16 comments for "A Victory in the War of Wrecks"

• Reply posted by Bubba Núñez (January 3, 2009, 8:56 am):

  Heather,

  For those of us unfamiliar with the archeological arguments against shipwreck salvage, could you either comment with some good sources, or post an argument on your blog?

  My understanding is that Odyssey salvages wrecks with excellent documentation of the wreck site. Their documentation seems to be better than I have seen from government sponsored salvage. Where are the high definition videos and photography from government sponsored salvage?

  Thank you for your blog and look forward to your response.

  Bubba

       


• Reply posted by Brian Harrison (January 3, 2009, 9:19 am):

  “Commercial interests” on land and sea have made many high profile discoveries in recent years AND have worked with the archaeological community – examples The Whydah, Attocha, CSS Central America, CSS Hunley…

  Odyssey Marine’s arrangement with the U. K. government regarding the HMS Sussex includes archaeological presence and oversight – please see http://shipwreck.net/sussexpp.html

  Commercial interest is a part of every archaeological undertaking… I paid to visit the CSS Hunley restoration facility a few years ago and was told I had to check my digital camera at the door and was not allowed to take any pictures – when asked why I was told that National Geographic owned the “publishing rights” for a period of time….

  Very little of the archaeological info from above reaches the average consumer, unless they buy a book or DVD or subscribe to the History Channel or Smithsonian Channel (which still offers only tidbits of the knowledge gained).

       


• Reply posted by Heather (January 3, 2009, 4:57 pm):

  Bubba and Brian: You both raise interesting points and I will respond in my blog next week. Stay tuned…

       


• Reply posted by Collin Lee (January 3, 2009, 9:09 pm):

  It’s an interesting conundrum for a number of reasons. First of all, some of our greatest archaeological discoveries came from people who would be considered “looters” by today’s standards. Schliemann was a self-interested businessman who found both Troy and Mycenae, both of which were considered to be products of Homer’s imagination until he tracked them down. Sure he kept the choicest bits of treasure for himself and hopelessly muddled the archaeological record of the entire site for all future generations. But without him Troy and Mycenae would still be buried and forgotten. Even more appropriate to this argument is Howard Carter, who was an Egyptologist working for Lord Carnarvon, leading meticulous and scientific excavations… for a rich Earl as a hobby. This is a direct historical antecedent to the archaeologists working for Odyssey; they do the world a scientific service while lining their pockets with sunken treasure. John Lloyd Stephens, great-grandfather of all Mayanists, had parts of the Maya ruins ripped down and sent home (or at least ripped down; most of his loot burned to ash in a warehouse fire before he could get it home), and even went so far as to buy Copan for $50 in hopes of having it taken apart brick by brick, shipping it by boat and rebuilding it in New York. Oh, and he stole the bones of dead Mayas from a graveyard so that he could “study” them. These guys are the “looters”, the untrained opportunists who brought some of the world’s most beautiful and important archaeological ruins to light.

  So should we turn it over to the “real” archaeologists, many of whom are working for major universities and museums? Let’s look at their track record. We had Hiram Bingham III, who, while not a trained archaeologist, found and looted Machu Pichu 1911 under the auspices of Yale, and then was sent back in 1912 and 1915 with the full support of Yale and the National Geographic Society. Unfortunately, in addition to all the artifacts he looted, he also took the mummified remains of the ancient dead as trophies for Yale’s museums. We had Edward Herbert Thompson, working for Harvard, who, when he was told that he wasn’t allowed to loot Chichen Itza, bought the hacienda on which it was located and used an industrial earth-moving tool to dredged the Sacred Cenote, because in the 1500s, Diego De Landa wrote that if there was gold to be had in the Yucatan, it was most likely to be found at the bottom of the cenote where the Mayas cast their valuables (along with the occasional live sacrifice) to appease Chaac, the rain god. Thompson found little gold, but did manage to dredge up thousands of other offerings of jade, obsidian and the like, much of which was shattered by his infernal machine. Whatever was valuable he shipped back (in violation of Mexican law) to Harvard, where you can now see it at the Peabody Museum. Tatiana Proskouriakoff spent decades meticulously rebuilding the shattered jade artifacts that Harvard’s “archaeologist” destroyed looking for loot.

  In all of these cases, it is a question of who gets to decide who is an archaeologist and who is a looter; if you are looting for a private firm you are a tomb robber, while if you are looting for a museum or a university, you are an archaeologist. The line gets even fuzzier when you look at, for example, the Spanish vessel that Odyssey is in the lawsuit over. It sat at the bottom of the ocean for nearly 400 years. Spain didn’t go after it. No university went after it. Odyssey DID go after it, at great expense in finances as well as research and meticulous excavation. Now they are the “bad guys”, because they were after the gold that Spain legitimately stole from the Incas, who legitimately stole it from whoever they killed for it, and so on through the ages. Meanwhile, if Odyssey hadn’t gone after the gold, it would still be sitting, unfound and unremembered at the bottom of the ocean. And they didn’t raid an ancient burial site, pyramid or temple to do it, unlike most of the greatest archaeologists of history.

  I’m not trying to paint the looters as heroes; in fact I usually fall on the side of the scientists and archaeologists looking to preserve the historic integrity of a site. But we’re not talking about Peruvian tomb robbers ripping bodies out of huaca to get at their grave goods, or people destroying unexcavated Maya ruins to steal pottery or statues to sell to American businessmen. We’re talking about ships full of loot that sank. We know where they came from, we knew where they were going, and we knew what they were carrying; that’s how Odyssey and companies like them find them in the first place. Is this always the case? No. If we are talking about a classic era Greek ship full of ancient amphora that is just stumbled across at the bottom of the ocean, this obviously falls under the provenance of archaeology. A ship like the Titanic, which is a giant graveyard, and whose victims and their valuables are known and remembered should also be left alone, lest someone start thinking that any tragic ocean disaster means that you can go get the valuables off the corpses. Like anything, there should be rules and exceptions. But I also don’t think that companies like Odyssey should be vilified for using their ingenuity and resources to retrieve lost Spanish booty from the bottom of the ocean. Maybe it’s the twelve-year-old in me, thinking that this would mean the end of dreams of lost pirate ships, just waiting for some intrepid lad (or lass) to wrest it’s riches from a watery tomb. Instead the intrepid lad (or lass) would have to report it to the authorities, wait for one university to win the bidding war over rights to it, read about it in a lavish and exclusive National Geographic artical, and then pay $12.50 to go see it in the aforementioned university’s museum.

       


• Reply posted by Kristen (January 4, 2009, 6:56 am):

  I agree with Bubba and Brian – I would like more explanation about why commercial=evil in your blog, Heather. And I’m not quite sure why it is wrong for existing governents to decide how to handle shipwrecks that are undisputebly theirs, as Britain did.

       


• Reply posted by Heather (January 4, 2009, 9:49 am):

  Ok, next week I will devote the entire blog to the case for opposing underwater treasure-hunters. It is an issue that I have examined very carefully and a position that I take strongly.

       


• Reply posted by Allan K (January 5, 2009, 6:04 am):

  I agree that the Convention is a step in the right direction, but it does have limited value while the USA, Canada, UK and some South American countries do not take part in the Conserfvation Treaty. Obviously Spain would sign given their sovereign claim over all ships lost travelling from South America carrying gold and artifacts. While it does have good intentions by preserving shipwrecks, what provisions exist for the preservation of sites of significance that are not shipwrecks, but are sites that were above sea level during the last Glacial Maxim during the Late Pleistocene?

       


• Reply posted by Collin Lee (January 5, 2009, 6:26 pm):

  I just saw an advertisement last night for a new Discovery Channel show called “Treasure Hunters”, which seems to follow Odyssey as they go around looting wrecks. While my above post shows that I don’t think it should be illegal for a company to commit research and resources to find sunken galleons and retrieve valuables from them, this seems like some irresponsible journalism on Discovery’s part, as it can only result in amateurs thinking they should go out and start lootin’ themselves. And then there WILL be a problem with chuckleheads ripping apart any shipwreck they can find with their sonar to get at the goodies inside like a squirrel with a walnut. Alternately, I wonder how the UNESCO Convention’s ruling will effect their plans to go forward with the show in the future.

  Heather, I have to admit that I am very conflicted on this issue. As you can see from my above post, I am weary of Museums and Universities using their prestige and money as a case for them being the proper stewards for all of history’s valuables. They seem to use the illegal black market trade in antiquities to secure their own collections, even while using Antiquities laws to keep anyone else from getting them. However, I certainly see your side of things as well, especially after reading the article in the latest issue of Archaeology about the Portuguese Indiaman and how difficult it has been for archaeologists to beat treasure hunters to the wrecks and actually learn something from them.

  I look forward to reading your next post on the topic, as I’m sure I have a lot to learn on the subject.

       


• Reply posted by Kristen (January 6, 2009, 1:42 pm):

  Colin, thank you for expressing cogently my own conflicted feelings in this area, especially since you touched on the idea that not all museums/archaeologists are trustworthy either in your latest post. I think the “Medici Conspiracy,” aptly sampled a couple years ago in Archaeology Mag, as well as the “where are they now” follow up Archaegology did on it amply shows. (I haven’t read “Loot” yet). Museums and archaeologists cannot claim the moral high ground on antiquities when they have no problem taking advantage of it for their own profit and displays.

  Not sure how I feel about Discovery and Odyssey – I haven’t seen the advertisements. I agree about the danger of Discovery doing shoddy journalism and thus painting as acceptable practices that are not. But if it is possible that Odyssey is doing an exacavation in an archaeologically apporpriate way, then we have to point out that Discovery channel’s information reaches far more people than can visit a museum in Spain or even NYC.

  What WOULD be an archaeologically appropriate way? I’ve always presumed this meant meticulous and careful approach to the artifacts and site itself, meticulous and careful documentation according to then-accepted standards of archaeology, and at least publication of the results. Is that enough? And if so, why are the only people who can do that people who are NOT associated with a private company like Odyssey?

  And what is to be done with the actual physical finds? Who gets to keep it? Why is it wrong for a private company, if it did the excavation the same way a musem or university would have done it, and disseminated the information about it (whether in AJA or on Discovery Channel) why is it wrong them for them to keep what they found? Why is that any different from the many, many of boxes of artifacts that museums have stowed away gather dust not to be seen by anyone?

  I have a strong affinity for archaeology; what’s bugging me is (sorry Heather) the whiff of entitlement to exclusive jurisdiction and moral high ground that seems to come from this week’s blog entry.

  I’m looking forward to your thoughts, Heather.

       


• Reply posted by Brian Harrison (January 8, 2009, 3:53 pm):

  Heather, all,

  Sites with human remains on land aren’t off-limits for archaeology, so why the attempt at differentiation when water is involved? Treating found remains with respect on land or water is the key.

  Why shouldn’t items from the Titanic, Lusitania, etc etc be salvaged and sold off under certain circumstances? If a ship remained afloat it would most likely eventually be scrapped and items recycled or sold…

  Enjoying the blog,

  brian

       


• Reply posted by Raul Sanchez (January 9, 2009, 12:53 pm):

  Excellent article. We (Puereto Rico) have suffered the new era pirates old wrecks robberies. The island just passed a law prohibiting any more stealing in our “so many” identified wrecks. My blessings for all of you that do care!

       


• Reply posted by Fer (January 12, 2009, 7:05 pm):

  Odyssey promotes very well their ‘archaeology’ (which is salvage/commercial exploitation) to the public and wow them with flashy images and video footage of sites sand relics. What they don’t tell you is what happens to the objects AFTER recovery. They get sold – for hefty amounts of money. That’s why they have high tech equipment to do what they do but it’s not archaeology. Once you sell one or two relics from a site, it is NOT archaeology. Auctioned off collections go into private hands and the public and researchers can never study them. Archaeologists do keep catalogues of videos and images of sites and objects – you just have to visit the relevant cultural heritage management agency. Yes, people pay to go to museums because they are self-funded or have to find ways to maintain the service and cover overheads, etc. But this money doesn’t come from selling objects. Collections stay intact for the public’s appreciation and research. Why do you think archaeologists look after ALL archaeological sites in their care – and treasure hunters only look for TREASURE ships with gold coins, etc? You don’t think that’s a little fishy??

       


• Reply posted by Lloyd Todd (January 12, 2009, 7:09 pm):

  Gents,

  Interesting reading, I honestly think this has set the archeological world
  back years if not decades without commercial help in providing funding and equipment many ship wrecks would never be found.
  I understand everyone wishing to protect sites of interest but someone has to pay the bill and the end of the day.
  This will cause a split between the 2 sides that worked together before?
  Im a owner of a underwater company operating ROVs in the oil & gas industry, but from time to time i also do Salvage work, Hunt for lost ship wrecks etc (Im not a treasure hunter) I also document everything and
  try to have some people from archeological groups involved if possible at may cost, where does this leave us now?

  Im sure its better somethings are sold to private collectors or museums than never found at all….

  Best regards Lloyd Todd

       


• Reply posted by James Galton (January 16, 2009, 5:42 am):

  An interesting article, but the following point is not considered.

  The UNESCO convention helps governments to prohibit unlicensed archaeology within their territorial waters (which they can do anyway regardless of the convention) but it does not protect thier wrecks outside of the territorial limit from salvage firms flagged or from countries that are not signed up to the agreement.

  Judging by the short videos on the discovery website for Odysseys new media circus – Treasure Quest, OME appear to think that photomosaics are sufficient as far as achaeological methodology is concerned. Thier gung ho methods of “archaeology” seem to be based around getting thier ROV to strip items from the ocean floor and then show them off to the press before flogging them.

       


• Reply posted by Tom (March 4, 2009, 5:04 am):

  Heather,
  I don’t see that you are trying to stop the fishermen from dragging their nets along the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean and Black Seas and destroying archaeological cites every day. At least the Odyssey crew is trying to save some of what is still left before it’s completely scattered and useless to any kind of scientific study.

       


• Reply posted by Gold Coins (June 24, 2009, 10:01 pm):

  The problem is when you said ship wreck salvaging the word Gold come along. Which is wrong the salvaged ship may have historical keys which can open unexposed truth about history.

       

Leave a Comment