These issues were addressed by a panel of experts during the Underwater Intervention (UI) 2002 Technical Program in New Orleans. As the owner and researcher of the Lusitania, and investigator of the Estonia, I opened the discussion with a brief outline of the sorts of prohibitions being raised by those who prefer, for whatever reason, to leave wrecks unvisited on the bottom. Most of these prohibitions revolve around the central theme that it is a grave site, a war grave, a place of rest, and other descriptions covering those who went down with the ship and whose remains have never been recovered. Whether or not the "spirit" is still there after death, or whether wreck research is any more disturbing to the site than a walk through a cemetery, seems to escape those who hold this argument.

Panelist Ole Varmer, an attorney and advisor at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) identified the various interest groups concerned with the appropriate treatment of a wreck or grave site: survivors, relatives, owners, explorers, researchers, developers, divers, the general public, governments with jurisdiction over the wreck, and victims. In addition to a flag state, a coastal state may also have jurisdiction over underwater cultural sites including the 24-nautical-mile Contiguous Zone. Varmer pointed to the laws of nations which have jurisdiction over such sites and cover related activities on the treatment thereof. He particularly identified a few US laws and policies as guiding sources: the US Navy Shipwreck Management Policies, the President's Statement on Sunken State Craft, the Archaelogical Resources Protection Act, the Titanic Maritime Memorial Act of 1986, and implementing regulations and guidelines. These laws and policies generally require that the sites be treated with respect and that unnecessary disturbance of human remains should be avoided. However, they provide little or no specific guidance on what that means with regard to specific research or recovery. Varmer indicated that it was a case-by-case determination, depending on local government practices.

Dr. Eke Boesten, a consultant in admiralty law from the Netherlands and occasional UnderWater Magazine author, addressed the question from the point of view of whether there is any body of law that could give us real guidance. She examined both American and international law historically and up to the present time, including the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) and the UNESCO convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Dr. Boesten noted that the LOSC is the framework for all of the Law of the Sea, but that it does not specifically address this particular issue. Under Article 1 of the UNESCO Convention, underwater cultural heritage is very broadly defined and includes human remains. So the treatment of human remains would appear to be subject to the Convention's general provisions, unless they are only subject to Article 2, which says that parties to the convention shall ensure proper respect to all human remains without defining what that means.

While obviously certain regulations exist as a result of a wreck's location within territorial waters, nevertheless there is little direct law pertaining to undersea human remains. As such, the need for more specific guidance on how to respect human remains at a particular site is apparent.

The panel also included Leonard Whitlock, consultant to the marine industry and a 30-year veteran of work in the oceans, and Rick Hansen of Maritime Consultants, a financier and practitioner of marine research and recovery. Both delved into the practical aspects of recovery of both artifacts and human remains.

Whitlock has been closely involved with the Hunley recovery and the eight seamen therein. Exceptional effort has been made to respect the sensibilities involved, while at the same time doing thorough and outstanding archaeological research on both the individual seamen and the artifacts.

Hansen's programs have included extensive artifact recovery where human remains several hundred years old were a significant part of the environment.

In neither case did they feel that anything but utmost respect and concern was being used while accomplishing significant and beneficial results. In fact, these remains were very much a motivating part of the research.

Archaeological Value
Dr. John Broadwater, NOAA's manager of the USS Monitor National Marine Sactuary, is a professional marine archaeologist with considerable experience at underwater sites. He made very clear to the panel that human remains are a potentially important source of information about culture and history.

From an archaeological point of view, there is very good reason to examine human remains every bit as carefully as artifact remains. Much can be learned from both resources. As such, the past and present professional practice of archaeology includes a careful analysis of human remains in a respectful manner. In short, respectful treatment of a grave (wreck) site does not preclude public access or scientific investigation of the archaeological resources, including human remains.

Dr. James Downs, Director and Chief Medical Examiner for the State of Alabama, presented a slide show on the effects of short-term and long-term immersion on a body in water. The point was made that salinity, depth, temperature, marine life, and other variables all play an extensive role in determining what may be found at any particular wreck site. There is a significant need for the development of a matrix or catalogue of these variables and how they effect human remains, if we want to have a better understanding of what is to be expected in the event of a possible recovery, versus what is likely in the way of dealing with human remains after one, five, ten, or 100 years of submersion at a site.

The UI panel did not delve into religious beliefs, funerary and cultural customs, and other mitigating factors. It was noted that the more prevalent belief in Western cultures is that, after death, the "spirit" leaves the body. Thus, the particular treatment of remains relates more to the desirability of personal closure for the families of the victims than to any more pragmatic aspects.

It was noted by the panelists that the possible existence of human remains has generally not precluded public access to a site, or prevented research or recovery of the wreck, artifacts or other sources of information contained at a site. The panel felt quite strongly that both research and recovery could in most cases be carried out in a manner showing proper respect to both the sensitivity of the site and the possibility of the existence of human remains, as well as giving credence to relevant laws, policies and cultural practices.

The panel's overriding conclusion was that a worthy objective would be the development of protocols for research and recovery. There are probably too many variables among wreck sites to create a legal framework for operations, but the flexibility that can be built into protocols makes the task quite reasonable. The panel hoped that this would be the beginning, not the end, of efforts in this area. Active audience participation added useful insights.

The author welcomes further participation and comments from those with experience or feelings about the subject. For the sake of all those working on underwater projects, this subject is in need of clarification, definition, and direction. UW