Ontario's professional Maritime Archaeology

[Scott A McWilliam]

Objective Two

1. Control OMHC and advocate for a diver friendly Ontario. Recognizing the invaluable contribution sport divers have made to our understanding of our Great Lakes maritime cultural heritage. Advocating, facilitating, educating, promoting, and assisting avocational research efforts from the sport diving community whenever possible.

Argument

a. Referring to the OMHC page, they are also devoted to “…Working to discover new archaeological finds . . .” They have been looking for forty-five years, what did they find? Statistically, nothing relevant compared to the huge contribution to our understanding of Great Lakes Maritime Heritage made by the sport diving community. There are many groups or individuals in the diving community that have all found over two dozen shipwrecks.

b. The world changed. With the event of global warming and the impact of large urban centers, industrial pollution, and industrial farming the Great Lakes are undergoing a period of rapid dynamic environmental and ecological change. Fieldwork is only a small part of archaeology and few in the sport diving community understand that. A very typical experience archaeologists have with sport divers is a chronic failure to generate a report, particularly one that is worth reading. It is not necessary to make every sport diver into an archaeologist for their research efforts to have tremendous value. Technology also changed video quality dramatically improved and good quality video HD, 4K or higher can be used in photogrammetry to computer generate scalable three-dimensional models equal in accuracy to conventional site maps produced through survey. With as little as a GoPro type camera and a laptop sport divers have been generating sophisticated models that rival those produced by archaeologists. This is only a small part of an archaeological report, but it is significant as in a period of dynamic change you can measure that change by periodically remodeling the site.

This link will take you to a paper on photogrammetry if it interests you.

https://www.academia.edu/41370447/Underwater_Photogrammetry_shooting_for_ Optimal_How_to_build_an_economical_test_bed_for_a_towed_camera_array_for _photogrammetry_Draft_3

 

[Scott A McWilliam]

Objective Three.

1. Clarify and rectify the issues between underwater archaeology and the Ministry of Labour in Ontario.

Argument.

a. This problem was originated with the then Ministry Underwater Archaeologist and if there is justice and equity in Ontario, the “you broke it you fix it rule applies.”

b. The practice of underwater archaeology in Ontario was similar to the way it is done in the United States. The same equipment packages were used. This changed with what is known in the diving community as, the Atlantic Shipwreck Trial. A group of US-based divers, the Mardive group removed artifacts from the Atlantic shipwreck site and planned to conduct salvage, an artifact mining operation on the site. They obtained a court order from a California Court authorizing this activity.

c. Mike Fletcher, a commercial diver from Port Dover who had found the site became caught up in the legal action. Mardive discovered they were not in California and ended up in an Ontario Provincial Court.
During the course of a two-and-a-half-year trial, all of the litigants were chewed out by the judge.

d. The issue of diving methodology came to the attention of the court and a direction was made that all underwater archaeology conducted by the Ministry had to follow the Ministry of Labour diving regulations. This means surface-supplied gear. The Ministry Archaeologist engaged the court, big mistake. He stated that while he is an underwater archaeologist, he is also a sport diver, and does that mean he cannot do a SCUBA dive on the weekend? The court's response was that people work all hours of the day seven days a week and if he was diving on a weekend the court would assume that he was working.

e. As far as I know no Ministry Underwater Archaeologist has ever made a dive doing underwater archaeology for the last twenty years as a result of this.

f. This leaves the Provinces other Underwater Archaeologists in a legal fog bank. A direction is not a law and no one is legally compelled to comply with it. A direction is a caution, a warning from the bench that if there is a problem and you wind up back here after you have been advised on this the court is going to rule against you.

g. This situation may require a legislative fix or a change to the Ministry of Labour diving regulations. Fundamentally, it is unjust, and it has crippled underwater archaeology in the Province. As you might expect underwater archaeologists are still SCUBA diving with this legal sword hanging over their heads. If there is ever any kind of accident, a drunk in a boat ignores a flag and runs over a diver for example, by not following the Ministry of Labour regulations the archaeologist may be libel.

 

[Scott A McWilliam]

Implementation

While there are many things to consider in developing policy and planning for Ontario’s submerged cultural resource management future, I think these are of a lesser magnitude, perhaps idiosyncratic details. These can be discussed but the three points I have mentioned are the core issues and I think it is time for a change.

Continuing discussion in a public forum may be counterproductive. I have set up a private group on Facebook, Diver based Submerged Cultural Resources Management and I am hoping you will join us there.

Facebook Groups (that is a hyperlink)

Change takes time but with a small core group of people dedicated to this cause I think most of these objectives can be met within a year. What is needed is people who are leaders and influential in the diving community. This is not limited to Ontario divers and all are welcome. The task at hand is largely recruitment and letter writing.

 

[Scott A McWilliam]

A Faint light at the end of the tunnel?

My internet ramblings have not gone unnoticed. It has been flattering that it has been read not only by leaders in the diving community but by many archaeologists. An exploitable opportunity may be available at the Ontario Archaeological Societies Annual Symposium November 7-8, 2020.

The following post appears in the agenda.


“Moderated Panel/Roundtables

Toward a Partnership for Maritime Archaeology in Canada

Kimberly Monk and Lisa Sonnenberg


Panel Description:

This workshop is one of a series of connection events being held across the country to address the need for a cohesive structure for maritime archaeology. The practice of maritime archaeology - inclusive of submerged, coastal, and terrestrial marine-related sites – is fragmented in Canada, affected by limitations in funding, training opportunities, commercial development, and government regulation. By providing a forum for professionals and other stakeholders to discuss key issues, and through the process of formalizing local networks, we are addressing both national initiatives and regional priorities. Furthermore, with opening the discussion to the public, we wish to encourage their cooperation, share our collective knowledge, and remain transparent in our aims and objectives. To achieve the partnership objectives: improving research practice; promoting inclusiveness and engagement; and enabling education, innovation, and cooperation; we first need to address core local issues. By evaluating the current challenges across academia, government, industry, and community organizations, we can determine prospects for leveraging facilities, sharing resources, and building on current areas of strength. This workshop will focus on four regional topics (MoL diving regulations, indigenous consultation, archaeological consulting, and research) that are critical to supporting the practice of maritime archaeology within Ontario. The results from the discussion will set forth an initial agenda identifying local requirements and opportunities while contributing to a framework for building a national partnership.


Format Description: Afternoon session (1:00 – 4:30pm) Duration 3.5 hrs.


Invited Meeting (Participants/Stakeholders)


Invitees will be asked to submit a 1-page “archaeology” CV, in advance, to share with other members, listing education, marine archaeology training and experience.

In addition, a questionnaire will be circulated related to the current state of maritime archaeology in Ontario.

Open to General Audience (Attendees) during Part V Discussion of Regional Issues

Contact information: kimberlymonk@trentu.ca and epsonnenburg74@gmail.com”


Commentary.

Most of the problems diving researchers have been having are with OMHC so this discussion will introduce a number of points of view on the subject but may not result in the change we seek.


If you have wondered if there is merit to my arguments both Dr. Monk and Dr Sonnenberg specialized in archaeology and acknowledge underwater archaeology is “is fragmented in Canada, affected by limitations in funding, training opportunities, commercial development, and government regulation.” I think this is a ringing endorsement for the need for change in the face of a dysfunctional status quo.

If you dive shipwrecks or other cultural features in the Province of Ontario you are part of a stakeholder group and if it is open to the public you just got an invitation to the discussion. This is an opportunity to take a step forward in managing a resource we all love, send them an email.

 

[Scott A McWilliam]

Underwater archaeology in the wake of the Atlantic trial, check out the file!

 

[Scott A McWilliam]

Diver Based Submerged Cultural Resource Management

Conceptually, the idea of diver Based Submerged Cultural Resource Management originated in Ontario as a direct result of ongoing dysfunctional management. Ontario heritage legislation and the Ontario Marine Heritage Committee both came into existence in 1975 at that time both the Ministry and the Committee declared their intention to develop a submerged cultural resource management plan for Ontario. Forty-five years later they still have no plan.

Divers are an identifiable subcultural group that has existed for at least two thousand years that has undergone rapid change and growth due to technological advances since World War Two. As a subcultural group, divers have their own education system, organizations, clubs, conventions, and ceremonies yet they are rarely looked at from an anthropological perspective. Submerged cultural resources include shipwrecks sites and the largest stakeholder group utilizing this resource are sport divers, yet they have virtually no representation in resource management decisions. Diver Based SCRM is an effort to move to a more democratic management system with proportional stakeholder group representation in management decisions. Ontario divers no longer have confidence in the Ontario Marine Heritage Committees management recommendations.

How this is implemented varies depending on where you live. In Michigan and other states where you elect your sheriff, judges, and your dog catcher, in the future State underwater archaeologists may also be elected. In Ontario sufficient numbers of divers may rise to the occasion and join the Ontario Heritage Committee to effect change through the ballot box.

The first blush reaction from some professional archaeologists has been hilarious. Essentially, they suggest that I propose handing over the keys to the shop to a mob of diving neo-Luddites. In fact, nothing could be farther from reality. In the same way, you may be able to learn something about a country by their leader you can also learn about divers from theirs. The Executive director of the largest diver training agency PADI and the director of one of the worlds technical diving training agencies both have PHDs. The director at NAUI has an MA. Archaeologist do not have a monopoly on intellect.

Looking at this subcultural group you come to understand that many divers not only champion a number of environmental causes but also have their own efforts. Notably the PADI Torchbearer program and the NAUI Green diver initiative. Demonstratively, divers have a reputation as good environmental stewards and part of that natural growth and evolution is to move towards more active involvement in submerged cultural resource management planning.

In Ontario, this vision of better management includes adopting the UNESCO guidelines or developing something similar as they have in England. Underwater archaeology that is non-destructive and in situ is preferred. When samples are necessary for scientific analysis, they are as small and as discrete as possible. Museum archaeology is discouraged.

 

[Scott A McWilliam]

The Truth About Submerged Cultural Resource Management

In Canada with no graduate or undergraduate program in Underwater Archaeology, archaeologists have understandably been unable to generate a SMRC plan for the Province.

Archaeologists are not particularly well educated for SCRM they spend years studying that past and then are expected to generate SCRM plans based on their ability to predict the future. Submerged Cultural Resources like shipwreck sites do not require any management at all. Post depositional site degradation is caused by a variety of human activities and SCRM is little more than an archaeological code talk for people (diver) management problems.

There is no shame in cross-disciplinary assistance. Parks and Recreation, Outdoor Recreation, Psychology, Sociology, Cultural Anthropology, Philosophy, History and Political Science all may have more to offer in terms of people management solutions than the Archaeology department has been able to generate.

The vast majority of Ontario’s divers have embraced a conservation ethic and do not remove artefacts from shipwreck sites. If you were to go for a dive on one of the dive charter boats and removed an artefact from a shipwreck site, you may be given the opportunity to swim home. This would result in a lifetime ban from that boat and the other local dive charter boats and you would be reported.

When these incidents of throwback behaviour occur, and divers remove artefacts other divers complain about it and all the complaints make their way to the Ministry and the Ontario Marine Heritage Committee. This is a small group of people and half of them do not dive, after forty-five years of complaints of site degradation by divers they have unfortunately developed a jaded and inaccurate point of view regarding divers. Ontario is a large province.

While we would all like to think that SCRM decisions are being made in the best interest of the archaeological record to the highest professional and ethical standards, that is not always the case. Some management decisions have been profoundly biased and prejudicial. On occasion, Ontario has relied on voodoo agenda serving archaeology that is totally unique in all the world.

In the future, if divers are asked how they lost their right to access shipwreck sites in Ontario the answer, will, of course, be, incrementally, and through apathy. In 2005 amendments were made to the Ontario Heritage Act to establish a 2,500-foot (750m) a perimeter around an Ontario Marine Heritage site. This includes the Hamilton and Scourge. There was also a change made to the Canada Shipping Act to facilitate joint agreements between the federal government or organization to administer or enforce regulations as they apply to a wreck (heritage site) in Canadian waters.

How did this first diver prohibition come to be? I was approached by counsel for an American researcher who had applied for and been denied an archaeological licence for the Hamilton and Scourge sites for an opinion. There is not much of an opportunity to enter either vessel due to high silt levels below decks. With the understanding that the diver would not enter the vessel and possibly affect microenvironmental conditions, there is no reason why a diver should be prohibited from visiting the site on a look but do not touch basis.

That is not the type of opinion you would want to be wrong on. I attended the 33rd Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology in Quebec City and asked every archaeologist in the place what they thought about it. The Keynote Speaker Dr Paul Johnson from the Smithsonian Institute summed it up in his remarks if a diver employs a minimum impact approach there is nothing wrong from an archaeological perspective with site visitation. There was unanimous consent and then the provincial archaeologist left the hall and conference.

The best science is not making the decisions. It is a political environment, and everyone has an agenda. The Province’s premier white elephant shipwreck project to raise the two vessels for display in the City of Hamilton died a painful death in the light of day and financial realities of our time. (Or they just argued themselves to death.)

Diver visitation does not equal site attrition and it never has. Except to this rather small group of people often with little field experience and a jaded and biased opinion of sport divers pushing agenda serving management plans. There has been conflict of interest situations like having the provincial underwater archaeologist on the Hamilton and Scourge Committee. While I have every confidence that the province will be without a submerged cultural resource management plan for another forty-five years under the current management system, there is a better way. I continue to encourage divers as the largest stakeholder group utilizing the resource to involve themselves in submerged cultural resource planning.

 

[Jared0425]

Canada (specifically the city of Hamilton and the province of Ontario), failed to uphold its end of the deal for the Hamilton and Scourge ownership swap. There is clause in the arrangement that said the United States can take back ownership of the wrecks if the government of Canada did not uphold its commitment. Gary Gentile goes into this quite a bit in his book and legal proceedings in the late 90s.

The second OHA heritage site is another American wreck that lies within a 100' of the border, voiding the 2500' foot rule.

 

[Scott A McWilliam]

agreed

 

[Scott A McWilliam]

I am continuing to plug along and have been emailing and working away with a number of diving certification agencies, dive clubs shops etc., and I have also been looking at the numbers. In Ontario for there to be proportional representation, there would have to be 131,818 sport divers at this upcoming meeting for every Maritime Archaeologist present. It just seems fundamentally wrong that such a very small group, a handful are twisting archaeology to serve their own agendas.