There is a curious assortment of shipwreck artifacts—historical treasure—that is soon to be displayed at the new visitors center at the Assateague Island National Seashore in Berlin, Maryland.
These artifacts are reputed to be from two Spanish warships wrecked off of Assateague Island, Virginia. But they are not. At this writing it appears that archaeologists with the National Park Service are going to tell the public that they are when they have admitted privately that they don’t know where they came from.
It’s been twelve years since the so-called discovery and claim was filed for two Spanish shipwrecks near the shore of Assateague. In 1998, a treasure hunting company called Sea Hunt, Inc. told the federal district court in Norfolk, Virginia, that they believed that they had found La Galga, a fifty-six gun Spanish warship that ran aground in 1750. The other shipwreck they found was believed to be the Juno, a thirty-four gun Spanish frigate lost in 1802. The claim of discovery was based on three artifacts brought into court. They never told the court the historical basis to support their hypotheses.
The truth is that Spanish documents clearly prove that the Juno had sunk 250 miles from the coast with all hands except six who had transferred to an American schooner. They watched from the schooner as the Juno, with over 400 Spaniards on board, disappeared in a sinking condition.
As for La Galga, it couldn’t have been that shipwreck because she lies buried inside a former inlet on the barrier island and lies within the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. She is the Spanish galleon which legend says brought the wild horses to Assateague made famous in Marguerite Henry’s, Misty of Chincoteague.
In the court proceedings, Spain produced no evidence of their own that these two shipwrecks were Spanish but cleverly used documentation provided by Sea Hunt against them. Spain submitted an exhibit prepared by Sea Hunt listing 27 shipwrecks that were known to be in the area. The list was by no means all inclusive as many other wrecks are documented as lost in this area. Included in that list was La Galga and the Juno but no historical basis was provided; just the vessels name and year of sinking. There were only five dating from 1802 back to 1750. Spain suggested to the court that the artifacts must have come from La Galga and the Juno since Sea Hunt only listed two Spanish wrecks. The court had looked at the artifact list. There were several silver Spanish coins on that list. The court took the bait. No one told the court that Spanish coins were legal tender in this country until 1857 and could come from any shipwreck well into the later nineteenth century. To illustrate the point I recently saw some eighteenth century Spanish coins being auctioned on Ebay. They had been dug up in a Civil War camp site.
Throughout the trial there was a great deal of skepticism as to the identities of these shipwrecks. They were located in an area where a number of other eighteenth and nineteenth century shipwrecks have occurred. Sea Hunt, from the very beginning, told the court that they might not be these two Spanish ships. Judge J. Calvitt Clark, Jr. raised the issue of the identities more than once. When pressed for a ruling he said "I'm not sure that there is anything in this file that would indicate that everybody agrees that the two ships that the plaintiffs were given salvage permits for are the two vessels Juno and La Galga...” The court even suggested that the burden of proof that there actually were two Spanish ships discovered rested with the United States. The Justice Department attorney weighed in and stated, “My first answer to you is if Sea Hunt with its resources has not been able to identify them, I don’t think sending down one U.S. Diver is going to either.” The Commonwealth of Virginia, who was there because of the permits issued to Sea Hunt to search in their waters, stated that the claims were “premature.” Spain’s standing to be in the case rested on actual Spanish shipwrecks being before the court. In order to proceed in the trial, the three parties, Sea Hunt, Spain, and Virginia, agreed to a stipulation that the Spanish shipwrecks were within three miles of the coast in Virginia waters. The unidentified shipwreck believed to be La Galga lay within a hundred yards of Assateague. The real shipwreck lay two miles south and buried under the island. The “Juno” was said to be within a thousand yards of shore. She actually sank several hundred miles out at sea.
A close examination of the court record clearly shows that the shipwrecks had not been found. When Sea Hunt asked for a salvage reward for the Juno, James Goold for Spain told the court that “Sea Hunt achieved no success in even locating, much less salvaging, the wreck.” He urged the court to rule anyway, “We believe that the court can rule, affirm Spain’s ownership of the JUNO regardless of which place it happens to be.” Because the court only had in rem jurisdiction, it was powerless to issue an award to Spain without actual Spanish ships being within the court’s jurisdiction. But the court relied on the previously agreed to stipulation. The shipwrecks were present by agreement only, not by fact. This dubious victory for Spain did not put the issue of the shipwreck identities to rest. Spain realized that since it had won title to the wrecks it could not walk away from the artifacts. Sea Hunt had turned over nearly one hundred by this time. Virginia suggested that if Spain wanted the artifacts that they must prove they came from Spanish shipwrecks. This enraged Spain’s attorney. Not only had they no proof, but they had already argued that the wrecks hadn’t been found. Virginia reminded the court, “Not only has Spain never agreed that the recovered artifacts came from their ships, Spain has never admitted that Sea Hunt even found LA GALGA and/or JUNO.” In 2000, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals awarded the shipwrecks to Spain.
In the records of the Department of Historic Resources, Virginia noted on the site form for the shipwreck alleged as the Juno that it was “not the Juno.” There is no site form for La Galga. NOAA had listed La Galga in its database of shipwrecks as lying within the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge not in the ocean where Sea Hunt wanted to believe she lies.
In October 2006, Spain and the National Park Service signed an agreement for Spain to loan the artifacts to the National Park Service for display at the new Visitors Center at the Assateague Island National Seashore in Berlin, Maryland. The agreement provides that Spain has the final say on how these artifacts are to be labeled and displayed. The new Visitors Center is expected to open this summer (2010). The National Park Service has documented these intentions on its website.
In the spring of 2007, La Galga and Juno got more notoriety and world recognition. Odyssey Marine Exploration of Tampa, Florida, recovered over 17 tons of treasure from deep water off of Portugal. The treasure was brought into federal court in Tampa for adjudication of Odyssey’s rights. Spain proclaimed that since they had won La Galga and the Juno in the Sea Hunt case they would win again.
Later that year, I published The Hidden Galleon: The true story of a lost Spanish ship and the legendary wild horses of Assateague Island. This book recounts the complete history of the Spanish warship La Galga and her discovery within the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge in 1983. Also included is an exposé of the Sea Hunt case and the documented history of the Juno and the intent of Spain to use the so-called discovery and later award of La Galga and the Juno to Spain as a precedent against Odyssey.
In May 2009, after the NPS refused to answer a simple email inquiry about the artifacts, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request to the National Park Service. In reply to my questions, they confirmed that they could not verify that these artifacts came from these two Spanish shipwrecks. When asked to supply their historical basis for the wrecks being found or where their location might be, the officials as at the Park Service said they are relying solely on the findings of the Fourth Circuit. This is a classic case of circular logic and one that should make any self-respecting archaeologist wince. To be sure, the 4th Circuit said nothing about the dubious artifacts having to be put on display. I have supplied the NPS with the necessary historical documentation to refute the findings of the 4th Circuit. Their only defense remains in the 4th Circuit opinion. The NPS web page has not been changed since September of 2007. There is no disclaimer or notion of doubt being presented by NPS to the public about the historical provenance of these artifacts. The reason may be this. In February 2008, the cultural resource management firm of Gray & Pape was hired to conduct a non-intrusive magnetometer survey of the site believed to be La Galga within the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, the first step toward its nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. It has been nearly a year and a half and the federal government has refused to grant the permit, deny the permit, or discuss it except to say that Spain has instructed the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service to prohibit any archaeological inspection of the site buried on federal land by myself or my archaeologist. Remember, Spain’s agreement says it can dictate to the NPS the labeling and presentation of the “Spanish artifacts” to the American public.
Archaeologists who reside in academia or the public sector as employees or grant recipients have a loathing for treasure hunters who would disturb a wreck site without properly recording artifact retrievals or would sell artifacts for profit. They say that by disturbing artifacts valuable historical information might be lost. The misplacement of a single artifact can corrupt the entire fabric of a shipwreck site. They make a good argument. So strong is their belief that they will ostracize any fellow archaeologist who would work for a treasure hunter, even if his sole motivation is to preserve and record data and artifacts.
Most of these archaeologists belong to the 2000-member Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA). They subscribe to a strict code of ethics. There stated mission is to preserve archaeological sites and collections for the benefit of humanity. It is also their duty to disseminate their research results with not only scholars but the general public as well.
Members of SHA have a prescribed duty “to adhere to professional standards of ethics and practices in their research, teaching, reporting, and interactions with the public.” This duty also includes dissemination of research results “in an accessible, honest and timely manner.”
Today we have the NPS archaeologist willing to display artifacts in a manner that is totally unsupportable and the archaeologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service blocking verification of an archaeological site that will certainly disprove the former. What would SHA say about “moving” two entire shipwrecks to another location for political reasons? Probably nothing, because it’s all about treasure.
This is not the first case of government intervention corrupting the historical record. It happened before, this time it involved shipwrecks that didn’t even exist.
Follow these articles as well:
Shipwrecks & Government: The Solution or the Problem
The Sea Hunt Case: Your Government Saving Our Maritime Heritage
Assateague Island Pony Rescue Underway
The Sea Hunt Case : An Extraordinary Legal Fiction
United States Waives Its Sovereignty Over Part of a Federal Wildlife Refuge
