scientists-find-evidence-cannibalism-at-jamestown

Experts have provided the grisly goods to back up 17th-century accounts of cannibalism during the Jamestown colony's "starving time" — including a skull that shows signs of being chopped at and pried apart. "Our team has discovered partial human remains before, but the location of the discovery, visible damage to the skull and marks on the bones immediately made us realize this finding was unusual," Bill Kelso, chief archaeologist of the Jamestown Rediscovery Project in Virginia, said in a news release issued Wednesday. Specimens from the Jamestown site were laid out during a Washington news conference. Written accounts described acts of cannibalism during the winter of 1609-1610, when sickness, starvation and attacks from native tribes in the area put the two-year-old Virginia settlement to its sternest test. Scores of the colonists who crowded inside James Fort died that winter. One of the accounts described a husband who killed his pregnant wife and salted her flesh for storage and consumption. (The husband was executed for the crime.) There was no reason to doubt the accounts, but in the course of their decades-long excavation, archaeologists were on the lookout for remains that might tell more of the story behind Jamestown's hardships. They found the evidence in the form of a partial human skull and other bones lying in a 17th-century trash deposit. Kelso enlisted the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History to sort out the clues. Colonial Williamsburg and Preservation Virginia helped provide historical context. 'Jane of Jamestown' Based on an analysis of the bones — including the skull and its teeth, as well as the size of a tibia and bone growth in a knee joint — experts determined that the remains came from a 14-year-old female, nicknamed "Jane." The isotopic distribution of elements in the bones suggested that she consumed a European diet of wheat and meat.
cosmiclog.nbcnews.com...

Why did they let conditions deteriorate with the native population to such a level.

reply to post by Spider879


Hey spider,
Wow ,is all I can say.
The Jamestown colony was a terrible location. It was a place where a colony was sure to fail.
I can only imagine what the people who were left behind had to endure.
That first winter after the boats went back to England was the the turning point for sure.
A portion of the colony abandonded it , and went on to live with the native Americans.
Thus is attested to by a rare genetic disorder that shows up.in current native Americans in the area, that can he traced back to one of the colonists.

Great info there OP. It makes me consider our modern culture. Many people here especially in the survival forums think that finding food is simple but these people were accustomed to having to farm/hunt and yet still starved and resorted to cannibalism.

This is a good example of people doing anything and everything to survive.

Thanks OP, very interesting.

Settlement in America and other countries like my own could have gone so much better if instead of treating the natives as "savages", they worked with them, learned from them and shared with them so much more than they did. I'm talking about the whole time too, all it takes is one bad act to spoil relations. Instead of genocide for natives and tough settlement for Europeans (who knew next to nothing about local flora and fauna and how to survive there), it could of been symbiotic. Oh well, hopeful we'll learn our lesson by the time we try and "settle" on other inhabited planets - god forbid we do anything like in the movie avatar.

reply to post by polarwarrior


The Natives weren't always treated as savages like most are taught. That stereotype came about from immigrants seeing how the Natives treated other tribes, which was horrific. I highly doubt that the people came to America with no knowledge about anything and started killing off "Indians". IT doesn't make sense. They appreciated the knowledge that they received from the Amerindians. Also, there is no proof that the Amerindians were the first settlers on the continent. Every ancient culture, just about, has stories of a "white people" that had lived there before them and that includes many Amerindian cultures. Food for thought.

And as far as genocide from the immigrants, purely accidental. As a matter of fact, Amerindians were constantly at war with other tribes therefore killing off other tribes = genocide. Also, The Europeans brought with them diseases that they had immunity to and because of the immunity they did not know that they were carriers. Therefore, unknowingly spreading the diseases. But it didn't stop there, The Amerindians also spread their fare share of diseases, unknowingly, to the immigrants as well.

But I digress, Humans are capable of anything when it comes to self preservation. I'm not at all surprised by the OP.

reply to post by kimish


Good reply,
The idea that all native American tribes were peace loving nature hippies is nor at all correct.
There were tribes that got along and there were tribes that didn't.
Some did terrible things to their enemies, and some went out if their way to stir up trouble, such as souxan raids into northern Mexico. They were doing this before the arrival of the Europeans.
Here in California one of the earliest expeditions into the central valley encountered a place they called "The Calaveras# or the river of skulls. Here they found the banks of the now calaveras river, dozens of skull.
They were told it was from a conflict over fishing grounds.

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by polarwarrior

 

The Natives weren't always treated as savages like most are taught.

Actually tensions started early on in Jamestown. They were offered lavish feasts, if they hadn't of started conflict this would have helped them though this winter.

Virginia Indians had already established settlements long before the English settlers arrived, and there were an estimated 14,000 natives in the region, politically known as Tsenacommacah, who spoke an Algonquian language. They were the Powhatan Confederacy, ruled by their paramount chief known as Wahunsenacawh, or "Chief Powhatan". Wahunsenacawh initially sought to resettle the English colonists from Jamestown, considered part of Paspahegh territory, to another location known as Capahosick, where they would make metal tools for him as members of his Confederacy, but this never transpired.

The first explorers had been greeted by the natives with lavish feasts and supplies of maize, but as the English, lacking the inclination to grow their own food, became hungry and began to strong-arm more and more supplies from nearby villages, relations quickly deteriorated and eventually led to conflict. The resulting Anglo-Powhatan War lasted until Samuel Argall captured Wahunsenacawh's daughter Matoaka, better known by her nickname Pocahontas, after which the chief accepted a treaty of peace.

And as far as genocide from the immigrants, purely accidental.

Wow, I'd believe the disease was accidental (besides the small pox blankets) but all the slaughter?

The Natives weren't always treated as savages like most are taught.

They referred to them as such, and history suggests they were treated as such too.

I highly doubt that the people came to America with no knowledge about anything and started killing off "Indians"

If that oversimplified account if how you think it happened then no wonder you don't believe it.

Amerindians were constantly at war with other tribes

What, like we aren't? America never goes to war? Doesn't mean we deserve to be invaded, driven from our land and almost wiped out of existence.

The resorting to starvation and cannibalism didn't need to happen it was their attitude towards the locals more than anything else that contributed to that,they didn't want to share their tools fore-instance on another thread we concerning the privatization of water www.abovetopsecret.com... I stated that the Native Americans and others considered land as communal there were more disasters to plague that colony things went so bad that a massacre ensued,but this attitude or clash of culture happened even earlier.

The English new comers sent to Roanoke Island in 1584 by Sir Walter Raleigh are a case in point.what these newcomer did was self-destruct over a love of possession.When a silver cup allegedly disappeared. the Roanke men roared out of their tiny enclave,muskets and torches in hand,to destroyed their Indian neighbors,village and crops.This blazing display of European possession-mania cut the colony off from their source of help. When the Spanish armada severed the settlement's connection to British ports it withered and died. Roanoke Island became famous as "The Lost Colony"

But the lesson of such failure was lost on the next group of new comers a few years later.

1607 Captain John Smith was sent out by a London Join Stock company seeking profits from colonization Smith sailed with an overload of failed aristocrats and settled on lands own by the Algonqin confederacy. Trouble began when the newcomers refused to plant,build or exert themselves,Iron revolver in hand,Captain Smith ordered his lazy gentlemen to work or starve"Time and again the English were rescued from starvation through the generosity of the Algonqin Confederacy,,which provided corn and bread.The foreigners responded by refusing to share their European agricultural tools with the Indians and violence broke out.

That's the story behind the failure and descent into cannibalism.

reply to post by polarwarrior


You're right and I appreciate your reply.

But it makes one think though it wasn't just one side that did the ugly things in the beginning. Sure there were tribes that greeted foreigners with lavish feasts but there were also those that treated foreigners very wickedly. The European settlers not knowing the differences of the tribes could easily have mistaken one for the other causing casualties on both sides.

I mention savages, which is what the Europeans called them, correct, but why did they call them savages?? That is the question I answered with how the tribes treated each other. IF you go into a new land and you see the indigenous peoples scalping others or preforming ritualistic cannibalism, then it's only normal for one to think "savages". Sadly, the term became over generalized for all the Amerindians. And from there on the rest is history :/

Btw, I'm a firm believer that the blankets with small pox were good will gestures and the Europeans weren't aware in most cases that the blankets were infected because the Europeans themselves didn't know exactly what the disease was or how they got it. Knowing that, they had no Idea how it was spread. MInd you, these are people that drank out of ponds with parasites time after time and got sick, they did not know it was the water making them sick. Anyhoo, the blanket thing, That is a part of history that is used to Demonize the Europeans.

reply to post by polarwarrior

Yes very much agreed something similar to Captain James Cook who was by all accounts a decent man died a horrible death in Hawaii because he couldn't let one of his skit go after being generously treated by his Hawaiian host.

reply to post by Spider879


So basically it boils down to trust issues. But then we must ask, what brought about these trust issues? IF there were no trust issues then would tools have been shared? What if tools were stolen so the settlers didn't feel the need to share?

Let us also remember the great language barrier here. Trying to explain to someone how to plant, grow and harvest crops in a totally alien language is quite a feat to accomplish. :/

Originally posted by kimish
But it makes one think though it wasn't just one side that did the ugly things in the beginning.

Yes, it wasn't just one-sided.

If a foreign peoples arrived in my country then they are a guest in our land, and will follow our customs and rules.

Lets say the Chinese decide they are out of land and start to invade the US, they wouldn't really be offered a feast huh? They would cease to be guests like tourists, or welcomed like migrants, and I have no doubt the US would use military force to defend their home rather than have to live under Chinese rule.

I guess what I'm saying is the one defending their home with force is not quite as bad as the one invading another home with force.

Sure the natives didn't role over easy, they tried to fight back. But the point is they never should of had to fight to begin with. We should respect their home as they should respect ours.

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by Spider879

 

So basically it boils down to trust issues. But then we must ask, what brought about these trust issues? IF there were no trust issues then would tools have been shared? What if tools were stolen so the settlers didn't feel the need to share?

Let us also remember the great language barrier here. Trying to explain to someone how to plant, grow and harvest crops in a totally alien language is quite a feat to accomplish. :/

I think it's more than language a culture of communal approach to things vs private ownership in many non European societies things were shared but in Europe during that time a sense of private property were being develop.

reply to post by polarwarrior


I agree %100 with you on that.

a really interesting OP and a fascinating thread too, this is the kind of stuff i really like to read here and i feel i've come away learning something new.. SnF

reply to post by kimish


They actually didn't give them any blankets, the incident was entirely fabricated. It's just another lie that our education system likes to teach in order to make the settlers of this country look evil.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by DigitalRX


Nice find. Although many will discredit it because it's wiki, even with the references listed. SMH. It's a world wide plan of demonetization. Institutional racism at its finest.

reply to post by kimish


Yea, they'll deny it... but they'll have a hard time denying that the University saw fit to fire the guy over it. There's a lot of articles out there, hopefully people take time to actually research things instead of just stating that what they learned in school was fact. They're also quick to blame the settlers for destruction of environments and things like the near extinction of the Buffalo.. The native's were not clean impact free hippies like some people say. Their method for hunting Bison was similar to that of ancient man hunting mammoths, they'd often times kill entire herds by driving them off a cliff face only to take 1-2, leaving the rest to rot in the sun.

reply to post by DigitalRX

A lot of societies including non Europeans had made bad choices with the environment ,some were murderous like the high civilizations of Meso-Americans the Mayans,Aztecs and others etc, despite plotting the stars to such a degree of accuracy that it's only been match recently, non the less murdered thousands a top well constructed pyramids by priest/kings as a form of intimidation,the Caribs who gave their name to the Caribbean sea were absolutely murderous they killed and cannibalized male Tainos or Arawaks and breed the females,they were altogether an un-pleasant bunch back in the day and empire building and the resulting trade in slaves is a sin/crime so great that people of African decent still suffered greatly from it to this hour can only be laid at the feet of elite African kings and princes who knew full well the impact of what they were doing but cared not because they were making money and even had their trade reps (usually members of the elite.. royals) in Europe and Brazil to ensure smooth and profitable returns. so don't look at it like folks are saying Europeans are the only bad guys in history but they perhaps because of technology had the greatest destructive impact.