Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
---------- Forwarded message ---------- As the discussion on this topic has spread across to this list I thought that I might cross-post this reply by David Cooper who puts the archaeologists view very nicely. Ian Oxley Deputy Director Archaeological Diving Unit University of St Andrews St Andrews Fife KY16 9AJ United Kingdom email: io@st*.ac*.uk* fax: 01 334 462921 (International +44 1334 462921) tel: 01 334 462920 (International +44 1334 462920) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 17:26:57 CST From: David COOPER <David.Cooper@cc*.ad*.wi*.ed*> To: nautarch@sa*.ed* Subject: Guest Editorial - U/W USA I have noted a number of comments on the "board" about David Finnern's editorial in Underwater USA (March 1995, vol. 11, no. 11, "Preserve Shipwrecks at the Expense of Personal Freedom?"). This sort of attitude is nothing new (its actually pretty outdated), but I thought I would put my oar in. This is preaching to mostly the converted, but in the hopes that folks like Finnern may listen in on "nautarch", I'll push on. Personal freedom is something Americans have always taken seriously, that is, America's somewhat unique and sometimes hypocritical concept of personal freedom (outta my way!). Anyhow, it has become a real hot topic with the new crew in DC, so we ought to think about what it really means. Personal freedom is wonderful -- as long as ones' personal freedoms don't interfere with those of others. I may be an archeologist, licensed and privileged to excavate public archeological sites, but I don't consider my personal freedoms to extend to disrupting (or even tinkering with) a public resource unless I am prepared to be fully accountable to the public (present, future, and even past peoples) for what I do. I think that's called ethics, and it, more than laws, defines where personal freedoms and public responsibilities meet. The sad thing about Finnern's editorial is that he has completely missed the point about shipwreck preservation. It is not about preserving wrecks until some team of us eggheads can get around to prodding them with rulers and cameras, pondering the imponderables, and uttering scientific pronouncements down musty ivory corridors. Yeah, sure, we preserve wrecks for science. We also preserve them for the millions of other people, and their children, and their grandchildren, who wish to view, enjoy, educate, photograph, video, pose, fish, frolic, fornicate (can you use this word on the net?), study, or whatever, on and around them. So, California has not been inundated with archeologists to study their 1,600 wrecks. Was that the point of the law? Wrecks are still there to be enjoyed, studied, etc., by anyone and everyone, and it seems that they're more popular than ever. Please just be respectful of the wrecks as a publicly owned heritage resource. The 22 California sport divers who fell afoul of the law in 1987 were not unsuspecting innocents, nor were they exercising legitimate personal freedoms. What the editorial did not say was that the wreck in question lay in a National Marine Sanctuary, and was subject to repeated, blatant vandalism. Visiting a wreck is personal freedom; chopping it apart and dragging it home are not. The sea may have its own laws, but it has laws, and as a general rule, if you would not do it on public lands, you shouldn't do it on public bottomlands. This guidance may not be too helpful for land sharks, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you shouldn't bring destructive implements and intentions into a park or sanctuary. Preservation isn't about an arbitrary exercise of bureaucratic power for fun (ask me how much fun I'm having). Preservation is about 4 billion-plus people learning how to share a crowded little planet without screwing things up for everybody else. I was a sport diver before I became an archeologist, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of what turns divers on and off. I also heard about shipwreck preservation for the first time from other sport divers, not archeologists. Maybe the Great Lakes, where I started diving, are a little special in that our wrecks will stay well-preserved for many centuries, and nature will generally do far less damage to them, once on the bottom, than man. Preservation up here has some obvious benefits to divers -- our wrecks are nice, and they'll pretty much stay that way if you don't beat on them. Yeah, things in the ocean are a little more harsh on wrecks, but lets get real. Most of the natural damage to any wreck takes place in its first 10-40 years on the lake or seabed, barring radically changed environmental conditions; after that point it is in relatively slow decay until people come on the scene. And the wrecks that most archeologists are concerned about are not the fresh ones. Some wrecks, depending on age, fabric, and environment, are more stable than others, and some sites are in real danger of being lost. On a case-by-case basis, that may indeed be a justification to rescue artifacts. But we can all, amateur and professional, still enjoy and learn a great deal from the wrecks without the crowbars. Finnern's editorial exploits a lot of old, hackneyed, and rather cynical myths about wrecks and wreck preservationists. Many divers who have examined the other side of the story with an open mind know better, but it still tells us as preservationists that we have a world of education to do out there to get our message across. And let's break this barrier down about archeologists versus divers. We're all resource users, and if we're at all concerned about the future of the wrecks, all of us divers should be preservationists (at least somewhere on the spectrum). That doesn't mean keeping all the artifacts in the sea. But it does involve adopting something more enlightened in the way of user ethics, whether you're a scientist, a recreationalist, or a fascinated child peering through a porthole or video screen at your first glimpse of the undersea world. And THAT is personal freedom that means something. Alright, I'll get off my !#@?*! soapbox. David J. Cooper State Underwater Archeologist Division of Historic Preservation State Historical Society of Wisconsin
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]