I'm not convinced. The reason the natives didn't have the ability to forge iron was more related to there were no good ore deposits to work with. If you are intelligent and see a blacksmith work a few times you can figure out how to forge iron if given some - it is a lot of effort and your first attempts will not be good, but if something is broken you don't lose anything by putting it in a fire and attempting to fix it. (a camp fire gets plenty hot for blacksmithing - just wait for the coals and then blow on them) However the lack of quality ores that were easy to get at meant that they didn't have any metal working in that part of the world and so of course they wouldn't know how to do it. Iron would have made the natives life much better if they had it, and they were smart enough to figure out how to work it from scratch if they had it (they have centuries to learn just like the rest of us)
Which is to say the facts are fit equally well by saying "The natives saw blacksmiths work in the colonists. So when aliens took the colonists way in a spaceship after they collected the iron which remained and learned to forge them into useful tools for themselves". Ridiculous of course, but it fits the facts just as well.
> they have centuries to learn just like the rest of us
This seems like a massive assumption to make. Sub Saharan Africa has tons of iron ore and it’s still debated whether or not they developed iron working on their own. Your point relies on (an approximation of) blank slatism which seems highly highly unlikely given the natural variation in all other areas of life.
Okay, I'll grant that they might not have developed iron working if it was possible. However that doesn't change the larger point that it was impossible for anyone living in that area to develop metal working as metals were not available. No matter how much ability you have, you will never develop metal working because you need a large existing industrial base to use the ores in North America. (there is/was a lot of high grade ore in North America, it just isn't near the surface)
a camp fire gets plenty hot for blacksmithing - just wait for the coals and then blow on them
Maybe if you're working with bronze or copper, but iron forging requires much higher temperatures than a campfire can provide. That's why the iron age took place after the bronze age, forges capable of making iron workable were not yet invented. It wasn't a trivial invention.
Charcoal - which you get from campfires is hot enough. It takes a lot more of it though and a lot of other effort. when bronze is available it is generally good enough and a lot easier, but historians tell me iron was used throughout the bronze age in small amounts. iron really needs steel to be signicantly better than iron and that took a while-
(I am a layman here so take this with a grain of salt) I believe you are correct, however no campfire will have enough airflow to get that hot unless you have a bellows or some other way of injecting air into it, and you'd have to have it structured in a way that it can efficiently burn the fuel. I'm not much of a blacksmith but had a friend who was into it and whose dad also was, and we did a pretty fair amount of "experimenting" as kids :-D I know from experience that elevation makes a big difference too, though I've never measured.
Would be fascinating for someone with knowledge of this to weigh in!
Charcoal is great for forging, though as you say getting airflow is tricky. Still this is manageable - clay and rocks are abundant on earth so there are options.
A lot of colonial iron came from Southern NJ. And this wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_iron
says it was produced at spots along the coast. South Jersey had a very clean water called "cedar water" that is high in tannins from a freshwater seaweed that was well suited to storage and really set the stage for transoceanic voyages at scale. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cedar_water
Most early American ironworks extracted the iron ore from "bog iron" deposits - large nodules of quite pure iron that forms along the roots of plants in boggy areas. Bog iron could be easily scooped up from the mucky bottom with long-handled rakes into flat-bottomed boats and then dried on shore.
Is blowing on it really good enough? People don't have that much breath, and you'd have to put your face right up to the heat.
You could use a blowpipe of some sort. But better, a bellows. Was there any evidence of either?
Although the South and Central Americans worked bronze, the North Americans did not. I doubt a leap directly from nothing to iron smithing could occur.
They didn't have metal options - in north america metals are mostly found in deep mines.
I agree that blowing is not ideal - but it would work. A flat board as a fan, or even bellows are options. The larger point is none of these would leave evidence behind.
I am also skeptical that the iron scale was "proof positive" but the anecdote about reading from books seemed pretty convincing about the integration:
> "We have one little snippet of historical evidence from the 1700s, which describes people with blue or gray eyes who could remember people who used to be able to read from books,"
I’m not convinced either. If they assimilated into nearby native populations, wouldn’t someone have found a colonist or a descendant that could tell the story?
Oral history is not very good at long term tales. I know my grand parents stories, but even my great grand parents is something that I know little about and I have trouble passing that on to my kids (and that includes the great grandpa who was murdered and thus a more compelling story)
I have family in the area and my impression from archeological and historical news, articles and books from there is there isn't really one definitive moment where everyone in the colony just kind of up and left to the same place at the same time. If I had to bet, there was a kind of gradual process of degradation of the colony and some went one way and others went another.
This was interesting to read and it seems kind of definitive, and my impression is it's consistent with other things I've read. But if I recall correctly, there's also evidence from other sites that some from the colony also went elsewhere.
It seems reasonable to me to think that if things were breaking down, there might be differences of thought or preference about where to go, and that they might have also assumed they weren't totally cutting off contact from one another, being in the same area.
I'm not really an expert, but in general there's kind of two or three main sets of theories for resettlement: The "Croatoan Island" theory, the "mainland" theories, and "combination" theories. Most involve assimilation into the different native populations in the area, or some assistance from them, but not all.
My memory is fuzzy but I think a few years ago they found in a site on the mainland some artifacts that seemed to be from that time period — the site was one that locals had kind of talked about for years and when they did an archeological study of it it turned out to have some substance. But what I remember was that there was no evidence of a permanent settlement and they couldn't definitively tell why the artifacts were there, so they couldn't tell if some of the colonists had been there, or how long, or if the artifacts had come from trade with natives, or had been washed there from elsewhere, or what.
The area involves a lot of ecological and geographic change over time due to hurricanes and is sort of a maze of inlets, islands, and marshes, so it's easy for me to imagine it being difficult to study archeologically speaking, or why people would "disappear".
There were native people living there (in ways that leave little trace in the archaeological record), I've heard it argued that many colonists may have chosen to join them.
This may come as a surprise to you, but there were many settlements in America before Europeans ever showed up.
No other British settlements in the hemisphere, though. Failed expeditions did end up in other nations colonies, but this was never pleasant for either side. But they would have had to go hundreds of kilometers by sea to find other Europeans, without a proper ship and on meager supplies. Joining the natives was the best way to survive… but which natives?
The 1619 project touched on this well. Slaves and indentured servants snuck away and joined native settlements and even had fringe settlements of their own eventually.
Working in one of the colonies for some rich guy prioritizing tobacco to pay dividends over food wasn’t a fun time.
The Jamestown colonists starved to death literally living on the shore of the most productive marine environment on earth. They didn’t know how to care for the fishing nets, so they rotted, and then didn’t know how to fix them.
The issue was that many of the colonists were second sons of relatively wealthy families, and weren’t all that familiar with fishing or farming. The first son inherited everything, and the second son had to make his way in the world, and colonizing was an enticing prospect for making your fortune. Poorer families, at the very early stages, weren’t sending their sons on these ventures because they needed the labor at home.
As someone who grew up next to Jamestown, I can add some context.
John Smith, one of Jamestown's leaders, was not from a wealthy or privileged background. "The issue" may have been less about class and more about poor organization, leadership and unrealistic expectations.
Fishing and farming skills also deserve context. The soil around Jamestown was marshy and brackish, unsuitable for traditional English farming methods. Yes there were lots of fish but they only ran seasonally (sturgeon etc). The "starving time" you are referencing was made worse by a drought and cutoff trade with the indians
The soil may have been brackish, but this wasn't their main setback.
The Jamestown colonists didn't even attempt to plant crops for several years after their arrival. Their first ship brought jewelers and smiths to work the gold they assumed they'd find, but didn't have a real plan for agriculture. The majority died of starvation and disease, but the survivors were sustained by meager leftover travel supplies from newly arriving ships, and by raiding neighboring natives for their corn.
Less than a decade later, separatist Pilgrims landed in New England, and by contrast, grew crops immediately, and cultivated diplomatic relations with their neighbors. The Pilgrims settled in a higher latitude with a shorter growing season, but during their first drought they had already stored enough supplies to share with local natives.
Jamestown could have been on a similar footing if they'd prioritized survival and diplomacy over finding treasure for the crown, the chartering company, and themselves.
>The Jamestown colonists didn't even attempt to plant crops for several years after their arrival
Source? I'm pretty sure they planted corn and wheat as soon as they could, in the first month of arrival. "The 15th June we had finished our fort... we had also sown most of our corn on two mountains. It sprang a man's height from the ground." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Maria_Wingfield
> Less than a decade later, separatist Pilgrims landed in New England, and by contrast, grew crops immediately, and cultivated diplomatic relations with their neighbors.
And, as I understand it, settled into areas which had previously been cleared and cultivated by the natives but had been relatively recently abandoned.
https://discover.hubpages.com/education/The-Pilgrims-and-the...
"The Pilgrims decided to establish their colony in an area that had been cleared and abandoned by the Patuxet Indians. One colonist remarked, “Thousands of men have lived here, which died in a great plague not long since; and pity it was and is to see so many goodly fields, and so well seated, without men to dress and manure the same."
That's one amazing head start. And, had they not had it, the Pilgrims probably would have died, too.
This mostly fails a sniff test to me? And indeed, reading the linked article doesn't support your editorializing. To quote: "There is some evidence that they had poor fishing skills, but other factors may have contributed more to their failures"
The idea that they were not nearly as efficient at building a town as they could have been is not at all surprising. All the more so when you consider just how different the storm season was compared to what they were used to.
But the idea that they failed due to their own inadequacies feels like a stretch? Like, had they "stayed home" what kind of life do you think they had there? People used to have to do far more of their own survival than modern people can really understand.
‘They suffered fourteen nets (which was all they
had) to rot and spoil, which by orderly drying and
mending might have been preserved. But being
lost, all help of fishing perished.’ (25)
(25) Strachey, W. 1998b [1610], ‘A True Reportory of the
wrack and redemption of Sir Thomas Gates,
knight, upon and from the Islands of the Bermudas; his coming to Virginia, and the estate of that
colony then, and after under the government of
the Lord La Warre’, in Haile 1998, p. 441
I originally learned this by talking with a Jamestown National Historical Park docent. I said that, having grown up in Virginia in the 20th century and knowing what tidewater Virginia was like in the 17th century, it would have been very hard to starve to death. American chestnut was still the dominant forest tree, and provided literally tons of nuts per tree. Black walnut and acorn were also plentiful and make good survival foods if you know how to prepare them. The Chesapeake Bay had enormous oyster beds, with oysters being described as "the size of dinner plates", and John Smith said that he thought he could have walked across it on the backs of fish, and if you know how to dry or salt fish it doesn't matter that the sturgeon and rockfish are seasonal. Mussels and crab, likewise, would have been plentiful, and unlike fish, accessible year round. Deer, turkey, rabbit, groundhog, squirrel, opossum and raccoon were plentiful, and passenger pigeon were also around, not having suffered the overhunting they did in the early 20th century.
She indicated that the majority of the English settlers weren't farmers or fishermen and didn't have the hands-on experience to make use of the resources at their disposal. I went home and did a bit of internet research on that statement, and it seemed fairly accurate.
I do not claim to be a trained historian of colonial Virginia; I just grew up there.
You are still strengthening the claim beyond the paper, is my point. The paper, specifically, has several other explanations beyond "they didn't know how to care for nets."
For example:
The colonists’ performance in fishing in
the first years, in common with all other activities,
must also have been severely hampered by their
generally poor health, malnutrition and subse-
quent lack of energy. For a period of five months
there are said to have been only five men healthy
enough to man the bulwarks of the fort against
hostile Virginia Indians. During such difficult
times it is likely that fishing would have been
restricted and perhaps would have been halted
altogether.
That is, it isn't just that they were not "professional fisherman." Something that probably didn't even exist in the modern sense of the word. They were in a much harsher environment than was anticipated.
The low stock of salt and not having the same dry season that they were used to from the other side of the Atlantic almost certainly played much more heavily, as well. (And to be clear, that paper covers these as heavy influences.)
Probably also worth remembering how parasite ridden all of the food supplies you are mentioning would be. Our food supply is supernaturally clean, nowadays.
At any rate, my main gripe here is the mental image of "second sons that didn't know how to do anything" that you conjured. Certainly possible, but feels far overstated, to me. They had managed to survive a ship across the ocean. Something that was not a passive cruise journey.
Like most disasters, there were many causes for this one. The general unpreparedness of the Jamestown settlers is, however, an important one, and probably the primary causative one (although see edit #2 for a strong contrary argument).
The colonists’ performance in fishing in the first years, in common with all other activities, must also have been severely hampered by their generally poor health, malnutrition and subsequent lack of energy.
Obviously, once you're in the throes of malnutrition and illness, your ability to fish and forage is going to be significantly reduced. But the disaster is already in progress at that point. Why were they already malnourished? In large part because they weren't very good at fishing or farming, and didn't actually plan to survive by farming at all, instead intending to rely on trade with the natives. But they mismanaged diplomatic relations with the natives to the extent that not only was trade non-existent towards the second year, but they were actually being shot on sight. They exhausted their supply of small game on the Jamestown peninsula, and couldn't voyage farther than that due to danger from the native Americans, again due to their own mismanagement of relations.
Note that a primary reason for the poor relationship with the native Americans was that the settlers didn't have their own food sources, and resorted to theft and assault to get native's food supplies -- which, as a result of the drought, weren't all that great (source: https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-histor...)
They also didn't have the skills necessary to (for instance) prepare acorns or harvest pine bark cambium. Survival foods would have been foods that noble Englishmen hadn't ever even eaten, much less prepared themselves.
From the Wikipedia article on "The Starving Time":
Although they did some farming, few of the original settlers were accustomed to manual labor or were familiar with farming. Hunting on the island was poor, and they quickly exhausted the supply of small game. The colonists were largely dependent upon trade with the Native Americans and periodic supply ships from England for their food.
And in point of fact, they actually ended up hiring native Americans to fish and harvest shellfish for them, because they didn't know how to do it on their own. (source: https://virginiahistory.org/learn/oysters-virginia#).
As a consequence of the deteriorating relationship with the natives, the Jamestown colonists' ability to do any land-based (as opposed to water-based) subsistence activities was severely curtailed, and, one assumes, their ability to hire natives to fish for them also eroded. But they did have one major advantage, an actual oceangoing ship that they could have sailed into the Bay and used to fish. The natives had only canoes and could not possibly have constituted a major threat on the waters of the Bay. But that only works if you know how to fish, which they didn't. Once the nets rotted due to the colonists not understanding the importance of drying them, that advantage was also neutralized, and starving was inevitable in the absence of relief supplies from England or the Caribbean.
Probably also worth remembering how parasite ridden all of the food supplies you are mentioning would be.
Everyone in the colonial period was parasitized to some extent, including the natives. However, the plant-based survival foods I mentions above (chestnuts, acorns, black walnuts, etc.) are not known for harboring parasites. The animal game certainly would have, but almost certainly not more so than the same game in England would have.
The colonists were ill primarily because they didn't practice good hygiene wrt situating their toilet facilities away from their drinking water and ended up with dysentery, a problem that the native Americans managed to avoid (source: https://encyclopediavirginia.org/the-myth-of-living-off-the-...).
Summary: the original contingent of Jamestown settlers had bad luck (drought, several supply ships being wrecked or otherwise not showing up on time) but their primary problem was that they didn't intend to live off the land at all, either by fishing and farming or by foraging. They didn't have the right supplies to do so, and mostly didn't have the knowledge needed to do it as a backup plan when the original plan of trading with the native Americans failed (due to poor diplomatic skills and poor diplomatic decision making.)
My main lack of trust for this is the over leaning on "incompetence" as the explanation. I'm fully ok with the idea that they made mistakes and were not ready for the vastly different climate. I'm even comfortable with the idea that they may have thought to get more in trade than they were able to get.
That said, I think this vastly overstates how much people got their food from trade. Spices and some goods were, of course, big in trade. Mainline food? Not so much. Most people were not able to stockpile large quantities of food. Some cities maybe could. But it would have been grains/seeds or actual live stock. Not meats or anything that needed refrigeration. For... well, obvious reasons. Even cured meats typically have a very short timeline. So, fishing and hunting and basic gardening would have remained something that people had to do. Pretty much everywhere.
And indeed, this is inline with your edited in article. What were they trying to trade for? Corn. Why did they need to get it by trade, because their crop was bad. Why was the trade not working well? Because nobody had excess corn to trade. Long term stockpiles just couldn't exist to the scale that we think of today. And a lack of rain meant everyone was having a bad crop.
Finally, I want to be clear that I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that I'm just flat out wrong here. I've just grown super doubtful of a lot of the "these morons were able to sail across the atlantic, but were too stupid to do anything that would have resembled living off the land." Despite most living at the time looking like what we would call that.
Two things… one, they didn’t sail across the Atlantic. They hired ships and professional sailors to sail them across. They were passengers. That crossing wasn’t necessarily an easy one, but it was much more like what happens today with wealthy people who pay sherpas to help them climb Everest. The climbers have to have some knowledge and experience, but they aren’t the experts, and without the sherpas they'd be pretty lost.
Second, the point of this whole thread is that even at home, these were not people who were living off the land. They were wealthy Londoners. They lived in the city. They weren’t even raising their own kitchen gardens, they had people for that.
Wealthy Londoners bought their food just like you and I do. They had food markets. They used currency to buy grain, vegetables, and meat.
FYI, salted meat and fish will last for years and, if stored in a reasonably cool place like a root cellar, for decades. I personally have had Virginia hams that were over ten years old. Dried corn will last for centuries if stored properly.
The reason the settlers made so many diplomatic mistakes with the natives was because their leadership was primarily former military, and they saw the natives as a military problem. This made some sense because when they set out, they thought their primary challenge was going to be fending off military attacks from the Spanish. But that assumption turned out to be tragically wrong.
I'm not saying these people were all incompetent buffoons. Some of them were trained military officers. Some were craftsmen — there’s ample evidence of metal work and glassmaking at Jamestown. They were all experienced horsemen, and they were comfortable with firearms and bladed weapons. But what they weren’t was outdoorsmen, or even farmers, and in hindsight that’s what they needed to be. Once they got actual farmers on site, their immediate problems started to clear up.
I can grant that very dense cities such as London had food markets necessary to supply the city. With the huge caveat that those markets had to have fairly rapid turnover for all of their offerings. Don't forget that most city dwellers had maybe a single shared room with others that they could call home. Such that they likely consumed the food on purchase, with nowhere else to really take it. Even "wealthy" dwellers that did have a place to take food likely couldn't take much. Where do you think they would be able to store it?
And passenger ships in the 1600s were very very different than any sort of passenger ship today. Sure, they were not responsible for ship duties. But they were likely on their own for basic survival on the ship.
Salted meat and fish can last for years if stored in modern containment techniques, sure. With what they would have had in the 1600s, I have serious doubts that you'd get such results. Especially without the resources of a full city at your disposal.
Again, I'm comfortable that I can be wrong on all of this. I would have to see much stronger proof, though. Most of what we call "living off the land" today was largely "typical rural life" for a long long time.
Always the same excuse, that it wasn't "real" communism.
Quoted from your reference:
"Communism is ... a stateless, classless society where resources are owned communally" which, if you read about Jamestown, was the situation with their agriculture.
Jamestown was hardly a dictatorship of the proletariat where workers owned the means of production, nor was it stateless or classes. It was quite literally a strong state's company town that was kept afloat by investors, where rich colonists had servants that grew cash crops lol
The farming was done as a communal activity. Jamestown abandoned it after the first year, and switched to the far more successful system of privately owned plots where the owner could sell the produce as he saw fit.
> "Communism is ... a stateless, classless society where resources are owned communally" which, if you read about Jamestown, was the situation with their agriculture.
A group owning sharing one resource does not imply communism.
Is this how you're read theorems or design programs? There is a difference between "one", "some", "all", most" - the statement you quote does not remotely prove your claim (which of course is nonsense.)
Likely every country on earth has socially some (or one, or many) communally owned, shared resources. Yet it's ludicrous to claim all countries are communist.
The US has co-ops, community gardens, ESOPs, community owned wifi places, power companies, housing projects, roads, lands - so now the US is communist since it has orders of more magnitude community items than Jamestown, right?
And, also from the words you quote, "... a stateless... society..." Not a single country most would call communist is stateless, so now, by your limited and flawed reasoning, there are no communist societies. Yet this too is silly.
And Jamestown was certainly not stateless either (or classless - they also had slaves - so it's baffling how you pick out a few words you like and ignore a lot more to get to your conclusion).
> "....which, if you read about Jamestown..."
... you would realize.
You're looking for boogey-men where they don't exist.
> Likely every country on earth has socially some (or one, or many) communally owned, shared resources
Usually their inefficiency and failure is propped up by taxpayer money. The more of the country that is communally owned, the more communist it is, and the more failure, until there isn't enough taxpayer money to subsidize it and the country fails.
In your reading of Jamestown, what's your explanation of why they abandoned collective farming after the first year? And the Pilgrims did the same?
It's funny how the father of communism was basically an intellectual who leeched off of his wealthier capitalist relatives (the family behind Philips NV).
I've got a great example of this. I'm renting a house that provides a gas powered lawnmower for tenants to use, and I've elected to just let the grass grow because I have no idea how to use the thing
Now look, there's debates to be had about whether or not lawns are good idea, or how long grass should grow, etc. but there's no excuse for not figuring out how a gas mower works. I could tell you here in a paragraph or you could watch a 30 minute Youtube which will contain in it somewhere the 1 minute of actual instructions you need. It's a pretty damn simple system.
Put gas in it. If there's a soft rubber thing near the gas, hit it twice to provide some fuel but no more as you risk "flooding" the engine.
Hold down any handle at the top of the mower, often the thing will require you to manually hold it down during start and all operations.
Look for the starter pull. It's often on the right, on the motor or mower handles. It's a piece of plastic attached to a cable. Give it a yank with a full follow through. It doesn't have to be maximum effort but too gentle won't work either.
Are you joking or something? It's just check the gas and oil, hold down the brake lever on the handle, pull the crank a few times and away you go. Maybe it's old and has a fuel bulb or a choke, or fancy and has a transmission and the lever to engage it, but it's really not complicated at all.
I grew up around many different sorts of power tools. By my mid-20s I was comfortable using routers, table saws, sawzalls, jigsaws, jackhammers and more.
But nobody in my family had any gas-powered motors for anything at all.
I'm 61 now, and a volunteer firefighter. We have lots of gas powered chainsaws, circular saws, ventilation fans, and more.
I'm still extremely uncomfortable with starting these engines.
just anxious. i live pretty remote; if i get hurt and cant get to a phone, no one will find me until my lease expires. one of the downsides of auto payments i think.
It's actually pretty hard to hurt yourself on the active blade of a push mower. I've only heard of one account of this happening first hand, someone 1) slipped while 2) gripping and not releasing the handle interlock switch as they slipped while 3) pushing the mower uphill and 4) wearing flip flops. Don't do that, and you'll be fine.
I don't have any data but I'd assume it's vastly safer to mow the lawn than drive a car.
Probably depends heavily on how you normalize the risks, and I had a good chuckle at the thought of “injuries per 100k miles” applied to lawn mowers.
I would guess lawn mowers are higher risk per time or distance, but lower prevalence in injuries per year. I would guess the injuries are mostly a) hit rocks, b) did something dumb with the mower, or c) general outdoors risks like slipping or being bit by snake, etc.
Don't mow rock, wear protective eyewear and a mask if you don't want to inhale dust/pollen/etc and you will be protected from 99.9% of all conceivable injuries from a modern gas mower that has a safety switch.
lol. not sure what age1s6cz86s99unkfm2sqy045w5w79n8lyyulwu9qy3gkaeydmexwv5qvkh2pp means, but if youre in the greater seattle area and want to teach me how to be an adult, shoot me a text. 360-624-3791
I wouldn't necessarily assume it's at all modern. I've had Briggs-and-Stratton-powered mowers that had the deck rot from corrosion long before that B&S engine dies. Point being, if the mower was "provided", who knows the vintage? It sure isn't going to be the landlord's top-shelf mower fresh from the dealer.
Note that once the grass has grown past a certain height, you won't be able to use a mower anymore even if you want to. At that point it will require a line trimmer (a.k.a. weed whacker) which is a lot more work.
Though personally I'm a fan of "kill your lawn" efforts. You can smother it with cardboard (or burn it, or till it, etc) and replace with native meadow.
(Has cleared overgrowth consisting of both vines and grasses roughly a meter high give or take some)
What you do is tip the mower up, holding the handle near the ground and push it right into the mess. Then lower it down, essentially taking a "bite", which will cut many folded over plants.
Pull back, then tip and advance repeatedly, cutting more each time.
I cleared a quarter acre this way. Took one hard afternoon and a couple tanks of gas.
hmm ok. its mainly ryegrass, though, so i dont think itd be a problem to cut through. i just think its really pretty, plus the birds/squirrels/chipmunks seem to like it a lot.
How would you have prepared, were you in their shoes? Roanoke Island was first landed in 1585. The only foreknowledge of the area would have been wildly embellished and optimistic reports (competing for financing, royal favor and prestige) from the likes of Spanish and French expeditions, or Sir Francis Drake. This was mostly limited to coastal recon and said little of the dangers of malaria, indian politics, seasonality, etc.
For example, the Amadas-Barlowe Expedition (1584) described Roanoke Island as "the most plentiful, sweet, fruitful and wholesome of all the world," with fertile soil, abundant wildlife, and friendly natives
Old world politics at the time explain most of this. Some of the english colonies were, ugh, rushed and less well funded than they would have been under ideal situations.
This is basically the same reason they didn't look too hard to see what happened to the Roanoke colony.
Not unlike youth in our current society who leave home then bounce around from one place to another until they find the spot they want to settle in for a while.
I mean sure, colonists from hundreds of years ago are different than young adults of today.... but the tenuous nature, in general, of people out exploring the world for a new home is unsurprising.
The native population of the area was well mixed with European and African genes in the 18th and 19th century. It would be very difficult to determine whether there was also mixture in the late 16th / early 17th century.
400-year-old traces would be hard to detect owing to admixture, but if they could find identical-by-descent segments that would be very compelling, as the research into Native American traces found in Polynesian populations shows:
If Croatoan ceremonies didn't involve cremation it could be quite a bit easier.. I don't really see the article's evidence as very compelling. Many things may have been collected from the site and ultimately discarded in the trash heaps without the proposed integration.
The English have good records. We could perhaps find the decendents of relatives who stayed put and then find their "hey you guys seem to have more DNA in common than you ought to" counterparts of native american heritage.
The way it works for molecular phylogeny is that you try to find things that are conserved. E.g. if you find a small village in Europe where people haven't moved around much and you find a rare mutation that is also present in one other part of the US, then you might be able to put some numbers on the likelihood that this mutation/gene came from a the original place. Find a second gene, find some artefacts from the right place/time and you have an emerging picture.
I'm not convinced. The reason the natives didn't have the ability to forge iron was more related to there were no good ore deposits to work with. If you are intelligent and see a blacksmith work a few times you can figure out how to forge iron if given some - it is a lot of effort and your first attempts will not be good, but if something is broken you don't lose anything by putting it in a fire and attempting to fix it. (a camp fire gets plenty hot for blacksmithing - just wait for the coals and then blow on them) However the lack of quality ores that were easy to get at meant that they didn't have any metal working in that part of the world and so of course they wouldn't know how to do it. Iron would have made the natives life much better if they had it, and they were smart enough to figure out how to work it from scratch if they had it (they have centuries to learn just like the rest of us)
Which is to say the facts are fit equally well by saying "The natives saw blacksmiths work in the colonists. So when aliens took the colonists way in a spaceship after they collected the iron which remained and learned to forge them into useful tools for themselves". Ridiculous of course, but it fits the facts just as well.
> they have centuries to learn just like the rest of us
This seems like a massive assumption to make. Sub Saharan Africa has tons of iron ore and it’s still debated whether or not they developed iron working on their own. Your point relies on (an approximation of) blank slatism which seems highly highly unlikely given the natural variation in all other areas of life.
Okay, I'll grant that they might not have developed iron working if it was possible. However that doesn't change the larger point that it was impossible for anyone living in that area to develop metal working as metals were not available. No matter how much ability you have, you will never develop metal working because you need a large existing industrial base to use the ores in North America. (there is/was a lot of high grade ore in North America, it just isn't near the surface)
a camp fire gets plenty hot for blacksmithing - just wait for the coals and then blow on them
Maybe if you're working with bronze or copper, but iron forging requires much higher temperatures than a campfire can provide. That's why the iron age took place after the bronze age, forges capable of making iron workable were not yet invented. It wasn't a trivial invention.
Charcoal - which you get from campfires is hot enough. It takes a lot more of it though and a lot of other effort. when bronze is available it is generally good enough and a lot easier, but historians tell me iron was used throughout the bronze age in small amounts. iron really needs steel to be signicantly better than iron and that took a while-
(I am a layman here so take this with a grain of salt) I believe you are correct, however no campfire will have enough airflow to get that hot unless you have a bellows or some other way of injecting air into it, and you'd have to have it structured in a way that it can efficiently burn the fuel. I'm not much of a blacksmith but had a friend who was into it and whose dad also was, and we did a pretty fair amount of "experimenting" as kids :-D I know from experience that elevation makes a big difference too, though I've never measured.
Would be fascinating for someone with knowledge of this to weigh in!
Charcoal is great for forging, though as you say getting airflow is tricky. Still this is manageable - clay and rocks are abundant on earth so there are options.
A lot of colonial iron came from Southern NJ. And this wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_iron says it was produced at spots along the coast. South Jersey had a very clean water called "cedar water" that is high in tannins from a freshwater seaweed that was well suited to storage and really set the stage for transoceanic voyages at scale. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cedar_water
Most early American ironworks extracted the iron ore from "bog iron" deposits - large nodules of quite pure iron that forms along the roots of plants in boggy areas. Bog iron could be easily scooped up from the mucky bottom with long-handled rakes into flat-bottomed boats and then dried on shore.
Is blowing on it really good enough? People don't have that much breath, and you'd have to put your face right up to the heat.
You could use a blowpipe of some sort. But better, a bellows. Was there any evidence of either?
Although the South and Central Americans worked bronze, the North Americans did not. I doubt a leap directly from nothing to iron smithing could occur.
Whether or not forced air (blowing) would be necessary would depend on the coal temp, metal size, and how you want to shape the metal.
Simple forging of small enough pieces within a large enough coal bed might not even require forced air to reach a workable temp.
They didn't have metal options - in north america metals are mostly found in deep mines.
I agree that blowing is not ideal - but it would work. A flat board as a fan, or even bellows are options. The larger point is none of these would leave evidence behind.
I am also skeptical that the iron scale was "proof positive" but the anecdote about reading from books seemed pretty convincing about the integration:
> "We have one little snippet of historical evidence from the 1700s, which describes people with blue or gray eyes who could remember people who used to be able to read from books,"
I’m not convinced either. If they assimilated into nearby native populations, wouldn’t someone have found a colonist or a descendant that could tell the story?
Oral history is not very good at long term tales. I know my grand parents stories, but even my great grand parents is something that I know little about and I have trouble passing that on to my kids (and that includes the great grandpa who was murdered and thus a more compelling story)
I have family in the area and my impression from archeological and historical news, articles and books from there is there isn't really one definitive moment where everyone in the colony just kind of up and left to the same place at the same time. If I had to bet, there was a kind of gradual process of degradation of the colony and some went one way and others went another.
This was interesting to read and it seems kind of definitive, and my impression is it's consistent with other things I've read. But if I recall correctly, there's also evidence from other sites that some from the colony also went elsewhere.
It seems reasonable to me to think that if things were breaking down, there might be differences of thought or preference about where to go, and that they might have also assumed they weren't totally cutting off contact from one another, being in the same area.
Where did they go?
Were there other settlements ?
I'm not really an expert, but in general there's kind of two or three main sets of theories for resettlement: The "Croatoan Island" theory, the "mainland" theories, and "combination" theories. Most involve assimilation into the different native populations in the area, or some assistance from them, but not all.
My memory is fuzzy but I think a few years ago they found in a site on the mainland some artifacts that seemed to be from that time period — the site was one that locals had kind of talked about for years and when they did an archeological study of it it turned out to have some substance. But what I remember was that there was no evidence of a permanent settlement and they couldn't definitively tell why the artifacts were there, so they couldn't tell if some of the colonists had been there, or how long, or if the artifacts had come from trade with natives, or had been washed there from elsewhere, or what.
The area involves a lot of ecological and geographic change over time due to hurricanes and is sort of a maze of inlets, islands, and marshes, so it's easy for me to imagine it being difficult to study archeologically speaking, or why people would "disappear".
There were native people living there (in ways that leave little trace in the archaeological record), I've heard it argued that many colonists may have chosen to join them.
Related, some good examples of this elsewhere during the colonies, with first person evidence cited in Tribe (http://www.sebastianjunger.com/tribe-by-sebastian-junger)
This may come as a surprise to you, but there were many settlements in America before Europeans ever showed up.
No other British settlements in the hemisphere, though. Failed expeditions did end up in other nations colonies, but this was never pleasant for either side. But they would have had to go hundreds of kilometers by sea to find other Europeans, without a proper ship and on meager supplies. Joining the natives was the best way to survive… but which natives?
Perhaps the one they had somewhat "okay" relations with and whose leader's son made several trips to Europe with John White.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manteo_(Native_American_leader...
The 1619 project touched on this well. Slaves and indentured servants snuck away and joined native settlements and even had fringe settlements of their own eventually.
Working in one of the colonies for some rich guy prioritizing tobacco to pay dividends over food wasn’t a fun time.
The experience of early colonists is so fascinating. Some of these colonies were very tenuous and seemed very unprepared.
The Jamestown colonists starved to death literally living on the shore of the most productive marine environment on earth. They didn’t know how to care for the fishing nets, so they rotted, and then didn’t know how to fix them.
The issue was that many of the colonists were second sons of relatively wealthy families, and weren’t all that familiar with fishing or farming. The first son inherited everything, and the second son had to make his way in the world, and colonizing was an enticing prospect for making your fortune. Poorer families, at the very early stages, weren’t sending their sons on these ventures because they needed the labor at home.
https://historicjamestowne.org/wp-content/uploads/Subsistenc...
As someone who grew up next to Jamestown, I can add some context.
John Smith, one of Jamestown's leaders, was not from a wealthy or privileged background. "The issue" may have been less about class and more about poor organization, leadership and unrealistic expectations.
Fishing and farming skills also deserve context. The soil around Jamestown was marshy and brackish, unsuitable for traditional English farming methods. Yes there were lots of fish but they only ran seasonally (sturgeon etc). The "starving time" you are referencing was made worse by a drought and cutoff trade with the indians
The soil may have been brackish, but this wasn't their main setback.
The Jamestown colonists didn't even attempt to plant crops for several years after their arrival. Their first ship brought jewelers and smiths to work the gold they assumed they'd find, but didn't have a real plan for agriculture. The majority died of starvation and disease, but the survivors were sustained by meager leftover travel supplies from newly arriving ships, and by raiding neighboring natives for their corn.
Less than a decade later, separatist Pilgrims landed in New England, and by contrast, grew crops immediately, and cultivated diplomatic relations with their neighbors. The Pilgrims settled in a higher latitude with a shorter growing season, but during their first drought they had already stored enough supplies to share with local natives.
Jamestown could have been on a similar footing if they'd prioritized survival and diplomacy over finding treasure for the crown, the chartering company, and themselves.
>The Jamestown colonists didn't even attempt to plant crops for several years after their arrival
Source? I'm pretty sure they planted corn and wheat as soon as they could, in the first month of arrival. "The 15th June we had finished our fort... we had also sown most of our corn on two mountains. It sprang a man's height from the ground." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Maria_Wingfield
By the third year (1609) they had cleared and planted at least 40 acres https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/hh/2/hh2b2.htm
> Less than a decade later, separatist Pilgrims landed in New England, and by contrast, grew crops immediately, and cultivated diplomatic relations with their neighbors.
And, as I understand it, settled into areas which had previously been cleared and cultivated by the natives but had been relatively recently abandoned.
https://discover.hubpages.com/education/The-Pilgrims-and-the... "The Pilgrims decided to establish their colony in an area that had been cleared and abandoned by the Patuxet Indians. One colonist remarked, “Thousands of men have lived here, which died in a great plague not long since; and pity it was and is to see so many goodly fields, and so well seated, without men to dress and manure the same."
That's one amazing head start. And, had they not had it, the Pilgrims probably would have died, too.
This mostly fails a sniff test to me? And indeed, reading the linked article doesn't support your editorializing. To quote: "There is some evidence that they had poor fishing skills, but other factors may have contributed more to their failures"
The idea that they were not nearly as efficient at building a town as they could have been is not at all surprising. All the more so when you consider just how different the storm season was compared to what they were used to.
But the idea that they failed due to their own inadequacies feels like a stretch? Like, had they "stayed home" what kind of life do you think they had there? People used to have to do far more of their own survival than modern people can really understand.
From the article:
‘They suffered fourteen nets (which was all they had) to rot and spoil, which by orderly drying and mending might have been preserved. But being lost, all help of fishing perished.’ (25)
(25) Strachey, W. 1998b [1610], ‘A True Reportory of the wrack and redemption of Sir Thomas Gates, knight, upon and from the Islands of the Bermudas; his coming to Virginia, and the estate of that colony then, and after under the government of the Lord La Warre’, in Haile 1998, p. 441
I originally learned this by talking with a Jamestown National Historical Park docent. I said that, having grown up in Virginia in the 20th century and knowing what tidewater Virginia was like in the 17th century, it would have been very hard to starve to death. American chestnut was still the dominant forest tree, and provided literally tons of nuts per tree. Black walnut and acorn were also plentiful and make good survival foods if you know how to prepare them. The Chesapeake Bay had enormous oyster beds, with oysters being described as "the size of dinner plates", and John Smith said that he thought he could have walked across it on the backs of fish, and if you know how to dry or salt fish it doesn't matter that the sturgeon and rockfish are seasonal. Mussels and crab, likewise, would have been plentiful, and unlike fish, accessible year round. Deer, turkey, rabbit, groundhog, squirrel, opossum and raccoon were plentiful, and passenger pigeon were also around, not having suffered the overhunting they did in the early 20th century.
She indicated that the majority of the English settlers weren't farmers or fishermen and didn't have the hands-on experience to make use of the resources at their disposal. I went home and did a bit of internet research on that statement, and it seemed fairly accurate.
I do not claim to be a trained historian of colonial Virginia; I just grew up there.
You are still strengthening the claim beyond the paper, is my point. The paper, specifically, has several other explanations beyond "they didn't know how to care for nets."
For example:
That is, it isn't just that they were not "professional fisherman." Something that probably didn't even exist in the modern sense of the word. They were in a much harsher environment than was anticipated.The low stock of salt and not having the same dry season that they were used to from the other side of the Atlantic almost certainly played much more heavily, as well. (And to be clear, that paper covers these as heavy influences.)
Probably also worth remembering how parasite ridden all of the food supplies you are mentioning would be. Our food supply is supernaturally clean, nowadays.
At any rate, my main gripe here is the mental image of "second sons that didn't know how to do anything" that you conjured. Certainly possible, but feels far overstated, to me. They had managed to survive a ship across the ocean. Something that was not a passive cruise journey.
Like most disasters, there were many causes for this one. The general unpreparedness of the Jamestown settlers is, however, an important one, and probably the primary causative one (although see edit #2 for a strong contrary argument).
We know for a fact that the proportion of wealthy nobles to manual laborers was really, really high compared to the population of England at the time, and there werent' enough of the latter to keep the colony afloat (source: https://encyclopediavirginia.org/the-myth-of-living-off-the-... and https://www.jyfmuseums.org/visit/jamestown-settlement/histor...). These were largely second sons of wealthy families (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Families_of_Virginia). Most of the rest were the gentlemen's manservants, e.g. they were also urbanites (source: https://bandbwilliamsburg.com/jamestown-settlement/#:~:text=...
Regarding the quote from the paper:
Obviously, once you're in the throes of malnutrition and illness, your ability to fish and forage is going to be significantly reduced. But the disaster is already in progress at that point. Why were they already malnourished? In large part because they weren't very good at fishing or farming, and didn't actually plan to survive by farming at all, instead intending to rely on trade with the natives. But they mismanaged diplomatic relations with the natives to the extent that not only was trade non-existent towards the second year, but they were actually being shot on sight. They exhausted their supply of small game on the Jamestown peninsula, and couldn't voyage farther than that due to danger from the native Americans, again due to their own mismanagement of relations.Note that a primary reason for the poor relationship with the native Americans was that the settlers didn't have their own food sources, and resorted to theft and assault to get native's food supplies -- which, as a result of the drought, weren't all that great (source: https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-histor...)
They also didn't have the skills necessary to (for instance) prepare acorns or harvest pine bark cambium. Survival foods would have been foods that noble Englishmen hadn't ever even eaten, much less prepared themselves.
From the Wikipedia article on "The Starving Time":
And in point of fact, they actually ended up hiring native Americans to fish and harvest shellfish for them, because they didn't know how to do it on their own. (source: https://virginiahistory.org/learn/oysters-virginia#).As a consequence of the deteriorating relationship with the natives, the Jamestown colonists' ability to do any land-based (as opposed to water-based) subsistence activities was severely curtailed, and, one assumes, their ability to hire natives to fish for them also eroded. But they did have one major advantage, an actual oceangoing ship that they could have sailed into the Bay and used to fish. The natives had only canoes and could not possibly have constituted a major threat on the waters of the Bay. But that only works if you know how to fish, which they didn't. Once the nets rotted due to the colonists not understanding the importance of drying them, that advantage was also neutralized, and starving was inevitable in the absence of relief supplies from England or the Caribbean.
Everyone in the colonial period was parasitized to some extent, including the natives. However, the plant-based survival foods I mentions above (chestnuts, acorns, black walnuts, etc.) are not known for harboring parasites. The animal game certainly would have, but almost certainly not more so than the same game in England would have.The colonists were ill primarily because they didn't practice good hygiene wrt situating their toilet facilities away from their drinking water and ended up with dysentery, a problem that the native Americans managed to avoid (source: https://encyclopediavirginia.org/the-myth-of-living-off-the-...).
Summary: the original contingent of Jamestown settlers had bad luck (drought, several supply ships being wrecked or otherwise not showing up on time) but their primary problem was that they didn't intend to live off the land at all, either by fishing and farming or by foraging. They didn't have the right supplies to do so, and mostly didn't have the knowledge needed to do it as a backup plan when the original plan of trading with the native Americans failed (due to poor diplomatic skills and poor diplomatic decision making.)
EDIT: to head off argument on this score, the poor relationship with the native Americans wasn't inevitable. The Roanoke Colony settlers, when their food ran low, joined the local tribe and the evidence indicates that they were adopted as members, intermarried, and survived there. (source: https://www.whro.org/arts-culture/2025-01-20/new-artifacts-o... and https://nypost.com/2025/06/07/us-news/researchers-discover-e...)
EDIT: Here's the best contrary argument, that it was primarily the drought that was to blame and not the incompetence of the English settlers: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/rethinking-jamestown-...
My main lack of trust for this is the over leaning on "incompetence" as the explanation. I'm fully ok with the idea that they made mistakes and were not ready for the vastly different climate. I'm even comfortable with the idea that they may have thought to get more in trade than they were able to get.
That said, I think this vastly overstates how much people got their food from trade. Spices and some goods were, of course, big in trade. Mainline food? Not so much. Most people were not able to stockpile large quantities of food. Some cities maybe could. But it would have been grains/seeds or actual live stock. Not meats or anything that needed refrigeration. For... well, obvious reasons. Even cured meats typically have a very short timeline. So, fishing and hunting and basic gardening would have remained something that people had to do. Pretty much everywhere.
And indeed, this is inline with your edited in article. What were they trying to trade for? Corn. Why did they need to get it by trade, because their crop was bad. Why was the trade not working well? Because nobody had excess corn to trade. Long term stockpiles just couldn't exist to the scale that we think of today. And a lack of rain meant everyone was having a bad crop.
Finally, I want to be clear that I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that I'm just flat out wrong here. I've just grown super doubtful of a lot of the "these morons were able to sail across the atlantic, but were too stupid to do anything that would have resembled living off the land." Despite most living at the time looking like what we would call that.
Two things… one, they didn’t sail across the Atlantic. They hired ships and professional sailors to sail them across. They were passengers. That crossing wasn’t necessarily an easy one, but it was much more like what happens today with wealthy people who pay sherpas to help them climb Everest. The climbers have to have some knowledge and experience, but they aren’t the experts, and without the sherpas they'd be pretty lost.
Second, the point of this whole thread is that even at home, these were not people who were living off the land. They were wealthy Londoners. They lived in the city. They weren’t even raising their own kitchen gardens, they had people for that.
Wealthy Londoners bought their food just like you and I do. They had food markets. They used currency to buy grain, vegetables, and meat.
FYI, salted meat and fish will last for years and, if stored in a reasonably cool place like a root cellar, for decades. I personally have had Virginia hams that were over ten years old. Dried corn will last for centuries if stored properly.
The reason the settlers made so many diplomatic mistakes with the natives was because their leadership was primarily former military, and they saw the natives as a military problem. This made some sense because when they set out, they thought their primary challenge was going to be fending off military attacks from the Spanish. But that assumption turned out to be tragically wrong.
I'm not saying these people were all incompetent buffoons. Some of them were trained military officers. Some were craftsmen — there’s ample evidence of metal work and glassmaking at Jamestown. They were all experienced horsemen, and they were comfortable with firearms and bladed weapons. But what they weren’t was outdoorsmen, or even farmers, and in hindsight that’s what they needed to be. Once they got actual farmers on site, their immediate problems started to clear up.
On this, I would have to see much stronger proof.
I can grant that very dense cities such as London had food markets necessary to supply the city. With the huge caveat that those markets had to have fairly rapid turnover for all of their offerings. Don't forget that most city dwellers had maybe a single shared room with others that they could call home. Such that they likely consumed the food on purchase, with nowhere else to really take it. Even "wealthy" dwellers that did have a place to take food likely couldn't take much. Where do you think they would be able to store it?
And passenger ships in the 1600s were very very different than any sort of passenger ship today. Sure, they were not responsible for ship duties. But they were likely on their own for basic survival on the ship.
Salted meat and fish can last for years if stored in modern containment techniques, sure. With what they would have had in the 1600s, I have serious doubts that you'd get such results. Especially without the resources of a full city at your disposal.
Again, I'm comfortable that I can be wrong on all of this. I would have to see much stronger proof, though. Most of what we call "living off the land" today was largely "typical rural life" for a long long time.
Jamestown also starved because they tried collective farming (communism). It didn't work for them any more than it worked for anyone else.
So did the Pilgrims for their first year. They starved, too.
Walter, I appreciate your comments but you surely have to know Jamestown settlers were in no way practicing communism as it's understood today.
Google "did jamestown use communal farming?"
And they did. After it utterly failed, they moved away from it to individual ownership of farms.
Google "does communal mean communism".
Conflating them in the same sentence, then doubling down on that, is either intellectual dishonesty or ignorance.
Always the same excuse, that it wasn't "real" communism.
Quoted from your reference:
"Communism is ... a stateless, classless society where resources are owned communally" which, if you read about Jamestown, was the situation with their agriculture.
Jamestown was hardly a dictatorship of the proletariat where workers owned the means of production, nor was it stateless or classes. It was quite literally a strong state's company town that was kept afloat by investors, where rich colonists had servants that grew cash crops lol
The farming was done as a communal activity. Jamestown abandoned it after the first year, and switched to the far more successful system of privately owned plots where the owner could sell the produce as he saw fit.
This information is all easily found online.
> "Communism is ... a stateless, classless society where resources are owned communally" which, if you read about Jamestown, was the situation with their agriculture.
A group owning sharing one resource does not imply communism.
Is this how you're read theorems or design programs? There is a difference between "one", "some", "all", most" - the statement you quote does not remotely prove your claim (which of course is nonsense.)
Likely every country on earth has socially some (or one, or many) communally owned, shared resources. Yet it's ludicrous to claim all countries are communist.
The US has co-ops, community gardens, ESOPs, community owned wifi places, power companies, housing projects, roads, lands - so now the US is communist since it has orders of more magnitude community items than Jamestown, right?
And, also from the words you quote, "... a stateless... society..." Not a single country most would call communist is stateless, so now, by your limited and flawed reasoning, there are no communist societies. Yet this too is silly.
And Jamestown was certainly not stateless either (or classless - they also had slaves - so it's baffling how you pick out a few words you like and ignore a lot more to get to your conclusion).
> "....which, if you read about Jamestown..."
... you would realize.
You're looking for boogey-men where they don't exist.
Can you name a single successful collective farm?
> Likely every country on earth has socially some (or one, or many) communally owned, shared resources
Usually their inefficiency and failure is propped up by taxpayer money. The more of the country that is communally owned, the more communist it is, and the more failure, until there isn't enough taxpayer money to subsidize it and the country fails.
In your reading of Jamestown, what's your explanation of why they abandoned collective farming after the first year? And the Pilgrims did the same?
Collective farming is communism.
Marx didn't write about communism until a couple centuries later. The ideas were very similar though.
It's funny how the father of communism was basically an intellectual who leeched off of his wealthier capitalist relatives (the family behind Philips NV).
[flagged]
Even today, with modern information available to us, people still woefully underestimate what it would take to live in a true wilderness.
I've got a great example of this. I'm renting a house that provides a gas powered lawnmower for tenants to use, and I've elected to just let the grass grow because I have no idea how to use the thing
Now look, there's debates to be had about whether or not lawns are good idea, or how long grass should grow, etc. but there's no excuse for not figuring out how a gas mower works. I could tell you here in a paragraph or you could watch a 30 minute Youtube which will contain in it somewhere the 1 minute of actual instructions you need. It's a pretty damn simple system.
Adjust the height to the highest setting.
Put gas in it. If there's a soft rubber thing near the gas, hit it twice to provide some fuel but no more as you risk "flooding" the engine.
Hold down any handle at the top of the mower, often the thing will require you to manually hold it down during start and all operations.
Look for the starter pull. It's often on the right, on the motor or mower handles. It's a piece of plastic attached to a cable. Give it a yank with a full follow through. It doesn't have to be maximum effort but too gentle won't work either.
Are you joking or something? It's just check the gas and oil, hold down the brake lever on the handle, pull the crank a few times and away you go. Maybe it's old and has a fuel bulb or a choke, or fancy and has a transmission and the lever to engage it, but it's really not complicated at all.
I grew up around many different sorts of power tools. By my mid-20s I was comfortable using routers, table saws, sawzalls, jigsaws, jackhammers and more.
But nobody in my family had any gas-powered motors for anything at all.
I'm 61 now, and a volunteer firefighter. We have lots of gas powered chainsaws, circular saws, ventilation fans, and more.
I'm still extremely uncomfortable with starting these engines.
Lazy,
You cannot live this way. I can walk you through anything related to home care.
just anxious. i live pretty remote; if i get hurt and cant get to a phone, no one will find me until my lease expires. one of the downsides of auto payments i think.
It's actually pretty hard to hurt yourself on the active blade of a push mower. I've only heard of one account of this happening first hand, someone 1) slipped while 2) gripping and not releasing the handle interlock switch as they slipped while 3) pushing the mower uphill and 4) wearing flip flops. Don't do that, and you'll be fine.
I don't have any data but I'd assume it's vastly safer to mow the lawn than drive a car.
Probably depends heavily on how you normalize the risks, and I had a good chuckle at the thought of “injuries per 100k miles” applied to lawn mowers.
I would guess lawn mowers are higher risk per time or distance, but lower prevalence in injuries per year. I would guess the injuries are mostly a) hit rocks, b) did something dumb with the mower, or c) general outdoors risks like slipping or being bit by snake, etc.
Don't mow rock, wear protective eyewear and a mask if you don't want to inhale dust/pollen/etc and you will be protected from 99.9% of all conceivable injuries from a modern gas mower that has a safety switch.
use age1s6cz86s99unkfm2sqy045w5w79n8lyyulwu9qy3gkaeydmexwv5qvkh2pp reply with your contact if you want help.
lol. not sure what age1s6cz86s99unkfm2sqy045w5w79n8lyyulwu9qy3gkaeydmexwv5qvkh2pp means, but if youre in the greater seattle area and want to teach me how to be an adult, shoot me a text. 360-624-3791
On the other hand, just letting it grow isn't going to hurt anything.
With a modern mower, it's pretty hard to hurt yourself.
I wouldn't necessarily assume it's at all modern. I've had Briggs-and-Stratton-powered mowers that had the deck rot from corrosion long before that B&S engine dies. Point being, if the mower was "provided", who knows the vintage? It sure isn't going to be the landlord's top-shelf mower fresh from the dealer.
Note that once the grass has grown past a certain height, you won't be able to use a mower anymore even if you want to. At that point it will require a line trimmer (a.k.a. weed whacker) which is a lot more work.
Though personally I'm a fan of "kill your lawn" efforts. You can smother it with cardboard (or burn it, or till it, etc) and replace with native meadow.
Sure you can! Ask me how I know.
(Has cleared overgrowth consisting of both vines and grasses roughly a meter high give or take some)
What you do is tip the mower up, holding the handle near the ground and push it right into the mess. Then lower it down, essentially taking a "bite", which will cut many folded over plants.
Pull back, then tip and advance repeatedly, cutting more each time.
I cleared a quarter acre this way. Took one hard afternoon and a couple tanks of gas.
hmm ok. its mainly ryegrass, though, so i dont think itd be a problem to cut through. i just think its really pretty, plus the birds/squirrels/chipmunks seem to like it a lot.
this is maybe the most accidentally insightful post I have seen on HN. Or satire so sharp it cuts in line.
The colonists didn't have anything near this level of technology though...
How would you have prepared, were you in their shoes? Roanoke Island was first landed in 1585. The only foreknowledge of the area would have been wildly embellished and optimistic reports (competing for financing, royal favor and prestige) from the likes of Spanish and French expeditions, or Sir Francis Drake. This was mostly limited to coastal recon and said little of the dangers of malaria, indian politics, seasonality, etc.
For example, the Amadas-Barlowe Expedition (1584) described Roanoke Island as "the most plentiful, sweet, fruitful and wholesome of all the world," with fertile soil, abundant wildlife, and friendly natives
>were very tenuous and seemed very unprepared.
Old world politics at the time explain most of this. Some of the english colonies were, ugh, rushed and less well funded than they would have been under ideal situations.
This is basically the same reason they didn't look too hard to see what happened to the Roanoke colony.
It was the VC model of colonization. They expected a few sites to fail to prosper.
Not unlike youth in our current society who leave home then bounce around from one place to another until they find the spot they want to settle in for a while.
I mean sure, colonists from hundreds of years ago are different than young adults of today.... but the tenuous nature, in general, of people out exploring the world for a new home is unsurprising.
No I don’t think they are anything alike.
Is this story available from a reputable source?
If this is the case then there should be DNA evidence as well. Presuming that assimilation led to procreation.
The native population of the area was well mixed with European and African genes in the 18th and 19th century. It would be very difficult to determine whether there was also mixture in the late 16th / early 17th century.
400-year-old traces would be hard to detect owing to admixture, but if they could find identical-by-descent segments that would be very compelling, as the research into Native American traces found in Polynesian populations shows:
https://gizmodo.com/native-americans-voyaged-to-polynesia-lo...
If Croatoan ceremonies didn't involve cremation it could be quite a bit easier.. I don't really see the article's evidence as very compelling. Many things may have been collected from the site and ultimately discarded in the trash heaps without the proposed integration.
There's no descendants, bones, or other source of DNA known to belong to the colonists to work from.
The English have good records. We could perhaps find the decendents of relatives who stayed put and then find their "hey you guys seem to have more DNA in common than you ought to" counterparts of native american heritage.
The way it works for molecular phylogeny is that you try to find things that are conserved. E.g. if you find a small village in Europe where people haven't moved around much and you find a rare mutation that is also present in one other part of the US, then you might be able to put some numbers on the likelihood that this mutation/gene came from a the original place. Find a second gene, find some artefacts from the right place/time and you have an emerging picture.
TLDR: the Roanoke Colony moved to Hatteras Island.
From a backbarrier island to a barrier island (towards the sea)
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]