It came from a wreck in the Baltic. The world's seas are littered with sunken ships, many of them in shallow coastal waters because that's where the majority of people sail, within sight of land.
As a history lover, I'm looking forward to diving on wrecks. There's something special about getting close of old artefacts of any sort, and swimming around an old ship that relatively few people have seen for decades must be particularly exciting. Especially if you're one of the first to be there following its discovery.
But, sadly, it appears that not all divers respect the historic significance or integrity of a wreck. They're more interested in taking away souvenirs, and damaging the remains in the process. I've already heard plenty of stories of divers who've lifted objects from wrecks in British waters, and I've only been diving for a few months.
I can understand the magpie urge to take away bright, shiny stuff. And I would not be immune to temptation myself. Until I've had the opportunity myself, and made the decision about what to do, I'm not going to judge the behaviour of my fellow divers. After all, if I find something that's interesting and portable, but leave it behind, the next diver who comes along is unlikely to do the same. So why shouldn't I take it?
Unless active measures are taken to protect a wreck, the reality is that it'll soon be stripped of anything that's easy to lift. And I'm sure not all of it is taken for personal pleasure, but is quickly sold on for a profit. The law says anything removed from the UK's seabed should be reported to the Receiver of Wreck, as it's someone else's property. I wonder how many calls they get from divers?
Removing items from wrecks is one thing - wanton destruction is another. I recently read posts on a scuba diving discussion forum about the destruction of items placed underwater in a quarry, as landmarks for divers.
It seems that some divers can't resist the urge to smash objects simply because they can, without any regard for the inconvenience and annoyance it causes to others. These are the sort who shouldn't be allowed near wrecks at all, because they'd simply break things up for the the sake of it. Not only would they spoil the submerged historic landscape for other divers, they'd also be at risk of wasting vintage champagne!
If you want to read the BBC News article about the discovery of champagne in the Baltic, click here.
An interesting topic you have raised on your blog.
ReplyDeleteI started diving in 1987 and I have seen a big change in attitudes of divers to diving. In those days collecting artefacts was acceptable as was collecting crabs, lobster etc. No real archaeological significance was attributed to these ‘artefacts’. Yes, it was felt sad that all the nice brass portholes were now gone from a particular wreck, which did detract from its beauty, but no more than that.
I remember one guy in the club took down with him a pneumatic chisel to get ports off a wreck. He was not condemned buy the other club members at the time we were just stunned at the effort in his dive planning.
That was also the view of ‘old cars’ and other old things in the mid 1960’s, it was junk or old so it was rubbish. Over the years that has changed and the British have now changed to love our old heritage with the Beamish Museum as an example. Interestingly I found that this viewpoint was not held by the French in 1980 ish, but that has now all changed with French Museums based around old buildings and French way of life.
Scuba diving has became a serious tourist feature over time with the view of ‘take only pictures and leave bubbles’, which I first came across with Dutch and French diving. Like all activities there will be a spread of behaviour of people (divers) and that will change over the years to respect the wrecks as the treasures they are.
I have dived on the Poor Knights Islands in New Zealand, which is a no take zone. Serous fines for taking a shell or even a stone and no cutting up of sea urchins to feed the fish. The result over the years is a stunning number and types of fish and a tourist business that is significant for New Zealand.
Do I have any treasures, Well yes, a third of a broken plate, some lead shot and a few pieces of coal (they don’t burn well in a chiminea). Do I go hunting for artefacts, No; I enjoy the diving for the wildlife that lives around a wreck and that view. A reason why I have only dived the once at Vobster and would not go back again.
Would I leave a bright shiny object on the sea bottom? I am sad to say I could not. Would I keep it or pass it to a local museum? I would like to believe I would pass it on. Would I wreck or damage anything underwater just to obtain an artefact? No I could not.
The sea bottom keeps moving and objects are always turning up, and being buried, all the time, being damaged as well as being preserved. So if left, the artefact could be lost or damaged, a very hard decision.
Percy,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I agree - if I saw a 'shiny' at the bottom of the sea I'd be reluctant to pass it by. Not every artefact should be left to be buried by the tides!