I will pay for the following article Reflection paper of Jamestown: The buried turth. The work is to be 4 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page. As such, this analysis will seek to exhort the general population based on the fact that Savages methodology will not only disturb valuable sedimentary records but due to the obtuse and non-scientific methods will be employed to retrieve any historical artifacts that are found, it is highly likely that other prior and post history will be convoluted in the process and confused for archeologist to attempt to make sense of and sort out once Savage’s team has left and the pristine archeological environment is irreparably damaged. The first point of contention that this historian seeks to raise with regards to Savage’s methods is the fact that the means by which he accomplishes his goals are patently un-scientific and often completely and entirely ignore the known rules of archeological research and evidence keeping (Archaeologists Protest Glamorization of Looting on TV 1). Rather than seeking to have a deeper understanding of the archeological process and categorizing each and every important and non-important artifact that his team would necessarily come across. Savage is purely interested in a profit margin as it relates to viewership. As a known sportsman who built a successful career on his ability to shock his audience, it does not help the concerned citizen to allay any of their fears with regards to how Randy Savage and team would engage with their dig. As has been evidenced from a cursory review of his program, the viewer can readily see that the ultimate goal is to engage the audience with a form of entertainment rather than a form of actual historical/educational appreciation for the subject matter that its star is dealing with. Furthermore, rather than evidencing any regard for the historical significance of the effected environment, Savage and crew charge full ahead with an exceedingly blunt and undynamic approach to archeology. The main portion this author’s disagreement with Savage’s methods are not concentric upon the fact that his methods are crude but around the fact that the methods themselves are based upon achieving entirely disparate ends than those of which a traditional archeologist would employ. As such, measuring Savage’s methods as a function of how archeological research should be conducted is not fair to the field of archeology as his methods bear no resemblance whatsoever to the painstaking way in which archeologists have long sought to quantify, categorize, and denote each and every artifact and layer that they find during an expedition. This becomes a major issue when one considers that the fort’s remains have been flooded at various points throughout recent and past history. As such, seeking to unearth historical artifacts within the region without slowly and painstakingly detailing the different sedimentary layers and how these are indicative of the time span in question is only inviting confusion and misunderstanding (Keslo 54). Rather than seeking to differentiate a particular era from another, the show’s host is only and singularly interested in turning a quick profit and generating television ratings. Lastly, although this does not necessarily affect the interpretation of historical and archeological research, the fact that Savage represents a television series that seeks to profiteer on a form of treasure hunting, the tenor of archeological research is damaged.