Actually I think we are all partly right. Casement should indeed 
strictly be an artillery emplacement (where ammo was certainly kept 
ready for use) but I think the Americans with their usual disregard for 
history  may have eventually debased the term and applied it to any 
vaulted room.


paul

Iain Stuart wrote:

>At the risk of upsetting Paul's rheumatism, and with due deference to his Latin skills, might I point out that you could store ready use ammunition inside a casement during action although this obviously would be short term storage. The number of rounds would have been strictly limited to avoid secondary explosions (this seems to have been one factor in the battle cruiser explosions at Jutland, there was too much ammunition in the turrets).
>
>Regarding the issue with maritime vrs historical archaeology. As the former head of both units in the government agency referred to, my view is that it is better to have the appropriately trained individuals assessing archaeological potential and for every case of half-arsed assessment by a maritime archaeologist and equal one can be found for historical archaeology. As for assessing aircraft and structures in the water nobody has a mortgage on the skills needed. 
>
>In any case in the first phases of an assessment there is really no need to do any underwater work and if underwater inspection is necessary it might prove more efficient and accurate to use remote sensing. 
>
>yours 
> 
>Iain Stuart
>
>[log in to unmask]
>  
>