Chapter:

1

1

______________________________________________________________________________

GRAFFITI AS RESOURCE FOR HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH: THE FIGURATIVE GRAFFITI ON THE WALLS OF SAN JUAN’S

SPANISH DEFENSE SYSTEM,PUERTO RICO

Isabel C. Rivera Collazo_____________________________________________________________________________

The walls of the forts and bastions of the Spanish defense system of San Juan, Puerto Rico, are covered with graffitiand drawings that tell the tales of many soldiers that walked, served and fought at their posts. These graffiti includedrawings of ships, soldiers, horses, and, in a much lesser amount, fish, birds and others. This report discusses thedocumentation results of a project developed in collaboration with the National Park Service. Preliminaryevaluation suggests different ship types can be identified, which appear to constitute a visual representation of shiptype evolution from the 18th century to the first half of the 20th century. This study evidences the potential of graffitianalysis as a resource for archaeological and historical research.

Las paredes de los fuertes y baluartes del sistema de defensa español de San Juan, Puerto Rico, están cubiertas degraffiti y dibujos que cuentan las historias de muchos saldados que anduvieron, sirvieron y lucharon en sus puestos. Estos graffiti incluyen dibujos de barcos, soldados, caballos, y, en mucha menor medida, peces, pájaros y otros.Este informe habla de los resultados de la documentación de un proyecto desarrollado en colaboración con elServicio del Parque Nacional. La evaluación preliminar sugiere que se pueden identificar diferentes tipos debarcos, lo que parece constituir una representación visual de la evolución del tipo de barco desde el siglo XVIIIhasta la primera mitad del siglo XX. Este estudio manifiesta el potencial del análisis de graffiti como recurso parala investigación arqueológica e histórica.

Les murs des forts et des bastions du système de défense espagnol de San Juan, Porto Rico, sont couverts de graffitis et de schémas qui dévoilent les récits de beaucoup de soldats qui ont servis et combattus à ces postes. Ces graffitisincluent des dessins de bateaux, de soldats, de chevaux, et, dans de plus rares cas, de poissons, d’ oiseaux et autres.Ce rapport examine les résultats de la documentation d’un projet développé en collaboration avec le service duparc national. L’évaluation préliminaire suggère que différents types de bateaux peuvent être identifiés, ce quisemblent constituer une représentation visuelle de l’évolution des bateaux allant du 18ème siècle jusqu’à lapremière moitié du 20ème siècle. Cette étude démontre le potentiel de l’analyse des graffitis comme ressource pourla recherche archéologique et historique.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction: Graffiti as History

Graffiti are usually considered acts of vandalism without cultural or patrimonial importance. Wesee them every day when walking on the streets of our cities (Figure 1). The few moments weinvest to look at them, we usually think about the damage to the structures, or about howyoungsters today lack any respect for private property.

International research (see Bibliography) has demonstrated that the activity of writing onthe walls without official authorization is timeless. Graffiti examples have been identified allaround Europe and the Mediterranean Region, from Spain to Israel, from Normandy to Libya(Figure 2).

Nevertheless, the modern concept of the meaning or lack of value of graffiti hasinfluenced historians, ethnographers and archaeologists to such an extent that almost no attention

2

has been given to studying them. However, research developed by Luc Bucherie and others since 1975 has demonstrated that this popular form of expression deserves the same level ofimportance as archival documents (Carpentier, Ghesquière and Marcigny 2002:20). Analysis ofancient graffiti reaches a component of the public opinion that is difficult to retrieve for historictimes: social structures, worries, attitudes; fears of life and death, power and religion (Bucherie1992). The present paper discusses the work of French professor Dr. Luc Bucherie, and my ownresearch in collaboration with the United States Department of the Interior National ParksService.

Graffiti and their Meaning: Powerful versus Powerless

Two main definitions are essential for our discussion: depiction and graffito (pl. graffiti). Adepiction is a premeditated and authorized visual representation done by a specialist on a specificplace specially prepared to receive it. Graffiti, on the other hand, are mostly apocryphal marks,usually spontaneous and unofficial, written on any public or private structural surface.

Based on these definitions, petroglyphs and pictographs of people without codifiedwriting (Figure 3) can be considered “depictions” because, in most cases, they are a product ofan official graphic representation controlled by specialists of a restricted elite (see Bucherie1994). While a depiction represents the “official voice”, the will of the powerful; a graffito(Figure 4) is the voice of the powerless, the common people, the voice of those who lack thepower for leaving an official record of their lives and have no other means of expression. Incontrast to popular opinion, a graffito is a cultural document that reflects the society in which itis created (Bucherie 1992).

Maritime and fluvial cultures, for example, usually depict ships as their most commongraffito. In contrast with the official ship representations, the graffiti show a detail level thatevidences deep familiarity with nautical aspects. The author of a graffito is not restricted by theneeds of a profession, having freedom to produce a detailed creation that reflects his or herexperience and knowledge (González and Pastor 1993).

Graffiti can also be a way to evade or criticize official powers either political or religious(Bucherie 1994). As an example, maritime cultures are and have always been associated withdeep superstitions that may not necessarily correspond to official religious beliefs. It is possiblethat some graffiti represent remains of paganism among maritime cultures, good luck tokenswritten before a fishing or war endeavour. Graffiti might also be the ex-voto or religious offering of the people of lower social strata, who do not have the economic resources to hire an artist(Carpentier, Ghesquière and Marcigny 2002).

Graffiti analysis cannot alienate its subject of study from the socio-historical frame inwhich it was created. As Bucherie has discussed (1992) a graffito is a result of a combination ofseveral factors, which can be divided in general and individual. General factors includepermanent and occasional social conditions. Permanent social conditions consist of geographictraits, ethnical affiliation and cultural traits, such as education, religion and sources ofinformation. Occasional social conditions include wars, revolutions, revolts, economic crises,famine and plagues. Individual factors comprise elements which indirectly influence the socialpoint of view of the individual, such as age and sex, and elements which directly influence theindividual’s point of view, such as unavoidable background, occasional situations, selected oraccepted environment or endured situations. It is among these factors that a general thematic

3

emerges. This way, a detailed study of the graffiti can give access to a section of society thatdoes not appear in historical documents and official history, and can be reached throughethnographic approach.

There are two types of graffiti: linguistic and figurative. Linguistic graffito is the mostfamous type (Figure 5). It consists of written words, usually names, dates or short messages.Their examination can provide information regarding the period in which the graffito waswritten. Names and messages provide clues that can reflect moments in society. Linguisticgraffiti can also be combined with the figurative type.

Figurative graffiti are iconographic representations of diverse subjects (Figure 6).Bucherie (1992) has classified the designs in representations of time, representations about thelife-frame of the author, representations of profession or social status; what has been lived,suffered or imposed; and what has been seen, understood or taken; as well as political, religious,esoteric, fantastic, utilitarian and other designs.

There is not a specific type of structure in which graffiti usually appear. They have beenidentified in churches, military structures, windmills, private buildings, jails and dungeons. InPuerto Rico, we have only evaluated military structures, where we have discovered hundreds ofhistorical graffiti. Much more research is needed before we can argue if other structures docontain additional graffiti. However, research fights against a powerful enemy: restorationprojects, demolitions, weather erosion and contemporary changes, which are unavoidablydestroying an unimaginable amount of historical graffiti.

Graffiti in San Juan

The graffiti of the Spanish Defense System of San Juan can be divided into four types: Red,Black, Carved and Coloured (or Polychrome). Even though the designs of the different types aresimilar, they vary in their colour and drawing technique. Red-type graffiti were probably drawnusing soft brick fragments. Black-type graffiti were drawn using metal (like lead), charcoal,black paint or other material. Carved graffiti carves or scratches the surface on which it wasdrawn. The lines can be superficial or as deep as the plaster, sometimes reaching the structuralstone beneath. Coloured graffiti were drawn delineating the shape of the design with one colour,usually black, and painting the inside with another colour, usually red (Rivera 2005).

Our research has shown that the maritime thematic identified in the Mediterranean region(Bucherie 1992, Bucherie and González 1998) also appears on the walls of San Juan’s SpanishDefense System. Aside of reflecting the historic reality of the relationship betweenMediterranean and Caribbean Seas between the 15th and 19th centuries, this subject revealsintimacies of a maritime community, a maritime culture, for which the ship was more than amere work tool, it was a symbol of brotherhood.

Ship-type analysis has revealed graffiti from the 18th century until modern times: 4% ofthe graffiti can be associated to the 18th century (Figure 7), 94% to the 19th century (Figure 8)and about 2% to the last half of the 19th and first decades of the 20th century (Figure 9). Only one ship depiction has been inventoried, which dates between the 16th to 17th centuries (Figure 10).

Graffiti analysis has helped us to understand and clarify some misconceptions andlegends about San Cristobal’s history, specifically the use of Tunnel I-A, commonly known as“the dungeon” (Figure 11). According to the National Park Service Historic Structure Report(Berkowitz et al. 1991), it is not until the 20th century that the first reference of this tunnel as

4

“dungeon” appears in historic documents. Even though its shape and location are reminiscent ofthe dungeons shown in movies, there is no historic evidence that this room was ever used forsuch purposes. The real dungeon of the fort must have been somewhere else. There are manylegends regarding the tunnel; legends that every tour guide repeats to the tourists day after day.One of the most fantastic refers to a ship captain, probably a pirate, who was jailed for mutinyand was locked in the room waiting for trial. The tour guides elaborate the tale, saying that heprobably was a person of good economic status because he had crayons to draw on the walls, and that he had a girlfriend named Carmen, pointing to where that name is written. While waiting for his trial, the prisoner drew the ships, using only the sparse light that entered the room through thetiny embrasure window at its far end. Some tour guides even turn off the lights to impress thetourists and to demonstrate the ability of the prisoner.

Historic research reveals that Tunnels I and I-A are remains of the original battery builton top San Cristóbal hill during the 17th century. During the second half of the 18th century,Thomas O’Daly designed and performed several large scale modifications to the San CristóbalFort, which included substantial enlargement of the original battery, deepening of the Dry Moatand closing of the south entrance of Tunnel I-A, ending its active use. By this time, the northwall of the original battery and the short passageway between the outside and the Dry Moatturned into a countermining tunnel and artillery storage area.

Analysis of the graffiti of Tunnel I-A reflects its use history. The type of galleons andcaravels drawn on Tunnel I-A were used during the time span from the 15th to 18th centuries.Ship styles suggest the possibility they belong to late 17th to early 18th centuries (Figure 12).Graffiti panels also include several words, some of which were drawn before the ships.Preliminary paleographic analysis suggests the words must have been written sometime in the18th century. The consistency and repetition of drawing technique suggests all the ships weredrawn by the same person. This analysis suggests that the graffiti were probably written by asoldier that guarded the tunnel between the 17th and 18th centuries, before Thomas O’Dally’sreconstruction project. By this time, both entrances to the tunnel were still open and light wasplentiful.

Detailed examination of the walls of the Tunnel do not reveal additional graffiti until the20th century, specifically around 1940s period when the Defense System was transferred to theNational Guard before National Park Service received it. As mentioned before, Europeanresearch demonstrates that jails and dungeons are some of the richest sources of graffiti.Imprisoned people usually leave many graffiti as evidence of their presence. The existence of18th century graffiti proves no major surface changes have occurred since that time. Since thereare no 19th century graffiti on the walls, it can be inferred that Tunnel I-A was never used as adungeon, and was, in fact, abandoned after 1763, when its south exit was closed.

Conclusion

Graffiti have been an unaccepted part of society, but an integral part of it nonetheless. Theiranalysis sheds light on the mindset of the people who constructed them and the cultural contextfrom which they emerge, opening the possibility of understanding the voices of those who, up tonow, have remained historically silent. As a cultural document, their detailed study must beembedded in their historical context. It is our responsibility as social or humanistic scientists, no

5

matter our theoretical background, to recognize them, understand them, and work to protect themas part of our historical and archaeological patrimony.

Graffiti on the walls shed life on the gigantic, now empty, structures. They are physicalevidence of the presence of people, with worries and beliefs, passions and fears. They serve as avisual liaison between the present and the past, between the modern visitor and the soldier whowrote on the walls so many years ago.

References Cited

Berkowitz, J., E. B. Cliver, R. Crisson, R. Holzheimer, J. Jacob, F. Matero, M. Smith, and B.Yocum.

1991 The Fortifications of San Juan National Historic Site. Historic Structure Report, 3vols. Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service.

Bucherie, L.

1978 Les graffiti de la Tour de la Lanterne à la Rochelle. Essai d’inventarie.Publications de la Société d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de L’Aunis 5. France.

1980 Graffiti des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècle à Escandes. Publications de la Sociétéd’Archéologie et d’Histoire de L’Aunis 10. France.

1986 Les Graffiti des Remparts de Brouage (Charente Maritime-France). Separate delas Actas del V Coloquio Internacional de Gliptografía, pp. 539–563. Spain.

1987 Les graffit des tours Saint-Nicolas et de la Chaîne à la Rochelle.. Publications dela Société d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de L’Aunis 18. France.

1989 Glyptographie Santonne et Aunisienne: État de Recherches, Charente-Maritime,France. Actes du VIe Colloque International de Glyptographye de Samoëns, pp.65–98. France.

1990 Panorama des Graffiti Maritimes des Côtes du Ponant. Centre International deRecherches Glyptographiques. Actes du VIIème Colloque International deGyptographie de Rochefort-Sur-Mer. Tome II, pp.109–145. Paris, France.

1992 Graffiti et histoire des mentalités, Genèse d’une recherche. Antropologia AlpinaAnnual Report 2: 41–64.

1994 Mise en Scène des Pouvoirs dans les Graffiti Anciens (XV–XVIIIe Siècles).Extraits de la Gazette des Beaux-Arts, pp. 1–10. France.

2001 Vie et Mort d’un Graffito Virtuel au XVIIIe Siécle. ASPAG – Premières recontresà Loches, pp. 25–34. France.

2002 Enquètes sur les Graffiti des Marins Anglais Prisonniers de Guerre en France auXVIIIe Siècle. Academie des Sciences, Arts & Belles-Lettres, de Touraine. France.

2004 La prison de Crest (Drôme): graffiti religieux, graffiti politiques. Le Monde Alpinet Rhodanien, 1er– 2e trimestres. Cicatrices murales, pp.47–61. France.

2005 Graffiti de Galeres du Ponant. De Triremibus. Festschrift in honour of JosephMuscat, ed. T. Cortis and T. Gambin. Publishers Enterprises Group.

Bucherie, L. and E. González. 1998 Panorama des Graffiti Maritimes en Méditerranée. Actes du XIe Colloque

International de Glyptographie de Palma de Majorque, pp. 31–99. CentreInternational de Recherches Glyptographiques, France,

6

Carpentier, V., E. Ghesquière, and C. Marcigny. 2002 Graffiti Marins des églises du Val de Saire. Musée Maritime de I’lle Tatihou, France. Chevet, R. 1999 Les representations de bateaux dans les carrières: la rigueur documentaire et la part

du rêve. Les Carriéres de Gironde. Table Ronde, Bordeaux, 26 juin 1999. SociétéSpéléologique Préhistorique de Bordeaux, France.

Guillerment, J., L. Bucherie, and I. Bruno. 1978 Les graffiti du Moulin des Sables à Charron. Publications de la Société d’Archéologie

et d’Histoire de L’Aunis 3, France. González, E.

1992 Tipos Náuticos en los Graffiti Mallorquintes (Siglos XIV–XIX). Actes du VIIIe

Colloque International de Glyptographie d’Hoepertingen, EUREGIO, pp. 255–271. Centre International de Recherches Glyptographiques, France,

1993 Los Graffiti de la Iglesia de San Francisco de Palma: Los Ingenios del Ocio. XIJornades d’Estudis Històrics Locals. Espai I Temps d’Oci a la Història, Palma.

González, E., and X. Pastor. 1993. La arquitectura naval de los graffiti medievales mallorquines. IV Congreso de

Arqueología Medieval Española, Actas, Tomo III, pp.1035–1047. Spain. Rivera, I.

2005. Graffiti Histórico en los muros del Sistema de Defensa Español de San Juan. VIEncuentro de Investigadores, Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña.

2006. Historical Ship Graffiti on the Walls of San Juan’s Spanish Defence System: AnInterim Report. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 35, no.1 (inpress).

7Figure 1: Modern Graffito. Norzagaray St., cornerwith San Francisco St. Old San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Figure 2: Graffiti from Val Saire’s Churches, North France. (Taken from Réville and others, 2002).

Figure 3: Petroglyph Cueva Convento, Arecibo Taken from Dubelaar and others, 1999 Figure 4: El Morro Fort. “Feb 28/21. The

dangerous rats were killed in this place. Corpl. Riverea M.”

Figure 5: Linguistic graffito from sentry box close to El Abanico Fort. “Battery D. 5th Artillery, July 19th 1898.”

Figure 6: Ship graffito, San Cristobal Fort. Photo and computer enhancement, Isabel Rivera Collazo

8

Figure 7: 17th or 18th Century Galleon. Graffito SC-TIA-1, San Cristobal Fort. Photo by Joseph Hernández

Figure 8: 19th Century Frigate. EM-30, El Morro Fort. Photo and computer enhancement, Hernán Bustelo.

Figure 9: 20th Century Ironclad battleship. El AbanicoFort, EA-6. Photo by Joseph Hernández

Figure 10: Ship depiction, El Morro Tower.

Figure 11: Tunnel IA. San Cristobal Fort. Image courtesy of the National Parks Service. Enhancement, Isabel Rivera Collazo

Figure 12: 17th or 18th Century Ships. San Cristobal, TunnelIA, Panel 2, from left to right: SC-TIA3 Galleon, SC-TIA4Galleon, SC-TIA5 Caravel. (Photo by Joseph Hernández).