42 pages • 1 hour read
Sally WalkerWritten in Bone: Buried Lives of Jamestown and Colonial Maryland
Nonfiction | Book | Middle Grade | Published in 2009A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Chapters 4-5Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Chapter 4 Summary
In 2002, a trash pit near James Fort’s western wall revealed a grave shaft. This grave, dating to 1607-1608, was unusual because it was outside the fort and parallel to its wall. It contained no colonial artifacts but indicated a burial in a coffin, suggesting the deceased was a person of importance. Excavation revealed an iron pike, part of a captain’s leading staff, which further suggested the grave honored a high-ranking individual. The skeleton, dubbed “the Captain,” was well-preserved due to the sandy soil, which drained water better than the clay-filled soil of other Jamestown graves. The preservation revealed the Captain had been shrouded, as evidenced by green stains from decomposed shroud pins.
Forensic analysis by Doug Owsley showed the Captain was a slender man, aged 33 to 39, who showed slight arthritis and signs of physical activity and was likely right-handed. The Captain had lost a few teeth before death, had a history of nasal infections, and had a healed sprained ankle. Stable isotope analysis indicated a diet consistent with someone from England, suggesting he had not been in Virginia long before his death.
Historical records such as journal entries suggested the Captain might be Bartholomew Gosnold, who died in 1607 and was buried with honors. The leading staff, coffin, and forensic evidence matched Gosnold’s status and circumstances. However, isotopic analysis also matched two other candidates: Gabriel Archer and Ferdinando Wenman. Despite this, Kelso and his team believed the burial honors and Gosnold’s significant role in the settlement made him the most likely candidate. Gosnold, a respected English trader and explorer, played a crucial role in the founding of Jamestown.
Chapter 5 Summary
In 1634, another group of settlers arrived in the Chesapeake region and founded Maryland, hoping to prosper by growing and selling tobacco, which was highly popular in England. In 2003, archaeologist Al Luckenbach excavated the former home of planter William Neale in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Neale’s plantation, known as Leavy Neck, was small by the standards of the time. Artifacts found at the site indicated that the house was built around 1662 and abandoned around 1677, likely after Neale’s death. The excavation revealed an earthen-walled cellar beneath the house, which had been used as a trash dump. Among the layers of trash, the team discovered a human body buried in a hastily dug grave. The grave showed no signs of respectful burial practices, and the body had been crudely shoved into the grave using a broken milk pan.
Owsley examined the bones and determined they belonged to a boy aged 15 or 16. The boy’s bones showed signs of the intense physical labor typical of an indentured servant. Indentured servants were a critical workforce in the 17th-century Chesapeake, agreeing to work for landowners for four to seven years in exchange for passage to the colonies and food and shelter when they arrived. The boy’s vertebrae had Schmorl’s depressions, indicating a life of heavy lifting and strenuous work. The boy’s right arm showed fractures consistent with a blow from a blunt object, suggesting possible mistreatment.
The boy’s health was neglected, with signs of tuberculosis and severe dental issues, including multiple cavities and abscesses that likely led to blood poisoning. Stable isotope analysis showed a carbon-13 value of -19.39, indicating he had not been in America long and that many of his health problems might have originated in England. The circumstances of the burial, including the use of a milk pan to dig the grave, suggested the boy was buried in haste and secrecy. Owsley concluded that the boy likely died under suspicious circumstances, possibly due to mistreatment.
Chapters 4-5 Analysis
Each of these chapters deals with a different excavation. The first excavation, that of the Captain, occurs in the same geographic region as JR1225B’s grave. Grouping the chapters by region streamlines the work and keeps it straightforward for readers: The background information about Jamestown from Chapters 1-3 is still relevant in Chapter 4. The structure also allows Walker to present the excavations as a narrative, underscoring the chronological continuities that connect the disparate individuals. After moving to an excavation to Maryland, Walker goes through the same process of describing the historical context of the colony. She compares the colonists’ motivations for settling in North America, describes the types of people who went over, and notes the dates of settlement. Understanding these details helps the reader picture the people behind the skeletons that Walker describes in the upcoming chapters and is therefore in line with her interest in the Daily Lives of American Colonists.
The process of identifying the Captain as Bartholomew Gosnold involves matching physical evidence with historical documents and artifacts, developing the theme of Connecting the Historical Record to Archaeological Evidence. Historians put together different clues: the leading staff in the grave, inferences from the remains, and written records. For example, one journal entry describes Gosnold’s “honorable” burial in 1607, and historians used this information to determine how old Gosnold was when he died. They then matched that up with the skeleton, which they believed to belong to a man in his mid-thirties. While they were confident in their identification, questions remain, particularly regarding the political and social motivations behind his elaborate burial.
The respectful and honorable burial of the Captain contrasts sharply with the neglectful and degrading burial of the indentured servant. The Captain’s burial, complete with a leading staff and a coffin, indicated the resources allocated for a respectful interment reflective of his economic and social importance. The physical condition of the Captain’s remains also indicated a life of less physical strain compared to the indentured servant. The Captain’s bones did show some signs of arthritis, but this is a condition often associated with increasing age, and the Captain was roughly two decades older than the indentured servant at the time of their respective deaths. Conversely, the indentured servant’s bones told a story of relentless physical labor. The muscle attachment areas on his bones were sharply defined, indicative of heavy labor “on a daily basis” (60). The indentured servant’s burial in a trash-filled cellar further exposes the economic exploitation and lack of resources allocated for those of low status. Indentured servants were essential to the economic success of plantations, yet they were treated as disposable labor. By juxtaposing these two burial sites, Walker explores and dramatizes the social hierarchies of the Chesapeake Bay colonies.
The discussion of the Captain also contrasts with other chapters in the forcefulness of its claims. Walker did not positively identify JR1225B as Richard Mutton, but she identifies the Captain as Bartholomew Gosnold with a reasonable degree of certainty. The difference lies mostly in the historical record, which itself points to the inequities of colonial life: A person of social importance was more likely to appear in the historical record, so historians have a more definite list of candidates to choose from. Boys like JR1225B were less likely to appear in documentation, and few of them could write their own records. In fact, Walker does not even speculate on the identity of the indentured servant at Leavy Neck, implying that if attempts were made to identify him, they went nowhere.
