In Situ. Can anyone explain the logic of this to me?

[LM]

In doing some reading, I'm having a hard time grasping the logic of archaeologists who support an in-situ philosophy for historic shipwrecks. Even though I may not agree with someone, I still like to try and decipher the logical framework they employ but in this case, I absolutely cannot figure out where they're coming from.

Is it the whole 'wrecks as grave sites' thing? I suppose one might be able to understand this for contemporary wrecks, but in the case of ancient historic wrecks, that concept doesn't hold up under much scrutiny relative to any number of other practices these same archaeologists regularly engage in to recover historical objects and artifacts.

Are the archaeologists who support in-situ for ancient wrecks similarly oriented for, say, underwater fossils? Are they 'better off' at the bottom of the ocean instead of in a museum or to a lesser extent, a collection?

Is it all just the bitter ruminations of collectivist-minded academics and government funded 'historians' who can't get over the private-sector drivers that pay for so much historic exploration? Like, in their perfect world, there would be state-funded public salvors combing the ocean in search of historic wrecks, but since that won't ever happen, they sit in an office somewhere and oppose the private interests who achieve the very same objectives?

What is the basis for these 'in-situ beliefs' ?

I realize asking this question here will probably yield a slanted answer, but a lot of you have been around this stuff forever and have heard the arguments they've made to support their position. I'd kinda like to know where they're coming from, since I totally cannot figure it out and the more books I read on historic salvage, the more convoluted their position appears.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[aquanut]

You about nailed it in a nutshell. Why don't you ask Mr Wheeler up in Tallahassee. Maybe he'll give you a better answer than he did me. The mentality is about the same as those that believe the Earth began around five thousand years ago. Very closed minded.
Aquanut

 

[veryoldthunter]

Good article here about In Situ Preservation - a picture is worth a thousand words!

http://www.ssssllc.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Ecuadors-Underwater-Heritage-EN.pdf

 

[theseeker]

Good article here about In Situ Preservation - a picture is worth a thousand words!

http://www.ssssllc.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Ecuadors-Underwater-Heritage-EN.pdf

Excellent article and argument against UNESCO treaty !!!

 

[bigscoop]

I've never understood how this has all come about. Sadly, I think the "pride infected logic" behind it all is simply this, "If we can't control it all and have it all, then nobody is going to have any of it."

 

[Galleon Hunter]

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...&start=18&hl=en&sa=N&gbv=2&ndsp=18&tbs=isch:1

I think the main argument is many artifacts deteriorate very quickly once exposed to air. Often times wood, iron, etc. will disintigrate more within a couple of months of being taken out of the water than it did after in 200-300 years on the ocean floor. New scientific techniques are constantly being developed and improved. Anyone has ever driven by the 1715 cannons that used to be in front of the court house and now at a city park can attest that these cannons are in horrible condition. They were never properly conserved, or the methods that were used have proven to be ineffective. It would have been better to have left them on the bottom of the ocean. I think anyone who has ever seen them would be hard pressed to disagree. There are countless other artifacts, cannons and anchors all over Florida. There is a deteriorating anchor in front of the Vero Beach post office and others rotting at Art Hartman's. People just didn't know any better.

And the problem is not isolated to just FL. I knew a guy who recovered an intact Great Lakes schooner. It was displayed for a few years but quickly deteriorated to the point that only after about 10 years (after resting on the bottom for nearly 150) that he rented a back hoe and a dumptruck and hauled to to the local landfill. Once again, I think most everyone would agree that this was unfortunate and it would have been better off left on the bottom, for divers to explore and enjoy.

Proper conservation is often times expensive and time consuming. It is easy to recover something in the "glory of the moment of discovery" without really taking the time to think "once I recover this, how am I going to preserve it?" Many times people don't think about this, and this is the irresponsible salvage that I think benefits no one.

We recently discovered a wooden shipwreck in 7,500 feet of water. It would be easy to just start pulling things off the bottom, but that would destroy a beautiful wreck site. Sure it won't last forver, nothing does, but it will still last longer on the bottom than it would if we just started indescriminately recovering objects merely for the sake of recovering them. Especially in the field of deep water archaeology, where new technological improvements are being developed at an incredible pace. Maybe by leaving something on the bottom, something might come along and allow us to study and learn even more than we are capable of today.

I have nothing against recovering artifacts as long as they are going to be properly recorded and preserved. This requires a commitment on the part of the salvor. Unfortunately many salvors are not responsible when it comes to conserving what they recover. Most "insignificant" artifacts tend to be ignored all together and the trend seems to be, what is something worth. Someone on this forum recently found a beautiful unique artifact off the 1715 fleet, and instead of wondering more about the artifact...where did it come from? What was it's purpose? Who made it? What is the story behind it? Many people just dismissed any questions regarding it origins and merely wanted to know "what is it worth!" I guess money makes the world go round, and to ignore that is probably being niave, but sometimes it should be more about the artifact and how truly unique it is and less about "how much is it worth" That being said, I think too many divers are out to recover the "valuable" stuff and don't worry about conservation, especially on items with little or no intrinsic value.

Anyway, sorry for the long winded response.

So in a nutshell

I guess the main argument for in situ preservation is better methods or recording and conservation will be developed
and by nature, most people recover things maybe with good intentions, but don't think about the time and expenses involved in proper conservation. I think the Fort Pierce cannons and similar ones throughout FL speak volumes as to why many archaeologists tend to favor in situ preservation.

Hope this explains things a little better.

 

[Galleon Hunter]

Hey, I'm just trying to answer the orignal posting which was "can anyone explain some of the logic, and thought process behind leaving artifacts in situ."

This isn't a perfect world. Maybe nothing else ever can be learned from "another cannon of the 1715 fleet" but is that any reason to pull it up and let it disintigrate? Significance is all relevant. I mean what one person finds as "significant" might not be important to someone else. Over all I was just trying to make a point that many times things of intrinsic value are taken care of while other less valuable artifacts are recovered but then ignored and left to rot.

I feel if something is significant enough to recover, that person should take the responsibilty to properly conserve that item, and sad to say, that doesn't always happen.

"How much more can be learned from another gold coin, or other common artifact?" We don't know because we don't have a crystal ball. Think about if you were to find a hair at a crime scene 30 years ago...you could photograph it, measure it, do whatever you could do back then, and at some point say we've done everything "how much more could we learn" and probably reach the conclusion nothing, we''ve done everything that can possibly be done. Now flash forward to 2010 and now you can take that same hair, the one you thought you had learned everything there is to learn from, and all of the sudden you can test it's DNA.
Now I am not saying something incredible like DNA testing or something will be developed in regards to something we might learn about that gold coin, but you never know. Don't ever underestimate what future science may hold. Someone told me that the US Govt Patent office was originally supposed to cease to exist in 1900 because at the time (1870's) people thought that there would be nothing left to invent by the time 1900 rolled around.

"How much of this needs to be preserved? How much of it is already preserved in locations with little or no public access at tax payer expense?" Not sure where you are going here. I never suggested EVERYTHING needs to be preserved (just not foolishly destroyed) And not sure about what no public access locations you are referring too.

"In the perfect preservation world that you speak of where will all of this financing come from if not from the private sector?" Once again, I am not advocating that EVERYTHING be preserved, just not recovered unless some answers to that question are considered. "Will it come from the tax payer, again?" It doesn't cost the tax payer anything to leave it on the bottom. "Much of what has been recovered and preserved now came to be because of private interest and private investment" I agree, I work in the private sector so am not sure what "other side" refering too.


I simply believe that all of the above issues should have been investigated and corrected/addressed before in-situ was even considered. I think having done otherwise was/is extremely irresponsible and self-serving. Just my two cents.

 

[VOC]

The big question Archaeologist should answer is:

What is more important the knowledge derived from an artefact or the actual artefact?.

Once you have gained and recorded 99% of the possible information from an artefact does it really matter if that artefact is lost, sold or destroyed ?

Artefacts left in-situ = No further knowledge

Proper recording and publishing is the important standard everyone should be complying to.

Academic Archaeologist should concentrate on filling the gaps in our knowledge rather than documenting and studying what we already know or have a good understanding of.

 

[inletsurf]

We recently discovered a wooden shipwreck in 7,500 feet of water. It would be easy to just start pulling things off the bottom, but that would destroy a beautiful wreck site. Sure it won't last forver, nothing does, but it will still last longer on the bottom than it would if we just started indescriminately recovering objects merely for the sake of recovering them. Especially in the field of deep water archaeology, where new technological improvements are being developed at an incredible pace. Maybe by leaving something on the bottom, something might come along and allow us to study and learn even more than we are capable of today.

I think theres a significant difference between a shipwreck 200 feet off a shore in 10 feet of water, and one that's in 7500 ft of water that should allow two differing sets of rationale. The 7500 ft deep wreck is obviously more stable to the effects of conditions, wave action, and human interaction.

 

[Mackaydon]

I enjoyed reading "theseeker's" referenced article Re: Ecuador. I offer what I believe is one correction to that text. The caption under the pic with all the coins states the 1654 'Capitana' was named 'NS de la Concepcion'. In fact, it was named the 'Jesus Maria de la Limpia Concepcion'. And 'yes' they were professionally cleaned before we divided the treasure with the Ec. government.
Don.....

 

[itmaiden]

In Situ, works well for land sites so that many may benefit from seeing ancient cities etc. It seems that the archies transferred their "policies" towards underwater sites, throwing some "sense" out the door.

The archies don't need the thousands of shipwrecks on the ocean floor. If they want to see the stuff they can drop by the treasure salvors museums.

itmaiden

In doing some reading, I'm having a hard time grasping the logic of archaeologists who support an in-situ philosophy for historic shipwrecks. Even though I may not agree with someone, I still like to try and decipher the logical framework they employ but in this case, I absolutely cannot figure out where they're coming from.

Is it the whole 'wrecks as grave sites' thing? I suppose one might be able to understand this for contemporary wrecks, but in the case of ancient historic wrecks, that concept doesn't hold up under much scrutiny relative to any number of other practices these same archaeologists regularly engage in to recover historical objects and artifacts.

Are the archaeologists who support in-situ for ancient wrecks similarly oriented for, say, underwater fossils? Are they 'better off' at the bottom of the ocean instead of in a museum or to a lesser extent, a collection?

Is it all just the bitter ruminations of collectivist-minded academics and government funded 'historians' who can't get over the private-sector drivers that pay for so much historic exploration? Like, in their perfect world, there would be state-funded public salvors combing the ocean in search of historic wrecks, but since that won't ever happen, they sit in an office somewhere and oppose the private interests who achieve the very same objectives?

What is the basis for these 'in-situ beliefs' ?

I realize asking this question here will probably yield a slanted answer, but a lot of you have been around this stuff forever and have heard the arguments they've made to support their position. I'd kinda like to know where they're coming from, since I totally cannot figure it out and the more books I read on historic salvage, the more convoluted their position appears.

 

[fladiverdown]

There is no logic in the states policies. These wrecks are found economies in many ways. The wealth of knowledge gained far outweighs any negative impacts on the environment and the publics use of the site. Treasure salvors are taxed and pay fees beyond what most businesses pay. Treasure salvors are regulated and scrutinized more than most other businesses. Most salvors I know are truly interested in the history and cultural aspects of their finds. Oh yeah - lot's of other people are also interested to the point that a market is formed and therfor yes a value is developed. Gotta finance the ops. I see our freedoms eroding daily and am mightily tired of it.

 

[LM]

"How much more can be learned from another gold coin, or other common artifact?" We don't know because we don't have a crystal ball. Think about if you were to find a hair at a crime scene 30 years ago...you could photograph it, measure it, do whatever you could do back then, and at some point say we've done everything "how much more could we learn" and probably reach the conclusion nothing, we've done everything that can possibly be done. Now flash forward to 2010 and now you can take that same hair, the one you thought you had learned everything there is to learn from, and all of the sudden you can test it's DNA.
Now I am not saying something incredible like DNA testing or something will be developed in regards to something we might learn about that gold coin, but you never know. Don't ever underestimate what future science may hold. Someone told me that the US Govt Patent office was originally supposed to cease to exist in 1900 because at the time (1870's) people thought that there would be nothing left to invent by the time 1900 rolled around.

I do appreciate you taking the time to articulate some of the ideas involved, whether you're devils advocating or not.

The problem I have with this (the quoted) line of reason is, so many of these objects aren't unique or otherwise flush with information. Even in 1960, we knew that medicine was a boundless field for which we hadn't even begun to scratch the surface. If we were talking space exploration or Moores Law and our capacity to process information, sure. The future is hard to predict for those things, but that's not a valid comparison. We're talking about historical artifacts that, upon putting them under a microscope, is comprehended today in basically the same way it comprehended it 400 years ago. Their value as an educational tool lies not in what they might bring at a Sothebys auction. Their value to mankind lies in the context of their recovery which, at best, isn't much of a scientific endeavor.

Understanding history, for all intents and purpose, may be somewhat dynamic but when you're dealing with standardized historical objects (another coin, another cannon, another port hole, another gold bar), one isn't *intrinsically* more information-rich than the other. The relevance lies in the context in which they were recovered and in-situ does absolutely nothing to further this knowledge, since it precludes recovery to begin with. The whole thing strikes me as a covert pretext, using high-minded ideals like 'learning' and academia to eliminate the principle of private property as it pertains to ownership of historical objects, which, like it or not, has motivated (read: funded) so much exploration since time immemorial.

If we gathered up every known Cob minted in the 17th Century and handed them all over to a well intentioned government funded curator, our knowledge of cobs probably wouldn't be significantly advanced beyond what it is, right now. Let there be no doubt, there are books written about this very thing, pushing this very agenda. Under the purview of cultural patrimony, plenty of places have enacted very aggressive laws all but eliminating a persons right to own this or that. OK, that's up to each culture to decide for themselves, but eliminating the driving imperative to pull history from the ground or from beneath the ocean serves no one but a few idealists with very bizarre logical constructs. I suppose their thinking is that one day, a government will get around to exploring it themselves. I guess it makes sense that those people have a delusionaly high faith in government. After all... That's who signs their paycheck.

There is a happy medium, somewhere, and I don't know what it is. By any rational measure, in-situ is not it.

 

[fladiverdown]

Well said LS!!. Seems you knew the answer to your question before you asked it.? I had just read the Ecuadorian article supplies by "Very Old" and it was late at nite ( for me) so I think I was to fired up to articulate my views as well and in a manner as comprehensive as I would prefer.

After reading hundreds of post on this site I am of the opinion that intelligent, clear thinking is a providence hardly limited to the so - called academics that the state (our tax dollars) bankrolls. The idea of leaving a historic site In Situ when we have such great technology, equipment and preservation techniques available is hard for me to even wrap my mind around. As long as salvors maintain high and honest standards of character where is the problem? I know, I know, I know treasure fever makes people crazy but here and most places, there is supposed to be a state supplied archaeologist on board to monitor operations
Keep up the good works in stimulating our minds