Abstract
Pieces of Eight is the second volume in the ‘Pirates’ series by these authors: the first, X Marks the Spot: Archaeology of Piracy, was published in 2006. In the Preface the authors refer to the first volume: ‘While there were critics in the archaeological community, the interested public flocked to the [first] book’. It was obviously an economic success, and according to the authors it is still selling well. Many archaeologists would be delighted for their hardback volumes to sell out in a year and then to have two subsequent paperback reprints. Its success is hardly surprising given that today ‘pirates’ are popular. It is an interesting question why this is so. Possibly it is because of the Pirates of the Caribbean blockbusters, although Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island, which belongs to my generation, was always a popular childhood book too, although nothing like it is today (even my granddaughter’s middle name is Pirate). Nobody thought much about sharks until Jaws came on the scene, so one can see these Hollywood productions captivate something that must have been semi-dormant in our psyche. Marketing also plays on this and is an important part of its popularity. So movies are influential; so influential that I was somewhat surprised the other day when I walked into our Shipwrecks Museum in Fremantle, to be greeted by a Jack Sparrow lookalike, behind the reception desk.
The book has thirteen chapters which include: the archaeology of piracy; the pirate ships Queen Anne’s Revenge, Fiery Dragon, Ranger, and Quedagh Merchant; Henry Morgan’s raid on Panama; piracy in Iceland; Hollywood and piracy; pirate identity; pirate artefacts; pirates as providers; recognising pirate shipwrecks; and conclusions. How does all this relate to the archaeology of pirates? The book addresses a number of questions related to this. The most interesting is the question: ‘can there be an archaeology of pirates?’ In my mind I wonder if the authors are simply cashing in on pirates. Not an easy question to answer, and the book is littered with allusions to Pirates of the Caribbean, and somewhat dubious parallels with modern Somali piracy. There is a lot of archaeology in between, woven with the historical record in, at times, a somewhat uncomfortable relationship.
So how does one identify a pirate site that has no historical record, from the artefacts alone? I would say very difficult, if not impossible, as indicated in the chapter ‘Recognizing a Pirate Shipwreck’, which in the first paragraph states: ‘Piracy is a behavioural act and does not survive physically in the archaeological record’.
Overall this is a mixed bunch of papers, ranging from those with a purely historical focus, to those that are more archaeological. None of the papers stand alone as purely archaeological, for the reasons outlined above. The archaeology, in my mind, obviously does not come off as well in this situation. It is the essential historical documentation that inevitably provides evidence of piracy. In a way, this is how archaeology and the written record should work and one detects there is a tension between the two approaches in some of the papers.
In the first chapter, Skowroneck (one of the editors) asks the obvious question: ‘Can an Archaeology of Piracy Exist?’ What follows is a curious discussion indicating that prior to the publication of the first volume, archaeologists largely ignored the topic and it was this publication that meant ‘… a growing number of archaeologists are now examining the footprint left by pirates and are asking more nuanced questions about their place in society’. He goes on to state that this first book brought archaeologists together to ask, ‘… leaving documentary evidence aside, what physical evidence they had for piracy … three categories of sites were identified. First were staging sites or bases colloquially known as ‘‘lairs”. Next were the ships used by pirates. Last were the players themselves, the victims and other willing participants in these nefarious activities’. While these categories are defined, the author goes on to discuss the subject, but inevitably brings in the documentary evidence. So to some extent the premise of ‘archaeology of piracy’ alone falls down. All the examples of shipwrecks that have been identified as pirate vessels have been identified from historical records. So it is really almost impossible to determine a pirate shipwreck from the archaeology alone. In the players section smuggling is introduced. The author rightly concludes that the most successful pirates survived and never had their stories told, so it will be even more difficult to determine if such a site is a pirate site.
In Chapter 12 (Page and Ewen), ‘Recognising a Pirate Shipwreck’, the authors consider four vessels; two pirate, one warship and one slaver. The objective being to look at ‘… the differences in artefact frequency or patterning to illuminate the behavioural differences between the crews of a pirate ship and a non-pirate ship’. It is perhaps unfortunate that they did not include a merchant ship in their consideration, because a 74-gun warship is hardly likely to compare with a pirate ship, whereas a merchant ship would be more interesting in the cargo and crew patterns. It is also unfortunate that in the black and white histograms (Figures 12.5–12.8), it is very difficult to determine what relates to what. I suspect these were originally coloured, and have not been modified for inclusion in this book. The approach is really interesting. However, one is not told what proportion of the sites were excavated and for what reason. It would seem that the two pirate ships, initially found by treasure hunters, were then taken over by archaeologists, whereas the sections on HMS Invincible and the Henrietta Maria are less clear on the extent of the excavation or its objectives. As such there is possibly a bias in the collecting objectives. Looking at the artefact count alone indicates a lack of communality with the sites (artefact numbers: Queen Anne’s Revenge, 240,000; Whydah, 106,000; HMS Invincible, 10,000; Henrietta Maria, 1100).
On a more positive note I found many of the chapters interesting and thought provoking. As the various authors state virtually every pirate-related site excavated so far would not be identified without the accompanying historical record. That is true of most, if not all, wreck sites. Without the historical record we might be able to identify the nationality of the vessels, but probably not much more. This is particularly true of nationalities that either do not have historical records or whose records are inaccessible to archaeologists. I am reminded of the VOC who kept extensive records for the 200-year period the company operated, which even today, after much has been discarded, comprise 1.4 linear kilometres in the Netherlands and 2.5 kilometres in Indonesia. The reason why so many VOC shipwrecks have been found is a result of this material existing. Unfortunately the pirate record is not so well documented for obvious reasons, nor were their operations so extensive.