Written by the TreasureGuide for the exclusive use of treasurebeachesreport.blogspot.com.
Today I'll start by taking a look at a chapter written by Wilburn "Sonny" Cockrell (deceased 2014), a pioneer maritime archaeologist who served as the Florida underwater archaeologist and taught at FSU. The chapter was published in the book Maritime Archaeology: A Reader of Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, edited by Lawrence Babits and Hans Van Tilburg. (See link below)
This post could go on for a long time but I'll try to keep it short and to the point. I think it was Mark Twain that said something like, "I would have written a shorter letter, but I didn't have time." It takes time to boil things down and present a point concisely and clearly.
The Society of American Archaeology web site says, "An archaeological site is any place where physical remains of past human activities exist." (See link below.) That is almost everywhere! Can we get some sanity from the archaeological community? When we hear archaeologists say that treasure hunters are no better than ISIS and the whole world is an archaeological site, it is not difficult to see that there is a problem. And those statements, whether they come from one extreme adjunct or an entire society, tell a lot.
Archaeology needs to make realistic and practical distinctions. If you read Mr. Cockrell's chapter, you will see that he realized that archaeology was not winning the public debate and he was trying to come up with some realistic boundaries to define the limits of what was considered to be "acceptable" archaeology. He listed several criteria. Those criteria included the age of the shipwreck or submerged site, provenience, legality, professionalism and disposition of the artifacts. You can read that for yourself if you wish. To give just one example, older wrecks were considered to be more properly the subject of archaeology than recent wrecks. That is not surprising. What is surprising is that it needs to be stated because of the feeling given by archaeology that nothing less than the entire world of man-made objects belongs to them. No reference to age, one of the easiest of all distinctions to make, was included in the SAA statement I know it is just one sentence and you can't include everything you might want to say in a single sentence, but wittingly or not, the statement represents an underlying attitude. No one can reasonably claim that every place where there are remains of past human activity is an archaeological site, yet archaeologists, whether they say it or not, act and talk as if it was true. The Society of American Archaeology came very close to saying it straight out and probably didn't realize the far reaching implications, including alienating the public who they claim to serve and at the same time rely on for support.
Archaeology claims to save the past for the public, but continually demonstrates that they do not trust the public. Instead of saving the past for the public, they act as if they are saving the past from the public. Archaeological sites are off limits and kept secret from the public. Site files are not published and research reports are published only in academic journals and expensive books rather than being made easily available on the internet for the public.
If archaeology really wants sensitive sites to be protected, they should widely inform and involve the public. Then they would have thousands of caring eyes watching over those sites.
If archaeology wants to make discoveries, they would work with the public. The vast cloud of informed eyes (not to mention metal detectors) would make new discoveries. That has been demonstrated by England's Portable Antiquities Scheme. An informed participating public would provide the best protection as well as the discovery of many important new sites.
Here are some of the results of a poll that I conducted.
Of the 117 respondents, only 6 (5%) indicated that they had ever seen items that were in the Florida Collection. The Florida Collection, as the Division of Historical Resources states, is to preserve Florida's history for the public, yet only a small percentage of the most interested citizens have seen it.
I also found that about ten times more blog readers have seen the privately owned and operated Fisher treasure museums than have seen the items in the Florida Collection." This suggests that "treasure hunters" actually better serve the public than academic archaeology and our government agencies.
Archaeology mistrusts and alienates the public. On top of that, some of their group makes very irrational and extreme statements, which does not help their cause.
Not all the world can be treated as an archaeology site. As Mr. Cockrell's chapter suggests, there are bounds in practice and reason. There are more sites and shipwrecks than can ever be studied.
Archaeology needs to better define what sites are important and worth studying. As it is, some would have you believe that every site, every shipwreck, every nail, every thing that could possibly be studied should be studied and protected, and every study yields something immensely important. The fact is that much of the evidence of the human past is not in a meaningful context, highly redundant, and most importantly, will never add any new knowledge of significance. Archaeology needs to complete the job that Mr. Cockrell started and define boundaries. They need some well defined goals and priorities, and to get over their paranoia. They should also alienating the public that would eagerly support them if they were more reasonable and inclusive.
References
Here is the web site of the book in which Mr Cockrell's chapter appears.
https://www.amazon.com/Maritime-Archaeology-Substantive-Theoretical-Contributions/dp/0306453312
Here is the web site of the Society for American Archaeology.
http://www.saa.org/Default.aspx?TabId=1346
Have a blessed Sunday,
TreasureGuide@comcast.net
