When we link archival evidence to printed evidence, we can recover all sorts of things that we missed on the first pass.
Looking at a report of a lump of maple sugar in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, I argue we can actually know a great deal more about the contributions of the people indigenous to North American than we think we can.
https://youtu.be/H8lqcsxkwCw?t=1281 (appx. 21:22 - 34)
I use a digital forensic model to make an argument about time not being as simple as we imagine, and that messy chronologies can show us people that were involved, that we forgot about.
I’m thinking about archival time. How do we misunderstand time presented in archives and printed books? How can we begin to recover how it was really working? What else do we know by remembering all the stops along the way?
You can see a written version of the talk I gave at MLA at this post.
