Interestingly enough, the Millers, first George and then Henry, were
the curators at Historic St. Mary's City. Until I took the job some
people thought it was hereditary.
The again, I have run into people who thought Eighteenth-Century
Ceramics From Fort Michilimackinac was written by Garry Stone and
George Miller.
Silas Hurry
non-Miller Curator HSMC
At 05:41 PM 9/17/05, you wrote:
>While we're in full pedantic flight, it was George Miller who did
>the Owens research but I think a Henry Miller description of the
>Owens bottling technology story would be far more lurid, steamy and
>popular with students and grown-ups alike. That lip finishing
>technology would really get an interesting treatment.
>
>Denis
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Thompson" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 4:43 AM
>Subject: Writing on Walls and pull tabs
>
>
>>Just checked the Norfolk District website (my employer, the Norfolk
>>District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) where we used to have some
>>images of graffiti on the walls of one of the buildings in Fort
>>Norfolk (c. 1810 - part of the original coastal defense network).
>>The grafitti had been left by soldiers held captive there during th
>>Civil War. I'll root around and see if they don' show up somewhere
>>else. My understanding of Section 106, is that the archaeologist is
>>required to report ANY and ALL resources that might be significant
>>encountered during investigations for 106 regardless of whether or
>>not they relate the items specificied in the original documents
>>(MOA or whatever).
>>
>>To fail to do so, would be like saying, "Well, we didn't find the
>>remains of the 1810 Fort, and we're not reporting the Paleo-Indian
>>site that we encountered while looking for it, because it wasn't
>>specified in our contract. This highlights the intense foolishness
>>of saying that Section 106 investigations should be "confined to
>>the original research design" specified in the investigation
>>agreement. Using the "research design" as an excuse to ignore
>>resources not called out in that document is unprofessional,
>>irresponsible and unethical. This should not be a question for any
>>professional archaeologist.
>>
>>I lived across the street from a machinist here in Richmond who
>>worked for many years for the Reynolds Aluminium Company, on a team
>>that developed and continued (and probably continues) developing
>>the pull-tab. These guys don't write journal articles for "Journal
>>of aluminum technology"; they're practical factory guys. Product
>>vendors don't usually design or manufacture the containers into
>>which their beverages are placed for sale; they buy them from
>>suppliers, like Reynolds, and use them at their "bottling" or
>>filling facilities. The can manufacturers are intimately involved
>>in the sale and set-up of filling machinery, but with some possible
>>exceptions, don't dictate to the producers which technology to use
>>at a particular location.
>>
>>Tieing the type of pull tab to a particular product probably only
>>has efficacy at the regional level, or even more locally, depending
>>on the product, where decisions about what filling technology to
>>use at a particular filling plant are made. The failure to
>>recognize this allows the projection of late eighteenth and early
>>nineteenth century technology, inappropriately, into the twentieth century.
>>
>>Go back and study Henry Miller's research on the development of
>>Owens process bottle production to get a feeling for the complexity
>>of twentieth century product delivery and don't fall into the trap
>>of applying anachronistic analytical techniques to materials for
>>which they are not appropriate.
>>
>>Tim T.
>>bottled in pedantic bond
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 9/16/05
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.1/104 - Release Date: 9/16/05
|
