The Pirate
Contributor
- Messages
- 101
- Reaction score
- 0
Uh! One's underwater. :bonk:
The Pirate
when a wreck becomes a gravesite?
- Thread starter Wendy
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Uh! One's underwater. :bonk:
The Pirate
Tim Ingersoll
Contributor
Ok. In the two thousand year old village archeologists are mapping and categorizing artifacts in order to explain the culture and people who once lived there. They are advancing our knowledge of modern culture and social structure by explaining how our forebears lived and interacted. Taking artifacts off a fifty year old WWII wreck so you can put them on a shelf in your bedroom doesn't benefit anyone except you for a fleeting few years. Soon enough no one knows what it is or where it came from. It loses its significance when you die and becomes so much junk. It no longer is a memorial to the person who lost there life in a burning wreck. It is just so much crap in your house to be thrown out when you die. See?
- Messages
- 3,464
- Reaction score
- 13
So, the world is better off by us letting the artifacts lie within the crumbling hull until they become silt, right? That way it benefits noone, for no period of time.
Are you archeologist Tim? reading your words makes me think you might be. I hear a lot of the "ok for archeologists, not ok for others" in your words.
WW
The difference is then not in the type of site but in the way it is dived, there are underwater archeologists doing a good job. and there are above ground trophy hounds robing memorials everywere.
it is not the site but the the way it is explored...lets not confuse the two
it is not the site but the the way it is explored...lets not confuse the two
I understand completely what Tim is saying...I once dabbled in archaeology (yes, I have a degree in it) and Tim is talking about the importance of doing archaeology right (DAR). The problem with "trophy grabbers" is that they go down, grab whatever is there, go up, and say, "wow, look at my historical find". The problem is, once said trophy grabber has removed the artifact from its original position (in situ) and messed up the stratigraphy/seriation (relative dating methods), the artifact is useless. Basically, the artifact is useless to historians and archaeologists if it is removed from its original context.
Archaeologists do remove artifacts from the site...but, as anyone who has worked on an archaeological site can tell you, there are a zillion things you have to do before you can remove anything (painstaking digging, sampling - soil, rock, whatever, photographing, mapping, etc. etc.).
Tim Ingersoll
Contributor
I must admit if I saw a really cool relic on a wreck I would be tempted. I also admit that all this rhetoric won't stop the plundering of wrecks. I would just like to be able to see the wrecks the way they looked when they hit the bottom. I take note of the argument that its all just going to rot anyway. No easy answers. By the way I'm not an archeologist.
- Messages
- 3,464
- Reaction score
- 13
Ever try that at about 190 fsw?
And I am not on the side of "anti-artifact" taking. I have taken dishes off the City of Houston myself and I didn't give a damn about the context. Just pointing out that I can see the argument..
Ships that I feel should not be touched by divers:
1) Warships. They are still usually considered owned by the flag country of the ship, yes even U-Boats. The governments of warships have no practical way of persuing small acts of theft (a coin here, bolt there, etc) but they will act upon aggregeous looting/treasure hunting.
2) Sunken ships where the sinking involved massive loss of life.
3) Ships that are under active historical/archaelogical study or planned future historical/archaelogical study.
4) Ships that are considered cultural heritage or world heritage sites.
5) Ships that have sank recently who's owner is planning to undertake salvage/recovery operation.
6) Ships that have been claimed by a salvage operation and have filed paperwork to salvage that site.
Other historical/ancient recks I also think should be left relatively untouched, but I am much less adamant about.
Recks that don't fall into any of the above catagories I either haven't thought of or don't care about in terms of others souvenir hunting, though I personally prefer to leave sites untouched for other divers who come after me.
1) Warships. They are still usually considered owned by the flag country of the ship, yes even U-Boats. The governments of warships have no practical way of persuing small acts of theft (a coin here, bolt there, etc) but they will act upon aggregeous looting/treasure hunting.
2) Sunken ships where the sinking involved massive loss of life.
3) Ships that are under active historical/archaelogical study or planned future historical/archaelogical study.
4) Ships that are considered cultural heritage or world heritage sites.
5) Ships that have sank recently who's owner is planning to undertake salvage/recovery operation.
6) Ships that have been claimed by a salvage operation and have filed paperwork to salvage that site.
Other historical/ancient recks I also think should be left relatively untouched, but I am much less adamant about.
Recks that don't fall into any of the above catagories I either haven't thought of or don't care about in terms of others souvenir hunting, though I personally prefer to leave sites untouched for other divers who come after me.
sounds like what you are describing is an artificial reef purposley sunk for your view pleasure....not a wreck
Similar threads
