Louisiana Cultural Vistas - Fall 2008 - (Page 68)

http://lsm.crt.state.la.us/ above: The “Lovers Lane” area, depicted in this circa-1910 postcard, is where Schuyler Poitevant and other historians believe Fort Maurepas was built in 1699 along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. right: Plan de Fort de Maurepats [sic] (Map of Fort Maurepas), circa 1710. In 1699 Bienville established Fort Maurepas as the first French settlement on the Gulf Coast and Lower Mississippi Valley region. Historians still debate the exact location of the fort. first French settlement. From the 1880s to his death in 1936, Poitevant kept very careful records of his discoveries and research, which led the archaeologists to take his findings seriously. Poitevant actually believed that the stone was an authentic French colonial artifact, but that it was most likely a commemorative marker placed at the site of a French battery established at the time of the first colony. The lack of historical consensus on the location of Fort Maurepas only adds to the overall mystery of the stone. To make the history even more confusing, Biloxi historian Edmond Boudreaux claims the stone may have been created as a hoax in the early 1900s. According to Boudreaux, sometime in the 1980s an older man from Ocean Springs confided to Dr. Val Hulsey, curator of the Maritime and Seafood Industry Museum in Biloxi, that three or four of his friends made the stone as a prank in their youth. According to the man, the joke got out of hand, and before he died, he wanted to confess. LOUISIANA STATE MUSEUM time, and several persons have argued against Fortier’s findings. In 1989, the Louisiana State Museum and several forensics experts made another formal effort to authenticate the stone. Geologists Delbert Gann and David Dockery, along with archaeologists Dr. Patricia Galloway and Dr. Samuel McGahey from Mississippi, studied the marble, examining its age and mineral content. Tulane history professor Charles Carter verified the inscription’s grammar as being consistent with the 1690s. But Galloway raised questions by arguing that “coloniee Francoises” was a common French coin inscription from the mid-1700s and not from the late 1600s, feeding speculation that someone from a later period carved the stone, possibly as a forgery to mark the earlier settlement. Furthermore, historians of colonial Mississippi are not convinced that the location of the Schmidt estate in Ocean Springs was the actual site of the original Fort Maurepas in 1699. In 1999, several Mississippi archaeologists raised questions about this historical controversy in the journal Mississippi Archaeology. Why is the location important? The stone would have been laid at the site of the original settlement. So proving the site of the original Fort Maurepas would, in theory, help determine the authenticity of the stone. The archaeologists presented evidence that the Fort Maurepas site was more likely north of the location where the stone was originally found. They cite the work of Schuyler Poitevant, a resident of Ocean Springs who owned property north of Schmidt estate, where he had discovered a wealth of artifacts related to the 68 LOUISIANA ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES\Fall 2008 As if the Iberville Stone’s authenticity were not enough of a historical conundrum, the artifact also has a modern history that involves allegations of larceny committed by the Louisiana State Museum in 1937. In the late 1930s, Robert Fortier served as curator and president of the Louisiana State Museum. As recounted earlier, in 1937 Dr. Bailey and Mrs. Davidson invited Fortier to view the relics. Upon his visit to Mississippi, Fortier received permission from Frederick A. Schreiber to remove the artifacts to New Orleans for examination. When Fortier confirmed that the stone was, in his opinion, authentic, he made efforts to have the Louisiana State Museum procure it permanently. Since that time, some residents of Ocean Springs have claimed that Fortier essentially committed larceny by securing the property without proper title to ownership and then keeping it permanently against the wishes of its proper owners and the town of Ocean Springs. The controversy stems from the original loan agreement between Fortier, Captain Schreiber, and the Schmidt family (who were the rightful owners) and Dr. Bailey and Mrs. Davidson, who initially encouraged Fortier to take the stone to New Orleans. Louisiana State Museum letters written at the time between the parties illuminate the misunderstandings and delicate negotiations involved. As Fortier explained to Schreiber, the museum had To Whom Does the Stone Belong? http://lsm.crt.state.la.us/

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Louisiana Cultural Vistas - Fall 2008

Louisiana Cultural Vistas - Fall 2008 Contents Friends Editor’s Column Louisiana Endowment for the Humanities New Orleans Immortelle The Historic New Orleans Collection Highland-Fairfield: The Historic Heart of Shreveport The Ogden Museum of Southern Art Perils of the Mississippi River Louisiana Foodways Harvest of Life King Oliver: The Forgotten King of Jazz Louisiana Architecture Jazz Notes Louisiana State Museum Eye of the Storm Louisiana Association of Museums Soul Resin Bookstand Sound Advice Forum

Louisiana Cultural Vistas - Fall 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.