"Should Treasure Hunting Be Prohibited?" Topic

Should treasure hunters be allowed to seek sunken vessels and extract their contents? Or should nations restrict or outright ban the exploitation of historical naval assets?

Fewer rules, not more.

Yes.

IIRC, in modern times warships remain the property of the nation, while civilian ships (Titanic, for example) are free for the looting (all part of that flotsam/jetsam thingie). Since technically, no nation owns the sea floor beyond its territorial limits . . . I'd think making a set of rules might be more bother than it's worth. I don't see how I'm adversely affected if someone brings the Nuestra Senora del Tesoro's gold ingots to the surface--nor do I see why any nation ought to be involved. Historical ships, maybe, but who gets to define historical? Is yet another Byzantine wreck off the Turkish coast an historical asset? All in all, an interesting thought experiment.

Outlaw everything. Its the new black.

It does not make sense to keep everyone else from picking up after shipwrecks if the people who put them there are not going to. Same goes for most abandoned trash.

It is reasonable to put a preference on study and public access to cultural resources, but again, if nobody is going to fund that, there is not much point to saying it has to just rot away.

No.

Why leave the stuff on the bottom of the sea, for the mud and sand to cover up.

I'm all for recovering the stuff, and cataloging the wrecks, if it can be done well. It's much more interesting to see in a museum, or personal collection, rather than wondering what might be down there, but is never recovered.

Huh?

Legalize everything, and tax the Hell out of it to get our countries tax bases back into the black.

The taxation thing is what needs to be banned.

Short of sunken memorials for the dead I think the treasure should be recovered.

maybe no.

Only if the proceeds go towards creating International Rescue.

The owner of the wreck should have a few years of exclusive right to recover their property, after that it should be finders keepers.

When it comes to historical wrecks then there's an additional reason to allow treasure seeking; it will happen anyway, but if it's illegal it will be done in secret and the treasures recovered will be melted down and sold as bullion. :(

Anything still there after 50-75 years should be fair game. If you wanted it, you should have gone and gotten it. If you think it is a tomb, well in the old days you were really only buried for 5 years, then they would extract you from the grave so someone else could use the spot. There is usually nothing left after that period anyway.

No. Finders keepers. No take backs.

No.

Yes, I think.

Yes

No.

DM

Should allow a few decades for the owner to recover the cargo. If they don't in that time period then it's free to whoever can find it and recover it.

No new rules.

Why Spain can claim the treasure off ships that sunk in 1700 is beyond me, except that the other nations go along with it, so they can make the same ridiculous claims.
They do none of the heavy lifting, and claim all the booty.

Yes, it's not a historical asset if it's fathoms beneath the waves.

For me, I think if a recovery crew and salvage team can do a good and decent job of recovery, then yes…but if the "team" is going to "trash and loot" the wreck, then they should be held accountable for damages.

I say this because I did a lot of research work and writing on the follow up "activities" on the Titanic a few years back, and the damage that the French "Salvage" ship and crew did to that wreck was unspeakable. What they couldn't get into, they simply bashed through with no care or regard to the fact that it's a historical wreck AND the resting site for almost 1500 people…
All to look for a couple of safes that only one was ever found…
And no apologies for their actions…

Same thing with those ***es that bring metal detectors to national battlefield parks, or find old civil war graves and dig them up for their belt buckles or buttons…that they may or may not have…

Heck no! How am I going to claim that huge hoard of gold I've discovered otherwise?

I find the notion that you can "damage" a destroyed and sunken wreck, interesting.

Some folks just want to make rules that keep other people from benefitting from actually expending their own efforts.

I'm with the finders-keepers crowd.
If you REALLY thought it was that important to you. You would have gone out and recovered it yourself.

I think a much shorter, 25 year limit, possibly even less, should qualify as abandoned.

It seems to me that if you don't make a serious effort to try to recover it in that time, it's been abandoned.

Claiming wrecks that are centuries old is just silly, but I can see why they want to try, with all that treasure in the balance.

The funny thing is, most if not all of the contents of the Spanish ships really belong to the people of Central and South America, or to people that lived in the Pacific, whom it was stolen from.

I don't know much about wrecks prior to the 20th century but I am guessing that you are already aware of the The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage which sets out basic principles for the protection of underwater cultural heritage. Amongst other things, this states that in situ preservation of underwater cultural heritage (i.e. in its original location) should be considered as the first option rather than salvaging the wreck. The Convention applies to all shipwrecks over 100 years old.

As for more recent wrecks, you will generally find that they are not abandoned but remain the property of the marine insurance company that covered the loss. It's similar to what happens when you write your car off and it becomes the property of the insurers when they pay your claim.

Warship wrecks remain the property of the national government, however long ago they sank. Merchant ships that were sunk during WW1 and WW2 also remain the property of their respective governments as they were generally covered by state insurance. This was given to ships during wartime when commercial marine insurance was unavailable due to the high risks and the number of losses.

"Finders keepers" might apply in the playground but would not really cut it in a court of law. The internationally recognized laws of salvage are quite clear on owners rights, even when unauthorised salvage takes place. It is actually much harder to carry out an illegal salvage operation than you might think given modern surveillance techniques.

Personally though, I think leaving objects on the seabed benefits no one but the fishes. A properly regulated recovery operation will enable many others to share what would otherwise be lost forever.

It's an interesting question and I am intrigued as to the reason behind it. Any chance of sharing?

Neither, it should be regulated somehow, especially when the wrecks are of archaeological significance (regardless of their current state).

No

On land or sea, treasure hunters destroy the historical knowledge that could have been gained by a proper archaeological recovery.

Well, recovering at least some of it, preferably in a responsible manner, is much preferable to leaving it at the bottom of the oceans, to be left forgotten for eons.

Is teasure hunting the same as gold-digging?

My personal preference…

No.

But perhaps a law that says a certain percent of the treasure must go to a museum/university for historical preservation and for public viewership.

Always felt history belongs to people of the world.

Treasure hunting is regulated by national and international law already. Just because it is in the ocean, or on the beach for that matter doesn't mean it is up for grabs. There is a branch of law called maritime law (oddly enough) that deals with salvage (treasure hunting) among other subjects. There is a great book called "Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea" that exemplifies what can happen when you salvage old wrecks. The long and the short of it is it is still tied up in court.

Sunken US warships are considered a grave site and are protected by US law.