MI couple running out of time to prove they found Great Lakes' oldest shipwreck

If the firewall blocks you: https://archive.is/dDjOP

Had to scroll all the way to the end to find the "running out of time" bit:

> That "something good" needs to happen soon. The Liberts said they're feeling their age. His dive pals are, too. They can’t keep diving. And the couple can't afford more court battles for salvage rights, they said. They said they expect no treasure, no material benefits at all from their find. They just want, in their lifetimes, to see the wreckage identified and protected.

> They’d like to be assured that this exciting and very early slice of Michigan history doesn’t stay lost in the sand under Lake Michigan. I’m on board with that.

Read the whole article (quite a fascinating story!) yet this key detail is still unclear to me: why is the state fighting the divers on this? What do they have to gain, or to lose, in the matter? If it is some historically insignificant ship, as the state claims, what's the risk in letting the divers salvage it?

> When I ran short of air at the wreck, Tom would swim over and hold out his backup breathing line, known to divers as a "reserve regulator." I'd catch a breath to stay down longer.

Taking breaths off a scuba tank at depth is something only someone trained as both a diver and freediver should do. I don’t get the impression the reporter is either. Tom seems a bit cavalier.

This is extremely interesting, but reading the article left me wondering: why are experienced underwater archaeologists not involved in this? The only mention of any seems to be DRASSM, French government archaeologists who presumably had to come over at great expense. In the two locations I've lived and dived there have been underwater archaeology societies (Save Our Shipwrecks in Ontario, and the Nautical Archaeology Society in the UK) whose would normally by extremely keen to survey a wreck like this.

I'll also point out that if you don't involve people with this training, you can do a lot of harm. Items that have been submerged for a long time, especially in mud, can degrade rapidly once they're brought into air. Archaeologists will typically have prepared baths to submerge items in once they're brought up. There can be a lot of information preserved in those wrecks: for example, one of our best sources of information about English longbows are the examples brought up from the wreck of the Mary Rose.

There's one massive red flag in this article that screams "this needs archaeologists involved": the fact that they took the reporter diving to the wreck. It sounds like this was his first dive. As others have pointed out, there is some risk of injury, even if they properly briefed him, since he's going to be too distracted by the wreck to focus on things like "breath continuously". But there's also a lot of risk to the wreck. Even qualified divers have a bad habit of kicking wrecks (and reefs) and doing damage.

There's also the fact that the only photograph in that article is take from the surface using a cell phone. I would not say that underwater photography is a priority for me, but even I have the kit to take photos while diving that would be a lot better than those take from the surface. So why don't these guys? Especially in 10 feet of water where the lighting conditions are so benign.

I love the islands in northern Lake Michigan, especially the line that goes from Washington Island in WI to Rock Island north to St. Martin and then to Summer Island. It's always seemed so remote. I assume these are the "Huron Islands"? I've never seen them referred to as such and when I search for them I get links to islands in Lake Superior, which are also interesting but not the same.

I'm interested in the book now. Even if it turns out not to be the Griffon, it's an interesting story.

Whether this pans out as the oldest wreck in the Great Lakes or not it sounds pretty cool. Wreck diving in the Great Lakes is great. If you're into that kind of thing it's worth the trip.

They've got (what they - and the French archeologists - think is) the bowsprit. Can't dendrochronology or carbon dating resolve the age of the timber?

Is this link mistaken? As far as I can tell it points to the usatoday homepage, not a specific story?