It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What ever happened to the Roanoke colony?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
If you ever learned about the colonies of the United States, when the first Englishmen first settled, you should have heard of a colony known as Roanoke. What is your theory on what happened to it?





posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
they abandoned the settlement and joined the croatan indians
end of story
next



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Well, I knew that, but how the hell did it get off the phase of the Earth? I mean, one minute it's a big colony, a persom leaves it behind, and then they come back and it's a total empty place, then, TAH-DAH! It's gone! How do you explain that?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
they abandoned the settlement and joined the croatan indians
end of story
next


up to your old tricks marduk? because the story i remember from history classes was pretty firm about no proof of what happened to them. joining the indians was a pretty strong hypothesis, but no proof.....unless of course you have some evidence that no one else in the archeological community has?



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
This is another total non mystery thats dragged out and made all mysterious every time the sci fi channel does a special
read and learn
en.wikipedia.org...




one minute it's a big colony

121 people is not a big colony
I have in fact had more succesful parties

Next morning when there was tidying up to be done everyone was gone in that case as well
which is the more mysterious in your opinion ?




posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk

121 people is not a big colony
I have in fact had more succesful parties



lol...but seriously, let's be fair here. at that stage of the game in north american colonization, 121 people was a big colony (at least by english standards).



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700


up to your old tricks marduk? because the story i remember from history classes was pretty firm about no proof of what happened to them. joining the indians was a pretty strong hypothesis, but no proof.....unless of course you have some evidence that no one else in the archeological community has?


Actually, the proof came about a century or so later when they began talking to the indians. The indians claimed they had light complicted, blue eyed ancestors that could read from books (none of the indian tribes had a written language until the cherokee created one).

Anyway, it is generally presumed they joined with the nearby indian tribe. They were probably captured and integrated into their culture, thats the way the indians were. If an indian had lost a son or daughter, they took one from their enemy and made them part of the family. I found this to be remarkable because they gave no thought to racial background of their captive/family members.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk


one minute it's a big colony

121 people is not a big colony


Maybe not in 2006, so check over your history researches.


No seriously, just do that.

What, I'm not being threatening!!1!11!



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   


Anyway, it is generally presumed they joined with the nearby indian tribe

Don't you just hate that
when someone says something that was already proven with a credible link that contained all the details just two posts earlier



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   


Theories regarding the Indians and the disappearance

The end of the 1587 colony is unrecorded (leading to its being known as the "Lost Colony"), and there are multiple theories on the fate of the colonists.


dont you just hate that.....when your own source contradicts your post.

i said "proof", not "theories." do you need an explanation of the difference, or can you handle that on your own?



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   


i said "proof", not "theories." do you need an explanation of the difference, or can you handle that on your own?

oh so clearly you didn't bother to read my link either and are now deliberately showing how ignorant you are
here please allow me to post it in full for you




In 1998, "The Croatoan Project," an archaeological dig sponsored by East Carolina University, discovered the first material connection between Roanoke and the Croatan. The archaeological exploration uncovered a 10 carat gold 16th century English signet ring. The ring was discovered along with a flintlock for a 16th century English musket and two 16th century copper farthings inside an excavated pit within the bounds of the ancient capital of the Croatan chiefdom, 50 miles (80 km) from Roanoke.

The gold signet ring with the crest of a walking lion has been traced to the Kendall family, and its presence at Croatan probably links it to a "Master" Kendall, who was a member of the Ralph Lane colony on Roanoke Island in 1585 to 1586. The discovery of the ring marked the first material connection between the English colonists and the Native Americans on Hatteras Island. Its face depicts a lion, a symbol of English authority that would typically be worn by a nobleman. Sifted from sand taken from 4 feet (1.2 m) down in an archaeological excavation pit, the ring was discovered by David Phelps, director of the East Carolina University Coastal Archaeology Office




ooooh archaeological proof not theory
so you owe me an apology don't you mr smarty pants
I won't hold my breath
i know you're not big enough



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   
call me old fashioned, but i still don't use wikipedia as a 'definitive' source for 'proof' of anything, especially something that is admittedly not resolved within the archeological community.

there are records that, yes, they may have joined with the natives, but other theories have just as much merit. there was an episode of histor's mysteries that said there was possible evidence that some of the colonists tried to build a boat to sail to either other colonies or even back to europe. there are also theories that the colonists tried to migrate south because of the harsh winter and failed, and that researchers are simply looking in the wrong places for their remains.

still, it is something that sparks the imagination. cynical one line responses just sort of ruin that mood of mystery and wonder that a lot of us come here to enjoy in the various posts and theories.

for example, a friend of mine is a mystery guy just like me, and he lived in an apt building called the roanoke for 6 months, and stuff in his apt would literally just vanish. maybe its the name....



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   
the settlers carved "Croatan" on a fence post before leaving
some of their possessios were laterfound at a croatan indian camp
why is this a mystery ?

www.lost-colony.com...
www.lost-colony.com...
www.ecu.edu...



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk

ooooh archaeological proof not theory


really? proof? lmao. so some indian found a ring and a rifle and took them to his elders. if that is proof, then please explain why modern history books do not teach that it is indeed a fact that colonists merged with indian society? i mean, that was what, almost 10 years ago and still no decision from mainstream science? please.



so you owe me an apology don't you mr smarty pants
I won't hold my breath
i know you're not big enough


apologize for continuing to show you for what you are? no, i dont think so. for the record, i've been watching you and your posts. about every other one is derogatory and spiteful to whatever member you decide to target that particular day, and if the mods choose to ignore it (or maybe they havent noticed because you have been quite clever about when and where you let loose), i wont be. a simple search of your history will prove it to anyone interested. you are absolutely full of one-lining smartass remarks, and the fact that you seem to have quite a bit of knowledge in certain areas does not make up for your general callousness towards other members IMHO. and for the record, those who know me here know that when i am wrong, i admit it.....and i dont really care how "big" you think i am.

now, back to the discussion at hand.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   


so some indian found a ring and a rifle and took them to his elders.

suggest you actually read the links posted
then you'll realise how ignorant your statement above actually is




apologize for continuing to show you for what you are

ah you mean someone who knows more about this subject (amongst others) than you do
clearly you haven't read the link or you'd know that the artifacts were found by an archaeological dig funded by the East Carolina University Coastal Archaeology Office
so what does that make you
the rest of your post was a personal attack which was based on an earlier post which was also written in ignorance of the facts
and everyone who's read this thread so far and actually looked at the links knows it
you claim that you admit when you are wrong so are we going to get an admission about being wrong about your "some indian" comment which is not only wrong its also extremely racist. Whats the difference exactly between "some indian" and "some archaeologist" in your twisted world view ?
you truly are pathetic
i gave you a chance to apologise
from now on I'll just show you up for the petty little racist child that you are
happy now

now, back to the discussion at hand.

[edit on 18-12-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   

The gold signet ring with the crest of a walking lion has been traced to the Kendall family, and its presence at Croatan probably links it to a "Master" Kendall, who was a member of the Ralph Lane colony on Roanoke Island in 1585 to 1586.



Marduk, Your source cannot definitely say who owned the ring much less give definite proof of what happened to the colonist. So I have to disagree with your assement that the Lost colony is not a mystery. Now if they would do some DNA testing on people who claim to have them as ansestors and trace the DNA lines then I would believe that they were integrated into the Croatan tribe.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   
read what you just posted
the text you quoted says who the ring belonged to
personally i wouldn't put much faith in a DNA test unless you have samples from relatives of the original settlers to compare them with
just finding western dna wouldn't be enough as you woudnt be able to filter out any contamination since then and there has been plenty



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Not to get terribly involved here, but I wanted to point something out:


Originally posted by Marduk
read what you just posted
the text you quoted says who the ring belonged to



Originally posted by ultralo1
...he Kendall family, and its presence at Croatan probably links
it to a "Master" Kendall, who was...


It doesn't say it "did" belong to him; doesn't even say it probably belonged to him. Just says that the presence might be a link to the person.



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   


The gold signet ring with the crest of a walking lion has been traced to the Kendall family, and its presence at Croatan probably links

are we reading the same piece of text here
doesn't say anything about might
it says probably
Probably (definition) - in all likelihood; very likely




posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
However, "very likely" doesn't mean "definitively." If you were on trial for a crime you didn't commit, would you plead that you "probably" didn't rob the bank? If someone gave you some new cold medicine, for example, would you take it if they said it "probably" wouldn't kill you? "Probably" leaves a lot open; too much for it to be considered proof, in my book at least.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join