
Jamestown excavation unearths four bodies and a mystery in a small box - benbreen
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
======
kelvin0
"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
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.

------
Gys
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
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?

~~~
ickwabe
The archeologist in this NPR story
([http://www.npr.org/2015/07/28/425700788/bones-in-church-
ruin...](http://www.npr.org/2015/07/28/425700788/bones-in-church-ruins-likely-
the-remains-of-early-jamestowns-elite)) 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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Graves_Protection_and_Repatriation_Act)).
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.

~~~
Retra
The 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
>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
I really don't see how digging up graves is comparable to killing things.

~~~
nivla
I never compared the two. Hence quoting only the part that is relevant.

~~~
Retra
If you're not making a comparison, then I don't see the relevance either.

~~~
nivla
Just 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.

------
whoopdedo
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...](https://books.google.com/books?id=4R4SAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q&f=false)

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

------
jamesdharper3
Awesome read, thanks for sharing.

