[HN Gopher] Researchers discover evidence in the mystery of Amer...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Researchers discover evidence in the mystery of America's 'Lost
       Colony'
        
       Author : ryan_j_naughton
       Score  : 31 points
       Date   : 2025-06-08 21:46 UTC (3 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.foxnews.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.foxnews.com)
        
       | duxup wrote:
       | The experience of early colonists is so fascinating. Some of
       | these colonies were very tenuous and seemed very unprepared.
        
         | codingdave wrote:
         | 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 wrote:
           | No I don't think they are anything alike.
        
         | dentemple wrote:
         | Even today, with modern information available to us, people
         | still woefully underestimate what it would take to live in a
         | true wilderness.
        
           | lazystar wrote:
           | 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
        
             | rpcope1 wrote:
             | 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.
        
             | floren wrote:
             | 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.
        
             | jf22 wrote:
             | The colonists didn't have anything near this level of
             | technology though...
        
             | pizzafeelsright wrote:
             | Lazy,
             | 
             | You cannot live this way. I can walk you through anything
             | related to home care.
        
               | lazystar wrote:
               | just anxious. i live pretty remote; if i get hurt and
               | cant get to a phone, no one will find me until my lease
               | expires. one of the downsides of auto payments i think.
        
               | pizzafeelsright wrote:
               | use age1s6cz86s99unkfm2sqy045w5w79n8lyyulwu9qy3gkaeydmexw
               | v5qvkh2pp reply with your contact if you want help.
        
             | yawgmoth wrote:
             | 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.
        
         | GlenTheMachine wrote:
         | 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 wrote:
           | 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 wrote:
             | 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.
        
         | potato3732842 wrote:
         | >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.
        
         | CGMthrowaway wrote:
         | 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
        
       | chiefalchemist wrote:
       | If this is the case then there should be DNA evidence as well.
       | Presuming that assimilation led to procreation.
        
         | ilamont wrote:
         | 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 wrote:
           | 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.
        
         | card_zero wrote:
         | There's no descendants, bones, or other source of DNA known to
         | belong to the colonists to work from.
        
           | exe34 wrote:
           | 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.
        
           | potato3732842 wrote:
           | 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.
        
         | bryanlarsen wrote:
         | 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.
        
       | CGMthrowaway wrote:
       | TLDR: the Roanoke Colony moved to Hatteras Island.
       | 
       | From a backbarrier island to a barrier island (towards the sea)
        
       | derbOac wrote:
       | 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 wrote:
         | Where did they go?
         | 
         | Were there other settlements ?
        
       | bluGill wrote:
       | 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.
        
       | vpribish wrote:
       | keep that toxic shitbag of a media network off of this site.
        
       | Fairburn wrote:
       | Get that fox crap outa our News.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-06-11 23:01 UTC)