Jamestown Unearthed: Archaeologists begin conservation of knight’s tombstone

[Disir]

Archaeologists at Historic Jamestowne are digging into one of the greatest mysteries of the first English settlement in America: a knight’s tombstone that has been laying on the floor of a church for nearly four centuries.

The tombstone posed several mysteries for the Preservation Virginia team. Whose grave does it mark? What steps should be taken to preserve the damaged stone? And how will the team lift the roughly 1,200 pound stone onto a stable work surface without further damage — or injury?

Preservation Virginia saw the need to seek help from an outside expert to offer guidance on moving and preserving the stone. While the archaeologists have experience working with centuries-old artifacts, they had never worked on an artifact the size of the knight’s tomb.

“This is kind of out of the realm of what we in the conservation department are doing,” said Preservation Virginia Senior Staff Archaeologist Michael Lavin. “It is an artifact, but it is more of a monument. One of the most important things for us is knowing our limitations. We’re archaeological conservators. It’s a completely different field than monuments conservation.”
Jamestown Unearthed: Archaeologists begin conservation of knight’s tombstone | Williamsburg Yorktown Daily

That is the job I want.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Talk to the British. I bet they could move Big Ben without a stumble.

 

[whitehall]

Did it occur to archaeologists that a 1,200 lb stone alleged to be a monument is not characteristic of a border line self sufficient colony in the New World that was barely able to feed itself and disappeared in a couple of years nor is it consistent with a "native" hunter gatherer society?

 

[yiostheoy]

The Injuns ate them all.

 

[Nosmo King]

Did it occur to archaeologists that a 1,200 lb stone alleged to be a monument is not characteristic of a border line self sufficient colony in the New World that was barely able to feed itself and disappeared in a couple of years nor is it consistent with a "native" hunter gatherer society?

I'm just spit balling here but could the stone have been used as ballast in a ship?

 

[Ringel05]

Did it occur to archaeologists that a 1,200 lb stone alleged to be a monument is not characteristic of a border line self sufficient colony in the New World that was barely able to feed itself and disappeared in a couple of years nor is it consistent with a "native" hunter gatherer society?

Jamestown wasn't always a borderline self sufficient colony, it finally became a prosperous town and was the capital of the Virginia colony for 83 years before the capital was moved to Williamsburg and Jamestown ultimately was abandoned. The chapel is a stone structure and would not have been built until the colony was prosperous and don't mistake or confuse the term knight with just medieval times, people are still knighted today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jamestown survived.

You may be thinking of Roanoke.

Sir Ferdinando Wainman arrived at James Fort in June 1610 with his relative—the governor, Lord De La Warr—and another kinsman, Captain William West. He was a high-ranking officer who was appointed master of the ordnance (artillery) and placed in charge of the colony’s horse troops. However, he died soon after arriving and was buried in the chancel in an anthropomorphic, or human-shaped, coffin, as was West who would die several months later. Wainman was the first English knight buried in America.

Sir Ferdinando Wainman | Historic Jamestowne

 

[Ringel05]

Did it occur to archaeologists that a 1,200 lb stone alleged to be a monument is not characteristic of a border line self sufficient colony in the New World that was barely able to feed itself and disappeared in a couple of years nor is it consistent with a "native" hunter gatherer society?

Also the myth of the eastern tribes being simply hunter-gatherers obviously still persists, they were also farmers growing a multitude of crops.

 

[Picaro]

Did it occur to archaeologists that a 1,200 lb stone alleged to be a monument is not characteristic of a border line self sufficient colony in the New World that was barely able to feed itself and disappeared in a couple of years nor is it consistent with a "native" hunter gatherer society?

Also the myth of the eastern tribes being simply hunter-gatherers obviously still persists, they were also farmers growing a multitude of crops.

They had the slash and burn style of ag, which isn't highly productive or stable, so they still relied a lot on hunting and gathering. The growing fur trade with Europeans became more lucrative as time went on, and they became only occasional farmers, if they had enough slave labor available.

 

[TheOldSchool]

These Jamestown excavators sure are taking their Goddam time.

 

[Ringel05]

Did it occur to archaeologists that a 1,200 lb stone alleged to be a monument is not characteristic of a border line self sufficient colony in the New World that was barely able to feed itself and disappeared in a couple of years nor is it consistent with a "native" hunter gatherer society?

Also the myth of the eastern tribes being simply hunter-gatherers obviously still persists, they were also farmers growing a multitude of crops.

They had the slash and burn style of ag, which isn't highly productive or stable, so they still relied a lot on hunting and gathering. The growing fur trade with Europeans became more lucrative as time went on, and they became only occasional farmers, if they had enough slave labor available.

Based on what academic historical/anthropological source? Considering that three centuries ago native farmers in what is now New York were outproducing European wheat crops with primarily maize, that slash and burn is a primarily a European technique which the natives used on a much smaller scale, that they had better soil nutrient replenishment techniques than we even have today...........
Oh and slash and burn is an effective and good method for clearing a field and providing a high level of nitrogen to the soil.

 

[Picaro]

Based on what academic historical/anthropological source? Considering that three centuries ago native farmers in what is now New York were outproducing European wheat crops with primarily maize,

Maizs isn't very nutritious compared to wheat and especially rye grain, and European plows were far more efficent, so I doubt the claims they were 'outproducing Europeans' on a per acre basis; they may have been 'outproducing' them because they had larger fields and a much larger population is more like it.

that slash and burn is a primarily a European technique which the natives used on a much smaller scale, that they had better soil nutrient replenishment techniques than we even have today...........

It was used in the western hemisphere, and its soil replenishment capabilities were temporary, which is why they moved their villages around a lot.

Oh and slash and burn is an effective and good method for clearing a field and providing a high level of nitrogen to the soil.

It's effective if you're a primitive and don't have very good tools or much knowledge of agronomy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Or you have seemingly an endless supply of land.

Our cotton farming and lumber industries followed a similar pattern well into the 20th century: there was so much land it was easier to move than rehabilitate the soil.

 

[Ringel05]

Based on what academic historical/anthropological source? Considering that three centuries ago native farmers in what is now New York were outproducing European wheat crops with primarily maize,

Maizs isn't very nutritious compared to wheat and especially rye grain, and European plows were far more efficent, so I doubt the claims they were 'outproducing Europeans' on a per acre basis; they may have been 'outproducing' them because they had larger fields and a much larger population is more like it.

that slash and burn is a primarily a European technique which the natives used on a much smaller scale, that they had better soil nutrient replenishment techniques than we even have today...........

It was used in the western hemisphere, and its soil replenishment capabilities were temporary, which is why they moved their villages around a lot.

Oh and slash and burn is an effective and good method for clearing a field and providing a high level of nitrogen to the soil.

It's effective if you're a primitive and don't have very good tools or much knowledge of agronomy.

I tell ya what, I'll rely on historical and anthropological (and soil replenishment) data which completely contradicts your claims as opposed to the persistent myths you seem to have latched on to.
Oh and just for the record the American Indians did not have plows, their system didn't disturb the ground like plows do, actually known to be a better way to plant crops and their knowledge of agronomy goes back hundreds of years before the Europeans arrived.

Here read for yourself

native american farming techniques - Google Search

Followed by mostly academia

native american farming techniques - Google Search

 

[JakeStarkey]

Picaro is one of those who won't learn, because he cannot be contradicted without blowing up.

The Native Americans did a superb job of soil management. Cut and burn was part of it, and why not, when you have 200 million acres with which to work.

 

[Picaro]

Based on what academic historical/anthropological source? Considering that three centuries ago native farmers in what is now New York were outproducing European wheat crops with primarily maize,

Maizs isn't very nutritious compared to wheat and especially rye grain, and European plows were far more efficent, so I doubt the claims they were 'outproducing Europeans' on a per acre basis; they may have been 'outproducing' them because they had larger fields and a much larger population is more like it.

that slash and burn is a primarily a European technique which the natives used on a much smaller scale, that they had better soil nutrient replenishment techniques than we even have today...........

It was used in the western hemisphere, and its soil replenishment capabilities were temporary, which is why they moved their villages around a lot.

Oh and slash and burn is an effective and good method for clearing a field and providing a high level of nitrogen to the soil.

It's effective if you're a primitive and don't have very good tools or much knowledge of agronomy.

I tell ya what, I'll rely on historical and anthropological (and soil replenishment) data which completely contradicts your claims as opposed to the persistent myths you seem to have latched on to.
Oh and just for the record the American Indians did not have plows, their system didn't disturb the ground like plows do, actually known to be a better way to plant crops and their knowledge of agronomy goes back hundreds of years before the Europeans arrived.

Here read for yourself

native american farming techniques - Google Search

Followed by mostly academia

native american farming techniques - Google Search

Fine. I'll go with actual agronomists, historians, and anthropologists, as opposed to a collection of hippy romanticists and the various fictional anecdotes they rely on. Maize diets have to be heavily supplemented, and the size of the ears produced in the 'good old days' were nothing like the ears grown today, and neither were the garden crops. If they were doing so wonderful they would have had much longer lifespans and a much larger population in North America. But why point out the obvious when you can just make up your own facts, like jake does all the time? If you weren't so dedicated to confirmation bias there is plenty of real info out there.

 

[Ringel05]

Based on what academic historical/anthropological source? Considering that three centuries ago native farmers in what is now New York were outproducing European wheat crops with primarily maize,

Maizs isn't very nutritious compared to wheat and especially rye grain, and European plows were far more efficent, so I doubt the claims they were 'outproducing Europeans' on a per acre basis; they may have been 'outproducing' them because they had larger fields and a much larger population is more like it.

that slash and burn is a primarily a European technique which the natives used on a much smaller scale, that they had better soil nutrient replenishment techniques than we even have today...........

It was used in the western hemisphere, and its soil replenishment capabilities were temporary, which is why they moved their villages around a lot.

Oh and slash and burn is an effective and good method for clearing a field and providing a high level of nitrogen to the soil.

It's effective if you're a primitive and don't have very good tools or much knowledge of agronomy.

I tell ya what, I'll rely on historical and anthropological (and soil replenishment) data which completely contradicts your claims as opposed to the persistent myths you seem to have latched on to.
Oh and just for the record the American Indians did not have plows, their system didn't disturb the ground like plows do, actually known to be a better way to plant crops and their knowledge of agronomy goes back hundreds of years before the Europeans arrived.

Here read for yourself

native american farming techniques - Google Search

Followed by mostly academia

native american farming techniques - Google Search

Fine. I'll go with actual agronomists, historians, and anthropologists, as opposed to a collection of hippy romanticists and the various fictional anecdotes they rely on. Maize diets have to be heavily supplemented, and the size of the ears produced in the 'good old days' were nothing like the ears grown today, and neither were the garden crops. If they were doing so wonderful they would have had much longer lifespans and a much larger population in North America. But why point out the obvious when you can just make up your own facts, like jake does all the time? If you weren't so dedicated to confirmation bias there is plenty of real info out there.

Sooooo you didn't read any of the links that included academic papers from agronomists, historians and anthropologists....... Kinda figured. Let me guess, if it counters any white, European/American idea of superiority then it's false........ Got it........

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Native Americans were superior to the Europeans in matters agricultural for many decades.

No evidence exists to counter that fact.