Editing Roanoke Colony (section)

===1887–present: Archaeological evidence===
[[File:Fort Raleigh Archaelogical Dig 2009.jpg|thumb|Archaeological research dig at [[Fort Raleigh National Historic Site]] (2009)]]

Archaeological research on Roanoke Island only began when [[Talcott Williams]] discovered a Native American burial site in 1887. He returned in 1895 to excavate the fort but found nothing of significance. [[Ivor Noël Hume]] would later make several compelling finds in the 1990s, but none that could be positively linked to the 1587 colony, as opposed to the 1585 outpost.{{Sfn|Lawler|2018|pp=138–142}}

After [[Hurricane Emily (1993)|Hurricane Emily]] uncovered a number of Native American artifacts along Cape Creek in [[Buxton, North Carolina|Buxton]], [[North Carolina]], anthropologist [[David Sutton Phelps Jr.]] organized an excavation in 1995. Phelps and his team discovered a ring in 1998, which initially appeared to be a gold [[Seal (emblem)#Signet rings|signet ring]] bearing the [[heraldry]] of a Kendall family in the 16th century.{{Sfn|Lawler|2018|pp=184–189}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/special/ead/findingaids/1061/ |title=Croatan Archaeological Site Collection, ca. early 17th Century: Manuscript Collection #1061 |website=Collection Guides at East Carolina University |publisher=East Carolina University Libraries |last=Phelps |first=David S. |author-link=David Sutton Phelps Jr. |date=February 10, 2006 |access-date=September 3, 2019 |archive-date=June 11, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080611175832/http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/special/ead/findingaids/1061/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The find was celebrated as a landmark discovery, but Phelps never published a paper on his findings, and neglected to have the ring properly tested. [[X-ray]] analysis in 2017 proved the ring was brass, not gold, and experts could not confirm the alleged connection to Kendall heraldry. The low value and relative anonymity of the ring make it more difficult to conclusively associate with any particular person from the Roanoke voyages, which in turn increases the likelihood that it could have been brought to the New World at a later time.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/mystery-roanoke-endures-yet-another-cruel-twist-180962837/ |title=The Mystery of Roanoke Endures Yet Another Cruel Twist |last=Lawler |first=Andrew |website=Smithsonian.com |date=April 7, 2017 |access-date=October 2, 2019 |archive-date=December 10, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191210005612/https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/mystery-roanoke-endures-yet-another-cruel-twist-180962837/ |url-status=live }}</ref>{{Sfn|Lawler|2018|pp=199–205}}

A significant challenge for archaeologists seeking information about the 1587 colonists is that many common artifacts could plausibly originate from the 1585 colony, or from Native Americans who traded with other European settlements in the same era. [[Andrew Lawler]] suggests that an example of a conclusive find would be female remains (since the 1585 colony was exclusively male) buried according to Christian tradition ([[supine position|supine]], in an east–west orientation) which can be dated to before 1650 (by which point Europeans would have spread throughout the region).{{Sfn|Lawler|2018|p=182}} However, few human remains of any kind have been discovered at sites related to the Lost Colony.{{Sfn|Lawler|2018|p=313}}

One possible explanation for the extreme deficiency in archaeological evidence is [[shoreline erosion]]. The northern shore of Roanoke Island, where the Lane and White colonies were located, lost 928 feet (283 m) between 1851 and 1970. Extrapolating from this trend back to the 1580s, it is likely that portions of the settlements are now underwater, along with any artifacts or signs of life.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dolan |first1=Robert |last2=Bosserman |first2=Kenton |title=Shoreline Erosion and the Lost Colony |journal=Annals of the Association of American Geographers |date=September 1972 |volume=62 |issue=3 |pages=424–426 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8306.1972.tb00875.x |jstor=562295}}</ref>