Posted on 11/18/2011 11:39:32 AM PST by Pharmboy
Researchers at Jamestown, Va., may have found the site where the first Protestant church in North America was built.
Dr. William Kelso, head of the research team at Jamestown, which was founded as a settlement established by the Virginia Company of London in the 17th century, explained in an interview with The Christian Post that the group began excavating at the site where they may have found the church in the summer of 2010.
Kelso, an American archaeologist specializing in Virginia’s colonial period, believes the ruins found are the church because of a “Record of construction in Spring of 1608, burials in the east or chancel end” and that it “matches dimensions recorded in 1610.”
He discovered the site along with three field supervisors: archeologists Danny Schmidt, Dave Givens and Jamie May.
In addition to being the site of the oldest known Protestant church in the United States, the building would have also likely been the location for the wedding of Pocahontas and John Rolfe, a marriage that temporarily brought peace between settlers and Native Americans.
The church, which was 64 feet by 24 feet, also runs contrary to the common narrative on religion linked to Jamestown colony.
“[The] standard story is that Jamestown was all about secular pursuits and making money with the spread of religion far down the priority list,” said Kelso.
“The sheer size and early construction makes a dramatic statement that the establishment of the Church of England in the ‘new world’ was far more in the forefront of the colonists thinking than has previously been recognized by many historians.”
Historians at Virginia universities echo the sentiment of Kelso regarding the accuracy of the popular narrative of Jamestown.
Crandall Shifflet, professor emeritus at Virginia Tech, told CP that he believed the church ruins “could be an opportunity to re-examine the role of religion at Jamestown in particular and in seventeenth-century Virginia in general.”
“British colonists considered the spread of Christianity a central part of their mission,” said Shifflet, who oversees an online learning project called “Virtual Jamestown.”
“Popular culture tends to stereotype Jamestown as a group of adventure capitalists motivated by greed and materialistic gain without regard to the souls of colonists or Indians.”
Early American historian Dr. Jane Merritt of Old Dominion University said that the find was valuable for understanding life in the English colonies.
“The church will certainly help historians better map out the community spaces of the early settlement,” said Merritt.
“Archaeological work at Jamestown has been underway for decades and has uncovered wonderful evidence of the material life and culture of early colonists.”
Merritt explained that many misconceptions about life in Jamestown exist in modern society, noting that although often considered “a seedbed for democracy” Jamestown was a strictly structured and hierarchical society.
“Religion was an important part of this equation,” said Merritt, who added that “colonists were required to go to church (at times daily services) by threat of punishment.”
Merritt also noted the strong misconception commonly found with English settlers arriving to North America is that they were there for “religious freedom.”
“While religion was central to many of the settlements … the religious freedom they sought rarely included religious tolerance,” said Merritt.
Bet you forgot that ~ the church was UNHAPPY with him and his men.
What you are forgetting is that in the early 1500s the French Religious Wars are long in the future, Protestants have not yet begun worshipping separately, and the Thirty Years war is a full century away.
Get your head out of your lower orifice and take a look at the time lines.
Ask yourself ~ what happened to the Spanish Protestants?
Although schism was averted in Spain itself, that was simply because people who didn't want to live under the thumb of the priestly caste could leave ~ and they did.
It’s nice to stumble on this thread after spending a large part of the day looking for ancestors. With the help of my niece, we are finding a passel of Revolutionary era ancestors. It appears that most of them came to America via Albany,Ga in the 1760s from County Down, Ireland. They were Scots-Irish, farmers and weavers. I have the name of the couple who were my great great great grandparents. John Stewart and Elizabeth (Drennan) Stewart. They settled in a places named Prosperity, Stone Battery, in Newberry Co. Long Cane, in Abbeville Co. SC. Elizabeth moved to Lincoln Co. TN a year after John died. She was 18 years younger than he. Their child, Joseph was the father of R.W. and R.W. was the father of my grandfather. We found which churches they attended in SC. Prosperity, and Cannon’s Creek. The strange thing is that the church where I went with my grandparents as a child in Lincoln Co., TN was named Prosperity and Elizabeth is buried at the cemetery there at the church. Did she help name the church? I wonder.
Niece and I are going to plan a trip for next summer to go get pictures of the tombs in SC and TN.
My niece also dug into my maternal line and found that they also came to TN from SC. It looks like a whole bunch of the folks there came to TN about the same time and settled in the same general middle TN area. I’m thinking they probably knew each other from both sides of my family.Anyway, it’s fun hunting.
You wrote:
“You can believe that all you want.”
I’ll always choose to believe the truth. How about you?
” The evidence is in the way his fellow conquistidores behaved when confronted with the new church-backed governor.”
No, it is not. No matter how they behaved toward a governor, that doesn’t make them anything other than Catholics.
“Bet you forgot that ~ the church was UNHAPPY with him and his men.”
The one has nothing to do with the other.
“What you are forgetting is that in the early 1500s the French Religious Wars are long in the future, Protestants have not yet begun worshipping separately, and the Thirty Years war is a full century away.”
No. 1) Pizarro was already middle aged when the Protestant Revolt began. He came from a people and culture that would remain virtually untouched by it compared to the rest of Europe. 2) Protestants were worshipping separately from Catholics as early as 1520 in some places. 3) Pizarro shows not a single indication of being anything other than a Catholic.
“Get your head out of your lower orifice and take a look at the time lines.”
I am looking at THE timeline. Think! Pizarro was already middle aged when the Protestant Revolt began in Germany (not Spain) 1517. Pizarro was in South America in 1524. He spent the rest of his life as a conquistador...and he built Catholic churches. He returned to Europe just before 1530 and was welcomed into a Catholic Royal order of knighthood. Then he returned to South America. There’s NOTHING in his life to indicate he was a Protestant.
“Ask yourself ~ what happened to the Spanish Protestants?”
Whatever happened to them had nothing to do with Pizarro!!!
“Although schism was averted in Spain itself, that was simply because people who didn’t want to live under the thumb of the priestly caste could leave ~ and they did.”
I’m sure some of them did leave - Pizarro was not one of them. He was never a Protestant and there is no proof for what you claim and all proof in existence goes against what you’re saying. And there were no Vikings on the Volga in 1700 either.
Folks who deny what is so obvious to see really can't be included in any sort of rational discussion.
That's about as big an expression of faith and evidence as you can find.
You should bother reading The History of the Conquest of Peru and Mexico. Great first hand accounts.
The German timeline simply doesn't mean anything except in Central Europe.
The situation in Spain was far different. They discovered America and people could get out of Spain any time they wanted.
You wrote:
“You’re the guy who claims the Dark Ages didn’t start in 535AD and run for the next 8 to 9 centuries in NW Europe.”
Can you name a single modern reputable historian of the Middle Ages who believes the “Dark Ages” started in 535 and lasted almost a millenium? No reputable historian of the Middles Ages believes what you’re saying. NONE. NOT A SINGLE ONE.
Do the math. 535 plus 800 is what? 1335. 1335 is 200 years after the first Gothic Cathedral. It 50 years after Aquinas. It’s almost 250 years after the First Crusade. It’s AFTER Dante had written the Divine Comedy. What you’re saying is completely nonsensical.
“Folks who deny what is so obvious to see really can’t be included in any sort of rational discussion.”
No, people who claim the Vikings were around in the 1700s - as you did - should be included in your statement above. I, on the otherhand, am right. No reputable historian of the Middle Ages - in the entire world today - believes the Dark Ages were still going on in the 1300s.
You wrote:
“BTW, when offered last rights they refused the ministrations of the priests.”
Who did? Post names. Post sources. Show some actual evidence. Can you?
“The new governor and his attendants then killed them by drawing and quartering them and tossing their parts to the dogs in the fields.”
And that means exactly what about your completely ahistorical claims?
“That’s about as big an expression of faith and evidence as you can find.”
None of that means anything about Pizarro being a Protestant. Conquistadors were rough men.
“You should bother reading The History of the Conquest of Peru and Mexico. Great first hand accounts.”
Is this going to turn out as badly for you as your claim to have read History of the Vikings? Remember how you actually got what the book said COMPLETELY WRONG?
You wrote:
“BTW, Protestantism in Western Europe began at a different time than in Eastern Europe and took a different form.”
Even if true, that has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.
“The German timeline simply doesn’t mean anything except in Central Europe.”
So now you’re making a case that Pizarro could never have been a Protestant. Protestantism started in Germany. If you’re admitting it got to Spain much later, than that only helps show you are wrong. Didn’t that occur to you?
“The situation in Spain was far different. They discovered America and people could get out of Spain any time they wanted.”
But Pizarro and no one in his family were Protestant. You have ZERO evidence. ZERO.
Might be a difficult claim to substantiate, but aren't they all. No time machines jack.
Your understanding of Protestantism seems to go no further than Lutheranism. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Many protestants consider Lutherans to simply be Catholics with a different name ~ ever see their services? In Scandinavia they even call their ministers "priests" ~
NW Europe DIED in a short time.
My husband and I went there for our anniversary in May. (I’ve been there before, but some 15 years.) It’s a great place, especially now compared to my earlier visits. Unfortunately, my visit to the actual island was marred by my husband wandering off from me in the settlement area and then we couldn’t find each other! So wasted a half hour or so and alot of (hot) energy!
You wrote:
“There are Protestant groups who actually claim they have Apostolic Succession from the very beginning.”
And taht has exactly what to do with Pizarro? Oh, yeah, NOTHING.
“Might be a difficult claim to substantiate, but aren’t they all.”
No, actually many aren’t.
“No time machines jack.”
No, just books you should ACTUALLY read, but probably won’t.
“Your understanding of Protestantism seems to go no further than Lutheranism. Sorry, that doesn’t cut it.”
In other words, you don’t have a single bit of evidence that Pizarro was a Protestant? That’s it, isn’t it? You have nothing, still, right?
“Many protestants consider Lutherans to simply be Catholics with a different name ~ ever see their services?”
None of that tells us a single thing about Pizarro - except that you aren’t posting any evidence for your claims.
“In Scandinavia they even call their ministers “priests” ~”
And again, that tells us nothing about Pizarro.
Time to put up or shut up. What’s it going to be?
LOL!! I was wondering about that...God Bless You...and your ancestors.
LOL!! I was wondering about that...God Bless You...and your ancestors.
You just want to argue. Bye Bye
Your posts are becoming more bizarre. You wrote:
“The Dark Ages began with verifiable scientific facts. Tree rings have been examined and they show several years of no growth ~ meaning a very long Fimbul Winter.”
(sigh) The “Dark Ages” is a reference to a time of little learning, culture, commerce, travel, or advancement.
“St. Gildas interviewed people first hand who’d experienced it ~ his companion, King Ad, attested to it elsewhere.”
(sigh) All of which is completely irrelevant for it says nothing in itself about the Dark Ages as commonly understood nor does it even remotely show any evidence of your completely erroneous claim that the Dark Ages lasted until the 14th century.
“NW Europe DIED in a short time.”
No, it didn’t.
Most excellent! Ask your cousin in TN to scan a bit of that and post it for us.
You wrote:
“You just want to argue. Bye Bye”
So, you can’t post any evidence for your claims? I wouldn’t be surprised. You repeatedly make claims - patently false ones - and provide no evidence for them.
Pizarro was never a Protestant. Vikings ceased to exist long before 1700. Gwyn Jones makes no claim whatsoever about Vikings on the Volga in 1700. Those are the facts. They are irrefutable. You have failed to post a single fact in favor of your claims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.