NE Wreckdiving and Artifact Obsession

[JDostal]

I never once said anything about not wanting to get better training to get to the less traveled wrecks. I haven't stopped taking classes since I've gotten certified - the only limit is time and money, not desire.

No offense, but get your words out of my mouth.

And hell, to be completely facetious...why would I want to dive the less travelled wrecks when it seems that those are the ones most ravaged by "artifact" seekers anyway?? :boom:

 

[WreckWriter]

I wasn't neccesarily speaking of you, just folks in general who argue this.

 

[JDostal]

No problem - I assumed you had directed the comment towards me. I'm not fond of people assuming I'm a lazy diver....

 

[AquaTec]

heres a good wreck robbing story for you.

In Truk Lagoon there is very little ordanince above about 60 feet. however below that there are rooms the size of a large grocery store full of the stuff.

why the difference you might ask. the locals would freedive down and take the ordanence, then remove the powder from it and then go dynamite fishing on the local reefs

 

[diverberr]

As an east coast wreck diver, i've seen the wrecks we dive deteriorate season by season. The ocean isn't a museum, it's a harsh, extremely corrosive environment. Winter storms, and the corrosive effect of salt water itself, are breaking down these wrecks much more effectively than we as divers could ever do.
I agree that in the Great Lakes where wrecks are very well preserved, that the wrecks should be left intact. But in the ocean environment, I don't subscribe to the take only pictures argument.
If an artifact is properly treated and restored, it will be around for future generations to see. If left on the wreck, the sea will eventually claim it, and it will be lost forever.

That being said, bringing up live ordinance is F#&*ING STOOPID!
And bringing up human remains is just plain morbid, not to mention disrespectful.

 

[Joe R.]

If people don't recover the artifacts the salt and currents will soon destroy it. Half the fun of diving new areas is the chance of finding something first. ieThe Doria is collapsing and soon the china and other 'treasures' will be unrecognizable. Some government 'researchers' just identfied the SS Portland off our coast, (Massachusetts) and you can be sure they will do everything possible to keep it "off limits" to everyone. I know it may be best to retrieve some of the items for museums but then some could go to other 'divers'. Its too deep for me(now) but I'd love the potential opportunity. I like the idea of middle ground where we can all benefit. And make no mistake, in little time the ocean will disolve anything.

 

[scubamanny]

Anyone who really cares about the ships at the bottom of the ocean and the artifacts they contain will tell you that artifacts should only be removed by trained underwater archeologists. Only an individual with the proper training will be able to accuratly contextualise an artifact within the entirity of the confused mass of a deteriorating wreck. Additionally, any archeologist will tell you that obejct found on the bottom of the ocean often have reached a point of stability were they are no longer deteriorating. Especially in the case of ceramics and metals, not to mention wood, objects are permanently damaged by changes in pressure, temperature and moisture caused by the trip to the surface and subsequent desplay in an air environment. For starters, don't remove anything unless you are trained to do so and have permission to do so from the governing authority per your local. This should be easy enough to understand. In essence, the search we are all a part of is not about what we find, its about what we find out. Prize crazy materialists who look to load goodie bags often hide behind a curtain of knowledge, claiming to be authorities on a wreck and therefore entitled to its booty. Don't be fooled. Their activities amount to nothing more than looting. Let real archeologist do the work. Take nothing but pictures and leave nothing but bubbles.

 

[Charlie99]

... unless they get hauled out of the water and dismantled, they'll probably go down sooner or later. Nothing lasts forever, and modern ships eventually become outdated relics. They don't just drift of to boat heaven when they've worn out.

Some cable network like TLC or Discovery Channel had an interesting program on the shipbreaking yards in Bangladesh. It looks more like boat hell than boat heaven. A related article http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_janfeb_2006/endoftheline1.html

 

[Soggy]

Holy 4 year old thread!

Scubamanny, clearly you do not understand the nature of the ocean. Where do you dive, out of curiosity?

Freshwater wrecks: stuff stays around for hundreds of years preserved in a pristine state. Artifacts will be there for a very long time and should be left where they are for study or enjoyment by others.

Ocean wrecks: Destroyed or buried within decades or less. Artifacts not recovered will never be seen by anyone, nor studied by any archaeologist.

The fact is, archaeologists are *not* studying most of the wrecks, nor do most wrecks have archaeological significance, thus by leaving them at the bottom, you are virtually guaranteeing that they will never be seen or studied by anyone.

 

[neonstingray]

How can you guys argue that you're actually preserving the wreck by taking the objects so people for generations to come can enjoy them? (I'm not pointing at any specific posts btw) Who is it that gets to enjoy them? To you guys who horde this stuff in your living room, what "generations" are you showing these artifacts to that you claim get to experiance them when you bring them back? The only people I can see experiancing them are the people in your house, unless you actually run a museum or donate the artifacts to a museum.

Furthermore, once removed they have lost all historical context. Anyone who argues that by removing the artifacts you're actually preserving their importance without recognizing the significance of an artifacts locational or positional context is simply announcing that they have no formal education in archaeology. (I have little myself, but it's enough to recognize this) If you really actually cared about preserving those artifacts you'd photograph or record what you've seen, document it, research it, and publish you're work, as many people have and continue to do. Meanwhile other divers can still experiance the wreck while its artifacts last. I know this sounds like a stretch, but that really is the only way you can argue you're helping a wreck. It's also the only way that people can continue to effectively experiance a wreck even after it's gone. Otherwise, an old tea cup sitting on your mantle is little more than an external memory of you're own ego, and a forever lost memory to any other divers who dive that wreck after you.

Yes, some artifacts won't last. But there are two major flaws in this justification. One, who are you to decide that a specific artifact won't last much longer and therefore it's ok for you to personally take it. If an artifact wouldn't last for more than another 10 years, who are you to decide that 10 more years of other divers witnessing this piece of history before it disappears isn't worth it, and you had better take it for yourself before someone else does. The point is the artifact certainly lasted long enough for you to take it away than to slowly degrade while others still witnessed it. This kind of thought often surfaces in studies of past ecological and natural resources problems where countries in the past have recognized a shortage of a resource and one country keeps using too much, so therefore the other countries tried to all take as much as they could before everyone else got it, rather than being able to agree to limit their uses. The old cod fishing issue comes to mind. It's interesting to see there are still many people who subscribe to the same reasoning though. I'd much rather see a ship with its artifacts ruined because people left them there long enough to naturally fall apart rather than seeing people do me the favor of taking the artifacts for themselves so I won't have to worry about seeing them ruined.

You guys have probably heard of a guy named Ballard. If you value anything he's done, you might be interested to know he isn't exactly on your side....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0604_040604_titanic.html

"Does that diminish it as you run along and you've had 8,000 to 9,000 objects recovered from that debris field that are not there to be seen? Does that diminish the experience? Absolutely, it does, particularly when many of these objects were not at peril," Ballard said.


Sorry to rehash a thread after a couple weeks, but this really bugged me when I saw it, and I figured bringing back a thread after a couple weeks can't be as bad as after 4 years *cough*scubamanny*cough* ;-)

Austin