BC Cook
THREE million. That is the estimated number of shipwrecks on the ocean floor. They range from the Titanic which sank a century ago to a Phoenician sailing vessel four thousand years old.
The question for us is: what do we do with them? In recent years the United Nations has sponsored treaties aimed at protecting shipwrecks, but protect them from what, exactly? First, let’s look at some discoveries that have raised important questions, then take a look at various points of view.
In the 1980s the most famous shipwreck in the world, the Titanic, was found. In addition to millions of dollars in wealth, the wreck contained the remains of hundreds of passengers. How should we consider the vessel: a cemetery, an archaeological site or an antiques shop?
In 2007 divers located the flagship of the English pirate Captain Kidd in ten feet of water near the shore of Dominican Republic. While they found no loot, the wreck yielded cannons and other artifacts. What should we do with the vessel? And who should control it?
Australian authorities discovered a sunken Japanese mini-sub near Sydney in 2006. It participated in an attack there in 1942. The sub almost certainly contains the remnants of the crew. Who should determine what happens to the sub?
In recent years the government of Poland has placed a ‘no dive zone’ around the Wilhelm Gustloff. Although you may have never heard of it, the Gustloff should be world famous. The sinking of that ship in 1945 by a Soviet submarine resulted in the deaths of close to 10,000 German refugees. The single largest loss of life at sea in history, the death toll equaled six Titanics. Who owns it? What should be done with it? And who should make that decision: Germany, Poland, Russia, the United Nations?
In 2001 the United Nations sponsored the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, aimed at defining the rules and guidelines for exploitation of shipwrecks. So far it has done very little. Only 45 nations have signed it, and of them only Spain and Portugal are significant maritime powers. All the signers combined represent 5% of the world’s shoreline. Countries like England, China, the United States and others with significant interest in shipwrecks and who could give the convention weight, have yet to sign it because they have various objections.
Some disagree with the spirit of the convention, others complain that the language is vague to the point of being useless. Take this passage, for example, which defines what is covered in the convention: “all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character…” Good grief. How vague can you get? If I kick a Pepsi can off Banzai Cliff is it protected by the U.N.? On this point I must agree with the critics. For the convention to mean anything it must be more specific than that.
So much for the issues. Next week we will look at the various points of view. Are shipwrecks cemeteries not to be disturbed? Archaeological sites to be excavated by responsible experts? Or treasure troves to be sold off for profit? Let’s dive into these subjects next time.
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).
