In September, the UK Department for Transport awarded Odyssey Marine Exploration the salvage contract of 200 tonnes of silver, worth up to £150m, from the SS Gairsoppa, which was sunk by a German U-Boat in 1941. The UK Ministry of War Transport paid an insurance loss of approximately £325,000 at the time for silver bars lost with the ship. Under the salvage contract, the British government will take 20% of the net yield, but Unesco argues that the contract rebelled against the nature of the convention, to which the British did not sign.
As defined by the Webster-Merriam dictionary, archaeology is defined as,”the scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and monuments) of past human life and activities and remains of the culture of a people.”Archaeology is the study of past human culture through artifacts. Archaeologists are not interested in the artifacts themselves but rather, the relationship between these objects and the things that can tell us about the people who made and used them. (Staniforth) That being said, professional archaeologists do not engage in the buying, selling and valuing of artifacts, as commercial exploitation (treasure hunting) is considered “unethical and detrimental to maritime archaeology” The issue at hand is that the attitude towards exploration of wreck is widely out of line with the attitude people treat towards heritage uncovered on land. These priceless human footprints are part of our common heritage in the same way as heritage on land. "The looting of the tombs of Tutankhamen is now considered unacceptable, so why the looting of shipwrecks is considered acceptable?" says Unesco's Tim Curtis. The convention was created to address this issue, to raise awareness about the importance of preserving our underwater heritage as much as our heritage on land. The nations that have agreed to ratify the convention represent only 5% of the world’s coastline, a number very insignificant.
Why aren’t the major seafaring nations agreeing to ratify this convention then? Robert Yorke, chairman of the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee, states that the real reason the government and the Ministry of Defense in particular, is not ratifying the convention is because of misplaced fear about the implications of the British warships around the world. Under the Military Remains Act 1986, specific British warships are protected and prohibited from foreign interference. The British are afraid that by ratifying the convention, those ships will be taken away and placed under foreign care. But instead of aiming to protect their heritage, such as that on the SS Gairsoppa, they signed a contract that allowed Odyssey Marines to board the cargo vessel and destroy what they should be protecting and preserving.
This issue also raises important ethical question of, “are archaeologists considered unethical when they engage in the buying, selling, valuing of artifacts?” Archaeologists are supposed to work towards the preservation and management of archaeological resources and to treat human remains with dignity. Sanctions are apparently in place for professionals who do not follow the lines of these terms. But more than that, treasure hunting is destroying what we know as our underwater heritage. When the objective is to uncover as much “loot” in the shortest amount of time possible (as the robot divers are very expensive, around $50,000 (£32,000) a day), they can’t possibly afford to go through the artifacts one by one, as a detailed excavation would involve, because that could take years. But in this way, much information about the cargo and the crew is lost, and much information about our past is left uncovered.
I believe that nations worldwide, especially the major seafaring ones, should agree to ratify this convention because preserving our heritage and culture should be a priority to every human being. Instead of agreeing to divide and go after our history as if it’s something that’s only significant in its monetary value, we should fight towards protecting the heritage of our ancestors and respect the ones that came before us.
Article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15031084
References:
http://shipwreck.net/ssgairsoppa.php
http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/underwater/film/
http://www.shipwreck.net/oid/andrewcraig.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_ethics
I think governments should not have to sign the treaty. If a British ship carrying British wealth is sunk in international waters, it is still carrying the property of the British government. I don't think salvaging what is rightfully yours entails destroying the wreck itself wholesale. If you lose money, you want it back - it makes no sense to lose your property to history, so that a bunch of archeologists and divers can obsess over it. People seem to be forgetting that history is made every day. I don't see anyone seeking to preserve the landmines left during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Sure, there can be movements to ensure that historical monuments are preserved and protected from destruction, but there should not be anything that prevents items whose value is not dependent on the time it has sat underwater, or its association with a certain event, from being salvaged. A mirror in a wreck generally shouldn't be removed for profit, but gold currency that is still the nation's property should.
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly with Leo, however, the British destroying what they should have been protecting and preserving is also a completely valid concern on their part: not wanting foreign hands being placed over their ships. Nevertheless, another perspective may very well have been to rephrase the statement and reshape the conclusion: "the British destroying what they did not have to be protecting and preserving". Though the shipwreck may have been historically significant, the monetary value on the ship should still have its owner maintained as the British. The wreck however is a curiosity that, by attracting archaeologists and divers, is only doing what any old shipwreck should be doing. The article wonders why nations are not ratifying this convention. Well, I see this as quite an ambitious venture for those countries, however, the property is still that of the British. Should they have edited the treaty to fit: shipwrecks may be tourist attractions, however possessions of value in the shipwreck belong to the mother country of the vessel and the vessel alone.
ReplyDeleteThis article is similar to the case of the shipwreck of SS Central America. This ship was carrying 30000 pounds of gold when it sunk in a hurricane in September 1857. On September 11th, 1987, Columbus-America Discovery Group of Ohio sent down a remotely controlled vehicle to locate the ship where they found the gold and artifacts which were recovered. 39 insurance companies filed suit, claiming that because they paid damages in the 19th century for the lost gold, they had the right to it. Eventually, the court awarded 92% of the gold found to the reward team. This is similar to the case of SS Gairsoppa as in both these cases, there was an argument of if the gold belonged to the people who found it or the insurance groups who had to pay when the ships were sunk. Personally, I feel that the possessions of the shipwreck should be given to the people who found it and not the original owners as if the people who had to pay really wanted the money back, they themselves could have sent out teams to search for the gold rather than just sit back and let others try to find it before trying to get the gold from the people who took the time and effort to dig up these treasures.
ReplyDelete