## The Project Gutenberg eBook of Arms and Armor of the Pilgrims, 1620-1692

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Arms and Armor of the Pilgrims, 1620-1692

Author: Harold L. Peterson

Release date: May 13, 2021 [eBook #65335]
Most recently updated: October 18, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Steve Mattern and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ARMS AND ARMOR OF THE PILGRIMS, 1620-1692 ***

Copyright 1957 by Plimoth Plantation, Inc. and the Pilgrim Society

Fotoset and Lithographed by COLORTONE PRESS, Washington 9, D. C.

[Pg 1]

# ARMS AND ARMOR
OF THE
PILGRIMS 1620-1692

by
Harold L. Peterson

Patrero or “murderer”

Published by Plimoth Plantation, Inc. and the Pilgrim Society,

Plymouth 1957

[Pg 2]

A seventeenth century musketeer ready to fire his matchlock.
From Jacques de Gheyn, Maniement d’Armes, 1608.

[Pg 3] The average colonist landing on the wild shores of North America in the early 1600’s set great store by his arms and armor. The Pilgrims were no exception. They were strangers in a vast and largely unknown land, inhabited by wild beasts and peopled by savages who were frequently hostile. Greatly outnumbered by known enemies and possibly facing dangers of which they were not yet aware, these Englishmen placed their main hope for survival on the possession of superior weapons and protective armor. On the more peaceful side, their firearms were also valuable, for they provided fresh meat for the table and furs for sale back home.

Because the colonist was so dependent on his arms he soon learned to select the most efficient kinds that he could obtain. In so doing he pushed the evolution of military materiel far ahead of contemporary Europe and developed a high degree of skill, particularly in the use of firearms.

The military supplies which the Pilgrims brought with them may be divided into three major categories: defensive armor, edged weapons, and projectile weapons. A completely armed man, especially in the first years, was usually equipped with one or more articles from each of the three groups, usually a helmet and corselet, a sword, and a musket.

## ARMOR

Of all the pieces of defensive armor, the most popular was the helmet. Almost everyone wore one when he prepared for trouble. Most of those worn at Plymouth were undoubtedly open helmets which left the face uncovered, although it is possible that a few completely closed helmets were also used. These open helmets were of three principal types: the cabasset, the morion, and the burgonet. The cabasset was a simple, narrow brimmed helmet with a keeled bowl and a tiny apical peak pointing to the rear. The morion had a larger crescentic brim pointed at the front and back and a high comb along the center-line of the bowl. The better specimens of both these helmets were forged from a single billet of steel, and both were very efficient defenses. The curving lines of the bowls caused most blows to glance off without imparting their full impact, and the comb of the morion presented an extra buffer of metal through which a sword would have to cut before it reached the bowl. Inside each helmet was a quilted lining held in place by a row of rivets around the base of the crown which acted much like the modern helmet liner in holding the steel shell away from the wearer’s head. [Pg 4]

Cabasset.

Morion.

The burgonet was a slightly more complicated helmet than the morion or cabasset, and it was made in a variety of styles. Basically, it was an open-faced helmet which covered more of the head than the other two. Usually it had a peak or umbril somewhat like the visor of a modern cap over the eyes, a comb on the bowl, and movable plates to protect the cheeks and ears. Often there was a defense for the face in the form of a single adjustable bar which passed through a hole in the umbril or by three bars fashioned like a muzzle and attached to the umbril which was pivoted at the sides so it could be raised or lowered. One form of the burgonet which became popular in the second quarter of the 17th century was known as the lobster tail burgonet because the wearer’s neck was protected by a series of overlapping plates which somewhat resembled those on a lobster’s abdomen or “tail.”

A fourth and final type of helmet was known as a “pikeman’s pot.” This greatly resembled the morion, but had a broad flat brim instead of a narrow crescentic one. As its name indicates, it was worn primarily by pikemen in conjunction with a specific type of corselet which was generally designated pikeman’s armor.

This armor consisted of five elements in addition to the helmet. There was a gorget to protect the neck and to support the weight of a back plate and a breastplate which were fastened together by straps which passed over the shoulders and attached by hooks at the front and by a belt that passed around the waist. At the lower edge of the breastplate were fastened two hinged plates called tassets which protected the thighs. Although each of these plates was made from a single sheet of metal they were embossed to resemble a series of overlapping plates, complete with false rivets.

Of all the forms of body armor worn in America during the early 1600’s, the pikeman’s suit was undoubtedly the most popular. There are numerous references to it in the contemporary documents. A tasset from such a [Pg 5] suit was found behind the fireplace in the John Howland house near Plymouth and is now preserved in Pilgrim Hall. In the Massachusetts Historical Society in Boston there are a helmet, a back plate and a tasset from another suit which belonged to an early colonist, and portions of similar suits have been found in Pennsylvania and at Jamestown, Virginia.

Men armed with muskets might sometimes wear pikeman’s armor, but more often they wore simpler corselets consisting only of breast and back-plates. With these corselets they wore either a cabasset, a morion or a burgonet.

The weight of the corselets worn by the Pilgrims depended largely on the quality of the breastplate. The helmets and other pieces were sufficient to stop a sword blow or turn an Indian’s arrow but still quite light. Breastplates, however, were made according to three standards depending on what weapons they were supposed to offer protection against. The lightest forms were labeled pike proof or high pike proof; the next heavier were called pistol proof, and the heaviest were musket proof. The musket proof breastplates are quite scarce. Often they are ⅜ of an inch thick and bear a dent caused by a bullet fired at them as a test when they were made. Pistol proof plates are much lighter and are much more plentiful. They also often bear a testing dent and sometimes the letter “P” as a proof mark.

Burgonet

Lobstertail burgonet.

Most modern Americans tend to think of armor in terms of brightly polished steel. Sometimes it was finished bright, but by the 17th century it was more often black, brown, or dark blue. This was especially true of those suits destined for active service in the field. A brightly polished piece of armor needed constant care to guard it from rust and maintain a good appearance. Blacking, russeting or bluing it helped protect it and made it easier to maintain. The black finishes were sometimes obtained through the use of soot and oil, sometimes by paint. The russet and blue finishes were produced by artificial oxidation. [Pg 6]

English pikeman’s armor bearing the cypher of James I (1603-1625).
The waist belt is now missing.

[Pg 7]

Simple corselet with a bullet proof breastplate.

This defensive armor, though popular at first, was soon discarded by the Pilgrims. The men who set out on the first exploring expedition when the Mayflower touched at Cape Cod were all armed with corselets. They found them efficient protection against the arrows of the Indians, but when they at length discovered a quantity of Indian corn, they were so encumbered and weary from the weight of their arms that they could not carry back as much of the booty as they desired. Soon they found that they could usually dodge arrows unless taken by surprise, and so gradually they began to decide in favor of freer movement and less weight. The corselet retained its popularity for the first ten years, but a compromise in the form of a heavy buff leather or quilted coat began to make its appearance. By the time of the Pequot War in 1637, the presence of “unarmed” men, as those without armor were called, became more and more frequent. The helmet was the last piece of plate armor to be discarded, but following King Philip’s War (1675-1678) that too was abandoned, and plate armor disappeared from the scene except for ceremonial occasions. [Pg 8]

Capt. Miles Standish’s rapier and scabbard.

## EDGED WEAPONS

The edged weapons brought to America by the Pilgrims were of four principal types, swords, daggers, pikes and halberds. The bayonet was almost unknown on this continent at the time. Of all these arms, swords were by far the most plentiful. Every soldier, whether he was armed with a musket, pike or halberd or served a cannon, was required to carry a sword. Thus, since almost every able-bodied man was supposed to perform military service, all had to be familiar with the weapon, and a large supply was necessary.

Both thrusting and cutting swords were used. The thrusting swords, known as rapiers, had long straight blades, diamond-shaped in cross section, with sharp points and only rudimentary edges. Some had guards fashioned of numerous bars bent in graceful curves and loops, and these are called swept-hilted rapiers. Others had a solid cup-shaped plate between the hand and the blade augmented by extra bars and branches. These are called cup-hilted rapiers.

Fortunately, one of the cup-hilted rapiers used by the Pilgrims has survived. It belonged to Captain Miles Standish, the doughty military advisor of the colony, and it is now preserved in Pilgrim Hall. It is a very good example of the Dutch-English style of cup hilt, the shallow iron cup and supplementary branches, the knuckle-bow, and the pommel are decorated with crudely incised designs of leaves and masks. The grips are covered with black leather. Originally they were wound with twisted wire in the spiral grooves, but the wire is now missing. The scabbard also has been preserved, and that is most unusual for swords of this period. It is made of wood, almost cylindrical, covered with black leather. There is an iron ferrule at the throat (which has [Pg 9] now slipped several inches down the scabbard) and an iron tip. Interestingly, Standish is known to have been a short man whose enemies sometimes called him “Captain Shrimp,” and this sword is about six inches shorter than the average rapier, which would have made it easier to handle for a small man.

Probably even more plentiful than the rapiers were the cutting swords. Most of these were shorter weapons with single-edged blades, sometimes straight and sometimes slightly curved. Two of these weapons have survived and are preserved in Pilgrim Hall. The older and more spectacular of these belonged to Gov. John Carver and was made near the beginning of the century. It has a massive hilt with guard and pommel of iron encrusted with floral decorations of silver. The decoration and workmanship are typically English. The blade is straight with a single edge and a narrow fuller or groove along the back. The second sword is considerably smaller and later. It came from the Brewster family and may have belonged to Elder William Brewster, although he must have purchased it late in life. It has a lighter iron guard without ornamentation and a slightly curved singled-edged blade, also with a narrow fuller at the back. This sword, too, is typically English.

Detail of the Standish rapier hilt.

Swept-hilted rapier excavated at Jamestown.
Those used at Plymouth would have been similar.
National Park Service.

[Pg 10]

The cutting swords of Governor Carver, Elder Brewster and John Thompson.

Quillon or left-hand dagger.

[Pg 11] A third surviving cutting sword preserved at Pilgrim Hall is a broad-sword which belonged to John Thompson who came to Plymouth in 1623. Like the Carver sword, this weapon also dates from the opening years of the 17th century. The hilt is smaller, but the metal parts are of iron decorated with the same typically English floral sprays in silver. The blade on this specimen, however, is what sets it apart. It is much longer and double-edged, a sword suitable for use on horseback as well as on foot.

These swords were more than mere military decorations. They were highly necessary weapons. In a period when firearms were inaccurate and loading and firing were time-consuming operations, the outcome of most battles was determined largely by hand-to-hand combat. The musket, once it had been fired, was then of no use for it had no bayonet. At such times the sword became the principal weapon, and a soldier’s life depended upon his skill with it.

There are numerous records indicating the use of swords by the Pilgrims. On their first expedition ashore, they used them to “hew and carve the ground a foot deep.” In one interesting coincidence, a sword’s hilt figured in the death of two persons. In 1646 a privateer commanded by Captain Thomas Cromwell put into Plymouth. While there, one of the sailors assaulted the captain who had been trying to restore order during a brawl. In the course of the struggle, Cromwell seized the man’s rapier and struck him on the head with its hilt. The cross guard pierced his skull and killed him. Since the man had been a notorious trouble-maker, Cromwell was acquitted in a trial by a council of war. Some three years later, however, Cromwell fell from his horse and landed upon the hilt of his own rapier which so injured him internally that he died shortly thereafter.

In addition to their swords, many men also carried knives or daggers. Miles Standish and his followers used knives effectively in liquidating the trouble-makers at Wessagusset, and there are numerous other references to their presence at Plymouth.

Unfortunately no specimens used by the Pilgrims or their 17th century descendants at Plymouth have survived. There is a knife that belonged to John Thompson in Pilgrim Hall, but it is a table or general utility knife, and not a weapon. In all probability the most popular form of dagger employed at Plymouth was the quillon or left-hand dagger. This weapon had a simple cross-guard or quillons, probably with a ring opposite the grips on one side. It had a straight blade which tapered evenly to a point, and it was designed to be held in the left hand while the rapier was held in the right. [Pg 12]

In addition to these edged weapons which were worn on the belt, there were also weapons with long wooden hafts, known as pole arms. Of these, two forms were principally used at Plymouth, the pike and the halberd. The pike was a spear with a simple leaf-shaped head attached by long straps to a wooden pole some fourteen feet long. The halberd was a combination of axe and spear, and its haft was much shorter, perhaps six or seven feet, exclusive of the head.

Halberd from the cellar of the
John Alden house.
The haft is modern.

Pike.

In European armies pikemen played a very prominent role. Offensively they were used for shock tactics in charges against the enemy. Defensively, with the butts of their pikes driven into the ground, they formed movable semi-fortresses behind which musketeers could retreat in the face of a cavalry charge. [Pg 13]

Because of this prominence as a weapon in Europe, the Pilgrims brought some pikes with them to Plymouth, but they quickly found them disappointing. Although the pike was effective in the set tactics of Europe, it was of little use against an enemy who would neither charge nor stand against a charge and whose forces were never arranged in compact formation but scattered and always on the move. A weapon fourteen feet long was also difficult to handle in the woods where there was little room for maneuvering. Thus the Pilgrims first abandoned the full pike for the half pike, which was only six or eight feet long. As late as 1646 the Plymouth fathers still required one half pike for every four men on military duty, but after the outbreak of King Philip’s War in 1675, the settlers of Plymouth agreed with their neighbors in Massachusetts Bay “... it is found by experience that troopers & pikemen are of little use in the present war with the Indians ... all pikemen are hereby required ... to furnish themselves with firearms....”

The history of the halberd at Plymouth is quite different from that of the pike. At this period it was primarily an emblem of rank, and as such it survived long after its usefulness in warfare ceased. Halberds were carried by sergeants as symbols of their authority and by ceremonial guards. In Virginia, for instance, Lord Delaware had fifty halberdiers to form his guard when he was governor. This was a vastly larger number than normal in America, but most colonial governors, including John Winthrop in Boston, had a few attendants so armed. Plymouth was no exception. As late as 1675 it was ordered that four halberds be carried before the governor on the first day of the General Court, and two on succeeding days. It is known also that the sergeants at Plymouth had them, and there is a possibility that court officials also carried them.

At least one of the halberds from the Plymouth colony has survived and is now preserved in Pilgrim Hall. It was probably made about 1600-1610 and was found in the cellar of the John Alden house. The haft is a modern replacement.

## FIREARMS

The projectile arms of the Pilgrims were their most important weapons. The American Indian usually preferred to do battle against Europeans in loose formation and at long range, resorting to hand-to-hand combat only in surprise attacks or when he believed that the enemy had been sufficiently decimated and disorganized by his sniping tactics. In addition to their value in warfare, projectile arms were also important in providing the settlers with fresh meat. For these reasons, the evolution of design in such weapons was swifter and more striking than in any other form of military equipment. [Pg 14]

The most common type of firearm that came to America on the Mayflower was the musket. This was a smooth-bored weapon, usually slightly more than five feet long with a caliber ranging between .69 and .80. The majority of those that the original settlers brought with them were matchlocks. They were fired by pressing the lighted end of a slow match made of a loosely woven rope soaked in nitre into the powder in the priming pan. This was effected by fastening a length of the match to a forked holder known as the serpentine on the outside of the lock which corresponded to the hammer on a modern gun. Pressure on the trigger caused the serpentine to swing in an arc toward the priming pan, thus bringing the match into contact with the powder.

Although the mechanism was simple, the loading of a matchlock was a long and complicated procedure. After having fired his musket, the first task of the soldier was to remove his match (which according to regulations was lighted at both ends) so that he would not accidentally ignite any of his powder. To do this he loosened the thumb screw which clamped the match in the fork of the serpentine and grasped the cord with his left hand, holding one of the lighted ends between his second and third fingers and the other end between his third and fourth fingers. Then, seizing the barrel of the gun with the thumb and forefinger of the same hand, he would hold it while he loaded. Having thus prepared the piece to receive the charge, he would use his right hand to open one of the wooden cylinders on his bandolier or the nozzle of his powder flask, depending on which he carried, and pour the contents down the barrel. Next came a ball from his pouch or from his mouth if it was during an action, and finally, a wad of tow or paper. All this was forced home with a rammer. Then he would prime the piece by filling the flash pan with fine-grained powder from a little flask which was suspended from his belt, close the pan cover, and carefully blow away any loose powder.

The gun was then loaded, but several actions were still necessary before it could be fired. The match had to be returned to the serpentine and adjusted. The coal on its end had to be blown into activity. If the gunner was forced to wait any length of time before firing, he had to change the adjustment of the match continually to insure that it would strike the pan and also to prevent it from burning down to the serpentine and going out. If it did go out, he relighted it from the coal at the other end of the match which was kept burning for that purpose. [Pg 15]

Three matchlock muskets. From left to right: An Italian musket, 1580-1610 believed to have been used at Plymouth before 1637 when it was sold to a nearby garrison house; German musket, 1600-1630; German musket, 1640-1670.

[Pg 16]

Soldier blowing on his match to make the coal glow well before firing.
From De Gheyn.

[Pg 17] From this it may be seen that the matchlock was in many ways inferior to the Indian’s bow. Its chief advantage lay in the panic produced by the flash, smoke, smell and noise of the explosion of the charge. Also, a gun could be loaded with several bullets and wound a number of enemies at one time. The ball from a matchlock musket was superior to an arrow in the size of the hole it tore, the bones it smashed, and the amount of blood it spilled. The bow was superior in accuracy and rapidity of fire. Moreover, it was light and easy to carry while the gun was heavy and clumsy. The bow was constantly ready for use except perhaps during a long rain, while the slow-match required, in the best of weather, constant attention to keep it burning; and in dampness, rain, and wind, it was useless. The light from the match also prevented ambush at night, and the smell forestalled a surprise attack in the day time unless the foe happened to be up-wind.

Although matchlocks were the dominant type of weapon brought over on the Mayflower, there were also a few flint arms. Modern authorities differentiate between the true flintlock and its more primitive or regional forms, the snaphaunce, the English lock, the so-called “dog” lock, the Baltic lock, and the miquelet. These distinctions are purely modern, however. The contemporary writers called all firearms which ignited the powder by striking flint against steel “snaphances.” Thus it is impossible to determine at this date exactly what form of flint arm is referred to in a given instance, and so a generic term must be used.

Flint arms were much more efficient than matchlocks. They were faster, more dependable, and less cumbersome. The powder in the priming pan was ignited by striking a piece of flint held by the cock against a piece of steel, called the frizzen or battery. The frizzen was poised directly over the pan so that the sparks produced by the contact of the flint and steel would drop into the powder. Flint arms could function in ordinary dampness and even in a light rain. There was no match to light and keep free from ash in advance of any expected action. And since there was no match, there was no light or smell to betray an ambush.

It is difficult to determine exactly when flint arms superseded matchlocks as the standard military firearm at Plymouth. There were a few flint arms in the Mayflower in 1620, for flints are specifically mentioned among the military stores on board. Miles Standish, a professional soldier, naturally had the best weapon available. Edward Winslow, in describing the first encounter between the colonists and the Indians, noted that Standish with his “snaphance” and one or two other Pilgrims, who were apparently equipped with flint arms, fired at the Indians and held them at bay while a brand from the fire was carried to the others so they could light their matches.

For the first ten years the supremacy of the matchlock was probably not seriously threatened. From 1630 until the outbreak of King Philip’s War in 1675, however, the change is plainly visible. There are more references to matches than to flints in inventories and court records until the beginning of the Pequot War, but the tales of snap-shooting [Pg 18] increase, and during the war the stories of ambushes and surprise attacks throughout New England indicate that flint arms were becoming more plentiful. In 1643 the Plymouth General Court ordered that every soldier should be supplied with either a matchlock or a “snaphance.” By 1645 Governor William Bradford could report that the Plymouth troops had been sent to a muster at Seacunk “well armed all with snaphance peeces.” In 1645, also, while matchlocks were allowed for private arms, the Plymouth General Court allowed only “snaphances” or “firelocks” for Town arms.

With the coming of King Philip’s War, the era of the matchlock at Plymouth was definitely past. The campaigns of that war, forays into the wilderness, night attacks, ambushes, battles in the rain, and encounters between individuals which required snap-shooting indicate clearly that the “snaphance” was the principal weapon. In 1677, towards the end of the war, the Plymouth General Court outlawed the matchlock completely as an acceptable weapon. In abandoning matchlocks at this time, Plymouth was years ahead of Europe where the clumsy firearm persisted until after 1700.

In addition to the matchlock and flint arms in general use, there were undoubtedly a few wheel lock arms in Plymouth. The wheel lock was the second ignition system chronologically, having been developed shortly after 1500. It was an efficient system, operating much like a modern cigarette lighter with the spark produced by holding a piece of pyrites against a revolving rough-edged wheel. The wheel lock, however, was an expensive weapon, costing twice as much as a matchlock and half as much again as a flint arm. This did not necessarily preclude its purchase by the Pilgrims since those colonists were not so apt to economize on something which affected their life expectancy as closely as did their firearms. There are no records which state positively that there were wheel locks at Plymouth, and no authentic wheel lock used there has survived. The term “firelock” which is used occasionally in the documents very often was used to denote a wheel lock, and in the case of the 1646 order mentioned above, it almost certainly had that meaning.

The Pilgrims also brought two other principal kinds of hand firearms with them, the fowling piece and the pistol. The fowling piece, or birding piece as it was often called, was usually a huge gun. In 1621 Edward Winslow wrote from Plymouth to prospective colonists in England and advised them concerning their needs. Regarding these fowlers, he counseled, “Let your piece be long in the barrel; and fear not the weight of it, for most of our shooting is from stands.” This was in keeping with the best contemporary sporting theory which contended that barrels five and a half or six feet long would increase the range of the gun and produce a flatter trajectory for the bullet. Such guns were almost always flint arms, although there may have been a few wheel locks. [Pg 19]

A flint musket with the so-called dog lock, about 1637; a later flintlock musket, about 1690; a wheel lock musket, 1620-1650; the long fowler which belonged to John Thompson.

[Pg 20]

John Thompson’s “dog lock” pistol.

Fortunately one such fowling piece which belonged to a Plymouth settler, John Thompson, has survived, and is preserved in the Old Colony Historical Society Museum at Taunton, Massachusetts. It is 88½ inches long with a 73½ inch barrel of .84 caliber. The lock is a primitive form of flintlock known to collectors today as an “English lock.” The stock is oak and was undoubtedly made in this country.

In addition to their long guns, the Plymouth settlers also brought some pistols. Inventories of their estates contain listings of such hand guns, including one “double pistol.” All the pistols would have been either wheel locks or flint arms. The matchlock was almost never used for pistols by Europeans, although it is frequently found on Oriental hand guns. Once more it is a weapon of John Thompson that has survived to show what at least one of the Plymouth pistols looked like. Preserved in Pilgrim Hall, it is a most interesting weapon. Many of the pieces are missing from the lock, but enough survive to indicate it was the type of flintlock that is often called a “dog lock” by modern collectors because of the little dog catch which held the cock in the half-cock position. The barrel is brass with interesting moulded decorations, and the wooden stock has a butt closely resembling those found on many wheel lock pistols of the first quarter of the 17th century.

These were the kinds of firearms which the Plymouth colonists used in the years from 1620 till 1690. Before leaving the subject, however, it would be well to mention one form which was not used but which has become intimately associated with the Pilgrims in popular imagination—the blunderbuss. This colorful weapon with the flaring muzzle was developed on the Continent of Europe about the middle of the 17th century, some thirty years after the Mayflower landed at Plymouth. It was some years later before it reached England. As a weapon, it was a highly specialized arm. The flared muzzle [Pg 21] was designed to spread the shot in a wide pattern and thus do as much damage as possible to a closely packed group of enemies at comparatively short range. It was of no use against scattered foes at a distance. Actually, it was the direct ancestor of the modern riot gun or the shot gun used by prison guards. It was not popular in America until about 1700 when the growth of cities and increasing population created here the conditions under which it was effective.

## AMMUNITION AND EQUIPMENT

The ammunition which the colonists fired from their guns consisted of round balls of lead propelled by charges of black powder. The powder was weak by modern standards and thus comparatively large loads were used. When it was ignited it gave off clouds of white smoke which smelled strongly of sulphur. Usually for military purposes a single ball was used, but sometimes, especially for hunting, a number of small shot, much like present day buck shot, were used. These were called swan shot by the men who used them.

There were several ways of carrying this ammunition. The powder was normally either in a flask or bandolier; the shot in a soft leather pouch. When going into action, a soldier often took his bullets from his pouch and put them in his mouth so he could spit them into the barrel of his gun and save time in loading.

Powder flasks.

[Pg 22] The flask was usually a box of wood, often covered with leather and bound with iron. Normally it was either roughly triangular or shaped like a flattened horn. There was a nozzle at the end with two valves, one at the base and one at the end. This enabled the user to measure out one nozzle-full of powder at a time, and the nozzle was calculated to hold just about enough powder for a normal load. Usually two flasks were used, a large one for the propelling charge within the gun, and a small one holding finer powder for use in the priming pan.

A bandolier was a somewhat more complicated piece of equipment. It consisted of a leather belt worn over the shoulder from which were suspended little cylinders of wood, metal or hard leather. Each of these cylinders held enough powder for one charge. Also attached to the belt were a bullet pouch and often a small flask for priming powder.

Theoretically the bandolier afforded a faster and more convenient method of carrying ammunition. Actually, it had many disadvantages. The cylinders rattled against each other, making so much noise it was sometimes impossible to hear commands. Occasionally the musket would become tangled in the loops. And worst of all, hanging in front as they did, they would sometimes ignite from the musket discharge and the whole string of charges would explode, which was most unpleasant and disconcerting to the wearer to say the least. Despite these drawbacks, bandoliers were quite popular at Plymouth, and they are frequently mentioned in wills and inventories.

As the 17th century wore on, there came two other developments in the means of carrying ammunition. The use of flasks made of cows’ horns increased in popularity as the cattle population grew. Such horn flasks had been used to some extent by the poorer classes in Europe, but in America they became very popular because they could be made locally and did not require great skill or craftsmanship. By the beginning of the 18th century such horn flasks or powder horns as they were then called completely dominated the flask picture. The other development was the practice of wrapping charges of powder in cylinders of paper which could be carried in a pouch. These were the first true cartridges. They had been used in Europe primarily for mounted troops for several decades before the Pilgrims landed. Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden is credited with having been the first general to supply his infantry with them early in the 17th century. However this may be, paper cartridges began to appear at Plymouth sometime after 1637, and by the beginning of King Philip’s War in 1675, they were fairly common. They were not widely used by European infantry until after 1700. [Pg 23]

Musketeer wearing a bandolier.
Note how he pours the charge from one cylinder down the muzzle.
From De Gheyn.

[Pg 24]

Full scale model of a sakeret mounted in Plimoth Plantation’s reconstruction of the first fort.

## CANNON[1]

In addition to their small arms, the Pilgrims also brought some heavy ordnance. On a commanding hill overlooking the bay and landing site, they built a meeting house and fort with places for their cannon on an upper deck. On February 21, 1621, William Bradford and Edward Winslow relate how “the Master came on shore, with many of his saylors, and brought with him one of the great peeces, called a Minion, and helped us to draw it up the hill, with another peece that lay on shore, and mounted them, and a Saker and two Bases.” In 1627 Isaak De Rasieres visited Plymouth and noted that the Pilgrims had six cannon of unspecified types in their fort and four “patreros” mounted in front of the governor’s house at the intersection of the two streets of the town.

[1] In the preparation of this section I am much indebted to Mr. Edwin N. Rich of Wellfleet, Mass., a life-long student of early artillery who prepared the drawings from which the cannon in the reconstructed fort were made.

These guns were probably not new, and they may well have been part of the armament of the Mayflower itself. The largest of the cannon mentioned by name was a minion. This would have been a brass gun, which weighed between 800 and 1200 pounds. It would have had a bore of about 2.9 inches diameter and fired an iron ball weighing 3½ pounds for distances up to 1600 yards. The saker was slightly smaller, probably weighing 650 to 800 pounds. It would have had a bore of about 2.7 inches in diameter and shot a 2¾ pound ball up to 1700 yards. Since cannon designations were used rather loosely by the artillerists of the time, there is room for considerable differences in these dimensions. On Burial Hill in Plymouth are two early English cannons, one a minion [Pg 25] and the other a small saker or sakeret. These guns were used as the models for those mounted in Plimoth Plantation’s reconstruction of the original fort. Since it is presumed that the Pilgrims’ guns came from the armament of the Mayflower and since they were dragged up the hill and mounted immediately, it has been assumed that they were placed on carriages from the ship, and so naval carriages of the period have been reproduced for the reconstructed fort.

Full scale model of a minion in Plimoth Plantation’s reconstruction of the first fort.

The loading and firing of one of these cannon was a complicated procedure, requiring the assistance of several men. The recoil from the discharge would normally drive the piece back away from the gun port. If it did not roll back far enough, the crew would seize the ropes or “training tackle” and haul it into a position that would permit them to load it. First a wet sponge on the end of a long handle was run down the barrel to put out any sparks that might remain from the previous shot. Then came the powder which was handled in one of two ways. Sometimes the proper amount was fastened ready-to-use in a cloth bag or cartridge. At other times it was brought loose to the cannon in a wooden bucket with a purse-like leather top closed by a drawstring. From this “budge barrel,” as it was called, the powder was dipped and inserted into the barrel by means of a copper ladle on a long wooden handle. After the powder was rammed home, a wad, was inserted and rammed, and finally the projectile which was forced home by a rammer.

This projectile might be either a solid ball or one of the more deadly anti-personnel missiles such as grape shot or cannister. Grape shot was made up of a series of small balls grouped on a wooden stand and wrapped with burlap or canvas. Upon firing, the stand and cloth disintegrated, and the balls spread out over a wide area. Cannister [Pg 26] shot was based on the same principle. In this form, however, the small balls or other iron fragments were enclosed in a thin metal cylinder which came apart upon firing. Other missiles included cross bar and chain shot, in which spheres or hemi-spheres were joined by a bar or several links of chain. These were particularly useful against ships because they revolved in flight and cut rigging. It is doubtful if the Pilgrims had all of these forms of projectiles with them in 1620. Some of them were just then developing. But by 1690, any or all of them might well have been used at Plymouth.

Some seventeenth century artillery projectiles.
From left to right: solid shot; fragment of shell, stand of grape shot.

Once the gun was loaded, a few more steps were necessary before it could be fired. It was primed by pouring powder from a flask or horn into the touch hole. Then the crew again seized the training tackle and pulled the gun back into position. The gunner aimed it by directing the way in which the men pulled the ropes and by shifting the position of the wedges under the breech of the barrel. Then he took a forked staff, known as a linstock, which held a length of burning match similar to that used in the matchlock muskets. He touched the lighted end of the match to the powder in the touch hole and fired his gun.

“Patrero” or “murderer” viewed from above.
For a side view see title page.

[Pg 27]

Side view of base.

The two bases in the fort and the four “patreros” in front of the governor’s house were much smaller guns. Both types were made of iron, and both were breech-loaders. The guns of this category were called by a great variety of names, and the situation is even more confused than with the larger pieces. The type of base used by the Pilgrims, however, was probably a gun some 4½ feet long, which weighed about 200 pounds. It would have had a bore about 1¼ inches in diameter and fired either a lead ball weighing 5 ounces or an iron one weighing 3 ounces. In order to load it, the ball was placed in the breech end of the barrel, and a separate chamber filled with powder was placed behind it and fastened securely with a wedge. The “patreros” were probably of the type known also as “murderers.” These differed from the bases in that the bore expanded in diameter from breech to muzzle. Instead of a single ball, these guns were normally loaded with small shot, short lengths of iron bar, or broken pieces of iron and stone. The expanding bore helped spread these projectiles as they left the muzzle and thus made the murderer a vicious anti-personnel weapon at short ranges. Both the base and the murder were mounted in forked swivels of iron set in a wooden pedestal.

Base viewed from above.

[Pg 28]

The first fort as reconstructed by Plimoth Plantation contains a collection of arms and armor of the period.
Woodcut by Thomas Nason.

These were the weapons which the Pilgrims brought from Europe to win their new home. They came without sufficient arms “... nor every man a sword to his side; wanting many muskets, much armour, &c.” Once in this country, however, the need not only for enough weapons but also for good weapons was soon felt. Forced by their dependence on their arms, the settlers soon threw away their armour and their pikes, discarded their matchlocks for more efficient guns, and began to use paper cartridges well before these innovations were generally adopted in Europe.

This booklet has been published by two organizations devoted to the study and interpretation of all aspects of Pilgrim history.

## PLIMOTH PLANTATION

Plimoth Plantation was founded in 1948 as a non-profit educational organization to foster public understanding of the Pilgrims of Plymouth. To this end the corporate organization, Plimoth Plantation, is re-creating the Plimoth Plantation of 1627, the farming community from which sprang the Old Colony of New Plymouth. It is a functioning village, over half completed (in 1969), in which guides and hostesses in Pilgrim dress carry on the tasks necessary for daily living and [Pg 29] sheep and chickens wander the narrow street. It is open to the public from April through November and is visited by more than 250,000 people per year.

The Plantation also owns and exhibits two re-created Pilgrim houses near Plymouth Rock, the Mayflower II and a small sailing craft—a Shallop—of the type used by the Pilgrims for coastal trading.

These public exhibits are backed by a strong research and publication program covering the European background of the Pilgrim story to the end of the 17th century.

The Plantation seeks the support of all who wish to help perpetuate the Pilgrim tradition. Those interested in membership should address the Membership Director, Box 1620, Plymouth, Mass. 02360.

## THE PILGRIM SOCIETY

The Pilgrim Society, Plymouth, Massachusetts, was organized in 1820. Its main purposes have been to insure a universal appreciation of the Pilgrims and their contributions to the American heritage. In Pilgrim Hall, one of the oldest museums in the country, there is displayed a collection of Pilgrim relics and material bearing on the history of Plimoth Colony. Every effort is made to enlarge and improve this collection and to preserve in the library of Pilgrim Hall a comprehensive history of the Pilgrims and the colony they founded. The Society supplies its members with “Pilgrim Society Notes” containing articles which would otherwise remain undiscovered among the papers of the students of Pilgrim and Colonial history.

The Society was, in its earlier years, responsible for the erection of the Forefathers Monument, which stands on a hill behind the Town overlooking Plymouth Bay; and for preserving as a park the area directly behind Plymouth Rock, known as Cole’s Hill, which served the Pilgrims as a burying ground during the first precarious winter in the settlement. Today the Society is custodian of these memorials and of others erected by various societies in the Town of Plymouth to honor the Pilgrim Fathers.

Annually on Forefathers Day, December 21st, the Society celebrates the Landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth with a suitable observance of the occasion at the Annual Meeting of the Society which many of the members attend.

Those interested in applying for membership are invited to communicate with the Secretary of the Pilgrim Society of Plymouth. Dues are $5.00 per year, and the money thus attained, together with admission fees to Pilgrim Hall and a modest endowment supply the funds for the activities of the Society.

Those interested in a documented and more detailed study of arms and armor in all the colonies should see the author’s book, Arms and Armor in Colonial America, 1526-1783, the Stackpole Company. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1956.

Transcriber’s Notes:

The illustrations have been moved so that they do not break up paragraphs and so that they are next to the text they illustrate.

Typographical and punctuation errors have been silently corrected.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ARMS AND ARMOR OF THE PILGRIMS, 1620-1692 ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

## THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

> This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.