Help requested (Spain)

[Au_Dreamers]

So, if anyone has further information on the bureaucrazy after making a find, post please.

OK it does sort of go with the OP since it might shed some light on when he finds an unidentified, abandoned, wrecked sailing vessel.

Emphasis mine...

This case began long ago as an in rem action brought by Cobb Coin Company against the “remains of what is believed to be the Almiranta of the New Spain Group of the 1715 Plate Fleet, known to the Spanish by two names: San Christo del Valle and Nuestra Senora de la Concepcion,” which rests somewhere off the coast of Florida near Vero Beach (“the 1715 wreck”). Cobb Coin Co. v. Unidentified, Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 549 F. Supp. 540, 545 (S.D. Fla. 1982). The complex procedural history of this lawsuit began on August 17, 1979, when Cobb Coin filed an in rem admiralty complaint against the vessel in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to notify the district court and the U.S. Marshal that it intended to retrieve a cannon from the 1715 wreck; the cannon served as the basis for in rem jurisdiction. Id. at 547. Cobb Coin sought a declaration that it was the owner in possession of the wrecked vessel and sought exclusive salvage rights over the wreck. Cobb Coin Co. v. Unidentified, Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 525 F. Supp. 186, 190 (S.D. Fla. 1981). Because the area and cargo at issue lay within the territorial limits of the state of Florida, the State intervened, claiming ownership of the vessel and its cargo under the Florida Archives and History Act, Fla. Stat. ch. 267. See Cobb Coin, 525 F. Supp. at 197, 200.

Three days later, on August 20, 1979, Cobb Coin retrieved the cannon from the wreck site. Id. at 191. The district court concluded that it had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 and that Cobb Coin's possession of the cannon “constituted constructive possession of the wreck itself and everything that is a part thereof, wherever located, and whenever removed therefore, past, present or future.” Id. (quotations omitted). Florida then sought injunctive relief designed to prevent Cobb Coin from continuing to salvage the site; the district court denied that request and Cobb Coin continued to salvage the 1715 wreck. Id. at 191–92.

On July 7, 1981, the district court entered a temporary restraining order for Cobb Coin and enjoined the State from interfering with Cobb Coin's ongoing salvage operations. Id. at 192–93. The district court subsequently converted this order into a preliminary injunction. Id. at 220. And on August 31, 1982, after a two-day bench trial, the district court made the preliminary injunction permanent, concluding that “Cobb Coin ha[d] established a right to the protection of this Court to conduct further salvage activities, for as long as it demonstrates the requisite diligence and success in its efforts.” Cobb Coin, 549 F. Supp. at 561.

I know you'll look deeper into those references Tammy!

The italicized and underlined portion is for a long burning question that many have questioned... for years...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tom_in_CA]

Wasn't all the same bologna tried on Mel Fisher too ? That he had "disturbed" it, and that it "belonged to Florida", blah blah ? But didn't his lawyers successfully argue that the state-of-Florida archies would ....... NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS spend taxpayer dollars on risky treasure hunts to have found it. But only "jump out the woodwork" WHEN SOMEONE ELSE FINDS IT. Thus the judges agreed that by simply demanding all of it would be a detriment to ANYONE ever busting their balls to find the stuff. Ie.: What would be the use ? And since the state could never justify to taxpayer dollars to go looking, then it would perpetually remain lost, sunk, un-discovered.

Right ?

Oh, and BTW: In the the citation by Au-dreamer: The persons had in fact found something . Not hypothetical questions.

 

[Au_Dreamers]

Cobb Coin was Mel's company back then. So see they started to harass him and treasure hunters way back before the Atocha!

 

[seekerGH]

On July 7, 1981, the district court entered a temporary restraining order for Cobb Coin and enjoined the State from interfering with Cobb Coin's ongoing salvage operations. Id. at 192–93. The district court subsequently converted this order into a preliminary injunction. Id. at 220. And on August 31, 1982, after a two-day bench trial, the district court made the preliminary injunction permanent, concluding that “Cobb Coin ha[d] established a right to the protection of this Court to conduct further salvage activities, for as long as it demonstrates the requisite diligence and success in its efforts.” Cobb Coin, 549 F. Supp. at 561.

Therein lies the foundation for Spains recent claim. "concluding that “Cobb Coin ha[d] established a right to the protection of this Court to conduct further salvage activities, for as long as it demonstrates the requisite diligence and success in its efforts.”

Has the Fisher group provided any scientific papers on the recovery? For the Atocha, has there been any collation of the artifacts recovered with any historical context?

What do we know about the Atocha from the recovery?


Exactly, hence Spains claim against Florida.

 

[ivan salis]

once mel won in court --the judge knew that both the state of florida and feds would forever bust his balls in the future -- so the judge ORDERED the state of florida to set up a permitting process to ISSUE permits ---- which was to include the all important and vital to for profeit salvors --- salvage permits so items can be sold to make money -- (not issue all the other permits and then block the issuing of salvage permits as the state has twisted it into)

 

[Salvor6]

Has the Fisher group provided any scientific papers on the recovery? For the Atocha, has there been any collation of the artifacts recovered with any historical context?

What do we know about the Atocha from the recovery?


Exactly, hence Spains claim against Florida.

Seeker there are thousands of scientific papers on the recovery and analysis of artifacts of the 1715 fleet. Just look at the Mel Fisher web site (which you obviously have not). Also check out the 1715 fleet society. For the Atocha, there is an online collation of every single artifact found. We know everything about the Atocha from books, articles and reports written by Duncan Mathewson III, Jim Sinclair, K.T. Jones, Syd Jones, Dr. Eugene Lyons, Malcolm Corey and many others. You should read them.

 

[Jolly Mon]

Seeker there are thousands of scientific papers on the recovery and analysis of artifacts of the 1715 fleet. Just look at the Mel Fisher web site (which you obviously have not). Also check out the 1715 fleet society. For the Atocha, there is an online collation of every single artifact found. We know everything about the Atocha from books, articles and reports written by Duncan Mathewson III, Jim Sinclair, K.T. Jones, Syd Jones, Dr. Eugene Lyons, Malcolm Corey and many others. You should read them.

You are right, of course. We know more about Atocha and her cargo than we do about any other Spanish colonial era shipwreck.

But without the tireless exertions and massive financial expenditure of a treasure hunter we would know...absolutely nothing about her whatsoever.

The archaeological community knows this...and they can't stand it.

With modern technology, virtually anyone can map a shipwreck site and record the location of finds.

The extreme complexity inherent in terrestrial archaeology due to stratification and successive occupation layers is absent in shipwreck sites. A shipwreck site is NOT an archaeological site. A shipwreck site is an "event" frozen in time.

Really, the ONLY relevance in a shipwreck site are the "finds" themselves. They tell the story. Location and conservation. That's it. And it doesn't take a PhD to record location and practice conservation.

"Marine Archeology" is a con-game practiced by professional con-artists.

It is this fact, above all else, they seek to hide.

 

[seekerGH]

Seeker there are thousands of scientific papers on the recovery and analysis of artifacts of the 1715 fleet. Just look at the Mel Fisher web site (which you obviously have not). Also check out the 1715 fleet society. For the Atocha, there is an online collation of every single artifact found. We know everything about the Atocha from books, articles and reports written by Duncan Mathewson III, Jim Sinclair, K.T. Jones, Syd Jones, Dr. Eugene Lyons, Malcolm Corey and many others. You should read them.

Sorry, there is a vast difference between articles and published scientific works.

To date, I never seen one published, sorry. You have a link to one?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...there is a vast difference between articles and published scientific works....

Gee I think hobbyist level "articles" can be EXTREMELY "scientific".

It's sort of humorous, when archies go to identify objects (bottles, relics, tokens, etc....) guess what they turn to as their sources of information ? HOBBYIST BOOKS. Doh! The very same people the "scientists" disdain, is the VERY PEOPLE they turn to for their historical knowledge of dug-object ID's. Say it isn't so ...........

 

[Salvor6]

I have never seen one single scientific article published by an archie from the Institute of Nautical Archaeology at Texas A&M. They hide them. Also absolutely none of the shipwreck artifacts INA has excavated is on public display.

Here is a link to a scientific paper published by the Mel Fisher Maritime Heritage Institute: http://melfisher.com/artifacts/?p=33

This gold "Bernagal" was found crushed flat. The expert conservationists at MFMHI restored it to like new. Absolutely stunning!

 

[Au_Dreamers]

Therein lies the foundation for Spains recent claim. "concluding that “Cobb Coin ha[d] established a right to the protection of this Court to conduct further salvage activities, for as long as it demonstrates the requisite diligence and success in its efforts.”

Has the Fisher group provided any scientific papers on the recovery? For the Atocha, has there been any collation of the artifacts recovered with any historical context?

What do we know about the Atocha from the recovery?


Exactly, hence Spains claim against Florida.

While that case is not about the Atocha...

Yes, Yes

Plenty.

Let's just say the language of the Atocha admiralty is the same.... "requisite diligence and success in its efforts"

What does that have to do with the questions you pose? There is requisite diligence and success in efforts.

Does one read anywhere that "scientific papers for peer review" are required?

You keep referencing this "claim of Spain's".

Can you provide proof of such claim?
What is the exact nature of the claim against?

Every private sector salvage operation?

 

[aquanut]

SeekerGH, you have absolutely no argument here! Quit trying to elevate your arguments with the lame questions that you continue to ask...All the important work on the undersea finds have been discovered, surveyed and salvaged by the private sector...the state archies managed to find an old leather shoe at the cost of $300,000 to taxpayers...

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....the state archies managed to find an old leather shoe at the cost of $300,000 to taxpayers...

Aaahhhh, but what you don't understand, is that the state archies "did it right". Contrast to casual hobbyist with no degree. We "rip items from context", blah blah blah. You obviously don't know the rehearsed lines of the purist archie sector.

For them to "do it right", they would take 2 hrs. to dig up a coin with tweezers and paintbrushes. Then write volumes on the angle it was tilted at in the ground. The exact depth and GPS. The exact context with an adjacent nail placement. etc... Contrast to a metal detector enthusiast, digs it up and look at it, fills the hole, and walks to the next signal. See ? We "rip things from their context". Wrong wrong wrong .

I know you are sobbing now with remorse. But not to worry: Box up all your ill-gotten gain and send it to me. I will absolve your conscience of all guilt.

 

[Salvor6]

SeekerGH, you have absolutely no argument here! Quit trying to elevate your arguments with the lame questions that you continue to ask...All the important work on the undersea finds have been discovered, surveyed and salvaged by the private sector...the state archies managed to find an old leather shoe at the cost of $300,000 to taxpayers...

Ahhh John, you are so right. The first wreck that comes to mind is the "Peppercorn Wreck", the Nossa Senhora dos Martires sunk 1606 that Phillipe Castro and the Institute of Nautical Archaeology excavated on the Taugus River. They spent 4 years and countless millions of taxpayer dollars to excavate tons of peppercorns and hundreds of shoes. They didn't sell one single peppercorn or shoe! They opened a museum in 2000 and so far they have had a total of 78 visitors before it closed.

Mel Fisher divers recovered 450 year old pea seeds from the Atocha. They germinated the seeds, some of them sprouted and the Mel Fisher lab did genetic DNA testing of the plants. The Key West museum has had over 10 million visitors. People want to see bling, not rotten shoes and bits of rotten wood! The academic archies just don't understand this.

 

[Blak bart]

I can attest to there great work in the lab. I was just there and got the grand tour from corey malcom. He showed me a verso gun they have been working on for some time. Its almost done and it is amazing. They are so attentive to detail that he was very excited to show me some wood that was from the atocha site. It was not from atocha but from a prehistoric forest that was on the site many millons of years ago. They are meticulous and professional for sure. The lab and techs are top notch, and I learned alot in a short visit. I went through the whole casting process with him and it is amazing.

 

[seekerGH]

Here is a link to a scientific paper published by the Mel Fisher Maritime Heritage Institute:

That is an article, not a published scientific paper. Published is not self published. It must be published in a scientific journal after peer review. It can then be cited.

SeekerGH, you have absolutely no argument here! Quit trying to elevate your arguments with the lame questions that you continue to ask.

I did not ask any questions, I was responding to a post.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

That is an article, not a published scientific paper. Published is not self published. It must be published in a scientific journal after peer review. It can then be cited....

This just seems to be semantics. If "articles" (on lay-man's levels) are so horrible and sub-par when compared to "scientist's published" journals, then why do those very same archaeological scientists perpetually turn to the hobbyist layman's world of studies, to study their own artifacts?

For example: When any archaeologists here where I'm at go to date bottles or trade tokens or military buttons or military accoutrements, guess what resources they turn to ? Books written by hobbyist diggers. You see this time and again in bibliographies they cite if you turn to look at their sources. So wait a minute: If those private sector diggers are so horrible, then why do they turn to those very same sources to learn from to assemble their own material ?

 

[enrada]

What you are talking about is in the publish or perish world. Cited for what reason. Archies have to justify their job somehow. What are you going to do with your scientific papers? Learn how to build ships like they did back in the 16 and 17 century. Learn what sailors wore, or what they ate? Learn how much gold and silver Spain stole from native people? Learn how much mercury Spain lost in the oceans that has changed into methyl mercury? Learn how many people Spain and the Catholic Church slaughtered?
When an Archie quotes the word "insitu" I find it real easy to translate that into "for job security". Try it sometime and see how it reads!!
Seeker do you get a government check? I need to know for scientific reasons!

 

[seekerGH]

While you can argue until the cows come home, it does not matter. There is a definition of a published scientific paper. Your arguments end there.

The original statement is still valid, there have been no scientific papers published on the Atocha and/or the Fisher et al groups.

Duncan Mathewson III, Jim Sinclair, K.T. Jones, Syd Jones, Dr. Eugene Lyons, Malcolm Corey and many others.

With all of those people writing articles and coffee table books, why have they not submitted anything to a relevant journal for peer review and publication?

Without publication and review, it is just a story. Sorry.

On a relevant note, look at the Odyssey Preliminary Assessment of Balchins Victory. On review by Wessex, it was destroyed, and Wessex noted that much of it had no foundation, and on other issues, the information that supported what the report stated, were refused. So much for peer review. http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/system/files/hms victory dba final version-web.pdf
Strange that many of the people that wrote the Odyssey report, are the same?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....There is a definition of a published scientific paper. Your arguments end there....

Seeker, I don't think anyone is disputing the definitions of those words here. Yes, perhaps the private sector hobbyist (who lacks a degree in archaeology) can not call his writings "published scientific papers". Ok. Granted.

But what this fails to take into account, is that private hobbyist collector/digger/divers who write material (and start museums, etc...) NO MATTER WHAT YOU WANT TO CALL IT have STILL contributed much of what is known to history. Forget semantics of what you call an article or paper. And think for a moment as to the contribution of the preservation of history. Who's done a lot of the heavy muscle work ? It's those dastardly private hobbyist individuals. Eh ?

Oh sure: There's no doubt some who have secreted finds away to their own coffers. There's some that have failed to document cool finds for historical sakes. Granted. But there's also some of them that have done a great work despite their lack of semantical titles. For example: I lack a degree. Yet have stuff on display at multiple local museums.

And another example: There's a local self-proclaimed archaeologist here. Back in the 1960s and '70s he never completed his degree. And just self-published his stuff back then. He dug scores of indian and early western sites. He became the disdain of *true* archaeologists who perpetually pointed out he was somewhat of a renegade. And now .... 30 and 40 yrs. later, his stuff is PERPETUALLY quoted and cited in history books, references, bibliographies, etc... Much loved and revered as excellent work documenting sites before they got bulldozed away back then to build another K-mart. Yet .... would fall short by purist archie definitions.

Some folks back then begged him to go back to college and finish his degree (because his works were that revered). Offering to pay his tuition, costs, etc... But he was too busy digging and writing his self-published stuff. Submitted articles to local historical society periodicals, which became authoritative works perpetually quoted and cited to-this-day. The stuff is quite excellent. Repeatedly quoted and used by *real* archies to this day. Doh !

.... why have they not submitted anything to a relevant journal for peer review ...

Again semantics. The works of museums and staff at the-likes-of the Atocha museum are perpetually "peer reviewed" (ie.: criticized) by anyone and everyone that cares to browse the museum, read the works, etc....