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:
Salvor6 said:Very good Alexandre. Is there an english version?
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 said: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.
trinidad said: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.