Archaeology/Salvage on shipwrecks with human remains

[Ste Wart]

Just curious as to how divers feel about the subject.

A little background. I'm a currently writing a paper on the ethics of underwater archaeology for my grad work in Maritime Archaeology. Archaeology has, has hopefully moved passed it's grave digging past, but in the era of SCUBA a new avenue of archaeology has opened up. So wrecks from maritime disasters such as the Mary Rose, Vasa, HL Hunley have all been raised with the knowledge that members of the crew are having there resting place disturbed.

So the question is, knowing that there are human remains on a shipwreck, should we be allowed to conduct archaeology and/or salvage on that wreck?[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]

[/TR]
[TR]

[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[DevonDiver]

A wreck with human remains is a grave. I'd say that the same approach should be applied to archaeological workings on a grave whether they are in a marine or dry-land environment.

I'm not aware of what the 'standard' archaeological 'rules' are about working on graves, but I'd seek the answer there.

 

[Ste Wart]

A wreck with human remains is a grave. I'd say that the same approach should be applied to archaeological workings on a grave whether they are in a marine or dry-land environment.

The Protection of Military Remains act 1986, refers; mostly, to those wrecks after 4 August 1914 (although with some provision to back date). But that only covers British waters. Although British ships like the HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales are covered by law, because they are in Malaysian waters, only Brit nationals or people operating from a British ship are liable by law. Its more about the ethics than law. The remains are generally seen as a resource rather than something sacred.

I'm not aware of what the 'standard' archaeological 'rules' are about working on graves, but I'd seek the answer there.

Standard arch rules are to treat remains with respect. Which is fine. But. In the case of some shipwrecks then archaeologists are purposely disturbing the final resting place of the crew for archaeological gains. Is that ethically sound?


I've mainly been reading up on UK law today. But most other countries are similar.

 

[Thalassamania]

There are several questions:
1. dig or not?
2. pro vs amateur?
3. treasure vs knowledge?

Personally I don't get the whole "grave" thing, dead is dead. I really have no interest in what is done with my body or any of it's parts once I am done.

 

[koozemani]

Touchy subject. I would say archeology yes, salvage no. But at what point(age) would a wreck be considered an archeological site? I would also argue that some wrecks deserve greater protection based possibly on the magnitude of the tragedy, and that all war time military wrecks be considered monuments.

 

[laurin]

Archaeology, sure - salvage, no. Too often "salvage" is just a fancy name for souvenir collection and general wreck raping... I don't think many recent wrecks (war or otherwise) - where there could still be living memory of the dead around - would be of much archaeological interest anyway. For the older stuff the standard archaelogical rules should suffice.

 

[DevonDiver]

Personally I don't get the whole "grave" thing, dead is dead. I really have no interest in what is done with my body or any of it's parts once I am done.

I share the same opinion, but that opinion may not transfer to the case of friends, family or loved ones. In that respect, I think consideration of "in living memory" plays a role in the ethics.

 

[Ste Wart]

Touchy subject. I would say archeology yes, salvage no. But at what point(age) would a wreck be considered an archeological site? I would also argue that some wrecks deserve greater protection based possibly on the magnitude of the tragedy, and that all war time military wrecks be considered monuments.

Rough guides from around the world is that wrecks become historically/ archaeologically relevant at the 100 year mark. Finland specify 100 years, as do UNESCO guidelines. Denmark goes for 150.

Tradgedies at sea get some protection: the MV Wilhelm Gustloff is classed as war grave, due to the loss of 9000+ people. MS Estonia (1000) is protected, but only by a few countries and the Swedish Navy has caught people diving illegally on it.

[h=1][/h]

 

[Wookie]

There are several questions:
1. dig or not?
2. pro vs amateur?
3. treasure vs knowledge?

Personally I don't get the whole "grave" thing, dead is dead. I really have no interest in what is done with my body or any of it's parts once I am done.

Why is there a question? If you don't care what happens to your remains (and I don't either, but a whole lot of folks are really weird about it), they why do you care if I hold your skull up and mumble "Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio" to the delight and amusement of my friends as I search for the bell and hack off the propeller on the SS. Neversail, setting charges to blow open the dive locker so I can find where the Mark V hats are stored? Remains are remains, and if we all treated them with respect, we wouldn't even be asking this question. Since we don't, we shouldn't be asking the question. Leave wrecks with remains alone.

The gathering of knowledge from shipwrecks is a joke. If you want to know what the culture was like on the Atocha, read a book. If you want to see the way the Estonia was constructed, look at the plans. Maybe a few of the wrecks in the Med or Adriatic hold some clues to the culture at the time, but for the most part those wrecks do nothing but stroke the egos of the archeologists that explore and protect them. The why is not important. Only whether to protect graves is important, and it is to a whole lot of folks.

 

[Gilldiver]

Rough guides from around the world is that wrecks become historically/ archaeologically relevant at the 100 year mark. Finland specify 100 years, as do UNESCO guidelines. Denmark goes for 150.

Why? What is so magic about the 100 year mark? Does the simple turning of a calendar page impart significance? Why is a wreck that is 99 years old not of importance while one that is 100 years old is?

The 100 year mark is a lazy mans number and is always a moving target, pick a year and live with it. The real fact is that very few ship built since 1880 are of archaeological significance, historical significance may be another matter. The USS Arizona is of great historical significance to the US (perhaps not as much to Japan) but not all that much archaeological significance. But on 7 December 2041 it will have no magic increase in historical or archaeological importance than it has today.