HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
George Myers <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 7 Sep 1999 13:43:31 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
Apology:[log in to unmask]

If you are Catherine (nee) Blee I am extremely sorry if I have offended you.
I still don't know if the digger sees one thing and is asked to believe
another, the politics of experience if you will.

An example, a very deep well was constructed at Fort McHenry, in Baltimore. I
worked in this well after its location was found under the brick walks. It
was a difficult excavation originally, and 12 foot high barrel staves of cast
iron to keep out the brackish water at 40-50 feet in depth. Now Ft. McHenry
was sort of an island and received water almost daily from Baltimore. With
the well, water was available all the time for a hot shot furnace and other
uses. Now if you tell me General Armistad knew the British were going to
attack and had this well dug just prior to it, I would have to believe you
from the dates and the descriptions of history, though as a skeptic I might
think you are a patriot, without actually authenticating every source, I
still would be skeptical. As a Canadian, one might say Armistad knew of a
thwarted plot to blow up the British Parliament in Canada and expected as
much. There was no time, however, to change all the cannons there, which did
not have the range of the British Navy ships guns, outdistanced by, forgive
my memory, 1/10 mile?

Now if you tell me some of this and I excavate the feature, and tell me all
the enlisted men's privies were outside the fort, the officers twohole kidney
shaped brick one right next to the 5 foot thick brick "bombproof" I might
think otherwise about what I've been told  also and see the strict "class"
structure of the evidence and think that maybe, unless I can prove otherwise,
all the facts given are slanted by a form of nationalism, associated with
various ceremonies performed all across the nation in reference to this
historical "artifact." Where do archaeologists draw the line in their head
between what they perceive, believe and describe based on verbal and written
communications? And what constitutes irreproachable "proof?"

Having had to dig shovel tests in winter in Princeton, NJ the day the
Challenger exploded,

George J. Myers, Jr.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2