Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 17:49:42 -0500 From: Imacdigest@AOL.COM Subject: Re: US Loses track of "Millions" of artifacts If any of you have missed today's N.Y. Times article in the National section you can go to it online by clicking the following hyperlink. Of course, this is not surprising to most of us, but it does further the point we have been trying to make. If the government gets control of our underwater cultural heritage, we can be assured it will be harder to locate than before it was found. If the international community (UNESCO) gets their way, we can all kiss it good-bye. ARTICLE:
December 5, 1999U.S. Lost Track of Artifacts by the MillionsBy THE ASSOCIATED PRESSWASHINGTON -- The government has lost track of millions of artifacts excavated from federal land, and the agency responsible blames budget problems. The Bureau of Land Management's oversight of the artifacts is so lax that many museums that keep such items as pottery or baskets cannot say for sure which objects the government owns or where they came from, an audit by the inspector general of the Interior Department has found. A spokeswoman for the bureau, which is part of the Interior Department, acknowledged room for improvement. "These are things that the agency would like to be doing," said the spokeswoman, Celia Boddington, "but the agency has had stagnant budgets and declining numbers of employees for years." The bureau's budget for managing such cultural resources is about $13.5 million this year, an increase of nearly $400,000 over last year. "This is our cultural heritage that we're talking about," said Jan Bernstein, collections manager for the University of Denver Anthropology Museum. "It can potentially get lost or even destroyed, especially if it's divorced from its records. By not keeping good records, the agencies are doing a disservice to the people of the United States." The bureau oversees 264 million acres of federal land in the West, an area nearly as large as the states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah combined. Those lands are home to an estimated 4 million to 5 million archaeological sites, and more than 20 million artifacts have been collected there. The agency has its own museums in Billings, Mont., and Dolores, Colo., but most of its artifacts are held by institutions like historical societies, universities and museums. The audit found the bureau had not performed required annual inventories of the artifacts and had not got signed agreements with the institutions accepting artifacts from the bureau. "As a result," the report said, "the bureau had little assurance that its museum collections were adequately maintained for future use." Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 10:08:19 -0500 From: DCnlin@AOL.COM Subject: Re: US Loses track of "Millions" of artifacts As opposed to artifacts from say, the Atocha, which are all in one place and available for scholarly study... Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 15:47:26 -0800 From: filipe castro <fvcastro@HOTMAIL.COM> Subject: Re: US Loses track of "Millions" of artifacts You must be joking! Are you actually claiming that the salvage industry keeps better track of artifacts? Filipe Castro Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 16:50:17 -0800 From: Paulo Monteiro <subarqaz@HOTMAIL.COM> Subject: Re: US Loses track of "Millions" of artifacts Or perhaps that great piece of Americana memorabilia, the golden doubloon that used to hang from Mel Fisher's neck.. any idea where that coin is now, Pat? Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 01:34:20 -0500 From: Peter Smitt <psmitt1@TAMPABAY.RR.COM> Hey Paulo, How about the artifacts from one of the greatest shipwreck disasters in history, the Las Cinque Chagas shipwreck in the Azores is one of the most interesting and captivating stories in history but "Centro de National de Arqueoligoe Subaquetica nos Aquares" is doing absolutely nothing to find and preserve the remains of this treasure of history. Instead, they spend their time and money on worthless wrecks like "Angra C" and "Angra D" while the historicaly valuable wrecks rot in the sea. Why not let the commercial salvage company's excavate these historicaly valuable wrecks and bring thier artifacts to the public view than let them sit on the bottom of the ocean until they disappear forever? Peter Smitt Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 13:37:22 -0500 From: Imacdigest@AOL.COM Hmmm, looks like the usual suspects responding to this one. O.K. guys, I'm glad you asked. I wouldn't expect any of you to know, because some of our loudest detractors are those who will not take the time to learn what the "Professional Salvor" truly does with the artifacts they recover and preserve. (of course they won't, or can't, the answers would nullify their arguments.) First of all, I don't feel it's necessary to defend the work done on the "Atocha." Suffice it to say that it was immensely successful, in it's recovery, conservation and documentation. Yes, Documentation!- The artifacts from the Atocha are tagged on the boat, that number stays with them through the whole process and through the time they are distributed to those people who appreciate and wish to own a 'piece of history.' (the freedom to own an antiquity from the sea will always be an American right- no matter how many eggs you have in UNESCO's basket) Our computer databases contain hundreds of thousand of Atocha artifacts that have been saved from CERTAIN marine peril. As far as "Scholarly Research" is concerned- We are open 7 days a week from 9:30 to 5:30- all 'scholars'- and their families, are welcome. Cheers, Pat Clyne Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 14:33:17 -0500 From: HESSIANS@AOL.COM The ATOCHA artifacts are better off being owned by people who treasure them than being warehoused and pilfered by bureaucrats. This baloney about subsequent scholarly study of collections is a smokescreen by the archaeologists to maintain perpetual custody of all artifacts. It is rarely, if ever, that collections of artifacts are ever studied after their initial curation; the taxpayers are stuck paying for the curation (unless the objects are lost, as the NY Times and the Government Accounting Office has documented); and nobody cares about the minutiae revealed in any susbequent scholarly study anyway. Let's face it, such studies are nothing more than "make work" and full employment guarantees for academics that can't come up with anything important enough for someone to pay them to study. With computers and electronic scanning technology, perfect information on all artifacts can be collected and maintained in perpetuity at a minimum, one time cost. Artifact registration can follow the object from owner to owner in the unusual event that some scholar would really like to study the collection. Let's see if that scholar is willing to do the leg work to reassemble the artifacts. My bet is that unless the stuff is sitting together in boxes in some warehouse, the scholar will prove too lazy to try to track any of the collection down. Long live capitalism and free enterprise--maybe if you're a good little archaeologist, I'll even send you an ATOCHA coin for Christmas! Peter Hess Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 15:42:43 -0500 From: Aqualieb@AOL.COM Peter, I have to join in on this one. I have to admit, a carefully recorded artifact available via electronic distribution makes very good sense - whatever the source. If funds can be allocated to expeditions, projects and recovery efforts, a real wealth of information can be obtained and would be readily available to anyone. Students doing thesis work, artists, volunteers... many folks I sure would be willing to do this work. I know I'd love to handle an astrolabe! An archaeological review board can demand that every item recovered during an expedition be recorded - so can a judge making a ruling on a salvage effort. I know that recording the artifact(s) is half the crusade. The other half is the contextual information and the provenience. While analysis can determine place of origin, careful mapping of finds needs to be done as well in order to determine if a bowl comes from a cargo hold or a galley. Salvors should (must) do this. The trick is to make it worth their while. Now, how to do that? Dan Lieb President, NJHDA, Inc. Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 12:30:54 -0800 From: filipe castro <fvcastro@HOTMAIL.COM> Subject: Re: US Loses track of "Millions" of artifacts Peter Smith wrote: > >Hey Paulo, > How about the artifacts from one of the greatest shipwreck disasters >in >history, the Las Cinque Chagas shipwreck in the Azores is one of the most >interesting and captivating stories in history but "Centro de National de >Arqueoligoe Subaquetica nos Aquares" is doing absolutely nothing to find >and >preserve the remains of this treasure of history. Instead, they spend their >time >and money on worthless wrecks like "Angra C" and "Angra D" while the >historicaly >valuable wrecks rot in the sea. Why not let the commercial salvage >company's >excavate these historicaly valuable wrecks and bring thier artifacts to the >public view than let them sit on the bottom of the ocean until they >disappear >forever? > >Peter Smitt > Dear Peter, Your comment "(...) worthless wrecks like "Angra C" and "Angra D" (...)" sounded to me like that guy on Television asking "Who needs investigation on genetics and DNA when we have the Bible?". Good Heavens! Are you from Kansas? Filipe From: Carl Harrington <nailgun@U.WASHINGTON.EDU> Subject: Re: US Loses track of "Millions" of artifacts > scholarly study anyway. Let's face it, such studies are nothing more than > "make work" and full employment guarantees for academics that can't come up * with anything important enough for someone to pay them to study. * Unlike fancy pants lawyers filing lawsuits left and right to make a buck and exploit public resources for their own and their clients gain, while claiming it is really for the public good. Now who said "The first thing we do is shoot all the archaeologists?" And most of those whopping academic salaries pale compared to an average law practice. McDonald's coffee, anyone? Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 18:53:59 -0500 From: HESSIANS@AOL.COM What I am saying is that once an electronic record is made of a shipwreck artifact, there is no more need to track all shipwreck artifacts than there is to keep track of all antiques in the world. Peter Hess Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 19:03:37 -0500 From: Imacdigest@AOL.COM ..since we're still on the subject, did you hear the one about the Ph.D. student from the University of St. Andrews who was doing his thesis on "Pottery from Spanish Shipwrecks 1500-1800?" (which is also now the title from his book by the same name). A great deal of his work was with the private sector from whom he was able to accomplish much of his research. When he tried to access information from supposedly 'known academic sources' he was met with roadblocks most of the way. One example in particular that he notes in his book was while researching the San Pedro (1596), he said that although a large collection of artifacts were given to the Smithsonian in the 1950s, they were excruciating slow in responding to his inquiries on his research. Finally, after several more unsuccessful attempts, he was told by a Smithsonian official that "they were not available for study" When our author inquired as to the reason, the frustrated clerk finally told him that the material he was interested in was relegated to "Deep Storage." A euphemism we have all come to know in bureaucratic circles as- Being Warehoused, which of course means- Lost in Limbo, Put in Purgatory or, as we in the Salvage business have heard many times from our conservation counterparts- L. I. C. which means "Lost In Cleaning" Bottom line- Well, I'll let you figure that out. But our author was able to complete his thesis to the credit of those private salvors who encouraged him to use their records and their facilities for his research. Cheers, Pat Clyne Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 16:15:23 -0800 From: filipe castro <fvcastro@HOTMAIL.COM> > >How to make it in the salvor's interest, to precisely record artifacts' >relative positions? > >1. Persuade him that useful information in fact exists in the >pattern--i.e., don't ask him to record it when the pattern is the temporary >result of centuries of periodic turbulence: a chaos that will be largely >rearranged by the next storm. > >2. If he's any sort of businessman, he will do (sponsor) the mapping in of >informative sites because it's in his interest. > (a) The presumption is he will want to go on to another search for >another ship when he completes a currrent project. He will have to obtain a >permit for his new project. Whether it's with his current host or in >another jurisdiction, it will be much easier and quicker to secure if he >can show strong archaeology in the one he has just finished. > (b) The extent to which "The Story" of a lost ship can be told, >therefore the extent to which it impresses itself on the public mind, is >the single largest factor in the enhancement of artifact value, whether for >exhibition or sale; especially for the type of artifacts that would >normally constitute the bulk of the salvor's share: coin & bar. The same >thing holds true with respect to creating a sustained public interest in >maritime history and archaeology. > >Logic, you'd think, would move contemporary archos to support >collaboration with the salvors who operate according to sound principles >of enlightened self-interest. Behavior suggests otherwise, on both sides: >there will still be some salvors who can't afford the long view, and there >may be some archos even now, chin-stroking and trying to figure out how to >legislate even further against salvors' sponsoring good site archaeology >since good archaeology just enhances their bottom line. That the >professional standards in the more prejudiced associations forbids their >members from consorting with salvors effects a pretty neat tautology: >"Salvors can't achieve good archaeology. Why? Well, even if self-interest >urges them toward it, we won't let any of our colleagues work with them. So >there." > >Rob Schwab >Admiralty > Dear Rob, Unfortunately, none of your arguments makes any sense. Contra-Almirante Isaias Gomes Teixeira, the President of the treasure hunting company ARQUEONAUTAS SA. that tryed to operate in Portugal, operated in the Cape verdian Republic and is now trying to work in Mozambique was clear in his statements to the Portuguese Press: he said that the Portuguese government had to understand that a private company could not afford to loose money with the conservation of artifacts with no commercial value. And ARQUEONAUTAS SA had (and still have? Together with Mensum Bound, the archaeological director of the underwater department of OXFORD UNIVERSITY?) Margaret Rule as its main archaeologist. Michel l'Hour who so warmly referred to me recently on this discussion list was authorized to work with treasure hunters by his government and produced very few information on the Sussex, the Santiago or the San Diego. I do not know anything about this last treasure wreck in Brunei, except that I got an invitation for some video about some treasure wreck at UNESCO headquarters in Paris... I am sorry to say that there is a lot of evidence against the possibility that salvors will ever perform a good archaeological work, with or without arcaheologists in their teams. I love you all, mostly when you guys shout things like "long live capitalism" or "worthless wrecks of Angra C and D" because I also like to provoque and I love to send outrageous comments to my friends in the treasure hunting business (unfortunatelly off-line now because a lot of people - not me - get worried when I get insulted here on this Jerry Springer show). I just think that treasure hunters and creationists should not be allowed to interfere with the scientific world. I am all for astrology, homeopathy, neo-liberal economy, etc. as long as I am not labeled for having been born in November, I am allowed to take antibiotics instead of 'natural' products, and I have a social security system in Portugal. It is nothing personal, but I am affraid of convictions that contradict my observations of the real world and I cannot think of ANY good treasure hunting venture. Most treasure hunting books are a mess. Example: there is a picture of a wreck in Mendel Peterson's "Reach for the New World" (National Geographic, December 1977, p. 728) that is referred to in other books as being the Spanish Wreck, the Green Cabin Wreck and the Western Ledge Reef Wreck. I am sorry to say that treasure hunting books and articles may be amusing but are not reliable information. Just like the guys that claim that there is a world conspiracy to hide the UFOs. Show me a green man, a flying cigar, an abducted cow from New Mexico, and I will believe in it. Give me a good report on a salvaged wreck and I promise that from that day on I will only shout against the sale of artifacts, the exploitation of poor and undeveloped countries by rich and obnoxious snobs, and the cheesy presentation of the shipwreck stories, with sharks, machine guns, etc. Promise! Mr. de Bry, I think you have some translation work to do... Cheers, love you all, Filipe Castro Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 19:26:38 -0500 From: HESSIANS@AOL.COM Subject: Re: US Loses track of "Millions" of artifacts Dan Lieb asks about how to ensure that salvors record good provenience. Easy: it's required under admiralty law if a salvor of an historic vessel wants to be paid a salvage award or an award of title to abandoned property. The courts have uniformly held that the recordation of positional provenience data is part and parcel of the archaeology that must be done on historic shipwrecks. Moreover, good provenience means authenticity can be proven, thereby enhancing the value of the objects recovered. The courts will recognize this in assessing any salvage award. See, the 1982 decision in Cobb Coin Company, Inc. v. Unidentified Wreck, reported at volume 549 of the Federal Supplement (a compilation of decisions by the U.S. District Courts), beginning on page 540. See also, International Aircraft Recovery, LLC v. Wrecked & Abandoned Aircraft, 54 F.Supp 2d 1154 (S.D. Fla. 1999). Peter Hess Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 16:37:04 -0800 From: Carl Harrington <nailgun@U.WASHINGTON.EDU> > Dan Lieb asks about how to ensure that salvors record good provenience. > Easy: it's required under admiralty law if a salvor of an historic vessel * wants to be paid a salvage award or an award of title to abandoned property. * And nobody is supposed to sell sawed off shotguns to high school kids, but it happens. (and is far more profitable than archaeology, or investing in a treasure hunt, though economy of scale does start to take some effect) Even I speed, and won't stop, even after getting a ticket. I'll just try harder to avoid cops or other regulatory bodies. Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 19:36:03 -0500 From: Peter Smitt <psmitt1@TAMPABAY.RR.COM> filipe castro wrote: > Dear Peter, > > Your comment "(...) worthless wrecks like "Angra C" and "Angra D" (...)" > sounded to me like that guy on Television asking "Who needs investigation on > genetics and DNA when we have the Bible?". > > Good Heavens! Are you from Kansas? > > Filipe Sorry, Filipe if I sounded a little bit too harsh. Are the artifacts from these two vessels on public display? What new knowledge has been gained from the study of these wrecks? Peter Smitt Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 20:28:19 -0500 From: Jclayjr1@AOL.COM In a message dated 12/7/99 12:36:59 PM Mountain Standard Time, HESSIANS@AOL.COM writes: << The ATOCHA artifacts are better off being owned by people who treasure them than being warehoused and pilfered by bureaucrats. This baloney about subsequent scholarly study of collections is a smokescreen by the archaeologists to maintain perpetual custody of all artifacts. It is rarely, if ever, that collections of artifacts are ever studied after their initial curation; the taxpayers are stuck paying for the curation (unless the objects are lost, as the NY Times and the Government Accounting Office has documented); and nobody cares about the minutiae revealed in any susbequent scholarly study anyway. Let's face it, such studies are nothing more than "make work" and full employment guarantees for academics that can't come up with anything important enough for someone to pay them to study. With computers and electronic scanning technology, perfect information on all artifacts can be collected and maintained in perpetuity at a minimum, one time cost. Artifact registration can follow the object from owner to owner in the unusual event that some scholar would really like to study the collection. Let's see if that scholar is willing to do the leg work to reassemble the artifacts. My bet is that unless the stuff is sitting together in boxes in some warehouse, the scholar will prove too lazy to try to track any of the collection down. Long live capitalism and free enterprise--maybe if you're a good little archaeologist, I'll even send you an ATOCHA coin for Christmas! >> Amen to this writer. One of the few non-socialists in academia today. Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 17:50:19 -0800 From: Paulo Monteiro <subarqaz@HOTMAIL.COM> Subject: The Chagas blow-up >From: Peter Smitt <psmitt1@TAMPABAY.RR.COM> > >Hey Paulo, > How about the artifacts from one of the greatest shipwreck disasters >in >history, the Las Cinque Chagas shipwreck in the Azores is one of the most >interesting and captivating stories in history but "Centro de National de >Arqueoligoe Subaquetica nos Aquares" is doing absolutely nothing to find >and >preserve the remains of this treasure of history. Instead, they spend their >time >and money on worthless wrecks like "Angra C" and "Angra D" while the >historicaly >valuable wrecks rot in the sea. Why not let the commercial salvage >company's >excavate these historicaly valuable wrecks and bring thier artifacts to the >public view than let them sit on the bottom of the ocean until they >disappear >forever? > >Peter Smitt > For those that do not know the story behind the sinking of the Chagas, here's a brief resume, according to a good and very detailed eyewitness account of the fight with english and the events that led into it, written by Melchior do Estacio do Amaral and printed in 1604. The nau Chagas (and not Las Cinque Chagas, the ship was not French...) departed Goa in 1593, under the command of Francisco de Mello, one of the "greatest naus that ever were in the Carreira, loaded with great wealthness and precious stones and alll the best of India". The rest of the fleet was composed by the naus Santo Alberto, and Nossa Senhora da Nazareth. Both the Santo Alberto and Nazareth sprung fatal leaks and were beached in the Penedo das Fontes and in Mozambique's Island. The Chagas took all the cargo in diamonds and other precious gems from the two lost naos as well the 400 passengers and crewmembers, of which 230 were slaves. When they reached the Cape of Good Hope, the nau started to leak and they were forced to send overboard a lot of cargo. Not the diamonds, mind you.. only the food and victuals. It was this action that, in the end, caused the loss of the Chagas. Since they were not allowed to call either Santa Helena or Brasil, they called Luanda, in Angola, for supplies, where they took more slaves which were, in fact, more mouths to feed. In Angola they faced one of the great perils of the sea: the absence of wind, coupled with scurvy and malaria, from which half of the people were dead and the other half too much debilitated. Anyhow, some nobles spread the gossip that the supplies would not last until Lisbon. The Captain then took the vote and the majority decided to call the Azores - an action which was also forbidden, because english pirates were bound to be there, waiting for the East Indiamen. The Captain then forced all crew to take an oath: "if finding the ennemy, they would rather go down in flames than surrender the ship". He then prepared to ship to war. The stern was delivered to the Don Rodrigo de Cordova, the bow to Antonio das Povoas and the deck to Braz Correia. On the 22 of June 1594, near Faial Is., the nau sighted 3 english ships, of 400 tons each, with two artillery decks each. At noon all 4 ships exchanged broadsides and musket volleys in a battle that lasted 24 hours. Then, at around noon, the 23rd June, the 3 english ships tried to board the Chagas: "the sea was purple with blood dripping drom the scuppers, the decks cluttered with the dead and the fire raging in some parts of the ships, and the air so filled with smoke that, not only we could sometimes not see each other but we could not recognize each other, all black and sooty from the fire and gunpowder." The battle went on - there's an extensive description of it, a very vivid one - with the english trying to board the ship for three times. In the end the fire spred to a tarpaulin and then it spread further to the rigging and the masts. The fire could not be put up because sharpshooters onboard the english ships were taking the portuguese one by one as they tried to man the pumps. So, the portuguese jumped in the water grabbing any floating devices they could but "the English came on aboard some armed boats and the Portuguese were asking for mercy but they were enraged and they speared them cruelly and like butchers they killed all they could reach." Only 13 portuguese were saved from the wreck that "when the fire reached the gunpowder, in an horrendous blast and raising an enormous smoky cloud" went into smithreens. More than 150 english were killed by the less than 70 feeble portuguese. So, unless you have forgoten Robert Stenuit's lesson with the diamonds from the Witte Leuwen, in Santa Helena, and if you find yourself capable of searching thousands of square miles of ocean, in depths averaging a mile and look for - and actually find! - some scatered diamond that went down in a wreck that blew apart into small pieces, be my guest. I can even try and get you a permit... chuckles. As for what the Government of Portugal does with the taxpayers money regarding the management of the underwater heritage, well, feel free to contact our Minister of Culture or the taxpayers themselves, because the Government has just been re-elected,as opposed to the 1993 Cabinet that got kicked out, one of the acessory reasons being the etreched law they passed concerning treasure hunting in Portuguese waters. Yours, Paulo Alexandre Monteiro Delegacao do Centro de Nacional de Arqueologia Subaquatica nos Acores Caminho de Baixo, 68, Sao Pedro 9700 Angra do Heroísmo Portugal 351-96-24 13 815 Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 13:13:29 +1000 From: Peter Gesner <PeterG@QM.QLD.GOV.AU> never get in the way of a capitalist and a pile of coins, it's part of his inalienable right to exist ... to bear arms ... to shoot commie socialists... to exploit resources and species to extinction ... etc etc. Just be good little citizens and if you're lucky he may throw you a morsel for X'mas. But don't forget to tug your forelock and grovvel when he does !! Peter Gesner Snr.Curator Maritime Archaeology/Pandora Project Director Queensland Museum PO Box 3300 South Brisbane 4101 ph : (61) 7 3840 7673 fax: (61) 7 3846 1918 email: peterg@qm.qld.gov.au WWWsite: http://www.qmuseum.qld.gov.au/culture/pandorawelcome.html Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 23:50:12 -0500 From: Aqualieb@AOL.COM Peter, I understand your point; the electronic record can be viewed as a "whole collection." Dan Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 01:01:33 -0500 From: David Moore <dmoore@bmd.CLIS.COM> As always, a very interesting albeit twisted view Pete. Rather ironic that many of the artifacts in the ATOCHA collection are still being studied long after their initial curation. Curious how that both supports AND defeats your argument at the same time. By the way, I'll certainly take you up on the Xmas coin offer, particularly if its one of the ones you snatched, er, archaeologically recovered back in '85! ddm -----Original Message----- From: HESSIANS@AOL.COM <HESSIANS@AOL.COM> To: SUB-ARCH@asu.edu <SUB-ARCH@asu.edu> >Long live capitalism and free enterprise--maybe if you're a good little >archaeologist, I'll even send you an ATOCHA coin for Christmas! Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 01:38:41 -0500 From: GFischer <GFischer@MAILER.FSU.EDU> Problem is, how do you do trace element analysis of an electron? >Aqualieb@AOL.COM wrote: > Peter, > > I understand your point; the electronic record can be viewed as a "whole > collection." > > Dan Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 23:20:12 -0800 From: Paulo Monteiro <subarqaz@HOTMAIL.COM> Subject: Angra C and D Pete: Angra C and D have been taped by the french Thalassa (aired in 20 countries), the RTP2 Bombordo (twice and aired in 7 countries), and the Diving and Sailing (Canada, TV shows, as well as being featured by Reuters agency, the german magazine GEO, and every local and national newspaper and magazines. When the archaeological study is completed (probably in a year's time) all artifacts will be exhibited at Angra Museum. Meanwhile, preliminarys studies of both wrecks were presented at the Portuguese Institute for Archaeology Journal, in the 3rd Iberian Conference of Archaeology and the 1st International Conference of Iberian Wreck Studies. In January, both will be presented at the SHA conference, in Quebecq City. We intend to present all finds online for everybody to consult... heck, even you knew about Angra C and D and they were uncovered only in 1998! So tell me, Pete, what wrecks have you excavated so far, and what did you find? Paulo Alexandre Monteiro Delegacao do Centro de Nacional de Arqueologia Subaquatica nos Acores Caminho de Baixo, 68, Sao Pedro 9700 Angra do Heroísmo Portugal 351-96-24 13 815 Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 23:26:24 -0800 From: Paulo Monteiro <subarqaz@HOTMAIL.COM> I'm still wondering where that Mel Fisher's special coin (a lucky charm, you might have called it...) has ended up... So T/H guys, no hints??? Paulo Alexandre Monteiro Delegacao do Centro de Nacional de Arqueologia Subaquatica nos Acores Caminho de Baixo, 68, Sao Pedro 9700 Angra do Heroísmo Portugal 351-96-24 13 815 Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 18:35:44 -0800 From: Garth Henderson <Garth.henderson@JCU.EDU.AU> I'm not sure if I'm correct here, and someone will no doubt correct me, but an electrons spin and shell level are indicative of energy and hence each element has it's own signature. Anyone care to comment on this aspect... Garth Henderson Honours Student James Cook University Townsville. QLD. Australia Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 08:14:24 -0800 From: filipe castro <fvcastro@HOTMAIL.COM> >Sorry, Filipe if I sounded a little bit too harsh. Are the artifacts from >these >two vessels on public display? What new knowledge has been gained from the >study >of these wrecks? > >Peter Smitt Wow! That's a tough one! Have you got 6 hours? First, I guess, the place and date were it was built. What wood species, what timbers, evidence for timber management like age of the trees, duration of storage for some particular compass timbers or extra straight logs, reutilization of timbers. etc.. Then tools' marks, working paterns, technical tricks (such as the patches in the Martires's futtocks were the timber section was insuficient), bevels, local reinforcements, ... I could go on the whole morning. Second, how was it designed. Which frames were pre-assembled, how were they designed, where were the moldes placed (on the mating surface or on the upper one), how were they designed, how many arcs, how was the narrowing and rising of the bottom devised and calculated, etc. Third, how was it put together, how many ribbands, how were they fastened and kept in place, what timbers were pre-erected, how were they kept in place over the keel, etc. Fourth, what architectural signatures (as defined by Ole Crummlin-Peterson, Eric Rieth and Tom Oertling) can be found: what is regional or particular to this region and time: 'couces', stern knees, mast-step arrangements, patterns of fastening the planking to the frames, stern pannel configuration, etc. Fifth, in a wider overview, in what way does it confirm a series of features that are common to a particular kind of vessel (for the Angra C a Dutch like trader, for the Angra D an Iberian ship) as in Fred Hocker's definition of the Cogs, for instance. Sixth, construction details such as fastening and caulking. What materials, what techniques, etc. Seventh, evidence for repairs, where, which, when, why. and I am sure that I will think of another ten things in the minute I get off-line... But the idea I would like to pass is that there is a lot to be looked upon in what looks to the public as a pile of rotten timbers. Only after this basic analysis should one start to look at the furniture (pumps, tillers, whipstafs, etc.) and we are not even near the artifacts. I believe that all the discussions, insults and threats of the THs are mainly based in a wide ignorance of what is the aim and the scope of nautical archaeology. If the treasure hunters could understand the basics the discussions would certainly be at a different level, above our throwing tarts to each other. Back in 1994, when treasure hunting was opened in Portugal, a guy from ARQUEONAUTAS SA. told me that if they would get the permit to work in the Azores, maybe it would be possible that they would give us the wrecks they would find without treasure. They knew what was on the table, what they were willing to destroy for their profit, and they were trying to develop cooperation strategies. With these guys the discussion is at another level: I was told by one of them that archaeology was a mutch better solution than salvage, but the "miserable countries" could not afford that and therefore it was in the best interest of all if they would allow the DESTRUCTION of their culture heritage for profit and collections of artifacts in their national museums. I may desagree with them, but we are speaking the same language. They would never claim that Angra D is worthless... Oh Peter... what a thing to say about such a marvelous wreck! Cheers, Filipe Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 11:51:03 -0500 From: rwschwab@MINDSPRING.COM Dr. Castro: You raise a number of points about my recent contention that salvors will do good archaeology if they are smart because it's in their self-interest to do so. I'll address the points that are relevant and specific, and ignore the rest which, as you describe them yourself, are designed to be outrageous and provocative; the most egregious of which being, "None of your arguments makes any sense." (If they don't, why is yours the only voice so far to raise ANY objection on the list?). 1. You raise the example of one European salvor who refuses to commit to conserving all recovered artifacts because he cannot afford it. My argument was that those who have the resources, and the vision to see the long term, will do full conservation; not that everybody will do it automatically. It's easy to remedy this situation anyway: host governments can require full conservation as a condition of receiving and retaining a permit. And if Dr. Rule and Dr. Bound do continue working with that particular venture, it indicates to me that you have overstated the venture's irresponsibility rather than, as you imply, that the two archaeologists have compromised their principles and archaeology. Well, I suppose every religion produces zealots who make a profession of being holier than everyone else. 2. Regarding the alleged lack of archaeological benefit resulting from the Sussex, Santiago and San Diego, you're definitely in error on the San Jose (if you mean the one from the Philippines); I don't know anything about the other two. The National Museum in Manila has most of an entire floor of a very large building devoted to the results of Mr. Goddio's excavation, a terrific permanent exhibit. And before it was there, it was touring the world as a travelling exhibit, making money for sponsors and doing more to stimulate interest in the Philippines, in history and--yes--in your science than anything a few recondite and narrowly read papers could accomplish. But if you're not satisfied with Dr. l'Hour's work, why not go there yourself and do it? The entire collection is on hand, thanks to the salvor, Dr. Goddio, and the creative and scholarly talent of the National Museum staff. And they did painstaking recording of the artifacts' in situ positions. 3. No matter what your purified sensitivities lead you to insist, fine archaeology resulted from the ATOCHA. If a future archo were to see the work Dr. Mathewson and others produced, would he find fault with it in comparison with the average product from non-commercial ventures as to quality, completeness, PUBLICATION and effect? How about the extraordinary work put out by Bill Mathers' archaeologists, published by Bill's company, on the CONCEPCION off Saipan? This ranks with the very best work in the field, I'm told. And it's almost impossible to find, despite its value. This says much more about a certain prejudicial mindset that refuses to acknowledge good work than it does about the quality of the work itself. You can find bad examples all day, we both know that. But don't say all salvors can't and won't support you. There are some who have and will. Well, maybe not YOU, because you won't take the offered hand, will you? Rob Schwab Admiralty Corp. Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 08:54:21 -0800 From: Carl Harrington <nailgun@U.WASHINGTON.EDU> On Tue, 7 Dec 1999 Jclayjr1@AOL.COM wrote: > In a message dated 12/7/99 12:36:59 PM Mountain Standard Time, > HESSIANS@AOL.COM writes: > << The ATOCHA artifacts are better off being owned by people who treasure them blah blah blah > Long live capitalism and free enterprise--maybe if you're a good little > archaeologist, I'll even send you an ATOCHA coin for Christmas! > >Amen to this writer. One of the few non-socialists in academia today . Actually, he's just a lil' ole country lawyer, and probably proud not to be an "intellectual, ivory tower, tenured, jack-booted bureaucrat". Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 18:30:03 -0500 From: HESSIANS@AOL.COM Mr. Nailgun You might be shocked to learn that I am both an attorney and an academician--I teach two courses a year at a local law school and publish in professional journals to boot. Of course, you may not consider the training ground for the litigious sharks which infest our society as being has high and mighty as your own training ground for unemployed archaeologists. Peter Hess Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 18:49:27 -0500 From: Aqualieb@AOL.COM In a message dated 12/8/99 1:43:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, GFischer@MAILER.FSU.EDU writes: << Problem is, how do you do trace element analysis of an electron? >> I assume you'd send a sample out to a lab, but I may not understand what you're referring to. I do mostly archival research and maps and I am no chemist. Maybe it's that wording of your question. If you mean how do you accomplish this before a collection is dispersed I'd say do all studies and analysis prior to the break-up. Dan Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 19:20:03 -0500 From: Imacdigest@AOL.COM Dan, I think he was implying that they are so proficient that they actually recover, tag, and conserve individual electrons found orbiting their wrecksites. This requires much more government funding, takes longer and employs many of those unemployed archaeologists that Peter was talking about. Pat Clyne Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 19:12:44 -0500 From: Peter Smitt <psmitt1@TAMPABAY.RR.COM> Subject: Re: Angra C and D Paulo, I had no idea that Angra C and D have been so throughly researched since I never saw anything published here in the States. My knowledge of these wrecks come solely from your web site. I am anxious to see more. Myself, I have worked on the Atocha site as Director of Operations for Research & Recovery Inc. What did I find? Over $1 million worth of emeralds in just one season. Regards, Pete P.S. Merry Christmas. Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 19:30:28 -0500 From: Aqualieb@AOL.COM Geez, here I am thinking he's talking about chemical analysis of wood samples or clay scrapings... or fruit pits! I'm too damned naive! Dan (embarrasing myself again) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 16:54:10 -0800 From: Paulo Monteiro <subarqaz@HOTMAIL.COM> >From: filipe castro <fvcastro@HOTMAIL.COM> >Subject:Re: US loses millions of artifacts > Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 16:15:23 -0800 (..)>ARQUEONAUTAS SA had (and still have? Together with Mensum Bound, the >archaeological director of the underwater department of OXFORD UNIVERSITY?) >Margaret Rule as its main archaeologist. Do not forget all the other archaeologists or officials that, at least once, sanctionned the activities of treasure hunters, like Bob Cembrola, Gordon P. Watts, W. A Cockrell, Alan B. Albright.... Paulo Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 21:55:38 -0800 From: filipe castro <fvcastro@HOTMAIL.COM> Dear Rob, I am just an humble PhD student, not a Dr. Castro. I am sorry if my comment "None of your arguments makes any sense" sounded outrageous. I Did not mean to insult you, but I totaly desagree with you. Please read: "None of your arguments makes any sense in my opinion" 1. I do not know if Margaret Rule and Menson Bound are with ARQUEONAUTAS SA because ARQUEONAUTAS SA has never published - to my knowledge - anything about the many wrecks they announced to be excavating in Cape Verde. 2. I have seen the Manila Museum (and had a great afternoon with father Gabriel Casal - in 1995, I think) and I still totaly desagree with you on the San Diego venture results. 3. I think that we cannot compare Duncan Mathewson and other archaeologists who have worked with treasure hunters with the best intentions and trying to do a good work in a totaly legal and widely accepted (by the public opinion) treasure hunting environment with archaeologists that lobby for the acceptance of treasure hunting in less developed countries. I don't agree that Mathewson or Mathers' archaeologists did a good work in Florida or in Guam, but I can understand their reasons. I just find it very ugly when somebody tells me that archaeological standards are good for Portugal but not for Mozambique, Cape Verde or the Phillipines. Cheers, Filipe Castro Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 10:52:39 -0500 From: rwschwab@MINDSPRING.COM Dear Felipe: (Apologies to everyone aleady bored by this. Silence from me after this one, until a different topic raises its head.) 1. My defense of ARQUEONAUTUS, of whom I know no more than you noted in your e-mail, was/is conditional on the fact that IF Drs. Rule and Bound are still with them, your opinion weighs less with me than their implied opinion does, by continuing the association. I'm probably not alone in this. 2. You saw the National Museum in Manila around 1995, and weren't impressed by SAN DIEGO archaeology and exhibits. I have to admire your fine and detailed memory: you're absolutely right, with regard to the exhibits anyway. The envisioned SAN DIEGO exhibit was not established until early 1999, shortly after the opening of the new National Museum building. And it's a beauty. You really ought to see it, for several reasons. As for your having found fault with the archaeology itself, that's not surprising: your position required it. Salvors on the other handhave to keep an open mind re: facts, and if we don't, it shows--i.e., we fail if we insist, "It's here somewhere," and keep expending resources when logic tells us we're nuts. Archaeologists aren't hampered by that effect in such a short term. You can close your mind to the possibility of good archaeology sponsored by commercial ventures and get away with being wrong, if you're wrong: nobody sees what would have been done but wasn't, and all you have to say about what HAS been done is to say, "Yeah, but it could've been done a lot better," as automatic as a knee jerk. Let me give a specific example. Two professionals in archaeology of a public position not so far from yours, have told me separately that the archaeology sponsored by Bill Mathers was exemplary in itself, and exceptional (both stressed this) in that it was done in good time and was AVAILABLE and PUBLISHED, also in good time. And: both insisted, to their credit with a sense of embarrassment, that I not use their names when I mention the praise, saying it could cost them their careers. That is SOME fraternity you guys have, really mutually supportive... 3. "I think we cannot compare Duncan Mathewson and other archaeologists who have worked with treasure hunters with the best intentions...with those that lobby for the acceptance of treasure hunting in less developed countries." I don't know of any archos who lobby for acceptance of commercial recoveries in those countries; there may be. We salvors pretty much do the lobbying, I think. We would lobby "developed" countries too except that the Spanish and Portuguese and French and Dutch had the bad grace not to foresee that they'd be offending you by losing almost all of their lost ships nearer less-developed countries than to northern Europe, with the exceptions of the Douro and Guadalquivir bars. There have been, as you know, efforts to lobby Portugal and and they succeeeded for a while. It shows that realism is not dead, and may even resurface, who knows. Spain, a legendarily proud country apparently unable for one reason or another to raise her own ships, is pretty much a lost cause when it comes to foreigners lobbying to work the mouth of the Guadalquivir! As I said above, salvors are dictated to by facts. However, I do look forward to a day that, after salvors have done some more good work to serious standards, the countries of Europe as well as "less developed countries" will ASK us to work on their historic ships with their own archaeologists. And maybe even Texas! No, that's going too far. 4. "I find it very ugly...that archaeological standards are good for Portugal but not for Mozambique, Cape Verde or the Philippines." Perfection which even archaeologists themselves don't actually achieve, as opposed to merely thorough? Hey, me too. Rob Schwab Admiralty Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 09:54:24 -0800 From: Paulo Monteiro <subarqaz@HOTMAIL.COM> Subject: The bottom line >From: rwschwab@MINDSPRING.COM >Subject: US loses millions of artifacts > Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 10:52:39 -0500 > >Dear Felipe: > >(Apologies to everyone aleady bored by this. Silence from me after this >one, until a different topic raises its head.) > The bottom line is this: If you are driven by economic reasons, you will only excavate and "document" valubale wrecks, i.e., with gold, silver, porcelain, you name it, onboard. In general, dutch, spanish and portuguese ships from the 16-th to the 18-th. Who is going to search for and excavate and document all the other wrecks, the "worthless" Angra C's and D's of this world? Answer this one if you can. Anyhow, I have never recovered US#1 million in emeralds, but I have picked up from the bottom of the ocean astrolabes in mint condition and even the proverbial gold bar.. I guess the bug has not bitten into me. At least yet.. chuckles. Best regards, Paulo Alexandre Monteiro Delegacao do Centro de Nacional de Arqueologia Subaquatica nos Acores Caminho de Baixo, 68, Sao Pedro 9700 Angra do Heroísmo Portugal 351-96-24 13 815 Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 15:35:32 -0500 From: rwschwab@MINDSPRING.COM Subject: The bottom line Paulo: I took a vow of silence not thirty minutes ago, unless a new topic came at me. Well, I guess this is new. Your premise is right: by and large, salvors only go after ships whose excavation, after archaeology and other expenses, and taxes and division with the host government,can be expected to turn a profit. But I don't follow why you object to our choice of sites, as somehow impinging on archaeologists' choice of sites. Am I wrong in thinking that, to archaeologists, the value of a given shipwreck lies in how much it can add to the process of instructing our present on its present? I suppose it's possible to think that ships with valuable cargos are likely to be more archaeologically interesting than others, because they likely have more objects aboard, each of which, interpreted well, can add something to the store of information. But that's a skewed truth: we'd only learn more about the rich, whose lives and lifestyles are already well-documented in written histories. Moreover, most of the treasure comes in silver and gold coins and bars, and gold chains; and in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and sometimes in the New World, tens of thousands of similar pieces of porcelain. We already know so much about those things that their descriptions help to identify the age and itinerary of a vessel, rather than the vessel illuminating its times through them. There will be the time-to-time surprise--but you'll find surprises on the ANGRA C's an D's too. (I hold no brief for the individual who denigrated them.). Most important, maybe, when you ask, "Who's going to search for all the other wrecks," the answer is (and apologies for the arrogance but it's true), "You are, and with more support and more success than you would have if we hadn't found some of their more materially valuable cousins." Our successes tickle the public fancy--a lot--as Felipe noted. That enthusiasm will drive some of the public to wrack (if they're lucky) and ruin (if they're not) as treasure hunters, but it will turn an equal number to marine archaeology; if not actively pursuing archaeology then at least to being interested in it, and to supporting it in material terms. Also to networks giving it more time, as more interesting excavations are able to be underwritten--for those archos who still believe they themselves have a right to touch a site and actually practice their craft. Speaking only for my own company now, we have a USG CRADA that we are assured will result in extremely fast and accurate mapping of all anomalies (down to around 100') over a truly huge area, in a matter of days, with several weeks for post-processing. Anomalies may be on or under the bottom: physical visibility not relevant. Our intent is to make the information available to the Cultural Properties officials of the jurisdiction we have a permit to work in, once we have determined the sites we want to work. Paulo, don't you think this would help just a little bit in the location of historically interesting ANGRA C's and D's--like, cut the cost at least in half, not to mention the savings in man-years? Yrs, Rob Schwab Admiralty Corp. Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 14:47:31 -0800 From: Paulo Monteiro <subarqaz@HOTMAIL.COM> >From: Imacdigest@AOL.COM >Subject: Re: US Loses track of "Millions" of artifacts > Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 19:03:37 -0500 > >...since we're still on the subject, did you hear the one about the Ph.D. >student from the University of St. Andrews who was doing his thesis on >"Pottery from Spanish Shipwrecks 1500-1800 (...) But our author was able to >complete his thesis to the credit of those private salvors who encouraged >him >to use their records and their facilities for his research. > >Pat Clyne It sounds nice but you must tell the other part of the story. The following are literal quotes From: MARKEN, Mitchell W. (1994) Pottery from Spanish Wrecks 1500-1800. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. ISBN 0-8130-1268-6 p. 15 "(...) Only one of the wreck assemblages (the Spanish Armada) has been archaeologically excavated and recorded from start to finish. The other material was either excavated archaeologically after modern salvage or recovered purely from salvage operations with archaeological supervision as required by governing agencies. (...)" p. 29-31 "(...) The Atocha collection (...) the passage of time and lack of firsthand archaeological control, the reliability of the provenience has been questioned for some of the earlier recoveries (...) Jim Sinclair (...) managed to conserve in bulk the large quantities of precious material, with minimal destruction, in preparation for the division of 'treasure' to the investors. At first the divers were not anxious to recover ceramics. In the past, this had been part of their divison of treasure. Fortunately, the pottery finds had been ommited from the division to investors because there was enough booty to go around for everyone that year (...) there was still little site provenience on the pottery sherds, so the task of reconstruction was nearly impossible(...) whithout a doubt, the finds from the Atocha represent the most complete collection of securely dated ceramics recovered from an early seventeenth-century context. If the excavation of the wreck had been controlled by a team of archaeologists, it would have been a find not far surpassed by the recovery of Henry VIII's flagship, the Mary Rose (...)" p. 37-38 " The 1733 fleet (...) the remains of the San Jose were discovered by treasure hunters, who began working the site. Over the next several years archaeologists had to watch as the site was excavated using a blower which destroyed intrasite proveniences. The salvors were required to recover ceramics, although many were left on the site due to the 'lack of commercial value' (...)" Paulo Alexandre Monteiro Delegacao do Centro de Nacional de Arqueologia Subaquatica nos Acores The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and viewpoints and do not necessarily represent those of the organization with which I am affiliated. Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 17:52:29 -0500 From: Gilldiver@AOL.COM Subject: Re: The bottom line As for myself, I try to represent for the sport diver/wreck diver. As I have stated in the past my group tend to stay with the steel wrecks and I'd like to pose the question "How many archaeologists care about steel wrecks which by definition are recent (read 1880 - present)?" It seems that the only wreck discussed and written about are pre 1750, Dr. Ballard being the exception. As for the classical and age of exploration wrecks the lists harps on, they are pretty thin on the bottom in the Northeast US. My group of divers tend to look on wood wrecks a places to lobster not loot. However, I do know that from this group of deep sport/wreckers can come a trained team with capabilities of doing useful work down to 400 feet and beyond. I also know that the recent development in diving gear (rebreathers, mix gas) and deep diving techniques (Do It Right -DIR) if brought into the archaeological field would increase the quality and quantity of work performed on the bottom. A few weeks ago I watch a program on Dr. Bass and the classical wreck off of Turkey that he is working. I turned to my wife and said: "I'd love to be able to spend a summer working on a project like that" and "After 4 days I might even teach them how to rig their equipment and dive". I'm sorry but the gear selection and diving I saw should only go to Bonaire in January for a week vacation, a new diver with a few dives in a quarry just don't cut it. As for working on a truly archaeological wreck, I have a BS in Chemistry and an MS in Engineering with another one 1/2 way done. I can be taught the process and enjoy doing the painstaking recording required. The when I get home and drop on a wreck in 250' off of New York and find a bell - I have a 4lb hammer and a wrench and a lot of people, if not more, will see it at the dive shows as will see the work I did on the archaeological wreck in a small museum in Turkey. I don't have a problem with that. Peter Johnson Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 14:58:54 -0800 From: Paulo Monteiro <subarqaz@HOTMAIL.COM> >From: rwschwab@MINDSPRING.COM >Subject: The bottom line > Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 15:35:32 -0500 >Our successes tickle the public fancy--a lot--as Felipe noted. That enthusiasm >will drive some of the public to wrack (if they're lucky) and ruin (if >they're not) as treasure hunters, but it will turn an equal number to >marine archaeology; if not actively pursuing archaeology then at least to >being interested in it, and to supporting it in material terms. Also to >networks giving it more time, as more interesting excavations are able to >be underwritten--for those archos who still believe they themselves have a >right to touch a site and actually practice their craft. I couldnt agree more. But, at what cost? >Speaking only for my own company now, we have a USG CRADA that we are >assured will result in extremely fast and accurate mapping of all anomalies >(down to around 100') over a truly huge area, in a matter of days, with >several weeks for post-processing. >Paulo, don't you think this would help >just a little bit in the location of >historically interesting ANGRA C's and D's--like, cut the cost at least in >half, not to mention the savings in man-years? > Rob, Out there, some 500 to 1000 meters south of this window, I have six deep spanish and portuguese wrecks (-70 to -50 meters), all from the end of the 16-th century, all so called 'treasure ships' one of which has +1 million silver coins onboard. They were never salvage, they were never found since they went down. Now, tell me... shall I wait for better days, wait to have Angra D and C done, published and exhibited? Or shall I invite you guys? :o) Best regards, Paulo Alexandre Monteiro Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 18:22:18 -0500 From: Paul Goodall <drkptt@GTE.NET> Subject: Blower (was Re: US Loses track of "Millions" of artifacts) Paulo's quote reminded me that the survey boat shown in the beginning of the Nova documentary on the excavation of La Belle had a mailbox (prop-wash deflector) hanging off the transom. What's up with that? -----Original Message----- From: Paulo Monteiro <subarqaz@HOTMAIL.COM> The following are literal quotes From: MARKEN, Mitchell W. (1994) Pottery from Spanish Wrecks 1500-1800. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. ISBN 0-8130-1268-6 p. 37-38 Over the next several years archaeologists had to watch as the site was excavated using a blower which destroyed intrasite proveniences Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 01:16:42 -0500 From: Chuck T Meide <cmeide@JUNO.COM> Subject: Re: Blower In 1995, under the direction of Barto Arnold, a blower was used as the initial excavation device on the Belle. At the time we were testing anomalies, and did not realize that we had the Belle (it was our first dive of the project). Prop-wash blowers, like their backhoe equivalent in land archaeology, can be used in certain contexts, ie. when there is a lot of overburden that needs to be removed before actual excavation can be conducted. Even with the engines on idle, however, they can be a very destructive tool, and the propwash was abandoned very quickly on the site when we realized we had a shipwreck just under the sediment's surface. So there you go. Chuck Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:20:04 +0000 From: Francisco Oliveira <fmo@IP.PT> Subject: Here we go again ;) Sorry guys to enter the usual turmoil of the year about salvaging vs. academic research , but I think that again and again pelople are forgetting the mais issue of what salvaging is. By the way I believe that all the good intentioned people that discuss in the list on the "salvaging side" also are not aware of this fact. Being an "outsider" in this fanstastic universe of undw. arch. allows me to have a clear view of the business because it's a business let's say it clearly. The main purpose of salvaging is not about recovering, preserving, making profit with artifacts found. The main target is bloodsucking the money of the investors that put their hopes in the hands of a very few (worldwide known) "sharks". I think that all the rest of the people involved (like the ones usually in this list) firmly believe in their methods and ethics. I think that somewhere in the future when finally those "sharks" can't atract no more foolish investors for their only profit , the two communities (pro-academic and pro-salvaging) will start working togheter. Let's not forget what is the reason of our common passion , the love for maritime history and the sea, try to remember this for the weekend (if possible take 5 minutes in front of the sea to remember what is all about). Cheers, Francisco Oliveira Ocidente - Centro de Estudos de Historia e Etnografia Maritimas PS I would like to know please how the excellent collection of Mr. Goddio findings of the San Diego in the Philippines was treated to preserve it for future generations (I mean how the findings were stabilised and chemicaly treated for public display). PPS By the way give our list administrators a break will you!! I praise their effort to continue to support year after year such a bunch of sea wolves like ourselves. Hip hip hooray for them ;))) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 03:52:55 -0500 From: "Colin A. O'Bannon" <obannon.3@OSU.EDU> Subject: Re: the bottom line Rob, As impressed as I am by the technology that your company claims to have developed, I am so disappoited by your note to the list. Archaeologists do not seek only the rich vessels with a whole bunch of loot that will tell us only about "the rich, whose lives and lifestyles are already well-documented in written histories." If that were true, what would the point be in excavating any site? The truth is that until a site is excavated and properly examined, it is very difficult to determine whether it was "valuable" or "invaluable." I know that the words are about synonymous. Yet I also know that only one who has excavated a "valuless" site can know how useful it is. For an archaeologist, it is not true that "ships with valuable cargos are likely to be more archaeologically interesting than others, because they likely have more objects aboard, each of which, interpreted well, can add something to the store of information." We are not looking for loot. We are looking for information. Usually the most valuable artifact that an underwater archaeologist can find is the ship itself. Angra C and Angra D are perfect examples of my point. On each, there was virtually no cargo. Yet artifacts were found that told us something about the vessels and about the people who were on them. Neither told us anything about "the rich, whose lives and lifestyles are already well-documented in written histories." Rather, the structures themselves and the few items discovered, told us about seafarers and shipwrights and sailmakers and riggers (sorry I couldn't carry the alliteration...its kinda late and I'm watching "Kelly's Heroes"). Such things are the purview of real curiosity seekers such as me. Not only gold and silver and porcelain can "help to identify the age and itinerary of a vessel." There are so many other things that can be learned from even the most mundane artifacts. This is one of the truths that any archaelogist learns ealy on in training. I think you're right that your discipline will drive "the public to wrack (if they're lucky) and ruin (if they're not) as treasure hunters." I, after all, have never practiced it yet have been driven to both and have never, ever taken an artifact off a site. And I think it is bad to start someone out on ship-gouging, assuming that if they are unsuccessful they will move on to "marine archaeology," which you suggest is somehow less useful than salvage. The most disappointing aspect of your post is that you believe your technology will solve all our problems: "we have a USG CRADA that we are assured will result in extremely fast and accurate mapping of all anomalies (down to around 100') over a truly huge area, in a matter of days, with several weeks for post-processing. Anomalies may be on or under the bottom: physical visibility not relevant." Be honest now, Rob, don't "anomalies" mean only metal artifacts, be they ferrous, cupreous, auric, or tinny? And don't you claim to be able to differentiate between all of those metallic substances (an assertion, mind you, that I have always found hard to believe)? And aren't all other artifacts, be they of wood, rope, stone, ceramic, bone, or other mineral (salt, for example), unidentifiable? It seems to me that simply by using your technology it would not help us locate "historically interesting ANGRA C's and D's--like, cut the cost at least in half, not to mention the savings in man-years." Those ships were easy to find. Your technology helps not a whit, though, in telling anyone anything other than whether a hull has metal on it. If I am wrong about my assumptions about your product I hope you will set me right. Colin A. O'Bannon Department of History Ohio State University Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 04:00:37 -0500 From: "Colin A. O'Bannon" <obannon.3@OSU.EDU> I heard the story of the prop-wash blower on the Belle project within days after the ship was found. I want to commend Chuck for his forthright answer. It migh've been very tempting to say they weren't used. Colin O'Bannon Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:09:00 -0600 From: Steve Hoyt <steve.hoyt@THC.STATE.TX.US> Subject: Re: Blower (was Re: US Loses track of "Millions" of artifacts) The boat with the blower is the RV Anomaly, built for the Texas Historical Commission in the 1970s specifically for archeological investigations. The blower was added some time after the original construction. I leased the vessel numerous times during the last decade for archaeological remote-sensing survey and diving projects while working as an archeological consultant. As the State Marine Archeologist, I am now in charge of this boat. I did not participate in the Belle investigations (thanks for the information Chuck) but I'd like to give a recent example of appropriate use for the blower. The National Underwater and Marine Agency (NUMA) was investigating several magnetic anomalies under a permit issued by my office. Considerable work by divers with a probe determined that one promising anomaly source covered a large area and was buried under 15 feet of loose sand. The water depth was 18 to 20 feet. The Texas Historical Commission assisted NUMA in this investigation by using the blower on the Anomaly to remove the upper 8 feet of overburden. Everything below 8 feet was removed by hand. Essentially, we lowering the sea floor by 8 feet, allowing the divers to excavate a cone shaped hole down to the wreck. Purely by circumstance, the excavation came down on top of a small iron cannon. We also assisted NUMA in recovering the cannon to help date the wreck. We actually used the blower twice, once in the initial investigation of the wreck and once to recover the cannon. The hole filled in completely between the two events. We did not excavate more than 8 feet of overburden either time, partly because we were reaching the limits of the blower's capabilities and partly because that is about as close to the wreck as I want to go. I might have gone a couple of feet lower if time had allowed. The site is a mile offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and exposed to often stormy seas and strong currents. Since the blower must be bolted in place on the bottom of the hull and the boat is disabled when the blower is bolted down (no steering), it can only be used in ideal sea conditions. Ralph Wilbanks will be presenting a paper on NUMA's investigations at the SHA in Quebec City. He did a tremendous job investigating numerous magnetic anomalies over a period of several months and I look forward to seeing his presentation. Steve At 06:22 PM 12/9/99 -0500, Paul Goodall wrote: Paulo's quote reminded me that the survey boat shown in the beginning of the Nova documentary on the excavation of La Belle had a mailbox (prop-wash deflector) hanging off the transom. What's up with that? Steven D. Hoyt State Marine Archeologist Texas Historical Commission P.O. Box 12276 Austin, TX 78711-2276 (512)463-7188 FAX (512)463-7002 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:26:07 -0500 From: David Moore <dmoore@bmd.CLIS.COM> Subject: Re: the bottom line Interesting response Colin, but I've GOT to ask: You are making up part about watching "Kelly's Heroes", right? Otherwise, quite a coincidental treasure-hunting analogy under the circumstances! Dave Moore NC Maritime Museum Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:06:23 -0500 From: Imacdigest@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Here we go again ;) Obviously, when Mr. Oliveira speaks about investors he is not speaking from knowledge but rather with the usual implied intent that "ALL" salvage investments are scams and all salvors are bloodsuckers- blah- blah-blah. Geez guys, don't you ever get out? I know a lot of you enjoy preaching to your own choir and supporting each others misconceptions, but can't we have some semblance of respect for the many people who are not as fortunate as you and I to work on historic shipwrecks. I'm talking about the "armchair archaeologist" or "armchair adventurer" who live vicariously through the exploits of those of us who ARE fortunate enough to follow our dream. Many of these people feel that the only way they can ever experience the thrill of "locating history" themselves is through an investment program that lets them become a part of it. This has been our experience for the many years we have operated. To hear some of these people go on and on about what a "thrill" it was to have become involved in a history making effort that, for them, was a very rewarding and emotional experience that they will never forget, is reason enough for us to include it in our investment opportunities. Please Mr. Oleveira, don't mix up the professional salvors and their investment programs with those few "scammers" out there that give us all a bad name. Please read the following story that was written by an investor (unsolicited) and sent to us. This story was written by a schoolteacher from Birmingham. She was able to articulate, better than I, what is the norm and not the exception. http://www.imacdigest.com/golden.html Cheers, Pat Clyne Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:06:23 -0500 From: Greg Stemm At 08:20 AM 12/10/99 +0000, Francisco Oliveira wrote: I think that all the rest of the people involved (like the ones usually in this list) firmly believe in their methods and ethics. I think that somewhere in the future when finally those "sharks" can't atract no more foolish investors for their only profit , the two communities (pro-academic and pro-salvaging) will start working togheter. Let's not forget what is the reason of our common passion , the love for maritime history and the sea, try to remember this for the weekend (if possible take 5 minutes in front of the sea to remember what is all about). Franciso, Well said, and a sentiment with which we can virtually all agree. Even thought Stuart's stomach got a little queasy from the recent discussion (or maybe he was looking for an excuse to pop out to the pub ?), I'd like to commend everyone on the general civility and thoughtfulness of the posts during the last arch/salvor discussion. Back in the old days, a discussion like this couldn't have taken place without it quickly sinking to the level of disparaging each other's mothers and sisters (and dogs and cats...) within the first couple posts. By contrast, this discussion has brought forth some interesting comments and points that have really struck a chord with me. We are now discussing specific expeditions and problems with those projects rather than the same old indiscriminate rock-throwing (of course, some of that is always bound to take place). People are actually using citations to back up their assertions, and there actually seems to be something to be learned from many of the thoughtful comments. It is interesting to see a common ground slowly evolving - it seems that pretty much everyone agrees that : a) there is a need for good archaeological fieldwork, conservation and publication whether accomplished by commercial firms (even if they are scum sucking capitalist pigs) or academic institutions (even if they are jack-booted archeo-communists); and b) we all need to cooperate to clean up the investment scam sharks out there; and c) we all need to share the data we acquire from the sites; and d) Most importantly - we all need to meet over a cold one to talk this over further. It is often difficult to describe the complexity of the legitimate issues between archaeologists and commercial salvors to the media or the public. This last set of posts has done such a good job of accomplishing this that I have made up a Digest of all the "US Loses Track of Millions of Artifacts" posts and (unless forbidden from doing so by Anita) will post the whole string of them in one easily followed document to the website at www.prosea.org. I would assume that no one has a problem with that. If you are willing to make a statement on an e-mail discussion group to 500 people, many of whom you don't know, I assume that everyone fully expects their comments to be made public. I hope that a collateral effect of posting all these e-mails in a public place will be to make some folks think a little harder before throwing out some of the un-necessary personal barbs that unfortunately still crop up. Regards, Greg Stemm
|