Encyclopedia of Opinion
Question
What happened to the lost colony of Roanoke?
Position‹3 of 5›
The colonists moved inland
Argument

The colonists moved inland to the mysterious hidden fort

Using advanced imaging techniques, the British Museum determined the smaller patch was covering a four-pointed star, outlined in blue, and filled in with red. This star, based on comparisons, may indicate the location of a fort inland from Roanoke Island where the colonists could have resettled. John White himself also referenced the possibility of such a settlement in his letters.

The argument

The detailed watercolor map created by John White, titled “La Virginea Pars,” displaying the North Carolina coast is notably accurate, even having been compared to modern satellite imaging. Beyond this, this map, upon further investigation, may have been hiding secrets only known to White and the colonists themselves. In 2012, the First Colony Foundation requested that the British Museum re-examine two small patches on the map (a common practice of the period to cover errors). Using advanced imaging techniques, the British Museum determined the smaller patch was covering a four-pointed star, outlined in blue, and filled in with red. This star, based on comparisons, may indicate the location of a fort inland from Roanoke Island where the colonists could have resettled. When examined further, there actually may be light markings of the star on top of the patch as well, which the British Museum proposed to be either ink fading over time or the use of an “invisible ink.” The invisible ink theory makes more sense than the ink fading over time theory because why would anyone use a patch to cover a marking, just to place the same marking on top? Excavations at this site have turned up evidence of European settlers from the 16th century. Finally, John White himself also referenced the possibility of such a settlement in his letters.

Premises

[P1]John White's map contains a concealed four-pointed star, revealed by modern imaging, marking a location inland from Roanoke. [P2] Excavations at that site have uncovered 16th-century European artifacts, and White's own letters reference a planned inland settlement. [P3] The deliberate concealment of the marker, possibly with invisible ink, indicates the colonists' destination was meant to be hidden from outsiders. [C] Therefore, the lost colonists most likely relocated inland to this concealed fort site.

Counter-arguments

Whether a fort or not is indicated below the patch, the secrecy surrounding such a location is insensible. Colonizing the New World was notoriously risky business, and typically colonists preferred that someone, somewhere had a vague idea of where they were. This explanation also fails to explain the word “Croatoan” left behind.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] A concealed marking shows that something was drawn and then covered, not that anyone went there. Patches were routinely used to correct mistakes, so a revised plan is at least as good an explanation as a hidden destination. [Rejecting P2] Sixteenth-century European material at a site in the region is consistent with any English presence — exploration, trade, a short-lived outpost — and does not identify those who left it as the Roanoke settlers. [Rejecting P3] The secrecy reading is the weakest link and cuts against the argument: colonists depending on a returning supply ship had every reason to make their destination findable, and the word actually carved at the abandoned settlement pointed to Croatoan rather than inland.