The Dare Stones & Walter Raleigh's Lost Colony

[irina]

Recently I had a strong desire to revisit the subject of the lost colony of Roanoke which was located on the outer banks islands of North Carolina. Sir Walter Raleigh backed this venture to try to establish an English foot hold in the new world. 117 colonists including women and children created or recreated the settlement in 1687 but it was tough going. The governor of the colony John White returned to England but due to the threat and eventual activity if the Spanish Armada, he could not return till 1690.

When he returned the colony was deserted. The word CROATOAN was carved on a board and the word CRO was carved into a tree trunk. Nobody ever figured out what happened to the missing people.

Among those missing was the first English child born in America, the famous Virginia Dare. When I was a kid her name was used on a number of products. I especially remember a portrait of her on labels on fruit boxes. Of course nobody knows what she looked like or even how long she lived so the portraits were highly romanticised in the finest Victorian/Edwardian fashion.

I had never looked up the subject online until last night and I was surprised to read about the Dare Stones which may have been left by Virginia's mother and a few other survivors of the colony. I had never heard of these before though they were discovered~or manufactured~prior to 1940. This is another unsolved mystery.

I thought I'd mention it here, especially thinking of Curryong because of your knowledge of English language and other valuable tid bits. There are a number of sites and articles out there but one I felt really covered it is: nativeheritageproject.com/2013/12/08the-dare-stones-1-through-48/ This link has neither a www. not an http:// , so your guess is as good as mine.

I think at least the first of the stones is authentic. I also think it is to the advantage of some to keep the mystery alive and to never solve it. I have heard of the lost colony all my life but had never heard of the stones or some other information that seems to be known.

[Franz]

I was just reading online some articles on this subject, very interesting. To be honest I didn't know it.

[MysteryReader]

I do remember hearing about that as a child or teen. Thanks for bringing it up, Irina. Now, I have something else to research!

The link gave me an error message but I was on the Native Heritage Project website. I will look around to see what I can find about the stones. I've never heard of that part.

[MysteryReader]

When you copy and paste the link, you will be on the website but get an error. Just type in Dare Stones in the subject box and it'll be the first link.

[Curryong]

What an extraordinary story, irina. Thanks for bringing it up. I knew about the abandoned settlement of course, but this is the first I've heard of the Dare Stones. I'll have to investigate this more!

Very interesting, but make your own mind up!

http://www.angelfire.com/ego/iammagi/da ... _rocke.htm

[debbiediablo]

The Croatoan Mystery

from http://anilbalan.com/2011/10/17/the-croatoan-mystery/

In 1587, the English, led by John White and financed by Sir Walter Raleigh, made their second attempt at setting up a colony on Roanoke Island, which now lies just off the coast of North Carolina in the USA. The colonists disappeared, however, during the Anglo-Spanish War, three years after the last shipment of supplies from England. The settlement is known as “The Lost Colony,” and the fate of the colonists is still unknown.

It all looked so promising in the beginning. The settlers landed on 22 July 1587 and soon established themselves. John White’s daughter Eleanor Dare was pregnant and on 18th August she gave birth to a daughter, Virginia, the first English child born in the Americas. The colonists established friendly relations with one of the local native tribes, the Croatans, who were able to describe to them the politics and geography of the area, but the other indigenous peoples, the Secotans, who had fought against the settlers of the first Roanoake Colony, remained hostile and refused to meet with them. Shortly thereafter, colonist George Howe was killed by natives while searching alone for crabs in Albemarle Sound. Fearing for their lives, the colonists persuaded Governor White to return to England to explain the colony’s desperate situation and ask for help. White duly sailed for England in late 1587, leaving behind about 115 colonists. Unfortunately, the war with Spain and a lack of funds meant that White was only able to return to Roanoke Island three years later. White landed on 18 August 1590, his grand-daughter’s third birthday, but found the settlement deserted. His men could not find any trace of the 90 men, 17 women, and 11 children he had left behind, nor was there any sign of a struggle or battle. The cabins had been taken down, the livestock had vanished and of the people the only traces were two graves and a message: the word “Croatoan” carved into a post of the fort and three letters “Cro” carved into a nearby tree.

White took this to mean that the colonists had gone to live on nearby Croatoan (now called Hatteras) Island with the friendly Croatans but circumstances prevented him from ever investigating this theory. No one ever found out what happened to the settlers and the end of the 1587 colony is unrecorded, leading to it being referred to as the “Lost Colony”. There are multiple hypotheses as to the fate of the colonists, the principal one being that they dispersed and were absorbed by either the local Croatans on Hatteras Island or another native tribe. An investigation of this hypothesis is ongoing in the form of the Lost Colony DNA Project in Houston, Texas, but its findings remain inconclusive. Another theory is that the Croatans turned on the settlers and wiped them out but no bodies were found at the time and no archaeological evidence has been found since then to support this claim. Other possibilities that have been put forward are that the colonists simply gave up waiting, tried to return to England on their own, and perished in the attempt and even that the colony might have been attacked and its members eaten by cannibals (which might explain the lack of bodies but seems somewhat implausible given the complete lack of any evidence of cannibalism being prevalent in the area). Most intriguingly, from 1937 to 1941 a series of stones telling of the travels of the colonists and their ultimate deaths were discovered that claimed to have been written by Eleanor Dare. Most historians believe that the so-called Dare Stones are a fraud, but there are some today that still believe the stones are genuine.

But none of this really explains the significance of the carving of the word “Croatoan” on that post or the fact that the same word has accompanied inexplicable disappearances in North America in the last few centuries, often in places far away from Roanoke Island. A few days before his death, and following a disappearance that remains unexplained to this day, Edgar Allan Poe was brought to his death bed in a state of delirium whispering the word “Croatoan”. The same word was found in other places at other times: scribbled in the journal of Amelia Earhart after her disappearance in 1937, carved into the post of the last bed that the celebrated horror author Ambrose Bierce slept in before he vanished in Mexico in 1913, scratched on the wall of the cell that the notorious stagecoach robber Black Bart inhabited before he was released from prison in 1888 never to be seen again, and, most disturbingly of all, written on the last page of the logbook of the ship Carroll A. Deering when it ran aground with no one aboard on Cape Hatteras in 1921 (not that far from what was once known as Croatoan Island).

What the secret of Croatoan is and in particular what its connection is to those born in the Americas that causes their disappearance even far from home remains a mystery to this day. It would be remiss of me, however, not to mention one more theory, that of the natives who once lived on Roanoke Island all those years ago. The Croatans themselves believed that the island had a spirit and, if angered, this spirit had the power to change those who offended it into the form of animals, trees and rocks. So perhaps this is the explanation – that none of the people affected really disappeared but were simply transformed. If so it is no less bizarre or credible than any of the other theories that have been put forward over the years!

below from http://blog.outerbanksvacations.com/201 ... atan-mean/

The Croatan people suffered from epidemics from diseases such as smallpox in 1698 and the tribe was believed to be extinct by the early seventieth-century.

Descendants of the Croatoan tribe are the modern day Lumbee and they began to appear some 50 years after the disappearance of the lost colony. People have described these people as having European features and speaking English. The state of North Carolina recognizes the Lumbee as true descendants of the Croatoan.

[irina]

I also found that piece you posted, Debbie. Don't know what to make of that one. I found it under "weird history'.

I'm so surprised I have never heard of any of this before. True or hoax I don't see why it isn't discussed.

I tend to believe at least the first stone is authentic. Maybe the others. Argument against is that they were so easily found. However they were found along a river so that could explain some of that. The story the stones tell don't tell an extremely heroic tale such as, Virginia Dare married a great chief and had ten children. As documentation of tragic survival it all makes sense.

I also note the use of the word "salvage" for savage. Savage comes from the French 'sauvage' and is not English in origin. It would make sense that 'salvage' would be the closest in English. But for more modern day hoaxers without great knowledge of languages, why would 'salvage' be chosen for 'savage'.

The first stone also tells a story that makes sense. The natives saw a ship, not believed to be John White's ship, and they attacked and killed a bunch of the settlers. If it was a hoax from Twentieth Century perspective, why not say the blood thirsty savages attacked for no reason?

[Curryong]

I tend to agree with you that the first stone was probably authentic. Eberhert worries me a bit, a lot of rocks appearing after interest was shown! On the other hand, he was uneducated, and would any of his friends be acquainted with Elizabethan English? The word reconnoitre carved on the rock did trouble me, simply because 'search' or 'seek out' seemed to me to have been simpler to carve, and it is apparently not of the period, according to some scholars. However, a lot of words are in the vernacular before they appear in books.

Salvage is spot on, as Caliban in Shakespeare's The Tempest was a salvage. I think it derives from 'selvatico' or 'forest dweller', a name given to native Americans earlier in the 16th century. (I suppose our 'sylvan' as in woods is from the same root.) If the Dare Stones are forgeries they're remarkably good ones. A very interesting topic, irina, thanks for bringing it up.

[taosjohn]

The Dare Stones should really only be referred to as the Dare Stone. After the first stone, the others were found in the wrong place by the wrong guy for the wrong motive and had the wrong information on them. I don't see any reason at all to treat them as anything but forgeries, even had he not copped to it.

The first one though... the only real reasons to doubt it are that the second stone/burial site it refers to was never found, and that to some at least it is rather too convenient. Well, that and the "Croatoan" inscription found on the tree, which suggests a very different story to me, anyway.

I've always thought they tried to relocate to Croatoan Island, left the inscription to point to it and, lubbers that they were, managed to capsize whatever they sailed in and were all lost... or missed it with a shore breeze behind and were carried to sea and lost...or wrecked on a rock and were all lost... or their vessel wasn't seaworthy at all, the stem or the seams opened and they were all lost or...

[debbiediablo]

My initial impression is that the first stone (the only one not forged) should be more weathered having been inscribed by a non-stone cutter and left outside for 400 years. I compare to cemetery stones that are inscribed to last and many of those from the 1700s are illegible. But scholars who know more than me attest to the correctness of the inscription vocabulary and syntax so my opinion is sort of like my opinion about Lizzie's guilt. I think it might be true but enough proof is missing to make me skeptical. Mother Nature can put a lot of wear and tear on rock in 400 years, and (I'm guessing here) if it was near enough the river to be subject to flooding then that would prove even more erosive.

I also wonder how much opportunity captives would have to inscribe such a stone. One of my historical obsessions is the French and Indian Wars albeit 200 years later. Captives at that time were not given time to inscribe anything; they were lucky to leave a piece of cloth hanging on a bush. Of course, they were often pursued by rescue parties which was not an issue with the Roanoke Colony. All of which makes me think the stone is a fake whether the English went willingly as a means of survival or were captures, or both. There does seem to be evidence to support this as gray-eyed Welsh speaking Indians were later encountered by settlers in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Another interesting fact that is rarely mentioned in American history is that Sir Walter Raleigh was beheaded at the order of James I in 1618.

Thank you, Irina, for this fascinating subject.

[irina]

Great points, Curryong! I knew you would have some interesting insight. It might be interesting to note that Elizabethan English has survived in some form in the hills of the deep south even until today. I am no expert on the matter but I have read this.

I think the stones should be considered~~all of them~~though I am uncomfortable with the carving style on the later ones.

TJ brings up the important point that, legends aside, there has never been any proof that the colonists survived anywhere for a period of time. Modern DNA studies are inconclusive. Tales of blue eyed natives who could read don't mean much as there is a long tradition of Europeans coming to America's shores. So either the tale on the first stone or your ideas make sense, that the colonists did not survive in a large group. It appears that the idea that a significant number of them ever reached Croatoan (Hatteras), is unlikely. Maybe a few stragglers did. I think continued archaeology and searching might yield some further answers.

I do also think that there are vested interests in keeping the mystery alive. That bothers me. Lots of times the solutions to mysteries are bigger and more interesting than the mysteries themselves. (Like who snuck into 92 Second St., for what reason exactly...or alternatively what were the deep reasons Lizzie did it and where and why did she hide the hatchet? The closer we get to the truth the better the pieces fit together. NOTHING fits together in the Lizzie saga.)

[debbiediablo]

As a starting point I just downloaded The Lost Rocks: The Dare Stones and the Unsolved Mystery of Sir Walter Raleigh's Lost Colony by David La Vere. I prefer Kindle books to read on my iPhone and MacAir wherever I am so this plus La Vere is a scholar had a lot to do with my selection. Thanks Irina...this kind of stuff fascinates me! And as much of an early American history buff as I am, I'd never before heard of them!

[Curryong]

Well, we see the interest in a mystery continuing with the Jack the Ripper industry, don't we? The thing with the later stones is, if an average local person of the time began carving 'olde worlde English' on a rock I would guess there would be a lot of awkwardly phrased sentences,'thees and thous' and words with 'e' slapped on the end of them. Even people who loved Shakespeare and Marlowe would have a difficult time. Scholars have pointed out however that there is a high percentage of words on the stones spelled in exactly the same way, and that just isn't what would happen in the 16th century. You would think there would be dialect-influenced words and phrases too.

On the other hand, I take Debbie's point about the stones being remarkably unweathered for so long a time out in the elements. It's very true. I have seen 18th century gravestones that were in worse condition than those described. It is also a great point about the amount of time anyone would have to carve if they were taken captive.

Also Taosjohn's belief that the settlers may have made for Croatoan Island and been drowned in the attempt is a valid
one. They may have felt they were in extreme danger where they were and decided to make the attempt in spite of the hazards, leaving one stone as a marker.

There are always tales of blue-eyed descendants living with native peoples aren't there? The Dutch didn't really go for Australia in a big way in spite of going around its shoreline a lot in the 16th and 17th centuries. As far as is known no parties ever explored the hinterland. Yet early British explorer settlers in Western Australia were supposed to have seen Aborigines who resembled Dutchmen!

The Dare stones story really is a true mystery. Back to more reading about it!

[irina]

On stone weathering we also need to consider the quality of stone used. The Dare Stone(s) have been described as quartzite and alternatively granite. Perhaps the words are interchangeable though I think not Granite doesn't weather as much as softer stones. Acid conditions can deteriorate marble, limestone and such but not granite.

I don't think anyone has had any money to throw at the Dare Stone(s). I would think at the microscopic level metal traces could be found deep down in the carvings. On a spectrometer I would assume the metallurgy of the chisel could be deduced. I would also assume that an Elizabethan rock chisel would have had very different metal content than a chisel from the last century.

It is possible that someday archaeology may support or dismiss this story. DNA is also a good possibility if any likely looking burials are found.

[debbiediablo]

When the first stone was found a group of expert stonecutters attempted to replicate the lettering and could not with the exception of one man who used a chisel and estimated it would take him 48 hours to recreate both sides. The stone itself weighs 21 lbs. so lugging it around would be unlikely at a time when survival often relied on what a person could carry. The remaining stones were subject to a blackmail attempt between the forgery and the history professor at Emory University who championed the first Dare Stone as real. Instead of knuckling under to save his reputation the professor went public even though his reputation was left in tatters. However the first stone is either real or the work of a person with scholarly knowledge in multiple areas of study or real....

True that quartzite is even more resistant to weathering than marble; however, this would make it much more difficult to chisel. Also, this type of quartzite is not found in the Carolinas but is common to areas in England native to the Roanoke colonists. This would mean that to be real the first Dare Stone had to cross the ocean and then be lugged around after the settlers either decamped from their settlement or were captured by hostiles.

[irina]

Interesting about the stone needing to come from England. That seems odd. One source said all the stones were of the same kind. There is also the idea that the colonists moved 50 miles inland soon after Governor White went back to England. Wonder if they took some ballast stones or something with them for building purposes. That idea of course wouldn't account for a trail of 20 pound stones.

The first stone is kind of like a grave stone for those recently "mvrthvred". Yet it comes to mind if one has barely escaped a massacre, would one spend much time burying the dead and carving a stone?

[debbiediablo]

The book I'm reading is well-researched and written by a scholar who doesn't take one side or the other...just tosses out the facts. That type of stone is common to the Piedmont of the American Southeast and to England but not the area where it was found. Yes, it could have been used as ballast which was not uncommon but then it had to be carried around until Ananias and Virginia died, then chiseled in a minimum of 48 hours (as opposed to four days) by a master stonecutter as there are no efforts to make corrections, no signs of hesitation and no marks of it being held in a vise. However a pile of similar ballast stones were found nearby so maybe they were meant for construction. Also, there are no other instances of an Englishwoman of this era signing with three initials, EWD instead of ED. Beyond the initials, the remainder of what is written looks very authentic. As TJ says, the remainder of the stones look very much different and are clear and admitted forgeries.

[Curryong]

Thanks, debbie, for recommending the book. I started reading it immediately! A few red flags flying already, besides the ones mentioned above. I can believe that the stone was ballast. However, expecting a member of a local tribe to carry it back for miles to White, even for a reward, debatable. Fetching and carrying was also woman's work among the local tribes. Why not a message on parchment, easily concealed in Eleanor Dare's clothing?

Also, a remarkable coincidence that such a relic should be found so soon after 350 year state-wide celebrations of the Roanoke settlement that summer, attended by the President himself. Just a little too convenient perhaps? Drake's Plate, that even more famous artefact, had been found a year before. Also, I'm a bit perturbed that the finder Louis Hammond should be such a man of mystery. (I'm only part of the way through so he may be cleared later!)

However, I am not worried about a stray word or two on the Stone that was unknown to the Emory scholars. 'Affright' could be a dialect word, never written in any literature.

[irina]

One reason I can see for 3 initials is that John White was the governor of the colony and Eleanor's maiden name may have counted for more. Maybe it was a sign to identify her.

A huge problem I have with the pictures of subsequently found stones is the effort to make curves in letters. People familiar with stone carving wouldn't waste the time. This is why "v" takes the place of "u" in old stone carvings. That's also why some old languages like Arabic and Hebrew read from right to left. Before paper was invented and stuff was carved into stone, the chisel was held in the right hand and the hammer in the right. The blank slate was to the left.

[debbiediablo]

I'm done with the Dare Stone book and have moved on to The Head in Edward Nugent's Hand: Roanoke's Forgotten Indians by Michael Oberg. This diverges from the Dare Stones and deals with the Indian point of view when the English colonists first appeared in the late 1500s. Amazing that my father's family was in Salisbury, MA only 50-plus years after The Lost Colony was established.

I'm inclined to think the first stone is not real...more from a logistical point of view than anything else. Logistics plus the finder, Louis Hammond, disappeared. There's a bell curve on the continuum of what seems to be normal behavior. Clearly Eberhardt and his cohorts were forgers and later extortionists, providing stones made to order and demanding payment. They fall on the greed end of the continuum.

However, the finder of the first stone, Hammond, falls on the other end of the continuum. He wanted so little that no red flags were raised...which is smart thinking. Except that's not normal either, especially for a working man at the end of the Great Depression. Hammond seems too good to be true, which usually means not true. He appears with a stone that may be the historical find of the century and settles for very little compensation. Then he vanishes off the face of the earth. Given the massive publicity as further stones were found, I find it incomprehensible that somewhere somehow he didn't surface for even one interview. Surely he told his best friend or his brother that it was he who found the first stone. Plus no one ever saw either his wife who was supposedly with him or his car. Nor could he re-locate exactly where the stone was found. Granted, there were no Intelius and Social Security numbers back then, but the "Saturday Evening Post" had 3,000,000 regular readers.

The rock, quartzite, is found in only one area of the US (not where it was found near the Chowan River) and also in the UK. It could've been a ballast stone; however, not from the ship carrying the Roanoke settlers. The ballast in that ship wouldn't have been dumped on this side of the Atlantic as there was no cargo for the return trip. If anything, the ship would've needed more ballast, not less, for the continued voyage.

I seriously doubt anyone, Eleanor Dare and certainly not an Indian brave, lugged around a 21 lb stone and then had the remarkable fortune to have a stonecutter available who made no mistakes and needed a minimum of 48 hours to chisel that message along with fighting Indians, trying to maintain a food supply, burying the dead, keeping watch for further attack. Plus there's extreme illogic to think that John White or any other Englishman would stumble upon it in the uncharted wilderness of the New World. Better to use that chisel to bark trees.

Whoever created the first Dare Stone had a lot of knowledge, too much to be anyone other than a professional, and therefore a lot to lose if ever connected with it. So, to me, the question isn't so much, "Is it real?" as it is, "Who had the most to gain from its being found?"

[taosjohn]

The rock, quartzite, is found in only one area of the US (not where it was found near the Chowan River) and also in the UK. It could've been a ballast stone; however, not from the ship carrying the Roanoke settlers. The ballast in that ship wouldn't have been dumped on this side of the Atlantic as there was no cargo for the return trip. If anything, the ship would've needed more ballast, not less, for the continued voyage.

While I lean toward the opinion that the first stone is also a forgery, for the other reasons you cite, I think the above theory is at best probable.

It is entirely possible that 1. the ship was felt to be improperly ballasted and some was removed regardless of the change in cargo or 2. the ship was felt to need a change in ballast due to the difference between a westward, more or less into the wind voyage vs. an eastward, more or less before the wind one or 3. the ship leaked sufficiently after the initial crossing that removing ballast in order to limit the amount the pumps would need be manned was felt to be desirable or 4. some of the ballast was removed for some other use-- doorstops, boat anchors, boat ballast, whatever and replaced by local rock-- or removed in favor of additional casks of fresh water or something else thought desirable for the return trip. Tinkering with ballast was a constant throughout the era of sail; the very shape of the ship would change over time and require adjustments to its balance...

[irina]

There is the idea that the colonists moved 50 miles inward from Roanoke but were still on a river system. I am always surprised at the size of rivers in the east as they are much bigger and navigable than ours out west. I don't know if the rivers at the new settlement were navigable or not but maybe they were and ballast had been dumped off there. Maybe that stone was chosen because it was familiar, and was used like a gravestone. It would make sense leaving such an item at the site of the massacre/burial site. However I really wonder about carving such an elaborate item right after a massacre.

I also wonder about these stones adressing the "salvages". Like, Mr. Salvage, if you find this rock, please take it to my dad, Governor White, for heap big presents..." How many "salvages" would pay attention to writing on a rock? Even if they could would it be worth it to pack the rock back to God knows where to find Governor White? Would they have known where to find the governor?

The first stone is a maybe as a record of what happened to the main part of the colonists while trying to establish a fort inland from Roanoke. There are things on that stone that sound realistic and leaving it in that spot makes sense especially since it appears future plans were to establish a fort or town inland.

[Curryong]

I agree with all the observations made so far by each of you. Eberhardt and his cohorts must have had a very good laugh amongst themselves when alone at the gullibility of some academics.

As to the first stone, I agree. Huge question marks over Mr Man of Mystery Hammond. (Actually his wife and car were known. He and his wife, or whoever she was, visited Emory College on several occasions in those first weeks, according to the Le Vere book.)

Yet the Elizabethan English is just about perfect. I do wonder about an academic, perhaps a life-long scholar of Elizabethan literature, being involved. There were few leaders in the field who would risk their reputations but what about teachers in community colleges or even high schools? Was Hammond an ex teacher who had somehow come into some money in California (allowing him and wife to travel East) and decided to perpetrate a huge hoax for some reason?

People with specialised knowledge do sometimes do strange things. For instance there was the Piltdown Man affair which fooled so many experts, believed now to be planted by one anthropologist for another to find as a joke, which got completely out of hand.

I do agree that taking so much trouble and time and effort following a massacre seems bizarre. Would Mr and Mrs 'Salvage' be able to read English anyway, even if they found the Dare stone? They might have thought it just a strange rock left by the Spanish perhaps?
Yes, I have also seen early gravestones treated by their stonemasons in a very peculiar ways. Young carvers of gravestones for convict overseers in Tasmania were very fond of dividing words up in eccentric fashion and popping half of them on the next line!

So, all in all, only the original Dare Stone could be authentic and even there, some huge question marks over it.

[debbiediablo]

I agree with all the observations made so far by each of you. Eberhardt and his cohorts must have had a very good laugh amongst themselves when alone at the gullibility of some academics.

As to the first stone, I agree. Huge question marks over Mr Man of Mystery Hammond. (Actually his wife and car were known. He and his wife, or whoever she was, visited Emory College on several occasions in those first weeks, according to the Le Vere book.)

Yet the Elizabethan English is just about perfect. I do wonder about an academic, perhaps a life-long scholar of Elizabethan literature, being involved. There were few leaders in the field who would risk their reputations but what about teachers in community colleges or even high schools? Was Hammond an ex teacher who had somehow come into some money in California (allowing him and wife to travel East) and decided to perpetrate a huge hoax for some reason?

People with specialised knowledge do sometimes do strange things. For instance there was the Piltdown Man affair which fooled so many experts, believed now to be planted by one anthropologist for another to find as a joke, which got completely out of hand.

I do agree that taking so much trouble and time and effort following a massacre seems bizarre. Would Mr and Mrs 'Salvage' be able to read English anyway, even if they found the Dare stone? They might have thought it just a strange rock left by the Spanish perhaps?
Yes, I have also seen early gravestones treated by their stonemasons in a very peculiar ways. Young carvers of gravestones for convict overseers in Tasmania were very fond of dividing words up in eccentric fashion and popping half of them on the next line!

So, all in all, only the original Dare Stone could be authentic and even there, some huge question marks over it.

Even though Hammond did visit Emory on several occasions, "Sparkes claimed no one ever saw his car or met his wife...." Location 2379; La Vere) and, "No details today are known of their physical appearance, where they resided, what car they drove..." (Location 144; La Vere) Very odd indeed.

[debbiediablo]

The rock, quartzite, is found in only one area of the US (not where it was found near the Chowan River) and also in the UK. It could've been a ballast stone; however, not from the ship carrying the Roanoke settlers. The ballast in that ship wouldn't have been dumped on this side of the Atlantic as there was no cargo for the return trip. If anything, the ship would've needed more ballast, not less, for the continued voyage.

While I lean toward the opinion that the first stone is also a forgery, for the other reasons you cite, I think the above theory is at best probable.

It is entirely possible that 1. the ship was felt to be improperly ballasted and some was removed regardless of the change in cargo or 2. the ship was felt to need a change in ballast due to the difference between a westward, more or less into the wind voyage vs. an eastward, more or less before the wind one or 3. the ship leaked sufficiently after the initial crossing that removing ballast in order to limit the amount the pumps would need be manned was felt to be desirable or 4. some of the ballast was removed for some other use-- doorstops, boat anchors, boat ballast, whatever and replaced by local rock-- or removed in favor of additional casks of fresh water or something else thought desirable for the return trip. Tinkering with ballast was a constant throughout the era of sail; the very shape of the ship would change over time and require adjustments to its balance...

The colonists were initially heading for Chesapeake and stopped at Roanoke only to pick up 15 soldiers left there by the Lane Expedition the year before. They found evidence of attack and massacre. However, Captain Fernandez refused to allow the passengers back onboard for the final leg to their destination. He would've had time to adjust the ballast (he gave them a month to unload the ship) before heading south to plunder Spanish ships in the Caribbean. I have no idea whether offloading ballast would make a more effective privateer...to me, less ballast would reduce maneuverability which would be a hindrance rather than help in battle. White was allowed to go along via this convoluted route to get back to England to plead for help for the Roanoke Colonists. Some think Fernandez was deliberately paid off by Sir Francis Walsingham to discredit Sir Walter Raleigh in the eyes of Elizabeth I.

[Curryong]

After Lester says something about (paraphrasing here) 'If Hammond is a fraud he should be selling gold bricks to the bankers of America', there is an observation by La Vere that Hammond was accepted by the investigating professors and that he and his wife were guests of the Faculty several times. (I hate that Kindle hardly ever has page numbers! Ugh!!)

Even if we put the wife aside, how could there be no details of Hammond's physical appearance available when he became friendly with several members of the Faculty? Doesn't make sense, unless he disguised himself. Dyed hair, black beard, false nose??

[taosjohn]

The colonists were initially heading for Chesapeake and stopped at Roanoke only to pick up 15 soldiers left there by the Lane Expedition the year before. They found evidence of attack and massacre. However, Captain Fernandez refused to allow the passengers back onboard for the final leg to their destination. He would've had time to adjust the ballast (he gave them a month to unload the ship) before heading south to plunder Spanish ships in the Caribbean. I have no idea whether offloading ballast would make a more effective privateer...to me, less ballast would reduce maneuverability which would be a hindrance rather than help in battle. White was allowed to go along via this convoluted route to get back to England to plead for help for the Roanoke Colonists. Some think Fernandez was deliberately paid off by Sir Francis Walsingham to discredit Sir Walter Raleigh in the eyes of Elizabeth I.

Debbie, you are way ahead of me on the history of the Roanoke colony; but allow me to suggest that I may be ahead of you on the subject of ballast? Naval history is one of my competences...

The issue is not so much whether it would have made a more effective privateer so much as whether it might have been perceived as worth a try. A couple of hundred years later, when the "Constitution" and her sister ships were designed by Joshua Humphreys (one of the master builders of the age) and their construction initiated, the science of sailing ship design was far more advanced than in Raleigh's day; yet still the first captains of the ships nearly all tinkered with their armament, ballast, the stepping of their masts, etc. Everyone thought he was an expert, and some of them were.

If the vessel hadn't performed to expectations or desires on the voyage over, there would surely have been a tendency to look for adjustments for the return. In addition, it took nothing like a month to off load any ship of the day-- that a month was taken suggests that Fernandez may have careened the ship (to clean and caulk the bottom) and/or rerigged her, in which case the ballast would all have been removed temporarily anyway. In addition the ships' boats would probably have been themselves ballasted, and any of them might have been felt to have been overballasted as well. Further, if they had been carrying a colony, the armament might well have been stowed in the orlop, and been brought out and mounted during the month-- in which case the ship's trim would have been greatly changed and ballast adjusted. Normally that would call for more ballast; but we are only accounting for a single stone here, and even if more was called for, a stone or two may not have fit in its new location. Later on ships were ballasted with bar iron, bags of sand, etc; but in Raleigh's day rocks were still used a lot...

[debbiediablo]

My understanding is there were and are piles of rocks that were used for ballast on the shores where rocks are not otherwise found. However, at this time only two other English ships had previously landed at Roanoke. I know nothing about boats unless they are pulling water skis.... However, reading your last post gives me reason to think that Fernandez was outfitting his ship to overtake, out gun and board Spanish merchant ships in the Caribbean - changing from passenger ship to state approved pirate ship....and that he likely never intended to take the passengers to Chesapeake. My knowledge of naval warfare is limited to a little bit about the ironclads used in the War Between the States and a little bit more about German U-boats which fascinate me. Being a bit claustrophobic they also terrify me....

[irina]

We might make mistakes when we think only a few ships were here or there in early America. There may have been quite a bit of activity around Roanoke that could account for stones.

Could it also be possible that the first stone was obtained in an illicit manner and therefore a lot of particulars are hazy? Maybe the cover story was a cover up story? Don't know what it might be covering but grave robbing comes to mind. The story on the first stone has a ring of truth to me, but then I still think Lizzie Borden is not guilty. Like I have said elsewhere I will believe most anything. If I don't believe someone's story~like Oscar Pistorius' tale of shooting a burglar in the bathroom~that person is probably guilty. I have a kind of primitive way of seeking truth. One thing I consider is "who benefits"? The story on the first stone is a story of defeat. If it was a hoax, why not make it a bit more heroic?

I wonder if someone could have made the stone with the idea of getting attention back then, to search further for the colonists or to incite war with the native population or something?

[debbiediablo]

After Lester says something about (paraphrasing here) 'If Hammond is a fraud he should be selling gold bricks to the bankers of America', there is an observation by La Vere that Hammond was accepted by the investigating professors and that he and his wife were guests of the Faculty several times. (I hate that Kindle hardly ever has page numbers! Ugh!!)

Even if we put the wife aside, how could there be no details of Hammond's physical appearance available when he became friendly with several members of the Faculty? Doesn't make sense, unless he disguised himself. Dyed hair, black beard, false nose??

Hammond was nondescript (like a LeCarre spy ) from what I gather. Moreover he disappeared off the face of the earth. From what Boyden Sparkes learned when he started an in-depth investigation was that Hammond seemed so genuine that the academics didn't examine him or his credentials with much care although some were suspicious from the start. Even detectives who were hired to check out Hammond did only a cursory job. He and his wife were welcomed on campus, but no one could remember meeting her or seeing their vehicle. A failed attempt was made to lift Hammond's fingerprints from a glass, and another professor attempted to follow him home but lost him somewhere in Atlanta. (This would fly in the face that no one had seen his car unless they were using public transportation which is totally possible.) Hammond had only a post office box for an address, and when Pinkerton's made a serious effort to locate him they came up empty, not even someone who knew 'of' him or his wife. This comes in the latter part of the book and is, in fact, unearthed by "Saturday Evening Post" investigative reporter who blew the lid off the dozens of other Dare stones. Sparkes wanted only the truth; in the end, he thought Hammond was connected with the 1937 plan to plant stones for the 350th anniversary of the Roanoke settlement...but not with Eberhardt and his cronies or with the Pearces.

[Curryong]

Thanks debbie, yes, entirely possible that it was connected with the anniversary year. All the same, whoever Hammond was he knew Elizabethan English well. Life-long hobbyist perhaps, plus took up stone-masonry as another pastime.

I've been side-tracked on Kindle by another excellent book on Jack the Ripper!

[irina]

It would be interesting to trace remnants of Elizabethan English among people who lived way back in the mountains in the last century. It is said there are remnants of that kind of English in the dialects. Then suppose someone had maybe an old King James Bible with appropriately old word usage for a basic blueprint. What I am thinking and wondering is if some Elizabethan words, changed through the centureis, show up on any of the stones. The later stones which are probably forgeries for example spell "we" as "wee". Is that form ever used or is it a plain misspelling? If one could study the etymology in depth there might be something more to learn.

[debbiediablo]

Thanks debbie, yes, entirely possible that it was connected with the anniversary year. All the same, whoever Hammond was he knew Elizabethan English well. Life-long hobbyist perhaps, plus took up stone-masonry as another pastime.

Hammond may have been hired by someone who would have been more recognizable.

[Curryong]

Ahah, Debbie, do you suspect one of the academics of Emory or nearby colleges?

I have a book which examines the history of English and how it spread around the world. Apparently the English of Shakespeare's time had a lot in common with how West Country people from Devon and Cornwall speak now. That language survives in vocabulary and cadence in places like Tangier Ireland in Chesapeake Bay, Virginia. There is a burr in their English and they say 'zink' for 'sink', 'zo' for 'so'.

However, most of the people who settled around Jamestown came from Norfolk and Suffolk where the 'r' in words is barely sounded. My point being, that in an age of no dictionaries people would have spelled words as they sounded and as they spoke in different English dialects that was how it would appear in their written English.

Raleigh came from Devon and spelt his name in over 30 ways. His signatures make it appear that it wasn't spoken as 'Ra-lee' as we say it now, but 'Roar-lee.'

We don't know where our master carver stone-mason came from in England or his level of education, which would be helpful if the Stone(s) are genuine. He would have just carved it as he pleased and not used the same spelling each time.

If the stones are fakes then some words will be a pointer to it. Not 'wee' for 'we' though. 'Wee' appears in dramas and some English poetry written by females. If it was a faker carver on the Dare Stone he either got very lucky with his wording or he or his partner had spent a long time poring over 16th century texts in some college library.

It's not the sort of thing anyone could construct from a King James Bible and a copy of Shakespeare's plays at home. I don't think anyway, that's just my opinion. 'Smile'.

[debbiediablo]

Curryong, yes, that's pretty much what I came away with, too, that the first stone is on the money, pun intended, in almost all ways except (for me) the logic of its existence which invites the possibility that someone hired it done...probably someone looking to generate publicity for the 350th anniversary and who had the money and/or expertise to get it done right.

We have an open area between a bluff and a creek on one of our lower farms. A huge limestone rock juts out over a fishing hole that has produced record-sized bass. It's a perfect campsite now and apparently was hundreds, maybe thousands, of years ago. (We're less than an hour drive from Effigy Mounds which Twins will recognize topographically.) My husband has found a huge collection of arrow and spear heads and clay pottery in this camping area which is still used by trail riders. He knows every foot of a thousand acres, every deer trail, every fallen tree, every eagle's nest, every cave including a huge one that is hidden so well that it's not visible five feet from the entrance. Most men of the land are no different which makes finding of the first stone right along a highway very suspicious. I don't think it could have laid undiscovered in that location for 350 years.....

[debbiediablo]

Also, thank you Irina for this fascinating topic. I've been a history buff all my life (breadth more so than depth) and have helped with research at the Hoover Presidential Library for several books published by academicians, and not once have I encountered mention of the Dare Stones.

[irina]

Thanks, Debbie. All the white-out mess got cleaned out of here so I can finally read everyone's posts.

The mounds in our Midwest are fascinating. I have read a number of books on them too. There was a lot of stuff going on on this continent that was suppressed or destroyed a long time ago.