Lost Colony of Roanoke

[strollingbones]

i just refuse to watch or discuss oak island .... at this point....sadly so much of the history channel is fake now...ie mountain men....and that is sad

 

[yiostheoy]

and why would the natives kill the settlers.....remember natives are not the killers that white man likes to pretend...it is more likely they would assimilate them..esp the children......remember in that time....children were valued by everyone...unlike today

The children part--if mom were dead and the child was still nursing, kill it. The warriors weren't into taking care of babies. Captives had to be able to keep up on the march back to wherever they were going. Little kids and big burly men who would be more of a pain in the ass to control were not taken along. Infants also cry, which is a big no no on a march near enemy territory. So infants and young children didn't get taken along. Kids maybe 5 or older sometimes got taken and grew up with the tribe.
There were many reports of native attacks on the Europeans, many of them made by the natives themselves. The Natives, like everyone else, were suspicious of foreign intruders in their territory. Some figured killing them was a good idea. Some saw the Europeans as trade opportunities and figured they would move on, so no problem. In Maine, the natives stopped being enemies as soon as the French and Indian War was over, so in this area, everyone remembers the natives as being peaceful. They still kept their distance. People were afraid of them, due to all the raids and kidnappings and murders and burnings out the natives did as allies of the French during the war. The natives would take hostages to Canada and have the Catholic priests negotiate their release with wads of cash.
The natives weren't any more peaceful than we were, bones.

This is bullsh!t.

Injuns don't kill women and kids.

They raised them as their own.

What proof have you got of that? Maybe sometimes they took one in, but raiding parties sure didn't. One of my ancestors' stories is below. I've read a lot more on it but this is a good overview of what happened.

Hannah Duston (Dustin, Dustan, and Durstan) (born Hannah Emerson, December 23, 1657 – c. 1737[1]) was a colonial Massachusetts Puritan mother of nine who was taken captive by Abenaki people from Québec during King William's War, with her newborn daughter, during the Raid on Haverhill (1697), in which 27 colonists were killed. While detained on an island in the Merrimack River in present-day Boscawen, New Hampshire, she killed and scalped ten of the Native family members holding them hostage, with the assistance of two other captives.
Hannah Dustin/Duston's newborn baby was thrown against a tree trunk and killed by the Indian captors. They kidnapped her, another son, and several others and held them against their will. They were later able to escape.
Hannah Duston - Wikipedia

Proof is in the eyes of the beholder.

Any skeptic is going to move the goal posts to make any kind of proof harder simply by shouting proof!

 

[TNHarley]

dont hijack this thread....op wants a serious discussion for the most part

I think we already concluded that her little rock was a hoax.

Conclude what you want. I haven't seen anything that disproves the original Dare Stone yet. There are two things I am taking seriously: This traveling salesman from Cali who discovered it in 1937 couldn't be found four years later when the reporter started nosing around. This was during the Depression and we didn't have facebook, so I'm not sure that is damning in itself.
Second, the fact that another hoax stone was unsuccessfully introduced not long before the Dare Stone was found. I found no additional information on that and it doesn't seem to be related to the undeniably faked stones that followed the original Dare Stone's discovery.
I'm open to the hoax theory, but I'm not buying it yet. There has been a lot of research done on the stone itself and nothing shows it as a forgery. You might want to watch the History Channel show--it has a lot more details on that. I think Eleanor wanted the stone with her husband and child's death date and the story of what had happened to them all to be placed at the grave of the 17 murdered in the massacre. She also wanted her Dad to know what happened. None of the phony words or microscopic signs of being carved with a drill bit were found on the original stone and it is not related to the subsequent phony stones through any connection, except that the professor was looking for more and collected them.

The biggest question for me, is why would a traveler from cali be walking in the swamp looking for hickory nuts when he is surrounded by them at home?
I also believe he actually went into hiding. However, there was good reason for it but I cant remember what it was. I think that was also assumption, though.

 

[TNHarley]

Oak island is a bunch of bullshit

 

[OldLady]

dont hijack this thread....op wants a serious discussion for the most part

I think we already concluded that her little rock was a hoax.

Conclude what you want. I haven't seen anything that disproves the original Dare Stone yet. There are two things I am taking seriously: This traveling salesman from Cali who discovered it in 1937 couldn't be found four years later when the reporter started nosing around. This was during the Depression and we didn't have facebook, so I'm not sure that is damning in itself.
Second, the fact that another hoax stone was unsuccessfully introduced not long before the Dare Stone was found. I found no additional information on that and it doesn't seem to be related to the undeniably faked stones that followed the original Dare Stone's discovery.
I'm open to the hoax theory, but I'm not buying it yet. There has been a lot of research done on the stone itself and nothing shows it as a forgery. You might want to watch the History Channel show--it has a lot more details on that. I think Eleanor wanted the stone with her husband and child's death date and the story of what had happened to them all to be placed at the grave of the 17 murdered in the massacre. She also wanted her Dad to know what happened. None of the phony words or microscopic signs of being carved with a drill bit were found on the original stone and it is not related to the subsequent phony stones through any connection, except that the professor was looking for more and collected them.

The biggest question for me, is why would a traveler from cali be walking in the swamp looking for hickory nuts when he is surrounded by them at home?
I also believe he actually went into hiding. However, there was good reason for it but I cant remember what it was. I think that was also assumption, though.

You should peek at the link bones provided on the Dare Stones (the first one, from No. Carolina Miscellany). According to a researcher into Hammond, he may have been avoiding child support payments. They don't know for sure it's the right guy though. Lots of guys with that name, apparently. But I don't see why anyone who likes hickory nuts couldn't go looking for some just because he's in a different state. You gonna make the guy drive back to Cali for a snack? What is your point there? I had a stepdad who would have eagerly foraged for chestnuts if someone told him there was a stand of them around somewhere. He liked them.

 

[OldLady]

i just refuse to watch or discuss oak island .... at this point....sadly so much of the history channel is fake now...ie mountain men....and that is sad

There was one for a few seasons on looking for gems in Iceland or Greenland--where the glaciers are melting, anyway. The first season was good and then they did the typical History Channel thing and degraded it, turning it into a big drama reality show. It was really cool when they discovered a big vein of rubies at the end of the first season though.

 

[OldLady]

and why would the natives kill the settlers.....remember natives are not the killers that white man likes to pretend...it is more likely they would assimilate them..esp the children......remember in that time....children were valued by everyone...unlike today

The children part--if mom were dead and the child was still nursing, kill it. The warriors weren't into taking care of babies. Captives had to be able to keep up on the march back to wherever they were going. Little kids and big burly men who would be more of a pain in the ass to control were not taken along. Infants also cry, which is a big no no on a march near enemy territory. So infants and young children didn't get taken along. Kids maybe 5 or older sometimes got taken and grew up with the tribe.
There were many reports of native attacks on the Europeans, many of them made by the natives themselves. The Natives, like everyone else, were suspicious of foreign intruders in their territory. Some figured killing them was a good idea. Some saw the Europeans as trade opportunities and figured they would move on, so no problem. In Maine, the natives stopped being enemies as soon as the French and Indian War was over, so in this area, everyone remembers the natives as being peaceful. They still kept their distance. People were afraid of them, due to all the raids and kidnappings and murders and burnings out the natives did as allies of the French during the war. The natives would take hostages to Canada and have the Catholic priests negotiate their release with wads of cash.
The natives weren't any more peaceful than we were, bones.

This is bullsh!t.

Injuns don't kill women and kids.

They raised them as their own.

What proof have you got of that? Maybe sometimes they took one in, but raiding parties sure didn't. One of my ancestors' stories is below. I've read a lot more on it but this is a good overview of what happened.

Hannah Duston (Dustin, Dustan, and Durstan) (born Hannah Emerson, December 23, 1657 – c. 1737[1]) was a colonial Massachusetts Puritan mother of nine who was taken captive by Abenaki people from Québec during King William's War, with her newborn daughter, during the Raid on Haverhill (1697), in which 27 colonists were killed. While detained on an island in the Merrimack River in present-day Boscawen, New Hampshire, she killed and scalped ten of the Native family members holding them hostage, with the assistance of two other captives.
Hannah Dustin/Duston's newborn baby was thrown against a tree trunk and killed by the Indian captors. They kidnapped her, another son, and several others and held them against their will. They were later able to escape.
Hannah Duston - Wikipedia

Proof is in the eyes of the beholder.

Any skeptic is going to move the goal posts to make any kind of proof harder simply by shouting proof!

Well, there is plenty of "proof" that not all babies and children were taken back and raised by the natives. So where is your proof that they were?
I see your cryptic complaint, but no proof. Start looking.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Anybody remember drinking Virginia Dare soda pop as a kid? ...

Yes that one plus RC Cola used to be pretty good.

/--- You can still buy RC down south

 

[OldLady]

Have We Found the Lost Colony of Roanoke Island?
Archaeologists Find New Clues to “Lost Colony” Mystery - History in the Headlines

 

[Winston]

dont hijack this thread....op wants a serious discussion for the most part

I think we already concluded that her little rock was a hoax.

Conclude what you want. I haven't seen anything that disproves the original Dare Stone yet. There are two things I am taking seriously: This traveling salesman from Cali who discovered it in 1937 couldn't be found four years later when the reporter started nosing around. This was during the Depression and we didn't have facebook, so I'm not sure that is damning in itself.
Second, the fact that another hoax stone was unsuccessfully introduced not long before the Dare Stone was found. I found no additional information on that and it doesn't seem to be related to the undeniably faked stones that followed the original Dare Stone's discovery.
I'm open to the hoax theory, but I'm not buying it yet. There has been a lot of research done on the stone itself and nothing shows it as a forgery. You might want to watch the History Channel show--it has a lot more details on that. I think Eleanor wanted the stone with her husband and child's death date and the story of what had happened to them all to be placed at the grave of the 17 murdered in the massacre. She also wanted her Dad to know what happened. None of the phony words or microscopic signs of being carved with a drill bit were found on the original stone and it is not related to the subsequent phony stones through any connection, except that the professor was looking for more and collected them.

and why would the natives kill the settlers.....remember natives are not the killers that white man likes to pretend...it is more likely they would assimilate them..esp the children......remember in that time....children were valued by everyone...unlike today

The children part--if mom were dead and the child was still nursing, kill it. The warriors weren't into taking care of babies. Captives had to be able to keep up on the march back to wherever they were going. Little kids and big burly men who would be more of a pain in the ass to control were not taken along. Infants also cry, which is a big no no on a march near enemy territory. So infants and young children didn't get taken along. Kids maybe 5 or older sometimes got taken and grew up with the tribe.
There were many reports of native attacks on the Europeans, many of them made by the natives themselves. The Natives, like everyone else, were suspicious of foreign intruders in their territory. Some figured killing them was a good idea. Some saw the Europeans as trade opportunities and figured they would move on, so no problem. In Maine, the natives stopped being enemies as soon as the French and Indian War was over, so in this area, everyone remembers the natives as being peaceful. They still kept their distance. People were afraid of them, due to all the raids and kidnappings and murders and burnings out the natives did as allies of the French during the war. The natives would take hostages to Canada and have the Catholic priests negotiate their release with wads of cash.
The natives weren't any more peaceful than we were, bones.

This is bullsh!t.

Injuns don't kill women and kids.

They raised them as their own.

What proof have you got of that? Maybe sometimes they took one in, but raiding parties sure didn't. One of my ancestors' stories is below. I've read a lot more on it but this is a good overview of what happened.

Hannah Duston (Dustin, Dustan, and Durstan) (born Hannah Emerson, December 23, 1657 – c. 1737[1]) was a colonial Massachusetts Puritan mother of nine who was taken captive by Abenaki people from Québec during King William's War, with her newborn daughter, during the Raid on Haverhill (1697), in which 27 colonists were killed. While detained on an island in the Merrimack River in present-day Boscawen, New Hampshire, she killed and scalped ten of the Native family members holding them hostage, with the assistance of two other captives.
Hannah Dustin/Duston's newborn baby was thrown against a tree trunk and killed by the Indian captors. They kidnapped her, another son, and several others and held them against their will. They were later able to escape.
Hannah Duston - Wikipedia

Proof is in the eyes of the beholder.

Any skeptic is going to move the goal posts to make any kind of proof harder simply by shouting proof!

Well, there is plenty of "proof" that not all babies and children were taken back and raised by the natives. So where is your proof that they were?
I see your cryptic complaint, but no proof. Start looking.

I learned what happened to those at the Lost Colony in the first grade, back in 1968. Not from the teacher, but from a student who claimed he was a direct descendant of Virginia Dare. Funny thing, now, almost fifty years later, his story sounds more and more legit. Basically, he claimed the colonists merged with one of the local tribes, except for the "seven". They had white hair and blue eyes, and the tribe that incorporated the rest of the colonists refused to take them in. The seven were later enslaved by another local tribe where they eventually were absorbed. He had descended from that group. He had white hair and blue eyes, but otherwise he was dark skinned and part Catawba Indian.

The larger group of colonists and the tribe that took them in was later eliminated, like literally hundreds of other tribes in the Carolina area. None of them became the Lumbee, they did not become Tuscarora. They died. The only DNA that was passed to the present comes from "the seven" that the History Channel special focuses on. If my friend from the first grade is correct, this is how it is going to play out.

Yes, the seven were enslaved and forced to work those copper mines, by the Eno Indians. The location fits, and the Eno were known to work copper. The Eno were later incorporated into the Catawba. The tribe of both my friend and myself. It is within the Catawba that the DNA evidence linking back to the Lost Colony exists. The problem is that there were over seventy different opportunities for the DNA of the Native Americans and Europeans to mix PRIOR to the Lost Colony. From survivors of shipwrecks on the Outer Banks to members of Juan Pardo's expedition residing with the natives. European DNA had already entered into the Native American population prior to the Lost Colony.

 

[rightwinger]

dont hijack this thread....op wants a serious discussion for the most part

I think we already concluded that her little rock was a hoax.

Conclude what you want. I haven't seen anything that disproves the original Dare Stone yet. There are two things I am taking seriously: This traveling salesman from Cali who discovered it in 1937 couldn't be found four years later when the reporter started nosing around. This was during the Depression and we didn't have facebook, so I'm not sure that is damning in itself.
Second, the fact that another hoax stone was unsuccessfully introduced not long before the Dare Stone was found. I found no additional information on that and it doesn't seem to be related to the undeniably faked stones that followed the original Dare Stone's discovery.
I'm open to the hoax theory, but I'm not buying it yet. There has been a lot of research done on the stone itself and nothing shows it as a forgery. You might want to watch the History Channel show--it has a lot more details on that. I think Eleanor wanted the stone with her husband and child's death date and the story of what had happened to them all to be placed at the grave of the 17 murdered in the massacre. She also wanted her Dad to know what happened. None of the phony words or microscopic signs of being carved with a drill bit were found on the original stone and it is not related to the subsequent phony stones through any connection, except that the professor was looking for more and collected them.

Its a shame your source has to be the History Channel. They used to be very credible but have sold out to urban legends and reality TV. Did aliens abduct the people of Roanoke? Were they eaten by a family of Big Foots? Let me tell you about these stones that were found




.

 

[OldLady]

dont hijack this thread....op wants a serious discussion for the most part

I think we already concluded that her little rock was a hoax.

Conclude what you want. I haven't seen anything that disproves the original Dare Stone yet. There are two things I am taking seriously: This traveling salesman from Cali who discovered it in 1937 couldn't be found four years later when the reporter started nosing around. This was during the Depression and we didn't have facebook, so I'm not sure that is damning in itself.
Second, the fact that another hoax stone was unsuccessfully introduced not long before the Dare Stone was found. I found no additional information on that and it doesn't seem to be related to the undeniably faked stones that followed the original Dare Stone's discovery.
I'm open to the hoax theory, but I'm not buying it yet. There has been a lot of research done on the stone itself and nothing shows it as a forgery. You might want to watch the History Channel show--it has a lot more details on that. I think Eleanor wanted the stone with her husband and child's death date and the story of what had happened to them all to be placed at the grave of the 17 murdered in the massacre. She also wanted her Dad to know what happened. None of the phony words or microscopic signs of being carved with a drill bit were found on the original stone and it is not related to the subsequent phony stones through any connection, except that the professor was looking for more and collected them.

The children part--if mom were dead and the child was still nursing, kill it. The warriors weren't into taking care of babies. Captives had to be able to keep up on the march back to wherever they were going. Little kids and big burly men who would be more of a pain in the ass to control were not taken along. Infants also cry, which is a big no no on a march near enemy territory. So infants and young children didn't get taken along. Kids maybe 5 or older sometimes got taken and grew up with the tribe.
There were many reports of native attacks on the Europeans, many of them made by the natives themselves. The Natives, like everyone else, were suspicious of foreign intruders in their territory. Some figured killing them was a good idea. Some saw the Europeans as trade opportunities and figured they would move on, so no problem. In Maine, the natives stopped being enemies as soon as the French and Indian War was over, so in this area, everyone remembers the natives as being peaceful. They still kept their distance. People were afraid of them, due to all the raids and kidnappings and murders and burnings out the natives did as allies of the French during the war. The natives would take hostages to Canada and have the Catholic priests negotiate their release with wads of cash.
The natives weren't any more peaceful than we were, bones.

This is bullsh!t.

Injuns don't kill women and kids.

They raised them as their own.

What proof have you got of that? Maybe sometimes they took one in, but raiding parties sure didn't. One of my ancestors' stories is below. I've read a lot more on it but this is a good overview of what happened.

Hannah Duston (Dustin, Dustan, and Durstan) (born Hannah Emerson, December 23, 1657 – c. 1737[1]) was a colonial Massachusetts Puritan mother of nine who was taken captive by Abenaki people from Québec during King William's War, with her newborn daughter, during the Raid on Haverhill (1697), in which 27 colonists were killed. While detained on an island in the Merrimack River in present-day Boscawen, New Hampshire, she killed and scalped ten of the Native family members holding them hostage, with the assistance of two other captives.
Hannah Dustin/Duston's newborn baby was thrown against a tree trunk and killed by the Indian captors. They kidnapped her, another son, and several others and held them against their will. They were later able to escape.
Hannah Duston - Wikipedia

Proof is in the eyes of the beholder.

Any skeptic is going to move the goal posts to make any kind of proof harder simply by shouting proof!

Well, there is plenty of "proof" that not all babies and children were taken back and raised by the natives. So where is your proof that they were?
I see your cryptic complaint, but no proof. Start looking.

I learned what happened to those at the Lost Colony in the first grade, back in 1968. Not from the teacher, but from a student who claimed he was a direct descendant of Virginia Dare. Funny thing, now, almost fifty years later, his story sounds more and more legit. Basically, he claimed the colonists merged with one of the local tribes, except for the "seven". They had white hair and blue eyes, and the tribe that incorporated the rest of the colonists refused to take them in. The seven were later enslaved by another local tribe where they eventually were absorbed. He had descended from that group. He had white hair and blue eyes, but otherwise he was dark skinned and part Catawba Indian.

The larger group of colonists and the tribe that took them in was later eliminated, like literally hundreds of other tribes in the Carolina area. None of them became the Lumbee, they did not become Tuscarora. They died. The only DNA that was passed to the present comes from "the seven" that the History Channel special focuses on. If my friend from the first grade is correct, this is how it is going to play out.

Yes, the seven were enslaved and forced to work those copper mines, by the Eno Indians. The location fits, and the Eno were known to work copper. The Eno were later incorporated into the Catawba. The tribe of both my friend and myself. It is within the Catawba that the DNA evidence linking back to the Lost Colony exists. The problem is that there were over seventy different opportunities for the DNA of the Native Americans and Europeans to mix PRIOR to the Lost Colony. From survivors of shipwrecks on the Outer Banks to members of Juan Pardo's expedition residing with the natives. European DNA had already entered into the Native American population prior to the Lost Colony.

Thanks, Winston. Have you been involved in the DNA study? They are typing folks in England directly descended from the Roanoke colonists' lines, so eventually it should yield some proof, I hope.

 

[rightwinger]

i just refuse to watch or discuss oak island .... at this point....sadly so much of the history channel is fake now...ie mountain men....and that is sad

I used to love the History Channel. They had academic credibility in what they presented
Now it seems they cater to the lunatic fringe

 

[OldLady]

dont hijack this thread....op wants a serious discussion for the most part

I think we already concluded that her little rock was a hoax.

Conclude what you want. I haven't seen anything that disproves the original Dare Stone yet. There are two things I am taking seriously: This traveling salesman from Cali who discovered it in 1937 couldn't be found four years later when the reporter started nosing around. This was during the Depression and we didn't have facebook, so I'm not sure that is damning in itself.
Second, the fact that another hoax stone was unsuccessfully introduced not long before the Dare Stone was found. I found no additional information on that and it doesn't seem to be related to the undeniably faked stones that followed the original Dare Stone's discovery.
I'm open to the hoax theory, but I'm not buying it yet. There has been a lot of research done on the stone itself and nothing shows it as a forgery. You might want to watch the History Channel show--it has a lot more details on that. I think Eleanor wanted the stone with her husband and child's death date and the story of what had happened to them all to be placed at the grave of the 17 murdered in the massacre. She also wanted her Dad to know what happened. None of the phony words or microscopic signs of being carved with a drill bit were found on the original stone and it is not related to the subsequent phony stones through any connection, except that the professor was looking for more and collected them.

Its a shame your source has to be the History Channel. They used to be very credible but have sold out to urban legends and reality TV. Did aliens abduct the people of Roanoke? Were they eaten by a family of Big Foots? Let me tell you about these stones that were found

I'm not too bad at navigating among the bs, Rightwinger. I've been looking at a lot of sources.

 

[Winston]

dont hijack this thread....op wants a serious discussion for the most part

I think we already concluded that her little rock was a hoax.

Conclude what you want. I haven't seen anything that disproves the original Dare Stone yet. There are two things I am taking seriously: This traveling salesman from Cali who discovered it in 1937 couldn't be found four years later when the reporter started nosing around. This was during the Depression and we didn't have facebook, so I'm not sure that is damning in itself.
Second, the fact that another hoax stone was unsuccessfully introduced not long before the Dare Stone was found. I found no additional information on that and it doesn't seem to be related to the undeniably faked stones that followed the original Dare Stone's discovery.
I'm open to the hoax theory, but I'm not buying it yet. There has been a lot of research done on the stone itself and nothing shows it as a forgery. You might want to watch the History Channel show--it has a lot more details on that. I think Eleanor wanted the stone with her husband and child's death date and the story of what had happened to them all to be placed at the grave of the 17 murdered in the massacre. She also wanted her Dad to know what happened. None of the phony words or microscopic signs of being carved with a drill bit were found on the original stone and it is not related to the subsequent phony stones through any connection, except that the professor was looking for more and collected them.

This is bullsh!t.

Injuns don't kill women and kids.

They raised them as their own.

What proof have you got of that? Maybe sometimes they took one in, but raiding parties sure didn't. One of my ancestors' stories is below. I've read a lot more on it but this is a good overview of what happened.

Hannah Duston (Dustin, Dustan, and Durstan) (born Hannah Emerson, December 23, 1657 – c. 1737[1]) was a colonial Massachusetts Puritan mother of nine who was taken captive by Abenaki people from Québec during King William's War, with her newborn daughter, during the Raid on Haverhill (1697), in which 27 colonists were killed. While detained on an island in the Merrimack River in present-day Boscawen, New Hampshire, she killed and scalped ten of the Native family members holding them hostage, with the assistance of two other captives.
Hannah Dustin/Duston's newborn baby was thrown against a tree trunk and killed by the Indian captors. They kidnapped her, another son, and several others and held them against their will. They were later able to escape.
Hannah Duston - Wikipedia

Proof is in the eyes of the beholder.

Any skeptic is going to move the goal posts to make any kind of proof harder simply by shouting proof!

Well, there is plenty of "proof" that not all babies and children were taken back and raised by the natives. So where is your proof that they were?
I see your cryptic complaint, but no proof. Start looking.

I learned what happened to those at the Lost Colony in the first grade, back in 1968. Not from the teacher, but from a student who claimed he was a direct descendant of Virginia Dare. Funny thing, now, almost fifty years later, his story sounds more and more legit. Basically, he claimed the colonists merged with one of the local tribes, except for the "seven". They had white hair and blue eyes, and the tribe that incorporated the rest of the colonists refused to take them in. The seven were later enslaved by another local tribe where they eventually were absorbed. He had descended from that group. He had white hair and blue eyes, but otherwise he was dark skinned and part Catawba Indian.

The larger group of colonists and the tribe that took them in was later eliminated, like literally hundreds of other tribes in the Carolina area. None of them became the Lumbee, they did not become Tuscarora. They died. The only DNA that was passed to the present comes from "the seven" that the History Channel special focuses on. If my friend from the first grade is correct, this is how it is going to play out.

Yes, the seven were enslaved and forced to work those copper mines, by the Eno Indians. The location fits, and the Eno were known to work copper. The Eno were later incorporated into the Catawba. The tribe of both my friend and myself. It is within the Catawba that the DNA evidence linking back to the Lost Colony exists. The problem is that there were over seventy different opportunities for the DNA of the Native Americans and Europeans to mix PRIOR to the Lost Colony. From survivors of shipwrecks on the Outer Banks to members of Juan Pardo's expedition residing with the natives. European DNA had already entered into the Native American population prior to the Lost Colony.

Thanks, Winston. Have you been involved in the DNA study? They are typing folks in England directly descended from the Roanoke colonists' lines, so eventually it should yield some proof, I hope.

The family just started talking about submitting since the History channel show Sunday. We have mixed feelings about it. If you have ever seen the outdoor drama, The Lost Colony, the storyteller of the play who ran off with a native american maiden--he carries our surname. It is at the top of the list of potential surnames. But honestly, I think my friend from the first grade has the best shot. His last name is also at the top of the list.

Lke I said, even DNA evidence could be suspect. Probably more likely that I have DNA from the Juan Pardo expedition than from the Lost Colony, that would be Mom's side, and Juan Pardo was much earlier than the Lost Colony.

 

[OldLady]

dont hijack this thread....op wants a serious discussion for the most part

I think we already concluded that her little rock was a hoax.

Conclude what you want. I haven't seen anything that disproves the original Dare Stone yet. There are two things I am taking seriously: This traveling salesman from Cali who discovered it in 1937 couldn't be found four years later when the reporter started nosing around. This was during the Depression and we didn't have facebook, so I'm not sure that is damning in itself.
Second, the fact that another hoax stone was unsuccessfully introduced not long before the Dare Stone was found. I found no additional information on that and it doesn't seem to be related to the undeniably faked stones that followed the original Dare Stone's discovery.
I'm open to the hoax theory, but I'm not buying it yet. There has been a lot of research done on the stone itself and nothing shows it as a forgery. You might want to watch the History Channel show--it has a lot more details on that. I think Eleanor wanted the stone with her husband and child's death date and the story of what had happened to them all to be placed at the grave of the 17 murdered in the massacre. She also wanted her Dad to know what happened. None of the phony words or microscopic signs of being carved with a drill bit were found on the original stone and it is not related to the subsequent phony stones through any connection, except that the professor was looking for more and collected them.

What proof have you got of that? Maybe sometimes they took one in, but raiding parties sure didn't. One of my ancestors' stories is below. I've read a lot more on it but this is a good overview of what happened.

Hannah Duston (Dustin, Dustan, and Durstan) (born Hannah Emerson, December 23, 1657 – c. 1737[1]) was a colonial Massachusetts Puritan mother of nine who was taken captive by Abenaki people from Québec during King William's War, with her newborn daughter, during the Raid on Haverhill (1697), in which 27 colonists were killed. While detained on an island in the Merrimack River in present-day Boscawen, New Hampshire, she killed and scalped ten of the Native family members holding them hostage, with the assistance of two other captives.
Hannah Dustin/Duston's newborn baby was thrown against a tree trunk and killed by the Indian captors. They kidnapped her, another son, and several others and held them against their will. They were later able to escape.
Hannah Duston - Wikipedia

Proof is in the eyes of the beholder.

Any skeptic is going to move the goal posts to make any kind of proof harder simply by shouting proof!

Well, there is plenty of "proof" that not all babies and children were taken back and raised by the natives. So where is your proof that they were?
I see your cryptic complaint, but no proof. Start looking.

I learned what happened to those at the Lost Colony in the first grade, back in 1968. Not from the teacher, but from a student who claimed he was a direct descendant of Virginia Dare. Funny thing, now, almost fifty years later, his story sounds more and more legit. Basically, he claimed the colonists merged with one of the local tribes, except for the "seven". They had white hair and blue eyes, and the tribe that incorporated the rest of the colonists refused to take them in. The seven were later enslaved by another local tribe where they eventually were absorbed. He had descended from that group. He had white hair and blue eyes, but otherwise he was dark skinned and part Catawba Indian.

The larger group of colonists and the tribe that took them in was later eliminated, like literally hundreds of other tribes in the Carolina area. None of them became the Lumbee, they did not become Tuscarora. They died. The only DNA that was passed to the present comes from "the seven" that the History Channel special focuses on. If my friend from the first grade is correct, this is how it is going to play out.

Yes, the seven were enslaved and forced to work those copper mines, by the Eno Indians. The location fits, and the Eno were known to work copper. The Eno were later incorporated into the Catawba. The tribe of both my friend and myself. It is within the Catawba that the DNA evidence linking back to the Lost Colony exists. The problem is that there were over seventy different opportunities for the DNA of the Native Americans and Europeans to mix PRIOR to the Lost Colony. From survivors of shipwrecks on the Outer Banks to members of Juan Pardo's expedition residing with the natives. European DNA had already entered into the Native American population prior to the Lost Colony.

Thanks, Winston. Have you been involved in the DNA study? They are typing folks in England directly descended from the Roanoke colonists' lines, so eventually it should yield some proof, I hope.

The family just started talking about submitting since the History channel show Sunday. We have mixed feelings about it. If you have ever seen the outdoor drama, The Lost Colony, the storyteller of the play who ran off with a native american maiden--he carries our surname. It is at the top of the list of potential surnames. But honestly, I think my friend from the first grade has the best shot. His last name is also at the top of the list.

Lke I said, even DNA evidence could be suspect. Probably more likely that I have DNA from the Juan Pardo expedition than from the Lost Colony, that would be Mom's side, and Juan Pardo was much earlier than the Lost Colony.

Well, if you do participate, I hope you'll let us know what you find out. You don't have to pay for it, do you?

 

[yiostheoy]

I learned what happened to those at the Lost Colony in the first grade, back in 1968. Not from the teacher, but from a student who claimed he was a direct descendant of Virginia Dare. Funny thing, now, almost fifty years later, his story sounds more and more legit. Basically, he claimed the colonists merged with one of the local tribes, except for the "seven". They had white hair and blue eyes, and the tribe that incorporated the rest of the colonists refused to take them in. The seven were later enslaved by another local tribe where they eventually were absorbed. He had descended from that group. He had white hair and blue eyes, but otherwise he was dark skinned and part Catawba Indian.

The larger group of colonists and the tribe that took them in was later eliminated, like literally hundreds of other tribes in the Carolina area. None of them became the Lumbee, they did not become Tuscarora. They died. The only DNA that was passed to the present comes from "the seven" that the History Channel special focuses on. If my friend from the first grade is correct, this is how it is going to play out.

Yes, the seven were enslaved and forced to work those copper mines, by the Eno Indians. The location fits, and the Eno were known to work copper. The Eno were later incorporated into the Catawba. The tribe of both my friend and myself. It is within the Catawba that the DNA evidence linking back to the Lost Colony exists. The problem is that there were over seventy different opportunities for the DNA of the Native Americans and Europeans to mix PRIOR to the Lost Colony. From survivors of shipwrecks on the Outer Banks to members of Juan Pardo's expedition residing with the natives. European DNA had already entered into the Native American population prior to the Lost Colony.

Great write-up Winston .

Thank you.

 

[Yarddog]

I think they were slaughtered by Indians
Or else abducted by aliens

I'm in the "abducted by aliens" camp. It's the only logical answer. ...

Obviously they didn't want to go back because they became addicted to tobacco.