Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 16 Feb 1997 07:06:25 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Archaeologically recovered industrial artifacts sometimes are difficult to
explain in print, and frequently are fragmentary. Tinplated sheet metal
artifacts are particularly difficult, because they tend to come out of the
ground in terribly degraded condition.
We are currently working on a site where smashed tinplate artifacts were
recovered from a well. Our tinsmith reproduced the artifacts and gave us
considerable insight into the craft and trade of tinsmithing during the
eighteenth century. You are invited to see the results at our web page:
http://home.dmv.com/~eheite/index.html
On the same index, you will find an essay on the background of a Native
American population who "disappeared" from Delaware during the eighteenth
century and became invisible to the record.
I would be interested in corresponding with anyone who has had experience,
negative or positive, with replication as a method of archaeological
interpretation. Tinware was replicated at Fort Ligonier, and I. Noel Hume
worked with Jimmy Maloney to replicate some of the Virginia pottery many
years ago.
Ned Heite, P O Box 53
Camden, Delaware 19934
Icelandic wool catalogue: http://www.dmv.com/~iceland
See our draft articles on: http://home.dmv.com/~eheite/index.html
|
|
|