How do archaeology and grave robbing differ?

In the legendary film "Raiders of the Lost Ark," the majority of the plot follows professor/adventurer/archaeologist Indiana Jones as he faces off against treasure-hunting Nazis in pursuit of the Ark of the Covenant. Director Steven Spielberg makes a clear distinction between Jones, the heroic archaeologist, and his adversary Dr. Rene Belloq, an archaeologist who has succumbed to the allure of treasure hunting for personal gain. The movie’s title itself is noteworthy: it’s not called "The True Archaeologist and the Grave Robber." Instead, both Indiana Jones and his antagonist are referred to as "raiders" of the lost ark. This raises a key question: What separates archaeology from grave robbing?

Determining when an artifact achieves historical significance is challenging, as no universal law clearly defines this. In the world of antiques, it’s typically understood that items between 75 and 100 years old are regarded as valuable collectibles. U.S. customs laws mark the threshold at 100 years. But does this mean that anything older than 100 years is automatically fair game for research? Not quite. For instance, if you were to exhume a 105-year-old grave and remove a pocket watch, that would be considered grave robbing and would be illegal. However, if a university researcher had obtained a permit to excavate a Native American burial site, it would be classified as archaeology, which is legally protected if conducted according to state guidelines. A permit is essential in distinguishing legitimate archaeological work from grave robbing, and it serves as the foundation for legal excavation procedures. Every U.S. state has its own regulatory body, often led by a state archaeologist, which outlines the criteria for legal excavations.

The key factor that most archaeologists emphasize is the purpose behind an excavation. Archaeologists work to reconstruct human history and prehistory, often focusing on burial sites because of humanity's long tradition of interring important objects with the deceased. For instance, if a 400-year-old body is discovered, it is likely accompanied by items that offer crucial insights into that era. The discovery of a body from the Ice Age, complete with a spear embedded in its rib cage and a basic hammer in its hand, can reveal much about the survival strategies, hunting techniques, and technological capabilities of that time.

In contrast, grave robbers typically act with one clear objective: to sell artifacts for personal gain, either to dishonest collectors or through the underground antiquities market. They are uninterested in the historical or cultural value of the items they steal, focusing solely on how much they can sell them for. The apparent distinction is that while grave robbers pursue profit, archaeologists are driven by a commitment to research and discovery.

However, this dichotomy isn't so straightforward. Recently, there has been significant debate regarding the artifacts recovered from shipwrecks and whether they differ fundamentally from those uncovered through terrestrial excavations.

Undersea Archaeology

Some relatives of Titanic victims argue that recovering valuables from the wreckage is essentially grave robbing, considering the Titanic site is the final resting place for over 1,500 souls. Since its discovery in 1987, many personal items have been exhibited at various Titanic displays. While some claim these objects are a historical collection of relics akin to the treasures found in King Tut's tomb, others assert that this is a form of exploitation. The UNESCO Convention of 1970, however, provides protection for cultural property and helps prevent looting of archaeological sites. Adherents to this convention are recognized as archaeologists rather than grave robbers, aiming to uncover humanity’s lost history.

The 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage was agreed upon by 23 countries, though major nations like the United States, England, France, Germany, Italy, China, and Russia have yet to sign. This agreement permits the recovery of artifacts as long as those involved make meaningful contributions to the protection and understanding of underwater sites. Additionally, it bans the trade of underwater cultural property. However, the absence of key countries from the convention leaves it in an uncertain state, hindering its impact.

This lack of global consensus has paved the way for for-profit exploration companies like Odyssey Marine Exploration (OME), which have recovered millions of dollars in treasures from sunken ships. Dr. Mark Gordon, COO of OME, argues that these remote, deep-sea sites are too challenging and costly for academic institutions to explore. He justifies OME’s for-profit model, claiming it allows for the recovery of far more artifacts than would be possible under a non-profit approach, with valuable finds retained for research. Critics, however, accuse OME of being a sophisticated looting operation disguised as research.

As the debate surrounding underwater exploration persists, the future of companies like Odyssey Marine Exploration remains uncertain. As more nations adopt the 2001 UNESCO Convention, the line between legitimate archaeology and grave robbing may become clearer, with land-based and sea-based excavations more distinctly defined.