Shipwrecks, Archaeologists and Treasure

A short history

By: Jim Sinclaire

It's the same old song with a new beat. The controversy that swirls around who should have access to the historic resources of the world -- in this case underwater -- has been brought to the front burners again with recent articles in US News and World Report and National Geographic.

The main players are from the same sides as they have been for the past three or more decades -- archaeologists vs. the private sector. An archaeologist is a person who studies peoples and societies of the past by the material objects they leave behind, and is (ostensibly) motivated by the pursuit of knowledge. On the other hand, the private sector's interest in past societies and the objects they leave behind is motivated by (ostensibly) profit. They have gone under a variety of names but "treasure hunter" is the most prevalent, and in archaeological circles today-the most derogatory.

At this point it may be beneficial to view, through hindsight, the makings of this controversy and its history. Archaeology as a "science" was born out of the older occupation of Antiquarianism, which was spurred on in the late 18th century by the Napoleanic conquests of Egypt and the subsequent expansions of Western civilization during the age of imperialism into areas of ancient and exotic cultures. Many "objects" of these cultures became desirable as art (as in the Elgin marbles) and as curiosities (as in mummies from Egypt). This was considered for many years a legitimate occupation and many early archaeological observations and material come to us from this period.

But this was also the age of enlightenment, and there were quests to explore and codify the world so that the new Western imperial powers might better understand their holdings, and ostensibly become better bureaucrats and administrators. Many "scientific" theories were born during this time, and hence new scientific categories and disciplines. Some of these have changed our lives in very significant ways. Certainly life sciences such as biology and its grand theory of evolution has given us the basis of modern medicine and the early physicists such as Curie, would set the ground work for our understanding of the atomic structure of all matter.

In this milieu Antiquarianism began to change, and the institutions that supported these endeavors demanded more complete information so systems and procedures began to develop as time went by until the Antiquarians themselves were frowned upon by the "new" science of archaeology.

For the person unfamiliar with archaeology it should be noted here that it is considered a subdiscipline of Anthropology, which is, broadly speaking, the study of humankind. Roughly broken down into its constituent subfields it consists of cultural Anthropology, physical Anthropology, Linguistics and Archeology, which are the studies of the material culture of human societies. It must be noted that much early Archaeology was devoted to the study of what we call "preliterate" societies, i.e., those that had no written language, and classical Greek and Roman with Egyptology filling a whole separate niche.

Antiquarianism finally gave way to the emerging science of Archaeology which is the systematic dismantling/excavation and analysis of an archaeological site. Rather than random diggings and collection of artifacts, there would be a structured method for the purpose of gathering as much cultural and societal information as possible, and, of course, bringing home the "goodies" ("home" now being prestigious institutions such as the Smithsonian and various museums of natural history).

During this time period colleges and universities began sending out expeditions staffed with students. This was at first met with a great deal of skepticism from the "real" archaeologists who worked in the institutions. So those universities and colleges had to show that they too were "legitimate" and added stricter protocols for the assessments of data collected at archaeological sites.

This evolution of archaeological science would spread from old world to new world archaeology, and of course in the new world for many years the only archaeology being done was on the preliterate societies of aboriginal peoples who were almost simultaneously being wiped out by western based expansions. Even as the last ethnography's were being written on the plains Indians "aboriginal" peoples, archaeologists of that time had a field day collecting material culture from this vanishing people.

Things went along like this for a while and then a curious thing began to take place. Some of the archaeologists in both Europe and the US began to examine sites of human occupation much closer to home both literally and metaphorically. In Europe the movement became known as "post" Medieval archaeology and here in the states we see historic archaeology being talked about.

Now those archaeologists from the more traditional schools were at first very resistant to the concept of historic archaeology. After all, here in the states or more correctly this hemisphere, that only includes the last 500 years and there were many written records of the time period. So the question was why start digging around in your own backyard? As a result of the quest for legitimization these new historic archaeologists had to institute even stricter systems and distance themselves as far as possible from the avocational or "hobby" archaeologists. Who may have had thorough knowledge of a particular historical site but no professional training -- although it became increasingly okay to use these avocational history buffs as free manual or volunteer labor at these digs.

With work at Williamsburg in the 1950s and 60s by Ivor Noel Hume and others the professional archaeological community here in the states began to see what might be accomplished through the use of archaeological methodology on historic sites.

Archaeology had, in a little over a century of development from Antiquarianism, done what all sciences do -- develop methodologies, theories, a language all its own, and to be considered a professional one had to have a university degree.

In the 1940s with the development of SCUBA a whole new subdiscipline of archaeology would begin to open up -- underwater archaeology -- but the precursor to this new field were avocational underwater explorers -- an evolution much the same in the prior development of archaeological subfields. Jacques Yves Cousteau, one of the co-developers of the Aqualung for SCUBA was one of the first to realize the potentials of this new technology. "Hard hat" divers tethered to the surface had already accomplished the raising of the Vasa in Sweden in the 1950s. This new technology could be even more useful. However, the Vasa was a unique shipwreck in cold water, deep mud and immaculate preservation and the Swedish government should be given every credit for this early attempt and wonderful museum. However, one might wonder if today a hue and cry might not be raised to leave the Vasa where she lay as a tomb for those unfortunate sailors who perished aboard her that fateful day -- a question and controversy that rages today about a more modern vessel the RMS Titanic.

Be that as it may, the underwater world was soon being visited by all sorts of people, and relics of our maritime past began to surface. Some of this material was "treasure" from the East Coast of Florida and the Bahamas. Spanish treasure wrecks were being found and much material recovered. Archaeologists and historians alike began to see the enormous potential that might lie just off shore and so here and there at universities and institutions the field of "underwater" archaeology began to evolve. The pioneers in this field are well known. Peter Throckmorton, George Bass, R. Duncan Mathewson III, and Mendel Peterson of the Smithsonian Institute - among many said to be the "father" of underwater archaeology.

Archaeologists who now sought to bring their methodology underwater faced enormous pressure. Stricter rules were put in place and a field of exclusion rather than inclusion developed. Meanwhile, "treasure hunters" were making spectacular finds in the shallows around Florida and the Bahamas. Archaeologists at first shunned such finds and then took a proactive stance against the "treasure hunters." State and federal governments began to push new laws to restrict, prohibit and control the treasure hunter activities.

This development was not all bad of course because admittedly there were -- and still are to some degree -- salvors who do not respect the historical integrity of the wreck sites and their recovered materials. But this was a missed opportunity for archaeologists and salvors to start working together with benefits that would accrue to both communities. Real knowledge has been lost because institutional archaeologists ignore data acquired by archaeologists working with the private sector, even though those methods used to acquire the data were within the guidelines of institutionally accepted methodologies. In addition, as late as the mid 1970s papers were being written by institutional archaeologists stating there was no important archaeology to be done on shallow water sites because of their chaotic dispersal due to environmental conditions.

The problem is that both sides are now so polarized that extreme convictions are not uncommon. "I would rather see every shipwreck in the world destroyed than let a treasure hunter get near them" is a statement this author actually heard (eliciting a reply on my part of openmouthed astonishment). This kind of sentiment refuses to acknowledge the public good that has come from private sector salvage work. Among the exhibits currently on tour around the country include "A slave ship speaks the Henrietta Marie 1700," a ship whose cargo held no treasure but the historic artifacts are now on tour around the United States sponsored by General Motors Co. as well as the NEH and the BSDA. This collection is a direct result of the search for the treasure galleon the Nuestra Senora de Atocha, 1622, a private salvage effort led by Mel Fisher. The "Pirates of the Whyda" exhibit which, under heavy pressure against it; the National Geographic Society supported through exhibit was also controversial in this respect. Professional Journals, however, have been singularly unsupportive by passing guidelines into their by-laws, which ban archaeological papers produced by archaeologists who work for the private sector. This has created a "catch 22" situation which claims archaeologists who work with the private sector are unpublished and therefore nonprofessional and not up to the standards of "the academy." Fortunately, many of these archaeologists have found alternate venues for publishing, including self-publishing.

It has always seemed interesting to me that archaeological finds, when finally exhibited, are frequently promoted with the word "treasure" attached. For example, only a handful of people would pay to see a show entitled the "Artifact assemblage of the young late 18th dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh," however the same show re-titled to "The Treasures of Tutankhamen" drew unprecedented numbers. The treasures of Alexander, and recently the PBS production of NOVA on an archaeological investigation into the LaSalle ship which was located in Matagorda Bay in Texas, was called the "Treasure of LaSalle." It seems that the masses must be appealed to with the idea of treasure. (In fact, the research vessel used and featured prominently early on in the show featured a Prop Wash Deflector or "mailbox." This has been one of the most contentious pieces of equipment used by the private sector, but which is apparently okay to be used by "real" archaeologists in both Texas and in Florida.)

An ex-professor of mine, a Harvard, Ph.D. and a one time president of the Society of Historical Archaeology, viewed the controversy as two primate groups who want access to the same resource, with one group driving off the other, thereby assuring their sole survival. He was, of course, speaking metaphorically but there is some truth here, i.e., two groups competing for the same resource using the same equipment. This same very scholarly man was pressured out of his position as president of the SHA because of his unpopular views on working with the private sector.

The archaeologist as anthropologist should be concerned primarily with the integrity of the site and what the informational component of the artifacts and the relational data from a site may reveal. Not, in other words, the final disposition of each and every piece. Most collections of materials are eventually dispersed through many different museums and some museums will deaccession materials and sell them when fiscally necessary. Ironically, on December 5, 1995, an article appeared in the New York Times, which stated that thousands of artifacts had been lost or misplaced by the government agency charged with their care.

Perhaps all this controversy is a reflection of the need of institutional archaeologists to insure the continuation of their profession -- one which has been increasingly threatened by budget cuts and other emerging priorities. Universities and colleges continually turn out young archaeologists, thereby insuring the continuation of their profession -- but to do what in this day and age of tight funding for state projects? What can these young archaeologists do except turn to the private sector? And the more these young scholars move into the private sector, the more vociferous the rhetoric becomes.

The truth is, by hiring professional archaeologists the private sector is just as competent as the universities to conduct archaeological investigations, sometimes more so. This is due to the high cost of explorations -- something that the public sector is increasingly unwilling and unable to support. The deep seas are now increasingly open to the private sector because of the new technologies available. But this has only led to an increase in the old rhetoric and controversy.

Having been involved for so many years as an archaeologist working with the private sector it is distressing to see so little progress made toward the reconciliation of the two camps. Perhaps like the old Antiquarians, the treasure hunters will just fade away or perhaps a hybrid of the commercial and institutional sectors will occur. I think that this will eventually be the most likely course. The common ground is there -- the technology exists -- each has so much to offer the other.

One last point. The pursuit of shipwrecks is a costly and time consuming endeavor and like archaeology in general it is an esoteric pursuit. I love what I do and feel blessed to have worked with some of the best people in the field. But I try not to kid myself with how important this is. It adds to the understanding of humans a little -- but what is found will not cure the ills of mankind, stop a war or feed the hungry children of the world. So to all the underwater archaeologists and treasure hunters in the world -- do your work well and do it together if possible, but don't take all of this so deadly serious. Lighten up.