Collecting artifacts from wrecks

Great Debates
1

I have never collected an artifact from under the sea. Just wanted to point that out. But I wonder about collecting stuff. Some people don’t see anything wrong with it, and others see it as a cardinal sin.

There’s a guy in the South who dives for Civil War relics in a river. IIRC, he turns his finds over to museums. The state charged him with a criminal offence, claiming that he’s robbing an historically significant site. I see their point, but for two things: First, there is no archaeological “dig” in the river that I know of; and second, The Civil War is well documented and IMO the rifles and whatnot are not of great historical significance. Besides, if this guy wasn’t bringing them up, they would be lost forever. Now, they’re turning up in museums were they can be enjoyed by thousands of people.

So IMO, an artifact is better recovered than to be lost for all time through disintegration by the elements and plant and animal activity.

Another argument against collecting artifacts is that it makes the dive site less interesting for future divers. I can buy that, too. But again, some artifacts can be lost through natural activity. Regardless of whether they are lost to a museum or lost to natural activity, they’re still lost to the dive site.

So what’s your opinion on this? Is it better to bring artifacts up, if the wreck is not historically significant (like ancient ones in the Med., for example), or is it better to let them deteriorate naturally?

BTW, I work with a guy who insists it’s okay to toss beer bottles overboard since they become habitats for sea creatures, and will eventually become archaeological artifacts. :rolleyes: (And no, he’s not a diver.)

2

As a psuedo-historian, I say bring it up. Losing ANY historical artifact is a tragedy. It is a great boon even if we can just re-create what it once was.

Well, I’m sure some great culture in 5,000 years will be terribly interested when they disturb a coral reef and find a battleship or somesuch. :slight_smile:

3

Perhaps someone else has ownership or jurisdiction over the wreckage and that’s why he was charged?

4

The only objection I could have to bringing the artifacts up is that it destroys the provenance.

Artifacts lose some of their significance if they’re recovered without proper study of the surrounding soils/area. In the museum in which I work, we have many Native American artifacts which were looted from their sites over one hundred years ago. We can learn some from them, but we could have learned much more if an archaeologist had studied the site. From what artifacts surrounded the object, its depth in the soil, its position, etc., we glean valuable information about a culture.

In the Civil War shipwrecks, the position of the artifacts could tell us what happened to the ship. For example, if the debris field is wide, we may learn that the ship broke up before sinking, which may lead us to finding out what destroyed it-- mine, storm, or cannonball damage. (Contemporary records are not always 100% reliable.)

The concept of a layman deciding what is historically “significant” alarms me a little. Since I have started working in the museum, I have discovered that people study things that seem incredibly obscure to me. What I would have shrugged off as being of little interest, they glean incredible amounts of information. Who knows what historical questions could be answered by the most innocuous wreck?

A “dig” does not an historical significant site make. In my hometown, there is a giant Native American mound which has never been excavated. Since the items therein are “lost” to us, should I take a shovel out there and see what I can find? Should laymen be permitted to scavenge sites archaeologists haven’t gotten to yet, even if they do bring the items to a museum?

Retrieving an artifact from the ocean bed will not ensure its survival-- and may actually do more harm. An item which has been undersea for more than a hundred years would need careful conservation and preservation techniques. Does the man doing the retrieval know what to do? Or, did he take them home, let them dry out, and try to clean them up before bringing them in to the museum? Is the museum prepared to deal with them? Do they have the proper facilities, and people trained in such methods? Many museums don’t. I would hope to trust in another museum’s professionalism, but I know from my travels that some museums don’t do what they should to ensure preservation of their artifacts. Either they can’t afford it, or they’re neglectful.

I believe that these sites should be left undisturbed until professionals can study them. Even though these folks may have the best of intentions, we can’t allow any Joe Shmoe with scuba gear to loot and damage historical sites because we fear they may be lost. Permitting scavenging ensures the site will be lost, as far as significance and provenance goes.

5

I didn’t want to make this a thread about the Civil War guy; but…

I think the guy is an historian. I also think that the rifles and whatnot he’s recovered were not from a wreck, but were discarded. I’ve only read an article or two, and they weren’t all that in-depth. In this particular case, I think he is doing a good thing because the artifacts would surely be lost if they were not recovered.

But let’s say a fishing vessel was lost at sea. All of the crew were rescued, and they have all given testimony as to the nature of the sinking. The wreck lies underwater for a several years before someone finds it. Since the cause of the sinking is known, it’s not a “grave”, it’s not historically significant, etc., it seems to me that recovering artifacts would be okay. (There would, on such a recent wreck, be potential ownership issues. I think some states and some countries specifically say that wrecks become state property. But I don’t think this is universal.)

But this leads me to another question I’ve had for a long time (not related to shipwrecks): I remember seeing a documentary a few years ago where archaeologists excavated an early colonial cemetary. In that case, the burial ground had been there 300 years. When does a burial ground become an archaeological site?

6

Pretty much correct. Under the federal Abandoned Shipwrecks Act (roughly a decade old, if memory serves), title to all shipwrecks embedded in the floor of a body of water in U.S. waters are vested in the federal government, which then automatically grants title to the state in whose water the wreck is located. And state governments generally don’t take it real well when you take their stuff, even if they didn’t know it was there until you found it.

This is actually a completely fascinating area of law, particularly for folks like me who do occasionally dive shipwrecks. Given that government rarely has any interest in bringing up artifacts from shipwrecks, and given also that the artificats will inevitably be destroyed if left where they lie, I tend to fall on the side of encouraging people to locate and raise them. That said, my preference would be a requirement that all shipwreck finds and salvaged items be reported to the state, and that the state be given the opportunity to claim authority over any items of historical value. If the state doesn’t give a damn, salvors should have every right to recover abandoned property from underwater.

Whether non-shipwreck items are subject to state ownership is probably a matter of state law, which varies widely. It certainly wouldn’t be surprising if you couldn’t take a rifle found in a state park, for instance. It may be a different story entirely if you found it in your own back yard. Without further details, it’s impossible for me to decide whether Mr. Amateur Archaeologist ought to be headed for the penitentiary.

7

Now THAT is an interesting question.

Personally, I have always been torn between the historian and the humanitarian in me whether it is EVER acceptable. I mean, certainly, I wouldn’t mind some future person digging me up and learning from me (null; I’ll be cremated, anyway), but, say, King Tut obviously had different wishes, and I would personally prefer to respect them.

On the other hand, excavating a gravesite, tomb, battlefield, or whatever else can lead to revolutions in what we know about a time and place.

Hm. :frowning:

8

I’m with you. I grew up near DC, so my childhood included many visits to national museums. Mummies and such generally resulted in me crying and being rather angry. Folks would parade past cases containing various Egyptians, who had been entombed with the expectation that none would ever disturb them, but who had now been unwrapped for your viewing pleasure.

OTOH Most of the time, if archeologists leave a site undisturbed it will be looted. The artifacts and human remains will still end up on display, but they will likely be damaged and no knowledge will be gained from them.

I can’t remember the name of the location or the documentary. But, I did see a documentary on an excavation of an ancient kingdom in Africa. The land was still controled by the descendents of the kingdom builders. When a royal burial was discovered, the archeologists were given permission to unearth the bodies and artifacts, with the stipulation that one of the (descendents of the kingdom builders, I can’t remember either group’s name) was there to ensure that the bones were treated with respect, and that the group could give the bones a proper reburial on their land.

9

I’m a firm believer in a no-touch policy while diving. I shudder just seeing people in dive gloves (in warm water).

I would have no problems with an archaelogical study going ahead on a wreck of interest. I would have lots of problems being on a dive with someone who took “trophys”.

I’ve dived on some WW2 wrecks, where some of the cabin doors were locked from the inside. That makes you think twice about your activities. I didn’t actively try to open any doors, however the expat we spent two months with explained that not only was he aware of several doors still locked, but he’d also discovered a skull at one point. The skull remains on the wreck, covered by more debris, as he wasn’t the sort to take “trophy’s” either.

10

He rails about people “looting” the wreck of the “TITANIC”. I say so what? Once a wreck is abandoned, as far as I’m concerned, it is “finders keepers”. Ballard became a multi-millionaire because of his discovery of the TITANIC…and now he’s compalining. If the stuff is left on the sea floor, it is just going to corrode away and disappear anyways. :smack:

11

What is the overall purpose of preserving a historical site of any kind if no real use is made of the information collected.

One group or another wants to preserve this fine house of some such and wants one gov’t. entity or another to finance the project. It just so happens that all the gov’t. entities are us!

If any preservation project is so important to a group they can finance it on their own. I already through federal taxes finance all too many special interest groups pet projects. It time to stop the tax sprawl!

12

Here in Philly AFAIK the majority of historical buildings make money for the city. Tourism is big business.

13

What do you consider “real use”? Does the furtherance of historical knowledge fit that description?

Most of the work that historians do is behind closed doors. The public really has no concept of how much time, effort, skill and dedication that it takes to preserve our history and study it in the depth that it deserves.

I have never seen a historical site which is not being put to any “real use”. Either it is open to educate the public, or it’s being studied by scholars who may make incredible discoveries which may change the way we understand our history.

I’m a taxpayer, and I’m deeply glad that a tiny portion of my tax dollar goes to helping to preserve our history. I think it’s great that “we, the people” are making an effort to save our history before the effects of time can erode them entirely.

Yeah, 'cause God knows historical preservation groups are just rolling in the dough. :rolleyes:

I don’t expect you to understand how hard we work at stretching every single penny to cover our expenses. Hell, we reuse envelopes until they fall apart, and have to chose between buying pencils and buying vaccuum cleaner bags! Most of us work for free, and for the rest of us, our paychecks are mostly a symbolic gesture.

None of us are getting rich off of this, I assure you. You don’t get in this business for the money. Our biggest renumeration for our work is the deep satisfaction in knowing that in a hundred years, our work will still mean something-- that we are preserving our history for future generations. It really is a sacred trust.

If it were left up to the few people who understand the importance of historical preservation to try to pay for the costs involved, this country would lose much of its rich historical past-- and that would be a tradgedy.

The museum in which I work is mostly funded by donations. We get government grants on occasion which help us maintain our facilities and better serve the public. Last year, a grant paid for us to make our facility wheelchair accessible. For the first time, people with mobility problems can enjoy the entire museum, rather than being restricted to the exhibits on the first floor. It was monsy well spent, in my opinion.

This year, a government grant is helping to save a historic home in our area. It has very unusual architecture, and is an absolute gem. One of the big chain stores bought the land and was going to destroy the house. Donations came in from all over the country, but weren’t enough. If it hadn’t been for the government grants, there’s no way the enormous cost of moving the house could have been met, and it would have been lost so that an ugly big-box store could be put in its place. The march of progress, I suppose, but the cost would have been heartbreaking if we couldn’t have saved the house.

Right outside of town, a highway is about to be expanded. Archaeolgists are hurriedly trying to excavate as much of the area as possible before the bulldozers destroy what Native American artifacts lie beneath the soil. Again, my tax dollars are helping to snatch bits of history from oblivion before it’s too late. Thank God.

Please. Historical preservation takes such a tiny, infantesimal portion of government monies that it’s almost laughable. If you want to bitch about tax sprawl, write your Congressman about the staggeringly huge handouts given to multi-billion dollar corporations.

Frankly, I’m pleased to see my money going to something worthwhile. You may not appreciate it, but future generations will.

14

Re The Titanic

I’m am in no way a Titanic buff (though when in the buff, it’s clear that in some ways, I’m titanic). But, AFAIK there’s nothing on the wreck that has any great historic signifcance. We’ve got plenty of documentation and objects from the time period. The only reason to bring anything up, is to sell it. This bothers me a great deal considering the number of dead people in and around the wreckage. It’s basically grave robbing. I have no rational argument against looting the Titanic. But, I find it obscene.

springears

Additionally many discoveries are made by examining things that had been dug up and then stored in museum basements for decades. By examing skulls in different museum collections, Gould was able to disprove a long accepted theory on why the Irish Elk became extinct. A few years ago examination of monastery’s library revealed that one book had reused paper from a Greek manuscript, one thought lost in the destruction of the library at Alexandria.

You can never be sure you’ve learned all you can from something.

15

First, I would like to see some sort of cite that shows Ballard is “a multi-millionaire.” Celebrity scientist, yes, but I have not previously heard that he is also wealthy.

Second, how is complaining about taking items from the Titanic hypocritical if the person complaining does not himself take items from the Titanic? So far as I know, Ballard has never complained about scientific examination of the wreck, which is all he has done with it.

16

I’m sure it was different, but I’m reminded of an episode of Scientific American Frontiers (With Alan Alda) where they went to a south African “kingdom” that maintained their cultural heritage, if it was only ceremonial. Alan went through the ritual to meet their king, and had an interview about archeologists coming in and digging around their ancestors and sites, followed by a short visit to the sites.

(Bless PBS for making a series like SAF available for free online!)

17

Are you kidding? Historians, archeologists, and everyone else continues to make new discoveries at sites for centuries after they are discovered. Imagine not keeping the Pyramids, or the digs at Troy! My god, what would be lost! A single cursory examination by one team is hardly going to uncover everything about a site - frequently, a dozenth team a hundred years after the first can make a breakthrough discovery using new technology and techniques. Think about the waterways beneath Jeruselum! The Greek ruins! These are the real treasures.

I recall a Russian archeologist who made a find of an ancient tomb of an ancient nomadic king, and he was mummified well enough that the full body tattoos were still visible. That was a PRICELESS discovery, and she remarked upon seeing it that it was better than finding a room of solid gold.

It is every historian’s dream to relive history, and having a little piece to re-examine, to see what it was like is beyond measure. Preserving historical sites is of prime importance, whatever the cost.