From: Gilldiver@aol.com (Peter Johnson)
Subject: UNESCO comments
To Whom It May Concern,
I regret that I will not be able to attend the June 12th meeting on the UNESCO
shipwreck convention due to work and family conflicts. However, I would like
to submit the following comments on the convention.
My background is as a New England sport diver for the past 20 years, as an
amateur ship historian specializing in turn of the century steam vessels, and
as a member of the Connecticut Shipwreck Steering Committee. This committee is
drafting a self regulatory system for the protection of shipwrecks that have
been determined to be of historical/archaeological significance.
I would first like to give my personal opinion on the draft convention and
then state my opinion as a member of the steering committee.
The charter presumes that all wrecks that have been on the bottom for 25 years
are provisionally abandoned and that they are completely abandoned after 50
years. In my opinion this blanket statement is overreaching and excessive. To
state that an old farm house was abandoned and belonged to the government
because it was not lived in for 50 years would never be accepted by any court
without formal legal proceedings for each individual house in question. Yet we
see the UNESCO charter trying to do just that with shipwrecks because of a
potential that they are a "cultural resource" due to their age. The National
Register lays out the guide line for determining if a structure (and through
the Abandoned Ship Wreck Act, shipwrecks) can be considered to be of
significance. Age is only one of the registers considerations. If age were the
only criteria, I could state that my garage, being 66 years old, was of
significance and in need of Government funding for it’s protection (i.e. for a
new roof).
To further examine this point of significance I would like to make the
following observations:
The introduction to the UNESCO charter it is states that:
The "Charter defines the ‘archaeological heritage’ as that part of the
material heritage in respect of which archaeological methods provide primary
information"
"Archaeology is driven by research; it adds to knowledge …. and it provides
new and challenging ideas about life in the past."
For shipwrecks of newer vintage, post 1880, our primary information is from
the written record. In fact, in most cases a shipwreck can be identified by
name and ship photographs, engineering drawings, equipment blue prints, cargo
manifests, and crew/passenger lists can be found. I would therefor say that
for these wrecks little, if any, new information of an archaeological nature
is to be gained and they should be excluded form any coverage in the UNESCO
document. I do not state that they may not be of historical significance, as
an example the USS Arizona is of great historical significance to the US, but
is of no archaeological significance. Shipwrecks in this group should be
examined for historical significance on a case by case basis by the
local/national governments and if none is found, opened for salvor/diver
artifact collection.
Shipwrecks between 1800 and 1880 may have documentation that is available but
some new information may be gained. These wrecks should also be considered on
a case by case basis as to their archaeological and historical significance.
But not all of these wrecks are of significance. A small fishing boat from
1850 in Long Island Sound may have local interest, if examples are not already
available, but is of little national or international interest.
Shipwrecks older then 1800 are the ones that most academics are interested
in, for it is these wrecks that we know the least about. In this category, I
strongly support any recovery being performed in such a way that
archaeological information can be discovered and documented. I urge you to ask
the professional archaeologists at the June 12th meeting how much research is
being done on ships wrecked since 1800, 1850, and 1900. I think you will find
that there is little interest in them and that they are included for
protection "just because".
Therefor, I strongly recommend that the blanket statements that - all wrecks
older then 50 years need to be protected, be amended so that only those shown
to be of archaeological or historical significance are included.
As to dangers to shipwrecks, the convention completely ignores the destruction
caused by commercial fishing. Since the late 1960's the power and size of
commercial fishing boats has greatly increase. This increase in power has
resulted in wood wrecks that used to be avoided now simply being run over and
destroyed, even steel wrecks are being broken up. The wreck of the trawler
Amagansett, sunk in 1960 off of North Carolina was fully intact during the
summer of 1994, in 1995 it was found broken up and spread over several acres
of the bottom, the remains of a trawl net were also found. Many of the
captains of these large fishing boats have artifact collections larger than
any wreck diver will ever collect. I have also talked to sport charter fishing
boat captains and they all report that many "Hangs" just are no longer found.
The result of the above is that wrecks that may be of significant
archaeological interest are not safe in any area where commercial trawler
fishing is conducted and that the option of leaving wrecks in situ may no
longer be a safe option.
John Broadwater, Nautical Archaeologist for the USS Monitor preserve, has
stated in a public forum that in his personal opinion that not,
"all the sport divers in the US could ever do the damage inflicted by a
single trawler"
and Jack Irion, Marine Archaeologist, Minerals Management Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior has also stated that,
" Every single shipwreck in the Gulf of Mexico found to date had shrimp nets
hung on it and, in many cases, sustained damage as a result. The Civil War
wreck of the USS Hatteras, for example, had its engine knocked over by a
trawl."
The commercial fishing industry admits to the damage caused by trawling as the
magazine National Fisherman ran an article written by a Sterling Vorus titled
"Trawling for Treasure" in the June 1997 issue.
Finally, for my opinion as a member of the Connecticut steering committee for
shipwreck legislation, I am opposed to the convention on a number of grounds.
In Connecticut, we are trying to develop a unique set of diver self regulation
rules so that archaeologist and divers can learn to work together. We hope
that by bringing both groups together that both will benefit, the divers by a
better understanding of the ships dove and artifacts collected and the
archaeologist by tapping into a large pool of divers with many years of
experience in private historical research, artifact collecting, and to perform
the underwater work involved in surveying and recovering ships and artifacts.
I am enclosing a copy of the 1st draft of the regulations for you review.
Please note the fact that private ownership of artifacts is allowed,
documentation of artifacts and the conditions of their recovery required, and
donation to museums encouraged. The provisions of the convention would make
all of these initiatives impossible if not illegal.
Again I regret that I can not attend the meeting but I hope that the above
comments will be born in mind during any deliberations on the US participation
in the UNESCO convention. If you would like to further discus these issues,
please contact me at the above phone numbers or E-mail address.
Respectfully
Peter Johnson
