![]() Regarding the fort, the project archaeologist, Dr. ![]() The attempt was made to take bucket-loads at 50 foot intervals 3 or 4 transects away from the river bank, but the inability to control the barge on which the clam-shell digger was mounted missed this standard, reducing it to approximate but “uniform” coverage. A variety of artifacts ranging in age from the 17th to the 20th century was found. Screening, it was noted, was “impractical”. The method of surveying in the river involved retrieving clam-shell excavator bucket-loads of river-bottom, bringing them to land, and hosing the mud away with water to try to identify artifacts. ![]() A concerted effort was made to find evidence of the fort in 1955, including a survey conducted in the river as well as on land. The big question addressed pro and con in the story is whether archaeologists should fully (or at least more fully) excavate the site so that the information is recovered before the site is submerged or whether excavation should be curtailed so that the remaining site is preserved for study in the future, even though it will be submerged.Īn interesting back-story is that it was once thought that the earliest settlement- called James Fort- had been washed into the James River by erosion. Earlier this week National Public Radio’s “ All Things Considered” had a story on the threat that on-going and accelerating sea-level rise has for the archaeological site of the early 17th century English settlement at Jamestown, Virginia. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |