Wicked Yankee is a blog dedicated to all the obscure bits of New England history and folklore that don't often get recorded in history books or taught in history classes.
In the past few weeks there have been several updates in regards to information pertaining to the mysterious origins of Native Americans. Although, as usual, the new information is not definitive, it seemingly adds new possibilities which researchers will now attempt to evaluate in comparison to existing theory.
The first piece of interesting information is that researchers now believe that Native Americans did not originate as a result of one single migration from Asia, but most likely stemmed from at least three. The research, described in Popular Archaeology, states that an international team led by Professor Andres Ruiz-Linares of the University of College London and Professor David Reich of the Harvard Medical school, have come to this conclusion after comparing the DNA of 52 Native American and 17 Siberian groups. All together, the team analyzed over 300,000 DNA sequences.
However, the team also found that the majority of natives descend from only the original migrants across Beringia over 15,000 years ago. In fact, only native groups that live in arctic regions and speak either Eskimo-Aleut or Na-Dene languages felt any genetic effect from the second and third migration across the Bering Land Bridge. Though these groups are more closely related to modern East Asian populations, the arctic groups still derive between 50% and 90% of the DNA from the first migrants. This suggests a genetic mixing between all three migrant groups.
Beringia
In addition, researchers were able to trace the potential genetic path followed by the original migrant group. After their arrival, the first group traveled south along the coast, splitting into separate population groups as they traveled into South America.
However, DNA suggests that there was some reverse migration among these groups. Some native populations in Central America show genetic traits of both North and South American groups. In addition, some Eastern Siberian populations show Native American traits that could only have occurred if established native populations reversed their path back across the Bering Land Bridge to mix their genes with Asian populations.
The second recent study regarding the origins of Native Americans has less to do with DNA and more to do with human artifacts. For many years those who believed that North American natives descend from a single migration from Asia also believed that this single migrant groups was most likely what archaeologists call the Clovis Culture.
Clovis Culture is defined by the presence of a distinctive type of stone tools like projectile points. This type was first discovered in New Mexico in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Radiocarbon dating has placed the arrival of the Clovis Culture from Siberia to approximately 13,000 years ago. For decades many theorists have believed that all natives in North, Central, and South America descend from Clovis groups and perhaps a single migration of people. However, more and more often, this is no longer thought to be the case.
Aside from the study referenced above, some of the most intriguing evidence building a case for the multiple migration theory is coming out of Paisley Caves in South-central Oregon. Although this set of caves have been studied since the 1930’s, recently archaeologists have uncovered what many believe could be pre-Clovis human artifacts.
What researchers have found are over a hundred examples of what is called Western Stemmed projectile points, a style of stone tool which differs significantly from the Clovis tradition. In addition, archaeologists have analyzed examples of dried human feces called coprolites. What is missing from the cave system is the presence of any Clovis artifacts.
The bases of three Western Stemmed projectile points
According to an article from Archaeology Daily News, the Paisley artifacts radiocarbon date to at least 13,200 years ago. If this analysis is correct, the Paisley artifacts would either pre-date or would have been contemporary with Clovis culture. Although the ancient DNA taken from the coprolites show an east Asian or Siberian origin, because the tool making traditions are so different, this evidence would also suggest the presence of two separate groups in ancient America.
In fact, researchers associated with the University of Oregon have postulated that the people of the Western Stemmed tradition may have descended from a separate migration that took place along a sea route, following the coast of ancient Beringia. Researchers also suggest that the Clovis culture may have first arisen in the Southeastern US, then moved west. However, the Western Stemmed tradition might have begun in the West and might have moved east from there. Both traditions would have remained separate for hundreds of years.
One of the interesting things I see when comparing these two studies is that they seemingly explain multiple migrations that are even separate from one another. The DNA study shows three separate migrations, but states that the DNA contributions of migrations two and three were limited to the very arctic regions of North America. However, the Paisley Caves study seems to have uncovered a population descended from a completely independent migration that existed apart from arctic regions. The studies don’t necessarily contradict each other. Rather, each suggests that there is more to the origins of Native Americans than we currently understand. Considering how much has changed in Native American origin theory in the last year, I can't wait to see what the next year of research brings us and potentially how this might impact what we believe about the origins of natives in New England.
I recently had the opportunity to visit the MashpeeWampanoagIndianMuseum. This was a great opportunity for me to learn more about the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe and an opportunity for me to ask some of the questions I’ve accumulated during my own research regarding the Wampanoag tribe.
The museum is located at 414 Main Street (Rt. 130), Mashpee. The house containing the museum was built around 1793. It was originally the home of Sherjashub Bourne, the great-grandson of the famous Richard Bourne.
The Bourne-Avant House- Rt. 130 Mashpee
I had stumbled across several Richard Bourne related legends when I attempted to trace the history of Chamber Rock in Bourndale. Richard Bourne was one of the first Christian missionaries to preach to the Cape Cod Natives. He also purchased huge areas of land on Cape Cod and set the land aside for the tribe he called the South Sea Indians. This land eventually became part of the Town of Mashpee.
The current curator of the museum is named Putnam Peters, himself a member of the Wampanoag tribe. As he led our small tour group through the building’s displays, he was patient enough to answer my many specific questions.
Putnam Peters- Curator of the Museum
Putnam explained the current members of the Wampanoag tribe still revere Richard Bourne. In fact, the tribe celebrates a Richard Bourne Day every year. Putnam was also able to answer a lingering question I had about the story of Chamber Rock, in which the Wampanoag had been performing human sacrifice. Putnam stated that he had never heard any history to support such a practice.
Putnam and his wife Jeanne were also happy to discuss Metacom, Massasoit, and the King Philip’s War. They also showed me a wall in the museum which displayed the current leadership among the Wampanoag Tribe. I would have to say that both Putnam and Jeanne were very knowledgeable about their subject.
The current Chief, Sachem, and Medicine Man of the Wampanoag
If you are interested in visiting the WampanoagIndianMuseum, it is open every Monday and Thursday from 10am to 2pm. There is no entrance fee, but there is a place to make a donation to the museum. As the building is currently under renovation, I’m sure a donation would be appreciated.
Museums like this are really important. Not only do they display one of a kind artifacts, but they help maintain and educate people about local history which is not something that is taught in every classroom. Putnam and Jeanne explained that they often have very young children visit the museum during the school year, which is a great educational opportunity for them.
Some of the original Wampaoag artifacts on display
A display showing how pre-Columbian Wampanoag would harvest trees
However, the history of the Wampanoag people, the King Philip’s War, and the development of New England is a huge and mature subject for such young children to learn about. Museums like this bring this history to a larger audience, who might become curious about something they learned. Maybe they’ll embrace their curiosity and delve into some research. And as I’ve learned, one answered question only leads to more. Embrace that, and sometimes the learning and curiosity goes well beyond the museum door.
Yankee Doodle is a song most American school children learn sometime between the ages of 5 and 8. Most adults recognize the song, if not all the lyrics. I hope that most people probably know that, at least in legend, the song and phrase “Yankee Doodle” were both created by the English to be derogatory and insulting to Americans.
By examining the common lyrics, it’s not difficult to see the slight. Even the version school children learn is a little insulting. It reads:
Yankee Doodle went to town,
Riding on a Pony;
He stuck a feather in his cap,
And called it macaroni.
On my first post on this blog, I attempted to trace the meaning of the very complicated term “Yankee.” Although, no one really knows its exact origins, it essentially refers to someone of New England. The term “Doodle” is easier to understand. It simply means something like idiot, half-wit, or simpleton. As in all the many versions of this song, the term Yankee Doodle is synonymous with a country bumpkin, or what some would call a “hick.”
The entire scene these first four lines paint is of someone who is simple and uneducated. He rides on a pony instead of a horse. When he calls his feathered cap macaroni, he is not referring to the pasta, but rather to a fashion popular in England during the mid 18th century. A Macaroni was someone who dressed and acted at the extremes of fashion, often to the point of being somewhat ridiculous. The term is actually related to the Italian pasta (oddly), because eating macaroni was fashionable for well traveled European men of the 18th century. These rich young men would describe fashionable things as being extremely “macaroni.” In fact, they belonged to a group popularly known as the Macaroni Club.
One of these very Macaroni styles was wearing an extremely tall powdered wig topped by a small hat which could only be removed with a pole. These guys seem somewhat like our 20th century “metro-sexual.” Fashion, hygiene, and popular trends were identity defining among these men. In fact other English of the 18th century made use of the macaroni style in satire. However, in Yankee Doodle, the line is used to suggest that this Yankee is so simple he actually believes putting a feather in his plain old cap equals the extremes of European fashion.
According to legend, British troops created the lyrics during the French and Indian War between 1754 and 1763 to describe their under-trained, uneducated, home-spun colonial allies. Several prominent Americans like Benjamin Franklin even tried to play up to this character while in Europe during the Revolution by dressing in animal furs and acting as if he were from the extreme frontier. Apparently, this is what many Europeans expected colonial Americans to look like.
It’s interesting that this little anthem turned from being a derogatory insult into a national ballad of pride. In fact, it is said the tune was played so much during the Civil War that General Grant admitted he only knew two songs. The first was Yankee Doodle, he said, and the second one wasn’t.
However, as with most things in history, the origins of the lyrics and the tune are cloudy. Even how the song switched sides during the Revolution is a little murky. However, the two schools of thought point to either an English or an American origin for the song. Hence, whether it was truly originally created to be used to insult the colonials is even in question.
In his book Liberty and Freedom, David Hackett Fischer argues that the legend is correct. Yankee Doodle was a song created by an Englishman targeting colonial Yankees for their backward ways. In fact, he credits Dr. Richard Shuckburgh, an English surgeon stationed in New York during the French and Indian War, with the creation of the tune and certain lines.
During the French and Indian War, British regular troops were shipped over the Atlantic to protect the original American colonies from the French and their Native American allies. Of course, they were not doing this out of kindness or concern. Great Britain was mostly acting out of self interest by protecting their profitable colonial territories from a rival European power.
Hackett explains, according to the records of three New York families, the lines of Yankee Doodle written by Shuckburgh between 1759 and 1760 while he was stationed in Albany. Hackett States:
“The Regulars laughed at the antics of the Yankee militia. Their quaint clothing, curious speech, and clumsy manners became the butt of British humor.”
One must understand that the early colonies were very agricultural and rural. Though Yankees could be fierce warriors, they were very different than British regulars. Colonials were more used to irregular guerilla warfare and scouting, if experienced in warfare at all. They did not all have uniform clothing, weapons, or training. Each colonial area provided what they could to their militia. Among these provisions would have been odd assortments of hunting rifles, few bayonets, and perhaps scraps of military dress. Obviously most Yankees were more used to shooting rabbits, deer, and squirrels, than enemy soldiers.
Assembled as a whole in Albany, the New England militias must have looked like a rag-tag, back woods, odd looking, sounding, and probably smelling collection of provincials. In fact, from the prospective of the British, they probably were.
Though Hackett states it is quite possible Shuckburgh penned the verse of Yankee Doodle we all know so well, in The Story of Our National Ballads, CA Browne argues that the original opening verse was probably different. Set to the tune of an old English country dance, Shuckburgh might have actually written:
Father and I went down to camp,
Along with Captain Gooding.
There we see the men and boys,
As thick as hasty pudding.
Apparently, Shuckburgh attempted to convince the colonial leaders that the song was a well respected military tune in England. Though, the regulars knew this was a joke, the colonials took up the song as their own. According to Browne, the song called at that time “The Yankee’s Return to Camp” found constant use in the militia camps. Of course the British, including Shuckburgh, must have thought this was hilarious.
However, this is somewhat disappointing. This means the most well known verse containing the pony, feather, cap, and macaroni was not the original. In fact, Roger Lee Hall, author of The Boston Yankee Ballad writes that this version does not show up in print until 1884 in a book entitled The Nursery Rhymes of England. Though, he also quotes author James J. Fuld, who explains that most authorities now believe the song was of American origin.
In fact, Hall quotes the author of Music for Patriots, Politicians, and Presidents, who states that the original verses of Yankee Doodle can actually be attributed to a sophomore at HarvardUniversity named Edward Bangs. Edward served as a minuteman at the Battle of Lexington. The verses Edward Bangs wrote were printed in a popular broadside, which was created between 1775 and 1776. Hall records Edward’s original lyrics as being:
Father and I went down to camp,
Along with Captain Gooding.
There we see the men and boys,
As thick as hasty pudding.
Chorus:
Yankey doodle keep it up,
Yankey doodle dandy,
Mind the music and the step,
And with the girls be handy.
Hall does not discount that Shuckburgh may have had a hand in the creation of Yankee Doodle. However, he states that it was not until the version created by Edward Bangs was printed that this song became popular. In addition, he states that the Bangs version would have been the most well known during the Revolution.
The broadside and lyrics attributed to Edward Bangs
It is now unclear whether the song was originally created by the British or the Americans. However, as the animosities created during the French and Indian War led to the conflicts which began the American Revolution, Yankee Doodle was being used as a morale lowering weapon. According to CA Browne, British troops occupying Boston prior to the massacre in 1770 were already playing Yankee Doodle to annoy and harass the Bostonians. They even played it outside colonial church services and aboard British ships anchored Boston harbor. Browne even goes so far as to state that the British marched out of Boston to reinforce their forces at the Battle of Lexington to the tune of Yankee Doodle.
It seems the song finally switched sides after the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775. Thomas Aubrey, a British officer during the Revolution, writes about this transition in his series of letters entitled Travels Through the Interior Parts of America.
In his writing, Aubrey claims that the term Yankee was originally created by the Cherokee to mean coward, though this is only one of many theories. He said that the soldiers stationed in Boston during the commencement of hostilities often used the term as an insult. However, he also writes:
“But after the affair of Bunker Hill, the Americans glorified in it. Yankey-doodle is now their paean, a favorite or favorites, played in their army, esteemed as warlike as the Grenadier’s March – it is the lover’s spell, the nurse’s lullaby. After our rapid successes, we held the Yankees in great contempt; but it was not a little mortifying to hear them play this tune, when their army marched down to our surrender.”
Though the colonial militia lost the Battle of Bunker Hill, Aubrey is probably referencing the 1781 British surrender at Yorktown, Virginia. General Cornwallis, claiming illness, refused to ride out and surrender his sword to General Washington. He had his second in command deliver the weapon is his stead. Even then, it was delivered first to the wrong man.
As the British officers and German mercenaries marched by the assembled American and French leaders, the British refused to salute the colonial generals and commanders. Washington had ordered the army to remain courteous in victory. The English band played an old song called, “The World Turned Upside Down.” In response, as Aubrey stated, the Continental army responded with Yankee Doodle. It was the old morale-busting weapon of the British now turned against them.
If Dr. Shuckburgh did invent the lyrics to Yankee Doodle, he did not live to see how his song would be used or what it would eventually become. The tune changed in both lyrics and meaning as the French and Indian War led to the American war for independence. Even if most of the known lyrics were written later by Americans, the song and term “Yankee Doodle” changed from colonial insult to national ballad as Americans embraced the peculiar, awkward, somewhat provincial, yet entirely independent character the song describes.
Even though Yankee Doodle no longer really holds its position as the “in your face” patriotic theme it once was, from my perspective I find it amazing that it has survived in any form in our blind-to-our-past modern American culture. Though we still sing the song to our children, I wonder if most people know the significance of the words, how they were directed, and eventually how they were used. I cringe a little as it sometimes seems hard to find that independent Yankee Doodle character represented in our 21st Century national identity. As I mentally scan through TV channels, news broadcasts, newspapers, the internet, and other forms of poplar media; It immediately becomes clear, perhaps we are now confused as to who is the Yankee and who is the Macaroni.
I’m a little disappointed that I did not find this awesome CapeCast video until after I finished researching Follins Pond and Leif Ericson. I know this area well and I could have found the Blue Rock, which seems to have an example of what was considered by some to be a mooring hole. However, this video also expresses doubt that these holes were created by Norseman. When I get my kayak up in this area in the near future, I will get my own photos of BassRiver’s Blue Rock. Until then, enjoy the video.
Throughout New England there are many sites and archeological finds which seem to suggest that Norse dragon ships, along with their European passengers, may have arrived in the North East of the United States about 500 years before Columbus accidentally landed in the Caribbean. Though, the majority of these finds remain categorized as mere curiosities, there are several that suggest history books concerning the subject of the discovery of the New World should be re-written.
Information of possible Norse exploration comes from very few historical sources. In fact, the majority of the information comes from the Norse Sagas, including The Saga of Eric the Red and The Saga of the Greenlanders. Although the sagas depict events that took place around 1000 AD, they were not committed to writing until the 13th century. According to the sagas, the story begins with Eric the Red, an Icelander who was banished from Iceland for manslaughter around 982 AD. During his banishment, Eric explored and settled Greenland.
Eric the Red
The Sagas give two versions of how land was discovered west of Greenland. In one version, it seems that the son of Eric the Red, known as Leif Ericson, first sighted new land while sailing to Iceland in order to spread Christianity. However, the second version states that in 985, a Norseman named Bjarni was sailing from Iceland to Greenland. He was blown off course, only to find himself near the coast of an unknown land. After skirting the shores of several strange areas, Bjarni eventually arrived safely in Greenland at this father’s settlement. According to the Saga of the Greenlanders, he never sailed again. However, he did report what he had seen to Leif Ericson.
Leif Ericson by Christian King
The tale goes on to say that Leif purchased Bjarni’s ship and gathered adventurers to sail west in an attempt to locate this new land. Eric the Red was about to join his son on the expedition when he apparently fell off his horse, injuring himself. He saw this as a bad omen and declined to join Leif and his crew.
Leif followed Bjarni’s directions west and first landed on a flat rocky shore, he called Helluland, which means appropriately “Land of Flat Stones.” Most researchers agree that this was most likely Baffin Island, which is the largest island in Canada. Though, some also suggest that it might have been north Labrador. Though Ericson interacted with the natives on the island, whom the Norse called skraelings, he ultimately decided not to settle in Helluland because it was inhospitable.
Traveling further, Erikson and his crew landed in a forested area which he called Markland. In Old Norse, the name means “Forestland.” Again, there is agreement that this was probably Labrador. Later the Greenlanders used this area to gather timber.
Leif Ericson continued to sail south for two more days. He next arrived at a place he called Vinland, which is generally translated as “WineLand” or “MeadowLand.” Here the Saga of the Greenlanders describes how Ericson sailed west past a Cape and entered a large river, which connected to a lake. The saga further states that this land was warm enough to allow their cattle to graze outside throughout the winter months. Ultimately, Leif Ericson decided to spend the winter in Vinland. He created a small settlement called Leifsbudir.
Map showing possible Norse routes
In the spring, Leif returned to Greenland carrying a cargo of grapes, grape vines, and timber. His brother as well as other Norse adventurers later explored the same areas, sometimes fighting and sometimes trading with the natives there. They used Gaelic runners to explore three days over land. The runners returned with more grapes and wheat. There are at least two other historical references to Vinland, aside from semi-legendary Norse Sagas. One source even predates at least the writing of the Norse Sagas.
There have been many theories presented which seek to match Vinland with a modern location. In 1960, a Norse settlement was discovered on the northern tip of Newfoundland. Many believe that this area, called L’Anse aux Meadows, is probably Leif Erikson’s camp. However, it has also been theorized that Vinland may have been a very large area, including at least three small settlements, the Newfoundland site being one of them.
As I said, there are probably hundreds of artifacts and unexplained pre-Columbian sites which claim Norse origins. I have plans to visit several of them as seasonal museums begin to open. However, Follins Pond, in the towns of Dennis and Yarmouth, is somewhat unique among these sites. Unlike many artifacts and areas people claim a Norse connection to, the Follins pond area has been at least researched by professional archeologists and historians. Some of these researchers even came to the conclusion that the shore Follins Pond was actually Leif Ericson’s camp in Vinland.
Most of the evidence supporting a Norse visit to Follins Pond can be attributed to research conducted by the former writer, teacher, and amateur archeologist Frederick J. Pohl. Pohl believed that Leif Ericson entered the mouth of BassRiver in Cape Cod, traveled several miles up the river, and ultimately camped on the shores of Follins. Certainly the area is reminiscent of the description of Vinland in the Norse Sagas.
In 1952, the Massachusetts Archeological Society (MAS) conducted digs in the areas of Follins Pond most suspected of Norse visitation. In the January 1953 Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archeological Society, Benjamin L. Smith, outlined the work conducted by the MAS in an article entitled A Report on the Follins Pond Investigation.
According to Smith, several interesting things were discovered during the dig which some believed were suggestive of a Norse presence. The first piece of controversial evidence included several buried wooden posts and stones, potentially used to support a shored ship. In addition, the wood seemed to have been shaped by a metal axe. Yet, members of the Archeological Society estimated that the wood and construction was no more than 90 – 150 years old because the wood was not completely rotted. They theorized that the ship might have been a colonial ship hidden from the British during the War of 1812 or the Revolutionary War. In addition, they were informed by local historians that the area in which the posts were discovered was once used by Cape fisherman as a boat landing.
However, in the 1955 article entitled Comments on the Follins Pond Report, Pohl expressed his disagreement with the findings of the MAS. He stated that the shape, size, and estimated weight of the construction of wooden posts and stones suggested the shape of a classic Norse ship. He also suggested that the wood might have been well preserved by having been buried several feet under the shore bank immersed in an oxygen deprived environment. Therefore, the wood might be centuries older than it appeared.
Map of the Follins Pond digs- MAS
In addition, another piece of evidence Frederick Pohl suggested as proof of a Norse visitation to Cape Cod were the existence of what he called “Mooring Holes” in several rocks along the shore of the Follins Pond and Bass River. According to Pohl, these holes were drilled manually into rocks always at a slight angle. In these rocks would be placed a large iron pin with an eye-hole, which attached the ship to shore by use of ropes. These were of particular interest to Pohl because similar holes have been discovered in more classically Norse areas like the fjords of Scandinavia.
Furthermore, some of these holes seemingly presented with specific characteristics which the “mooring holes” of Norse Europe would have displayed. For instance, some of the holes on Cape Cod were slightly triangular in shape, with bulging, rounded sides. To Pohl this indicated that they were chiseled by hand, rather than drilled mechanically.
However, the MAS also responded to this evidence in their original report. Smith suggested that most of the holes were drilled for the purpose of blasting the nearby rocks with explosives. The rocks were then used to create the breakwater at the mouth of BassRiver. Furthermore, researchers from the MAS found that a type of drill widely used in the 19th century Cape also left triangular shaped holes with wide bulging sides. Therefore, even if the holes were mooring holes, there was no way to tell when they were created.
Large rocks along Follins Pond
In his 1953 article, Frederick Pohl defended his theory concerning the mooring holes. He conceded that he may not know exactly when the mooring holes were bored into the rocks along Follins Pond, but was sure that they were not holes intended for blasting rock used in the construction of the Bass River Breakwater. He stated that such holes would have been larger, more circular, and there would have needed to be several holes per large rock.
However, the existence of odd holes and the remnants of a shored boat were not the only pieces of evidence discovered to support Ericson’s visit to the Cape. In an article entitled An Osseous Find at Follins Pond, an archeologist named Bernard W. Powell reported his findings after having examined a domestic horse bone found near Follins. The bone was discovered by a local home owner. Powell explained that the remains of domestic horses are present in the Greenland settlements, though rare. Hence, it would be plausible that the Norse who might have explored the Cape might also have been in the company of horses. Unfortunately Powell could not determine the age of the bone. He suggested that the potential weight of the animal belonging to the bone might be of a weight comparative to Norse domestic horses, but not much else could be determined. Hence, this piece of evidence, like the mooring holes and remains of the shored boat, are simply circumstantial.
However, we were ultimately unable to get close to any large rocks along the shore which could have been examples of Pohl’s mooring stones. The shore of the pond is covered with private beaches and back yards of private properties. There are very few public access areas along the pond, and none have large stones near them that we could see. We could not get very close to the area called the “gully,” which is displayed on the map of Follins created by the MAS. This was the spot at which the remains of the ship was discovered. However, I was able to take several pictures of this area from across the pond at a public boat landing, but I would have liked to poke around there myself. Maybe I can return to this area with my kayak sometime this summer and attempt to locate some of the areas displayed on the map without having to trespass.
The Gully area from a distance
Remains of a shored ship was unearthed here
So it seems that the mystery of the modern location of Ericson’s Vinland remains unsolved. It might have been the small Norse settlement discovered in Newfoundland, but it might yet be an area south of that. Its possible it could still be along the shores of Cape Cod. Pohl certainly believed it was, even refusing to accept the conclusions of the MAS investigation.
However, after reviewing the evidence supporting Pohl’s Follins Pond theory, I have to admit that there is some evidence suggesting a thousand year old Norse visitation, but there is not enough to conclusively say Ericson and his explorers were ever here. This, however, does not seem to matter to the residents of Dennis and Yarmouth. Many of the roads surrounding Follins Pond have classic Viking names like Norse Road, Saga Road, Vinland Drive, and Leif Ericson Drive.
Whether or not any evidence will ever prove the Cape’s association with Ericson’s Vinland is pretty dubious. Archeologist, Bernard Powell, thoroughly explained why it is so difficult to locate proof of a small thousand year old Norse settlement (as if an explanation was needed). In his article The Mooring Hole Problem in Long Island Sound, Powell discusses the research conducted by Pohl. He mentions that Native Americans have lived in the Northeast in substantial numbers for thousands of years and very often archeologists come up with no proof of their habitation in places where researchers know they lived and worked. Imagine then, attempting to find the camps of only about 300 Norseman who might have journeyed to Vinland a thousand year ago for only one or two summers. Not only is it improbable, but it seems mindblowingly impossible to be able to locate absolute proof.
Still, as I mentioned, there are several Norse related curiosities throughout New England, other than the evidence discovered at Follins Pond. These oddly built structures and puzzling artifacts like Dighton Rock, the Bourne Stone, and America’s Stonehenge hint at the possibility of some unknown presence mingling with the Native tribes and cultures of ancient New England. However, I could not say if these were the works of Leif Ericson and his crew. Yet, certainly the possibility exists, and should not yet be dismissed, that a thousand years ago, dragon-prowed Viking longships once slipped from the primordial New England mists to leave their mark somewhere on our Yankee shores.
I am currently writing an article on the Norse discovery of the New World around 1000 AD. I came across this short video during my research which addresses 5 of the most common historical misconceptions. I thought it was hilarious, and it also includes the “Vikings.” Take a look in preparation for the next article or just for a laugh.
Although definitely not part of New England, I could not help jumping at the opportunity to write about a potential new clue discovered about the mysterious Roanoke Colony. Though the new information does not yet conclusively explain what happened to the missing colonists who once settled in modern day North Carolina, it suggests some new possibilities aside from the pop culture theories of alien abduction, wayward demons, or vampire epidemics.
The creation and disappearance of the Roanoke Colony is a very interesting story, it was always one of my favorites to teach in American History. Roanoke is considered England’s first attempt at establishing a permanent colony in the New World. In 1587, many years before Jamestown or Plymouth, an Englishman named John White set out for what was then called Virginia and is now North Carolina. He had with him over a hundred potential colonists, including his pregnant daughter.
The colony at which the settlers hoped to live had been previously established by the English and had been left with only a skeleton crew of soldiers to maintain it in anticipation of new arrivals and new supplies. However, when White and his group arrived there was no one left in the colony. Although odd, the previous occupants of the fort had run afoul with local native groups. The fort had been attacked by natives before and had also been completely abandoned at one time.
Although White and his colonists were depending on the men that remained, they stayed in an attempt to re-establish the fort and colony. John White became the Governor of Roanoke. He tried his best to create peaceful relationships with the tribes surrounding the colony, including the Croatans. During this time his daughter gave birth to the first English child thought to have been born in the New World, the nearly legendary Virginia Dare.
Despite Governor White’s efforts with the local tribes, one of the Roanoke colonists was killed while shell fishing. Now fearing for their survival, the other colonists convinced White to return to England for help. Reluctantly, White agreed. He left behind a colony of 115 people, including his daughter and granddaughter.
Because of England’s war with Spain, Governor White was unable to return to the New World for three years. When he finally did return to the Colony in 1590, he found it empty and abandoned. Though there were no signs that a struggle had taken place, the word “CROATOAN” had been carved into one of the fort’s posts. In addition, the letters “CRO” were carved into a nearby tree.
White believed that the colonists had traveled to CroatoanIsland. He attempted to mount a search in the area, but he was interrupted by the sudden arrival of a serious storm. He was forced to leave the VirginiaTerritory the next day without ever having discovered the fate of his family or that of the missing colonists.
There have obviously been several hundred theories presented since 1590, which attempt to explain the disappearance of the Roanoke men and women. Some believed that they had simply been killed or carried off by local hostile tribes. Others have theorized that nearby Spanish colonists might have attacked and killed them as well. One of the most widely believed theories states that the colonists were absorbed into one or several different native groups. In 1998, archeologists discovered an English signet ring in the Croatoan tribal capital, supporting the hypothesis that the colonists might have fled there and joined with the tribe.
Even the Jamestown Colonists, including the famous John Smith, was interested in finding the lost colonists. Although not necessarily a reliable source, he was told by Powhatan (the father of Pocahontas), that the colonists who had once been at Roanoke had joined with an enemy tribe. Powhatan assured Smith that he had killed them all.
However, the evidence discovered recently does not seem to support any of the established theories. According to ABC news, a map created by Governor John White in 1585 indicates that the colonists might have moved west up the Albemarle Sound to the area where the Chowan and RoanokeRivers join.
This new evidence was discovered by examining two patches attached to Governor White’s map, which had apparently never been looked at before. One patch appeared to be a simple correction to the original, but the other hid a small symbol representing the existence of a second English fort. Scholars believe the symbol of the fort could indicate where White believed the colonists could have gone. The article reports that this discovery would not have been made had one of the researchers not recently pondered what might be hidden under the two patches.
Although the discovery on White’s map is fascinating, the area it indicates is now privately owned. Some of it even appears to be covered by a golf course, so archeological digs will have to wait several years, if they happen at all.
This type of discovery is interesting. The fate of the Roanoke colonists has been one of the greatest mysteries of colonial America for over 400 years. It has been written about and re-written about across the genres, from history to science fiction, and remains in pop culture today.
This is certainly also an interesting lesson in historical research for everyone. No matter how many times one has examined a single source, looking at it carefully and objectively one more time might reveal a hidden clue previously missed by hundreds of researchers who believed they knew everything about the source in front of them. There are literally thousands of unsolved historical mysteries; some are probably in walking distance from your own home. In addition, in our digital age, one no longer necessarily has to sift through dusty old pages in dank dark archives (though that can be fun too). So start digging people. You never know if you will be the researcher that asks that one simple question that cracks a case hundreds of years old or as new as yesterday.
