Dig uncovers 1642 Montreal site

[applegrove]

Dig uncovers 1642 Montreal site
Fort Ville-Marie was original settlement

Aug 20, 2007 04:30 AM
Jonathan Montpetit
Canadian Press

MONTREAL–A nondescript brown warehouse filled with old barrels and rickety pallets is an unlikely site for the spiritual heart of a city.

Yet beneath the worn cement floors of one such warehouse lies what archeologists believe are the first permanent buildings of the settlement that became Montreal.

"This is where the Montreal adventure began," says archeologist Sophie Limoges, pointing to a large hole in the warehouse floor.

Limoges, who works for Montreal's Pointe-à-Callière museum, is in fact pointing to the remains of Fort Ville-Marie, the lost, original French settlement in Montreal.

....SNIP"

http://www.thestar.com/article/247925

[Jed Dilligan]

1. Interesting

My brother is a historian (17th c. focus) and one of his big crusades is to get his colleagues to respect archaeological evidence of modern peoples.

In SF a few years ago they found the 19th c. paupers' graveyard while doing seismic upgrades to an art museum. The city archaeologist wanted them, but the museum was afraid of publicity (they were putting a cafeteria right over the graveyard) so the remains were turned over--to the coroner's office!

[applegrove]

2. That is a shame. I've often thought I'd love to go back to the old family

homestead and dig up the trash heap from that family farm that left our possession in the 1950s. I'd love to find a bottle or a can or anything and have it as a keepsake. Going back 100 years more in the case of a pauper...yes that would be fascinating too. Sorry they handed the bones over to the coroner.

Here is a funny story. In my neighborhood someone dug up a skull. A learning challenged policeman was on the scene when the coroner arrived. The coroner made it for one of those Victorian study skulls that armature scientists all had at the turn of the century. So he said "Alas poor Yorick - I knew him well!". The policeman said "how the hell do you know who it is" LOL!

[semillama]

3. Yeah, that happens all too often with non-Native American burials

We as a society don't demand the same respect for our ancestors' remains that Native Americans do, else NAGPRA would just be the Graves Protection Act.

[skater314159]

5. Amen Brother! n/t

[skater314159]

4. That happens far too often...

... the graves thing. At least in SF they are historically and culturally sensitive.

In Houston, Texas, where I did my undergrad and some grad work, if cemeteries were found, they were often backhoed into the bayous. No archaeologists needed to be involved according to Houstonians.
The thinking went something like: well, all the historical figures (read white men) had their graves clearly marked in well known and cared-for cemeteries... so these graves are of unimportant (ie, female, Hispanic, Black - both slaves and freedmen, poor white men, soldiers, prisoners, Chinese or other non-white rich Protestant men) individuals and nobody cares about them.

One of the city's Hospitals was built over a large African-American cemetery. Noone knows what happened to the graves and remains of the people buried there...

I favour the NAGPRA act (I know, I know, Archs and Anthros aren't "supposed to" like NAGPRA, but I do) because it doesn't allow for the destruction or desecration of graves. I think that there needs to be something like that for all graves in America... there has *got to be* a way that we can allow for historical and archaeological research of sites while keeping sites from being destroyed in the name of development.

Peace :hippie: