Jamestown excavation unearths four bodies and a mystery in a small box

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/jamestown-excavation-unearths-four-bodies--and-a-mystery-in-a-small-box/2015/07/27/0bb51cb8-2a59-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

by benbreen • 11 years ago

40 23 11 years ago

washingtonpost.com

Gys• 11 years ago

From the article:

'Studies and scans showed that the box was made of non-English silver, and originated in continental Europe many decades before it reached Jamestown.

Horn said he believed it was a sacred, public reliquary, as opposed to a private item, because it contained so many pieces of bone.'

'There are no plans to open it.'

sandworm101• 11 years ago

Why not open it? Archaeologists examine grave goods and open tombs all the time. Is there something special about this one? Is its curse somehow more powerful than all the others?

I really wonder about the ethics of opening up graves. What is the rule that separates a cemetery from an archaeological site?

ickwabe2• 11 years ago

The archeologist in this NPR story (http://www.npr.org/2015/07/28/425700788/bones-in-church-ruin...) reported that the box was too fragile to open. Likely opening the box would destroy all or part of it or its contents. Using MRI (or other scanning methods) as opposed to opening/disassembling is fairly common now in archeology when dealing with fragile objects.

But I agree with your skepticism regarding graves vs sites. I seriously doubt the folks who were buried or did the burying expected or wanted the remains exhumed for any purpose whatsoever.

Native Americans clearly considered this kind of thing grave robbing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Graves_Protect...). I can't see a substantial difference here.

I'm not sure where the line is. It seems like there should be a substantial benefit beyond just satisfying curiosity.

nextweek2• 11 years ago

Opening it would break it. There wouldn't be any DNA after that amount of time. Scans of the box have already allowed 3d prints of its contents.

egypturnash• 11 years ago

Well. You see, this one might be something from a real religion that white people believe in as opposed to one of those charming little pagan beliefs.

mhurron• 11 years ago

Archaeologists examine grave goods and open tombs all the time.

They walk on eggshells when it comes to Judaism or Christianity. They are still treated as far more holy than any other religion.

kelvin03• 11 years ago

Haven't you watched Raiders of the lost Ark? :)

whoopdedo• 11 years ago

I don't know if it's the same graves, but the book The Cradle of the Republic[1] from 1906 mentions an excavation that found

several graves and tombstones, as well as mortuary tablets, were discovered in the old foundations. In the chancel, lying with its head to the north, was an iron tablet, probably formerly a cenotaph, once embossed with inlaid brasses, now missing.

[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=4R4SAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA126#v=on...

jamesdharper3• 11 years ago

Awesome read, thanks for sharing.

kelvin03• 11 years ago

"Grave “A” contained the skeleton of the Rev. Robert Hunt, who was about 39 and was the first Anglican minister in the country, experts concluded from records and studies of the remains." How did they find out who was buried in which grave?

philwelch• 11 years ago

From historical records, they can gather the sex and approximate age of the people who would have been buried, and sometimes other physical details. This is information that can be cross-referenced against inspection of the remains. If they know that Robert Hunt was a 39 year old male, and there's four skeletons, they just have to find the skeleton that's probably a 39 year old male and that's Robert Hunt.

wahsd• 11 years ago

I wonder if those were the guys that eradicated the population of an indigenous town that was recently discovered close by.

Jamestown excavation unearths four bodies and a mystery in a small box

Related Stories