VOC
Sr. Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2006
- Messages
- 484
- Reaction score
- 191
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Atlantic Ocean
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Hi Salvor
You may have miss read the meaning of my post.
I have worked with many good Underwater Archaeologist and know some personally very well, but their knowledge often comes up short when it comes to it (but unfortunately they are often too proud to admit it), but the likes of UNESCO say you have to have a Underwater Archaeologist to work with you on every historic site.
Each one of the skills I mentioned is a Degree course in its own right (hydrographic Surveyor, Naval Architect, Historian, Conservator, Computer Programmer, Professional Photographer, Media Studies, Meteorologist etc., etc., and then you get all the various trade skills such as Professional Diver, Inspection Coordinator, Rigger Banksman, Vessel Master, etc., etc., that are all individual professions, but then a Underwater Archaeologist who gets a fleeting glance at each subject is then is regarded by the Cultural authorities such as UNESCO as an expert in all of them.
I believe you cannot do a wreck project properly as Alexandre say’s you should, unless you use professionals in each discipline, If not their lack of knowledge will be fudged over or much the information will be lost or wrongly portrayed. (don’t forget they can only know what they know, but there may be a lot more in each discipline that they don’t know).
When an archaeologist runs a side scan or multy-beam survey he may feel he has done a good job, but a more skilled professional surveyor may get much more information by the correct processing of the same recovered data.
If most Archaeological reports had to go before a court and be cross examined as a murder scene would be, most of their work would be ripped to bits as inadmissible evidence, misleading, or improbable conclusions etc., but unfortunately as the peer review system for Underwater Archaeology is full of patronism, nepotism, and friendships etc., final reports never get the scrutiny that they should have.
I have worked with many Amateur (A vocational) Archaeologist who would run rings around many of the so called professionals, but due to the lack of a degree as an archaeologist they cannot be in charge of a historic wreck project although he may have a degree in another discipline much needed on the site.
I have nothing against Archaeologist per say, but when the get together to prevent others doing what they should have a legal right to do on the pretence it should be left to the “experts” when in reality the “experts” are not really “experts” at all.
You would never employ a Dentist to do a heart transplant just because he has a basic understanding of the bodies internal sytems and carrying out operations etc., so why would you employ an archaeologist to run a marine survey, better to employ a qualified marine surveyor etc.
You may have miss read the meaning of my post.
I have worked with many good Underwater Archaeologist and know some personally very well, but their knowledge often comes up short when it comes to it (but unfortunately they are often too proud to admit it), but the likes of UNESCO say you have to have a Underwater Archaeologist to work with you on every historic site.
Each one of the skills I mentioned is a Degree course in its own right (hydrographic Surveyor, Naval Architect, Historian, Conservator, Computer Programmer, Professional Photographer, Media Studies, Meteorologist etc., etc., and then you get all the various trade skills such as Professional Diver, Inspection Coordinator, Rigger Banksman, Vessel Master, etc., etc., that are all individual professions, but then a Underwater Archaeologist who gets a fleeting glance at each subject is then is regarded by the Cultural authorities such as UNESCO as an expert in all of them.
I believe you cannot do a wreck project properly as Alexandre say’s you should, unless you use professionals in each discipline, If not their lack of knowledge will be fudged over or much the information will be lost or wrongly portrayed. (don’t forget they can only know what they know, but there may be a lot more in each discipline that they don’t know).
When an archaeologist runs a side scan or multy-beam survey he may feel he has done a good job, but a more skilled professional surveyor may get much more information by the correct processing of the same recovered data.
If most Archaeological reports had to go before a court and be cross examined as a murder scene would be, most of their work would be ripped to bits as inadmissible evidence, misleading, or improbable conclusions etc., but unfortunately as the peer review system for Underwater Archaeology is full of patronism, nepotism, and friendships etc., final reports never get the scrutiny that they should have.
I have worked with many Amateur (A vocational) Archaeologist who would run rings around many of the so called professionals, but due to the lack of a degree as an archaeologist they cannot be in charge of a historic wreck project although he may have a degree in another discipline much needed on the site.
I have nothing against Archaeologist per say, but when the get together to prevent others doing what they should have a legal right to do on the pretence it should be left to the “experts” when in reality the “experts” are not really “experts” at all.
You would never employ a Dentist to do a heart transplant just because he has a basic understanding of the bodies internal sytems and carrying out operations etc., so why would you employ an archaeologist to run a marine survey, better to employ a qualified marine surveyor etc.
