The State Department, joined by the US Navy, Spain and presumably archaeologists, have torpedoed an effort to to change the law to allow more commerical exploitation of old warships. See http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Treasure-hunters-battle-for-500-million-bounty-2406490.php
The State Department and US Navy claimed their opposition was meant to protect against commercial exploitation of US warships, but the reality is that the change in the law would likely have only impacted exploitation of Spanish warships that were also used to transport treasure from the New World.
More evidence that the State Department will always take the side of foreign governments over US commercial interests, particularly where those interests are also opposed by the US archaeological lobby. (This gives the bureaucrats at least some cover in that they can say there are US academic interests on their side.)
One wonders whether the next move of Spain and their archaeological allies will be to claim that Spanish treasure already in the hands of US collectors and museums should be repatriated to Spain (or should that be Mexico, Bolivia or Peru)?
Showing posts with label salvors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label salvors. Show all posts
None of their Business II
The AIA has issued a manifesto condemning the Smtihsonian for planning to exhibit artifacts from the Belitung shipwreck. See http://www.archaeological.org/news/advocacy/5260
As stated previously on this blog, the archaeological community has been fond of saying at CPAC meetings and elsewhere that it is no business of others to lecture source countries on how to manage their cultural resources.
But, apparently, all that goes out the window when the AIA hierarchy issues pronouncements about public-private partneships to salvage wrecks.
For more, see http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/search/label/Indonesia and
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/04/none-of-their-business.html
For the Smithsonian's view of the controversy, see
http://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/SW-CulturalHeritage.asp
As stated previously on this blog, the archaeological community has been fond of saying at CPAC meetings and elsewhere that it is no business of others to lecture source countries on how to manage their cultural resources.
But, apparently, all that goes out the window when the AIA hierarchy issues pronouncements about public-private partneships to salvage wrecks.
For more, see http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/search/label/Indonesia and
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/04/none-of-their-business.html
For the Smithsonian's view of the controversy, see
http://www.asia.si.edu/exhibitions/SW-CulturalHeritage.asp
Odyssey Marine Exploration Financial Results
Odyssey Marine has announced its financial results for 2010. See
http://www.tradershuddle.com/20110228175267/globenewswire/Odyssey-Marine-Exploration-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-2010-Financial-Results.html
Anyone who thinks deep sea treasure hunting makes for easy money should note that Odyssey's operating expenses exceeded its revenues by millions of dollars. I'm sure the costs of the Black Swan litigation has not helped Odyssey's bottom line, either.
The archaeological community has been very hostile to Odyssey's business model. On the other hand, should wrecks really be left to rot while we wait for cash-strapped governments to fund multi-million dollar deep sea archaeological explorations?
It seems to me that the private-public partnerships that Odyssey has entered into with the United Kingdom are better suited to achieving the proper balance between commercial exploitation and archaeological study. Say what you will, but there is real exploration going on now, rather than some day that will likely never come.
http://www.tradershuddle.com/20110228175267/globenewswire/Odyssey-Marine-Exploration-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-2010-Financial-Results.html
Anyone who thinks deep sea treasure hunting makes for easy money should note that Odyssey's operating expenses exceeded its revenues by millions of dollars. I'm sure the costs of the Black Swan litigation has not helped Odyssey's bottom line, either.
The archaeological community has been very hostile to Odyssey's business model. On the other hand, should wrecks really be left to rot while we wait for cash-strapped governments to fund multi-million dollar deep sea archaeological explorations?
It seems to me that the private-public partnerships that Odyssey has entered into with the United Kingdom are better suited to achieving the proper balance between commercial exploitation and archaeological study. Say what you will, but there is real exploration going on now, rather than some day that will likely never come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)