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.
