Artifact Arrest

[LVX]

Unfortunately, you're in the minority and you'd be taken to task by your own compadres if you tried to work with divers.

Just so you know, I have worked with many divers and Yes, I have been called many things by glass office archaeologists but I really don't care. They can't take my credentials away, all they can do is refuse to work with me which they have NOT done. It is easy to call anyone to task for either not protecting a wreck or taking it all, putting it in a basement of a museum and then never writing a report. Both are wrong in my opinion. We all need to cooperate or we will never get a long.

thanks

L

 

[LVX]

Yes and I'm sure if you did set up your own museum it would be siezed before the door opened. Its a shame.

Not true. You as a private citizen can apply to get a permit for documenting wrecks. All you would need is an archaeologist on your project. That means anyone with an MA in Archaeology. As part of your research plan, you can state you are either doing a non-disturbance survey, which means you are not going to pick up anything or you can do a minor site disturbance with means you are going to pick up a few artifacts for analysis to help determine more about the wreck or even a full blow excavation.

You would need to prove you have the money to do any of the above and if you picked up artifacts, that you have the money to properly conserve them and then display them.

Now, this does not mean you can call your garage a museum and state this is where you will display them. Your permit will not get approved. It must be legit.

So, for instance, you and I could partner up. You right out the application, send it to the State Preservation Officer and list me as the archaeologist of record. If it goes thorough, I don't see why you would not get approved. I have seen several that have been approved in the past. Again, this would not mean you own the artifacts. The museum would own them. Believe me, there are several small museums on the coast how would love to display shipwreck artifacts. They just don't have the money to do the research, exploration or conservation.

For the most part, some archaeologist just don't want you to jump off a boat, sink to the bottom, pick something up and go home. They want to know where you went, what you saw, what you recovered and what you did with it.

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with this. We are held to the same standards whether you believe it or not. And, just because I am an archaeologist doesn't mean anyone is going to turn a blind eye. The Good Ole Boy mentality is slowly fading away to a small degree. Now, it is truly large amounts of red tape.

Also, someone said that 99.9% of archaeologists are hardnose - my way or the high way type of people. I think you would be surprised. The trouble is, you guys focus on the archaeologists with the louded voices. There are others out there.

 

[phoneman]

So let me see if I understand. To follow my earlier analogy, if I petition the crown and am granted permission to hunt in Sherwood forest I could then bring the sheriff with me to take my catch for the day. Oh, but I would get to watch him eat it. I seem to miss what incentive anyone would have to comply. I have no doubt that a museum would want to display what I may have found thats how they make money whether it’s thru admission charges or government grants (a.k.a. my tax dollars).

I'm new to diving but have been metal detecting on the beaches here for a couple of years now and would like to combine the two at some time. However the process you outlined above makes it senseless on my part. I would love to be able to find someone who could help me research some of the things I have found with out the worry that they would be taken for the greater good. I think if that were the case those small museums would be turning away people with arm loads of junk from the bottom of the ocean.

OK now you've done it I've gone an given myself an ice cream headache thinking this much. I hope you're happy.

 

[fire_diver]

Not true. You as a private citizen can apply to get a permit for documenting wrecks. All you would need is an archaeologist on your project. That means anyone with an MA in Archaeology. As part of your research plan, you can state you are either doing a non-disturbance survey, which means you are not going to pick up anything or you can do a minor site disturbance with means you are going to pick up a few artifacts for analysis to help determine more about the wreck or even a full blow excavation.

Wow! really?! I get to do ALL that to pick up a deadlight?

You would need to prove you have the money to do any of the above and if you picked up artifacts, that you have the money to properly conserve them and then display them.

Does thousands in dive gear constitute proof of funds?

Now, this does not mean you can call your garage a museum and state this is where you will display them. Your permit will not get approved. It must be legit.

So how bought my basement? Thats where most archie stuff rots away (museum or collegiate basements) until it gets stolen becuase everyone has forgotten its there.

Again, this would not mean you own the artifacts. The museum would own them. Believe me, there are several small museums on the coast how would love to display shipwreck artifacts. They just don't have the money to do the research, exploration or conservation.

So once again we are back to square one. Let it rot in the earth or at the bottom of the ocean! You unwashed rabble of a populace are not fit "own" the lost, forgotton, discarded trash of our fathers'!!

For the most part, some archaeologist just don't want you to jump off a boat, sink to the bottom, pick something up and go home. They want to know where you went, what you saw, what you recovered and what you did with it.

Because every piece of garbage that has no historical significance must be systematically recorded even though every hurricane changes the lay-out of all those tiny little pieces. Or in the topsoil recovery, they really care where every musketball is found even though that field has been plowed every year since the war ended.

Now, it is truly large amounts of red tape.

Because our almost communistic government must have a hand in everything IT'S people do

The trouble is, you guys focus on the archaeologists with the louded voices. There are others out there.

The ones with the loudest voices are the ones responsible for making it illegal to pick up anything over 50 years old! Can you spell ARPA?

 

[LVX]

What I was saying is there should be a partnership. No, you can't have it all. Guess what, I can't have it all either. I have to follow the same rules and regulations as you. What I am saying is you can get a project started and you can be in charge of the project. You and I can both volunteer our time and money to complete the project.

This is for the protection and preservation of our cultural resources right? Or is it so you can have it? That is the question. Why are you doing this? What is your motivation? Are you really looking out for the artifacts or your own interests?

So, you donate your time and money. I will dontate my time and money. We both try and find a museum who can display the materials. This would be determined by the number of objects and hell, we might get the museum to donate some money.

Now, we have all dontated our money and you and I have dontated our time. Along with other divers and archaeologists.

Conclusion, artifacts have been recorded in place, recovered, conserved and displayed.

What is wrong with that? It really sounds to me you just want this stuff. You talk about just picking up one thing. That is no better than leaving it all there to rot. Where is the information about that one thing you picked up. As well as the hundreds of other divers who have now cleaned the wreck of all artifacts.

 

[LVX]

By the way, you say every insignificant object would need to have the same care taken for it as historic artifiacts.

What do you consider historic vs insignificant. Also, why is it insignificant?

One last thing, you say everything is moved around after every storm. I beg to differ. I worked on a wreck site that had been buried for 310 years. We were able to tell internal comparnent arrangements due to where artifacts were positioned. We were also able to tell where many activities happened onboard because of where artifacts were found. Lastly, we found a 310 year old skeleton still completely intact right down to his finger bones where there were rings still on fingers. There was also a very small cask which once held wine inside just out of reach as if it rolled out of his hand. We have diary enteries which state they were out of fresh water and had to drink wine and liquor instead.

All of this was confirmed by artifact distribution on a wreck. Sometimes artifacts are moved around and sometimes they are not.

 

[ageddiver]

LVX, I think we can agree that there should be a partnership. But I also think the current laws in effect do not promote one in any way. The problem as I see it is that the same laws that protect a 300+ year old wreck protect a completely irrelevant 75 or 100 year old wreck. In some ways it's like saying we should not be allowed to dig around in the loft of our 150 year old barn because there could be artifacts.

By far the majority of ocean wrecks that we find are insignificant historically. But who's to know which is which? No frigging way would I ever go through the process you've outlined for most of the wrecks I've found - all that for a lighter or schooner barge? If divers who find these wrecks (and it won't be archeologists) had a real partnership going, then the divers could feel comfortable in bringing in a location, description, and a few items they've found, and get some help identifying the wreck and the artifacts. If the wreck is significant in some way, it's discovered early on and protections can be put in place. If it's not, then the archies get photos of any artifacts, and documentation of the wreck for their files. I'm sure they could talk the divers out of any interesting items if they wanted to display them. Divers typically do not sell the items they find anyway.

But in the present situation, I feel my only option is to share the sites with my friends and keep very quiet. If the archies want the sites, let THEM suit up and find them. Not a good attitude perhaps, but it's what the law makes it - don't you think?

 

[LVX]

don't you think?

Yes, unfortunately I do agree with you. I also understand the analogy regarding a 75 year old barge or schooner to a semi truck.

I also understand there are plenty of examples of each and no musuem wants to display artifacts from either. So, should you be able to remove artifacts? Well, If I came upon a 50 year old semi and I found a cool license plate or a pair of fuzzy dice, would I take it? Maybe? I guess the real question is where do you draw the line. You would have to. What would keep divers off a very historic wreck if they didn't know what it was when they found it. Let's take this to the extreme for a moment.

A wooden hull has been found off North Carolina by a group of sport divers. The rules for diving the wreck have now been removed. What can these divers do? Can they just take things at random even with the best intentions when they get home to conserve the objects? What if it happened to be Black Beard's ship? What if all identifiyers are removed before anyone with historical knowledge gets to dive the site. Artifacts are one of the main identifyers of a wreck. What now? Should the divers have historical information about the areas in which they dive before hitting the water?

Seriously, where do you draw the line or do you not think there should be a line. Would you only take those things that are duplicates and leave thosse objects which are one of a kind?

I really do agree there needs to be partnerships so let's try and work this out. If you could have the ideal world, how would you protect cultural remains. This is not just hte objects themselves but the interpretations of the remain in relationship to each other and the ship as a whole. This is called provience, and no matter if you believe a shipwreck is disturbed by cause and effect, the locational information is very important. I can prove it.

Let's discuss this... Shall we.....

 

[ageddiver]

OK, how about a plan whereby we keep in place stiff penalties for disturbing "historical" wrecks? Then we define historical in a reasonable way, such that the semi-truck type wrecks are excluded.

The local archeological authority also offers a modest $$$ reward ($200?) for registering locations and descriptions of any previously undocumented wreck. That way you'll ensure that all new wrecks are reported promptly. The local authority would then have some (short) time frame in which to establish historical significance using the reasonable definition above, during which nothing could be removed without authorization. After that period, the wreck is either historical (and protected) or not, and if not divers are welcome to go and explore, with the stipulation that they a) do not do structural damage to the wreck (don't tear it apart) and b) photograph artifacts for the authority so that the authority has the chance to examine them further if interesting. The divers own the artifacts in this case.

That's a partnership. The archies are assured that divers will come to them with the info they need to mark and sort wrecks for the ones that really have some value, and divers are assured that they won't be treated like felons if they take souvenirs from cleared wrecks.

Your turn.

 

[LVX]

OK, how about a plan whereby we keep in place stiff penalties for disturbing "historical" wrecks? Then we define historical in a reasonable way, such that the semi-truck type wrecks are excluded.

OK, what would be reasonable. Is it defined by time or what the wreck represents? A diver who finds a wreck without knowing what it is would hardly be in a position to know if a wreck they are on meets this criteria.

The local archeological authority also offers a modest $$$ reward ($200?) for registering locations and descriptions of any previously undocumented wreck. That way you'll ensure that all new wrecks are reported promptly.

OK, now again let's look at the extreme - In Texas there are 2700 wrecks and if each was reported and the Texas Historical Commission (THC) had to pay out it would cost them $540,000. Now I know there would not be anywhere near that many but I am talking about extremes here. Still, it is money the THC does not have. They don't even have a travel budget this year.

The local authority would then have some (short) time frame in which to establish historical significance using the reasonable definition above, during which nothing could be removed without authorization. After that period, the wreck is either historical (and protected) or not, and if not divers are welcome to go and explore, with the stipulation that they a) do not do structural damage to the wreck (don't tear it apart) and b) photograph artifacts for the authority so that the authority has the chance to examine them further if interesting. The divers own the artifacts in this case.

Short time - what does that mean - 1 year. Again looking at the THC as an example. There is only 1 person on staff. Anyone else would cost the THC more money. Again, they didn't even get a travel budget this year.

That's a partnership. The archies are assured that divers will come to them with the info they need to mark and sort wrecks for the ones that really have some value, and divers are assured that they won't be treated like felons if they take souvenirs from cleared wrecks.

The main points which were not defined and where so much confusion rest is with what is historical and who gets to determine historical. From what I am reading it sounds like the THC would have to almost positively identify the wreck to be able to determine if it is historical. We found a wreck a couple of years ago where we found about 20 muskets on it. Does that make it historical. I read in this thread someone saying it might not because there are plenty of muskets in museums. So, who gets to make that call and will it satisfy everyone else? (NO).

Also, the time frame (short) what does that mean. For an agency with one underwater archaeologist, 1 year is not a lot of time if you are talking about many wrecks. Each investigation would require money and support as you all know. Where do they get that money. They would have to raise it. That takes time. Or, they could raise everyone's taxes to help foot the bill.

Your turn.[/QUOTE]