Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
My response to Jim Adams' post: First off I'd like to thank Jim for taking the time to US Mail me some information awhile back. That was very kind of him and shows how much he cares about his profession. >First I will state (or confess) that I am an archaeologist,... No confession necessary. Please understand that we are (or me anyway) angry at archaeologists in general. Just the ones that want to push people around. I, and I think most divers, though not all, understand the value of preserving some wrecks. The archaeologists seem to get a bad opinion of divers from the few who destry things and the divers get a bad opinion of archaelogists from the few who want to push people around using their official status, and who want to ban wreck diving altogether. >Study is done when there is a research question to be asked. This is where most of the controversy starts. Sometimes laymen don't understand the necessity of the question. If archaeologists would communicate this better people would probably cooperate. If they can't explain it then maybe the question is not valid. >Study is not done for the sake of study. I think that in academic circles where the "publish or perish" and the "get grants to get tenure" ethos can prevail, sometimes, just sometimes study is done for the sake of 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. To say that ALL archaeologists grab at straws is incorrect, but I still maintain that some do. >If Rick Fincher wants to go bury an old Chevy truck in his back yard, >have fun. I hope you have plenty of fun. No thanks, I think I'll drive it. :-) This was a ridiculous and extreme example to show how we sometimes see the efforts of archaeologists as pointless and restrictive of our freedoms. A real case in point, NOAA's refusal to let sport divers look at the Monitor for 10 years. Not plunder, not touch, not damage, they fought even letting people look at and photograph the wreck under controlled conditions to preserve the site. >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. Why does this matter? The sailors are still dead. The Navy didn't consider it important enough to raise the ship in 1941 to see what weakness led to its demise. The Arizona has enormous importance to Americans as a national monument, but I question its archaeological value. I think this survey flunks the "why is it important" test. I resent my tax dollars being spent on something like that (if any were). Other than that, this survey was OK from my perspective because no ones rights were trampled on to conduct it. Rick
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]