Wednesday, 15 October 2014

Oak Island treasure

map: NormanEinstein
The new season of the History Channel's The Curse of Oak Island will start on November 4th. I have not been following it but I have seen two or three episodes. I was reminded of it when I noticed a news report about the Nova Scotia government ordering the searchers to pay for an archaeologist to be present. As the shows are recorded, we probably won't be seeing this archaeologist until the following season.

Oak Island has to be the most mysterious treasure legend in history. No one even really knows what might be buried there or who buried it. It has attracted famous people like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and has cost searchers millions of dollars and six lives.

Typical for such "historical mystery" shows is dialogue like: "Could it be that... and if so, does this mean that..." The first part of such a statement might be called a hypothesis, but add the second part and it all becomes media hype. Also, whenever an expert needs to be consulted about some detail, everyone boards a plane and flies across the Atlantic to talk with the person. Have they never heard of email or the phone?

One thing is certain, the treasure, whatever it might be, has not been found. I can't imagine that such a report would have been suppressed so as not to be a spoiler for the particular episode that shows the discovery. Can we hope, at least, to know what the treasure really is (if it does exist)? I guess we have to tune in to find out.
Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. John H19 October 2014 at 04:13

    The requirement of having archaeologist to referee' the exploration assumes he/she is as bona fide and as honest as the two treasure hunters. Suppose the appointed 'independent archaeologist' turned out to be Prof. Daniel Amick of Loyola University for instance? Would the treasure hunters have any right of appeal do you think?

    Regards

    John Howland
    England

    ReplyDelete
  2. John Hooker FSA19 October 2014 at 09:03

    Hi John,

    I suspect that the Oak Island statement was more political posturing than anything else. Why appoint an archaeologist to make sure that they will do what they are already doing? I could understand if the appointment was to aid in proper recording, but the treasure hunters would not risk their 90% share agreement to make off with a few bits and pieces which could not be documented on the show. There is also the matter of danger to the archaeologist without any possibility of the personal risk being balanced by the personal gain.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John Hooker FSA19 October 2014 at 09:04

    Hi John,

    I suspect that the Oak Island statement was more political posturing than anything else. Why appoint an archaeologist to make sure that they will do what they are already doing? I could understand if the appointment was to aid in proper recording, but the treasure hunters would not risk their 90% share agreement to make off with a few bits and pieces which could not be documented on the show. There is also the matter of danger to the archaeologist without any possibility of the personal risk being balanced by the personal gain.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)