Archaeology/Salvage on shipwrecks with human remains

[Ste Wart]

Why? What is so magic about the 100 year mark? Does the simple turning of a calendar page impart significance? Why is a wreck that is 99 years old not of importance while one that is 100 years old is?

The 100 year mark is a lazy mans number and is always a moving target, pick a year and live with it. The real fact is that very few ship built since 1880 are of archaeological significance, historical significance may be another matter. The USS Arizona is of great historical significance to the US (perhaps not as much to Japan) but not all that much archaeological significance. But on 7 December 2041 it will have no magic increase in historical or archaeological importance than it has today.

That's just the way it is. As of this April, the Titanic will have been down for 100 years, so she becomes fair game in the eyes of cultural heritage.

 

[Uncle Sandwich]

Wrecks like the Edmund Fitzgerald on Lake Superior are something i'd be interested in seeing more investigation on. But because it was such a tragedy, there's apparently a $1,000000 fine if you're caught diving it. So much red tape.

 

[DennisS]

The recent cruise ship accident resulted in people dying on the ship. There are still bodies on the ship. Should it be salvaged or left to disentegrate. If it happened 100 years ago and slid into 100 ft of water should people be allowed to salvage it? A cruise ship from 1912 would offer very little archaeolical value.

 

[Jax]

Why? What is so magic about the 100 year mark? Does the simple turning of a calendar page impart significance? Why is a wreck that is 99 years old not of importance while one that is 100 years old is?

The 100 year mark is a lazy mans number and is always a moving target, pick a year and live with it. The real fact is that very few ship built since 1880 are of archaeological significance, historical significance may be another matter. The USS Arizona is of great historical significance to the US (perhaps not as much to Japan) but not all that much archaeological significance. But on 7 December 2041 it will have no magic increase in historical or archaeological importance than it has today.

Betcha it's because there will be no one alive that actually KNEW the people on the wreck.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

The Fitzgerald is also in 500+ feet of water. Personally I don't see the difference between archaeology and salvage. Maybe more documentation but where is the difference, really. Value of the objects? "Historical importance?" And to who? Graves should be left alone. Archaeologists have for centuries been robbing graves with feigned concern for those entombed and the descendants of the deceased. To me there is no difference between carefully digging someone up for removal to some display area with a toothbursh or with using a backhoe. Many of the so-called archaelogical finds never see the light of day once they come up from the sea. They are tucked away in some backroom of a museum or university and only "qualified" people get to see or study them. That's why musueums are so big and underfunded. Sell off some of that stuff in the back room and let more people enjoy it.

And often those "qualified people" are ones who put no effort in to finding the stuff in the first place. They would rather others do all the real dirty work and spend money on training and expeditions to retrieve the items. Then you have countries who are too lazy to go after items and try to rob those people who do put in the work and cash to bring items to the surface.

Spain has no treasure it did not steal from someone else and usually committing murder or attempting genocide in the process. Yet they see items from the Atocha and other ships that they never bothered to look for over hundreds of years as theirs. One of the arguments is the "cultural signifigance" of these items. Bull crap, they only want the money.

Salvage the goods, leave the bodies undisturbed, and to the finders go the spoils. Yo ho me hearties yo ho!

 

[Lorenzoid]

If you're talking about professional marine archaeology, then all other things being equal, I see no ethical reason why there should be a distinction between marine and land archaeology. Ancient land sites where human remains may be found are excavated all the time, so what's the problem with ancient shipwrecks? I suppose there are issues with excavating more recent burial or disaster sites on land, and I would assume the same considerations should apply to more recent shipwrecks. In summary, I see no need to make a distinction purely on the basis of land vs. sea.

 

[Laurie S.]

As a professional archaeologist, I say yes, if it's a professional project and it's done for research purposes and not profit.

 

[Gilldiver]

As a professional archaeologist, I say yes, if it's a professional project and it's done for research purposes and not profit.

Just about all projects are for profit - someone gets paid to do it in some way. The only difference is what you call that profit - a pay check, return on investment, or a research stipend. As a professional do you get paid for your time and expetise or do you never get paid for archaeological work and do it in your spare time and pay for your expenses from your day time job?

 

[Laurie S.]

Just about all projects are for profit - someone gets paid to do it in some way. The only difference is what you call that profit - a pay check, return on investment, or a research stipend. As a professional do you get paid for your time and expetise or do you never get paid for archaeological work and do it in your spare time and pay for your expenses from your day time job?

Of course I get paid for my work, I own an archaeological consulting firm and we are a profit corporation, although not according to my CPA. To make it more clear, the profit I refer to is the seling of the artifacts. The most significant information that an archaeologist gathers from any site is where the artifacts are located and what artifacts are found in association with each other. We work only under permits, and that requires that all artifacts, photographs, notes, etc., are put in permanent curation with a museum facility so they are accessible to other researchers. We also are required to produce a report of the project findings. We are not grabbing stuff for our own personal collections or for sale.

 

[Rhone Man]

I do feel this is a subject that is a little bit subject to realpolitik. Idealism fine, but if you believe that under the lowest common denominator rule, there are always going to be people who scavenge and/or salvage from wrecks, I am reluctant to suggest rules which only the well-meaning will obey.

Curiously, I read an interesting article recently about a British team that is looking to salvage Sir Francis Drake's coffin off Panama - which whilst not a wreck, is very much a grave. No one seemed particularly upset by this, but it looked odd in contrast the outrage which was expressed 6 or 7 years ago when a Panamanian team suggested that they were going to do the same. Patriotism and ethics make for ungainly bedfellows.