Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
--part1_104.b02c6f5.29054a5f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mike, may I please answer some of these, I'll be doing some answering on sub-arch as well. Pete Johnson Aldo > Michael, personally, I do not have a problem with serious people > who get organized, consult with experts, get funding, contribute > to research, carry out serious projects, etc. OK, lets face it, Archaeologists are most interested in wrecks that date from about 1750 and earlier. There are some exceptions such as the USS Monitor and some immigration ships in Australia but you have to search for them. Wreck divers are most interested in wrecks that went down after about 1880. In other words intact iron and steel wrecks. Now who are the experts on these wrecks? In almost all cases the more historically involved divers know much more about them than any archaeologist - construction, crew, cargo, facts on sinking, etc. Let's face it how many on this list dive a 2500 year old Greek wreck? How many archaeologists dive the Doria? Many archaeologists still think that "it is easier to train an archaeologist to dive then a diver to be an archaeologists." Ya right, now lets go jump that wreck in 250' with a 2 knot current. > for doing so and I would like to see more "tech > divers" to do > serious work (such as the WKPP does but in other fields). What I > *certainly* find deplorable is the Joe-6-Pack who get together > and go to gutt everything they find. The diving community should > take the stand for what is acceptable praxis both from the moral, > technical and philosphical viewpoints. I'll give you some points here and more work and education has to be done but groups like the AUE and my small group in Long Island Sound are trying. Let's not forget the Canadian groups like SOS and the work they did to preserve wrecks in the Great Lakes. As for standards I like the NAS system. But we can't even agree on DIR so it may take some more time. Finally, many archaeologists still think that after 100 years or so a wreck has stabilized. That may be so for a smaller wood wreck but can anyone on this list think that a 300' steel wreck will stabilize in the mud? Iron and steel will always corrode. If there is not O2 there will be galvanic action. These wrecks are going and they will not stop. When they do fall apart, all those artifacts that you want to stay on the bottom are gone. Pete J --part1_104.b02c6f5.29054a5f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>Mike, may I please answer some of these, I'll be doing some answering on sub-arch as well. <BR> <BR>Pete Johnson <BR> <BR>Aldo <BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Michael, personally, I do not have a problem with serious people <BR>who get organized, consult with experts, get funding, contribute <BR>to research, carry out serious projects, etc. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">OK, lets face it, Archaeologists are most interested in wrecks that date from about 1750 and earlier. There are some exceptions such as the USS Monitor and some immigration ships in Australia but you have to search for them. Wreck divers are most interested in wrecks that went down after about 1880. In other words intact iron and steel wrecks. Now who are the experts on these wrecks? In almost all cases the more historically involved divers know much more about them than any archaeologist - construction, crew, cargo, facts on sinking, etc. <BR> <BR>Let's face it how many on this list dive a 2500 year old Greek wreck? How many archaeologists dive the Doria? Many archaeologists still think that "it is easier to train an archaeologist to dive then a diver to be an archaeologists." Ya right, now lets go jump that wreck in 250' with a 2 knot current. <BR> <BR> <BR>There is much need <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">for doing so and I would like to see more "tech divers" to do <BR>serious work (such as the WKPP does but in other fields). What I <BR>*certainly* find deplorable is the Joe-6-Pack who get together <BR>and go to gutt everything they find. The diving community should <BR>take the stand for what is acceptable praxis both from the moral, <BR>technical and philosphical viewpoints.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">I'll give you some points here and more work and education has to be done but groups like the AUE and my small group in Long Island Sound are trying. Let's not forget the Canadian groups like SOS and the work they did to preserve wrecks in the Great Lakes. As for standards I like the NAS system. But we can't even agree on DIR so it may take some more time. <BR> <BR>Finally, many archaeologists still think that after 100 years or so a wreck has stabilized. That may be so for a smaller wood wreck but can anyone on this list think that a 300' steel wreck will stabilize in the mud? Iron and steel will always corrode. If there is not O2 there will be galvanic action. These wrecks are going and they will not stop. When they do fall apart, all those artifacts that you want to stay on the bottom are gone. <BR> <BR>Pete J <BR> <BR> <BR></FONT></HTML> --part1_104.b02c6f5.29054a5f_boundary-- -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
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]