Snaphaunce Gunlock Found on Hatteras by Dr. Phelps in 1997/8

Permission of Phelps Archaeology Laboratory, East Carolina University

What do you do?


This past summer, I have worked with a really fine group of people who actually are friends with one another and do some damned fine research... together, as a group. They include REAL professionals, an Archaeology PhD candidate, an expert on Indian migration and DNA studies, a Maritime History MA candidate (myself), many specialists in many different fields, including a mayor from Bidford, England!  I'm new to graduate research and should be forgiven for the shock I expressed maybe.


During my own research, I have casually sought other experts to help me understand the significance of certain finds, namely a gunlock that may date to the late 16th century (which would be highly significant!) and the Kendall ring (an artifact that may relate to one member of the Roanoke voyages, can be viewed here: http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/special/ead/view.aspx?id=1061&q=croatan ).  These items were found by the late Dr. David S. Phelps, Professor Emeritus at East Carolina University.  An ECU report on this archaeological site is available at http:///www.delabrooke.com/ECUreportGray.pdf.  I have made the legitimate resources available to all for the sake of unbiased opinions.  


One point that I feel is necessary to make and that is that my research and my friends' research is in no way connected to ECU.  We all ask questions of experts, some of them happen to be at that university... but, still, this is a group project that makes no such claims to any eminent institution.

BTW: Shameless plug - WRAL TV interview with two of our guys Monday night, interviewed by Sloan Mason at 5:55 pm, if I remember correctly. If you miss it, you can catch it later on their website.


Not much has been done on this "Croatan" (spelled "Croatoan" by the Indians) archaeological site lately.  Part of it has been due to Dr. Phelps passing.  It may also be due to problems similar to one that I have encountered lately.  Someone has been "poisoning the well" so to speak.  


I wrote an email to a snaphaunce expert in England just for an opinion on the gunlock (open for view at ECU Special Collections)... I got the sudden response that he had already given his opinion on this artifact and he insinuated that I was "butting in" on another man's research!  Well, this was definitely unexpected and strange.  The guy was only defending someone else, I know.  But... geesh!  I mean, Phelps was no longer around but the site was still under the direction of ECU and they didn't seem to mind.  In fact, the Archaeology department has been very helpful as you might expect them to be.  If this artifact had already been analyzed, I would love to hear about the analysis.  I'd love to know who it was that did it.  He referred me to the "site director."  Well?  This English expert mentioned a name that has nothing to do with the archaeology department at ECU and he said that he was the "site director" of the "Lost Colony site."  Well, I would not have wanted to butt in on anyone's "territory," but this particular person was NOT the director of that site nor has he ever been!   I was astounded!  "What did I do to him?" was the question that went through my mind repeatedly.  For some reason, he believed that I was asking him his opinion to undermine someone else.  Who gave him that idea? 



Anyway, I directed him to the proper authorities and all is well.  Honest, forthright research means cooperation... everyone working together to accomplish the goal.  "Poisoning water" does not help.  If one wishes to make great discoveries, then one must be willing to cooperate on such multidisciplinary endeavors and share the credit, not spoiling the resources for everyone else.  I welcome any cooperative efforts to further this very important end.  Tell me, why do I feel like my Dad?

The link to FtDNA Lost Colony project is located at http://www.familytreedna.com/public/LostColonyYDNA/default.aspx .  This is the legitimate site and you will NEVER be charged by anyone from the group... only by FtDNA, if you decide to have the test performed.  It would be great to know if you connect to the Native Americans involved here... especially to the Lost Colony!  But, that's why some illegitimate ruses work.  So, don't listen to us or any other website... go straight to FtDNA if you're interested.  In fact, don't use the link I gave you... Google it and get there that way.  With the internet, you have to be careful to drink from the right waterholes. Cooperation, folks!  That's how we get answers. 

Acts of the North Carolina General Assembly, 1749

I thought you folks might enjoy a few of our fine state's laws from 1749:  These are available online at http://docsouth.unc.edu/csr/index.html/document/csr23-0022

An Act for the Punishment of such as shall take away young women that be Inheritors being within the Age of Sixteen Years, or marry them without Consent of their Parents.

An Act for taking away Clergy from Offenders against a certain Statute, made in the Third Year of the reign of Henry 7, concerning the taking away Women against their Wills, unlawfully.

An Act that no Person, robbing any House in the Day Time, altho' no Person be therein, shall be admitted to have the Benefit of his Clergy.

An Act to take away the Benefit of Clergy from some Kind of Manslaughter.

An Act to restrain all Persons from Marriage, until their former Wives, and former Husbands, be dead.

An act to prevent the destroying and murdering Bastard Children.

An Act to prevent Malicious burning of Houses, stacks of Corn and Hay, and killing or Maiming of Cattle.

An Act for the preserving all Ships and Goods thereof, which shall happen to be forced on Shore, or stranded, upon the Coasts of this Kingdom, or any other of his Majesty's Dominions.

Starting off With Columbus

Well, it's fall again and that means that I'm back in classes and you folks get to share that experience with me once again!  To start off, as a student in Maritime History 1415-1815, we write essays based upon books that we read.  These essays are critical analyses of the book... how good it was, what were its strengths, weaknesses, etc.  We began with an awesome book that I would highly recommend to everyone... 


William D. Phillips Jr. and Carla Rahn Phillips, The Worlds of Christopher Columbus (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1992).


William and Carla Phillips introduce readers to the Worlds of Christopher Columbus, unabashedly reviling past historiography.  America’s unfamiliarity with the European world that created Columbus had a great deal to do with this skewed representation as much as the historical worship of so great a figure in its history.  For much of the nineteenth century America tended to ignore the enslavement of Indians and Columbus’ direct violation of orders from his Spanish sponsors that resulted in his arrest.  These very human frailties only top the list.  America in this time, however, avoided these frailties for the sake of preserving national dignity.  

Washington Irving’s 1828 popular biography of Christopher Columbus set the tone for nearly a century of textbook depictions of the “hero” Columbus.  The fourth centenary of Columbus’ first voyage to the New World, held at the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893, began to erode that romantic vision.  Although sluggish immediately following the “Great Man” era of American history (an idea cultivated by Thomas Carlyle), men like Justin Winsor, set out to become Irving’s “great American debunker” and change modern views of Christopher Columbus (Phillips and Phillips, 6).  

It cannot be argued that Columbus was an important personality in the development of the New World since 1492.  Columbus was, indeed a hero to many Americans.  This also holds true for the rest of the world as the Columbian Exchange of ideas and material culture influenced the entirety of the globe.  This book did not dispute Christopher Columbus’ contribution to history.  Still, that Columbus was simply human and not a “hero,” per se, the Phillipses labored to be understood.  They endeavored to set the historical record straight, to encourage other historians to provide a body of Columbian scholarship that contained the known facts about the previously misconstrued Genoan adventurer.  They were even successful in portraying a much more complex and convoluted human being that students across America could easily identify with.

This book was as much about the events leading to exploration beyond the eastern Atlantic as it was about Columbus himself.  As such, it provides an excellent historical setting and whets the appetite for the discovery to follow.  The first third of the Phillipses’ work give an excellent review of the history of navigation, the building technological capability for farther exploration, Asian spice availability, and religious incentives.  This book argues that all of these facets of Christopher Columbus’ world need to be fully understood before taking on the daunting task of analyzing the man.  The intricacies of following the polestar to reckon latitude, Portuguese expansion before 1492, advances in astronomical and geographic knowledge through Ptolemy, Copernicus, Bacon, d’Ailly, et al., and the Muslim conquest and control of the routes to the east all contributed.  Martin Behaim’s 1492 cartographic depiction of the world reflected the remarkably accurate view held by fifteenth-century geographers – only the Americas were missing.  That Columbus, or anyone for that matter, would eventually find America was a foregone conclusion.  The final puzzle piece would be found.

Many of today’s readers would not understand these contributing factors.  At first, Columbus was worshipped and then denounced.  History glorified in his fame, then became blinded by Columbus’ all too human and potentially instructional frailty.  The Phillipses believe that a lack of understanding of these subtle nuances of history contributed to the early archetypal works that filled our modern history texts with their many apocryphal tales of the “great man.”  The new tales carry starkly opposing views, also just as exaggerated.  As the saying goes, the truth is often in the middle.  True tales of Columbus yet waited for works like this book.   

Once the Phillipses established the historical setting for Columbus’ iconic voyage, they carefully began to analyze his origins and physical appearance.  Again, there existed controversy in the historiography.  Seventy-one portraits appeared in the 1893 Chicago Exposition, few of which resembled the accepted Lorenzo Lotto 1512 painting, commissioned in Venice only six years after Columbus’ death.  Still, the discovery of this painting came perhaps not in time for the 400th anniversary celebration and had not even been pronounced “authentic” until 1956.  There seems to have been no rhyme or reason to the speculative fascination, however.  Columbus himself mentioned his Genoese birth.  Still, others, not believing Columbus, speculated that he was English, French, or Spanish.  Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, who wrote only thirty years after Columbus, declared him to be red-headed with freckles, a complexion difficult to find in native Spaniards.  The Phillipses demonstrate how simple it can be to lazily accept fact without considering context.  For Americans, intent upon hero worship of Christopher Columbus and unfamiliar with Italian culture, this would have resulted in the observed factual distortions.  

American historiography was not solely responsible for the misinformation on Columbus.  He, himself was quite adept at that business, as much as his father at weaving wool.  On an early voyage to the Mediterranean island of Chios, he misidentified many plants as mastic bushes eager to find the popular and expensive perfume base.  He later repeated these errors in his zeal to discover new “Asian” spices.  Also, Columbus supposedly entered into a chart-making business with his sons, Hernando and Bartolomeo.  The Phillipses make it clear from Hernando Colón’s presumed early passages in his father’s biography that historians have assumed more than the documentary evidence revealed.  No documentation ever backed this.  Besides, what documents remain available to historians are mostly those of Columbus, who had a penchant for exaggeration. 
The Phillipses explain every important aspect of Columbus’ life that led to his famous voyage while informing readers of the difficulties involved in the analysis. By no means was this simple.  Even though from Genoa, born of weaver-parents Domenico and Susanna Fontanarossa Colombo, leaving at fourteen with a rudimentary education, Columbus’ formative decade in Portugal, they declare, explains the most confusing detail in the documentation – that of his writing almost exclusively in Latin and Portuguese.  Even his fortuitous marriage to Felipa Moniz was misconstrued in the past.  Columbus, not so downtrodden as he has been presented, received a welcome dowry, but so did most eligible and successful men of his time.  Again, Columbus’ story reads somewhat differently in true light.  

Even in the face of blaring blunders such as twice trying to sail directly east from the Caribbean, the Phillipses would have us know that Columbus was not an idiot.  He knew at least the basics of navigation and geography even if he did not completely understand the nature of the trade winds.  His estimates of the earth’s circumference were small, but still acceptable to the learned men of his day.  Still, they argue that the impetus for his monumental voyage came from “fables and stories” (Phillips and Phillips, 101).  So, he was impressionable.  These impressions somehow sparked the idea that something lay to the west.  Strange pieces of carved wood, of hitherto unknown species of trees, and large cane plants, all contributed to this idea that eventually became a dream.  The human Columbus dreamed, but he was not alone.  The wonder of the unknown tantalized many an imagination, not just Columbus.  His voyage was no certain success, but a gamble on the unknown that could have cost many lives.  Furthermore, these tales delight the expectant reader, a much needed reprieve from the first few chapters of background that, while excellent, did tread wearily at times.  

Enthralling, however, were the elaborate and highly decorative stories appended to Columbus’ tale as early as 1534.  One included a trip to Iceland, but the documentation for this speculation remained invisible.  These European “enhancements” were undoubtedly in response to Columbus’ own exaggerations, but the majority of these tales have developed in America, the results of nineteenth-century romanticism.  After all, in contrast to America, Europeans usually regard 1492 as the year that Granada returned to Spain from the hands of the Moors.  There was a distinct difference in historiographical motivation on opposite sides of the Atlantic.  Like James Loewen before them, the Phillipses want readers to understand that this romanticism has strongly affected past history education in America.  A real disservice has been performed to history students, even if Columbus himself would have approved the tales.  Columbus’ greatest failing, perhaps, was pride. Vanity would reveal itself many times during his career.  

There are many intrigues and amorous devices that Columbus may have used to get approval from the Spanish court of Fernando and Isabel, after having been turned down by King João of Portugal.  The writers preserve Columbus’ early struggles and his battle to be understood and accepted.  Few of these facts gain as much attention as the voyages themselves, however.  Once permission was received, the reader virtually sails beside Columbus, taking in the salt spray and the swells of the sea.  The Phillipses best writing in this book captures the maritime adventure upon departing Palos for what would be a long and tenuous voyage.

Another example of Columbus’ vanity stealing the show was the 10,000 maravedis that would go to the first man to sight land.  This reward Columbus claimed for himself, as if the glory of being admiral, governor, and collecting ten percent of all the American wealth were not enough.  Despite the failings, say the Phillipses, Columbus, as any mariner, kept two sets of numbers in his journal for ease of communication in foreign ports, not so he could deceive his crew.  Besides, he would have had to somehow change the logbooks of the other two ships, a difficult trick with the ocean between them.  Bartolomé de Las Casas began this rumor out of his ignorance of navigation and paraphrasing Columbus’ logs rather than quoting them directly.  

On page 155, the Phillipses finally bring the reader ashore in America, though where, exactly remains a mystery.  And, of course, what Columbus finds was not what he expected to find.  These are familiar details to most Americans.  His disappointment at not finding the riches of Cipango and a desire to impress his sponsors encouraged him to inaugurate the European practice of slavery in America.  God rewarded his efforts by allowing Martín Alonzo Pinzón to abscond with the Pinta and also by sinking his flagship, the Santa Maria, to whom Columbus partly attributed his treacherous crew as well.  Eventually, the treacherous Pinzón returned (which shone some credit upon Columbus as a navigator) with the Pinta and so ended the first fateful voyage, literally on a wing and a prayer.  The Phillipses detail the politics and the fervor that Columbus caused with his green parrots, seven Tainos, and sales pitches.  But, they also tell of his trials during subsequent voyages, increased responsibilities, and arrest in great detail.  Where a missing account fails them, they replace it with several peripheral accounts to fill the gap.    

The latter three voyages allow the Phillipses the chance to really explore Columbus’ character, his questionable ability to command, his desperate desire to receive even posthumous recognition, his gift of elaboration and redirection, but also his ingenuity in the face of adversity.  Still, political machinery gained momentum after the great discovery and Columbus barely balanced on the wave that resulted.  It only worsened after the riches were finally found.  The writers tell that Columbus’ troubles were a result of his vocation as mariner, not an administrator.  Still, allowing colonists to make slaves of the natives was directly opposed to his patrons’ orders.  Vanity stepped in again and Columbus’ theatrics surprisingly gave him a fourth voyage.  

This book revives the thrill of the exploration and the eager anticipation that must have been felt by all on the first voyage to America.  Thankfully, the writers steered away from detailed descriptions of spoiled meat, hardtack, weevils, and long sea voyages without baths.  Still, the political intrigues and machinations of the European courts were delightfully present in this book, as were the cannibal Caribs and ribald tales of conquest.  The effects of the Columbian Exchange were also richly detailed.  

William and Carla Phillips explore every facet and in the end, they lift somewhat their mantle as “debunker” to reveal the actual Columbus with all of his faults, but also his talents.  In many ways, he seems an even more exciting character than recently believed.   As a human being, Columbus remained an extraordinary man.  The vaporous romanticism that once surrounded the Genoese adventurer and discoverer of America truly hid the real intricacies of the man himself.  The glory of what Columbus did and the tragic mistakes that he made while doing them provide a human tale, one from which all Americans can identify and learn.  For himself, Columbus never publically admitted that he did not find Asia, to which the Phillipses offer that his stubborn insistence affected Europeans for decades after his death.  That predisposition quickly faded, but the exchange of plants, culture, diseases, and ideas had profound implications forever.