The mention of the S.S. Gairsoppa is a Red Herring as that ship was sunk in 1941 and the UNESCO convention will not cover it till 2041 as wrecks need to be 100 years old.
Here are a few thoughts on the convention from when it was proposed.
The introduction to the UNESCO charter it is states that:
The “Charter defines the ‘archaeological heritage’ as that part of the material heritage in respect of which archaeological methods provide primary information”
“Archaeology is driven by research; it adds to knowledge …. and it provides new and challenging ideas about life in the past.”
For shipwrecks of newer vintage, post 1880, our primary information is from the written record. In fact, in most cases a shipwreck can be identified by name and ship photographs, engineering drawings, equipment blue prints, cargo manifests, and crew/passenger lists can be found. I would therefor say that for these wrecks little, if any, new information of an archaeological nature is to be gained and they should be excluded form any coverage in the UNESCO document. I do not state that they may not be of historical significance, as an example the USS Arizona is of great historical significance to the US, but is of little archaeological significance. Shipwrecks in this group should be examined for historical significance on a case by case basis by the local/national governments and if none is found, opened for salvor/diver artifact collection.
Shipwrecks between 1800 and 1880 may have documentation that is available but some new information may be gained. These wrecks should also be considered on a case by case basis as to their archaeological and historical significance. But not all of these wrecks are of significance. A small fishing boat from 1850 in Long Island Sound may have local interest, if examples are not already available, but is of little national or international interest.
Shipwrecks older then 1800 are the ones that most academics are interested in, for it is these wrecks that we know the least about. In this category, I strongly support any recovery being performed in such a way that archaeological information can be discovered and documented. I urge you to ask the professional archaeologists at the June 12th meeting how much research is being done on ships wrecked since 1800, 1850, and 1900. I think you will find that there is little interest in them and that they are included for protection “just because”.
Therefor, I strongly recommend that the blanket statements that - all wrecks older then 50 years need to be protected, be amended so that only those shown to be of archaeological or historical significance are included.
As to dangers to shipwrecks, the convention completely ignores the destruction caused by commercial fishing. Since the late 1960's the power and size of commercial fishing boats has greatly increase. This increase in power has resulted in wood wrecks that used to be avoided now simply being run over and destroyed, even steel wrecks are being broken up. The wreck of the trawler Amagansett, sunk in 1960 off of North Carolina was fully intact during the summer of 1994, in 1995 it was found broken up and spread over several acres of the bottom, the remains of a trawl net were also found. Many of the captains of these large fishing boats have artifact collections larger than any wreck diver will ever collect. I have also talked to sport charter fishing boat captains and they all report that many "Hangs" just are no longer found. The result of the above is that wrecks that may be of significant archaeological interest are not safe in any area where commercial trawler fishing is conducted and that the option of leaving wrecks in situ may no longer be a safe option.
John Broadwater, Nautical Archaeologist for the USS Monitor preserve, has stated in a public forum that in his personal opinion that not,
“all the sport divers in the US could ever do the damage inflicted by a single trawler”
and Jack Irion, Marine Archaeologist, Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior has also stated that,
“ Every single shipwreck in the Gulf of Mexico found to date had shrimp nets hung on it and, in many cases, sustained damage as a result. The Civil War wreck of the USS Hatteras, for example, had its engine knocked over by a trawl.”
The commercial fishing industry admits to the damage caused by trawling as the magazine National Fisherman ran an article written by a Sterling Vorus titled “Trawling for Treasure” in the June 1997 issue.
