Warbird Information Exchange

Hi all,

I have wanted to weigh in on this topic for quite some time. However, my own time constraints have prohibited this. So I will try to now.

As regarding the term archeology. I would ask this question. Is the archeology of any particular airframe or site, for the purpose of recovery of parts, or just to find out what actually happened to the the object of study ? I ask this because, while many would make the argument, that recovering viable components from a wreckage site, provides examples for patterns for the flyable and static restorations of the existing aircraft. Still, with that being said, there are so many airframes, whose existance is in doubt as to where and why it went down, that with respects to the crew who flew the aircraft on it's last mission, the whole study would be as if it were in some way, to my own way of thinking, akin to grave robbing. Now I realize that that terminology is somewhat distressing to some. And I offer my apologies for this. But this is how I feel about it.

Take the case in point of the B-24 "Lady Be Good" who for years illuded being found, and until recently, if I recall it correctly, the airframe has been an objest of interest of recovery and being brought home to the States. Is that archeology or a recovery effort to recover both the airframe and the crew's remains ?

Or, perhaps, would this be considered a case study for archeology. The B-29 Doc, and the additional remnants of B-29 airframes recovered from China Lake Weapons Testing Range. While Doc is being restored to flight worthy status,, and I believe rightfully some, were the rest of the airframe hulks part of an historical archeology study type item, or were they recovered to provide themselves as a parts resource for existing airframes and their respective restorations ?

This topic also, at least for me, raise the question of actually flying the aircraft that are or could be considered rare. As a case in point, I would submit for discussion, the Mid Atlantic Air Museum's effort to breathe life into a P-61 Black Widow. While I was a member, back some time ago, of this fine organization, the fact that there are only, perhaps, five known P-61 airframes known to exist, is it practical or perhaps really warranted to fly something of a very rare nature, such as the Black Widow.

Now, I want you to consider that I am now and always have been a serious Warbird enthusiast, and maintenance proffessional of these aircraft. And I am of the mind that is there is at least more than one of the type, then one would be a blessing to see flyable. But if it is an "only child" of a long ago "dead breed"....then that plane should stay grounded. Again, I'll cite an example of the Brewster Buffalo. This plane should not take to the air, even it is done and proven to be right down to the manufacturer's blueprints and spec's, or better. But I am getting off track abit.

The topic is archeology and I should stay on point. I believe, that if you are going to do an archeological study of a particular aircraft of airframe, then you should be somewhat limited in scope of what you can do. Archeology for the purpose of recovery and restoration, is another story. And that, at least I feel it so anyway, is a much touchier subject to tackle here.

Just my two cents for what they are worth,

Respectfully,

Paul

I most definitely feel that Wreck Hunting is archeology.

To make a long story short without the individuals who put out their money and even risk their lives to search for and recover airplanes there would not be much of a Warbird movement today. Same goes for wreck diving and shipwrecks.

As these efforts grew over the years a corresponding government effort to control these activities has risen. Most, but not all, of these people are building their own little regulatory empires within government and could care less about the peasantry (us) or the airplanes, for that matter.

I also want to remind those who are reading this now that it is a serious federal crime to remove any artifact or to salvage any part of a war craft, be it ship or airplane (of any nation, anywhere). This was part of the Homeland security act.

It is a serious matter and many in the diving community are fighting this now. Several of my friends and colleagues have found themselves in serious trouble with Homeland Security. (for taking souvenirs from sunken ships)

I find it incredible that that an Agency that is supposed to defend it's citizens against foriegn terrorists is using taxpayer money to persecute and terrorize US citizens and to feather their own nests. Apparently the terrorist threat is not great enough to command all of their resources and attention.

The Navy was always pretty bad as those of us involved in the Hellcat recovery by the Quonset Air Museum can attest.

In my opinoin, certain elements of government are out of control and dangerous.

_________________
Capt. Lou

www.wreckhunters.net

I've looked and looked at many institutes of higher learning and I have yet to find a course on anything called "Aviation Archaeology". So, I can only conclude that there's no such thing, and so there's no one qualified to call themselves an Aviation Archaeologist.

In my opinion, it's just a term that some "Wreck Chasers" (I believe over in the UK) started giving themselves to make what they did sound more important, more regal if you must.

When Al Redick, Jim Maloney, John Muszala and myself went to Canada to bring back the Martin B-26s for Dave Tallichet, we didn't call ourselves anything. We just looked at ourselves as an aircraft recovery operation.

Okay, so we took pictures to sort of document the whole affair (after all it was the first big recovery of its kind) and I wrote the story about the operation, we sure as hell didn't lay out grids to show where each and every piece was in relation to the main part of each aircraft. No one cared then, cares now or will ever care.

If an aircraft flew into a mountain (it did happen you know) fifty or sixty years ago, and most of the wreckage was removed after a few years, who's to say what remains on the surface is all that's left. You might have to dig to find anything, and after that many years of erosion, what you find and where you find it won't necessarily tell you anything about the accident.

So, because archaeology (itself) is a science of recovery and wreck chasing, wreck hunting or wreck recovery is not, I would vote NO.

Dik is right. There is not, never will be, and never can be any such thing as aviation archaeology because there is no need for such a thing. Real archaeology is practiced when written and other records (i.e., history) is inadequate to answer important questions about a society. Most often it is used to explore societies that created no written records because they didn't have writing, or most of whose written records have been destroyed, so that the much less efficient study of physical evidence has to be resorted to. Those conditions are not true of any 20th-century society sufficiently advanced to have aviation. Everything we need to know is well documented. There are simply no important questions for "aviation archaeology" to answer, and so-called aviation archaeologists have never even asked, let alone answered, such a question. All they have unearthed is trivia about, say, the circumstances of a specific plane crash.

This is a very interesting topic to me since I was an avocational archeologist before getting interested in hunting for wrecks.

Many of the points made I have heard discussed in the archeological field of its own members. A number of archeologists can be classified as "diggers". These archeologists go from excavation to excavation without ever "getting around" to publishing their findings. They do write on particularly interesting finds, but often leave out the more holistic approaches to their field work.

Wreck hunting can certainly be classified as archeology if the sites are properly documented. I would support a uniform code of documentation to be used by the field. If there are no college classes on the subject, it is probably time to start some.

As far as the need for archeology, it was needed before the time that events were recorded and is needed just as much now that things are written down. All you need to do is witness a car accident to see that there are many sides of a story, often that conflict with each other. Archeological method can be used to try to determine the truth. (Measuring those skid marks and interviewing witnesses is a form of archeology as well).

Examples of the weaknesses of written accounts can be found throughout history. When Ethan Allen took Fort Ticonderoga during the American Revolution his book declared that he ordered the commanding officer to "surrender in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress". Everyone else there had heard him order " come out of there you dirty rat!".

Archeology obviously can't help with spoken words, but the point is that written documentation does not always ensure the reliability of the account.

As far as the practice of excavating with large equipment, this is not without precident in archeology. In flood plain or desert areas with proper initial testing it is fairly common to take a few feet off with power equipment to get to the areas of interest.

-Darren

My feelings exactly, Darren! And better stated! There will always be treasure hunters, but, especially after listening to Larry W.'s description and history of the wrecks and recoveries that he's been involved with, if aviation archeology
is not recognised, then every time a crew clears a forest, plows a field or excavates a hole in the ground and finds a pile of old metal, instead of calling an archeologist to determine what they have found, they'll call a dump truck to haul their Treasure to the local scrap metal dealer, 'cause there is GOOD MONEY in aluminium ingots and cast iron And people WILL SCRAP anything for a few dollars. I worked in a scrapyard, crushing cars in the early 80's. I put many cars that were rare then, through the crusher. Now, just like with warbirds, people are rebuilding these same types out of rotting hulks, because there are so few available. I even crushed one 1962 Buick that the ONLY visable problem it had was the broken windshield from were they threw a refridgerator through it that they were also bringing to the yard. And this was one of those hard to come by(even then) compound wrap-around windshields. I mean this car still had the clear plastic seatcovers that cars used to come with when they were new! With all the documented wrecked planes around here that can't be found, it's time to learn how to how to sceintificlly document those that are found and don't match the local or official legends!

Passing the soapbox-NOW

_________________
I never said the jokes were Good, they're just Free! You gets whatchyas pays for!

EXCUSE ME?

Just where is this treasure in old aircraft wrecks you're talking about? Other than some old stories of some crashed aircraft carrying a lot of gold, I've never seen anything that could be classified as treasure.

I know for a fact that if, as you say, a crew clearing a forest comes across a pile of metal (aircraft) they sure as hell don't call in any archaeologist. The first thing they do is to check it out themselves, mostly to see if any remains are in it. If they find any, they then call in the local authorities who, if necessary, call in the military.

After that, if the metal isn't interferring with their job they'll ignore it, or even worse, call the Sierra Club to come and remove it for the scrap value. This has happened many times in Southern California, especially during the sixties and seventies. The Sierra Club loves to clean up the forests. The worse I can remember was a Martin B-10 out of March Field that was scrapped out of the mountains near San Bernardino. And there have been countless others.

And don't say that that was a long time ago, because they still do it. Although I am surprized that the B-17C wreckage wasn't cleaned out long before now. Maybe they thought it was just to inexcessable to bother with, but now the USFS looks at it as a money maker. That's because people now have to pay (adventure pass) to walk in the woods.

And, as far as using your car anthology, the only way a car becomes rare is if very few are made or, if mass produced, most are destroyed. So you helped made other 1962 Buicks more valuable by crushing the one you did.

So, once again, there is NO such thing as Aviation Archaeology. Just because you dig a hole doesn't make you an archaeologist.

Is that how the March Field Museum got the B-10 nose turret they have on display? If the rest of the wreck was in as good shape as that piece was...

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

And in what peer-reviewed journal were the findings from that recovery published?

Look, my office here at work is a real mess. It needs cleaning up. Now, I could get a PhD in Archaeology, lay out a grid, and use the most rigorous archaeological methods to do it. I could note the position of every piece of paper, pen, and used napkin that I find. When I'm done, maybe I'll have learned something that I'd forgotten about the order in which I did some things on a particular day. Will I then be an archaeologist? No, I'll be someone who uses archaeological methods and has an exaggerated sense of self-importance. And the proof of that will come when I try to publish my findings. Despite the high quality of my work, nobody will care because I have chosen a subject inappropriate for archaeology and asked no important questions.

The point being that we need to distinguish between archaeology and use of archaeological methods. A plane crashed on a wooded mountain in 1943. We know when it crashed, the type of plane, the serial number, the identities of the occupants, whether they survived, what kind of mission it was engaged on, and possibly why it crashed. Even those facts are not really important in the scheme of things, but we know them before going to the site. What important questions are left to be answered by archaeological examination? Only trivial details of the incident, of interest to a handful of buffs. It is a lot more like my messy office than King Tut's tomb.

I'm not ruling out that someday, somewhere, examination of an aircraft wreck site could teach us something important, but AFAIK it has never happened and cannot happen with respect to any wreck that I have heard of being investigated. It certainly will never happen frequently enough for a meaningful field of "aviation archaeology" to exist.

Previous comment originally made (and now voluntarily retracted) amicably.

I never intended to add fuel to the burn...my bad if I did.

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

To the Col.

If you're talking about the B-25 in the lake, that was set up as a big production for the press.

And, what monumental pieces of information did these State and Federal archaeologists provide.

They probably sat on shore and, when the aircraft broke the surface, said "Yes, that's a B-25, I think."

As far as how many wreck sites have I visited - I'm afraid that's classified.

And, as for the B-17C, it didn't become important to the USFS until articles starting appearing in some aviation magazines, and people started showing up wanting to know where it was. Thus, it makes money.

And another thing, please learn how to spell. Thanks.

Everybody chill out. Have a civil discussion and not a flame fest. This topic is one click away from being locked up and shut away so everyone behave themselves.

_________________
Scott Rose
Editor-In-Chief/Webmaster
Warbirds Resource Group - Warbird Information Exchange - Warbird Registry

Be civil, be polite, be nice.... or be elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------
This site is brought to you with the support of members like you. If you find this site to be of value to you,
consider supporting this forum and the Warbirds Resource Group with a VOLUNTARY subscription
For as little as $2/month you can help ($2 x 12 = $24/year, less than most magazine subscriptions)
So If you like it here, and want to see it grow, consider helping out.



Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.

Follow us on Twitter! @WIXHQ

Let us review this message:

Ok(Okay) DIK,

As for treasures(,) how come (did - word not needed) the guys (went) (go - word not needed) up and recover(ed) the( )B-17 in Cananda(Canada?) (Was)was it because it was there(,) no(?) (It was) because it(')s worht(worth) $$$(,) which means it (is) a treasure correct.(?)

The answer is NO. It was/is just a recovered aircraft. A treasure will be spent on restoring it though.

As for the Arch(aeology) guys invovled(involved) with the B-25(,) they actually did a( )lot of on site work(.) (They)they mape(mapped) the wreck before it was raised (and) took plenty of photos after it was raised.

So now we know how the bottom of the lake looked before and after the aircraft was removed. And I guess that all of the people that took pictures of the aircraft can now call themselves archaeologists.

The B-17C has been protected for close to 35 years(.) I should know(,) I try(tried) to get permission to recover a( )lot of stuff out of the calf. (Calif.) State and Federal Lands and was told that most of the stuff fall(fell) under the 1966 HPH and the 1993 WWII admenment (amendment). Question DIK(,) have you ever read the HPA? I have(,) and have a working knowledge of the 1970 UNESCO Heritage Act.

Can't really say that I ever read any of these items, and can't say that I really care what they have to say. If I choose to visit a wreck site and I find something of interest, I dare say that I'll pick it up and take it, as 99% of any site visiters would do.

K5083,

So all the work that my little group as(has) ben(been) doing on the search for "The White Bird" doesn't count for(as) Archaealogy(,) and(as too) the stuff that TIGHAR has done on Amelia (Earhart)(grant(ed,) (it - word not needed) they or(are) idiots)(.) (And) isn't the very nature of these two searchs (are - word not needed) based on the most basic of Archaeological searchs.

The answer is NO. Both searches are simply looking for something to prove their points of view. So far neither has.

So(,) if a plane is missing and we start looking for (it by,) IE(i.e.) The(the) P-51 Thread(,) (and) using all the know(known) resource (data,) then its(it's) not Arch(aeology)? The answer is NO, it's called RESEARCH. (And) so(,) what Robert Ballard did when he was looking for the Titanic/Lustania/Bismark and the Midway Carriers(,) and what The Naval History Center did with there(their) search for The CSS Hundley and USS Monitor isn't a form of modern Archaealogy.

Ballard would have everything rot on the sea floor, to be seen by only the rich, but he screwed up with the Titanic and now everyone can see artifacts from that tragedy. It makes it a lot more personal. As for the others, what do they have to do with aircraft wrecks?

Last time I was in a classroom that is how it(')s taught(,) but then again my degree doesn't mean squat then(,) right.

You said it, not me.

Yes(,) there are folks who go out and(to) find a wreck and don't follow any Arch(aeology) stuff(,) but they take photos of the recovery and use documintaion(documentation) on the aircraft(.) (Isn't)isn't that a form of Arch(aeology)? (Oh)oh wait(,) I'm sorry(,) that(')s not how they do stuff on some indian burial site or is it.

Some people do take pictures, I know I did when we recovered the Martin B-26s in Canada. But that was for the story I wrote, more than anything else, and did nothing to aid in the restorations. I would also think that the recovery of the A-25 was photographed, but I doubt that the pictures will be of much help in that restoration. And, Native American burial sites have nothing to do with aircraft wrecks, unless, of course, the aircraft crashes into one.

"So, once again, there is NO such thing as Aviation Archaeology. Just because you dig a hole doesn't make you an archaeologist."

This statement still holds true.

Actually(,) yes it does(,) how do you explain all the sites that have been found like Troy/Hanging Gardens/Valley of the Kings ect.(,) ect.(,) ect.(?) (They)they were all holes dug in the ground(,) but(,) oh wait(,) you say that there(they're) not Archaeology right.

I say that they too have nothing to do with aircraft crash sites. But if digging a hole makes you an archaeologist, than I'm an archaeologist, because I've dug a lot of holes in my time. And I guess digging a hole for a cellar makes the digger an archaeologist, digging fence post holes makes the digger an archaelogist, and I guess that digging a hole for a swimming pool makes the diggers archaeologists too.

Oh well.

re: the lady of the lakes b-25 salvage of fall 2005...... i contributed to the official appraisal of the salvage through a friend of mine over 3 months, starting in september. i was approached by salvor mr seigler about doing the restoration. he contacted me via email after reading my latest article at that time in warbirds international magazine. i informed him i had no appraising credentials, but i knew a good friend who did. i past him my friend's name, they came to an agreement, & mr seigler got a 100 % legitimate wreck recovery appraisal from a top notch source with the resume & credentials to back it it up. my contribution was doing alot of the leg work & puzzle piecing up to completion to mr seigler's satisfaction at xmas time 2005. the consensus is as follows........ if restored it would be just another b-25. displayed as is, as it has historical significance. i was just thrilled to be a part of the process. we all need to stop acting like grade school kids who raise their hand to prove to teacher we know it all. i've been an aviation historian since 1975, i've dealt in selling & buying antique memorabilia since 1987, & have written 4 nationally published magazine aricles on the topic, but yet i admit i'm still learning, & don't know everything on the topic, & i've been proved wrong umpteen times on wix on a variety of topics, as well as being a self made tushy on wix, & have others made me out as 1 & rightfully so. with that sh*t storm over i'm gonna have a beer. everybody, please accept this with the spirit intended. all the best, tom

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Dik, you were a little harsh on Mr Rohr I think. A couple of his points are valid to some extent.

Colonel, the two examples you mentioned are what I was thinking of when I allowed in the final paragraph of my last post that there might be scattered examples of aviation archaeology some day. Here's my reasoning:

Archaeology is a science. Science is about learning. Science, and therefore archaeology, has one and only one goal and product, and that is knowledge. If you are seeking a certain type of knowledge, you MAY -- if you are also following the correct method -- be doing archaeology.

The Amelia and White Bird projects are the only two aviation wreck-chasing adventures I can think of that have any prospect of producing significant knowledge about the past. What exactly happened to Amelia, Nungesser and Coli are interesting questions. Not terribly significant ones, given that we can deduce generally what happened to them, but interesting. If those two ventures are following appropriate methods, and if they ever have anything tangible to study, they could be archaeology. I am not close enough to either of them to have an opinion about that.

Every other warbird wreck chasing project that I have ever heard of its not about knowledge, it is about the artifact. That is just treasure hunting, no matter what methods are used. The current P-51 thread is a perfect case. Just from reading the thread, I am amazed at how much the participants already know about the plane and its last mission. They know everything important and a good deal that is unimportant. What would be left to learn from locating, let alone recovering, the wreck? Nobody cares exactly which little lake it crashed into. These guys just want the plane. Nothing wrong with that -- I'm behind them 100% -- but it's not archaeology.

I have no opinion about most of the other examples you tossed out. I get the impression that some things of value were learned from Ballard's nautical adventures, but I'm not sure whether that was because of his methods or despite them.

I have no business lecturing to you since you have done more for aircraft preservation than I ever will. But I think it may be counterproductive for aircraft wreck chasers to kid themselves that they are archaeologists. This is because:

1. Nobody really believes they are archaeologists and insisting they are makes them look like cranks and that hurts their credibility, which is something they need in dealing with officialdom.

2. If anyone did take them seriously, it would be an argument for denying access to wrecks or for imposing expensive, time-consuming procedures on that access and on what could be done by way of restoring retrieved artifacts, on the grounds that recovery amounts to plundering an archaeological site and restoration amounts to destruction of a significant artifact.

Better to admit that aircraft wrecks are not sites with any archaeological significance. Aircraft wreck chasers are treasure hunters. But the treasure would not just be theirs, it would be all of ours. Educational tool for future generations and so forth. Then the appropriate action is not to lay a grid and dig with teaspoons but to get the darn thing warm and dry and preserve or restore it with all deliberate speed.

Or maybe we have already gone too far down the road of exaggerating the significance of aircraft wrecks and it is too late to do anything about it now.