Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
--part1_e5.dee3fa0.2904e0b7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/21/01 7:07:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, aldo.solari@ho*.se* writes: > You miss the main point: many of the "technical divers" are wreck > gutters and cultural heritage killers. Give me a break! Most sportdivers, whether technical or recreational, do not spend much time diving on culturally significant shipwrecks. The majority of the sites explored by sport divers are of fairly recent construction and do not contain a great deal of information that cannot be garnered from other sources. Granted, vessels of wooden construction, built in times when blueprints and documentation were not part of the scheme, are of great historical value. More modern vessels, however, hold little information of significance. Simply put, sport divers do not spend a great deal of time diving on piles of ballast stones. There is nothing of interest there for them. The vast majority of recreational diving takes place on vessels constructed later than 1900. The construction of such vessels is well documented. The social structures of those times are equally well documented. There is nothing particularly significant about these shipwrecks warranting this kind of protection. In the past I have had the pleasure to work with and get to know some reasonably minded professional archeologist. Those not wearing the blinders of academia are quick to note that one of the biggest blows to the identification of new sites, both significant and non-significant, was the passing of the Shipwreck Act of 1987 in the U.S. In many U.S. waters the redtape and potential loss of access became so great that mouths became closed when new sites were identified. There is a vast quantity of submerged cultural resources hidden beneath the Earth's waters. Most of those are of little cutural or historical value. As it stands there is not enough funding to even allow simple survey of all the identified sites that are of significance. If it were not for sport divers much information we do have would've been lost. The UN would do more for preserving our cultural heritage if they were to help fund survey of significant sites rather than banning access to all sites regardless of their value. For what it's worth, I am not particularly an artifact hunter. It is simply not my thing. I prefer to explore and photograph rather than dig for monentos. That not withstanding, I do not fault those divers that do have an interest in collecting artifacts. I have enough intellengence to recognize that a porthole or cage light removed from the remains of a WWII era ship has no significant value in terms of cultural heritage. I have also watched the rapid degradation of various shipwrecks long enough to realize that anything simply left on the ocean floor will likely disappear at the hand of Mother Nature quite quickly enough. There are, without question, sites deserving to be protected and preserved until they can be properly documented or excavated. However, the fact remains that such sites are more the exception than the rule. To use terminology such as "wreck gutters" and "cultural heritage killers" is to demonstrate one's niaveite concerning what truely does and does not represent valuable submerged cultural rescources. Good day. --part1_e5.dee3fa0.2904e0b7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT COLOR="#0000ff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Verdana" LANG="0">In a message dated 10/21/01 7:07:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, aldo.solari@ho*.se* writes: <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> <BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">You miss the main point: many of the "technical divers" are wreck <BR>gutters and cultural heritage killers.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000ff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Verdana" LANG="0"> <BR>Give me a break! Most sportdivers, whether technical or recreational, do not spend much time diving on culturally significant shipwrecks. The majority of the sites explored by sport divers are of fairly recent construction and do not contain a great deal of information that cannot be garnered from other sources. Granted, vessels of wooden construction, built in times when blueprints and documentation were not part of the scheme, are of great historical value. More modern vessels, however, hold little information of significance. <BR> <BR>Simply put, sport divers do not spend a great deal of time diving on piles of ballast stones. There is nothing of interest there for them. The vast majority of recreational diving takes place on vessels constructed later than 1900. The construction of such vessels is well documented. The social structures of those times are equally well documented. There is nothing particularly significant about these shipwrecks warranting this kind of protection. <BR> <BR>In the past I have had the pleasure to work with and get to know some reasonably minded professional archeologist. Those not wearing the blinders of academia are quick to note that one of the biggest blows to the identification of new sites, both significant and non-significant, was the passing of the Shipwreck Act of 1987 in the U.S. In many U.S. waters the redtape and potential loss of access became so great that mouths became closed when new sites were identified. <BR> <BR>There is a vast quantity of submerged cultural resources hidden beneath the Earth's waters. Most of those are of little cutural or historical value. As it stands there is not enough funding to even allow simple survey of all the identified sites that are of significance. If it were not for sport divers much information we do have would've been lost. The UN would do more for preserving our cultural heritage if they were to help fund survey of significant sites rather than banning access to all sites regardless of their value. <BR> <BR>For what it's worth, I am not particularly an artifact hunter. It is simply not my thing. I prefer to explore and photograph rather than dig for monentos. That not withstanding, I do not fault those divers that do have an interest in collecting artifacts. I have enough intellengence to recognize that a porthole or cage light removed from the remains of a WWII era ship has no significant value in terms of cultural heritage. I have also watched the rapid degradation of various shipwrecks long enough to realize that anything simply left on the ocean floor will likely disappear at the hand of Mother Nature quite quickly enough. <BR> <BR>There are, without question, sites deserving to be protected and preserved until they can be properly documented or excavated. However, the fact remains that such sites are more the exception than the rule. To use terminology such as "wreck gutters" and "cultural heritage killers" is to demonstrate one's niaveite concerning what truely does and does not represent valuable submerged cultural rescources. <BR> <BR>Good day.</FONT></HTML> --part1_e5.dee3fa0.2904e0b7_boundary-- -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
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]