Chapter 5 - On the (Clan) Gunn 'Westford Knight' embarrassingly silly fantasy story
5. Diversion 1: The Gunn “Westford Knight” myth
The individual chapters can be downloaded as pdfs from latrobe.academia.edu/AlastairGunn
Clan Gunn literature often claims that its forebears were "Discoverers of America." The story is detailed in the Clan Gunn Heritage Centre in Latheron, Caithness … [1]
The Gunn ‘Westford Knight’ fairy story was meant to have occurred in 1380[2] when a Sir Henry Sinclair[3] was meant to have sailed from the Orkney Islands to Nova Scotia and beyond, and taken a knighted Gunn with him (the ‘Gunn’ coat of arms / shield is later found carved on a rock at Westford, Massachusetts, USA as part of a larger illustration of the Gunn‘knight’). And so a Gunn was meant to be one of the first white[4] people to discover northern America. There is not a grain of truth in the story. Let’s not forget that Prince Madog[5] of Wales ‘discovered’ America in 1170, before Henry Sinclair! Yes, the Henry Sinclair / Gunn Westford knight fantasy is not the only absurdity in this area…
5.1 The Zeno narrative is a work of fiction problem
the Zeno affair remains one of the most preposterous and at the same time one of the most successful fabrications in the history of exploration[6]
Brian Smith, who is archivist at the Shetland Museum and Archives and also an Honorary Fellow at the Centre of Nordic Studies at the University of the Highlands and Islands,[7] has written a detailed demolition of the sole source for the supposed Sir Henry Sinclair trip from the Orkney Islands to America – the Zeno narrative - in an article[8] called ‘Earl Henry Sinclair’s fictitious trip to America’. In his view the Zeno narrative is ‘an elaborate practical joke.’ He writes –
Henry Sinclair, an earl of Orkney of the late fifteenth century, didn’t go to America. It wasn’t until 500 years after Henry’s death that anybody suggested that he did. The sixteenth century text that eventually gave rise to all the claims about Henry and America certainly doesn’t say so. What it says, in so many words, is that someone called Zichmni, with friends, made a trip to Greenland. None of Henry Sinclair’s contemporaries or near-contemporaries ever claimed he went to America; and none of the antiquaries who wrote about him in the seventeenth century said so either, although they made other absurd claims about him. The story is a modern myth…
So, the original source document which is meant to show how a Gunn could have got to Northern America and become the ‘Westford Knight’ has no mention of Scotland, no mention of Caithness, no mention of the Orkney Islands, no mention of Henry Sinclair, no mention of Gunns and no mention of North America. That’s a major problem for the ‘Clan Gunn Westford Knight’ myth.
So what is the Zeno narrative? It is part of a small book published in 1558, probably written by Nicolo Zeno. The source is meant to be letters between Nicolo Zeno’s ancestor – another Nicolo Zeno - and that ancestor’s brother Antonio Zeno and Antonio’s letters to a third brother Carlo Zeno. The narrative supposedly describes assorted adventures, islands and explorations in the North Atlantic. The Zeno Narrative ‘explorer’ Nicolo dies in the far north after four or five years away. Antonio had joined him up there and he stayed for a further fourteen years. Both get involved with the fictional Prince Zichmni.
A major problem for the myth believers is that the life of Nicolo Zeno (the ancestor, the one meant to be exploring in the northern Atlantic) can be traced from archival material and was done so by Andreas da Mosto, and this Nicolo spent all his time in Venice and related local lands.[9] Brian Smith summarises the life so
Nicolò Zeno … was a well-known navigator and public official in Venice from about 1360 to 1400. … In May 1389 Nicolò received the command of a squadron of naval galleys in the gulf. The following year he was re-elected as military governor of the cities of Corone and Modone in southern Greece, but by the end of 1392 he had returned to Venice. In the first semester of 1393 he resumed his duties as a prestigious ducal councillor there. In August that year he set off for Corfu, where he had been elected bailiff and captain. … In 1394 allegations emerged that Nicolò Zeno had been guilty of embezzlement whilst in charge of Modone and Corone. There was a lengthy debate on the subject in the Venetian Council of Forty during 1396. The Council's verdict was severe. They sentenced Nicolò to five years' exclusion from public office, fined him 200 gold ducats and ordered him to compensate the aggrieved parties. We don't hear about poor Nicolò again until 1400, when he wrote his last testament. He was no longer alive in 1403.[10]
So Nicolo Zeno’s life in Venice and nearby lands is fully documented in the Venetian archives but according to the Zeno narrative at exactly the same time he is supposedly living and dying in the far northern Atlantic. Both can’t be true – the life based on documents from the Venetian Archives has to be accurate; the Zeno narrative must be fiction.
Fiction? Smiths’s article also summarised the various literary borrowings the author Zeno has used[11] The works include Columbus’s letters, Vespucci’s letters, the life of the fisherman Jeronimio Aguilar who had been shipwrecked, various printed accounts of Mexico, Cuba and much more. So the Zeno narrative is shown to not be a work of original writing based on an exploration but fiction derived from existing literary sources and maps. And there are the many imaginary islands[12] (Porlanda, Tlas, Broas, Iscant, Trans, Mimant, Damberc, Bres…) in the northern Atlantic which now have ‘disappeared’ which supports the fictional base of the story.
So when did the Henry Sinclair / North America myth start? It started in the 1780s[13] approximately four hundred years after the supposed event. To make the myth work you must first assume the Zeno narrative to be history and work backwards from the main historical figure, the King of Norway. So Prince Zichmni beat the King of Norway in a battle in 1380 in the Zeno Narrative, so who in the real world beat the King of Norway at this time? Well no-one, but in 1379 Henry Sinclair was made Earl of the Orkney Islands by the King of Norway, so obviously Zichmni has to be Earl Sinclair. It’s that sort of logic. Just ignore that Henry Sinclair has been written up in history with no known interest in maritime exploits, ‘Even more tellingly, none of the antiquarians and biographers who wrote about Henry Sinclair… made any reference at all to such adventures and explorations. Henry Sinclair had two enthusiastic seventeenth century biographers: a Dane called Van Bassan and a cleric, Father Richard Augustin Hay. These authors wrote pages of absurd praise about Henry: they credited him with military campaigns that took place before he was born, and with a marriage to a princess that never took place at all. They invented titles and dignities for him, including the title ‘prince’ that he never possessed. The only thing they didn't mention was his alleged voyage of discovery.’[14] And so the myth started and developed, getting further removed from the sole written text[15] and which ignored inconvenient history and geography when needed.
To restate, the Zeno narrative which is the only source for the supposed ‘Prince’ Henry Sinclair’s journey from the Orkney Islands to North America, has no mention of the Orkney Islands, no mention of Scotland, no mention of Caithness, no mention of Henry Sinclair, no mention of North America, no Gunn, one of the key adventurers in the story is shown to be alive and well in Venetian lands when he is meant to be living and dying in the northern Atlantic and earlier literary works and maps are known to have been used which means it can not be viewed as a history / geography text but as fiction. That’s a huge set of academic problems which the fantasists have to overcome.
And it gets worse; Jason Colavito in his excellent discussion[16] of the many absurdities around the whole Sinclair story points out that now the ‘modern myth of Henry I Sinclair (is) as a Templar of the Holy Bloodline who discovered America to hide the Holy Grail’. I am now looking forward to the next instalment of the Westford Knight story to include the opening of the tomb underneath the ‘Gunn’ Westford Knight carving and Indiana Jones climbing out in Gunn tartan bearing the Holy Grail…
Sean Martin in his history of the Knights Templar writes ‘the so-called Zeno narrative – was not written until 1558 and is widely regarded as being highly spurious.’ [17] Notwithstanding the previously mentioned impossibilities the Clan Gunn Society USA[18] gives support to this ‘highly spurious’ idea and it is also supported by the Clan Gunn Society UK Heritage Centre.[19]
5.2 Historic / general problems with the ‘Westford knight’
Given the previous section clearly shows the only source for the ‘Westford knight’ is a work of fiction I shall only briefly go through the historic problems with the ‘Clan Gunn Westford Knight’ myth. These include
· The surname problem. As discussed in chapter 2.1 the Scottish highlands, overall, did not have fixed surnames in the 1380s as they had patronymic surnames, so the fixed surname Gunn did not exist. A few very well-known families[20] did have fixed surnames by the 1380s but such people are very much recorded in the history texts unlike the invisible Gunns of this time.
· The knight problem. Chapter 3.3 points out the rarity of Scottish knights at this time. To restate – ‘First and foremost a knight was expected to have a noble lineage and prove he was directly descended from a line of knights... heredity was a prime concern with regard to eligibility for knighthood in the fifteenth century.’ [21] Exceptions occurred. But ‘it was through royal service that (gave) ... final legitimisation for entry into knighthood’[22] There is no academic support for Gunns ever being knights at this time, let alone from a long line of knights or a Gunn having done ‘royal service’ as both of these would be recorded in the historic documents of Scotland. Without there being knights there are obviously no knightly arms so the supposed ‘arms’ on the Westford knight cannot be Gunn.
· There is no support for the Gunn Westford Knight’s existence anywhere outside the Zeno knight myth. If he was that important somewhere in real history he would have been mentioned.
· Why is the grave / memorial in Westford? It’s a long way from Nova Scotia. And it’s more than sixty miles / one hundred kilometres inland. Why go so far? It’s not logical that the expedition went to Westford. If one was undertaking a naval voyage of exploration one stayed on the coast. Or are we meant to believe their ocean going boats sailed to Westford up unknown, random, shallow waterways in 1380?
· The etching of the Westford knight[23] in a major book on the subject shows the knight in full, very heavy gear which was not what one would wear through inland USA in 1380. The illustration also shows a ‘big boy’ - think Friar Tuck in ‘Robin Hood’ movies - and no one that overweight wearing the illustrated outfit would have been capable of wandering through unknown lands as it would be physically impossible. It may, perhaps, be an idealised drawing but that does not deal with the weight issue. The knight outfit also postdates the expediton date by around two hundred years.
· What the etching supposedly shows is odd. One can imagine if a Knight had existed in 1380 and somehow made it to Westford and then died, his friends may have made a memorial. This etching does not look like any memorial, not even an incompetent one, and a name would be expedted on the memorial and perhaps a religious quotation. These are not there. As well, the Knight would have been shown being more ‘restful’. So if it's not a memorial, what is it? I can’t think of another logical reason for an etching to be done if it’s not a memorial. If there is no logical reason for an etching to be done in 1380 then it’s because it wasn’t done at that time.
· If a Gunn made so much impact on the local First Americans say by staying for some time - and if this illustration / stone etching at Westford was meant to have been done by locals - more than one carving would have been found. Only one is found. And it bears no resemblance to any First American carving.
5.3 Archaeological objections
To restate, the sole source for the Gunn Westford Knight story is a work of fiction. The history does not add up. The archaeology of this hoax fails as well.
David K. Schafer[24], Senior Collections Manager Peabody Museum of Archaelogy and Ethnology at Harvard University writes that the Westford knight carving is NOT –
· A depiction of "...a rough life-sized portrayal of a late 14th century knight in full-length surcoat"
· Nor "....a knight's great sword, a shield and crest, and the knight's face in a bassinet helmet with pendent neckmail of the kind in use in A.D. 1360-1390".
· Nor should the heraldry which some people claim to see on the shield (since the *only* evidence of the shield that I could distinguish was the one painted in white paint on the bedrock by an unknown artist) be interpreted as a 14th century Scottish coat of arms.
· Nor should the "T-shaped" engraving (which is in fact visible on the bedrock) be thought of as "clearly show(ing) a hand and half-wheel pommel sword of Medieval European vintage".
· Nor should the "T-shaped" engraving be interpreted as "... an early 18th century iron tomahawk of the era between 1700 and 1750... cut in the exposed rock by a Westford settler as a memorial of encounter with the Indians....".
Some things it is:
· a roughly globular "T-shaped" engraving on a section of exposed bedrock.
· The engraving was made by repetitive punching, most likely with a metal punch…
· The "sword blade" that extends from the "T" are actually glacial scratches (marks made by rocks dragged along under the moving ice). The surface of the entire bedrock are covered by these parallel marks, and two are located in general proximity to the "T".
· There are NO OTHER engravings on the bedrock: weathering of the schist, yes; glacial scratches, yes; undulations along the surface of the bedrock…
· Based upon environmental studies, this area would have been a hardwood forest in the 14th century, and given the current landscape (i.e. a flat area in an upland setting) the flat bedrock would have been buried under 1-3 feet of soil. Erosion of the area may have occurred as early as the colonial period due to tree cutting and subsequent farming…
· Even though I claim no expertise in 14th-century sea-faring vessels, I question whether Henry Sinclair could have sailed his four ships up "Stony Creek" to this Westford locale.
· And also is the simple fact that the town historian has evidence that the "T" was made by two local boys in the late-19th century…
In other words this senior academic archaeologist provides absolutely no support for the Westford Knight having any archaelogical value whatsoever.
Associate Professor Elizabeth Chilton[25] makes a further point about why the Westford Knight idea fails. She writes - "In the more than 15,000 active archaelogical sites in New England, there has never surfaced any other evidence that 14th-century Europeans traveled as far south as New England .... If someone came here and carved a stone, they would have left plenty of garbage behind. People don't just show up and carve on a stone and go home." [26] In other words it’s just not humanly possible that explorers in the late 1380 were at Westford and took all their equipment / rubbish with them home in a very modern way, and left no other mark on the landscape.
5.4 The AVM Runestone hoax
And if you can't accept that the Clan Gunn Westford Knight could be an archaeological hoax then consider the AVM Runestone ‘creation’ -
The AVM Runestone, also known as the Berg-AVM Runestone, is a hoax created in 1985 by students carving runes into a boulder near Kensington, Minnesota, not far from where the Kensington Runestone (hoax) was found in 1898. In 2001, a carving expert and her geologist father found the AVM Runestone, told the press that it was proof of early Viking or Norse settlement in Minnesota, and began an investigation to prove its authenticity. The creators came forward with their story that it was purely a hoax and not an artifact of Viking explorers.[27]
One of the 'fraudsters' is now Professor Kari Ellen Gade of the Department of German Studies at Indiana University. The Kensington Runestone, mentioned above ‘proved’ fourteenth century Scandinavian explorers made it to Minnesota; ‘the scholarly consensus has classified it as a 19th-century hoax’. [28]
The point is simple; the USA has several of these European whites discovered America before Colombus archaeological hoaxes, the Gunn Westford Knight example is but one of them.
5.5 Summary
The ‘Clan Gunn Westford Knight’ has no primary source evidence and no archaeologial evidence to support his existence. The sole ‘evidence’ for him is a work of fiction – a myth if you prefer. It’s time for this Westford Knight myth to disappear from Gunn, American and Scottish history.
***
[1] From page 16, ed. Celeste Ray, Transatlantic Scots, University of Alabama Press, 2005 (being from Chapter 1 by Celeste Ray 'Transatlantic Scots and Ethnicity’).
[2] This is the date given in the source document, see Brian Smith’s article ‘Earl Henry Sinclair’s fictitious trip to America’, New Orkney Antiquarian Journal Volume 2 page 3, or see part 1 at http://www.alastairhamilton.com/sinclair.htm accessed 7 March 2017.
[3] See http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/historicalfigures/henrysinclair/myth.htm accessed 9 March 2017 for the legend of Sir Henry Sinclair. It is worth noting that ‘Sinclair’ has no Scots / Gaelic origin – it is probably from a Norman base.
[4] Is the emphasis given this story nothing more than a racist attempt to forget about First Americans?
[5] See Michael Senior’s Did Prince Madog Discover America? demolition of this ridiculous idea. The Vinland Sagas detailing Norse discovery of America is however real history and is backed by real archaeology.
[6] Dictionary of Canadian Biography http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio.php?id_nbr=592 accessed 28 March 2017.
[7] For a biography and select publications see https://www.uhi.ac.uk/en/research-enterprise/cultural/centre-for-nordic-studies/staff/brian-smith accessed 29 March 2017.
[8] The article can be found in print form in the New Orkney Antiquarian Journal Volume 2 pages 3-28, or it can be found at http://www.alastairhamilton.com/sinclair.htm accessed 7 March 2017.
[9] See Andreas da Mosto ‘I navigatori Nicolò e Antonio Zeno’ Florence, 1933.
[10] Pages 12-13, Brian Smith’s article ‘Earl Henry Sinclair’s fictitious trip to America’, New Orkney Antiquarian Journal Volume 2
[11] Mainly using Fred W Lucas’s The Annals of the Voyages of the Brothers Nicolo and Antonio Zeno in the North Atlantic about the end of the fourteenth century, and the claim founded thereon to a Venetian discovery of America: a criticism and an indictment.
[12] There are recognisable islands, the point is the number of fictional islands show it can not be trusted as a realistic account.
[13] The myth began in the 1780s by John Reinhold Forster, see Brian Smith’s article, page 5.
[14] http://www.alastairhamilton.com/sinclair.htm accessed 2 April 2017.
[15] Smith’s view is that R. H. Major is ‘the villain in the piece’; this is due to his writing in the 1870s. See Part 3 of his article.
[16] See http://www.jasoncolavito.com/the-templars-the-holy-grail--henry-sinclair.html accessed 4 April 2017.
[17] Pages 136-137, S. Martin, The Knights Templar; the History and Myths of the Legendary Military Order.
[18] See https://www.clangunn.us/westford-knight.html accessed 9 October 2018.
[19] https://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/dunbeath/clangunn/index.html accessed 9 October 2018.
[20] As already discussed in chapter 2.1 essentially surnames were a Norman invention; landed families linked to Norman descent are historically recorded and a few families made it up to the Highlands. Other Highland surnames are known, such as for those having descent from the Lord of the Isles. The name Gunn is obviously not linked to the Normans, nor is it famous in history books…
[21] Page 13-14, K Stevenson’s Chivalry and Knighthood in Scotland 1424-1513.
[22] Page 14, K Stevenson’s ibid.
[23] Page 34, D. Goudsward, The Westford Knight and Henry Sinclair.
[24] http://www.ramtops.co.uk/westford.html accessed 10 September 2016.
[25] Elizabeth Chilton, associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
[26] http://www.appletonstudios.com/Congress2008DBA.pdf accessed 24 April 2017.
[27] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVM_Runestone accessed 24 April 2017.
[28] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Runestone accessed 24 April 2017.
The individual chapters can be downloaded as pdfs from latrobe.academia.edu/AlastairGunn
Clan Gunn literature often claims that its forebears were "Discoverers of America." The story is detailed in the Clan Gunn Heritage Centre in Latheron, Caithness … [1]
The Gunn ‘Westford Knight’ fairy story was meant to have occurred in 1380[2] when a Sir Henry Sinclair[3] was meant to have sailed from the Orkney Islands to Nova Scotia and beyond, and taken a knighted Gunn with him (the ‘Gunn’ coat of arms / shield is later found carved on a rock at Westford, Massachusetts, USA as part of a larger illustration of the Gunn‘knight’). And so a Gunn was meant to be one of the first white[4] people to discover northern America. There is not a grain of truth in the story. Let’s not forget that Prince Madog[5] of Wales ‘discovered’ America in 1170, before Henry Sinclair! Yes, the Henry Sinclair / Gunn Westford knight fantasy is not the only absurdity in this area…
5.1 The Zeno narrative is a work of fiction problem
the Zeno affair remains one of the most preposterous and at the same time one of the most successful fabrications in the history of exploration[6]
Brian Smith, who is archivist at the Shetland Museum and Archives and also an Honorary Fellow at the Centre of Nordic Studies at the University of the Highlands and Islands,[7] has written a detailed demolition of the sole source for the supposed Sir Henry Sinclair trip from the Orkney Islands to America – the Zeno narrative - in an article[8] called ‘Earl Henry Sinclair’s fictitious trip to America’. In his view the Zeno narrative is ‘an elaborate practical joke.’ He writes –
Henry Sinclair, an earl of Orkney of the late fifteenth century, didn’t go to America. It wasn’t until 500 years after Henry’s death that anybody suggested that he did. The sixteenth century text that eventually gave rise to all the claims about Henry and America certainly doesn’t say so. What it says, in so many words, is that someone called Zichmni, with friends, made a trip to Greenland. None of Henry Sinclair’s contemporaries or near-contemporaries ever claimed he went to America; and none of the antiquaries who wrote about him in the seventeenth century said so either, although they made other absurd claims about him. The story is a modern myth…
So, the original source document which is meant to show how a Gunn could have got to Northern America and become the ‘Westford Knight’ has no mention of Scotland, no mention of Caithness, no mention of the Orkney Islands, no mention of Henry Sinclair, no mention of Gunns and no mention of North America. That’s a major problem for the ‘Clan Gunn Westford Knight’ myth.
So what is the Zeno narrative? It is part of a small book published in 1558, probably written by Nicolo Zeno. The source is meant to be letters between Nicolo Zeno’s ancestor – another Nicolo Zeno - and that ancestor’s brother Antonio Zeno and Antonio’s letters to a third brother Carlo Zeno. The narrative supposedly describes assorted adventures, islands and explorations in the North Atlantic. The Zeno Narrative ‘explorer’ Nicolo dies in the far north after four or five years away. Antonio had joined him up there and he stayed for a further fourteen years. Both get involved with the fictional Prince Zichmni.
A major problem for the myth believers is that the life of Nicolo Zeno (the ancestor, the one meant to be exploring in the northern Atlantic) can be traced from archival material and was done so by Andreas da Mosto, and this Nicolo spent all his time in Venice and related local lands.[9] Brian Smith summarises the life so
Nicolò Zeno … was a well-known navigator and public official in Venice from about 1360 to 1400. … In May 1389 Nicolò received the command of a squadron of naval galleys in the gulf. The following year he was re-elected as military governor of the cities of Corone and Modone in southern Greece, but by the end of 1392 he had returned to Venice. In the first semester of 1393 he resumed his duties as a prestigious ducal councillor there. In August that year he set off for Corfu, where he had been elected bailiff and captain. … In 1394 allegations emerged that Nicolò Zeno had been guilty of embezzlement whilst in charge of Modone and Corone. There was a lengthy debate on the subject in the Venetian Council of Forty during 1396. The Council's verdict was severe. They sentenced Nicolò to five years' exclusion from public office, fined him 200 gold ducats and ordered him to compensate the aggrieved parties. We don't hear about poor Nicolò again until 1400, when he wrote his last testament. He was no longer alive in 1403.[10]
So Nicolo Zeno’s life in Venice and nearby lands is fully documented in the Venetian archives but according to the Zeno narrative at exactly the same time he is supposedly living and dying in the far northern Atlantic. Both can’t be true – the life based on documents from the Venetian Archives has to be accurate; the Zeno narrative must be fiction.
Fiction? Smiths’s article also summarised the various literary borrowings the author Zeno has used[11] The works include Columbus’s letters, Vespucci’s letters, the life of the fisherman Jeronimio Aguilar who had been shipwrecked, various printed accounts of Mexico, Cuba and much more. So the Zeno narrative is shown to not be a work of original writing based on an exploration but fiction derived from existing literary sources and maps. And there are the many imaginary islands[12] (Porlanda, Tlas, Broas, Iscant, Trans, Mimant, Damberc, Bres…) in the northern Atlantic which now have ‘disappeared’ which supports the fictional base of the story.
So when did the Henry Sinclair / North America myth start? It started in the 1780s[13] approximately four hundred years after the supposed event. To make the myth work you must first assume the Zeno narrative to be history and work backwards from the main historical figure, the King of Norway. So Prince Zichmni beat the King of Norway in a battle in 1380 in the Zeno Narrative, so who in the real world beat the King of Norway at this time? Well no-one, but in 1379 Henry Sinclair was made Earl of the Orkney Islands by the King of Norway, so obviously Zichmni has to be Earl Sinclair. It’s that sort of logic. Just ignore that Henry Sinclair has been written up in history with no known interest in maritime exploits, ‘Even more tellingly, none of the antiquarians and biographers who wrote about Henry Sinclair… made any reference at all to such adventures and explorations. Henry Sinclair had two enthusiastic seventeenth century biographers: a Dane called Van Bassan and a cleric, Father Richard Augustin Hay. These authors wrote pages of absurd praise about Henry: they credited him with military campaigns that took place before he was born, and with a marriage to a princess that never took place at all. They invented titles and dignities for him, including the title ‘prince’ that he never possessed. The only thing they didn't mention was his alleged voyage of discovery.’[14] And so the myth started and developed, getting further removed from the sole written text[15] and which ignored inconvenient history and geography when needed.
To restate, the Zeno narrative which is the only source for the supposed ‘Prince’ Henry Sinclair’s journey from the Orkney Islands to North America, has no mention of the Orkney Islands, no mention of Scotland, no mention of Caithness, no mention of Henry Sinclair, no mention of North America, no Gunn, one of the key adventurers in the story is shown to be alive and well in Venetian lands when he is meant to be living and dying in the northern Atlantic and earlier literary works and maps are known to have been used which means it can not be viewed as a history / geography text but as fiction. That’s a huge set of academic problems which the fantasists have to overcome.
And it gets worse; Jason Colavito in his excellent discussion[16] of the many absurdities around the whole Sinclair story points out that now the ‘modern myth of Henry I Sinclair (is) as a Templar of the Holy Bloodline who discovered America to hide the Holy Grail’. I am now looking forward to the next instalment of the Westford Knight story to include the opening of the tomb underneath the ‘Gunn’ Westford Knight carving and Indiana Jones climbing out in Gunn tartan bearing the Holy Grail…
Sean Martin in his history of the Knights Templar writes ‘the so-called Zeno narrative – was not written until 1558 and is widely regarded as being highly spurious.’ [17] Notwithstanding the previously mentioned impossibilities the Clan Gunn Society USA[18] gives support to this ‘highly spurious’ idea and it is also supported by the Clan Gunn Society UK Heritage Centre.[19]
5.2 Historic / general problems with the ‘Westford knight’
Given the previous section clearly shows the only source for the ‘Westford knight’ is a work of fiction I shall only briefly go through the historic problems with the ‘Clan Gunn Westford Knight’ myth. These include
· The surname problem. As discussed in chapter 2.1 the Scottish highlands, overall, did not have fixed surnames in the 1380s as they had patronymic surnames, so the fixed surname Gunn did not exist. A few very well-known families[20] did have fixed surnames by the 1380s but such people are very much recorded in the history texts unlike the invisible Gunns of this time.
· The knight problem. Chapter 3.3 points out the rarity of Scottish knights at this time. To restate – ‘First and foremost a knight was expected to have a noble lineage and prove he was directly descended from a line of knights... heredity was a prime concern with regard to eligibility for knighthood in the fifteenth century.’ [21] Exceptions occurred. But ‘it was through royal service that (gave) ... final legitimisation for entry into knighthood’[22] There is no academic support for Gunns ever being knights at this time, let alone from a long line of knights or a Gunn having done ‘royal service’ as both of these would be recorded in the historic documents of Scotland. Without there being knights there are obviously no knightly arms so the supposed ‘arms’ on the Westford knight cannot be Gunn.
· There is no support for the Gunn Westford Knight’s existence anywhere outside the Zeno knight myth. If he was that important somewhere in real history he would have been mentioned.
· Why is the grave / memorial in Westford? It’s a long way from Nova Scotia. And it’s more than sixty miles / one hundred kilometres inland. Why go so far? It’s not logical that the expedition went to Westford. If one was undertaking a naval voyage of exploration one stayed on the coast. Or are we meant to believe their ocean going boats sailed to Westford up unknown, random, shallow waterways in 1380?
· The etching of the Westford knight[23] in a major book on the subject shows the knight in full, very heavy gear which was not what one would wear through inland USA in 1380. The illustration also shows a ‘big boy’ - think Friar Tuck in ‘Robin Hood’ movies - and no one that overweight wearing the illustrated outfit would have been capable of wandering through unknown lands as it would be physically impossible. It may, perhaps, be an idealised drawing but that does not deal with the weight issue. The knight outfit also postdates the expediton date by around two hundred years.
· What the etching supposedly shows is odd. One can imagine if a Knight had existed in 1380 and somehow made it to Westford and then died, his friends may have made a memorial. This etching does not look like any memorial, not even an incompetent one, and a name would be expedted on the memorial and perhaps a religious quotation. These are not there. As well, the Knight would have been shown being more ‘restful’. So if it's not a memorial, what is it? I can’t think of another logical reason for an etching to be done if it’s not a memorial. If there is no logical reason for an etching to be done in 1380 then it’s because it wasn’t done at that time.
· If a Gunn made so much impact on the local First Americans say by staying for some time - and if this illustration / stone etching at Westford was meant to have been done by locals - more than one carving would have been found. Only one is found. And it bears no resemblance to any First American carving.
5.3 Archaeological objections
To restate, the sole source for the Gunn Westford Knight story is a work of fiction. The history does not add up. The archaeology of this hoax fails as well.
David K. Schafer[24], Senior Collections Manager Peabody Museum of Archaelogy and Ethnology at Harvard University writes that the Westford knight carving is NOT –
· A depiction of "...a rough life-sized portrayal of a late 14th century knight in full-length surcoat"
· Nor "....a knight's great sword, a shield and crest, and the knight's face in a bassinet helmet with pendent neckmail of the kind in use in A.D. 1360-1390".
· Nor should the heraldry which some people claim to see on the shield (since the *only* evidence of the shield that I could distinguish was the one painted in white paint on the bedrock by an unknown artist) be interpreted as a 14th century Scottish coat of arms.
· Nor should the "T-shaped" engraving (which is in fact visible on the bedrock) be thought of as "clearly show(ing) a hand and half-wheel pommel sword of Medieval European vintage".
· Nor should the "T-shaped" engraving be interpreted as "... an early 18th century iron tomahawk of the era between 1700 and 1750... cut in the exposed rock by a Westford settler as a memorial of encounter with the Indians....".
Some things it is:
· a roughly globular "T-shaped" engraving on a section of exposed bedrock.
· The engraving was made by repetitive punching, most likely with a metal punch…
· The "sword blade" that extends from the "T" are actually glacial scratches (marks made by rocks dragged along under the moving ice). The surface of the entire bedrock are covered by these parallel marks, and two are located in general proximity to the "T".
· There are NO OTHER engravings on the bedrock: weathering of the schist, yes; glacial scratches, yes; undulations along the surface of the bedrock…
· Based upon environmental studies, this area would have been a hardwood forest in the 14th century, and given the current landscape (i.e. a flat area in an upland setting) the flat bedrock would have been buried under 1-3 feet of soil. Erosion of the area may have occurred as early as the colonial period due to tree cutting and subsequent farming…
· Even though I claim no expertise in 14th-century sea-faring vessels, I question whether Henry Sinclair could have sailed his four ships up "Stony Creek" to this Westford locale.
· And also is the simple fact that the town historian has evidence that the "T" was made by two local boys in the late-19th century…
In other words this senior academic archaeologist provides absolutely no support for the Westford Knight having any archaelogical value whatsoever.
Associate Professor Elizabeth Chilton[25] makes a further point about why the Westford Knight idea fails. She writes - "In the more than 15,000 active archaelogical sites in New England, there has never surfaced any other evidence that 14th-century Europeans traveled as far south as New England .... If someone came here and carved a stone, they would have left plenty of garbage behind. People don't just show up and carve on a stone and go home." [26] In other words it’s just not humanly possible that explorers in the late 1380 were at Westford and took all their equipment / rubbish with them home in a very modern way, and left no other mark on the landscape.
5.4 The AVM Runestone hoax
And if you can't accept that the Clan Gunn Westford Knight could be an archaeological hoax then consider the AVM Runestone ‘creation’ -
The AVM Runestone, also known as the Berg-AVM Runestone, is a hoax created in 1985 by students carving runes into a boulder near Kensington, Minnesota, not far from where the Kensington Runestone (hoax) was found in 1898. In 2001, a carving expert and her geologist father found the AVM Runestone, told the press that it was proof of early Viking or Norse settlement in Minnesota, and began an investigation to prove its authenticity. The creators came forward with their story that it was purely a hoax and not an artifact of Viking explorers.[27]
One of the 'fraudsters' is now Professor Kari Ellen Gade of the Department of German Studies at Indiana University. The Kensington Runestone, mentioned above ‘proved’ fourteenth century Scandinavian explorers made it to Minnesota; ‘the scholarly consensus has classified it as a 19th-century hoax’. [28]
The point is simple; the USA has several of these European whites discovered America before Colombus archaeological hoaxes, the Gunn Westford Knight example is but one of them.
5.5 Summary
The ‘Clan Gunn Westford Knight’ has no primary source evidence and no archaeologial evidence to support his existence. The sole ‘evidence’ for him is a work of fiction – a myth if you prefer. It’s time for this Westford Knight myth to disappear from Gunn, American and Scottish history.
***
[1] From page 16, ed. Celeste Ray, Transatlantic Scots, University of Alabama Press, 2005 (being from Chapter 1 by Celeste Ray 'Transatlantic Scots and Ethnicity’).
[2] This is the date given in the source document, see Brian Smith’s article ‘Earl Henry Sinclair’s fictitious trip to America’, New Orkney Antiquarian Journal Volume 2 page 3, or see part 1 at http://www.alastairhamilton.com/sinclair.htm accessed 7 March 2017.
[3] See http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/historicalfigures/henrysinclair/myth.htm accessed 9 March 2017 for the legend of Sir Henry Sinclair. It is worth noting that ‘Sinclair’ has no Scots / Gaelic origin – it is probably from a Norman base.
[4] Is the emphasis given this story nothing more than a racist attempt to forget about First Americans?
[5] See Michael Senior’s Did Prince Madog Discover America? demolition of this ridiculous idea. The Vinland Sagas detailing Norse discovery of America is however real history and is backed by real archaeology.
[6] Dictionary of Canadian Biography http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio.php?id_nbr=592 accessed 28 March 2017.
[7] For a biography and select publications see https://www.uhi.ac.uk/en/research-enterprise/cultural/centre-for-nordic-studies/staff/brian-smith accessed 29 March 2017.
[8] The article can be found in print form in the New Orkney Antiquarian Journal Volume 2 pages 3-28, or it can be found at http://www.alastairhamilton.com/sinclair.htm accessed 7 March 2017.
[9] See Andreas da Mosto ‘I navigatori Nicolò e Antonio Zeno’ Florence, 1933.
[10] Pages 12-13, Brian Smith’s article ‘Earl Henry Sinclair’s fictitious trip to America’, New Orkney Antiquarian Journal Volume 2
[11] Mainly using Fred W Lucas’s The Annals of the Voyages of the Brothers Nicolo and Antonio Zeno in the North Atlantic about the end of the fourteenth century, and the claim founded thereon to a Venetian discovery of America: a criticism and an indictment.
[12] There are recognisable islands, the point is the number of fictional islands show it can not be trusted as a realistic account.
[13] The myth began in the 1780s by John Reinhold Forster, see Brian Smith’s article, page 5.
[14] http://www.alastairhamilton.com/sinclair.htm accessed 2 April 2017.
[15] Smith’s view is that R. H. Major is ‘the villain in the piece’; this is due to his writing in the 1870s. See Part 3 of his article.
[16] See http://www.jasoncolavito.com/the-templars-the-holy-grail--henry-sinclair.html accessed 4 April 2017.
[17] Pages 136-137, S. Martin, The Knights Templar; the History and Myths of the Legendary Military Order.
[18] See https://www.clangunn.us/westford-knight.html accessed 9 October 2018.
[19] https://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/dunbeath/clangunn/index.html accessed 9 October 2018.
[20] As already discussed in chapter 2.1 essentially surnames were a Norman invention; landed families linked to Norman descent are historically recorded and a few families made it up to the Highlands. Other Highland surnames are known, such as for those having descent from the Lord of the Isles. The name Gunn is obviously not linked to the Normans, nor is it famous in history books…
[21] Page 13-14, K Stevenson’s Chivalry and Knighthood in Scotland 1424-1513.
[22] Page 14, K Stevenson’s ibid.
[23] Page 34, D. Goudsward, The Westford Knight and Henry Sinclair.
[24] http://www.ramtops.co.uk/westford.html accessed 10 September 2016.
[25] Elizabeth Chilton, associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
[26] http://www.appletonstudios.com/Congress2008DBA.pdf accessed 24 April 2017.
[27] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVM_Runestone accessed 24 April 2017.
[28] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Runestone accessed 24 April 2017.