5 ms·
Jamestown excavation unearths four bodies and a mystery in a small box
- Gys 11y agoFrom 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 11y agoWhy 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?
- ickwabe 11y agoThe archeologist in this NPR story (http://www.npr.org/2015/07/28/425700788/bones-in-church-ruins-likely-the-remains-of-early-jamestowns-elite 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_Protection_and_Repatriation_Act 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.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Retra 11y agoThe benefit of satisfying curiosity greatly outweighs the benefit of considering the feelings of the long dead. Namely, leaving things buried in the ground forever offers no benefit at all.
- nivla 11y ago>The benefit of satisfying curiosity And if left unchecked it leads to things like this [1], where a graduate student cut down a tree to count its age only to realize it was the oldest living tree in existence. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(tree) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(tree)
- Retra 11y agoI really don't see how digging up graves is comparable to killing things.
- nivla 11y agoI never compared the two. Hence quoting only the part that is relevant.
- Retra 11y agoIf you're not making a comparison, then I don't see the relevance either.
- nivla 11y agoJust because I am not making a direct comparison to your exact wording, doesn't make my comment any less relevant. Your basis of argument that if the benefit of satisfying curiosity greatly outweighs the benefit of X, it should be undertaken is absolutely wrong. To cite along the same track so you call out on relevancy again: Digging out historical graveyards and examining the bodies has its merit especially to increase our knowledge about the time period, however in reality going around digging into sacred places is also considered a douche bag move. Thus as said in the first comment, curiosity is something that should be kept under check.
- nextweek2 11y agoOpening 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.
- brock_r 11y agoThe half-life of DNA is 521 years. So, even if these were the bones of Christ, there would still be plenty of DNA available for testing.
- egypturnash 11y agoWell. 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.
- user_0001 11y agoI think the term is "one true religion"
- mhurron 11y 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.
- kelvin0 11y agoHaven't you watched Raiders of the lost Ark? :)
- whoopdedo 11y agoI 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=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=4R4SAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA126#v=on...
- jamesdharper3 11y agoAwesome read, thanks for sharing.
- kelvin0 11y 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 11y agoFrom 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 11y agoI wonder if those were the guys that eradicated the population of an indigenous town that was recently discovered close by.