Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Rick Fincher suggested I forward this message, so here it is. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 22:09:38 -1000 (HST) From: Jim Adams <jimadams@uh*.uh*.Ha*.Ed*> To: Rick Fincher <rnf@sp*.tb*.co*> Subject: Re: shipwreck research Hello Rick. Thanks for your response back. I will try to answer your questions - bear with me as I am not use to using this writer by leaving your message in here. Actually I agree with much of your points. Some confusion exists that the government is not one person. There are many different agencies and people and they don't share common ideas. Although I work for "the government" that does not mean there is not multiple ideas and infighting, etc. It is only a small segment of the government that deals with preservation of natural and cultural resources, such as the National Park Service (whom I am with). Anyway, down to your specific items. On Fri, 17 Jun 1994, Rick Fincher wrote: > > First off, I'd like to thank Jim Adams for the helpful list of shipwreck > research sources that he was kind enough to put together for whoever asked > for that info. > > However, I strongly disagree with some of his views on artifact collecting. I > don't want to start a flame war. I just want to present an alternative > viewpoint and perhaps get his response to them. > > > Which shipwrecks? Those 100 years old? 50 years? 10 minutes? What gives you or > government the right to seize property based on some arbitrary standard of > historical value? I that see you work at the Arizona memorial. That ship was > owned by the government. If the government chooses to declare it historical and > protected. That is fine. In general, archaeological sites (which a shipwreck fits) are considered to be 50 years old. Not all sites, things, shipwrecks are considered historic or of historic value. There is a system for determination, a set of standards, arbitration, and mediation. It is not just with shipwrecks but this fits under the same laws that apply to terrestrial sites (historic buildings, native american sites, etc.). All of these areas are evaluated first before development occurs on the land. It doesn not always mean that development is stopped or prevented, in most cases it does not. What it does is provide study and recovery of information and artifacts. Back onto shipwrecks, the Federal Guidelines, called the Abandoned shipwreck act applies to shipwrecks in US or state waters. It does not apply to international waters, as the government has no juristiction there. So we are talking about state property or land, which is in essence public land. In the same way that you can't just arbitrarely go onto public lands, parks, etc, and start digging up stuff, or cutting down trees, etc. without permit, that is what the Abandoned shipwreck act deals with. It also provides for the survey, documentation, or deterrmination of which shipwrecks are to be considered historic, and which are not. Cause you are right, not all are. Also, it is not to deny access to the wrecks, but the opposite; provide protection for all that want to visit. > > But, many shipwrecks are private property that was lost or abandonded by the > owners after the mishap. What right does government have to claim those wrecks, > particularly if they are outside the waters of the US? We are not talking about private property. Abandoned wrecks are abandoned. Except for military vessals. International law provides that all military vessals, except those captured in time of war, still belong to the original owning nation. They are sovereign, even if sunk by enemy action, and still belong to that nation. Location does not matter. Airplanes are in the same category. So for commercial shipping, the act is referring to abandoned shipwrecks that are on state/federal/public property. > > Can some bureaucrat arbitrarily decide that my car is historical and seize it > from me without compensation "for the greater good"? That is simply stealing. No, your car can not be taken and private shipwrecks are not being taken. > > Private owners owners tend to preserve things of that sort better than > governments do anyway because private owners collect it because they love it. > > >If individuals take port holes, etc. they are denying the rest of us our > >history and an opportunity to learn. History belongs to all of us. > > I could argue that if archaeologists leave portholes to deteriorate no one > will EVER see this history or have the opportunity to learn. You assume that > all divers who collect artifact are greedy people who hide the artifacts they > collect from the public. I do not advocate leaving any artifact for its destruction. There is a time and place to remove (excavate). Proper conservation methods need to be applied. I did not mean to imply that all divers who collect are greedy. A challenge to overcome is access and knowledge of private collections. who knows about them, who has access, etc. (and the concern is primarily for those collections that have come from a site/ship that is considered historic). > > I know of one who started a museum to display artifacts and share the history > of his region with the public. Government archaeologists wouldn't do it. They > couldn't get a grant to buy an expensive submarine, or they couldn't publish > anything about the wreck because it wasn't "historical" enough or sexy enough. Good!! I know lots of private museums, etc. too, and that is what it is about. I don't know what government archaeologist you are talking about or the case, so I can't comment. But I don't know any that could fit this. I am a government archaeologist and work with many archaeologist in government, private, academic, etc. I have also worked in the private and academic circles. I have done, or seen done, many a project that would not fit what most people would consider "historical" or sexy enough. As a scientist, determining the value of a site has nothing to do with being "sexy" or glamourous, or how much gold it has, etc. > > The bottom line is that if the "pro's" can't get a Jacques Cousteau or National > Geographic special out of the deal or at least publish a paper on it they > aren't interested. Not the case at all. Very little of what we study ends up in these "specials". Further, most academic researchers do not submit to Nat'l Geo, etc. (there is nothing wrong with Nat'l Geo, different style, format, purpose.) Most research that is published is not paid for. Academic journals and professional journals are not for pay, and that is where most of the research is published. > > And what of the non-diving public's "history and an opportunity to learn"? > If an artifact is on the bottom they will never see it so you will > automatically be restricting the people who will see it to the diving community. > That is assuming you don't deny the divers the right to even look or take > pictures like NOAA did for years with the USS Monitor. There is a proper time, method, purpose for removal, I agree. And I agree that proper conservation and public display of artifacts is a goal. As far as the Monitor goes, I am not fully up on the whole story. My understanding is: I know that a program for public access is beginning this year. I have seen several private groups do work on the Monitor. I am on the understanding (and I am not trying to defend) that NOAA had some management "concerns" to work out dealing with the depth, currents, etc. We are talking about a wreck beyond what is considered sport diving ranges - off course as a tech diver I know we are into a whole different arguement here (and I am a tech diver). Other factors for the Monitor that had to be addressed are emotional issues. Similar, but much older, the Monitor is considered to be a war grave (similar situation to Arizona). A very historic ship, first of its kind, etc. and represents a very important part of US history. A site worthy of protection. Protection does not mean denial though. I have nothing against "visiting" this site just like you visit other museums and parks, etc. Safety concerns, and other issues like that need to be addressed, and that is different. > > They would allow no private groups the right to even look, yet they themselves > wouldn't do the needed work. So the wreck just sits there being destroyed for > all time. there has been considerable work done on the Monitor by the government. > > Even the "pro's" will tell you that there just aren't enough of them to go > around to do the work that needs to be done. fact of life in many areas, not just archaeology and shipwrecks. > > Perhaps the "pro's" should devote more time to educating the diving community > on the best ways to recover artifacts so as to preserve as much historical > data as possible. I know many divers who would be proud to have their finds > displayed in museums for everyone to enjoy. There are many opportunities for avocational divers. There support and interest is solicited. There are clubs that specialize in this. Also check universities, etc. National Park Service promotes this idea, that is why there are underwater parks for sport divers to explore shipwrecks (florida, Great Lakes, California, are a few locations). > > >I was recently horrified when I was in Kwajalein last month. A "wreck" > >diver was showing me the Japanese wrecks from WWII. We discovered a new > >wreck, a small Japanese landing craft. As I was documenting the wreck > >with my video, I turned and saw him chopping away the wood deck to see > >if anything of "value, like a bell" was below it. That deck no longer > >exists for anybody to see. > > Oh come on. What was so special about this wood on a landing craft as opposed > to the wood on the other 10 zillion that were made less tha 60 years ago? What > could you learn about its construction, etc. that you couldn't learn by > calling up the manufacturer and getting the bluprints? The guy that designed > it or built it may still be alive. It's not like it was a hand-made one of a > kind work of art. Lots, maybe, or nothing. We don't know until we can look, but now I don't have the chance first. The blueprints maynot exist anymore (it was Japanese), and there could have been modifications, or manufactureing defects, etc. It is more of the idea though that without considering all of the possibilities, destruction occurred first. Potentially, theoretically, Lots. > The wood is going to rot and be destroyed underwater. If you recover the craft > the wood can be replaced. But you won't recover the craft because it isn't > worth it and it may never be before it is destroyed by time. > You don't have to recover it to study it. > The government is cutting up ships for scrap that are older and have more > history than that landing craft. True, but that doesn't mean it is always right. Alot of groups also fight to protect some of those ships (I'm working on some now). I also think landing craft are important, can't conduct an amphibious operation without them. > > I have a friend who bought an old tugboat built in 1930. He and his wife are > restoring it. The government was letting it rot. They took the time to go up > to Bath Iron Works in Maine where it was built to research it. Great. I encourage and respect. The government does not have the ability to protect all and looks for private sector. An example is if you own a building, ship, etc. that youu think is historic, you can nominate it the National Historic Register. This just gives it recognition - does not take away your ownership, rights, etc. It does give you tax benefits though. Many, many private homes are on the National Register. The private owners still live in them, etc. they get tax benies to keep it restored. Many people have done same with boats, and live on them, sail them, operate them commercially. > > The government painted over the teak wood because they didn't want to be > bothered with taking care of it. The manufacturer was proud of it. They > turned all their records over to the Maine Maritime Museum where my friend > got copies of everything from a list of how many rivets are in it to what > the crew ate for lunch on the sea trials. > > The government didn't give a damn and lost the ship's log and sold her for > scrap value. Hey, come on. There are also lots of ships (as well as buildings, etc.) that are only protected because of the government also! How about San Francisco Maritime Museum, a national park. No private citizen could afford the bills they have and money they spend (tax dollars of course) to preserve the fantastic collection of a half dozen ships, many small fishing vessals, row boats, etc. that represent 200 years or so of maritime history of california. One example only. there are many others up and down the east coast, etc. > > Because of my friends the boat is going to be in the National Register of > Historic Places and will not only be around, it will be sailing. My friend > is also an avid diver and artifact collector. He and his wife have spent > nearly all their weekends for the last two years working on this boat. Again, I applaud your friends. > How many professional archaeologists would do that? Many, most. The only problem is most of us can't afford to buy a boat or have the funds to restore one privately even if we got one donated. What do you think we make big bucks digging up sites or r wrecks?? It is the oposite. > > Many archaeologists would only be interested in it if you took it out and > sank it or buried it in a hole so they could dig it up. Unfair, and I won't justify it with an answer. > > >On the same trip, I heard all about the bells > >and gauges that are sitting in garages back in homes in the US where no > >one will ever get to see. > > Ever seen the basement of the Smithsonian? > > It's full of stuff that is never going to be seen by the public. They brag > about the fact that they can only display a small fraction of what they have. True, (we have same problem in our museum), but I have never heard of anyone "bragging " about it. Are you willing to increase your taxes to give us (and the Smithsonian, etc.) more money to increase exhibit display areas? This is a problem, and it is even worse for small museuems. At least since it is being properly stored, conserved, etc. the potential exists for its future display. At least it is being protected and will always be available. > > Why don't they send the rest on a rotating basis to smaller museums where it > can at least be seen by someone? Or to schools where it can be used to educate. this is routinely done, by the Smithsonian and other museums. Hope this answers some of your questions. Bottom line, I, and all archaeologists I know, and I think I can speak for most I don't know, are all for public access and shared knowledge. that is why we do research on sites, and want to protect them. some sites are protected by preserving them as they are, or others are protected by removing them, it depends on the situation. If a site is to be destroyed or removed (not all can be protected), then at least the information from it can be protected by first recording it. There is much room and need for cooperation between sport divers, tech divers, wreck divers, and archaeologists. No arguement there. aloha, Jim
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]