Malcolm McKayAgain I agree with with Andy – Mr McKay should also reflect that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
Gosh…. put me foot in it know haven’t I? Andy and Dilip all grumpy.
Memo to self – never ask serious archaeological questions again, just go with flow.
And “sarcasm being the lowest form of wit” – actually, dear boy, using cliches is.
Malcolm McKayWell ummmm…… Let me offer my sincere apologies for “sticking my oar in”. If I had realised that this was simply a thread for mutual backslapping rather than actually analysing the subject at hand I wouldn’t have introduced dreary old real archaeological concerns into it.
Dilip and Andy you are obviously true gentlemen for having put up with my immature unqualified ramblings.
Having apologised for my temerity in actually becoming involved may I simply summarise what I have learnt –
You didn’t find Bader’s Spitfire but seem to have got a lot of publicity about this. Gosh !!!!
BTW where are the artefacts you did recover, and what has been put in place for their proper conservation? After all by your own admission these must be preserved for future study.
Malcolm McKayI keep missing the point, it seems. I hadnt realised we were back to archaeologists versus anoraks. I think you are making some very cheap points. Or am I alone in thinking so?? Andy Saunders (Actually…I prefer my un-edited first version….anoraks v anoraks!)
Dear boy – I’m so well qualified that none of my points are cheap.
😀
Malcolm McKaySorry…I miss your point old chap. Whats a bit late? Do I take it you are saying that secondary sources are used by historians in general but not those in aviation? Or are you saying aviation historians only use secondary sources, not primary ones? I’m lost now. Andy
Oh good grief – here we go again.
Archaeologists v. Anoraks with Shovels.
Where will it all end?
I know – First Anorak “Oh Gee Wow I’ve just dug up a corroded frame from an aeroplane”
Second Anorak “Oh Gee Wow !!!! The pilot’s widow will just be soooo excited”
First Anorak “Don’t think so mate, the pilot’s still alive”.
Second Anorak “Bummer !!!!”.
And so on until the internet self destructs at page 8573502850538.
😀
Malcolm McKayDear me, the poor old (ancient) Tiger Moth is taking a caning. Recently I’ve built two of them – needed some work but they have come out OK.
I used an Airfix Tiger Moth as the basis for a largely scratchbuilt DH-53 Hummingbird. A few years ago it took a first prize at a show.
Kits are just the opportunity to work your own magic.
Malcolm McKayWell after reading this entire thread from go to whoa over the last week or so, all I have learnt is –
1. Bader’s aircraft was not found.
2. Amateur “Aviation Archaeologists” (read “Anoraks with Shovels”) are held in much higher regard by the great unwashed than real qualified professionals.
3. One of our chaps probably shot down the legless wonder, and
4. If you don’t take care putting on your parachute it can neuter you.
Question –
Was it worth it?
Malcolm McKayI find it odd how an archeaologist is telling these aircraft historians who’ve excavated wrecks in order to further their knowledge of their particular interest in history that they are nothing more than treasure hunters. I don’t mean offence to your profession Malcolm but that attitude seems like pure snobbish piffle to me.
Unless I am missing something vital in this and need it explained in small syllables to put me right, because I’m no archeaologist, but I cannot fathom what the difference between an academic archeologist who digs up mummies (grave robbing!) or dinosaurs or old building foundations etc, and an aviation archeaologist who digs up a wreck from 60 years ago is.
How is it different? You both dig a hole, pull something out, investigate and analyse it to hopefully further your research, and by and large sell it to a museum or collector when finished for preservation – and to pay your expenses.
The only things different I see apart from one group being able to wave their doctorate and the other (in some cases) not, is that the archeaological study of ancient artifacts is much less scientific in a tangible sense and much more based on theory. Some old pot found in the ground can be theorised as to its age, usage, religious meaning etc – but no-one who used or made the pot is here to tell us and it was never photographed or written about at the time. So, it is either a useless piece of pottery, or a theory has to be developed around it to give it meaning and make it important.
Whereas we do know all about Spitfires, who designed them, who built them, who flew them, how and why they were used in WWII combat, and all about their engineering, etc as it’s all documented and eyewitnesses, users, even in some cases the manufacturers of an aircraft still exist – so there’s no need to theorise, it can be factualised. And in an individual case like this dig, you can then use all that fact to build up a picture of circumstance – the missing piece of the jigsaw.
With the pot, we don’t even have a clue about the pot near alone the circumstance in which it came to be buried. You can theorise who may have made it, who may have used it, how they engineered the clay,etc. But it ain’t fact, it’s theory, usually based on comparisions with previous theory. Sometimes no matter how wide of the mark it may be the archeaologist then presents it to the world as ‘fact’ – just like other sciences that cannot prove the theory but present it as the truth – like Geology – has anyone ever seen the earth’s core? No. So who’s to say my theory it’s white chocolate is any less valid?
Anyway, my point is, is it not a good thing to have people researching these wrecks now and getting the facts down for future generations while we know all that surrounding evidence that is fact. Or would you rather wait 500 or 1000 years till everyone connected to a Spitfire is long gone, no more actually exist for whatever reason and many records have disappeared in whatever wars or natural disaters that are to come, and then have some academic archeaologist dig the remains up only to theorise a little about it using their own completely different and removed discourse and assume he knows all about it, despite the fact he may connect the dots quite wrongly? He may assume that this beautifully crafted metal obkject is some ceremonial burial casket blah blah blah like most things archeaologists dig up these days.
So Dave, when you have a dental problem you go to see a plumber and when there is something wrong with your car you ask the local ladies hair stylist to fix it. And I suppose that if you break a leg you get an electrician in to rewire it.
Frankly I find your total reluctance to even accept that archaeology is a little more than some anorak with a shovel or a metal detector hacking away at the ground, indicates that you have some problem with the notion that some areas of human endeavour require a smidge of peer reviewed professional qualifications.
So what does the plumber recommend to fix that filling in the second molar on the right?
No wonder many archaeologists are quite dubious about exercises such as the one that is the subject of this thread.
Talk about dumbing down.
Malcolm McKayMoreover, we found a photo of that particular Spitfire in Johnnie’s album, in which all four propeller blades (one of which we found) can clearly be seen, along with the pilot’s head armour, which I also have. So, unless I had returned those items to the UK, there would be no photographic record of them with the greatest RAF fighter pilot of WW2 etc.
Umm….. but what is the scientific value of that? What does it add to our knowledge? To me, and I would think most people with archaeological qualifications, it has no more scientific value than a snapshot of myself standing on the edge of an excavation with my team working away in the background (I have it framed on my wall). It’s just a happy snap.
Frankly I think all the money and effort spent would have ben put to far better use in preserving and understanding the past if it had been donated to an aviation museum somewhere struggling to preserve a rare aircraft.
Malcolm McKay…The situation over there, therefore, is much like the UK during the 1970s, bit of a free for all. That is the real problem, the French need to get their act together and impose regulations like we have in the UK.
I think that confirms my opinion.
Thank you
Malcolm McKaySo, archaeology is all about recovering physical evidence to fill in the gaps that exist in our evidenc? Well, unless I actually missed the point of what it was I was actually doing, I thought that searching for and excavating the supposed Misseldine, Archer and Montdupil sites was exactly that old chap. Oh….and try telling Alma Bostock that we were glorified relic hunters. Andy Saunders
Ummm…. what was the compelling scientific need? As I said we have complete available data on MkIX Spitfires and we know from the historical evidence what happened to the protagonists so what exactly was the important new data that was acquired?
It seems just a case that anyone with a shovel or an excavator can call themselves an archaeologist.
Malcolm McKayYou don’t need a licence to dig on the continent as the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 does not apply over there.
Umm….. so this rather confirms that we are not dealing with archaeology here but in reality “archaeology aka relic hunting”. My experience is that any genuine site of archaeological significance most definately requires official approval.
Its called heritage protection and it is rather important because it stops vandals with shovels destroying important cultural artefacts. I’ve worked on sites where important finds were destroyed by treasure seekers who caused enough damage to ruin weeks of painstaking and expensive scientific effort.
Malcolm McKayNow I’m confused. :confused:
Did you, or did you not know the identity of the aircraft and hence whether any remains were contained in it?
Junk Collector was adamant you knew.
Moggy
Why so surprised? this is just glorified relic hunting – no science or research. Typical of all TV “archaeology”.
Malcolm McKayRead my post above.
Malcolm McKayThat’s because aircraft are buried in only one or two layers of soil, and crash (usually) where there is no existing archaeological deposit. This allows certain freedom in “shifting mud” without the same responsbility to record each change in soil colour and type, and each find and piece of structure. It doesn’t or shouldn’t mean that you just hoik it out of the ground, but it means that essentially there is one artefact to remove from a single context. So archaeology that has built up over decades takes much longer to dig and record than this single thing that has appeared in the ground quite recently, and with little prior or later activity.
I think it’s one reason why archaeologists have been reluctant to accept aviation archaeology; not that they’re right to be like that about it, just that they are quite different in nature. But much like traditional museums and aircraft museums, we can bring the two closer together by increasing levels of professionalism and responsibility, and applying as much in the way of techniques from the traditional field as possible.
As someone who is actually an archaeologist – First Class Honours Degree, MA. Ph.D; two books, articles, taught archaeology at university level, etc. (gasp, shock, horror) I have always regarded “aviation archaeology” as nothing more than glorified relic hunting with a metal detector. Which, let’s face it, that’s all it is.
However, in regard to one technical point, the ground above a grave site is always, unless there is compelling physical evidence to the contrary, simply treated as disturbed ground where the far more important rules of stratigraphic analysis are not applicable.
The circumstances under which that important rule may be ignored are quite rightly decided by scholars with the appropriate qualifications – not just weekend glory hunters, tomb robbers or TV gurus – most of whom may have the public gaze but not the all important professional trust to make those decisions.That is the reality of archaeological excavation.
In any case there is no need in archaeological terms to excavate a Spitfire wreck because all that we need to know about the artefact is preserved in the physical form i.e. existing airframe, the literature and in photographic or film form.
Archaeology is about recovering physical evidence to fill in the gaps that exist in our evidence. I humbly, and without wishing to insult anyone, suggest that this thread is about relic hunting – not archaeology.
Malcolm McKayI wish you luck on this.
The Princess was a beautiful aircraft.
🙂
Sign In
