CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR KNOWLEDGE OF SHIPWRECKS?

Transcription

1 J. Herbert CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR KNOWLEDGE OF SHIPWRECKS? The historical and archaeological records indicate that almost all relevant knowledge in the field of maritime history and archaeology, over the last decades, has mainly come from verbal reports (locals and divers), research, search and discoveries (diving community), related books (non-archaeology community) and journal publications (diving and non-archaeology community). The new realm of such sub-aqua discoveries, namely deep water (up to 5 kilometres deep and more) also comes solely from the aquatic adventurers and the non-archaeology community. Already in Lethbridge diving machine Unknown artist - Drake, SA, (1897). The Border Wars of New England. C. Scribner's Sons, USA. 1685, a diving bell was used to recover cannon from the Swedish ship VASA. The Brit, Sir William Phipps (illustration), also used a diving bell in 1687 to recover vast riches from the bottom of the ocean. In the 1700s it was John Lethbridge s diving machine that continued adding to our knowledge of shipwrecks and artefact recovery. By the 1800s it was the diving helmet which opened new underwater possibilities. Our Overberg forefather, Michael van Breda, also had one such diving suit and helmet for the purpose of local salvage. With the invention of the open circuit demand scuba (Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus) in 1943 by the Frenchmen, Jacques-Yves Cousteau and Émile Gagnan, the underwater realm was put in the reach of the ordinary diving public. Over the last number of years, maritime enthusiasts often debate the question of Which group, divers or archaeologists, has contributed the most to our present-day knowledge of maritime history and archaeology?. Unfortunately, today one can only sadly report, with hindsight in our favour, that up to the mid-80s almost all contributions to the world's knowledge of maritime archaeology came directly

2 or indirectly from the global wreck diving community. It is sad to say, but virtually nothing came from professional archaeologists. Even the two ships, WASA (Sweden) and MARY ROSE (UK), that provided the world with a treasure trove of archaeology knowledge, were not discovered by archaeologists. Regrettably and incomprehensibly this trend persists to this day. The Overberg publications: In the last five decades many significant publications on shipwrecks of the Overberg maritime tragedies has caught the imagination of our public of maritime history and archaeology enthusiasts. To mention but a few such contributors, we have the remarkable Jose Burman and Professor Eric Axelson, as well as Charles Shapiro, Coenraad Potgieter, Dan Sleigh and Piet Westra, Eric Rosenthal, Jimmy Herbert, Jan Malan, Jeanette Grobbelaar, Lawrence Green, Malcolm Turner and Marius Diemont. To this list, one can add John Gribble (registered archaeologist), although many complaints were received from divers with the accusation that John made use of their research (in reports sent by the latter to the National Monuments Council and South African Heritage Resources Agency) without giving the necessary recognition and credit to the divers. Even to this day, when in search of knowledge in the field in question, one invariably only finds such knowledge in publications of the 60s, 70s and 80s, as well as from information gained from the global diving community. Our Bredasdorp Shipwreck Museum can also testify to this fact, as our buildings and stores were and are fully stocked by locals, South African museum enthusiasts and divers alone. Not one item comes from the work of a professional archaeologist. Furthermore, of all the hundreds of artefacts recovered from underwater, donated to and accepted by the Cape Town museums (today IZIKO Museums), not even one item that I know of is on display for the South African public to see and enjoy. No silver bars from the many recovered from the JOANNA (1682) are to be seen nor a display of the many NICOBAR (1783) rare Swedish plate money cargo items already donated to the Cape Town museums in the 1980s. Not even one porcelain item, from the well over 150,000 porcelain items lying on the BREDERODE (1785), has been seen. As with virtually all other wrecks discovered along the South African coast, these three ships were also discovered by divers and NOT archaeologists. One can but ask the question: What have our maritime archaeologists contributed in all this time?

3 J. Herbert WHY NOT ON DISPLAY (JOANNA 1682) THE DISCOVERERS "SEALIT": In the late 1970s, a group of extremely talented divers called Sealit, each had ample enthusiasm and guts to do what very few people are prepared to do ventured almost all in quest of a dream. Their dream was, like the dream of this author and many a young adventurous boy over the years, to search for lost treasures and make significant history and archaeology finds. In short, a quest to make a significant difference. To achieve and make a gigantic maritime difference by aiming to emulate the size of the land find of the great Harold Carter of Tutankhamun fame. DISCOVERY: On 23 November 1982, the Joanna (1682) was found. This discovery was made by the Sealit group of six divers (Charlie Shapiro ; Gavin Clackworthy; Bert Kutzer; Tommy Botha; Andre Hartman and Eric Lombard) whilst diving down onto one of the many reefs lying about 1km offshore and slightly east of the campsite at Die Dam. That day, history had been made and more was to follow as the six divers went on the find, record and recover many silver ingot and thousands of pieces of eight, four, two and one Reales (cob coins). THE CUSTODIAN OF THE JOANNA FINDS: Soon after this discovery numerous Joanna artefacts were donated to Cape Town s then SA Cultural History, as was 8 of the 26 odd silver disk ingots. The Sealit group made no less than four declarations to the then National Monuments Council (NMC). During each, cultural heritage items recovered were handed over and taken into custody FOR SAFE KEEPING AND DISPLAY by the then South African Cultural Heritage Museum. Today this task of safekeeping and display rests with the IZIKO museum (a name given to the group of national museums). SEALIT divers recovering a shiny sandblasted silver ingot

4 OUR QUESTIONS: Today after no less than 34 years in the "safe keeping" of the museum, this author often feels the urge to firstly ask the public of South Africa, "have any of you ever seen a silver ingot on display?" and then secondly, ask the Cape Town museums, "why do you take shipwreck artefacts into your custody, for and on behalf of the people, but never put them on display for the public to see and enjoy?" Thirdly, it would be nice to know "why do all the artefacts from our Overberg coastline have to go to the Cape Town museums?" Why could they not rather stay at home for the Bredasdorp Shipwreck Museum to display and draw numbers of people through the museum s doors? A possible fourth question could be, "how is it possible that a rare 17 th century onion bottle was able to survive 300 years under water, whilst often exposed to massive seas, was then dug out from its nature-protected environment, then survived a bumpy boat trip to shore and a car trip to Cape Town where it was carefully handed over to the "safety" of the museum, only to be broken reputedly soon afterwards whilst in the custody of the latter?" Food for thought?

5 J. Herbert OVERBERG FINDS ARE DISPLAYED AT BREDASDORP, BUT NOT IN CAPE TOWN? In a recent article by this author, the question was propounded, "Why do all the artefacts from our Overberg coastline have to go to the Cape Town museums?" All over the world, just the opposite is true. Shipwreck finds are kept and displayed at home. As example, one finds the Mary Rose (1545) in Portsmouth, UK; the Wasa (1628) in Stockholm, Sweden; the Zeewijk (1727), Zuytdorp (1712/13), Vergulde Draeck (1656) and Batavia (1629) all in Perth, Australia; Nuestra Señora de Atocha and Santa Margarita (1622) in Florida Keys, USA, to mention but a few examples of many. All are displayed as close as possible to where they were lost. Furthermore, all draw crowds to the respective regions. Moreover, the earlier mentioned absurdity was scrutinised as to "why, under the permit system (since 1979), the Cape Town museums lawfully took shipwreck artefacts into their custody, for and on behalf of the people, but never put them on display for the public to see, study or enjoy?". Why could they not rather stay at home in the Overberg for the Bredasdorp Shipwreck Museum to put on display in an attempt to draw, fascinate and educate numbers of Overbergers, South Africans and international visitors alike? Bredasdorp s museum is the only such institution in our country with the theme, Shipwrecks along the dangerous Southern Cape coast and their influence on the development of the Strandveld. Not only did this museum come to be through inspired locals in 1971, but also, almost every single artefact on display was donated by Overbergers or by those that held Overberg history dear to their hearts. From the museum s side, this maritime custodian has all shipwreck artefacts proudly on display. Why do the Cape Town museums apparently refuse to do the same with their donated maritime collections? Bredasdorp Shipwreck Museum was the first to make history as the custodian of the artefacts recovered from the first shipwreck to be excavated, under the protection of the then newly implemented permit system. The permit system for maritime finds was launched in 1979, and the Arniston was the first to enjoy its provided protection. As soon as the Arniston was found and pinpointed, the National Monuments Council (NMC) issued a permit number PER/1/269 dated 26/2/82. Two months later, in April 1982, legislation was passed declaring the Arniston site a National Monument. CUSTODIANS OF THE ARNISTON FINDS: Of the 733 groups of artefacts recovered, most were kept together as a collection and donated to our Bredasdorp Museum. Numerous pieces of jewellery were also found, recovered and donated to the same museum for research, educational display and safe keeping.

6 Over the almost 30 years, the museum has presented a dynamic, regular changing Arniston display. Apart from the sample selection of artefacts on show as over 700 items would always be too many to display at once being changed regularly, even the layout at times. It started in the 80s as a multilevel-box showcase and is presently a sand-and-rock-surface base display. Over the years, the exhibit area has also moved location in the shipwreck hall. It was first located at the most southwestern corner and is presently exhibited on the other side of the room northeastern corner. The reason for its present location primarily being that the artefact showcase has now joined the Arniston monument exhibition. The eight most spectacular gold pieces found on the Arniston were (1) A gold letter opener in the form of a sword; (2) A ringlet of gold wire woven around a large stone; (3) A round gold flower and leaf pattern decorated earring; (4) A section of a gold bracelet boasting round blood garnets set in gold; (5) An amethyst set in a gold ring; (6) an amethyst stone set in a gold pendant; (7) A gold letter seal; and (8) A most beautiful gold monocle. Although the Arniston was the first, many other of our shipwrecks were to follow. Immediately after the implementation of the permit system, wrecks were found one after the other, and the applications for permits to the NMC rolled in. Artefact after artefact was sent to the Cape Town museums just to be accepted, catalogued and stored. To mention but three of our internationally acclaimed Overberg finds, the Joanna (1682) with its unique silver ingots and cob coins, the Nicobar (1783) with its rare Swedish Plate Money and the Brederode (1785) with its cargo of thousands and thousands of intact rare porcelain items still lying in situ in boxes. Astonishingly, they are still in wooden crates and packed as they were in circa It is incomprehensible that not even one item, of the already mentioned collections of artefacts from the three shipwrecks that were donated to the Cape Town museums, can be seen today in museums by the rightful owners the South African public. A display of a representative sample of the Brederode 1780s porcelain alone, will no doubt draw large numbers to our museum and our other attractions and facilities in the Overberg s southern district. Again one can but ask: Why not housed at Bredasdorp? Why not on display?