Should Shipwrecks Be Left Alone

[Gordon K]

Interesting discussion on the BBC website today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15031084

[Richard Mason]

As one of the more corrupt organisations on the planet, UNESCO are the last ones I'd listen to about anything.

[Hamish]

I may be naive but I can’t find anything wrong in a look but don’t touch manta for the average diver which UNESCO is advocating.

I prefer to leave it up to the professional/semi professional archaeologist to investigate those wrecks that warrant such investigation.

Regards

Hamish

[Richard Mason]

Yeah but its not up to a bunch of corrupt, venal rent seekers like UNESCO to tell anyone how it should be done, god knows the UN is bent but if you closed down UNESCO the organisation as whole would see a vast improvement in its batting average.

[TheNakedArchaeologist]

Is a catch 22 situation.

You ban divers from diving certain sites or working on wrecks you loose interest from public, sponsors, in some case divers and amateur archaeologists. This is a negative to the extent that Heritage at the moment depends on public interest and concern as a financial source due to our beloved government. Therefore a restriction means a alck of interest which in the long term could reduce funds.

The other side is if you allow people to dive and work the site this increases the deteriation rate so we learn less and restrict the conservation of our heritage.

One of the reasons there are so many Britain/History documentaries on TV!

Mean world but that is the reality.

[peter forbes]

:) wait until ive found a ships bell or porthole thanks pete forbes

[Gareth]

Is a catch 22 situation.

You ban divers from diving certain sites or working on wrecks you loose interest from public, sponsors, in some case divers and amateur archaeologists. This is a negative to the extent that Heritage at the moment depends on public interest and concern as a financial source due to our beloved government. Therefore a restriction means a alck of interest which in the long term could reduce funds.

The other side is if you allow people to dive and work the site this increases the deteriation rate so we learn less and restrict the conservation of our heritage.

One of the reasons there are so many Britain/History documentaries on TV!

Mean world but that is the reality.


One other point that they fail to appreciate is that the wrecks as a general rule are deteriorating anyone, regardless of anyone diving on them, the sea is not a benign place.
There are of course exceptions, some of the wrecks located in very cold or very deep water are not deteriorating as quickly.
But the more modern wrecks of the last centuary are as a rule made of Steel, and these are deteriorating quite quickly, even the Titanic is deteriorating at what appears to be an ever increasing rate.
If they where to ban diving on them, when they finally got round to looking at the wreck there is a good chance nothing will be left.
They also fail to appretiate that the vast majority of wrecks are located, and identified by amateur divers, and a very large percentage of the marine archeology is carried out by amateurs.
Its basically a policy of cut of your face to spite yourself.
Ultimately goverments do what they like. They will call something a war grave until they realise there is money to be made in salvage, and then offer a salvage contract to someone if they can make a buck.

Gareth

[Mike Halligan]

Is there a steer for us in the BBC write-up? The UNESCO-sponsored convention was proposed 10 years ago, largely ignored then and still without commitment from 5 major maritime states.

A man on a flying horse might reasonably conclude that UNESCO flunkies, having little to do one day, came up with a paper that is still lying around 10 years later, friendless.

[Chris aka divingchef]

[QUOTE=Mike Halligan]Is there a steer for us in the BBC write-up? The UNESCO-sponsored convention was proposed 10 years ago, largely ignored then and still without commitment from 5 major maritime states.
QUOTE]

Its worth bearing in mind that just because a country hasn't signed up to it doesn't mean that it doesn't adhere to the principals.

[Mike Halligan]

Is there a steer for us in the BBC write-up? The UNESCO-sponsored convention was proposed 10 years ago, largely ignored then and still without commitment from 5 major maritime states.


Its worth bearing in mind that just because a country hasn't signed up to it doesn't mean that it doesn't adhere to the principals.
That I would grant. UK may very well employ similar principles to those of UNESCO. So too might France, USA, Russia and China but does that make any of them correct? Meanwhile, you and I might usefully consider why the mouthpiece of the current Government propounds this particular piece of ancient doggerel at this particular time. France, Russia, the USA and ourselves can't afford further public spending, so the best reason suggesting itself to me is its potential in diverting public attention. :o

Now, what ARE they up to right now? :rolleyes: