What are the leading regional claims (South Carolina vs. Georgia) for San Miguel de Gualdape and who are the principal scholars advocating each site?
Executive summary
San Miguel de Gualdape’s precise location remains contested between competing South Carolina and Georgia claims, with substantial scholarly advocacy on both sides grounded in readings of 16th‑century chronicles and later interpretation; no archaeological find has settled the dispute [1]. Prominent names associated with a South Carolina placement include Paul Quattlebaum and traditional accounts favoring Winyah Bay/Pee Dee, while John R. Swanton, Paul E. Hoffman and a group of more recent commentators argue for Sapelo Sound/Sapelo Island or the Savannah/Guale coast in present‑day Georgia [2] [3] [4].
1. The South Carolina claim: Winyah Bay and the Pee Dee narrative
A broad swath of historical treatments—encyclopedias, regional histories and long‑standing interpretations—place Ayllón’s short‑lived 1526 settlement at or very near Winyah Bay (the mouth of the Pee Dee River) in present‑day South Carolina, an identification echoed in Britannica and many South Carolina‑focused outlets that describe the colony’s founding and rapid collapse at that general site [3] [1] [5]. The South Carolina case rests on nineteenth‑ and twentieth‑century readings of the chronicles and local tradition that identify the initial landfall and nearby “Gualdape” river region with the Pee Dee/Winyah complex, and was explicitly supported by Paul Quattlebaum’s 1956 mapping that placed the settlement at Winyah Bay [2] [6].
2. The Georgia claim: Sapelo Sound, Sapelo Island and the Savannah/Guale coast
An alternative scholarly strand situates Tierra de Ayllón farther south in present‑day Georgia—variously at Sapelo Sound or Sapelo Island, or associated with the Savannah River and the historic Guale province—on the basis that contemporary chroniclers described movement southwest from an initial landing and reference to a “powerful river” that some interpret as Georgia’s estuaries [2] [4] [7]. Ethnologist John R. Swanton argued for a more southern route linking Ayllón to the Savannah River and Guale lands, and historian Paul E. Hoffman likewise concluded Ayllón likely reestablished San Miguel at Sapelo Sound, positions picked up by modern commentators who favor a Georgia location [2] [8] [4].
3. Principal scholars and voices on each side
On the South Carolina side, Paul Quattlebaum is the most frequently cited 20th‑century advocate for Winyah Bay, and regional histories and encyclopedias (South Carolina Encyclopedia, HistoryNet, state public radio) continue to present Winyah/Pee Dee as the leading candidate—often framing the identification as the locally accepted narrative [2] [1] [5] [6]. On the Georgia side, John Swanton’s decades‑old ethnographic work and Paul E. Hoffman’s later archival analysis provide the intellectual backbone for Sapelo/Savannah claims, with additional support from writers and websites that emphasize Sapelo Island or Sapelo Sound as the likeliest locus [2] [8] [4].
4. Why the evidence divides scholars: chronicles, leagues and interpretive leeway
The dispute flows from ambiguous early sources—chiefly Oviedo and other chroniclers—whose compass directions, league estimates and indigenous toponyms allow multiple plausible transpositions onto the modern coastline; some readings emphasize a southwestward course from an initial Santee/Jordan landing and interpret 40–45 leagues as pointing to Sapelo, while others map those measurements and place‑names onto Winyah Bay/Pee Dee or nearby inlets [2] [7]. These textual ambiguities, compounded by the loss of material traces after San Miguel’s swift abandonment, make geographic inference highly contingent on each scholar’s weighting of sources and assumptions about travel routes and indigenous placenames [1].
5. What would settle the debate—and why that hasn’t happened
Authors across the regional spectrum concede that only archaeological discovery of definitive Spanish colonial remains from 1526 would conclusively settle the site question; until such material evidence appears, arguments will pivot on re‑reading documentary clues and regional plausibility, leaving local scholarly traditions and institutional interests to amplify their favored interpretations [1] [9]. The continued absence of in‑situ artifacts tied to Ayllón’s expedition sustains interpretive plurality and gives both South Carolina and Georgia claimants room to marshal secondary evidence and regional narratives [1] [7].
6. The implicit stakes and how to assess future claims
Beyond antiquarian interest, the competing claims intersect with public memory, commemorative markers and regional identity—South Carolina sources and tourist histories are incentivized to emphasize Winyah/Pee Dee, while Georgia advocates foreground Sapelo/Guale connections—so readers should treat modern assertions as partly shaped by local agendas as much as archival readings; the scholarly standard remains clear: until excavated artifacts tie the chronicle to a spot, both camps retain plausible cases grounded in different interpretations of the same fragmentary documents [3] [4] [1].