Namibia wreck video

[Alexandre]

People, today I had a little fun with some of the photos and videos taken at the Namibia wrecksite of that Portuguese ship and I made a little (3 mins) video of them:

[mad4wrecks]

Very well done Paulo.

[wreckdiver1715]

Outstanding - Thanks!

[Salvor6]

Very good Alexandre. Is there an english version?

[comfortably numb]

Very good Alexandre. Is there an english version?

Thats what I was thinking.

[Alexandre]

Not yet. Want one?

[LLOST]

Yes please.

[RELICDUDE07]

Thanks !Fantastic artifacts

[Smithbrown]

There is an update on this wreck now: http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story....f9516198402%7D

Smithbrown

[CanadianTrout]

Great video! I loved seeing the whole excavation site. Thanks for the post.

[bronzecannons]

That's Awesome! I also embedded in onto my TSEATC.com Worldwide Treasure News Forum!
Thanks!
TW

[Digger54]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[trinidad]

First, thanks for sharing this video. But it´s a prove that everybody, even reputated archaeologists, has an special interest in artifacts, any kind of them. So, why keep talking about the secondary importance of artifacts and the big deal about the context? In a shipwreck, what take us to the past is mostly the collection of artifacts. If you are going to raise up a museum, you need artifacts, and if you want visitors at this museum, you keep needing artifacts. Context is important, but as important as artifacts.
PS: it´s funny to see an archaeologist working as a Tv cameramen, or even as a journalist. It´s clear that work intrusion is not a round trip.

[Alexandre]

Hey Trinidad, how couldn't we be interested in artifacts?

After all, archaeology is a science that mainly studies Humanity's past through the study of it's material remains, i.e. artifacts, be they gold coins, cannons, ceramics or even via another big class of artifact called "ship's hull".

The "context" in this case is the relationship of every artifact with the environment - that is, by locating at patterns of distribution we can get a glimpse of what was carried where in the ship. Also, having all artifacts together can help prove - or disaprove - a theory. Take this case: my theory is that we are looking at the remains of the Bom Jesus, lost in 1533, while under the command of a direct descendent of two Iberian kings, D. Fernando of Portugal and D. Enrique II of Castille. Now, just a single coin dated 1534 will throw away this theory.... can you see where I am getting at with this artifact thing?

(those videos were recorded with an old 3.2 Mp point-and-shoot. In case you have missed it, here's NGM article on it, with a photo gallery, too: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...mith-text.html)

[GulfDiver]

First, thanks for sharing this video. But it´s a prove that everybody, even reputated archaeologists, has an special interest in artifacts, any kind of them. So, why keep talking about the secondary importance of artifacts and the big deal about the context? In a shipwreck, what take us to the past is mostly the collection of artifacts. If you are going to raise up a museum, you need artifacts, and if you want visitors at this museum, you keep needing artifacts. Context is important, but as important as artifacts.
PS: it´s funny to see an archaeologist working as a Tv cameramen, or even as a journalist. It´s clear that work intrusion is not a round trip.

Wow, this post makes no sense. what the heck is work intrusion? round trip? I would think that archaeologists may have somewhat of an interest in artifacts, as that is why they dig (and exist)?

[trinidad]

Sorry GulfDiver, my english skill is getting worse day by day. My post tried to be a kind of joke to Alexandre. I hope his portugues side understood what I was trying to say in a poor translation from spanish. I agree with him in 99% of his post. And I do in this last one. But I know a couple of archaeologist that when they talk about artifacts they look as they are talking about garbage. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!, they repeat, and despise the artifacts for themselves, and much more if these artifacts are made on gold. That was all.

[GulfDiver]

Sorry GulfDiver, my english skill is getting worse day by day. My post tried to be a kind of joke to Alexandre. I hope his portugues side understood what I was trying to say in a poor translation from spanish. I agree with him in 99% of his post. And I do in this last one. But I know a couple of archaeologist that when they talk about artifacts they look as they are talking about garbage. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!, they repeat, and despise the artifacts for themselves, and much more if these artifacts are made on gold. That was all.

No worries mate! I meant no offense. I wish I could speak/write in another language half as well as you!

[signumops]

Are you going to do a book (any language)?

[Alexandre]

Is that question directed to me, signumops?

[signumops]

Yes.