Archaeology/Salvage on shipwrecks with human remains

[Jim Lapenta]

I persoanlly would rather see someone scavenge/slavage a wreck and sell the the stuff to a private individual opening a for profit museum or show. As it is now when archaeologists scavenge a wreck the public sees little to nothing except what the "scientists" want them to see. The rest is stuffed in drawers and crates to perhaps never see the light of day again. All this while the institutions are screaming, crying, and begging for money. They are no better than the thieves in some churches. They take a collection every week while billions in treasure and artwork sit in underground vaults doing no one any good. Oh once in a while a "researcher" comes in to look at this stuff but by what right. They did not go to the effort and expense of locating and recovering it. There are more double standards in this area than you can beat with a stick. Put a B.S., M.S., or Ph.D after your name and you are legit. Say your name is just plain ol Mel Fisher and every body and his brother are trying to STEAL what you found. I guess they are more accepted now but when he first started he was a bad guy. But the ones who were grave robbing the pyramids and descrating mummies were archaeologists. If you don't want to do the actual work and invest your time, effort, money, and possibly risk your life to recover this stuff shut up and sit down.

 

[Ste Wart]

I persoanlly would rather see someone scavenge/slavage a wreck and sell the the stuff to a private individual opening a for profit museum or show. As it is now when archaeologists scavenge a wreck the public sees little to nothing except what the "scientists" want them to see. The rest is stuffed in drawers and crates to perhaps never see the light of day again. All this while the institutions are screaming, crying, and begging for money. They are no better than the thieves in some churches. They take a collection every week while billions in treasure and artwork sit in underground vaults doing no one any good. Oh once in a while a "researcher" comes in to look at this stuff but by what right. They did not go to the effort and expense of locating and recovering it. There are more double standards in this area than you can beat with a stick. Put a B.S., M.S., or Ph.D after your name and you are legit. Say your name is just plain ol Mel Fisher and every body and his brother are trying to STEAL what you found. I guess they are more accepted now but when he first started he was a bad guy. But the ones who were grave robbing the pyramids and descrating mummies were archaeologists. If you don't want to do the actual work and invest your time, effort, money, and possibly risk your life to recover this stuff shut up and sit down.

I think your negative view of archaeology is misinformed.

Museums are tiny compared to the wealth of material available for display. Do not blame the archaeologist for the size of the museum.

I think you'll find Mel Fisher worked with an archaeologist;Dr Duncan Mathewson, he was equally disparaged by the legitmate community, largely for the damaging techniques employed in the search.

Mel Fisher stole nothing. The Spanish never contested the salvage of the Atocha.

 

[Gilldiver]

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.

I wish I could agree with you but I have seen way too many artifacts for sale after being de-accessioned from the museum where they were to be kept forever and sold in various shops or auctions. Things like coins will be one of the first things disposed of as the costs for security etc, vs, value to a collection of a few thousand of the same item just are not worth it to the museum.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I wish I could agree with you but I have seen way too many artifacts for sale after being de-accessioned from the museum where they were to be kept forever and sold in various shops or auctions. Things like coins will be one of the first things disposed of as the costs for security etc, vs, value to a collection of a few thousand of the same item just are not worth it to the museum.

But how is this an argument against marine archaeology? This sounds like a problem, but I would think the solution is not to eliminate marine archaeology (the question posed in this thread/poll) but rather to find ways to ensure more artifacts stay in the museums and don't get sold off.

 

[Laurie S.]

I also would question what type of museum is selling a collection? The state museum where my projects are curated is prohibited from such practice, as I would imagine any federal or state museum/repository would be. My permits do not allow me to deal with any facility other than a state or federal repository.

 

[Gilldiver]

I also would question what type of museum is selling a collection? The state museum where my projects are curated is prohibited from such practice, as I would imagine any federal or state museum/repository would be. My permits do not allow me to deal with any facility other than a state or federal repository.

Do a Google search for "museum deaccession policy" and then talk to your museum which is "prohibited" from such a pratice. I think you may find that as long as they meet the requirements of the AAM code of ethics they can, and do deaccession but don't talk about it. In fact, the AAM code of ethics talks more about what to do with the funds acquired from deaccession than it does about how to deaccession.

You can start your research here (download the pdf for the details)

Code of Ethics for Museums

disposal of collections through sale, trade, or research activities is solely for the advancement of the museum's mission. Proceeds from the sale of nonliving collections are to be used consistent with the established standards of the museum's discipline, but in no event shall they be used for anything other than acquisition or direct care of collections.

The Deaccessioning Blog: The Met's Deaccessioning Policy
The Metropolitan Museum of Art regularly deaccessions and disposes of works of art. The term "deaccession" refers to the internal procedural step by which an object may be removed from the official inventoried collection of the Museum. The term "disposal" refers to the sale, exchange, or other transfer of the work.
The Museum may deaccession a work because:

• The object is no longer relevant to the mission of the Museum or has little value in the Museum's collection.
• The object is redundant or is a duplicate and is not necessary for research or study purposes.
• The object is of lesser quality than other objects of the same type that are already in the collection or that are about to be acquired.
• The object has been found to lack sufficient aesthetic merit or art historical importance to warrant retention.
• The Museum is unable to preserve the object in a responsible manner.
• The object is unduly difficult or impossible to care for or store properly.
• The Museum may also deaccession a work if it is ordered to return an object to its original and rightful owner by a court of law, or the Museum determines that another person or entity is the rightful owner of the object, or the Museum determines that its best interests are served by transferring title to another party.

 

[Laurie S.]

We're talking about two different kinds of museums. The state museum I work with is a repository strictly for storing materials recovered under permitted work. There is a separate museum at the university that does the exhibits, and most likely deaccessions materials. No archaeological materials are curated there.

 

[Jared0425]

I was at a gathering the other day with some fellow wreck hunters. We talked about the monitoring of wreck sites by radar, sonar, and anti diver devices that the navy uses. We talked about two American warships in Lake Ontario that Canada stole from us. Worse they made these wrecks off limits. How dare they take an American ship with American sailors and deny us access to those wrecks in the name of preservation. We can walk through cemeteries as long as we don't disturb the graves, why can't we dive shipwrecks the same way? The team I am on has found close to and maybe over 100 shipwrecks in the course of 35 years. You would think that we might have a heck of a collection of artifacts that we have taken but we don't. We have left almost everything down there with exceptions to cargo samples and dishes. No wreck should be off limits or be limited to divers period whether they be warships or civilian ships with loss of life. We have dove wrecks with literal bodies that are closing in at 80 years old and others with bones lying allnover the place and we give them the up ost respect.