NE Wreckdiving and Artifact Obsession

[Soggy]

camshaft...

Have you ever dived a *real* wreck in the ocean, particularly in the north east? I mean something that has been down there for more than 10-20 years...like a 50 year old wooden wreck.

You sound as if you have absolutely no idea what the ocean does to wrecks. Most wrecks are rubble piles where artifact location has no meaning after decades of ocean swells and storms twisting things into an unrecognizable mess. What isn't destroyed often is buried by silt never to be seen again...*by anyone*. Additionally, many wrecks have no historical significance at all. How does a porthole on an oil tanker provide any useful information to anyone? Those that do have some significance are often being actively researched for identification by amateurs because the professionals have no interest in them. If someone doesn't research them, no one will ever know *anything* about them. Much artifact removal is actually used to *identify* wrecks. While it may diminish the experience for future divers, those artifacts, removed and preserved, will now be around for more people to see and for much much longer.

I'm sorry, but your entire post makes it very clear that you have no real experience with ocean wrecks and are just an idealist making claims about something you don't really understand.

As for Ballard...I really don't care about his opinions, only his research.

And in case you are wondering, I have never removed anything from any shipwreck. Artifact collection just doesn't interest me, but I wouldn't hesitate to if I found something exceptionally cool, or was trying to identify an unknown wreck.

 

[Diesel298]

im with soggy 100% on his post.


look at gary gentile. he has collected mass amounts of stff from the doria.
including one of a kind art works, that in the wrecks condition. if not recovered when it was it would have been lost forever.

now i beleave there are exceptions. such as war graves...but as a whole..
its better to have it on ones mantle for 40 years and seen by few than on the bottom of the ocean wasting away saw by fewer if any.

as for ballard.... just because he has a big soapbox dont mean hes the end all and be all.

 

[aue-mike]

I am amused by how emotional people get over this issue, especially those that have little experience as either an archaeologist or wreck diver. This issue always has significant polarization, with seemingly little middle ground. So, I won't delve into it too much, since I already have stated my position on it before (http://uwex.us/lostatsea.htm).

But, ignoring natural impacts, it seems many forget about all the wrecks that are dredged thru, removed or wire-dragged as navigational hazards, impacted from beach renourishment projects, salvaged (including sale/transfer of title to salvors), etc. Even the sacred USS ARIZONA was salvaged and two of her turrets were utilized as shore batteries following her sinking.

I guess if it stands in the way of "progress" it isn't a significant issue, but if an evil wreck diver touches one -- alert the media!

 

[neonstingray]

Sorry Soggy, I wrote that last post on about 3 hours of sleep after finishing a 5 pg research paper. After rereading it, I wouldn't have posted the same way. I understand your point, but I was talking more in regards to wrecks that do actually have significance, like the Doria, which have basically been cleaned out since divers started visiting it.

I've dove a couple wrecks, but down in warm water, and as you said they were basically rubble piles. I was referring more to the more significant relatively intact wrecks.
I haven't done any NE, but will be getting to some this summer. Until then I've just been reading about the NE ones. I do realize how easily they get destroyed, but wouldn't you still admit that there's def stuff taken by divers on the intact wrecks that would have lasted long enough for quite a few more divers to see it there, like the portholes people love trying to pry out? You mentioned again that people will be able to see these things once they're removed, but how does this happen when the thing is sitting in your living room? I don't really mind though when guys display them at dive shops, because then people who actually care get to see them all the time. Also, I wasn't trying to argue that removing stuff prevents research. As you said the stuff isn't really of interest to professionals anyway. I was trying to say that I think the argument that people will get to experiance a piece of a wreck if you remove it is a poor one since typically the only one who experiances it after that is the person who took it. If you're going to argue that other people will get to see it, I think you should at least try to put the object in a position in which people will actually get to see it, such as at a dive shop. I realize there are often important pieces of a wreck that should be recovered. Diesel, I'm not sure which art you're referring to, but I am aware of those big 700 pound chunks of art that were removed awhile ago. From what I know thought efforts were made to arrange a way in which they could be viewed by others. That doesn't bother me, because as you guys said they def would have gotten destroyed, and the people who gathered actually knew what they were doing. I wasn't aware gentile has mass amounts of personal stuff, but I'm not really surprised. Given the stuff he's done in that field though, I'm not really at a position to find fault with him for that though.

I guess what it comes down to is that I see plenty of thoughtless people on land who would happily take a knife and chip off some piece of a historical sight or object, just so they could save a piece for themselves, and it bothers me when I sometimes see people with this attitude head for the ocean. Soggy, in regards to the end of your post, I was never accusing you of being this kind of person though, or even wondering. I've seen quite a few of your posts and always respected you. If I found something cool underwater and didn't think it would really detract from the spot I took it from though, I think I'd grab it to. Well, even if it was remotely cool, given I typically get too excited before scraping off nothing more than an old beer bottle.

Austin

 

[neonstingray]

Thanks for the article Mike, it was worth reading.

Austin

 

[Soggy]

I understand your point, but I was talking more in regards to wrecks that do actually have significance, like the Doria, which have basically been cleaned out since divers started visiting it.

Let's use the Doria as an example, then. Historically significant? Yes, but only *because* of the sinking. We know all about the era and we know *exactly* how and why the ship went down...there is no mystery to solve. It's all on video that we can now happily download. It's also disintegrating rapidly from what I hear.

So, given that no archaelogists are studying it, and that most of the people diving it understand and even agree with the concept of artifact recovery, what archaelogical information comes from a bunch of china scattered through the wreck, buried in silt in areas that only those looking for artifacts would even bother going? I can guarantee you that, especially for a wreck like the Doria, more people will see that artifact when it is sitting in your living room than will see it down in the third class galley.

Intact wrecks quickly become not-so-intact wrecks. Do you believe that some artifact down inside a wreck will be seen and appreciated more as it is rapidly turned into dust or buried than if it were recovered and passed on from generation to generation for potentially hundreds of years? I know that if I personally recovered something significant, I would pass it on through my family or donate it to a museum when I die...that's the part I think you are missing. Recovered, it will be around long after I'm gone whereas it won't be on the sea floor.

I've dove a couple wrecks, but down in warm water, and as you said they were basically rubble piles. I was referring more to the more significant relatively intact wrecks.

Those intact wrecks are only intact because they are new and new wrecks have less archaelogical significance, as we generally know how they went down and we certainly know about the time period and ways of the era they went down. Those who are diving unidentified yet intact wrecks generally have an interest in identifying them and will recover artifacts for that purpose.

...wouldn't you still admit that there's def stuff taken by divers on the intact wrecks that would have lasted long enough for quite a few more divers to see it there, like the portholes people love trying to pry out?

Sure, more divers will see them underwater, but why are divers more special than guests in my home or my great-grandchildren who will inherit that porthole I recovered?

I guess what it comes down to is that I see plenty of thoughtless people on land who would happily take a knife and chip off some piece of a historical sight or object, just so they could save a piece for themselves, and it bothers me when I sometimes see people with this attitude head for the ocean.

The difference is that the ocean is putting a lot more energy into the chipping away than any person ever could. By recovering it, you are *preserving it*. By taking a piece of some land-based artifact, you are destroying it.

Soggy, in regards to the end of your post, I was never accusing you of being this kind of person though, or even wondering.

I only mentioned it to point out that there are many of us that share this philosophy, yet have little interest in recovering anything. For me, most of what I see either just trash or would require far too much effort to recover. We did find a cassette tape inside a tanker that went down in 1977! It was probably Abba or Linda Rondstat or something. I suppose that could tell us something historical about the crew.

 

[neonstingray]

Ok, Soggy, I'll agree with alot of what you said, but as Mike said, I definitely think there's a middle ground, even if my original post didn't sound like that.

In regards to what you said about recovering something that would have lasted for divers to see because the divers aren't any more important than you're family, I would probably feel the same way if I was old enough to have a family just because of the emotional attachment, but if I thought about it objectively I think I would still say that it's important for the divers because they're the ones who went through the work and effort to go down and see it for themselves in the actual wreck, rather than just finding someone on land who already has stuff for them to look at.

Austin

 

[aue-mike]

but if I thought about it objectively I think I would still say that it's important for the divers because they're the ones who went through the work and effort to go down and see it for themselves in the actual wreck, rather than just finding someone on land who already has stuff for them to look at.

The biggest problem I have with the above is that, by and large, divers are not visiting "real" shipwrecks, at least not down here in Florida. The vast majority of divers go play on artificial reefs, typically freighters or other crap. There are hundreds of great real wrecks, but, alas, they have been beaten down over the years so perhaps they don't look like a wreck to new divers. Further still, since these wrecks are beaten down and sometimes heavily encrusted, I doubt most divers would know what they are really looking at. For example, there are four large wrecks sunk in WWII in recreational depths off Key West in relative close proximity to each other. But no one goes there. They go to the Cayman Salvage Master or Joe's Tug, and pretty soon will be going to the Vandenburg. Same thing for the Duane and Spiegel Grove, which, cumulatively, likely witness the most diver traffic of all wrecks in the state. Judging by where most divers are really diving, it would seem most divers want an amusement park or jungle gym versus a natual historical wreck. So, I think the above is really an empty statement for many places. For places like the Great Lakes and elsewhere that have more stable environments, this obviously is not accurate. But for many places along the Atlantic seaboard, your position about letting "other divers" see artifacts really holds no merit.

 

[neonstingray]

Hey Mike, I was really surprised to hear that, and never would have imagined it. I personally would rather see a pile of rubble that actually meant something rather than a nice looking meaningless wreck, and I had thought other people felt the same way. Whenever I'm in the quarry I feel kind of stupid swimming down to see a big helicopter that someone tossed into there just to give me something to go down and look at. Grant it, I still do it but I feel a little fake.

Austin

 

[sean22]

Mr Camshaft, I stongly suggest that youget a bit more experience in what you are talking about, before you start making opinions about issues in which your experience is limited to what you have read in a book. Most anything written by the the Archie academics is completely biased as wreck divers. In some cases I agree that the wreck should be preserved (i.e. Great Lakes wrecks). Here in New England the situation is completely different. I have been visiting these sites for 25 years and have seen lots
of changes to various wrecks. Some that were visible just a few yeasr ago are now completely buried. As for Ballard, while I respect what he has done, I also feel that some of his ways are a bit hypocritical. While he maligns anyone who attempts to visit or salvage the Titanic because it is a Grave Site, he turns around and brings up all kinds of Artifacts from the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea. The Monitor was a grave site but the Navy brought the Turret up. It seems like the powers to be, change the rules to suit their own self serving interests.