Page 193 - Loss of the VOC Retourschip Batavia, Western Australia, 1629

Figure 47. View of the town ofBatavia from Pietervan den Broecke drawn in 1629 aod published in his journal.
It was intended that a substantial stone building would connect the bastions Saphier and Paarl. The land bastions were built of coral limestone and it is clear that the castle was initially designed for defense from land allaCk. The seaward bastions were strengthened just prior to the war with the Matrarnese, and a wooden fence or light palisade was erected in the sea running from the river mouth to the NE corner of the castle. The situation during the war is shown in a number of maps: Floris Berkeroode 3 March, 1629 (Algemeen Rijksarchief VEL-1l78-G79204, Ver- eniging Koloniaal Instituut, 1919: No. 4), Jacob Cuyck, 1629 (two maps, Algemeen Rijksarchief VEL-1l79a- G79204, V erenigingKoloniaalInstituut, 1919:No. 5), van den Broecke, 1629 (Coolhaas, 1963)andG. Venant,1629 (V ereeniging Koloniaal Instituut, 1919: No. 9). A s inti- mated above, there is strong evidence to suggest that the f~e was destined for the Waterpoort of the castle of Batavia. A gold pendant (Fig. 48), made to commemorate the Chinese contribution to the defeat of the army of Matrarn, clearly shows the completed Waterpoorl (de Haan, 1919: G8). The pendant was dated 25 November 1632 which gives an indication of the date for the comple-
tion of the Waterpoort. Valentijn (1724-6:242) describes the castle in great detail and, interestingly, states that the Walerpoort was inscribed on the inside of the gate with ANNOMDCXXX,indicatingthatitwascompletedwithin a year of the loss of the Batavia. The Landpoort or land- gate was dated ANNO MDCXXXI. It is obvious that a new portico could not have been ordered in Batavia and deliv- ered within thirteen months; Pelsaert did not return to Batavia until December. It is possible, though unlikely, that the Governor General might have gnessed that the portico was lost when Pelsaert fIrst brought the news of the loss in July. A more reasonable explanation is that two porticos were sent to the Indies, one for the Waterpoort and one, on another ship, for the Landpoort. From Valentijn's dates, it seems that the Waterpoort was the fIrst to be built and, it may be conjectured, that another was re-ordered for the Landpoort, which according to Valentijn was com- pleted in 1631. Thus the portico on theBatavia could have been for the Landpoort or the Waterpoort. The markings 'B' on the columns, also suggest that there may have been two porticos, and that the other would have had the prefix 'At.
183