The Fig and the Spade

[Cablava]

Here's and interesting article, brought to my attention ( along with many others) by Filipe Castro.

http://www.archaeological.org/pdfs/archaeologywatch/figandspade.pdf

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Peg Leg]

Question:
If artifacts including cannon do not rot and ture into nothing then why are there CONSERVATORS working to preserve these items.
As far as I know there is only one thing that will last forever in the salty sea and that is GOLD.
But that is only my opinion.
Peg Leg

 

[ivan salis]

so only folks who do not sell what they find can do anything with wrecks -- so long as you don't want to crassly want to "make money at it " your ok --- bah who in gods name is going to do that -- no money out means no money in-- thats the way it works in the sea world -- as the spanish say --nada por nada , nada por amore.--- (nothing for nothing - nothing for "love") Ivan

 

[stevemc]

Peg Leg, the cannons and anchors dont corrode away in the sea for 300 years, but they start rusting and flaking when you take them out, so they must be conserved.

 

[Cash]

This is an intersting read indeed. Unfortunatly (and this is only an opinion) people who write such articles are set in their way with a mindset that is hard to overcome, they have many good points and the article is worth keeping but just as with religion, people can judge or pass judgement far too quickly. In order to make statements one must be directly involved on all levels, Cablava you worked offshore correct and inshore and I assume have seen how progress and reclamation destroy historical sites, I have seen this for years over, Ive also noticed a new tone on this site Tnet from some of the Florida divers and they can come over a little hard when it comes to spouting about legality and contracts seems to me like the guilt is washed away by a Fisher lease? Back to the letter, the points are valid, if its something they wish to tackle so be it, right now there are far bigger things in the world which need reform (in my opinon) education is a starting point and reality from both sides a must. If I see a dredge moving along the coast you can bet Im headed for the X before it removes the goodies in pieces to a football pitch or parking lot, Ive met treasure hunters the world over for most its a fad, they do no more damage than uneducated bareboat yachtsmen anchoring daily over the reef or scuba divers bouncing along the bottom. Some things should stay underwater if they cannot be conserved properly and sometimes big corporations do screw the little people, they do it regardless of the industry just caught some suckers in one and moved to the next, lets look at ourselves re-read the article and I bet that most people on this forum have good intentions but lack guidance. hell what a ramble - thanks for the post Cablava. Cash

 

[Darren in NC]

Ive also noticed a new tone on this site Tnet from some of the Florida divers and they can come over a little hard when it comes to spouting about legality and contracts seems to me like the guilt is washed away by a Fisher lease?

I didn't have guilt before and I certainly have none now. Remember just a few short years ago, archies didn't even believe you could have authentic and reliable excavations underwater due the to shifting nature of the ocean bottom. We now know better.

Thanks for posting this, Mike. Bottom line, both sides are wrong in their extremes (which I believe this letter is). Both are right in their moderation. There shouldn't even be "sides." They should work together within their moderation for the benefit of all. To dismiss all capital gain from UCH will only wipe out potential knowledge forever due to lack of funding. And to recklessly recover...or incompetently conserve...will also result in the same. If both can back off of their extremes, everyone will benefit from their collaboration.

-Darren

 

[Peg Leg]

Here's and interesting article, brought to my attention ( along with many others) by Filipe Castro.

http://www.archaeological.org/pdfs/archaeologywatch/figandspade.pdf

Is this not the same guy that hates Americans and Treasure Hunters?
Peg leg

 

[ivan salis]

more or less -- yep

 

[Cablava]

This is the reply from one of the most famous Treasure Hunters of the Present day. (I removed his name to get honest opinion.

Filipe,

Thanks for posting.

While it is a well-written article, and I have always had a lot
of respect
for Jerome, it is sad to see the same old tired rhetoric
continuing to feed
the frenzy of anti-commercial bigotry.

Gross generalizations may be comforting and easy to rally
behind, but
prejudice based on those generalizations is always ugly, and a
disincentive
for those who would build bridges rather than string more barbed
wire.

Ironically, the lack of public and media support for Jerome's
position is
consistently dismissed in the archaeological community as the
ignorance of
the public rather than admitting the possibility that the real
problem is
strict adherence to condescending dogmatic principles that
simply don't ring
true with the vast majority of the people in the world.

Jerome and I absolutely agree on one principle, though - and
that is that
underwater sites should be treated just like land sites.

Can you imagine getting public support for a policy that
dictates that every
trace of mankind on land over 100 years of age should be subject
to the
Rules of the UNESCO CPUCH, and can never be privately owned?
Every piece of
art, coin, stamp or antique once it is 100 years old magically
takes on
"cultural significance" and must be turned over to academics,
non-profits
and the government for study in perpetuity?

While the ridiculousness of that policy on land is self-evident,
it is what
the UNESCO CPUCH sets forth as a "rational" policy for traces of
mankind
underwater.

[By the way, for a look at what has happened when artifacts and
collections
are turned over to the academic, non-profit and government
caretakers of our
cultural heritage (As proposed by CPUCH), please visit
http://www.heritagepreservation.org/HHI/. There, spend some time
to study "A
Public Trust at Risk: The Heritage Health Index Report on the
State of
America's Collections" which concludes that immediate action is
needed to
prevent the loss of 190 million artifacts that are in need of
conservation
treatment. And that is for the artifacts that are NOT
deaccessioned and sold
off anyway!]

Shipwrecks, and the artifacts that are found on them, are not
all the same
significance, just as antiques, art, collectibles, buildings and
artifacts
from land sites are not all the same. Allocation of any resource
should take
into account significance as well as different user groups.
Jerome's
position (as stated in this article) appears to be that only one
user group
(his) should have exclusive access to ALL shipwrecks - without
any regard
for significance or the highest and best use of the resource.

I will continue to believe (as most of the public apparently
believes) that
shipwrecks - like any other resource - should be available to
many different
constituencies.

Of course there are problems with private ownership of cultural
heritage,
but as can be seen by the study cited above, there are just as
many problems
with public stewardship.

Rather than trying to alienate (you might call it enlighten) the
public and
others interested in shipwrecks, a little cooperation and
respect might go a
lot further than the hubris that characterizes most of the
sermons to the
poor, unenlightened masses.



PS Funny that the "typical" treasure hunter that Jerome
describes (male,
Caucasian, modest background, generally conservative, lacking
professional
credentials, gift of gab, ability to anticipate and survive
economic
hardships) also describes the typical entrepreneurs behind the
vast majority
of successful businesses and capital creation....which
ironically are the
same people that archaeological non-profits depend on for
donations to stay
alive.

 

[Darren in NC]

Case and point. Well said.