B.I.,
It’s a delight to see new interest in early Swedish occupation. I would very much enjoy reading the paper when published! I believe Cross noted much of the Salisbury Farm was covered by windblown sands. I hope you don’t mind me asking a couple of questions. Was there evidence of dune activity during Colonial occupation? What was the camp’s water source, a spring or a spung?
Thanks in advance,
S-M
Spungman:
Although I have not had the opportunity to read the paper, nor have I been privy to the new analysis of the Contact-Period artifacts collected, I suspect that at least a few of the material culture items that Cross collected may extend back further in time than just the New Sweden and English periods of initial habitation. Some of these historical artifacts might be associated with seasonal trading that occurred at Fort Nassau between the natives and the Dutch during the late 1620s and into the 1630s.
Bachman’s Ivory:
Will the ASNJ publish your girlfriend’s paper, or will it appear in a different journal?
Folks:
For clarification’s sake, the identifier “Salisbury” is not a true toponym. Rather, Dorothy Cross applied the name to identify the site (along with a site number) and derived the name from Henry A. Salisbury of Swedesboro, the owner of the land at the time Cross conducted her archaeological investigation. You should also be aware that most archaeologists have their own predilections and specialties—some finding prehistoric or precontact to be their forté while others prefer historic archaeology. Dorothy Cross was definitely in the former camp while I suspect that Bachman’s Ivory girlfriend is in the latter.
Best regards,
Jerseyman