Roanoke Colonies Research Newsletter
Volume 8, Numbers 1 & 2 (November 2002/ May 2003)

New Ideas on the “Lost Colony”
by E. Thomson Shields, Jr., East Carolina University

Two recent works have added to the discussion of the inevitable Roanoke-colonization question, “What happened to the ‘Lost Colony’?” Lee Miller in her work Roanoke: Solving the Mystery of the Lost Colony (London: Jonathan Cape, 2000; New York: Arcade, 2001) and Thomas C. Parramore in his article “The ‘Lost Colony’ Found: A Documentary Perspective” (North Carolina Historical Review 78.1 [Jan. 2001]: 67-83) both reexamine extant documentary evidence to try and pinpoint the location to which the 1587 colonists went after leaving Roanoke Island. While both counter the idea most associated with the late David Beers Quinn—that the colonists traveled to their originally intended destination near the Chesapeake Bay only to be slaughtered by Powhatan in 1607—and while both suggest that the colonists moved inland to the Chowan River, their stories of the colonists are quite different from one another.

Miller’s book does, in fact, cover much more than just where the 1587 colony went. In her work, Miller takes a look at the entire 1587 venture. She begins by attempting to show that this final group of colonists may have been religious Separatists from the Church of England (much like the Pilgrims who founded Plymouth Plantation in 1620). Her next step is to try to prove a conspiracy by Sir Francis Walsingham against Sir Walter Raleigh that led to the downfall of the 1587 venture. Miller portrays Simon Fernandes as Walsingham’s accomplice in the conspiracy.

In her final chapter, Miller takes on the subject of what happened to the “Lost Colony.” In two chapters of thirty pages with ten pages of footnotes, many of them explanatory rather than simply bibliographic, Miller tries to show that the 1587 colonists moved from Roanoke Island to live among the Chowanoc Indians in the region of the Chowan River. In Miller’s version of events, the colonists are then taken captive by the Mandoag Indians who live west of the Chowanocs, whom she then goes on to equate with the Eno. All together, Miller tells a lively, albeit highly speculative, tale.

Miller has received mixed reviews for her work. While some in the popular press have found her story convincing, most academic reviewers have been less enthralled. Interestingly, Parramore’s review for The North Carolina Historical Review (78.4 [Oct. 2001]: 483-84) encapsulates the skepticism of academic reviewers. Parramore highlights Miller’s dependence on building one assumption upon another, making her final arguments precarious, for if one of her assumptions fails, then the entire argument fails.

Parramore’s own version of events in “The ‘Lost Colony’ Found” also, of necessity, involves educated suppositions made from the extant documentary record. In Parramore’s relation of events, the colonists removed from Roanoke Island almost immediately after John White’s departure in August of 1587. According to Parramore, they traveled inland and settled among the Weapemeoc Indians, who controlled the lower end of the Chowan River. In particular, Parramore believes that the Salmon Creek area on the western side of the Chowan River is a likely candidate for where the colony eventually settled.

Like Miller, Parramore must build some significant parts of his case on speculative hypotheses. These are truly educated guesses, but they only posit possible solutions to the enigma of the “Lost Colony.” Still, together, Miller and Parramore’s works remind us that we cannot assume that the seemingly prevailing belief that the 1587 colonists went on to the Chesapeake Bay area is historically certain. Any future writings about the 1587 colony should take into account Parramore’s and, probably, even Miller’s ideas to give a complete picture of what happened.

Top
Contents Page