I didn’t say offensive. I said hostile. That is my perception – although I may well be misreading you and, perhaps, alone in that perception. Maybe Rocketeer wont see it that way?

One question: in your previous posts I believed (perhaps incorrectly?) that you were saying that wreck recovery was not archaeology. I agreed with you on that. You now seem to be saying that it is. So what exactly are you saying? Its not archaeology? Or, really, it is? Sorry. I am just confused by your apparently mixed messages.

No that was a general reference to archaeology from my own experience pointing out the difficulty in actualluy obtaining permission. Not to recovering wrecked aircraft – don’t get me wrong I don’t have a personal antipathy to recovering wrecks I just don’t accept from the point of view of an archaeologist that it currently constitutes archaeology which I hope that my previous explanation have made clear.

Malcolm

I am sure that Rocketeer will, in time, answer for himself. Meanwhile I would like to come to his defence since your posting seems a little hostile.

What’s hostile about the questions? – they were exactly the sort that would be asked of any professional archaeologist seeking permission to dig a site. That is part of the discipline and science of archaeology (another one is not burying one’s picnic rubbish on the site).

You have to have permission to dig from the relevant authorities and before you get that one of the things you have to clearly demonstrate is what exactly your dig is intending to achieve. Archaeology is a destructive form of investigation, once a site is dug there is no putting it back the way it was for others to check again in the future, so the custodians of a nation’s heritage tend to be very careful about who they hand permits out to. That incidently is why parts of a site are left untouched.

The questions were quite valid and direct – if someone finds a direct question about their thesis and methodology offensive then they are in the wrong business.

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?

Well 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.

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.

Simply put I didn’t see that as an apology – you misunderstood my point which was you should try harder to understand the difference between properly qualified archaeologists and enthusiastic amateurs.

Your 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.

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. 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 before we go off on a “let’s bash the professionals because they don’t understand how desperately enthusiastic we are” kick remember that those professionals did a lot of hard slog study and made a lot of financial sacrifices to get those qualifications that are so despised by the amateurs, but which are necessary to ensure that a nations’ heritage is protected. Perhaps these enthusiastic amateurs who are so keen might like to show their bona fides by undertaking the same somewhat trying and well-disciplined path. After they have done that and seen the view from the professionals’ side of the fence they may understand the broader picture and that the study of the past is not just simply the accumulation of artefacts to satisfy a private hobby.

I simply put that forward to illustrate the fact that so called “professionals” have been called in to deal with recent recoveries of wartime aircraft crash sites and made an utter fist of it. I cited two cases in my previous post.

“An utter fist of it” – by whose standards, and what is the evidence? I would not pay too much credence to the criticisms of amateurs in any case involving archaeological excavations simply because their lack of specific training may be colouring their interpretation of the way in which a very difficult task is managed.

Correct excavation and recovery of fragile items is something that does require a modicum of training – I often wonder why these oft cited amateurs whose work puts poor helpless professionals to shame has not led to the logical conclusion which is the abolition of courses in archaeology.

I think you are confusing speed of excavation with success of excavation.

No! I regret to say that aircraft enthusiasts should only be allowed to possibly pin-point the precise spot where an a/c may have impacted the ground. They should NOT, under any circumstances, be allowed to take part in the possible excavation unless they have had archaeological training AND are under the direction of qualified supervisors. There is nothing worse than an enthusiastic amateur!

Absolutely agree – sites that have been picked over by the unqualified in search of cheap thrills or “history” have usually had any scientific value destroyed.

In any case for an archaelogist getting formal approval to actually dig a site is a long complex procedure. Part of which is being able to demonstrate that you have besides the actual know how, important things like sufficient funding to cover the often large expenses involved and access to the appropriate scientific resources for analysis and conservation. And finally you must demonstrate that you will be able to publish it in the appropriate journals so that other scholars have access. Nothing annoyed me more than archaeologists who would dig sites then go on for years without even publishing preliminary reports. In those situations they should never have dug in the first place as the knowledge gained was effectively still lost.

The matter of funding is very important because any fool can dig something up but once an artefact is recovered it may need immediate conservation to protect it from deterioration, it will need analysis of its material and historic characteristics by qualified people (most of whom are both busy and expensive) using expensive scientific techniques or else its significance and in many cases survival will be either unrecognised or irretrievably lost and finally its long term preservation must be ensured. That involves using valuable and limited museum space.

In addition approval may depend upon whether or not we need another whatever excavated because there may actually be no need as there are no pressing matters that need resolution. In which case it is better to leave a site untouched so that if questions arise in the future there is a bank, if you will, of sites that can be excavated using new techniques designed to answer those questions. Just digging something up and shoving it in another storage tray in a museum without a real plan as to why you are digging it is not sound scientific procedure, but something that borders on antiquarianism.

There is also another thing to consider in the matter of human remains. Although we approach it with relative detachment it is still moving to see how a body has been buried and note that at some time in the past that person was a human being for whom others felt love and showed that in the way they prepared the body for its trip into eternity. Whatever we may feel about funerary ritual we must also respect that the body was placed in a way that reflected others’ beliefs. Understanding those beliefs gives us another window into their lives and our past.

Concerning James’ remark about there being no formal qualifications for aviation archaeologists. As this is simply a branch of industrial archaeology it is high time that there was, with the 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”. Strong sentiments I know, but as a former professional archaeologist I see no reason why these people should be treated any differently to someone who invested a lot of time and effort into acquiring the appropriate qualifications and field experience. 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.

Having, as an archaeologist, excavated my fair share of human remains the procudures for this sort of thing are much the same regardless of the age of the burial. So whether they are a WW2 crash site or bronze age they all require painstaking care and notification.

Of course there is a difference in our emotional obligation in that a recent war grave or death site may contain the remains of someone who has living close relatives and that naturally must be a consideration.

I was about to caption the bomb instruction image, but my girlfriend is Irish and i would get into trouble…….

You mean

“Watch carefully Oi’m only going to do this the once”

😀