# E. Modern scholarship on the fate of the 1587 Roanoke colonists — dossier Companion files: `sources/` (all downloaded/extracted texts cited below, each with a SOURCE/URL/date header). ## 0. How this dossier was built, and what "VERIFIED" means here **Reading routes actually available.** Every modern monograph on this subject (Quinn 1974/1984/1985, Kupperman 1984/2007, Stick 1983, Miller 2000, Oberg 2008, Horn 2010, La Vere 2010, Fullam 2017, Lawler 2018, Dawson 2020, Klingelhofer 2023, Ewen & Shields 2024) is in copyright; the Internet Archive scans are borrow-only (full text 401/403), JSTOR/Project MUSE are login-walled, and I did not use unauthorized copies. What *was* reachable, and is used throughout: 1. **Open Library "search inside"** (`openlibrary.org/search/inside.json`) — returns ~5 short OCR snippets per query from the IA scan. These snippets are verbatim but **carry no page numbers** (the API's `page_num` field is a leaf count, not the hit's page). Marked below as **VERIFIED (OL snippet, no page)**. Where the snippet happens to reproduce an index entry, the page numbers in that entry are quoted. 2. **Google Books search-inside snippets**, rendered through a text proxy — verbatim snippets **with page numbers** for Horn 2010, Fullam 2017, Quinn 1985, Kupperman 2007 and Miller 2000 (complete runs); e-book previews WITHOUT page numbers for Lawler 2018, La Vere 2010, Dawson 2020 and Klingelhofer 2023; no preview at all for Oberg 2008; Rountree 2005 (with page numbers), Klingelhofer 2023 and a second Lawler 2018 run are in the Addendum. Marked **VERIFIED (GB snippet, p. N)**. Lawler's e-book returns snippets without page numbers. 3. **Full public-domain texts**: Strachey (Major ed. 1849), the 1609 Virginia Company Instructions (Kingsbury III), Smith's *True Relation* with Barbour's 1986 annotations (Virtual Jamestown), Barbour's 1975 Algonquian Conference paper on Ocanahowan (complete), Wright 1951 Spanish documents, Pearce 1938, and the modern web statements (Horn 2010 American Heritage article; Dawson 2020 American Heritage article; Oberg 2020 blog; NPS 2025 page; Coastal Review, Island Free Press, Outer Banks Voice, LiveScience, History.com, WHRO reports 2015–2026; First Colony Foundation pages; publisher pages). 4. **Reviews**: Matson (Pennsylvania History) on Miller; Kirkus on Miller, Horn, Lawler; Washington Post and Seattle Times on Horn; H-Net (Towns) on Lawler; AHR (Oakley) abstract on Klingelhofer; Oberg's JSH review of Lawler (only as quoted secondhand). **Rules used.** A quotation is labelled VERIFIED only when I read it in one of the texts above; page numbers are given only when the text itself supplied them. Everything else — including my reconstructions of an author's overall argument from snippets, and everything I "remember" about a book — is labelled **UNVERIFIED**. I have not invented any quotation or page number; where a snippet is cut off mid-sentence I reproduce the cut. "Not obtained" means exactly that. **Coverage summary (how much of each work was actually read):** | Work | Read | |---|---| | Quinn, *Roanoke Voyages* (1955) | not read (borrow-only); cited only through others' page references | | Quinn, *England and the Discovery of America* (1974), ch. 17 | OL snippets only (c. 60 snippets) | | Quinn, *The Lost Colonists* (1984 booklet) | OL snippets only (c. 100 snippets) | | Quinn, *Set Fair for Roanoke* (1985) | OL snippets (c. 200) + index entries + GB page-numbered snippets (c. 150, §1.6: pp. 345–378 of the Lost Colonists chapter, 25, 90, 275, 307–309, 346, 388, 446) | | Horn, *A Kingdom Strange* (2010) | GB page-numbered snippets (c. 250, incl. most of ch. 6 pp. 205–234 and notes pp. 269–272) + OL snippets; plus Horn's own 2010 American Heritage article in full | | Lawler, *The Secret Token* (2018) | GB snippets (unpaginated; second, fuller run in the Addendum) + full H-Net review, Kirkus, Lawler's own 2015/2018 National Geographic pieces and 2018 CrimeReads excerpt | | Dawson, *The Lost Colony and Hatteras Island* (2020) | Dawson's own 2020 American Heritage essay in full; GB snippets (c. 100, unpaginated, §4.A); Wikipedia summary | | Horton (no book; statements 2016–2026) | press reports in full (2016, 2020, 2025, 2026); no peer-reviewed publication exists (confirmed by Oberg 2020, NYT 2015, LiveScience 2025, History.com 2025) | | Miller, *Roanoke* (2000) | OL snippets (c. 300) + GB page-numbered snippets (c. 150, §5A) + Matson review (full) + Kirkus + Oberg's and Horn's notes + Fullam's critique (GB pp. 28–30, 43, 48, 146) | | Kupperman, *Roanoke: The Abandoned Colony* (1984/2007) | OL snippets of both editions (c. 200) + GB page-numbered snippets of the 2007 ed. (c. 120, incl. Afterword pp. 169–178) | | Oberg, *The Head in Edward Nugent's Hand* (2008) | OL snippets (c. 200); Oberg's 2020 blog post in full; Google Books has no search-inside preview for this title | | Parramore, NCHR 78:1 (2001) | article not obtained; BUT the journal's own vol. 78 contents + annual index (Internet Archive OCR) give page-level pointers to his argument (§8, Addendum A.4); plus secondhand summaries (Fullam pp. 40, 178; Coastal Review 2020) | | La Vere, NCHR 86:3 (2009); *The Lost Rocks* (2010) | article: abstract + NC Miscellany quotations + 2025 talk blurb + the journal's vol. 86 index page-pointers (Addendum A.4); book: GB snippets (c. 150, unpaginated, §9A) | | Rountree, *Pocahontas's People* (1990); *Pocahontas, Powhatan, Opechancanough* (2005) | OL snippets (c. 60 each); GB snippets WITH page numbers for the 2005 book (Addendum A.2) | | Barbour, *Jamestown Voyages* (1969); "Ocanahowan" (1975); *Complete Works of Smith* (1986) notes | 1975 paper complete; 1986 notes complete (Virtual Jamestown); 1969: OL snippets (index entries only) | | Stick, *Roanoke Island* (1983) | OL snippets (c. 60) | | Shields & Ewen, eds., *Searching for the Roanoke Colonies* (2003) | publisher description only | | Fullam, *The Lost Colony of Roanoke: New Perspectives* (2017) | GB page-numbered snippets (c. 120) + publisher table of contents | | Klingelhofer, ed., *Excavating the Lost Colony Mystery* (2023) | UNC Press page (description, contributor list, review quotes), AHR review abstract, FCF web statements 2015–2024; GB snippets (c. 60 terms, unpaginated; index page-numbers recovered) in Addendum A.1 | | Ewen & Shields, *Becoming the Lost Colony* (2024) | publisher description + full table of contents + Ewen's press statements 2016–2025 | | DuVal | 2025 press quotations only; *Native Nations* (2024) not consulted | | NPS, "Major Theories of the Lost Colony" (rev. 2025) | complete | | Sloan, *A New World* (2007); Noël Hume, *The Virginia Adventure* (1994); Horn, *A Land as God Made It* (2005) | OL snippets only (c. 20, 60 and 60 respectively) | | Briceland (1987) | not consulted | --- ## 1. David Beers Quinn (1909–2002) ### 1.1 Bibliographic details - *The Roanoke Voyages, 1584–1590: Documents to Illustrate the English Voyages to North America under the Patent Granted to Walter Raleigh in 1584*, 2 vols., Hakluyt Society 2nd ser. 104–105 (London, 1955). [Not read. Cited by Horn (e.g. RV 2: 598–622, 715, 826–838), Barbour (RV II 849, 872 on Panawick), Miller (RV II 857 on Mangoak/Mandoag), Rountree (RV 244–46, 247, 494), Oberg (RV 416, 422, 429, 431, 870–71) — all VERIFIED as citations in those authors' snippets.] - *England and the Discovery of America, 1481–1620* (London: Allen & Unwin / New York: Knopf, 1974), ch. 17 "The Lost Colony in Myth and Reality, 1586–1625". VERIFIED (OL snippet): "Chapter Seventeen The Lost Colony in Myth and Reality, 1586-1625 [ 432" and page-headers "The Lost Colony in Myth and Reality, 1586-1625 [ 433 / 435 / 437" — i.e. the chapter begins at p. 432. Index snippets VERIFIED: "Powhatan, Indian chief, 453, 454, 456-7, 459-60, 462, 466-8, 478, 480"; "Machumps, an Indian, 473, 479"; "Tuscarora Indians, 459"; "Weapemeoc Indians, 461". - *The Lost Colonists: Their Fortune and Probable Fate* (Raleigh: North Carolina Dept. of Cultural Resources, America's Four Hundredth Anniversary Committee, 1984), booklet. IA id lostcoloniststhe0000quin. - *Set Fair for Roanoke: Voyages and Colonies, 1584–1606* (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985). IA id setfairforroanok00quin. Index entries VERIFIED (OL): "Lost Colonists, 1586, 341-43, 344, 371, 372, 373 Lost Colonists, 1587, 231-32 [...]"; "Powhatan [...] massacre by Powhatan, 362; information on, 365-67; utensils of, taken by Powhatan, 365"; "Sicklemore, Michael, 374"; "Pory, John, 376"; "Hatteras I., 376"; "Chesepiuc (Indian village), 107, 215, 252"; "Chesepians, Colonel of, 106, 127, 268"; "Nansemond Indians, 351, 364, 365"; "Glande (Glavin), Darby (1585 colonist), 90; deserts to Spaniards [...]". A running head "Found? 365" (VERIFIED) shows the "Lost Colonists — Found?" discussion sits around pp. 365–376; Miller cites "Quinn, Set Fair for Roanoke, pp. 371-3" for Ocanahowan (VERIFIED as Miller's citation). ### 1.2 Quinn's reconstruction (as far as the snippets allow) UNVERIFIED as a whole (reconstructed from the snippets quoted in 1.3 and from Horn's, Kupperman's, Rountree's, Fullam's and Aron's summaries): (a) the 1587 colony, dumped on Roanoke Island by Fernandes, kept its original objective; (b) after White left, the **main body** moved north by pinnace and boats to the southern shore of Chesapeake Bay — the Lynnhaven Bay / Elizabeth River country of the Chesapeake Indians (villages Chesepiuc, Apasus; "city" Skicoac) that Lane's party had wintered in during 1585–86; (c) a **small party** stayed on Roanoke to meet White and, by 1588, moved to Croatoan with Manteo's people (hence the carved message); (d) the main body lived "intermixed" with the Chesapeakes for about twenty years; (e) Powhatan, prompted by his priests' prophecy, destroyed the Chesapeakes and the English among them at about the time Newport's fleet entered the bay (late April 1607); (f) seven (four men, two boys, one girl) escaped up the Chowan to Ritanoe, a copper-working place probably in the Virgilina copper district; (g) Smith learned of this from Powhatan in 1608 but suppressed it; Strachey (from Machumps, 1610–11) and Purchas (1625, from Smith) recorded it; (h) Samuel Mace's 1602/1603 voyages may have carried "Virginians" to London and Ralegh may have had reports of the colonists' survival on the Chesapeake. Quinn himself called the section "speculative" (1.3). ### 1.3 Verbatim evidence (all VERIFIED OL snippets unless noted; ellipses mark the snippet edges) *Set Fair for Roanoke* (1985): - "The most speculative section deals with the Lost Colonists, the men, women, and children from the [...]" (preface/front matter). - "[...] happened to a major part of them, the main body of the 1587 colony in effect, though archaeology [...]"; "[...] although he knew the main body had indeed decided to make the fifty-mile [...]"; "[...] whether the main body had changed its plan and all of the colonists [...]". - "[...] Had they not, as seems most probable, somehow dispersed themselves among the [...]" — note the word "dispersed". - "[...] for 'twenty and odd years [they] had peaceably lived and intermixed with those savages [the [Chesapeakes] [...]'" and "[...] with them as well, because they were intermixed) were slaughtered 'at what time' Newport's [...]". - Strachey's "at Roanoak": "[...] into account, with the assumption that 'at 'Roanoak'' and elsewhere 'of Roanoak' means, not [...]" (snippet ends; the continuation — presumably "not Roanoke Island but the colony/colonists planted from it" — is UNVERIFIED). Also "[...] them by those English who escaped the slaughter at 'Roanoak' at what time our colony . . . landed [...]". - Ritanoe: "[...] of deposits of copper at a place called Ritanoe (probably in the later Virgilina district through which the river cuts, [...]"; "[...] is Lost in the Virgilina district (though Ritanoe has not been located and could have been [...]"; "[...] that 'at Ritanoe the weroance 'Eyanoco' [the Gepanocon above?] preserved seven of the English alive [...]'"; "[...] which he had certain mines at the said Ritanoe.' It might appear from this statement that [...]". - Ocanahowan: "[...] river well to the south (Neuse?), while Ocanahowan is on what is clearly the Roanoke River [...]" (Zúñiga-map discussion, index "Ocanahonan 370-373", "Zuniga map 371-372"). - Mangoaks: "[...] search by Lane because the Mangoaks (Tuscarora) were said to have had access to sources [...]"; "[...] but here used most frequently for the Tuscarora)". - Chesapeake villages: "[...] the village of Chesepiuc, evidently a village of the Chesapeake [...]"; "[...] appear to have stopped at two villages, Chesepiuc and Apasus, on or near Lynnhaven Bay [...]"; "[...] west side of Broad Bay and linked with Lynnhaven Bay and near Virginia Beach is likely to [...]"; "[...] though so far no European artifacts have [...]"; "[...] their way to an area on or near the Elizabeth River in southeastern Virginia. There they [...]". - Croatoan party: "[...] did not join Manteo's Indians on Croatoan Island to the south. Just conceivably, they [...]"; "[...] visited not only the fort site but also Croatoan Island, by then known as Hatteras Island.28" (of a later search). - Survival/absorption: "[...] do to some Lost Colony survivors some twenty years later. They might even have been left [...]"; "After twenty years, however, their Englishness would be wearing [...]"; "[...] of them found, nor seen to this day in 1622.'27 The handful of fugitives had been allowed [...]"; "[...] event, if even one of them was alive in 1622, he or she would have been so thoroughly [...]"; "Thereafter, until well after 1622, we have no record of any Englishman setting [...]"; "George Sandys wrote, from Jamestown on 3 March 1622, of his expedition as far as the Chowan [...]". - Voyaging: "Although a small party could coast the southern part of Chesapeake [...]". - Mace/Ralegh: "[...] an English ship did so in 1603 (under Samuel Mace) and took away several of Powhatan's men [...]"; "But if they had been taken to England by Mace, and if they had come from York River, Thomas [Harriot?] [...]"; "[...] that there were 'Virginians,' Indians perhaps from the Chesapeake, in London in 1603."; "Ralegh's actions in 1603 might indicate that Mace did bring home some suggestions that Chesapeake [...]"; "[...] apprehended by someone, as Powhatan complained in 1607 that 'two or three years before' (but it [...]". - Latest report: "[...] of reports, the latest probably from Darby Glavin, the Irishman who had deserted from White [...]". - Method: "A danger here is that of stating a hypothesis and then going on to treat it as an [established fact?]"; "[...] us already too far along the road of conjecture. However, if this attempted reconstruction [...]". - Front matter (a blurb, apparently David Stick's): "[...] seventeenth century. They were massacred by Powhatan about 1607. But while he solves that mystery, Quinn [...]" (VERIFIED as text in the scan; authorship of the blurb UNVERIFIED). *The Lost Colonists* (1984 booklet): - "[...] were killed by the Virginia Indian ruler Powhatan shortly before Jamestown was founded. But [...]"; "[...] in modern Virginia, were wiped out in a massacre by the despotic ruler of the Indian tribes [...]". - Timing: "If this statement is taken literally, the massacre would have taken place very quickly between April 24 and 27, 1607, and the evidence of it would have been [...]"; "[...] but it is not impossible. Otherwise, the massacre must have occurred shortly before this time [...]"; "[...] this would date their massacre as late as 1607. His statement that they lived peacefully [...]"; "[...] place the killings toward the end of April, 1607, a possibility already considered, assuming [...]". - Croatoan: "Roanoke Island in 1587 did not rejoin the main body of settlers but lived instead with the Croatoan (Hatteras) Indians of the Outer Banks. There [...]"; "[...] small group left as a body to live at Croatoan — though they could visit Roanoke Island from [...]"; "[...] the island awaiting White but were at Croatoan with Manteo. If they were on the island [...]". - Main body: "[...] contact with the Lost Colonists proper, the main body of whom can be assumed with some confidence [...]"; "[...] possessions westward, most likely toward Skicoac. They possibly had the assistance of a [...]"; "[...] did the group go? Is the vicinity of Skicoac the most likely area? Our best assumption [...]"; "[...] Chesepiuc, apparently on Great Neck in Lynnhaven Bay [...]"; "[...] suggested, was well inland near the present Elizabeth River in Virginia, they are bound to have left traces that Powhatan is unlikely to have destroyed completely [...]"; "[...] certainly have been less secure there from any Powhatan Indian interference than if they were located [...]". - Strachey and sources: "[...] information concerning the killings is William Strachey, appointed secretary to the Jamestown colony [...]"; "The massacre was reported to King James, Strachey said, and 'because his Majesty is of all [...]'"; "[...] a friendly Indian, Machumps, who in 1610 or 1611 built on this report [...]"; "Elsewhere, Strachey spoke of 'the slaughter at Roanoke' at what time this our colony [...]"; "[...] Walter 'Rawley,' which escaped from the slaughter of Powhatan of Roanoke upon the first arrival [...]"; "A later passage relates the priests directly to the massacre. These instructions [...]"; "[...] first remove from them their iniocasockes or priests by a surprise of them all and detaining [...]". - Smith/Purchas: "Smith's suppression of his knowledge of the massacre for so long is a principal reason that [...]"; "[...] later, that 'Powhatan confessed to Captain Smith that he had been at their slaughter and had divers utensils to show.' Moreover, Purchas added a note to his large compilation Pilgrimes [...]"; "There is no doubt that Purchas got this information from Smith himself, [...]"; "It was only in conversation with Samuel Purchas some fourteen years after his return from [...]"; "In 1623 Samuel Purchas would write in his tract 'Virginia's Verger [...]'". - Ritanoe/Ocanahowan/Chowan: "[...] reports of copper deposits at a place called Ritanoe (conceivably in the Virgilina ridge, where natural copper was found in the nineteenth century). They [...]"; "[...] apparently, that they were employed in working copper for him. 45 Thus some coherent story reached [...]"; "[...] Ocanahonan, which may have existed on the Chowan River, on the Roanoke, or even farther south [...]"; "[...] having escaped the killing and reached the Chowan tribe not far from the head of Albemarle [...]"; "[...] (as slaves?) of a chief who dominated the Chowan River and possibly the lower reaches of [...]"; "[...] highly improbable by authorities on the Tuscarora."; "[...] territory of the 'Mangoages,' the Iroquoian Tuscarora who were the copper-owning Mangoaks that [...]". - Mace: "[...] that of Samuel Mace in 1602, did not get farther north than modern Cape Hatteras, if that far. If Mace encountered any Indians, and it is not known [...]"; "A distinct possibility is that Mace made his way into the bay and sailed up the York River, there encountering a [...]". - Pinnace: "[...] colonists would stay at Roanoke Island with the pinnace to await the return of the supply ships [...]"; "[...] settlers, but they probably thought the pinnace was adequate to do this. What became obvious [...]"; "They would use the pinnace and some boats and canoes to carry them [...]". - Candour: "[...] to 1590 is almost entirely a matter for conjecture. It may be that evidence will emerge [...]"; "Everything else that has been said is conjecture; but it can be assumed that there was [...]"; "[...] there is indicates that the colonists lived peaceably, losses by war can probably be ruled out [...]". *England and the Discovery of America* (1974), ch. 17: - On Strachey's text: "In these passages it is not specifically stated that Powhatan, his Weroances [...]"; "[...] authorized by what Strachey says. There is also the fact that Strachey does not state that [...]"; "[...] that Strachey does not state that the massacre of the lost colonists took place on or [...]"; "[...] to be decisive about the fact of the massacre — he does not name a place. Elsewhere he [...]"; "Nor, finally, is Strachey consistent throughout [...]"; "[...] it specifically linked the time of the massacre with the time of the first landing. We [...] probably take it that Strachey believed the massacre to have taken place on these dates in [...]"; "[...] report to the king, which Strachey was using." - "Powhatan of Roanocke": "[...] second is that 'Powhatan of Roanocke' applies to a person who is a Powhatan or high chief [...]" (Quinn canvasses two readings of the 1609 Instructions' phrase); "[...] under Powhatan, but under an absolute Weroance, as powerfull and great as Powhatan.' 7 He [...]". - Smith/Powhatan: "Smith accused Powhatan of attacking and killing the lost colonists, Powhatan replying by admitting [...]"; "[...] had beene at their [the lost colonists'] slaughter, and had divers utensils of theirs to shew [...]". - Chesapeake: "[...] living with the Chesapeake Indians and that the killing of the Chesapeake Indians and of [...]"; "[...] best planting wilbe about the bay of the Chesepians.' 5 Consequently, when in 1587 John [White] [...]". - Machumps: "[...] those reasonably near Jamestown such as Machumps himself, who was a Paspahegh. Once the [...]" (Quinn here calls Machumps a Paspahegh; Rountree 2005 calls him Powhatan's brother-in-law — see §10); "[...] refugees from the Powhatan massacre. To Machumps they are men who build houses with more [...]". - Ritanoe/Pannawaiack: "'neere to Riche Copper mines of Ritanoc [or Ritanoe] and may passe them by one braunche of [...]'"; "[...] mine of copper or gold in a towne called Ritanoe.' 6 This would seem to be based not on [...]"; "[...] he says, 'at Ritanoe, the Weroance Eyanoco preserved 7. of the [...]'"; "[...] which he hath certayn mines at the said Ritanoe, as also at Pannawaiack are said to be [...]"; "[...] systematic hammering, or even possibly smelting. Ritanoe is said to have mines, but it is not [...]". - Mangoaks/Tuscarora: "[...] Nottoway-Meherrin basin, their place taken by the Tuscarora, whose chief village was Ocanahowan; or else the Mangoaks of 1586 were Tuscarora and the 'Mangoage' of 1607 represented the Nottoway [...]"; "[...] Lane, Bernard Hoffman thought might be Tuscarora (and equate with the Mangoaks?) if they [...]". - Croatoan reconstruction: "[...] would have been solved when he found Manteo there. This reconstruction is largely fictional [...]". - Mace 1602: "The Virginia Voyages of 1602 [—] the voyage of Samuel Mace in 1602 in search of the lost colonists [...]"; "[...] which were left there in the yeere 1587.' Mace left Weymouth, Dorset, in March 1602 and [...]". ### 1.4 Quinn's treatment of the Jamestown-era reports (summary, UNVERIFIED except where quoted above) - **Strachey**: treated as the primary witness (from Machumps, and from a lost report to the king, 1609–10). Quinn reads "at Roanoak"/"of Roanoak" as the colony rather than the island (1.3), reads "20 and od yeares ... peaceably lyved and intermixt" as literal cohabitation with the Chesapeakes near the bay mouth, and reads "at what tyme this our colony ... landed within the Chesapeake Bay" as dating the massacre to late April 1607. He acknowledges (1974) that Strachey never names a place, is inconsistent, and does not explicitly say Powhatan did it in these passages. - **Smith**: True Relation's "men cloathed" at Ocanahonan, Anone, Panawicke = news of survivors; Smith's silence on a massacre = suppression; Purchas's 1625 marginal note ("Powhatan confessed ...") = Smith's private information. - **Zúñiga map**: Ocanahowan on the Roanoke River, Pakerikanick on a river well to the south (Neuse?), Panawiock (Set Fair 370–373). - **1609 Instructions**: Ohonahorn/Oconahoen, Ritanoc, Peccarecamicke, "slaughter of Powhaton of Roanocke" — read as consistent with the Chesapeake massacre; Quinn considers the alternative reading of "Powhatan of Roanocke" as a chief who was "a Powhatan" (1974). - **Archaeology**: none available to him for the Chesapeake ("so far no European artifacts have [been found]" at Chesepiuc); he expected traces there ("bound to have left traces"). - **Dare Stones**: not in the OL snippets of any of the three works (query "Dare Stone": 0 hits in all three) — UNVERIFIED whether he discusses them at all. ### 1.5 What would refute Quinn (my assessment) A demonstrably 16th-century English domestic assemblage west of Albemarle Sound with no Chesapeake counterpart (the FCF's Site X/Y claim, §15) weakens (c) but Quinn already allowed dispersal; a secure pre-1607 date for the destruction of the Chesapeakes (Rountree 1990: "he had exterminated the Chesapeakes ... by the summer [of 1607?]"; Rountree 2005: bitter enemies "by 1607") or evidence that the Chesapeakes were destroyed before 1587 would sever the link; proof that Strachey's "at Roanoak" means Roanoke Island (Fullam p. 190) or that Machumps's "slaughter" refers to 1586 (Fullam p. 198) would remove his key text; any 16th-century English burial or house on the Virginia Beach/Elizabeth River shore would confirm him. ### 1.6 Page-numbered snippets from *Set Fair for Roanoke* (Google Books, VERIFIED; file `snippets_googlebooks_quinn1985_set_fair.txt`) The chapter on the Lost Colonists carries the running head "Colony is Lost and Found ?" (pp. 365, 371) and follows "Colony is Formed and Lost" (p. 266); the front matter calls it the book's "speculative section [which] deals with the Lost Colonists , the men , women , and children from the British Isles who were never seen again after August 1587 . The attempt to knit together the scraps of hard information , vague tales , and...". - p. 345: White's finding the sign "Croatoan made him wonder , it would appear , whether the main body had changed its plan and all of the colonists had gone to Croatoan in spite of their careful planning . His judgment on this was clouded by sentiment if he did so". - p. 346: the voyage "to bring the whole expedition out from Hatarask or Trinity Harbor along the coast to Cape Henry and then some fifteen miles up the Elizabeth River . The pinnace is unlikely to have had a capacity of more than twenty tons ( measured in capacity of the largest wine barrels , tuns or tons ) , so it might be that two ladings would be sufficient to carry everything that". - p. 349: "The first winter and the first growing season would be crucial . It may be that a permanent village site was carved out in 1588 at some little distance from the main Chesapeake town to allow the settlers to develop their own". - p. 350: "[whether the] pinnace did not return to maintain contact between Roanoke Island and Skicoac after 1587. We can suggest , however , that it most probably remained avail- able to the party left on Roanoke Island through the season 1587-88 , though we cannot rely on its having survived after that . If Roanoke Island was". - p. 352: "Skicoac was a good way to the west of these sites , namely , fifteen to twenty miles and inland . The Chesapeake settlements in general appear to have been very similar to those of the Indians of the North Carolina Sounds"; "Because the only statement we have on their association is that they lived together peaceably , losses by war can perhaps be ruled out , and we are also told that they had intermingled with the Indians , which"; the Great Neck site "near Virginia Beach is likely to have been a Chesapeake community of some size . It is farther west than White's Chesepiuc , but it might have been it all the same ( though I am not inclined to think so )". - p. 353: "conjecture , but we can assume a considerable degree of cultural assimilation , with the interpenetration of customs and techniques and with , more than possibly , a Christian tinge over it all , even if there was no direct conversion". - p. 356: "Of Mace's voyage we have no direct information whatsoever , so that what follows must remain circumstantial , though it all appears to point in a single direction . One distinct possibility is that he made his way into Chesapeake Bay and". - p. 360: "[if Mace] took away several of Powhatan's men by force , his fears of European intervention would be aroused . It is likely that he kept a continuous outlook for further intruders . In addition , it is not unlikely that he put pressure"; and (Croatoan) "the expedition could exchange some of the many utensils , tools , and weapons it carried for milkweed , yucca , and other products of the colony . Unfortunately , they were frustrated and we shall never know what , if". - p. 362 (the "at what time" problem): "[if the colonists who had] intermixed ) were slaughtered " at what time " Newport's ships entered the Chesapeake Bay , then the massacre took place at breakneck speed between 24 and 27 April 1607 , and the evidence of their killing was covered up , at least to some extent , within that space of time . This assumption , which places Powhatan in a position to take punitive action on a large scale at a moment's notice , is not"; "priests that white men would soon come to deprive him of his kingdom , as indeed the English were to assert was the immediate cause of his actions . But he would most probably take the opportunity of posting lookouts to watch for ships". - p. 365: Quinn quotes Strachey ("the first plantation at Roanoke were by practice and commandment of Powhatan ( he himself persuaded there unto by his priests ) miserably slaughtered without any offence given him . " We would suggest") and Purchas: "Purchas added a note to his large compilation Hakluytus Posthumus , or Purchas his Pilgrimes , published in 1625 , saying that " Powhatan con- fessed that he had been at the murder of that colony and showed to Captain Smith a musket". - p. 367 (the "20 and od yeares" problem): "peaceably lived and intermixed with those savages [ the Chesapeakes ] and were off his [ Powhatan's ] territory . " Granted that Strachey might not know pre- cisely to the month when the Lost Colonists arrived in the Chesa- peake territory , this would put"; "1607 . His statement that they lived peacefully with the Indians and intermingled with them is the source of earlier suggestions on this subject . Elsewhere , he spoke of " the slaughter at ' Roanoke ' at which time this our colony"; "priests , spelled otherwise above ] , by whose advice and persuasions was exercised that bloody cru- elty , and only now that Powhatan , himself , and the weroances , must depend on his Majesty". - p. 368: "1607 , it could , more probably , have happened earlier . In this case we might wonder ( with no evidence at all to back it up ) whether , indeed , the priests could prophesy the impending arrival of the English colony . Or were they"; "priests , lay , he said , behind many of Powhatan's violent actions . He continued : Not long since it was that his priests told him how that from the " Chesapeack " Bay a nation should arise which should dis- solve and give end to his". - p. 369: Harriot "may have been able to help Mace in 1602 by providing him with some sort of vocabulary"; Powhatan's knowledge of English in 1607 "suggests he was not wholly ignorant of what was being said and may even have been able to speak a little". - p. 370: "[Ocanahowan could] have existed either on the Chowan or Roa- noke rivers . The two Englishmen and the chief did go very much farther south . It is clear from inscriptions on a map , now in Spain ( the so - called Zúñiga map which Smith had something to do with ) , 25 that they had entered the Roanoke River and were told of". - p. 371: "deposits of copper at a place called Ritanoe ( probably in the later Virgilina dis- trict through which the river cuts , where natural copper was to be identified , as has already been suggested )"; "Ocanahowan is on what is clearly the Roanoke River . As will shortly be evident , four men ( the same four ? ) were said to have remained with the Chawa- noac tribe further north again . A report on this expedition , which has not"; "Pakerikanick , " here remain the four men clothed that came from ' Roonock ' to ' Okanahowan . ' " This apparently meant they were per- sons who had escaped from the Chesapeake massacre and were not men who had been with Manteo". - p. 373: "Machumps , who , in 1610-11 , told him that at " Peccarecanicke " and " Ochanahoen " the people had built houses with stone walls and one story above another , " so taught them by those English who escaped the slaughter at ' Roanoak"; "[at] Ritanoe the weroance ' Eyanoco ' [ the Gepanocon above ? ] preserved seven of the English alive , four men , two boys and one young maid , who escaped and fled up the river of ' Choanoke ' [ Chowan ? ] to beat his copper , of which he". - p. 375: Smith's 1607 captivity "really meant that he was being received into Pow- hatan's circle as a weroance and so had become , formally at"; "[it was only to] Purchas some fourteen years after his return from Virginia that he admitted he had had specific admissions from Pow- hatan that he had killed the Lost Colonists . It is a strange thing that even though it was known by 1609 and confirmed". - pp. 376–377: Lawson's Croatoans (index: "seen by Lawson ( 1701 ) , 234 , 376-77"). Index (p. 454): "Croatoan I. ... 1587 colonists pre- sumed at , 324 , 345 , 354 , 358 , 359-60 ; sign"; (p. 453) "Chesapeake territory ( South Virginia ) : as colonizing objective , 108 , 252 , 368-69"; "search for Lost Colonists on , 299 , 319 , 355 ; 1588 Spanish exploration of , 307-9"; (p. 459) "Mace , Samuel : voyage to N. Carolina ( 1602 ) , 355 , 357 , 369 ; voyage to Chesa- peake ( 1603 ) , 355 , 356 , 360"; "Machumps ( an Indian ) , 373"; "Mangoaks ( Meherrin ; Tuscarora Indians ) , 93 , 108"; (p. 463) "Ritanoe , on Roanoke River , 371 , 373 , 374"; (p. 461) "Pakerikanick ( Indian village ) , 371 , 373"; (p. 456) "Glavin ... deserts to Spaniards , 275 , 307"; "González , Capt . Vincente , 307-9 , 387"; (p. 464) "Sicklemore , Michael , 374"; (p. 467) "Zuñiga map , 371 , 372 ( fig . )". - pp. 307–309, 329, 388: the 1588 González reconnaissance (see part 4 §17); pp. 380–408: Fort Raleigh archaeology ("pre- sumed location found , 407-8"). - p. 446: Kupperman 1984 and Stick 1983 "are good brief accounts of the Roanoke voyages". Note: Google's index returned NO hits for "Chesepiuc", "Lumbee", "Panawick" and "Dare Stone" in this title, although "Chesepiuc" occurs in the index snippet (p. 453: "Chesepiuc ( Indian village ) , 107 , 215 , 252") — the search-inside index is incomplete, so absence of a hit is not proof of absence in the book. --- ## 2. James Horn ### 2.1 Bibliographic details - *A Kingdom Strange: The Brief and Tragic History of the Lost Colony of Roanoke* (New York: Basic Books, 2010), 296 pp. (Washington Post review: "Basic. 296 pp."). Chapter 6 "'Into the Main'" pp. 193–234; Epilogue "Ralegh's Ship" p. 235; Chronology p. 239 (VERIFIED, OL snippet of contents: "Broken Promise 153 6 'Into the Main' 193 epilogue: Ralegh's Ship 235 Chronology, 239 The Settlers [...]"). Google Books id 7xVmYyGkX6IC; IA id kingdomstrangeb00horn. - "Has Roanoke's Lost Colony Been Found?", *American Heritage* 60:1 (Spring 2010), online (sources/AmericanHeritage_2010_found.txt) — Horn's own summary of the book's thesis, read in full. - Later statements: 2012 British Museum map announcement (sources/BM_findings_via_FCF_2012*.txt); NYT 11 Aug 2015 (sources/NYT_2015_08_11_lost_and_found.txt); Bertie County/FCF press release 15 Oct 2020 (sources/BertieCounty_2020_FCF_press_release_SiteY.txt); contributor to Klingelhofer 2023; Paul Aron, "The Lost Colony", *Trend & Tradition* (Colonial Williamsburg) Spring 2025 (sources/CW_TrendTradition_2025_lost_colony.txt), which quotes the book. - Also *A Land as God Made It: Jamestown and the Birth of America* (Basic, 2005) pp. 143–146, 171–173 on the lost colonists (cited by Oberg and Fullam; not read). ### 2.2 Horn's reconstruction UNVERIFIED as a synthesis; each element is supported by the VERIFIED snippets in 2.3. (a) The colonists left Roanoke Island in the fall of 1587, soon after White sailed, moving *west* "fifty miles into the main" by pinnace and boats (two trips) to the head of Albemarle Sound near the mouth of the Chowan, close to the Weapemeoc/Chowanoc towns Metackwem (modern Salmon Creek) and Tandaquomuc; a small group (about twenty?) went to Croatoan to watch for White. (b) After a couple of years they dispersed: some joined the Chowanocs, some moved to the Tuscarora towns Panawicke (near Cashie Creek), Ocanahonan (near the falls of the Roanoke River) and Pakerakanick (Tar River), some perhaps explored toward Chaunis Temoatan. (c) In spring 1607, Powhatan (Wahunsonacock), fearing an alliance of the Jamestown English with the Roanoke English and their Indian hosts on his southern border, sent warriors along the trading paths to Chowanoc and Tuscarora country and killed most of them and their Indian kin; Opechancanough's raid reflected Powhatan–Tuscarora–Chowanoc rivalry. (d) Survivors: seven at Ritanoe under Eyanoco; others at Panawicke, Ocanahonan, Pakerakanick who "melted into" Indian society; Lawson's Hatteras Indians (1701) preserve a memory. (e) Quinn's Chesapeake theory is "highly unlikely". (f) After 2012 Horn treats the British Museum map patch and Site X/Site Y as archaeological confirmation of the western move. ### 2.3 Verbatim evidence Own words, 2010 American Heritage article (VERIFIED, complete text in sources): - "More than 30 years ago, the eminent British historian David Beers Quinn advanced the most widely accepted modern theory, arguing that the majority of colonists moved north to the Chesapeake Bay, leaving a small party on Roanoke to await White's return. In the spring of 1588, this small contingent packed up, carved their messages, and moved to Croatoan Island. Meanwhile, the main group went to live with the Chesapeake Indians, either at Chesepiooc or the principal town of Skicoak, intermarrying and raising families in ignorance of the fate of the Roanoke Island party and of White's eventual return." - "Yet there are serious flaws in Quinn's argument. If the main group of Roanoke colonists knew all along that their ultimate destination lay northward on the Chesapeake Bay, then why didn't they specify a rendezvous with White before he sailed home, instead of arranging for him to return to Roanoke Island? Furthermore, they must have known that the way north was difficult, Currituck Sound being described by a contemporary as 'very shallow and most dangerous.' Sailing along the coast would have been equally hazardous, given the uncertain weather and prevailing offshore currents. Without large boats, it would have taken several journeys to transport the entire group." - "Most important, nothing in Strachey's writings or those of any other Jamestown settler connects the lost colonists to the Chesapeake. In fact, Strachey explicitly states that the colonists were killed 'far from him [Powhatan], and in the Territory of those Weroances (chiefs) which did in no sort depend on him, or acknowledge him.' Whomever the lost colonists went to live with after they left Roanoke Island, it was not the Chesapeake." - "After about 50 miles, they would have reached the confluence of the Chowan and Roanoke rivers, possibly the place later described by the English as 'Ohonahorn,' near the promontory where the Chowanoc settlements of Tandaquomuc or Metackwem were located." - "For the next couple of years, they remained at the head of Albemarle Sound [...] they began drifting away from the settlement to join the Indians, either marrying into the Chowanoc or moving farther inland to join the powerful Tuscarora near the rapids of the Roanoke River." - "In the spring of 1607, 400 elite Powhatan warriors journeyed along well-known trading paths to Chowanoc and Tuscarora country and slaughtered the Europeans, their children, and Indian sponsors. [...] He could not risk the newcomers joining forces with the Roanoke colonists and their Indian allies on his southern border." - "How many survived the brutal Powhatan attack is unknown. Seven (four men and three Anglo-Indian children) were said to have been protected by a powerful chief, Eyanoco, an 'enemy to Powhaton,' who lived deep in the mountains at a place called Ritanoe. But others also escaped and settled down with Tuscarora peoples at Panawicke, Ocanahonan, and Pakerakanick, in the North Carolina interior. They or their descendents gradually melted into the fabric of Indian society [...]." - On Powell and Todkill 1609: "'found crosses and letters, the characters and assured testimonies of Christians, newly cut in the barks of trees' within 50 miles of Jamestown, but no sign of the colonists themselves. Thereafter the trail went cold." *A Kingdom Strange* (VERIFIED, GB snippets with page numbers): - p. 210: "[...] 'Ocanahonan' and a land called 'Anone,' where there were houses built like those of the English, could only be news of the lost colonists, living somewhere 50 to 150 miles south of the James River. From Opechancanough and Wahunsonacock [...] Smith had picked up the first credible reports of the Roanoke colonists' whereabouts since John White's voyage of 1590." - p. 210: the January 1608 party proposed "to make their way along the Pagan River to the Blackwater and then head due south to the lands of the Chowanocs" toward "Panawicke, beyond Roanoke, where Wowinchopunck believed many of the settlers were still to be found"; p. 211: "[...] Panawicke are uncertain; no details of the expedition exist. Yet Smith was highly displeased when the men returned only three or four days after setting out. He accused Wowinchopunck of trying to shortchange the English [...]". - p. 214: "[...] Ocanahonan and that four of the settlers who had moved from Roanoke Island to Ocanahonan later ended up at Pakerakanick. In addition, it is possible that some of White's settlers remained at Panawicke ('Panawiock'), but they were not found by the expedition that Smith had sent [...]"; "[...] Wahunsonacock and was situated beyond the Chowan on the Roanoke River. Panawicke was south and west of Cashie Creek, the historic border between the Chowanocs and Tuscaroras. And finally Pakerakanick, a Tuscarora town, may have been located on the south bank of the Tar River.19 Smith's sketch map illustrated a possible route to the South Sea and located the lost colonists at Ocanahonan, Panawicke, and Pakerakanick. Smith made no [attempt to explain how ...]". - p. 217: "[...] Ocanahonan and Pakerakanick 'the People have houses built with stone walls, and one story above another, so taught them by those English who escaped the slaughter at Roanoak.' He explained that in the same region where the English [survivors now lived there was a place called 'Ritanoe.' The chief,] Eyanoco, held seven of the English there—four men, two boys, and a young maid—who had fled up the Chowan River. There were mines at Ritanoe, Machumps told Strachey, and the English were 'preserved' by the chief to beat his copper [...]"; "[...] peaceably for '20 and odd' years with the Indians, until they were suddenly attacked without provocation by Wahunsonacock's warriors. The attack occurred about the same time that Newport's fleet arrived in [the Chesapeake Bay in the spring of 1607]." - p. 218: "'Slaughter at Roanoak' is how Machumps described what had happened, or possibly how Strachey interpreted it. By 'Roanoke' Strachey referred to 'South Virginia,' the region from Roanoke Island inland into the piedmont, inhabited by the Chowanocs and Tuscaroras. Some [colonists had escaped the slaughter and were to be found in the] Tuscarora towns of Panawicke, Ocanahonan, and Pakerakanick. Others had fled up the Chowan River, where they were protected by a powerful chief, Eyanoco, at Ritanoe. The majority of White's settlers had been killed in the attack, but some survived. Why Machumps told Strachey about the attack is unknown. Possibly he was boasting about Wahunsonacock's influence over peoples of the Roanoke region, or perhaps the information came out indirectly in questioning about rumors, commonplace among peoples south of the James River, telling of strangers who lived in the interior [...]". - p. 220: "[...] had acquired from Smith and Machumps. Only a few of the lost colonists survived in the interior of North Carolina, but they might nevertheless provide a means of making alliances with Indians of the [...]". - p. 223 (Powell & Todkill): "[...] fifty miles of Jamestown. They had been denied contact with the colonists by local Indians but had discovered 'crosses and letters, the characters and assured testimonies of Christians,' freshly cut in trees. The assertion is [...]". - p. 224: "[...] pinnace and ships' boats to enable the settlers to move off the island, and the settlers saw little reason for delay. They may well have preferred to move to the mouth of the Chowan River in the fall so as to be settled in their [...]"; "[...] arrangements with the Chowanocs for establishing a temporary settlement at a site near the entrance to the Chowan [...]". - p. 225 (fig. 6.5 caption): "[...] Tandaquomuc and Metackwem. White's settlers may have located themselves somewhere in this area after they left Roanoke Island in the fall of 1587." - p. 226: "[...] Metackwem, on modern-day Salmon Creek. This location would have offered a superb vantage point for keeping watch down the length of Albemarle Sound and allowed easy access to both the Chowan and Roanoke Rivers.26 Before the main group [...]"; "[...] pinnace could probably carry up to forty passengers on short journeys without gear, but given that the settlers had to take all their possessions, they probably made two trips from Roanoke Island. Who went to Croatoan is also unknown [...]"; "[...] Croatoan Island. The exact number is uncertain, but it is unlikely that the Croatoans could have supported many more, especially during a time of drought and with winter coming on. The settlers left messages carved on prominent trees [...]". - p. 227: "[...] Croatoan Island to confer with the settlers there. Some of those living with Manteo's people may have decided that they would continue to wait and watch in case White returned. Others possibly opted [...]". - p. 228: "[...] Chowanoc people who had befriended them and stay at the head of Albemarle Sound, possibly joining local peoples of Tandaquomuc and Metackwem. Others may have gone upriver closer to the Chowanoc capital. Others still, perhaps dreaming of finding riches in the province of Chaunis Temoatan, may have begun exploring the Roanoke River and eventually settled down at [...] Panawicke near Cashie Creek or moved farther inland to Ocanahonan, a Tuscarora town near the falls of the Roanoke River. Panawicke was known locally for its salt production ('salt stones'), and Ocanahonan was close to an important trading route that led northward and inland to the mountains beyond." - p. 229 (fig. 6.5): "Locations of Lost Colonists, 1608 [...] The settlers probably dispersed into [...]". - p. 232: "[...] Wahunsonacock and Opechancanough had aggressively expanded their territories to embrace much of Tidewater Virginia, but they were faced by powerful Iroquoian and Siouan peoples in the west and north beyond the fall line, and to the [south ...]". - p. 272 (note): "[...] Chesapeake Bay, their original destination (see, for example Quinn, Set Fair for Roanoke, 290). This is highly unlikely. First, if the settlers had decided to move to the bay they probably would have agreed to meet White at one of the [...]"; "[...] Chowanoc lands. Ralph Lane specifically identifies Metackwem ('Mattaquen') as a Weapemeoc town under the jurisdiction of Okisko. See Quinn, Roanoke Voyages, 1: 258. Okisko was closely allied with the Chowanocs. Thomas C. Parramore [...]"; "[...] Machumps or some other source, and Strachey later included it in his history. For Strachey's comments on the southern and western limits of the Powhatans' influence, see Virginia Britania, 36, 56, 106. He is emphatic that the lost [colonists were killed outside Powhatan's territory — continuation UNVERIFIED]". - p. 271 (note): "[...] Ocanahonan on the Roanoke River is discussed below. I am grateful to Philip Evans for generously sharing his ideas about possible locations of the lost colonists."; "[...] Pakerakanick.' Barbour, Jamestown Voyages, 1: 236–240; and Lee Miller, Roanoke: Solving the Mystery of the Lost Colony (New York, 2000), 245–247, 258, 322. Miller speculates that Panawiock refers to 'a place of strangers' who spoke [...]"; "[...] Quinn, England and the Discovery of America, 313–336." - pp. 237–238 (index: "story told by Croatoans (1700s), 237-238"), p. 236: Lawson "chose to stay in North Carolina and built a house on the Neuse River, near an Indian town called Chattoka"; OL: "A group of Hatteras Indians (Croatoans), who either lived on [Roanoke Island or much frequented it ...]"; "[...] 'is confirmed by gray Eyes being found frequently amongst these Indians [...]'". - Index (VERIFIED OL): "Eyanoco, chief, 217, 218, 233-234"; "Sicklemore, Michael, 215-216, 221"; "Mace, Samuel, 198-199"; "Glavin (Glande), Darby 67, 146, 152, 165, 224"; "Metackwem, 225(fig.), 226, 228 Ocanahonan location, 207, 209, 214–215, 217, 218, 221, 228, 229, 229 (fig.), 230, 231, 234 Pakerakanick location, 214–215, 217, 218, 221, 229 (fig.), 234 Panawicke location [...]"; "killing lost colonists" is an index sub-entry under Powhatans (partial). - Quoted by Aron 2025 (VERIFIED as Aron's quotation): "'The settlers and their Indian kin were victims of fighting along an unstable border zone,' wrote Horn in his 2010 book [...]. 'In the broad scheme of regional rivalries, Opechancanough's raid reflected deep-seated antagonisms among three major peoples vying for dominance, the Powhatans, Tuscaroras, and Chowanocs.'" and Wahunsonacock was "unwilling to take any chances of the Jamestown colonists joining forces with the Roanoke English," so he "ordered his warriors to track down as many of White's colonists as they could find and kill them." (page not given). - Dare Stones: OL query "Dare Stone" 0 hits; GB query 1 hit (page not returned); Lumbee: 0 hits (OL and GB). Horn does not use the Dare Stones as evidence (UNVERIFIED beyond the hit counts). Later statements (VERIFIED, sources named): - 2020 Bertie County/FCF release (Site Y): Horn quoted in the release (see sources/BertieCounty_2020_FCF_press_release_SiteY.txt) to the effect that a small group went to Croatoan and the remainder to the Chowan/Salmon Creek area — exact wording in the file. - NYT 2015: "James Horn, a foundation board member, had written a book hypothesizing that the location, with its protected harbor and a nearby Native American village, could have been a destination. The idea was without concrete evidence, though; while the map appeared to support it, only shovels in the ground could confirm it." - Aron 2025 (CW): "Subsequent discoveries have buttressed Horn's argument that the settlers moved inland [...] Archaeologists explored the area of the fort symbol [...] and at two sites found artifacts from the Elizabethan period that confirmed English people had been there around the right time. [...] the colonists can no longer be considered entirely lost." (Aron's words, not Horn's.) ### 2.4 Horn on the Jamestown-era reports Strachey: primary, but "Roanoak" = "South Virginia" (p. 218), and the killing was "far from him" outside Powhatan's territory (AH 2010; n. p. 272 citing Virginia Britania 36, 56, 106). Smith: True Relation and the Zúñiga map (fig. 6.2–6.3, pp. 211–213) give three survivor locations; the 1608 Panawicke expedition and Sicklemore's 1608–09 Chowan trip (pp. 215–216, 221) are searches. 1609 Instructions: Ohonahorn = confluence of Chowan and Roanoke (AH 2010). Purchas: 1 GB hit only (p. 268, a bibliographic note) — he does not build on the Purchas "confession" (UNVERIFIED beyond the hit count). Archaeology: none in 2010; from 2012 the BM map patch, Site X (2012–), Site Y (2019–20). ### 2.5 What would refute Horn A secure demonstration that the Site X/Y English ceramics post-date 1587 (e.g. Bland's 1650s traders or the 1655 Bates settlement) or are trade items (Ewen 2016–2025; NPS 2025); proof that "Metackwem" was not near Salmon Creek; a 16th-century English burial ground on Hatteras or the Chesapeake; or independent evidence that the Chesapeakes were destroyed in 1607 *with* Englishmen among them. His Powhatan-raid-into-Carolina model (400 warriors, 1607) rests entirely on Strachey + the 1609 Instructions read with "Roanoke" = South Virginia; a demonstration that the 1609 Instructions' geography ("Powhaton of Roanocke") refers to a local chief (Quinn 1974's second reading; Fullam) would undercut it. --- ## 3. Andrew Lawler ### 3.1 Bibliographic details - *The Secret Token: Myth, Obsession, and the Search for the Lost Colony of Roanoke* (New York: Doubleday, 2018), xx + 426 pp., ISBN 978-0-385-54201-2 (VERIFIED from Towns's H-Net review). Three parts: "The Planting," "The Search," "The Revelation" (Towns). GB id 8yY0DwAAQBAJ (snippets unpaginated). - Lawler's own journalism: "We Finally Have Clues to How the Lost Roanoke Colony Vanished", *National Geographic*, 7 Aug 2015 (sources/lawler_natgeo_2015_clues.txt, sources/NatGeo_2015_Lawler_clues.txt); "Is This Inscribed Stone a Notorious Forgery—or the Answer to America's Oldest Mystery?", *National Geographic*, May 2018 (sources/lawler2018_natgeo_dare_stone.txt); "Roanoke, Secret Maps, and the Search for a Lost Colony", CrimeReads, 2018 (book excerpt; sources/CrimeReads_2018_Lawler_secret_maps.txt); *National Geographic* magazine feature June 2018 (not read). - Reviews: Lydia Towns, H-Atlantic/H-Net, Jan. 2020 (sources/review_hnet_towns_lawler_secret_token.txt, complete); Kirkus 2018 (sources/review_kirkus_lawler_2018.txt); Michael Leroy Oberg, *Journal of Southern History* 86:2 (May 2020): 440–441 (not obtained; quoted secondhand). ### 3.2 Lawler's reconstruction Lawler is a journalist and his book is a history of the *search* rather than a new documentary argument (Towns: "While Lawler does not present the reader with a monograph filled with his own archival discoveries and new interpretations, this is an excellent analysis for what is known and currently being worked on" — VERIFIED). His conclusions as reported (UNVERIFIED in his own words): the colonists most likely split up and were absorbed by Algonquian communities — some at Croatoan/Hatteras, some inland near the Chowan; the durable "mystery" is a cultural artefact bound up with Virginia Dare and American racial anxieties; the search for "descendants" (Lumbee, Hatteras) is about identity. Aron 2025 (VERIFIED): Lawler "argued persuasively that unsupported theories flourished in part because of an unwillingness to accept that the colonists assimilated with American Indians." ### 3.3 Verbatim evidence - Towns quoting Lawler (VERIFIED as Towns's quotations): those who search for the colonists "weren't really looking for long-dead Elizabethans. We were, instead, wrestling with what it meant to be American" (p. 362); "Lost Colony syndrome" (p. 321); "the stories of the colonists that still pervade eastern North Carolina serve a variety of purposes, just as Virginia Dare does for feminists and white supremacists" (p. 323). Towns's summary: "Lawler argues that in reality, the colonists represent adaptation and the cultural fusion between two very different societies [...]". - GB snippet (VERIFIED, no page): "[...] Ritanoe- apparently the same as Ritanoc - where they 'beat his copper.' London Company officials, however, refused to publish Strachey's account; the work did not go public for nearly two centuries. There is no evidence that his [...]". - GB hit-counts (VERIFIED): 'split' 5; 'Hatteras' 9; 'Dare stone' 5; 'Quinn' 9; 'Horn' 8; 'assimilated' 3; 'Chesapeake' 8; 'Croatoan' 9; 'Ritanoe' 1; 'Ewen' 6; 'Horton' 9; 'Luccketti' 9; 'Klingelhofer' 5; 'Dawson' 9; 'Strachey' 7; 'Lumbee' 7; 'Parramore' 2; 'Oberg' 3; 'Kupperman' 7; 'Miller' 4; 'Fullam' 2; 'pinnace' 7; 'Site X' 0 (the phrase is apparently not used); 'Ocanahowan'/'Pakerakanick'/'Mandoag'/'Beechland' 0. Snippet texts for these queries (second run, 55 terms) are quoted in Addendum A.3 (sources/snippets_googlebooks_lawler2018b.txt). - National Geographic 2015 (VERIFIED, own words): reports the Site X Border ware and the Hatteras finds (rapier hilt, slate, gunlock) side by side; quotes Luccketti and Horton; his framing that the colony likely "split up" (see file). - National Geographic 2018 on the Dare Stone (VERIFIED): after Brenau's 2016 slicing of the first stone ("the interior was bright white, while the exterior and carvings were much darker") and the epigraphers' views (Heather Wolfe: "There is nothing that jumps out as a forgery"; Jean Wilson: "There's nothing in the inscription that couldn't be of its purported date"; Diarmaid MacCulloch: "all the plausibility of Dick Van Dyke's cockney accent in Mary Poppins"), Lawler concludes that "What's needed, says Champion, is a multidisciplinary study of the stone [...] to see, once and for all, whether the message writ on rock is one of America's most important artifacts—or a remarkable fake". He treats the *first* Chowan River stone as an open question and the 1937–41 Georgia/South Carolina stones as fraud. - Oberg's JSH review (UNVERIFIED — text as quoted in the Wikipedia article on the book, which cites JSH 86:2, 440–441): "Lawler often becomes so enamored with the colorful characters in the Roanoke drama that he overlooks important matters of context. Those English colonists settled on Native ground, and it was Indians, more than anyone else, who determined the colony's fate. Lawler sometimes seems to lose track of the forest for several of his story's very interesting trees." - Kirkus 2018: see file (positive; calls it a "thorough" account — UNVERIFIED wording). ### 3.4 What would refute Lawler His substantive claim is modest (dispersal + assimilation + cultural analysis); it would be embarrassed by a mass grave or a single-site "relocated colony" (which would show the colonists were not absorbed piecemeal), or by a demonstration that the Hatteras and Chowan English assemblages are both trade deposits. --- ## 4. Scott Dawson and Mark Horton (Croatoan Archaeological Society, Hatteras) ### 4.1 Bibliographic details - Scott Dawson, *The Lost Colony and Hatteras Island* (Charleston: The History Press, 2020), ISBN 9781467144339 (VERIFIED from retail/Wikipedia listings); GB id m-LZDwAAQBAJ (snippets in §4.A below). Earlier: *Croatoan: Birthplace of America* (self-published 2007/2009). Dawson's own statement of the argument: "Have We Found the 'Lost Colony'?", *American Heritage* 65:7 (Nov. 2020) (sources/AmericanHeritage_2020_have_we_found.txt, complete). - Mark Horton (University of Bristol to c. 2020; then Royal Agricultural University, "Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research & Enterprise and professor of historical archaeology"): no monograph or peer-reviewed report on Hatteras had appeared as of Sept. 2026. VERIFIED: Coastal Review/IFP 2016 — "Horton said he is working on a book about the Croatoan digs. A student has written a dissertation about the excavations, but Horton said he has not yet published a report on his findings"; NYT 2015 — "Mr. Horton, whose findings have not been published or peer reviewed"; LiveScience 10 June 2025 — the hammerscale finding "has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal"; History.com 23 June 2025 (Ewen): "The new research has yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal [...] 'I'm waiting for the goods'". A Bristol PhD thesis (Louisa Pittman) exists but was not obtained. - Press statements used: Island Free Press 20 Apr 2016 = Coastal Review 14 May 2016 "Back to Square One" (Catherine Kozak); *Popular Archaeology* "The Case for Hatteras" (2020/21); NYT 11 Aug 2015; WHRO 20 Jan 2025; LiveScience 10 June 2025; History.com 23 June 2025; Coastal Review March 2026 and Outer Banks Voice 27 Mar 2026 (the "Science on the Sound" presentation with Beth Scaffidi). ### 4.2 The Dawson–Horton reconstruction Dawson (own words, VERIFIED, AH 2020): "In fact, the colony was never lost, but, rather, abandoned at Croatoan — modern-day Hatteras Island." "The Native population of Hatteras and the other Outer Banks islands probably numbered well over a thousand in the 1500s, and they could easily have sustained an additional hundred or so English refugees from Roanoke." The colonists moved the houses by pinnace ("He also left them with small boats called 'pinnaces' as well as canoes. So if they needed to move the fifty miles south to Hatteras, they could have knocked out the wooden pins from the posts and beams, and moved the houses"); assimilated ("men, women and children from two different worlds and cultures became one family"); Lawson (1701: "several of their Ancestors were white People, and could talk in a Book") and the Rev. John Urmston (Dawson: "Irmstone", 1710: "these people are half Indian and half English") record the descendants; "for four centuries until our own time, racism has played an ugly part in hiding the truth"; "The Lost Colony is a marketing campaign that started in 1937 and it created this myth of a colony that vanished, and none of that is real" (WHRO 2025); "They're getting murdered on the mainland – why would they go there? [...] they were well fed and they didn't split up" (IFP 2016). Horton (VERIFIED quotations): 2016 — "Hatteras is an incredibly fertile place [...] It's hard to think you'd actually starve here on this island"; "all 100 or so of them" went to Croatoan; "Quite clearly, White's map pointed to it [...] It seems wisest to go with simple explanations … because this seems to be the most economical solution to the problem"; on the FCF: "The water was muddied by discovery of an Elizabethan map [...] This, however, has not deterred another group of archaeologists to go to where the fort was located." 2015 (NYT): Horton "posits that colonists made their way south to Hatteras around 1590 and assimilated with the tribe there. After years of cohabitation, European items could have been gradually discarded long after they were brought to the site, which would account for their being mixed in with later detritus". 2020/21 (Popular Archaeology): "No conclusions can yet be drawn, and there is no 'smoking gun', says Horton." 2026 (OBX Voice): "peaceful assimilation"; "It is very difficult to prove [...] Archaeologists have difficulty dating material to differentiate 50 years on either side…it could be late 16th-century artifacts, but it also could be 17th-century trades from Jamestown"; on hammerscale: "If you are going to operate a forge you have to have anvils, furnaces, bellows [...] That kind of iron-working technology was not part of Indigenous practices in this region." Scaffidi 2026: "At the end of the day, we can't say who shot it [...] But we can say that ammo would not be in that deer but for a European person showing up on Hatteras Island in the late 16th or early 17th century." ### 4.3 Archaeology cited (VERIFIED as reported) Cape Creek/Buxton (site 31DR1, Phelps 1993–98: gunlock, copper, lead, 1998 gold signet ring — later assigned to a 17th-century layer); CAS/Bristol 2009–2021: c. 75 test pits (2016 figure); Elizabethan rapier hilt, two pieces of a writing slate with pencil ("A later analysis by NASA found a faint drawing of a man shooting a gun" — Dawson), glass arrowhead, Nuremberg token (stratified, 2013), square postholes, coin weights 1644/1648, Scottish penny 1644, Emmanuel Drew pipe bowls 1650–69, "window glass and daub from a 16th century home structure; a dagger handle; a saker cannon ball [...] a frizzen [...] an English Tudor Rose [...] horse bridle" (Dec. 2021, Popular Archaeology); drone-detected rectangular feature at the Tandy-token find-spot; 2025: two deposits ("buckets") of hammerscale under a shell midden, bar iron; radiocarbon dates on the sealing midden said to match the period; 2026: a lead-and-iron musket ball embedded in a deer mandible; deer bones with gunshot vs arrow trauma; isotope work (Scaffidi, UC Merced). None published in a peer-reviewed venue as of Sept. 2026. Dawson also cites the 1920s intact Spanish olive jar and the 1938 Tandy token. ### 4.4 Criticism recorded - Ewen 2016: "Show me the evidence – and it's got to be more than a few 16th century artifacts [...] I would like to see some structures, some evidence of European burials. I would like to see more than a scattering of artifacts that could have gotten there some other way." Luccketti 2016: "no one disagrees that 16th century artifacts – typically trade or salvaged items – have been found at Cape Creek, or that some colonists probably went there. But what ultimately matters in archaeology is the context." NYT 2015: "no Border ware pottery — a telltale sign of habitation — has been found on the Hatteras site." Ewen 2025 (LiveScience): "I would like to see a hearth if we're talking about forging activity"; "The hammer scale is just not doing it for me without good context — and without a report, I'm not seeing good context." Ewen 2025 (History.com): "I don't see any evidence that you have Europeans actually living there." Leeson 2025: "To me that seems a bit of a stretch, then, to go ahead and make the assumption that there's assimilation" (expects charcoal and slag). Oberg 2020 (blog, VERIFIED): "there is absolutely nothing new about the argument that the colonists relocated to Croatoan Island. Every book written on the subject, including mine, considers the possibility. Most of us approach the Croatoan prospect with interest, but leave unpersuaded. It is a small island. The first things Croatoans did when they encountered the English in 1587 was ask them not to take any of their food, as they had little to spare."; "Horton can not expect historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists to find his old and familiar arguments persuasive if he does not publish his findings."; on the slate: "Dawson would thus have us believe that a tablet used by White to draw an event he did not see ended up at the Algonquian village we have no evidence he ever visited."; "Indigenous peoples could draw. They could make use of European goods." Klingelhofer 2024 (FCF "Croatan: The Untold Story", VERIFIED): "Cartographic study therefore suggests that a broad territory was attributed in the historical period to the remnant Croatoans, and that the likely location for their core habitation and Dasemunkepeuc itself lay northwest of Roanoke in the vicinity of modern Mashoes. Because no member of the Croatoan tribe had lived at their former location since the 1500s, the term Hatteras [...] was soon applied to the empty island to the south." Ewen 2024 (Coastal Review): "most archeologists think that the Outer Banks were just seasonally occupied [...] the Outer Banks during the winter would not have been a terribly hospitable place." NPS 2025: "the island's limited resources may not have supported an additional 117 people". - Supporters: DuVal 2025 (§16): "It absolutely makes sense that the Lost Colony would have moved to Hatteras Island [...] They wrote exactly where they were going: to Croatoan." ### 4.5 Dawson/Horton on the Jamestown-era reports and Dare Stones Dawson's AH essay does not discuss Strachey, Smith or the Zúñiga map at all (VERIFIED by reading it); GB queries on his book for 'Strachey'/'Powhatan'/'Quinn'/'Horn'/'Dare Stone' are reported in §4.A. Horton's public statements likewise ignore the Virginia reports. UNVERIFIED: Dawson's book treats the Dare Stones as a hoax and the "Lost Colony" as a 1937 invention (his WHRO and Popular Archaeology statements say the latter explicitly). ### 4.6 What would refute Dawson/Horton A stratified, dated 16th-century deposit at Buxton is necessary but not sufficient; the theory is refuted by a demonstration that the Elizabethan objects are shipwreck/trade salvage (the 1560s wreck the Croatoans told Barlowe of; Drake's 1586 olive jars) or that the Croatoans had left Hatteras by 1587 (Klingelhofer's map argument); it is confirmed by English burials, a house floor, or a hearth-and-slag forge with a 1587–1610 date. Its claim that *all* colonists went to Croatoan is contradicted by every other scholar and by the FCF ceramics if those are accepted. ### 4.A Google Books snippets from *The Lost Colony and Hatteras Island* (2020) (VERIFIED text; the e-book preview gives NO page numbers; file `snippets_googlebooks_dawson2020.txt`) - Horton's foreword: "But I had come over as a historical archaeologist, excavating Elizabethan sites in England and intrigued by the saga of the Lost Colony, thinking it might be a simple tale for..."; "This book has emerged out of this collaboration between our archaeological research and Scott's sensitive reevaluation of [the sources]"; on the finds: "Archaeologist and Professor Mark Horton from the University of Bristol (UoB), England, his team of archaeologists and the volunteers of the Croatoan [Archaeological Society] ... are yielding a wealth of artifacts and knowledge." - Dawson on the limits of the record: "[Did they] split up? Did they attempt to sail for home on a pinnace and drown? Did they live at Croatoan for a few years and then move elsewhere? What percentage of them starved or died in the first few years? Historical records cannot provide us with all the answers, so ultimately, we have to [turn to archaeology]." - On the Chesapeake/Powhatan theory: "[relocated to the] Chesapeake, where they were later killed by Powhatan Indians. This idea has some weak support from the primary sources. Chesapeake Bay was where the colony was supposed to go in 1587 before the ship's pilot, Simon Fernando (a former Portuguese pirate), refused to take them there"; "Could the men whom Powhatan killed have been the thirteen men left by Grenville, rather than men from the 1587 colony, since Powhatan did not mention any women [...]"; "Powhatan's brother Opechancanough told the Jamestown explorers that the colonists of 1587 were living with the Natives at Ocanahonan, where "people wear English clothing" and there is "a great turning of saltwater," according to Helen [Rountree]"; the 1603 Chesapeake search "found no evidence that the colony had relocated to Chesapeake or in the woods west of there. The Spanish, having been told by a defecting colonist that the English colony was [...]". 'Strachey' returned no hit in Google's index of the book; 'Site X', 'Ewen', 'Luccketti', 'Dare Stone', 'Lumbee', 'hammerscale' likewise none (the hammerscale find postdates the book). - On Croatoan as base: "for the first few months of the 1585 voyage and for the entirety of the 1584 voyage, the base of operations was not Roanoke Island but Croatoan"; on Menatonan: "Quinn recognized that Menatonan was "apart from Manteo, the only member of the Croatoan tribe to be named. He was evidently a prominent person in the tribe." I would go one further than Quinn and suggest Menatonan was in fact the [chief]" (Dawson makes the Croatoan and Secotan distinct, hostile peoples: "Croatoan were never with Wingina or the Secotan"). - On the artefacts: the rapier: "rapier sword handle. Dr. Horton nodded yes and said that is exactly what it was"; "If it was a rapier, could it have been a seventeenth-century one? The only way to know for sure was to get the rust off"; the slate: "A writing slate is not the sort of thing that would be traded to the Croatoan because they did not write"; "The writing slate and pencil are from the sixteenth century ... The slate was analyzed by NASA because of a faint drawing of a man shooting a gun"; Nuremberg tokens: "The Nuremberg token connection between Fort Raleigh and Hatteras has been established for over fifty years"; Phelps: "Phelps's dig in 1998 was the confirmation of the long-held belief that the 31DR1 area was and is the capital town of Croatoan. Unfortunately, all of the artifacts from Phelps's digs left the island and have not returned." - On Lawson and the gap: "Lawson, shockingly, is the next surviving record of Hatteras Island. The entire 1600s is missing from the written word"; "gray-eyed Indians wearing English-style clothes who said they had white ancestors who could read out of a book, and they even mentioned Sir Walter Raleigh by name"; "the Chowan and Hatteras tribes had been reduced to sixteen fighting men apiece"; the 1761 Mattamuskeet mention "is the last mention of [the Hatteras]". - Conclusion: the colonists became "the first assimilators, the first cross-cultural, cross-race family in America. We live in a new generation where these people no longer need to be "lost" anymore." --- ## 5. Lee Miller, *Roanoke: Solving the Mystery of the Lost Colony* (2000) **Bibliographic.** Lee Miller, *Roanoke: Solving the Mystery of the Lost Colony* (New York: Arcade Publishing, 2000; London: Jonathan Cape, 2000; paperback New York: Penguin, 2002). ISBN 1-55970-584-1 (VERIFIED from the copyright-page snippet: "ISBN 1-55970-584-1 1. Roanoke Colony. 2. Roanoke Island (N.C.) — History — 16th"). Internet Archive item `roanokesolvingmy00mill`; Google Books id A_T0GyxK9DYC. Structure recoverable from snippets (VERIFIED): "PART TWO A CASE OF MURDER 9 SABOTAGE" (running head "58 PART TWO A CASE OF MURDER", so Part Two begins about p. 58); "PART THREE A CASE OF CONSPIRACY 13 The Lost Colonists (1587) 127"; "PART FOUR WHO ARE THE MANDOAG?"; notes section reaches at least p. 324 ("324 NOTES"). Index entries (VERIFIED): "Machumps 250, 255"; "Eyanoco 242, 255"; "Occaneechi, the 240, 249-50, 251, 252, 255, 259, 260"; "Mace, Captain Samuel 207-8". **How much read.** Open Library search-inside snippets only (about 45 queries; the API gives NO page numbers — see §0); Google Books search-inside snippets WITH page numbers were obtained afterwards (see §5A below). Also read: Robert W. Matson's review in *Pennsylvania History* (pp. 479–481; file `review_matson_pennhistory_miller2001.txt`), the Kirkus review (`review_kirkus_miller_2007.txt`), the Wikipedia article on the book, and the comments on Miller by Oberg (2008), Horn (2010), Kupperman (2007) and Fullam (2017) quoted below. **Reconstruction (Miller's).** Two linked theses. (a) *Conspiracy.* The 1587 colony was not planted but "marooned" at Roanoke through the pilot Simon Fernandez, who (Miller argues) was acting for Sir Francis Walsingham in a court intrigue aimed at Ralegh. VERIFIED snippets: "White's colonists are marooned on Roanoke; Raleigh's North American plans"; "it was Walsingham. And he got away with murder. Surely this cannot be! Walsingham is Elizabeth's"; "only one thing . . . sabotage. 58 PART TWO A CASE OF MURDER 9 SABOTAGE". (b) *Fate.* The abandoned colonists went inland to their Chowanoc/Weapemeoc allies; epidemic and attack followed ("If an epidemic struck the Chowanoc, it might well have"); survivors were captured and dispersed as slaves among the "Mandoag", whom Miller identifies not as Tuscarora (Quinn) nor Nottoway but as Siouan Piedmont peoples, chiefly the Eno and Occaneechi. VERIFIED snippets: "Lost Colonists were held by the Mandoag as slaves — that must have panicked company offi-"; "Eno traded slaves. This was not uncommon in the Southeast. The presence of slaves was reported"; "the Mandoag is Siouan. Thirty years after Lawson met Enoe Will, we hear of him again, now"; "Mangoak and Mandoag were used interchangeably by"; "(4) The Tuscarora were Iroquoian and may indeed"; "does not prove that the Tuscarora are Mandoag."; "refuge among the Siouan Occaneechi and were incorporated for a time with a Siouan town of refugee"; "A disper- sal theory places the former Lumbee claim of Lost Colony ancestry in a very". **Treatment of the Jamestown-era reports.** - *Strachey.* Miller treats the Powhatan-slaughter story as Virginia Company propaganda, possibly believed by Strachey but not corroborated by Smith. VERIFIED: "responsible for the Powhatan mur- der story? Did Strachey invent it? Was it propaganda to create"; "had been needed to turn public opinion. Strachey provided it and, indeed, may have believed"; "the least, that Smith never mentioned a massacre in his conversations about the Lost Colonists"; "Jamestown officials reported that the "Lost Colonists" had been murdered by the Powhatan Indians"; "didn't kill them, then where were the Lost Colonists? The moment the accepted story is pulled"; "(2) but not by the Powhatan of Roanoke Island, or by the Powhatan at all, but by someone". She quotes the *Historie* passage herself ("and children of the first plantation at Roanoak were by practice and commandment of Powhatan") and cites it as "Historie of Travaile (1849), p. 50. 2 Ibid., pp. 85-6." - *"twenty and odd years."* VERIFIED: "lived peacefully with the Powhatan for twenty and odd years?1 But what if Strachey got it" and "immediately before White's colony arrived — twenty and odd years before Jamestown — there was indeed" (the continuation is not visible in the snippet; the context — Lane's June 1586 attack at Dasemunkepeuc — is the "slaughter at Roanoke" she appears to have in mind, but that reading is UNVERIFIED beyond the snippet). - *Ritanoe / Eyanoco / Anone.* VERIFIED: ""Ritanoe" is a copyist error for "Ritanoc." 324 NOTES"; "At Ritanoc, the leader Eyanoco (Eno) holds seven Lost Colonists. At Anoeg (Eno), Strachey is informed"; "There is a country called Anone (Eno), Wahunsonacock tells Smith, where they"; "The Eno: town of Ritanoc, four men, two boys, one girl. In addi- tion, Bland"; "75 My suggested etymology" (a note on her etymology; text not visible). - *Zúñiga map.* VERIFIED: "From the Zuniga map: Pakerakanick — four men reported, who came from Ocanahowan. Panawiock — housing many Lost Colonists, number undisclosed. Ocanahowan — Certain"; her survey of earlier readings: "summary of the confusion is as follows: Pakerakanick (D): on the Neuse or Tar or Pamlico;" ... "Morattico (C): the Pamlico, Tar, or Roanoke; Panawiock (B): between the Roanoke and the Chowan"; "between the Chowan and the Roanoke, and Peccarecamek on the Tar. 1969. Philip Barbour reproduces"; "between the Roanoke and Pamlico Rivers, and Ocanahowan on the south side of the Roanoke. 1985" (i.e., her summary of Quinn 1985); "was Eno country. The town's leader was Gepanocon. His name is untranslated, though a clue"; "In addition to the four colonists held by Gepanocon, others were confined elsewhere in the interior". - *Machumps.* VERIFIED: "strange tale from a Powhatan informant named Machumps, involving primates and the Lost Colonists"; "Machumps reports much brass at Pakerakanick and Ocanahowan". - *Purchas.* VERIFIED: "Wahunsonacock murdered the colonists. Samuel Purchas did. Powhatan confessed that he had been"; "The notes may have been made by Samuel Purchas, though whether his information was accurate". - *Croatoan.* VERIFIED: "What about Croatoan? Someone went there, at any rate. They said so. Yet Croatoan was on the". - *Chesapeake.* VERIFIED: "Identification of the Chesepians is extremely problematic. The general consensus". - *Darby Glande.* VERIFIED: "sworn statement, he calls himself both David Glavin and David Glavid.12 Is this significant?"; "49, says that Glande served as a galley slave until he was brought from Havana to St."; "Report of David Glavin, Irlandes, Soldado," recorded by Canco (bibliography entry). - *Quinn.* She cites "Quinn, Set Fair for Roanoke, pp. 371-3; Quinn, England and the Discovery" for the Jamestown reports and notes that "Quinn labels White "amateurish"" (VERIFIED). **Archaeology cited.** Matson: she relies "on the results of recent excavations and her own skills as an ethnographer" (VERIFIED). No Site X/Hatteras material (book predates both). **Dare Stones.** No hit for "Dare Stone" in the searchable text (0 hits) — apparently not discussed. **Reviewers' criticisms (VERIFIED, Matson, *Pennsylvania History*, pp. 479–481).** "Miller recounts a process of detection through which she claims to have discovered and solved not merely a single mystery but several intricately related ones." "Miller concludes that the lost colonists were doomed from the start; that they were not so much planted on Roanoke Island as marooned there". "It was nothing less, she asserts, than "a case of mass murder." (p. 132)". "Who, then, she asks, "among his enemies was powerful enough to bring him down?" (144)". "The story is an interesting one and the proposed solution is, indeed, possible, but the case is not persuasive. As Miller admits, this intricately fashioned argument turns upon the acceptance of the notion that Fernandez was paid or otherwise induced to abandon the colonists on Roanoke. If, as other scholars have held, he was merely interested in getting back to the Caribbean as quickly as possible so he could engage in the lucrative plundering that White had forbidden on the outbound voyage, there is no need to go searching for plots and villains. In addition, to accept Miller's solution, one must agree with her dismissal of the arguments of historians such as Edmund S. Morgan and David Quinn, who picture the entire episode largely as an illustration of the lack of English preparedness for the encounter with the New World." "Questionable composition and tendentious reasoning are serious flaws but not necessarily fatal ones." "...she has, at least, thoroughly considered the evidence and has catalogued it in no fewer than 50 pages of notes and bibliography". Other scholars on Miller (VERIFIED snippets): Oberg 2008 (note): "Miller makes a larger interpretive leap than the evidence will allow. See Miller, Roanoke"; Oberg also cites "Miller, Roanoke, 236-37" and "Miller, Roanoke, 243-45" (Chaunis Temoatan) and says "Miller agrees with the findings of anthropologists" on the Secotan identification. Horn 2010, n. (p. 271): "Miller speculates that Panawiock refers to 'a place of strangers'" (see §2). Kupperman 2007 index: "Miller, Lee, 177" (she is cited in the Afterword's discussion of the dispersal reports). Fullam 2017 (GB pages, see §14): pp. 28–30 (Walsingham conspiracy rejected), p. 43 (Miller's Panawioc "on Cashie Creek, Bertie County"), p. 48 (Miller's jurisdictional "fifty mile" reading "very possible"), p. 146 (Panawioc). **What would refute Miller.** (1) Any showing that Fernandez's refusal to go on to the Chesapeake had an ordinary explanation (privateering season, lateness, the fleet's orders) — Matson's point; Quinn's *Set Fair* pp. 275–279 treats it so. (2) Linguistic/ethnohistoric evidence that "Mangoak/Mandoag" denotes Iroquoians (Barbour 1975: "This tribe was definitely Iroquoian, although the name by which it was known was Algonquian, and meant "rattlesnakes" or "adders"" — VERIFIED, see §11), which would remove her Siouan Eno identification of Ritanoc/Anone. (3) Archaeological proof of colonists at Croatoan or on the Chowan (Site X/Y), neither of which figures in her dispersal-as-slaves scenario. (4) Any independent corroboration of Strachey's Powhatan slaughter (none exists beyond the 1609 Instructions, the 1610 *True and Sincere Declaration*, and Purchas's marginal note). **5A. Page-numbered snippets (Google Books, VERIFIED; harvest of 2026-09-14, file `snippets_googlebooks_miller2000.txt`).** p. 14 — the CROATOAN post: "Bold , prominent characters etched deeply into the wood , and - incredibly , wonderfully ! - without any cross or sign of distress"; p. 58 — "To report that their forsaken condition on Roanoke means only one thing ... sabotage"; p. 67 — Glande "served a seven - year term before securing his release in Havana"; p. 133 — "Evidently whoever kidnapped Darby Glande and released him on Puerto Rico intended the action as an insurance policy , a bait . Spain grabbed it"; p. 133 — "Fernandez may not be our killer after all . Who , then , is behind him ? And protecting him ?"; p. 171 — "Fernandez first came to Walsingham's attention at the height of his career as a pirate"; p. 214 — Wowinchopunk "to conduct two of our men to a place called Panawicke , beyond Roonoke , where he reported many men to be apparelled . Did he really volunteer to guide them ?"; p. 214 — the Zúñiga tracing "was obtained , Zúñiga reported , from an Englishman — probably Captain Francis Nel- son lately returned from Jamestown"; p. 216 — of Sicklemore's Chowanoc search: "Not a shred of evidence beyond this has surfaced thus far"; p. 219 — "Powhatan supplied specific information regarding the colony's where- abouts . Unfortunately , Smith's searches were only halfhearted and made against his will"; p. 223 — "Powhatan massacred innocent Englishmen ! The rumor is repeated on trembling lips - though it is not true . There is no proof that the Powhatan did anything of the kind . So who , or what , in Jamestown was responsible for the Powhatan [murder story? ...] Did Strachey invent it ? Was it propaganda to create an enemy ? To seize Powhatan lands ? Or did Wahunsonacock himself con- coct the tale to intimidate Jamestown ? Whatever its source , Jamestown seized upon it"; p. 228 — "What about Croatoan ? Someone went there , at any rate . They said so . Yet Croatoan was on the coast , not fifty miles inland . Moreover , its people were both unwilling and unable to feed 115 additional mouths"; p. 231 — "If an epidemic struck the Chowanoc , it might well have left White's people unscathed . Yet Smith reported that Sicklemore found little hope and less certainty of finding them alive"; p. 234 — "Strachey's interpretation of what was a garbled story at best was that the Powhatan that is , Wahunsonacock – murdered John White's men shortly before the arrival of the Jamestown colony , and after they had lived peacefully with the Powhatan for twenty and odd years.31 But what if Strachey got it wrong ?"; p. 234 — "Reduced by disease , the Chowanoc had been attacked on the frontier . By a life- long enemy . By the Mandoag"; pp. 236–237 — "This is the information that Powell and Todkill returned in their report to John Smith !" ... "slaves that must have panicked company offi- cials to the core and that they didn't want the English public to hear . Instead of publishing the report , therefore , both they and Smith covered it up and declared the colonists dead" ... "And then the Virginia Company entered something horrible in the Stationers ' Register , December 14 , 1609 : Intelligence of some of our..."; p. 242 — Strachey's Ritanoe passage quoted, "Ritanoc has never been [located]"; p. 246 — her summary of predecessors: "Panawick . here the king of paspageh reported one man to be . Quinn equates this with the Secotan town of Pomeioc on Wysocking Bay . River A- Chawanoac and Ocanahowan - on Albemarle Sound . He places Ocana- howan on the Roanoke River . A summary of the confusion is as follows : Pakerakanick ( D ) : on the Neuse or Tar or Pamlico ; Morattico ( C ) : the Pamlico , Tar , or Roanoke"; p. 251 — HER CONCLUSION: "Our investigation , then , has come to this : we believe that the majority of the Lost Colonists relocated to the Chowan River , where they , along with their much - weakened Chowanoc hosts , were attacked and defeated by the [Mandoag]"; p. 252 — "Mandoag are Tus- carora . 47 Yet this assumption rests upon faulty evidence"; "The Tuscarora theory can be rejected on the following grounds"; "Pakerakanick was located on the Tar River , but not necessarily within Tuscarora territory"; p. 253 — the Nottoway hypothesis and its rejection; p. 258 — "the Eno were middlemen , exchanging copper for salt and pearls from the coast . and something more . The Eno traded slaves"; "We know that Ocanahowan was located in the north , probably along the Roa- noke River , although the Zúñiga map placed it south of the Meherrin River , above Occaneechi Island"; p. 262 — "Cut off from any communication , dispersed one from the other , four men , two boys , and a young girl work the [copper]" and "The search for White's colonists is called off and a story fabricated . All hope is gone . 1701. Surveyor John Lawson travels to Croatoan"; p. 271 — appendix "MANDOAG AND NOTTOWAY ... both epithets traditionally employed by Algonquian speakers to designate foreign , generally enemy , nations"; notes: p. 284 — "Quinn ( Set Fair , p . 279 ) notes that even Stafford did not protest about Fer- nandez's actions and suggests that White may have been secretly pleased with the arrangement to remain"; p. 309 — Quinn finds Fernandez as a "sabotaging villain" "somewhat hard to accept" (Raleigh and the British Empire, pp. 73, 110; Set Fair, p. 276) and calls White's suspicion "paranoia"; p. 310 — "Quinn , Set Fair , pp . 277 , 282. Yet the Rastell episode demonstrates that Fer- nandez's intimate position within the company was perfect for sabotage"; p. 323 — "Bushnell , " Virginia Before Jamestown , " p . 131 , also speculated that Strachey was referring to a leader on Roanoke Island"; p. 324 — "Ritanoe " is a copyist error for " Ritanoc . " Ritanoc appears in other versions , cf. Gates's instructions"; Bushnell reads "Gepanocon" as "Sepanocon" "and theorizes that the name was Siouan"; p. 325 — n. 23 "Quinn , Set Fair for Roanoke , pp . 371-3 ; Quinn , England and the Discovery , pp . 460-2"; p. 327 — "Editors of the 1973 Princeton University edition ( from the Percy mss . ) of Strachey read the word as Peccarecanick"; p. 331 — "Lumbee claim of Lost Colony ancestry in a very interesting new light ( cf. Barton ; McMillan ; Weeks ) . If the Lost Colonists were disseminated along Siouan trade routes , survivors could be expected to be found throughout the interior"; index pp. 357–359: "Mandoag , the / Mandoak 111 , 112 , 113 , 114-19 , 215 , 216 , 219 , 232 , 234 , 235-6 , 237 , 238 , 241-2 , 247 , 251-60 , 270-1"; "Ohonahorn 236"; "Pakerakanick 246 , 250 , 252 , 255 , 257 , 258 , 259"; "Panawiock 245 , 246 , 258 , 259"; "Quinn , David Beers 246 , 265 , 269"; "Gepanocon 236 , 258 , 259"; "Eyanoco 242 , 255". 'Chesapeake' returned no results in the Google copy (the OL copy has hits), so Google's index of this title is partial. --- ## 6. Karen Ordahl Kupperman, *Roanoke: The Abandoned Colony* (1984; 2nd ed. 2007) **Bibliographic.** 1st ed.: Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld, 1984 (IA `roanokeabandoned0000kupp`; Quinn 1985 p. 446 calls Kupperman's 1984 book and Stick's one of the "good brief accounts of the Roanoke voyages" — VERIFIED GB p. 446). 2nd ed.: Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007 (GB W8cr4Vgt9ekC; IA `roanokeabandoned0000kupp_b1j0`). 2007 contents (VERIFIED GB front matter): "7 A GENUINE SETTLEMENT 105 8 ABANDONMENT AT ROANOKE 119 9 ENDINGS 137 10 EPILOGUE : THE NATURE OF SUCCESSFUL COLONIZATION 159 AFTERWORD , 2007 169 NOTES 179 INDEX 185". Publisher blurb (VERIFIED): "afterword written by the author , Roanoke : The Abandoned Colony brings the fascinating story of America's earliest settlement up - to - date , collecting together new work from scholars in a variety of fields". **How much read.** Google Books search-inside snippets with page numbers (2007 ed., ~30 terms) and Open Library snippets without page numbers for both editions. Not read in full. **Reconstruction.** Kupperman follows Quinn: the main body went north to the Chesapeakes; a holding party stayed at Roanoke and later went to Croatoan; Powhatan destroyed Chesapeakes and English together about 1607; a few escaped inland; survivors and children "would have become Indians". She is more cautious than Quinn about the twenty-year cohabitation and about Strachey's motives. VERIFIED (GB 2007, p. 134): "Croatoan Island ? Professor David Quinn has proposed that both indications may be true . He argued that the bulk of the colonists did go up to Chesapeake Bay and lived there in peace among the Indians for twenty years ; in fact they may have left shortly after White and the ships de- parted . Since no precise destination for the colony's move had been agreed on before White left , the colonists would have left a holding party behind to..." (the same passage in the 1984 ed. is in the OL snippet "and lived there in peace among the Indians for twenty years; in fact they may have left shortly after White"). VERIFIED (OL, 1984 ed., running head "138 ROANOKE"): "In 1612, William Strachey, a gentleman of literary pretensions who had gone..."; "They had lived in peace for twenty years with Indians outside the domain of the "Great Emperor" Powhatan, in whose territory Jamestown had been founded. Urged on by his priests, who prophesied that a rival to him would emerge..."; "Chesapeakes, the tribe sheltering the Roanoke refugees, Powhatan ordered the slaughter of them all, English and Indians. Ironically..."; "Strachey claimed that four men, two boys, and a young girl had escaped and were..."; "Kemps, or Machumps, the informer Strachey quoted about the surviving seven colonists, went..." (NOTE: Kupperman conflates Kemps and Machumps — Strachey (Major 1849, pp. 53–54) distinguishes Kemps, who "died the last yeare of the surveye at Jamestowne", from Machumps, "who was sometyme in England"; her 2007 index reads "Kemps [Machumps], 133-34"); "have had their own reasons, such as enmity toward Powhatan, to pass them on; some may have been saying what..."; "Virginia Company in England for some time when Strachey first wrote the full story in 1612. The Instructions..."; (GB 2007 p. 134) "Strachey first wrote the full story in 1612. The Instructions sent to the governor in Vir- ginia in 1609 mentioned the slaughter , as did a promotional pamphlet pub- lished in England in 1610. Both , though , found hope in the idea that..."; (GB p. 134) "Purchas , who continued the Hakluyt tradition of editing and pub- lishing chronicles of English voyages , said in 1625 that Powhatan himself had confessed to Smith his part in the settlers ' killings and had shown him " divers utensils..."; (OL) "had told him of people like the set- tlers, whom Smith took to be the lost colonists."; "During his presidency Smith sent two missions to the south, looking for evidence..."; "Apes in the Moun- tains." He was a captive whom John Smith originally described as one of "the two most exact..." (Kemps). Lumbee (VERIFIED OL): "The Lumbee Indians of Robeson County, North Carolina, believe..."; "maintains that the lost colonists survived and intermarried with the Indians and that their descendants..."; "better and would naturally be eager to become assimilated to it. Indians on the Outer Banks were not without". Lawson (OL): "hundred years after the colony's disappearance, John Lawson of Carolina saw an artillery piece lying by the"; 2007 index "Lawson, John, 165". **Afterword, 2007 (GB pages, VERIFIED).** p. 173: "Quinn argued that this group , aware that the Spanish had discovered their site , might have departed for Manteo's home at Croatoan leaving the carved name for White to find . In 1590 , a consultation in Span- ish government circles in..."; p. 173: "...but just what the recreated earthwork / fort might have been and when it was first built remain a subject of controversy . The other is the one that stirs most popular interest : where did the Lost [colonists go]"; p. 176: "Chesapeake Bay before they ever left England . According to this theory , they settled in the land of the Chesapeake Indians fifteen miles up the Elizabeth River . 16 Twenty years later , the Jamestown planters heard various rumors..."; p. 176: "Strachey wrote that they had lived until 1606 when Powhatan , whose priests had prophesied that a potent rival would emerge , attacked and killed both the English and the Indians among whom they lived . Thus historians argued that Powhatan had wiped out both the remaining Roanoke..."; p. 176: "Croatoan , which is the place where Manteo was born , and the Savages of the Island our friends . " Croatoan was south of Roanoke and was part of the Outer Banks , not the mainland . So , the evidence was mixed and White was pre- vented..."; p. 177: "Powhatan sought out the Indians who had accepted the English and slaughtered them as Jamestown was being settled , or whether this was a piece of propaganda created for the new colony's benefit . 17 In 1609 , as the Virginia Company..."; p. 177: "Strachey , and other Jamestown reporters also collected intelligence that the Roanoke group had been broken up and remnants lived with var- ious groups in the interior where they were valued for their metal - working skills and possibly..."; p. 177: "One of the most striking features of the various reports gathered in the early seventeenth century is that they often identified the people who may have been the Roanoke colonists as " clothed ,"; p. 178: "Those who sur- vived and their children would have become thoroughly engaged in the lives and culture of the Indians among whom they lived and with whom they had intermarried . In short , they would have become Indians ."; p. 182 (note): "Quinn , " The Lost Colony in Myth and Reality , 1586-1625 , " in his England and the Discovery of America , 432-81 . Quinn's thesis is presented more sys- tematically in his Set Fair for Roanoke"; p. 184 (notes 16–17): "Quinn in his book Set Fair for Roanoke : Voyages and Colonies , 1584-1606 ( Chapel Hill , 1985 ) . 17. Thomas C. Parramore , " The Lost Colony ' Found : A Documentary Per- spective , " North Carolina Historical Review 78 ( 2001 ) : 67..."; index p. 188–189: "Miller , Lee , 177"; "Powhatan , 133-34 , 161-62 , 175 , 176-77"; "Quinn , David Beers , 134-35 , 169 , 173"; "Klingelhofer , Eric , 172"; "Luccketti , Nicholas" (index, page not captured); "Strachey , William , 133 , 137 , 176-77". Archaeology in the Afterword (VERIFIED OL/GB): the Fort Raleigh earthwork controversy (p. 173); Ganz's metallurgy (p. 172: "copper from which they extracted silver . So we now know that Ganz had made real progress"); note: "signet ring was discovered near Buxton by the Croatan archaeological project in 1998; see Cameron Binkley"; Stahle et al. drought study (n. 14; text: "culminating in the most severe drought of the past eight hundred years which lasted from"). Additional GB page hits (VERIFIED): p. 134 — "The 1609 Instructions ordered the governor to find the four colonists then..." (i.e., she reads the Instructions' four men as survivors to be recovered); p. 130 — the 1602 note on Samuel Mace, "a very sufficient Mariner , an honest sober man", "claimed that Mace had been to Virginia twice before"; p. 184 n. — cites "Dennis B. Blanton , " If Its Not One Thing , It's Another : The Added Challenges of Weather and Climate for the Roanoke Colony , " in Shields and Ewen , eds . , Searching for the Roanoke Colonies", 142–58 (one of the few chapters of the 2003 collection identifiable here). **Dare Stones.** No hits for "Dare Stones" in either edition's searchable text — not discussed. **Site X / Hatteras.** 2007 predates Site X (2012–15); the Hatteras signet ring (1998) is noted only in a footnote (above). No later statement by Kupperman on Site X was found; she is a contributor to Klingelhofer, ed., *Excavating the Lost Colony Mystery* (2023) (VERIFIED, UNC Press contributor list), content of her chapter not seen. **What would refute Kupperman.** Same as Quinn (§1): evidence that the main body never reached the Chesapeake (e.g., colonist-occupied sites at Croatoan or on the Chowan, or a demonstrated absence of English material in the Lynnhaven/Elizabeth River Chesapeake sites), or evidence that Strachey's slaughter report is fabricated. Her hedge "in fact they may have left shortly after White" and her "propaganda" alternative (p. 177) already concede the weakest points. Paul Aron, "The Lost Colony", *Trend & Tradition* (Colonial Williamsburg), Spring 2025, further-reading note (VERIFIED, file `CW_TrendTradition_2025_lost_colony.txt`): "Karen Ordahl Kupperman. Roanoke: The Abandoned Colony. Rowman & Allanheld, 1984. Kupperman presented many of David Beers Quinn's ideas in a less academic, more popular style." --- ## 7. Michael Leroy Oberg, *The Head in Edward Nugent's Hand* (2008); blog (2020); review of Lawler (2020) **Bibliographic.** Michael Leroy Oberg, *The Head in Edward Nugent's Hand: Roanoke's Forgotten Indians* (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008). IA `headinedwardnuge00ober`; Google Books id -FKqLvq-Wx0C has NO search-inside preview (checked 2026-09-14; only the publisher description is served). Epilogue begins p. 159 ("Epilogue 159" running head, VERIFIED). Index (VERIFIED): "Dare Stones, 139-42"; "Lost Colonists sought by, 133-35, 142-43" (under Powhatan/Wahunsonacock?); "Machumps, 134". Blog: Michael Leroy Oberg, "So Bored with the Lost Colonists" (3 Sept 2020), and the HNN reprint (files `oberg_blog_2020_so_bored_lost_colonists.txt`, `oberg_hnn_2020_so_bored_lost_colonists.txt`) — read in full. Review: Oberg, review of Lawler, *The Secret Token*, *Journal of Southern History* 86:2 (May 2020), 440–441 — NOT read (Project MUSE 401/403); one sentence quoted via Wikipedia (UNVERIFIED-secondhand): "Lawler often becomes so enamored with the colorful characters in the Roanoke drama that he overlooks important matters of context. Those English colonists settled on Native ground, and it was Indians, more than anyone else, who determined the colony's fate. Lawler sometimes seems to lose track of the forest for several of his story's very interesting trees." **How much read.** OL snippets (no page numbers, ~40 queries) plus the 2020 blog in full. **Reconstruction (2008).** Oberg's subject is the Algonquians, not the colonists' itinerary; on the fate he follows the Quinn/Kupperman Chesapeake line but stresses assimilation and Native agency. VERIFIED snippets: "successfully joined Chesapeake society, would have married Chesapeake wives and fathered children"; "colonists moved to the Chesapeake. Despite Strachey's claim, the Chesapeake Indians did not en-" [continuation not visible — probably "entirely disappear"/"end"; UNVERIFIED]; "These few survivors moved to the mainland and settled amongst"; "Bay in the spring of 1607. Seven of the survivors, "fower men, twoo Boyes, and one young"; "copper in the mountains, had "escaped the slaughter at Roanoak" that, Strachey believed, had"; "Colonists from Wahun- sonacock's emissary, Machumps. At "Peccarecannick and Ochanahoen," Strachey"; "survived. Wahunsonacock, the chronicler Samuel Purchas later reported, admitted to Smith "that he"; "Quiyoughquoha- nock guides into the heart of the Mangoak territory. Powell and Todkill told Virginia"; "the notion that the Lost Colonists had assimilated themselves into a Native American community"; "into which they necessarily would have assimilated in order to survive. The descendants of"; "Archaeologists have found eight Croa- toan sites on Hatteras, but when John Lawson visited early in the 1700s, they had only"; "The Hatteras Indians told Lawson "that several of their"; "By the time of Lawson's visit, the Hatteras were truly a marginal people."; "During the Tuscarora War, the Choanoacs [...]"; "the Croatans, who would not take the name Lumbee until well into the twentieth century, had". **Dare Stones (pp. 139–42).** VERIFIED: "Over the following months, more "Dare Stones" appeared, forty-six in all. The story"; "There were obvious problems with the Dare Stones as a source of evi- dence. Nobody, for"; "wanted to believe in the verac- ity of the Dare Stones. Brenau College in Gainesville, Georgia"; "Though the Dare Stones were fraudulent, however, the notion that". Two further snippets — "settled along the eastern bank. After a massacre there in 1591, only seven of the colonists" and "in 1591 they fell victim to an Indian massacre. Only a handful escaped. They fled farther" — are Oberg paraphrasing the Dare-Stone narrative (context inferred from the 1591 date; UNVERIFIED). **On Miller.** "Miller makes a larger interpretive leap than the evidence will allow." (VERIFIED, note). **On Parramore.** cites "Thomas C. Parramore, "The 'Lost Colony Found: A Documentary" (n. 40). **On Horn 2005.** cites "Horn, Land as God Made It, 143-44" and "145-46". **2020 blog (VERIFIED, full text on file).** "Indeed, recent archaeological work by Nick Lucketti and his associates from the First Colony Foundation offers suggestive evidence that the colonists headed inland toward the head of Albemarle Sound. There is documentary evidence supporting this hypothesis as well." "Indeed, I made the point that the colonists were lost only to those English explorers who tried and failed to find them. Algonquian peoples knew what happened to them and most likely determined their fate. There has been a long national obsession over the Lost Colonist." — i.e., by 2020 Oberg treats the Chowan/Albemarle (Site X) hypothesis as the best-supported, without abandoning the point that the fate was decided by Algonquians. **What would refute Oberg.** His 2008 position stands or falls with Quinn's Chesapeake reconstruction; his 2020 position with the FCF Salmon Creek sites. A demonstration that the Site X/Y Border ware is post-1650 trade material (Ewen's stratigraphic objection to Hatteras applies in principle to Bertie County too) would remove the "suggestive evidence". --- ## 8. Thomas C. Parramore, "The 'Lost Colony' Found: A Documentary Perspective" (2001) **Bibliographic.** *North Carolina Historical Review* 78:1 (January 2001), 67–83. Title, author and page range VERIFIED from the journal's own printed contents and annual index for vol. 78 (Internet Archive OCR, `sources/NCHR_2001_78_contents_IA_ocr.txt`, `sources/NCHR_2001_78_index_IA_ocr.txt`): contents, "The "Lost Colony" Found: A Documentary Perspective / THOMAS C. PARRAMORE" (Number 1, January 2001); index, ""'Lost Colony' Found, The: A Documentary Perspective," 67-83" and "Parramore, Thomas C.: [art]icle by, 67-83; reviews books, 387, 483-484". The same volume carries Parramore's review of Miller: "MILLER, Roanoke: Solving the Mystery of the Lost Colony, by Thomas C. Parramore" (Book Reviews, no. 4, October 2001; index "Miller, Lee: book by, reviewed, 483-484") — VERIFIED as an entry; the review itself was not obtained. JSTOR 23522231 (login wall). **How much read.** The article text was NOT obtained. Its argument is reconstructed from (a) the vol. 78 index, which is the journal's own page-by-page digest of the article (VERIFIED as index entries, quoted below), and (b) secondhand reports: Fullam 2017 (GB pp. 40, 176–178), Kupperman 2007 (n. 17), Oberg 2008 (n. 40), Horn 2010 (index; §2), the Bertie County/FCF 2020 release, Coastal Review (Oct. 2020), and Klingelhofer 2023 ("Parramore had both advocated seeking evidence of the Lost Colony in the vicinity", Addendum A.1). **Reconstruction — as digested by the NCHR index (VERIFIED entries; OCR of a two-column index, so a few words are cut).** - "Lost Colony: David Beers Quinn's explanation of its disappearance, 67-70; hostilities between Iroquois and Algonquian Leagues probably fatal for colonists, 73-83; Powhatan and followers probably not responsible for disappearance of, 71-73; probable destination of colonists upon leaving Roanoke Island, 70-71, 75." - "Lost Colonists: probable fate of, 67-83"; "Lost Colonists, The: Their Fortune and Probable Fate, 67" (Quinn's 1984 pamphlet, cited on p. 67). - "Strachey, William: asserts that Powhatan and followers attacked Chesapeakes, 71-75; writes history of Jamestown colony, 1612, 67-68." "Smith, John: chronicles early history of Virginia settlement, 67-68, 75; first head of Jamestown colony, 67; recounts Powhatan's claim to have witnessed killing of Roanoke colonists, 71-73; 1624 map drawn by, 79." "Powhatan, 67-68, 71-75." - "Roanoke Island: first English colony on, 67; John White leaves pinnace for colonists on, 71; John White returns to, 1590, 68; Lost Colonists leave, 67-75; possible attempted return to, by some Lost Colonists, 77; proximity to Weapemeoc territory, 79, 83." "White, John: original leader of [...] 83; returns to England from R[oanoke for] supplies, 67, 70-71; returns to [Roanoke], 68, 75." ""Roanoak," 68, 75." - "Weapemeocs: friendly t[o ...]; "Sea of Roanoke," 71; part [of Algonquian] League, 77; probably disinte[grated ...]"; "Weapemeoc (territory) [...] of, 74"; "[Albemarle Sound:] part of "Sea of Roanoke," 68; [...] warfare among Native American tribes on western shore of, 83; Weapemeocs live along north side of, 7[x]"; "Yeopim, 73. See also Weapemeocs"; "Okisko, 70, 73". - "Algonquian League, 75-77"; "Algonquian (language), 77"; "Mangoaks. See Tuscaroras"; "Tuscaroras, 77-83, 195"; "Chowanokes, 77-79"; "Chowanoke (territory), 79"; "Chowan River, 68, 71, 77"; "Moratocs, 77"; "Menatonon, 77"; "Ponouikes, 77, 81"; "Ocanahowan, 77"; "Ritanoe, 77"; "Chesapeake (territory), 79"; "Cape Hatteras, 71"; "Manteo, 71, 75"; "Secotans: disappear by 1644, 79; hate R[oanoke] Island colonists, 70; live west of Pamlico and [...]". - "Native Americans: [...] fur trade between whites and, 81; mainland, near Roanoke Island hate English, 70; possible source for hardware Powhatan shows John Smith, 71; reports of Lost Colony survivors living in eastern North Carolina among, 75; [...] Wingina seeks coalition of, against first English Roanoke Island colony, 73; [... politi]cal influence of, upon fate of Lost Colonists, 83." **What that establishes.** Parramore's article (i) reviews and rejects Quinn's Chesapeake solution (pp. 67–70); (ii) argues that Powhatan "and followers" were "probably not responsible" for the colony's disappearance (pp. 71–73) — i.e., he treats Smith's report of Powhatan's boast and Strachey's slaughter as NOT explaining the 1587 colony's fate (consistent with Fullam's report, p. 178, that "Parramore essentially claimed that Strachey simply had it all wrong"); (iii) places the colonists' destination on the Weapemeoc mainland of Albemarle Sound (pp. 70–71, 75, 79, 83 — the "Weapemeoc theory" Fullam names, p. 40: "the colonists were already prepared, when John White left them, to move from Roanoke Island across Albemarle Sound to Weapemeoc"); (iv) discusses Ocanahowan and Ritanoe with the Chowanokes, Moratocs, Ponouikes and Menatonon on p. 77, and "possible attempted return to [Roanoke Island], by some Lost Colonists, 77"; and (v) concludes that "hostilities between Iroquois and Algonquian Leagues" (Tuscarora/"Mangoak" versus the Algonquian coastal peoples) were "probably fatal for colonists" (pp. 73–83), with "warfare among Native American tribes on [the] western shore of [Albemarle Sound], 83" as the closing scene. Secondhand reports have Parramore locating "Strachey's slaughter ... at or near Roanoke/the Albemarle by Powhatan's forces"; the journal's index shows the opposite — Parramore exonerates Powhatan and blames Iroquoian–Algonquian warfare. In that respect his reconstruction stands closer to Miller 2000 (Mandoag attack, §5) than to Horn 2010, and the FCF's later "Powhatan war party ... in the Roanoke region" reading (Horn in Klingelhofer 2023, Addendum A.1) is Horn's, not Parramore's. **Other secondhand testimony (VERIFIED as quotations of the intermediaries).** Fullam p. 40: "the 'Weapemeoc theory,' promoted by Quinn's contemporary Thomas C. Parramore, claimed that 'the colonists were already prepared, when John White left them, to move from Roanoke Island across Albemarle Sound to Weapemeoc'"; Fullam p. 178: "attempted to accommodate Strachey's Roanoke colony references, Parramore essentially claimed that Strachey simply had it all wrong. If the Chesapeake Indians were extinct, as Strachey..."; Bertie County/FCF release 2020: "North Carolina historians Samuel A. Ashe and Dr. Thomas C. Parramore both advocated seeking evidence of the Lost Colony in the vicinity. James Horn reached a similar conclusion in his book A Kingdom Strange"; Coastal Review, Oct. 2020: "As Luccketti explained, the foundation was following the bread crumbs laid out years ago by several historians, including the late Tom Parramore at Meredith College." **Dare Stones; archaeology.** No index entry links the article to the Dare Stones, Site X (which postdates it) or Hatteras; "Cape Hatteras, 71" is its only Outer Banks reference beyond Roanoke Island. **What would refute Parramore.** Proof of a Chesapeake sojourn (Quinn), or proof that Croatoan was the main destination (Dawson/Horton); or evidence that the Tuscarora–Algonquian hostilities he invokes for the 1590s are a back-projection from the 1711–13 war. His article is the documentary root of the FCF's Site X programme, so the FCF's own admission that Sites X and Y are "satellite" sites, not the "major relocation site" (Luccketti 2020), leaves his central claim unproven — but note that the FCF has adopted his *destination* while rejecting his *agent of destruction* (Horn keeps Powhatan). --- ## 9. David La Vere, "The 1937 Chowan River Dare Stone: A Re-evaluation" (2009) and *The Lost Rocks* (2010) **Bibliographic.** *North Carolina Historical Review* 86:3 (July 2009), 251–281 per the journal's own vol. 86 index ("La Vere, David: "The 1937 Chowan River 'Dare Stone': A Re-evaluation," 251-281" — VERIFIED, `sources/NCHR_2009_86_index-contents_IA_ocr.txt`; the ECU North Carolina Periodicals Index record #21774 gives 250–281, "il, por, map, f" — VERIFIED as that record; the index's page-pointers into the article are digested in Addendum A.4), whose abstract reads: "This article examines the legends that surround the Lost Colony of Roanoke, especially the carved stone found by a tourist near Edenton in 1937 which purportedly was carved in an Elizabethan style. The article discusses whether the stone is a fake or a message from the Lost Colony survivors." David La Vere, *The Lost Rocks: The Dare Stones and the Unsolved Mystery of Sir Walter Raleigh's Lost Colony* (Wilmington, N.C.: Dram Tree Books, 2010); Google Books id 6XyW01Qg7LMC (search-inside harvest run: see §9A below and, for the 2009 article, Addendum A.4). **How much read.** Neither the article nor the book was read. Secondhand: Lew Powell's North Carolina Miscellany posts of 19 Aug 2009 (a "condensed" quotation of the article) and 20 Apr 2010 (La Vere's emailed reply), the ECU abstract, and a Kinston (N.C.) library talk notice for 13 Nov 2025. **Position (VERIFIED as quoted by Powell 2009, "condensed from" the article).** "Scholars have dismissed the stone as a forgery, but a closer look shows it might well be what it purports to be: a last message from Eleanor Dare and the Lost Colony…. It tells a credible story that coincides with the sources left about the Lost Colony." (VERIFIED, Powell 2010, quoting La Vere's reply): "The Stone's language has been examined many times," he replied. "I had an Elizabethan scholar look over the language. He went in with the idea to discredit and came away amazed how it all fit Elizabethan English. He was particularly interested in the word 'salvage' (for savage) which was used in English (from the Italian word for forest) during only a few years…. The Lost Colony fit in with that period." ... "It still looks like a chisel did it. The problem was that it was 'corrupted' from the time it was found — gone over with a wire brush, pencils and nail. New techniques would entail destroying parts of the stone, and Brenau [University, where it resides] doesn't seem willing to do that." "So it could be real, or it could be a good fake." 2025 talk blurb (VERIFIED, City of Kinston calendar): "What if the 1587 Lost Colony of Roanoke was not lost? What if the survivors left Roanoke Island, North Carolina, and found their way to Georgia? Has the greatest mystery in American history -- the Lost Colony -- finally been solved?" — i.e., La Vere still (Nov. 2025) presents the first Dare Stone (Chowan River, 1937) as possibly genuine, distinguishing it from the 47 later stones exposed by Sparkes (1941). **Implied reconstruction.** If the first stone is genuine: the colony went to the Chowan (Edenton area); an Indian attack in 1591 killed most, including Ananias and Virginia Dare; Eleanor and a handful survived (cf. Pearce 1938, JSH 4:2, pp. 148–163, on file: "Assuming that the Dare stone is genuine, and records an authentic..."; "Chowan River, where they were preserved by a chief named Eyanoco" — Pearce tied the survivors to Strachey's Ritanoe party). **Others on La Vere.** Lawler 2018 (H-Net review, see §3) treats the first stone as an open question in the same spirit; Melissa Darby (Portland State) argues the opposite (VERIFIED abstract, 2025): "assisted other historians, George Hammond and Haywood Pearce Jr., with the planning and implementation of the Dare Stone fraud... The author calls for a simple radiometric test of the Dare Stone, which will determine whether the stone originated in the Appalachian region of western North Carolina, or if it came from a younger geological source, perhaps in New Mexico where Hammond taught history". NCpedia (on file) and Oberg (2008: "Though the Dare Stones were fraudulent") treat the whole series as fraudulent. **What would refute La Vere.** Petrological provenance of the stone outside eastern North Carolina (Darby's test); demonstration that the inscription's spellings/letter-forms postdate 1591; documentary proof of Hammond's whereabouts; or archaeological proof that the colony was never on the Chowan in 1587–91. **9A. *The Lost Rocks* (2010) — Google Books snippets (VERIFIED text; the e-book preview gives NO page numbers; file `snippets_googlebooks_lavere2010.txt`).** On the first stone: "To this day there is no way to say unequivocally whether the Chowan River Stone was an authentic message left by Eleanor Dare in 1591, or was just a magnificent fake, ranking up..."; "Nevertheless, if the Chowan Stone is a fake, it is truly masterful. Creating it would be only somewhat difficult. Find a flat piece of English ballast stone and a mason with basic..."; "Among the many characters involved in the discovery of the Stones, none would appear sufficiently learned to have forged them. Certainly not a retired produce dealer — if..."; "trouble, why plant the forgery on the swampy bank of the Chowan River, where no one knowing the Lost Colony would look, and where it could be found only by lucky happenstance? Rule that out , then , all the known suspects"; "genuine — but none, on the other hand, that prove it false, either. For that matter, no artifacts of any kind have been conclusively linked to the Lost Colonists. Though artifacts have been found on Roanoke and Hatteras Islands that are..."; the stone is "quartz, a rock common to the Piedmont of the American Southeast, but also found in England ... However, this type of stone was not native to the coastal plain"; "After weeks of testing, the Emory team could find nothing on the rock or inscription to prove or disprove the Stone's authenticity". On the 47 later stones: "Sparkes used the remaining pages to demolish the Dare Stones"; "Sparkes saw it, Hammond must have forged the first stone — and "if the first was a fraud, all were fraudulent.""; "Only the original Chowan River Stone remained accessible, as it was the only one definitely not associated..." On Quinn and Strachey: "Quinn, who by the late 1950s was considered the dean of Lost Colony studies, both dismissed the Stones as fakes in 1959. Quinn accepted Strachey's theory and contended the Lost Colonists moved in with the Chespian Indians on the south..."; "As Quinn saw it, between April 24 and 27, 1607, just days before Captain John Smith and the other members of the Virginia Company landed to establish Jamestown, they..."; "Strachey himself had said that the Lost Colonists "were seated far from him" and were "out of his territory."146 And other than Strachey's rather indirect placement of the Lost Colonists among the Chespians, there is really no evidence..."; La Vere's own reading of the 1609 Instructions: ""Powhatan" is not a name, but a title, and the "Powhaton of Roanocke" at that time was most likely Wanchese, who probably inherited the position after the murder of Pemisapan by Ralph Lane in 1586. Wanchese was likely a nephew of..." — i.e., La Vere reads "the slaughter of Powhaton of Roanocke" as a killing by the Roanoke Indians' own weroance, which would fit a Chowan-River massacre of the kind the first stone describes. His closing list of possibilities: "...Powhatan, the Mangoaks, by Wanchese and his Roanokes, sold at Occaneechi Town, enslaved to hammer Indian copper, lost at sea, or rotting away in a Spanish prison. Eleanor, Ananias, Virginia Dare and the Lost Colonists will always be...". He also records Morison's 1940 verdict, "either one of the most stupendous discoveries or stupendous hoaxes in American history", and Crittenden's "I believe neither that the stones are authentic nor that they are unauthentic. I do believe that a thorough investigation needs to be made." --- ## 10. Helen C. Rountree, *Pocahontas's People* (1990) and *Pocahontas, Powhatan, Opechancanough* (2005) **Bibliographic.** *Pocahontas's People: The Powhatan Indians of Virginia Through Four Centuries* (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990), IA `pocahontasspeopl0000roun`; index "Ritanoe, 23; Skicoak, 20" (VERIFIED). *Pocahontas, Powhatan, Opechancanough: Three Indian Lives Changed by Jamestown* (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2005), IA `pocahontaspowhat0000roun`, GB BBwW1tA4zBsC (page-numbered snippets: Addendum A.2). **How much read.** OL snippets only (no page numbers). **Reconstruction.** Rountree (an ethnohistorian of the Powhatans) accepts that the Chesapeakes were destroyed by Powhatan, but dates the destruction to about 1597–98, well before Jamestown, and doubts Strachey's prophecy-explanation and timing; she thinks some colonists went north as refugees but that most went to the North Carolina mainland (Chowanoc). VERIFIED (1990): "It is likely that some of the "lost colonists" went northward as refugees in 1587 and"; "1597 or 1598; he had exterminated the Chesapeakes, who would not join him, by the summer"; "among the Chesapeakes can only be guessed at, for as we shall see, the Chesapeakes were exterminated"; "Strachey's use of a prophecy to explain the massacre of the Chesapeakes"; "Powhatan did not immediately apply the prophecy to them; instead he waited a long time"; "In fact, "the slaughter at [of] Roanoak" had happened "at what"; "Thomas Gates in 1609 speak of "the slaughter of [by] Powhaton of Roanocke [colonists]"; "expeditions to search so far afield for "lost colonists" were the ones sent to the Chowanocs"; "Thus, the ultimate fate of the "lost colonists" remains a mystery only archaeology may"; notes: "35. Quinn 1974, p. 255, and 1985, p. 42."; "48. Quinn 1985, pp. 345-353. 49. Personal communications, 1983; Quinn 1985, pp. 362ff" (i.e., she discussed the timing with Quinn personally). VERIFIED (2005): "After leaving Roanoke Island, most of the "Lost Colonists" probably headed to the North Carolina mainland"; "the Chowanocks who had met Europeans from the Roanoke colonies and perhaps harbored some of the "Lost Colonists" after 1587."; "northward and come to rest among the still-friendly Chesapeakes, where any of them who survived for twenty years"; "Powhatan concluded that the Chesapeakes were meant, and accordingly he "destroyed and"; "mamanatowick and his sub- ject chiefdoms considered the Chesapeakes to be bitter enemies by 1607, rather than autonomous"; map legend "Chesapeake (independent, possibly extinct)"; "Virginia Company with the extermination of the "Lost Colonists." It did not matter whether or not all of"; "For a discussion of timing, according to both me and David B. Quinn, see Rountree 1990: 20-21." On Machumps (2005, VERIFIED): "learned from one of Powhatan's brothers-in-law (Machumps), through his fluency and that of the decent Jamestown"; "Machumps, the brother of Powhatan's then-favorite wife"; "that he was killed by Machumps, a brother-in-law of Powhatan who was also returning" (Namontack's death in Bermuda, 1609–10); "Significantly, Machumps remained among the English for quite some time". **Treatment of the Jamestown reports.** Rountree reads Strachey's "twenty and od yeares" as compatible with survivors among the Chesapeakes until c. 1607 but thinks the *extermination* of the Chesapeakes as a polity came earlier (c. 1597–98) and that the prophecy story is Strachey's rationalisation; she notes the bracketed ambiguity "slaughter at [of] Roanoak" and "slaughter of [by] Powhaton". No engagement with the Dare Stones or with Site X/Hatteras found. **What would refute Rountree.** Archaeological dating of the destruction/abandonment of the Chesapeake towns (Great Neck 44VB7 etc.) to 1607 rather than the 1590s, or the reverse; her own conclusion is that "only archaeology may" settle the fate. --- ## 11. Philip L. Barbour (1969; 1975; 1986) **Bibliographic.** *The Jamestown Voyages under the First Charter, 1606–1609*, 2 vols., Hakluyt Society 2nd ser. 136–137 (Cambridge, 1969) — IA `jamestownvoyages0002barb` (OL search-inside run: `sources/snippets_openlibrary_ol3_jamestownvoyages0002barb.txt`). "Ocanahowan and Recently Discovered Linguistic Fragments from Southern Virginia, c. 1650," *Papers of the Seventh Algonquian Conference* (1975) — FULL TEXT on file (`barbour_1975_ocanahowan_algonquian_conference.txt`). *The Complete Works of Captain John Smith*, 3 vols. (Chapel Hill: UNC Press for the IEAHC, 1986) — notes on Ocanahonan/Anone/Panawick extracted (`barbour_smith_works_vol1_extracts.txt`). **Position (1975, VERIFIED).** "These were tentatively identified as Iroquoian tribes in Quinn's basic study, but I have been led to suggest that they were all Algonquians." (of Lane's "Mandoags, Tripanicks, and Opossians"). "But to the west of Lane's explorations lay the land of the Mangoaks, described by him as "another kinde of Savages, dwelling more to the Westwarde" of the Chowan River. This tribe was definitely Iroquoian, although the name by which it was known was Algonquian, and meant "rattlesnakes" or "adders"". "between Lane's comments and the Smith/Zuniga map it can readily be deduced that Ocahanowan was a Mangoak town, and this is broadly supported by the handwritten notes under discussion, one of which indicates that the local language was different from Powhatan. Again broadly speaking, then, we shall perhaps not be far wrong if we place Ocanahowan west of the Chowan River, and west of the Algonquian tribes of the coastal region, but within the territory occupied by Iroquoians." "Judging by Bland's statement, Hocomowananck was a Tuscarora village... it is possible that Hocomowananck is identifiable with Ocanahowan (John Lawson's Unanauhan, a Tuscarora village), but this possibility need not be pursued just now. It is enough to know that Ocanahowan was in the territory where one of the Iroquoian nations lived, be it the Mangoak-Nottoways, the Meherrins, or the Tuscaroras." "All this fits well into the picture of where the Ocanahowan first mentioned by John Smith must have been. Tentatively we can place it at or near Hocomowananck." The 1975 paper also reports the c. 1650 manuscript notes in a copy of *Nova Britannia* (1609) that mention Ocanahowan ("We have heard nothing about the place since 1611"). Miller 2000 (VERIFIED snippet) summarises "1969. Philip Barbour reproduces..." the Zúñiga map with Panawiock "between the Chowan and the Roanoke, and Peccarecamek on the Tar." **On the colonists' fate.** Barbour offers no reconstruction of the fate beyond locating the place-names; he is the source for the Zúñiga-map legends used by everyone since (Quinn 1985 p. 371 n. 25: "the so - called Zúñiga map which Smith had something to do with"). He does not discuss the Dare Stones (not searched). --- ## 12. David Stick, *Roanoke Island: The Beginnings of English America* (1983) **Bibliographic.** Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 1983 (IA `roanokeislandbeg00stic`). Contents (VERIFIED): "CHAPTER 17 The Lost Colony / 205"; "CHAPTER 20 What Happened to the Lost Colony? / 237"; "Conclusion / 247"; index "CROATOAN (carved message), 209-10"; "Lost colony, 215-16; seventeenth-"; "Strachey, William, 222"; "Lawson, John, 226"; "Lost Colony (Paul Green), 234, 239, 244". **How much read.** OL snippets only. **Position (VERIFIED snippets).** Stick surveys the theories rather than choosing: "What Happened to the Lost Colony? With such a mass of lost colony clues at hand it is"; on Strachey: "Still more information comes from William Strachey, who sailed for Jamestown in 1609 and served"; he quotes "Roanoak were by practize and Comaundement of Powhatan (he himself perswaded thereunto by his Priests)" and "poore Countrymen drinck off at Roanoak." Strachey went on to give more of the specifics"; "Island Raleigh's colonists slaughtered by Powhatan? Others mentioned this as well, beginning"; on the Lumbee: "the other evidence used to support the Lumbee theory is shaky at best, and among the"; index "Lumbee theory. See McMillan, Hamilton; Weeks, Stephen"; on Lefler & Newsome: "advanced by Lefler and Newsome that the main body of the colonists, "finally despairing of"; on Lawson: "the Hatteras Indians, de- scribed by John Lawson in the early 1700s as claiming descent from"; "piece of evidence remains to be dealt with. Lawson cited the tradition that the Hatteras Indians". No "Dare Stone" hits (0) — apparently not discussed under that name. Quinn 1985 p. 446 lists Stick among the "good brief accounts". --- ## 13. E. Thomson Shields Jr. & Charles R. Ewen, eds., *Searching for the Roanoke Colonies* (2003); Ewen & Shields, *Becoming the Lost Colony* (2024); Ewen's statements 2016–2025 **Bibliographic.** *Searching for the Roanoke Colonies: An Interdisciplinary Collection* (Raleigh: North Carolina Office of Archives and History, 2003; distributed by UNC Press, ISBN 9780865263093). Only the UNC Press catalogue description was obtainable (file `uncpress_shields_ewen_2003_...txt`); NO table of contents or chapter texts were reachable, so its individual essays (which include the Roanoke Colonies Research Office papers of the 1990s) are NOT covered here. Charles R. Ewen and E. Thomson Shields Jr., *Becoming the Lost Colony: The History, Lore and Popular Culture of the Roanoke Mystery* (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2024), 220 pp., pISBN 978-1-4766-9496-2 (VERIFIED, McFarland page). Winner of the Society for Historical Archaeology's James Deetz Book Award (VERIFIED, McFarland page: "Winner, James Deetz Book Award—Society for Historical Archaeology"). Contents (VERIFIED): "Introduction: What Was the Lost Colony? 1"; Part I—What We Know: "1. The Background History... 9"; "2. First Retellings: The Roanoke Colonies in Print to the Early Seventeenth Century 32" (incl. "Early Jamestown Writings and the Roanoke Colonists (1606–1610) 43"; "Smith, Strachey, and Purchas (1612–1626) 48"); "3. The Archaeology of the Lost Colony 60" (incl. "First Colony Foundation 73"; "Site X 74"; "Archaeology of Hatteras Island 75"); Part II—What We Think We Know: "4. From Histories to Stories: Becoming The Lost Colony 85"; "5. The Prevailing Hypotheses 111" ("The Scenarios 111"; "Epilogue 144"); "6. Fringe "Theories": How Far Can We Go? 145"; "Conclusion: What We Don't Know and How We Don't Know It 161"; Appendix 175; Notes 179; Bibliography 187. **How much read.** Publisher pages and reviews only; no chapter text. Ewen's positions are documented from interviews (St. Luke's Museum blog; LiveScience June 2025; History.com June 2025). **Thesis (VERIFIED, McFarland description).** "This book analayzes several hypotheses and demonstrates why none have been shown to be more probable than any of the others." (sic). Carolina Country review (VERIFIED): "...in the end, readers will have all the data they need to judge new claims concerning the fate of The Lost Colony." **Ewen on Hatteras (VERIFIED).** St. Luke's Museum blog, quoting Ewen in writing: "Did the colonists have contact with the folks at Croatoan? Almost certainly. Is that where they ended up? Perhaps, but I see no solid evidence of it. The alleged 16th century material is in the same context with definite 17th century material so the rules of stratigraphy say it has to date to the 17th century." Same post: Alain Outlaw called Dawson's work "storytelling, not evidence-based information"; Luccketti (2016): "I have not seen any evidence at Croatoan of artifacts that indicate that Englishmen were living there." LiveScience (June 2025): ""I would like to see a hearth if we're talking about forging activity," Charles Ewen ... told Live Science." "...the hammer scale may be from Indigenous people's repurposing of the colonists' items for their own use, Ewen said, or it could even be trash from 16th-century explorers and settlers who stopped over while sailing the Gulf Stream up the East Coast. "The hammer scale is just not doing it for me without good context -- and without a report, I'm not seeing good context," he said." And: Ewen "said the archaeological and historical evidence does not clarify what happened to the Lost Colony. But he thinks that someday, the mystery might be solved, particularly "if we could find European burials that we could tie to the 16th ce[ntury]..."". History.com (June 2025, file on file): "We need to find Christian burials from the 16th century"; "I think it's going to be an accidental discovery" (VERIFIED in `history_com_2025_assimilation_duval_ewen.txt`). **Ewen on Klingelhofer 2023 (VERIFIED, UNC Press blurb).** "This engaging book gives readers the tools to judge claims concerning the Lost Colony, and it also demonstrates the process of historical research and the kinds of questions documentary and archaeological research can and can't answer." **What would refute Ewen & Shields's agnosticism.** By their own criterion: sixteenth-century Christian burials with English grave goods, or a sealed, well-published sixteenth-century context with English domestic debris, at Croatoan, Salmon Creek or the Chesapeake. --- ## 14. Brandon Fullam, *The Lost Colony of Roanoke: New Perspectives* (2017) **Bibliographic.** Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2017 (GB KaVtDgAAQBAJ; McFarland page on file with table of contents). Independent researcher (not an academic). **How much read.** Google Books search-inside snippets WITH page numbers (about 30 terms; ~74 KB harvest; file `snippets_googlebooks_fullam2017.txt`), plus publisher ToC. **Reconstruction.** Fullam rejects all "north" (Chesapeake/Chowan) theories and Croatoan as the main destination, and argues that the main body went by pinnace across Pamlico Sound to the Pamlico/Neuse mainland (Coree/Pamlico country, via Wokokon inlet), leaving the CRO/CROATOAN signs for a Croatoan detachment; a 1588 hurricane and later Tuscarora/Coree conflicts ended them; survivors' descendants are preserved in Coharie/Lumbee and Tuscarora oral tradition; Strachey's "slaughter at Roanoke" refers to Roanoke Island itself (the 1586 Lane–Wingina killings and/or a 1587–88 attack), not the Chesapeake; Machumps's stone houses derive from Pardo's Spaniards. VERIFIED (GB pages): p. 2 — Quinn's "three options"; p. 5 — the "fourth fallacy"; p. 24 — the pinnace "probably about 30 tuns"; p. 35 — Fernandez "may have saved the 1587 colony from certain discovery"; p. 39 — "Croatoan would not have been a viable option for a large agriculture-based colony ... archaeological excavations at Croatoan to date support the conclusion that the colony did not relocate there"; p. 40 — Quinn "convinced that most if not all ... would have logically relocated to ... the Chesapeake Bay" and the Parramore "Weapemeoc theory" (quoted in §8); pp. 45–47 — the map-patch fort symbol and Chowanoke theories challenged by the CRO/CROATOAN signs; p. 48 — Miller's jurisdictional "fifty mile" reading "very possible"; pp. 58–60, 69, 150 — the mainland site across Pamlico Sound via Wokokon inlet near the Pamlico/Neuse; pp. 71–81 — the "CORA tree"; pp. 83–90 — the pinnace "capable of ocean travel", "nowhere to be seen when White finally returned in 1590", capacity "between twenty-seven and..." on a trans-ocean voyage; p. 97 — the 1588 "Category 4" hurricane surge; pp. 107–110, 183, 221–223 — Coharie/Lumbee oral tradition "undeniable"; p. 123 — a second pinnace possibility; pp. 132–135 — the Zúñiga map; pp. 141, 197 — Machumps's stone houses taught "by Pardo's Spaniards and not by any Englishmen"; p. 142 — Hamor 1615 "Ocanahowan where they report are Spaniards inhabiting"; p. 146 — against Miller on Panawioc; pp. 155–162 — "Powhatan–Lost Colony slaughter account must be viewed with a great deal of skepticism", Smith "instinctively exaggerated"; p. 175 — the Virginia Company may have rejected Strachey's *Historie* because of the slaughter references; pp. 176–178 — "attempted to accommodate Strachey's Roanoke colony references, Parramore essentially claimed that Strachey simply had it all wrong. If the Chesapeake Indians were extinct, as Strachey..."; p. 187 — the theories are "all ... variations"; p. 190 — Strachey's "slaughter at Roanoke" "was undoubtedly referring to the specific location of Roanoke Island"; p. 198 — two "slaughters", "The first of these had to have occurred in 1586 at Roanoke"; pp. 202–203 — Tuscarora tradition (Elias Johnson 1881); p. 233 — cites Horn 2010 pp. 164, 224 and Horn 2005 pp. 145–146. (Exact snippet texts are in the sources file; the phrases above are verbatim fragments.) **Dare Stones.** Not among the harvested terms with hits (no "Dare Stone" hits recorded) — treat as not addressed (UNVERIFIED). **Archaeology.** Uses the negative Hatteras evidence as of 2016–17 (p. 39) and the Site X fort-symbol debate (pp. 45–47); no fieldwork of his own. **What would refute Fullam.** Colonist-occupied sixteenth-century sites at Croatoan (which he denies) or on the Chowan; any sixteenth-century English site south of Pamlico Sound would confirm him and none has been found; the "CORA tree" and Coree/Lumbee traditions are unfalsifiable as presented. --- ## 15. Eric Klingelhofer, ed., *Excavating the Lost Colony Mystery* (2023), and the First Colony Foundation (Luccketti, Klingelhofer, Evans, Horn) 2012–2025 **Bibliographic.** Eric Klingelhofer, ed., *Excavating the Lost Colony Mystery: The Map, the Search, the Discovery* (Chapel Hill: UNC Press, published in association with the First Colony Foundation, 7 Nov. 2023), 144 pp., 121 colour plates, ISBN 9781469673752 (VERIFIED, UNC Press page). "Contributors include: Peter Barber, Phillip Evans, James Horn, Karen Ordahl Kupperman, Nicholas Luccketti, Kim Sloan, Beverly Straube, and Edward Clay Swindell." "Eric Klingelhofer is emeritus professor of history at Mercer University." Reviews quoted by UNC Press (VERIFIED): *AHR*: "A concise and well-illustrated summary of the [First Colony Foundation]'s search for the Lost Colony."; *NCHR*: "Given the expertise of the authors assembled, there can be little doubt that the contents of this volume represent the culmination of an exhaustive trawl of available primary sources. . . . [E]ssential reading for all scholars of the early colonies and Anglo-Algonquian relations."; *Southeastern Geographer*: "Beautifully illustrated. . . . [T]his book is guaranteed to become a reference on the topic". Full AHR review: Christopher Arris Oakley, *AHR* 130:1 (March 2025), 513–514 (OUP page returned 401/403; two sentences recorded from the search-engine abstract — UNVERIFIED against the page: "They argue that after Governor John White left Roanoke, the remaining colonists split into smaller groups to search for food. Some ventured westward ... near the head of the Albemarle Sound on modern day Salmon Creek, a location near the Algonquian town of Mettaquem." and "...they do not claim to have solved the mystery."). **How much read.** Publisher page; GB search-inside snippets, c. 60 terms, unpaginated but with index page-numbers recovered (id gIK2EAAAQBAJ; Addendum A.1 and A.1b). FCF web statements, reports and press releases read in full (files `FCF_*.txt`, `BertieCounty_2020_FCF_press_release_SiteY.txt`, `RCNH_2020_*`, `CoastalReview_2020_10_moved_inland.txt`, `PBSNC_lost_colony_split.txt`, and the 2015–16 pieces). **Reconstruction (FCF).** After White left, the colony split; the Croatoan carving marks a detachment sent to Manteo's people, while the main body (or several small groups) went about 50 miles to the head of Albemarle Sound, settling as dispersed farmsteads near the Algonquian town of Mettaquem on Salmon Creek (Site X, 31BR246, and Site Y), the area hidden under the patch on White's *La Virginea Pars* map (British Museum, 2012). VERIFIED statements: Bertie County/FCF release (2020): "the Roanoke colonists dispersed into numerous small settlement groups, just as a food shortage in 1586 had forced Raleigh's first Roanoke colony to disperse. "Possibly, a small group went to Croatoan Island in the fall or winter of 1587 to wait for John White to return," commented Jamestown Rediscovery President and First Colony board member James Horn, "while the remainder moved inland to the mouth of the Chowan River and Salmon Creek."" ... "The colonists told John White that it was their intention to relocate some 50 miles into the mainland after he sailed for England. The archaeological sites referenced here on Salmon Creek are approximately 50 nautical miles from Roanoke Island." ... "A 1608 map drawn for the Jamestown colony, now in Spanish archives, suggests that survivors of the Roanoke Colony were present in the area of Bertie County. However, Jamestown settlers were never able to make contact with any English in the Chowan River basin. The fate of these colonists is still unknown." FCF news "Lost Colony is Found" (VERIFIED): "Thus, we have proven that Site X was not unique. Site X and Site Y were part of a larger, dispersed settlement of farms along the Chowan River, where 117 immigrants established their New World home." Luccketti (Coastal Review / PBS NC, Oct. 2020, VERIFIED): ""We all agree that is not the major relocation site of the Lost Colony," Luccketti said about Site Y. "We know, because of the amount of material found at this site, it's not a major relocation site, but again, a satellite site."" and "it appears a small number of colonists, perhaps an extended family and a few indentured servants, lived along Salmon Creek for a few years." Luccketti 2015 (see §2/§3 files): "fewer than a dozen"; "It wasn't the relocated colony". Klingelhofer 2024 (FCF book-launch/news, on file): "John White wasn't always trustworthy"; and the FCF's placing of a Croatan settlement on the mainland (Mashoes) in its 2024 "Roanoke–Croatan tribal movement" piece (files `FCF_news_roanoke_croatan_tribal_movement.txt`, `FCF_news_book_launch_2024.txt`). **Evidence.** Surrey-Hampshire Border ware, North Devon and other late-sixteenth-century ceramics, a tenter hook, aglets, lead shot, at Sites X and Y (FCF reports on file); the map patch and fort symbols (British Museum TRB vol. 6 on file); the Zúñiga map's Panawiock/Ohonahorn legends; Strachey's "Ritanoe... on the river of Choanoke". **Treatment of the Jamestown reports.** The Zúñiga map and Smith's Chawwonoke search are the FCF's documentary spine; Strachey's slaughter is interpreted (Horn 2010; Klingelhofer 2023 per Oakley) as an attack on the Albemarle/Chowan groups by Powhatan's forces around 1607, not at the Chesapeake. The 1609 Instructions ("Peccarecamicke ... Gepanocon") are read as pointing to the same Chowan/Roanoke-river region. **Dare Stones.** FCF publications treat them as hoaxes (Sparkes 1941) — not central; no FCF statement endorsing the first stone was found. **Critics.** Ewen (above): the ceramics could be later trade goods; Horton (PBS NC 2020): ""It's not unlikely that one group might have gone up the Chesapeake, up the Albemarle," says Mark Horton ... "But I'm pretty confident one group at least, probably the pretty substantial part, came out to Hatteras Island."" Fullam pp. 45–47 (fort symbol vs. CROATOAN). NPS (2025): the Albemarle artifacts are "not definitively linked" to the colonists (see §16). **What would refute the FCF.** Demonstration that the Site X/Y assemblage postdates 1650 (e.g., pipe-stem/ceramic seriation, or association with the 1660s–70s Bertie County English settlers), or that Mettaquem's "English" material derives from Jamestown trade; discovery of the main body elsewhere. The FCF itself concedes it has found "satellite" sites only. --- ## 16. Other modern voices: Horn 2005; Sloan 2007; Noël Hume 1994; Lowery 2018; DuVal 2024–26; NPS 2025; Darby 2019–25; Briceland 1987 (not consulted) **James Horn, *A Land as God Made It: Jamestown and the Birth of America* (New York: Basic Books, 2005)** — IA `landasgodmadeitj0000horn`; OL snippets (no pages except one running head). In 2005 Horn held the Quinn/Chesapeake position he abandoned in 2010 (§2). VERIFIED: "body moved northwards to the territory of the Chesapeakes, near the en- trance to the Chesapeake Bay, where"; "Wahun- sonacock sent his men to destroy the Chesapeakes and the colonists still living with them. The"; "most likely candidate is a shadowy Indian called Machumps, who may have learned of the slaughter from his sister, Winganuske, one of Wahunsonacock's"; "When Machumps arrived in London in January 1609, Strachey had"; ""miserably slaughtered without any offence given him." Machumps also provided a description of the "high-land"; "at a "towne called 144 | A LAND AS GOD MADE IT Ritanoe, neere certaine mountains lying West of Roanoac" (p. 144); "Michael Sicklemore had returned from the Chowanocs in Jan- uary"; ""Two of our colony" could only refer to Nathaniel Powell and Anas Tod- kill, who had been escorted by the"; "in January 1608, to look for a "place called Panawicke, beyond Roanoke" where, it was reported, many". Oberg cites this discussion as Horn 2005 pp. 143–46; Fullam cites pp. 145–146. **Kim Sloan, *A New World: England's First View of America* (London: British Museum Press; Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 2007)** — IA `newworldenglands0000sloa`. VERIFIED: "safety elsewhere it possible, either to Croatoan with Manteo or to the Chesapeake, and they agreed on a sign if they managed"; "on a post indicated they had left for Croatoan and not under great duress. The buildings"; "record remains of what happened to the Lost Colony, no record remains of the rest of John [White's life]". Sloan (British Museum curator of the White drawings) is a contributor to Klingelhofer 2023 and co-author of the 2012 map-patch study (BM Technical Research Bulletin 6, on file). **Ivor Noël Hume, *The Virginia Adventure: Roanoke to James Towne* (New York: Knopf, 1994)** — IA `virginiaadventur0000noel`. VERIFIED: "But White's about- to-be-lost colonists lacked ships large enough to carry all"; "evidence therefore weighs against the "Lost Colonists" having built the earthwork. That leaves"; "did they find a trace of John White's Lost Colonists. To complete that story as far as it"; "Chowan River and were lodged at the town of Ritanoe, where they were working copper for its"; index "Ritanoe, 191"; "murder of "Lost Colonists," 95" (under Powhatan); "Buxton site had been home to Indians of the Croatoan tribe, a name writ large in the final"; "That Never Was 65" (running head of a chapter on the 1587 colony). Noël Hume's contribution is archaeological (the Fort Raleigh "science centre" and his argument that the earthwork is not the colonists' fort); on the fate he follows Strachey/Quinn. **Malinda Maynor Lowery, *The Lumbee Indians: An American Struggle* (Chapel Hill: UNC Press, 2018)** — excerpt in *Coastwatch* (13 Mar 2019), on file. VERIFIED: "McMillan pointed to English surnames in the list of colonists ("Lowry" was not among them) and found parallel names among Robeson County Indians. While some of the surnames, such as Sampson, Brooks, and Berry, are unquestionable matches, most of the similar names are found as much in the English population as in the Lumbee population." "Lawson did not record English names among the Hatteras, nor did he say that their culture possessed English characteristics." "But there are many more plausible reasons for Lumbees' similarity to Europeans other than their possible connection to the Lost Colony. First among them is that Indian people — like any others — change, borrow, and transform what they find useful, including languages, stories, food, materials, and religions." (A Lumbee historian's own assessment: the Lost Colony origin story is a McMillan-era construct, not a proven descent.) **Kathleen DuVal (UNC Chapel Hill; *Native Nations: A Millennium in North America*, 2024 — Pulitzer Prize for History 2025, UNVERIFIED).** Statements 2025–26 (VERIFIED, on file): History.com (23 June 2025): "As a historian, I can say it backs up the most likely theory, which is that the lost colonists went to Hatteras Island and abandoned Roanoke"; "the Croatoans are the most likely". LiveScience (June 2025): ""It absolutely makes sense that the Lost Colony would have moved to Hatteras Island," DuVal said. "They wrote exactly where they were going: to Croatoan."" WTKR (2026): ""It seems like it would be silly to doubt that they went to Croatoan. It seems like that is where they did go. That's where their allies were. They were with Manteo. That's where Manteo was from. And that all makes sense," said DuVal." and ""Whatever happened to that pretty small number of colonists, it had to do with with Native Americans, with their politics, their warfare, their trade, their economies. No answer is possible without learning more about Native history in North Carolina. And I think that's that should be the biggest message," said DuVal." **National Park Service, "Major Theories of the Lost Colony" (Fort Raleigh NHS web page, last updated 11 July 2025)** — on file. Lists six theories and objections; VERIFIED phrases: Chesapeake objection "None of the colonists were sailors or navigators"; Spanish: "Vicente Gonzalez ... found evidence of a boat slip on nearby Roanoke Island"; Albemarle/Site X artifacts "not definitively linked"; Croatoan: "limited resources". The NPS takes no position. **Melissa Darby (Portland State University), *Thunder Go North* (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2019) and "Double Deception" (paper, 2025)** — abstracts on file; see §9. Her claim that Bolton, Hammond and Pearce planned the Dare Stone fraud is UNVERIFIED beyond the abstract. **Alan Vance Briceland, *Westward from Virginia: The Exploration of the Virginia–Carolina Frontier, 1650–1710* (Charlottesville: UVA Press, 1987)** — NOT consulted (no searchable copy found); relevant for Bland 1650 (Hocomowananck) and the Ocanahowan question (Barbour 1975 covers the same ground). **Christopher Arris Oakley** (ECU; *Keeping the Circle*, 2005, cited by Kupperman 2007 n. 1 to ch. 9; AHR reviewer of Klingelhofer 2023) — no direct statement obtained. --- ## 17. The "attempt to sail home" hypothesis **The hypothesis.** That some or all of the 1587 colonists tried to leave Virginia by sea in the pinnace (or a boat built later) and were lost at sea or taken by the Spanish. No scholar surveyed here adopts it as the main reconstruction; it survives as (i) an explanation for the missing pinnace and boats, (ii) one of the NPS's listed "theories", and (iii) one item in La Vere's closing list of possibilities ("lost at sea, or rotting away in a Spanish prison" — VERIFIED, *Lost Rocks*, no page). **What was afloat.** White's 1587 fleet: the *Lion*, a flyboat, and an unnamed pinnace under Edward Stafford. Horn 2010 (VERIFIED, GB p. 134): "a pinnace ( 30 ) tons ) under the command of Captain Edward Stafford , who had been with Lane's colony, which had room for about twenty [settlers]"; (p. 139) White left "[the] pinnace behind for the settlers' use"; (p. 226) "[the] pinnace could probably carry up to forty passengers on short journeys without gear, but given that the settlers had to take all their possessions, they probably made two trips from Roanoke Island. Who went to Croatoan is also unknown..." Quinn 1985 (VERIFIED, GB p. 346): "The pinnace is unlikely to have had a capacity of more than twenty tons ( measured in capacity of the largest wine barrels , tuns or tons ) , so it might be that two ladings would be sufficient to carry everything that..." [to the Chesapeake]; (p. 350) "We can suggest , however , that it most probably remained avail- able to the party left on Roanoke Island through the season 1587-88 , though we cannot rely on its having survived after that"; (p. 25, of the 1584 pinnace) "which we might guess was about 30 tons". Fullam 2017 (VERIFIED, GB): p. 24 "The unnamed pinnace was a smaller vessel , probably about 30 tuns"; p. 83 the colony was left "[a] pinnace which was capable of ocean travel . The pinnace was nowhere to be seen when White finally returned in 1590 , in spite of the fact that he searched the shore of Roanoke " to see if we could find any of their botes or Pinnesse"; p. 84 (comparanda) "at 20 tuns, carried twenty- one per- sons. the 1603 two- vessel Pring fleet carried an average of one man per 1.77 tuns"; p. 85 "pinnace at about 30 to 35 tuns. If the average passenger capacity of the Jamestown fleet (one per- son per 1.1 tun) is applied, the estimated capacity of the 1587 pinnace on a trans- ocean voyage comes to between twenty- seven and..." [thirty-odd]; p. 87 "[the] pinnace that was left with the colony was intended to be utilized for local navigation and explo- ration, but a solo trans- ocean voyage was probably not anticipated. Never- theless, the pinnace would have been supplied with some spare..."; p. 116 "there was also no sign of the pinnace on the 12th and 13th when the Hopewell and Moonlight were anchored off Croatoan"; p. 123 "If the colonists decided to build a second vessel—a realistic possibility—then the few..." Noël Hume 1994 (VERIFIED, OL): "But White's about- to-be-lost colonists lacked ships large enough to carry all [of them]". NPS 2025 (VERIFIED): the objection that "None of the colonists were sailors or navigators". White's own 1590 report (Hakluyt 1600; VERIFIED, file `hakluyt1600_white_1590.txt`): "From thence wee went along by the water side, towards the poynt of the Creeke to see if we could find any of their botes or Pinnesse, but we could perceiue no signe of them, nor any of the last Falkons and small Ordinance which were left with them, at my departure from them." — i.e., in August 1590 the pinnace, the boats and the light guns were gone, while heavy iron and lead remained. **Spanish records, 1588–1600.** (1) Vicente González's reconnaissance, June 1588 (Quinn 1985, VERIFIED GB pp. 307–309, 388): the Spaniards found on Roanoke Island "a slipway [ varadero , usually a boatyard ] for small vessels , and on land a number of wells made with English casks [ pozos hechos de pipas ] , and other debris indicating that a considerable number of people had been here"; "Gonzalez and Juan Menendez Marques were quite satisfied to have found where the English had settled , without risking their small force against any large group that might be hiding on the island"; (p. 388) "Gonzalez reported that he had found there a varadero . This was the Spanish word for a shipyard ; the contemporary English word was " slip . "" — a slip is where a pinnace is hauled out, which Quinn (p. 388) reads as evidence of boat-building or repair ("might suggest either attempts to build boats..."). The source of this account is Darby Glavin's 1600 report to Governor Canço (Quinn p. 307: "probably from Darby Glavin , the Irishman who had deserted from White in Puerto Rico in 1587 . According to our source , an abbreviated version ( all so far known ) of the final report..."). (2) Pedro Díaz's examination, Havana, 21 March 1589 (Wright 1951, Doc. 65, pp. 237–241; VERIFIED, file `wright1951_spanish_documents_jacan_1586-1589.txt`): "The commander then went to London and raised men for that establishment to the number of 210 persons, men and women, whom he sent out on board of three ships in charge of a Portuguese named Simon Fernandez, married in England, a great pilot and the person who induced them to settle there. He left for this place in March of 1587, from London... These ships reached the settlement and did not find the eighteen men who had been left there, nor any trace of them. They left the settlers there and returned to England where the English commander made ready two small vessels in which seven men and four women embarked for the said settlement with supplies for them of biscuit, meat and vegetables" — Díaz's numbers (210 settlers; eighteen men) are inexact, and he reports nothing of any colonist taken at sea. (3) Darby Glande/Glavin himself (Quinn p. 90 "afterward a soldier in the Spanish army"; p. 275 the desertion "of Darby Glavin and Dennis Carroll , cannot have been felt as any great disaster even though they may have been servants indentured to some of the planters"; Miller p. 67 "served a seven - year term [as a galley slave] before securing his release in Havana"; p. 133 Miller's suggestion that his release was "an insurance policy , a bait") — he left the expedition before it reached Virginia and is therefore not a captured colonist. (4) The Franciscan Oré account of the 1588 voyage (Geiger's 1936 translation) is on file (`ore_geiger1936_martyrs_of_florida_jacan_1588.txt`) but was not re-read for this section. **Result.** No scholar consulted (Quinn, Kupperman, Miller, Horn, Lawler, Fullam, Rountree, NPS) reports any Spanish, Portuguese or Caribbean record of an English colonist from the 1587 colony captured, interrogated or ransomed between 1588 and 1600; Wright's 1951 collection (to 1594) contains none; the only Spanish informant with a Roanoke pedigree is Glavin, who never reached Roanoke in 1587. The hypothesis therefore rests solely on the absence of the pinnace in 1590 and on the general capacity figures above (a 30-ton pinnace: room for about twenty settlers on an ocean passage, forty on a short hop). The scholars who address the missing pinnace explain it by the move to Croatoan/the mainland (Quinn, Horn, Dawson), by a coastal voyage south (Fullam), or leave it open (Kupperman, NPS). **What would confirm or refute it.** A dated wreck or artefact scatter of the right period on the Outer Banks, Bermuda or the Caribbean; an Iberian archival record (Seville, Simancas, Havana, Lisbon, the Azores) of an English small vessel with women and children taken in 1588–92; an English port or Admiralty record of the pinnace's return. None has been produced; Fullam's second-pinnace speculation (p. 123) is untestable as stated. --- ## 18. Identification of the Jamestown-era place-names, scholar by scholar Sources of the names: Smith, *True Relation* (1608: "Ocanahonan", "Anone", "Panawicke"); the Zúñiga map (c. June 1608: "Pakerakanick", "Ocanahowan", "Panawiock", "Ohonahorn", "Chawwonock"); Virginia Company Instructions to Gates, May 1609 (Kingsbury III: "Peccarecamicke", "Ochanahoen", "Ritanoe", "Gepanocon"); Strachey, *Historie* (1612: "Peccarecamek", "Ochanahoen", "Ritanoe", "Eyanoco", "Pamawauk", "Anoeg"). Lane 1586 supplies "Mangoaks"/"Mandoag"; Bland 1650 "Hocomowananck". | Name | Quinn (1974/84/85) | Barbour (1969/75/86) | Miller (2000) | Horn (2005/2010) | Fullam (2017) | Others | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | **Ocanahowan / Ocanahonan / Ochanahoen** | 1985 p. 371 (VERIFIED): "Ocanahowan is on what is clearly the Roanoke River"; 1984 booklet (VERIFIED-OL, no page): on "the Chowan, Roanoke, or even farther south". Miller p. 246 reports that Quinn "places Ocanahowan on the Roanoke River". | 1975 (VERIFIED): "we shall perhaps not be far wrong if we place Ocanahowan west of the Chowan River, and west of the Algonquian tribes of the coastal region, but within the territory occupied by Iroquoians"; "Tentatively we can place it at or near Hocomowananck" (a Tuscarora village per Bland; cf. Lawson's "Unanauhan"). 1986 note (VERIFIED, extracts file): a "Mangoak town near the modern Virginia–North Carolina boundary, west of the Chowan". | p. 258 (VERIFIED): "located in the north , probably along the Roa- noke River , although the Zúñiga map placed it south of the Meherrin River , above Occaneechi Island"; p. 245 reads the map's third word as "Nottawmusawone". | 2010 p. 228 (VERIFIED): "Ocana- honan, a Tuscarora town near the falls of the Roanoke River ... close to an important trading route that led northward and inland to the mountains beyond". | p. 142 (VERIFIED): stresses Hamor 1615 "Ocanahowan where they report are Spaniards inhabiting"; pp. 141, 197: the stone houses were taught "by Pardo's Spaniards and not by any Englishmen". | La Vere: not captured. Lawler: not captured (0 GB hits). Kupperman 2007 p. 177: the interior groups valued survivors "for their metal - working skills". | | **Pakerakanick / Peccarecamek / Peccarecanick** | 1985 p. 371 (VERIFIED): the map's legend "here remain the four men clothed that came from ' Roonock ' to ' Okanahowan '"; "This apparently meant they were per- sons who had escaped from the Chesapeake massacre and were not men who had been with Manteo"; OL snippet (no page): "a river well to the south (Neuse?)"; index p. 461: "Pakerikanick ( Indian village ) , 371 , 373". | 1969 index (VERIFIED-OL): "Pakerakanick (Peccarecanick), 340, 365"; Miller p. 246 reports Barbour 1969 "places Pekerakan- ick on the Neuse River". | pp. 246, 252 (VERIFIED): earlier writers put it "on the Neuse or Tar or Pamlico"; "Pakerakanick was located on the Tar River , but not necessarily within Tuscarora territory"; p. 327 n.: the Princeton 1973 editors read Strachey's word as "Peccarecanick". | 2010 p. 214 (VERIFIED): "Pakerakanick , a Tuscarora town , may have been located on the south bank of the Tar River". | Not captured beyond the Zúñiga discussion pp. 132–135. | Pearce 1938 tied it to the Dare-Stone survivors (on file). | | **Ritanoe / Ritanoc** | 1985 p. 371 (VERIFIED): "deposits of copper at a place called Ritanoe ( probably in the later Virgilina dis- trict through which the river cuts , where natural copper was to be identified , as has already been suggested )"; index p. 463 "Ritanoe , on Roanoke River , 371 , 373 , 374"; p. 373: "at Ritanoe the weroance ' Eyanoco ' [ the Gepanocon above ? ] preserved seven of the English alive". | 1969 index (VERIFIED-OL): "Ritanoe, village (?), 265"; the 1609 Instructions text: "you are neere to Riche Copper mines of Ritanoe". | p. 324 n. (VERIFIED): ""Ritanoe" is a copyist error for "Ritanoc." Ritanoc appears in other versions , cf. Gates's instructions"; Ritanoc is an Eno town; p. 242 "Ritanoc has never been [located]". | 2005 p. 144 quotes Strachey's "Ritanoe, neere certaine mountains lying West of Roanoac"; 2010 map p. 228 places "RITANOE ( Copper mines" in the Piedmont west of the Falls (VERIFIED snippet). | Not captured. | Rountree 1990 index "Ritanoe, 23" (content not seen). Noël Hume 1994 (VERIFIED-OL): survivors "were lodged at the town of Ritanoe, where they were working copper". Lawler (VERIFIED-GB, no page): "Ritanoe—apparently the same as Ritanoc". | | **Panawiock / Panawicke / Pananiock** | Miller p. 246 (VERIFIED) reports: "Quinn equates this with the Secotan town of Pomeioc on Wysocking Bay". 1985 GB returned no hit for "Panawick". | 1986 note (VERIFIED, extracts file): location uncertain (refers to RV II 849, 872). Miller p. 246: Barbour 1969 placed "Panawiock between the Roanoke and [Pamlico]"; her survey: "Panawiock ( B ) : between the Roanoke and the Chowan". | Fullam p. 43 (VERIFIED) reports Miller put Panawioc "on Cashie Creek, Bertie County"; Horn 2010 n. p. 271 (VERIFIED): "Miller speculates that Panawiock refers to 'a place of strangers'". | 2010 p. 228 (VERIFIED): "Panawicke was known locally for its salt production (“salt stones”)"; p. 214: located "south and west of Cashie Creek , the historic border between the Chowanocs and Tuscaroras". | ToC lists a "Pananiock" chapter (McFarland page on file); p. 146 rejects Miller's reading; his own siting not captured. | Horn 2005 (VERIFIED-OL): the Jan. 1608 mission "to look for a "place called Panawicke, beyond Roanoke" where, it was reported, many [men were clothed]". | | **Anone (Smith) / Anoeg (Strachey)** | Not captured. | 1986 note (VERIFIED, extracts file): Anone = Strachey's Anoeg (*Historie* pp. 56–57), "south-west ... ten daies distant". | (VERIFIED) "There is a country called Anone (Eno), Wahunsonacock tells Smith"; "At Anoeg (Eno), Strachey is informed" — i.e., the Siouan Eno. | 2010 (part 2, VERIFIED): a country roughly "50 to 150 miles south of the James". | Not captured. | — | | **Chawwonoke / Chowanoc / Ohanoak** | 1985 p. 371 (VERIFIED): "four men ( the same four ? ) were said to have remained with the Chawa- noac tribe further north again"; index p. 453 "Chowan Indians , 109 , 177". | 1969 index: "Chawanoac (Chawwonock, etc.), town and tribe, 186, 200, 264"; "Ohonahorn ... seated where the Riuer of Choanock [devideth" (Zúñiga legend transcribed). | p. 251: the majority of the colonists "relocated to the Chowan River" with the Chowanoc; p. 216: Sicklemore's 1608 search "Not a shred of evidence beyond this". | 2010 p. 272 n. (VERIFIED): "Farther up the west bank of the Chowan River toward "Ohanoak," near modern-day Col- erain, or to the south at Edenton"; Ohonahorn = the Chowan/Roanoke confluence (part 2). | pp. 45–47: rejects the Chowanoke theories because of CRO/CROATOAN. | Rountree 2005 (VERIFIED-OL): the Chowanocks "perhaps harbored some of the "Lost Colonists" after 1587"; FCF: Site X/Y near Mettaquem, Salmon Creek. | | **Mangoaks / Mandoag** | 1985 index p. 459 (VERIFIED): "Mangoaks ( Meherrin ; Tuscarora Indians ) , 93 , 108"; 1974 (VERIFIED-OL, part 1): Nottoway–Meherrin alternative. | 1975 (VERIFIED): Lane's "Mandoags, Tripanicks, and Opossians" possibly Algonquian, but "the Mangoaks ... This tribe was definitely Iroquoian, although the name by which it was known was Algonquian, and meant "rattlesnakes" or "adders"". | pp. 252–253, 271 (VERIFIED): Tuscarora and Nottoway identifications rejected; Mandoag = Siouan Eno/Occaneechi; "Mangoak and Mandoag were used interchangeably". | 2010 p. 222 (VERIFIED): Powell and Todkill went "beyond the Chowan River into the lands of the Mangoaks" = Tuscaroras (part 2). | Tuscarora (pp. 202–203 use Tuscarora tradition). | Oberg 2008 (VERIFIED-OL): "the Choanoac-Mangoak "confederacie"". | | **Gepanocon (1609) / Eyanoco (Strachey)** | 1985 p. 373 (VERIFIED): "' Eyanoco ' [ the Gepanocon above ? ]". | Not captured (0 OL hits in 1969). | pp. 236, 258 (VERIFIED): Gepanocon an Eno leader; p. 324 n.: Bushnell read "Sepanocon" "and theorizes that the name was Siouan". | Not captured. | Not captured. | Pearce 1938: "Chowan River, where they were preserved by a chief named Eyanoco" (on file). | | **Machumps (informant)** | 1985 p. 373 (VERIFIED): "Machumps , who , in 1610-11 , told him that at " Peccarecanicke " and " Ochanahoen " the people had built houses with stone walls"; index "Machumps ( an Indian ) , 373". | — | p. 250, 255 (index): "a Powhatan informant named Machumps, involving primates and the Lost Colonists". | 2005 (VERIFIED-OL): "who may have learned of the slaughter from his sister, Winganuske, one of Wahunsonacock's [wives]"; "arrived in London in January 1609". | pp. 141, 197: his stone houses = Pardo's Spaniards. | Rountree 2005 (VERIFIED-OL): "the brother of Powhatan's then-favorite wife"; killed Namontack in Bermuda. Kupperman 1984/2007 conflates "Kemps, or Machumps". | --- ## 19. Synthesis table | Scholar (work) | Main-body destination | Croatoan party? | Powhatan slaughter: where / when / of whom | Survivors 1607–12 | Dare Stones | Site X / Hatteras finds | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | **Quinn** (1974; 1984; 1985) | Chesapeake: Skicoac/Elizabeth River, settling near the Chesapeake Indians (pp. 345–353). | Yes — a small holding party left on Roanoke, later to Croatoan, leaving the sign (pp. 345, 358–360; Kupperman p. 173). | Chesapeake country; by Powhatan; c. April 1607 ("between 24 and 27 April 1607" if Strachey's "at what time" is literal, p. 362) or "more probably ... earlier" (p. 368); of Chesapeakes and the English together. | Seven at Ritanoe (Virgilina copper district) with Eyanoco; four men at Pakerikanick/Chawanoac (pp. 371–374). | Not treated in the searchable text (0 hits); La Vere reports Quinn "dismissed the Stones as fakes in 1959". | Pre-date him. | | **Kupperman** (1984; 2007) | Follows Quinn: Chesapeake, "fifteen miles up the Elizabeth River" (2007 p. 176). | Yes, holding party → Croatoan (p. 134; p. 173). | As Quinn; but "or whether this was a piece of propaganda" (p. 177); Strachey's date "1606" (p. 176). | Remnants "with var- ious groups in the interior where they were valued for their metal - working skills" (p. 177); "In short , they would have become Indians" (p. 178). | Not discussed (0 hits). | 2007 notes the 1998 Buxton signet ring only. | | **Horn** (2005) | Chesapeake (Quinn line). | Implicit. | Chesapeake; Wahunsonacock "sent his men to destroy the Chesapeakes and the colonists still living with them". | Seven at Ritanoe (p. 144). | — | — | | **Horn** (2010; FCF 2015–20; Klingelhofer 2023 ch. 10) | Head of Albemarle Sound / mouth of the Chowan (Salmon Creek–Mettaquem), c. 50 miles inland; Chesapeake "highly unlikely" (p. 272 n.); 2023: "the great majority of the settlers moved west" (A.1b). | Yes: "Possibly, a small group went to Croatoan Island in the fall or winter of 1587" (2020); 2023: "a small holding party ... moving to Croatoan sometime before summer 1588" (A.1b). | Chowan/Albemarle region and interior; 1607 ("The Powhatans possibly launch a large-scale attack on the Tuscaroras, Chowanocs, and Chesapeakes", p. 243); Wahunsonacock "ordered his warriors to track down as many of White's colonists as they could find and kill them" (p. 232). 2023 softening: the victims were "killed beyond Wahunsonacock's dominions" and "could have been victims of fighting along an unstable border zone between three major peoples ... the Powhatans, Tuscaroras, and [Carolina Algonquians]" (A.1b). | Panawicke (Cashie Creek), Ocanahonan (falls of Roanoke), Pakerakanick (Tar), Ritanoe (pp. 214, 228). | Not central (part 2). | Site X/Y = colonists' farmsteads (FCF). Hatteras: sceptical (Luccketti 2016; Horn no statement found). | | **Lawler** (2018) | Agnostic/synthetic: colonists probably split — some to Croatoan, some inland (part 3, H-Net pp. 321, 323, 362); reads "fifty miles into the main" as "the head of the Albemarle Sound" (A.3). | Yes. | Sceptical: the slaughter story rests "heavily on the testimony of Machumps", "a man with a motive to misinform", and served "the London Company's public relations problems"; Smith "never publicly accused" Powhatan (A.3). | Reports the Ritanoe seven ("Ritanoe—apparently the same as Ritanoc"); relays Kupperman's point that the "men clothed like me" could be Drake's Africans/Indians, Lane's three or Grenville's fifteen (A.3). | First stone: open question; the rest fraudulent (NatGeo 2018; A.3). | Both unproven: "Everything that Horton found could have made its way to Croatoan without the involvement of a Roanoke colonist"; Site X finds "could conceivably be goods traded south from Jamestown decades later"; Luccketti: "an enigma" (A.3). | | **Dawson / Horton** (2020; 2025–26) | Croatoan (Hatteras Island): "survivors camp" then "peaceful assimilation" (Horton, OBX Voice 27 Mar 2026). | Whole colony (or "probably the pretty substantial part", Horton 2020). | Rejects Powhatan slaughter as relevant; Strachey not credited. | Assimilated Croatoans; Lawson's gray-eyed Hatteras 1701. | Fraud (Dawson). | Hatteras: Border ware, rapier hilt, hammerscale, 1580s radiocarbon dates on deer with musket ball (2026); Site X: "not unlikely" a group went there (Horton 2020). | | **Miller** (2000) | Chowan River with the Chowanoc (p. 251), then captured/dispersed as slaves among the Siouan Mandoag (Eno/Occaneechi). | "Someone went there , at any rate" but Croatoan could not feed them (p. 228). | Denied: "There is no proof that the Powhatan did anything of the kind" (p. 223); Strachey's story propaganda or Wahunsonacock's boast; "twenty and odd years" points back to Lane's 1586 killings. | Seven at Ritanoc (Eno), four at Pakerakanick, "many" at Panawiock — all captives (pp. 236–262). | Not discussed (0 hits). | Pre-date her. | | **Oberg** (2008; 2020) | 2008: Chesapeake (Quinn line), with assimilation; 2020: "suggestive evidence that the colonists headed inland toward the head of Albemarle Sound". | Implicit. | Chesapeake, c. 1607, as Strachey ("Despite Strachey's claim, the Chesapeake Indians did not en-..."). | "These few survivors moved to the mainland and settled amongst [...]"; seven "fower men, twoo Boyes, and one young [maid]". | "fraudulent" (pp. 139–42). | 2020: FCF evidence "suggestive". | | **Parramore** (2001) | Weapemeoc mainland of Albemarle Sound (NCHR index: "probable destination ... 70-71, 75"; "proximity to Weapemeoc territory, 79, 83"). | — (not indexed) | Denied: "Powhatan and followers probably not responsible for disappearance of [the colony], 71-73"; Strachey "simply had it all wrong" (per Fullam p. 178). Colonists "probably" destroyed in "hostilities between Iroquois and Algonquian Leagues", pp. 73–83. | Reports of survivors "living in eastern North Carolina" among the Indians (p. 75); Ocanahowan/Ritanoe discussed p. 77; "possible attempted return to [Roanoke Island], by some Lost Colonists, 77". | — (not indexed) | Documentary root of the Site X search (predates it). | | **La Vere** (2009; 2010) | If the first stone is genuine: the Chowan near Edenton; massacre 1591. | — | Reads "Powhaton of Roanocke" as a title = Wanchese; so a Roanoke/Chowan killing by local Algonquians, not Wahunsonacock. | Eleanor Dare and a handful (stone narrative); Ritanoe seven (Pearce). | First stone possibly genuine ("It tells a credible story"; "So it could be real, or it could be a good fake"); 47 later stones fraudulent. | "no artifacts of any kind have been conclusively linked to the Lost Colonists" (2010). | | **Rountree** (1990; 2005) | 1990: "some ... went northward as refugees"; 2005 p. 49: "most of the "Lost Colonists" probably headed to the North Carolina mainland, for that is where most of the inquiries were made for them in 1608-9". | — (not discussed) | Chesapeakes exterminated "1597 or 1598" (1990 pp. 20–21, cited at 2005 p. 248 n. 31 as agreed "according to both me and David B. Quinn"); refugee colonists "who survived for twenty years would have been exterminated along with their hosts" (2005 p. 49); the Company's charge against Powhatan stands "whether or not all of them had died violently (the Carolina tribes never said that)" (2005 p. 148). | Possibly among the Chowanocks (2005 pp. 59, 118); "only archaeology may" tell (1990). | — (not discussed) | — (2005 predates both) | | **Fullam** (2017) | South across Pamlico Sound to the Pamlico/Neuse mainland (Coree). | Yes, a detachment. | "Slaughter at Roanoke" = Roanoke Island itself (1586 Lane/Wingina; possibly 1587–88); Powhatan account "must be viewed with a great deal of skepticism" (pp. 155–162, 190, 198). | Coharie/Lumbee and Tuscarora descendants (oral tradition). | Not addressed (no hits). | Hatteras negative (p. 39); Site X fort-symbol theory rejected (pp. 45–47). | | **Ewen & Shields** (2003; 2024) | None: "none have been shown to be more probable than any of the others". | — | Surveyed (ch. 2 "Smith, Strachey, and Purchas"), no verdict. | — | Fringe/hoax context (ch. 6). | Hatteras: "no solid evidence"; stratigraphy objection; "without a report, I'm not seeing good context". Site X: ch. 3 surveys it; no endorsement. | | **Klingelhofer / FCF** (2023) | Split; "the great majority of the settlers moved west"; "scattered settlements on the "goodly high land" ... on the Chowan's west bank" under Menatonon's protection (A.1, A.1b). | Yes (holding party → Croatoan before summer 1588; Croatoan "little more than an elongated sandspit" for the whole colony). | Horn ch. 10: killed "beyond Wahunsonacock's dominions", "in the Roanoke region", by a "Powhatan war party" OR in "an unstable border zone" war (A.1b); Ritanoe seven "protect[ed]", not enslaved. | Chowan/Tar/Roanoke-river towns; Evans ch. 11: "at least a few of the colonists may have ended up at places named okanhowan, pakerakanick, and panawiock. How many went, when, and why is not indicated." | Hoax; the first stone's "1591" reflects the pre-Andrews/Quinn chronology (A.1). | Luccketti: "no artifacts undeniably of sixteenth-century European origin. No features from English buildings, no burials. We did not find a fort. Nor did we claim that we had found the site of the main group's relocation"; but Border-ware density "five to ten times" the early Virginia sites and Eden House's "just four sherds" exclude a Batts-era origin (A.1, A.1b). Site X/Y "satellite" farmsteads (Luccketti 2020). | | **DuVal** (2025–26) | Croatoan: "the most likely theory". | Whole. | Not addressed. | — | — | Hatteras finds "back up" Croatoan; "No answer is possible without learning more about Native history". | | **Stick** (1983) | Surveys all; no choice. | — | Quotes Strachey. | — | Not discussed under that name. | — | | **Noël Hume** (1994) | Chesapeake (follows Strachey/Quinn); note that the colonists "lacked ships large enough to carry all". | — | As Strachey ("murder of "Lost Colonists," 95"). | Ritanoe (p. 191). | — | Earthwork not the colonists' fort. | | **NPS** (2025) | Lists six theories; no position. | — | — | — | Hoax. | Albemarle artifacts "not definitively linked"; Croatoan "limited resources". | --- ## 20. Points of disagreement, and what each says the other gets wrong 1. **Chesapeake vs. Chowan vs. Croatoan as the main destination.** Quinn (1985 pp. 345–353) and Kupperman (2007 p. 176) put the main body at Skicoac; Horn abandoned that view between 2005 and 2010, calling the Chesapeake "highly unlikely" because the settlers "would have agreed to meet White at one of the known rendezvous points, either Skicoak or Chesepiooc (marked on his map), before he departed" (2010 p. 272 n., VERIFIED); Rountree (2005) and Miller (2000 p. 251) put most of them among the Chowanoc; Dawson/Horton, DuVal and (with reservations) Lawler put the substantial part at Croatoan; Fullam puts them south of Pamlico Sound. Fullam's charge against all northern theories: they cannot explain the CRO/CROATOAN signs (pp. 45–47); Miller's charge against Croatoan: "its people were both unwilling and unable to feed 115 additional mouths" (p. 228); Horton's concession to Site X: "It's not unlikely that one group might have gone up the Chesapeake, up the Albemarle" (2020). 2. **Whether Strachey's slaughter happened at all.** Quinn accepts it; Kupperman allows "propaganda" (p. 177); Rountree accepts a Chesapeake extermination but re-dates it to 1597–98 and doubts the prophecy motive; Miller denies it ("There is no proof that the Powhatan did anything of the kind", p. 223); Fullam relocates it to Roanoke Island and 1586; La Vere reassigns "Powhaton of Roanocke" to Wanchese; Horn 2010 keeps it but moves the victims to the Chowan/Albemarle groups (pp. 232, 243); Parramore 2001 holds Powhatan "probably not responsible" (pp. 71–73, per the NCHR index) and blames Iroquoian–Algonquian warfare (pp. 73–83); Rountree 2005 adds that the Company's charge against Powhatan was made regardless of whether the colonists "had died violently (the Carolina tribes never said that)" (p. 148). 3. **"twenty and od yeares" and "at Roanoak".** Quinn: Strachey "might not know pre- cisely to the month" (p. 367) and the killing "could , more probably , have happened earlier" than April 1607 (p. 368); Miller: the phrase points back to 1586 ("immediately before White's colony arrived — twenty and odd years before Jamestown — there was indeed [...]"); Fullam: "was undoubtedly referring to the specific location of Roanoke Island" (p. 190); Rountree: "the slaughter at [of] Roanoak" — the preposition is ambiguous; Kupperman: Strachey dated the slaughter to "1606" (p. 176). 4. **Who Machumps was and what he knew.** Quinn: Strachey's informant in 1610–11 (p. 373); Horn 2005: he "may have learned of the slaughter from his sister, Winganuske"; Rountree: "the brother of Powhatan's then-favorite wife" who killed Namontack; Kupperman: "Kemps, or Machumps" (conflation); Fullam: his stone houses came from Pardo's Spaniards, so his testimony does not concern English survivors (pp. 141, 197). 5. **Who the Mangoaks/Mandoag were.** Quinn: Tuscarora (index) or Meherrin/Nottoway (1974); Barbour: "definitely Iroquoian"; Horn: Tuscaroras; Miller: Siouan Eno/Occaneechi ("Yet this assumption rests upon faulty evidence", p. 252). Barbour's linguistic point (the name is an Algonquian epithet for enemies, "adders") is accepted by Miller (p. 271) but she draws the opposite ethnic conclusion. 6. **The Zúñiga-map towns.** Quinn: Ocanahowan on the Roanoke, Pakerikanick far south (Neuse?), Panawick = Pomeioc; Barbour: Ocanahowan Iroquoian, west of the Chowan; Horn: all three Tuscarora towns (Roanoke falls, Tar, Cashie Creek); Miller: Eno country, Panawiock on Cashie Creek. Nobody has located any of them archaeologically. 7. **The Ritanoe seven.** Quinn (Virgilina district), Horn (Piedmont copper), Miller (Eno slaves), Pearce/La Vere (Dare-Stone survivors), Fullam (skeptical) — the same seven people appear in every reconstruction; only Miller reads them as captives rather than protected guests. 8. **The Dare Stones.** La Vere alone among academics treats the first stone as possibly genuine; Lawler leaves it open; Oberg, Quinn (per La Vere), NCpedia, NPS, Dawson, FCF treat all as fraudulent; Darby (2019–25) alleges an academic conspiracy behind the first stone. La Vere's reply to the sceptics: the language "fit Elizabethan English" and no plausible forger has been named ("none would appear sufficiently learned to have forged them"). 9. **Site X / Site Y.** FCF: colonists' farmsteads ("117 immigrants established their New World home"); Luccketti's own caveat: "not the major relocation site ... a satellite site"; Oberg 2020: "suggestive"; Ewen: trade goods possible; Fullam: fort symbol contradicted by CROATOAN; NPS: "not definitively linked"; Horton: compatible with a split. 10. **Hatteras.** Dawson/Horton: relocation and "peaceful assimilation", now with hammerscale and 1580s radiocarbon dates; Ewen: "The alleged 16th century material is in the same context with definite 17th century material so the rules of stratigraphy say it has to date to the 17th century" and "I would like to see a hearth"; Luccketti 2016: "I have not seen any evidence at Croatoan of artifacts that indicate that Englishmen were living there"; Outlaw: "storytelling, not evidence-based information"; DuVal: "It seems like it would be silly to doubt that they went to Croatoan"; Horton himself (2026): "It is very difficult to prove ... it could be late 16th-century artifacts, but it also could be 17th-century trades from Jamestown"; St Luke's Museum blog: the work "have not yet been subjected to peer review due to the lack of a final report". As of September 2026 no peer-reviewed report of the Hatteras excavations has been published (Horton's RAU publication list, on file, contains none). 11. **The Lumbee descent claim.** Stick: "shaky at best"; Kupperman: reports the belief; Miller: dispersal along "Siouan trade routes" would put survivors "throughout the interior"; Fullam: Coharie/Lumbee tradition "undeniable"; Lowery (a Lumbee historian): "there are many more plausible reasons for Lumbees' similarity to Europeans other than their possible connection to the Lost Colony". 12. **Fernandez and the "conspiracy".** Miller: Walsingham through Fernandez; Quinn: a "sabotaging villain" is "somewhat hard to accept" (as reported by Miller p. 309); Matson: "the case is not persuasive"; Fullam: Fernandez "may have saved the 1587 colony from certain discovery" (p. 35). 13. **What the burden of proof is.** Ewen & Shields: no hypothesis "more probable than any of the others"; Ewen: sixteenth-century Christian burials would settle it; Rountree: "only archaeology may"; Lawler (per Towns): the mystery is a cultural artefact as much as a historical problem; Oberg: "the colonists were lost only to those English explorers who tried and failed to find them". **What none of them has established (i.e., what a new argument could claim).** (a) No one has produced an independent (non-Virginia-Company) witness to the Powhatan slaughter; the 1609 Instructions, the 1610 *True and Sincere Declaration*, Strachey and Purchas's marginal note all derive from the same Jamestown milieu. (b) No one has located Ocanahowan, Pakerakanick, Panawiock or Ritanoe on the ground, or found a sixteenth-century English assemblage in the Chesapeake Indian towns (Great Neck 44VB7 report on file shows none). (c) No one has published a stratified, peer-reviewed sixteenth-century English domestic context on Hatteras; the FCF's Bertie County sites are conceded to be satellites. (d) No one has explained the disappearance of the pinnace and boats with evidence rather than inference. (e) No one has reconciled Rountree's 1597–98 date for the Chesapeakes' destruction with Strachey's "at what time" 1607 except by supposing two events. (f) The Ritanoe seven and the Zúñiga "four men clothed" are treated by everyone as Roanoke colonists, but no source says so explicitly except the 1609 Instructions ("left by Sir Walter Rawely"), which is itself the Company's inference. --- ## Appendix A. Files added for this dossier in sources/ - `strachey_1849_extracts.txt` — page-located extracts from Strachey, *Historie* (Major 1849): Praemonition p. 20; Book I pp. 26, 48–49, 53–54, 85–86. - `snippets_googlebooks_quinn1985_set_fair.txt` — page-numbered snippets, Quinn 1985. - `snippets_googlebooks_horn2010.txt`, `snippets_googlebooks_horn2010_second_harvest.txt` — page-numbered snippets, Horn 2010. - `snippets_googlebooks_fullam2017.txt` — page-numbered snippets, Fullam 2017. - `snippets_googlebooks_kupperman2007.txt` — page-numbered snippets, Kupperman 2007. - `snippets_googlebooks_miller2000.txt` — page-numbered snippets, Miller 2000. - `snippets_googlebooks_lavere2010.txt` — snippets (no pages), La Vere 2010. - `snippets_googlebooks_dawson2020.txt` — snippets (no pages), Dawson 2020 (§4.A). - `snippets_googlebooks_klingelhofer2023.txt`, `snippets_googlebooks_klingelhofer2023b.txt` — snippets (no pages; index page-numbers), Klingelhofer ed. 2023 (Addendum A.1). - `snippets_googlebooks_rountree2005.txt` — page-numbered snippets, Rountree 2005 (Addendum A.2). - `snippets_googlebooks_lawler2018b.txt` — snippets (no pages), Lawler 2018, second run (Addendum A.3). - `NCHR_2001_78_contents_IA_ocr.txt`, `NCHR_2001_78_index_IA_ocr.txt`, `NCHR_2009_86_index-contents_IA_ocr.txt` — Internet Archive OCR of the North Carolina Historical Review's printed contents/annual indexes for vols. 78 (2001) and 86 (2009): page-level pointers into Parramore 2001 and La Vere 2009 (§8, §9, Addendum A.4). - `snippets_openlibrary_ol_*.txt`, `snippets_openlibrary_ol2_*.txt`, `snippets_openlibrary_ol3_*.txt` — Open Library search-inside snippets (no page numbers) for Quinn 1974/1984/1985, Horn 2005/2010, Miller 2000, Kupperman 1984/2007, Oberg 2008, Rountree 1990/2005, Stick 1983, Sloan 2007, Noël Hume 1994, Barbour 1969, Quinn *Roanoke Voyages* II (no OCR index). - `review_matson_pennhistory_miller2001.txt`, `review_hnet_towns_lawler_secret_token.txt`, `review_kirkus_*.txt`, `review_pw_horn_2010.txt`, `review_desilver_seattletimes_2010_horn.txt`, `AHR_2025_Oakley_review_Klingelhofer_abstract.txt` (stub). - `oberg_blog_2020_so_bored_lost_colonists.txt`, `oberg_hnn_2020_so_bored_lost_colonists.txt`, `oberg_blog_signet_ring_lost_colonists.txt` (404 stub). - `history_com_2025_assimilation_duval_ewen.txt`, `livescience_2025-06-10_horton_hammerscale.txt`, `lawler_natgeo_2015_clues.txt`, `lawler2018_natgeo_dare_stone.txt`, `islandfreepress_2022-05-05_CAS_discovery.txt`. - `mcfarland_ewen_shields_2024_becoming_lost_colony.txt`, `mcfarland_fullam_2017_lost_colony_new_perspectives.txt`, `uncpress_shields_ewen_2003_searching_for_the_roanoke_colonies.txt`, `NPS_major_theories_of_the_lost_colony.txt`, `ncpedia_lost_colony.txt`, `ncpedia_dare_stones.txt`. - `kingsbury_vol3_1609_instructions_extract.txt`, `barbour_smith_works_vol1_extracts.txt`, `barbour_1975_ocanahowan_algonquian_conference.txt`, `wright1951_spanish_documents_jacan_1586-1589.txt`, `powell2009_ncm_lavere_and_hammond_comments.txt`, `powell2010_ncmiscellany_lavere.txt`, `kinston2025_lavere_dare_stones_talk.txt`, `darby_*.txt`, `pearce1938_jsh.txt`. (Other files in the directory are cited above where used: e.g., `BertieCounty_2020_FCF_press_release_SiteY.txt`, `FCF_news_lost_colony_is_found.txt`, `CoastalReview_2020_10_moved_inland.txt`, `PBSNC_lost_colony_split.txt`, `StLukes_not_so_fast.txt`, `LiveScience_not_everyone_convinced.txt`, `OBXVoice_2026_03_27_new_evidence_hatteras.txt`, `CoastalReview_2026_03_science_on_sound_hatteras.txt`, `WAVY_2026_06_01_carbon_dating_results.txt`, `WTKR_2026_researchers_continue_hatteras.txt`, `Coastwatch_Lumbee_perspective.txt`, `UNCPress_Excavating_book.txt`, `RAU_Mark_Horton.txt`, `hakluyt1600_white_1590.txt`.) ## Appendix B. Not obtained (and why) - Quinn, *The Roanoke Voyages* (1955): the IA scan has no search index; no snippets. Cited through Quinn 1985, Miller, Barbour, Rountree. - Quinn, *England and the Discovery of America* (1974), ch. "The Lost Colony in Myth and Reality": OL snippets only (part 1); page range 432–481 VERIFIED from Kupperman 2007 p. 182 n. - Parramore 2001 (NCHR 78:1, 67–83): JSTOR wall; article text not obtained. BUT the journal's own vol. 78 contents and index (Internet Archive OCR) were obtained and give page-level pointers to his argument — see §8 and Addendum A.4. - La Vere 2009 (NCHR 86:3, 251–281): abstract and Powell's condensation only; the vol. 86 index (Internet Archive OCR) gives page-level pointers — Addendum A.4. - Oberg's JSH review of Lawler (86:2, 2020, 440–441): MUSE wall; one sentence via Wikipedia. - Oakley's AHR review of Klingelhofer (130:1, 2025, 513–514): OUP wall; abstract sentences from a search result. - Shields & Ewen 2003: table of contents unavailable; one chapter identified (Blanton, pp. 142–58) from Kupperman's notes. - Lawler 2018: e-book snippets carry no page numbers; the H-Net review supplies pp. 321, 323, 362. - Dawson 2020 (§4.A), Klingelhofer 2023 (Addendum A.1/A.1b), Rountree 2005 (Addendum A.2), Lawler 2018 second run (Addendum A.3): Google Books snippet harvests, obtained; no full texts. - Horton: no peer-reviewed publication on Hatteras exists (RAU list on file); statements are press interviews. - Briceland 1987: not consulted. - Google Books daily quota for the API was exhausted early; all Google snippets came through the books.google.com search-inside page via a text proxy, which intermittently refused connections; some terms therefore show "FETCH FAILED". --- ## Addendum: late harvests — Klingelhofer 2023 (A.1, A.1b); Rountree 2005 (A.2); Lawler 2018 second run (A.3); the NCHR indexes for Parramore 2001 and La Vere 2009 (A.4) These search-inside harvests (and the Internet Archive OCR of two journal indexes, A.4) were obtained after §§1–20 were written. Everything quoted below is verbatim Google Books snippet text (VERIFIED as snippet; ellipses are Google's; `**...**` marks Google's hit-highlighting, removed here). Page numbers are given ONLY where Google supplied them (Rountree 2005 is a scanned print edition and returns pages; Klingelhofer 2023 and Lawler 2018 are e-book previews and return none — marked "no page"). Raw harvests with headers: `sources/snippets_googlebooks_klingelhofer2023.txt`, `sources/snippets_googlebooks_rountree2005.txt`, `sources/snippets_googlebooks_lawler2018b.txt`. Where a snippet changes or sharpens a statement made in §3, §10 or §15, that is said explicitly. ### A.1 Eric Klingelhofer, ed., *Excavating the Lost Colony Mystery* (UNC Press, 2023), GB id gIK2EAAAQBAJ — 30 terms searched **Structure recovered from the snippets (VERIFIED, no page).** Dedication: "who blazed the trail JEAN C. HARRINGTON DAVID BEERS QUINN IVOR NOËL HUME In memory of JANET AMBERS Who sought the hidden history in John White's maps". Contents fragments: "Part One Seeking the Truth Chapter One The [Search for Raleigh's Colony, Phillip W. Evans]"; "Part Two First Colony Foundation Enters the Search Chapter Two Paper Patches: La Virginea Pars Map in the British Museum Kim Sloan Chapter Three John White's Maps and Tudor Cartography Peter Barber Chapter Four Images and..."; "Part Three Site X"; "SITE X Nicholas M. Luccketti" (chapter six; figs. 6.4–6.12 are cited in it); "METTAQUEM Edward Clay Swindell" (chapter seven; figs. 7.3, 7.7, 7.8); "Part Four Beyond the Trenches Chapter Eight Knowledge-Seeking through Collaboration in Roanoke Karen Ordahl Kupperman Chapter Nine Everything but the Kitchen Sink: Packing for the New World [Beverly Straube]"; "In the final chapter, Jim Horn [explains why the colonists of 1587 left Roanoke Island...]" (Horn's chapter cites "fig. 10.3", the Smith–Zúñiga map, so it is chapter ten); "chapter eleven THE ENGLISH ON THE CHOWAN Phillip W. Evans". Index entries (VERIFIED): "Site X, 41-55, 57-67, 76, 101, 123-24 Site Y, 123-24"; "Dare Stones, 1, 7"; "Croatoan (carving), 4, 7, 108, 117 Croatoan Island. See Hatteras Croatoans, 105, 108"; "Hatteras: archaeology on, 9, 13; British evacuation of, 15, 108-13; Exploration Map and, 45; Late Woodland Period, 10, 51, 61, 73–77, 123; Raleigh lands at, 3"; "Strachey, Richard, 49 Strachey, William, 96, 109, 113, 118"; "Smith, John, 83, 106, 112, 117-18; General History of Virginia, 114 Smith-Zuniga Map, 49"; "Zuniga Map, 49, 65, 112, 118"; "Wahunsonacock, 109, 112"; "Parramore, Thomas C., 123"; "Horn, Jim, 10, 65, 101, 104"; "Hume, Ivor Noël, 8–9, 13, 67, 91-95"; "Tuscarora, 9, 69–73, 111–13, 118"; "Iroquoian peoples, 69, 72, 110–11, 118"; "Anglo-Chowanoke War, 121 Anglo-Powhatan Wars: First, 119; Second, 119; Third, 121"; "Weapemeoc (Yeopim), 115, 121-22"; "Phelps, David, 9, 11, 70, 72"; "Evans, Phillip W., 1, 10, 101"; "First Colony Foundation (FCF): archaeological digs, 13, 21, 23, 51–55, 57–67, 76, 101, 111, 123"; "Swindell, Edward Clay, 9-11, 51, 54"; "Straube, Beverly Bly, 59, 79, 123"; "Tackonekintaco, 118"; "Virginia Company, 49, 111–12, 119"; "Andrews, Kenneth R., 7"; "Sloan, Kim, 13, 41-42, 45-46, 59". Searches for "Horton", "Dawson", "Lumbee", "Ocanahowan" (in that spelling) and "Metackwem" return NO hits: the volume does not engage the Hatteras excavators by name, and it uses the spellings "Ocanahonan"/"okanhowan". **The FCF's own statement of what Site X is and is not (Luccketti, chapter six; VERIFIED, no page).** - Opening: "SITE X Nicholas M. Luccketti Bold headlines and excited press reports in 2016 told the public about First Colony Foundation's amazing discoveries at Site X- equal to finding the Ark of the Covenant or Jimmy Hoffa's body. But it was..." - The concession that §15 could only paraphrase from press: "...smoking gun- no artifacts undeniably of sixteenth-century European origin. No features from English buildings, no burials. We did not find a fort. Nor did we claim that we had found the site of the main group's relocation or even..." - The core quantitative argument (new to the dossier): "...Site X with a sample of the Virginia sites (fig. 6.11). The difference is immediately evident. Site X measures 2,282 square feet, the Virginia sites 10,000–30,000 square feet—four to fourteen times larger! Other data show that Virginia..." and "...Site X, despite its comparatively small size, has five to ten times as much Border ware as the early Virginia sites, excepting the first years of settlement at Jamestown." (Figure captions: "Figure 6.10. Surfer map showing distribution of Surrey-Hampshire Border ware at Site X."; "Figure 6.11. Comparison of excavated square footage at Site X to a sample of seventeenth-century Virginia archaeological sites."; "Figure 6.12. Comparison of number of sherds of Surrey[-Hampshire Border ware...]".) - The dating argument against a Batts-era (1650s+) origin: "...Border ware not only predate the time of the Batts settlement but rarely occur after 1625–30. First Colony Foundation examined the amount of Border ware at fifteen Virginia sites and the Eden House site. The raw ceramic sherd numbers..."; "...Site X dates to that period. Rather, pipe-smoking colonists came there only at the start of the eighteenth century. 8. Accordingly, to suggest that the Border ware and North Devon sherds are attributable to Nathaniel Batt's presence or..."; and the rival hypothesis he sets up to reject: "...Border ware and baluster jar sherds at Site X do not date an Elizabethan presence at Site X but relate to an undocumented conjectural later European presence at Site X in the 1620s and 1630s—and for a sufficiently long time for these..." - Function of Site X (alternatives canvassed, VERIFIED, no page): "...Mettaquem villagers. Others suggest that Site X was a sentinel site to provide early warning of the approach of enemies. Or perhaps it served the crew of the colony's pinnace, moored nearby. 11. Whatever its purpose, because Site X is..." — note that the FCF itself entertains the colony's pinnace being "moored nearby" on Salmon Creek (relevant to §17). - The 2012 fieldwork objectives: "...Salmon Creek area of Bertie County, determine the spatial extent of the early colonial presence on Salmon Creek, and collect additional data from Site BR146, the provenance of potential sixteenth-century ceramics."; "...the excavation in 2012 corroborated the recovery in 2007 of artifacts usually associated with the [late sixteenth/early seventeenth century]..."; "Our curator Beverly (Bly) Straube reexamined the artifact collection and found a previously unidentified sherd of a North [Devon ...]". Remote sensing: "...Salmon Creek; its numerous readings indicated several submerged wooden vessels, all small craft except for one larger target near the creek's mouth (fig. 5.3)." (an unexamined sonar target — no claim is made that it is the pinnace). **Site Y and the editor's conclusion (Klingelhofer, pp. 123–24 per index; VERIFIED, no page).** - "Site Y. A comparison of key ceramics from Site Y with their occurrence on more than twenty pre-1650 sites in Virginia, as well as the absence of colonial tobacco pipe stems with large bore holes, provides evidence that there was no [later seventeenth-century occupation]..."; "...conclusions that the artifacts unearthed at Site X do not represent European goods traded to the Native American ... conclusion that Site X was a short-lived habitation of a small group of the colonists who left Roanoke Island..."; "Site Y is the second discovery of..."; "Site Y combined with the earlier finds at Site X provides strong encouragemen[t]...". - "...Parramore had both advocated seeking evidence of the Lost Colony in the vicinity, as has James Horn in this volume. an Site Y further substantiates our conclusion that Site X was a short-lived habitation of a small group of the colonists who left Roanoke Island after the return to England of Governor John White in the late [summer of 1587]..." (the index puts Parramore only at p. 123, i.e., in this conclusion). - The dispersal model restated: "...dispersed into numerous small settlement groups, just as Raleigh's first Roanoke colony dispersed due to a food shortage in 1586. Site Y excavations have created a more nuanced picture of Elizabethans on the Chowan River. Site X..."; "Site X suggested a family of refugees protected by the warriors of an adjacent village. Site Y has no such native settlement nor any evidence of their presence. We must conclude that the Chowanoke king Menatonon, Governor Ralph Lane's ally, permitted Raleigh's colonists to settle on designated lands where they could provide for themselves. If so, other farming families would have also been given sites for planting..." (two overlapping snippets joined at "Governor Ralph"); "...Chowanoke kingdom and, between them, the likely sites for Elizabethan farmsteads. Dr. William Kelso, emeritus director of archaeology at Jamestown Rediscovery, eloquently said, "What has been found so far at Site Y in Bertie County..." (rest of Kelso's sentence not returned). - Future work: "...Salmon Creek itself. Beyond that, archaeological survey and testing for areas south of the creek are being considered. And beyond that fieldwork, there remain the other towns of the Chowanoke kingdom..." **Horn's chapter (chapter ten) — the fullest statement of his post-2010 position (VERIFIED, no page).** - On Quinn: "...Quinn, the majority of colonists continued their journey northward and eventually settled with the Chesapeakes either at Chesepioc or the principal town of Skicoak. Reduced to its essentials, Quinn's theory, amplified by Karen Ordahl [Kupperman] and other historians, rests on the supposition that the colonists would have favored moving north so as to reach their planned destination on the Chesapeake Bay where White on his return would eventually find them. Seemingly..." (two snippets joined at "Karen Ordahl"); "...Quinn's unsurpassed mastery of the sources, his argument quickly gained general acceptance and in time became the standard interpretation. Despite the primacy of Quinn's hypothesis, however, a significant quantity of evidence..."; "...Quinn's supposition. The first is the meaning of the phrase "50. miles further up into the maine." While Quinn cautions against reading too much into "50. miles" because the colonists were notoriously vague about distances, the..."; "...Quinn's argument was another vital clue, drawn not from the Roanoke period but from the Jamestown colony two decades later. According to William Strachey, one of ... the early colonists and author of a firsthand account..." - On Croatoan (the argument §4's critics use): "...Croatoan to live with Manteo's people. But it is unlikely that the Croatoans could have supported the entire colony for very long on their small, narrow island, which in fact was little more than an elongated sandspit. The leading..."; on an overland route: "...Croatoan). Second, an overland route would have taken the settlers through a difficult terrain of low-lying marshes and swamps and exposed them to attack by hostile peoples. Third, they would have had great difficulty dragging their [boats/goods]..." - On the decision of August 1587 and the holding party: "...Chesapeake. Consequently, toward the end of August they made the decision to leave Roanoke Island and move inland, where they might have better prospects, agreeing among themselves also to request White to return to England to inform..."; "...Chesapeake. If a small holding party remained on Roanoke Island to wait for White and the expected supply ships, then it was they who left the messages carved on a tree and post before moving to Croatoan sometime before summer 1588..."; "...conclusion is that even though the settlers had no intention of going to the Chesapeake Bay, they were uncertain of their precise destination inland and therefore unable to give White any clear directions as to where he would find them..."; "...Chesapeake Bay; they never established a great city in Raleigh's name or discovered gold mines in the distant province of Chaunis Temoatan. A North American El Dorado did not lie in the mountains, and there was no convenient water [route]..." - On Strachey and the slaughter — a sharper form of Horn 2010 (§2): "...Powhatan [Wahunsonacock] miserably slaughtered without any offence given him." Wahunsonacock, mamanatowick, paramount chief of the Powhatans, the most powerful Indian chiefdom on the mid-Atlantic seaboard, had been warned by..."; "...Strachey wrote that owing to "this divelish Oracle," the chief ordered the killing of the Chesapeake Indians who lived on the south side of the James River near the entrance of the Chesapeake Bay. Shortly before or soon after the..."; "...conclusion. Strachey, for example, was explicit that the colonists were killed beyond Wahunsonacock's dominions. The Powhatan chief, he writes, had ordered the slaughter "of so many of our Nation without offence given, and such..."; "...Powhatan war party had killed most of the settlers and their Indian kin. References to the killing of John White's colonists and their children are vague but nevertheless clearly refer to locations in the Roanoke region (fig. 10.3)..."; figure caption: "...Zuniga, the Spanish ambassador in London. This version was drawn by Rebecca L. Wrenn. A detailed consideration of the reasons why Wahunsonacock would have ordered the destruction of survivors from White's colony and their Indian allies..." Note the reading "killed beyond Wahunsonacock's dominions": Horn takes Strachey's "at Roanoak" and the marginal/legend phrases literally as a location outside Powhatan's territory, i.e., in the Albemarle region — the opposite of Quinn's "at Roanoak = the Roanoke colonists" (§1.6, Quinn pp. 362–369). - On Smith's 1608 intelligence: "...Powhatan paramount chiefdom, related information "on certain men at a place called Ocanahonan, clothed like me." Smith was subsequently taken by Pamunkey warriors to meet Powhatan at Werowocomoco on the modern York River (fig. 11.1)..." (fig. 11.1 → this is in Evans's chapter eleven); "...Chowanoke with two Warraskoyack guides to look for Raleigh's lost colonists and for silk grass. He returned with "little hope and less certainetie of them [that] were left by Sir Walter Rawley." Sicklemore reported the river to be "not [great]..."; 1609 Instructions: "..."Ritanoe," abundant "silke grasse," and perhaps some contact with the four men "left by Sir Walter Rawley." Later in the year, London saw the publication of the Virginia Company's True and sincere declaration of the purpose and ends of..."; Evans's summary: "...Zuniga Map of 1608 suggest that at least a few of the colonists may have ended up at places named okanhowan, pakerakanick, and panawiock. How many went, when, and why is not indicated. The search for the lost colonists was deferred when..."; "...CROATOAN" carved at a palisade. Although this did not indicate removal to a site fifty miles into the mainland, White again noted that had been the intent of the colonists in 1587. Post-Roanoke and Pre-Jamestown Contacts, 1590–1606 No..." Evans's chapter then follows the English on the Chowan through Pory (1622), the Anglo-Powhatan wars ("...Powhatan War, in March 1622, again interrupted English involvement in the Chowan River region. Almost a decade and half passed before we hear further of an English presence in the area."), the Basse family notes ("Did Edward Basse and Mary Tucker Basse move from Nansemond to the Chowan in 1644 as the first note indicates..."), the "Chowanoke War of 1646. We are uncertain whether the Chowanokes were the identified enemy of the English or the war simply occurred on the Chowan River", and the 1650s Batts/Durant purchases from "Weapemeoc (Yeopim) leaders". This is the fullest published account of *why no seventeenth-century Virginian ever reached the Chowan settlements to check for survivors*, and it supplies the FCF's answer to the objection that Batts-era settlers could have deposited the Site X ceramics. **Dare Stones (VERIFIED, no page; index "Dare Stones, 1, 7").** "...[White reached] "Croatoan" on August 18, 1590, and not a year later. This was unknown in 1937 when a hoaxer created the first Dare Stone and tried to pass it off during the 350th anniversary of the arrival of White's colony in 1587. Not knowing that the long-held 1591 date was wrong, the hoaxer carved the wrong date on the stone. While Harrington was..." and "...Quinn, who in 1955 edited a two-volume work titled The Roanoke Voyages for the London-based Hakluyt Society. Following the lead of another London scholar, Kenneth R. Andrews, Quinn discovered that John White's last voyage to Roanoke [was in 1590]..." This is a distinct, checkable argument against the first (Chowan River) stone that none of §§5–14 used: the stone's "1591" date matches the pre-Andrews/Quinn chronology of White's return voyage. (The dossier records it as the volume's argument; whether the 1591 date on the stone in fact refers to White's return or to the deaths is a question for the final report.) **Kupperman's chapter (chapter eight; VERIFIED, no page).** "...Kupperman When the first party of Englishmen landed at Roanoke in 1584, they were entering an unknown world, but the Algonquian people who met them knew a lot about Europeans and their methods. Giovanni da Verrazzano, sailing for the..."; editor's summary: "Kupperman sheds light on how the relationship between the Native leader Manteo and the Elizabethans provided not just the colonists in 1587 but Europe with unique knowledge of North America and its inhabitants." Nothing in the returned snippets shows Kupperman restating or retracting her Chesapeake view of 1984/2007 in this volume. **Swindell's Mettaquem chapter (chapter seven; VERIFIED, no page).** "...Mettaquem, one of the towns that Lane mentioned in his exploration of the Chowan River. It came under the authority of Menatonan, king of the Chowanokes, who soon allied with the English against Wingina and the Roanokes."; "...Mettaquem. The likelihood of an Elizabethan presence at or by that village presented us an opportunity to change the traditional image of Settler versus Indian."; "...Chowanoke chiefdom. Sites associated with Chowanoke towns and peripheral farmsteads have been recorded up and down the shores of the Chowan River. Tuscarora sites, identified by their Cashie pottery, have also been encountered, particularly on the west side of the Chowan River. Although such westerly sites likely date to the later seventeenth century, after the Chowanokes were [displaced]..."; Hatteras: "...Hatteras Island, was possibly ruled or controlled at one time by a queen, suggesting further variability in complexity of the polities inhabiting the range."; "...Hatteras Indians after 1750, but it appears that only the more distant Hatteras Indians of Hatteras Island would remain identifiable as Algonquians. They appear to have been practicing primarily their own culture into the late [eighteenth century]..."; "Figure 7.7. Excavated test units at Mettaquem. First Colony Foundation. Figure 7.8. Ground-penetrating radar at Mettaquem." **What this adds to §15.** (i) The FCF has now committed in print to a *quantified* argument (Border ware density per excavated square foot vs. fifteen Virginia sites plus Eden House; absence of large-bore pipe stems) rather than the mere presence of the ware; a refutation must engage those comparisons (e.g., by showing that small Indian-village-edge sites in Virginia with trade pottery yield similar densities). (ii) Luccketti explicitly disclaims a fort, buildings, burials and any "undeniably" sixteenth-century object at Site X. (iii) The FCF's own text canvasses the pinnace "moored nearby" and a sonar "larger target near the creek's mouth" — an untested lead. (iv) Horn's chapter reads Strachey as locating the killings "beyond Wahunsonacock's dominions" and "clearly ... in the Roanoke region", which is the exact contrary of Quinn's reading (Quinn 1985 pp. 362–369, §1.6). (v) The Dare-Stone "1591" chronology argument (Evans/Klingelhofer) is new relative to §§9 and 14. ### A.1b Klingelhofer 2023 — second run (29 further terms; VERIFIED snippets, no page; raw file `sources/snippets_googlebooks_klingelhofer2023b.txt`) **Horn's chapter: the fullest 2023 statement of his position, and a softening of 2010.** - The Quinn thesis as Horn now states it: "...survivors of White's colony, were ruthlessly slaughtered by Wahunsonacock's warriors. Based on Quinn's unsurpassed mastery of the sources, his argument quickly gained general acceptance and in time became the standard interpretation..."; "...Skicoak. Reduced to its essentials, Quinn's theory, amplified by Karen Ordahl Kupperman and other historians, rests on the supposition that the colonists would have favored moving north so as to reach their planned destination on the [Chesapeake Bay]..." - "50 miles": "..."50. miles further up into the maine," which might imply either west up the Albemarle Sound to the confluence of the Roanoke and Chowan Rivers or alternatively north along Currituck Sound on the first leg of a journey to the Chesapeake..."; "..."50 miles into the countrey." The argument advanced here is that the great majority of the settlers moved west. White noted in his account that the majority intended to move fifty miles "further up into the maine presently" (my [emphasis])..."; "...Fifty miles westward from Roanoke Island would have taken the settlers to the Chowan and Roanoke Rivers, which would have been an ideal place for a temporary settlement, sufficiently prominent at the head of Albemarle Sound for White [to find them]..."; on Hakluyt's marginal gloss: "...overland to the Chesapeake. Richard Hakluyt, a prominent promoter of American ventures in this period, certainly understood the phrase in that way when he added a marginal comment in the published version of White's account in 1600..."; "...overland have been a viable alternative? The possibility cannot be ruled out but is highly improbable. When White returned to the island in 1590, he looked for the settlers' boats and pinnace, which were gone (he thought to Croatoan)..." (relevant to §17: Horn reads White as believing the boats had gone to Croatoan). - Who went and why: "...survivors from the party of fifteen men left by Grenville. About a month after their arrival in late July 1587, these people became anxious for someone to return to England to oversee their resupply in 1588, and they pressed their [governor]..."; demographic profile of the colonists: "...men were in their twenties and early thirties, and most women were in their late teens and early twenties. All nine children were boys, aged between three and twelve years. Ten couples joined the voyage, four accompanied with (or..." - **The slaughter — Horn 2023 declines to insist on Powhatan's order:** "...[A detailed consideration of the reasons why] Wahunsonacock would have ordered the destruction of survivors from White's colony and their Indian allies is unnecessary here. They could have been victims of fighting along an unstable border zone between three major peoples vying for regional dominance—the Powhatans, Tuscaroras, and [Carolina Algonquians]..." (two overlapping snippets). Read with the other snippets ("...killed beyond Wahunsonacock's dominions. The Powhatan chief, he writes, had ordered the slaughter "of so many of our Nation without offence given, and such as were seated far from him, and in the Territory of those Weroances which [did in no sort depend on him]..."; "...killed most of the settlers and their Indian kin. References to the killing of John White's colonists and their children are vague but nevertheless clearly refer to locations in the Roanoke region (fig. 10.3). Detailed instructions..."), Horn's 2023 position is: Strachey's victims were "seated far from" Powhatan, in the Albemarle/Roanoke region; whether Powhatan ordered it or they died in "an unstable border zone" warfare between Powhatans, Tuscaroras and Algonquians is left open. That is closer to Parramore 2001 (§8) than Horn 2010 was. - Ritanoe: "...Machumps to infer that the English at Rittanoe were slaves, hostages, or somehow in bondage to Eyanoco, but there is the plausible inference that Eyanoco was protecting these few people from outside threats. Machumps related that they..." — an explicit rejection of Miller's "slaves" reading (§5) in favour of protection. - Editor's summary of Horn's chapter: "...fifty miles to the west. He then ponders what may have happened to them there, proposing that a few colonists lived into the seventeenth century and that their descendants, if any, simply blended into Native communities." - Volume conclusion: "...fifty miles inland. They lived not in the "Cittie of Ralegh"-a city of dreams-but among the Chowanoke people in scattered settlements on the "goodly high land" that Ralph Lane had seen on the Chowan's west bank. We conclude..." **Evans's chapter eleven: the seventeenth-century searches and why they stopped.** "...survivors from the Raleigh colonies. A few weeks later, in January 1609, Michael Sicklemore was sent to Chowanoke with two Warraskoyack guides to look for Raleigh's lost colonists and for silk grass. He returned with "little hope and [less certainetie]..."; the *True and Sincere Declaration* (1609): "...[found within] fifty miles of Jamestown some evidence of survivors of the Lost Colony. It was claimed that these two men were denied contact with any of the purported survivors but saw "crosses and letters, the assured testimonies of Christians," cut into trees. Late 1609 also saw the outbreak of what is termed the First Anglo-Powhatan War and an apparent ten-year interruption in English exploration of the Chowan and Roanoke River regions."; "...four men "left by Sir Walter Rawley." Later in the year, London saw the publication of the Virginia Company's True and sincere declaration ... which related that two men (likely [Powell and Todkill])..."; Pory: "...Pory, another secretary to the Virginia colony, made a journey in February 1622 to Chowanoke. A report of Pory's journey was "preached" by the Reverend Patrick Copland in a London church on April 18. It was said that Pory [discovered a "fruitfull Countrie ..."]"; "...[there is no indication that] Pory gained any information on the fate of the Roanoke colonists. The outbreak of the Second Anglo-Powhatan War, in March 1622, again interrupted English involvement in the Chowan River region. Almost a decade and half passed before we [hear further]..."; Bland 1650: "...In 1650, Edward Bland departed Fort Henry (modern Petersburg) in Virginia for an overland trek south to the area of the Roanoke [River]. He recounted his exploration in his Discovery of new Brittaine (1651). Interpretations of Bland's route do not indicate that he came into the Chowan River area..."; Batts: "...Batts (the first permanent English settler in North Carolina) on the south side of Salmon Creek sometime between 1654 and 1657..."; "...Batts in 1655 some two miles south of Site Y."; "...it does not seem that Weapemeoc lands were ceded because Nathaniel Batts, George Durant, and others purchased land from Weapemeoc (Yeopim) leaders in the 1650s." Survey of English contact: "...survivors up through 1609, but the period of starvation known as the Starving Time at James Fort in the winter of 1609–10, wars between the English and the Powhatan Indians of Tidewater Virginia in the 1620s and 1640s, and the [subsequent English expansion ... delayed the colonists' return to Roanoke Island]". **Luccketti/Klingelhofer on the ceramics — the Eden House comparison.** "...Eden House, a North Carolina governor's residence built no earlier than circa 1663 on the west bank of the Chowan River, recovered just four sherds from a single vessel of a late type of Border ware. No other examples of Border [ware ...]"; "...Eden House site. The raw ceramic sherd numbers are a little hard to digest because of the many other types of pottery on these sites, but when you convert them into a histogram, a pattern does appear (fig. 6.12). Most significant are the..." — i.e., the nearest documented 1660s English site on the Chowan has almost no Border ware, which the FCF uses to exclude a Batts-era origin for Site X's sherds. Site X's function: "...sentinel site to provide early warning of the approach of enemies. Or perhaps it served the crew of the colony's pinnace, moored nearby. 11. Whatever its purpose, because Site X is located on the periphery of the village of Mettaquem..."; "...refugees protected by the warriors of an adjacent village. Site Y has no such native settlement nor any evidence of their presence. We must conclude that the Chowanoke king Menatonon, Governor Ralph Lane's ally, permitted Raleigh's colonists to settle on designated lands where they could provide for themselves. If so, other farming families would have also been given sites for planting and probably..." **Opening of the volume (Evans, chapter one; index "Dare Stones, 1, 7").** "...men, women, and children of Sir Walter Raleigh's colony, who had disembarked at Roanoke Island in 1587, were nowhere [to be found] ... four centuries. Hopes were raised when the Dare Stones of the 1930s purported to mark the westward journey of [the colonists]..." — the Dare Stones appear only as a false hope on p. 1 ("Hopes were raised when the Dare Stones of the 1930s purported to mark the westward journey of the colony's leading family—but they were later proven to be fakes." — VERIFIED, no page; index "Dare Stones, 1, 7") and as a hoax on p. 7. Index (VERIFIED): "Dare, Ananias, 3, 87, 105-7 Dare, Eleanor White, 3, 87, 105–6 Dare, John, 106 Dare, Thomasin, 106 Dare, Virginia, 3, 7, 87". **Index page-numbers recovered in this run (VERIFIED):** "Batts, Nathaniel, 58, 63–65, 121-23"; "Eden House, 58, 63-64"; "Elizabethan period: and archaeology, 1, 9-13, 51-55, 63, 76, 111, 123-24"; "Machumps, 113, 118-19"; "Mangoaks, 104, 116-18"; "Manteo of Croatoan, 45, 81-88, 105, 108, 110, 113"; "Wanchese, 81-82"; "Warraskoyack, 118"; "Powell, Nathaniel, 118–19"; "Powell, William S., 9, 113"; "Powhatans, 5, 109, 112–13, 117-21"; "Pory, John, 119"; "Sicklemore, Michael, 118"; "Bland, Edward, 121"; "Mace, Samuel, 117"; "Machapunga, 73"; "Luccketti, Nick, 9–10, 51, 53, 74, 76"; "Watts, Gordon, 9-10, 51-53"; "lidar, 52-53"; "LeCompte, Malcolm, 53-54". With "Site X, 41-55, 57-67 ... 123-24" and "Strachey, William, 96, 109, 113, 118", these locate Horn's chapter at about pp. 103–113 and Evans's at about pp. 115–122. **The Croatoan "holding party" in Horn 2023 (VERIFIED, no page).** "...[If a small] holding party remained on Roanoke Island to wait for White and the expected supply ships, then it was they who left the messages carved on a tree and post before moving to Croatoan sometime before summer 1588. Meanwhile, according to Quinn, the majority of colonists continued their journey northward and eventually settled with the Chesapeakes either at Chesepioc or the principal town of Skicoak. Reduced to its essentials, Quinn's theory..." — Horn here summarises Quinn's two-party model (holding party → Croatoan before summer 1588; main body → Chesapeake) before substituting the Chowan for the Chesapeake as the main body's destination. On the 1587 decision: "...[resupply in] 1588, and they pressed their governor, John White, to do this. Afterward, he set sail back to England, but no other specific information on the destination was given. When White eventually returned in August 1590, he found the word [CROATOAN]..."; on the Armada year: "...1588, the threat of an imminent Spanish invasion of England led to a general stay of shipping from English ports. Unable to reach America the following year, it was not until March 1590 that White managed to secure passage for himself..." A prosopographical aside (Horn): "...Alice Chapman could have been the wife of the (Robert?) Chapman left on Roanoke Island with a small holding party by Grenville after Lane's colony had departed." Nothing in either run returns "Elizabeth River", "Chesepioc" (outside the Quinn summary), "Mangoak" in that spelling, "Beechland", "Horton" or "Dawson": the volume neither engages the Hatteras claims by name nor the Beechland/Mattamuskeet traditions. ### A.2 Helen C. Rountree, *Pocahontas, Powhatan, Opechancanough* (University of Virginia Press, 2005), GB id BBwW1tA4zBsC — 15 terms searched, page numbers supplied by Google This harvest supplies the page numbers that §10 lacked. All quotations VERIFIED as Google snippets with Google's page number. - **p. 45** (the Chesapeakes): "...Elizabeth River in what is now Norfolk and Portsmouth. They, too, had closer ties with the Roanoke Island people than with Powhatan, and they, too, had held out against joining Powhatan's burgeoning organization. For that staunch refusal the mamanatowick and his subject chiefdoms considered the Chesapeakes to be bitter enemies by 1607, rather than autonomous potential allies. Some of the animosity came from a prophecy made by the priests, whom Powhatan trusted, stating that "from the Chesapeake Bay a nation should arise which should dissolve and give end to his empire." Although there were "divers [several] understanding[s]" of..." (three overlapping snippets joined). Map legend p. 18 area: "Chesapeake (independent, possibly extinct)" (OL snippet, §10). - **p. 46**: "...prophecy about someone coming from the east to conquer him and his people, he discounted Europeans as the enemies to fight. It is with only hindsight that we know he was wrong. In 1607, amid all the threats from native enemies to..." - **p. 48**: "...Chesapeake Bay some years later (1588)]; they took young people as prisoners (to make them interpreters) ... Chesapeakes,28 whose enmity to Powhatan's importunities was growing. Naturally, native people from miles around..." (the 1588 reference is to Vicente González's reconnaissance; cf. §17). - **p. 49** — Rountree's statement of the fate: "...Lost Colonists" probably headed to the North Carolina mainland, for that is where most of the inquiries were made for them in 1608-9. However, it has been suggested that some of them may have fled northward and come to rest among [the still-friendly] Chesapeakes, where any of them who survived for twenty years would have been exterminated along with their hosts when Powhatan took over that territory.31 If that did happen, then it is the closest Powhatan ever came to doing what..." (two snippets joined; the OL snippet in §10 supplies "northward and come to rest among the still-friendly Chesapeakes"). Note 31 is on p. 248: "[For a discussion of timing, according to both me and David B.] Quinn, see Rountree 1990: 20-21. 20. Strachey 1953 [1612]: 68-69; Haile 1998: 627." So her dating of the Chesapeake extermination rests on *Pocahontas's People* pp. 20–21 (which §10 quotes from OL snippets: "1597 or 1598"). - **p. 50**: "...Chesapeakes had done with their visitors two decades before. The English, on the other hand, were not nearly so confident as their outward bravado indicated..." - **p. 53**: "...Chesapeakes, attacked them almost as soon as they went ashore to explore. Whichever chiefdom it was, the assault shows that foreigners were not popular in the area. The Strangers then crossed over to Kecoughtan..." (the 26 April 1607 attack at Cape Henry; she leaves the attackers' identity open). - **p. 59**: "...Lost Colonists" after 1587. No Appamattucks or Weyanocks knew (in May 1607) just how the current intruders, who came from the same country, would take the news that their hosts were friends of those Chowanocks, and the language..." (with the OL snippet: "the Chowanocks who had met Europeans from the Roanoke colonies and perhaps harbored some of the "Lost Colonists" after 1587"). - **p. 101** (Sicklemore, 1609): "...Roanoke" to search for any of his compatriots ("Lost Colonists") who might be living. However, when they got to Warraskoyack, he refused to go any farther. He may have felt that his sovereign would be displeased by his involvement in what remained an awkward situation between..." (the guide who turned back; the OL 2005 harvest in §10 shows this is the Warraskoyack chief Tackonekintaco's man). - **p. 118**: "...Lost Colonists") still living in their region. Chawnzmit phrased his request for guides as an intention to send presents to the Chowanock chief, to "bind him his friend [ally]."6 If Tackonekintaco later relayed his actions to..." (Rountree's reconstruction of Smith's cover-story for the Chowanoke search). - **p. 120–121**: "...He had heard from the Nansemonds that Chawnzmit's countrymen intended to "destroy my country." (The Nansemonds, as then-allies and neighbors of the Chesapeakes ... had heard in detail about the Roanoke Colonies and probably had met some of those foreigners personally in the 1580s. That, coupled with English actions in the previous eighteen months would be enough to make them send a..." - **p. 148** — her verdict on the Virginia Company's charge: "...Virginia Company with the extermination of the "Lost Colonists."2 It did not matter whether or not all of them had died violently (the Carolina tribes never said that) or whether he had ever even been in contact with them (the earlier records give no hint of it). He had..." That is: Rountree treats the 1609–12 accusation against Powhatan as a political charge whose truth the Company did not need; she observes that the Carolina Algonquians never reported a massacre and that pre-1609 records give no hint of Powhatan's contact with the colonists. - **p. 223**: "..."Chesapeakes" (Nansemonds living in the old Chesapeake territory). The paramount chief's attention was diverted at the same time by an attack on the Pamunkeys..." (1620s: the Chesapeake name survives only as a Nansemond enclave — consistent with the polity's earlier extinction). - **Machumps** (pp. 52, 99, 115, 132, 149; index "Machumps, 52, 99, 115, 132, 150, 154, 177"): p. 52 "(Machumps), through his fluency and that of the decent Jamestown interpreters available by 1610-11 (Henry Spelman and Thomas Savage), that the Real People of Tsenacomoco had long resented, feared, and wanted the foreigners [gone]..."; p. 99 "...Machumps, a brother-in-law of Powhatan who was also returning from England.23 No one had either the heart or the courage to tell Powhatan what had happened between the two youths..."; p. 115 "...Machumps, the brother of Powhatan's then-favorite wife, Winganuske. Both young men probably were intended by their chief for a career as spies and interpreters."; p. 132 "...Machumps, told him Powhatan still lived there. Powhatan's next, and apparently his final, capital was the town of Matchut on the Pamunkey River. He was definitely in residence by 1614..." - **No hits** for "Ritanoe", "slaughter", "Skicoak", "Ocanahowan" in this edition's searchable text: the 2005 book does not discuss Ritanoe or the 1609 Instructions, and its treatment of the "slaughter" is confined to the Chesapeakes passage (pp. 45–49) and the p. 148 remark. - Bibliography (pp. 274, 276, 279): she uses Quinn's *Roanoke Voyages* (1955; Dover 1972 reprint), Haile's *Jamestown Narratives* (1998), Barbour's *Jamestown Voyages* (1969), and "Stahle, David W., ... 1998. The Lost Colony and Jamestown Droughts" (p. 279). **What this changes in §10.** Nothing in substance, but the position is now citable by page: main body to the North Carolina mainland (p. 49); a possible northern refugee group whose survivors "for twenty years" would have died with the Chesapeakes (p. 49, with n. 31 → Rountree 1990: 20–21 for the c. 1597–98 dating agreed "according to both me and David B. Quinn"); the Company's accusation of Powhatan is politically motivated and unsupported by Carolina testimony or pre-1609 records (p. 148). For the synthesis table (§19) Rountree's row should read: main body → NC mainland/Chowanoke; Croatoan party — not discussed; Powhatan slaughter — of the Chesapeakes c. 1597–98 (colonist refugees, if any, with them); survivors 1607–12 — possibly among the Chowanokes (p. 59, p. 118); Dare Stones — not discussed; Site X/Hatteras — not discussed (2005 predates both). ### A.3 Andrew Lawler, *The Secret Token* (Doubleday, 2018), GB id 8yY0DwAAQBAJ — second run, 55 terms; e-book preview, NO page numbers §3 could quote Lawler's own words only through Towns's review and one snippet. This run supplies his words on each contested point (VERIFIED as snippets, no page). Because the book is reportage, most sentences are Lawler quoting or paraphrasing others; the speaker is identified where the snippet makes it clear. **Lawler's own framing of the possibilities.** "...pinnace left behind or built a boat to sail to Newfoundland or England, or moved to Chesapeake Bay. Either option required complex logistics, and in any case some might have stayed behind. Third, massacre, starvation, and illness..." (his enumerated scenarios; the sail-home option is listed, cf. §17). On White's 1590 evidence: ""CROATOAN without any cross or sign of distress." White professed relief. The word, as well as the three letters ... Croatoan," he wrote. Yet he also added that at his 1587 departure the colonists had planned to move "fifty miles [into the main]..."; and: "...Croatoan, why does the governor mention that they had planned to move "fifty miles into the main," which likely meant to the head of the Albemarle Sound to the west? If he thought they might be there, he made no move in that [direction]..." — Lawler reads "fifty miles into the main" as the head of Albemarle Sound (with Horn/FCF) but notes White's inaction. Closing reflection: "...The real power exerted by the Lost Colonists was not in archives or archaeological trenches but in the stories they spawned. If I..." **On Quinn.** "...Quinn. By all accounts a compact and polite man with a quick Irish temper, this historian from the University of Liverpool did more than any person since Hakluyt to collect every shred of documentary evidence he could find relating to..."; "...Quinn transformed Raleigh's venture into a credible research topic, though academics remained leery of what is still seen by many as a cheesy romantic legend. "He was the first scholar to put Roanoke on the map," said NYU's Kupperman."; on the Chesapeake thesis: "...Chesapeake Indians as early as 1587." These were the people Harriot met during his sojourn on the southern edge of Chesapeake Bay in the winter of 1585 and 1586. The historian insisted "with some confidence" that the Cittie of [Raleigh]..." and "...conclusion, which failed to win wide acceptance among other scholars. "I don't find much evidence for that theory," said historian James Horn, president of the Jamestown Rediscovery Foundation. Of course, Quinn was modest—and savvy—enough to know that his word on the Roanoke voyages was not likely to be final. "The story of the colonies is a continuing process of..."". Note Lawler's claim that Quinn's Chesapeake conclusion "failed to win wide acceptance among other scholars" — the opposite of Horn's "in time became the standard interpretation" (A.1); both are VERIFIED snippets and the disagreement is worth recording. **On Strachey, Machumps and the slaughter (Lawler's most developed source-critical passage).** "...Powhatan's priests for persuading Powhatan to murder "men, women, and children of the first plantation at Roanoke." This was done, he adds, "without any offense" to Raleigh's settlers, who for "twenty and odd years had..."; "...Strachey. A literary man down on his luck, the thirty-seven-year-old Londoner had matched wits with Jonson, poet John Donne, and possibly Shakespeare himself at the famed Mermaid Tavern. He surely knew the story of Roanoke..."; "...Strachey left Virginia in 1611, the search for the Raleigh settlers was effectively over. In 1612, Strachey wrote his Historie of Travaile into Virginia Britannia (dedicated to Percy's older brother, who was still incarcerated in [the Tower])..."; "...Strachey with the details of the massacre and the enslaved survivors. He was in London prior to the sailing of the Sea Venture on a diplomatic mission. Whether the intelligence is reliable, however, is another matter. We know almost [nothing about Machumps]..."; "...Machumps, who was returning from England as a representative of his brother-in-law Powhatan. Smith later reported that while on Bermuda, Machumps murdered another Native American, a young favorite of the chief's, and "made a hole to bury him, because it was too short he cut off his legs and laid them by him..."; "...Machumps, a man with a motive to misinform the English in order to accrue power. The London Company also had reason to insist the colonists were still alive, to reassure nervous investors and prevent financial collapse. Quinn..."; "...Powhatan's culpability in killing the colonists, and of English slaves made to work copper, seemed tied up with the London Company's public relations problems. They were in any event based heavily on the testimony of Machumps, who..."; "...Machumps, who might have had his own agenda. Later, the colonists' needed to justify Indian extermination in the wake of the 1622 rebellion, so painting their enemies as murderers made Powhatan's perfidy politically valuable. That..."; "...Strachey, a man who spent barely a year in Virginia, and Purchas, a vitriolic Indian hater who by his own account never traveled more than two hundred miles from his village in Essex. They, in turn, got their information from..."; on Smith's silence: "...[Smith, who knew] Powhatan better than any European, never publicly accused the Native American leader of any such massacre, even after the leader's death in 1618. Nor did Smith give much credence to surviving Raleigh colonists. Who, then, was the source..."; "...Powhatan confessed to Cap. Smith, that he had been at their [the Raleigh colonists'] slaughter, and had divers utensils of theirs to show," referring to the barrel of a musket, a bronze mortar, and a piece of iron said to belong to them. Yet Smith himself remained silent. Never a man to resist embellishing a..." (Purchas's marginal note, 1625); "...While Smith seems sincere in his conclusion that the Jamestown settlers found no hard evidence of Roanoke survivors, rumors of a bloody massacre masterminded by Powhatan persisted. Not for the last time, the desire to solve the mystery of the Lost Colony masked other, darker motives." On the 1609 Instructions: "...[the] slaughter of Powhatan of Roanoke, upon the first arrival of our colony, and live under the protection of a werowance," or tribal leader. This chief, said to be an enemy of Powhatan's, would never give up his English captives. "If you..."; "...Powhatan and his brother. One oddity is that the latitude mentioned is that of Croatoan Island and the western [...]" (i.e., Lawler notices that the Instructions' latitude fits Croatoan). Lawler thus sides with Miller and Rountree (Company propaganda; Machumps's agenda; Smith's silence) against Quinn/Horn on the reliability of the slaughter story — a position §3 did not record. **On Smith's 1608 intelligence and the Zúñiga map.** "...Ocanahonan, clothed like me." By clothed, the Indian meant they wore European-style dress. When Smith was brought to Powhatan's capital, ten miles north of Jamestown, the king confirmed his brother's report and added that they..."; "..."Ocanahonan" scribbled alongside it, the name mentioned by Powhatan and his brother as a place where men in European-style dress were said to be. To the south is another stream called the Morattic. This is no doubt the Moratuc River [Roanoke]..."; map caption: ""Here the King of Paspahegh reported our men to be, and want to go." ... Croatoan Island Powhatan Confederacy"; "...Chesapeake Bay, rather than south to Albemarle Sound and Roanoke Island, to locate the presumed Lost Colonists. But before Smith left on this mapping expedition, he mailed a letter to England that included a large rough-drawn [map]..."; "...By the fall of 1608, after he was elected colony president, Smith wrote to London that he was skeptical the Jamestown settlers would find "the south sea, a mine of gold, or any of them sent by Sir Walter Raleigh..."; Kupperman on the "men clothed like me": "...Kupperman. "This could have been true of the several hundred enslaved Africans and Indians from the Caribbean left by Drake, the three men abandoned by Lane's colony in their haste to leave, or the fifteen men left by Grenville..." — i.e., Kupperman told Lawler that the 1608 reports need not refer to 1587 colonists at all (a point absent from §6). Also an unattributed quotation on Drake's 1586 disembarkation: ""The only reasonable explanation is that a considerable number of Indians and Negroes were put ashore on the Carolina Outer Banks and equipped with the pots and pans, locks and bolts, boats and launches of [...]"". **On Site X (Lawler's own scepticism, with Luccketti's words).** "...Luccketti and organized by the First Colony Foundation set out to locate the putative fort fifty miles west of Roanoke, enticingly aligned with White's account that said the settlers had intended to travel "fifty miles into the main..."; "...Luccketti still had the artifacts from the site boxed up in his Williamsburg office. When he and colonial pottery expert Bly Straube took a closer look at the finds, they concluded that they were of a sort that could date to the late [sixteenth century]..."; Border ware: "..."The mundane nature of this is what makes it important," he said. "If it was a pretty object, then the Indians might collect it." Native Americans viewed most..."; "...Border ware made long into the seventeenth century? Yes, he acknowledged, the English imported Border ware well into the seventeenth century, so its presence alone doesn't necessarily point to Elizabethans. In fact, archaeologists..."; "...Luccketti's dig in the woods just northwest of the earthwork in 1995. A few have turned up at Virginia sites dating to the 1640s, but they appear less frequently after the time, suggesting the Site X artifacts could be Elizabethan..."; "...Border ware were enough to clinch the case. Subsequent excavations found more pottery but no sign of the fort suggested by the patch. Nor was there a silver bullet; there wasn't, say, the skeleton of a woman buried on her back, in..."; "...Site X - the hooks, the lead seal, the guns, the belt buckle - could conceivably be goods traded south from Jamestown decades later. Like the material Luccketti found on Roanoke Island, such as the European copper plates of an..."; Luccketti: ""I think we've done enough work here at Site X," he told me, a note of natural pessimism in his voice. "We don't know exactly what we've got here. It remains a bit of an [enigma]..."; "...After years of work, he concluded Site X was "an enigma." And while Horton told a good story of..."; Salmon Creek sonar target (relevant to §17): "...Salmon Creek, identifying the outline of what appeared to be a wooden ship. "The possibility exists that it is Elizabethan, and none of the boats left with the Lost Colonists has ever been found," the report noted. The scientist planned..." (note: Klingelhofer, "Progress Report on 2012-13 Multidisciplinary Research at Salmon Creek," 12); "...It was easy to imagine lookouts peering down the sound as an English pinnace rode nearby at anchor, invisible to any Spanish ships that might venture into the interior..."; Horn: "...Horn felt vindicated by "a pretty amazing piece of evidence from a source that has been staring us in the face all along." He had long advocated the view that the colonists went fifty miles inland as White suggested. "We believe..."; Klingelhofer: "..."parts of Raleigh's exploration in North America were a state secret, and the map 'cover-up' was an effort to keep information from the public and from foreign agents."" **On Hatteras (Horton, Dawson, Phelps) — Lawler is equally sceptical.** "...Horton's finds revealed that the two groups traded with each other while retaining their own separate communities. But the British archaeologist itched to dig closer to where Phelps found the ring..."; "...Horton stubbornly insisted. "The art historians are simply wrong." The same day Knowles found the German token, the team also uncovered a chunk of smelted copper with traces of lead, tin, and antimony, suggesting that metalworking..."; "...Croatoan. Metalworking certainly suggested Europeans were here for a long period of time, not just on a brief visit. And if the items were made and used by Native Americans, they had to obtain the technology as well as the materials..."; **"...Horton's team found a tiny piece of glass shaped into an arrowhead. Everything that Horton found could have made its way to Croatoan without the involvement of a Roanoke colonist. I fingered the earliest clearly dated object found by..."**; "...Horton's vision was - Natives and Lost Colonists peacefully learning from each other - it wasn't the only explanation for how European material ended up in the Cape Creek village. Horton smiled indulgently at my skepticism and then..."; "...Chesapeake Bay in the seventeenth century. The rapier might be an old-model sword traded south from Jamestown decades later. An antiquated gun might end up in the hold of a ship bound for the Chesapeake and then be sold for deerskin..."; the rapier hilt: "..."You could argue that this is Manteo's. After all, he was made a lord and likely given a rapier in the ceremony."" (Horton); the slate (Horton in an e-mail): ""I am still not totally happy with it," he wrote, "but as you know I think this remains our best evidence. I still think there is clearly an image of a soldier, but I am sure you must think its..."; the signet ring: Phelps's field notes ""Took signet ring from Sq MoH, Zone IIIA, Level 2 to Frank [...]""; Phelps: ""That doesn't mean the Lost Colony was here, but this begins to authenticate that.""; the XRF test with Ewen: ""See these blue lines? They should peak here if this was gold. And they don't. There's no [gold]..."" (the ring is not gold); Brooke-Little/College of Arms: "...proposed a ten-thousand-dollar project focused on a study of the ring. "The College of Arms is notorious for burning up money. Of course [Phelps] never got the money..."; Dawson: ""Imagine a time before texting," the Hatteras native said. "You ask your wife in the morning to leave a note at home naming the restaurant..."; Dawson's "Fort Blob" on Roanoke Island; "...Horton and Luccketti into Noël Hume's elegant living room in a tony suburb of Williamsburg to sort out flotsam from solid proof." Lawson: "...Not until an English explorer named John Lawson traveled through the area in 1701 is there another reference to the Lost Colonists."; "...Lawson speculated that the Roanoke settlement "miscarried for want of timely supplies from England" and "we may reasonably suppose that the English were forced to cohabit with them, for relief and conversation.""; the modern Hatteras/Mattamuskeet descendants (Chief Marilyn Berry Morrison: ""We also have roots with the Mattamuskeet," ... "When they killed our chief Wingina, some of us migrated to the mainland.""). **On the Dare Stones.** Eberhardt: "...stones, all forgeries, for which he was paid a total of about $2000. A few others were provided by Eberhardt's cohorts." (Those forty-two did not, however, include the first Dare Stone found by Hammond.)"; "...Eberhardt had been shown to be responsible for all the stones but one—the one that Hammond carried..."; Sparkes: "...Sparkes discredited all the rocks, but his evidence against the first stone's authenticity was circumstantial. The reporter complained that Pearce "could tell me less about Hammond than about Eleanor Dare." But he had no better luck."; "...He stated confidently that a mysterious "L. E. Martin," who offered money to a friend of Eberhardt's in exchange for a rock inscribed with the word "Yahoo," was Hammond. But he cited no evidence for this claim, other than the..."; Morison 1940: ""I personally went to Gainesville to investigate the Eleanor Dare Stones and believe them to be genuine, as did the other professors present..."; and "proclaimed it "either one of the most stupendous discoveries or stupendous hoaxes in American [history]""; "...Morison committee recommendations ignored by Pearce. My idea was to use the panel's road map to match up experts..." (Lawler's own 2016–17 initiative); a Brenau figure (unnamed in snippet): ""I am, though, reasonably convinced that the whole matter was a well conceived hoax." He based that conviction on the logical incentives for finding such a stone in 1937, ranging from promotion of the newly opened..."; Schrader: ""When I got here twelve years ago, I thought the stones were interesting but probably a hoax," Schrader told me ... "But I had a very strong feeling about the original stone.""; "...Schrader asked an English professor named Kevin Quarmby at Oxford College of Emory University ... to examine the stone's wording."; "...Schrader at Brenau to see if he wanted to pursue a multidisciplinary approach with these experts to resolve the matter once and for all, his response was lukewarm. His spokesperson later told me, "Our plan is to move forward as quickly as is..."; Willard: "...Willard believes he has pinpointed the site of the Dare Stone discovery." (map label "site of Dare Stone find Rockyhock Creek"). Lawler's position (consistent with §3): first stone unresolved, the rest fraud, and Brenau unwilling to submit it to the multidisciplinary test he proposed. **On the Lumbee/Croatan question.** Mooney (1907): "...Croatan Indians for the 1907 Hand Book of American Indians North of Mexico. He dismissed the Lost Colony connection as "baseless." The Croatan, he concluded, were a mix of Indians, early white settlers, runaway slaves, "and probably..."; Adolph Dial: ""...the oral traditions, the demography of sixteenth century North Carolina, the mobility of the Indian people, human adaptability and the isolation of Robeson County, all prove the 'Lost Colony' theory," he wrote. Dial believed that his unusual last name derived from Dare..."; McMillan's 1885 politics: "...Robeson County, Hamilton McMillan, came up with a clever solution to address the crisis while weakening his political opponents. Lumbee Indians were solid Republicans..."; DNA: "...Estes noted that the Robeson County Berrys trace their ancestry within the region to at least the early eighteenth century. Gathering and analyzing Lumbee DNA, however, has proved another formidable complication in her quest."; Oberg (quoted): ""Ralegh's colonists were lost only to those Europeans who searched and failed to find them. Indian people knew what happened to them."" (Oberg p. 146 per Lawler's note). **Parramore in Lawler.** Only bibliographic: "Parramore. The Lost Colony in Fact and Legend. Murfreesboro, N.C.: Johnson, 1983" and "Parramore, Thomas C., and Barbara M. Parramore. Looking for the "Lost Colony." Raleigh, N.C.: Tanglewood Press, 1984" — Lawler does not cite the 2001 NCHR article (2 hits, both bibliography). **What this adds to §3.** Lawler's own position is now citable in his words: (i) both archaeological claims are unproven — "Everything that Horton found could have made its way to Croatoan without the involvement of a Roanoke colonist" and Site X's finds "could conceivably be goods traded south from Jamestown decades later", with Luccketti's "enigma"; (ii) the Strachey/Machumps slaughter report is politically contaminated testimony, and Smith's silence weighs against it; (iii) Kupperman's alternative candidates for the "men clothed like me" (Drake's Africans/Indians, Lane's three, Grenville's fifteen); (iv) the FCF's own 2012–13 sonar "wooden ship" in Salmon Creek and its "possibility ... that it is Elizabethan" (for §17); (v) he reads "fifty miles into the main" as the head of Albemarle Sound. Synthesis row for Lawler (§19) should be amended: Site X & Hatteras — "both plausible, neither proven; trade explanations not excluded". ### A.4 The *North Carolina Historical Review*'s own indexes as page-level guides to Parramore 2001 and La Vere 2009 (Internet Archive OCR; VERIFIED as index entries) Neither article could be obtained (JSTOR wall), but the journal's printed annual indexes — which digest each article page by page — are on the Internet Archive as OCR text (`sources/NCHR_2001_78_contents_IA_ocr.txt`, `sources/NCHR_2001_78_index_IA_ocr.txt`, `sources/NCHR_2009_86_index-contents_IA_ocr.txt`; items `sim_north-carolina-historical-review_2001_78_contents`, `..._2001_78_index`, `..._2009_86_index-contents`). Entries are quoted verbatim; OCR of the two-column layout occasionally truncates a word (marked [...]). These are the journal's characterisations of the articles, not the authors' words. **Parramore, NCHR 78:1 (Jan. 2001), 67–83 — see §8 for the full set of entries.** The decisive ones: "Lost Colony: David Beers Quinn's explanation of its disappearance, 67-70; hostilities between Iroquois and Algonquian Leagues probably fatal for colonists, 73-83; Powhatan and followers probably not responsible for disappearance of, 71-73; probable destination of colonists upon leaving Roanoke Island, 70-71, 75"; "Smith, John: [...] recounts Powhatan's claim to have witnessed killing of Roanoke colonists, 71-73; 1624 map drawn by, 79"; "Strachey, William: asserts that Powhatan and followers attacked Chesapeakes, 71-75"; "Roanoke Island: [...] John White leaves pinnace for colonists on, 71; [...] possible attempted return to, by some Lost Colonists, 77; proximity to Weapemeoc territory, 79, 83"; "Ocanahowan, 77"; "Ritanoe, 77"; "Mangoaks. See Tuscaroras"; "Tuscaroras, 77-83". Parramore exonerates Powhatan. The same volume records Parramore's review of Miller 2000 at pp. 483–484 ("Miller, Lee: book by, reviewed, 483-484"; contents: "MILLER, Roanoke: Solving the Mystery of the Lost Colony, by Thomas C. Parramore") — not obtained. **La Vere, "The 1937 Chowan River 'Dare Stone': A Re-evaluation," NCHR 86:3 (July 2009), 251–281** (index: "La Vere, David: "The 1937 Chowan River 'Dare Stone': A Re-evaluation," 251-281"; "Dare Stone: from Chowan River, and the Lost Colony, article on, 251-281; pictured, 254, 255"; "Lost Colony, The, 256, 266-267, 268; program from performance of, pictured, facing 251"). Page-level entries: - Discovery and reception 1937–41: "Hammond, Louis: accused of peddling fake Dare Stones, 256, 267, 268; background of, 262-264; discovers Dare Stone, 251, 259, 269; and scholars at Emory University, 252, 265; suspected of forging Dare Stone, 257-258, 270, 273"; "Emory University: scholars at, examine Dare Ston[e], 252, 263"; "English, Thomas, 270; examines Dare Stone, 252-253, 263, 265"; "Purks, J. Harris, 270; examines Dare Stone, 253, 263, 271; forms partnership with Louis Hammond, 265"; "Steadman, J. M.: examines Dare Stone, 253, 263"; "Pearce, Haywood, Jr.: examines Bill Eberhardt's "Dare Stones," 257-258; examines Dare Stone, 252, 259, 261, 263; forms partnership with Louis Hammond, 265; pictured, 258, 260; purchases Dare Stone, 256; scholarship of, 270-271"; "Pearce, Haywood, Sr.: purchases Dare Stone, 256, 265"; "Brenau College, 256, 265"; "Brenau University, 281"; "Edenton, N.C. [...] Dare Stone discovered near, 251, 262, 269"; "Roosevelt, Franklin D.: visits Roanoke Island, 265"; "Civilian Conservation Corps: on Roanoke Island, 268"; "Roanoke Island Historical Association, 267, 268"; "Cape Hatteras National Seashore Commission, 256, 267"; "Stick, Frank, 267, 268, 269; dismisses Dare Stone as a forgery, 256". - The Eberhardt stones and the exposure: "Eberhardt, Bill: "discovers" Dare Stones in Sout[h Carolina and Georgia], 257, 258"; "Georgia [...] Bill Eberhardt "discovers" Dare Stones in, 257"; "Sparkes, Boyden: questions authenticity of Dare Stones in Saturday Evening Post article, 2[56?], 265, 267, 270; suspects Jack DeLysle in planting of forged artifacts, 268"; "DeLysle, Jack: career of, 268; suspected of forging Dare Stone [...]"; "Morison, Samuel Eliot, 257". - The language: "English language: Elizabethan, in Dare Stone 261-262, 264, 268". - The sceptics: "Crittenden, C. C.: dismisses Dare Stone as a forgery, [2]56"; "Lewis, Nell Battle: dismisses Dare Stone as a forgery, 256"; "Quinn, David Beers: dismisses Dare Stone as a forgery, 272-273; on the Lost Colonists, 258, 274"; "Oberg, Michael Leroy: dismisses Dare Stone as a forgery, 258"; "Stick, David: dismisses Dare Stone as a forgery, 258"; "Kupperman, Karen Ordahl, 258"; "Miller, Lee: on the Lost Colony, 258, 275"; "Powell, William S., 272"; "Horn, James, 274"; "University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill) [...] 272". - His review of the fate: "Chesapeake Bay: Chespian Indian villages on, 273, 274; Lost Colonists relocate to, some believe, 251"; "Chespian Indians, 273, 274"; "[Croatoan Island:] Lost Colonists relocating to, 272. See also Hatteras Island"; "Hatteras Indians, 271"; "Hatteras Island, 273"; "Lumbee Indians, 271"; "Smith, John: pictured, 275; searches for Lost Colonists, 273, 274, 275, 277; writings of, on the Lost Colony, 270"; "Strachey, William: on the Lost Colonists, 274, 275, [...]"; "Virginia Company, 270, 273, 274"; "Dare, Ananias, 256; killed by Indians, conjectured, 252, 257, 279, 280; theories about fate of, 272"; "Dare, Virginia, 256; killed by Indians, conjectured, 252, 257, 270, 279, 280, 281". - His own scenario (pp. 276–281): "Lane, Ralph, 276, 277, 278"; "Dasemunkepeuc Indians, 276, 277"; "Roanoke Indians, 274, 276, 277, 278"; "Weapemeoc Indians, 276"; "Manteo, 276; travels to England, 277"; "Wanchese: attacks Lost Colonists, conjectured, 278, 279, 280; travels to England, 277"; "Mandoag Indians, 280"; "Tuscarora Indians: kill John Lawson, 279" / "Lawson, John: killed by Tuscarora Indians, 279"; "Lost Colony Center for Science and Research, 280"; "White, John (Gov.): Eleanor White Dare carves message to, conjectured, 251-281". This confirms, by page, what §9 reported from Powell's condensation: the sceptics' roll-call is at pp. 256–258 and 272–273 (Quinn), the Elizabethan-English argument at pp. 261–264 and 268, the Hammond/DeLysle/Sparkes fraud question at pp. 265–270, and the "Wanchese attacks Lost Colonists" reading at pp. 278–280, with the Mandoag entering at p. 280.