Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
I would like to clear up a few misconceptions that I have seen regarding this topic of late and offer some sources of references for those that do want to find out more information, instead of continueing to perpetuate some of these ironious statements. First I will state (or confess) that I am an archaeologist, I work for the federal government (National Park Service) and have worked for private research companies and acadamia. I have done both land and underwater projects and also am envolved with trying to preserve some historically significant ships. An archaeologist studies material cultural, where as a historian studies written documents (a definition in a simplified sense, for the purpose of laying some foundation here). Although it is true that all man made objects are artifacts, this does not necessarily mean that an archaeologist will or needs to study them all. Age does not have anything to do with it. Study is done when there is a research question to be asked. Study is not done for the sake of study. When a valid question is posed, then we look for all possible ways to anwser the question and decide what is the best (optimum) way. There are certain procedures to go through, a formula to follow. To say "why excavate it? because that's what archaeologist do." is not correct. Standards of professional ethics, training, and regulation all dictate that excavation is one of the last things an archaeologist will do when conducting study. Excavation is only done when there is no other way to answer the particular research question or if the site is to be destroyed (i.e, development of an area, new construction, etc. This is generally refered to as salvage archaeology, meaning to salvage information not commercial salvage of material). An archaeologist recognizes that when something is excavated, it is destroyed and that site no longer exists. It is now lost for any further study by anyone else. It is not the individual artifacts that have meaning, it is only their relationship to each other and to the environment around them. That is way bricks, mortar, broken wood, charcoal, broken pottery, etc. is just as valuable as gold to an archaeologist. It is the patterning of these artifacts that tell us about human behavior. When we do excavate, we generally excavate in the form of test pits, which means we only sample a portion of the site and leave a portion alone. This allows for preservation of the site so that future researchers will also have access for differing questions. We also recognize that science is advancing and there will be new and better ways of doing research in the future, new equipment etc. By leaving portions of a site alone now, then the new future technology will be able to be used. Most archaeological work is in the form of survey, mapping, and documentation (maps, photos, etc.) and not excavation. Survey is done first (after archival research, etc.). From the survey, if it is felt that more study is needed, as in the form of excavation, then it is normal to first do testing (sampling) of a portion only. Then, if further work is deemed necessary, then a total excavation may be done. Again, I emphasize that this is a methodology process before you make these decisions. Various remote sensing devices are being used to prevent excavation. Even on land, ground penetrating radar is used when it can, to prevent any digging at all. If any excavation is to be done (and removal of artifacts from any site, not just a shipwreck is considered excavation) this has to be planned for. The most major consideration, after is there a value to removal or excavation (not just desire), but are there procedures and equipment and training and laboratories available for the conservation of these artifacts. If not, then you do not excavate. Conservation is the most time consuming and expensive portion of any study. I have been on many archaeological projects where I was either a team member or director of and based on the preliminary survey, we recommended that no further work (excavation) was needed or that no further preservation was needed. So to say that archaeologist will just grab at straws because that is what we do is not correct. If Rick Fincher wants to go bury an old Chevy truck in his back yard, have fun. I hope you have plenty of fun. Now, just because something is relatively new does not mean we know everything about it (meaning recent history or 50 years that Rick Fincher refered to). Not everything that happens in life or history gets written down, or if it does, is it always correct (i.e., lies or misconceptions). People see things differently and will write them down differently, maybe they want to hide the truth. Do you believe everything you read in the paper or hear from the government? Well, these are the documents that future historians will read to figure out what we did today? Do you suspect that maybe what was written 50 or 100 or 1000 years ago was any different? Rod Farb posted a nice list of sites that provided new information based on archaeological surveys - and these were all relatively recent in age. I'll add one that is close to my heart and that is the battleship USS Arizona. Witness and testimonies at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack thought that a bomb went down the smoke stack and that a torpedo hit and sank the ship. It was archaeological surveys conducted in the 1980s (less than 50 years after the attack) that documented that inside the smoke stack it was intact, and the grill plate still existed on the bottom, thus no bomb went through here, and a complete survey of the hull showed that there was no evidence of a torpedo hitting anywhere. Further survey was able to establish where the fatal bomb did penetrate, and suggest how the explosions occurred, where the resulting expanding gassess went, etc. We have done lots of other archaeological survey in Pearl Harbor also that have brought up new information not previously available. I could go on for ever with examples from other sites also, but am sure that some will not appriciate the length of this post all ready, so will get to closing it out. There are lots of sources available to find out more how this works, besides basic freshmen level college courses. Try: Archaeology Underwater. The Nautical Archaeology Society Guide to Principles and Practices. (Archetype Publications, London, 1992). Maritime Archaeology. A Technical Handbook. By Jeremy Green.(Academic Press, 1990). To sum up, not all archaeological sites or shipwrecks need to be preserved. But there is a procedure that has been set up so that those that need preservation can be identified before they are destroyed or lost. that is what the Abandoned Shipwreck Act and other various federal (Archaeological Preservation Act of 1939) and state regulations are for. A procedure has been established so that all interested parties can have their input into the decision and not just one group. Last item for Rick Fincher - I have also asked surgeons if I should have an operation, and have on more than one occasion be told no. Many surgeons look for alternative methods too. **************************************************************************** Jim Adams jimadams@uh*.uh*.Ha*.ed* Cultural Resource Manager USS Arizona Memorial, NPS (808) 422-2771 extension 130 1 Arizona Memorial Place Honolulu, Hawaii 96818 ****************************************************************************
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]