Drake’s Plate of Brass is one of the most infamous hoaxes in California history. Purportedly a relic from Sir Francis Drake’s 1579 voyage to the West Coast, this brass plaque claimed to mark Drake’s declaration of “Nova Albion” for Queen Elizabeth of England. The artifact surfaced in 1936, sparking excitement among historians and the public alike.
For 40 years, the plate was accepted as genuine, despite early doubts about its authenticity. The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley became its home, with Professor Herbert Bolton championing its legitimacy.
The California Historical Society and other respected institutions endorsed the plate’s authenticity, cementing its place in the state’s historical narrative.
The truth behind the Drake Plate hoax remained hidden until the 1970s when scientific analysis revealed its modern origins.
Subsequent investigations uncovered a complex web of involvement, including members of E Clampus Vitus, a historical drinking society. The revelation shook the academic community and prompted a reevaluation of historical verification methods, demonstrating the power of thorough scientific scrutiny in uncovering even the most elaborate deceptions.
The Enigma of Sir Francis Drake’s Brass Plate
The brass plate allegedly left by Sir Francis Drake in California has been a source of intrigue and controversy for decades. Its discovery, authenticity, and historical significance have sparked intense debate among scholars and history enthusiasts alike.
Discovery and Debate
A brass plaque purportedly left by Francis Drake was found in Marin County, California, in 1936. The artifact claimed to mark Drake’s landing and five-week stay in the area during the summer of 1579.
Initially hailed as a genuine historical treasure, the plate underwent extensive testing and examination for over seven months. In 1937, Dr. Herbert Bolton declared it authentic, making a public announcement at a California Historical Society meeting.
Historians questioned the plate’s authenticity due to its wording, spelling, and manufacturing techniques. These doubts persisted for decades, leading to further investigations and analysis.
Elizabethan Era Explorations
Sir Francis Drake’s voyages during the Elizabethan era were marked by exploration, privateering, and attempts to claim new lands for England. His circumnavigation of the globe from 1577 to 1580 included a stop on the western coast of North America.
Drake named the area “Nova Albion” and claimed it for Queen Elizabeth I of England. The brass plate was supposedly left to mark this claim and document his presence in the region.
The plate’s authenticity was seen as crucial evidence of Drake’s activities in California, potentially confirming the exact location of his landing and the extent of English territorial claims in the New World.
Herbert Bolton’s Involvement
Dr. Herbert Bolton, director of the Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, played a pivotal role in the plate’s authentication and promotion. In February 1937, he examined the artifact and determined it to be Drake’s original “Plate of Brass.”
Bolton’s endorsement lent significant credibility to the plate’s authenticity. His public announcement in April 1937 brought widespread attention to the discovery and its historical implications.
The plate became a prized possession of the Bancroft Library, showcased as tangible evidence of Drake’s presence in California. Bolton’s involvement and the plate’s prominence lasted for decades before new studies in the 1970s cast doubt on its authenticity.
Assessing the Brass Plate Hoax
The authenticity of Drake’s Plate of Brass was scrutinized from multiple angles. Experts analyzed its physical properties, historical context, and circumstances of discovery. Their findings revealed a complex web of deception involving several parties.
Edward Von der Porten’s Analysis
Edward Von der Porten, a renowned maritime historian, played a crucial role in exposing the brass plate hoax. His meticulous examination of the artifact uncovered several anachronisms and inconsistencies.
Von der Porten noted that the plate’s composition did not match 16th-century metallurgy standards. The language and spelling on the plate also raised red flags, as it contained modernized English that would have been out of place in Drake’s era.
Von der Porten’s expertise in naval history allowed him to identify discrepancies in the described events and Drake’s known voyage patterns. His findings were instrumental in debunking the plate’s authenticity and sparked further investigations into its origins.
The Role of E Clampus Vitus
E Clampus Vitus, a fraternal organization known for its interest in Western American history, played an unexpected part in the Drake’s Plate hoax.
Members of this group, often referred to as “Clampers,” were later revealed to have created the fake artifact. The organization’s involvement stemmed from a practical joke that spiraled out of control.
They crafted the plate as a prank, intending to plant it for discovery. However, the situation escalated when academic institutions took the artifact seriously. E Clampus Vitus members maintained silence about their role for decades, allowing the hoax to persist.
Their eventual confession shed light on the elaborate nature of the deception and its unintended consequences.
Marin County’s Historical Context
Marin County, where the plate was allegedly discovered, holds significant importance in Drake’s California landing narrative. The area’s geography and historical accounts align with descriptions of Drake’s voyage, making it a plausible location for such a find.
This contextual backdrop lent initial credibility to the hoax. Local historians and enthusiasts eagerly embraced the idea of a tangible link to Drake’s expedition. The plate seemed to confirm long-held beliefs about the explorer’s presence in the region.
Marin County’s historical societies and museums initially celebrated the discovery. They incorporated the plate into their narratives of local history, unknowingly perpetuating the falsehood.
Archival Relics and Fluorescent Inquiry
Advanced scientific techniques were crucial in exposing the Drake’s Plate hoax.
Researchers employed fluorescent analysis to examine the artifact’s surface and composition. This method revealed the presence of modern materials inconsistent with 16th-century metallurgy.
Traces of fluorescent paint were detected, a substance unavailable in Drake’s time.
Archival investigations also uncovered discrepancies. Records from the Bancroft Library and other institutions showed inconsistencies in the plate’s provenance.
These findings, combined with the scientific analysis, provided irrefutable evidence of the hoax’s modern origins.