DOCSLIB.ORG

Beyond Historic Bath: Archaeological Investigation of Handy’S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beyond Historic Bath: Archaeological Investigation of Handy’S BEYOND HISTORIC BATH: ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF HANDY’S POINT, BATH, NORTH CAROLINA By: Erin McLaughlin July, 2013 Advisor: Dr. Charles Ewen Department of Anthropology This thesis examines the Handy’s Point site in Bath, North Carolina, to assess its chronological position, fill a void in our past knowledge, and concludes it is not the former location of the village of Secotan. Artifacts from previous archaeological investigations, a private collection, and a small survey done for this study are used to interpret and examine how the site was used in the past and by whom. These artifacts show that this was not the former site of the Native village of Secotan, but might represent a small transitory settlement or family occupation related to this larger village of Secotan. This information shows that this location had been settled for a long period of time before Bath was founded and continued to be used in one way or another since then. BEYOND HISTORIC BATH: ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF HANDY’S POINT, BATH, NORTH CAROLINA A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Anthropology East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts By Erin McLaughlin July, 2013 ©Copyright 2013 Erin McLaughlin BEYOND HISTORIC BATH: ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF HANDY’S POINT, BATH, NORTH CAROLINA By: Erin McLaughlin Approved By: Director of Thesis: __________________________________________________________ ( Dr. Charles R. Ewen, PhD ) Committee Member:_________________________________________________________ ( Dr. I Randolph Daniel, PhD) Committee Member:_________________________________________________________ (Dr. Tony Boudreaux, PhD) Chair of the Department Of Anthropology____________________________________________________________ (Dr. I Randolph Daniel, PhD) Dean of the Graduate School____________________________________________________ Dr. Paul J Gemperline, PhD Acknowledgements First and foremost I would like to thank Dr. Charles R. Ewen for his time, expertise, and patience as this thesis was accomplished. And for always being there and willing to answer any question I might have or just talk my ideas through. I would also like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. I. Randolph Daniel Jr. and Dr. Tony Boudreaux for all their advice and help throughout this process. I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. and Mrs. Davis for allowing me the use of their amazing collection of artifacts from the site. I would like to thank Susanne Grieve for her help and guiding hand in the conservation of several objects from the collections. I would like to show my appreciation to Dr. Stephen Davis at the University of North Carolina Research Laboratories of Archaeology for his assistance and patience on the many trips I made to analyze artifacts from the previous archaeological investigations. I would like to thank all those who helped with the small survey done to aid this study. I could not have done all that work without you. I would like to show my appreciation to Charles Heath for helping me navigate the waters of Native Ceramics. I would like to show my appreciation to the residents of Bath for their invaluable assistance and support with my research. Last, but definitely not least, I would like to thank my family and friends for all of their constant support and motivation. I could not have completed this without you. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………...…….ix LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………….xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCION………………………………………………..…………………1 CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND HISTORY…………………………………………….………...4 Coastal North Carolina…………………………………………………………….……………...4 Environmental ………………………………………………………………………………….4 Cultural……………………………………………………………………………………………6 Prehistory………………………………………………………………………………….………6 Contact……………………………………………………………………………………….……7 Bath……………………………………………………………………………………………..…9 Environmental………………………………………………………………………………........9 Cultural…………………………………………………………………………………….……..9 Prehistory………………………………………………………………………………………….9 Contact…………………………………………………………………………………….………9 History of Site 31Bf23...................................................................................................................11 CHAPTER 3: ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND…..........................................................13 1955 Bill Haag…………………………………………………………………………………...13 1964 Bennie Keel………………………………………………………………………………...14 1967 Joffre Coe, John Mattson…………………………………………………………………..16 CHAPTER 4: METHODS AND ANALYSIS…………………………………………………..19 Davis’ Collection………………………………………………………………………………...19 RLA Collections…………………………………………………………………………………19 Fieldwork 2013………………………………………………………………………………….20 Prehistoric……………………………………………………………………………………..…21 Native Ceramics…………………………………………………………………………………21 Lithics……………………………………………………………………………………………25 Projectile Points………………………………………………………………………………….27 Bifaces……………………………………………………………………………………………29 Flakes…………………………………………………………………………………………….29 Hammerstones…………………………………………………………………………………..29 Cobbles, Cobble fragments…………………………………………………………………........29 Other Lithics…………………………………………………………………………………......30 Historic…………………………………………………………………………………………...30 European Ceramics………………………………………………………………………………30 Pipes……………………………………………………………………………………………...37 Kaolin……………………………………………………………………………………………37 Other Pipes………………………………………………………………………………………40 Glass……………………………………………………………………………………………...41 Metal…………………………………………………………………………………………......43 Iron………………………………………………………………………………………………44 Copper………………………………………………………………………………………......45 Other metal………………………………………………………………………………………45 Other Artifacts……………………………………………………………………..………. ……46 CHAPTER 5: INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION………………………….…………..49 Prehistoric……………………………………………………………………………………….49 Native Ceramics…………………………………………………………………………..…….49 Lithics……………………………………………………………………………………………51 Historic………………………………………………………………………………………….52 European Ceramics……………………………………………………………………………...52 Pipes……………………………………………………………………………………………..53 Glass…………………………………………………………………………………….............54 Metal…………………………………………………………………………………….............54 Other Artifacts …………………………………………………………………………..........55 Artifact distribution………………………………………………………………………………56 Is this Secotan?..............................................................................................................................58 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………..........62 References Cited…………………………………………………………………………...........66 APPENDIX A ARTIFACT CATALOGS……………………………………………………….72 APPENDIX B SITE FORMS…………………………………………………………………..117 APPENDIX C CONSERVATION REPORTS…………………………………………….......129 APPENDIX D CERAMIC TYPE LIST………………………………………………….…….141 List of Figures Figure 1. John White’s 1585 watercolor drawing of Secotan Figure 2. Map showing location of Bath, North Carolina Figure 3. Map showing the environmental regions of North Carolina Figure 4. 1769 Sauthier map of the Plan of the Town of Bath Figure 5. Teach’s Tar Kettle Figure 6. Keel’s 1964 site map Figure 7. Coe and Mattson’s 1968 site map Figure 8. Cashie sherd Figure 9. Unknown fine sand temper sherd Figure 10. Deep Creek sherd Figure 11. Hanover sherd Figure 12. Colington sherd Figure 13. Mt. Pleasant sherd Figure 14. Clarksville point Figure 15. Roanoke point Figure 16. Large Triangle point Figure 17. Thelma point Figure 18. Yadkin point Figure 19. Gorget Figure 20. Kaolin pipe stem fragments 5/64 Figure 21. Harrington’s time periods with concurrent bore diameters Figure 22. Non-kaolin pipe stem fragment Figure 23. Terracotta pipe fragment Figure 24. Black glass fragments Figure 25. Iron nail dating by manufacture Figure 26. Iron ‘washer’ Figure 27. Iron ‘fastener’ Figure 28. Large iron implement Figure 29. Small copper bell Figure 30.Cupro-nickel decoration Figure 31. Gunflint Figure 32. John White map, published in 1790 of the locations of the Native tribes Figure 33. Map created in ArcGIS combining the 1964 and 1968 site maps Figure 34. 1585 John White map of the North Carolina Coast Figure 35. Current map of the area around the town of Bath, North Carolina List of Tables Table 1. Native Ceramics Davis Collection Table 2. Native Ceramics Fieldwork 2013 Table 3. Native Ceramics RLA Collection Table 4. Lithics from Collections Table 5. European Ceramics Davis Collection Table 6. European Ceramics Fieldwork 2012 Table 7. European Ceramics RLA Collection Table 8. Mean Ceramic Date Calculation Davis Collection Table 9. Mean Ceramic Date Calculation RLA Collection Table 10. Mean Ceramic Date Calculation Fieldwork 2013 Table 11 Kaolin Pipe Stems Davis Collection Table 12. Kaolin Pipe Stems RLA Collection Table 13. Other Pipes from Collections Table 14. Glass RLA Collection Table 15. Glass Fieldwork 2013 Table 16. Glass Davis Collection Table 17. Iron Davis Collection Table 18. Iron RLA Collection Table 19. Iron Fieldwork 2013 Table 20. Copper RLA Collection Table 21. Other Metal from Collections Table 22. Other Artifacts from Collections Chapter 1 Introduction Eastern North Carolina has been settled for thousands of years, first by various Native peoples then by European settlers. The first attempt at a permanent colony by the English settlers was at Roanoke Island, North Carolina in 1585. The Natives attempted to keep their way of life while the Europeans exploited the resources of this new land. Though the region was populated throughout prehistory, the Native inhabitants are not well represented in the historic record, especially in Bath, North Carolina, the state’s oldest town. Prior to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Birth of a Colony North Carolina Guide for Educators Act IV—A New Voyage to Carolina, 1650–1710
    Birth of a Colony North Carolina Guide for Educators Act IV—A New Voyage to Carolina, 1650–1710 Birth of a Colony Guide for Educators Birth of a Colony explores the history of North Carolina from the time of European exploration through the Tuscarora War. Presented in five acts, the video combines primary sources and expert commentary to bring this period of our history to life. Use this study guide to enhance students’ understanding of the ideas and information presented in the video. The guide is organized according to five acts. Included for each act are a synopsis, a vocabulary list, discussion questions, and lesson plans. Going over the vocabulary with students before watching the video will help them better understand the film’s content. Discussion questions will encourage students to think critically about what they have viewed. Lesson plans extend the subject matter, providing more information or opportunity for reflection. The lesson plans follow the new Standard Course of Study framework that takes effect with the 2012–2013 school year. With some adjustments, most of the questions and activities can be adapted for the viewing audience. Birth of a Colony was developed by the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, in collaboration with UNC-TV and Horizon Productions. More resources are available at the website http://www.unctv.org/birthofacolony/index.php. 2 Act IV—A New Voyage to Carolina, 1650–1710 Act IV of Birth of a Colony is divided into three parts. The first part explores the development of permanent English settlements in North Carolina. For nearly 70 years after the mysterious disappearance of the Lost Colony, North Carolina remained void of European settlement.
    [Show full text]
  • Tuscarora Trails: Indian Migrations, War, and Constructions of Colonial Frontiers
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2007 Tuscarora trails: Indian migrations, war, and constructions of colonial frontiers Stephen D. Feeley College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Indigenous Studies Commons, Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Feeley, Stephen D., "Tuscarora trails: Indian migrations, war, and constructions of colonial frontiers" (2007). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539623324. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-4nn0-c987 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tuscarora Trails: Indian Migrations, War, and Constructions of Colonial Frontiers Volume I Stephen Delbert Feeley Norcross, Georgia B.A., Davidson College, 1996 M.A., The College of William and Mary, 2000 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of the College of William and Mary in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Lyon Gardiner Tyler Department of History The College of William and Mary May, 2007 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPROVAL SHEET This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Stephen Delbert F eele^ -^ Approved by the Committee, January 2007 MIL James Axtell, Chair Daniel K. Richter McNeil Center for Early American Studies 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    The Southern Algonquians and Their Neighbours DAVID H. PENTLAND University of Manitoba INTRODUCTION At least fifty named Indian groups are known to have lived in the area south of the Mason-Dixon line and north of the Creek and the other Muskogean tribes. The exact number and the specific names vary from one source to another, but all agree that there were many different tribes in Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas during the colonial period. Most also agree that these fifty or more tribes all spoke languages that can be assigned to just three language families: Algonquian, Iroquoian, and Siouan. In the case of a few favoured groups there is little room for debate. It is certain that the Powhatan spoke an Algonquian language, that the Tuscarora and Cherokee are Iroquoians, and that the Catawba speak a Siouan language. In other cases the linguistic material cannot be positively linked to one particular political group. There are several vocabularies of an Algonquian language that are labelled Nanticoke, but Ives Goddard (1978:73) has pointed out that Murray collected his "Nanticoke" vocabulary at the Choptank village on the Eastern Shore, and Heckeweld- er's vocabularies were collected from refugees living in Ontario. Should the language be called Nanticoke, Choptank, or something else? And if it is Nanticoke, did the Choptank speak the same language, a different dialect, a different Algonquian language, or some completely unrelated language? The basic problem, of course, is the lack of reliable linguistic data from most of this region. But there are additional complications. It is known that some Indians were bilingual or multilingual (cf.
    [Show full text]
  • US History- Sweeney
    ©Java Stitch Creations, 2015 Part 1: The Roanoke Colony-Background Information What is now known as the lost Roanoke Colony, was actually the third English attempt at colonizing the eastern shores of the United States. Following through with his family's thirst for exploration, Queen Elizabeth I of England granted Sir Walter Raleigh a royal charter in 1584. This charter gave him seven years to establish a settlement, and allowed him the power to explore, colonize and rnle, in return for one-fifth of all the gold and silver mined in the new lands. Raleigh immediately hired navigators Philip Amadas and Arthur Barlowe to head an expedition to the intended destination of the Chesapeake Bay area. This area was sought due to it being far from the Spanish-dominated Florida colonies, and it had milder weather than the more northern regions. In July of that year, they landed on Roanoke Island. They explored the area, made contact with Native Americans, and then sailed back to England to prove their findings to Sir Walter Raleigh. Also sailing from Roanoke were two members oflocal tribes of Native Americans, Manteo (son of a Croatoan) and Wanchese (a Roanoke). Amadas' and Barlowe's positive report, and Native American assistance, earned the blessing of Sir Walter Raleigh to establish a colony. In 1585, a second expedition of seven ships of colonists and supplies, were sent to Roanoke. The settlement was somewhat successful, however, they had poor relations with the local Native Americans and repeatedly experienced food shortages. Only a year after arriving, most of the colonists left.
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 UMI* Expedient Truths: Aspects of Nanative Representation in Elizabethan Voyage Literature. by Robert Gordon Griffiths B.A., University of Birmingham, 1983 M.A., University of York, 1992 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of English We accept this dissertation as conforming to the required standard Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving Skeletal Material in Eroding Shorelines, Currituck
    WEAPEMEOC SHORES: THE LOSS OF TRADITIONAL MARITIME CULTURE AMONG THE WEAPEMEOC INDIANS by Whitney R. Petrey April, 2014 Director of Thesis: Larry Tise, PhD Major Department: Maritime Studies The Weapemeoc were an Indian group of the Late Woodland Period through the Early Colonial Period (1400 A.D.-1780 A.D.) that went through significant cultural change as they were displaced from their traditional maritime subsistence resources. The Weapemeoc were located in what is today northeastern North Carolina. Their permanent villages were located along the northern shore of Albemarle Sound, with seasonal and temporary villages on the outer banks and upriver on the several tributaries that drain to the Albemarle Sound. Weapemeoc access to maritime resources would be altered significantly by European colonization and settlement in the area. The loss of maritime subsistence, maritime communication and maritime mentality resulted in the loss of the traditional culture of the Weapemeoc Indians and their seeming disappearance as a distinct group of people. Early historical records and maps illustrate the acculturation of the Weapemeoc and the loss of traditional maritime culture. As land was sold to settlers in prime areas along rivers and along the shore of the Albemarle Sound, Weapemeoc were displaced from their seasonal procurement sites and seasonal permanent villages. By 1704, a reservation was established by the colonial government for the Weapemeoc along Indiantown Creek. By 1780, the Weapemeoc lived in such a similar fashion as their neighbors of European descent that they are no longer distinguishable in the archaeological or historical record. WEAPEMEOC SHORES: THE LOSS OF TRADITIONAL MARITIME CULTURE AMONG THE WEAPEMEOC INDIANS A Thesis Presented To the Faculty of the Department of History East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Arts In Maritime Studies by Whitney R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scuppernong River Project: Explorations of Tyrrell County Maritime History
    THE SCUPPERNONG RIVER PROJECT: VOLUME 1 EXPLORATIONS OF TYRRELL COUNTY MARITIME HISTORY Nathan Richards, Daniel Bera, Saxon Bisbee, John Bright, Dan Brown, David Buttaro, Jeff O’Neill and William Schilling i Research Report No. 21 THE SCUPPERNONG RIVER PROJECT: VOLUME 1 EXPLORATIONS OF TYRRELL COUNTY MARITIME HISTORY By Nathan Richards Daniel Bera Saxon Bisbee John Bright Dan Brown David Buttaro Jeff O’Neill William Schilling 2012 © The PAST Foundation ISBN 978-1-939531-00-1 Library of Congress Control Number: 2012955595 Series Editor: Nathan Richards, Program in Maritime Studies, East Carolina University, Admiral Ernest M. Eller House, Greenville, North Carolina, 27858. Cover: Portion of the James Wimble map of North Carolina (1738) showing location of the Scuppernong River (North Carolina State Archives). Cover design concept: Nadine Kopp. ii DEDICATION This publication is dedicated to the people of Columbia, for their unwavering hospitality during the 2011 Scuppernong River Project. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project and the products that have emerged from it would not have been possible without the assistance of a congregation of people from a host of institutions across eastern North Carolina. From the outset, this project was designed with collaboration at its core. In investigating the history and archaeology of Tyrrell County, we wanted this to be a project that left something for the people of the area to have once we packed up and returned from where we came. We hope that our work lives up to their expectations. At the UNC-Coastal Studies Institute, John McCord and David Sybert were involved in every facet of the project; not only did they coordinate local outreach and education events (in conjunction with Lauren Heesemann, NOAA) and film activities for a short documentary, but they also “took the plunge” when instrumentation disappeared into the tea-stained Scuppernong.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Raleigh National Historic Site: Preservation and Recognition, C
    CONTENTS Figure Credits iv List of Figures V Foreword vii Acknowledgements ix Introduction 1 Chapter One: The Roanoke Colonies and Fort Raleigh, c. 1584-1590 9 Associated Properties 28 Registration Requirements/Integrity 29 Contributing Resources 30 Potentially Eligible Archeological Resources 30 Chapter Two: The Settlement and Development of Roanoke Island, c. 1650-1900 31 Associated Properties 54 Registration Requirements/Integrity 55 Noncontributing Resources 57 Potentially Eligible Archeological Resources 57 Chapter Three: Fort Raleigh National Historic Site: Preservation and Recognition, c. 1860-1953 59 Associated Properties 91 Registration Requirements/Integrity 93 Contributing Resources 97 Noncontributing Resources 97 Potentially Eligible Archeological Resources 97 Management Recommendations 99 Bibliography 101 Appendix A: Descriptions of Historic Resources A-l Appendix B: Property Map/Historical Base Map B-l Appendix C: National Register Documentation C-1 Index D-l iii FIGURE CREDITS Cover, 15, 17, 22: courtesy of Harpers Ferry Center, National Park Service; pp. 10, 12, 13, 16, 23: Charles W. Porter III, Adventurers to a New World; pp. 22, 27: Theodore De Bry, Thomas Hariot’s Virginia; pp. 35,39,41: courtesy of the Outer Banks History Center, Manteo, NC; pp. 37, 38: Samuel H. Putnam, The Story of Company A, Twenty-Fifth Regiment, Massachusetts Volunteers, in the War of the Rebellion; p. 43: Vincent Colyer, Report of the Services Rendered by the Freed People to the United States Army, in North Carolina; pp. 44, 46, 47: Joe A. Mobley, James City, A Black Community in North Carolina, 1863-1900; pp. 55, 67, 81: S. Bulter for the National Park Service; pp. 61, 66, 78: William S.
    [Show full text]
  • Report 06-2021
    Coates' Canons NC Local Government Law https://canons.sog.unc.edu Coates' Canons Blog: America’s “First” July 4th By Norma Houston Article: https://canons.sog.unc.edu/americas-first-july-4th/ This entry was posted on July 03, 2013 and is filed under General Local Government (Miscellaneous), Miscellaneous th Tomorrow we celebrate the 237 anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence and the beginning of our journey as an independent nation. But, did you know that July 4th also marks another beginning for our nation, one that happened right here in North Carolina? No, not the opening of the first Krispy Kreme doughnut store in Winston-Salem. That happened on July 13th, 1937. The beginning described in this post is arguably America’s “first” July 4th. And it happened here, in North Carolina, 429 years ago. In the spring of 1584, Captains Philip Amadas and Arthur Barlowe left England in “two barks [ships] well furnished with men and victuals,” to explore the North American coast at the behest of Sir Walter Raleigh in preparation for permanent colonization of the new world. While the English had previously landed on the coast of the North American continent (Newfoundland was well-known as a trading and fishing port as early as 1504[1] ), no attempts at colonization had been made. The French and Spanish, on the other hand, had been colonizing parts of Canada and Florida for decades. With patents from Queen Elizabeth for the “discovering and planting of new lands and countries” in hand, Sir Walter eagerly financed the expedition to the new world, convinced that its already legendary abundance of natural resources would bring his Queen (and himself) great wealth.
    [Show full text]
  • OUR STORIES: a County by County Journey Through East Carolina
    OUR STORIES: A County by County Journey Through East Carolina Camden Gates Currituck Sunbury Currituck Hertford St. Peter's Episcopal Church St. Luke's Episcopal Mission Gatesville Elizabeth City St. Mary's Episcopal Church Christ Episcopal Church Ahoskie St. Thomas Episcopal Church Elizabeth City Perquimans Bertie Hertford Roxobel Holy Trinity Episcopal Church Pasquotank St. Mark's Mission Edenton All Saints Episcopal Church Lewiston-Woodville St. Paul's Episcopal Church Grace Episcopal Church Chowan Windsor St. Thomas Episcopal Church Nags Head Columbia St. Andrew's by the Sea Washington St. Andrew's Episcopal Church Martin Roper St. Luke's & St. Anne's Episcopal Church Plymouth Creswell Tyrrell Williamston Grace Episcopal Church Dare Church of the Advent Christ Episcopal Church Galilee Mission Greenville Farmville Belhaven Emmanuel Episcopal Church The Well Episcopal Lutheran Campus Ministry St. James Episcopal Church St. Timothy's Episcopal Church Wayne Washington Hyde Greene St. Paul's Episcopal Church Zion Episcopal Church Bath Goldsboro Pitt Chocowinity St. Thomas Episcopal Church Trinity Episcopal Church St. Peter's Episcopal Church Engelhard St. Francis Episcopal Church St. George's Episcopal Church Grifton St Andrew's Episcopal Church St. John's Episcopal Church St. Stephen's Church Kinston Beaufort Diocesan House Newton Grove Lenoir St. Mary's Episcopal Church Craven La Iglesia de la Sagrada Familia St. Augustine's Episcopal Church Seven Springs New Bern Fayetteville Holy Innocents Episcopal Church St. Cyprian's Episcopal Church Cumberland Trenton Pamlico Grace Episcopal Church Christ Episcopal Church Oriental Hoke Church of the Good Shepherd Jones St. Thomas Episcopal Church St. John's Episcopal Church Clinton St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Search for the Lost Colony of Roanoke: Hidden Maps, Hidden Cities
    The Search for the Lost Colony of Roanoke: Hidden Maps, Hidden Cities By Philip McMullan and Fred Willard Assisted By Kathryn Sugg The Lost Colony Center for Science & Research, Inc. 9291 NC Hwy 171 Williamston, NC 27892 .uly 2010 1 T The Search for the Lost Colony of Roanoke: ncient Maps Hide Raleigh Secret The Roanoke voyages and colonizing experiments of the years 1584 to 1590 were the first to bring English men, women, and children to settle in any part of North America. Although these attempts failed, they lie at the very roots of English experience in North America and the beginnings of what was to become the thirteen colonies and the United States. 1 Reader1s Note: A thorough reading of the breadcrumbs in Appendix A is necessary to have a proper evaluation of the work below. Breadcrumbs will be added as Appendix A in the near future. Introduction Sir Walter Raleigh’s 1587 attempt to colonize Queen Elizabeth’s ‘Virginia’ resulted in the legend of the ‘Lost Colony’, a tale well known to North Carolinians. Colony Governor John White wrote that their intended destination was Chesapeake Bay, but his ship’s pilot, Simon Fernandes, forced him to unload his colony on Roanoke Island. Governor White went back to England 1587 to obtain relief supplies for the colony, but he was delayed by the arrival of the Spanish Armada. When he was finally able to return in 1590, he saw signs on Roanoke Island that suggested the colony went to Croatoan; but he failed to reach them. According to the legend, the 117 men, women and children 2 then simply disappeared.
    [Show full text]
  • Tar Heel Junior Historian \ Historian) V Tesociatfor' North Carolina History for Students Fall 2007 Volume 47, Number 1
    Tomta Be/fus *4 cr le &ckohocka i/ttons .Oenock 'yt/zrgitfi Count %wonttith Cramit /brt3 ck!^^^re^on County' ? x OidftrtJd AnssjLr '"—^ mr jp} jPa/u'd 3 w&gf fieck nutjfujfqL .Sound 7'°' jirJuiven .Hemy *SrnU/u j <e Hatteras f/Tar Heel sS ( Junior \ Tar Heel Junior Historian \ Historian) v tesociatfor' North Carolina History for Students Fall 2007 Volume 47, Number 1 On the cover: Part of a map that John Speed published and sold in London in 1676. The map, largely based on John Ogilby's 1672 map, describes the New World's Carolina and Florida. Image courtesy of the State Archives, North Carolina Explorers Are You: Simon Fernandez: Navigator, Office of Archives and History. At right: This iron 1 Tar Heel Junior Privateer-and Villain? breastplate was made ca. 1580s in England, or 19 Historians, Pigs, and by Dr. E. Thomson Shields Jr. perhaps Scotland. Early European explorers to the New World would have worn protective Sir Walter Raleigh armor that included such a piece. Image courtesy by Dr. Joseph C. Porter The Lost Colony: Interpreting of the North Carolina Museum of History. 20 History through Drama Time Line by Christine Dumoulin State of North Carolina of Exploration Michael F. Easley, Governor 3 Beverly E. Perdue, Lieutenant Governor Earliest American N Department of Cultural Resources Explorers: Adventure Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary 6 Staci T. Meyer, Chief Deputy Secretary and Survival by John W. Kincbeloe III Office of Archives and Plistory THJH Essay Contest Winner: Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary Marks on the Land 23 A Boy’s Journal Division of State Flistory Museums by Levi Lamprecht North Carolina Museum of History 9 We Can See: Routes of Kenneth B.
    [Show full text]