Showing posts with label shipwrecks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shipwrecks. Show all posts
Spain Now in Hock to the Tune of 100 Billion Euros-- Is it time to Rethink Odyssey's Offer?
Spain has agreed to accept a 100 Billion Euro bail out from the EU. Perhaps, it's now time for the Spanish Government to rethink Odyssey's offer to share the proceeds from rich Spanish shipwrecks as the British have done for their own shipwrecks. Archaeologists may snipe at Odyssey's efforts to record wrecks, but the truth is without selling off the numerous duplicate coins found, exploration of deep water wrecks will never happen due to the considerable costs involved. Isn't it better to record these wrecks before they deteriorate further? And perhaps Spain's share of the proceeds could be used to support its cultural establishment, which must be in for substantial cuts in these times of financial austerity. Partnering with Odyssey should be viewed as a win win for all. So why not?
Archaeologists Train Guns on Odessey Marine Again
Archaeologists- this time in the United Kingdom- have once again shot a broadside at Odessey Marine-- this time with regard to its deal with the UK Government to salvage the wreck of the HMS Victory. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/06/hms-victory-shipwreck-odyssey-excavation?newsfeed=true
For an interesting critique of the position of archaeologists with regard to Odessey's work, see http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/blog?mode=PostView&bmi=711550
According to the author, Tom King, an archaeologist who was commenting not specifically about the Victory wreck, but rather generally in favor of Odessey's work:
1. Shipwrecks are deteriorating, both from natural causes and particularly as a result of modern methods of fishing, which plow up the bottom as effectively as agricultural land-levelers have torn up the Mississippi Valley.
2. Academic institutions and museums lack the financial resources to excavate everything that's being destroyed, or even a small percentage of it.
3. There are commercial salvagers who conduct very high quality archaeological excavations, and who have technological and financial resources that the academic community can�t touch (See, for example, the two recent publications by Odyssey Marine Exploration here and here --- which are substantial archaeological survey and site reports, some of which also document my point #1 above).
4. The only difference between such �salvage� and the work of academic underwater archaeologists (other than that, in my experience, Odyssey at least does better work) is that a percentage of the recovered material gets sold after it is described and analyzed.
5. Odyssey at least has rather strict protocols governing what can and can't be sold; what gets sold comprises mostly manufactured items of limited research interest;
6. We archaeologists used to claim that we were interested in the data from sites, not the goodies. The violent and near-mindless standard archaeological reaction to responsible shipwreck salvage proves that we've been dissembling all these years, or simply don't understand our own motivations.
For an interesting critique of the position of archaeologists with regard to Odessey's work, see http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/blog?mode=PostView&bmi=711550
According to the author, Tom King, an archaeologist who was commenting not specifically about the Victory wreck, but rather generally in favor of Odessey's work:
1. Shipwrecks are deteriorating, both from natural causes and particularly as a result of modern methods of fishing, which plow up the bottom as effectively as agricultural land-levelers have torn up the Mississippi Valley.
2. Academic institutions and museums lack the financial resources to excavate everything that's being destroyed, or even a small percentage of it.
3. There are commercial salvagers who conduct very high quality archaeological excavations, and who have technological and financial resources that the academic community can�t touch (See, for example, the two recent publications by Odyssey Marine Exploration here and here --- which are substantial archaeological survey and site reports, some of which also document my point #1 above).
4. The only difference between such �salvage� and the work of academic underwater archaeologists (other than that, in my experience, Odyssey at least does better work) is that a percentage of the recovered material gets sold after it is described and analyzed.
5. Odyssey at least has rather strict protocols governing what can and can't be sold; what gets sold comprises mostly manufactured items of limited research interest;
6. We archaeologists used to claim that we were interested in the data from sites, not the goodies. The violent and near-mindless standard archaeological reaction to responsible shipwreck salvage proves that we've been dissembling all these years, or simply don't understand our own motivations.
Odyssey Marine: Carriage of Coinage Rules
While the archaeological community has pitched Spain's win in the Odyssey Marine Case as win for archaeology over the commercial exploitation of shipwrecks, the decision was in fact narrowly based on the fact that a Spanish warship carried the treasure, i.e., archaeological arguments were not result determinative.
Indeed, if anything, the decision is a defeat for repatriation in a broader sense; in awarding the treasure to Spain, the U.S. courts also turned down Peru's claims to the treasure largely based on the moral argument that Colonialist Spain stole it from the Peruvian people.
Indeed, if anything, the decision is a defeat for repatriation in a broader sense; in awarding the treasure to Spain, the U.S. courts also turned down Peru's claims to the treasure largely based on the moral argument that Colonialist Spain stole it from the Peruvian people.
Spain to Peru: It's Not About the Money, Really
Spain has rejected Peru's claims to the treasure retreived from the Black Swan wreck. According to the Washington Post,
On Thursday, the Peruvian government made an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to block transfer of the treasure to give Peru more time to make arguments in U.S. federal court about its claim to being the rightful owner. But that appeal was denied Friday by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Peru had argued the gold and silver on the ship was mined, refined and minted in its territory, which at the time was part of the Spanish empire.
But Carmen Marcos, deputy director of Spain�s National Museum of Archaeology, said Monday the coins were minted not just in Peru but also in Bolivia, Colombia and Chile. And the whole affair involved in claiming the coins was not about monetary value but rather history, she added. �These coins are not money. They are archaeological pieces,� she told reporters.
For more, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/spain-rejects-peruvian-claim-to-shipwreck-treasure/2012/02/27/gIQAFFcfdR_story.html
While this statement will no doubt warm the hearts of archaeologists everywhere, one would hope cash strapped Spain (which is only a little better off than Greece) will consider selling most of the coins after they are properly cleaned and recorded. If the coins really are worth $500 million as reported, why hoard them instead of using proceeds from their sale for the public good?
On Thursday, the Peruvian government made an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to block transfer of the treasure to give Peru more time to make arguments in U.S. federal court about its claim to being the rightful owner. But that appeal was denied Friday by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Peru had argued the gold and silver on the ship was mined, refined and minted in its territory, which at the time was part of the Spanish empire.
But Carmen Marcos, deputy director of Spain�s National Museum of Archaeology, said Monday the coins were minted not just in Peru but also in Bolivia, Colombia and Chile. And the whole affair involved in claiming the coins was not about monetary value but rather history, she added. �These coins are not money. They are archaeological pieces,� she told reporters.
For more, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/spain-rejects-peruvian-claim-to-shipwreck-treasure/2012/02/27/gIQAFFcfdR_story.html
While this statement will no doubt warm the hearts of archaeologists everywhere, one would hope cash strapped Spain (which is only a little better off than Greece) will consider selling most of the coins after they are properly cleaned and recorded. If the coins really are worth $500 million as reported, why hoard them instead of using proceeds from their sale for the public good?
The Black Swan Wreck and the Untold Story of the Precedent Upon Which the Federal Court's Decision Was Based
I received an email from the author of "The Hidden Galleon," a book about Spanish shipwrecks on Virginia's Assateague island. He directed me to his blog:
http://www.thehiddengalleon.com/the-sea-hunt-case.htm
It states:
Some say you shouldn�t judge a book by its cover. No one can tell what story may lie behind a paper facade. Such is the case with the opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Sea Hunt Case handed down in 2000. Two shipwrecks were awarded to Spain. And neither of them were Spanish.
The Sea Hunt case has been used as a battering ram against Odyssey Marine Exploration by the Kingdom of Spain in its effort to recover a purported half billion dollar treasure from the salvage company who brought up not only magnificent treasures and artifacts for the world to see but solved a historical mystery that is centuries old.
http://www.thehiddengalleon.com/the-sea-hunt-case.htm
It states:
Some say you shouldn�t judge a book by its cover. No one can tell what story may lie behind a paper facade. Such is the case with the opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Sea Hunt Case handed down in 2000. Two shipwrecks were awarded to Spain. And neither of them were Spanish.
The Sea Hunt case has been used as a battering ram against Odyssey Marine Exploration by the Kingdom of Spain in its effort to recover a purported half billion dollar treasure from the salvage company who brought up not only magnificent treasures and artifacts for the world to see but solved a historical mystery that is centuries old.
Since 2007, when Odyssey filed its claim to 17 tons of what appears to be Spanish treasure, Spain has asserted has a defense to that claim the precedent found in the Sea Hunt case. This was the first time that Spain had entered a claim in a treasure case. Just recently, Spain has argued that since the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal in the Sea Hunt case that Odyssey will be reviewed the same way so they might as well hand over the treasure now. They would like to deny Odyssey rights that are available to them as they pursue equity in the recovery of Spanish treasures. Spain is demanding possession of the treasure before the case has run its full course.
It's author concludes,
This is a perfect example of how our government will sacrifice our own cultural heritage to win a battle against a treasure hunter.
John Amrhein, Jr.
It's well worth reading and deciding for yourself.
Peru to Supreme Court: Spain Stole It First!
Peru has asked the Supreme Court to put a hold on the return of sunken treasure found by Odyssey Marine to Spain. See
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/local/region_1/peru:-spain-stole-it-first-odyssey-02222012_18164227
US Courts have ordered Odyssey Marine to return the treasure because it was found in a sunken Spanish warship.
Peru wants the Courts to turn the treasure over to it, because it was stolen from the country by Spanish colonialists.
Shouldn't the ardent repatriationists of the archaeological community support Peru over dastardly Spain? Surely if they pushed for Yale to return study artifacts from Machu Picchu, they should root for Peru in its efforts to take back what they are due from whatever source. Or, is their ire selectively employed against American companies and institutions?
Perhaps "finders, keepers" is the best rule after all.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/local/region_1/peru:-spain-stole-it-first-odyssey-02222012_18164227
US Courts have ordered Odyssey Marine to return the treasure because it was found in a sunken Spanish warship.
Peru wants the Courts to turn the treasure over to it, because it was stolen from the country by Spanish colonialists.
Shouldn't the ardent repatriationists of the archaeological community support Peru over dastardly Spain? Surely if they pushed for Yale to return study artifacts from Machu Picchu, they should root for Peru in its efforts to take back what they are due from whatever source. Or, is their ire selectively employed against American companies and institutions?
Perhaps "finders, keepers" is the best rule after all.
State Department, Spain, Navy (and Archaeologists?) Torpeodo Effort to Change Law to Allow Commercial Salvage of More Warships
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)?
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)?
Labels:
Archaeologists,
Museums,
Repatriation,
salvors,
shipwrecks,
State Department
Archaeological Lobby Sinks Sackler Exhibit
The archaeological lobby has succeeded in sinking an exhibit at the Sackler Gallery that would have given the American public an opportunity to learn something about early international trade routes in the Orient. See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/sackler-gallery-cancels-controversial-exhibit-of-tang-dynasty-treasures-from-shipwreck/2011/12/15/gIQAnlyjwO_story.html?wprss=rss_style
The exhibit was supposedly sunk because the excavation work was not up to professional standards-- though one suspects that the real reason was to appease archaeologists who have little use for commercial salvers, whether contracted by a foreign government or not.
I've previously covered this dispute here:
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/06/smithsonian-caves-on-shiprwreck-exhibit.html and http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/06/none-of-their-business-ii.html
For a thoughtful critique of the archaeological establishment's views on this topic, See http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/blog?mode=PostView&bmi=711550
Supposedly, the plan now is to "re-excavate the wreck" using AIA approved archaeologists no doubt. But money has to be raised first. Hopefully, taxpayer dollars won't be tapped for such project, but it will not surprise me if the US Government is ultimately expected to foot the bill for what probably is little more at this point than a vanity project.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/sackler-gallery-cancels-controversial-exhibit-of-tang-dynasty-treasures-from-shipwreck/2011/12/15/gIQAnlyjwO_story.html?wprss=rss_style
The exhibit was supposedly sunk because the excavation work was not up to professional standards-- though one suspects that the real reason was to appease archaeologists who have little use for commercial salvers, whether contracted by a foreign government or not.
I've previously covered this dispute here:
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/06/smithsonian-caves-on-shiprwreck-exhibit.html and http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/06/none-of-their-business-ii.html
For a thoughtful critique of the archaeological establishment's views on this topic, See http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/blog?mode=PostView&bmi=711550
Supposedly, the plan now is to "re-excavate the wreck" using AIA approved archaeologists no doubt. But money has to be raised first. Hopefully, taxpayer dollars won't be tapped for such project, but it will not surprise me if the US Government is ultimately expected to foot the bill for what probably is little more at this point than a vanity project.
LCCHP Posts Interesting Letter About Shipwrecks
To their credit, the Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation has posted this letter on their website critical of the usual academic approach to shipwrecks and their preservation:
http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/blog?mode=PostView&bmi=711550
http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/blog?mode=PostView&bmi=711550
Win Some, Lose Some
I suspect the timing of this announcement may not be coincidental, but Odessey Marine has revealed that it has entered into a partnership with the UK Government to salvage two hundred tons of silver from the Gairsoppa, a ship that was sunk by a U-Boat during WW II. See
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wartime-wreck-to-give-up-148m-in-lost-silver-bullion-2360915.html
The WW II era treasure appears to be even larger than one that the 11th Circuit recently ordered to be returned to the Spanish Government because it apparently came from a 19th c. Spanish man of war that Odessey had dubbed the "Black Swan" wreck. See http://shipwreck.net/pr231.php
The WWII wreck is some 3 miles under the sea, which presumably justifies the 80%-20% split Odessey has worked out with the UK Government.
I suspect that archaeologists will find something to criticize about this partnership as well. But, doesn't the age of the wreck, its depth, and money the venture will bring to the UK taxpayer distinguish it from the "Black Swan" wreck and the controversies that surrounded its exploitation?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wartime-wreck-to-give-up-148m-in-lost-silver-bullion-2360915.html
The WW II era treasure appears to be even larger than one that the 11th Circuit recently ordered to be returned to the Spanish Government because it apparently came from a 19th c. Spanish man of war that Odessey had dubbed the "Black Swan" wreck. See http://shipwreck.net/pr231.php
The WWII wreck is some 3 miles under the sea, which presumably justifies the 80%-20% split Odessey has worked out with the UK Government.
I suspect that archaeologists will find something to criticize about this partnership as well. But, doesn't the age of the wreck, its depth, and money the venture will bring to the UK taxpayer distinguish it from the "Black Swan" wreck and the controversies that surrounded its exploitation?
Smithsonian Caves on Shiprwreck Exhibit
The New York Times reports that the Smithsonian Institution has indefinitely postponed its plans to mount an exhibition of Chinese artifacts salvaged from a shipwreck because of opposition from archaeologists who say the objects were collected by a commercial treasure hunter in a manner that violated professional standards. See http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/shipwreck-show-postponed/
The Smithsonian has a long history of caving into various interest groups so this is not a surprise. But it is an unfortunate decision nonetheless.
The public could have learned something useful about early international trade whether or not the exhibit met the stringent standards of some in the archaeological community.
If the material cannot be exhibited as a group, perhaps it should be sold off wholesale to collectors just to annoy these archaeological purists.
The Smithsonian has a long history of caving into various interest groups so this is not a surprise. But it is an unfortunate decision nonetheless.
The public could have learned something useful about early international trade whether or not the exhibit met the stringent standards of some in the archaeological community.
If the material cannot be exhibited as a group, perhaps it should be sold off wholesale to collectors just to annoy these archaeological purists.
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
None of their Business?
It's odd to see Archaeo-Blogger Paul Barford and other archaeologists criticising the Governments of Singapore and Indonesia over an exhibit about a wreck that was excavated according to the laws of Indonesia. See
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/04/smithsonian-ponders-ethics-of-showing.html
Barford and the others don't like the fact that a foreign government entered into a public-private partnership with a commercial salvor to excavate the site rather than fund some University to do it, but I doubt taxpayers in Indonesia are complaining.
Frankly, given the costs involved, it's doubtful that the wreck would have been professionally salvaged at all without offering a private salvor an incentive to do it. Rather, it's far more likely that local fishermen would have mined the wreck for items without recording them. Perhaps, the situation is not ideal, but the Indonesian government seems to have taken a realistic approach to to the issue.
In any case, dosn't Barford usually claim it's no business of foreigners to lecture source countries on how to manage their own cultural resources?
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/04/smithsonian-ponders-ethics-of-showing.html
Barford and the others don't like the fact that a foreign government entered into a public-private partnership with a commercial salvor to excavate the site rather than fund some University to do it, but I doubt taxpayers in Indonesia are complaining.
Frankly, given the costs involved, it's doubtful that the wreck would have been professionally salvaged at all without offering a private salvor an incentive to do it. Rather, it's far more likely that local fishermen would have mined the wreck for items without recording them. Perhaps, the situation is not ideal, but the Indonesian government seems to have taken a realistic approach to to the issue.
In any case, dosn't Barford usually claim it's no business of foreigners to lecture source countries on how to manage their own cultural resources?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)