The Lost Colony of Roanoke
New Perspectives
BRANDON FULLAM
McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Jefferson, North Carolina
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGUING DATA ARE AVAILABLE
BRITISH LIBRARY CATALOGUING DATA ARE AVAILABLE
e-ISBN: 978-1-4766-2849-3
© 2017 Brandon Fullam. All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying or recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
On the cover: White’s party find traces of the colonists, 1590 (New York Public Library, Digital Collections); background: map of early America 1585, John White, Theodor de Bry, Thomas Harriot (Library of Congress); old paper banner (© 2017 cranach/iStock)
McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Box 611, Jefferson, North Carolina 28640
www.mcfarlandpub.com
For Ann, Alexis, and Evelyn
Table of Contents
Introduction
Part I: The Raleigh Years
1. Setting the Stage: 1496–1586
2. Planning the Cittie of Ralegh: July 27, 1586–July 22, 1587
3. Simon Fernandez and the Aborted Chesapeake Plan: July 22–August 27, 1587
4. Decisions at Roanoke: August 28–September 30, 1587
5. The Colonists Select a Mainland Settlement Site: October–November 1587
6. Pivotal Events in England and Virginia: January–June 1588
7. The Legend of the CORA Tree and the Outpost at Croatoan: July–September 1588
8. A Critical Gamble at Sea: September 1588–August 1589
9. The Great Hurricane and the Final Collapse of the Colony: September 1589
10. The “Legend of the Coharie” and the Hurricane’s Aftermath: October 1589–January 1590
11. John White’s Final Voyage; Roanoke and Croatoan Abandoned: February–October 1590
12. Raleigh and Guiana; Rumors of Survivors: 1594–1606
Part II: The Jamestown Intelligence
13. John Smith’s A True Relation and the “Zúñiga Map”: 1607–1608
14. The “Men Cloathed” at Ocanahonan and Pakrakanick: 1607–1608
15. The “Men Apparalled” at Pananiock/Panawicke: 1607–1608
16. John Smith and the Powhatan-Slaughter Myth: 1608–1609
17. The Francisco Fernández de Écija Reconnaissance: 1609
18. William Strachey and the “Slaughter at Roanoke”: 1609–1611
19. The “Slaughter at Roanoke” Solved: 1610–1611
20. Lost Colony Clues and Powhatan Oral Tradition: 1611–1612
Part III: Lost Colony Survivors and Descendants
21. Survival Possibilities: 1612–1711
22. The Search for Descendants: 18th Century and Beyond
Summation
Chapter Notes
Bibliography
List of Names and Terms
Introduction
The focus of the present work is the 1587 Lost Colony, but its approach is a significant departure from the traditional method of dealing with the subject matter. On the one hand the book promises to provide the reader with fresh perspectives—supported by documentary evidence and previously unexamined sources—about the activities, decisions, challenges, disappointments, and disappearance of the 1587 colony and the many subsequent attempts to locate it. The chapters are presented in specific, continuous, chronological segments so that the events that make up the story of the Lost Colony can more readily be seen in their proper sequence of cause and effect. The strict chronology also allows for the Lost Colony story to be understood in its larger context, with the historical record serving as a permanent backdrop to the narrative.
But this book intends to do more than offer new evidence and solutions to the Lost Colony mystery. It also promises to identify and challenge the difficulties and shortcomings of the theories and assumptions contained in virtually all past and present nonfiction books and published material on the Lost Colony. That endeavor is also facilitated by the aforementioned chronology, because it allows for a focused examination of those past and current assumptions at every key step in the Lost Colony narrative. A few of those key steps include the decision to alter the original settlement destination at the Chesapeake Bay, the condition and circumstances surrounding the colony at Roanoke, the selection of a mainland settlement site, the departure from Roanoke, and—most importantly—the ultimate fate of the colony. In a few crucial places the book also ventures into the field known as historical criticism, where it becomes necessary to challenge traditional misconceptions about the precise meaning of certain words and phrases penned by one particular Jamestown chronicler when he referenced the Lost Colony. This dual, comprehensive approach is unique among previously published books dealing with the Lost Colony.
The motivation for writing this book was a long-standing dissatisfaction and fundamental disagreement with the theories and explanations about the Lost Colony that have appeared in print over the years. For well over four centuries, in fact, there has been little or no progress made in solving the mystery of the disappearance of the 1587 colonists, despite the many attempts by authors and historians to persuade us that the Lost Colonists went here or there upon leaving Roanoke, and that eventually they were victims of a slaughter that occurred in one of several supposed locations. Unfortunately, these explanations are contradicted by a close examination of the contemporary references and details contained in the late 16th and early 17th century documents and accounts. Virtually all of the published material attempting to explain what happened to the Lost Colony has only provided slight variations of earlier theories and assumptions, which—as will be proposed in the pages that follow—were flawed from the very beginning.
Historian David Beers Quinn once wrote that all Lost Colony authors are faced with three options concerning their approach to the subject matter. The first is to adhere consistently and faithfully to the facts and details as presented in the late 16th and early 17th century documents and accounts relating to the topic. While this may seem like a reasonable goal of every serious historical writer, it is surprising how many basic factual errors one will encounter in the nonfiction books about the Lost Colony to be found on the library shelf today. Quinn himself was occasionally wrong in a broader sense—his Chesapeake theory is one notable example—but he probably was on target when he chided his contemporaries for their “inadequate knowledge” of the writings of Jamestown chroniclers John Smith and William Strachey on the subject of the Lost Colony. Yet even if we concede someone’s adequate knowledge of the source material, his or her strict adherence to the information as presented in those sources will tend to result in yet another repetition of the recycled versions mentioned above.
The second approach is the opposite of the first and relies more on imagination than facts in order to produce a fanciful tale about the Lost Colony. There are a number of such books on the library shelves too, but these are arranged alphabetically by the author’s last name and need not be mentioned further in the context of nonfiction.
The third approach is the most challenging and potentially the most rewarding. Its prerequisite is an exceptional familiarity with the documents and relevant source materials that pertain to the Lost Colony, an attribute not shared equally by everyone, as Quinn noted. Then there must be the commitment to adhere as closely as possible to the details in those accounts, but not indiscriminately as in the first approach. The early chroniclers must first be identified as primary, secondary, or even tertiary sources in
order to properly assess their historical reliability, a factor that will be of particular importance in the examination of the Lost Colony references contained in the Jamestown documents. The documents themselves must be carefully analyzed for textual contradictions and ambiguities, conflicts with the larger contemporary historical record, and other more subtle textual clues, all of which may then be used to verify, clarify, expand—and in some cases challenge and correct—the traditional narrative. As suggested above, books produced by authors who consistently and resolutely attach universal credibility to the traditional assumptions about the information contained in the early sources, particularly non-primary sources, are bound to repeat the same Lost Colony narrative over and over again.
As with all mysteries, resolution must start with a careful and impartial examination of all the available evidence, in this case the clues contained in those pertinent 16th and 17th century sources, and not with a preconceived hypothesis. To do otherwise would be to fall victim to what Thomas Jefferson once observed: “The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory.” Unfortunately, Jefferson’s warning aptly describes the general state of Lost Colony theory today. Authors who promote theories that are rooted in long-standing preconceptions and assumptions will necessarily produce books with predisposed outcomes. Consequently, as Jefferson noted, they tend to see “only the traits which favor” their preconceived assumptions, and are blind to other potentially important clues and outcomes. In one remarkable case, to be cited below, a critical clue was misinterpreted in order to fit a preexisting assumption about the fate of the Lost Colony.
Although it is hoped that this book will rest entirely on its own merits, a few autobiographical notes are inserted here. My background, like my approach to this topic, is somewhat unusual in that my interest in the Lost Colony developed relatively late. I received a B.A. degree from Providence College in 1966 and immediately embarked on a thirty-four year career of teaching English and a few years of Latin in South Huntington on Long Island. I received an M.A. from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1973. That same year I was invited to join the doctoral program at Stony Brook for my research on American authors Emerson and Melville and English poet Lord Byron. This work had nothing at all to do with the subject of the Lost Colony, but I mention it here because my research involved close textual analysis, an aptitude which would prove instrumental in my later examination of the documents and accounts related to the Lost Colony. The Byron research, in particular, provided fresh evidence and a new hypothesis concerning his unfinished Don Juan, a work which has been debated in literary circles since Byron’s untimely death in 1824. The doctoral program at Stony Brook required a full-time commitment, however, and the stipend I was offered was insufficient either to cover the mortgage on our house or to persuade me to leave my established teaching career. I did, however, complete a number of postgraduate courses in English and history.
I had always taken an interest in the history of the early European-Native American contact period, and my wife and I spent many summer months exploring the ancient Puebloan cliff dwellings in the Southwest and examining the accounts of the early Spanish expeditions there. After my retirement from teaching in 2000 we visited the 1607 “James Town” settlement site, where the Jamestown Rediscovery project had been at work for nearly a decade. At that time the archaeological excavations were concentrated near the west wall of the original palisade of what was called James Fort, and the team had discovered several building foundations, gravesites, and many early 17th century artifacts. That experience inspired me to explore the writings of the early Jamestown chroniclers: George Percy, Edward Maria Wingfield, Henry Spelman, and Ralph Hamor, to name a few, and of course John Smith and William Strachey, where the references to the Lost Colony are found. Those problematic references led inevitably to research into the earlier accounts of the Roanoke voyages contained in Richard Hakluyt’s The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation, as well as other late 16th and early 17th century sources and histories. It was during that period of research that a number of deficiencies in the traditional Lost Colony narrative became evident.
In 2012 I became associated with the Lost Colony Research Group, an alliance co-founded by Roberta Estes and Ann Poole in 2007. The LCRG consists of dedicated and knowledgeable individuals pursuing multi-faceted disciplines related to the Lost Colony in the fields of archaeology, genealogy, genetics, and historical research. The LCRG has sponsored and funded a number of archaeological digs since 2009 and enjoys an ongoing collaboration with the Phelps Archaeology Laboratory at East Carolina University, as well as the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology. The LCRG also remains in the forefront of genetic research with endeavors such as the Lost Colony Y DNA and the Lost Colony Family Projects, both of which are overseen by co-founder Estes, who has won a number of awards for her work in this field, including two Paul Jehu Barringer Awards of Excellence and two Paul Green Multimedia Awards. In addition to its work in archaeology, genealogy, and genetics, the group has also published, reviewed, and collaborated with other authors on many articles of historical interest related to the Lost Colony and has won several awards from the North Carolina Historical Society, including the Malcolm Fowler Society Award and three Joe M. McLaurin Awards.
I have written a number papers and reports on the Lost Colony, some of which have appeared in publications of the aforementioned Lost Colony Research Group. Many of my earlier papers are also archived at the Office of State Archaeology in Raleigh, NC, as well as the Sampson-Clinton Public Library in Clinton, NC. Some of my work has appeared in the newsletter of the Sampson County Historical Society. I am also a member of the Virginia Historical Society.
What follows in this volume is the product of years of research which challenges the foundation of current and past Lost Colony theory in a number of key areas. It is proposed here that virtually all past and current Lost Colony theories have been based upon one or more of the following four fallacies, which have become, through reiteration over time, what are hereafter referred to as “institutionalized assumptions.”
1. The first and oldest of the institutionalized assumptions is that master pilot Simon Fernandez was a scurrilous individual who, through incompetence or villainy, was directly responsible for the failure of the 1587 colony.
2. The second erroneous assumption is that John Smith’s references to the “men cloathed” at Ocanahonan and Pakrakanick were Lost Colonists.
3. The third assumption is that Wahunsunacock, known to the English as Chief Powhatan, slaughtered the 1587 colony.
4. The fourth and final institutionalized assumption is that William Strachey’s reference to the “slaughter at Roanoke” does not refer specifically to Roanoke Island, but rather anywhere in the vast area separating Albemarle Sound and Jamestown.
Three of these fallacies have been with us for more than 400 years. The first is based entirely on John White’s inconsistent account of the 1587 voyage and his blatant mischaracterization of the flagship Lyon’s master pilot, Simon Fernandez. The second fallacy originated more than two decades later, when John Smith and the composer of the so-called Zúñiga Map—probably fellow Jamestown Council member John Martin—mistakenly concluded that the “men cloathed” at the distant locations of Ocanahonan and Pakrakanick were surviving members of the 1587 Lost Colony. The third fallacy was also born at Jamestown, about a year later, when John Smith reported the disturbing—but erroneous—news that Chief Powhatan had slaughtered the 1587 Lost Colony. The combination of these three assumptions is responsible for all the current variations of the flawed narrative which claims that the Lost Colonists were intentionally abandoned by the villainous Simon Fernandez at Roanoke; that they hastily relocated from Roanoke to the Chesapeake Bay, the Chowan River, Weapemeoc, or elsewhere to the north or west; that they were eventually massacred by Chief Powhatan’s warriors or another tribe; a
nd that a few escaped to distant locations where they remained alive in 1607–8.
The fourth fallacy is a somewhat more recent and remarkable misinterpretation of a single phrase written by William Strachey, Secretary of the Jamestown Colony from June 13 of 1610 to the summer of 1611. Strachey’s troublesome claim that the slaughter of the English colonists occurred “at Roanoke,” was not widely known until his Historie of Travaile Into Virginia Britannia was eventually published by the Hakluyt Society in 1857, and it has baffled historians ever since. The inability to explain Strachey’s phrase satisfactorily has resulted in attempts either to circumvent or re-interpret his meaning in order to suit existing theories about the colony’s fate. The distortion of Strachey’s “slaughter at Roanoke” phrase is directly responsible for many of the theories promoted today which place the imagined massacre of the Lost Colony anywhere south of Jamestown from the Atlantic coast to the far reaches west of Albemarle Sound.
These four long-standing institutionalized assumptions have become cornerstones of mainstream Lost Colony doctrine, and they have attained an uncontested, authoritative status of their own. Consequently, they have had a major impact on the direction of Lost Colony theory. As proposed in the pages that follow, these assumptions have stifled any real progress in unraveling the Lost Colony mystery, and have resulted in many of the established—but misguided–theories that still persist today.
These flawed assumptions, particularly the first three, have endured for so long and have been repeated so often that they have attained a level of unchallenged, but undeserved, credibility. They are typical examples of “proof by repeated assertion,” the logical fallacy whereby something is accepted as being true or false simply because it has been asserted as such over and over again. As stated, it has been consistently alleged that Simon Fernandez was a villain, that Wahunsunacock slaughtered the 1587 colony, and that the “men cloathed” at Ocanahonan and Pakrakanick were surviving Lost Colonists. A closer look at the evidence, however, will challenge those assumptions. The fourth and more recently asserted (and repeated) assumption, regarding William Strachey’s references to the “slaughter at Roanoke,” has also been aided by an “appeal to authority,” another logical fallacy that holds something to be true or false because some authority had declared it so.
The Lost Colony of Roanoke Page 1