gem@shaw.invalid wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:53:11 GMT, sechumlib
> wrote:
>
>
>>gem@shaw.invalid wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What about the Raonoke Colonies of the late 1500's Wouldn't they be
>>>the first?
>>>They were short lived but so was Jamestown
>>
>>NO ONE survived from the Roanoke Colonies - as far as we have ever been
>>able to tell.
>>
>>Lots of people survived Jamestown. They just moved inland, to Williamsburg.
>
>
> Tis a mystery, isnt it. How do around 100 people just vanish without
> any trace - no bones, no artifacts etc -- just a sing on a tree?
> I wasn't considering "survival rates" in my reply a sit was not a
> criteria of the opriginal post.
> Roanoke did seem to survive for 1- 3 years and and such, wouldn't it
> have to be considered as the first settlement ? English settlement,
> that is, as there were certainly lots of native settlements
>
English settlement will do since the earliest european settlements in
the US were Spanish. Puerto Rico for the oldest and St. Aug. for the
oldest on the mainland US.
Both well predate the earliest attempts at settlement farther north.
If you want european and do not require that they were permanent then
way north where the Norse settled would be even earlier and still european.
|