Researchers discover evidence in the mystery of America's 'Lost Colony'

57 points by ryan_j_naughton 1 month ago | 81 comments
  • bluGill 1 month ago
    I'm not convinced. The reason the natives didn't have the ability to forge iron was more related to there were no good ore deposits to work with. If you are intelligent and see a blacksmith work a few times you can figure out how to forge iron if given some - it is a lot of effort and your first attempts will not be good, but if something is broken you don't lose anything by putting it in a fire and attempting to fix it. (a camp fire gets plenty hot for blacksmithing - just wait for the coals and then blow on them) However the lack of quality ores that were easy to get at meant that they didn't have any metal working in that part of the world and so of course they wouldn't know how to do it. Iron would have made the natives life much better if they had it, and they were smart enough to figure out how to work it from scratch if they had it (they have centuries to learn just like the rest of us)

    Which is to say the facts are fit equally well by saying "The natives saw blacksmiths work in the colonists. So when aliens took the colonists way in a spaceship after they collected the iron which remained and learned to forge them into useful tools for themselves". Ridiculous of course, but it fits the facts just as well.

    • aisicbxjOsb 1 month ago
      > they have centuries to learn just like the rest of us

      This seems like a massive assumption to make. Sub Saharan Africa has tons of iron ore and it’s still debated whether or not they developed iron working on their own. Your point relies on (an approximation of) blank slatism which seems highly highly unlikely given the natural variation in all other areas of life.

      • bluGill 1 month ago
        Okay, I'll grant that they might not have developed iron working if it was possible. However that doesn't change the larger point that it was impossible for anyone living in that area to develop metal working as metals were not available. No matter how much ability you have, you will never develop metal working because you need a large existing industrial base to use the ores in North America. (there is/was a lot of high grade ore in North America, it just isn't near the surface)
      • astine 1 month ago
        a camp fire gets plenty hot for blacksmithing - just wait for the coals and then blow on them

        Maybe if you're working with bronze or copper, but iron forging requires much higher temperatures than a campfire can provide. That's why the iron age took place after the bronze age, forges capable of making iron workable were not yet invented. It wasn't a trivial invention.

        • bluGill 1 month ago
          Charcoal - which you get from campfires is hot enough. It takes a lot more of it though and a lot of other effort. when bronze is available it is generally good enough and a lot easier, but historians tell me iron was used throughout the bronze age in small amounts. iron really needs steel to be signicantly better than iron and that took a while-
          • freedomben 1 month ago
            (I am a layman here so take this with a grain of salt) I believe you are correct, however no campfire will have enough airflow to get that hot unless you have a bellows or some other way of injecting air into it, and you'd have to have it structured in a way that it can efficiently burn the fuel. I'm not much of a blacksmith but had a friend who was into it and whose dad also was, and we did a pretty fair amount of "experimenting" as kids :-D I know from experience that elevation makes a big difference too, though I've never measured.

            Would be fascinating for someone with knowledge of this to weigh in!

        • Projectiboga 1 month ago
          A lot of colonial iron came from Southern NJ. And this wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_iron says it was produced at spots along the coast. South Jersey had a very clean water called "cedar water" that is high in tannins from a freshwater seaweed that was well suited to storage and really set the stage for transoceanic voyages at scale. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cedar_water

          Most early American ironworks extracted the iron ore from "bog iron" deposits - large nodules of quite pure iron that forms along the roots of plants in boggy areas. Bog iron could be easily scooped up from the mucky bottom with long-handled rakes into flat-bottomed boats and then dried on shore.

          • WalterBright 1 month ago
            Is blowing on it really good enough? People don't have that much breath, and you'd have to put your face right up to the heat.

            You could use a blowpipe of some sort. But better, a bellows. Was there any evidence of either?

            Although the South and Central Americans worked bronze, the North Americans did not. I doubt a leap directly from nothing to iron smithing could occur.

            • klank 1 month ago
              Whether or not forced air (blowing) would be necessary would depend on the coal temp, metal size, and how you want to shape the metal.

              Simple forging of small enough pieces within a large enough coal bed might not even require forced air to reach a workable temp.

              • bluGill 1 month ago
                They didn't have metal options - in north america metals are mostly found in deep mines.

                I agree that blowing is not ideal - but it would work. A flat board as a fan, or even bellows are options. The larger point is none of these would leave evidence behind.

              • opello 1 month ago
                I am also skeptical that the iron scale was "proof positive" but the anecdote about reading from books seemed pretty convincing about the integration:

                > "We have one little snippet of historical evidence from the 1700s, which describes people with blue or gray eyes who could remember people who used to be able to read from books,"

                • superb_dev 1 month ago
                  I’m not convinced either. If they assimilated into nearby native populations, wouldn’t someone have found a colonist or a descendant that could tell the story?
                  • bluGill 1 month ago
                    Oral history is not very good at long term tales. I know my grand parents stories, but even my great grand parents is something that I know little about and I have trouble passing that on to my kids (and that includes the great grandpa who was murdered and thus a more compelling story)
                • derbOac 1 month ago
                  I have family in the area and my impression from archeological and historical news, articles and books from there is there isn't really one definitive moment where everyone in the colony just kind of up and left to the same place at the same time. If I had to bet, there was a kind of gradual process of degradation of the colony and some went one way and others went another.

                  This was interesting to read and it seems kind of definitive, and my impression is it's consistent with other things I've read. But if I recall correctly, there's also evidence from other sites that some from the colony also went elsewhere.

                  It seems reasonable to me to think that if things were breaking down, there might be differences of thought or preference about where to go, and that they might have also assumed they weren't totally cutting off contact from one another, being in the same area.

                  • the_real_cher 1 month ago
                    Where did they go?

                    Were there other settlements ?

                    • derbOac 3 weeks ago
                      I'm not really an expert, but in general there's kind of two or three main sets of theories for resettlement: The "Croatoan Island" theory, the "mainland" theories, and "combination" theories. Most involve assimilation into the different native populations in the area, or some assistance from them, but not all.

                      My memory is fuzzy but I think a few years ago they found in a site on the mainland some artifacts that seemed to be from that time period — the site was one that locals had kind of talked about for years and when they did an archeological study of it it turned out to have some substance. But what I remember was that there was no evidence of a permanent settlement and they couldn't definitively tell why the artifacts were there, so they couldn't tell if some of the colonists had been there, or how long, or if the artifacts had come from trade with natives, or had been washed there from elsewhere, or what.

                      The area involves a lot of ecological and geographic change over time due to hurricanes and is sort of a maze of inlets, islands, and marshes, so it's easy for me to imagine it being difficult to study archeologically speaking, or why people would "disappear".

                      • lmm 1 month ago
                        There were native people living there (in ways that leave little trace in the archaeological record), I've heard it argued that many colonists may have chosen to join them.
                      • labster 1 month ago
                        This may come as a surprise to you, but there were many settlements in America before Europeans ever showed up.

                        No other British settlements in the hemisphere, though. Failed expeditions did end up in other nations colonies, but this was never pleasant for either side. But they would have had to go hundreds of kilometers by sea to find other Europeans, without a proper ship and on meager supplies. Joining the natives was the best way to survive… but which natives?

                      • Spooky23 1 month ago
                        The 1619 project touched on this well. Slaves and indentured servants snuck away and joined native settlements and even had fringe settlements of their own eventually.

                        Working in one of the colonies for some rich guy prioritizing tobacco to pay dividends over food wasn’t a fun time.

                    • duxup 1 month ago
                      The experience of early colonists is so fascinating. Some of these colonies were very tenuous and seemed very unprepared.
                      • GlenTheMachine 1 month ago
                        The Jamestown colonists starved to death literally living on the shore of the most productive marine environment on earth. They didn’t know how to care for the fishing nets, so they rotted, and then didn’t know how to fix them.

                        The issue was that many of the colonists were second sons of relatively wealthy families, and weren’t all that familiar with fishing or farming. The first son inherited everything, and the second son had to make his way in the world, and colonizing was an enticing prospect for making your fortune. Poorer families, at the very early stages, weren’t sending their sons on these ventures because they needed the labor at home.

                        https://historicjamestowne.org/wp-content/uploads/Subsistenc...

                        • CGMthrowaway 1 month ago
                          As someone who grew up next to Jamestown, I can add some context.

                          John Smith, one of Jamestown's leaders, was not from a wealthy or privileged background. "The issue" may have been less about class and more about poor organization, leadership and unrealistic expectations.

                          Fishing and farming skills also deserve context. The soil around Jamestown was marshy and brackish, unsuitable for traditional English farming methods. Yes there were lots of fish but they only ran seasonally (sturgeon etc). The "starving time" you are referencing was made worse by a drought and cutoff trade with the indians

                          • elevation 1 month ago
                            The soil may have been brackish, but this wasn't their main setback.

                            The Jamestown colonists didn't even attempt to plant crops for several years after their arrival. Their first ship brought jewelers and smiths to work the gold they assumed they'd find, but didn't have a real plan for agriculture. The majority died of starvation and disease, but the survivors were sustained by meager leftover travel supplies from newly arriving ships, and by raiding neighboring natives for their corn.

                            Less than a decade later, separatist Pilgrims landed in New England, and by contrast, grew crops immediately, and cultivated diplomatic relations with their neighbors. The Pilgrims settled in a higher latitude with a shorter growing season, but during their first drought they had already stored enough supplies to share with local natives.

                            Jamestown could have been on a similar footing if they'd prioritized survival and diplomacy over finding treasure for the crown, the chartering company, and themselves.

                          • taeric 1 month ago
                            This mostly fails a sniff test to me? And indeed, reading the linked article doesn't support your editorializing. To quote: "There is some evidence that they had poor fishing skills, but other factors may have contributed more to their failures"

                            The idea that they were not nearly as efficient at building a town as they could have been is not at all surprising. All the more so when you consider just how different the storm season was compared to what they were used to.

                            But the idea that they failed due to their own inadequacies feels like a stretch? Like, had they "stayed home" what kind of life do you think they had there? People used to have to do far more of their own survival than modern people can really understand.

                            • GlenTheMachine 1 month ago
                              From the article:

                              ‘They suffered fourteen nets (which was all they had) to rot and spoil, which by orderly drying and mending might have been preserved. But being lost, all help of fishing perished.’ (25)

                              (25) Strachey, W. 1998b [1610], ‘A True Reportory of the wrack and redemption of Sir Thomas Gates, knight, upon and from the Islands of the Bermudas; his coming to Virginia, and the estate of that colony then, and after under the government of the Lord La Warre’, in Haile 1998, p. 441

                              I originally learned this by talking with a Jamestown National Historical Park docent. I said that, having grown up in Virginia in the 20th century and knowing what tidewater Virginia was like in the 17th century, it would have been very hard to starve to death. American chestnut was still the dominant forest tree, and provided literally tons of nuts per tree. Black walnut and acorn were also plentiful and make good survival foods if you know how to prepare them. The Chesapeake Bay had enormous oyster beds, with oysters being described as "the size of dinner plates", and John Smith said that he thought he could have walked across it on the backs of fish, and if you know how to dry or salt fish it doesn't matter that the sturgeon and rockfish are seasonal. Mussels and crab, likewise, would have been plentiful, and unlike fish, accessible year round. Deer, turkey, rabbit, groundhog, squirrel, opossum and raccoon were plentiful, and passenger pigeon were also around, not having suffered the overhunting they did in the early 20th century.

                              She indicated that the majority of the English settlers weren't farmers or fishermen and didn't have the hands-on experience to make use of the resources at their disposal. I went home and did a bit of internet research on that statement, and it seemed fairly accurate.

                              I do not claim to be a trained historian of colonial Virginia; I just grew up there.

                            • WalterBright 1 month ago
                              Jamestown also starved because they tried collective farming (communism). It didn't work for them any more than it worked for anyone else.

                              So did the Pilgrims for their first year. They starved, too.

                              • heavyset_go 1 month ago
                                Walter, I appreciate your comments but you surely have to know Jamestown settlers were in no way practicing communism as it's understood today.
                                • WalterBright 1 month ago
                                  [flagged]
                              • dentemple 1 month ago
                                Even today, with modern information available to us, people still woefully underestimate what it would take to live in a true wilderness.
                                • lazystar 1 month ago
                                  I've got a great example of this. I'm renting a house that provides a gas powered lawnmower for tenants to use, and I've elected to just let the grass grow because I have no idea how to use the thing
                                  • floren 1 month ago
                                    Now look, there's debates to be had about whether or not lawns are good idea, or how long grass should grow, etc. but there's no excuse for not figuring out how a gas mower works. I could tell you here in a paragraph or you could watch a 30 minute Youtube which will contain in it somewhere the 1 minute of actual instructions you need. It's a pretty damn simple system.
                                    • yawgmoth 1 month ago
                                      Adjust the height to the highest setting.

                                      Put gas in it. If there's a soft rubber thing near the gas, hit it twice to provide some fuel but no more as you risk "flooding" the engine.

                                      Hold down any handle at the top of the mower, often the thing will require you to manually hold it down during start and all operations.

                                      Look for the starter pull. It's often on the right, on the motor or mower handles. It's a piece of plastic attached to a cable. Give it a yank with a full follow through. It doesn't have to be maximum effort but too gentle won't work either.

                                      • rpcope1 1 month ago
                                        Are you joking or something? It's just check the gas and oil, hold down the brake lever on the handle, pull the crank a few times and away you go. Maybe it's old and has a fuel bulb or a choke, or fancy and has a transmission and the lever to engage it, but it's really not complicated at all.
                                        • pizzafeelsright 1 month ago
                                          Lazy,

                                          You cannot live this way. I can walk you through anything related to home care.

                                          • anon84873628 1 month ago
                                            Note that once the grass has grown past a certain height, you won't be able to use a mower anymore even if you want to. At that point it will require a line trimmer (a.k.a. weed whacker) which is a lot more work.

                                            Though personally I'm a fan of "kill your lawn" efforts. You can smother it with cardboard (or burn it, or till it, etc) and replace with native meadow.

                                            • timnetworks 1 month ago
                                              this is maybe the most accidentally insightful post I have seen on HN. Or satire so sharp it cuts in line.
                                              • jf22 1 month ago
                                                The colonists didn't have anything near this level of technology though...
                                            • CGMthrowaway 1 month ago
                                              How would you have prepared, were you in their shoes? Roanoke Island was first landed in 1585. The only foreknowledge of the area would have been wildly embellished and optimistic reports (competing for financing, royal favor and prestige) from the likes of Spanish and French expeditions, or Sir Francis Drake. This was mostly limited to coastal recon and said little of the dangers of malaria, indian politics, seasonality, etc.

                                              For example, the Amadas-Barlowe Expedition (1584) described Roanoke Island as "the most plentiful, sweet, fruitful and wholesome of all the world," with fertile soil, abundant wildlife, and friendly natives

                                              • potato3732842 1 month ago
                                                >were very tenuous and seemed very unprepared.

                                                Old world politics at the time explain most of this. Some of the english colonies were, ugh, rushed and less well funded than they would have been under ideal situations.

                                                This is basically the same reason they didn't look too hard to see what happened to the Roanoke colony.

                                                • aspenmayer 1 month ago
                                                  It was the VC model of colonization. They expected a few sites to fail to prosper.
                                                • codingdave 1 month ago
                                                  Not unlike youth in our current society who leave home then bounce around from one place to another until they find the spot they want to settle in for a while.

                                                  I mean sure, colonists from hundreds of years ago are different than young adults of today.... but the tenuous nature, in general, of people out exploring the world for a new home is unsurprising.

                                                  • duxup 1 month ago
                                                    No I don’t think they are anything alike.
                                                • buildsjets 1 month ago
                                                  Is this story available from a reputable source?
                                                  • chiefalchemist 1 month ago
                                                    If this is the case then there should be DNA evidence as well. Presuming that assimilation led to procreation.
                                                    • bryanlarsen 1 month ago
                                                      The native population of the area was well mixed with European and African genes in the 18th and 19th century. It would be very difficult to determine whether there was also mixture in the late 16th / early 17th century.
                                                      • ilamont 1 month ago
                                                        400-year-old traces would be hard to detect owing to admixture, but if they could find identical-by-descent segments that would be very compelling, as the research into Native American traces found in Polynesian populations shows:

                                                        https://gizmodo.com/native-americans-voyaged-to-polynesia-lo...

                                                        • lipowitz 1 month ago
                                                          If Croatoan ceremonies didn't involve cremation it could be quite a bit easier.. I don't really see the article's evidence as very compelling. Many things may have been collected from the site and ultimately discarded in the trash heaps without the proposed integration.
                                                          • 1 month ago
                                                          • card_zero 1 month ago
                                                            There's no descendants, bones, or other source of DNA known to belong to the colonists to work from.
                                                            • potato3732842 1 month ago
                                                              The English have good records. We could perhaps find the decendents of relatives who stayed put and then find their "hey you guys seem to have more DNA in common than you ought to" counterparts of native american heritage.
                                                              • exe34 1 month ago
                                                                The way it works for molecular phylogeny is that you try to find things that are conserved. E.g. if you find a small village in Europe where people haven't moved around much and you find a rare mutation that is also present in one other part of the US, then you might be able to put some numbers on the likelihood that this mutation/gene came from a the original place. Find a second gene, find some artefacts from the right place/time and you have an emerging picture.
                                                            • 1 month ago
                                                              • CGMthrowaway 1 month ago
                                                                TLDR: the Roanoke Colony moved to Hatteras Island.

                                                                From a backbarrier island to a barrier island (towards the sea)

                                                                • Fairburn 1 month ago
                                                                  [flagged]
                                                                  • vpribish 1 month ago
                                                                    [flagged]
                                                                    • rich_sasha 1 month ago
                                                                      [flagged]