intergrated

The reading claims that the settlers didn't disappear but instead they relocated to the island of Croatoa and provides three reasons of support. In contrast, the professor states that the author's points are weak and easily dismiss and he refutes each of the author's reasons.

First, the article avers that when the governor returned he found the word Croatoa carved on to a piece of wood and this is a proof of relocation. On the other hand, the lecturer opposes this point by saying that this point makes no sense. In fact, he mentions that the governor told them if they face any problem, they could move interior since there are a lot of food and safety, and Croatoa is located in the opposite side, so it is hard to believe that they relocated there with less advantages. This challenges the facts made in the passage.

Second, the passage posits that English artifacts have beeen found on Croatoa supporting the idea of relocating. Conversely, the professor counters this point by explaining that the artifacts are no way to prove. Actually, he states that the ring that mention in the reading might be came from other way and not from trade because Roanoke were not traded their belongs with food. This appears a contradiction to the information made in the passage.

Third, the article asserts that the indigenous inhabitants possessed European characteristics and this means that they relocated there. However, the professor casts doubt on this point by stating that European characteristics may come from English group other than Roanoke. He explains that expidition arrived 100 years later and these European characteristics could come from other group and not from Roanoke. This disputes the third point about relocation.