Greenville Daily Reflector
Today is the deadline to register for
the East Carolina University Lifelong Learning Program's The Lost Colony
and More Tour, scheduled for June 11-12 in Nags Head and Manteo. To register or
for more information, call 328-9198 or visit
http://www.ecu.edu/llp
This blog is © History Chasers
Click here to view all recent Lost Colony Research Group Blog posts
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Register for the East Carolina University Lifelong Learning Program
Monday, May 7, 2012
The Chowan Fort Discovery on the John White Map
The Chowan Fort Discovery on the John White Map
by Roberta Estes
First we'd like to congratulate Brent Lane with the First
Colony Foundation for his keen eye in spotting the anomaly on John White's map
drawn of "Virginia" in 1585-1586 and the British Museum for their
fine detective work in locating the fort icon on the map, under patches, shown
below.
An enlargement of the
fort location on the map is provided, below, by the British Museum. There were actually two fort icons, one on
top of the other, and two layers of patches, per their published technical results.
This new piece of information is both important and
enlightening....and like many news items, has been blown a bit out of
proportion. It has been reported that
this is the location where the lost colonists relocated, which at this point,
is certainly a leap of logic. Let's
take a look at what was found, what we know, and the possibilities of what it
might mean.
John White was an artist.
He accompanied the 1584 and 1585/1586 military expeditions to what was
then called "Virginia." Those
expeditions, headquartered off of Roanoke Island, were specifically to scout a
suitable location for establishing a colony, the "Citie of Raleigh." The location chosen was in the Chesapeake
region, not Roanoke Island, but a snafu in 1587 resulted in the colonists being
literally abandoned in August on Roanoke
Island where the following supply ships would never find them. They sent John White, then the governor of
the "Citie of Raleigh" back to England for supplies which they
expected to arrive in the spring of 1588.
The above map is John White's map drawn during the 1585-1586
military voyage of discovery. The
military men spent quite a bit of time exploring the region, meeting the
natives, learning about the region and potential locations for a permanent
colony.
John White, in 1587 was only on Roanoke Island for a few
days before departing again for England, so we know this map was not drawn on
that trip. Prevented from returning to
Roanoke in 1588 and 1589 by England's war with Spain, when he was able to
return in 1590, he found the colony removed and the message "CRO" and
"Croatoan" carved on both a tree and fort post for him. If they relocated to the Chowan River
location, why would they have carved Croatoan and CRO at the fort?
Before White left, the colonists has discussed moving
"50 miles into the main."
White told us this, but he never revealed the location.
However, the message they left for John White to find up on
his return was "Croatoan."
They had done as they had promised they would, letting John White know
where they went. White, in his own words
from his journal, was “greatly joyed that I had safely found a certain token of
their safe being at Croatoan which is the place where Manteo was born”, “the
island our friends.”
John White could not have drawn this map in 1590, as he was
only on Roanoke Island and only for a day or so before a hurricane blew the
ship back to England. Therefore, John
White's original map had to have been drawn no later than 1586. However, John could have modified this map
anytime between then and his death in 1593.
Someone else could have modified the map, then or later. But, assuming the modifications were made by
White, why would John White cover this location? And what does this fort location mean?
I've read in several news sources in the past few days that
this is the final destination of the colonists and indeed, where they
went. While this is certainly one of the
possibilities, there are also others, and I'd like to briefly touch upon the
various possibilities and the logic for each.
1. Military Fort -
It's certainly possible that at one time the military colonists of 1585/1586
were planning to built a fort further inland.
If so, this initially looks like a great location, at the juncture of
two rivers and fairly easy to defend.
However, there is no indication a fort was ever built there....and the
resulting "coverup" patch on the map may indeed only reflect that
change of plans and the lack of an eraser.
John White worked in paint, and there was no "White Out" or
erasure for that. His only choice if a
planned location did not develop would have been to put a patch over the
location. A second patch on this map
indeed is only to show changes to the coastline on the map.
2. "50 Miles
Into The Maine" - This fort icon on the map indeed may be the fabled
location recorded in John White's own words, "at my last departure from
them...for at my coming away, they were prepared to remove 50 miles into the
maine." Given that John White
returned to England and was not with the colonists, the only piece of
information he could convey is the PLANNED location of "50 miles into the
maine."
When White left, the relations with the Indians were
deteriorating rapidly. The English had
just beheaded Wingina and killed many of his villagers.
John White never knew where the colonists actually went,
although he believed, based on what he found, that they went to Croatoan and
were safe. He had arranged with the
colonists before he left for a secret token, a cross, to be carved if they were
in danger or under duress when they left Croatoan Island. No crosses were found. But a clear location, carved twice, was
found.
If this fort was the "50 miles into the maine"
location, why might John White cover it up?
There are really only two options. First is that it was no longer valid, meaning
that further discussions or investigation caused them to change their mind
about that location. However, it's worth
noting that no other location is marked and that this region does fit the
"50 miles" criteria fairly accurately.
The second possibility is to hide the location, probably
from the Spanish. Espionage was common
in England at this time and the Spanish were actively seeking the colony in
order to destroy them.
3. The only thing
shown on the map is a fort symbol. We
don't know if this was originally meant to be a military outpost, the new
"Citie of Raleigh" or something else.
We cannot assume that this fort was ever built. In fact, there are no oral histories, or
local histories or even rumors of a fort in this location. It would be difficult to built a fort of the
size required to house 117 people without some remnant remaining and being
recorded in some type of record.
By 1654, explorers from the Jamestown region were active in
this same area and no fort or remnant of a fort was ever reported, less than 65
years later.
It should be noted that the Tuscarora have an oral tradition
of being descended from the Colonists.
The Hatteras Indians are recorded by Lawson in 1701 as both having an
oral tradition along with grey eyes and lighter hair, unlike any other Indians.
4. In terms of
relations with the Indians, the military expedition of 1585-1586 was a disaster
as what is known of the 1587 settlement before White departed for England.
The 1585/1586 military colonists burned the village of
Aquascogoc, destroying the corn crop, and therefore the food of the people for
the upcoming winter. These actions were
the precipitating factor in the murder of George Howe, one of the 1587
colonists upon their arrival. In
retaliation for Howe's death, 1587 colonists beheaded Wingina, the chief, and
massacred the people in his village across the bay from Roanoke island where
they had resettled after leaving Roanoke Island where the English fort was
located.
For a refresher of the events leading up to the 1587 colony,
please visit our website at this link:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg/faqs/lcstory.htm
Given these aggressions, would it be logical for the
colonists to move to a location where they are surrounded by three tribes of
Indians, at least one of them known to be hostile and a second likely to be?
Taken from Andy Powell's book, "Grenville and the Lost
Colony of Roanoke," the following is excerpted from the transcript of the
original Barlowe journal from 1585-1586 which was included in the Hakluyt
records compiled in 1589. Several men,
with Manteo, rowed upstream in the Roanoke River to the Chowan and up the
Chowan for some distance, a total of about 140 miles hoping to find gold or the
location of where gold could be found.
The newly discovered fort icon on the map is at the confluence of those
two Rivers. Here's what Barlowe had to
say about that exploratory trip upriver.
"...on the one side whereof stands a great town, called
Chowanoake, and the Lord of that town and country is called Pooneno: this
Pooneno is not subject to the King of Wingandancoa, but is a free Lord. Beyond
this country, there is another king, whom they call Menatoan, and these three
Kings are in league with each other."
Apparently, word preceded their arrival, because many of the
Indian towns were entirely deserted.
When leaving, the Indians took their food supplies with them. Not only did the Englishmen want to learn
where valuable ores might be found (gold and silver), they also wanted food, a
commodity in scarce supply. They had not
taken enough food with them and presumed they would be able to obtain food from
the Indians en route. In order to obtain
cooperation, they kidnapped Chief Menatonon and his son. In Barlowe's words:
"I took a resolution with myself, having dismissed
Menatonon upon a ransom agreed for, and sent his son into the Pinnesse to
Roanoak, to enter presently so far into that River with two double wherries,
and forty persons one or other, as I could have victual to carry us, until we
could meet with more either of the Moratiks, or of the Mangoaks which is
another kind of Savages, dwelling more to the Westward of the said River: but
the hope of recovering more victual from the Savages made me and my company as
narrowly to escape starving in that discourse before our return, as ever men
did that missed the same."
Note on White's map the label, Moratuc, just below and
across the river from the fort icon.
These Indians were not friendly to the military colonists. The Chowanac weren't terribly happy with them
either. Kidnapping the king and his son
did not endear the English to the Native people. Barlowe again:
"I having been enforced to make him privy to the same,
to be served by him [Menatonan] of a guide to the Mangoaks, and yet he did
never rest to solicit continually my going upon them, certifying me of a
general assembly even at that time made by Menatonon at Choanoak of all his
Weroances, and allies to the number of 3,000 bows preparing to come upon us at
Roanoak and that the Mangoaks also were joined in the same confederacy, who
were able of themselves to bring as many more to the enterprise."
Nor were these tribes friendly towards each other. Menatonan's son had also been a prisoner
among the Mangoaks, later known as the Tuscarora. The English sought to find the Mangoaks as
they wanted to take some of the people prisoner, as described by the following
passage from Barlowe:
"And that which made me most desirous to have some
doings with the Mangoaks either in friendship or otherwise to have had one or
two of them prisoners, was, for yet is it a thing most notorious to all ye
country, that there is a Province to the which said Mangoaks have recourse and
traffic up that River of Morattico [Roanoke], which has a marvellous and most
strange Mineral. This mine is so notorious amongst them, as not only to the
Savages dwelling up by the said river, and also to the Savages of Choanoke
[Chowan], and all them to the westward, but also to all them of the main: the
countries name is of same, and is called Chaunis Temoatan."
The fabled mines of Chaunis Temoatan have never been found.
When they did eventually find the Indians which they sought,
this was the results, again told by Barlowe:
"...we heard certain Savages call as we thought,
Manteo, who was also at that time with me in boat, whereof we all being very
glad, hoping of some friendly conference with them, and making him to answer
them: they presently began a song, as we thought in token of our welcome to
them: but Manteo presently betook him to his piece [probably a gun], and told
me that they meant to fight with us: which word was not so soon spoken by him,
and the light horsemen ready to put to shore, but there lighted a volley of
their arrows amongst them in the boat."
The reputation of the English had preceeded them. The Indians on Roanoke island presumed the
English would die of starvation. They
did not, and returned to the island with Menatonan's son as hostage.
When the English settlers arrive in 1587, hard feelings
remained among the various mainland tribes.
George Howe was murdered in retaliation for the burning of the village
of Aquascogoc. The English then
escalated the conflict and massacred the inhabitants of Wingina's village. This action in 1587 just prior to John
White's departure for England, did nothing to endear the English to the Native
people. By this time, they had alienated
nearly all of the neighboring Native tribes by either warfare, kidnapping or
burning their villages. They were
sitting on a tenderbox and the only tribe who would provide them with
assistance would be Manteo's people, the Croatoan.
Given this information, I've plotted the locations of the
events noted above.
1=kidnapping of Menatonan and his son - both Chowanac
2=location of Moratuc [Tuscarora] who fought with Chowanac
and fired upon the English.
3=location where English massacred Wingina and the people of
his village
4=location of Aquascogoc, burned by the English
5=Roanoke Island, the site of the 1584 and 1585/86 military
forts and where George Howe was murdered by Natives in revenge in 1587. Subsequently, Wingina was murdered across the
bay.
6=Croatoan, the location given by the colonists for John
White to find when leaving the fort on Roanoke Island
Given the volatile situation in 1587, would you locate 117
English non-military colonists between locations one and two in a fort, or on
Hatteras Island among friendly Indians?
We can discuss logic and pros and cons today about whether the fort on the map was ever built, and for what purpose, but the real truth about the fort, if it ever existed in reality, lies someplace under about 1200 acres, including a golf course, near Salmon Creek in a location known as Avoca in present day Bertie Co., NC. We are excited about an upcoming archaeological dig being planned by the Lost Colony Foundation and look forward to their findings.
We can discuss logic and pros and cons today about whether the fort on the map was ever built, and for what purpose, but the real truth about the fort, if it ever existed in reality, lies someplace under about 1200 acres, including a golf course, near Salmon Creek in a location known as Avoca in present day Bertie Co., NC. We are excited about an upcoming archaeological dig being planned by the Lost Colony Foundation and look forward to their findings.
Click on the maps for much larger versions
The above map images
are copyright British Museum This blog is © History Chasers
Click here to view all recent Lost Colony Research Group Blog posts
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Map’s Hidden Marks Illuminate and Deepen Mystery of Lost Colony
Theories abound about what happened to the so-called Lost Colony,
ranging from sober scholarship to science fiction. Some historians
believe that the colonists might have been absorbed into American Indian
tribes. Other explanations point to darker fates, like disease, an
attack by Spaniards or violence at the hands of Indians. The wild-eyed
fringe hints at cannibalism and even alien abduction.
The shroud of mystery may finally be lifting. The British Museum’s
re-examination of a 16th-century coastal map using 21st-century imaging
techniques has revealed hidden markings that show an inland fort where
the colonists could have resettled after abandoning the coast.
The findings,
announced Thursday morning, bring into focus a puzzle that has long fed
the feverish curiosity of historians, archaeologists and amateur
sleuths. Folklore has flourished over the colonists’ fate, including
that of the first child of English descent born in the Americas,
Virginia Dare.
And the findings point to new mysteries. The analysis suggests that the
symbol marking the fort was deliberately hidden, perhaps to shield it
from espionage in the spy-riddled English court. An even more
tantalizing hint of dark arts tints the map: the possibility that
invisible ink may have marked the site all along.
James Horn, vice president of research and historical interpretation at
the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, cautioned that the Lost Colony had
not been found. But the findings do provide the clearest marker yet for
future archaeological excavations, which, if successful, could pinpoint
where the settlers went.
“It’s a pretty amazing piece of evidence from a source that has been
staring us in the face all along,” said Mr. Horn, who joined historians
with an organization called the First Colony Foundation to announce the findings.
The discovery came from a watercolor map
in the British Museum’s permanent collection that was drawn by the
colony’s governor, John White. Hoping to establish a New World foothold
for the English, White took the settlers to their original location,
Roanoke Island, just inside the chain of barrier islands known today as
the Outer Banks.
It was the second English settlement on North Carolina’s coast, but it
was the first to include civilians, among them wives, sons and — within
weeks of their arrival in 1587 — White’s newborn granddaughter, Virginia
Dare.
White returned to England for supplies, but an attack by the Spanish
Armada delayed his return for three years. When he did return, the
settlers had vanished.
This blog is © History Chasers
Click here to view all recent Lost Colony Research Group Blog posts
A New World: England's First View of America
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005MWRU4K/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=genpagecom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B005MWRU4K
This blog is © History Chasers
Click here to view all recent Lost Colony Research Group Blog posts
Friday, May 4, 2012
Researchers say they have new clue to Lost Colony
Researchers say they have new clue to Lost Colony
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (AP) — A new look at a 425-year-old map has yielded a tantalizing clue about the fate of the Lost Colony, the settlers who disappeared from North Carolina's Roanoke Island in the late 16th century.
Experts from the First Colony Foundation
and the British Museum in London discussed their findings Thursday at a
scholarly meeting on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. Their focus: the "Virginea Pars" map of Virginia and North Carolina
created by explorer John White in the 1580s and owned by the British Museum
since 1866.
"We believe that this evidence provides
conclusive proof that they moved westward up the Albemarle Sound to the
confluence of the Chowan and Roanoke rivers," said James Horn, vice president of
research and historical interpretation at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
and author of a 2010 book about the Lost Colony.
"Their intention was to create a
settlement. And this is what we believe we are looking at with this symbol —
their clear intention, marked on the map ..."
Attached to the map are two patches. One
patch appears to merely correct a mistake on the map, but the other — in what is
modern-day Bertie County in northeastern North Carolina — hides what appears to
be a fort. Another symbol, appearing to be the very faint image of a different
kind of fort, is drawn on top of the patch.
The American and British scholars believe
the fort symbol could indicate where the settlers went. The British researchers
joined the Thursday meeting via webcast.
In a joint announcement, the museums said,
"First Colony Foundation researchers believe that it could mark, literally and
symbolically, 'the way to Jamestown.' As such, it is a unique discovery of the
first importance."
White made the map and other drawings when
he traveled to Roanoke Island in 1585 on an expedition commanded by Sir Ralph
Lane. In 1587, a second colony of 116 English settlers landed on Roanoke Island,
led by White. He left the island for England for more supplies but couldn't
return again until 1590 because of the war between England and Spain.
When he came back, the colony was gone.
White knew the majority had planned to move "50 miles into the maine," as he
wrote, referring to the mainland. The only clue he found about the fate of the
other two dozen was the word "CROATOAN" carved into a post, leading historians
to believe they moved south to live with American Indians on what's now Hatteras
Island.
But the discovery of the fort symbol offers
the first new clue in centuries about what happened to the 95 or so settlers,
experts said Thursday. And researchers at the British Museum discovered it
because Brent Lane, a member of the board of the First Colony Foundation, asked
a seemingly obvious question: What's under those two patches?
Researchers say the patches attached to
White's excruciatingly accurate map were made with ink and paper contemporaneous
with the rest of the map. One corrected mistakes on the shoreline of the Pamlico
River and the placing of some villages. But the other covered the possible fort
symbol, which is visible only when the map is viewed in a light box.
The map was critical to Sir Walter
Raleigh's quest to attract investors in his second colony, Lane said. It was
critical to his convincing Queen Elizabeth I to let him keep his charter to
establish a colony in the New World. It was critical to the colonists who
navigated small boats in rough waters.
(excerpted)
Archaeologists must first re-examine
ceramics, including some recovered from an area in Bertie County called Salmon
Creek, he said.
"This clue is certainly the most
significant in pointing where a search should continue," Lane said. "The search
for the colonists didn't start this decade; it didn't start this century. It
started as soon as they were found to be absent from Roanoke Island ... I would
say every generation in the last 400 years has taken this search on."
But none have had today's sophisticated technology to help, he
said.
"None of them had this clue on this
map."
This blog is © History Chasers
Click here to view all recent Lost Colony Research Group Blog posts
Patch on 425-year-old map yields new clue to fate of Lost Colony
British, US researchers say patch on 425-year-old map yields new clue to fate of Lost Colony
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (AP) — A new look at a 425-year-old map has yielded a tantalizing clue about the fate of the Lost Colony, the settlers who disappeared from North Carolina's Roanoke Island in the late 16th century.
Experts from the First Colony Foundation and the British Museum in London discussed their findings Thursday at a scholarly meeting on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Their focus: the "Virginea Pars" map of Virginia and North Carolina created by explorer John White in the 1580s and owned by the British Museum since 1866.
"We believe that this evidence provides conclusive proof that they moved westward up the Albemarle Sound to the confluence of the Chowan and Roanoke rivers," said James Horn, vice president of research and historical interpretation at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and author of a 2010 book about the Lost Colony.
"Their intention was to create a settlement. And this is what we believe we are looking at with this symbol — their clear intention, marked on the map ..."
Attached to the map are two patches. One patch appears to merely correct a mistake on the map, but the other — in what is modern-day Bertie County in northeastern North Carolina — hides what appears to be a fort. Another symbol, appearing to be the very faint image of a different kind of fort, is drawn on top of the patch.
This blog is © History Chasers
Click here to view all recent Lost Colony Research Group Blog posts
Thursday, May 3, 2012
John White's Maps Revealing Secrets Over Four Centuries Old
It is a mystery that has perplexed
historians for more than 400 years - what ever became of the 120
settlers who tried to establish England's first colony on the north-east
coast of America?
Queen
Elizabeth I and famed explorer Sir Walter Raleigh had hoped the
expedition in the 1580s would create a capital in the New World, but
something went terribly wrong.
The men, women and children simply
vanished - possibly massacred by native American Indians - any evidence
of a settlement disappeared and the infamous 'lost colony' became rooted
in American folklore.
But solving the centuries-old mystery
may have come a step closer this week after experts identified a
tantalising clue hidden in a map drawn by a man on that fateful voyage.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138832/Is-Walter-Raleigh-s-lost-colony-drawn-invisible-ink-Clue-400-year-old-mystery-discovered-map-North-America.html#ixzz1tpWNFq2f
The ink, which is also disguised by a piece of paper glued to it, was likely put together using milk, citrus juice or urine, as was common at the time.
Its use during the 'lost colony expedition' also sheds light on an era of political suspicion at the time.
Location, location, location: Roanake Island is
located just off what is now the state of North Carolina. White's maps
have been praised for being particularly accurate
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138832/Is-Walter-Raleigh-s-lost-colony-drawn-invisible-ink-Clue-400-year-old-mystery-discovered-map-North-America.html#ixzz1tpVvn1o0
This blog is © History Chasers
Click here to view all recent Lost Colony Research Group Blog posts
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
John White Map Speaks to Modern Historians
The fate of Sir Walter Raleigh's famed "lost colony" in the New World – and the disappearance without a trace of more than 100 English settlers – has been an unsolved mystery for 400 years, a lost chapter of Anglo-American history. That so many men, women and children could simply vanish has become the stuff of American folklore. Many assume that they were either slaughtered by native American Indians or assimilated into their communities.
Now, a clue has emerged that experts hope could help solve the centuries-old mystery of the settlers' disappearance, and lead them to the site of what Raleigh and Queen Elizabeth I hoped would be a capital, the first English attempt at colonisation.
Concealed on an Elizabethan map of the east coast of North America, but now identified by the British Museum, is a hint at the colony's location drawn in what appears to be invisible ink, further disguised by a barely-discernible patch of paper glued to it.
Scientific tests have revealed that a lozenge, the symbol for a fort, was hidden on the map drawn by John White, who accompanied Raleigh's first attempts to establish a colony. White led the settlers who were to establish the "Cittie of Raleigh" of which he was intended to be governor.
Its concealment on the map reflects an age mired in political intrigue – Elizabeth I was then facing plots to place the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots on the English throne – and fears of such a map getting into the hands of court spies.
Invisible ink was concocted at that time from milk, citrus juice or urine, and usually revealed by applying heat.
An official announcement will be made today, but an excavation of the site, now farmland, is planned.
Cont.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/drawn-in-invisible-ink-is-this-the-site-of-walter-raleighs-lost-colony-7707486.html
Click here to view all recent Lost Colony Research Group Blog posts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
