I'm certainly not an experienced wreck diver, but do have a passing experience with wood, and in the top picture the broken chunk sure looks fresh for being centuries old and submerged. Is that definitive?
Another thing: If there's that much good wood left, it could be dendro'd to fix the date certain.
Bum... long time brother...
Well there are many "answers" to the questions that are present with each and every wreck... each unique like a finger print.
Many factors exist when trying to deduce / determine the "age" or "story" of a shipwreck that factor into this equation process.
First...
The situation of a shipwrecks "grave" is the first and foremost consideration as to the way a "wreck rests"... and the way a wreck deteriorates.
The spectrum ranges from...
Nothing left... to the entire wreck is intact... down to the smallest detail... there is a wreck that is 2,000 years old that is so intact the food is still there.
But basically ALL factors of "preservation" are based on two main things... situation and environment.
IF a wreck is exposed to things that are detrimental to its well being then of course it is consumed much faster than one that lies in an environment that is void of these same attributes.
Now... with all this being said...
Lets take this section of wreck for example...
IMO... she sank in heavy sanded area... this section became "embedded" / "covered"... which preserved THIS section and perhaps more exists...
But never the less... the sand...DEPENDING on depth IN sand and a multitude of factors surrounding the sand composition and environmental chemistry preserved this section from deterioration.
Now... as we all know... sand ALWAYS moves... eventually.
This section may have over time been covered and uncovered 100's of times... even if only briefly... for a moment... for a month... for whatever...
OR... never... ever.
She could have come to a rest... the section we see now embedded... and has remained covered from that day... until now. (which is highly probable).
So...
In the case of things like the section... the old phrase of "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it must be a duck".
Does not apply.
Hope this shed a bit of light.
