Talk:Roanoke Colony/Archive 1

Cross

it is my interpretation that the colonist's deal was to carve a cross on a tree, not the word cross, if they we in trouble. source from http://www.thelostcolony.org/voyages2.html

"White knew the carvings were "to signifie the place, where I should find the planters seated, according to a secret token agreed upon betweene them and me at my last departure from them...for at my coming away, they were prepared to remove 50 miles into the maine". He had also instructed the colonists that, should they be forced to leave the island under duress, they should carve a Maltese cross above their destination. White found no such sign, and he had every hope that he would locate the colony and his family at Croatoan, the home of Chief Manteo’s people south of Roanoke on present-day Hatteras Island." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.88.47 (talk) April 25, 2007

Homosexuality and misquitoes

I am troubled by the last two sentences in the first paragraph: "Populations decreased widely due to the number of homosexual males in the colony. The augmentation in homosexuality in Roanoke is thought to have derived from an anomalous disease carried by mosquitoes." Shouldn't they be struck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikenhead (talk • contribs) 23:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

El Dorado's Fountain of Youth?

It was my impression that El Dorado and the Fountain of Youth were two separate myths. El Dorado was supposedly a city with a king who wore gold in South America, while the Fountain of Youth was pursued by Ponce de Leon in Florida while he was collecting slaves for the Spanish plantations of the Caribbean. I am not sure which the author meant, but given the fact that this was on the same continent as the supposed Fountain of Youth, I am going to delete the reference to El Dorado & leave the Fountain of Youth. If anyone knows anything more, please address this issue. -Anonymous, Sep 5, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.102.205 (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Pinnaces

Does anyone know whether the pinnaces left with the colonists were gone when White got there? I can't find any information on that. Also, has any excavation been done over the site where the 1587 colony was? My mom and I were wondering because if the colony had died of starvation, what happened to the bodies? The last few wouldn't be buried because of weakness, and of course the last one had no one to bury him or her.

If anyone knows the answers to these questions, please post them. I'm doing a school report, and I kind of need to know. 165.98.245.210 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)A. Flett

the site has been under excavation for years--Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Copied from another source

This article is obviously copied from another source and is downright conjecture at times. Even going to the extent of asking the reader "What your theory is?". This is in major need of a re-write. Or a write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.192.74 (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dare Stones

I'm curious that there is no mention of the dare stones. What's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.45.253 (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Whatever happened to the 15 men that were there before the Colonists arrived? It is to my understanding that they disappeared as well. On a very light note with no real meaning at all - Aug. 18 is my birthday as well, I share the same birthday with Virgina Dare. That's a bit creepy when you're totally interested in this sort of thing. Renaika56 (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're depicting the results in popular culture

The comic Batman/Spawn: War Devil by Doug Moench, Alan Grant, Chuck Dixon and Klaus Janson explores the idea that the colony was destroyed by the demon Croatan after Virginia Dare was born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.118.242 (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned in "Storm of the century" by S. King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_of_the_Century and there is a film "Lost colony". --Oleg Str (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

In the series "Blue Bloods" by Melissa De La Cruz (fabulous by the way, you should read them!), the Croatan are depicted as the deadly Silver Blood vampires- vampires who survive by feeding on other vampires. The Lost Colony is said in the story to have been founded by Blue Blood vampires in order to escape the Silver Bloods in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.221.165.51 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In the television show "Supernatural" the Roanoke colony was depicted as being a testing place for a demon created virus known as "Croatoa." This virus is later used by Pestilence, one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to hasten the onset of the Apocalypse. [NothingIzTrue] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NothingIzTrue (talk • contribs) October 20, 2011

Vandalism

Yeah, this page is covered in sexual stuff right now. I was going to remove it, but there's dozens and I don't have the time or the will to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.237.117 (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh... I noticed under "Cannibalism" that some idiot claimed that the Roanoke Colonists may have been cannibalised by the Kwakiutl Indians. That would have been rather difficult, as the Kwakiutl are a West Coast aboriginal tribe living on Vancouver Island. Quite the journey, don't you think, just for a snack? I'm deleting it as vandalism, I hope nobody has any objections. 70.70.232.102 (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole paragraph could probably be removed, since the source is one of those non-scholarly publications targeted at making alumni feel connected Tedickey (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Number of 1587 Colonists

I noticed that the artical states there were "117" dispached colonists. This does not appear to have citation. When I read the 1885 Observer it states "One hundred and seventy men, women and children were left on Roanoke Island" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.245.96 (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Lost Colony

The lost colony was named after a period of time the Roanoke Colony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.66.58 (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Citiations

Tedicky, have you actually walked to the library and check into any of the books in question that are cited? Not everything is on the web; many things aren't even allowable there under copyright. The bottom line is, citations have been made, and are not "needed." If you have a dispute with the verity of the citations they should be specifically put on this page here. 209.188.69.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC).

Anyone can read an abstract, and observe that the book's coverage isn't focused on the comment about the Spanish. The cites originally came as a paste from this point. Tedickey (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

The dead link should be replaced with the following, which leads directly to the mentioned article at ECU: http://www.ecu.edu/rcro/RCRONL6.2FamilyCrest.htm ; I'd have done so but I've no clue how to, and felt I'd at least place the information here in hopes that someone better than I can do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.183.132 (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Effects on pop culture

Just noticed this there was a episode of the show "supernatural" that dealt with this as a plauge sent by the devil maybe it could be added to be specific it is called "Croatoan" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannonspike (talk • contribs) 02:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Dare Stones

I added a theory regarding the Elenore Dare stones, which was undone as a fringe theory. Some historians however believe it - http://www.lib.unc.edu/blogs/ncm/index.php/2009/08/19/dare-stone-revisited-not-a-hoax-after-all/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehorn (talk • contribs) 19:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's one historian. Wikiepdia's uses the term fringe theory "in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." One professor holding the opinion is not sufficient to raise the concept from being a fringe theory to being an alternative but less preferred hypothesis. While I believe the story about the stones being accurate has enough merit to appear in the Eleanor Dare article, but not here where we want to present only the most widely held theories about the "disappearance" of the colony. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The same can be said about the preceding three items (only one has a source, and the context of that hints that it was perhaps facetious) TEDickey (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Added ref. A minority opinion is not necessarily fringe. Jehorn (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This is correct; I'll try to do some digging later today to see which side this falls into. Meanwhile, can you switch the citation to the original article instead of the blog? Technically, the article is reliable source, and if you cite the blog you actually have to do the more complicated "X as seen in Y" reference format. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I will change it. Jehorn (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Substantial Changes

We are a group of students from SUNY New Paltz and we have been assigned to complete a project which requires that we choose a Wikipedia page that can use some revisions. We have chosen to make revisions to this page regarding Roanoke Colony and as such these changes will be available for view shortly. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our Professor whose username is Redcknight. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meaghanplatania (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Meaghanplatania, and thanks for helping improve Wikipedia (even if it is an assignment :) ). One thing that would help is if you use edit summaries when you make your edits. When you make an edit to an article, underneath the big editing box, there's a smaller, one line box that is labeled "Edit summary". In that box, please explain why you changed what you did (things like "adding new information and sources", "removing unsourced information", "fixing grammar", etc.). This is an important method of communication with other editors, so that we can determine why you made the changes you did. It will also make it less likely that other editors just revert your work. Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

An interesting tidbit of information

"Inquiry into the Origin and Course of Political Parties in the United States", by Martin Van Buren, states:

"Indeed, the very first European colony established in this country was composed of Huguenots, who were exterminated by the Spaniards, [possibly referring to Fort Caroline] - an event which, indirectly, contributed greatly to the emigration to Virginia under Sir Walter Raleigh. Fugitives from the most cruel as well as the most obstinate persecutions, hunted like wild beasts on account of their devotion to religious freedom and the right of opinion, they fled to our shores, detesting irresponsible power of every description, and ready to do their utmost to prevent its re-incorporation in our virgin system."

Location 283-90, Kindle Edition

Considering that Martin Van Buren was the eighth President of the United States, and wrote this inquiry in 1853, it is a likely reflection of mid 19th century beliefs about the origins of what would eventually become the United States. I did not set out to study what happened to the colonists at Roanoke. I am studying the political history of the United States, and I was intrigued by the story of the Huguenots who were massacred by the Spaniards in this writing. I am very curious about what they might have had to do with Sir Raleigh and his attempts to establish a colony in Virginia as there is no expansion on this thought in the writing itself. It might be that there is a piece of lost history regarding the composition and/or interactions of the second colony, because there does not seem to be such a mystery to Mr. Van Buren in 1853. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.191.206 (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

New Archeological Research Needs to Be Incorporated into the Article

There is a news story today on new archeological research into the lost colony indicating that artifacts have been found on Hatteras Island indicating that the colonist survived and went to live with natives on what is now Hatteras Island.

The English colonists who settled the so-called Lost Colony before disappearing from history simply went to live with their native friends — the Croatoans of Hatteras, according to a new book. “They were never lost,” said Scott Dawson, who has researched records and dug up artifacts where the colonists lived with the Indians in the 16th century. “It was made up. The mystery is over.”

A team of archaeologists, historians, botanists, geologists and others have conducted digs on small plots in Buxton and Frisco for 11 years. Teams have found thousands of artifacts 4-6 feet below the surface that show a mix of English and Indian life. Parts of swords and guns are in the same layer of soil as Indian pottery and arrowheads. The evidence shows the colony left Roanoke Island with the friendly Croatoans to settle on Hatteras Island. They thrived, ate well, had mixed families and endured for generations. More than a century later, explorer John Lawson found natives with blue eyes who recounted they had ancestors who could “speak out of a book,” Lawson wrote.

I will leave it to others to decide how to incorporate this new information into the main article.

2600:1700:DC50:5560:81E2:BE7E:28F:DDC8 (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi - this is already well covered in Roanoke Colony#Integration with local tribes. We could probably add the book as a reference, but it isn't a new theory. Ckruschke (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

References

Dawson book

Scott Dawson has a new book coming out, claiming that the colony was never lost: its members simply assimiliated with the Croatoan tribe and lived happily ever after.[1] I'm posting the info here in case someone wants to use it: I'm unlikely to try to do so myself. Added: I see this is same book mentioned in previous talk entry. The book does sound like it has some new data. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The statement, "The Roanoke settlers were massacred" is a bit troubling. What if we instead stated, "The Roanoke invaders were defended against and repelled." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.236.23 (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Confusing wording

Casual reader here. I read through the 'voyage' section under 'Lane colony' but I can't quite figure out who was at Puerto Rico, who was at the Outer Banks, and when. Maybe it is obvious to someone more familiar with the subject than I, but I think it could use a tidy up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDavies (talk • contribs) 10:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)