- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Location
- Spring Hill, Tennessee
Yep, I don't question that a foundation was found. I saw it myself, but I do know that the same stone foundation of the gin house was disassembled and used in the construction of the school. I also know the school didn't have the same dimensions or shape of the gin house.Yeah, I'd say it's a little disconcerting, too, since trained archaeologists were the ones who found the foundation, as well as various tools and implements related to a cotton gin. I was at the site, and watched as they uncovered it. The foundation of the school (Wall and Mooney and later BGA) was found earlier in a different location. The soot and bricks were well west of the gin foundation.
As for Moscow's map, I had to accept the fact that when the main Federal trench line was uncovered in that area last year that his map was incorrect. I can be stubborn and think otherwise, but the evidence is to the contrary. Let's face it, he drew the map AFTER the gin was torn down, and he was simply off by 30-40 feet. He was dead on with the Carter House and the road, but he simply misplaced the line and thus, it seems, the gin, too. Perhaps you think the Federal line isn't really the Federal line either, even though it was loaded with military artifacts.?
As to other foundations that were found, and were not investigated, I have no idea what that is a reference to. It sounds like second hand info or just speculation. Again, I spent days at the site during the dig with Larry McKee who headed it up and know as well as anyone what was found.
My concern was that what was uncovered was a slightly "L" shaped foundation. By all accounts, the gin house was apparently square. 36 feet by 36 feet if I recall (probably wrong). Anyhow, that didn't fit the dimensions or shape of the foundation that was uncovered.
I went to the site a few days after it was uncovered just to check it out, and my own eyes saw heavy soot in and around the entire foundation. Naturally, it appeared that something that had been there burned at some point. I was later told by someone in the state archaeological department that what appeared to be soot was coal remnants from a coal furnace that later ran the gin. The problem is, they don't dump coal in and around the entire building when you get a delivery. It just seemed odd to me. My eyes saw clear evidence of a fire and soot. What we do know is the gin didn't burn, but the school house did. I was kinda blown away when I saw such evidence of a fire, and I took pictures with my phone. Unfortunately they didn't turn out great, but it was clear that something had burned there a long time ago.
I'm sure Moscow had forgotten the exact location/angles of the trenches by the time the map was drawn. When you stand behind the archaeologically exposed trench line, it actually makes more sense than Moscow's drawing. The angle that the 1st Kentucky had on the fields to the south and southwest would have devastated any troops in the open - and they were ALL in the open! Great field of fire from that point.
I personally noticed another spot on the ground west of the site (I believe this might be what they supposed to be the school house), but they didn't investigate it nearly as much as the other uncovered site. I simply saw two slight trenches. I just wish both sites had been fully investigated to absolutely ensure that the supposed site is in fact the Gin House. Lastly, even though Moscow's map may or may not have been sketched by him before the gin was taken down, we just don't know WHEN he actually recorded the information that was used for the map. After all, he wanted to turn the place into a sort of tourist attraction at one time, and he may have recorded the distances early on - or maybe not. Regardless, of which foundation was found, luckily we do know "about" where it was - whether gin house or school house give or take a few yards.