marine archaeologist are rubbish

Dear all

I heard a couple of land-based archaeologists saying that marine
archaeologists didn't dig properly.

I got insensed and wrote an article

http://www.newarchaeology.com/articles/divedangers.htm

If anyone has any points they want me to add, please let me know

--
Warm regards
Chris Brown

http://www.newarchaeology.com

newarchaeology wrote:
> I heard a couple of land-based archaeologists saying that marine
> archaeologists didn't dig properly.
>
> I got insensed and wrote an article
> http://www.newarchaeology.com/articles/divedangers.htm
> If anyone has any points they want me to add, please let me know

Have you ever done any underwater archaeology because none of that
rings a bell? Underwater archaeologists don't dig because the current
protocols we work too say do not disturb. Most things cost so much time
and effort to conserve that surfacing something tends to destroy it.

If you want real points talk about surveying and measuring in zero vis.
I've been the dumb end of the tape measure. This is solo diving in
the extreme - you know your buddy is there because the tape is slowly
changing direction. He comes back and waves the clip board at you
and moves you about three times and that's a days diving done.

Also who have you been talking too? Most land based folks I know
say "Rather you than me". Archaeologists know all about cold and wet.

nigelH

"Nigel Hewitt" <nigelh@REMOVETHISnigelhewitt.net> wrote in message
news:bvikpq$fet$2@sparta.btinternet.com...
> newarchaeology wrote:
> > I heard a couple of land-based archaeologists saying that marine
> > archaeologists didn't dig properly.
> >
> > I got insensed and wrote an article
> > http://www.newarchaeology.com/articles/divedangers.htm
> > If anyone has any points they want me to add, please let me know
>
> Have you ever done any underwater archaeology because none of that
> rings a bell? Underwater archaeologists don't dig because the current
> protocols we work too say do not disturb. Most things cost so much time
> and effort to conserve that surfacing something tends to destroy it.
>
> If you want real points talk about surveying and measuring in zero vis.
> I've been the dumb end of the tape measure. This is solo diving in
> the extreme - you know your buddy is there because the tape is slowly
> changing direction. He comes back and waves the clip board at you
> and moves you about three times and that's a days diving done.
>
> Also who have you been talking too? Most land based folks I know
> say "Rather you than me". Archaeologists know all about cold and wet.
>

I must agree with Nigel. I have been the dumb end of a tape measure more
times than I can remember. I have also had to deal with an inexperienced
diver on a survey too which complicated things imensely (on land you can
just say "get lost and get a cup of tea and come back when you have got your
s*** together). I have had the same response from land based archaeologists
as Nigel. Maybe you were talking to newbies. I remember my wife passed her
driving test and for the next few days kept telling me what was wrong with
my driving until I told her to shut up.

Steve

"newarchaeology" <webmaster@newarchaeology.com> wrote in message
news:bvidv5$ctp$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Dear all
>
> I heard a couple of land-based archaeologists saying that marine
> archaeologists didn't dig properly.
>
> I got insensed and wrote an article
>
> http://www.newarchaeology.com/articles/divedangers.htm
>
> If anyone has any points they want me to add, please let me know
>
One point, below 30 meters you would not replace the air with Nitrox. (in
the normal sense of the word)

Nitrox increases the amount of time spent at shallower depths, but at 30
meters you would be looking at Oxygen Toxicity if you went much lower (IIRC
35 meters is the max depth with Nitrox)
Below 30 meters you would be looking at Trimix where some more of the
Nitrogen has been removed say by Helium, and to prevent Oxygen Toxicity you
would lower the O2 content to below 21% meaning that the bottom gas would be
unbreathable at sea level.
While I am not Techie trained I know this much - I am sure that the more
techie divers will be able to expound further on this.

Mike.

"Nigel Hewitt" <nigelh@REMOVETHISnigelhewitt.net> wrote in
news:bvikpq$fet$2@sparta.btinternet.com:

> newarchaeology wrote:
>> I heard a couple of land-based archaeologists saying that marine
>> archaeologists didn't dig properly.
>>
>> I got insensed and wrote an article
>> http://www.newarchaeology.com/articles/divedangers.htm
>> If anyone has any points they want me to add, please let me know
>
> Have you ever done any underwater archaeology because none of that
> rings a bell? Underwater archaeologists don't dig because the current
> protocols we work too say do not disturb. Most things cost so much time
> and effort to conserve that surfacing something tends to destroy it.
>
> If you want real points talk about surveying and measuring in zero vis.
> I've been the dumb end of the tape measure. This is solo diving in
> the extreme - you know your buddy is there because the tape is slowly
> changing direction. He comes back and waves the clip board at you
> and moves you about three times and that's a days diving done.
>
> Also who have you been talking too? Most land based folks I know
> say "Rather you than me". Archaeologists know all about cold and wet.
>
> nigelH
>
>

I agree with Nigel. The archaeologists I know realize that marine
archaeology is a (completely) different bal game, with its' own rules,
procedures and protocols. I haven't heard any of them talk about it in a
demeaning way.

They also know that conservation techniques used for marine archaeological
artifacts are/can be cutting edge. Those techniques can also be of help
when it comes to conserving some of there stuff.


--
Michael Wolf
------------

Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 11:43:59 -0000, "Michael Forster"
<admin@muckworld.com> wrote:

>One point, below 30 meters you would not replace the air with Nitrox. (in
>the normal sense of the word)
>
>Nitrox increases the amount of time spent at shallower depths, but at 30
>meters you would be looking at Oxygen Toxicity if you went much lower (IIRC
>35 meters is the max depth with Nitrox)

Really, I must be dead then It depends on the PP02, which depends
on the %02 in your mix. FWIW I was using 28% to do 40M dives, maybe
not the actual ideal gas but better than air IMO.


--
"reorganising, a wonderful method for creating an illusion of progress"
znvygb:Ian_Blakeley@ubgznvy.pbz (ROT13 all of it to mail me)

Nigel Hewitt wrote:
> newarchaeology wrote:
> > I heard a couple of land-based archaeologists saying that marine
> > archaeologists didn't dig properly. I got insensed and wrote an
> > article http://www.newarchaeology.com/articles/divedangers.htm
>
> Have you ever done any underwater archaeology because none of that
> rings a bell...

Err, the statement "If a wreck is deeper than 30 metres compressed air
needs to be replaced with Nitrox..." is erm, rather wrong. Dangerously
so in fact...

While I'm not an marine archaeologists, nor do I play one on TV, what
you've written has several a factual errors, and reads like a bad piece
of pop sci journalism.

> Also who have you been talking too? Most land based folks I know
> say "Rather you than me". Archaeologists know all about cold and wet.

I also know a couple of land based archaeologists, you meet all sorts
working at a University, I've never heard of any great divide between
the two groups either...

Al.

"Alasdair Allan" <aa@ukrecscuba.org.uk> wrote in message
news:bvj8at$s8jjc$1@ID-188041.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Nigel Hewitt wrote:
> > newarchaeology wrote:
> > > I heard a couple of land-based archaeologists saying that marine
> > > archaeologists didn't dig properly. I got insensed and wrote an
> > > article http://www.newarchaeology.com/articles/divedangers.htm
> >
> > Have you ever done any underwater archaeology because none of that
> > rings a bell...
>
> Err, the statement "If a wreck is deeper than 30 metres compressed air
> needs to be replaced with Nitrox..." is erm, rather wrong. Dangerously
> so in fact...
>
This also reminds me of the time when Time Team were doing some underwater
excavations and Tony Robinson stated that "to extend their time under water
they would be using nitrox which is air with extra nitrogen added...."

Narked at 2m anyone

Mike

"newarchaeology" <webmaster@newarchaeology.com> wrote in message
news:bvidv5$ctp$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Dear all
>
> I heard a couple of land-based archaeologists saying that marine
> archaeologists didn't dig properly.
>
> I got insensed and wrote an article
>
> http://www.newarchaeology.com/articles/divedangers.htm
>
> If anyone has any points they want me to add, please let me know

"If a wreck is deeper than 30 metres compressed air needs to be replaced
with Nitrox or other Gas mixes which in turn impose their own complications
upon the operation since further training is required before a
diver/archaeologist can use them safely. "

Ouch. Wasn't that covered in your basic training?

Alun Harford