Starving Settlers in Jamestown Colony Resorted to Cannibalism
New archaeological evidence and forensic analysis reveals that a 14-year-old girl was cannibalized in desperation
- By Joseph Stromberg
- Smithsonian.com, May 01, 2013, Subscribe
The harsh winter of 1609 in Virginia’s Jamestown Colony forced residents to do the unthinkable. A recent excavation at the historic site discovered the carcasses of dogs, cats and horses consumed during the season commonly called the “Starving Time.” But a few other newly discovered bones in particular, though, tell a far more gruesome story: the dismemberment and cannibalization of a 14-year-old English girl.
“The chops to the forehead are very tentative, very incomplete,” says Douglas Owsley, the Smithsonian forensic anthropologist who analyzed the bones after they were found by archaeologists from Preservation Virginia. “Then, the body was turned over, and there were four strikes to the back of the head, one of which was the strongest and split the skull in half. A penetrating wound was then made to the left temple, probably by a single-sided knife, which was used to pry open the head and remove the brain.”
Much is still unknown about the circumstances of this grisly meal: Who exactly the girl researchers are calling "Jane" was, whether she was murdered or died of natural causes, whether multiple people participated in the butchering or it was a solo act. But as Owsley revealed along with lead archaeologist William Kelso today at a press conference at the National Museum of Natural History, we now have the first direct evidence of cannibalism at Jamestown, the oldest permanent English colony in the Americas. “Historians have gone back and forth on whether this sort of thing really happened there,” Owsley says. “Given these bones in a trash pit, all cut and chopped up, it's clear that this body was dismembered for consumption.”
It’s long been speculated that the harsh conditions faced by the colonists of Jamestown might have made them desperate enough to eat other humans—and perhaps even commit murder to do so. The colony was founded in 1607 by 104 settlers aboard three ships, the Susan Constant, Discovery and Godspeed, but only 38 survived the first nine months of life in Jamestown, with most succumbing to starvation and disease (some researchers speculate that drinking water poisoned by arsenic and human waste also played a role). Because of difficulties in growing crops—they arrived in the midst of one of the worst regional droughts in centuries and many settlers were unused to hard agricultural labor—the survivors remained dependent on supplies brought by subsequent missions, as well as trade with Native Americans.
By the winter of 1609, extreme drought, hostile relations with members of the local Powhatan Confederacy and the fact that a supply ship was lost at sea put the colonists in a truly desperate position. Sixteen years later, in 1625, George Percy, who had been president of Jamestown during the Starving Time, wrote a letter describing the colonists’ diet during that terrible winter. “Haveinge fedd upon our horses and other beastes as longe as they Lasted, we weare gladd to make shifte with vermin as doggs Catts, Ratts and myce…as to eate Bootes shoes or any other leather,” he wrote. “And now famin beginneinge to Looke gastely and pale in every face, thatt notheinge was Spared to mainteyne Lyfe and to doe those things which seame incredible, as to digge upp deade corpes outt of graves and to eate them. And some have Licked upp the Bloode which hathe fallen from their weake fellowes.”
Despite this and other textual references to cannibalism, though, there had never been hard physical evidence that it had occurred—until now. Kelso’s team discovered the girl’s remains during the summer of 2012. "We found a deposit of refuse that contained butchered horse and dog bones. That was only done in times of extreme hunger. As we excavated, we found human teeth and then a partial human skull," says Kelso.
Kelso brought them to Owsley for a battery of forensic tests, including microscopic and isotope analysis. “We CT scanned the bones, then replicated them as virtual 3D models and then put them together, piece by piece, assembling the skull,” Owsley says. Digitally mirroring the fragments to fill in the missing gaps allowed the team to make a 3D facial reconstruction despite having just 66 percent of the skull.
The researchers used this reconstruction, along with the other data, to determine the specimen was a female, roughly 14 years old (based on the development of her molars) and of British ancestry. Owsley says the cut marks on the jaw, face and forehead of the skull, along with those on the shinbone, are telltale signs of cannibalism. "The clear intent was to remove the facial tissue and the brain for consumption. These people were in dire circumstances. So any flesh that was available would have been used," says Owsley. "The person that was doing this was not experienced and did not know how to butcher an animal. Instead, we see hesitancy, trial, tentativeness and a total lack of experience."
He’s probably one of the researchers best qualified to make this judgment. As one of the country’s most prominent physical anthropologists, he’s analyzed many cannibalized skeletons from ancient history, and as an accomplished forensic investigator who works with the FBI, he’s also worked on much more recent cases, such as one of the victims of 1980s serial killer and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer. In total, he estimates that he’s examined more than 10,000 bodies during his career, oftentimes people who were killed in tragic circumstances, including victims of 9/11 and journalists who were kidnapped and murdered in Guatemala. Most of his time, though, is spent working on more inspiring cases, such as the 9,000-year-old “Kennewick Man” discovered in Washington State, and the mysterious remains of ancient Easter Islanders. “I love the moments when you come up with something that you're just totally in awe of," he told Smithsonian magazine when he was named one of “35 Who Made a Difference.” “Something that gives you an overwhelming sense of wow!”
Owsley speculates that this particular Jamestown body belonged to a child who likely arrived in the colony during 1609 on one of the resupply ships. She was either a maidservant or the child of a gentleman, and due to the high-protein diet indicated by his team’s isotope analysis of her bones, he suspects the latter. The identity of whoever consumed her is entirely unknown, and Owsley guesses there might have been multiple cannibals involved, because the cut marks on her shin indicate a more skilled butcher than whoever dismembered her head.
It appears that her brain, tongue, cheeks and leg muscles were eaten, with the brain likely eaten first, because it decomposes so quickly after death. There’s no evidence of murder, and Owsley suspects that this was a case in which hungry colonists simply ate the one remaining food available to them, despite cultural taboos. “I don’t think that they killed her, by any stretch,” he says. “It's just that they were so desperate, and so hard-pressed, that out of necessity this is what they resorted to.”
Kelso’s team of archaeologists will continue to excavate the fort, searching for other bodies that might help us learn about the conditions faced by some of the country’s first European colonists. This might be the first specimen that provides evidence for cannibalism, but Owsley is pretty sure there are more to come. Percy’s letter also describes how, as president of the colony, he tortured and burned alive a man who had confessed to killing, salting and eating his pregnant wife—so the remains of this woman, along with other victims of cannibalism, may still be waiting to be found underground. “It’s fairly convincing, now that we see this one, that this wasn’t the only case,” he says. “There are other examples mentioned here and there in the literature. So the only question is: Where are the rest of the bodies?”
Sign up for our free newsletter to receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Comments (43)
I cant imagine consuming human meat and not feeling guilty over it even if it's meant for survival.
Posted by larry meyer on May 11,2013 | 07:26 AM
Why in the world couldn't they exist on fish and seafood, as well as seaweed? This just doesn't make any sense to me.
Posted by Zoe Willet on May 10,2013 | 11:51 PM
Old diaries and military officer's journals record instances of cannibalism by certain (now extinct) indigenous tribes. I would rather think that she was more than likely kidnapped while doing chores, or attending to 'natural' matters and violated soon after. To cover the crime, the body dumped and covered. Wild animals could have done the rest.
Posted by Jaymes on May 10,2013 | 06:33 PM
Fascinating read, both article and the comments below! This is an unpleasant enough subject that people are unwilling to accept face value facts as scientific. I would love a follow-up article on the psychology of historical myth busting...
Posted by Lisa on May 10,2013 | 05:23 PM
Wow, I am so sorry to hear about cannibalism at Jamestown. All the accounts of human cannibalism, be it settlers, head hunters, or even rugby players, are all just so horrible. So, what is the scientific community's official opinion on situations like this? Given the harsh circumstances, is their behavior understood, and therefore condoned? Or, is cannibalism wrong under any circumstances? Or, is it a matter of choice, without any judgement one way or another? What does science say about such things? I'm just dying to know. Godspeed KJC
Posted by Kim J. Ciftci on May 6,2013 | 08:54 AM
William and Alice Spencer of Jamestown, VA were my 10 great grandparents. William was In VA during the "starving time" and did survive. I don't know what he had to do to survive, but at this point, I'm glad he did or I wouldn't be here. Must have been a real tough guy
Posted by Pat Kramer on May 5,2013 | 12:52 AM
Very interesting (and disturbing)...
Posted by on May 5,2013 | 11:06 PM
The forensic analysis indicates that a human wielding a tool dismembered the body and skull. The purpose is only inferred across hundreds of years. We also know that early settlers had a high level of religious supersitition and zealotry focused on fear that young women were "witches" who were "responsible" for adversity that could include famine. Could not the young woman have suffered a savage post-mortem fate based on an attempt to expel the "devil" residing inside the "witch's" head?
Posted by Gary Rosenblum on May 5,2013 | 02:46 PM
I believe the young girl may have become malnourished and died from pneumonia. it wasn't uncommon in those days. Desperate people do desperate things. They were starving.
Posted by Mary on May 5,2013 | 02:25 PM
Cannibalism is more historically prevalent than we're comfortably admitting. From stranded sailors afloat at sea, to The Donner Party all the way up to the stranded soccer team in the Andes about 30 or 40 yrars ago.... And those are just the. Ones that the media reported on.... Out of curiosity — if YOI were stuck in a life or death situation, would you do it ? And if yes, which part would you eat & how would you prepare it ?
Posted by Paul Gold on May 5,2013 | 11:55 AM
Cannibalism is more historically prevalent than we're comfortably admitting. From stranded sailors afloat at sea, to The Donner Party all the way up to the stranded soccer team in the Andes about 30 or 40 yrars ago.... And those are just the. Ones that the media reported on.... Out of curiosity — if YOI were stuck in a life or death situation, would you do it ? And if yes, which part would you eat & how would you prepare it ?
Posted by Paul Gold on May 5,2013 | 11:54 AM
I'm sure that by the time cannibalism started taking place there wouldn't have been any expendable energy in the living for them to be digging graves. So, although saddening, I am not surprised that this girls bones were found in the trash pit. I think it's quite possibly that she could have died of something-other-than-murder and rather than burying her body, it was consumed as food. OR she may have been buried and dug up later. I don't believe that other (larger) portions of her body had been discovered, so other areas of her body may have contained cut marks. While areas such as the cheeks and shins probably weren't first choice, I'm sure that the living were in no positions to waste.
Posted by Yana on May 4,2013 | 10:53 PM
Interesting that the scientists come to the conclusion that this *must* be evidence of cannibalism without discussing other possibilities. All of these marks on the skull are consistent with the same kind of marks found on the skull of Christopher Colombus. The great explorer died in Spain but wanted to be buried on Hispaniola, a long sea voyage away. To avoid transporting a rotting corpse, they removed all the flesh from his body and transported the bones. Who is to say this girl's story isn't similar? Another possibility is the Powhatan indians are known to have collected scalps from their enemies, the people of Jamestown were at war with the Powhatans off-and-on for years. A split skull and knife marks on the forehead seem consistent with that conflict.
Posted by D Zellen on May 3,2013 | 10:11 PM
They were from England, and the English have a history of cannibalism. What's the surprise?
Posted by V. Dyset on May 3,2013 | 08:58 AM
Dom, Who thought America's beginnings were pretty? Certainly not the Native Americans and the people enslaved to build it. LOL The forefathers of the country were hardcore and relentless. We can't compare our softened selves to the likes of these people. True survivalist. Survival of the fittest is the law of nature and the base nature of all human beings.
Posted by Tamara on May 3,2013 | 08:04 AM
What a grisly find! I guess if you are desperately hungry you will resort to cannibalism.
Posted by Marilyn Docherty on May 2,2013 | 01:30 AM
These comments are so silly, did any of you doubters actually read the articles or watch the videos on this subject?! 1) there are more than 5 cases of cannibalism from this period documented in the historic record from those who lived at the time. 2) the incomplete remains, scattered in a trash layer along with those of butchered animals like dogs and horses (not traditional English fare) bore large chop marks and smaller scrapes with an iron tool, indicating that all the meat and brains were removed from the skull. 3) They were STARVING and only 60 out of perhaps 300 people survived those conditions. 4) In cases throughout history and even modern history (the 1980s) time and time again groups of desperate people have turned to cannibalism to survive. (donner pass, soccer team plane crash, etc.) So what in the world makes this story so unlikely to you? These are among the best scientists in their fields and they do not make these claims lightly or without overwhelming evidence! Why is murder easier to believe than some unfortunate girl dies of disease or starvation and then she is in turn eaten? The records say it happened but this is the first material evidence. In court would you want the physical evidence, or the written statements of the eyewitnesses? Both, right? Looks like they have it now!
Posted by Nobody on May 2,2013 | 10:13 PM
During the starving time, it is estimated that of the 500 colonists, only about 60 survived. So, there were people - sometimes multiple people, dying daily due to starvation and illness. There would have been no need for any killing. Also, burials were haphazard, particularly at the very end. No one had the energy to bury people. These are the bones they recovered. Shins, face, head. All showed signs of butchering according to the article. Also, showed different style. The results look reasonable for the conclusions. (Also, it was not a harsh winter that did them in. It was the excessive drought the previous summer combined with the resupply mission that failed. They had a few hundred people living in Jamestown in the summer of 1609. They had a harsh summer. They barely had enough food for a fraction of the colonists. They had expected a resupply mission in that fall, but it ran into a hurricane and was delayed 9 months. Had the supply mission arrived on time, they would have been fine. Instead, the cargo ships - the Sea Venture in particular - were stuck in Bermuda. The resupply ships carrying additional colonists, however, made it to Virginia in the fall. So, basically, you had a marginal food supply, then a whole bunch of additional mouths dumped on them - after the harvest. The local Indians were quite hostile, which virtually eliminated hunting options around Jamestown. They did send a few groups to the coast to hunt and fish further away from Jamestown, but those were limited due to the lateness of the year. The drought ended in in 1612 with it being much less severe in 1611, but that was also a year of large food supply from England.)
Posted by C Buckley on May 2,2013 | 06:17 PM
@ Bigsipper: So you were right there with the starving villagers, huh? Of course, the fleshier portions of the corpse would have been eaten first; however, you do realize that, depending on the timeline from the day she was buried to the day she was disinterred, probably much of her flesh had deteriorated, riiiight? Also, just how much forensic science have YOU studied?
Posted by Kat on May 2,2013 | 04:06 PM
Well, this was no surprise... my first attempt apparently offended the moderator(s) somehow. I tell it like it is, end of story. Cannibalism would be considered a sin first and foremost. Secondly, taking a human life for nourishing other alleged 'humans' would be a crime, period. ALso, as mentioned in this article...torture would be the same as above. Next; the act of encroaching on another's (indigenous peoples)property is a crime, pure and simple. There's much more to it than that, but the moderators certainly won't allow the absolute truth to be told...and that IS how this place operates. There is no place to hide what's inside; and I for one will not pray for the soul(s) of the criminals. and hey don't even bother praying for me...I want NOTHING from you.
Posted by me again on May 2,2013 | 01:33 PM
While I am aware that the Jamestown settelers practiced eating their dead (confirmed in later accounts by survivors), I do have a question about the reconstruction of Jane. I am a painter and sculptor and when I viewed the bust and the skull, there seems to be a marked difference in the shape of the lower mandible of the skull and the shape of Jane's lower jaw. The skull is very squarish and wider than the bust with a very prominent chin. Jane has a very gracile oval shape while the skull is very boxy. Was there some artistic license taken maybe to illicit a more sympathic response to the victim?
Posted by Richard Ferguson on May 2,2013 | 01:20 PM
I have read that brains of animals were the first ingrediants of meatloaf in the Roman/Medieval era, rather than ground beef or pork. It was very common to consume brain matter.
Posted by Lisa on May 2,2013 | 12:48 PM
Julia, that same question popped into my head immediately... I won't sugar-coat my speculative answer, and I am not associated with the author, etc. My 'guess' is that she was murdered via the blow to the back of the skull...and indeed, it is murder. She may have been ill, or perhaps had displeased another colonist and you know the rest. The ends do NOT justify the means, under ANY circumstance(s). The arrival of 'colonists' was the downfall of this place; look at what they did to indigenous people...anyone want some whiskey, guns, ammunition, or even a contaminated blanket? Maybe the natives should serve the colonists as SLAVES, as they did... and much, much more. Hey, the 'colonists' have played out the same scenario over, and over, and over... and it continues in other ways today. I'll tell you this, I would starve to death before I'd even think about cannibalism; and if I had the power to do so... this would never have happened in the first place, period. The peoples who commited thse CRIMES are seven levels down. See ya' on Judgement Day!
Posted by me on May 2,2013 | 12:10 PM
She probably starved to death. then they ate her.
Posted by Ivy on May 2,2013 | 11:44 AM
This has not been a debated issue in the historical community nor is it this the first "direct evidence" that has emerged. There are numerous primary source accounts verifying the incidents.
Posted by Rob Baker on May 2,2013 | 11:44 AM
If the bones were found in a trash pit, I'd be inclined to think she'd been murdered. As well, I wonder if people ate animal brains as a matter of course so that human brain would be considered for consumption.
Posted by Kathleen on May 2,2013 | 09:32 AM
RASPUTINA WAS RIGHT!
Posted by J Mondas on May 2,2013 | 06:59 AM
What saved Jamestown: gaining private property rights. They still continued to have harsh winters, but, as if by magic, they thrived. I'll leave it to you to discover what the root cause of the starvation and cannibalism was.
Posted by LevonTostig on May 2,2013 | 06:56 AM
Starting the US was not as pretty as we thought. :(
Posted by Dom Nelson on May 2,2013 | 06:16 AM
They where in such dire starvation that they would not commit murder, now that I find out of sorts with reality. Young girl nice and plump and with starvation at every turn I can see some turning on others for that other pig meat.
Posted by Kiljoy616 on May 2,2013 | 03:04 AM
This is a fascinating article, but I also thought this paragraph was confusing: There’s no evidence of murder, and Owsley suspects that this was a case in which hungry colonists simply ate the one remaining food available to them, despite cultural taboos. “I don’t think that they killed her, by any stretch,” he says. “It's just that they were so desperate, and so hard-pressed, that out of necessity this is what they resorted to.” What happened? Did she volunteer to be dinner?
Posted by Dale Eckhardt on May 1,2013 | 05:45 PM
Has all logic and reasoning fled? When fallen to such resorts as cannibalism it is illogical to assume one would hack at the head, shin bones, and cheeks for nourishment when large portions of protein could be easily butchered from the thighs, and back. I find the whole idea that these hack marks are explained by cannibalism to be entirely far fetched, illogical, and without scientific basis.
Posted by Bigsipper on May 1,2013 | 05:44 PM
With all of the horrible news we have to constantly have spread all over the internet, newpapers, and tv. Why do they feel the need to make this discovery until they are SURE this is true? I don't care what happened then. This is just another atempt to add grisly details to our lives. Enough is enough.
Posted by Annie on May 1,2013 | 04:50 PM
America! What a country!
Posted by John Ozed on May 1,2013 | 04:17 PM
It seems like a giant leap is being made here. A girl died in what may well be a murder. But there is no proof it was done by a group or by an individual, and it's pure speculation she was eaten by the group, so your headline and the story are misleading. I thought I clicked a science link?
Posted by Aconner on May 1,2013 | 03:58 PM
I just hope that she died of natural causes and they didn't murder her.
Posted by Susanne on May 1,2013 | 03:44 PM
Awesome research! Thanks.
Posted by Ron Helton on May 1,2013 | 03:18 PM
"I don't think they killed her by any stretch". When you strike somebody repeatedly then eat their brain--or any other part of their body--you have effectively killed them. Not sure then what you are implying by saying she wasn't murdered. That she was already dead first? If so, what is the evidence of this...you do not specify in the article.
Posted by Van on May 1,2013 | 02:32 PM
Julia: Maybe she starved to death.
Posted by John on May 1,2013 | 02:21 PM
This is only shocking if you're living where the act is taboo and the country founded on Christian principles ... uh ... errr ... hey, wait a minute ! ;)
Posted by Ken on May 1,2013 | 02:12 PM
@Julia - She probably starved to death and they ate her shortly after she died.
Posted by Alice Kaye on May 1,2013 | 01:54 PM
@Julia I would be suprised if they could tell. I don't think most signs of disease would show up in the bones, and any murder-related trauma would likely have been covered up by the (hopefully) post-mortem dismemberment.
Posted by Chris Carpenter on May 1,2013 | 01:52 PM
Question: Then, how did she die? Based on the quote... “I don’t think that they killed her, by any stretch,” he says. “It's just that they were so desperate, and so hard-pressed, that out of necessity this is what they resorted to.” Were there signs that she had fallen ill or died of natural causes? Tx!
Posted by Julia on May 1,2013 | 11:57 AM