Another thread got me curious (again) about this. On a return trip, didn’t the latter voyages find a tree with the name of a nearby island “croatoan” carved into it?
That would leave one to believe that the settlers had fled there (for whatever reason).
I’m sure searches have been done on Croatoan, but no evidence.
What is our best educated guess?
My guess would be that they were wiped out by Indians at some point. Had they survived, or inbred with the Indians, stories would have survived.
He claims that the colony started with the deck nstacked against them (Literally – he believes that political factioons conspired to sabotage the colonization effort). They landed very late, after wasting time on side trips, and so couldn’t stock up. The ship’s company fired on the local indians, producing enmity that alone would cause serious problems. The provisions were not sufficient. He believes that the survivors were taken into the nearby tribes, probably as slaves. There were certainly rumors to that effect at the time, he says.
The lost colony served a usefu;l purpose in providing a stake in the land and an excuse to move against the local tribes 9in search of information, anbd claiming that an offense against the colonists had been committed).
Starting a European colony in America was a big risk. Jamestown and Plymouth were almost lost colonies. Roanoke just happened to be a little less lucky. Most likely most of the colonists died in Roakoke Island. The survivors probably tried to flee to nearby Croatoan Island or to join the Croatan tribe that lived on Hatteras Island (hence the carvings left behind). Neither possibility was investigated at the time and there were no Europeans around when these areas were later explored.
I had heard a hypothesis that they had integrated with the Lumbee tribe, which is how they were already speaking English at the first recorded contact with Europeans.
If so many people have misused the word “literally” that it now means the exact opposite of its original meaning, what word are we supposed to use to express the original concept? Suppose a plane full of household pets blows up in midair and I run inside and tell people “it’s literally raining cats and dogs outside!” and they think I mean it’s raining very heavily. How am I supposed to tell them I literally mean literally?
Since “literal” originally meant a text copied letter-for-letter from an original, and only later became, by analogy, a synonym for “real/actual/genuine”, why not just use one of these or a different synonym. “It’s [really/actually/genuinely] raining cats and dogs outside!”
Just a WAG: As in other situations where words can have multiple meanings, by the context.
ETA: Personally, I don’t care much for the secondary meaning, either, and I don’t use it. However, usage often dictates meaning, whether we like it or not.
Okay – i know the literal meaning of literally, but in this case I meant by it that the author suggested that there WERE indeed machinations against them, not that fate had dealt them a bad hand. I figured the meaning would be clear in context.
Now stop hijacking the thread. You can bash my choices of words elsewhere.
We spend some time just about every summer in Nags Head, near Manteo, and have seen The Lost Colony outdoor drama several times (worth a look, if you’re ever on the Outer Banks in the summertime - Andy Griffith started his career as an actor in the show). I’ll be very interested to see what this DNA project turns up. CalMeacham’s and Little Nemo’s theories are pretty much the historical consensus nowadays, but we may never know for sure.
To be perfectly ffrank, I don’t actually think anything will come of the DNA check.
Remember back a month or so when someone came out with the whole common ancester of the british isles thing? OK, so we have roughly the same genetic markers in the first roanoke colony, and the subsequent influxes of english.
Then we have an issue with migratory indians. If you go to the website posted upstream, they have a paper with a lot of detail about the Elk family, who they claim are essentially the last remnants of the Croatan indians.
now, not going into the lineage of the supposed croatans [also known as hatteras indians] we have a supposed 5 or 7 survivors of 1 or up to 4 influxes of people, including a possible 400 melungeons [slaves sort of dumped on the colony] so how in hell are we supposed to tell which of the common genes came from a possible 5 or 7 or 400 sources from 1600 and all the intermarrying since then? Hell, you could probably DNA type me and I would show as related as my family have been here since the early 1600s in 5 of my 8 great great grandparents family lines.
To top that all off, if you continue reading about the indian portion, they seem to have linked the Elk family with a number of indians brought down for various reasons from the Boston area. Now we have a different batch of native DNA to deal with, and what may be about a 150 year gap in the recorded deeds linked to genelogy to the early Elk that had a recorded deed to ‘Indian Land’.
I think it sounds like a great idea, but the reality is probably going to be very disappointing.