My review (https://doi.org/10.1017/S000358151600055X) of Fishing and Shipwreck Heritage (Kingsley Reference Kingsley2016) does not, as the author claims in his response (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581516000743), dismiss the evidence of the impact of fishing on underwater cultural heritage (UCH). Indeed, one of the references I quoted (Brennan et al Reference Brennan, Davis, Ballard, Trembanis, Vaughn, Krumholz, Delgado, Roman, Smart, Bell, Duman and DuVal2016) provides clear evidence of the fact that this does occur. I was writing a review of the book and its shortcomings, not the subject.
Kingsley’s response (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581516000743) makes a number of unsupported assertions. Most notable is that my review was political and my voice (as the reviewer) is in the minority. No evidence is supplied to justify the claim that the review is political; as to the minority voice, readers are directed to other reviews of Kingsley’s work on fishing damage, in particular, that conducted by Seafish (MacMullen Reference MacMullen2011) and in the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (Maarleveld Reference Maarleveld2016), and are asked to draw their own conclusions.
Kingsley states that ‘[David Parham] worryingly concludes that “Fishing can and does occur on sites for years with no obvious damage occurring …”.’ He does not explain why he finds this worrying, but his statement is correct. Perhaps the best-known example is the Mary Rose. Discovered by fishermen in 1836 (Kingsley Reference Kingsley2016, 25), the wreck survived in waters regularly fished to leave what we see in the Mary Rose Museum today. Whilst fishing activity can discover and damage sites, it is not a foregone conclusion that fishing a site automatically leads to damage.
Kingsley’s response fails to deal with the main faults of the publication; namely, that some of the material presented in his book is questionable, that he seems unfamiliar with certain aspects of his subject and that he presents a lot of anecdotal evidence, failing to provide any scientific understanding of this evidence, despite the apparently huge dataset he has to hand. The same problems are evident in his response.
Kingsley states that ‘… trawl nets can rip 9.5-ton conning towers off World War I British submarines’ (Kingsley Reference Kingsley2016, 39, fig 11). Figure 11 shows the conning towers of HM Submarine E34 and one other, which Kingsley tells us is E26, where they now reside outside the clubhouse of Dive Team Ecuador in Terschelling. The statement would indicate to the ‘man on the Clapham omnibus’ that fishing had directly resulted in the recovery of these objects. However, Djoerd van der Wielen of Dive Team Ecuador provides an alternative explanation:
Another spectacular find of recent years was the … E-34 … discovered after a fishing vessel had lost its net … . During more than 75 years on the seabed, the conning tower made of bronze was separated from the hull and was salvaged by the ‘Ursus’ from Dive Team Ecuador. (van der Wielen undated)
Immersion in salt water subjected the joint between the bronze conning tower and the steel hull to galvanic corrosion, which will have either considerably weakened the joint or caused it to fail. This information is easily available on the internet, yet none of it is presented or discussed in Kingsley’s book and we are left with the simplistic explanation that fishing is responsible for the damage.
Kingsley states: ‘On-trend philosophies in marine archaeology currently frown on excavation in favour of seeking to protect sites through in situ preservation.’ On the contrary, the evidence suggests otherwise. The UK policy for UCH recognises in situ preservation as the first option (Hansard 2008). Yet, in a little over a decade, rescue excavation has been authorised as a management option on 17 per cent of England’s protected wrecks in response to threats to these sites. Excavation is a commonly used heritage management option, as are physical protection and exclusion zones. Heritage management is not the inflexible fool’s paradise that Kingsley appears to understand and many of the potential options he suggests are in common usage.
Kingsley seeks to frame a debate around fishing damage to UCH, but does not offer answers. A debate is not required: heritage managers are aware of the potential impact of fishing on UCH – what is needed is answers. These can only be arrived at via scientific analysis of the impact of fishing on UCH to allow us full understanding. Such understanding would facilitate the development of a management policy for fishing impact on UCH in which traditional management options could be applied and/or other options developed. Kingsley acknowledges this (Kingsley Reference Kingsley2016, 62), yet provides largely anecdotal evidence and fails to provide any scientific understanding of these impacts, despite the apparently huge dataset he has to hand (Kingsley Reference Kingsley2016, 14).
