Researchers: Ghastly stories of cannibalism in Jamestown colony confirmed by forensics
By The Los Angeles Times
Published: Wednesday, May 1, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
The early American settlers called it “the starving time,” and accounts of the winter of 1609-1610 were so ghastly, and so morbid, that scholars weren't sure if the stories were true.
George Percy, then president of the English settlement of Jamestown in Virginia, wrote that settlers ate horses, then cats and dogs, then boots and bits of leather, and, finally, one another.
“One of our colony murdered his wife, ripped the child out of her womb and threw it into the river, and after chopped the mother in pieces and salted her for his food,” wrote Percy, who then ordered the man executed.
“Now whether she was better roasted, boyled or carbonado'd (barbecued), I know not, but of such a dish as powdered wife I never heard of,” added the famed settler John Smith. “This was that time, which still to this day we called the starving time; it were too vile to say, and scarce to be beleeved, what we endured.”
Until now: Researchers said on Wednesday that they have discovered the first forensic proof that cannibalism happened at Jamestown during one of its darkest periods.
The announcement was presented by Douglas Owsley, the division head for physical anthropology at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History; chief archaeologist William Kelso from the Jamestown Rediscovery Project at Preservation Virginia; and historian James Horn, vice president of research and historical interpretation at Colonial Williamsburg.
But the biggest name involved with the announcement was “Jane,” the nickname given to the remains of a 14-year-old girl found last year in settlement trash from the starving period.
Archaeologists did not find much of Jane — just part of her skull and part of her leg, or 10 percent of her body — but said those remains showed that someone tried to eat her, apparently after she had died of an undetermined cause.
Someone made four chops to Jane's forehead before an ax or cleaver broke open the back of her skull, the researchers said. There were also small knife cuts on her jaw and cheek.
“The desperation and overwhelming circumstances faced by the James Fort colonists during the winter of 1609-1610 are reflected in the postmortem treatment of this girl's body,” Smithsonian anthropologist Owsley said in the announcement. “The recovered bone fragments have unusually patterned cuts and chops that reflect tentativeness, trial and complete lack of experience in butchering animal remains. Nevertheless, the clear intent was to dismember the body, removing the brain and flesh from the face for consumption.”
Researchers took DNA from Jane in case that her real identity could be someday discovered by matching samples with those of her family's descendants, though officials said finding relatives was unlikely.
Tests showed that Jane had a diet of wheat and meat, said officials, who believe she arrived in Jamestown in August 1609, mere months before the worst of the colonists' starvation. That winter, 80 percent of the settlers died — about 200 people — sometimes at the hands of the Native Americans living in the area.
“The ‘starving time' was brought about by a trifecta of disasters: disease, a serious shortage of provisions, and a full-scale siege by the Powhatans that cut off Jamestown from outside relief,” Colonial Williamsburg's researcher Horn said in the announcement.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Report doesn’t find sexual misconduct norm at agency
- Upbeat Obama: 2014 can be ‘breakthrough’ year
- Couple ordered to stand trial in Craigslist killing
- Judge strikes same-sex marriage ban
- Arizona county to settle 2 lawsuits against sheriff
- Musician Fats Domino set to lead krewe during Mardi Gras
- Obama: Fix policy on sexual assault
- Phoenix first city to end vets chronic homelessness
- Diplomat’s strip search part of U.S. due process
- Police say they thwarted attack at Colorado school
- 63 years on, missing POW’s remains returned to widow