brief returns now create door openings, both
ends of the cross-passage were originally open with no physical evidence of a gate or door. Current
doorways at either end of the passage are clearly infill dating to a later period. No evidence can be
found of sockets for a gate on either end. Only the door into the office chamber of Zone III breaks
the northern wall of the passage. Along the south wall the passage contains a door to a smaller eastern
chamber of Zone I and two large windows flanking a door into the larger western chamber of Zone
I.
Physical evidence for a prominent masonry cross-wall divides Zone I into two major sections: a larger
open chamber to the west and two smaller equally sized chambers at the east side. A wide horizontal
scar on the center of the eastern wall suggests that back-to-back fireplaces separated the two eastern
chambers. The center of the scar is an approximately 1’ wide jagged band of brick that runs 5’ up
from the floor. On either side of this central scar the springing point of a brick oven hood is clearly
evident. At the far side of each of these arch springs is a pocket for a girt that presumably extended
perpendicular from the east wall to the internal dividing wall, serving as the front edge of a fireplace
hood that spanned the width of each small chamber. This scar indicates that a half-height brick wall
divided this chamber into two equal spaces, served as the rear of each oven, and carried the hoods on
either side that would exhaust through the roof. The surviving stone hearth in one chamber provides
irrefutable evidence to this reading. This arrangement of oven spaces that share a partial brick wall
and vent into a shared flue is similar to early modern Dutch two-chamber house plans. Each of the
31
two spaces had a window through the eastern elevation and a door on the northern or southern ends
of the rooms respectively. There is no evidence to suggest that these did or did not have access to
the larger western chamber. Each of the two chambers has a window, a door, and circular ventilation
flue. In the southeastern chamber the door and window have since been switched. The east wall had a
window and the south wall had a door. In its original state, both chambers had windows overlooking
the street.
The western chamber has a door and window along the south wall, two windows along the western
seaside wall, and a door symmetrically flanked by two windows along the Zone II passageway
entrance, suggesting that this is the primary, public entrance into this chamber. The exterior face of
the southern door has a shallow, segmental arch. The space was originally tiled, some substantial
portion of which survives. No early roof remains over the Zone I. Its existing hipped roof dates to the
late 1970s.
4.2. Discussion of Chronology
The physical evidence of the building suggests that it is certainly an eighteenth-century building and
very possibly an early eighteenth-century building. The best evidence to this effect is the building’s
masonry. English bond is the predominant bonding pattern through the seventeenth century and early
eighteenth century. In highly fashionable quarters, it is supplanted by Flemish bond in the second
quarter of the eighteenth century, but buildings often retained English bonding in their water tables
or in their secondary elevations through the third quarter of the eighteenth century. Inspection of a
number of brick buildings elsewhere in town suggests that although Flemish bond is clearly introduced
in the eighteenth century, English bond masonry persists as a preferred brick bond in Statia later than
expected. The English bond masonry of the 1739 Synagogue on Statia—a major public building—is
an excellent case in point. It is worth noting that the adjacent building that currently serves Dive Statia
is a yellow brick English bond building with stone quoins now thought to be the 1772 Customs House
(Insert picture of Customs House). This is evidence of the use of English bond through the third
32
quarter of the eighteenth century. The simple use of English bond masonry, then, suggests that the
building is certainly not nineteenth century and very likely predates the 1780s, when the use of English
bond—even on a warehouse on Statia—would have been noticeably outdated. The shallow segmental
arch over the door on the southern elevation and the two ends of the barrel vault that defines Zone II
are also masonry details indicative of earlier eighteenth-century masonry detailing. (Insert picture of
arch). Later eighteenth-century arches tend to be more closely semi-circular—a half-circle—rather
than shallow and only a segment of a circle. The masonry suggests that this building likely dates from
the first half of the eighteenth century.
Careful analysis of pictorial evidence of Statia’s warehouse district from the eighteenth through the
twentieth century suggests that this warehouse is the prominent Dutch-gabled building that appears
in a number of early views of the lower town. The 1774 painting of Oranjestad from the cliff to the
north of town captures a spatial relationship between the new Customs house and the Dutch-gabled
building that from that same point is fairly closely replicated by the relationship of the warehouse
under consideration and the building now occupied by Dive Statia. An early nineteenth-century view
of the warehouse district from the water shows the same Dutch-gabled building in close proximity
to an arched opening just to the south of the building. That arched opening is now damaged but
still evident on the property just to the south of the warehouse under investigation. The proximity
of the warehouse under investigation to these two physical landmarks in early views provides near
conclusive evidence that the warehouse under investigation is in fact the very prominent Dutch-
gabled warehouse that appears in early views of Oranjestad.
There are a number of physical features on the building that further reinforce this interpretation.
The first is the orientation of the building. The primary elevation of the building faces the north,
not the east or west as might be first assumed if the building faced either the water or the road. This
orientation is a first a bit surprising, because it seems to ignore the road. But upon consideration it
seems quite obvious that the prominent gabled end of the building addressed a cross-axis access to
a major wharf that ran between the Customs house and this warehouse. The second is the building’s
English bond masonry, which clearly suggests that this building dates from the eighteenth century.
33
If it dates from so early a period, it must appear in these early images of the warehouse district of
Oranjestad and there simply is not another building of this scale and this orientation in those images
that could be the warehouse under consideration except the large Dutch-gabled building.
The evidence to the contrary includes the waterfront image’s suggestion of many more window
openings on the building than is evident on the walls as they stand today. Remarkably, all the original
window and door openings remain with very little alteration, suggesting that the building under
consideration could never have had the fenestration suggested by the painting. Even so, we feel that
the physical evidence is so convincing that this aberration must be written off to artistic license.
The physical evidence offers some compelling information about the organization of the building
in its early configuration. The extreme positioning of the northern door on the east wall of Zone III,
together with an archaeologically uncovered foundation wall which might have supported a timber
frame partition suggest that the wide door on the northern elevation opened into a lateral passage that
exited the building through the large door at the extreme northern end of the eastern wall. The cross-
wall creating this passage could not have run the full width of the building as it would have terminated
into a window opening on the western wall. This suggests that the western end of Zone III was a
single chamber that ran the full north-south depth, creating two chambers and a cross-passage in Zone
III. The southeastern chamber was fairly dark with no windows on its southern wall—that shared with
the barrel-vaulted cross-passage identified as zone II—and only a single door to the west. The small
exterior door and the lack of windows imply that it served primarily as storage. The chamber at the
western end of Zone III, conversely, was well-lighted with access from the internal cross-passage at
the northern edge of Zone III and the cross-passage identified in this report as Zone II. This implies
that it served as an office or shop with abundant light and easy access to the spaces of Zones I, II,
and III. A series of joist pockets, some archaeologically uncovered joists, and an abundance of nails
indicates that Zone III was floored in wood plank.
Careful examination of the roofing system in Zone III suggests that it is an eighteenth-century roof
from another building that has been retrofitted to this space. While the structure of the roof and
34
its component parts are clearly of eighteenth-century date, their extensive reworking with newer
components and the irregularities of its installation, especially the spacing of the trusses, suggests that
it was not originally installed over this space.
The vaulted central passage identified as Zone II seems not to have changed much from is original
configuration. The office in Zone III had a door into the passage reaffirming that space’s importance
as a place of access and management. The southern wall of the passage has two doors, each giving
access directly into the two major sections of Zone I. The door to the west is flanked by two large
windows in a shop-like configuration indicating that the passage was probably open to regular public
traffic and not a private, secured circulation route for a small community of people. Its is also well-
tiled, implying that it was not a residual space, but a prominent space.
Zone I has the most complex architectural information. The prominent masonry cross-wall clearly
divides the space into two zones. The larger western chamber was very well illuminated and boasted
fairly open circulation. It seems likely that this space was used either as a commercial space or for
light manufacturing. The chamber to the east of the cross-wall was subdivided into two chambers by
an intermediary half-wall that provided a skeleton for back to back fireplaces, each opening into a
small chamber. Each chamber had an external door to the north (into the cross-passage) or to the south.
Each chamber also had windows to the east overlooking the road. Physical evidence indicates quite
clearly that the window and the door in the southernmost of these two chambers have been swapped.
The circular vent flue in each chamber suggests the likelihood that each contained its own small forge
and bellows vented through that hole supporting the possibility that this side of the building was used
for light manufacturing.
4.3. Recommendations
The discovery that this building was originally the prominent Dutch-gabled building appearing in
many of the early views of Oranjestad means that there are many possibilities for rehabilitation and
restoration. The current owner wishes to use this building as a gift shop, some residential space, and
35
a meeting space. If the current reworking of the building were to emulate the building’s original
envelope, one can easily imagine a gift shop and meting space within the walls of the current building
and an apartment incorporated into the tall spaces under a new steeply-pitched roof flanked at either
end by gables. That said, this is a remarkably important building to Oranjestad, and possibly the most
important historic building in lower town. Given its expressive architectural qualities, it was a critical
landmark for the town and the restoration or renovation of this building must not be undertaken
lightly. Given the building’s significance, I recommend the following guidelines be followed:
1) Preservation of the surviving masonry walls and the building’s rich archaeological context.
The surviving masonry walls of the building are very thick, largely intact, and unaltered from their
original construction. Save some bowing on the north face of the north cross-wall of the interior
and some cracking at the southeastern corner of the building, the masonry walls are in excellent
condition. Preserving these walls and making them viable again as the walls of an otherwise newly-
built building will require the skills of a mason familiar with eighteenth-century masonry techniques.
Preserving these walls intact is of the highest priority. The building must not be moved or removed
from its archaeological context. Nor must the reconstruction involve deconstruction of these walls
with the reuse of the brick as a veneer. Such techniques eviscerate a building’s historic integrity. It
would be better to demolish and build something entirely new.
Preservation of these walls extends also to the various strategies used to cool the building and to the
finish treatments used. The introduction of some temperature management systems and impermeable
finishes can extensively damage these walls. I STRONGLY recommend that the architect hire
a preservation engineer from or recommended by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, a team of
professionals well-versed in managing these kinds of challenges.
2) Reconstruct the building’s original massing.
The confirmation that this building is the Dutch-gabled building seen in many early views means
we have a great deal of information about the building’s original condition. Sources of information
on the early building include the excellent condition of its surviving masonry walls, the extensive
36
archaeological excavation funded by the owners, and the representation of the building in multiple
early images of the city. This means that the building’s current owners have the opportunity to return
to Oranjestad one of the town’s most important historic landmarks by preserving those portions of the
building that remain and recapturing the massing of the building’s original condition. This will mean
reconstructing the buildings gable end walls and the steeply pitched roof together with its dormers.
3) Integrate new and old.
I strongly recommend that the reconstruction/restoration of the building respect the building’s surviving
historic fabric (as argued in point 1) while simultaneously allowing the building to have a new and
contemporary life and use by avoiding an overly “Williamsburgified” restoration. It seems important
to recapture the building’s original massing by re-erecting the gable ends and raising the roof pitch to
run from end to end as it did in the eighteenth century. It seems equally important that the building’s
new gable walls respond sensitively to the surviving brick walls without being indistinguishable
from them. But beyond the massing, I recommend that all new construction utilize the newest and
best available materials so that the historic materials can be easily legible. For example, its seems to
be a better approach to have a strongly contemporary shop space in Zone I that allows the surviving
fabric to tell the story of the building’s history: some exposed components of the archeological pits
visible though a glass floor, for example. For those materials or architectural/engineering strategies
that are under the skin of the building (the new roof framing, for example) these should be of the best
and most current materials that best suit the values of preserving the historic fabric and suiting the
needs of the client. The final building should 1) highlight the surviving historic fabric, 2) recreate the
massing and envelope of the historic building as it stood in the eighteenth century and 3) meet the
needs of the client using current design strategies and building materials in all new construction.
In sum, I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to partner with SECAR and the owners on the
investigation of this very important building and it is my hope that the owners and the designers find
ways to preserve the important historic fabric in tact while transforming the building into a structure
that suits their needs. And, lastly, I am happy to be of service to SECAR or the owner for future
consultation should the project more forward with these recommendations in mind.
37
5. Warehouse Mazinga, an Archaeological Survey/Excavation

(Appendix 2, Appendix 3 (on CD))
Prior to the archaeological survey performed on the inside of ‘Mazinga Warehouse’, a modern
concrete slab (S1) was removed manually from the site. Prior to the excavation of the exterior part of
the building, the topsoil layer (S1000) was removed mechanically, using a small backhoe.
All features and contexts are brought together in two lists, which can be consulted in Appendix 2 (on
CD).
5.1. Zone I and Southern Exterior (See Appendix 2; 5.1.)
After the removal of the modern concrete slab (S1) in Zone I, numerous features were revealed,
giving insight into the building’s history. Two test pits were excavated in this zone (Test pit 1 and Test
pit 5), uncovering the site’s history prior to its function as the present (2008) standing structure.
The first important thing to be noted is the division of Zone I into three spaces. Features S8, S9 and
S27 are part of the base of an interior wall that used to divide the zone into an eastern and a western
area. Directly underneath the concrete slab, the floor level of the widest, western area consisted of
a partly worn down earthenware tile floor (S14). The tile floor was missing in the center of this area
(it is likely that the missing tiles were reused elsewhere in or around the building). The floor had a
mortar foundation (S16 and S18). Underneath this mortar layer, a hard brown clay layer (S15 and
S17) was detected. The clay layer was cut by an ash concentration in the middle of the room (S 40).
The northwestern threshold (W12), connecting Zone I to Zone II consisted of a part of the tile floor
(S14) and a brick step (S45). The doorway (W7) connecting Zone I to the southern exterior of the
building consisted of a threshold made out of brick (S44). A test pit (test pit 5) was excavated against
the border of the original western room, west to the foundation dividing the whole area into two and
along the southern interior wall.
38
During the excavation of test pit 5, a part of the mortar for the tile floor (S13) was found. Underneath
this layer is also a natural stone footer (S11), forming the base for the interior and southern wall.
Underneath this foundation S12, some ex situ irregular bricks were found. Very noteworthy features
in test pit 5 are feature numbers S48 and S47. S48 is a brick floor, which was found underneath the
footer level of the currently standing structure. S 47 is a posthole, which was found at a level between
S48 and S11. Both these features form the physical proof for the existence of an earlier structure on the
current building’s location. On a lower level the excavated layers become natural (S2030 and 2070).
S2030 is a clean sand layer in which the fragmentary remains of two large turtles were found.
To the east of features S8, S9 and S27, a narrow space was divided into two smaller rooms. A natural
stone hearth (S7) and a mortar and brick wall (S19) are part of the feature dividing the area into
two.
The original southeastern room had an earthenware tile floor (S2). At some point an poorly built
‘temporary fire pit’ was cut into the center of this floor (S3, S4, S5, S6). This hearth is clearly
secondary.
The northeastern room had been stripped from its original floor level and consisted of several relatively
young fill-layers on top of the in situ archaeology. A second test pit (test pit 1) was excavated here,
down to the subsoil. A crumbly mortar layer (S21) indicates the former presence of a tile floor. S20,
S23 and S26 are part of a natural stone footer, supporting the interior walls.
W14, the doorway connecting this narrow space of Zone I to Zone II consisted of a brick threshold
(S28 and S30), underlain by a mortar layer (S29).
During the excavation of test pit 1, 11 contexts were distinguished - Context numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,
9,12,13,14,15,18 and 19- (see profile drawing and context list, appendix 2). They all seem to be fill
layers. There are no indications in this test pit for the existence of an earlier structure at the examined
location.
After the removal of the topsoil around the building, a test pit (Isaac’s Pit) was excavated on the
southeast side of the building. The remaining southern part of the exterior was stripped and cleared,
39
exposing a small structure (Kelly’s Kitchen) to the southwest of the ‘Mazinga Warehouse’.
The most important feature being exposed during the excavation of Isaac’s pit was an approximately
50 cm wide and 75 cm deep well built footer for the buidling’s south wall (Cxt 30). The footer was
exposed but not excavated along the entire length of this wall. The footer was built directly on the
beach sand subsoil. Whether the foundation is continuous all around the exterior walls of the structure
hasn’t been established during the current research.
Another important exposed feature was a foundation-wall (Cxt 20) on the south side of Isaac’s pit. This
feature indicates the former presence of a structure, directly south of the Warehouse currently under
research. Whether both structures were once standing contemporaneously has not been established.
A more recent compacted walking surface (Cxt 17) was found on a higher level than both foundation
walls. The collapse of the building to the south of the Mazinga Warehouse occured relatively recently
as is evidenced by the resulting rubble underlying fill deposited since the mid twentieth century.
To the southwest of ‘Mazinga Warehouse’, on the opposite side of Cxt 30, “Kelly’s Kitchen” was
uncovered. “Kelly’s Kitchen” is a small structure measuring 350 cm by 285 cm. Two ash fills (Cxt
28, 29) were excavated on the interior of the structure, indicating that the structure had a practical
function, presumably that of a kitchen. The structure is most likely to be contemporary with the
‘Mazinga Warehouse’. It is also clearly visible in each 1828 painting of this area of the bay.
5.2. Zone II and III (See Appendix 2; 5.2.)
During the excavation of Zone II -the hallway connecting Zone I to zone III- an earthenware tile
floor was uncovered (S31). The floor was very fragmentarily preserved and seems to have been
crushed towards the center and the east of the hallway (S37). This may have been due to the concrete
and rubble installed on top of this flooring sometime in the 1950s. The doorway towards the west
(W15) consisted of a brick doorsill (S39). The threshold of the eastern door was preserved very
fragmentarily, but a few brick fragments (S38, S46) uncovered in this area indicate that the eastern
entrance must have had a similar appearance as the western one. Noteworthy is the row of bricks
40
(S90) between the southern edge of the tile floor and the southern wall of the alley, which indicates a
sense for detail during the construction of the floor. The tile floor was laid directly on top of a brown
gray silty clay layer (S33). Several footer stones were uncovered (S36 and S32), pointing towards the
presence of a natural stone footer supporting the central interior walls of the structure. The excavation
of the doorway connecting Zone II to Zone III exposed two large footers (S67 and S69) indicating
that this passageway was solidly built, perhaps for the transport of heavy goods.
A test pit was excavated in the eastern part of Zone II (Test pit 2). This excavation revealed the
presence of an older mortar and brick floor level (Cxt 38) underneath S33.
The unearthing of Zone III revealed the presence of a wooden floor in this area. Several fragments
of original wood (likely Lignum vitae or “ironwood”) were retrieved from the excavation (S58, S54,
S74, S59 and S80). The wooden planks placed upon these joists were oriented roughly east-west.
Against the northern and southern wall several niches were excavated at regular intervals (S63 and
S64). The brickwork forming these niches were not integral with the wall, which indicates that they
may have been secondary alterations to the room, and thus the wooden floor as well. Several rows
of footers created a solid foundation for the wooden floor.45 S51 is an east-west oriented row of
natural stones in the northern part of the zone. The presence of a single row of bricks (S61) on top
of the natural stones is interpreted as a technique to level the foundation for the placement of the
wooden floor. Another similar foundation row (S89) was observed in the southern area of Zone III.
It is probable that features S52, S53, and possibly S56 were also originally part of the east-western
oriented foundation for the wooden floor. Noteworthy here is that S53 (natural stone footer) cuts into
an earthenware tile (S49), indicating again that the wooden floor is a secondary alteration to this part
of the building. The wooden joists were laid upon north-south oriented foundation rows--features
S57, S81, S79, S78, S72, S73, S74, S75, S76, S77, S55, S68, S 66 and S 65 are all interpreted as so.
The clearest example consists of S72, S73, S74, S75 and S76. The scattered bricks around S80 form
a second good example. Two mortar concentrations (S70 and S 71) directly underneath the wood, but
45 At the time of Louis Nelson’s research Zone III had not been entirely unearthed.
Nelson interprets the northern row of footers as the foundation of a wall dividing the inte-
rior space into two area’s. However, further excavation brought more, similar features to
light throughout the entire area. Archaeologically these features are thus all interpreted as
being the foundation for a wooden floor.
41
above the natural stone footers indicate that a mortar slab completed the foundation for the wooden
floor. A final feature provinding evidence for the existence of a brick floor prior to the wooden floor
on this location is S 60, a brick feature cutting into S77, which is part of the foundation for the wooden
floor. This brick floor may have also been associated with a prior structure.
S50 and S62, row of natural stones to the east of Zone III are part of the interior footer supporting
the interior walls of this part of the structure. Underneath these, a sand and silt layer was uncovered
(S 2080) spread out across the whole area, and Zone II as well (S33).
A test pit was excavated in the center of Zone III (test pit 3), in which a hard packed layer (Cxt 22)
was found underneath S2080.
5.3. Exterior (See Appendix 2; 5.3.)
The southern exterior of ‘Mazinga Warehouse’ was previously treated under paragraph 5.1.
The eastern exterior of ‘Mazinga Warehouse’ consists of the partial remains of an earthenware tile
floor, laid on top of a lime mortar slab (S82). It is possible that the tiles used for this exterior flooring
were originally located on the inside of the building (Zone I) as the area of these remaining tiles and
those in Zone II are just about equal to the suface area of the missing tiles from Zone I. Towards the
north, a path was excavated consisting of large Bermuda stone blocks (S84), locally, towards the east,
a brick patch (S85) and natural stone blocks (S86). This path had been more recently covered by a
concrete slab (S84). S88 is a modern disturbance in this area.
Towards the west of the building (on the Bay), an path was built from Bermuda limestone blocks
(S83). A number of irregularly placed large natural stones (S86) were found underneath the beach
sand between S83 and the ocean. These stones were mortared together are likely the remains of a
seawall built to protect the building against the ocean. S87 is a modern disturbance.
42
5.4. Research questions
1. How many construction phases can be identified? Has the structure known a continuous use
since its erection or are there clear hiatuses in its history?
Although the two major components of the building (Zone I and III) might imply two distinct building
periods it is clear that the building footprint as we now see it is a single building period. The best and
near conclusive evidence to this effect is the consistency of the building’s English bond masonry.
The architectural and archaeological research could not give conclusive evidence about whether the
structure has known a continuous use since its erection, sometime in the 1730’s. However several
distinct phases could be identified through the archaeological record. There are some periods, which
do not have any archaeological evidence (late 19th century). There is however documentary evidence
providing information for these periods. Recent ownership documents go back as far as 1887 (cf.
Kadastrale gegevens St. Eustatius). The building’s last function has been that of a dive shop in the
beginning of the 1980’s.
2. Are there architectural/archaeological features giving an insight into the building’s past use?
Is there other evidence regarding the building’s past use?
The exact past use of the building hasn’t been established thus far. However, there are several
architectural and archaeological features giving some indications on the structure’s former function.
The archaeological research in Zone III has pointed out that a wooden floor once covered the ground
level. Although the usage of wood on the upper stories was common, previous research (cf. supra
2.3.2) has shown that it was seldom found at ground level. The usage of earthenware tiles was rare as
well. In this building, however, we see red earthenware tile floors in each zone. In Zone I and II, the
tile floor is the most recent of the historical alterations. In Zone I, the tile floor was preceded by a brick
floor - this floor, however, was found underneath the buildings footer stones and thus likely belongs
to an earlier structure. In Zone II the tile floor underlain by a mortar and brick floor. The wooden
floor in Zone III may have been preceded by a red tile floor (S 49), however, there is no conclusive
43
archaeological evidence for this. A brick floor, which may have been part of a previous structure, does
underlie the fill below the wooden floor. The use of expensive materials indicates a rather exclusive
or high status use for the building.
The eastern interior wall in Zone I is scarred from the demolition and removal of a substantial brick
hearth. The hearth was divided into two equal work areas by a brick wall connecting the eastern
interior wall to the interior dividing wall to the west of this area. Although the exact function of the
hearth could not be determined from archaeological evidence, some type of cooking operations must
have taken place in this area.
The very substantial exterior foundation clearly indicates the desire to have a support for a wall
weighing much more than what is currently present on the site.
One of the excavated features offers an indication on one of the structures secondary functions. In the
southeastern corner of Zone I, a poorly built firepit was unearthed. Several ceramic crucibles were
retrieved from the hearth. The Terminus Post Quem for this feature is 1787, which provides a tie
between the feature and the arrival of the French in 1791 and the demise of the Second Dutch West
Indies Company at approximately the same time.
The architectural research has pointed out that the structure is most likely to be the Dutch Gabled
building as seen on several of the early views of Oranjestad. Although this discovery does not provide
direct information about the structure’s former function an sich, it does offer the possibility to do very
targeted archival research.
3. How deep do the foundations/footers go?
The most informative foundation exposed during the excavation was an approximately 50 cm wide
(this is not the total width of the foundation) and 75 cm deep foundation-wall supporting the southern
exterior wall of the building and forming a very solid base for the Warehouse. The footer was seen
along the whole southern wall of the structure, and was built directly on the beach sand. Whether the
foundation is continuous all around the exterior walls of the structure hasn’t been established during
the current research. The very substantial footer, however, clearly indicates the desire to have support
44
for a wall weighing much more than what is currently present on the site.
The archaeological research pointed out that the interior walls were supported by irregular natural
stone footers, all at an approximate depth of 30 cm beneath floor level.
4. What does the stratification of the underlying soil consist of? Has the soil been elevated on
one or multiple occasions?
Three of the excavated test pits give an insight in the site’s stratification. Evaluating the interior
stratification of the building, we can conclude that the structure was erected on top of several fill
layers (being either layers of debris or deliberately introduced layers). The observed remains of a
brick floor and a posthole, being part of a structure preceding the currently standing building provide
evidence for an intensive site formation process before the erection of the warehouse (prior to 1730).
The observed stratification on the inside of the building moreover confirms this image. The natural
subsoil (which consists of rough sea sand) was observed on a depth of 170 cm beneath floor level.
The stratification on the exterior of the building as seen in the southern test pit reveals a site formation
that is partly similar to the interior stratification, however with several deviations. As noted before,
the firm, exterior foundation has been built on top of the sea sand, which was observed here at
a depth of 175 cm under ground level. The foundation of another structure was observed on the
south side of this exterior test pit. In between both structures the research has shown the presence of
multiple flood layers, through several alluvial deposits. This indicates that the space in between both
buildings must have been open and uncovered for a certain period of time. On top of those deposits a
walking level and several layers of debris were found. The upper 50 cm of soil underneath the original
modern ground level existed of modern fill around the whole building. Earlier research has pointed
out that several of the debris layers found on excavations in Lower Town are actually the result of
the collapsing of the cliff bordering the area and are thus not neccesarily contemporaneous with the
structures they are associated with. Based on a small-scale excavation such as the current research, no
substantial conclusions can be drawn in this regard. Fill layers, however are always to be approached
with a critical eye when it comes to interpreting a site.
45
5. Are there obvious alterations made to the building?
The building in its current state shows a large amount of alterations having been made to it within its
300 years of history.
The surviving masonry walls of the building are very thick, largely intact, and unaltered from their
original construction.
The original façade of the building, facing north, carries two arches filled with yellow brick. When the
modern concrete is completely removed from the interior of this structure, more confident conclusion
may be drawn regarding whether this infill is original to the structure.
The roof currently sheltering Zone III is old and very complex; it is however an eighteenth-century
roof from another building that has been retrofitted to this space. The existing hipped roof covering
Zone I dates back to the late 1970s.
The floor-covering throughout the entire building is secondary.
Both doorways in Zone II were originally open with no physical evidence of a gate or door. The
entrances as seen today are clearly infill dating to a later period.
Zone I was originally divided into three rooms. The walls dividing the area, however, was removed
at some point in history. The fireplace dividing the original eastern zone into two separate small
chambers is now only to be recognized by a wide horizontal scar on the center of the eastern wall.
In the southeastern corner of Zone I, the door and window have been switched. The east wall had a
window and the south wall had a door.
Parts of the bricks of the original walls were very likely used as spolia for the construction of new
buildings in Upper Town during the 19th century.
Parts of the red tile floor as found in Zone I and Zone II were possibly reused on the outside of the
building.
6. Are there indications that a completely separate building used to exist on the same location?
There are indeed some indications for the existence of a completely separate building existing on the
site’s location prior to the construction of the warehouse.

46
In test pit 5, Zone I, the remains of a brick floor were observed underneath the foundation footers
of one of the interior walls, alongside a posthole. These features are likely to belong to an older
structure. Due to the limited size of the test pit, however, no other conclusions can be drawn based
on the presence of these features. Similarly, the remains of a brick floor, possibly part of an earlier
structure, have been found underneath the wooden floor level in Zone III.
7. Are there obvious modern restorations visible?
Prior to the excavation of the interior of the warehouse, a modern concrete slab was removed from
the site. This modern alteration presumably dates back to the 1950’s as a Terminus Post Quem date is
provided by a 1944 Dutch Guilder cent excavated in the soil layer just below this level.
The roof sheltering Zone I dates back to the late 1970’s.
8. Is it possible to date the currently standing structure by studying the brickwork/mortar?
The building’s English bond masonry - alternating courses of stretchers and headers- consistently
used throughout the whole building, suggests that this structure dates from the eighteenth century,
and very possibly from the early eighteenth century. The shallow segmental arch over the door on the
southern elevation and the two ends of the barrel vault that defines Zone II are also masonry details
indicative of earlier eighteenth-century masonry detailing.
9. Which types of natural deterioration to the building can be distinguished? What is the
condition of the walls?
The sometimes violent Caribbean climate and the building’s nearness to the ocean caused relatively
little harm to the building. It is obvious that especially the brickwork on the ocean side has had
to stand firm against the impact of the climate and salt water. However, the masonry walls are in
excellent condition.
47
10. Is the structure as a whole to be considered contemporary? If not, which building is younger
than the other?
The structure is to be considered contemporary as a whole.
11. Do the archaeological remains permit to divide the building’s history into separate phases?
Based upon the physical archaeological evidence the buildings history can be divided into 6 phases:
- Phase 1, the construction of the building as a whole.
- Phase 2, renovation, installing new floors in the building.
- Phase 3, demolition of the interior walls in Zone I.
- Phase 4, creation of the firepit in the southeastern corner of Zone I.
- Phase 5, demolition of Dutch Gables and replacement by a “new” old roof in the later
19th century.
- Phase 6, introduction of modern fill and modern concrete layer throughout the
building.
6. Conclusions
The “Mazinga” Warehouse project has proven to be very informative, giving a range of new insights
concerning the structure and the central Lower Town area. The identification of the structure as
being the Dutch Gabled building, known from several early artworks, makes it an outstanding site
with universal cultural value and a high historical significance. The archaeological and architectural
research can form the basis for further archival and historical research.
Archaeologically six phases can be recognized in the building’s history. Prior to that there is also an
older structure at the given location. Earlier excavations in the harbor area have exposed successive
levels of construction before. Compaed to those excavations, current research has pointed out that there
48
is no recognizable alignment between two or more separate present buildings at the same location.
The archaeological and architectural survey date the construction of the building back to the early
eighteenth century. Earlier archaeological research has pointed out that most warehouse ruins in
Lower Town date back to the second half of the eighteenth century, making ‘Mazinga Warehouse’ an
exceptional standing structure in that regard as well.
Further details regarding the specifics of archaeological evidence recovered during this
project will be provided in an upcoming addendum to this report.
49
APPENDIX 1-HABS DRAWINGS

3.2.2. The Building’s Exterior
3.2.2.1. Northern wall
3.2.2.2. Eastern wall
3.2.2.3. Southern wall
3.2.2.4. Western wall
3.2.3. The Building’s Interior
3.2.3.1. Zone I
3.2.3.2. Zone II
3.2.3.2.1. Arched doorways
3.2.3.3. Zone III
3.2.3.3.5. Roof
50
51
SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga
3.2.2.1. Exterior, Northern Wall
52
The Northern exterior wall of the researched structure possesses two windows symmetrically flanking a central doorway. These three elements are all
arched. The arches appear to be original features. At some point, however they were modified and filled up with IJselsteen, creating their current form.
The north wall is the original formal facade of the building.
3.2.2.2. Exterior, Eastern Facade
The eastern facade of Warehouse Mazinga is the facade facing the street. As seen on the drawing, zone I (to the left) is separated of zone III (to the
right) by an archway (zone II) . The entire building, as we see it today, was constructed during a single building period.
53
Detail brickwork Detail brickwork
outside wall zone I outside wall zone III
Arch above door zone II
Ventilation window and

window shutters zone I
3.2.2.3. Exterior, Southern Facade
0 1 meter
54
Typical features of the southern exterior wall of Mazinga Warehouse are the arched doorway, the ventilation hole to the right of the door, and the
window to the right, which is a modified door. At the bottom here we see an opening, which probably provided air for a secondary improvised
hearth on the inside of the building.
View of the Detail of arched
Southern facade, doorway
from the east
3.2.2.4. Exterior, Western Facade
0 1 meter
55
Detail of the arch above the central door
Detail of fishermen's
window. with
slopedconcrete addition to
allow fishermen’s nets to
be pulled into Zone III with
The western facade of the structure faces the ocean and has suffered some greater ease.
damage from attacks by nature. One can see the division between the two major
zones (I&III), and an archway in the middle. The sloping concrete on the zone III
windows indicate the more recent use of the building as a fisherman's warehouse.
3.2.3.1.1. Zone I, Interior, Northern Detail of the woodwork,
0 1 meter (lintle of the window to
the right of the doorway)
56
The northern interior wall of Zone I carries a couple important features. The remains of an embedded wall indicate that Zone I used to consist of two
sections; a narrow space to the east -with a northern entrance-, and a large open space to the west. Two large windows sandwiching a wide doorway,
to the north of the large open chamber, indicates that this passage used to be the primary entrance into this room. The woodwork may all be original.
Detail of the brickwork. For the
construction of this building,
mainly red brick was used.
Some restorations were done
Detail of the embedded wall using the Dutch yellow
IJselsteen.
3.2.3.1.3. Zone I, Interior, Southern Wall
0 1 meter
57
The southern wall of Zone I, contains several distinctive features, regarding the building's construction history, and its function. From left to right: The
beamed window is a modified door. The outline of the original doorway is very clear., and had its base on an original tile floor level , visible in the
southeastern corner of the building. Next to the door, a ventilation hole, which is related to the oven that used to divide the eastern part of Zone I into
two small chambers. To the right of the ventilation window, the remains of the embedded wall that used to devide the whole area into two spaces. In
the center of the wall, a low door that has been modified at some point, alligned by an equally sized window to the west. The original door was longer,
having its base on the original tile floor level (this floor slopes down towards the east) , visible in the western part of Zone I.
Detail of the
embedded wall
Detail of the brickwork
3.2.3.1.2. Zone I, Interior, Eastern wall
0 1 meter
The Eastern interior wall of zone I carries two distinctive features. On the one hand there is a ventilation hole next
to the northern window, which linked to the second distinctive feature, namely the scar and pockets of a former
hearth area. The hearth divided the space into two small chambers. A floor present in the southeast of Zone I,
positioned 35 cm under the doorlevel, indicates that the doorway to the right of the drawing is a more recent
modification having been converted from a doorway.
Detail of ventilation window
Detail of pocket
for girt
Detail scar and pocket of former oven
58
3.2.3.1.4. Zone I, Interior, Western Wall
0 1 meter
The western interior wall of zone I has a very basic layout. Two same sized windows in the center of the wall
provide an ocean view from the western chamber of zone I.
Detail of the brickwork
59
3.2.3.2.3. Zone II, Interior, northern wall
0 1 meter
The door connecting the alleyway to Zone III is at the west end of the northern wall in Zone II.
3.2.3.2.2. Zone II, Interior, Southern Wall
0 1 meter
The southern interior wall of Zone II connects the passageway with Zone I. The eastern doorway leads to
the eastern smaller chamber. Two windows flanking a central door, forming the main entrance into the
larger chamber of Zone I.
3.2.3.2.1. Zone II, Arched doorways
0 1 meter
The doorway at the western

end of Zone II is a more
recent alteration to the
building. The other is orginal
to the structure. Both
doorways were originally
open with no physical
evidence of a gate or a door.
Western arched doorway Eastern arched doorway
60
3.2.3.3.1. Zone III, Northern wall
0 1 meter
61
The northern wall of Zone III has been covered with a layer of concrete in more recent times. The northern doorway at the center of this wall was the
primary entrance to the building Iphoto below right). The doorway is also flanked by two symmetrically placed windows. Joist holes were built along the
base of this wall using a variety of bricks indicating that the wooden floor that once lay here was not original to the structure (photo below left).
3.2.2.3.3.Zone III, Interior, Southern Wall
0 1 meter
62
The interior walls of zone III have all been covered with a layer of concrete in recent times. However, some impotant features are visible in this drawing, giving an
insight in the buildings former organisation. A row of niches -of which only two are visible on this drawing-, form a stable foundation for a wooden floor that used
to cover zone III's ground level. To the west there is a door conecting zone III to the archway (see picture). Large natural stones in the middle of the doorway form
the foundation for the southern wall and the former wooden floor.
3.2.3.3.2. Zone III, Interior, Eastern Wall
0 1 meter
The eastern wall of Zone III has been covered with a layer of concrete in recent times, and has a wide door opening at its
northern most edge and another narrower door further south.
3.2.3.3.4. Zone III, Interior, Western Wall
0 1 meter
The western wall of Zone III has been covered with a concrete layer in recent times. Two symmetrically placed
windows look out over the Caribbean Sea.
63
3.2.3.3.5. Zone III, roof
0 1 meter
Western Truss drawn from the east Eastern Truss drawn from the west
NORTH
64
Eastern Truss drawn from the south
Western Truss drawn from the south
APPENDIX 2 – ARCHAEOLOGICAL DRAWINGS

SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga Testpit 1:
5.1. Zone 1, Southern exterior Cxt 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 9, 12,
0 1 meter
13, 14, 15,
18, 19
W4 W5
S20 S7
S2
S28 Testpit 1
S29 S24 S19 S4
W14 S6
S5 W6
S30 S25 S21
Testpit
S26 S23
Isaac's Pit; Cxt 10, 11, 16,
S27 S8 S9 S8 17, 20, 21, 27, 30, 31, 32,
S2030 S13 S11 33, 34, 35, 37
S12 S10
Testpit 5 S43
S15 S48 S42 S44
W13 S47
S40
W7
S16 S18 Kelly's Kitchen; Cxt 28, 29

S45
W12
W8
W11 S14
W10 W9
Isaac's pit, Eastern profile
Testpit 1, Northern profile

Modern fill and debris
Foundation
cxt30
Alluvial deposit
CCharcoal
Charcoal Cxt27
Foundation
Fill and debris layers. Packed Clay Surface

Bottom layer, natural Cxt 35
sand
Cxt 37
0 1 meter
0 1 meter
65
SE_343_Warehouse_Mazinga Testpit 4
5.2. Zone II and III
0 1 meter
Testpit 2: Cxt 32, 33, 34, 36, 38
Testpit 3: Cxt 22, 23
Testpit 4: Cxt 8, 24, 25, 26
S63 and S64 are the W1 W2 S38 W3
feature numbers for S62 S50 S37
the niches (S63) and S63 S46
the intervals (S64) S32
Testpit2
between them.
S64 S51 W14
S33
W20 S2080 S36
S52 S36
S89
Testpit 3 S34
S53 S63
S49 S64
W13
S54
W19
S66 S65 S56 S58 S35
S61
S72 S75 S57 S45
S74
S73 S76 S59 S33
S77
S80 S55
W18 S70 S71 S60 S68
S67 W11
S79 S78 S31
W21 S90
S69
S81
W17 W16
S39 W15
Zone II, groundplan of testpit

Mortar, brick and tile
fragments
0 1 meter
66
S82 SE_343_Mazinga_Warehouse
S84
?5.3. Outside
0 1 meter
S85
S84
S86
S88
S83
S84
S87
67
Termini Post Quem
Context TPQ Artifact

1b 1616 Porcelain
2b 1750 Creamware
3b 1750 Creamware
4b 1675 Staffordshire
5b 1780 Pearlware
6b 1780 Pearlware
7b 1720 Stoneware/ White Salt Glazed

8b N/A
9b 1765 Stoneware/ Westerwald
10b 1799 Annular Ware/ Mocha
11b 1799 Annular Ware/ Mocha
13b 1725 Astburry Ware
14b 1750 Creamware

15b 1740 Faience
16b 1800 Lusterware
17b 1800 Mocha Ware Fire Speckled
18b 1780 Pearlware
20b-21b 1795 Pearlware/ Polychrome
21b 1785 Pearlware/ Shell Edged

22 1780 Pearlware
22b 1750 Creamware
24 1780 Pearlware
24b 1780 Pearlware
25b 1550 Tin Enamel Ware

30b 1780 Pearlware
31b 1775 Stoneware/ American
32b 1780 Pearlware
35b (Bottom Isaac’s pit) 1760 Annular Ware/ Marbled
36b N/A
37b (Bottom Isaac’s pit) 1675 Staffordshire combslip

40 N/A
47 (Posthole) 1550 Tin Enamel Ware
2030 1675 Staffordshire
2060 1750 Creamware
2070 1780 Pearlware
Hearth 1787 Pearlware/ Transfer Printed
68
Dates on the pipes
CXT/TRACE FIND# Merken Duco # Range

CXT#17b 69, 70, 82 L gekroond 304 1726-1940
TRACE#12 46, 129 27 gekroond 650 1731-1897
44 gekroond 667b 1727-1846
82 gekroond 710 1734-1940
HKH 517 1727-1846
meermin 104a 1665/1685-1846
drie lelies 5 1705-1846

drie lelies 5 1705-1846
drie potjes 158 1725-1774/1782
TRACE#10 639 16 gekroond 1719-1873
CXT#6 121, 125 Wapen van Haarlem 122 1675-1846
D gekroond (oorspronkelijk ongekroond) 297 1682-1897
CXT#36 Atlas 95 1710/1715-1753
or
Fortuyn, later versie 105b 1675-1897
LD gekroond (Lammert Donker) gpnl 1739-1759
CXT#35 dubbel kruis 277 1695/1700-1851
hoed gekroond 228 1710/1725-1798
M gekroond 305 1657-1940
CXT#31 181, 180 A gekroond 295 1714-1842/1843
CXT#18 16 gekroond 639 1719-1873

CXT#27 157 47 gekroond 670 1733-1825
CXT/TR# Earliest Date

TR#10 1719
TR#12 1665
CXT#6 1675
CXT#17b 1726
CXT#18 1719
CXT#27 1733
CXT#31 1714
CXT#35 1695
CXT#36 1675/1710
69
Maker’s marks on the heel of kaolin clay pipes are helpful in dating archaeological contexts.
Nineteen different marks were recovered at SE 343. One must consider that some marks
were used for many years and thus are not to be used for anything other than a TPQ. These
were identified using volumes published and written by D. Duco.
70
(members of the British Royal

Family and foreign monarchs).
The Order's primary emblem is a

garter bearing the motto "Honi soit
qui mal y pense" (which means
"Shame on him who thinks ill of
it") in gold letters. The Garter is an
actual accessory worn by the
members of the Order during
ceremonial occasions. The emblem
can also be found on a series of
historical objects, such as clay
pipes. The clay pipe carying the
emblem found in a modern debris
layer in zone III was manufactored
in Gouda by Jan Danens on the
occasion of the marriage between
King Willem V of Oranje and
Frederica Sophia Wilhelmina in
1776. (D.H. Duco (1987) De
Nederlandse kleipijp, Handboek
voor dateren en determineren,
Leiden, p.51)
71
North (top) and South (bottom) isometric elevations of the proposed reconstruction of the
Mazinga Warehouse.
72
North line elevation of the proposed reconstruction of the Mazinga Warehouse. There is
plenty of room in the upper floors for various uses.
73
East elevation of the proposed reconstruction of the Mazinga Warehouse.
74
West elevation of the proposed reconstruction of the Mazinga Warehouse.
75
Northeast and southwest isometric elevations of the proposed reconstruction of the Mazinga
Warehouse.
76
Plan of the proposed reconstruction of the Mazinga Warehouse.
77

Mazingareport SMLST

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Mazingareport SMLST

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Mazinga Warehouse:

helped us along the way--including the family from France!

-the first of its kind on Statia moves towards completion.

2.3. Lower Town, past research14

2.3.1. Lower Town, historical sources14

2.3.2. Lower Town, archaeological research18

2.3.3. Mazinga Warehouse, known data20

3. HABS Report (Drawings in Appendix 1)24

4. Mazinga Warehouse, Historical Architectural Survey29

5. Warehouse Mazinga, an Archaeological Survey/Excavation38

(Appendix 2, Appendix 3 (on CD))38

APPENDIX 1-HABS DRAWINGS  50

APPENDIX 2 – ARCHAEOLOGICAL DRAWINGS  65

Site Name: “Mazinga” Warehouse, Waterfront, Lower Town, St. Eustatius

Site Number: SE 343

Title: “Mazinga” Warehouse, an Archaeological Excavation and an Architectural Survey

at the waterfront, S.E.C.A.R report 001-2008

Year of research & publication: 2008

Authorized Senior Archaeologist (ASA): Dr. R.G. Gilmore III

Executive Archaeological Organization: SECAR, St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological

Contact data: Rosemary Laan

St. Eustatius EUX

Contact data: #4 Pleasures Road

St. Eustatius EUX

St. Eustatius EUX

St. Eustatius EUX

1.1. Site Description

Site name: “Mazinga” Warehouse, Waterfront, Lower Town, St. Eustatius

Site number: SE 343

Current use: vacant

Planned developing: Reconstruction, restoration

Research Area: Approximately 9.89 by 14.65 meters / 32.45 by 48 feet

Site type: Standing structure

Geographical characteristics: the subsoil consists of sand.

Archaeological expectation: Post-Medieval, warehouse/other use, architectural history.

1.2. Reason for Research

of the rich Colonial past of St. Eustatius.

1.3. Research Goal

understanding of St. Eustatius’ past.

communicate the results of this research to the local people.

spectrum of available data to tell the building’s history.

St. Eustatius’ past.

So (Intern), D. Dinardo (Intern), E. Ellis (Volunteer), T. Cooper (Volunteer), K. Gibbons (Volunteer),

K. Guest (Volunteer), J. Haggy (Volunteer), I. Hock (Volunteer), S. Jastrzebska (Volunteer), A.

Kreitzer (Volunteer), J. Rattcliff (Volunteer), K. Riemersma (Volunteer), G. Ricci (Volunteer), R.

Sajor (Volunteer), M. Shugar (Volunteer), V. Soady (Volunteer), K. Paranjape (Volunteer), A.

2.1. Historical context

settlement of the Dutch in 1636.

1760s. (Original held by the Mariner’s Museum, Newport News Virginia).

was a manifest consequence.

York, Charleston, London and Bordeaux behind.

to obtain and preserve a stable position within the modern world.14

2.2. Environmental context

place on Gallows Bay and Oranje Bay.

15 Tuchman (1988), p. 22.

2.3. Lower Town, past research

2.3.1. Lower Town, historical sources

of such sources, regarding the commercial heart of the island.

Droom, Opstellen over Bouwkunst en Monumentenzorg, Zutphen, p. 137-146.

available past sources.

- In 1760 Commander De Windt informed the Heren X about English piracy:

Lower Town as following:

17 Attema (1976): p. 37.

2.3. Lower Town, past research14

2.3.1. Lower Town, historical sources14

2.3.2. Lower Town, archaeological research18

2.3.3. Mazinga Warehouse, known data20

3. HABS Report (Drawings in Appendix 1)24

4. Mazinga Warehouse, Historical Architectural Survey29

5. Warehouse Mazinga, an Archaeological Survey/Excavation38

(Appendix 2, Appendix 3 (on CD))38

APPENDIX 1-HABS DRAWINGS 50

APPENDIX 2 – ARCHAEOLOGICAL DRAWINGS 65