Re-conservation of CSS Neuse's Artifacts

CSS Neuse is a Confederate Ironclad ship that was built in White Hall, NC in 1862 and floated down the Neuse River to Kinston where it was scuttled after Union troops took the town in 1865. It was recovered in the 1960s, conserved and placed on display outdoors. The artifacts were conserved twice before and now, they're getting another facelift... especially after Hurricane Floyd flooded the visitor's center in 1999 and rusted a whole bunch of this stuff.  The Neuse is being moved into an indoor facility in downtown Kinston this summer and these artifacts are planned as part of a brand new exhibit to accompany the ship's new home.  The home of the CSS Neuse Facebook page is here and the Historic Sites page for it is here.

How do you learn proper conservation techniques?  It all began with a class in Museum Studies at East Carolina University.  Two of us were also taking a conservation class at the same time and one of us had already had it.  Well, the fact that you've had a class does not make you a proper expert, as we later found out.  Experience in the field was an absolutely necessary ingredient.  None of us had that.  In other words, we had to start from scratch and gain that experience.  A little life experience was a plus as well.  What's worse is that every "expert" in the field gave us different advice, some of it quite detailed for such an imperfect, resource-challenged project.  There's a big difference between the ideal and the practical, although you should always be guided by the ideal.  I used to manufacture and install stained glass windows, which on occasion required me to adapt to new situations that I might encounter in the field.  It happened almost on every job.  Likewise, most conservation projects necessarily center upon the practical; compromise must be a familiar idea to us all.  This is a delicate balance, affected by resources, time, location, future storage capabilities... a plethora of factors.

Me back in the good old days (before the grey crept down my face), soldering my stained glass window to metal hangers that I had to adapt to the masonry work of this church in order to hold my window in place.  I had always worked on wood before.  This was new.  The window had to be fitted closely to the masonry in order to seal it properly.  This window required three months of drawing, cutting, painting, firing, and assembly.  I wasn't about to let it come out of that wall!

One really wild idea that was told to us was to put as many as fifty coats of expensive tannic acid solution on the Brooke Cannon Shells that we worked with, even though the cannon from the QAR got only three.  Well, that was a sheer disaster; shall I say "Dismal Failure?"  Imagine 50 coats of red Krylon on your Red Ryder... or 50 coats on anything with great detail... where was that picture of the British carriage again?  lol  All diagnostic features disappeared in a sea of uneven paint!  It was gross... except at a distance, when you couldn't make out the details of the wreck.  Not only was it thick, but the metal never reacted to it.  I remember seeing a beautiful old Mustang one time and, as I approached, it became obvious that something drastic had happened to it.  That's what we had with SLM-006, the only Mullane shell contained in the Neuse artifact collection.  It's a special piece for them.  Ideally, this shell needs to be completely redone, this time with 1/10th of the expensive chemicals and a healthy application of common sense. 

Examples of corroded artifacts: SLB-003, EH-003, and GC-002

Then came the idea of mixing phosphoric acid into the tannic solution directly instead of making a dilute solution first and using a medicine dropper to adjust the pH that way.  I should say that that was not the fault of any trained expert, but the results of inexperience in laboratory methods.  Again, this is why you need a supervisor for such projects (which we lacked, unfortunately); but fear not, the more attentive of us were able to persevere through the rough areas and make a proper go of it.  The best method for adjusting pH comes from Algonquin College's video (in case you're interested).  By the way, adjusting the pH is apparently not as critical as some might lead you to believe.  J.T. Baker makes a tannic acid that should already be the proper pH.  Still, the other tannic acids available do not get much higher in pH and effect the results in no observable way.  Another oft quoted detail that seems to make little difference, but can be used to make a little political noise.  The mistake with the phosphoric acid just wasted our time and made the artifacts quite ugly.  You can see the results of the phosphoric acid on the shells in the last of these three comparison photos (SLB-002 from the start of the day 4/25/2012):

The first image is how the objects looked when they were conserved before, with Conquest, a tannic acid and acrylic mix. The second picture is the same object with most of the Conquest still on it, but with the oxidation scrubbed off. Forty coats of tannic acid solution were added on top of the Conquest. Bare metal still shows through these many coats, having never reacted with the metal. The last image shows a similar shell treated correctly, with only three coats of tannic acid (like the cannon at the QAR lab), and powdered art-quality graphite stippled into resistive areas to make the black color uniform throughout. Most experts will agree that excessive coats are not necessary. As you can see here, they are quite terrible in appearance by comparison to the proper method. Note that the first and last images show similar textures on the artifact. Diagnostic details are preserved.

One example of phosphoric acid overdose.  The image to the left is a whitish brown because of the phosphates covering it and unreacted tannic acid on top of that.  It should be noted the phosphoric acid is sometimes used for the same purpose as tannic acid to preserve iron and that an a cream-colored coating would not harm the iron and protect it just the same, but what an ugly result!  The image on right is a properly-reacted SLB-002 with tannic acid.  Again, diagnostic detail has not been lost. 

Perhaps the biggest help was a minor reference to the "stiff" bristle brush that did not sound much like a paint brush, which was the assumption for so long, an uneducated method that I was to discover that was employed by a former group that was later fired for the same thing.  The tannic acid had not been getting into and reacting with the metal because we were painting it on like the red paint on that old metal shed that my father had taught me how to paint on... kind of like Mr. Miagi with that "brush up, brush down" bit.  A sea of tannic acid just sat there like a light beige clear overcoat.  When there are iron oxides present, like on a freshly electrolyzed cannon at the QAR lab (see pic), the tannic will react easily with those to turn black, even when painted on.  That's just not what we had nor what should be done in any situation.

Cannon from the QAR fresh from the electrolyte solution.  It's ready to be scrubbed down in tannic acid.  This will instantly turn the rust a dark purple hue, give off a lot of heat (exothermic), then turn deep blue-black.  The QAR lab only uses three applications of tannic acid to accomplish this.

If you've ever used a rust converter in your garage, you know the reaction that I'm talking about.  Still, we were bead blasting these artifacts to bare metal.  There was no rust on them to react readily to tannic acid.  My guess is that some "fresh" conservators were advising in these cases to increase the number of "coats" of tannic acid until the metal finally reacted (if it EVER did react, which I doubt).  Think about the word "coats."  It implies a paint... not a reactive chemical that should be worked into the metal's surface.  That was the source of the error.  Like I said, 50, and as many as 200 "coats" of tannic acid were advised to get a reaction that never comes.  The mere bulk of the tannic acid simply hides the unreacted areas.  You can't see the forest for the trees.  This just seems wrong.  Did anyone ever seriously get good results with this!?  I can't believe they did... not on bare metal... not on any iron artifact... in fact.  :)  It's also wasteful and expensive.

There was hope!  A very old paper by J. B. Pelikan in 1966 was the first to show a picture of a "stiff" bristle brush in use with tannic acid and this picture verified what I was beginning to think, but which none of the modern literature would say directly.  After 1966, it would seem that everyone in the field just began to assume that's what you use and called it simply a "brush" from then on:

Conservation of an iron knocker on the door of the state castle Hradek near Nechanice. The surface of the fittings and the decorative nails is being thoroughly brushed with a tannin solution. (Pelikan, 1966:113)

This technique works on bare metal as well as rusty iron.  Again, after 1966, some of the literature hinted at that, but never came right out and said it!  It's those little hints, lost and forgotten in an academic sea of "paper-plexion" that have to guide you sometimes.  Again, the education is helpful... as long as you use some practical sense and real-life experience to temper it with.  Thank you Pelikan!

I can only speak for myself and, needless to say, I learned conservation in the field as much as I did in the classroom... and in the literature!  I mean, I had a few years of laboratory (and a lot of practical... I'm older, after all) experience, but very little in conservation.  Some of the experts were of tremendous help, too.  My conservation instructor, Shanna Daniels, contributed valuable assistance to us along the way.  Also, the Queen Anne's Revenge (QAR) conservator, Wendy Welsh, was of the utmost assistance in the last few weeks.  By the way, Wendy will be coming to a symposium on the conservation of the CSS Neuse at the Neuse Regional Library at 510 North Queen Street in Kinston on May 19th at 2:00 pm.  Leslie Bright, the original conservator from the 1960s will be there as well.  This will be very informative and I know that I have my questions!  Don't forget to hit Bathfest earlier that day in Bath!

Another conservator who has been hugely helpful is Nathan Henry of the Underwater Archaeology Branch (UAB) at Ft. Fisher.  Henry deals mostly with salt-infested marine artifacts, but his practical knowledge of metals conservation was quite valuable.  The UAB also has 73 folders of negatives and documents from CSS Neuse's original conservation in the 60s & 70s.  Digitizing those would be hugely valuable to the festivities this summer and the new facility with its new exhibits, which could use some of those pics.  Scanning those is what I did last week.  UAB was planning to digitize their shipwreck files this summer and I gave them a head start on the Neuse files.

Last but not least was our faithful Admiral of the High Seas, Dr. Brad Rodgers, the director of Maritime Studies at ECU.  His manual, The Archaeologist's Manual for Conservation: A Guide to Non-Toxic, Minimal Intervention Artifact Stabilization, published in 2003, gave us valuable insight into the methods. 

The best part of this project was the problem-solving.  The artifacts that we worked on were several cast iron Brooke and one Mullane shell, a wrought iron trunnion cover (cannon carriage piece), a flag pole socket and three wrought-iron eyehooks.  Try as we might, the wrought iron pieces did not take the tannic acid solution very well.  However, with Shanna, Wendy, Brad's, and Nathan's help, we were able to find the right formula/technique and get excellent results (almost surprisingly instant results), at least on the cast iron... finally!  Still the wrought iron artifacts can easily be coated with tannic acid and then charcoal, using the coloration idea behind Conquest, but without the vinyl, fine sand, and acrylic coating that has shown possible galvanic corrosion problems.  These are minor, but avoiding them is easy with this method.

I could also point out another flirtation with the literature at the end of this process and which got misconstrued and confused once again.  There is some evidence that graphite could have a galvanic corrosive effect with cast iron under the right conditions.  Ahem!  :)  However, in order for an electrochemical process such as this to take place, the graphite and iron would have to come into direct contact AND they would have to be able to conduct a current.  Powdered graphite (I actually used artist-quality charcoal which is a different allotrope of carbon from "graphitized iron") suspended in dried tannic acid could never conduct electrons because the particles of graphite cannot actually touch one another... the "wires" aren't connected.  Now, if you're talking about solid graphite rods (pencil lead, for instance) laying directly against bare metal, that's a different story.  This was just another red herring... something to stall progress.  Still, a valid concern, however minor and distracting, and it deserved some thought.  To appease the theoretical alarmists, a simple coat of Acryloid B-72 (basically, a lacquer) over the area to be stippled with graphite solves that little problem right away! It even makes it easier to do because the older layers are not dissolved by the new application.  NOTE: Still, I performed an experiment to illustrate that the graphite/tannic acid mixture does not conduct a current when dry and, therefore, is harmless.  The artifact looks beautifully uniform throughout and will last a long time in the proper care without any galvanic problems other than what was already there in the larger, more serious and irreparable problems between the copper alloy and the iron.

This is the major galvanic concern, especially if water is still trapped inside the shells to act as an electrolyte and complete the circuit!  The differing metals cannot be removed from one another without damaging the artifact and must be somehow made electrically inert through temperature and humidity controls upon display... and by popping the hood and draining the excess fluids! lol  Again, this is the REAL galvanic problem....  My, where is the time going!?  :)

Dr. Brad Rodgers, with 25 years of experience in the field, stated that metals were predictable.  He should know, I guess.  There is no need in reinventing the wheel.  In other words, it's not that hard, folks!

All of this effort was excruciatingly intense and complex because of the differing and often conflicting opinions and variability of lab practices (remember that these are not usually chemistry majors).  One piece of advice for those getting into the field... you will be surrounded by people who only half understand the methods, have minor lab skills or experience, or, worst still, have been mis-taught or misled in some way.  Don't dispute them.  They can always find someone with credentials to back them up on any tangent they can dream up.  They can make your life a living hell!  Get all of the information you can BEFORE you start, make a plan, and then get the job done.  Most of all, get it done and done right.

After all that happened, after four long, difficult months, after all the starting, stopping, and testing suggested methods (most of which did NOT work) along the way, success came at last.  Needless to say, I got an "A" in conservation class!  It took perseverance and a lot of common sense, too.  Loads of common sense... please, never underrate common sense!  You can tell that I'm ready for a break, huh?

British author, Douglas Adams said, "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."  How right he was! 


After all that, I could finally say, "Call me conservator!"  Maybe someday, I will have the chance to work on other projects.  But, for now, I just wanna kick back and have a beer!  You know how fond I am of Spaten Oktoberfest... :) 

In this picture, there are three shells visible, the trunnion cover in the background and the eyehooks in foreground.  One note is that Jack Bell (Bell, 2003:32 and 113) states in his book on Civil War ordnance, Civil War Heavy Explosive Ordnance: A Guide to Large Artillery Projectiles, Torpedoes, and Mines that while all sabots from Union ordnance were listed in contemporary sources as “brass,” all Confederate ones were listed as “copper.”  Still, he states that “Some of the Confederate ones may actually be brass or some alloy other than pure copper….” (Bell, 32).  As observed on April 9, 2012 and obvious in this picture from April 25th, the brass appearance on the sabots was due to the protective coating applied in the 1970s.  The contemporary sources were correct in that a high-copper content was used, as you can see on the standing shell to the right.

GC-002, the trunnion cover, after proper conservation

A full gun crew works a 9" Dahlgren, USS Mendota.  Note the trunnion cover in the center of this photo.  It kept the cannon from jumping off the carriage when it fired.  Brooke guns were mounted on a carriage that was steeper in angle on the front, providing for two angles on GC-002 above.

NE-3W-9, an eye hook that we named EH-002, from 1975 to the present.

Eyehooks of wrought iron and coated in tannic acid with graphite added for color.

A display idea showing an extension of the fuse and its components extended from the hole from which they fit.  The angle of the display will show off the entire structure of the shell.

Update from May 19, 2012 and the "Wood, Iron, and Time" event where we got to speak with Leslie Bright and Wendy Welsh in Kinston: 

Leslie told us about the details of the conservation process that he helped to pioneer and Wendy talked us some of the modern techniques that we use today.  I was also able to talk with Spencer Waldron, retired conservator for Historic Sites.  According to Spence, Leslie loved the Conquest, which he said was properly applied by scrubbing it in (another late, but welcome reference).  Apparently, Leslie used Conquest up until the time he was rushed by the state and he used Epoxy Resin to finish the shells.  This was not so easily apparent from his book.  I thought that I had seen some evidence of this in the shells we had.  I remember having to argue this point as well.  I'm thinking that conservation is a touchy subject for some folks.  But, not so for Leslie and Wendy.  This was an enjoyable and friendly event!  It was nice to sit in a room with all of these minds: David Moore was there, Morris Bass, the site director and a most knowledgeable scholar in his own right, his right hand, Holly Weaver, Bright & Welsh, of course, and Bill Rowland, a man who worked tirelessly to record the early recovery efforts and draw plans, locate GPS coordinates, etc.   There was another retired scholar and I wish I could remember his name. 

As it turns out, Spence told me that the site hired some extra hands after the storm in 1999 that painted the Conquest on like I described earlier instead of scrubbing it in... they were fired for wasting chemicals and time.  I guess you can't fire volunteers... lol. 

Leslie Bright in Kinston, May 19, 2012

Wendy Welsh in Kinston, May 19, 2012

Modern Greece Shipwreck Fun

Me in my "action gear" lol

Ah, what a bright and cheery day to be crawling in the muck!  We twelve students from ECU's archaeological conservation class got some real experience... hands on for thousands of artifacts for the civil war blockade runner Modern Greece.  There's more.  You see... not only did we encounter artifacts from the Modern Greece, excavated in the 1960s and re-interred in these watery graves on the grounds of Fort Fisher and the Underwater Archaeology Branch's facilities in Kure Beach.  There were also artifacts from the Ella and the Ranger popping out of the first tank that we worked on the first day (March 5).  Each item that came out of the tank, Nathan, Chris, and/or Mark were there with manifests showing what ship it had belonged to.  

No matter that we got dirty, cold, wet, etc... we had fun putting our hands (er... gloves) on those artifacts and seeing them for the first time in 50 years when they were first re-interred on this site, not far from their original resting place in the sea waters just off the Cape Fear River.  

You see the pants that I'm wearing in the photo?  This pic is from Day 2, after the first washing.  Needless to say, I won't be going out on the town in these jeans anytime soon.  May I introduce you to the black, muddy pit that we worked on the second day?  Look below:

Tank drained and awaiting us...

     Yes, this was nasty.  See?  Archaeological conservation is really fun!  You get to play in the mud and get credit for it, too.  And, apparently, we drew some attention on this project.  The Raleigh News and Observer came out, Channel 14 and the Charlotte Observer did a video on us, TV3 in Wilmington came out, the News-Record in Greensboro carried it, and our new friend, Brian Nestor filmed the entire process for a 5-minute video produced by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources.


Brian's second video from NC-DCR:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgvjPNnmDjQ


Amazing how old stuff can be such popular news, huh?



There were British Enfield Rifles, Bowie knives, leg irons, bayonets and other war materials, but we also found household and farm items such as files, chisels, scissors, knives, forks, spoons, hoe heads, picks and much more.  It was a tremendous haul! 

Swamp People in Hyde County!

This is sort of an update to the last entry about pleasure driving through Hyde County.  I spent the day in the library and learned why it was that I didn't find Stephen Brooks Jr. and his wife Mary Farrow Brooks.  Stephen was a fish... really.  The book In Memory of...: An Index to Hyde County Cemeteries tells exactly where they are buried... on an island.  There is no bridge to this island, nor is there even an identifiable area of high ground where you might find a graveyard.  Still, they are the only two people buried here in the "Lightwood Creek Marsh Cemetery."  

How appropriate of a name!

Portion of Wyesocking Bay area in Hyde County, NC

I'm guessing that Stephen and Mary probably lived on this island and operated their ship from this point.  He did have a ship.  During the American Revolution, he ran supplies to and from a British-besieged Hatteras Island with it and lost it in the process.  

Stephen and Mary, as well as her father owned land on Hatteras at one point... speaking of point, Brooks Point near present Brigand's Bay is named for one of the Stephens... either this guy or his dad.  After Stephen Jr.'s death, his wife Mary and son Isaac held the property for awhile.  Stephen had passed away at his home in the marsh in 1797.


Interestingly, a great many families can be found in both places, Hatteras and Hyde County.  Brooks, Midyett, Gibbs, Davis, Wahab, etc lived in both places, many of them began with a single person who lived in both... like Stephen Brooks.  


I wonder where his ship is....?  I know some underwater archaeologists in ECU's Maritime Program... hum... :)  I'll probably need the funds to find it first.  Oh, well. 

Here's the cemetery data that I found:

On page 233 of In Memory of...

By the way, the information about Wallingford, Connecticut is still questionable according to what I've heard.  Here's the annotated map showing the cemetery's location:

Map from the same book... #30 is Lightwood Creek Marsh Cemetery

 Well, that settles that.  I guess I'll have to try a quiet boat ride instead of a car next time.  The real obstacle will be avoiding the hunters that seem to be the only people out that way.  I may need some rubber boots, too. 

Pleasure Driving into North Carolina Maritime History

I like to drive.  Ever since before I had a driver's license, I loved to take off down the road and go places I've never been.  This started with a minibike, a Honda 50.  It was so much fun and living in the country gave me a lot of room to legally (sort of) operate it.  

Anyway, I love the open road.  At least, I used to.  Have you seen it lately?  Well, you'd better if you're driving on one.  Take your eyes off of that road for even a second and you'll be in an accident.  I don't know why so many people wanted to invade our quaint little private spaces, but they have.  Now, it's a sheer sign of insanity if you want to drive for pleasure.  

Well, I found a place that I can recapture the past glory days of driving in the peace and quiet.  No, it's not Montana although that works, too.  No, there's a place right here in North Carolina and it's mostly flat and straight, so it's pure pleasure driving at its best.  


I hesitate to tell everyone because I don't want to spoil it for myself.  Still, I hate to be so stingy.  I'm not a capitalist and actually DO believe in the biblical tenets of sharing... yes, not for a profit, but for FREE (the real kind of "free" with no catches).  Note: Jesus would not be a capitalist either.  Try to imagine a kindly socialist with long hair, a robe, and sandals working on Wall Street... in an office I mean and not down on the street, living in tents with the Occupiers.  No, you can't really imagine that, can you?  Maybe one day we'll practice what we preach...


Ever heard of Hyde County?  

Enter Gull Rock, Wysocking Bay, Hyde County, NC

I used to travel to Roanoke Island by way of a hectic northerly route north and then an eastward turn on Hwy 64.  Not any more!  Now, I follow the little known route of 264 through the forests and swamplands of Pitt, Beaufort, Hyde, and Dare Counties to arrive just west of Roanoke.  The only real obstacle that you might have to avoid is a snake.  And if you do happen to hit the poor guy, well... no damage to your vehicle anyway.  I have yet to come across a bear, even a deer.  I suspect they are there, so don't go thru there without looking.  Still, talk about a quiet, pleasant drive.  Just like when I used to go from my hometown of Fayetteville to White Lake for the weekend.  

I never worry about who else is on the road... really.  

This place is remote.  One day, I decided to take a side venture off of Hwy 264 and try to find the little town of Gull Rock in Wysocking Bay, where the Revolutionary War personality Stephen Brooks was buried.  Brooks, who was born probably in New England in 1725 and died in Hyde County 1797, was one of those early maritime adventurers who came to early Hatteras Island and then, like many, settled on the mainland of Hyde County, just across the Pamlico Sound.  He married Mary Farrow, the daughter of Jacob Farrow, who also lived on Hatteras Island near where we find the Hatteras Indians.  Many of his family filtered west into Beaufort and Pitt Counties, some even to Tennessee.  

William & Martha Foreman Brooks

Well, I did not find Stephen's grave there in Gull Rock and wondered what must have happened to the original Methodist Church there (The Outer Banks, Hyde, and most of Dare were predominantly Methodist in belief - a maritime NC religion?).  But, I did find William Brooks, a son of Stephen who founded a Methodist church and congregation in Hyde.  Beside him were his wife and family in the Brooks cemetery there.  Deeds reveal his lasting presence in Hyde County.  His son, Caleb was responsible for many of the homes that you will see dotting the landscape around Lake Landing in Hyde County.  

The connection to my Brooks ancestors has its own history.  William may have had a younger brother, Ephraim who moved west to Anson County... just to confuse his Brooks with mine, of course.  The amazing science of DNA proved the difference in our groups and, sadly, I had to say goodbye to Ephraim and his bunch.  But, alas, it sparked my interest in this Brooks family and eventually led to my fascination with Eastern NC and Hatteras Island and its history.

I assume that Stephen Sr. and Jr. are hanging around in the nearby wooded areas.  I need to search for his burial information again because I'm sure that Stephen Brooks had a tombstone in Hyde... I hope it's still there.  I didn't have much time to search though because it was late in the day and there are few streetlights that far out in the wildlife preserves of Hyde County.  

Celia & Banister Midyett

I got another welcome surprise that day and in the very same cemetery, was Banister Midyett and family, including Daniel Midyett and another Daniel just a half-mile down the road in Gull Rock in the Pugh cemetery.   Banister Midyett is very likely closely related to the Nathaniel Midyett who bought the "Indian Town" (most likely of John Lawson fame) from the Elks family in 1788 just before the few Indian Elks faded from existence in 1802.  His family may even have continued to own the town well into the twentieth century, if some of our information is correct.  


All in all, this was a very pleasant day.  I had a great, quiet drive and found some of those personalities that I've studied so closely as a genealogist and an historian.  I rather enjoyed myself.  Still, Stephen Brooks is out there and I have yet another adventure awaiting me upon my next visit.  I love to think about how this man lived near and probably spoke to the last Hatteras Indians to live as natives before assimilating into American culture.  


There will be another pleasure drive through Hyde County for a visit soon.  :)

John Lawson's Indian Town on Hatteras Island

What am I doing?  I'm celebrating a great New Year at Mi Casa Cafe on St. George Street in St. Augustine, Florida.  I'd also like to introduce my new friend, Spaten Oktoberfest beer.  It just became my favorite.  Mi Casa Cafe specializes in Cuban and Reuben sandwiches, too.  I had the Cuban.  Magnifico!   

What does St. Augustine have to do with John Lawson's Indian Town on Hatteras Island?  My first inclination was to say "Not one damned thing!"  That's not exactly true, though... and a good part of why I'm writing about it now.  Think maritime... 

Actually, my wife and I are simply celebrating our anniversary in style after coming back from Orlando (yeah, the Disney place) where I presented my paper on the "Disappearance" of the Hatteras Indians.   

St. Augustine is a perfect place to reflect on Hatteras Island because of the tropical environment, that, thanks to the Gulf Stream, resembles that of Hatteras Island.  It is the last point northward where the palmetto grows and I even found a reference to the National Park Service buying a ten-acre orange grove for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore!

Where did the Hatteras Indians go?  Well, nowhere.  That's why the quotes around the word "disappearance"... it's a clever toy that we writers sometimes use to denote questionable status to this particular use of the word.  

Hatteras Indians never disappeared, nor did they leave the island... not all of them, anyway.  They're still there.  You can ask them yourselves anytime you like.  They can also tell you where to find the old "Indian Town" visited or written about by John Lawson in his 1709 book.  And, it's not where Dr. David S. Phelps dug at the 31DR1 archaeological site in 1998.  That site is near Buxton.  Now, he did find a town, but one that had already been Anglicized by the time Lawson visited or heard about it.  

Note: I keep saying "visited or heard about" because there is still some question as to whether or not John Lawson actually visited the island.  I happen to think he did because his map shows Hatteras as very different from other maps of the time.  I think he actually witnessed that Hatteras Island was bigger than others believed it to be then.  

1709 Lawson/Senex Map (partial)

 John Lawson was not much of a geographer.  He was a self-trained ethnographer and naturalist.  He didn't even make this map, but he worked hand in hand with engraver John Senex to produce it to accompany his book, New Voyage to Carolina that was being published upon his return to England in 1709.  

The old Elks property and their town remained in a virtually virgin state for a long time.  Old accounts tell us why as well... Indians there wanted to remain aboriginal, not become as modernized as the Indians that lived and worked with Europeans near Buxton.  Of course, sadly, they would be unable to hold out forever.  European society clearly dominated over theirs and most European cultures rarely respected Indian culture.  Hatteras, though, may have been better than most places, thanks to its maritime egalitarian nature.  It may even have attracted other Indians who escaped enslavement following the American Revolution when Indians and Africans were grouped together in the census.  Slavery became a uniquely American phenomenon after the Revolution when the new nation needed the money, no longer able to depend upon Great Britain for support.  You can read up on this in David Cecelski's Waterman's Song if you're interested.  He mentions some of the residents of Hatteras Island, too. 

The new highway encouraged Hatteras residents to come up to speed in the 20th century.  Before that time, the island sat apart from the North Carolina mainland.  I'd even venture to say that Hatteras has rarely, if ever, been a part of North Carolina at all.  It more appropriately belongs to the Atlantic community that includes places like Nantucket Island or... St, Augustine, Florida.

Native inhabitants may have wished to live apart from the town at Buxton because they wanted to preserve their culture, very much like traditional Algonquians on Nantucket Island separated from Christianized Indians.  This part is just as vital to North Carolina history as the discovery of the Lost Colony.  Small steps....

I spent the better part of last week preparing for the Phi Alpha Theta History Honors Society Biennial Conference in Orlando where I presented this work.  The reception was very good.  A lot of good new research comes out of these conferences where researchers can meet and discuss similar topics, get new ideas and such.  This event benefits us all.  I learned a lot there myself.  Now, onto a new idea that I got while in Orlando and maybe some of that Spaten Oktoberfest!

Genealogical Records are Abused by Historians!

1780 George Clark Survey 342.75 acres Hatteras Island

Genealogical records take such abuse!  Amateur genealogists misquote and repeat them without checking sources; professional historians simply ignore them.  On the island of Hatteras, even history itself has been ignored.  Allegedly, a lack of available records exists.

Traditionally, this is true.  Records that are often explored by historians are diaries and documents that contain rich data concerning people, places, and events of significance.  


That word, "significance," carries a plethora of meanings.  What makes a subject significant?  For us at the Lost Colony Research Group, people are significant and their equally rich lives are detailed in genealogical sources like this George Clark survey from 1780.  This survey details a 342.75 acre plot of land on the tiny island of Hatteras on North Carolina's Outer Banks.  It not only shows a drawing of the land and lists landmarks by which to find boundaries, it also tells about Stephen Brooks, a mariner who lost a ship during the revolution and shipped goods for John Gray Blount of Washington, North Carolina.  Blount was a famous entrepreneur and statesman in the burgeoning mercantile state of North Carolina in the early United States.  He had partnerships such as the Shell Castle lightering operation at Ocracoke Inlet, owned land in western North Carolina and even Tennessee, served on the state legislature, and "shopped" in Philadelphia, Bermuda, and the West Indies.  He also held land on Hatteras in partnerships with men like "Governor" John Wallace who ran a porpoise oil processing refinery on Indian land on Hatteras Island in 1803. The oil was used to power the light station at Shell Castle, built by Henry Dearborn who built the Cape Hatteras lighthouse that same year. 

John Gray Blount

 Other names on this survey include Thomas Robb, a Jacobite rebel who was one of "104 Rebel prisoners shipped on board the 'Susannah' Capt. Thomas Bromhall Commander, in order to be transported to South Carolina"  according to British Treasury Warrants of March 1717.  Robb moved to North Carolina's Currituck County where he met the young daughter of Henry Davis, a European settler on Hatteras in 1716 who died in a land dispute in 1720 with Patrick Callahan.  Callahan lost his Hatteras property in that balmy August scuffle in which he killed Davis and "did beat cutt & bruise by giving and striking him two Mortall blows and cutts on the head with a certain weapon called a Cymeter or Cuttlash."  This comes from a standard historical source, "Minutes of the General Court of North Carolina," North Carolina Colonial Records, Vol. 2, pages 463-473.  

 Henry Davis is well known to LCRG researchers for the fact that his property on Hatteras rested next to the "Indian Town" that was probably found by John Lawson when he visited c1701 and described Indians with "gray eyes" who had ancestors who could "talk in a book," which started quite a legend on Hatteras as the final abode for many of Sir Walter Raleigh's "Lost" or "Abandoned Colony of Roanoke."  John Lawson wrote of his visit with these Hatteras Indians in his book, A New Voyage to Carolina, published in London, in 1709.  

William Quidley Will 1807

Who else was mentioned in this record?  The next name we find is that of William Quidley, "Pilot of Cape Hatteras," whose only daughter, Elizabeth married another pilot on Hatteras by the name of William Rolinson.  Quidley died in 1807.  This information came from two wills in Currituck County, genealogical records of enormous significance.  

Are we through with this survey yet?  Not exactly.  Place names like "Great ridge," details such as "old patten line" and a "switch hazel in Robb's corner" to a "forked murtle in a swamp" before running onto the boundary line of William Elks all help to identify particular places.  

William Elks is a special man.  In 1756, the colonial government responded to a dispute between Thomas Robb Jr. and Thomas Elks, a son-in-law of William Elks.  They have the same last name because that's the way Indians took surnames, from their wives' families.  So, when the Indian, Thomas married William Elks' daughter, he got the name Elks.  The dispute was over land.  The Indian Town was "incroaching" upon Robb's land and he filed suit. 

The government's decision in this dispute was to grant "William Elks and the Rest of the Hatteras Indians" a grant of 200 acres, later bordered by Robb, Clark, Quidley, and the former lands of Stephen Brooks.   Robb's grant was readjusted to accommodate William Elks, the Indian, and his family.  The land they gained contained land that they had formerly held under King Tom Elks.  This information comes partly from a land grant, “File No. 264, William Elks and the Rest of the Hatteras Indians” (March 7, 1759) in the Secretary of State's records in the North Carolina Archives.  It also comes from Job Carr's “Letter to Arthur Dobbs” (August 10, 1756).  

Portion of Job Carr letter to Gov. Arthur Dobbs in 1756

 So, what did we learn from genealogical records?  Quite a bit.  We mixed them with conventional records and certainly enriched the written history.  A public historian, Wilcomb Washburn, once stated that we could learn so much more by mixing artifacts with manuscripts in what he called "Manufacts."  Genealogical records are not exactly artifacts.  Still, that's the way that they are treated by many historians today.  If we take just one "manufact" survey such as George Clark's piece of property bordering on the Elks Indian grant on Hatteras Island and analyze it in detail, there's no wonder what we might find.  For instance, I did not know that I would find the Hatteras Indians visited by John Lawson, but there they were!

Challenges of Hatteras Research

When digging in the dirt, you sometimes benefit by knowing whose dirt you are on.  But, what if they lived almost 300 years ago?  While archaeologists working for the Lost Colony Research Group were excavating an early-mid 18th century home on Hatteras Island, they couldn't just ask the man's neighbors or family.  No one really remembers them.  But, there are still some records of where these people lived in the genealogical sources available in the archives. 

That's where historical research benefits the archaeologist.  I know because that's what I do.  :)

As LCRG's historian since May 2010, I study deeds, wills, court documents, estates, etc for their historical content.   Before I began, there existed no map of Hatteras Island that showed details of the waterways, features, etc.  Besides, even topographical maps would give only the current names for any features and we were studying the 18th century.  We needed to create a map from these sources.  I created this map of 18th century place names on Hatteras Island by spending countless hours, days, and weeks pouring over these types of records:

 One Hatteras Island early resident owned a large piece of the island including present-day Buxton, north of the famous Cape Hatteras Lighthouse.  This man, named James Wahab, happened to be the previous 18th-century owner of the land within which we were digging.  The house probably belonged to him.  Still, we needed to know later owners for purposes of the later period context of the house.  It had been destroyed and rebuilt by a subsequent owner.  Therefore, we needed to study the divisions of James Wahab's estate in order to determine who inherited and/or sold this particular piece of property.  

On 15 October 1772, James Wahab left a will in Currituck County, North Carolina (where Hatteras lay before 1823.  That will and subsequent deed analysis reveals the divisions of his estate:

This takes a lot of work, time, and  something that most historians despise - math.  Surveys are very mathematical and require some knowledge of angles and surveying practices in order to lay them out properly.  This is daunting, but there's another factor about studying Hatteras Island that makes this kind of work a challenge.  

Deed boundaries often state "N 45 W 120 poles" or something like this.  Well, for early 18th-century Hatteras, these details were somewhat plentiful.  The problem was that some surveyors understood the bulk of Hatteras Island to run west-east.  A common misconception (still observed in island prejudice today) was that the island runs north-south.  Other surveyors probably did not use a good compass and made a faulty assumption.  Even more confounding is that after about 1770, surveys were rarely done and the deeds only mention the names of neighbors... no exact boundaries with numbers.  "Pick up the LCRG historian, he feinted again..."

Reuben Burris to Absolum Scarborough, 1809, partial.

The deed above from Reuben Burris to Absolum Scarborough details a 50-acre piece of property bounded by the NE corner of Peter Brady's land and runs south with his line "into the woods."  Then, it veers east and runs to Reuben Burris' other plot.  No exact numbers.  Moreover, what did this deed mean by "NE" and which way is "south"?  

That's what I deal with in every deed.  By comparing these deeds to other deeds... say, Peter Brady's deed for his land, we can get a better idea of the land's orientation.  Maybe the mistakes or laziness is not repeated in all the connecting deeds and can provide a plot size related less to a wild ass guess and more of a reasoned hypothesis.  WAG's are not my favorite. 

Another thing that interferes with this type of research is that, on Hatteras Island, many former island "historians" published unsourced and uncited work and some of that work has been found to be in error.  This takes painstaking study to figure out.  For instance, a 1710 letter from Rev. John Urmstone to his superiors in London was misquoted by Ben Dixon MacNeill in his book, the Hatterasman.  That same quote was further elaborated by another author, adding specific details that simply were not true.  James Wahab was one of the details in that particular elaboration.  Perhaps the author wanted it to be true, but it simply was not.

 Accuracy in historical research is essential.  Citing our work is the most important thing that we historians do.  It makes the work of future historians so much easier and provides evidence for any proposals that you might make so they can be verified.  


So, there you have it.  Digging in the dirt sometimes gets dirty.  Persistence and patience will prove triumphant, as the study of James Wahab's estate divisions shows.  These were real results from previously unconventional historical resources.  

James Wahab, according to the deed records had a neighbor who was probably living there well before him, a Mr. Valentine Wallace.  That house survived longer that the first one, changing hands at least twice, well into the late 18th century.  I'm anxious to find that place, too.  



More dirt digging to come!

Wrecked on Hatteras Island: A Long Tradition

The author, Baylus C. Brooks is a graduate maritime historian studying at East Carolina University’s Maritime Studies Program.  He is also a member of the Lost Colony Research Group (LCRG), conducting investigations into North Carolina’s maritime history, including genetic research, genealogy, and archaeology.  Brooks is their official historian. 

Solomon Lumberd was a mariner from Maine who once sailed the Dove to England, claiming to be of the “North Carolina trade” and left his name upon “Lumberd’s Marsh” on one of Hatteras’ earliest deeds near Cape Point; Erasmus Harfleet was a mariner who wrecked on Cape Hatteras in spring 1708; William Reed was a Justice of the Peace and wealthy speculator in North Carolina property, later the "president of North Carolina" and obtained the first deed on Hatteras in Jan 1712 “between the Indian towns”; John Neale was a virtual unknown of some pecuniary significance who lived near or with Hatteras Indians; Patrick and John Mackuen lived nearby to the southwest; Thomas Bilton was a shipwrecked mariner on his way from Lisbon to Virginia… what do all of these people have in common?  They visited and probably worked on Hatteras Island long before the first recorded deeds in 1712-16.  They also left a pile of glorious garbage near Buxton and probably elsewhere for later archaeologists to find.  They probably also married into the Indian population on that island - a population that may or may not have already possessed English DNA.

That’s why the Lost Colony Research Group is looking!  LCRG, headed by genetics specialist Roberta J. Estes, represents a professional group of scholars in history, genetic studies, British and American genealogy, and archaeology whose primary goal is the study of Hatteras Island and its heritage… both native and European.  Hatteras Island Genealogical and Preservation Society works in conjunction with LCRG.   LCRG recently attained an entry in wikipedia!  This article concerns the history of the island’s English inhabitants and the current working theory of the author. 

Hatteras is a rather small island, only about six miles long at this thicker part between Frisco and Buxton; the official length of the island starts at Oregon Inlet and runs to Hatteras Inlet and is about 18 miles.  At the thickest, it is only three miles wide, but it supported many island families, both native and European, for centuries and packed a sometimes violent maritime history on its Atlantic coast, but a mild and gentle history on its western, or sound side.  The Janus-faced Hatteras thus welcomed and repelled many.  Its waters tore thousands of ships to pieces.

 Washington Times 1906 – Full-page article on the dangers of Cape Hatteras issued after a dangerous hurricane in September 1906.  The inserted map shows numerous shipwrecks associated with Cape Hatteras.  Source: Washington Times (Tacoma), November 1, 1906.

 
On October 30, 1707, a ship sailed from Lisbon, Portugal to arrive upon the “Virginia” sand banks.  It encountered “hard Gales of Wind” and anchored off Cape Hatteras, where the crew “spoke to the Virginians on shore.”  They beat the coast for several months, finally wrecking in the latitude of Bermuda.  From there, nine persons, including Thomas Bilton, made their way in a ship’s boat to Anguilla in the West Indies.  After the wreck, they were thirty-one days at sea and “constrained to drink their own urine.”  This comes from the account of Thomas Bilton in “A Voyage from Lisbon to Virginia,” published in London in 1715.  It is one of the few accounts of contact with the Englishmen living on Hatteras Island prior to recorded settlement.

Another record of a shipwreck only two months or so later, following similar routes from London to Lisbon to America, tells the names of some of these Englishmen upon Hatteras’ shores.  The ship America sailed from London to Lisbon, Portugal, and then ran aground on Cape Hatteras before March 1708.  Erasmus Harfleet survived the wreck and attempted to salvage what he could while on Hatteras Banks, but was stopped by Justice of the Peace William Reed who just happened to be in the vicinity.  A petition was filed by Harfleet on March 11, 1708.  Harfleet “was allowed to work upon the sand banks to save what he could from the wreck.”  But, he encountered William Reed, who “came and threatened him if he took anything belonging to the wreck.”  Since Harfleet said that “Salvage from the wreck was the only wage that the petitioner would receive for his wages from London to the City of Lisbon in Portugal,” he asked for resolution to this argument.  The back of the petition reads, “Patrick MACKANNE, John NACKOUNE, John NEALE, Laruence MARTINSON, witnesses. 11 Mar 1707/8.”  [CCR-192].

It should probably be noted that some years later, Erasmus Harfleet was accused of purposely wrecking a ship in the sound off of Roanoke Island while en route to the area then called “Croatan” (known formerly as “Dasamonquepeuk” and today, as “Mann’s Harbor”) in 1714.  Harfleet was hired by Joseph Parker to pilot the ship, but when the ship ran aground, Harfleet began salvaging the wreck and refused to “get the sloop off” the shoals, who “cursed and said he would never go on board.” Harfleet had already unloaded a boatload of goods onto the mainland before refusing to go back, so he did not seem to mind going aboard the sloop while there were valuables on her.  [CCR-192, 26 Apr 1714]. 

    Erasmus Harfleet may have been a ner’do’well and justifiably stopped in his “salvage” activities by William Reed that early spring day in 1708.  Still, that encounter with Reed and other “Virginians” on Hatteras Banks tells us something valuable about the activity on that island before its recorded habitation by Englishmen.  Most Hatteras deed records occurred in 1716, although the earliest record we have is a deed for Col. William Reed in 1712 and several others in the following years, so he probably spent a good deal of time there.  At least, he was around to justifiably harass our Mr. Harfleet a few years earlier. 

Dr. David Sutton Phelps (archaeologist from ECU) found a “workshop” locale on Hatteras near the present town of Buxton during his excavations in 1998 that he dated from 1650-1720.  Coins that he found indicated its use by 17th-century Englishmen.  I have postulated before that settlement of Hatteras might have begun as early as the first Virginians arriving south of the Dismal Swamp in the mid-1600s, maybe earlier.  You see, with no roads and numerous creeks inland, travel by water was far easier in those days and Hatteras made a perfect “first stop,” yet, not always a chosen one. 

    Nothing can be certain without written proof, however, but the constant English shipping that began with Jamestown, Virginia since 1607 and that ran past Cape Hatteras on their way from the West Indies and on to London most likely deposited frequent and hapless visitors to Hatteras Island.  Many of them probably remained.  This was the normal trade route, a clockwise voyage from London, to the Canaries, Portugal (long allied with England), across the Atlantic on the trade winds to the West Indies, along the American coast, again picking up the trade winds in the North Atlantic, and then back to England.  This was fed by a desire to deprive the Spanish of their gold and silver, then later, for the sweet white gold of sugar from the Caribbean. No product was ever more valuable than sugar.

    The money is what prompted men like Bilton and Harfleet to brave the obvious dangers of the “Graveyard of the Atlantic” and caused over 2,000 known shipwrecks (actual numbers vary around 5,000).  Ships have found the bottom of these waters since early in the sixteenth century.  Hatteras was not simply an island in North Carolina.  It was a maritime hazard, entrepôt, whaling and porpoise center, and supply station for shipping all along the eastern seaboard.  It must have frequently encountered visitors like Bilton and Harfleet.

Ship Wreckage on Hatteras Island - Photo by Collier Cobb, circa 1900.

Other names mentioned in Harfleet’s petition in 1708 were John and Patrick Mackanne/Nackoune [Mackuen], and John Neale [O’Neale].  These are names also found later in the official deed records of Hatteras Banks.  Both are found in the “Trent Woods” area (today’s Frisco) where we also find the Elks band of Hatteras Indians.

Anna MacKuen was granted 155 acres “between William Rowlason and Patrick Callahan” in 1716 [Pat. book 8, p. 132].  She is probably the wife of John or Patrick MacKuen, seen in the earlier “Harfleet” petition.  Her husband must have died before 1716 when she was officially granted the land – land that the family had most likely lived on for years.  Her neighbors were important men.  Patrick Callahan’s name will appear again.  For now, I’d like to focus on “John Neale.”  He is an important name when it comes to the Hatteras Indians.  It was in 1720, after the Tuscarora War, that John O’Neale was entrusted with the delivery of gunpowder, lead shot, and flints to the Hatteras Indians.  O’Neale was perhaps chosen because his land may have included the “Indian Town” once visited by explorer John Lawson:

John Oneall 1716 patent for 440 acres on Tom King’s Creek - “File No. 1192,  John O’Neal” (October 9, 1716), Land Office: Land Warrants, Plats of Survey, and Related Records, Secretary of State Record Group, State Records, Old Book 8:113-14,  Microfilm S.108.451 (Raleigh, N.C.: State of North Carolina)

John Lawson visited this town circa 1701 and left his record of the Anglicized Hatteras Indians for all to read in his book:  A New Voyage to Carolina; Containing the Exact Description and Natural History of That Country: Together with the Present State Thereof. And A Journal of a Thousand Miles, Travel'd Thro' Several Nations of Indians. Giving a Particular Account of Their Customs, Manners, &c., published in London in 1709.

The mouth of Tom King’s Creek, also known as “Peter’s Creek” (allegedly named for Peter Gordon) in the recent past, begins the boundaries of the later Elks grant of 1759 that was patented for “William Elks and the Rest of the Hatteras Indians.”  O’Neale probably held this property well before 1716 and his relationship with the neighboring Indians seems to have been a good one.  It’s not so easy to call them “Indians” because, as Lawson found, they probably behaved more like Englishmen, shared DNA, dressed, and worshipped like them, too.  Still, living on a remote island far away from prying eyes in the “country,” or mainland as Hatteras islanders once called it, made living openly as something other than “white” far simpler.  [Reference Cecelski’s Waterman’s Song]

John “O’Neill” appears on a Currituck County tax list for 1718, having paid his taxes, unlike Henry Davis and Patrick “Kallahan” who later fought over land boundaries.  This dispute resulted in Henry Davis being killed by Patrick Callahan with a sword.  Callahan then lost his Hatteras property, which just so happened to border both the Mackuen land and John O’Neale.  See map below:

Readjusted 1716 patents in the area of Trent Woods – Base map: 1883 Hatteras map (annotated by Baylus C. Brooks).  A red line represents the mistaken course of Tom King’s Creek and the unforeseen extension of Patrick Callahan’s property in the initial erroneous patents of 1716.  The last frame shows the readjusted property lines as determined from deed and other records.  Mary Davis was too young in 1720 to inherit, but after she came of age and married Thomas Robb, the Jacobite “rebel” who was shipped to Carolina in 1716, they settled in upper Currituck from where they came in 1751 to claim their land.  For about thirty-five years, the Hatteras Indians did not suffer any serious problems with European settlers.  When the Robbs arrived in 1751, they determined that the town was on their land.  The Trent Woods town was readjusted again and granted with 200 acres to “William Elks and the Rest of the Hatteras Indians” in 1759.  Source: “File No. 1190, Henry Davis” (September 12, 1716), “File No. 1196, Patrick Callihan” (October 9, 1716), “File No. 1192,  John O’Neal” (October 9, 1716), Land Office: Land Warrants, Plats of Survey, and Related Records, Secretary of State Record Group, State Records, Old Book 8:113-14,  Microfilm S.108.451 (Raleigh, N.C.: State of North Carolina); United States Coast Survey, “General chart of the coast no. V from Cape Henry to Cape Lookout” (1883), MC.168.1883ub, North Carolina State Archives (Raleigh, N.C.: State of North Carolina).

The “Ungranted” property located in the 1720 frame of this illustration is probably close to the area that Anna MacKuen obtained in her 1716 grant.  Still, it is definitely the known location of Joseph “Maskue/McCun” in 1755-7. 

    John O’Neale, whose eventual fate is not well known, is more than likely the father of Christopher O’Neale (born about 1700).  Christopher O’Neale lived in this same King’s Point area of Hatteras until his death.  He would have grown up around the Indian Town there.  Their families probably all shared a common heritage.  In fact, the O’Neales have owned land (off and on) at King’s Point up until the sale of that property for the development of the high-end subdivision, Brigand’s Bay sometime after the new paved highway developed in 1953.  Part of former O'Neal land also became "Indiantown Shores" subdivison in the 70s. Urias O’Neale sold the bulk of the property that was terra-formed into the lucrative commercial site found there today. 

    The point is that Hatteras Island has been continuously occupied by European descendants since the mid-1600s.  Indeed, many are the ancestors of the same families who walk the island sands now.  They are the ones who left behind the artifacts that Dr. Phelps was digging up along the Buxton or eastern end of the island.  Phelps also found Indian artifacts mixed with European in the same date range.  Englishmen and Indians lived together for decades before John Lawson’s arrival, at least as early as 1670 and possibly earlier.  They could have lived together since 1587 when John White’s “Lost Colony” arrived.  Still, no two heritages more aptly belonged to any single group of people as those of Hatteras Island.  The Indian Town was simply the last holdouts of traditional Indians hoping to hold on to their ways.  This resulted in William Reed’s “between the Indian towns” reference in 1712.  There was little reason to worry, however.  The Englishmen were family already.  Time eventually brought them all together.

    There have been Rollinsons, Wallaces, Whidbees, Quidleys, Basnetts, Fosters, Fulchers, Farrows, Scarboroughs, Midgetts, Davises, Clarks, and many others on Hatteras Island for a long, long time… perhaps since before Nathaniel Batts and George Durant came through the Dismal Swamp in the 1650s and 60s.  Hatteras and the rest of the Outer Banks may have been the only part of what we now know as North Carolina that was inhabited by European people before then.  The mainland suffered from a lack of roads and numerous creeks, no roads, and dangerous unknowns.  The shores along the sounds and rivers is where you would have found the Europeans in the early eighteenth century.  The Indians, of course, were everywhere else... on Hatteras Island at least since 1,000 A.D. 

    When discussing the earliest history of North Carolina, we must begin with the first point of contact… with the Outer Banks, and Hatteras Island, for the sharp sandy snag known as “Cape Hatteras” or its “Diamond Shoals” brought many a drenched mariner to live there long before Batts or Durant dreamed of trading with the Yeopim or the Chowanoc in the Albemarle.  Whereas the Spanish did not remain on the banks, Englishmen did… maybe since 1587.  Certainly, more accounts of shipwrecks upon these shores will turn up, with more tantalizing tidbits of knowledge about the “Virginians” living there.  They continue to live there today.  And artifacts will continue to emerge from its sands to reveal this nascent North Carolina history.  This is Hatteras’ and, indeed, our country’s earliest European heritage.  Still, the native heritage persists there as well… you can ask them yourself.