next »

TRAILBLAZERS
for students

ArchaeoFind
Archaeology News
Articles
Browse Attachments
Calendar
Downloads
Forum
Gallery
Links
Member Map
Our News Feeds
Submit Article
Tag Cloud
Video Channel

Trailblazers
Play Phaos
Chat
Trailblazers: Virtual Tours
History's Hinge - 'Ain Jalut

[Solomon]

Look at the horizon: in that slight strip of sand lie more wrecks than in any Caribbean site. The cannon: for repelling the French.


For the first part of my life, I lived history as much as being taught it. The modern part of the family home was Georgian, attached to a much older section. As a teenager, I discovered in the cellar a hidden entrance to a tunnel running under the village to the church and onwards to the vicarage. My school, though, was even older than that.


Kimbolton Castle

I lived there as a boarder for seven years. That was in the days when private schools prepared young gentlemen for a role in empire. Those days are long gone.


Yes, we were actually taught in this room - the saloon.

By the time I left Kimbolton, I had read much of the library of the Dukes of Manchester.

I began archaeology in the late 1960s, working with the Cambridge Archaeological Unit on digging into the Roman ditch used to protect the town some 2,000 years ago. It was a lesson in handling water. I put that experience to good use shortly after, digging exploratory trenches into the Saxon Shore fort of Othona.


St. Cedd founded a Celtic style community at Othona and built his Cathedral of St Peters on the foundations of the Roman fort.

Since then, I read history in the antipodes and studied archaeology at City University (London). I have found it fascinating to see how archaeology has disproved much of what I was taught at school, even at university. Teachers who were educated in earlier decades had been outdated by more recent discoveries. A prime example of this has been our growing understanding of the fall of Roman Britain: we were once taught that it collapsed in one winter, whereas today we know that it slowly disintegrated over a century or more.

Since those early days, I have enjoyed practising archaeology all over the world, from the Mediterranean to North America, and the South China Sea. I've also accumlated some commercial experience along the way.


I won a scholarship to this institution: the London Business School.

Most recently, I was contracted by a treasure hunting company in Canada, to review data and reports covering more than three decades of excavation and drilling on a site. What I found really upset them and all their many supporters: the basis for the hunt was a hoax. One of the many things I learned from this is that most treasure hunters have no idea of either archaeology, or history.

In that case, it did not matter - there was no archaeology to disturb. It was fascinating, though, to find that those hunting down stories of pirate treasure along the North American seaboard were completely unaware that in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, there was a widepsread phenomenon of divining for treasure - scrying - and those digging for pirate treasure then had little or no historical basis for their beliefs. Treasure hunters followng in their footsteps today are therefore bound to fail before they begin.

Treasure hunting is a precarious career. Most lose their all. Even the very few who have enjoyed success pay a high price.


Artifacts recovered from the Nuestra Senora de Atocha sank in 1622 on voyage from Habana, Cuba to Spain.

How do I feel about treasure hunting? First, before trying to take a superior stance on this, one should admit that all archaeological excavation is destructive. Whatever we try to do today, there will be better techniques tomorrow: less destructive and more informative. Therefore the accusation levelled by archaeologists at metal detectorists and treasure hunters that only the good practice of archaeology should ever be used, has to be false.

The truth is, if concern for preservation, conservation and non-destructive techniques is absolutely paramount, then nobody should excavate anything, ever. Once the spade digs into a site, it is going to destroy data, whether wielded by an archaeologist or treasure hunter.

The best anyone can do is follow the law and best practice. Even this doesn't satisfy many: your intentions are wrong they claim. Well, just remember the old saw: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What matters is what  one does. Do one's best, don't just dream about it.


I am a member of a number of organisations to do with archaeology, including the Council for British Archaeology.

[Sovereign]

Hi, Solomon!
My school sure didn't look like yours 
all archaeological excavation is destructive - that's interesting. Could you tell us more?

[Solomon]

all archaeological excavation is destructive - that's interesting. Could you tell us more?

That's a good point. Metal detectorists are under fire for being destructive of history, archaeology and heritage. Yet those making this attack - archaeologists - are responsible for being destructive also.

For a start, in Europe at least, most archaeological excavation is done in support of construction. That is, an historical site is going to be built over. Sure, the archaeologists are going to do their best in preserving what they can, but the fact is, they are conspiring with the builders in destroying much.

Archaeological surveying need not be destructive: there are many methods which are non-invasive (it is assumed). But the drilling of a bore hole, or an exploratory trench, may destroy data. Wikipedia:
It avoids ethical issues (of particular concern to descendant peoples) associated with destroying a site through excavation.

Now, to excavation. Wikipedia again:
Excavation is the most expensive phase of archaeological research. Also, as a destructive process, it carries ethical concerns. As a result, very few sites are excavated in their entirety.

It is because archaeologists recognise the destructive nature of their work that they generally try and leave some of the site untouched. I think that few archaeologists would disagree with me on this.

Why Archaeology is Important
http://bama.ua.edu/~alaarch/Whatisarchaeology/index.htm
Since archaeology is, after all, a destructive process, some sites should be preserved simply because they are unique.

Excavating involves digging into the ground to recover as much of the information as possible. In this sense, archaeology is very destructive. If an archaeologist doesn't need to dig a site, then the site will remain preserved underground.

Further reading

Building Archaeology: A Non-Destructive Archaeology
http://www.ndt.net/article/wcndt00/papers/idn365/idn365.htm
Building archaeology tries to reconstruct the history of existing buildings, using direct observations of the building themselves. The archaeologists identify and analyse the following main data: materials, building techniques, continuousness and gaps, demolition tracks, the way a specific element sticks to the next one, etc. as significant traces of the passage of the monument throughout the different historical periods.

Strategic study of Wessex hillforts by non-destructive methods
http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/ArchRev/rev96_7/weshill.htm
A vital step towards the management of archaeological sites in ways that will be beneficial to the survival of buried remains is the acquisition of more detailed information on the amount and types of archaeological feature that may survive more or less undisturbed beneath the ground. Non-destructive methods of site investigation provide an effective means by which this may be accomplished. In recent years they have assumed an increasingly important role in thematic assessments of particular groups of monuments, where identification of sites of high archaeological potential worthy of active conservation measures is imperative in a climate where resources have to be carefully targeted.

[Ninetyninestar]

Very interesting, I recently finished working with some of the "better" archaeologists working at present in the Caribbean.  Along with these were students and "Experts" for the most part they were useless, destroying part of the site and soft timbers with their clumsy movements, the same can be said for moving ballast as there were artifacts attached to the ballast that were overlooked and discarded.  All in all it looked like a bunch of mutts rumaging through a garbage can, very messy.  The same can be said for some of the treasure hunters I have met equally as bad.   So I guess its on the day, right Solomon?  Nice post sir, very interesting History in itself.

[Solomon]

First, thank you for joining us here, Ninetyninestar. The Directors know just how much you have to contribute and we look forward to seeing you here.

Clumsiness. Not sure if any amount of training or practice will overcome innate cack-handedness, or a hangover, or a bad Monday morning. I've taught paper conservation in various London museums and been amazed how the average guy cannot touch paper without marking it. Many times I've seen archaeologists damage artefacts whilst lifting them out - it's time for some bright spark to invent a fool-proof system.

Mind you, I think a lot of people lifting treasure out of the ground would have shaking hands 

[Bart]

Hi, Wow Solomon, I envy the time you spent in the school, though in my youth I likely would not have appreciated it's beauty and history as much as I do today. I presume the brass spittons at the fireplace were not there for the students.  Here in the US, 100 years is 'old' to most people, and 100 miles is a commute before breakfast for many. The opposite holds true for Britain.

I agree with your views on the archy/ detectorist controversy, and see no hope of improvement in future unless such practicalities as this and other real world skills are taught in schools.

 I am also interested in having you expand a bit on the non-destructive methods needs in archaeology. Have you suggestions or ideas fo what is needful? Were "if " a reality, what would you like to see for equipment?

I also believe arcaeology in Britain owes a great deal to detectorists for their finds, and must say you have a great reporting requirement law there. While the same law would never work here in the US,  something similar is needful here.

Thank you for your input, I hope we all can learn much from you.

Bart

[Solomon]

How right you are, Bart, on appreciation. When I was at Kimbolton, it was run on strictly Victorian lines - brutal in all respects. It helped determine my character as a rebel, rather like the film If.
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=63498
The piano was there in my day. Every 3rd Sunday we were allowed home after attending church and on our return, there was a concert. As well as visiting musicians, we had some great pianists at the school (staff and students, one of whom became a noted concert pianist) and that piano featured prominently. Actually, my most vivid memory of the saloon was a bust-up I enjoyed there... it's amazing that the room is in such pristine condition, considering 

I like your suggestion for teaching. If there is any one subject that needs understanding, I think it would be the importance of strata. I have a feeling that many a detectorist digging up a find may not realise all the implications.

You are right, I'm sure, on UK/English laws. Though recent changes are not universally popular, they do at least attempt to strike a fair balance between metal detecting and the practice of archaeology. And nobody can complain about being rewarded - I doubt any other government pays out such sums, on a frequent basis.

The 1996 Act tries to deter detectorists digging below the ploughshare. Obviously, this is to protect the strata of an archaeological site and I have to agree with it. It is also, I believe, one area of weakness in professional archaeology, in that once an archaeological stratum is revealed, it is open to contamination. Current preservation methods are not, in my opinion, adequate to avoid the possibility of destruction.

You ask: what if? The above is where I would start. Let's come back to it.

Good to see you here, with us, Bart!

Sol

[Diving Doc]

Hi Guys,

Just to throw my two cents in..................In underwater archaeology I've seen much the same as 99*
The persons under discussion often don't have the basic diving skills nor sufficient time to perfect what little they do know. For the most part they don't even know what neutral buoyancy is nor how to move about on your finger tips and keep from stirring the muck up, and of course ruining the visibility for the rest of the dive. There are some good ones though, Rod Mather who teaches the U/W Archaeology course at University of Rhode Island knows the ropes. Unfortunately though, the good ones are in a minority from what I've seen and heard.

Doc

[Bart]

"Most recently, I was contracted by a treasure hunting company in Canada, to review data and reports covering more than three decades of excavation and drilling on a site. What I found really upset them and all their many supporters: the basis for the hunt was a hoax. One of the many things I learned from this is that most treasure hunters have no idea of either archaeology, or history." - Solomon

I came to the same conclusion as you did regarding this same site recently, based upon my own research, and experiences with a similar situation.   That is so true about the historical and archaeological aspects, they are paramount in every search. While my search was also done at anothers request, the difference lies in the fact that no money was spent beforehand, resulting in a happy 'client'. Those who spent big $$$ before investigating have no one but themselves to blame, and that is sad because that same money could well have been used for several other treasure hunts.

- Bart                                     

[Solomon]

Bart:
I came to the same conclusion as you did regarding this same site recently, based upon my own research, and experiences with a similar situation.
I'd appreciate learning more on this: if you would, please post in the appropriate thread in the Charter member board.
Thanks!

Solomon

[Solomon]

Doc and I come to History Hunters from different backgrounds: Doc from diving and treasure hunting, and me from history and archaeology. Of all I have learned from Doc and History Hunters, perhaps the most important lesson is this: avoid marine treasure hunts.

Few if any respectable archaeologists touch that area anyway. Doc and I are members of the Council for British Archaeology which is entirely opposed to marine treasure hunting, as demonstrated by this statement on the HMS Sussex salvage contact between the UK government and Odyssey Marine Salvage:

COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY SLAMS GOVERNMENT TREASURE HUNT
The Council for British Archaeology today voiced their extreme concern about a commercial treasure hunting contract between the UK Government and an American underwater salvage company to recover bullion from the 17th century wreck off Gibraltar which the salvors belive to be that of HMS Sussex. Through this deal the British Government are engaged in a joint venture selling antiquities to pay for an investigation of doubtful archaeological feasibility, while also lining its own pockets and those of a foreign company. The wreck is said to be under threat from several salvage companies wanting to get their hands on the booty, though few have the technical expertise required to recover such deeply sunk material. The CBA fears that Governments all over the world will now be pressurised to sign up to similar or worse deals, putting their own underwater heritage, as well as Britain?s, at peril.

Commenting on the recently signed deal, Dr Francis Pryor, President of the Council for British Archaeology said:

    ?This is getting UK heritage policy into some very murky waters. It is Public Private Partnerships gone mad. It contravenes UK commitments to international conventions, as well as basic principles of the Government?s own heritage policy. If you applied these principles to on-land archaeology it would drive a coach and horses through hard-won foundations of responsible heritage management."

The CBA believes that instead of promoting ? and benefiting from ? commercial treasure hunting under the guise of archaeology, Britain should sign up to the UNESCO Convention on Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage and use the nearby naval base at Gibraltar to develop and demonstrate ways in which governments might patrol and monitor their historic wreck sites in international waters. This would do far more to promote better international collaboration to protect the underwater heritage in international waters.

George Lambrick, Director of the CBA said:

    ?This is a blatant piece of heritage asset stripping. It is saying to the rest of the world ?if the price is right, come on down?. We now have to question whether the British Government have any real commitment to protecting British and international underwater heritage across the world?s oceans, or are just in it for the money.

    ?It is questionable, to say the least, whether a government agency responsible for selling off defence equipment should be in charge of such a sensitive heritage issue. If the Government believes this deal is ethical, it should publish full details of the agreement and its policy in this matter.?

We had to lock the Odyssey thread on its Atlas project because:
The failure of Odyssey Marine to provide evidence in support of its claims in this matter raises the suspicion that its costly endeavours in both Florida and the English Channel are to do no more than create a smokescreen.

Unless, or until this barren situation changes, we have nothing more to discuss here and further, History Hunters will not lend credence to this: the thread is now closed and locked.

Subsequent events have proven this judgment correct.

Odyssey Marine is one of the few treasure-hunting companies to be listed on a stock exchange and therefore bound by regulations tighter than those applied to private companies.

Another listed company is SOVEREIGN EXPLORATION ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC. and its management is even worse than that of Odyssey, if that's possible. We had to lock the HMS Fantome recovery too, because the stories being generated by Sovereign Exploration were more fiction than fact, and we should not be seen to lend credence to them.

In the thread Treasure Hunting and Investors I began with:
Read reports on treasure hunting and this stands out in many of them: the hunt is more for new inward investment than for actual treasure.

That was a damning indictment of the industry. Doc wrote:
These guys are harming those in the private sector who would do legitimate recoveries within the protocols...

In the story of Treasures of Axis Submarines: the I-52, Doc commented:
1. Mr. Tidwell may have meant the largest displacement but I am not sure those figures are accurate. These vessels were longer and carried a much larger crew.
2. Given the above; first and foremost is the capability for retrieval of tons of valuable cargo from this depth by means currently available? To explain this more clearly, how do you transport this immense weight of precious cargo to the surface? Do you use MIR? This distance is too great to permit safe use of any type of lifting cable and winch arrangement that I am aware of. The day operation costs of the Keldysh are incredible, to say the very least, and then there is the weather factor for safe retrieval of submersibles and cargo. Given the claimed weight of precious metal the time involved it would cost almost as much as what might be recovered.

Now, to my last point, the weight of precious cargo claimed exceeds the capacity of the displacement of this vessel, according to specifications provided. She would have never surfaced if loaded thusly. At this point there is a serious lack of credibility as to the loading, I do not believe the sub could have sacrificed the weight of fuel oil and made the intended journey. There is great doubt as to the expected rewards and the probability that they are in fact on board this submarine, in my opinion. You can do the math, it's fairly simple.

While there may still be great treasure to be recovered I do not believe the means are at hand for the present.

This means that the claims being made by the treasure hunter, in order to raise money, were largely untrue.

Now Doc has brought to our attention another example of blatant dishonesty in order to trick a court into backing a treasure hunt: Notre Dame de la Delivrance, treasure wreck in the Tortugas?

Bart commented: Does 'gamesmanship'  like this occur often with wreck identities? Doc replied:
Gamesmanship??? Sounds like nothing more than selling blue sky and even the Attorney representing Spain didn't bother to do his research.

Bart again: Looks to me like a good yarn still whips up enough exitement to get the rubes to open their wallets.
Doc: I am sure Sub Sea got a good deal for their money. Just a bit testy regarding investors I would say, wouldn't you?

My own comment was this:
As we (charter members) have seen, the qualifications of some of the leading lights in maritime archaeology are at best poor, in some instances, bogus and generally misleading. The treasure-hunting companies love them, because they lend a false air of respectability to an industry over-burdened with ignorant fools, frauds and charlatans.

This thread became another to bite the dust with this from Doc:
Members,
Even though I suspect that there will be more questions I would like to bring some sort of closure to this topic.

We work for and fully support the legal recovery of treasures from the sea and land and the discovery and conservation of History yet to be written.

Which is to say, most of our accounts of marine treasure hunting have had to be closed, due mainly to the fact that they relate dishonesty.

This is not a string of unlucky coincidences. Member Ninetyninestar - a most respected diver with a keen, active interest in marine treasure hunting and archaeology, commented on the Fantome recovery:
Im all for Fantome recovery not for the stock market pity it wasnt some small town chaps from the local diving club...
Quite. I responded:
I have begun looking closely at the operations of marine treasure-hunting companies only recently, so I am not expert in this area. What I have found, though, in even this short time, is  this:

- Some of the leading maritime archaeologists employed by listed companies are not, in my opinion, all that they are cracked up to be. That is, some have not earned the letters they provide after their name, and the academic qualifications they tout are sometimes not quite what they seem.

- Divers within the profession report that the directors of some of these companies have long track records of dishonesty and the ethical standards of some companies are low.

Ninetyninestar started a thread recently on the ethics of marine treasure hunting:

- I know several prominent Salvours who work a wreck legally and all other wrecks in the area become one and the same, they live off investors money and dont dive if there is a one foot chop...

- if along the way youre finding coins here and there what was to say you could not mix another five wrecks in the Atocha trail?

- You are right too many CEO`s and Directors making bucks sitting at a desk landlocked, this past December 2005 I was offered 250.000 to show some sites to investors for one of the major companies.

Ninetyninestar is right to raise the sale of coins supposedly recovered from maritime sites.  I raised this in Artefact Frauds:
We know that a coin with a provenance of a treasure ship sells for very much more than an otherwise identical coin, without that bit of paper.

There are a number of treasure-hunting companies selling coins supposed to be from treasure ships.

We know that most treasure-hunting companies are desperately short of cash, yet with big expectations.

Who issues the certificates of provenance? How reliable are these people and their certificates?

It's about time we took at look at this area, because I am deeply suspicious that some frauds are underway. I also suspect that this is not limited to coins.

Moneypenny - who has years of experience with the Fisher organisation -  replied, quite correctly in my view:
In most cases, I believe a certificate of authenticity to be only as sure and trustworthy as the company that issues it.

We have seen, however, that many, probably most, of these companies are not to be trusted.

Moneypenny again:
Most companies have archeologists and historians working for them who sign the certificates along with officers of the company. It is thought that the academics would not sully their names by signing off on fraudulent items.

We have been investigating the backgrounds of some of the leading maritime archaeologists who work for treasure-hunting companies. This is how I have described them:

Some of the leading maritime archaeologists employed by listed companies are not, in my opinion, all that they are cracked up to be. That is, some have not earned the letters they provide after their name, and the academic qualifications they tout are sometimes not quite what they seem.

This is underlined by Doc's latest thread on the  Notre Dame de la Delivrance.

It does not seem possible, to me, to work within this industry without being tainted.

Are there people whom I would trust as properly qualified and totally honest in this industry? No - not even the likes of past diver Jacques-Yves Cousteau. We have written of Blue Water Recoveries and David Mearns, who is patently honest and professional - but he is not a treasure hunters. Similarly, we have written of copper salvage by SubSea Resources - and that is not treasure hunting, either.

The Government should find better ways of protecting historic wrecks than by taking part in commercial treasure hunts and sharing out the bullion. - George Lambrick, Director of the CBA

International Council on Monuments & Sites UK
13TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY MADRID 5th December 2002
AGREED RESOLUTIONS
Resolution 19
HMS Sussex
Proposal by the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage (ICUCH):

Considering the world-wide importance of a consistent and common approach to the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage, Reaffirming that the 1996 General Assembly in Sofia adopted the ICOMOS charter on the Protection and Management of the Underwater Cultural Heritage to this end, Noting that the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage of 2001 has not yet been ratified, but that all countries present at the vote on its adoption, including the United Kingdom, committed themselves to apply the Rules in the Annex of the Convention ICUCH has noted that the Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom, in contravention of the Charter and in contravention of Rule 2 of the Convention, is negotiating with a U.S. based commercial company, Odyssey Marine Exploration, to salvage bullion from the wrecksite of HMS Sussex (sunk in 1694), located in deep water close to Gibraltar, which may cause irreparable damage and sets an unacceptable precedent.

ICUCH asks the General Assembly to:

Express its extreme concern with this situation, and Asks the Executive Committee to take positive action to assess the situation and to bring this grave concern to the attention of the United Kingdom government in the most emphatic way.

Note on joint-letter from CBA, Nautical Archaeology Society, ICOMOS UK, European Association of Archaeologists & Institute of Field Archaeologists:
Managing the maritime cultural heritage

The CBA responds to Government consultation on the future of Britain's seas

The CBA has responded to the Government's 'Seas of Change' consultation which set out its overarching vision for the future of the seas around the UK (writes Alex Hunt).

We welcomed the commitment 'To increase our understanding of the marine environment, its natural processes and our cultural marine heritage' but suggested that the strategic goals need be extended. These goals should include:

    * To use the marine historic environment in a sustainable and archaeologically sensitive manner, to maintain the underwater cultural heritage for the benefit of future generations
    * To foster the educational and social benefits of the marine historic environment
    * To increase our understanding of the marine historic environment and the natural and human impacts upon it
    * To develop an integrated method of addressing the pressures which affect conservation of the cultural and natural marine environment

Meanwhile, the CBA, in association with the European Association of Archaeologists, ICOMOS UK, the Nautical Archaeology Society and the IFA, has sent a joint letter to mps in support of Edward O'Hara's Early Day Motion calling on the Government to improve protection of the underwater cultural heritage (see BA, December, March), prompted by a proposal to mount a treasure hunt on the wreck of the warship 'Sussex'.

The MoD has, however, deferred approval of Marine Odyssey Exploration Inc's proposal to allow revisions and resubmission, and to provide sufficient time for scrutiny by the English Heritage-chaired Archaeological Review Group set up by the MoD.

I support the position of the CBA and Nautical Archaeology Society on this. My position has now moved to oppose private treasure hunting at sea.

Solomon

[Diving Doc]

Solomon,

I do believe that fraudulent treasure hunters have so muddied the waters  that it is the
exception to the rule to find a legitimate recovery expedition but they do exist and have been done en camera. Off the top of my head I can think of five in the past twenty years that were done with full legal permits, funded by investors and properly recorded and conserved. These expeditions were so successful that they have spawned a school of wannabe's whose only intent is to raise vast amounts of money to enrich themselves with, realistically, very little hope of ever actually turning a profit.

If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

Then there is also the case of a recovery done properly but the company having  only one arrow in their quiver, and then proceeding  with other speculative "Treasure Hunts" to keep up the monetary momentum so that their coffers remained full. This state of affairs is most unfortunate as it creates a stumbling block for those who would raise money to perform legitimate recoveries and uncover History. It is small wonder that there has been so much legislation on this field of endeavor.

I carry similar credentials to Solomon. I am also a member of Nautical Archaeology Society, Council for British Archaeology, American Anthropological Association, and the Hakluyt Society. I do believe that marine archaeology and recovery can be done by the private sector within the confines of law and treaty, we just haven't seen too many examples lately and the 'limelight'  seems to be held by those of questionable research and intent. On the positive side, Clive Cussler's NUMA group has done brilliant work  for one sterling example.
Cheers,
Doc

[Solomon]

Doc,

Any industry in which legitimacy is the exception rather than rule, as you describe it, is best avoided, in my view.

You say there have been a handful of legitimate companies in the last twenty years, that you know of. If that was a neighbourhood you were describing, would you want to live there? I would not and I would not recommend doing so to anyone else.

Membership of those organisations you quote is understood to mean agreement with their viewpoint in this matter. Those members (e.g. Sinclair) we know of as maritime archaeologists and working as treasure hunters, do not, which in itself raises suspicion. I subscribe to those professional principles; if not, then I should have resigned.

Solomon

[Diving Doc]

Solomon,

I have thought that perhaps our job is to help clean up the neighborhood. I've never been one to run from a challenge. I am in complete accord with the protocols but the very scope of marine recovery of history seems to demand the involvement of the private sector so that it can be brought to light in a timely manner. In as much as the private sector would expect a profit on their investment beyond the history involved I would hope that a master plan such as that of the UK regarding treasure trove might be enacted globally. A master plan that would satisfy the protocols and ensure the recovery, recording, and conservation should prove profitable for all involved parties. Don't you think that such master plan is possible? Let's work on the guidelines sometime, O.K.? This would very effectively control those who would exploit the public and clean up the neighborhood. Simple controls, like having a certified and accredited archaeologist with oversight reporting to a single governing body responsible for international enforcement of protocol. This would eliminate those who have identified themselves as to the public as marine archaeologists when in fact they are not accredited by any of the certified institutions of this science. The support of fraudulent "treasure hunts" by these individuals is exactly what needs to be dealt with first, in my opinion anyway.
Cheers,
Doc

[Solomon]

Doc,

I am not a strong believer in vigilantism in general, or for History Hunters to be the vigilante of the marine treasure-hunting business. I do not object to making enemies - one can know the quality of a person by the enemies he makes - but I do not feel comfortable with being guilty by association. Marine treasure hunting is a discredited activity in the view of the maritime archaeological profession and by own own reports.

My own interest is in archaeology as a means of Revealing the Treasures of History. In maritime archaeology, History Hunters can take a proactive role by promoting the standards set by the professional bodies to which you and I belong.

Solomon