HISTARCH Archives

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

HISTARCH@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jeremy Green <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 7 Aug 1995 15:43:57 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (47 lines)
Mike Polk wrote the following about the Titanic
 
 
>1. The historical documentation on the disaster itself was exceptional; most
>things about the wreck are known;
 
If this was true why did it take such a long time to find it? Not
everything was known about the wreck, there are some issues that ure still
unclear about the events
 
>3. The artifacts present on the ship are well documented by reference to
>Cunard Lines' records.  They, no doubt, have records on the exact type of
>table service, the types of furniture, radios, everything that was on board.
> Also the ship itself is well known from historical records.
 
One hears this story over and over again. I do not think it is the point.
The study of artefacts will always tell something more about the objects,
the people and the site. While historical records are important, they
provide only part of the story, just as the archaeological record provides
a different but limited part too.
 
>There are many, many times when archaeology is of value in helping to better
>understand an historical event.  I don't believe this really qualifies, which
>is kind of interesting and should give us pause for reflection on other
>situations where we may try to make our science relevant to the situation
>when it is really rather marginal.  It should also give us cause to pick our
>battles cautiously, lest our professional ethics be questioned at some point
>and we be thought more of as mercenaries than archaeologists.
 
I think there is a serious flaw in this argument. Archaeology should not be
relative, nor should its function to be solely to 'understand an historical
event'. I am not advocating anything else except to say that there is
archaeological evidence on the Titanic. If the site is not managed properly
it will effectively be looted and then that information will be destroyed.
Just because it is contentious does not mean that we should turn our back
on it. Otherwise it will be used as a precedent.
 
Jeremy Green
Department of Maritime Archaeology
Western Australian Maritime Museum
Cliff Street
FREMANTLE WA 6160
[log in to unmask]
(61-9)4318440
(61-9)3355351 fax or (3357224)
See us on the WWW at http://mm.wa.gov.au/Museum.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2