Battery Concordia (Fort Amsterdam)

Battery Concordia:
The present battery probably reflects the rebuilding of 1781

Battery Concordia

Due to the nature of the winds and currents on this side of the island, approaching ships would have been forced to come from the north, around the point of Venus Bay and Gilboa Hill. Unless alerted by lookouts, therefore, enemy vessels would be able to approach unseen until nearly upon the battery.

To further protect the large bay, although it was not located in the 1990 survey, there was a battery located on Zeelandia Bay, to the immediate north of Concordia, and yet another at the south end of the bay, Battery St. Louis. Together, if functioning properly, the three batteries would offer sufficient crossfire to keep the bay safe.

While the bay at Concordia is sufficiently deep for anchorage, there are problems with wind and currents if trying to disembark troops. The waves are generally rough on the Atlantic side, plus there are a few shallow coral heads and strong under-tows near shore. If longboats were to reach shore safely, troops would be further disadvantaged by an undercut rock cliff some 30 feet or so above the shoreline. Access to the island could only be through one of three guts, or narrow ravines. While these could be easily defended by the island's troops, if foot soldiers were not present, the battery would be at a serious disadvantage once the invaders were close in to the island, for their artillery guns would be unable to fire at a sufficient downward angle to reach the beach. Mortars, however, could easily rectify this situation, and the flanking batteries on Zeelandia Bay and Compagnie Bay would also still be able to offer some protective cross-fire.

The elevation of the battery also has advantages and disadvantages as far as the capability of the guns, and susceptibility from enemy fire. The height of the battery makes it excellent for offering waterline richocet fire at ships offshore. This devastating fire, at this height, would be most effective. Conversely, this same situation puts the battery at great risk from return fire from the enemy, increased by the fact the the slope in the immediate front of the battery would direct low round-shot right up to the battery parapet. Soil was placed in front of the parapet to absorb such shot, thereby reducing the potential dangers.

The battery itself, as it now stands, is a typical three-winged angular construction. The walls are mortared cobble, and present a faced appearance. The interior floor is carefully laid in stone. The parapet was capped with a cement casing, and angled such that it would assist in deflecting incoming fire or water from the sea out of, rather than into, the battery. An interior drain was also built into the wall, allowing for water to escape the interior.

The parapet walls stand some 1.3 feet high on the interior side, and about 2.5 feet high on the exterior. The walls are roughly 2.45 feet thick overall. This low interior parapet height allowed the guns greater flexibility in negative angle firing, while the higher exterior height afforded additional protection to the guns and crew. A possible mortar platform was also constructed in the battery, to further its firepower against invaders.

While what remains today is likely the results of British manufacture in 1781, there is undoubtly Dutch and French elements as well. The battery was first laid out by the Dutch, but how much of this phase that still remains is unknown, for no known detailed plans exist of the site until after the British and French occupations. General Ogilvie and Col. Cockburn certainly rebuilt the battery in 1781, but how much the French may have added to that in late 1781 until their departure several years later is unknown. The battery was also still into the early 19th century, guarding against invasions during the Napoleonic wars, and again, seeing occupation by succeeding British and French troops. How much renovation was undertaken after 1781 is simply unknown at this time.

Archaeological excavations were undertaken at Battery Concordia in 1990. Numerous artifacts which were possibly associated with the garrison were unearthed, although the barracks area was difficult to positively identify. It may not have been a very substantial structure. Similarly, no signs of any powder or ammunition magazine was located.

A hardpacked living surface was located several hundred feet behind the battery, which contained a considerable amount of refuse dating to the period of the battery's most intense occupation, but even so, it could not be directly associated with the battery'd crew. Because of the nature of the small island, any structure occupied by the garrison would almost certainly have been reoccupied by others once the troops had left. A number of blue glass beads were recovered in this refuse, which are normally associated with the slave population on the island, but otherwise few culturally definable artifacts were recovered that could not have been used by any and all inhabitants. Considerable evidence of bone button manufacturing at the site was also discovered, but once again, this could be from civilian as well as military people at the site, although the paralles of this small industry and of other known military sites throughout this period are striking.

A few specifically military items were recovered in association with the battery. A bent side plate from a First Model "Brown Bess" musket was recovered, as was fragment of the top of a two-piece button which is likely from a British military coat, perhaps even that of an officer.

Unfortunatly, expansion of the airstrip in 1991 on Statia, destroyed the area suspected to have contained the barracks, and now only the battery itself is preserved.