The Bones of an Early Jamestown Settler May Soon Be Identified

Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Hulton Archive/Getty Images

The 400-year-old skeleton of one of Jamestown’s earliest settlers was unearthed during an archaeological dig at the former colony site, and scientists think they know who it is, The Washington Post reports. The bones may belong to Sir George Yeardley, an early governor of colonial Virginia.

The remains were found at the site of the Jamestown 1617 church, which archaeologist Mary Anna Richardson described as “one of the most complicated sites that we have ever worked on here at Jamestown,” according to footage from the Smithsonian Channel, which will air a documentary on the results of the dig in 2019. The archaeological site features three churches compressed into one small area.

Researchers from Preservation Virginia, a nonprofit preservation group, have been exploring the historic clues left behind at Jamestown since 1994. In recent years, the group partnered with the Smithsonian Institution to turn its attention to the tiny churches that once dotted America's first permanent European settlement. Many high-profile figures from that time period were interred in the cemeteries attached to these places of worship.

The newly discovered remains belong to a man about 40 years old, according to a preliminary forensic analysis, which is consistent with biographical information about Yeardley. As the head of the first representative legislative assembly in colonial North America, Yeardley played an important role in the formation of early colonial government. Virginia’s assembly was the model for democracy in the U.S., according to American Evolution, a partner of Jamestown Rediscovery. 

Beyond the church find, the Jamestown exploration has yielded some interesting finds over the years. In 2016, archaeologists who studied the bones of a 15-year-old boy at Jamestown determined that he had been struck and killed by an arrowhead in 1607, just a couple of weeks after the settlers arrived. By examining a root canal, scientists were also able to tell that he probably ate a bland diet of mostly grains like oats, wheat, and barley. The New World was no picnic.

[h/t The Washington Post]

Looking to Downsize? You Can Buy a 5-Room DIY Cabin on Amazon for Less Than $33,000

Five rooms of one's own.
Five rooms of one's own.
Allwood/Amazon

If you’ve already mastered DIY houses for birds and dogs, maybe it’s time you built one for yourself.

As Simplemost reports, there are a number of house kits that you can order on Amazon, and the Allwood Avalon Cabin Kit is one of the quaintest—and, at $32,990, most affordable—options. The 540-square-foot structure has enough space for a kitchen, a bathroom, a bedroom, and a sitting room—and there’s an additional 218-square-foot loft with the potential to be the coziest reading nook of all time.

You can opt for three larger rooms if you're willing to skip the kitchen and bathroom.Allwood/Amazon

The construction process might not be a great idea for someone who’s never picked up a hammer, but you don’t need an architectural degree to tackle it. Step-by-step instructions and all materials are included, so it’s a little like a high-level IKEA project. According to the Amazon listing, it takes two adults about a week to complete. Since the Nordic wood walls are reinforced with steel rods, the house can withstand winds up to 120 mph, and you can pay an extra $1000 to upgrade from double-glass windows and doors to triple-glass for added fortification.

Sadly, the cool ceiling lamp is not included.Allwood/Amazon

Though everything you need for the shell of the house comes in the kit, you will need to purchase whatever goes inside it: toilet, shower, sink, stove, insulation, and all other furnishings. You can also customize the blueprint to fit your own plans for the space; maybe, for example, you’re going to use the house as a small event venue, and you’d rather have two or three large, airy rooms and no kitchen or bedroom.

Intrigued? Find out more here.

[h/t Simplemost]

This article contains affiliate links to products selected by our editors. Mental Floss may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.

Humans First Arrived in North America 30,000 Years Ago, New Studies Suggest

Researcher samples cave sediments for DNA.
Researcher samples cave sediments for DNA.
Devlin A. Gandy

People occupied North America by roughly 11,000 BCE, but the exact timeline of how early humans first arrived on the continent is contested. Two new studies suggest that humans were living in North America as far back as 30,000 years ago—preceding some earlier estimates by more than 15,000 years.

According to the traditional narrative, the first North Americans were big game hunters who crossed a land bridge connecting Asia to North America around 13,000 years ago. They left behind distinct, fluted arrowheads and bone and ivory tools that were dubbed “Clovis” tools. “This narrative, known as ‘Clovis-first,’ was widely accepted for most of the 20th century until new archaeological evidence showed that humans were present in the continent before Clovis,” Lorena Becerra-Valdivia, an archaeological scientist with the Universities of Oxford and New South Wales and co-author of the new studies, tells Mental Floss. “Within academia, an earlier arrival of 16,000-15,000 years ago was generally accepted.”

Her new analysis pushes back that date by several millennia. The study, “The Timing and Effect of the Earliest Human Arrivals in North America,” published in the journal Nature, looks at radiocarbon and luminescence data from Beringia, a region that historically linked Russia and Alaska, and North America. A statistical model built with this data indicates that a significant human population was living on the continent long before the Clovis era. According to the study, these humans were likely present before, during, and after the Last Glacial Maximum—the period when ice sheets covered much of North America 26,000 to 19,000 years ago.

Stone tool found below the Last Glacial Maximum layer.Ciprian Ardelean

These findings also contradict the land bridge theory. Rather than making a straightforward journey from Asia to North America and populating the southern half of the continent as the Clovis people were thought to have done, the first humans may have entered the Americas by traveling down the Pacific Coast. “These are paradigm-shifting results that shape our understanding of the initial dispersal of modern humans into Americas,” Becerra-Valdivia says. “They suggest exciting and interesting possibilities for what likely was a complex and dynamic process.”

The second, related study in Nature, ”Evidence of Human Occupation in Mexico Around the Last Glacial Maximum,” supports this new narrative. In it, researchers from institutes in Mexico, the UK, and other countries share artifacts and environmental DNA uncovered from Chiquihuite Cave—a high-altitude cave in Zacatecas, central Mexico. The tools, plant remains, and environmental DNA collected there paint of picture of human life dating back 13,000 to 30,000 years ago. The evidence shows that the site was more than just a stopping point, and the people living there had adapted to the high altitudes and harsh mountain landscape.

The two studies not only offer insight on when the first North Americans arrived on the continent, but who they were and how they lived. The Americas would have looked a lot different to humans during the Last Glacial Maximum than they did to the Clovis people millennia later. The fact that the first North Americans left behind far fewer artifacts than the Clovis people shows that their populations stayed relatively small. “Humans at Chiquihuite Cave would have faced the harshness of the Last Glacial Maximum, the peak of the last Ice Age, which would have kept their population at a low density,” Becerra-Valdivia says. “Clovis peoples, in contrast, thrived well after the last Ice Age, expanding widely through the continent during a period of globally warmer temperatures. Their life ways and subsistence patterns, therefore, would have been very different.”