Rethinking Jamestown (archaeology)

[Dover]

Rethinking Jamestown

America's first permanent colonists have long been considered lazy and incompetent. But new evidence suggests that it was a prolonged drought—not indolence—that almost did them in

To the English voyagers who waded ashore at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay on a balmy April day in 1607, the lush Virginia landscape must have seemed like a garden paradise after four and a half months at sea. One ebullient adventurer later wrote that he was "almost ravished" by the sight of the freshwater streams and "faire meddowes and goodly tall trees" they encountered when they first landed.

Fifty miles upstream, they set about building a fortress and clearing land for the commercial outpost they had been sent to establish and which they called "James Cittie." They were eager to get down to the business of extracting gold, timber and other commodities to ship back to London.

But Jamestown proved to be neither paradise nor gold mine. In the heat of that first summer at the mosquito-infested settlement, 46 of the colonists died of fever, starvation or Indian arrows. By year's end, only 38 remained. Were it not for the timely arrival of British supply ships in January 1608, and again the following October, Jamestown, like Roanoke a few years before, almost certainly would have vanished....cont'd

http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues05/jan05/jamestown.html

[H2O Man]

1. Intersting ....

I had not heard the "lazy and incompetent" theory given serious consideration before. I suspect that ill-prepared may be more of the theory that most historians would propose.

One interesting factor to keep in mind is that most of the European experience with "Indians" to this date had occured in Central America. Those Indians found on the islands were relatively mild in culture. Those in the "empires" were easily subdued; kill their leaders, and most societies of that militarized a structure will follow the next authority figure.

When the other European nations figured to follow the Spanish example of not only establishing colonies, but even more, capitalizing on the Three G's (God, gold, and glory) they were surprised to encounter the woodland cultures of the east coast. These were far more democratic in their internal politics, and not always keen to have uninvited guests tresspassing on the parochial tribal territories.

Certainly, people from England recognized winter weather, and some of the other things that they "discovered" in North America. It seems that their not being prepared to interact with the native population as equals -- or as less than equal -- was the #1 cause of their unexpected hardships.

[Ms. Clio]

3. Not at all--see Edmund S. Morgan's now-classic work

American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia.

He argued that most of the Jamestown colonists were "gentlemen" who considered themselves above the manual labor of agriculture, and planned to procure their provisions from the local Indians. But the native peoples only produced enough for their own subsistence, and had nothing to spare. So the English colonists decided to take it by force, with the predictable results for interactions between the natives and the foreign invaders.

This is very interesting information that might indicate that his thesis needs some revision.

[H2O Man]

8. While I haven't read Morgan,

I'm somewhat familiar with his theories, in large part from Gary Nash's book, "Red, White, and Black: The peoples of early America." Nash also comments on Morgan's "Slavery and Freedom: The American Paradox."

While I find Jamestown somewhat interesting, I focus more on the history from my area. I'm close to the Ft. Stanwix Treaty line, marking the "western front" of NYS during the Revolutionary War. The book I am working on now will have more extensive information on the role of Mohawk leader Joseph Brant, and what event(s) turned him from being the English-educated agent of the King, to the warrior who was involved in the battle at Cherry Valley, though not Wyoming County, PA.

I've done excavations at two of the sites Brant occupied during the war years, and I have a connection in that one of my ancestors was allied with him. He was an interesting character in American history.

http://h2oman.blogspot.com

[Ms. Clio]

10. That sounds like very intriguing work

I don't know very much about NYS during the Revolutionary War--my major focus is 19th century western history.

Would you happen to know if there was any crowd/mob activity against Loyalists or others in New York at the time?

[H2O Man]

11. I live along the

Ft Stanwix Treaty Line, marking the old "western front." (My 200+ year old house was one of the first stage coach stations heading west to Ithaca after the war.) Generally, in this area, the population was evenly divided: a third were Loyalists; a third were Patriots; and a third were neutral. The Iroquois Confederacy had held the balance of power between the English and French in the period before the Revolutionary War, and had of course benefitted as far as trade went. Not to mention being able to overwhelm, in various ways, non-Confederacy Indian populations.

There were some interesting dynamics in the Southern Tier of NYS. Because the English were more interested in trade, while the Patriots were looking to expand their land-base, it would have seemed that more of the Iroquois would have sided with the Loyalists/English. But the majority never took sides. Oneida and Tuscaroras sided with Patriots; Brant led a substantial number of Mohawk and other Indians on the side of the Loyalists.

In the Upper Delaware River Valley, there was more tension between the Loyalists and Patriots. Brant had become "Native" at a place called Oquaga, outside Binghamton, NY, where he met his fiorst wife. He began a series of raids, not true warfare, to gather supplies and to intimidate Patriots. But he always followed the Iroquoian practice for raids/battle, of taking women and children, and placing them in a safe place, then burning settlements.

Washington, upon the advice of Governor Clinton, ordered the destruction of Brants Upper Susquehanna strongholds, as part of the Clinton-Sullivan Campaign. When one of the three actual waves of Patriot attacks came through this area, the soldiers found the Indian infants hidden in their gardens, which was safe according to the Iroquois custom for raids/battle. The soldiers "ran them through with swords, and watched them wiggle." (I found this verified in an old soldier's journal in PA; as a child, my neighbors spoke to me about it.)

This resulted in Brant's becoming involved in true warfare. He certainly participated in the "massacre" at Cherry Valley. However, in Wyoming Co. PA, he couldn't have been there. The Wyoming "massacre" involved many of the Loyalists responding to the earlier hostilities of the Patriots. One of my ancestors was there, and I know that it was not safe to be a Loyalist! After the hostilities there, Brant did show up. He gave my ancestor, then "retired" from warfare, two orphaned Susquehannock children to raise. Most Susquehannocks would be adopted/absorbed by the Onondaga.

I realize that provides an incomplete answer to your question. But in my area, the Loyalists tended to move away when Brant began the border raids. Many of the Loyalists' families moved towards Canada. With few exceptions, their properties here were burned. The men often joined Brant; I've done some fascinating research into the flow in population in this area ("Old Unadilla"/Sidney and Oquaga/Windsor). In a week's time, Brant could have 4,000 men go to 950 men. He used this area as a base, to send different groups to numerous battles around the northeast. There was also a sizeable number of "runaway slaves" that joined Brant.

[pilgrimm]

2. interesting

I was just reading about that last night in Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the United States

[Ms. Clio]

4. I am so glad I saw this--thanks so much for posting it

I am very interested in the impact of drought on human history.

[Dover]

5. You're welcome! So glad this story fell into the right hands.

DUers sure have a broad range of interests and academic credentials ....I'm always amazed.

[Ms. Clio]

6. It is very exciting in terms of my own future work

I really am highly grateful! :)

I hesitate to say this because it may seem unbelievably serendipitous, but I was just wondering a couple of days ago if there was any evidence that the Jamestown colonists were actually reasonably industrious, but agriculturally crippled by drought, and if it was also drought that hampered the Indians' ability to provide a surplus to the invaders. This archeological evidence is very compelling, and powerfully complements the work of other scholars, such as Stahle and Cleaveland et al., “The Lost Colony and Jamestown Droughts." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/04/980428075409.htm

Perhaps I would have come across it later, as I began more extensive work on the project, but this information beautifully dovetails with and buttresses my own work on a different, but closely related, historical question.

Thanks again!

[Dover]

7. Wow, that really is remarkable. I love synchronistic events!

Best of luck in your studies.

[NNadir]

9. Thanx. Excellent reading.