Comments on: Forensic analysis of 17th-century human remains at Jamestown, Va., reveals evidence of survival cannibalism

By: Ted

Ted — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:28:00 +0000

How was anyone able to determine that the girl was dead when
she received these blows? It could be a
possible cause of death. If she was dead
when the suffered the injuries, how was it able to be determined that it was a
tool that left the injuries rather than an animal? The injuries do appear to be inflicted by a
hatchet, but is that definitive? I find
it hard to believe that anyone living during that time, particularly a settler,
would have no experience butchering an animal.
Back in the days before grocery stores if you didn’t grow it, you killed
it yourself (with few exceptions). I
also understand that the cranium may be a large part of the body, but it does
not appear to be a meaty one. We’d have
to assume that more meaty parts of the body had already been eaten before
brains and insides would be seen as palatable.
Is there any way to verify that other parts of the body were eaten
before attempting to enter the brain?

By: whiteroses

whiteroses — Fri, 31 May 2013 02:16:00 +0000

She’s the first victim we’ve found. I don’t think it has a thing to do with her looks.

By: whiteroses

whiteroses — Fri, 31 May 2013 02:05:00 +0000

Your hypothesis is interesting. It assumes, though, that the Indians weren’t smart enough to recognize the fact that canoes wouldn’t get the settlers back to England. The Powhatans wanted them to leave (based on my research), but there was a tremendous climate of mistrust between the Powhatans and the settlers at that point. Powhatan was a canny leader. He would have recognized that it would have been much easier to simply let the settlers kill themselves, burn the fort to the ground, and act as though they never existed than it would have been to give the settlers provisions the Indians couldn’t have afforded to lose. He also would have had no guarantee that they would actually leave. He had no reason to trust them, and say what you will about Powhatan, he was no fool.

Don’t forget- it was winter when all this happened. The Indians didn’t have the crops to spare any more than the English did, and any leader with any sense is going to be far more interested with feeding his own people than offering any help to an invading force (and yes, I say invading, because that’s how you’re viewed when relations with an indigenous people deteriorate).

By: whiteroses

whiteroses — Fri, 31 May 2013 01:45:00 +0000

They think that this victim (“Jane”, as she’s called) was eaten after her death. This is mostly because of the marks on her skeleton. Her head showed no evidence of massive trauma, and the cuts on her bones would have shown defensive markings if she hadn’t already been dead.

By: whiteroses

whiteroses — Fri, 31 May 2013 01:42:00 +0000

There’s some evidence that cannibalism was widespread. One man was hung for cannibalizing his pregnant wife. The reason why this discovery is so significant is because the cannibalism was thought to be exaggerated- propaganda to promote the interests of the Virginia Company back in England.

By: whiteroses

whiteroses — Fri, 31 May 2013 01:38:00 +0000

A very favorable climate?

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. I’ve lived in Tidewater Virginia (less than 40 mins away from Jamestown) most of my life. It’s miserable in summer, what with the mosquitos and all, and winters can be harsh. We won’t even talk about hurricane season. Add all that with the fact that Jamestown’s original colonists were woefully unprepared for the task of settlement, and you have a recipe for disaster. Most of them were referred to as “gentlemen”. It’s no great shock they didn’t know how to farm.

By: whiteroses

whiteroses — Fri, 31 May 2013 01:28:00 +0000

Cannibalism is terrible. But when you’re starving with no hope of rescue, when your home is surrounded by hostile Indians who would have killed you if you left the fort, and if most of the people around you had already died, who’s to say what you’d do?

By: Jenna Turney

Jenna Turney — Sat, 25 May 2013 19:11:00 +0000

Just another thought….Perhaps this was the work (cannibalism) of just one person. Perhaps that person stole into the night and robbed the grave, just taking what he or she could get away with fast.

By: ladayjhia

ladayjhia — Thu, 23 May 2013 15:46:00 +0000

hayyyyyyyy!!!!1111

By: lilred

lilred — Thu, 23 May 2013 15:45:00 +0000

no we are not apes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Julie

Julie — Sat, 11 May 2013 13:35:00 +0000

Did they kill and eat people or eat the dead? Either way its horrible, but im just wondering if they have any ideas.

By: Igor Karenin

Igor Karenin — Sat, 04 May 2013 16:55:00 +0000

It would have been more interesting to read why people were starving in a place that benefits from a very favorable climate and where natural resources are abundant, rather then to see a reconstruction of the girl, which has nothing to do with science or research but only with the obscene modern culture of image.

By: David

David — Thu, 02 May 2013 16:15:00 +0000

Sorry….for the “it”

forgiveness snuck one “it” was inadvertently….(…) was a ….(…) you know

By: Dr. David Rodríguez

Dr. David Rodríguez — Thu, 02 May 2013 16:11:00 +0000

Friends, a detail escapes you: it was a young and pretty girl … why not eat a little old, less useful for the community? They preferred to eat a pretty young ….? 100% need?

By: Gordon Redtail

Gordon Redtail — Thu, 02 May 2013 15:08:00 +0000

There are several hypocrisies that emerge from this “discovery.” One is the immediate cover that western anthros and archeologists attempt to provide for this practice by labeling it “survival cannibalism.” When Columbus, and later Franciscus de Vitoria, Edward Coke, and their successors, developed and applied legal justifications for the waging of “just war” against indigenous peoples, “evidence” of cannibalism was on the top of the list. The coining of the term “survival cannibalism” provides a Eurocentric shield to suggest that the Jamestown folks were still culturally superior to the Powahtans around therm, but that the English invaders only resorted to cannibalism as a last resort “to survive.” Any reasonable person would have done the same, right? The resulting implication is that he Indians, on the other hand, were permanently mired in a culturally and spiritually inferior condition (reportedly engaging in cannibalism on a regular basis), requiring remediation (or extermination, whichever is easier) by the invaders to achieve the European stage of “civilization.” Besides, beneficiaries in contemporary U.S. settler society should be thankful for this aberration of “survival cannibalism.” Without it, where would the United States be today?

And they had no choice? Really? As other commentators have noted, the invaders had a number of choices, one of which is glaringly obvious to indigenous peoples. I am certain that if the English had communicated to Powhatan that they intended to return to England and never return, the indigenous people would not only hav released them from their fort, but would have supplied them with the food and provisions necessary for their return trip to England.