The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2005) 34.

1: 110–122
doi: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2005.00048.x

Rigging the Pepper Wreck. Part I—Masts and Yards

Blackwell
NAUTICAL
F. CASTRO:Publishing,
ARCHAEOLOGY,
RIGGING Ltd.
THE PEPPER
34.1 WRECK. PART I—MASTS and YARDS

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

Discovered in 1993 at the mouth of the Tagus River, the SJB2 shipwreck—or ‘Pepper Wreck’—was tentatively identified
as the Portuguese Indiaman Nossa Senhora dos Mártires, lost in this place on its return voyage from Cochin, in India, on 14
September 1606. Its archaeological excavation led to a tentative reconstruction of the hull, based in contemporary texts on
shipbuilding. Further analysis of these texts allowed us to propose a reconstruction of the rigging.
© 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society

Key words: Pepper Wreck, Nossa Senhora dos Mártires, Portugal, 17th-century shipbuilding, India route, Portuguese nau.

T he hull remains of the ‘Pepper Wreck’

(officially designated SJB 2) were found
during a survey at the mouth of the Tagus
River, near Lisbon, Portugal, in 1994, and excav-
being written for 21st-century nautical
archaeologists, these texts are unclear in many
places and often lack basic information, which is
implied rather than expressly stated.
ated between 1996 and 2000 by a joint team from For these reasons, our understanding of
the Portuguese Centro Nacional de Arqueologia Portuguese shipbuilding for the India Route
Náutica e Subaquática and the Institute of in the late 16th and early 17th centuries cannot
Nautical Archaeology at Texas A&M University. be based on contemporary written sources alone.
A search in the database of the National Museum A shipwreck like the Pepper Wreck, with real
of Archaeology showed the nau Nossa Senhora scantlings and carpenter’s marks that set some of
dos Mártires as the most probable identification of the hull’s basic dimensions, was therefore a good
this shipwreck. It was lost in front of the fortress opportunity to propose a tentative reconstruction
of São Julião da Barra on 14 September 1606, of the hull. Although this reconstruction is only
returning from India with a main cargo of tentative and stands as an educated guess, it
peppercorns (Castro, 2005). is nevertheless a good educated guess, based on
A small portion of the bottom of the ship’s archaeological data. The next logical step for
hull was preserved, including a section of the the understanding of these ships was to try to
keel, an apron, eleven frames, and some of the reconstruct the ship’s sail plan. It was Fernando
planking, extending over an area measuring 7 Oliveira’s Liuro da fabrica das naus, written
by 12 m (Alves et al., 1998). After analysis it was around 1580, that best described the hull of
found that this was the portion of the ship’s the Pepper Wreck (Oliveira, 1991). However, this
bottom immediately forward of the midship treatise does not include a section on rigging. We
frames. Based on the scantlings’ dimensions and have searched all the possible sources—which
on the analysis of the carpenters’ marks found on were recently compiled in an outstanding work
the timbers, the Pepper Wreck hull remains were by Francisco Contente Domingues (2004)—and
reconstructed following the rules and proportions found three regimentos with descriptions of the
indicated in contemporary texts on shipbuilding rigging of both India Route naus and galleons
(Castro, 2003). Three Portuguese treatises on from this period:
shipbuilding and a handful of sets of rules on
how to build ships—regimentos in Portuguese— a) ‘Medidas para fazer h¨a Nao de Seicentas
contain valuable information about a number Tonelladas’, an anonymous regimento from
of types of ships from this period. However, not the Livro náutico, a manuscript dated to the

© 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society.

Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
F. CASTRO: RIGGING THE PEPPER WRECK. PART I—MASTS AND YARDS

late 16th century, probably around 1590, in we encounter again a group of technical texts
the Códice 2257 of Biblioteca Nacional de with descriptions of ocean-going ships, such as
Lisboa, Reservados. Gastañeta’s Arte de Fabricar Reales (Fernandez
b) ‘Medidas para fazer h¨ galião de quinhentos Gonzalez et al., 1992).
toneis’, also from the Livro náutico. These texts define slightly different ships, and
c) ‘Conta e Medida de h¨a Nao de quarto cubertas it is important to describe them here, beforehand,
como adiante se vera …’ from the Livro de because the sizes of masts and spars are often
traças de carpintaria, Manoel Fernandez, 1616 related to the sizes of some of the most important
(Fernandez, 1989). components of a ship, such as the keel length.
d) A text titled ‘Conta das medidas de uma nau The main difference between these ships and
da India’ was included in the manuscript the nau of Fernando Oliveira—and therefore the
Coriosidades de Gonçallo de Sousa, dated to reconstruction of the Pepper Wreck—is that
the 1620s, in Biblioteca da Universidade de the latter has three decks, as was the norm
Coimbra—Reservados, ms. 3074. It is thought throughout the 16th century, whereas the naus of
to be a copy of the same original from which documents (a) and (c) have four, as was the trend
text (c) was taken, and therefore presents very in the first decades of the 17th century. It is
similar values for the hull dimensions and interesting to note that 17th century 4-deckers
deserves mention here only because it indicates have slightly shorter keels and slightly higher
a different rake for the main mast (Xavier, rakes of the sternposts, which compensate the
1992). values of their lengths overall. Furthermore,
the values of the maximum beam of these India
All these texts are thought to have been written naus grow continuously during the period under
between 1580 and 1620 and although they refer analysis, and so does the area of the main deck,
to the same type of ship—an India nau—they both forward, through a slight lengthening of
describe slightly different vessels. It was not until the spring of the stem posts, and abaft, through a
the late 1610s that Philip III of Spain—who was widening of the transom (Table 1). All measurements
also Philip II of Portugal—issued legislation in in these documents are given in rumos (1.54 m),
order to regulate the size and shape of these ships braças (1.76 m), goas (77 cm), palmos de goa
(Rubio Serrano, 1991). We do not know exactly (25.67 cm), palmos de vara (22 cm), and dedos
to what extent he succeeded in this attempt to (1.83 cm). The capacity is indicated in tonéis, a
standardize the types and sizes of seagoing unit corresponding to the space necessary to
vessels because there is a large gap in the written house a barrel 1.54 m in height and 1.03 m in
sources that describe the large ships of Portugal diameter.
and Spain. Around the turn of the 16th century, Rigging an India nau in the late 16th century
roughly between 1570 and 1620, there is a group was not an exact science. Neither ships nor rigs
of documents, both in Portuguese and Spanish, were standardized and there was some leeway in
describing several types of ships and boats. Then the design and definition of the ship’s masts,
follows a period of almost complete silence as spars and tops. This is probably the reason why
far as written sources are concerned, and it is document (a), a regimento for a nau in the Livro
not until the very end of the 17th century that náutico, has two consecutive lists of masts and

Table 1. Basic dimensions of the vessels under study

Oliveira a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez d) Sousa

c.1580 c.1590 c.1590 1616 c.1620

Tonnage 500 tonéis 600 tonéis 500 tonéis no mention no mention

No. of Decks 3 4 3 4 4
Keel Length 27.72 m 26.18 m 27.72 m 26.95 m 26.95 m
Spring of Stem 9.24 m 8.98 m 7.70 m 9.50 m 9.50 m
Length Overall 39.27 m 37.86 m 37.73 m 39.78 m 40.04 m
Max. Beam 12.32 m 12.38 m 13.35 m 14.37 m 14.50 m
Transom 6.16 m 6.42 m 6.67 m 7.57 m 10.01 m*

* Almost certainly a mistake: in the original 39 palmos de goa, instead of the more plausible 29 palmos de goa.

© 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society 111

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 34.1

Figure 1. Naus, galleons and caravelas de armada, c.1538. (Detail from Roteiro da Índia de D. João de Castro, Ms 33,
Biblioteca da Universidade de Coimbra, reproduced with permission)

yards after the description of the hull timbers. this well-known codex, the Livro de traças de
These lists in most cases are redundant, in others carpintaria. It is a pity that there are almost no
complete or clarify each other, but in the case of clues pertaining to the ship’s rigging in the
the ship’s main mast are very different. I cannot drawings. Looking at the values in Table 1 it
find an explanation for this, since the manuscript almost seems that the nau of Fernando Oliveira
bears no comments on this subject. The galleon evolved into two different types of ships: the
described in (b) is quite different from the naus slimmer late 16th century galleon of Livro náutico
of the remaining documents. It has three decks and the larger, beamier and more capacious
and four masts: fore, main, mizzen and bonaventure. nau of the early 17th century (Figs 1 to 3). One
Galleons are mentioned as part of the Portuguese wonders how these naus performed under sail
armadas to India in the early 16th century with a fourth deck, a wider midship section, and
(Domingues, 2004), and seem to have a particular a shorter keel. The extra draught resulting from
function as war vessels, although it is not known adding a new deck must have increased the ship’s
how this differed from the function of the famous stability as did the wider beam. The case for
caravelas de armada, also with four masts, but wider beams is actually made in the early 1630s
carrying lateen sails on the main, mizzen and Spanish text Diálogos entre un vizcayno y un
bonaventure masts (Fig. 1). montañés (Vicente, 1998). However, the overall
Text (c) is probably the most interesting, in result in performance is easy to imagine, and on
view of the marvellous illustrations that the 17 May 1597, in the middle of the Indian Ocean,
author included in the manuscript that forms Gaspar Ferreira, a skilled and seasoned pilot of

112 © 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society

F. CASTRO: RIGGING THE PEPPER WRECK. PART I—MASTS AND YARDS

Figure 2. The Pepper Wreck as reconstructed after Fernando Oliveira’s Livro da fabrica das naus. (Filipe Castro)

the Portuguese India Route, wrote this entry in Table 2. Rake of the mainmast
his diary: ‘The ship does not hold the sail. May
God forgive the one who built it and armed such a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez d) Sousa
c.1590 c.1590 1616 c.1620
high castles over so short a keel. As the wind is
calm, all we can do is to fall before it and watch
3.5% — 6.1% 10%
the stem post turning to leeward in a way that
makes my guts burn, just from standing on such
a ship!’ (Fonseca, 1938).
It is worth noting that between 1590 and 1630 authors indicate explicitly this rake but they
the percentage of ships lost on the return voyage mention the position of the deck beams to be
from Cochin to Lisbon rose considerably (Guinote placed above the mast-step mortise, as well as the
et al., 1998). It is known that some of the reasons height of the hold. The values for the different
for this increase in the losses of ships were Dutch rakes can easily be obtained from this information
and English piracy, stormy weather around the and are indicated in Table 2. Another text,
Cape of Good Hope due to a deliberate delay in Coriosidades of Goncalo de Sousa, the manuscript
the departures, possibly to avoid pirate attacks, presumed to be a copy of the same original that
and excess of loading. Maybe this trend in the was copied into the Livro de traças de carpintaria,
design also had its role among the main causes of recommends a more pronounced rake for the
shipwreck during this period. Be that as it may, mainmast. Although it is not possible to
the aim of this study is not to find out the causes of understand the mast-step arrangement and
the increase in the numbers of shipwrecks in the the overlaying deck beams in the text, the author
late 16th century, but to try to find out the main states that on the second deck the mast hole
characteristics of the rigging of the Pepper Wreck. should move abaft 1 palmo de vara (22 cm). Given
the fact that the height between decks is 8.5
palmos de goa (2.18 m), the rake is 9.91%, a value
Mainmast far above those indicated by the other authors.
All authors agree that the mainmast was stepped The length of the main mast is consistently
on the centre of the keel, abaft the midships indicated as 18 braças, or 31.68 m. The regimento
frame, and raked a few degrees to the stern. No of the galleon from Livro náutico says that the

© 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society 113

114

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 34.1

© 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society

Figure 3. India nau from the Livro de traças de carpintaria, 1616. Scale aproximate. (After Fernandez, 1989)
F. CASTRO: RIGGING THE PEPPER WRECK. PART I—MASTS AND YARDS

Table 3. Mainmast dimensions (L = Length; Ø = Diameter; W = Weight)

a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez

c.1590 c.1590 1616

L = 31.68 m L = 31.68 m L = 31.68 m

(doubling not incl.) (doub. not mentioned) (incl. doubling = 2.64 m)
Ødeck level = 99/124 cm Ødeck level = 134 cm Ødeck level = 116 cm
Øtop = 53/62 cm Øtop = 67 cm Øtop = 83 cm
W = 7.47/11.19 t W = 13.07 t W = 12.81 t

main mast should be as long in braças as the keel the time (Costa, 1997), it is easy to estimate the
is in rumos (18 rumos or 27.72 m). The regimento weight of these massive yards from the expression:
for the nau in the same book states that the mast Weight = [(Ømax. + Ømin.)/4]2 × π × L × ρ
should have as many braças of length as the
number of rumos of the keel (in this case 17 rumos), Where the symbol Ø indicates the diameter of
plus one. Fernandez just indicates a value: 18 the yard, π is a constant equal to 3.14159, L is the
braças. There are doubts whether this length length of the spar and ρ the density of the timber.
should include the doubling (calcês) as a general This formula is a simplification because masts were
rule. The author of the regimento of a nau from not actually conical. All spars’ diameters tapered
the Livro náutico states that the 18 braças do not to the extremities along a curve determined with a
include the doubling, but Fernandez mentions geometric algorithm such as the well-understood
the doubling included in the 18 braças of total mezzaluna (Anderson, 1925). In this particular
height (Table 3). case it should also be noted that masts taper upwards
The rules to calculate the mast diameters vary. and downwards from their maximum diameter
The nau from Livro náutico has two different sections, at main deck level. We have deliberately
maximum diameters. The first list mentions ignored the tapering downwards to compensate for
4.5 palmos de vara (99 cm) at the main deck level, the weight of the iron hoops and rope woolding.
which tapered to 53 cm at the level of the cheeks Both the Livro náutico and Fernandez give
(romãs), immediately below the trestle-trees. The dimensions for the tops, which look very heavy, both
second list, however, states that the maximum on the main and fore masts, circular, protected
diameter of the mainmast should be 1/10 of the with bulwarks, and with a conical shape (Fig. 4).
maximum beam or, in this case, 1.24 m. This is In the Livro náutico the top dimensions are
the rule for the mainmast of the galleon in the defined as simple proportions of the ship’s beam:
Livro náutico: 1/10 of the ship’s maximum beam at 1
/3 for the diameter of the upper rail, reducing
1
deck level, or 1.34 m, tapering to half of that /5 of that value for the lower platform. The same
value below the cheeks (at the section called value— 1/5 of the diameter of the upper rail is the
garganta). Fernandez indicates 4.5 palmos de goa height of the bulwark. Fernandez’s tops are
(1.16 m) for the mainmast diameter, tapering lighter, almost cylindrical and have slightly lower
to 5/7 of that value, or 83 cm, at the top, below bulwarks (Table 4). Pyrard de Laval says that
the cheeks. François Pyrard de Laval, a French these tops were fitted with artillery and could
traveller from the early 17th century, wrote a few accommodate ‘ten or twelve men’.
lines about these massive masts, describing them
as ‘so enormous that there are no trees so big
and so thick’ to make them. According to him they
were assembled from different timbers firmly kept Table 4. Mainmast top dimensions
together with iron hoops and rope woolding
a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez
(Laval, 1944). c.1590 c.1590 1616
These large diameters raise the question of the
weight of the masts. Considering a density ρ =
Øbasis = 3.30 m Øbasis = 3.56 m Øbasis = 3.59 m
0.52 t / m3, an average value for Riga pine (Pinus Ørail =4.12 m Ørail = 4.45 m Ørail = 4.10 m
sylvestris), which was the most likely timber used Height = ? Height = 0.89 m Height = 0.77 m
for the building of masts and spars in Portugal at

© 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society 115

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 34.1

Table 5. Main yard dimensions (L = Length; Ø = Diameter;

W = Weight)

a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez

c.1590 c.1590 1616

L = 37.14/29.92 m L = 40.05 m L = 31.68 m

Ømax. = 51 cm Ømax. = 67 cm Ømax. = 51 cm
Ømin. = 26 cm Ømin. = 34 cm Ømin. = 26 cm
W = 2.31/1.86 t W = 4.17 t W = 1.97 t

Main yard
According to Fernandez, the main yard should
be as long as the mainmast, or 18 braças (31.68 m),
and have a maximum diameter of 51 cm (2
palmos de goa), tapering to half of that value at
both ends. For the author of the regimentos of
the Livro náutico the main yard should be as long
as three times the value of the maximum beam,
or 37.14 m for the nau and 40.05 m for the
galleon (Table 5). There is some confusion here
since the two lists of dimensions of masts and yards
in the nau regimento indicate different rules. The
first list has no mention of any relation with the
maximum beam and indicates instead that
the main yard should be 17 braças long (29.92 m).
The diameters of Livro náutico’s main yards
are different: 2 palmos de goa for the nau, as in
Fernandez, and half of the diameter of the
mainmast for the galleon. In both these cases the
diameter tapers to half of its value at the ends.
This is a general rule: in all the documents under
analysis, when stated, the diameters of the yards at
their extremities are always half of the maximum
diameter, which is measured ‘on the halyard’.
Again, these diameters raise the question of
the weight of the yards. It is slightly more complex
to estimate their weight. Although the 1616 text
and drawings from Fernandez’s book clearly
refer to modern yards, the 1590 texts suggest the
possibility that the main yard was composed
of two overlapping halves ( penões), or pennons,
scarfed in the centre. This is a somehow strange
reference since, to my knowledge, there is no
iconographic evidence of this solution from the
1550s onwards. Anyway, since neither the extension
of the overlap nor the shape of the scarf are clear
in any of the texts considered, it is difficult to
apply the expression used to obtain the weight of
Figure 4. Tops in the mid-16th century. (From Anon, the masts in this particular case. The values
c.1538, Breviário da condessa de Bertianos, Ms, Biblioteca da expressed for the main yards of both the nau and
Academia das Ciências, Lisbon, with permission) galleon of the Livro náutico are therefore perhaps

116 © 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society

F. CASTRO: RIGGING THE PEPPER WRECK. PART I—MASTS AND YARDS

higher that the real weights, although by less than yards are composed of two halves scarfed
5%. Again we are not adding the weight of any together in the center. About 150 years earlier,
iron hoops, rope woolding, cable or blocks. Zorzi Timbota defined the total thickness of the
When we consider that to this weight one must two pennoni in the zone of the overlap scarf as
7
add the weight of the mainsail, we understand /5 of the maximum diameter of the yards
why there was a windlass (estrinca) on the gun- (Bellabarba, 1988). Assuming that the author of
deck dedicated to the manouvre of hoisting the this regimento is talking about the main yard, for
mainsail. These high values for the weight of the a maximum diameter of 67 cm each penão should
main yards are corroborated by Pyrard de Laval, be 48 cm thick and the topmast should have a
who says, perhaps exaggerating but nevertheless diameter of 36 cm. The weights in Table 6 were
in a quite informative way, that main yards were calculated considering that the diameters at
‘24 braças [42.24 m] long’ and that ‘it takes more the top of the mast were half of the maximum
than two hundred persons to hoist such a yard, diameters defined in the manuscripts.
and always with two solid capstans’ (Laval,
1944). Pyrard de Laval was certainly referring to
the capstan and the windlass.
Main top yard
The main top yard must be 1/3 of the length of the
main yard for both ships in the Livro náutico, and
Main topmast its maximum diameter is given in both cases as
Topmasts are smaller and lighter in this period half of a penão. The nau’s regimento has again
than they would be during the next centuries. two different solutions, the second being 6 braças
There is no clear pattern in the values indicated long and 1 palmo de goa thick. We are left with
in the texts considered, and the only rule of two values for this length: 1/3 of 37.14 m and 6
thumb stated, for the galleon, is that the topmast braças. According to Fernandez, the main top
should be 1/3 of the mainmast in length (Table 6). yard may vary between 6 and 6.5 braças and
Diameters are only clearly indicated for the naus. should be 1 palmo de goa and 2 dedos thick in the
The Livro náutico mentions 1.5 palmos de goa centre. Following also in this case the reasoning
and Fernandez indicates 2 palmos de vara. The adopted to estimate the diameter of the topmast,
galleon regimento says that the maximum diameter the penão of the nau’s main yard obtained is 37 cm,
of the main topmast should be 3/4 of the diameter and the maximum diameter of the top yard
of a penão, an expression that is difficult to results 19 cm. Similarly, the diameter of the
understand. As mentioned before, penão is each galleon’s topsail yard obtained is 24 cm (Table 7).
one of the halves of a yard when square sail
Foremast
Table 6. Main topmast dimensions (L = Length; Ø =
Diameter; W = Weight) It is difficult to determine where to step the
foremast in these models. From the drawings in
a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez
c.1590 c.1590 1616
Manoel Fernandez’s book it seems likely that it
was stepped far forward, near the stem post, at
the level of the lower deck. This is also what the
L = 13.20/12.32 m L = 10.56 m L = 18.48 m
Ømax. = 39/31 cm Ømax. = 36 cm Ømax. = 44 cm regimento of the galleon in the Livro náutico
W = 0.46 t W = 0.31 t W = 0.82 t indicates. The best clue is given by Gonçalo de
Sousa, who says that it should be stepped on the

Table 7. Main top yard dimensions (L = Length; Ø = Diameter; W = Weight)

a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez

c.1590 c.1590 1616

L = 12.38/10.56 m L = 13.35 m L = 11.44/10.56 m

Ømax. = 26/19 cm Ømax. = 24 cm Ømax. = 29 cm
Ømin. = 10 cm Ømin. = 12 cm Ømin. = 15 cm
W = 0.11/0.09/0.09 t W = 0.18 t W = 0.23/0.21 t

© 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society 117

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 34.1

Table 8. Foremast dimensions (L = Length; Ø = Diameter; Table 10. Fore yard dimensions (L = Length; Ø = Diameter;
W = Weight) W = Weight)

a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez

c.1590 c.1590 1616 c.1590 c.1590 1616

L = 26.40 m L = 26.40 m L = 27.28 m L = 22.88/22.44 m L = 26.70 m L = 24.64 m

Ømax. = 88 cm Ømax. = 77 cm Ømax. = 77 cm Ømax. = 51/37 cm Ømax. = 48 cm Ømax. = 51 cm
Ømin. = ? Ømin. = ? Ømin. = ? Ømin. = 19 cm Ømin. = 24 cm Ømin. = 22 cm
W = 6.13 t W = 4.70 t W = 4.85 t W = 0.89 / 0.72 t W = 1.41 t W = 1.10 t

surface of the rail—being equal to the diameter

Table 9. Foremast top of the basis of the main top. The rails are 1 palmo
de goa thick, an understandable thickness
a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez
c.1590 c.1590 1616
considering that there were light artillery pieces,
such as swivel guns, mounted on it.
Øbasis = 2.14 m Øbasis = 2.22 m Øbasis = 3.08 m
Ørail =3.20 m Ørail = 3.34 m Ørail = 3.59 m Fore yard
Height = ? Height = ? Height = 0.64 m
Livro náutico says that the fore yard should be as
long as 3/4 of the main yard for naus and 2/3 of the
main yard for the galleons. The maximum
diameter should be equal to one penão. The
lower deck, ‘4 palmos from the stem’ over two regimento for the nau of Fernandez indicates
beams. In other words, it should be stepped 14 braças of length and 2 palmos [de vara] of
between 88 cm (if we consider palmos de vara) thickness (Table 10).
and 103 cm (if we consider palmos de goa) from
the inner surface of the inner stem post. The total
height of the foremast varies. In both the nau and Fore topmast
galleon of the Livro náutico the foremast length The fore topmast is a small spar. The galleon
is 15 braças, its upper tip standing 1 braça below regimento indicates its length as 1/3 of the length
the tip of the mainmast. Fernandez states 15.5 of the foremast and the remaining texts indicate
braças. Again, the Livro náutico indicates that only values in braças (Table 11). As to the
these heights do not include the doublings diameter of the fore topmast, Fernandez states
(Table 8). The diameters are 4 palmos de vara for 1.5 palmos de goa on the basis, tapering to 1/3 of
the nau in the Livro náutico, 3.5 palmos [de goa] for that diameter on the top, and the Livro náutico
the galleon, and 3 palmos de goa for Fernandez’s 33 cm for both the nau and the galleon, where
nau. The galleon regimento states that the 3 this value is calculated as 2/3 of maximum
palmos are the equivalent of 3/4 of the mainmast diameter of the main topmast. Again, when it was
diameter. This is certainly a mistake, because the not specified otherwise, weights were calculated
galleon’s mainmast is supposed to have a considering that these masts taper to half of their
diameter equal to 1/10 of the maximum beam, or diameters at the top.
134 cm, and 3/4 of this value is 101 cm, far more
than 3 palmos de goa.
The weights were calculated assuming that Table 11. Fore topmast dimensions (L = Length; Ø =
these masts taper to half of their diameters at the Diameter; W = Weight)
base. Once again, the dimensions of the tops are
defined in the Livro náutico as simple proportions a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez
c.1590 c.1590 1616
of the maximum beam of the ships: 1/4 of the
beam for the upper rail and 1/6 of the beam for
the basis. No value is given for the height of the L = 10.44/8.90 m L = 8.90 m L = 14.08 m
Ømax. = 33 cm Ømax. = 33 cm Ømax. = 39 cm
bulwarks (Table 9). Fernandez defines these tops Ømin. = ? Ømin. = ? Ømin. = 13 cm
in the same way as those of the mainmast, the W = 0.26 t W = 0.22 t W = 0.39 t
diameter of the upper rim—measured on the inner

118 © 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society

F. CASTRO: RIGGING THE PEPPER WRECK. PART I—MASTS AND YARDS

Table 12. Fore top yard dimensions (L = Length; Ø = Table 14. Bowsprit yard dimensions (L = Length; Ø =
Diameter; W = Weight) Diameter; W = Weight)

a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez

c. 1590 c. 1590 1616 c.1590 c.1590 1616

L = 10.62/8.80 m L = 8.90 m L = 8.80 m L = 15.84 m L = 17.79 m L = 15.84 m

Ømax. = 22/15 cm Ømax. = 20 cm Ømax. = 26 cm Ømax. = 33 cm Ømax. = 39 cm Ømax. = ?
Ømin. = 11/8 cm Ømin. = 10 cm Ømin. = 13 cm Ømin. = 17 cm Ømin. = 20 cm Ømin. = ?
W = 0.06/0.05/0.04 t W = 0.08 t W = 0.14 t W = 0.40 t W = 0.63 t W=?

Fore top yard Bowsprit yard

The fore top yard of Livro náutico’s nau should The bowsprit yard of the nau from Livro náutico
be 1 braça shorter than the main top yard, and should have 9 braças in length and 1.5 palmos de
have 2 dedos less in diameter. The galleon’s fore vara in diameter. The galleon’s one should have
top yard should be 1/3 of the fore yard in length 2
/3 of the fore yard length and be half as thick as
and have 2 dedos less in diameter. Fernandez’s the foremast. Fernandez indicates 9 braças in
nau should have a fore top yard 5 braças long and length for the bowsprit yard, but makes no
1 palmo de goa thick at the centre (Table 12). mention of the diameter (Table 14).

Bowsprit Mizen-mast
No indication about the way in which the The mizen-mast should be stepped at the level of
bowsprit was stepped is given in any of these the main deck or slightly above, on the transom
documents, nor there is any mention of the angle structure (almeida), as Fernandez says. Its length
at which it springs forward. From the drawings is the same in both Fernandez’s and the Livro
on folios 113 and 114 of Fernandez’s book we get náutico’s naus, 10 braças, and the regimento of
34o and 38o for the only bowsprit represented, the Livro náutico states that its cap should stand
pertaining to a ‘foreign patacho’. Regarding its 2 braças below the level of the cap of the lower
length, Fernandez indicates 16 braças and both mainmast. The mizen-mast of the galleon
regimentos of the Livro náutico indicate 15 braças should be longer, 12 braças, but stepped 1 braça
for the bowsprits of both the nau and the below the main deck level, and therefore standing
galleon. On this last regimento it is expressly the same 2 braças below the level of the cap of
mentioned that the bowsprit should be as long as the lower mainmast. This mizen-mast was
the foremast (Table 13). Only Fernandez men- presumably stepped forward of the transom,
tions the diameter of the bowsprit, and then only since this is a 4-masted ship (Table 15). In
at the base, ‘inside the ship’. It should have the Fernandez’s nau the diameter of the mizen-mast
same diameter as the main yard: 2 palmos de goa. is defined as 2 palmos de vara. Again here, the
On the estimation of the bowsprit’s weight it was diameters indicated in the two lists of the nau’s
assumed that it tapered to half of its maximum regimento do not match. The first list says 2
diameter at its outermost extremity. palmos de goa (51 cm), and the second says half

Table 13. Bowsprit dimensions (L = Length; Ø = Diameter; Table 15. Mizzenmast dimensions (L = Length; Ø =
W = Weight) Diameter; W = Weight)

a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez

c.1590 c.1590 1616 c.1590 c.1590 1616

L = 26.40 m L = 26.40 m L = 28.16 m 17.60 m 21.12 m 17.60 m

Ømax. = ? Ømax. = ? Ømax. = 51 cm Ømax. = 51/44 cm Ømax. = 67 cm Ømax. = 44 cm
Ømin. = ? Ømin. = ? Ømin. = ? Ømin. = ? Ømin. = 44 cm Ømin. = ?
W=? W=? W = 1.68 t W = 1.05/0.78 t W = 2.66 t W = 0.78 t

© 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society 119

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 34.1

Table 16. Mizzen yard dimensions and weights Table 17. Masts: proposed basic dimensions

a) LN—Nau b) LN—Galleon c) Fernandez Mast Length Ømax. Ømin. Weight

c.1590 c.1590 1616
Main 31.68 m 116 cm 83 cm 12.81 t
Length = 22.88 m Length = 28.16 m Length = 28.16 m Main top 18.48 m 44 cm 22 cm 0.82 t
Ømax. = 22/19 cm Ømax. = 34 cm Ømax. = 29 cm Fore 27.28 m 77 cm 51 cm 4.56 t
Ømin. = 11/10 cm Ømin. = 17 cm Ømin. = 15 cm Fore top 14.08 m 39 cm 13 cm 0.39 t
Weight = 0.25 t Weight = 0.75 t Weight = 0.56 t Mizzen 17.60 m 44 cm 29 cm 0.96 t
Bowsprit 28.16 m 51 cm 26 cm 1.70 t

of the foremast’s diameter, or 44 cm. The Table 18. Mast tops: proposed basic dimensions
galleon’s mizen-mast should be 67 cm thick—
half of the mainmast diameter—and taper to Top Ørail Øbasis Height Weight*
2
/3 of this value at the top. The weights of these
masts were estimated considering that their Main 4.10 m 3.59 m 0.77 m 1.28 t
diameters at the top are 2/3 of their maximum Fore 3.59 m 3.08 m 0.64 m 1.07 t
diameters.
* estimated based on a simple structure with two trestletrees and
four crosstrees; the upper rail should be 1 palmo de goa square to
Mizen yard support the artillery.

The mizen yard dimensions vary quite a bit,

depending on the author. For the nau in the Livro Table 19. Yards: proposed basic dimensions
náutico it should be 13 braças long and be 1
palmo de vara thick. For the galleon it should be Yard Length Ømax. Ømin. Weight
twice the length of the portion of the mizen-mast
that stands above the poop deck—which is 8 Main 31.68 m 52 cm 26 cm 1.97 t
braças—and half as thick as the mizen-mast. In Main top 10.56 m 29 cm 15 cm 0.21 t
Fernandez’s nau it should be 16 braças long, 9 Fore 24.64 m 44 cm 22 cm 1.10 t
Fore top 8.80 m 26 cm 13 cm 0.14 t
abaft the mast and 7 before. Its diameter should Mizzen 28.16 m* 29 cm 15 cm 0.56 t
be 1 palmo de goa and 2 dedos. Again, as in all Bowsprit 15.84 m 33 cm 17 cm 0.40 t
the other yards, these central diameters taper to
half toward the extremities (Table 16). * With two pennons of 15.84 and 12.32 m respectively.

Bonaventure mast arrangement indicated for the naus of Fernandez’s regimento

Only the galleon has such a mast and its were clear enough, and the rigging of the nau
respective outrigger (botaló). They are defined with and galleon from Livro náutico were only used as
8 (14.08 m) and 7 braças (12.32 m) respectively, models for comparison. The main dimensions
although no mention of the way in which they of the masts, tops and yards of the Pepper
are stepped is made anywhere. The bonaventure Wreck proposed reconstruction are indicated in
mast should have a diameter 3/4 of the mizen- Tables 17, 18, and 19, and schematically represented
mast (50 cm), and the outrigger as much as the in Fig. 5.
fore topmast, or 33 cm. The bonaventure yard
should be twice as long as the portion of the mast
standing above the poop deck level and have half
Conclusion
of its diameter. Although this is only a theoretical reconstruc-
tion, these values seem plausible enough to
deserve further analysis, and this is the next step
The Pepper Wreck masts and spars planned in the study of the Pepper Wreck. To our
Following the rules stated above it was relatively knowledge there are no Portuguese documents
easy to define a plausible set of masts and yards from this period from which we can determine
for the Pepper Wreck proposed reconstruction. the shape of the sails. However, the task of
In most situations the values or rules of thumb estimating the size and shape of this reconstruction’s

120 © 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society

F. CASTRO: RIGGING THE PEPPER WRECK. PART I—MASTS AND YARDS

Figure 5. Plan of the Pepper Wreck masts and yards. (Filipe Castro)

sails does not seem very difficult, considering the performance of this ship under sail before
lengths of the yards and the heights of the the wind for diverse ballast conditions, and
masts obtained from the manuscripts mentioned sail combinations and sizes. We believe that these
above, together with the iconography of this tests will enable us better to understand the rigging
period and the excellent description in the of this ship and refine the sizes and positions
Spanish treatise Instrucción náutica para el buen of its masts and spars. Perhaps an improved
uso y regimento de las naos, from Diego Garcia reconstruction will prove to be reliable enough to
de Palacio (1587). deserve the construction of a model and the
The objective of this study is to provide a set simulation of more complex sailing conditions in
of drawings that allows us to test the theoretical wind-tunnel and tow-tank experiments.

References
Alves, F., Castro, F., Rodrigues, P., Garcia, C., and Aleluia, M., 1998, Archaeology of a Shipwreck, in L. Afonso Simonetta
(ed.) Nossa Senhora dos Mártires: The Last Voyage. Lisbon.
Anderson, R. C., 1925, Italian Naval Architecture about 1445, Mariner’s Mirror 11.2: 135 –63.
Anon, c.1538, Breviário da condessa de Bertianos, Ms, Biblioteca da Academia das Ciências, Lisbon.
Bellabarba, Sergio, 1988, The SquareRigged Ship of the Fabrica di galere Manuscript, Mariner’s Mirror 74.2: 113 –30.
Castro, D. João de, 1988, Tables des Routiers de l’Inde de D. João de Castro, facsimile with introduction by Luis de
Albuquerque. Lisbon.
Castro, Filipe, 2003, The Pepper Wreck, an early 17th-century Portuguese Indiaman at the mouth of the Tagus River,
Portugal, IJNA 32.1: 6 – 23.
Castro, Filipe, 2005, The Pepper Wreck. College Station, Texas.
Costa, Leonor Freire, 1997, Naus e Galeões na Ribeira de Lisboa. Cascais.

© 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society 121

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 34.1

Domingues, Francisco Contente, 2004, Os navios do mar oceano. Lisbon.

Fernandez, Manoel, 1989, Livro de Traças de Carpintaria, 1616 (facsimile). Lisbon.
Fernandez, Manoel, 1995, Livro de Traças de Carpintaria (transcription and translation into English). Lisbon.
Fernandez Gonzalez, F., Apestegui Cardenal, C., and Miguelez Garcia, F., 1992, Arte de fabricar reales, edicion comentada
del original de D. Antonio de Gastañeta Yturribalzaga. Barcelona.
Fonseca, Henrique Quirino da, 1938, Diários de navegação da Carreira da Índia nos anos de 1595, 1596, 1597, 1600 e 1603.
Lisbon.
Guinote, Paulo, Frutuoso, Eduardo, and Lopes, Afonso, 1998, Naufragios e Outras Perdas da Carreira da India, Lisboa.
Grupo de Trabalho do Ministerio da Educacao para as Comemoracoes dos Descobrimentos.
Laval, François Pyrard de, 1944, A Viagem de Francisco Pyrard de Laval. Porto.
Oliveira, Fernando, 1991, O Liuro da Fabrica das Naos (1580), facsimile, transcription and translation into English. Lisbon.
Palacio, Diego Garcia de, 1587, Instrución náutica para el buen uso de las naos, su traça, y gobierno conforme à la altura de
Mexico. Mexico.
Rubio Serrano, J. L., 1991, Arquitectura de las naos y galeones de las flotas de Indias. Malaga.
Vicente Maroto, Maria Isabel, 1998, Diálogo entre um vizcayno y um montañés sobre la fábrica de navíos. Salamanca.
Xavier, Hernani Amaral, 1992, Novos Elementos para o Estudo da Arquitectura Naval Portuguesa Antiga. Lisbon.

122 © 2005 The Nautical Archaeology Society

 The International Journal of

NAUTICAL
Archaeology
Volume 34 Number 1 April 2005
CONTENTS
Editorial 1
Articles
Seal on Land, Elk at Sea: Notes on and Applications of the Ritual Landscape at the Seaboard C. Westerdahl 2
‘Ruling Theories Linger’: Questioning the Identity of the Beaufort Inlet Shipwreck
B. A. Rodgers, N. Richards and W. R. Lusardi 24
The Bronze Age Ferriby Boats: Seagoing Ships or Estuary Ferry Boats? J. Coates 38
Seascapes and Landscapes—the Siting of the Ferriby Boat Finds in the Context of Prehistoric Pilotage
H. P. Chapman and P. R. Chapman 43
Arade River Archaeological Complex: Dredges and Archaeology F. Castro 51
Rose de Freycinet and the French Exploration Corvette L’Uranie (1820): a Highlight of the ‘French Connection’ with the ‘Great
Southland’ M. McCarthy 62
The Rigging and the ‘Hydraulic System’ of the Roman Wreck at Grado, Gorizia, Italy C. Beltrame and D. Gaddi 79
Dowels as a Means of Edge-to-Edge Joinery in the 9th-century AD Vessel from Bozburun, Turkey M. B. Harpster 88
The Navarino Naval Battle Site, Greece—an Integrated Remote-Sensing Survey and a Rational Management Approach
G. Papatheodorou, M. Geraga and G. Ferentinos 95
Rigging the Pepper Wreck. Part I—Masts and Yards F. Castro 110
Notes
Building a Roman Pila in the Sea—Experimental Archaeology at Brindisi, Italy, September 2004
R. L. Hohlfelder, C. Brandon and J. Peter Oleson 123
Weaving and Ancient Sails: Structural Changes to Ships as a Consequence of New Weaving Technology in the Mediterranean
Late Bronze Age F. Tiboni 127
An Indo-Arabian Type of Stone Anchor from Kannur, Kerala, West Coast of India S. Tripati, A. Manikfan and M. Mohamed 131
Conference Reports
IKUWA 2—International Congress on Underwater Archaeology P. Martin 138
Managing the Marine Cultural Heritage B. Hession 141
Ninth Century Voyages in Scandinavian Waters S. McGrail 144
News Reports
Launch of Stallion of the Sea—Most Ambitious Viking Ship Re-creation A. Croome 145
Stone Age Stove under the Solent G. Momber and C. Campbell 148
Letters to the Editor
E. Haddad 150
K. Thier 151
Reviews
H. Nowacki and M. Valleriani (eds), Shipbuilding Practice and Ship Design Methods from the Renaissance to the 18th Century—a Workshop
Report O. T. P. Roberts 152
M. W. Holley, The Artificial Islets/Crannogs of the Central Inner Hebrides;
A. G. C. Hale, Scottish Marine Crannogs;
E. W. Mackie, The Roundhouses, Brochs and Wheelhouses of Atlantic Scotland c.700 BC–AD 500. Architecture and Material Culture. Part 1:
The Orkney and Shetland Isles C. Martin 154
Y. Yousef Al-hijji, V. Christides and others (eds), Aspects of Arab Seafaring. An Attempt to Fill in the Gaps of Maritime History C. Ward 155
D. A. Agius, In the Wake of the Dhow: the Arabian Gulf and Oman V. Christides 158
E. Gilbert, Dhows and the Colonial Economy of Zanzibar K. McPherson 159
M. J. Donachie, Household Ceramics at Port Royal, Jamaica, 1655–1692 J. Ashdown 160
E. Boult, Christian’s Fleet: A Dorset Shipping Tragedy A. Lambert 161
S. Muller-Wiering, Segeltuch und Emballage: Textilien in Mittalterlichen Warentransport auf Nord- und Ostsee (English summary and captions)
A. E. Christensen 162
E. F. C. Berlinghieri, The Aeolian Islands: Crossroads of Mediterranean Maritime Routes. A Survey of their Maritime Archaeology and
Topography from the Prehistoric to the Roman Periods C. Calcagno 163
S. Bruni (ed.), Le Navi Antiche di Pisa: ad un Anno dall’ Inizio delle Ricerche L. Casson 164
U. Schaaff, Münzen der Römischen Kaiserzeit mit Schiffsdarstellungen im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum B. Rankov 165
L. W. Mott, Sea Power in the Medieval Mediterranean: the Catalan-Aragonese Fleet in the War of the Sicilian Vespers R. Barker 167
O. Owen, M. Dalland and others, Scar: A Viking Boat Burial on Sanday, Orkney C. Martin 168
N. Tracy and M. Robson (eds), The Age of Sail: The International Annual of the Historic Sailing Ship, Vol. 2 O. T. P. Roberts 169
H. C. Konen, Classis Germanica: Die Römische Rheinflotte im 1–3 Jahrhundert n. Chr. A. Göttlicher 170
A. Pearson, The Construction of the Saxon Shore Forts;
A. Pearson, The Roman Shore Forts: Coastal Defences of Southern Britain G. Grainge 171
Bilan Scientifique du Département des Recherches Archéologiques Subaquatiques et Sous-Marines 1998, 1999 and 2002
A. J. Parker 172
C. Breen and W. Forsythe, Boats and Shipwrecks of Ireland C. Martin 173
U. Schnall, U. Feldkamp and E. Hoops (eds), Deutsches Schiffahrtsarchiv no. 23 (2000) A. E. Christensen 174
D. Finamore (ed.), Maritime History as World History J. Flatman 175
J. D. Harbron, Trafalgar and the Spanish Navy: the Spanish Experience of Sea Power C. Martin 176
S. M. Fitzpatrick (ed.), Voyages of Discovery—The Archaeology of Islands;
L. J. Costa, Corse Préhistorique: Peuplement d’une Île et Modes de Vie des Sociétes Insulaires V. Fenwick 177
B. Lavery, Nelson’s Fleet at Trafalgar N. A. M. Rodger 178

Cover inset: a scientist recording sediment levels

on a shipwreck site near Kinlochbervie, Scotland,
UK (IJNA 33.1: 19) ( Photo: Philip Robertson).

Design: patia cross-section (Drawing: Eric Kentley)

This journal is available online at
Blackwell Synergy. Visit www.blackwell-
synergy.com to search the articles and
register for table of cotents e-mail alerts.