Mervyn Mitton Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Printed in 1788 - just 5 years after US Independence, there is very little of news from our exColony. The only item of interest is about a French General finding brick ruins. I wonder does anyone know where this would be - and if they were of any importance. I don't think they would be native American - perhaps the remains of an early Spanish settlement ? http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_11_2012/post-6209-0-48594500-1353941260.jpgclick
Mervyn Mitton Posted November 26, 2012 Author Posted November 26, 2012 http://gmic.co.uk/uploads/monthly_11_2012/post-6209-0-92278700-1353941596.jpgclick
IrishGunner Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) I'd be willing to wager that the brick ruins were old French forts destroyed after the French and Indian War that perhaps were forgotten. The Ohio River Valley was in the area claimed by France; a large stretch of territory west of the Allegheny Mountains and past the Missisippi River was French territory that later would be sold to the US Government in the Louisiana Purchase. Around 1753, the French built a number of forts from Lake Eire to the Ohio River. As English settlers moved west this precipitated the French and Indian Wars of 1754-60, eventually being lost by the French when England committed 30,000 troops to fight alongside the colonists. After the fall of Montreal, the French were essentially defeated and they surrendered. The Indian tribes who were allied with the French felt betrayed and continued the fight - eventually destroying several of the forts and massacreing their occupants. After 1763, the Ohio River gradually became the de facto border between land settled by English colonists and the Indian wilderness to the west. Edited November 26, 2012 by IrishGunner
Ulsterman Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 Hmmmmm...or maybe he was in barrow mound country. No bricks- but lots of rocks used as walls.
Paul R Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 But with the fort being destroyed less than 30 years before, would it still be evident that it was a recent ruin?
IrishGunner Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 But with the fort being destroyed less than 30 years before, would it still be evident that it was a recent ruin? To be earlier than the French forts the bricks would have to have been made by native Indians. I'm not an expert, but I think only the Pueblo Indians of the Southwest made mud bricks - adobe houses. Indians in the Ohio River Valley would have used wigwams made of bark and branches or log homes. There is evidence of stone chimneys, but not brick. I think this article could have done with a bit of "fact-checking" or the French general was trying to spin a story to something more interesting.
Ulsterman Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 Well, "Ohio" at the time was also the name of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky and parts of Missouri. I reckon the Generals' story was a bit flush, but there is also the "biblical reference" of pyramids being made of bricks to consider. People sued references of their time. See here: http://en.wikipedia....builder_(people)
IrishGunner Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) Well, "Ohio" at the time was also the name of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky and parts of Missouri. I reckon the Generals' story was a bit flush, but there is also the "biblical reference" of pyramids being made of bricks to consider. People sued references of their time. See here: http://en.wikipedia....builder_(people) "Well" - for the record, I never said "Ohio" I consistently use the term "Ohio River Valley" which indeed touches parts of all the states you name. While wiki-links are sometimes useful (and always suspect), this particular one you've posted seems to be a bit of an orphan and goes nowhere. Of course, as you perhaps suggest, "Bricks" could be a relative term - except the article explicitly says "regular brick masonry and ruins of Forts." Doesn't sound like pre-historic mound builders to me... And as I re-read the article, we may be missing the real story - or should I say we are missing the dinosaur in the fort for the bricks. A jaw-bone with 5lb teeth? From what I've read, T-Rex had the largest teeth of the dinosaurs - and they reportedly weighed 1-2lbs. But you can't believe everything you read on the internet. Or maybe even 200+ year old newspapers. We might conclude that the General is the ancestor of Huckleberry Finn or Tom Sawyer - other tall tale spinners from another famous river valley. :P Edited November 29, 2012 by IrishGunner
Paul R Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 I noticed the jaw reference too... I wonder what became of it?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now