Hacker News Reader

Comment by ivan_at_hn | Hacker News Reader

"The wrecks survive in such good condition because at a certain depth the Black Sea has anoxic, or oxygen-free, conditions preventing decay. Many of the ships sit at the bottom of the sea with their masts upright, their rudders still at the ready and their cargo bays full of untouched goods."

As far as I know, this oxygen-free water layer below approximately 150 meters from the surface makes Black Sea unique. Virtually anything drowned in it from the beginning of marine history is in perfect condition. If I was a beginner archaeologist who dreams of big discoveries then I'd look at the Black Sea in the first place.

View on HN

> If I was a beginner archaeologist who dreams of big discoveries then I'd look at the Black Sea in the first place.

While being careful to avoid adding to the collection, of course.

the poor man's cryogenic

The Baltic also has excellent preservation properties. Of course there's the Vasa (absolutely must-see if you're ever in Stockholm!), but there's also other stuff. The other day I listened to a local archelogist who was finding stone-age fish-traps and settlements out to sea which, thousands and thousands of years ago, was on the coast.

> oxygen-free water layer below approximately 150 meters unfortunately the the oxygen level shrunk to 90m in 2015.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/oxygen-black-sea-has-dec...

Actually from the perspective of preserving artifacts this is a good thing right? It's saying there is even less oxygen in the water which is good. In terms of life in the sea it's probably bad.

Wouldn't all the preserved stuff be directly at the bottom, though? So the only change to preserving would be in places where the bottom is 90-150m, and the only stuff it would apply to is whatever sank after the level changed to 90m, so it can't be a lot or very interesting.

There are also no big currents, tide or other water movements. Black Sea is fairly closed pond.

Yeah it kind of boggles my mind that this isn't a well explored area due to its preservation characteristics

Until the ‘90s it was a heavily militarized sea more or less controlled by the Soviets. Not the ideal environment for research by Western institutions, and Soviet ones had other priorities.

Perhaps because distributing our efforts over different areas gives us a broader view of history?

I doubt it has much to do coordinated efforts to achieve globally optimum results, and more to do with practicalities of where researchers are located, what sort of funding is available and the like.

Of course what an archeologist studies in due to the interaction on many different drivers, but a main one is novelty of the find. Find one good site and an archeologist can support a career studying it. Exploring new places and discovering unique artifacts is at the heart of the myth of the archeologist. Indian Jones, King Tuts tomb, etc.

I agree, but I think that kind of factor is very different to what the comment I was replying to was talking of, in "because distributing our efforts over different areas gives us a broader view of history" as if it was some sort of co-ordination with the goal of creating a broader view. What you're talking about is an individual seeking novelty.

I think that it is because most archaeologists tend to explore places where they live and where they know something about. And where they can get funding. Like Mediterranean sea. Underwater archaeology is very expensive. There are guys who explore shipwrecks to sale treasures from them, you can look at their financial reports here (it is not easy for them): http://www.odysseymarine.com/

Anoxic water aren't actually that rare and exist in a lot of freshwater systems (lakes, marshes, etc.) to one degree or another. The range of depths in the Black see is impressive but there are others that are comparable. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_waters#Anoxic_basins

Reply on news.ycombinator.com