Dutch Forts in Asia

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/291896905
Dutch forts of seventeenth century Ceylon and Mauritius: An historical

archaeological perspective
Article · January 2010
CITATIONS READS
0 884
2 authors, including:
Pieter M. Floore
Hollandia archeologen, Zaandyk, The Netherlands
20 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Historical archaeology, Arctic exploration View project
Historical archaeology, Dutch East India Company View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Pieter M. Floore on 08 November 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

First Forts
Klingelhover_Book 1.indb i 23-7-2010 8:43:18

History of Warfare
Editors
Kelly DeVries
Loyola College, Maryland
John France
University of Wales, Swansea
Michael S. Neiberg
University of Southern Mississippi
Frederick Schneid
High Point University, North Carolina
VOLUME 60
Klingelhover_Book 1.indb ii 23-7-2010 8:43:20

First Forts
Essays on the Archaeology
of Proto-colonial Fortifications
Edited by
Eric Klingelhofer
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2010
Klingelhover_Book 1.indb iii 23-7-2010 8:43:20

Cover illustration: Bird’s-eye view of French fort, Fort Caroline, at the mouth of the River
of May (St. John’s) in Florida. Engraving by Theodor de Bry after watercolor by Jacques Le
Moyne. With kind permission of the Library of Congress Rare Book and Special Collections
Division, Washington.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
ISSN 1385-7827
ISBN 978 90 04 18754 2
Copyright 2010 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
Klingelhover_Book 1.indb iv 23-7-2010 8:43:20

contents v
CONTENTS
List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

List of Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Aurelian Wall in Rome: Renaissance Fortification in

Theory and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
David G. Orr
Strategies of Adjustment: Spanish Defense of The

Circum-Caribbean Colonies, 1493–1600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Kathleen Deagan
A Survey of French Fortifications in The New World,

1530–1650 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Steven R. Pendery
Tudor Overseas Fortifications: A Review and Typology . . . . . . 65

Eric Klingelhofer
Nansemond Fort and Virginia Palisade Fortifications . . . . . . . 85

Nicholas M. Luccketti
Bermuda’s First Forts, 1612–1622 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Edward Cecil Harris
‘Within Musquett Shott of Black Rock’ – Johnson’s Fort

and The Early Defenses of Nevis, West Indies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Roger Leech
Dutch Colonial Forts in New Netherland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Paul R. Huey
Klingelhover_Book 1.indb v 23-7-2010 8:43:20

vi contents
The ‘Old Netherlands Style’ and Seventeenth-Century

Dutch Fortifications of The Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Jay B. Haviser
High Versus Low: Portuguese and Dutch Fortification Tra-

ditions Meet in Colonial Brazil (1500–1654) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Oscar F. Hefting
Early Colonial Trade Posts and Forts of West Africa . . . . . . . . 209

Christopher R. Decorse
Dutch Forts of Seventeenth Century Ceylon and Mauritius:

An Historical Archaeological Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Ranjith Jayasena and Pieter Floore
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Klingelhover_Book 1.indb vi 23-7-2010 8:43:20

list of illustrations vii
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Kathleen Deagan, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of

Florida
Christopher R. DeCorse, Syracuse University
Pieter Floore, City of Amsterdam, Office for Monuments and Archae-

ology, Hollandia Archeologen
Edward Cecil Harris, National Museum of Bermuda
Jay B. Haviser, Sint Maarten Archaeological Center
Oscar F. Hefting, New Holland Foundation
Paul R. Huey, New York State Department of Natural Resources
Ranjith Jayasena, City of Amsterdam, Office for Monuments and

Archaeology, Hollandia Archeologen
Eric Klingelhofer, Mercer University
Roger Leech, University of Southampton
Nicholas M. Luccketti, James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc.
David G. Orr, Temple University
Steven R. Pendery, U.S. National Park Service
Klingelhover_Book 1.indb vii 23-7-2010 8:43:20

viii list of illustrations
Klingelhover_Book 1.indb viii 23-7-2010 8:43:20

list of illustrations ix
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Orr
1.1 The Aurelian Wall between Porta Appia and Porta
Ardeatina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2 The Aurelian Wall at Porta Latina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 The Bastione di Sangallo, built by Antonio da Sangallo
the Younger, in 1534, under Pope Paul III . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.4 The Map Drawn by Mario Cartario in 1576 (detail)
showing three towers of the Aurelian Wall preserved
behind the Bastione di Sangallo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.5 Drawing by Sangallo, with the measurements of the
towers and the intervening curtains of the wall and the
opening for the Porta Ardeatina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Deagan
2.1 Principal fifteenth and sixteenth century Spanish forti-
fications in the circum-Caribbean region, and the home-
ward-bound route of the treasure fleets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2 Archaeological basemap of La Isabela, showing principal
element of fortification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3 The remains of the fort at Concepción de la Vega,
Dominican Republic (constructed ca. 1512) . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.4 Architectural drawing of the fort at Concepción de la
Vega prepared by Herschel Shepard, FAIA . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.5 Sixteenth century forts of Spanish Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.6 Interpretive archaeological basemap of Ft. San Felipe,
Santa Elena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Pendery
3.1 Early Acadian forts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2 Early French forts in Brazil and French Guiana . . . . . . . . 46
3.3 Early French forts in Florida and the Caribbean . . . . . . . . 48
3.4 Fort Caroline by De Brys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.5 St. Croix Island, Maine from Champlain’s Les Voyages,
1613 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.6 Quebec habitation from Champlain’s Les Voyages, 1613 56
Klingelhover_Book 1.indb ix 23-7-2010 8:43:20

x list of illustrations
Klingelhofer
4.1 Pendennis Castle, Cornwall: Henrician masonry artillery
fort displaying three tiers of gunports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.2 Map of Fort Protector, erected 1548 (later Maryborough
Fort), County Laois, Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.3 Fortifications designs by Paul Ive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.4 The earthwork fort at Monaghan erected July 1602 . . . . . 73
4.5 Watercolor drawing by John White of Ralph Lane’s for-
tification of Spanish salt mounds at Cape Rojo, Puerto
Rico, 1585 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.6 Excavation plan of the ‘Fort Raleigh’ earthworks . . . . . . . 75
4.7 Watercolor drawing by John White of the fortified camp
built by Sir Richard Grenville and Captain Ralf Lane at
Mosquito Bay, Puerto Rico, 1585 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Luckketti
5.1 Southeastern Virginia showing locations of early seven-
teenth-century sites that had fortifications or enclosures 86
5.2 Plan of major archaeological features at Nansemond
Fort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.3 Archaeological footprint of Nansemond Fort’s northeast
corner bastion, facing northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.4 Rendering of Nansemond Fort based on archaeological
evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.5 Plan of major archaeological features at Wolstenholme
Towne fort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.6 Plan of major archaeological features at fortified site at
Flowerdew Hundred. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5.7 Plan of hornwork designed by Nicolas Martiau at his set-
tlement that preceded the establishment of Yorktown . . . 103
Harris
6.1 Map indicating the first ten masonry forts at Bermuda 106
6.2 The defenses of Bermuda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6.3 The King’s Castle from the air in 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
6.4 2001 aerial view of Smith’s Fort. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.5 The masonry foundation courses, in soft Bermuda lime-
stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.6 Southampton Fort (1620–1621) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6.7 The Devonshire Redoubt of 1621 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Klingelhover_Book 1.indb x 23-7-2010 8:43:21

list of illustrations xi
Leech
7.1 The islands of the Eastern Caribbean, showing the loca-
tion of Nevis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.2a Johnson’s Fort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.2b Johnson’s Fort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
7.3 The plans submitted by Captain John Johnson 1705 . . . . 131
7.4 The uncompleted fortifications on Saddle Hill . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.5 French map of Nevis, c.1758 by Bellin, probably a copy of
Beauvilliers 1703 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
7.6 Map of the defences of Barbados . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Huey
8.1 The crop outline of the Franse Schans, built in 1627 by
Prince Frederik Hendrik during the siege of Groenlo in
the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
8.2 The Vingboons map of 1639 showing Fort Nassau and
Fort Orange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
8.3 Detail from the Rensselaerswyck map of 1630 showing
Fort Orange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
8.4 Detail of the Visscher view of Nieuw Amsterdam, ca.1650,
showing the Fort Amsterdam with the church built
within it in 1642 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
8.5 Detail of Fort Amsterdam from the Castello plan of New
Amsterdam, 1660 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
8.6 The Lindstrom drawing of Fort Casimir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
8.7 Detail from a Dutch map of the 1630s showing Fort
Oplandt at Swanendael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Haviser
9.1 Dutch occupation and fortification areas of the circum-
Caribbean in the seventeenth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
9.2 Dutch ‘Fluyt’ (Vliegboot) trading ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
9.3 Early European fortification bastion designs . . . . . . . . . . . 173
9.4 Construction field methods of ‘Old Netherlands Style’
fortifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
9.5 1634 drawing of Dutch extensions for the (later called)
Fort Amsterdam, Sint Maarten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
9.6 Early 1634 plan for a 5-point fort at the Punt, to be later
called Fort Amsterdam, Curaçao. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
9.7 Fort Amsterdam (4-point) and Walled City at the Punt,
Curaçao . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Klingelhover_Book 1.indb xi 23-7-2010 8:43:21

xii list of illustrations
Hefting
10.1. Dutch Brazil in 1643 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
10.2. The Castelo de São Jorge towers over Lisbon, Portugal 194
10.3. The conquest of the high-lying capital of Portuguese
Brazil São Salvador by the Dutch fleet under Admiral
Jacob Willekes in 1624 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
10.4. Recife, the low-lying capital of Dutch Brazil, seen from
Olinda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
10.5. In Paraíba, the gate of Fort Margaretha (1634), con-
structed from small Dutch yellow bricks, was built on the
waterfront . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
10.6. The reconstruction of the ramparts and gate of the low-
lying Fortess Bourtange in the Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
DeCorse
11.1 A map showing Portuguese exploration in Africa . . . . . . 211
11.2 Elmina Castle (São Jorge da Mina) in coastal Ghana as it
appears today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
11.3 The northeastern corner of Elmina Castle, Ghana as
viewed from the exterior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
11.4 São Sebastião (Fort Saint Sebastian) at Shama. . . . . . . . . . 225
11.5 An eighteenth century illustration of Fort Nassau, Mori 228
11.6 Plan of Fort Nassau, Mori in coastal Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Jayasena and Floore

12.1 VOC settlements in the Indian Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
12.2 Fort Bourtange, ca. 1650, a good example of the Old
Netherlands System of fortification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
12.3 Stone-built Galle fort in Sri Lanka, with its main rampart
and fausse braye (lower breastwork), is a classical exam-
ple of the Old Netherlands System of fortification
exported to Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
12.4 Base types of Dutch forts in Sri Lanka and their distribu-
tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
12.5 Site plan of VOC-fort Katuwana, the fort’s location in
the seventeenth-century Galle Commandement, and the
comparable ground plan of the Portuguese forts of
Sofragam and Panadura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
12.6 Dutch settlements on Mauritius, 1598–1710 . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Klingelhover_Book 1.indb xii 23-7-2010 8:43:21

preface xiii
PREFACE
After some years of learning and practicing medieval archaeology in

Europe, I served in the 1970s as Colonial Williamsburg field archaeol-
ogist for Ivor Nöel Hume’s excavations of the early seventeenth-
century Martin’s Hundred settlement in Virginia. There, I found our
greatest problem to be the lack of context and comparative prove-
nance for what we unearthed. Fortunately, we had the benefit of Nöel’s
expertise in post-medieval artifacts of London and his large network
of knowlegable museum curators and antique dealers, but even so,
some items took years to be securely identified. In the 1980s I began
a program of archaeological research on Elizabethan colonization in
Ireland, which I thought a likely transition between the evolution of
late medieval villages into more structured Tudor manorial villages
and England’s first permanent transatlantic settlements in Tidewater
Virginia. Archaeological research into colonization had then been
undertaken only in Northern Ireland, not in the Republic. Again par-
allels and comparisons were hard to find, and I soon learned that all
investigators of the sixteenth-century overseas settlements faced the
same dilemma. As a result, in the 1990s I founded a newsletter, Proto-
Colonial Research, in which historical and archaeological information
could be exchanged. A new, US-based organization was formed shortly
afterwards: Forum for European Expansion and Global Interaction,
and Proto-Colonial Research became the newsletter for FEEGI.
Around 2000, my fieldwork completed, I began to present my find-
ings on the archaeology of Elizabethan colonization in Ireland, which
I compared to previous English expansion, to contemporary conflicts,
and to later colonies across the Atlantic. By this time I was also engaged
in projects on Caribbean islands that had received sixteenth- and early
seventeenth-century colonizing ventures from several European
countries, and the evidence for most of these remained unsought,
unexplored, and unprotected. The need for a multi-cultural and cross-
national approach to study the Proto-Colonial Period proved even
greater in the competitive tropics than in more temperate lands. All
topics would benefit from a comparative, international approach, but
it seems particularly necessary to understand the key element of initial
European expansion: how the first outposts were defended and how
colonial conditions – especially European and indigenous threats – led
Klingelhover_Book 1.indb xiii 23-7-2010 8:43:21

xiv preface
to modifications and even new types of fortifications. This volume is

a response to the approach made to me by Julian Diehl of Brill
Academic Press. Our goal was to combine unpublished material with
developed interpretations of previous work. The goal of providing a
global perspective was offset by the need to give attention to the areas
of the most active archaeological research. We sought to treat all the
major European proto-colonial powers: Spain, France, England, the
Netherlands, and Portugal (the last not having a chapter of its own,
but being covered in several others). Authors were asked to provide a
survey of early fortifications either as the focus of a chapter or in the
context of a type site or group. Making this information available, and
citing references where possible, is in itself an important contribution
to scholarship. So too are the ideas drawn from research, e.g., the jux-
taposed Portuguese and Dutch fortification systems in Brazil and
Ceylon, the stages of Spanish Caribbean defenses, and the evolution
of English fortification theory and practice, with a reversion to Tudor
types in Bermuda and the appearance of palisaded homesteads in
Virginia.
The archaeologists who present their findings here are the experts,
the leading practitioners in their fields, reporting on the current state
of research and the physical conditions of proto-colonial sites. Some,
Deagan, Klingelhofer, Luckketti, and Huey, have thirty years expe-
rience on the sites they discuss here. Others, Leech, DeCorse, Hefting,
and Jayasena and Flore, have initiated pioneering projects in proto-
colonial archaeology with a strongly global perspective. Still others,
Pendery, Harris, Haviser, and Orr, have wide-ranging archaeological
interests but bring a familiarity with specific early fortifications to
make important contributions to this volume. I have been delighted
by the enthusiasm of all the contributors for this project, and I am
grateful for their generous responses to limitations on text and illus-
trations and to my editorial demands.
After this book had been assembled, its chapters, with a few excep-
tions, were presented in summary form by their authors in a dedicated
session of the Society for Historical Archaeology 2010 conference.
David Orr and Stephen Pendery also served as discussants for the ses-
sion, and their valuable reflections can be only briefly mentioned in
the Introduction that follows. Both public responses and exchanges
among the contributors, many of whom had not met before, led to
additional considerations of proto-colonial fortification as a topic.
That forum was, I believe, just the beginning of a permanent inter-
change of scholarship.
Klingelhover_Book 1.indb xiv 23-7-2010 8:43:21

introduction 1
INTRODUCTION
Cross-disciplinary and cross-national studies are by definition sec-

ondary and peripheral to traditional historical and cultural research.
This is especially true for historical archaeology, which examines the
material cultures of early modern societies overwhelmingly European
or European in origin. These societies typically developed into nation-
states and competitively engaged in world trade and overseas territo-
rial acquisition. The physical remains of the earliest phase of European
expansion, the ‘Proto-Colonial Period’, now lie scattered among scores
of independent states across the globe. Whilst historical research on the
earliest European colonial efforts has traditionally been undertaken by
the original colonizing nations, nearly all archaeological fieldwork is
carried out by institutions in the former colonies, and their sites are
viewed as elements of individual national heritage and patrimony.
Europeans defended their overseas possessions or soon lost them,
yet the context for individual fort construction and maintenance in
the proto-colonial period was both cultural and institutional. The cul-
tural context comprised the education and artistic sensibility that
builder/engineer brought to the colony. It formed the mental image
that the builder imposed upon the site and helped determine the
choice of site, the fort’s design, and the materials used. External factors
determined the available natural resources, the nature of the building
force, and the number and quality of the fort’s defenders. In the Proto-
Colonial Fortifications session at the 2010 Society for Historical
Archaeology meeting, David Orr considered how such forts embodied
Renaissance values to reinforce or justify European expansion. We
must acknowledge the supremacy of Italian Renaissance theory and
the structural forms and spatial relationships that it spawned., but we
must also note how Italian military ideals found little immediate
acceptance among conservative Iberian traditions of the Reconquista
and the alternative Northern Renaissance models of artillery fortifica-
tions that were widely adopted by Henry VIII and to a lesser degree
by Francis I.
The institutional context for fort construction was the objective of
the colonizing polity and its ability to carry it out. Such authority dif-
fered according to time and place. Kathleen Deagan’s chapter on early
Klingelhover_Book 1.indb 1 23-7-2010 8:43:21

2 introduction
Spanish colonial fortifications reveals how this area of research has

advanced further than elsewhere, largely through her own efforts. In
the same session of the Society for Historical Archaeology meeting,
Steven Pendery suggested that themes in Deagan’s chapter could apply
to other papers: a simple transfer of medieval forms and methods,
followed by local adjustments to New World institutions and condi-
tions, which in turn were replaced by a state-directed coordinated
imperial defensive system.
These themes, it seems to me, reflect three general types of coloniz-
ing institutional authority, which typically follow a similar chronol-
ogy. The usual first phase of colonization was that undertaken by an
individual with royal permission in the form of a traditional charter
accompanied by seigneurial rights, which in theory derived from the
monarch’s feudal suzerainty. Individual colonizers were either already
of noble rank or soon won it by their colonizing efforts. Examples are
Columbus himself and the later Conquistadors, Roberval, Gilbert,
Raleigh, and Chaplain.
The second type of institution was the company formed expressly
for overseas expansion, with commercial privileges but lacking seig-
neurial rights. These were companies established for specific coloniz-
ing ventures, which later expanded to become corporate empires
controlling entire regions of the globe. Their scale spanned the little
1587 ‘Company of the Cittie of Ralegh’ to the massive Dutch East
India Company (VOC) formed in 1602. The third institutional type
was the political empire, in which direct exploitation, taxation, and
monopolies provided the means to defend the colony. The Philip II’s
ability to launch an extensive fort-building campaign in response to
Drake’s raids would be one such example. Other central-state author-
ities grew in the 1600s, though in the case of the Dutch republic,
imperial powers were ceded to the VOC and the WIC (West India
Company).
The above paradigm suggests that overseas empires, and the forti-
fications erected to defend them, need not have had been direct and
dependent products of the processes that formed the Early Modern
state, notably the standing armies and gunpowder weapons that
required a strong tax base and bureaucracy to finance and administer
them (Parker, 1988).1 It is true, however, that within a few generations
1
Geoffrey Parker, The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the
West, 1500–1800. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 1988.

introduction 3
the state was ready to supplant less effective colonial forms and in the
latter 1600s certainly did so. Yet, the style and strength of colonial
fortifications before Vauban reflect a Colonial Evolution, not a Mili-
tary Revolution.

dutch forts of th century ceylon and mauritius 235
DUTCH FORTS OF SEVENTEENTH CENTURY CEYLON

AND MAURITIUS: AN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE
Historical Archaeology of VOC Forts
In 1602 a number of competing Dutch trading companies merged in a

new commercial enterprise: the Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie
(VOC). The primary goal of the VOC was to gain the trade monopoly
on East Asian spices, which had been controlled by the Portuguese
since the beginning of the sixteenth century. The Netherlands were
at war with both Spain and Portugal, making hostilities between the
newly founded VOC and these countries unavoidable. Therefore
the VOC was granted the mandate to conquer land, build forts and
maintain an army in order to protect trade. The VOC’s more than 350
settlements varied from small trading posts to large-scale European
style fortifications, stretching between the two pivots of the Cape
of Good Hope and Batavia, present day Jakarta on the isle of Java
(Figure 12.1). Batavia was the VOC’s administrative centre in Asia, the
counterpart of Amsterdam in the Dutch Republic.1
The aim of the East India Company was simple: to tap into Asian
trading markets to make profit. The VOC’s system to achieve this
became more and more elaborate and needed more organisation and
personnel than was expected. After the initial visits to Asia at the end
of the sixteenth century, the VOC created a network of employees who
settled near the markets and ports where Asian items such as spices,
porcelain, textiles and other commodities were abundant. In 1600, the
ruler of Ambon granted the Dutch the right to maintain a stronghold
on the Hitoe peninsula, which was named the Kasteel van Verre.2 It
probably consisted of a small stockade with a garrison of soldiers too
1
F. S. Gaastra, De geschiedenis van de VOC (Zutphen, 1991).
2
F. W. Stapel, ‘De archipel en het Maleisch schiereiland in 1619 – idem in 1650 –
de compagnie buiten den archipel in 1650’, Geschiedkundige Atlas van Nederland,
’s (Gravenhage, 1928).

236 Ranjith Jayasena and Pieter Floore
Figure 12.1. VOC settlements in the Indian Ocean.
tiny to withstand an attack of the Portuguese. From this insignificant

foothold grew a large web of military compounds that in two centuries
time gradually dominated the intra-Asia markets. Written sources on
all kinds of subjects relating to the VOC are abundant, however, in the
past few years archaeological research has provided evidence of sub-
stance and impact that has led to intriguing insights on the European
impact in Asia and Africa.
Archaeological research of VOC forts seeks to a get a better under-
standing of the Company’s settlements in a global perspective, to
highlight the role of the forts as nodes in the economic strategy of the
VOC, to analyse the aspects that defined the specific location and lay-
out of the forts, to determine the nature and efficiency of adaptation
to both local environment and warfare, and to draw comparisons with
the military architecture of the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic.
VOC forts were not exclusively military objects. In addition to secur-
ing the Company’s rule over the settlement, forts were contact sites
where, within a limited area, a group of individuals with various back-
grounds was brought together. In this paper, the archaeological
research on Fort Frederik Hendrik and Katuwana Fort will be pre-
sented as case studies in colonial archaeology, illuminating the wider
system of seventeenth-century VOC enterprises. These fortifications
were always considered of minor importance, but even in their small

scale they are good examples of the separate and almost self-sufficient
elements within the entire network. The importance of minor VOC
strongholds as relevant subjects of historical-archaeological research
has already been demonstrated at the location of the VOC outpost
Oudepost I in the Saldanha Bay in South Africa.3 Fortifications were
used as protection against sea borne and terrestrial attacks, as a safe-
guard for the storage and shipping of trade goods and supplies, as a
shelter for the garrison and population (both Europeans and native
population) in the settlements, and as protection for the administra-
tion. In the case of larger settlements, forts were often a citadel apart
from the walled civil settlement. For the local population, the forts
served as a token of the VOC’s economic and military dominance, as
minute this might have been in some instances.
VOC Fortifications
The fortifications built by the VOC were based on the specific mili-
tary architecture in use in the Dutch Republic at the time. In Medieval
Europe, the period from ca. 500–1500 ad, defence works were built
by means of thick-walled castles and comparable town ramparts. A
revolution in warfare commenced with the introduction of firearms
around 1450. Masonry walls could no longer withstand cannon, and
initially, earthen ramparts were added to strengthen existing masonry
defence works. More problems arose concerning the circular towers,
which proved to be insufficient. These towers had a so-called ‘dead
angle’ that enabled an attacker to hide, and subsequently undermine
these structures. A satisfying solution appeared when late-fifteenth-
century Italian military engineers began drawing designs based on
geometric concepts. A key element in the new manner of fortification
was the introduction of the bastion, replacing the circular towers.
In the second half of the sixteenth century the Italian art of fortifica-
tion was introduced in the Netherlands, and subsequently further
improved by Dutch military theoreticians like Simon Stevin. It was
this particular Oudnederlandse Stelsel, the Old Netherlands System of
fortification that would be exported by both the VOC and the West-
3
C. Schrire, K. Cruz-Uribe, and J. Klose, ‘The site history of the historical site at
Oudepost I’, Cape. South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 7 (1993),
21–32; D. Sleigh, Die Buitenposte: VOC-buitenposte onder Kaapse bestuur 1652–1795
(Pretoria, 1993).

Figure 12.2. Fort Bourtange, ca. 1650, a good example of the Old Netherlands
System of fortification. R. Jayasena’s (author) collection.
India Company (WIC). The Old Netherlands System of fortification

was based on the concept of the bastioned front consisting of curtain
walls connecting bastions on the corners (Figure 12.2). Its advantage
was the defender’s ability to give frontal fire from all places, and also
cover every part of the outside of its own curtain wall, thus avoiding a
dead angle. The distance between two bastions was prescribed as the
maximum effective range of a musket. An ideal fort was supposed to
have a four or preferably five-sided ground plan. Construction of a
fort started with the outlining of the desired ground plan, using stakes
and measurement chains. Subsequently the moat was dug, and the
excavated soil used to erect the curtain wall, a high wall with an exte-
rior slope of 65 degrees. The rampart was lined with sods and brush-
wood. At the rear a rampart walk was constructed for the defenders.
Standing on the rampart walk the soldiers could lay their musket on
the slightly downwards-sloping parapet of the main rampart and fire.
In between the main rampart and the moat was a small breastwork, a
fausse-braye, designed to protect the main defence work. At the field
side of the moat was a covered way, protected by the glacis, an

embankment sloping toward the open country, giving a clear field of

fire to the defenders.
During the seventeenth century the VOC could not rely on its own
corps of engineers for the building of military works. Fortifications
were built as part of other civil projects coordinated by the architects
and surveyors of the main VOC-settlements at the Cape, Batavia,
Colombo, and Zeelandia on the island of Taiwan.4 The local VOC-
administrators had to present their fortification plans to the Governor
General in Batavia for his consent, and in some instances military
engineers were sent from Batavia to the settlements for assistance. In
many cases pragmatism was eminent in the realisation of the forts.
Builders were placed on VOC fleets to supervise the building of forti-
fications, and the crews were equipped to build fieldworks.5
The introduction of Dutch military architecture in African and
Asian territories met with a few problems. For the construction of
effective fortifications two aspects were essential: 1) adaptation to the
local environment; and 2) adaptation to local warfare. Geographic
conditions proved to be a restriction to the realisation of the pre-
scribed ideal fort layouts. Fortifications built in the Old-Netherlands
style required a considerable area and, most importantly, a flat site, to
fit in the outworks and glacis. Suitable locations in mountainous VOC
territories were hard to find. The Dutch often had to adjust to loca-
tions that the Portuguese, before them, had chosen to fortify. Strength-
ening these forts, which were most often situated on high ground,
required a practical approach, in which the VOC proved to be success-
ful. Often the ground plan of the fort was further defined by the extent
of the existing irregular town or, in some instances, a rocky promon-
tory on which it had to be situated. A good example of this in Ceylon
was the multi-levelled fort on high ground overlooking the mouth of
the Kalu Ganga at Kalutara. Despite its unusual layout, its bastions
were based on the Old-Netherlands style of fortification.
Initially the VOC used local clay and earth for the construction of
the forts, in accordance with the earthen ramparts in The Netherlands.
These circumstances were not everywhere met; for instance in South
Africa, Mauritius, and also in Ceylon the early VOC officials were
constantly complaining about the vulnerable conditions of their forts
4
K. Zandvliet, ‘Vestingbouw in de Oost’, in G. Knaap and G. Teiler, eds, De Ver-
enigde Oost-Indische Compagnie tussen oorlog en diplomatie (Leiden, 2002), 151–80,
esp.154–15.
5
Ibid., 157.

Figure 12.3. Stone-built Galle fort in Sri Lanka, with its main rampart and
fausse braye (lower breastwork), is a classical example of the Old Netherlands
System of fortification exported to Asia. Photo by R. Jayasena (author).
after tropical rains had destroyed the ramparts. This led to the intro-
duction of local stones as building material for the ramparts, thus
abandoning the buffering qualities of the earthworks, one of the main
adjustments and renovations in Dutch military design. As a result the
layout of the pentagonal castle of Good Hope at Cape Town was
according to the Old-Netherlands system of fortification, but local
rock was used for the ramparts. Likewise the main rampart and fausse-
braye of Galle Fort are characteristic of Dutch military architecture,
except for the material in which they are built (Figure 12.3).
On a small scale, Dutch yellow bricks were transported as ballast by
the incoming vessels from Europe (ijsselsteentjes, measuring c. 16 ×
7.5 × 3.5 cm). These were mostly used for decoration of the internal
structures of fortifications, or the gates. In Ceylon, the entrance the
forts of Negombo and Kalpitiya were built of ijsselsteentjes. Using local
brick and stone proved to be much more effective, and many of these
structures are still standing.
The other factor determining the overall layout of a fort was the
specific enemy that the VOC had in mind. An enemy without cannon
could be held back with a wooden fort, whereas a strong European
field army with massive firepower required a solid European-style

defence work. It was a risk calculated by the VOC, factoring in the

fairly limited use of cannon by its Asiatic opponents and the small
military field forces being employed by their European competitors.
The greatest danger consisted of a full-scale seaborne assault.
Ceylon
For the island’s strategic location and its main export product of cin-
namon, considered to be the best in the world, Ceylon was an invalu-
able base for the VOC’s efforts to achieve economic dominance in the
Indian Ocean.6 Since the early sixteenth century, however, large parts
of the maritime provinces of the island had been subject to Portuguese
rule. In 1636 the VOC was asked by the king of Kandy, the island’s
central kingdom, for military assistance to expel the Portuguese from
the island. In return he offered to allow the Company to settle a few
trading posts along the island’s coast. In 1638 a treaty was signed, and
subsequently two military campaigns (1638–1640 and 1655–1658)
ended Portuguese power in Ceylon. The Dutch did not surrender the
captured forts to the king but instead occupied these themselves and
built a number of new fortifications. The Company appointed a gover-
nor with a council and divided the territory into the three commande-
ments of Colombo, Jaffna and Galle.
Around 1665 an attempt to expand towards the interior of the
island resulted in a series of military campaigns. Like their Portuguese
predecessors, the Dutch were unable to capture Kandy, but did suc-
ceed in establishing full control over the lowlands. In 1670 the Kandyan
army captured the strong Dutch outpost Arandara about 40 km from
Kandy. After peace had been signed in 1681, the VOC abandoned the
fortifications in the lands captured after 1665, strengthened the exist-
ing forts, and built a number of new forts. In the next century, new
tensions between the Dutch and the kings of Kandy would escalate in
1761. The Kandyan army attacked the Company’s territory, capturing
the Hanwella outpost and Katuwana and Matara in the south.
Governor Van Eck’s expedition against Kandy led to peace in 1766.
The king was forced to sign a treaty in which he had to give up his
remaining coastal regions. The VOC now governed the entire coastal
6
When discussed in a historic colonial setting, the name Ceylon will be used, in its
present setting the island will be referred to as Sri Lanka.

area thus isolating the Kandyan kingdom. This territory remained

under VOC administration until the British conquest in 1796.
Fortifications
The Portuguese were the first to introduce European military architec-

ture in Ceylon. They fortified the major administrative, military and
economic centres of Jaffna, Negombo, Colombo, Galle, Batticaloa, and
Trincomalee. Jaffna and Colombo were walled cities, whereas Galle
was defended by a bastioned front along its land side, Trincomalee by
a triangular bastioned fortification, and Batticaloa by an irregular fort
with three bastions. The outpost Malvana was a square fort with four
bastions and the forts of Sofragam (Ratnapura) and Panadura had a
square ground plan with two diagonally opposite bastions.7 After the
Dutch had captured these forts in the period 1638–1658, most were
rebuilt or strengthened.
The military landscape of Ceylon stretched out from the coast to the
foot of the Kandyan hills, about 40 km in the interior. The geographi-
cal distribution of the VOC forts reflects the Dutch policy of expan-
sion in the third quarter of the seventeenth century. Two clusters can
be seen: the southeast of the island, comprising the Commandements
of Colombo and Galle, and in the north the Jaffna peninsula compris-
ing the Commandement of Jaffna. A number of isolated forts were
located in the intermediate coastal areas.
The military landscape in the Galle Commandement consisted of
the major coastal forts and trade bases of Galle and Matara, the guard
posts and stockades Hakmana, Akuressa and Walawe, and the outpost
in the borderland that prevented an enemy attack: Katuwana Fort. The
northern cluster included a concentration of fortifications on the
Jaffna peninsula, part of the larger Jaffna Commandement that
stretched out to the south. The southern border had a minimal defence,
consisting of the coastal forts at Arippu and Mullaitivu. The first men-
tioned south-eastern forts had to withstand an attack by European
competitors as well as to prevent illegal trade. The military threat on
the south was minimal, as the King of Kandy had no claim on the ter-
ritory.
The locations of the fortifications were chosen on the basis of geo-
graphic, military and political factors. The coastal forts comprised the
7
Nethelands National Archives, VEL 928.

main trade centres where goods were stored and subsequently shipped
to Europe. These locations were fortified to ensure the Company’s
control over the coast, with attacks by both European seafaring nations
and the Kandyan king in mind. The majority of the trade goods, like
cinnamon, had to be collected in the interior. Outposts were built to
keep an eye on production, to serve as temporary warehouses, and to
hold back attacks from Kandy. Rivers and roads formed the entrances
to the interior of the island, and these were guarded by fortifications.
Classifying Military Architecture in Ceylon
In order to get insight into the distribution of VOC forts in Ceylon, as

well as the types of fortifications used for specific functions, an inven-
tory of the Company’s forts on the island was made. For this inven-
tory two criteria were set: the existence of historical maps or detailed
descriptions of the layout to make comparison with other forts pos-
sible, and available information on the fort’s function within Ceylon’s
military landscape. Selection proved to be necessary. Besides defence
works that can, without doubt, be classified as forts, there was a group
that can best be classified as non-permanent watch posts. These were
left out of the inventory. Archival study and limited archaeological
fieldwork has identified 51 forts in Sri Lanka.
The VOC-forts of Ceylon can be divided into main forts and sec-
ondary forts, each to be further sub-divided on the basis of their spe-
cific function.
Main forts:
1. Main forts as major administrative, military and economic centres:

Colombo, Jaffna, Galle.
2. Main forts at strategic locations to safeguard the monopoly on
trade goods: Trincomalee, Batticaloa.
3. Main forts as centres for storage of trade goods: Negombo, Matara.
Secondary forts (outposts):
1. Secondary forts to safeguard the trade monopoly and for the col-
lection of the trade goods: Kalutara, Kalpitiya, Puttalam, Chilaw,
Arippu, Tangalla, Bundala, Yala, Mannar, Bentota.

2. Secondary forts primarily to defend the VOC-territory: Pitigala,

Pittuancarre, Hammenhiel, Trincomalee (Oostenburg and Dwars
in de Wegh), Matara (star fort), Point Pedro, Kankesanturai, Pas
Pyl, Pas Beschutter, Elephant Pass, Fort de Leeuw, Mullaitivu,
Poonaryn, Erkellenchene (1 and 2).
3. Secondary forts primarily to defend the VOC territory, with the
capacity for storage of trade goods: Katuwana, Walawe, Mapala-
gama, Chinnecallette Delle, Tontotte, Anguruwatota, Ruwanwella,
Arandara, Hanwella, Malvana, Avissawella, Caudingelle, Bibili-
gama, Ratnapura, Akuressa, Hakmana, Weligama, Ilipkarwe.
Morphology of VOC forts
Functions of the fortifications were in general linked with the military

architecture and layout. Based on their morphology the forts can be
typologically divided into eleven types (Figure 12.4):
1. Three-sided fort, 1 location: Point Pedro.

2. Four-sided star fort, 1 location: Pitigala.
3. Six-sided star fort, 1 location: Matara (Redoute van Eck).
4. Square fort with four bastions, 6 locations: Arandara, Avissawella,
Batticaloa, Mannar, Chinnecallette Delle, Caudingelle.
5. Square fort with two diagonally opposite bastions, 11 locations:
Arippu, De Leeuw, Elephant Pass, Erkellenchene II, Ilipkarwe,
Katuwana, Pas Beschutter, Pas Pyl, Poonaryn, Ratnapura,
Tangalla.
6. Square fort, a variant with half-bastions, 5 locations: Erkellenchene
I, Kalpitiya, Malvana, Ruanwella, Tontotte.
7. Five-sided fort, 4 locations: Jafna, Hanwella, Negombo, Pittuan-
carre.
8. More-sided fort, with a regular or irregular groundplan, 4 loca-
tions: Galle, Colombo, Hammenhiel, Kalutara.
9. Bastioned front, semi-closed fort, 2 locations: Matara, Trinco-
malee.
10. Battery, 2 locations: Oostenburg (Trincomalee), Dwars in de
Wegh (Trincomalee).
11. Stockade (pagger), an earthwork with an irregular ground plan,
4 locations: Akuressa, Bentota, Hakmana, Mapalagama.

Figure 12.4. Base types of Dutch forts in Sri Lanka and their distribution.

Functionality versus Military Architecture
As a general rule, the complexity of the fortification mirrored the

complexity of its use. Furthermore, besides their military significance,
fortifications were also symbols of the Company’s alleged power. For
instance, the magnificent castle of Batavia (Jakarta), a stronghold that
satisfied all needs on the island of Java and would be classified as a
field fortification Type 4, may not have been able to withstand a minor
siege in seventeenth-century Western Europe. The coastal forts were
the major military defence works of the VOC in Ceylon. To with-
stand attacks from competing European seafaring nations, in particu-
lar Portugal, England and France, a European-style fortification was
essential. As a result of strong western competition during the seven-
teenth century, VOC forts followed the development in complexity in
Western Europe. In Ceylon, however, the VOC completed only one
fort that met with the Dutch ideal of a pentagonal fort complete with
ravelins and a glacis, namely the fort of Jaffna (base type 5). In the inte-
rior of the island, solid European-style defence works were not neces-
sary, as the Kandyan army did not have heavy artillery.
The dimensions, the nature, and landscape of a site to be fortified
defined the design of a fortification. In Negombo, therefore, the
planned pentagonal design had to be adjusted, resulting in an irregu-
lar ground-plan where one bastion was omitted. The small extent of
the rocky promontory surrounded by marshes and the Indian Ocean
resulted in an irregular multi-sided fort in Colombo. Likewise, the
extent of the Galle promontory defined the design of the fort. At Galle
the late-sixteenth-century Portuguese landside defenses, consisting of
three bastions connected by a curtain wall, were improved by the
Dutch adding a fausse-braye to the main rampart in the 1660s. The
Matara peninsula was also fortified on the landside, and the ca.110m
high rock at Trincomalee was defended at three sides (base type 9)
against an attack from the land. The fort at Batticaloa had a four-sided
ground plan and four bastions, a type that was most often used for
outposts (base type 4).
The VOC developed as a master of pragmatism especially for the
construction of outposts. The most common type of fort was the four-
sided fort with four bastions. This type can be subdivided on the basis
of three varieties of bastions: four bastions, two diagonally opposite
bastions and half bastions. Fewer bastions or reducing their size meant
less earth to be moved. Four-sided fortifications were the most

common models used in siege wars in the Dutch Republic. These tem-
porary defence works, that had to be erected in a short period, were
designed in a way that they could be adjusted to local circumstances.
A rampart made out of earth and a moat surrounded these strong-
holds. For fieldworks the same measurements were used as in regular
fortifications. Military manuals advised a 6-foot high rampart, built
with whatever was locally available. Seventeenth-century military
manuals, such as the 1665 one by military engineer Freytag prescribed
that when the ramparts could not be lined with heavy sods or brush-
wood, gabions could be used.8
In Ceylon one main fort (Batticaloa) and five outposts were built
with a four-sided ground-plan and four corner bastions. Eleven forti-
fications belong to the simplified model with two diagonally opposite
bastions. In addition, half-bastions were applied to the forts of
Malvana, Ruanwella and Erkellenchene. Kalpitiya Fort had both two
half-bastions and one central bastion. The Tontotte fortification is a
product of dual parentage, built in both European and Sri Lankan
traditions. Curtain walls with central, instead of corner, bastions,
enclosed this square fort. The internal structure had a pyramidal roof
and was surrounded by verandas both on the ground- and first floors.
Only one four-sided star fort was constructed in Ceylon: Pitigalla in
the Galle Commandement (base type 2). The only six-sided star fort
(base type 3) was built in Matara following the Kandyan War of 1761–
1765. The outpost at Point Pedro was a triangular fort, the only of its
kind on the island (base type 1). Most likely it was a modified
Portuguese fortification that had the same layout as the triangular fort
at Trincomalee.
Stockades (paggers) were used for outposts with less military sig-
nificance, only meant to control the area in between the frontier posts
and main coastal forts. These consisted of earthworks and palisades of
jungle wood enclosing barracks and storehouses that were often built
in a combination of European and local building traditions. For exam-
ple, the buildings in the stockades at Hakmana and Akuressa in south-
ern Ceylon were, according to a late seventeenth-century map,
constructed of “Sinhalese walls and roofs”.9 Both stockades were built
on high ground, whereas the stockade at Mapalagama was constructed
8
J. Wijn, Vestingbouw en belegeringsoorlog: Maurits en Stevin (Utrecht, 1934),
284.
9
Netherland National Archives, VEL 1075 (Hakmana), VEL 1076 (Akuressa).

on the flank of a hill. As with the forts, the location of the stockades
was in some cases determined by the existence of a Portuguese forti-
fication. According to a description made during the Kandyan War of
1761–1765, the stockade Akuressa used by the Company since the
second half of the seventeenth century had been “an old Portuguese
redoubt with a moat, well and half breastwork”.10
Katuwana
The Dutch fortification on Ceylon that has undergone extensive inves-

tigation is Katuwana Fort. There, the research goals were to determine
whether its specific military architecture represents a common type
used by the VOC for the purpose it served, and to trace its origins
in both Asia and Europe. Katuwana Fort, during the seventeenth and
eighteenth century named Catoene, occupies a hill in the middle of a
small village on the eastern bank of the Urubokka oya, about 40 km
inland from the main coastal fort of Matara. Being the major frontier
post of the VOC in southern Ceylon, it was situated at a very strategic
location. At the border with the Kandyan kingdom, it controlled the
only gateway of a valley that stretched out to Matara. First mentioned
as a fieldwork in 1661, the present fort was completed at around 1680.
Katuwana Fort can be classified as base type 5: a square ground plan
and two diagonally opposed bastions. Even though constructed in
natural rock, the architecture reveals elements of the Old Netherlands
System of fortification, most prominently the flanks of the bastions at
right angles to the curtain walls. In addition, at the rear of the main
rampart was a rampart walk of earth lined with a wall of stone slabs
around the courtyard. In its present state, drainage holes in the main
rampart at the surface of the rampart walk indicated that this level had
remained unchanged. The need to adapt to the uneven surface of the
terrain had resulted in a somewhat elevated east side of the fort. Here
the breastwork was at its original height, with parapet at 1.5m from
the level of the rampart walk. The internal structures comprise a
U-shaped group of buildings around the courtyard, but the founda-
tion of only one building in the south-east corner appeared at ground
surface. In the northwest corner was a well, now dry.
10
R. Raven-Hart, The Dutch Wars with Kandy 1764–1766 (Colombo, 1964), inv.
4899.

In the inner area of the fort, 756 m2, archaeological research was
conducted by the Postgraduate Institute of Archaeology (PGIAR) of
the University of Kelaniya (Sri Lanka) and the Amsterdam
Archaeological Centre (AAC) of the University of Amsterdam (The
Netherlands) in 2000.11 This involved a survey of the standing struc-
tures and test trenching to locate the fort’s internal structures. The
excavation exposed three stone-walled structures in the south, east
and north wings of the courtyard. The buildings were constructed of
slabs of natural rock. In the salient of the northeast bastion, the stone
foundation of a sentry box was uncovered.
The location of the gateway gave some clues to date the standing
remains of the fort. At present the fort can be entered through a gap
cut in the western curtain wall. A map from around 1700 depicts two
gates, whereas a 1717 map by Dutch Governor I. Rumpf indicates one
gate in the north curtain. A 1734 plan by J. W. Heydt shows the gate-
way at the present location. Not only is the gate in the north curtain
absent, Heydt also mentions that the fort had only one entrance. The
partial destruction of the fort by the Kandyan army in 1761 is histori-
cally known. The archaeological survey revealed, however, that the
1761 events did not complete wipe out Katuwana Fort. Behind a tree
growing from the northern curtain wall were the remnants of the
original gate, an arch infilled with stone slabs. This leads to the conclu-
sion that the remains of Katuwana Fort are to a great extent the fort
completed at around 1680: a square fort with two diagonally opposite
bastions. Having come to this conclusion, the question then arises
whether Katuwana’s architecture was either a simplification of the
common Dutch design with four bastions, an adaptation to another
type of fort – a typical Sri Lankan phenomenon – or a widespread
architectural concept.
The Four-Sided Fort with Two Diagonally Opposite Bastions
The Company built eleven four-sided forts with two diagonally oppo-
site bastions (base type 5) in Ceylon, comprising 21.6% of the VOC
forts on the island. Roughly the same number of four-sided forts with
four bastions were built (both full and half bastions). The design of the
bastions of the related forts of this type at Arippu, De Leeuw, Elephant
11
R. M. Jayasena, ‘The historical archaeology of Katuwana, a Dutch East India
Company fort in Sri Lanka’, Post-Medieval Archaeology 40/1 (2006), 111–28.

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb 250
250
Figure 12.5. Site plan of VOC-fort Katuwana, the fort’s location in the seventeenth-century Galle Commandement, and the
comparable ground plan of the Portuguese forts of Sofragam and Panadura.
23-7-2010 8:44:17
Pass, Erkellenchene, Ilipkarwe, Pas Pyl and Poonaryn was similar to

Katuwana, except for the omission of a rampart walk. Instead, the
internal buildings were standing directly against the rear of the main
rampart. The bastions were accessible by stairs. The fort Pas Beschutter
has a partial rampart walk. Tangalle Fort was not open for inspection
as it currently houses a prison. The VOC was not the first to build forts
with two diagonally opposite bastions; the Portuguese had already for-
tified Panadura and Sorfagam (Ratnapura) in that manner. The differ-
ence was that the Portuguese bastions were square.
Sofragam, present day Ratnapura, was fortified by the VOC in 1665.
No historic maps survive of this fort. A contemporary visitor, how-
ever, mentioned a church and houses built by the Portuguese sur-
rounded by a new Dutch fort with two strong batteries (bastions)
armed with four pieces of ordnance each.12 Nothing was said about the
old Portuguese fort, but it is likely that the Dutch fort copied its pre-
decessor. By 1680 the Dutch fort must have already been demolished,
because another visitor did not mention it.13 Possibly the Portuguese
forts of Ratnapura (Sofragam) and Panadura inspired the Dutch to
build other forts with two diagonally opposite bastions in Ceylon.
Besides these historically known ground plans of Portuguese forts of
base type 5, Jacob Haafner, who visited the island in 1783 and pub-
lished his account in 1810, mentioned the Portuguese origins of the
forts at Poonaryn and Arippu. Haafner described Arippu as a small
fort with two bastions, built by the Portuguese. At the time of Haafner’s
visit the fort was still in use by the VOC even though it had become
merely a ruin.14 The small fort at Poonaryn was described as a very
small fort with two diagonally opposite bastions that was, like Arippu,
in a bad condition.15 It is remarkable that unlike the square bastions
of Panadura and Ratnapura, Poonaryn’s bastions are modelled after
the Old-Netherlands system of fortification.
One of the research questions is whether this fortification type was
a typical phenomenon for sixteenth and seventeenth-century Ceylon.
It is a widespread concept that, after introduction by Italian military
engineers, it had been in use in Portugal from the fifteenth century
12
Raven-Hart, Dutch Wars, 33.
13
Ibid., 108.
14
J. Haafner, De werken van Jacob Haafner 2; J. A. de Moor and P. G. E. I. J. van
der Velde, eds, (Zutphen, 1995), 85.
15
Ibid., 57.

onwards and that the Portuguese maritime expansion exported these

fortifications to overseas settlements.16
Isaac de Graaff served as the head cartographer of the Company in
the period 1705–1743. About 1695 he compiled maps of VOC forts
into a collection now known as the ‘Atlas De Graaff.’ The Atlas De
Graaff contains eight forts with two diagonally opposite bastions, all
in the Indonesean Archipelago.17 The fortifications of Semarang on
Java and Samanca on Lampon had an irregular ground plan like
Ilipkarwe with bastions according to the Old-Netherlands system of
fortification. In contrast, the Javanese forts of Sourabaja, Rembang
and Tegal, and the redoubts Overburg on Ceram and Amsterdam had
square bastions in the Portuguese style.18 The fort at the island Onrust
off Batavia had a square ground plan and ‘Old Netherlands’ bastions.19
None of the forts of this type in the Indonesian Archipelago had a
rampart walk. A Portuguese origin of the forts with square bastions
on Java is not possible as notes on the map of the Redoubt Amsterdam
state that the fort was built after 1674.
To conclude, VOC forts with two diagonally opposite bastions were
an architectural simplification of a regular fieldwork according to the
Old Netherlands System of fortification. These may have originated
from an existing concept of fortification that the Dutch acquired by
capturing and copying Portuguese forts.
Mauritius
In 1598 the Dutch Republic claimed Mauritius, naming the island after
Stadholder Prince Maurits of Orange-Nassau. Use of this new territory
fell to the VOC in 1602 when Mauritius became a refreshment sta-
tion for fleets travelling to and from Batavia, and the Company soon
learned that ebony from the island brought high prices in Batavia.
Mauritius built a reputation as a fruitful and healthy land where
diverse crops could be cultivated. There was no indigenous popula-
tion, and no trace of any earlier human occupation has ever been
16
E. Paar, personal comment, 2002.
17
Netherland National Archives, VEL 1283, maps of the stockades of Sourabaja,
Rembang, Semarang and Tegal.
18
Ibid., VEL 1354 (Overburgh), VEL 1340 (Redoubt Amsterdam).
19
Ibid., VEL 1247.

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb 253
dutch forts of th century ceylon and mauritius
253
Figure 12.6. Dutch settlements on Mauritius, 1598–1710: the archaeological footprint of the 1698 stone lodge and surround-
ing palisade, and a typological sequence of Fort Frederik Hendrik.
23-7-2010 8:44:18
found. In 1638 the VOC began a permanent settlement with Fort

Frederik Hendrik. Constructed on high ground overlooking the
south-eastern harbour, the present day Vieux Grand Port, Fort
Frederik Hendrik underwent numerous changes, often caused by fires
and cyclones. The Dutch occupation lasted from 1638 until 1710.
During that period, the most profitable elements of the economy were
the export of ebony and the slave trade with Madagascar. Most of the
experiments with the cultivation of different crops failed. The island’s
role as refreshment station was overshadowed by the founding of the
Cape colony in 1652. Despite its initial promise, Mauritius proved
difficult to maintain. The VOC abandoned the settlement in 1658, but
soon returned (1664) to stay another forty-six years. In this last period
settlers were allowed by the VOC to cultivate the island and produce
meat, vegetables and potatoes as supply for incoming ships. Struggling
to overcome the hardships of colonisation on a remote island, by the
end of the seventeenth century just 250 people lived dispersed over the
island, among them forty-eight servants of the company, most of them
residing in Fort Frederik Hendrik. By then, the exploitation of ebony
had declined, so the colony’s sole function was to prevent intruders
from erecting a base in the Indian Ocean. After the council of the VOC
lost interest in this aspect, in 1709 the settlement was ordered closed
and the inhabitants soon evacuated to the Cape.
Fort Frederik Hendrik was constructed by Cornelis Gooyer, its first
opperhoofd or chief, the lowest commanding officer rank in the
VOC. The instructions that he received from his superiors for building
the fort were twofold: he was ordered to base the fort’s layout on com-
mon Dutch ground-plans, but it was up to him to decide which one
to choose, depending on local circumstances. He chose to erect a four-
sided star fort, a common type of fieldwork also used to fortify Pitigala
in Ceylon (base type 2). Fort Frederik Hendrik was built of soil and
timber found in the forests on the slopes of the mountains around the
site of the fort. The work commenced by clearing the trees and shrubs;
then palisades were erected forming the curtain walls. The ramparts
had a height of 6 feet (2 m) and a width of seven feet (2.5). The whole
outline of the fort, with sides measuring 37.7 m (120 Rhineland feet),
was completed between May 7th and July 2nd 1638. Subsequently, the
bastions were filled, which took at least another 18 days, and 25 wheel-
barrows were used. The fort was built by 25–50 men in less than four
months and completed by the end of August 1638. The fort was armed

with four pieces of ordnance, all of them bronze, a supply of 150 can-
non balls, and 600 pounds of gunpowder. The main structure inside
the fort was a rectangular building made out of wood, measuring 60
by 18 Rhineland feet (19.85 by 5.65 m). The building had a thatched
roof of broad palm leaves. It had three rooms: the lodging for the chief,
a general store and the so-called cortegaerde (‘court de guard’ or guard
room). The shed or storehouse was located in the courtyard. The main
entrance of the fort was situated in one of the curtain walls. Upon
entering the fort there was a small building on the left, housing the
kitchen and the lodgings of the minister, the assistant and the corpo-
ral. The fort was garrisoned with twenty-five men.20
After a fierce hurricane had destroyed the original fort at the end of
1638, Gooyer’s successor, Adriaen van der Stel, had a new square fort
constructed in the following year. In the summer of 1640 the ram-
parts, 18 feet (6 m) wide and 7 feet (2.3 m) high, were completed. On
top of the ramparts Van der Stel had a parapet made out of planks. The
new fort housed a garrison of twenty soldiers. Abel Tasman visited
Mauritius in 1642 before taking off for his grand voyage of discovery
around Australia and New Zealand, and during his stay he produced
a number of drawings of the island. A view of the harbour in Tasman’s
diary reveals that the fort, which must have been the one built by Van
der Stel, had an outwork in front of the gate on the coast. Repeated
hurricanes and heavy rains eventually destroyed the structures. The
fort’s mid-seventeenth-century appearance, as seen in a contemporary
map, was square with four bastions. On the whole it is clear that forts
made out of wood and earth were inadequate permanent defence
works at Mauritius. As a result, repairs often followed the annual
cyclone season. Maintenance of the fort remained a constant matter
of concern for the Dutch chiefs of Mauritius.
After the VOC returned to Mauritius in 1664, it took several years
before a new fort was built. George Wreede, the new opperhoofd, was
sent a carpenter and a mason from the Cape to assist him in building
a new lodge. Wreede reported to his superior at the Cape that there
was abundant timber, lime, stone, and clay for bricks and tiles for the
fort as well as for the dwelling houses and stores. He prepared 18,
000–19, 000 bricks but the oven collapsed during a storm and the
bricks were not fired well enough to use them all. Nevertheless, there
20
P. Moree, A Concise History of Dutch Mauritius, 1598–1710, a fruitful and
healthy land (London. 1998), 25–28.

were enough bricks for constructing the front gable of the house of the
opperhoofd. He further wrote that it was impossible to dig a moat
because the soil contained too many rocks. The lodge was therefore to
be fenced in with a palisade.21
In 1679 the lodge, warehouse, and storehouse for the ebony burned
down because a servant was careless with fire. Opperhoofd Lamotius’s
wife, little daughter, and slaves were killed by this fire. Subsequently
Lamotius had a temporary structure built out of palm leaves between
30 to 40 feet long with four rooms. In 1692, when Roelof Diodati took
over the post of opperhoofd, Fort Frederik Hendrik contained a ware-
house and a four-roomed stone dwelling situated against the rear wall
of the compound. The side facing the sea had a stone wall as high as a
man. Diodati also mentioned the existence of a palisaded half moon
outside the main entrance of the fort. The gate of the fort was in the
same poor state as the fort; the foundations of the two pillars had sunk
so the whole construction was crooked.22 In 1694 four slaves set fire to
the half moon facing the sea. The south-eastern wind helped by setting
the roofs of the buildings in the fort on fire and finally, the powder
house also exploded.23 In 1695 a cyclone levelled the site. In 1698
Diodati reported to his superiors at the Cape that he had begun con-
structing a stone lodge.24 This must have been completed by 1702,
when a new tempest failed to cause much damage to the lodge. The
main task of Momber van der Velde, the last Dutch opperhoofd of
Mauritius, was to consolidate the fort as it was. Under his command
the palisades around the lodge were renewed in 1704. He also added
a new bastion in this palisade and placed a six-pounder gun on it.
Further he rebuilt one side of a defence work by drawing in a portion
of the palisade to make a point with two sides, which was armed with
a six-pounder and a swivel gun. In 1707 the fort again accidentally
caught fire when the cannon were fired in honour of the governor of
the Cape. The lodge burned once more when the Company abandoned
the island in 1710.
Archaeological research of Fort Frederik Hendrik started in 1997
with the test excavation at the presumed location of the fort. The pri-
mary goals were to locate the first human settlement on Mauritius, to
21
Ibid., VOC 4002, fol. 778 v.
22
Sleigh, Die Buitenpost, 653.
23
P. J. Barnwell, Visits and despatches (Mauritius, 1598–1948) (Port Louis, Mauri-
tius, 1948), 59; Sleigh 1993:654.
24
Barnwell, Visits and despatches, 72.

excavate its remains, and to compare those findings with documentary

records, in order to reveal the nature and impact of the human colo-
nisation. During the campaigns of 1999 to 2005, a variety of Dutch-
period structures have been uncovered. Three elements of Fort
Frederik Hendrik’s archaeological remains will be discussed: a seven-
teenth-century timber building (F 3314); the 1698 stone lodge; and the
defences (palisades).
A Seventeenth-Century Timber Building

Presumably located at the main axis of the fort, a ca. 1680 rectan-
gular post-in-ground building (F 3314) measuring 18.80 m by 5.65
m was uncovered. Two rooms could be defined: a 5.90 m long nor-
thern room and an 11.90 m long southern room. No conclusive evi-
dence was found for a hearth. The posthole pattern for this building
revealed a puncheon construction, a technique previously unknown
in the Netherlands. A matching structure dating from the 1620s was
uncovered in Virginia at Flowerdew Hundred site 44PG65.25 The wall
posts of Fort Frederik Hendrik’s puncheon building were placed side-
by-side in a 40 to 70 cm wide ditch backfilled with soil and rocks to
give the structure extra strength. The eastern wall consisted of square
posts, with an average diameter of 14 cm, at ca. 1.80 m intervals. In
between there were circular posts with an average diameter of 10–16
cm. The posts of the façades were dug in c. 65 cm. The posts of the
dividing wall were set less deep, around 30 cm, since these did not
have to support the roof. In the northern wall the massive foundation
of an entrance was uncovered; a threshold made out of slabs of natural
rock, covered by one layer of re-used Dutch- and locally produced
bricks. In the eastern wall a doorstep led to the southern room of the
building. A doorway in the dividing wall connected the two rooms.
Since no paved surfaces were found inside the house, it is assumed that
the floors were made out of clay. One construction element gave some
clues to the aboveground appearance of the walls, namely two rims of
plaster flanking the row of posts. The walls had been plastered on both
sides with a beige mixture of clay and coral sand. The puncheon struc-
ture was probably built after the 1679 fire, and burned when the slaves
set the fort afire during the night of fifteenth July 1694. The heat must
have been intense: after the walls collapsed, leaving a zone of plaster
25
James Deetz, Flowerdew Hundred. The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation,
1619–1864 (Charlottesville, 1993), 27–32.

on the surface, some of the posts burned completely to their bases in

the ground.
Stone VOC Lodge

During the last quarter of the seventeenth century, stone buildings
gradually replaced the wooden structures of Fort Frederik Hendrik.
In 1698 a stone lodge was built. A 1723 French map of its ground plan
survives, showing the remains as found by the French at their arrival
on the island. Archaeological research has uncovered a part of the
western and northern wings of the complex. The 0.60 m wide walls
were made of slabs of basalt. The builder’s trench of the VOC lodge
intruded on the earlier puncheon building, and in turn, the lodge itself
was cut by the 1753 French government building.
Three excavation trenches (Nos. 8, 14 and 17) located the palisade
lines of the western curtain walls of the Dutch fort; in another trench
(No. 20) its northern curtain wall was uncovered. So far no traces of
bastions have been found. At this time, while the analysis is still in its
early stages, it is not yet possible to tell whether both palisades belong
to the same phase. For the construction of the palisades several
different methods were employed. The most common was to place the
posts side-by-side in a narrow trench. For the 1698 palisade (enclosing
the stone lodge) the c. 0.24 m diameter posts seem not to have been
placed side-by-side, but at 0.1 to 0.5 m intervals in a 1 m wide slot
trench that had been dug 0.20 m in occupational deposits and a further
0.90 m deep into the subsoil. At the bottom the trench narrowed to a
width of 0.30 m. The gaps between the posts may indicate a specific
building technique, known as a post-rail-and-plank construction.
Above-ground horizontal rails connected the posts. Between the posts
vertical planks were attached to the rails. A similar construction was
employed at seventeenth-century English settlements in Virginia,
such as the ca. 1619 fort at Wolstenholme Towne.26
Although it was the main fort on the island, both documentary
evidence and the archaeological remains indicate that Fort Frederik
Hendrik’s defences were never adequate to withstand a European
attack. Furthermore, although it started as a four-sided star fort (base
type 2) and evolved to a four-sided fort with four bastions, it is doubt-
26
I. Noël Hume, Martin’s Hundred (Charlottesville, 1982); N. Luccketti, ‘The
Road to James Fort’, in W. M. Kelso, N. M. Luccketti, and B. A. Straube, Jamestown
Rediscovery 5 (Richmond, 1999), 23–24.

ful that the bastions facing the landside were ever completed. The test
trenches exposed several phases of the northern, western, and south-
ern curtain walls. A projection of the excavated palisade lines on the
present-day topography reveals that the limited extent of the terrain
north of the fort would have made the construction of two bastions
highly unlikely. Fort Frederik Hendrik therefore seems to have been
merely a façade with bastions facing the sea that, even though under-
lining the VOC’s claim on Mauritius, would by no means have endured
an enemy attack.
Conclusions
Adjustments to the Dutch systems can be found on Mauritius, where

the VOC faced only international challengers, but the diversity in
fortification design is most clearly recognisable on Ceylon, where the
VOC had both local and international opposition. As a result, Ceylon
presented a showcase from the elaborate to the humble, with every
location adjusted to its function in the VOC system of protecting trade
and interests.
Between Ceylon and Mauritius, the difference in perception and
appreciation by the council of the VOC could not have been bigger.
Ceylon grew to be one of the main possessions of the company,
whereas Mauritius dwindled in its existence from a possible alternate
for the Cape colony to a constant sorrow and loss to the Company.
The importance is clearly reflected in the military structures of the
VOC found on both islands. Ceylon received all of the resources to
maintain its fairly high state of defence for protecting its commerce.
On Mauritius the inhabitants were left abandoned and had to impro-
vise, although the chief of the fort still had the duty to maintain the
fort in a defensible state. The ongoing building, repairs, and makeshift
modifications over more than fifty years resulted in an extremely com-
plex archaeological record, although archival documents consistently
depict the defences on Mauritius as austere. The lack of manpower,
knowledge, and proper building materials resulted in diminished
durability. The aspect of durability was not obtained until 1698, with
the construction of the stone lodge. After their settlement on the island
in 1722, the French East India Company used the Dutch lodge of Fort
Frederik Hendrik as one of their main administrative buildings up to
1753.

Ceylon’s Katuwana Fort provides a strong contrast to the develop-

ment on Mauritius. From the onset, durability and strength was the
main feature of Katuwana. This fort probably had only two stages of
development. Within 20 years the fortifications were built, and survive
without any major alterations to the present day. Even the 1761
destruction of the fort by Kandyan troops, who did not level the main
buildings or defences, can be classified as merely heavy damage. No
major alterations to the original seventeenth-century design were
found during the archaeological research in 2000.
Beyond the structural remains, the other artifacts found on these
sites are not discussed in this paper, but they also show important dif-
ferences and similarities. Analysis of the finds of Fort Frederik Hendrik
is incomplete, but the Fort Katuwana results have been published.27
Differences in construction and complexity of the archaeological fea-
ture record are also present in the quantity and diversity of the finds
in both forts. Fort Katuwana yielded only a few finds per square meter,
clearly showing the military use of the terreplein. Fort Frederik
Hendrik produced thousands of finds in a comparable excavated area,
reflecting the more farmstead-like nature of the fort. Katuwana could
depend on the nearby local village for supplies, but Mauritius had to
be self-sufficient.
Both Katuwana and Fort Frederik Hendrik share the function as
outposts to protect the frontier interests of the East India Company.
On Ceylon this interest was more prominent than on Mauritius, where
in the end its sole function was to prevent European intruders (pirates
and rival companies) from creating a stronghold in the Indian Ocean.
As Van Oers demonstrates, the imperial European map of Asia was
growing crowded.28 By the eighteenth-century the era of exploration
had passed, and colonization was transforming into consolidation. As
an economic powerhouse Ceylon was reinforced, while Mauritius
remained a drain on resources, and was allowed to fall away.
27
Jayasena, ‘Katuwana’.
28
R. van Oers, Dutch town planning overseas during VOC and WIC rule, 1600–
1800 (Zutphen, 2000).

select bibliography 261
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albuquerque, M., V. Lucena and Doris Walmsley 1999. Fortes de Pernambuco: ima-
gens do passado e do presente. Recife, Brazil.
Almeida, J. de 1943. Livro das fortalezas de Duarte Darmas. Reprodução anotada,
Lisboa.
——— 1946. Roteiro dos monumentos militares portugueses, 2 vols. Lisboa.
Alsford, Stephen, ed. 1993. The Meta Incognita Project. Ottowa: Canadian Museum
of Civilization.
Angulo Iñiguez, D. 1942. Bautista Antonelli, las fortificaciones américanas del siglo
XVI. Madrid: Hauser y Menet.
Anquandah, K. J. 1999. Castles and Forts of Ghana. Paris: Atalante.
Archibald, D. 1987. Tobago: melancholy isle, 1498–1771. Port of Spain, Trinidad:
Westindiana Press.
Baart, J., W. Krook and A. C. Lagerweij 1988. ‘Fort Amsterdam, Archeologisch onder-
zoek op Sint
Maarten, Nederlandse Antillen’ Bulletin KNOB, 1988–6: 270–77. Zutphen, The
Netherlands.
Barka, Norman F. 1993. ‘The Archaeology of Piersey’s Hundred, Virginia, within the
Context of the Muster of 1624/5’. In Archaeology of Eastern North America, Papers
in Honor of Stephen Williams, ed. J. Stoltman, 313–36. Jackson, MS: Mississippi
Department of Archives and History, Archaeological Report.
Barka, N. and E. Harris, 1994. ‘The 1993 Archaeological Investigations at Castle
Island, Bermuda’. Bermuda Journal of Archaeology and Maritime History: 6.
Barka, N. and E. Harris 1999. ‘The Archaeology of Paget Fort: Bermuda’s First Fort’.
Bermuda Journal of Archaeology and Maritime History: 11.
Barka, N. F, E. C. Harris, and H. M. Harvey 1996. ‘Archaeology of the King’s Castle,
Castle Island, Bermuda: the 1994 and 1995 Seasons’. Bermuda Journal of
Archaeology and Maritime History: 8.
Bennell, M. 2002. ‘An Archaeological Survey of Holetown Fort, Barbados’. Journal of
the Barbados Museum and Historical Society 48: 12–28.
Bennett, Charles 1964. Laudonnière and Fort Caroline. Gainesville: University of
Florida Press.
Biddle, Martin, H. M. Colvin, and John Summerson 1982. ‘The Defenses in Detail’. In
The History of the King’s Works, Vol. IV, Part II: 1485–1660, H. M. Colvin, ed.,
415–606. London: HMSO.
Biddle, Martin and John Summerson, 1982. ‘Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight’. In
The History of the King’s Works, Vol. IV, Part II: 1485–1660, H. M. Colvin, ed.,
488–568. London: HMSO.
Bonine, Cheasleigh A. 1964. ‘The South Bastion of the DeVries Palisade of 1631 (7S-D
11),
Lewes Delaware, 1964’. The Archeolog: Publication of the Sussex Society of Archeology
and History 16.2: 13–18.
Breen, Colin 2007. An Archaeology of Southwest Ireland, 1570–1670. Dublin: Four
Courts Press.
Broussard, R. 1988. ‘Bautista Antonelli: architect of Caribbean defense’. Historian
50.4: 507–18.

262 select bibliography
Brugman, F. 1995. The Monuments of Saba. Zutphen, Netherlands: Walburg Institute

Press.
Bubberman, F. 1991. ‘Tobago en zijn Nederlandse Verleden’. In Vestingbouw Overzee:
militaire architectuur van Manhattan tot Korea, 37–43. Zutphen, The Netherlands:
Walburg Press.
Bury, J. 1978. ‘Renaissance Fortifications: art or engineering’. The Burlington Magazine
120, no. 903: 403–4.
Caldwell, D. H. and G. Ewart 1997. ‘Excavations at Eyemouth, Berwickshire, in a Mid
16th-Century Trace Italienne Fort’. Post-Medieval Archaeology 31: 61–119.
Carmiggelt, A. 1998. Een fort aan de Waddenzee: Geschiedenis en archeologie van de
Schans op Texel. Haarlem, The Netherlands.
Charbonneau, André, Yvon Desloges and Marc Lafrance 1982. Quebec, The Fortified
City: From the Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Century. Ottawa: Parks Canada.
Chartrand, René 2005. French Fortresses in North America, 1535–1763. Oxford:
Osprey Publishing.
Chatelaine, V. 1941. The Defenses of Spanish Florida, 1565-1763. Washington:
Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 511.
Cloutier, Pierre and Paul Gaston L’Anglais 2009. ‘The Saint-Louis Forts and Chateaux
Site: archaeology in the heart of New France’. Post-Medieval Archaeology 43.1:
106–24.
Coad, J. 2007. ‘Yarmouth Castle’. In The Isle of Wight, Supplement to the Archaeological
Journal 163 for 2006, ed. M. Gardiner and D. Tomalin, 62–65. London: The Royal
Archaeological Institute.
——— 1984. Hurst Castle. London: English Heritage.
Colvin, H. M., ed. 1982. The History of the King’s Works, Vol. IV, Part II: 1485–1660.
London: HMSO.
Cotter, John L. 1978. ‘Premier Établissement Français en Acadie: Sainte-Croix’.
Dossiers de l’Archéologie 27 (March-April): 60–71.
Crandall, J. 2000. A Military History of Montserrat, W.I.: attacks, fortifications, can-
nons, defenders, 1632–1815. Monckton, New Brunswick, Canada: privately
printed.
Deagan, K. and J. M. Cruxent 2002a. Archaeology at America’s First European Town:
La Isabela, 1493–1498. New Haven: Yale University Press.
——— 2002b. La Isabela: Columbus’s outpost among the Taínos 1493–1498. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
DeCorse, C. R. 2001. An Archaeology of Elmina: Africans and Europeans on the Gold
Coast, 1400–1900. Washington: Smithsonian Press.
Deetz, James 1993. Flowerdew Hundred the Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation,
1619–1864. Charlottesville, VA, and London: University Press of Virginia.
de la Croix, Horst 1972. Military Considerations in City Planning: fortifications. New
York: George Braziller.
Delpuech, Andre 2001. ‘Historical Archaeology in the French West Indies’. In Island
Lives, ed. Paul Farnsworth, 21–59. Tuscalousa, AL: The University of Alabama
Press.
DePratter, Chester B., Stanley South and James Legg 1996. ‘The Discovery of
Charlesfort, 1562–1563’. Transactions of the Huguenot Society of South Carolina
101: 39–48.
Doortmont, M. R. and B. Savoldi, eds., 2000. The Castles of Ghana: Axim, Butre,
Anomabu. Accra: Ghana Museums and Monuments Board.
Dias, P. 2004. História da arte Luso-Brasileira. Urbanização e fortificação. Coimbra,
Portugal.

Duffy, Christopher 1979. Siege Warfare: The fortress in the early Modern World 1494–
1660. New York: Barnes & Noble. Rep. 1996, London and NewYork: Routledge.
Dunn, Shirley 1997: ‘Settlement Patterns in Rensselaerswijk: farms and farmers on
Castle Island’. De Halve Maen 70.1: 7–18.
Ewen, Charles R. 2001. ‘Historical Archaeology in the Colonial Spanish Caribbean’.
In Island Lives, ed. Paul Farnsworth, 3–20. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama
Press.
Faulkner, Alaric and Gretchen Faulkner 1988. The French at Pentagoet, 1635–1674.
Special Publications of the New Brunswick Museum and Occasional Publications
in Maine Archaeology. Augusta, Maine.
Fausz, Frederick 1990. ‘An Abundance of Blood Shed on Both Sides: England’s First
Indian War, 1609–1614’. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 98.1: 3–56.
Feinberg, H. M. 1989. Africans and Europeans in West Africa: Elmina and Dutchmen
on the Gold Coast during the eighteenth century. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 79, Part 7: Philadelphia.
Fields, N. 2008. The Walls of Rome. Oxford: Osprey.
Fiset, Richard and Gilles Samson 2009. ‘Charlesbourg-Royal and France-Roy, 1541–
43: France’s first colonization attempt in the Americas’. Post-Medieval Archaeology
43.1: 48–70.
Floore, P. 1998. ‘Exporting the Model: Dutch seventeenth century stronghold engi-
neering overseas’. In Coastal Fortifications: Proceedings of an International
Conference on Coastal Fortifications held in Mauritius, 18th to 21st June 1996, ed.
P. la Hausse de Lalouvière. Tamarin, Mauritius.
Fontaine, J. 1972. Zeelandia: de geschiedenis van een fort. Zutphen, The Netherlands:
Walburg Press.
Frommel, C. L., ed. 1994. The Architectural Drawings of Antonio da Sangallo the
Younger and his Circle, Volume One, Fortifications, Machines, and Festival
Architecture. New York: MIT Press.
Galvão, H. 1979. História da Fortaleza da Barra do Rio Grande. Rio de Janeiro.
Ganong, William Francis 1979 [1945]. Champlain’s Island. Monographic Series, no.3,
ed. Susan Ganong. Saint John, New Brunswick: The New Brunswick Museum.
Garvin, Anthony N. B. 1951. Architecture and Town Planning in Colonial Connecticut.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gil, J. 1986. Os mais belos castelos de Portugal. Lisboa and São Paulo.
Gonzalves de Mello, J. A. 2001. Nederlanders in Brazilië (1624–1654). De invloed van
de Hollandse bezetting op het leven en de cultuur in Noord-Brazilië. Zutphen, The
Netherlands.
Goslinga, C. C. 1971. The Dutch in the Caribbean and on the Wild Coast 1580–1680.
Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Press.
Goulart Reis, N. 2001. Imagens de vilas e cidades do Brasil Colonial. São Paulo.
Goyette, Manon 2009. ‘The Origins of the Châteaux Saint-Louis, the Residence of the
Governor of New France’. Post-Medieval Archaeology 43.1: 125–39.
Griffith, P. 2006. The Vauban Fortifications of France. New York: Osprey.
Hale, John R. 1961. The Art of War and Renaissance England. Charlottesville, VA:
University Press of Virginia.
——— 1965. ‘The Early Development of the Bastion: an Italian Chronology c. 1450–
1534’. In Europe in the Late Middle Ages, ed. J. R. Hale, I. Highfield, and B. Smalley,
466. London: Faber.
——— 1977. Renaissance Fortifications: Art or Engineering? London: Thames and
Hudson.
Hadlock, Wendell 1954. ‘Recent Excavations at De Mont’s Colony’. Old Time New
England 44.4: 93–99.

Hall, Bert S. 1997. Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe. Baltimore and
London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harrington, J. C. 1962. Search for the Cittie of Ralegh: Archaeological Excavations at
Fort Raleigh National Historic Site. Archaeological Research Series, no. 6.
Washington: National Park Service.
Harris, E. C., 1980. ‘Sandgate Castle, Kent: archaeological excavations and architec-
tural investigations, 1976–9’. Post-Medieval Archaeology 14: 53–88.
——— 1997. Bermuda Forts, 1612–1957. Bermuda.
Hartog, J. 1968. Curacao: From Colonial Dependence to Autonomy. Aruba: De Wit
Press.
——— 1976. The History of St. Eustatius. Aruba: De Wit Press.
——— 1980. Twelve Forts of the Netherlands Antilles. Curacao: Beaujonville Mansion
Press.
——— 1981. History of Sint Maarten and Saint Martin. St. Maarten: St. Maarten
Jaycees Publication.
——— 1994. The Forts of Sint Maarten and Saint Martin. Zutphen, The Netherlands:
Walburg Press.
——— 1997a. De Forten, Verdedigingswerken en Geschutstellingen van Sint Maarten
en Saint Martin. Zaltbommel, The Netherlands: Europese Bibliotheek.
——— 1997b. De Forten, Verdedigingswerken en Geschutstellingen van Curacao en
Bonaire. Zaltbommel, The Netherlands: Europese Bibliotheek.
Haviser, J. and A. Sealy 1997. ‘Archaeological Testing at Fort Oranje, Bonaire’. In
Proceedings of the seventeenth International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology,
ed. J. Winter, 340–57. New York: Rockville Center.
Hayes-McCoy, G. A. 1969. Irish Battles. London: Longmans.
Hefting, O. F. 2005. ‘Towards Restoration of Fort Orange: research of Fort Orange in
Brasil’. In Dutch Involvement in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage Overseas,
ed. R. van Oers and L. G. W. Verhoef. Delft, The Netherlands.
——— 2006. ‘Un típico fuerte holandés en Neuva Holanda: La investigación histó-
rico-arqueológica del Fuerte Orange en Brasil’. In El desafío holandés al dominio
Ibérico en Brasil en el siglo XVII, ed. J. M. Santos Pérez and G. F. Cabral de Souza.
Salamanca, Spain.
Hodges, Charles T. 1993. ‘Private Fortifications in Seventeenth-Century Virginia: A
Study of Six Representative Works’. In The Archaeology of Seventeenth-Century
Virginia, Theodore R. Reinhart and Dennis J. Pogue, eds. Richmond, VA: The
Dietz Press.
Hogg, Ian 1977. Fortress: A History of Military Defense. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Hoffman, P. 1980. The Spanish Crown and the Defense of the Caribbean, 1535–1585.
Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.
Honoré Naber, S. P. L’ 1923. Nederlandsch-Brazilië onder het bewind van Johan
Maurits, Grave van Nassau, 1637–1644. Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Huey, P. 1985. ‘Archaeological Excavations in the Site of Fort Orange: a Dutch West
India Company trading fort, built in 1624’. Bulletin KNOB 1985. 2/ 3, 68–79.
Zutphen, The Netherlands.
——— 1987. ‘Archeological Evidence of Dutch Wooden Cellars and Perishable
Wooden Structures at Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Sites in the Upper
Hudson Valley’. In New World Dutch Studies: Dutch arts and culture in colonial
America, 1609–1776, Roderic H. Blackburn and Nancy A. Kelley, eds., 13–35.
Albany, NY: Albany Institute of History and Art.
Jacobs, J. 2005. New Netherland: A Dutch colony in seventeenth-century America.
Leiden, The Netherlands.

Jayasena, R. M. 2006. ‘The Historical Archaeology of Katuwana, a Dutch East India

Company Fort in Sri Lanka’. Post-Medieval Archaeology 40/1: 111–28.
Jefferys, Charles W. 1939. ‘The Reconstruction of the Port Royal Habitation of 1605–
13’. The Canadian Historical Review, December, 3–11.
Jones, Howard Mumford 1942. ‘Origins of the Colonial Idea in England’. Proceedings
of the American Philosophical Society 85.5: 448–65.
Kankpeyeng, B. and C. R. DeCorse 2004. ‘Ghana’s Vanishing Past: development,
antiquities, and the destruction of the archaeological record’. African Archaeological
Review 21.2: 89–128.
Kelly, Kevin P. 1979. ‘“In dispers’d Country Plantations”: Settlement Patterns in
Seventeenth-Century Surry County, Virginia.’ In The Chespeake in the Seventeenth
Century, ed. Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, 183–205. New York and
London: W. W. Norton & Company.
Kelso, William M. 2006. Jamestown, the Buried Truth. Charlottesville, VA, and
London: University of Virginia Press.
Kelso, W. M. 2007. Jamestown Rediscovery 1994–2004. Richmond, VA: Association
for the Preservation of Virginian Antiquities
Kendall, J. C. 1972. ‘The Forts of Annapolis Royal’. Military Collector and Historian
24.3: 69–76.
Kerrigan P. 1995. Castles and Fortifications in Ireland 1485–1945. Cork, IR: The
Collins Press. Kidd, Kenneth E. 1949. The Excavation of Ste Marie I. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Klingelhofer, E. 2010. Castles and Colonists: An Archaeology of Elizabethan Ireland.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Lawrence, A. W. 1963. Trade Castles and Forts of West Africa. London: Jonathan Cape.
Lenting, J. J. 1983. ‘Archeologische vondsten uit de vesting Oudeschans’. In
H. Buiskool, et.al., Oudeschans. Scheemda, The Netherlands.
Lenting, J. J., H. Van Gangelen and H. van Westing, 1993. Schans op de grens, Bour-
tanger bodemvondsten, 1580–1850. Sellingen, The Netherlands.
Luccketti, N. 1999. ‘The Road to James Fort’. In Jamestown Rediscovery V.,
W. M. Kelso, N. M. Luccketti and B. A. Straube. Richmond, VA.: APVA.
Luccketti, Nicholas M., Matthew R. Laird, and Merry A. Outlaw, forthcoming.
Yorktown’s Buried Past: From Chiskiack to the Civil War.
Lyon, E. 1988. ‘Pedro Menéndez’s strategic plan for the Florida peninsula’. The Florida
Historical Quarterly 67.1: 1–14.
MacIvor, I. 1965. ‘The Elizabethan Fortifications of Berwick-on-Tweed’. Antiquaries
Journal 45: 67–70.
Marques, F. L. T. 2006. ‘Investigaçao arqueológica na Feliz Lusitânia’. In Feliz
Lusitânia / Forte do Presépio – Casa das Onze Janelas – Casario da Rua Padre
Champagnat. Belém, Brazil.
McCollough, N. and V. Mulvin, 1989. A Lost Tradition: The Nature of Architecture in
Ireland. Dublin: Gandon Editions.
Mello, J. A. Gonsalves de 2001. Nederlanders in Brazilië: De invloed van de Hollandse
bezetting op het leven en de cultuur in Noord-Brazilië. Leiden, The Netherlands.
Mello, U. Pernambucano de 1983. O forte das Cinco Pontas: Um trabalho de arqueo-
logia histórica aplicado à restauração do monumento. Recife, Brazil.
Mendonça de Oliveira, M. 2004. As fortificações portuguesas de Salvador, quando
Cabeça do Brasil. Salvador-Bahia, Brazil.
Merriman, M. 1982 ‘The Fortresses in Scotland, 1547–50’. In The History of the King’s
Works, Vol. IV, Part II: 1485–1660, H. M. Colvin, ed., 694–726. London: HMSO.
Moore, Peter 2000. ‘Tibury Fort: a post-medieval fort and its inhabitants’. Post-
Medieval Archaeology 34: 3–104.

Moree, P. 1998. A Concise History of Dutch Mauritius, 1598–1710, a fruitful and

healthy land. London.
Morley, B. M. 1976. Henry VIII and the Development of Coastal Defence. London:
HMSO.
Morris, Elaine L. et al. 1999. ‘”... the old stone fortt at Newcastle...”: the Redoubt,
Nevis, eastern Caribbean’. Post-Medieval Archaeology 33: 194–221.
Mota Menezes, J. L. 1986. Fortificações Portuguesas no Nordeste do Brasil, Sec. XVI,
XVII, XVIII. Recife, Brazil.
Mouette, Stephane 2003. ‘Les Balbutiements de la Colonisation Française au Brésil,
1524–1531’. Cahiers du Brésil Contemporain 32: 7–18.
National Trust Guyana 2000. National Monuments of Guyana. Georgetown, Guyana:
National Trust of Guyana Publications.
Nederveen Meerkerk, H.C. van 1989. Recife: The rise of a 17th-century trade city from
a cultural-historical perspective. Assen and Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Nelson, W.A. 1984. The Dutch forts of Sri Lanka: the military monuments of Ceylon.
Edinburgh.
Niellon, Françoise and Marcel Moussette 1985. L’Habitation de Champlain. Les
Publications du Québec. Quebec: Gouvernement du Québec.
Nöel Hume, Ivor and Audrey Nöel Hume 2001. The Archaeology of Martins Hundred.
Philadelphia and Williamsburg: University of Pennsylvania Museum and Colonial
Williamsburg Foundation.
Nørregárd, G. 1966. Danish Settlements in West Africa, 1658–1850. Boston: Boston
University Press.
Oers, R. van 2000. Dutch Town Planning Overseas during VOC and WIC rule, 1600–
1800. Zutphen, The Netherlands.
Ozinga, M. 1959. De Monumenten van Curacao in Woord en Beeld. ’s Gravenhage,
The Netherlands: Stichting Monumentenzorg Curacao, Staatsdrukkerij en
Uitgeverijbedrijf.
Paar, E. 1996. ‘De Nederlandse school der fortificatieleer: de theoretische en prakti-
sche invloeden op de Portugese militaire architectuur in de zeventiende eeuw’,
KNOB 95: 12–23. Zutphen, The Netherlands.
Peets, O. H. 1952. ‘Methods of Investigation’. The Archeolog: Publication of the
Sussex Archaeological Association 4.2: 1–4.
Pepper, S. and Adams, N. 1986. Firearms and Fortifications: military architecture and
siege warfare in sixteenth-century Siena. Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press.
Pinto y de la Rosa, J. M. 1996. Apuntes para la Historia de las Antiguas Fortificaciones
de Canarias. Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Museo Militar Regional de Canarias.
Posnansky, M. and A. Van Dantzig 1976. ‘Fort Ruychaver Rediscovered’. Sankofa 2:
7–18.
Powell, P. W. 1982. ‘Genesis of the Frontier Presidio in North America’. The Western
Historical Quarterly 13.2: 125–41.
Quinn, David 1977. ‘The Attempted Colonization of Florida by the French, 1562–
1565’. In Jacques le Moyne de Morgues: A Huguenot Artist in France, Florida, and
England, with foreward, catalogue and introductory studies by Paul Hulton, vol.
1, 17–36. London: British Museum Publications.
——— 1985. Set Fair for Roanoke. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina
Press.
Raven-Hart, R. 1964. The Dutch Wars with Kandy 1764–1766. Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Richmond, I. A. 1930. The City Wall of Imperial Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
——— 1949. ‘Walls of Rome’. In M. Cary et al., The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 956.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Ros, R., ed. 2008. Forten Info: militair erfgoed in Nederland en Belgie. Netherlands:
Stichting Menno van Coehoorn, www.forten.info.
Rountree, Helen C. 1989. The Powhatan Indians of Virginia. Norman, OK: University
Press of Oklahoma.
——— 1990. Pocahontas’s People. Norman, OK: University Press of Oklahoma.
St. George, Robert Blair 1990. ‘Bawns and Beliefs: Architecture, Commerce, and
Conversion in Early New England’. Winterthur Portfolio 25.4: 241–87.
Sarty, Roger and Doug Knight 2003. Saint John Fortifications. The New Brunswick
Military Heritage Series, no.1. Fredericton: Goose Lane Editions.
Schmeisser, Barbara 1996. ‘The Port Royal Habitation – A ‘Politically Correct’
Reconstruction’? Collections of the Royal Nova Scotia Historical Society 44: 41–47.
Schrire, C., K. Cruz-Uribe and J. Klose 1993. ‘The Site History of the Historical Site at
Oudepost I, Cape’. South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 7:21 -32.
South, Stanley 2005. ‘Spanish Santa Elena and French Charlesfort’. In Stanley South,
An Archaeological Evolution, 321–334. New York: Springer Press.
Tummon, Jeanie and W. Barry Gray 1995. Before and Beyond Sainte-Marie: 1987–
1990 Excavations at the Sainte-Marie-among-the-Hurons Site Complex, circa
1200–1990. Dundas, Ontario: Friends of Sainte-Marie and Copeland Press.
Tuttle, R. J. 1982. ‘Against Fortifications: the Defense of Renaissance Bologna’. The
Journal of the Society for Architectural Historians 41.3: 196.
Van Dantzig, A. 1980. Forts and Castles of Ghana. Accra: Sedco Publishing.
Van Oers, R. 2000. Dutch Town Planning Overseas during the VOC and WIC Rule,
1600–1800. Zutphen, The Netherlands: Walburg Press.
Van Westing, H. 2006. ‘Artefactos del período de ocupación holandesa del Fuerte
Orange (Brasil)’. In El desafío holandés al dominio Ibérico en Brasil en el siglo XVII,
ed. J. M. Santos Pérez and G. F. Cabral de Souza. Salamanca, Spain.
Veit, Richard 1999. ‘“A Unique and Valuable Historical and Indian Collection”:
Charles Conrad Abbott explores a seventeenth-century Dutch trading post in the
Delaware Valley’. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey 54: 109–24.
Verrand, Laurence 2004. ‘Fortifications Militaires de Martinique, 1635–1845’. Journal
of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication 1: 11–28.
Weslager, C. A. and Dunlap A.R. 1965. Dutch Explorers, Traders, and Settlers in the
Delaware Valley, 1609–1664. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Williams, J. 2004. ‘The Evolution of the Presidio in northern New Spain’. In ‘Presidios
of the North American Spanish Borderlands’, ed. J. Bense, Historical Archaeology
38.3: 6–23.
Wood, W. R. 1967. ‘An Archaeological Appraisal of Early European Settlement in the
Senegambia’. Journal of African History 8: 39–64.
Young, Christopher 2007. ‘Carisbrooke Castle’ In The Isle of Wight. Supplement to
the Archaeological Journal vol. 163 for 2006, ed. M. Gardiner and D. Tomalin,
24–36. London: Royal Archaeological Institute.
Zapatero, J. 1978. La Fortificatión Abaluartada en América. San Juan, PR: Instituto de
Cultura Puertorriqueña.

View publication stats

Dutch Forts in Asia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dutch Forts in Asia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Dutch forts of seventeenth century Ceylon and Mauritius: An historical

Article · January 2010

Historical archaeology, Arctic exploration View project

Historical archaeology, Dutch East India Company View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb i 23-7-2010 8:43:18

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb ii 23-7-2010 8:43:20

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb iii 23-7-2010 8:43:20

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Copyright 2010 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb iv 23-7-2010 8:43:20

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

The Aurelian Wall in Rome: Renaissance Fortification in

Strategies of Adjustment: Spanish Defense of The

A Survey of French Fortifications in The New World,

Tudor Overseas Fortifications: A Review and Typology . . . . . . 65

Nansemond Fort and Virginia Palisade Fortifications . . . . . . . 85

Bermuda’s First Forts, 1612–1622 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

‘Within Musquett Shott of Black Rock’ – Johnson’s Fort

Dutch Colonial Forts in New Netherland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb v 23-7-2010 8:43:20

The ‘Old Netherlands Style’ and Seventeenth-Century

High Versus Low: Portuguese and Dutch Fortification Tra-

Early Colonial Trade Posts and Forts of West Africa . . . . . . . . 209

Dutch Forts of Seventeenth Century Ceylon and Mauritius:

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb vi 23-7-2010 8:43:20

Kathleen Deagan, Florida Museum of Natural History, University of

Christopher R. DeCorse, Syracuse University

Pieter Floore, City of Amsterdam, Office for Monuments and Archae-

Edward Cecil Harris, National Museum of Bermuda

Jay B. Haviser, Sint Maarten Archaeological Center

Oscar F. Hefting, New Holland Foundation

Paul R. Huey, New York State Department of Natural Resources

Ranjith Jayasena, City of Amsterdam, Office for Monuments and

Eric Klingelhofer, Mercer University

Roger Leech, University of Southampton

Nicholas M. Luccketti, James River Institute for Archaeology, Inc.

David G. Orr, Temple University

Steven R. Pendery, U.S. National Park Service

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb vii 23-7-2010 8:43:20

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb viii 23-7-2010 8:43:20

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb ix 23-7-2010 8:43:20

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb x 23-7-2010 8:43:21

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb xi 23-7-2010 8:43:21

Jayasena and Floore

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb xii 23-7-2010 8:43:21

After some years of learning and practicing medieval archaeology in

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb xiii 23-7-2010 8:43:21

to modifications and even new types of fortifications. This volume is

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb xiv 23-7-2010 8:43:21

Cross-disciplinary and cross-national studies are by definition sec-

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb 1 23-7-2010 8:43:21

Spanish colonial fortifications reveals how this area of research has

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb 2 23-7-2010 8:43:21

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb 3 23-7-2010 8:43:21

DUTCH FORTS OF SEVENTEENTH CENTURY CEYLON

Ranjith Jayasena and Pieter Floore

Historical Archaeology of VOC Forts

In 1602 a number of competing Dutch trading companies merged in a

Klingelhover_Book 1.indb 235 23-7-2010 8:44:14

Figure 12.1. VOC settlements in the Indian Ocean.

tiny to withstand an attack of the Portuguese. From this insignificant