Creaking DoorWhats the diffrence even if they are 18th century battle ships, apart from the goverment getting a cut of the proceeds?.
They don’t have to be that old for the treasury to take an interest, remember HMS Edinburgh, a cruiser sunk in 1942 (while carrying four-and-a-half tons of gold bullion), and a war-grave too.
Creaking DoorDoesn’t Lancaster NX611 ‘Just Jane’ have a Rose rear turret fitted?
Creaking Door…they have refunded my £20 🙂
Result! 😀
Banks – Don’t let them get away with it! :diablo:
Creaking Door…they have refunded my £20 🙂
Result! 😀
Banks – Don’t let them get away with it! :diablo:
Creaking Door…popularity as a point of merit is tricky…..CSI is extraordinarily popular, but is mostly scientific and illogical garbage.
Bingo! Scrap the licence fee and introduce a (draconian) programme fee. But I digress. 😀
Creaking DoorWhy not just ask them? And how does that change or develop our understanding of history? Very little. As in the examples I posted before, that falls into the ‘nice to have’ unimportant compared to rediscovering a city believed mythical, or a whole civilisation.
I wouldn’t say unimportant; it depends on your definition of history, personally I find ‘micro-history’ more interesting because it is easier to relate to and therefore more thought-provoking, but of course you need to have an idea of the ‘big-history’ to really understand it.
History shouldn’t just be for the academics, it should be for everyone. I think ‘Time Team’ has been a great success for professional archaeology, maybe not academically but certainly in broadening its popularity and understanding. I think there are great possibilities for this ‘learning by osmosis’ approach particularly when dealing with more recent history. I’m not knocking the professionals but I also don’t think that the amateur (and amateurish) should be dismissed as just a ‘nice to have’ either.
I think Wreckology falls into this category. Ideally it would be great if it could be conducted more academically but I don’t think its inclusiveness and popular ‘attainability’ should be underestimated either.
Funny that you mentioned rediscovering Troy; until recently I hadn’t realised that it had ever been mythical! I was reading about the deciphering of Linear B for a completely unrelated reason (Enigma) and I seem to remember that the archaeological establishment championed a particular theory and restricted access to their finds and research; only those that supported their theory were allowed to play. Ironically the eventual deciphering of Linear B was made by an outsider, an architect if I remember correctly, an extremely gifted amateur archaeologist but also someone who was academically minded and managed to publish his theories. The supreme irony being that the champion of the wrong theory died before he ever got to read the writings he had coveted so. An isolated case I’m sure, but it does (or did) happen.
I’m not disagreeing with what you’ve said; it’s just interesting to talk about it. (I should fill in some names really but I’m spending too much time reading/writing this thread as it is!)
I’ll read up on Sutton Hoo when I get the chance and thanks for the re-direct on the ‘1421 The Year China Discovered America’. I know almost nothing about China…..it’s the big one, right…..with all the injection-moulding machines? 😀
Creaking DoorYour comments are illuminating. :diablo:
I think you…..think I’m doing engineers down – I’m not.
Good. I did assume you were doing engineers down, after rapping my knuckles for apparently rubbishing archaeologists; it was a cheap shot, couldn’t resist, sorry. 😮
Creaking DoorYour presumption that qualified archaeologists can’t be mechanically qualified as well is wrong.
Now that would be an interesting person to talk to…..if any such person exists.
[Archaeologists] also have access to forensic laboratories that can analyse the content of perfume containers from thousands of years ago – fuel details is no more challenging (and equivalent jobs are often done) and a full evaluation from residues is far more viable for them than any engineer’s workshop.
…because as we all know engineers are grubby blokes with oil under their fingernails who tinker about in a workshop! :rolleyes:
Your comments are illuminating. :diablo:
Creaking Door…but with the sale of the Nash Collection by the RAeS, the museum had little choice but to raise the funds elsewhere, and fast!
What exactly was the Nash Collection exactly?
Creaking DoorIt also has the footage of the remote control Canberra that stalled and crashed in front of the gathered press one day. I should still have a copy on VHS in the cupboard…
This one you mean?
Creaking DoorThose with firsthand experience are, by definition, those least in need of learning about the era.
Actually I meant that the first hand experience of those that lived through this era would be useful to corroborate and explain the findings of excavations, as the excavations happened, for the benefit of those who weren’t around at the time.
It’s all about ‘us’ and now, isn’t it? Try thinking longer term…
If everything is dug up now, there will be nothing for our descendants to discover themselves, and as I said earlier, with their most-likely superior skills at exploring. A disinterred aircraft wreck loses all of its location information, context (look it up) et al.
Point made, but we could say that about today’s professional archaeology couldn’t we? Who is to say what breakthrough may be just round the corner; and will not the archaeologists of the future be cursing us for destroying today’s artefacts contextual (didn’t think I needed to look it up – maybe I do?) information?
All study of history in the modern sense came from, originally, dedicated amateurs – Horace, Schlieman, etc. We are grateful for their work – we just wish they’d been a bit more methodical and careful…
But unrealistic to expect instant archaeological expertise, some blundering about is inevitable, as with any pioneers.
No. It’s all that, provided the history is interpreted by qualified professionals, ensuring it’s real history, not disgraceful balls like the ‘work’ of David Irving or the 1497 book idiot. I expect my history to be provided by qualified people working to a standard and within a framework than ensures it can be trusted and tested, not just some feel good stuff that may be balls. Most aviation archaeologists do a good job historically speaking – but let’s discuss provenance and data relating to bits of wreck that are ‘Battle of Britain’ or off a ‘Spitfire’ or ‘Lancaster’…
But that’s pretty dangerous territory isn’t it; an official view of ‘history’. Qualified professionals have been wrong, and others have just damn-well lied in search of another agenda. I’m not suggesting it is happening in the mainstream today, in most countries at least, but it has happened. I don’t know much of the ‘work’ of David Irving (and you’ve lost me with ‘the 1497 book idiot’) but a least David Irving is on the outside looking in.
As for the provenance of aircraft wreckage…..that’s a whole different (but related) problem.
Surely there is a place for the amateur historian too, and the place where the amateur historian excels IMHO is in collecting the testimony of the people who were there, not perhaps of the ‘big players’ but of the ‘bit parts’ that the professionals often overlook. And if the amateurs lack the professional training to draw reliable conclusions surely it is better that the testimony they do collect is available for us (and the professionals) to make our own judgements later?
I’m a whizz at identifying aircraft bits, and quite good at some pretty obscure niches of British ancient history. Doesn’t make me a historian or an archaeologist – a qualification and training from a recognised institution would do that.
While I wouldn’t say the opposite; a lack of qualification doesn’t make you bad at identifying aircraft bits…..nor will a recognised qualification necessarily make you good at it…..but I take your point. 🙂
Creaking DoorWell it is good and amusing to see the process of selective quotation at work – however as you left in the caveats I applied then I don’t see why you are confused.
I’m not confused; your argument is contradictory, even with the caveats (that I left in to avoid selectively quoting you).
Anyway I’ve enjoyed your posts, particularly the ones that suggested I was confused, I misunderstood, I did not comprehend or that I should try harder to understand. :rolleyes:
Creaking DoorW.W.II isn’t the primary area for archaeology, as both Malcolm and I explained earlier in the thread – archaeology’s primary role is to gather info in periods of pre-history, and then while important, it’s primacy declines as we get more recent.
We already have 99% of the data about W.W.II without digging up aircraft – it’s just not as critical to understanding history or humanity.
There’s no need to rubbish or misinterpret other disciplines because aviation archaeology needs to develop.
Surely the time to be excavating these sites is now while there is still something left to investigate and while those that lived through this period of history are still alive.
Personally, I believe that this period is one of the great successes for ‘history’ in that amateurs have been inspired to investigate and research it, and that through those amateur endeavours a great number of people (myself included) have become interested too.
I’m not ‘rubbishing’ archaeologists, for from it, I just think that if they have no professional interest in excavating aircraft wrecks then they should a least allow enthusiastic amateurs to do so. After all isn’t the ultimate aim of ‘history’ to bring as much information out of obscurity and into the lives of as many people as possible.
Creaking DoorYour question ‘how many excavations of aircraft do you know of that have been done by professional archaeologists without the involvement of amateurs?’ makes mine and James’ point exactly and confirms that you do not comprehend that simply digging up something is not archaeology. There is no need for archaeologists to dig up aircraft wrecks because archaeology is about studying material artefacts in order to expand our knowledge of a period when the material artefacts are available but comprehensive historic records aren’t.
There is, to put as simply as I can, no need to dig up aircraft wrecks because it is a waste of time for professional archaeologists who will learn more about a Spitfire from studying its plans and the preserved examples than anything they might glean from a few corroded remains.
So just so I’ve got this straight I’ve highlighted your words but you still maintain that:
…people who wish to dig up historic plane wrecks being subjected to the same formal conditions and training. That way important sites will be retained instead of ripped into with some digging apparatus for the cheap thrill of finding something historic. Especially as plane wrecks are very very fragile sets of artefacts, and unless there is some question which cannot be answered from the welter of published data available then they should be left.
…archaeology is not a necessary thing where aircraft wrecks are concerned – simply because archaeology is a science that deals with primarily with the study of material remains because things like detailed written or other forms of data are not available. Aircraft are mostly pretty well documented and for all intents and purposes the recovery of a few broken, twisted, burnt or otherwise damaged parts does not add anything to research on them as artefacts in their historical context.
Also we must remember that we are more than 60 years from the end of WW2 and nearly 100 years away from the beginning of WW1. In another 30 or 40 years the material remains of those conflicts are going to assume more importance as new questions continue to be raised about specific matters. That is a compelling reason why the excavation and recovery of artefacts from these conflicts should not be left any longer in the realm of the amateurs.
It is all to easy to forget that the artefacts of the past are the common property of the nation or culture in which they originated. Their proper care and recovery should not be left to the vagueries of amateur enthusiasm. We don’t do that with sites of more traditional archaeological significance nor should we do that with the material remains of those two conflicts.
You see to my mind you can’t have it both ways either these aircraft crash site are important to the professional archaeologists and should be excavated…..or professional archaeologists don’t need them to learn anything in which case they can’t have any argument with anybody else excavating them. So which is it?
I am assuming that in regard to WW2 you are aware that we have many preserved aircraft from the period as well as countless material artefacts, many many millions of documents, photographs, films, sound recordings, personal memoirs etc. concerning its politics, its events and its material artefacts.
Of course, much of it researched, recorded and published by enthusiastic amateurs…..and don’t forget the living, many of those who took part in this period of history are still with us.
Creaking DoorYes you must…
Malcolm, let me ask you a question; how many excavations of aircraft do you know of that have been done by professional archaeologists without the involvement of amateurs?
I’d say that would be a pretty good indication of how the professional archaeologists view the importance of this period of history and the chances of discovering significant new information about it. My suspicion is that the answer to that question will be zero.
Now I don’t have a problem with that, but I do have a problem if professional archaeologists take the view that nobody should be excavating anything except them, even if they’re not interested in excavating those sites themselves.
You see it’s an period of history that I and many others are particularly interested in, we get our ‘cheap thrills’ from it, and although it would be nice to wait the thirty-to-forty years you suggest for the professional archaeologists to take an interest I doubt I’ll live that long.
By the way Malcolm, I wasn’t apologising to you, I was apologising to the originator of this thread for straying off-topic and I’m afraid that I must do so again.
Sign In
