History may turn on a shilling
VICTORIA, Canada — An amateur treasure hunter with a hand-held metal detector may set Canadian history on its head by finding a 16th century shilling buried in clay on the shores of Vancouver Island.
Retired security systems installer Bruce Campbell found the coin in mid-December, along with a rare 1891 Canadian nickel, a 1960s dime and penny from 1900.
The 435-year-old coin has rekindled a theory that a British explorer made a secret voyage here two centuries before it was discovered by Spanish sailors. But he supposedly covered it up at the behest of Queen Elizabeth I, who wished to avoid confrontation with Spain.
Records show the Spanish as the first Europeans to set foot in what is now Canada's British Columbia province in 1774, followed in four years by British Royal Navy Capt. James Cook.
Samuel Bawlf, a leading proponent of the so-called Drake theory and author of a 2003 book on the subject, says the coin is proof the English arrived first.
He noted two other finds that support the theory: a 1571 sixpence dug up in 1930 in the backyard of a Victoria home and a Tudor-era coin found on a nearby island.
Royal British Columbia Museum curator Grant Keddie, tasked with examining the evidence, is skeptical that the coins are sufficient to support the theory.
If it is ever corroborated, it could have implications for Canada and the United States, whose border was based partly on European colonial land holdings.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.