Part 3: A Tale of Differing Accounts

Rumours, Tales, and Other Things Believed to be True
I want to write a book with this title. I'll tell you why.
The tempting convenience of internet search engines at our disposal in the 21st century, has proven both a wondrous technological tool and a dangerous trap. Time and money constraints of the history buff make it seem easier to find the actual Roanoke colonists through a Google search than by dredging the swamps of coastal North Carolina! Surely the internet is invaluable in making thousands of Roanoke-related primary documents and maps for instant access to history enthusiasts like myself, who otherwise would not have easy access to archives in the United Kingdom and Spain, let alone Virginia. One quick internet query for the "lost colony of Roanoke" will pull up a variety of interesting theories, many of which cause conscientious historians to pull out their hair in frustration to see how easily misinformation and baseless opinion is repeated enough times--and shouted loudly enough--in forming public consciousness. In grade school history class, I was taught that the colonists were thought to have either moved in with another tribe, or were slaughtered by the Croatoans (their friends)--I really think the teacher just didn't know the material. 
And with the unfortunate rise of the "historical fiction that looks true" genre of historical literature, we can now thank novelists like Dan Brown and Gavin Menzies for tricking a generation of non-historians into believing that the Illuminati rules the world; the same world that China discovered in its entirety in 1421. In a nation that leads the world in book published per year, we are to believe something if it's in print--who else could go through that much research and NOT find the full truth? Though these attempts at discovering the partial truth and exploring possibilities are noble in their core intent, their whole arguments are often based on creating a critical mass of circumstantial evidence.

Thus, the Internet Age has done its part to confound the Roanoke mystery even further than those who originally wrote its first histories...and at least one sleepy social studies teacher.

And while I vow that the facts here are true facts, I can make no promise that the volume and scope of these facts and my interpretations of these facts, will not be confounding. Confounded yet?

Inland Migration of the Colonists

We have discussed the possibility of the colonists' move to Hatteras Island. I will now investigate two main contemporary accounts hinting at Roanoke colonists' migration inland into present-day North Carolina. Could White's assertion that the colonists he left behind had contemplated a possible "move 50 miles into the maine (mainland)" have any weight? I will begin with the first historical accounts, namely, a tantalizing clue collected by John Smith that may shed light on the colonists' fates.

In winter 1607, John Smith was captured and temporarily imprisoned by Powhatan's half-brother, Machumps--the "king of Paspahegh", located not far from Powhatan's own seat of power in present-day Virginia. While Smith was detained, King Machumps enlightened Smith "as of certain men clothed at a place called Ocanahonan, clothed like me [John Smith]" (1). 

William Strachey later elaborated further on this claim:

"At Peccarecamek and Ocanahonen, the people have houses built with stone walls, and one story above another, so taught them by those English who escaped the slaughter at Roanoke...and at Ritanoe, the Weroance [king] Eyanoco preserved seven of the English alive--four men, two boys and one young maid (who escaped and fled up the river of Chowan) to beat his copper, of which he has certain mines" (2).

These two accounts seem to reference the same conversation--but they are very different in scope, and I argue they should not be treated as the same account. Why was Strachey's version (published four years later), so much more revealing in scope and detail than Smith's original version? The Strachey version of Machumps' statement mentions two additional towns relating to the Roanoke survivors, and claims a hostile takeover, while Smith's does not. In fact, Smith never published any information that would lead any reader to believe that the Roanoke colonists were massacred.

Could Strachey have exaggerated what was originally told to John Smith? After all, it was Smith who first received this information--Strachey was not present. Could Smith have for some reason trivialized the extent of the revelation later published by Strachey?

To be thorough, I must also question King Machumps' credibility--as well as his actual level of contribution--to the account that Strachey published. Machumps did supposedly claim that the same chief Eyanoco who held the colonists captive, also tamed "turkeys and apes" (2), while primates are not known ever to have inhabited North America. Machumps could have possibly seen apes in captivity while visiting London, or at least heard of them through his English hosts. But here again, this statement comes to us second-hand through Strachey's pen.

The "Strachey version" results in the enslavement of some survivors to work Eyanoco's copper mines at "Ritanoe". But it also infers that the colonists instructed residents of "Peccarecamek" and "Ocanahonen" in masonry home building. Would the four alleged adult male colonists have had enough masonry experience among them to supervise construction of two-story stone buildings? Indeed, Machumps had visited England around 1610: this is after 1608 (Smith's publishing date), but before Strachey's publish date (1612). Therefore Machumps could have seen English two-story masonry buildings in England prior to Strachey's version of the conversation was published (though there were two-story buildings at Jamestown, there were no fully-masonry structures of any kind until decades later).

As for the supposed massacre/takeover: where could this have occurred? Not "at Roanoke" as Strachey relays to us, as he may have assumed this event occurred there. Could the settlers have sailed the short distance northwest through Albemarle Sound and relocated somewhere on or near the Chowan River? This at least sounds possible. But then, why would the colonists have willingly moved to an inland region where their colonial superiors had made war (and enemies) among the Native Americans there, so much that Ralph Lane and his men had to escape with their lives? Could the 117 colonists have been kidnapped en masse and moved from Roanoke by force?

Strachey prefaced his 1612 work with a bold announcement, that the fate lost colonists would be disclosed within a short time. His extra details make us wonder: did he embellish ho-hum facts, stirring up a sensational Virginia Company conspiracy theory aimed at selling his book to an English public intrigued by these lost English? Or was he truly relating "the rest of the story", filling in blanks that Smith omitted from the official Company version of the story?

Search Parties
Following his release, Smith noted two searches for these colonists by 1612. His very few words on the subject, and uncharacteristic lack of his usual editorializing in regards to these searches, suggests a low-profile, "due diligence" effort. Perhaps tempered by better judgment, due to information he deemed circumstantial or even intentionally misleading by his Powhatan captors. And of course, Captain Smith was then quite heavily invested in time and effort in preventing his own colony Jamestown from becoming a "lost colony" itself.

Smith's captivity with Powhatan in 1607 provided him with supposed proof of Powhatan's own killing of the colonists (muskets, iron and brass cannon), but Smith does not reveal his own opinions on Powhatan's claim. It would be a wonder if the first small expedition--guided by King Machumps himself--would have been able to locate either of these purported towns; they are not mentioned on his 1608 map of Virginia, nor any of John White's earlier maps of the region. According to the "Zuniga Map"--which is thought to be John Smith's working map of landmarks relating to the purported locations of the lost colonists--the expedition started at the southern end of Chesapeake Bay, near the mouth of Little Creek (northeast of present-day Portsmouth, VA).

***PIC of ZUNIGA MAP, Edited ***

You can see the notes regarding the colonists' possible locations, and most of them are far south of Chesapeake Bay--even much farther south than Roanoke Island. It is puzzling as to why Smith would agree to send such a long overland expedition and expect a reasonably timely return, unless he was unaware of how far distant these places really were. According to Smith, the search party returned to their drop-off point within 2 months, and only reported they had reached a small creek but decided to go no further for unknown reasons. Probably Smith's lieutenants--armed with inadequate maps (if any), having limited supplies, and "assisted" by a King likely wanting to return to his people, simply weighed the trials of hiking through swamps with going home to safety. And perhaps this "expedition"--if it really even occurred--was just Smith's lip service to the Virginia Company's demand that the colonists' fate be investigated.

Whether or not this expedition actually took place, it seems the inland Chowan River was to Smith "terra incognito"--too remote from his Jamestown base to be navigated with great accuracy and confidence at that time, given the great navigational dangers known to plague the Outer Banks off the Carolina coast.

Conclusion

There remains no evidence for a massacre at Roanoke though a displacement of colonists elsewhere is possible. Smith performed at least a "due diligence" effort at the request of the Virginia Company to search for surviving Roanoke colonists, possibly spurred by a tempting circumstantial clue which John Smith, having a lack of resources and wary of Powhatan's power talk, pursued nominally.
Machumps' claim to Smith that "people dressed like him" lived in a distant town, was later exaggerated by Strachey, who seems inclined toward the dramatic in cementing the case for a Roanoke "massacre". The news as originally related to Smith, may only have been a passing observation by King Machumps that Smith initially seized on, though the statement may have intended to redirect Smith's colonizing and investigative efforts away from Powhatan's lands. Smith's few words about subsequent searches for the Roanoke colonists seems to indicate that he did not derive much significance from Machumps' statement, and found no reason or means to continue the search.

Even so, the only way to test this this agonizing possibility would be to locate the former townsites of Peccarecamek, Ocanahonen and Ritanoe. A worthy reason for effort, but a daunting task given the credibility of the source. Though discovering massive stone foundations and seven English skeletons at these sites would certainly raise some eyebrows, to say the least. 

Whether any of the Roanoke colonists survived long after abandoning the colony is unknown. Where they moved to we cannot yet be certain. But some intriguing evidence found inland in North Carolina points to the possibility that the colonists survived at least long enough to have intermarried and reproduced with Native Americans. Next I will analyze proof toward this theory.

--RJF.

___________________________________________________________

1.   Smith, John. A True Relation of Virginia (1608).

2.   Strachey, William. History of Travaile Into Virginia Britannica.