09/08/2026
Interesting read
𝗜𝗦 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗢𝗩𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗡 𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗘𝗙𝗔𝗖𝗧 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗠 𝗔 𝗦𝗛𝗜𝗣𝗪𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗞 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗛𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗬 𝗢𝗥 𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗜𝗧 𝗙𝗥𝗢𝗠 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗡𝗘𝗫𝗧 𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗥?
⠀
First of all, thank you to everyone who responded when I asked whether it is OK to remove artefacts from shipwrecks.
⠀
Of the 328 individual commenters, 36% were against removing artefacts, 34% were in favour, 17% said it depends on the circumstances and 14% gave no clear answer.
⠀
Remove the jokes and side discussions and it becomes roughly 42% against, 39% in favour and 19% conditional.
⠀
So there really is no consensus.
⠀
It is probably fairly well known that I recover artefacts from some of the wrecks I dive, particularly in the areas where I do most of my diving. I believe that, in the right circumstances, this is the right thing to do.
⠀
I also appreciate that plenty of divers strongly disagree with me.
⠀
In the UK it is legal to recover material from many wrecks provided the relevant laws and restrictions are followed, and recovered wreck material must be reported to the Receiver of Wreck.
⠀
I would not take the same approach everywhere. In places such as the Great Lakes or the Baltic, where wrecks can be extraordinarily well preserved and face very different environmental pressures, I would generally support leaving artefacts where they are.
⠀
So what about the main arguments against recovery?
⠀
𝗟𝗘𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗜𝗧 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗡𝗘𝗫𝗧 𝗗𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗥
⠀
If it is a popular wreck and the object is stable, I understand that argument.
⠀
But many of the wrecks I dive are deep, remote and very rarely visited. They are constantly deteriorating through corrosion, storms, fishing activity, shifting seabeds and structural collapse.
⠀
Leaving something underwater does not guarantee that another diver will ever see it.
⠀
An artefact sitting at 90 metres might be seen by a handful of technical divers. On the surface it can be conserved, researched, displayed, filmed and shared online with hundreds of thousands of people who could never dive the wreck themselves.
⠀
Artefacts also engage people with shipwreck stories in a way that few other things do. A bell, plate, compass or named object makes the history tangible.
⠀
𝗜𝗧 𝗪𝗜𝗟𝗟 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗘𝗡𝗗 𝗨𝗣 𝗜𝗡 𝗦𝗢𝗠𝗘𝗢𝗡𝗘’𝗦 𝗦𝗛𝗘𝗗
⠀
Sometimes it does, and that is a fair criticism of poor stewardship.
⠀
Museums cannot take everything. They do not have unlimited storage, conservation facilities or money.
⠀
Private ownership does not automatically mean history has disappeared, but stewardship carries responsibility.
⠀
If you recover an artefact, you should be thinking about what happens to it when you stop diving or when you are no longer around.
⠀
Will your family know what it is? Will they know which wreck it came from? Will its story remain attached to it?
⠀
Anyone who becomes the custodian of these objects needs to think beyond their own lifetime.
⠀
𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗦 𝗗𝗔𝗠𝗔𝗚𝗘𝗦 𝗪𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗞𝗦
⠀
On the deep wrecks I normally dive, this is actually extremely rare.
⠀
At 70, 80, 90 metres or deeper, divers simply do not have the time, gas or equipment to spend their dives dismantling substantial sections of wreck.
⠀
Most recovered artefacts are already loose, exposed, amongst collapsed wreckage or lying on the seabed.
⠀
Often they are accessible precisely because the wreck around them is falling apart.
⠀
That is very different from deliberately dismantling an intact wreck to get at something desirable.
⠀
𝗜𝗧 𝗜𝗦 𝗚𝗥𝗔𝗩𝗘 𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗕𝗜𝗡𝗚
⠀
This was one of the strongest objections and probably the one I find most bizarre.
⠀
Shipwrecks are not automatically graveyards simply because people died when they sank.
⠀
On the wrecks I dive, identifiable human remains are exceptionally unusual. The sea is an incredibly destructive environment and over many decades remains are dispersed, buried or destroyed.
⠀
Human remains should never be disturbed and protected military wrecks must be respected.
⠀
But I struggle with the idea that an entire wreck and everything associated with it becomes an untouchable grave simply because somebody died there.
⠀
Look at the First World War battlefields of France and Belgium. Hundreds of thousands of men died there. Today those landscapes are farmed, roads cross them, houses and businesses stand on them and millions of people visit them.
⠀
We rightly protect cemeteries, memorials and human remains. We do not regard every square metre of battlefield as a permanent grave.
⠀
Why should the principle automatically be different underwater?
⠀
Recovering something that identifies a wreck or helps tell the story of those who died can itself become an act of remembrance.
⠀
𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗥𝗧𝗘𝗙𝗔𝗖𝗧 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗕𝗘𝗟𝗢𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗢 𝗬𝗢𝗨
⠀
Quite possibly, which is why there is a legal process.
⠀
Finding something does not automatically make it yours.
⠀
In the UK recovered wreck material must be reported to the Receiver of Wreck, who can investigate ownership and deal with the rights of the owner and the person who recovered it.
⠀
That is very different from secretly taking something home.
⠀
𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗗𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗢𝗬 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗔𝗥𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗘𝗢𝗟𝗢𝗚𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗫𝗧
⠀
The archaeological value of many late nineteenth and early twentieth century steel shipwrecks is relatively limited. These were industrially produced ships and many are extremely well documented through plans, photographs, shipyard records, cargo manifests, newspapers and official reports.
⠀
That does not mean they have no historical value, but treating every plate, valve or fitting as though moving it destroys an irreplaceable archaeological site is difficult to justify.
⠀
There is also a practical reality.
⠀
Maritime archaeologists have limited money, time and capability, especially when it comes to deep offshore wrecks. Quite reasonably, those resources tend to be concentrated on sites considered to have the greatest archaeological importance.
⠀
That leaves thousands of other wrecks which may never receive professional archaeological attention.
⠀
This is where divers can make a real contribution.
⠀
People like me spend our own time and money finding, filming, researching and identifying wrecks that might otherwise remain anonymous. Artefacts are often crucial to that process, and the resulting identifications, photographs, video and research add to the historical record.
⠀
𝗕𝗥𝗔𝗦𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗕𝗥𝗢𝗡𝗭𝗘 𝗪𝗜𝗟𝗟 𝗦𝗨𝗥𝗩𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗖𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗜𝗘𝗦
⠀
Not necessarily.
⠀
A huge bronze propeller may survive for a very long time, but thinner objects such as compass bowls, instrument cases and brass fittings can corrode, become incredibly fragile and eventually disappear.
⠀
They can also be buried by collapsing wreckage, covered by sand or damaged by fishing gear.
⠀
A wreck in the Great Lakes or Baltic can be remarkably stable. A wreck in an exposed part of the English Channel or Atlantic is a completely different environment.
⠀
That is precisely why one rule does not work everywhere.
⠀
𝗜𝗧 𝗜𝗦 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗧𝗥𝗢𝗣𝗛𝗬 𝗛𝗨𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚
⠀
Sometimes it undoubtedly is and I get huge satisfaction from recovering something significant.
⠀
But there is a huge difference between taking something simply because you want a trophy and recovering an object, reporting it, conserving it, researching the wreck and using it to tell that ship’s story.
⠀
Personal satisfaction does not remove historical value.
⠀
Of course I get enormous satisfaction from finding something that helps identify a wreck. That does not make the identification any less important.
⠀
For me, the two biggest reasons for recovering artefacts are 𝗣𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗥𝗩𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 and 𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡.
⠀
My starting point is simple:
⠀
𝗢𝗕𝗝𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗦 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗡𝗢𝗥𝗠𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗕𝗘𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥 𝗢𝗡 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗨𝗥𝗙𝗔𝗖𝗘 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗡 𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗘𝗥𝗪𝗔𝗧𝗘𝗥.
⠀
On the surface they can be conserved, researched, displayed and shared with people all over the world.
⠀
That does not mean everything should be recovered.
⠀
Some artefacts should stay where they are. Some wrecks should remain untouched. Some environments preserve wrecks so well that recovery achieves very little.
⠀
But in the waters where I do most of my diving, wrecks are deteriorating and disappearing.
⠀
And this is where I am interested in your view.
⠀
If an artefact is legally recoverable, lying loose on a deep wreck and likely eventually to be buried or destroyed, would you bring it up?
⠀
Does your answer change if it could identify an unknown wreck?
⠀
Does it change if the object will remain in a private collection rather than a museum?
⠀
And do you really consider removing an object from a wreck where people died to be “grave robbing”?
⠀
I know plenty of you will disagree with me.
⠀
𝗦𝗢 𝗧𝗘𝗟𝗟 𝗠𝗘 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗥𝗘 𝗬𝗢𝗨 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗞 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘 𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗟𝗗 𝗕𝗘 𝗗𝗥𝗔𝗪𝗡?
