The UK does have a pretty relaxed attitude with this particular company, and has been happy to come to some sort of arrangement.
I would expect that it is seen by the UK government as a way to encourage the more responsible end of the ‘treasure seeking’ industry. There are still many potentially valuable cargoes around the UK coast, or in areas the UK claims and it helps no-one to force this sort of work under cover.
I believe that this company - Odyssey Marine Exploration - is also pretty thorough with carrying out the relevant archeological work, which I would imagine the UK government would rather encourage, rather than have wrecks blasted apart in the usually futile, but destructive search for treasure which has been known to happen by the less than ethical types who try to ‘steal’ wrecks that others have found.
It’s highly likely that until the UK’s claim is ratified, Odyssey will not disclose the location, it seems to prefer to do business with the UK than with Spain.
Part of the problem is that there are people who do not care about the historical artifacts . The Odyssey tries to hide where they are hunting because looters will destroy the site for the historians. They will swoop in and grab all they can destroying anything that slows them down.
But the Atocha which Mel Fisher found was claimed by the Federal, state and local governments which did nothing to find the wreck. They actually impede.
They are entitled to income tax on the money Fisher makes . That is all. If they find an important relic, then the state should buy it from them.
How is there no statute of limitations on cases like this? I would think that these sorts of long-dormant ancestral claims are just the sort of cases where the SoL principle readily applies.
Instead, it looks like the other SOL principle is what commonly applies.
Well, here is a case that shows how a bewildering variety of people tried to jump a salvage claim. As it turns out the court awarded the whole find to the salvager but it illustrates the point. I do not know how statute of limitations work for all this but I’d think if they did not apply here then they just do not apply at all.
You can’t own something you abandoned and wrote off two centuries ago. :rolleyes: If there wasn’t a reasonable limit imposed, you’d have people taking things from others all the time. We are not talking about privately held property, unique property, or even land or facilities. All of those could be considered to be returnable. We are talking about straight gold, and presumably some artifacts of historical significance. leaving something at the bottom of the ocean for several hundred years and not making any effort to recover, or secure your property means you have abandoned it. Abandoned property is free for anyone to claim.
ETA Think of it this way. Governmental property is held in trust by the state by an uninterrupted chain of custody securing it. Regardless of whether or not they sign for it, the property is maintained at all times by the system. They haven’t maintained or secured this at all, they wrote it off as a loss.
I, on the other hand, read some articles (for instance by archaeologists) about treasure hunters looting wrecks, concealing their finds, or destroying elements of archaeological importance in their search for easily sellable items or riches . Even though we might not be talking of the same treasure hunters (or maybe we do) it didn’t give me a very positive view of this profession.
I’ve watched this show on Discovery a couple of times…it’s a pretty cool show for anyone who hasn’t checked it out.
At any rate, I have to agree with the OP on this one. If the wreck is in international waters (which most of these wrecks are) then they should be open to whoever finds them for salvage. IIRC this is actually maritime law. Watching the show however it seems clear that if there is a big pile of loot involved suddenly all that law stuff goes out the windows.
On an episode a week or so ago the ship was searching a wreck site in international waters off the coast of France and the French navy first started out harassing the ship and then obviously using air craft in order to fix the position for themselves. This had nothing to do with a French desire to respect the grave site of the ship, blah blah blah…and everything to do with the tons of gold and jewels reportedly on the wreck. Same goes for the story in the OP it seems. According to the show the Spanish are one of the worst about this (they have more wrecks of course).
Not exactly the same thing. US ships in international waters ARE dived on and salvaged. A famous one I can think of off the top of my head is the America. The Arizona however is NOT in international waters…and it’s also designated as a national park or monument (I forget which).
Only if the law says so. And it might say something else about wrecks. I know for instance that in France, the law regarding treasures found on land is different from the laws regarding wrecks in territorial waters. And in the former case, actively searching for a treasure, if it’s old enough to be of archaeological significance, is essentially forbidden. So, it might very well be the same for wrecks.
You can’t just say : “Abandoned property is free for anyone to claim” as if it were an universally recognized and valid rule.
Understood. And likely they are encouraged to do that precisely because if they advertise their find a pile of others will swoop down on them trying to get a piece of the action.
That does not defend their destruction of things that may have great historical value but I can see where they are coming from.
While generally I am of the “finders keepers” crowd I admit there can be a lot of gray area. What if the find was gold/artifacts looted by the Nazis and hidden away? Since it was essentially stolen and hidden I can see people/institutions making legitimate claims to get it back if found.
Right, but that’s on land. If France is anything like America then even privately held land is subject to federal oversight, and something like a valuable archeological treasure might come under governmental control. Ships in international waters however are not subject to any country’s law, nor are they going to be of serious archeological significance. Most of these wrecks are from the age of exploration forward, and we have loads of information about that period, its not like its a viking ship burial or something unique.
I have been around Nelsons HMS Victory in Portsmouth which is maybe 50 feet longer, and its pretty cramped in there.
Each main gun required up to 8 men to operate, and having done it myself, on HMS Victory (no I’m not that old, we did some film work) it gets even more stifling and crowded when you have four or five gun crews working alongside. Add to that the powder monkeys keeping the cannon supplied, and the Gunnery masters with their bosuns calls, and all the marines, and rigging crew, along with the masthead snipers, and it soon adds up.
There would not be seperate messdecks, you slung your hammock of a night, and took it down again in the morning, you ate moreorless using the gun carriage as a table, the whole lower deck area was multiuse.
Much more recently in diesel submarines, there is not always enough space for everyperson to have their own bunk, so when you go on watch, and get out, someone on the offcoming watch takes your place.
I’m not sure it’s a valid excuse. They’re under no obligation to search for wrecks at the first place.
For instance, if, instead of a ship found out the Mediterranean coast, we were talking about Inca tombs in Peru, would you excuse the looters because they wouldn’t get a piece of the action if they declared they find? Or would you say that they have no business searching for Inca sites to begin with? Why couldn’t the same reasoning be applied to wrecks?
Well…I disagree that these sites would be archaeologically insignificant. And if you watch the show you will see they are actually pretty good about preserving the archeology (they even have several trained underwater archeologists on board). They usually take a photo mosaic of the entire wreck site and take the time to really document whatever they take up using GPS on their ROVs. They aren’t exactly just strip mining the site here (if they were they probably wouldn’t have a show on Discovery documenting their adventures).
Of course not…it’s a bad analogy. If someone is searching for tombs in Peru then, well, they are IN Peru, ehe? If they are doing so without permission of the Peruvian government then they are breaking the law. These days countries strictly regulate such work in their own territory. The same would go for a ship wreck in accepted territorial waters…the nation who’s waters the wreck lies in would have some claim on at least a percentage of the salvage. I don’t think anyone is disputing that. Wrecks in international waters are, however, not subject to any nation wrt salvage rights.
I am not excusing them. Just saying I understand why they might want to hide their find.
I do not know why but my gut has me feeling something at the bottom of the ocean a hundred miles from anywhere is different than a Peruvian archaeological site on land.
Maybe I am making a distinction where there should be none. Have to think about that one.
Sure, that’s why I mentioned “territorial waters”, because I’ve no clue about the rules applying to international waters. Still, I don’t think you can decide all by yourself that abandoned property is free for the taking. As long as there’s no law or treaty saying so, that’s only your opinion. I don’t know what treaties or precedents (or even local laws) might have to say on such issues, but it’s non obvious to me that what you said would apply. How would it be up to you (or a treasure hunter) to decide?
If Spain (picked at random) decides that the wrecks of all her ships stay the property of the state, regardless how long ago they’ve been lost at sea, on what basis could you say that Spanish law is wrong and the treasure hunters are right?
Items found in several centuries old wrecks will in all likelihood end up displayed in a museum, if owned by a state. They won’t be thrown away. So, they certainly have historical or archaeological value.
And also, as mentioned by some, wrecks might be considered cemeteries. Again, why an individual deciding that they aren’t would be right, and the state stating otherwise would be wrong, lacking some international agreement, or a treaty, or legal precedents?
As I said previously (when I compared searching for wrecks and searching for historical sites), if treasure hunters are bothered by the legal issues, they’re free not to search for wrecks. If they do search for them, they know their rights will be contested and they’ll have to deal with it. If they lose, and whoever else grabs the loot, I won’t shed a tear, honestly. They aren’t doing this for the greater good of mankind, but for profit. They play, they lose, too bad.
Sez who?? If that were the case then every Spanish galleon found and salvaged would have shares of it given back to Spain. AFAIK this has NEVER happened (except to wrecks found in Spanish coastal waters).