Capt Billy, Thank you for your reply. I have faith in you and know you are a hard worker.
My concern was that Photographs were taken of the artifacts prior to them being removed and that accurate measurements were taken of distances between artifacts. I guess I watch too much TV. I believe that is what I watched archaeologist do when they salvaged wrecks. I do know that my friend Lee Fisher told me that they had an archaeologist on site when the Atocha was salvaged.
Is DPBE working with an on site archaeologist??
Archaeology
In archaeology, in situ refers to an artifact that has not been moved from its original place of deposition, in other words is stationary meaning "Still". An artifact being in situ is critical to the interpretation of that artifact and, consequently, to the culture which formed it. Once an artifact's 'find–site' has been recorded, the artifact can then be moved for conservation, further interpretation and display. An artifact that is not discovered in situ is considered out of context and will not provide an accurate picture of the associated culture. However, the out of context artifact can provide scientists with an example of types and locations of in situ artifacts yet to be discovered.
In situ only expresses that the object has not been newly moved. Thus, an archaeological in–situ–find may be an object that was historically looted from another place, an item of "booty" of a past war, a traded item or otherwise of foreign origin. Consequently, the in situ find site may still not reveal its provenance but with further detective work may help uncover links that otherwise would remain unknown. It is also possible for archaeological layers to be reworked on purpose or by accident (by humans, natural forces or animals), for example in a tell mound where layers are not typically uniform or horizontal or in land cleared or tilled for farming.
Everything I post is just my humble opinion. Do your own DD.
