I agree.
The problem of course is that either the next diver will come along and take it or the next storm will bury it again before any beaurocracy can get around to excavating the site. Of the two the latter is preferrable, but the former is far more likely. If it were me, I cover the artifact but subtly mark or memorize the location to reduce the probability that some one else will snag the artifact.
Being new to the Mid atlantic region, it is appalling how much destruction is done on wrecks here by divers. The damage they do removing artifacts greatly hastens the deterioration of wrecks - to the point we will shortly need to repeat WWII to produce some new ones given that navigational improvements and improvements in ship building and weather forecasting have greatly reduced shipping losses. There is some validity to the argument that the sea will eventually break all wrecks down and artifacts will be lost, but that needs to be tempered by the reality that digging or tearing up a wreck or site greatly accellerates the process and destroys the context of the artifacts. I can see an argument for recovering an artifact from a fairly modern wreck if a storm has naturally left it on the bottom where the wreck itself does not have to be damaged to remove it, but beyond that, you are damaging what should be regarded as a public resource.
Sadly, what often happens is artifacts are taken with the best of intent, but then are not conserved and quickly deteriorate into a pile or rust or decayed wood and end up in the trash down the road. The irony here of course is that they survive for decades or even centuries under water and then perish days, weeks or months after being "saved". Even if successfuly conserved, what were some of the most interesting artifacts on a wreck that could have been enjoyed by countless divers over the next decade or two end up in someone's den where few people ever get to see them.
The problem of course is that either the next diver will come along and take it or the next storm will bury it again before any beaurocracy can get around to excavating the site. Of the two the latter is preferrable, but the former is far more likely. If it were me, I cover the artifact but subtly mark or memorize the location to reduce the probability that some one else will snag the artifact.
Being new to the Mid atlantic region, it is appalling how much destruction is done on wrecks here by divers. The damage they do removing artifacts greatly hastens the deterioration of wrecks - to the point we will shortly need to repeat WWII to produce some new ones given that navigational improvements and improvements in ship building and weather forecasting have greatly reduced shipping losses. There is some validity to the argument that the sea will eventually break all wrecks down and artifacts will be lost, but that needs to be tempered by the reality that digging or tearing up a wreck or site greatly accellerates the process and destroys the context of the artifacts. I can see an argument for recovering an artifact from a fairly modern wreck if a storm has naturally left it on the bottom where the wreck itself does not have to be damaged to remove it, but beyond that, you are damaging what should be regarded as a public resource.
Sadly, what often happens is artifacts are taken with the best of intent, but then are not conserved and quickly deteriorate into a pile or rust or decayed wood and end up in the trash down the road. The irony here of course is that they survive for decades or even centuries under water and then perish days, weeks or months after being "saved". Even if successfuly conserved, what were some of the most interesting artifacts on a wreck that could have been enjoyed by countless divers over the next decade or two end up in someone's den where few people ever get to see them.
