The Burial of Button Gwinnett

At the request of Mayor Mingledorff we have investigated the claim of Mr. Arthur J. Funk that he has discovered the burial place and mortal remains of Button Gwinnett in the Colonial Cemetery in this city.

It will be remembered that the 1957 disinterment by Mr. Funk received considerable newspaper publicity. It is not so well known that the significance of his findings remained a matter of controversy; that a report by a Smithsonian Institution archeologist dismissed Mr. Funk's claim as "highly unlikely, if not fully impossible", and that Mr. Funk thereupon undertook to impeach that report. The attempt at impeachment is on the following grounds; (1) that the evidence submitted does not support the findings; (2) that the summary opinion expressed was rendered on insufficient evidence; (3) that the Smithsonian Institution (or in any event, its archeologist to whom the evidence was submitted) refused to receive and consider the supplementary evidence which was offered.

Mr. Funk appealed to the Mayor for an official investigation of his claims and the matter was referred by him to this Commission. Your Commission has proceeded in the following manner:

At the time of the submission one of the members, Mrs. Lilla M. Hawes had been present at the initial disinterment, had kept closely in touch with the controversy and was already familiar with much of Mr. Funk’s evidence. The Chairman of the Commission had been present at the initial disinterment, had kept casually in touch with the development of the controversy but was unfamiliar with much of the evidence. The remaining members of the Commission were uninformed in the particulars of the claim or of the controversy.

Since the report of the Commission must be based upon almost entirely the examination of photographic, documentary and physical evidence, and since our chairman is a lawyer, he was requested to analyze this evidence, organize it into exhibits with a suitable index, and prepare a written commentary for the benefit of the other members of the Commission. As considerably modified by the questions, criticism and suggestions of the other members, this commentary or syllabus by Mr. Gignilliat constitutes the narrative portion of our report which follows.

The physical exhibits, indexed as A, B, C and D (i.e., the stone, the femur, the mandible and the queue) were examined by the Commission sitting as a board, as was much of the documentary and photographic evidence. The balance of the exhibits (which were deemed from the index to be merely corroborative o£ other exhibits) have been separately examined by the several members to the extent of their differing individual opportunities.

All members of the Commission concur in the summation and recommendations which conclude the report.