BC Cook
LAST week we discussed various issues related to shipwreck exploration and exploitation. Numbering in the millions, these wrecks are the objects of great interest by families, historians and governments. They are also the source of potential uncountable riches.
What are we to do? Over the years people have taken different approaches to wreck development. For the sake of space I will lump them into three categories.
• Shipwrecks are graveyards. Those who adhere to this approach to shipwrecks and other underwater historical sites see them primarily as the final resting place of humans. To them, rummaging through a shipwreck in search of artifacts or treasure is the same thing as grave robbing. As one scientist put it, “The looting of the tombs of [King Tut of Egypt] is now considered unacceptable, so why is the looting of shipwrecks considered alright?” The United Nations argues that underwater exploration is sadly behind the times when compared to land archaeology. I think there is no question there is a double standard. If I milled around a cemetery or a burial mound looking for trinkets to put on my desk I would face serious jail time. How would people feel if I dug up coffins in search of precious items to sell on eBay? Clearly, what is a crime on land is a sport when moved underwater.
• Shipwrecks are archaeological sites. Those who see the issue this way focus on the cultural and historical value of the site. Naturally, there is concern for the human remains and they are to be avoided if possible and respected if disturbed. But that is no reason to avoid a site altogether. Rather than likening the wreck to a cemetery, they think a better comparison is with a building that has been destroyed by an earthquake. We would not hold back from clearing the debris and recovering valuable items because there were dead bodies among the mess. Think about what there is to learn by recovering artifacts from wrecks. We can learn so much from the vessels, the items on board, and yes, even the human remains. It would be irresponsible not to study shipwrecks. Of course, it must be done by professionals, those trained in the proper methods of preservation and extraction. The purpose of exploiting a site must be educational rather than commercial, and that principle would guide decision-making at the site.
• Shipwrecks are treasure troves to be sold for profit. This group sees the wrecks in terms of their money-making potential. For some the value of a wreck is in the vessel itself, for others it is contained in the cargo the ship carried. I spoke to a friend of mine who is in the business, and he told me that most shipwrecks would never be bothered by treasure hunters because most wrecks would not produce enough loot to pay for themselves. In other words, it would cost more to recover the site than they could make selling off the goods. Therefore, few sites are targets of the treasure hunters. Those that are worth going after are fair game and rightly so. What good is a pile of gold medallions doing on the bottom of the sea? It is wasting away when it could be enriching someone. As for the people who died on the wreck whose remains may be scattered among that gold, they are dead, and leaving the treasure down there does not change that. We are being overly sentimental when we avoid exploiting wrecks out of concern for the deceased.
What are your thoughts on this? There are valid points in each of the positions. Your answer will help decide what happens to thousands of shipwrecks in the Pacific.
BC Cook, PhD lived on Saipan and has taught history for over 30 years. He is a director and historian at Sealark Exploration (sealarkexploration.org).