Oooh pretty bad
Nan rothschld
Sent from my iPhone
On May 2, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Rachel Feit <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I guess we should wish all the researchers Bone Appetit.
>
> ....couldn't resist that one.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Davis, Daniel (KYTC)
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:26 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Cannibalism at Jamestown
>
> We already knew they practiced cannibalism at Jamestown, as the settlers
> had written accounts of such. This just backs up the historical record.
>
> Daniel B. Davis
> Archaeologist Coordinator
> Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
> Division of Environmental Analysis
> 200 Mero Street
> Frankfort, KY 40622
> (502) 564-7250
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Benjamin Carter
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 12:18 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Cannibalism at Jamestown
>
> All,
>
> I just want to be clear that by "controversial" I simply meant that
> introducing cannibalism into the origin story of the American colonies
> is not going to happily be accepted by all. People eating people,
> especially at one of the hallowed centers of American history, will be
> controversial, no matter how good the science is. Indeed for some
> people, this will be one of those points where belief clashes with
> evidence. In those situations, evidence loses all too often. I can
> already see the critics deconstructing the evidence, much as has been
> done for human evolution (another point where belief and science
> collide). Even a suggestion that Kelso or Owsley did something
> "incorrect" will lead to all evidence being discounted. To be a bit of a
> conspiracy theorist, I even wonder if state school boards will discuss
> whether or not this should be taught in public classrooms. OK, I'm going
> a bit far here, but the point remains. It will be controversial, even if
> the science was perfectly executed and cannibalism is the best
> supported hypothesis.
>
> And, although these two are respected authorities and the Smithsonian
> article is quite good, I look forward to the scholarly work where they
> lay out all of the evidence. My bet is that the science is good, but
> withhold judgement until I actually see it.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben Carter
>
>
> On 5/2/2013 11:37 AM, scarlett wrote:
>> I would say that this work goes well beyond simply confirming
> documentary sources. This story paints an extraordinarily vivid picture
> of historical events in a way that nothing else has ever done before
> regarding the Starving Time at Jamestown. I would say that this work,
> which combines historical, forensic, and archaeological evidence is
> exactly the kind of thing that historical archaeology is good at--
> telling stories about past events with diverse source material to create
> richly textured understandings of the human experience.
>>
>> I hope to see the exhibit someday.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> On May 2, 2013, at 10:34 AM, sent wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know about controversial- I trust the science and the
> professionals involved couldn't be more skilled.
>>> The historical record has documented cannibalism so that was well
> known
>>> This is just good forensic proof.
>>> If anything it will strengthen the validity of historical primary
>>> sources
>>>
>>> Conrad
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Benjamin Carter
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 10:12 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Cannibalism at Jamestown
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> This is one of the most fascinating (and likely controversial)
>>> headlines that I have seen in a while.
>>>
>>> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Starving-Settlers-i
>>> n-Jamestown-Colony-Resorted-to-Eating-A-Child-205472161.html#.UYJeNtS
>>> AAmE.email
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ben Carter
>
|
