ConsolaciĂłn Diver
Jr. Member
The shipwreck that recently washed ashore at Ponte Vedra Beach literally destroys the Florida Bureau of Archeological Research’s “embedded”argument and could lead to new lawsuits regarding what the State claims are “embedded shipwrecks”.
The Abandoned Shipwreck Act defines "embedded" as firmly affixed in the submerged lands or in coralline formations such that the use of tools of excavation are required in order to move the bottom sedimentsto gain access to the shipwreck, its cargo, and any part thereof.
Global Marine Exploration contends that shipwrecks laying in the sand are generally not embedded and are constantly being uncovered and spread around by shifting currents and storms and are at high risk of being completely destroyed and all that could have been learned from them lost forever.
In ongoing litigation with GME over several shipwrecks discovered in permit area 2015.03 (issued to Global Marine Exploration by the Florida Bureau of Archeological Research), one of the state’s witnesses states: underwater archaeological features, like those at issue in this action, have stayed roughly in the same location over the centuries. The location of these archaeological features are generally not significantly impacted by the centuries of storms that have passed through the area, otherwise these historic shipwrecks would have been totally lost. Based on his personal observations and career experience as an underwater archaeologist, a terrestrial archaeologist, and a diver of 32 years he has never seen a historic shipwreck completely exposed sitting on the seafloor like somethingout of the Pirates of the Caribbean.
The National Park Service Guidelines defines a shipwreck as being “firmly affixed,”if tools of excavation are required to move the bottom sediments in order to access the shipwreck, its cargo, and any part thereof. Even the use of a hand or ping-pong paddles, if it is being used to remove sediment to gain access to the shipwreck or any part of it, would be considered a tool of excavation under that definition.
The shipwreck that washed ashore this week is only one of several examples that clearly demonstrate that if shipwrecks are not “encased”or “cocooned” in coral, calcium carbonate, or similar substances and are merely laying on the sand, they do not fit the definition of embedded and cannot be considered “firmly affixed in the submerged lands”. This shipwreck further demonstrates that historical sites in unstable sand environments need to be studied, mapped, and recovered; the artifacts need to be conserved and protected before they are completely lost. Leaving them in-situ is not preservation and in my opinion is completely irresponsible.
One big question remains about this wreck, what wreck is it and where did it come from? Diver_Down on Treasurenet.com says:
“Actually, this is a"new" wreck that was washed in. It is theorized that it was encased in the sand at sea and with the recent Nor'Easters (seriously Porpoise Point isnearly gone) and hurricanes that the overburden had been moved and the currents moved it from it's resting place. Likely from the 17-1800s with the construction. One cool feature is the roman numerals that are carved into thewooden ribs. The idea that it was a "part no." in the assembly of the hull. They are trying to move it up the beach and out of the surf zone. I suspect that there will be no funding for any conservation effort and eventually they will bury it up by the dune line if they do manage to move it. There has been another shipwreck in the same area that is near the dune line. It is uncovered from time to time as a result of beach erosion. It remains entombed there with the idea that covering it with sand is the best conservation”.
Another question I have is who owns the wreck and what is being done to preserve it? I understand it is not in the state park and it is certainly not embedded; It will probably be washed back out to sea where the surf will break it apart further scattering and destroying it.
-Bill Seliger
The Abandoned Shipwreck Act defines "embedded" as firmly affixed in the submerged lands or in coralline formations such that the use of tools of excavation are required in order to move the bottom sedimentsto gain access to the shipwreck, its cargo, and any part thereof.
Global Marine Exploration contends that shipwrecks laying in the sand are generally not embedded and are constantly being uncovered and spread around by shifting currents and storms and are at high risk of being completely destroyed and all that could have been learned from them lost forever.
In ongoing litigation with GME over several shipwrecks discovered in permit area 2015.03 (issued to Global Marine Exploration by the Florida Bureau of Archeological Research), one of the state’s witnesses states: underwater archaeological features, like those at issue in this action, have stayed roughly in the same location over the centuries. The location of these archaeological features are generally not significantly impacted by the centuries of storms that have passed through the area, otherwise these historic shipwrecks would have been totally lost. Based on his personal observations and career experience as an underwater archaeologist, a terrestrial archaeologist, and a diver of 32 years he has never seen a historic shipwreck completely exposed sitting on the seafloor like somethingout of the Pirates of the Caribbean.
The National Park Service Guidelines defines a shipwreck as being “firmly affixed,”if tools of excavation are required to move the bottom sediments in order to access the shipwreck, its cargo, and any part thereof. Even the use of a hand or ping-pong paddles, if it is being used to remove sediment to gain access to the shipwreck or any part of it, would be considered a tool of excavation under that definition.
The shipwreck that washed ashore this week is only one of several examples that clearly demonstrate that if shipwrecks are not “encased”or “cocooned” in coral, calcium carbonate, or similar substances and are merely laying on the sand, they do not fit the definition of embedded and cannot be considered “firmly affixed in the submerged lands”. This shipwreck further demonstrates that historical sites in unstable sand environments need to be studied, mapped, and recovered; the artifacts need to be conserved and protected before they are completely lost. Leaving them in-situ is not preservation and in my opinion is completely irresponsible.
One big question remains about this wreck, what wreck is it and where did it come from? Diver_Down on Treasurenet.com says:
“Actually, this is a"new" wreck that was washed in. It is theorized that it was encased in the sand at sea and with the recent Nor'Easters (seriously Porpoise Point isnearly gone) and hurricanes that the overburden had been moved and the currents moved it from it's resting place. Likely from the 17-1800s with the construction. One cool feature is the roman numerals that are carved into thewooden ribs. The idea that it was a "part no." in the assembly of the hull. They are trying to move it up the beach and out of the surf zone. I suspect that there will be no funding for any conservation effort and eventually they will bury it up by the dune line if they do manage to move it. There has been another shipwreck in the same area that is near the dune line. It is uncovered from time to time as a result of beach erosion. It remains entombed there with the idea that covering it with sand is the best conservation”.
Another question I have is who owns the wreck and what is being done to preserve it? I understand it is not in the state park and it is certainly not embedded; It will probably be washed back out to sea where the surf will break it apart further scattering and destroying it.
-Bill Seliger
Last edited:
