I agree with you. However, as I mentioned before, I am very busy at
work on several reports and don't have the time to sit down and fully
work through the problem... Thank you for making suggestions. I really
think this is an excellent project. I believe that following procedures
and, above all, PROPERLY DOCUMENTING all that is done is the correct way
to approach this site. Before anything else, we would have to get
permission from the landowners. Also, I am terribly uncomfortable with
the idea of anyone trying to profit from this site. It is not
Disneyworld. DTR
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rgreubel@rmi.net [SMTP:rgreubel@rmi.net]
> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 10:58 AM
> To: sinclair@zilker.net
> Subject: Castle at the Cross
>
> Like Darwin, I am a professional archaeologist and a Sinclair
> descendant. I
> have been following the discussion of the Castle at the Cross with a
> great
> deal of interest. I believe that the approach that Darwin has
> suggested -
> researching Nova Scotian antiquity laws and regulations, examining the
> site,
> and developing a data recovery plan - is sound. I would suggest
> adding a
> couple of other steps prior to writing the data recovery plan,
> however.
> These would include a thorough mapping and documentation of any
> structural
> remains and artifacts that may be apparent on the surface of the site,
> interviews with locals to see what traditions exist regarding the
> site's
> antiquity and origin, and research into local or regional archival
> repositories (land deeds, plats and other old maps, etc.). These
> steps
> would be relatively inexpensive, could be performed by one or very few
> knowledgeable individuals, and might reveal a great deal of
> information
> about the site without ever sticking a shovel into the ground. The
> next
> step might be a very limited subsurface testing program (assuming, of
> course, that landowner permission is granted), using the data gathered
> during the previous phases of the investigation to guide the placement
> of a
> few strategic test pits. I would suggest use of a metal detector
> during
> this phase. This smacks of treasure hunting to some, but would be
> very
> useful for identifying the location of metal artifacts that might be
> diagnostic of the time period to which the site belongs. The
> locations of
> "hits" with the metal detector could be investigated with 1 meter x 1
> meter
> or smaller test pits, excavated in a controlled fashion. Other test
> pits
> might be used (sparingly) to delineate the edges of structures and to
> recover material for C-14 dating and dendrochronology (tree-ring
> dating).
> The advantages of a limited testing program are twofold. Without too
> much
> time, money, or damage, the alleged 14th century origin of the site
> might be
> confirmed or refuted. Secondly, information would have been obtained
> about
> the layout of structures and features, and the depth and location of
> the
> archaeological deposits, which will allow for preparation of a better
> data
> recovery plan, should this be deemed feasible.
>
> I believe the investigation of this site to be a worthy undertaking.
> Good luck!
>
> Rand Greubel