The Colonists at Roanoke The mystery of Roanoke Island has baffled historians for over 400 years. One hundred twenty English Colonists disappeared with only one clue as to where they went; a single word: “Croatoan” carved into a post where they had previously been settled. In Cat Allard’s analyzation of the Roanoke mystery, he goes over several different, yet similar, theories of what might’ve happened to the Colonists. Allard focuses on two main arguments: The Colonists were massacred by natives, or they relocated and assimilated with a different tribe. Allard presents evidence on both sides all while staying neutral on the topic; This makes his article seem incomplete, and his conclusion weak. Throughout Allard’s analysis, he overuses the word “some” profusely; It’s his crutch when he can’t find a proper source to cite. Allard uses this phrase 5 times in the “Background” section of his paper alone: “Some of those who believed… Some 17th- and 18th-century historians cited… some cited mentions of Native Americans… …show more content…
He cites a historian named John Lawson, who talks about Native American folk lore surrounding the arrival of the British Colonists. In my opinion the use of folk lore shouldn’t be used in any evidence-based analysis; It’s unscholarly, and it doesn’t add anything to the conversation. In Allard’s final statement: “Although the fate of the Roanoke colonists may never be known for sure, it is clear that many factors—the difficult sea voyage, lack of supplies, poor relations with the Indians whose support they needed to survive, and the worst drought in 800 years—could have greatly reduced the odds of their survival. But people have overcome even worse odds before. More than four centuries later, the fate of the Lost Colony remains a mystery.” (Allard) He lays out plenty of evidence for both sides and still never draws a definitive conclusion to prove anything; causing the analysis to fall