<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:title xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Resurgam, site assessment and project Submap</dc:title>
  <dc:type xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">dataset</dc:type>
  <dc:identifier xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">https://portal.medin.org.uk/portal/start.php?tpc=010_a911a69b-1801-37a2-bdd3-27e9d9310cc5</dc:identifier>
  <dc:description xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">ADU operations on this designated site following its discovery in 1995. These included a survey of the vessel carried out over a two week period and utilising new survey methods, ROV and acoustic survey. The aims of the project were: To collect data on the condition of the wreck and the distribution on the seabed of potentially asociated objects, to help inform future management strategies; To foster local diver involvement in the 'study and care of an important wreck' within the framework of an NAS training project.; To compare new techniques and technology against conventioal diver-based archaeological work; and to 'collect information which might confirm or refute the historical account of the vessel's loss' (ADU 97/29). 'A special NAS module in marine biological identification for divers on archaeological sites' (ibid). A metal detector and visual search of 'over an area of 1,000m2 adjacent to the submarine to establish the limit o the debris field... [while] the ROV searching was confined to within 50m, of the wreck, with guided excusrsions to potential targets suggested by sidescan sonar surveys'. (ibid) In addition to the survey, an assessment of damage/threats to the site was made, and it was noted that the wreck had received 'two or three major impacts during the last decade', each of which had caused some damage to the vessel. Subsequent monitoring of the site was carried out by the ADU in 1999, 2000 and 2001, and comprised diver inspection, side-scan sonar and ROV survey. The 1999 inspection suggested an attemt had been made to remove the vessel from the designated area; and while illegal activity was not observed subsequently, recommendations were made in 2001 that reburying the vessel may be the best way to prevent further deterioration of her structure. The work ran alongside licensee activities on the site.</dc:description>
  <dc:date xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">20121018 20011231</dc:date>
</oai_dc:dc>
