How Modern Treasure Hunting Works

How Modern Treasure Hunting Works

To try everything Brilliant has to offer—free—for a full 30 days, visit

Sponsorship Enquiries:
Other emails:

Writing by Sam Denby and Tristan Purdy
Editing by Alexander Williard
Animation led by Max Moser
Sound by Graham Haerther
Thumbnail by Simon Buckmaster


You may also like...

37 Responses

  1. @route2070 says:

    Just want to point out, Sue wasn’t bought by the Field Museum, I don’t think they could afford it. It was bought by McDonald’s, who has a great relationship with the city amd community of Chicago, and theu bought it with the intent of donating Sue to the Field Museum.

    • @melz6625 says:

      Mhh mhh sweet sweet tax deductible donations

    • @MrGksarathy says:

      Ba ba ba ba ba, I’m buying it.

    • @skyem5250 says:

      It was bought by a consortium of companies including McDonald’s and Disney.

    • @chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 says:

      ​@@melz6625it’s still a net cost. Some people have a misunderstanding that somehow donating allows you to make more money, but it only reduces taxable income by the same donation amount.

      So if you were going to pay 1 million USD tax on 5 million profit, donating 5 million would remove that 1 million tax obligation, but you had to use 5 mil to get there. So, you could have either gotten 4 million after tax profit or 0 from donating.

    • @DistortYT says:

      @@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 It’s actually amazing/distressing how many people I see on the internet that actually have zero idea how taxes (especially tax deductions and tax brackets) work and yet they still feel the need to comment about it.

  2. @jonathankessinger7735 says:

    It is actually insane to me that treasure hunters are not, at the very least, compensated for the recovery of sunken objects by whoever is claimed to be the owner. They should absolutely be given a large percentage of whatever they bring back up, especially if its been 50-100+ years.

    • @Rehnster says:

      I agree if the treasure hunters didn’t do all this work to find and reclaim it then it’d just simply not exist. I can see how this could be problematic though, maybe someone steals valuable items and sits in them long enough for them to be considered lost treasures shrug 🤷

    • @christopheraplin says:

      Sunken objects still have ownership, that’s why. There’s not a distinction between a sunken object and an object in your home.

      If you have a boat and it sinks to the bottom lake, it doesn’t become “not your boat” it’s just your boat, but at the bottom of a lake.

    • @Vractis says:

      @@christopheraplin Disagree. You abandoned your boat at the bottom of the lake and left it there. If its sitting there for years and you never come to somehow reclaim your boat, I would say you gave up your rights to the boat. So therefore, sunken objects do not have ownership. Its BS people can come back and claim later they deserve to get that stuff back.

    • @Qsilk says:

      @@christopheraplinin German law there is a Concept called „herrenlos“ which defines an object that lost it’s owner

    • @idkwhattoputhere6321 says:

      If I just recovered millions in gold and silver from a sunken ship and a nation, which didn’t even consider recovering it, wanted to claim it, I’d just throw the treasure right back into the ocean instead of handing it over.

  3. @YoungGandalf2325 says:

    In fantasy stories, dragons often guard a hoard of treasure. It turns out the real treasure is actually the dragons’ bones.

  4. @velenteriushendeneros3251 says:

    Here in Norway, a community out on the western coast was instrumental in recovering the treasure of a Dutch galleon, the Ankerendam, a ship loaded with cash that blew of course, and sunk in the 1600’s. The revenue and treasure was split between the Norwergian state, the Netherlands, and the families of the local divers, who discovered the wreck, it having moved slightly over the centuries from where it was reported to have gone down. Today, if you meet some of the familiy members of the divers, they have dutch Guilders in the jewelry they wear with their traditional dress/folk costume.

  5. @aabouncer says:

    In my opinion, if a government or company leaves a ship at the bottom of the ocean for over 100 years, its fair game. Even if it’s insured, the insurance company should be the ones fronting the money to get it back and if they don’t, they loose right to claim it. Finders keepers…

    • @TheTechnoPro says:

      I think there should be universal archeological and ethical rules that always apply to such sites due to their historic value and as possible gravesites. I also agree with the rule of warships belonging to their governments/successor states. I don’t want nazi items from recovered submarines to be sold to some neonazis, and I also think countries have a right to their lost or previously inaccessible cultural heritage. The approach of bidding on tenders from governments for their sunken ships seems like a fair process that works for all parties.

    • @jarretta2656 says:

      @@TheTechnoProwhat an asinine opinion. Who cares about neonazis?

    • @Adam-326 says:

      @@TheTechnoProDude, who cares about historical value or gravesites? We should be focused on the present, and if there is something important to research there, it should be able to be taken. As for Nazi items going to neo-Nazis… get over yourself. You are right about one thing, though. Nothing should ever be left alone if it has any value.

    • @speedy01247 says:

      @@jarretta2656 clearly you since you cared enough to call the opinion asinine, indirectly defending neo-Nazi’s is a questionable position.

    • @Theinatoriinator says:

      @@speedy01247 And here it is, by randomly bringing in “nazis” to an unrelated debate you have a false premise. Nobody is defending neo nazi but you just want to use false equivalence to call someone a nazi because you think it makes you win the argument.

  6. @loveme-Or-Hateme says:

    When your going up against a state it’s probably better to ask for permission than beg for forgiveness.

  7. @CaptainBarbaros92 says:

    The only two rules of treasure hunting
    1: If you find something, don’t tell the government
    2:keep your mouth shut

  8. @sethc4758 says:

    As a life long Black Hills resident it’s always a neat surprise when we are mentioned in a video, mostly because it feels like nothing ever happens here 😂

  9. @Croz89 says:

    This video remimded me of a discussion (really more of a passionate argument) I had with a marine archaeologist on one of Rare Earth’s videos, talking about how the Azores basically banned treasure hunting in their waters, despite it having one of the highest concentrations of valuable shipwrecks in the world. They were passionate about how much they hated treasure hunters, because in their eyes they destroyed historical artifacts for financial gain. I did try to argue the approach the British took here, that a collaborative effort could be a win win for both sides, because marine archeology is so expensive it would help to have a sponsor, but they seemed unconvinced, I think they envisioned that it’s better it sits undisturbed on the bottom alone for another century while they scrape together the funding themselves. I retorted that the reality would be that there majority of these wrecks would never be examined unless there was more funding available, and that wasn’t going to happen through public funding, but they seemed convinced they’d get round to all of them eventually, before they were buried or crumbled away to nothing. How I’m not sure, but still. That seems to be the mindset of the most vocal opponents in academia.

  10. @luminescentlion says:

    Minor error correction: 14:15 you said Sue when you meant Stan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *