posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
elanya at 07:06pm on 08/04/2005
elanya at 07:06pm on 08/04/2005These are all unrelated topics, I assure you ;) Well, okay, maybe the first two aren't completely unrelated. It is tree sex time of the year! there is tree bukkake all over everything. Today, it is windy, and I got to *see* a tree ejaculate its sperms into the air! Talk about a money shot... It was actually kind of creepy. At first I thought that someone had a fire, because it looked like smoke. But no.... Just pollen blowing off the pines.
I was just saying to someone this morning about how amazed I am that my allergies aren't worse here. In terms of plant development, it is full-on spring. Usually when this starts to happen back home, I am dying with allergies. I did notice that I was very wheezy while walking home though.... So I think there are maybe a few explanations. The first is that my allergies are always worse because they tend to hit when my immune system is already weakened by a cold. This year, I'm not sick during 'spring', because it was never really *cold* enough for my usual seasonal illness to manifest, and certainly not for it to get as bad as it usually does. I had a few crappy weeks, but no3-month bronchitis. So, because my immune system is stronger, my allergies aren't as bad, and only my asthma is bothered by the copious amounts of air-born tree cum. Another explanation is that the plants I am most allergic too either a: don't grow here (yaaaay!)or b:(probably more likely, with my luck) aren't in season yet. I'm sure you will hear me whine muchly if that turns out to be the case.
And now that I have amused you all with my digression about the affects of plant sexuality on the human body (is there a special world for tree-furry? Besides hippy?), I am going into another academic discussion. As Carl might say: "this is my attemot at an artful transition." Okay, it isn't very artful, but, suck it up already!
I just came back from the end of the symposium. I thought it was really interesting, and a lot of important things were discussed. I am dissapointed by how the department has handled this, generally. There was no departmental support for the symposium, just like there is no departmental support for the project itself. The one person who is doing research on the vessel has Dr. Ewen, head of the Anthropology department, as his advisor. A lot of people are encouraging ECU (and, in an unspoken implcation, specifically the MS department) to get more involved with it. I think they should too, for a variety of reasons, and not all the ones that were promoted. To be fair, the QAR was one of the reasons that I was attracted to this school. Itturns out that I'm not doing much wirk with it, brut I thik I have wound up at the right school for me anyway.
There are a number of controversial things about this project that I want to address, just for my own edification. Of course, I know that this is a public forum, and I accept that. I'm putting it behind a cut because a: I doubt most people will be interestd in what I have to say, and b: It is probably going to be fairly long. I think it is important for me, as an ECU MS student, to be aware of what is going on, and to make my own assessment of the situation.
Although no one actually came right out and *said* it, at least not in any of the presentations that I attended (and I did miss the entire second session), part of the thrust of this symposium was to seek support for the idea of undertaking a complete excavation of this site. This is something that almost all of the experts consulted (and I do mean real experts.... the top people in the field) recommended, on the panel discussion at the end. The site *is* threatened. There really isn't any question of that, based on the research that has been done. While it had been protected by a natural process of scouring and re-burial in sea-bed sediments, the site has now settled on top of an errosion resistent sedimentary level. this means that it can't sink any lower (ha ha), and that now, the major storms (including the annual hurricanes) that ravage the coast will expose and remove artifacts from the site. Things will be lost, and elements that are currently protected will be exposed and destroyed. This is purely a geological fact. It might be possible to recover the site with more sand, but this would be very costly, and impermanent, and a lot of people feel that this justifies saving everything.
Another reason this is being advocated is because, for the moment, the funding exists. This spring, work will progress, and the state expects to recover a lot more artifacts. They have a new grant, that will cover the recover and conservation of this material. So that's cool. Another thing that was implied during the symposium was that the new conservation facilities have allowed the project to 'catch up' on its backlog of artifacts. I don't really think this is true, because it was also implied that they haven't finished going through everything they have recovered. Still, because of the slow nature of conservation, it may well be that they are ready to *start* conservation on a slew of new items while they complete the recovery of artifacts previously excavated. For anyone reading this who is feeling a little lost, it goes like this: Most of the artifacts recovred from salt water shipwrecks are actually 'excavated' in a conservation lab. What the actual on-site archaeologists bring up are huge lumps of minerals that, due to the mysteries of chemistry, for around metallic objects. Think of it like those science experiments where you make a sugar candy treat by leaving a stick in sugar water for a week.... Only we don't know what is inside! Mind you, I only half-know what I am talking about. The conservation course is *next* term ;) Butr that's the general idea. Things need to be treated before they can be opened to discover the mystery prizes inside, and it has been only recently that the conservation with on the QAR project has gotten to that stage. In any case, if they are right that they aren't going to get themselves horribly backlogged, then I can accept them going to get more stuff. We really do need to know more about the site, period.
However, one of the justificatiosn as to the significance of this site *doesn't* sit well for me, especially in terms of last night's lecture. This is the oldest known shipwreck in North Carolina's waters, period. However, the historic research, while it supports the identification of the ship as the QAR indicated that this is a very a-typical vessel for the region. So, even if it is *old*, is it still significant to North Carolina? Maybe. Certainly the vessels that sparked the birth and interest in Australia's underwater archaeology have pretty much nothing to do with Australia's history.... they were Dutch VOC ships (someone feel free to correct me on the lack of impact to Australian history, but I am pretty sure the Dutch didn't really do much that affected the emergence of Australia as we know it). I am just being cautious about falling into two related archaeological traps: oldest is best, and unique is most interesting. Of course, the QAR is really important to me, personally, because it is related to my own research. But generally speaking, it's main significance may well be that it is Blackbeard's ship, and *not* the fact that it is an old ship, or the oldest found in NC, because it isn't representative. It almost seems like a circular argument, except that it isn't the state (the ones actually in charge of the QAR project) that are promoting it's significance in terms of age. I just want people to be aware of this contradiction: you can't have it both ways. If you accept that it is non-representative, then you have to admit that the best explanation for that is that it is associated with Blackbeard, and that becomes its significance. If you think that it *is* representative... Well, then the argument for it being the QAR gets a lot weaker. In the terms of understanding North Carolina's history, that might be more important, but you'd need to do a lot of good research to contradict the findings that Dr. Butler presented yesterday. The problem becomes that if it isn't representative, is the fact that it might be Blackbeard's ship enough of a justifiication to spend so much time and money on this one particular sites over any other threatened site in the region? I did ask a question pertaining to this... but no one answered. They let themselves get sidetracked back onto my earlier, related question about how important establishing the identity of the vessel is to the interpretation of the site.
I also have to take an issue with the terminology of 'ruling theory' versus 'working hypothesis'. It is okay to have theories people. Theories are not set in stone. That would make it a law, and there are very very few of them. You can have competing theories. That's perfectly acceptable in science. You don't have to relegate an idea to perpetually being considered a hypotesis. You can say you have a theory. Just because you have a theory doens't imply that you are close-minded to other interpretations. When you have a best-fit hypothesis, that's what it becomes: a theory. Get over it. IT'S A THEORY! It *is* wrong to *approach* a problem with theories without testing any hypotheses, but that's not what is being done here, and is not generally what happens in archaeology or any other science. I think people are being overly cautious, and equating the concept of a scientific theory with the concept of a scientific law.
The last thing I want to talk about here is ethics. I heard astonished gasps from some of my peers as some of the aforementioned heads of the field of Maritime Archaeology thanked the head of Intersal, Phil Masters, for finding this site, and turning it over to the state. I heard the same thing when John Broadwater, the head of Maritime Heritage Program, Natural Marine Sanctuaries, thanked the *state* for agreeing to work with Intersal. Intersal is a treasure salvage company. Yup. People equate treasure salvers with looters. They lump them into the same *ethical* category. It is a complicated issue, made moreso by the fact that treasure salvage isn't necessarily illegal. It is kind of like being a prostitute in Nevada, or like being a porn star. Some people think it is really cool, some people think it is horribly immoral, or wrong on any number of counts... But it is still legal, basically, and therefore, the only thing we really have the right to do is be morally outraged (or try to change the laws). Of course, in theory, some people have ruined their careers over working with salvers. The curent curator at the Maritime Museum here in NC is suposed to be one of those people. Only, well, he has a decent job, I've seen him at two different professional conferences, and he doesn't ever seem to lack for coversation partners. Maybe he's not a good example.... Or maybe it just a complicated issue. Of course, in my mind, that is pretty much always the answer. Anyone who knows me should realize that I have an incredible talent for over-complicating things, or for rendering grey things that should be black and white. I am getting off track here though, I don't want to get into a debate over whether or not treasure salvage is right or wrong. I think that it is ethically wrong for a professional arcaheologist to take things off sites for sale or for purely personal use, or to do *anything* to sites or artifacts that isn't properly recorded. I don't know that we have the right to enforce our model of professional ethics onto a profession that has completely different (if opposing) values, but I don't know what the best way to resove that conflict is.
However, when such a company *does* do 'the right thing' in seeking professional assistance, well... What do we do? Do we make it hell on earth for them to get anything done, like Massachussets did to Barry Clifford? Or do you take your control where you can? As the old addage says, keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Certainly, some firms will attampt to employ archaeologists, especially young impressionable ones, as a veneer of respectability. But I don't think that's what's happened here. I don't think nearly as much could have been accomplished on this site, and not to the standards that have been kept, if that were the case. I will give credit to the state people for having some judgement of character, and not jumping into this blindly. I think it is better for us, as a proffession, to encourage them to do the right thing when they are sincere about it.. However, just because the state is working with salvers (and I don't even really know to what extent they continue to be involved, except in raising money and what have you) on this one project doesn't mean that they have to support any other project that said salvers are involved with. They will continue, I expect, to keep them to the legally required standards, and encourage them to do more than that. I could say more, but I think I am reaching the limits of my coherence. If anyone has any comments to make, I would love to hear them!
Okay, I am tired, and I only had quiche for lunch, and it was overly infested with sundried tomatoes, so I am going to go have a bit of a liwe down before I get down to the really important business of the day: gaming.
I was just saying to someone this morning about how amazed I am that my allergies aren't worse here. In terms of plant development, it is full-on spring. Usually when this starts to happen back home, I am dying with allergies. I did notice that I was very wheezy while walking home though.... So I think there are maybe a few explanations. The first is that my allergies are always worse because they tend to hit when my immune system is already weakened by a cold. This year, I'm not sick during 'spring', because it was never really *cold* enough for my usual seasonal illness to manifest, and certainly not for it to get as bad as it usually does. I had a few crappy weeks, but no3-month bronchitis. So, because my immune system is stronger, my allergies aren't as bad, and only my asthma is bothered by the copious amounts of air-born tree cum. Another explanation is that the plants I am most allergic too either a: don't grow here (yaaaay!)or b:(probably more likely, with my luck) aren't in season yet. I'm sure you will hear me whine muchly if that turns out to be the case.
And now that I have amused you all with my digression about the affects of plant sexuality on the human body (is there a special world for tree-furry? Besides hippy?), I am going into another academic discussion. As Carl might say: "this is my attemot at an artful transition." Okay, it isn't very artful, but, suck it up already!
I just came back from the end of the symposium. I thought it was really interesting, and a lot of important things were discussed. I am dissapointed by how the department has handled this, generally. There was no departmental support for the symposium, just like there is no departmental support for the project itself. The one person who is doing research on the vessel has Dr. Ewen, head of the Anthropology department, as his advisor. A lot of people are encouraging ECU (and, in an unspoken implcation, specifically the MS department) to get more involved with it. I think they should too, for a variety of reasons, and not all the ones that were promoted. To be fair, the QAR was one of the reasons that I was attracted to this school. Itturns out that I'm not doing much wirk with it, brut I thik I have wound up at the right school for me anyway.
There are a number of controversial things about this project that I want to address, just for my own edification. Of course, I know that this is a public forum, and I accept that. I'm putting it behind a cut because a: I doubt most people will be interestd in what I have to say, and b: It is probably going to be fairly long. I think it is important for me, as an ECU MS student, to be aware of what is going on, and to make my own assessment of the situation.
Although no one actually came right out and *said* it, at least not in any of the presentations that I attended (and I did miss the entire second session), part of the thrust of this symposium was to seek support for the idea of undertaking a complete excavation of this site. This is something that almost all of the experts consulted (and I do mean real experts.... the top people in the field) recommended, on the panel discussion at the end. The site *is* threatened. There really isn't any question of that, based on the research that has been done. While it had been protected by a natural process of scouring and re-burial in sea-bed sediments, the site has now settled on top of an errosion resistent sedimentary level. this means that it can't sink any lower (ha ha), and that now, the major storms (including the annual hurricanes) that ravage the coast will expose and remove artifacts from the site. Things will be lost, and elements that are currently protected will be exposed and destroyed. This is purely a geological fact. It might be possible to recover the site with more sand, but this would be very costly, and impermanent, and a lot of people feel that this justifies saving everything.
Another reason this is being advocated is because, for the moment, the funding exists. This spring, work will progress, and the state expects to recover a lot more artifacts. They have a new grant, that will cover the recover and conservation of this material. So that's cool. Another thing that was implied during the symposium was that the new conservation facilities have allowed the project to 'catch up' on its backlog of artifacts. I don't really think this is true, because it was also implied that they haven't finished going through everything they have recovered. Still, because of the slow nature of conservation, it may well be that they are ready to *start* conservation on a slew of new items while they complete the recovery of artifacts previously excavated. For anyone reading this who is feeling a little lost, it goes like this: Most of the artifacts recovred from salt water shipwrecks are actually 'excavated' in a conservation lab. What the actual on-site archaeologists bring up are huge lumps of minerals that, due to the mysteries of chemistry, for around metallic objects. Think of it like those science experiments where you make a sugar candy treat by leaving a stick in sugar water for a week.... Only we don't know what is inside! Mind you, I only half-know what I am talking about. The conservation course is *next* term ;) Butr that's the general idea. Things need to be treated before they can be opened to discover the mystery prizes inside, and it has been only recently that the conservation with on the QAR project has gotten to that stage. In any case, if they are right that they aren't going to get themselves horribly backlogged, then I can accept them going to get more stuff. We really do need to know more about the site, period.
However, one of the justificatiosn as to the significance of this site *doesn't* sit well for me, especially in terms of last night's lecture. This is the oldest known shipwreck in North Carolina's waters, period. However, the historic research, while it supports the identification of the ship as the QAR indicated that this is a very a-typical vessel for the region. So, even if it is *old*, is it still significant to North Carolina? Maybe. Certainly the vessels that sparked the birth and interest in Australia's underwater archaeology have pretty much nothing to do with Australia's history.... they were Dutch VOC ships (someone feel free to correct me on the lack of impact to Australian history, but I am pretty sure the Dutch didn't really do much that affected the emergence of Australia as we know it). I am just being cautious about falling into two related archaeological traps: oldest is best, and unique is most interesting. Of course, the QAR is really important to me, personally, because it is related to my own research. But generally speaking, it's main significance may well be that it is Blackbeard's ship, and *not* the fact that it is an old ship, or the oldest found in NC, because it isn't representative. It almost seems like a circular argument, except that it isn't the state (the ones actually in charge of the QAR project) that are promoting it's significance in terms of age. I just want people to be aware of this contradiction: you can't have it both ways. If you accept that it is non-representative, then you have to admit that the best explanation for that is that it is associated with Blackbeard, and that becomes its significance. If you think that it *is* representative... Well, then the argument for it being the QAR gets a lot weaker. In the terms of understanding North Carolina's history, that might be more important, but you'd need to do a lot of good research to contradict the findings that Dr. Butler presented yesterday. The problem becomes that if it isn't representative, is the fact that it might be Blackbeard's ship enough of a justifiication to spend so much time and money on this one particular sites over any other threatened site in the region? I did ask a question pertaining to this... but no one answered. They let themselves get sidetracked back onto my earlier, related question about how important establishing the identity of the vessel is to the interpretation of the site.
I also have to take an issue with the terminology of 'ruling theory' versus 'working hypothesis'. It is okay to have theories people. Theories are not set in stone. That would make it a law, and there are very very few of them. You can have competing theories. That's perfectly acceptable in science. You don't have to relegate an idea to perpetually being considered a hypotesis. You can say you have a theory. Just because you have a theory doens't imply that you are close-minded to other interpretations. When you have a best-fit hypothesis, that's what it becomes: a theory. Get over it. IT'S A THEORY! It *is* wrong to *approach* a problem with theories without testing any hypotheses, but that's not what is being done here, and is not generally what happens in archaeology or any other science. I think people are being overly cautious, and equating the concept of a scientific theory with the concept of a scientific law.
The last thing I want to talk about here is ethics. I heard astonished gasps from some of my peers as some of the aforementioned heads of the field of Maritime Archaeology thanked the head of Intersal, Phil Masters, for finding this site, and turning it over to the state. I heard the same thing when John Broadwater, the head of Maritime Heritage Program, Natural Marine Sanctuaries, thanked the *state* for agreeing to work with Intersal. Intersal is a treasure salvage company. Yup. People equate treasure salvers with looters. They lump them into the same *ethical* category. It is a complicated issue, made moreso by the fact that treasure salvage isn't necessarily illegal. It is kind of like being a prostitute in Nevada, or like being a porn star. Some people think it is really cool, some people think it is horribly immoral, or wrong on any number of counts... But it is still legal, basically, and therefore, the only thing we really have the right to do is be morally outraged (or try to change the laws). Of course, in theory, some people have ruined their careers over working with salvers. The curent curator at the Maritime Museum here in NC is suposed to be one of those people. Only, well, he has a decent job, I've seen him at two different professional conferences, and he doesn't ever seem to lack for coversation partners. Maybe he's not a good example.... Or maybe it just a complicated issue. Of course, in my mind, that is pretty much always the answer. Anyone who knows me should realize that I have an incredible talent for over-complicating things, or for rendering grey things that should be black and white. I am getting off track here though, I don't want to get into a debate over whether or not treasure salvage is right or wrong. I think that it is ethically wrong for a professional arcaheologist to take things off sites for sale or for purely personal use, or to do *anything* to sites or artifacts that isn't properly recorded. I don't know that we have the right to enforce our model of professional ethics onto a profession that has completely different (if opposing) values, but I don't know what the best way to resove that conflict is.
However, when such a company *does* do 'the right thing' in seeking professional assistance, well... What do we do? Do we make it hell on earth for them to get anything done, like Massachussets did to Barry Clifford? Or do you take your control where you can? As the old addage says, keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. Certainly, some firms will attampt to employ archaeologists, especially young impressionable ones, as a veneer of respectability. But I don't think that's what's happened here. I don't think nearly as much could have been accomplished on this site, and not to the standards that have been kept, if that were the case. I will give credit to the state people for having some judgement of character, and not jumping into this blindly. I think it is better for us, as a proffession, to encourage them to do the right thing when they are sincere about it.. However, just because the state is working with salvers (and I don't even really know to what extent they continue to be involved, except in raising money and what have you) on this one project doesn't mean that they have to support any other project that said salvers are involved with. They will continue, I expect, to keep them to the legally required standards, and encourage them to do more than that. I could say more, but I think I am reaching the limits of my coherence. If anyone has any comments to make, I would love to hear them!
Okay, I am tired, and I only had quiche for lunch, and it was overly infested with sundried tomatoes, so I am going to go have a bit of a liwe down before I get down to the really important business of the day: gaming.
sleepy
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Grief, that's horrible. Sorry.
(no subject)
... so, either way, there is a chance that good will come of it. It makes sense to lump the good that can come of it together and talk about both of them if you're asking "What value might this site contain?" If we talk pure probability, perhaps those reasons combined hold enough promise to prioritize it over other sites. Given that the focus appears non-specific (i.e. you're not looking specifically for Blackbeard's vessel or whatnot), I can see both being worthy of consideration. Until they find out whether it is or not, they'll keep panning for gold (fools' or otherwise) there.
Regarding salvers, I would tend to agree. While I don't fully understsand the situation, encouraging them to do the right thing is good, but also no reason to stop keeping an eye on them.