In a message dated 3/27/2007 11:23:20 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
There are very real historical reasons for that
Back between 1800-1850 or so, antiquaries were fighting public opinion; seen
as ridiculous dilettantes, they tried to get away from the excesses of bad
philology, folklore studies, etc., and try to reform as a "science" based on
"facts", eventually hitching a ride on "uniformitarianism" & evolution & the
3-age system (derived from art history)
So we still tend to say excavation is somehow better (more macho?) than
theory, or reanalysis of materials held in archives/museums, or
non-destructive survey methods, ethnoarchaeology, etc.
I suppose this is my ethnocentrism showing (kind of like a petard), as I
came from an anthropology background and considered folklore to be a part of
living culture. Of course, I am many things now and interject my own biases. At
times, I have been accused of too much free thinking. Or, as some chap at the
SofAA Conference in Santa Fe, NM said a few years ago, "Of course I know you,
you'r the lunatic fringe!"
As to Oak Island, or even the infamous legendary Roswell UFO crash site, I
should think an archaeological survey and excavation of the campaign camps
would produce fascinating factual information. Both locations had large work
camps where a number of people camped out, consumed supplies, and arranged
themselves for work parties. I seriously doubt they packed their smelly trash out,
so there would be dumps and privies and places where shirt buttons,
jackknives, and coins fell to the ground. I think of this because I once attended a
Pecos Conference where a chap delivered a paper on the survey, mapping, and
excavation of an archaeology field camp from the late 19th century. Well shoot,
if we can dig our own trash and have fun, why not older field camps?
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone.
Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
|
