Smithsonian creates cry babies

[piratediver]

Smithsonian Shipwreck Exhibit Draws Fire From Archaeologists
by Heather Pringle on 10 March 2011, 1:31 PM | Permanent Link | 13 Comments
Email Print | More Previous Article Next Article Enlarge Image

Buried at sea. A commercial company salvaged Tang dynasty bowls and thousands of other precious artifacts from a 9th century C.E. shipwreck.
Credit: Arthur M. Sackler GalleryArchaeologists are criticizing the ethics of a planned Smithsonian Institution exhibit, Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds, slated to open in the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery in 2012. The exhibit is based on artifacts hauled up from an Arab dhow that sank to the bottom of the Java Sea in the 9th century C.E. The wreck was salvaged by a private German company, Seabed Explorations GbR, in the late 1990s, and critics say that its divers did not observe professional archaeological standards while recovering the artifacts, which include glazed ceramics, lead ingots, and intricately worked vessels of silver and gold from the Tang dynasty. Then in 2005, most of the finds were sold to a second company in Singapore for a reported $32 million. Such commercialization of ancient objects doesn't break the laws of Indonesia, in whose territorial waters the dhow was found, but many archaeologists say that it contravenes their field's standard ethical guidelines.

In recent weeks, three major American archaeological associations and three of the Smithsonian's own internal research organizations have written to Smithsonian Institution Secretary Wayne Clough strongly opposing the exhibition. "We agree that there was unprofessional and unethical conduct associated with the recovery of this wreck, regardless of the 'letter of the law,' and that at the least, the perception of impropriety and the potential for the Smithsonian's engagement with this project could set a negative precedent and reflect ill on this institution," wrote Melissa Songer, chair of the Smithsonian Congress of Scholars, in her letter.

Underwater archaeologists have been fighting for decades to protect shipwreck sites from treasure-hunting operations that mine sunken ships for artifacts to sell. In 2009, the archaeological community scored a major victory when the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage came into effect. It stated that "underwater cultural heritage shall not be traded, sold, bought or bartered as commercial goods."

But Indonesia has not ratified the UNESCO convention. Instead, it licenses private companies, such as Seabed Explorations, to salvage its shipwrecks in return for a 50% share of the profits from selling artifacts. To increase profits, such companies are often tempted to cut corners on important but time-consuming tasks, such as the recording of the archaeological context. In the case of the dhow, notes Ted Schultz, chair of the National Museum of Natural History Senate of Scientists, "We believe that substantial scientific information was lost due to the methods employed."

To discuss these and other concerns about the proposed exhibit, senior Smithsonian officials are planning to convene a blue-ribbon panel of archaeologists and other experts in Washington, D.C., in April. But the meeting has been postponed twice, and some of the invited researchers, such as Margaret Conkey, president of the Society for American Archaeology, wonder if the discussion will be too little, too late. The Smithsonian has already co-organized a world tour of the dhow's artifacts, which opened in a Singapore museum in February, and "it appears that the [exhibit] catalog is already out," Conkey says.

Julian Raby, director of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, remains a firm supporter of the exhibit. Seabed Explorations broke no laws during the salvage operation, he says, and had an archaeologist on hand to record details of the ship during the second season. "There are bound to be divergent opinions," Raby says, "and I feel that the Smithsonian should not flinch from controversial exhibitions. It should use controversy to open debate."

But many prominent archaeologists see little to debate. Concludes Bruce Smith, curator of North American history at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History: "I think this exhibition would send a very bad message to the public, that the Smithsonian doesn't stand for the preservation of archaeological resources and that mining archaeological sites is OK."

[theseeker]

I think we should all send a letter/email to the Smithsonian encouraging them to continue with the sponsorship of the exhibit. They should not succumb to the tactics of the archies to suppress the historical knowledge and information that can be shared through this exhibit. I know I will send them a letter/email expressing my desire to have the opportunity to examine the exhibit to learn more about that time period. Enough of the archaeologists position that if it isn't discovered and recovered by one of them, it isn't worth knowing about and should be left to deteriorate in situ. Damn their propaganda. Ignorance is not bliss.

[Kenosha Kid]

I think we should all send a letter/email to the Smithsonian encouraging them to continue with the sponsorship of the exhibit. They should not succumb to the tactics of the archies to suppress the historical knowledge and information that can be shared through this exhibit. I know I will send them a letter/email expressing my desire to have the opportunity to examine the exhibit to learn more about that time period. Enough of the archaeologists position that if it isn't discovered and recovered by one of them, it isn't worth knowing about and should be left to deteriorate in situ. Damn their propaganda. Ignorance is not bliss.

I agree.

Since when is it "that the Smithsonian doesn't stand for the preservation of archaeological resources..."? Have they not seen what's at the Smithsonian?

Whether or not it was "unprofessional and unethical conduct", that is their opinion. Do you think the general public really cares what their opinion is? No, they just want to see artifacts at any given museum. Besides, it was within the 'letter of the law' of the country (Singapore).

From the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage ~

The 2001 convention is based on four main principles:

1. the obligation to preserve underwater cultural heritage;
2. in situ preservation, i.e. under water, as a preferred option;
3. no commercial exploitation of this heritage; and
4. cooperation among States to protect this precious legacy, to promote training in underwater archeology, and to raise public awareness of the importance of sunken cultural property.

The Convention does not arbitrate ownership claims nor prejudice the jurisdiction or sovereignty of States. The Convention’s Annex establishes rules for activities directed at underwater sites; these rules are widely recognized by archeologists.

So, if the Convention doesn't arbitrate ownership claims nor prejudice the jurisdiction or sovereignty of States, why should these guys think the Smithsonian should, or will? 36 countries have ratified or accepted this, yet what about all the artifacts that are in museums now, from the other 160 countries?

[Au_Dreamers]

[quote=Kenosha Kid
3. no commercial exploitation of this heritage; and
[/quote]

It is my opinion that commercial exploitation would be for any group, institution or person to collect admittance fees to view artifacts or payment for written works of any "archaeology" project.

[jeff of pa]

[quote=Au_Dreamers ]
[quote=Kenosha Kid
3. no commercial exploitation of this heritage; and

It is my opinion that commercial exploitation would be for any group, institution or person to collect admittance fees to view artifacts or payment for written works of any "archaeology" project.
[/quote]




Or make somone Pay to go to school & Become an
archaeologist in order to handle & Excavate them

[mad4wrecks]

"We believe that substantial scientific information was lost due to the methods employed."

"We believe" doesn't equal "we know for a fact." What were you going to do with the scientific information that was allegedly lost? Improve the tsunami alert system? Cure cancer? End poverty? Bring people to communion with Christ? Let me guess, you would have used that information to write another dry, dull scientific paper that your peers will high five you for and nobody else in the world will read. Then you could open a Smithsonian exhibit about dry, dull scientific papers that nobody will come to see.


This is such a tired, old argument. The real issues for archaeologists is jealousy & self preservation.

[sphillips]

"We believe that substantial scientific information was lost due to the methods employed."

"We believe" doesn't equal "we know for a fact." What were you going to do with the scientific information that was allegedly lost? Improve the tsunami alert system? Cure cancer? End poverty? Bring people to communion with Christ? Let me guess, you would have used that information to write another dry, dull scientific paper that your peers will high five you for and nobody else in the world will read. Then you could open a Smithsonian exhibit about dry, dull scientific papers that nobody will come to see.


This is such a tired, old argument. The real issues for archaeologists is jealousy & self preservation.

Well said!

[scubatreasure]

You think these bass-turds would be more concerned that every gift in the gift shop at the Smithsonian was made in china... I'm just sayin
Limo Bob

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

* * * * * post.

Don Jose de La Mancha

[FISHEYE]

Whats the difference between blackbeards shipwreck and the artifacts from the 9th century C.E. shipwreck everyone's whining about?


http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...-Treasure.html

[Noodle]

Call me obstinate, but what is "C.E.?" Would that be A.D. or B.C.? Thanks for answering my frustration. - Noodle

[FISHEYE]

Common Era, abbreviated as CE, is a designation for the world's most commonly used year-numbering system. The numbering of years using Common Era notation is identical to the numbering used with "Before Christ / Anno Domini" (BC/AD) notation, 2011 being the current year in both notations and neither using a year zero. Common Era is also known as Christian Era and Current Era, with all three expressions abbreviated as CE. (Christian Era is, however, also abbreviated AD, for Anno Domini.) Dates before the year 1 CE are indicated by the usage of BCE, short for "Before the Common Era", "Before the Christian Era", or "Before the Current Era". Both the BCE/CE and BC/AD notations are based on a sixth-century estimate for the year in which Jesus was conceived or born, with the common era designation originating among Christians in Europe at least as early as 1615.

The Gregorian calendar, and the year-numbering system associated with it, is the calendar system with most widespread usage in the world today. For decades, it has been the de facto global standard, recognized by international institutions such as the United Nations and the Universal Postal Union. There are many names in many languages used to designate this year-numbering system that originated in Western Europe. Common Era notation has been adopted in several non-Christian cultures and by many scholars in religious studies and other academic fields wishing to be sensitive to non-Christians, because Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the BC/AD notation. Among the reasons given by those who oppose the use of Common Era notation are claims that its propagation is the result of secularization, anti-supernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness. Some suggest Common Era designation is not sufficiently culturally neutral, because it does not remove the birth of Jesus as the era marker, leaving the focus on an event significant to Western civilization.

More at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

[Noodle]

Thanks, Fisheye. I'm just an old-schooler, I guess.

[Alexandre]

Smithsonian Scuppers Shipwreck Exhibit, Plans to Re-Excavate

by Heather Pringle on 16 December 2011, 5:28 PM


Smithsonian Institution officials have taken a remarkable 180-degree turn and decided to cancel a controversial exhibit of shipwreck artifacts due to ethical concerns about how the artifacts were salvaged. The institution is also now strongly backing re-excavation of the original shipwreck, which lies off the coast of Indonesia, according to a 14 December press release from the Smithsonian.

Originally scheduled to open in 2012, Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds contains imperial-quality silver, gold, and ceramic artifacts salvaged from a 9th century ship, the Belitung. The exhibit has been dogged by controversy since last February. At the time several major American archaeological associations wrote to Smithsonian Institution Secretary Wayne Clough, charging that the excavator, a private German company called Seabed Explorations GbR, failed to meet crucial scientific standards while excavating a ship of international significance. The Belitung wreck "is one of the most important shipwrecks to be found in the last twenty years," says Filipe Castro, a nautical archaeologist at Texas A&M University in College Station.

The Smithsonian's startling about-face came after a meeting that its officials held on 8 and 9 December with a blue-ribbon advisory committee consisting of representatives from the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and other key agencies. Some archaeologists in attendance expected a stormy session, fearing that senior Smithsonian officials—including Julian Raby, the director of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, who had originally advocated strongly for the exhibit—planned to stick to their guns. But by lunchtime of the first day, the committee had reached a unanimous agreement, recommending cancelling the original exhibit and excavating the Belitung wreck scientifically with a team led by Southeast Asian scientists. "With the approval and involvement of the Indonesian authorities this can become an exemplary initiative in international collaboration," said Raby in the press release. "It can achieve multiple goals, and that is why it elicited consensus from the participants."

The decision caught many off guard. "The chance to have such a positive outcome never even occurred to me," says nautical archaeologist Paul Johnston of the National Museum of American History in Washington.

Existing documents from the Seabed Explorations excavation suggest that much vital scientific data still lies on the sea floor. A massive, naturally-forming mineral concretion, for example, appears to be covering and protecting the bottom of the ship's hull. By carefully excavating it, a research team could learn key details about how and where the ship was built. "This could be of incalculable value to our knowledge of seafaring in that part of the world and during that time," Johnston says.

Those who attended last week's meeting are now looking for ways to finance such a dig before the next advisory committee meeting in early 2012. Johnston notes that UNESCO has already promised its support, an important first step.

For many nautical archaeologists who have been fighting to preserve the world's shipwrecks from treasure hunters and looters, the real importance of the Smithsonian decision this week is the message it sends to the international community. "I think it shows everyone that nations shouldn't allow treasure hunting," says Johnston. "You really can't put a price on underwater cultural heritage."




http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...shipwreck.html

[Batavia]

Hi Guys... Just a reminder of the story from the recovery at its origin...

Have a look at this link and others inside.

http://www.oceantreasures.org/pages/...singapore.html

I particularly know the subject as my team found the wreck at first, but was spoliated by the German group through high manipulation...

They still owe 50% of the auction sale to the Indonesian government !!! Long story since 1998...

[VOC]

What a bunch of idiots;

First they want to stop the public seeing and studying important artefacts, just because they have put themselves on a ideological stance that they have to maintain at all cost (whilst at the same time studying the thousands of artefacts that fill our museums that have very dubious histories of how they got to their in the first place).

Then they want to use public funds to re-excavate a wreck that they say has allready been looted, and any of the few remaining finds they may get will not be shown with the other finds, because they are too arrogant to allow the public to make up their own minds over what they would like to see.

All these guys should be booted out for pure incompetence.

[aquanut]

What a bunch of idiots;

First they want to stop the public seeing and studying important artefacts, just because they have put themselves on a ideological stance that they have to maintain at all cost (whilst at the same time studying the thousands of artefacts that fill our museums that have very dubious histories of how they got to their in the first place).

Then they want to use public funds to re-excavate a wreck that they say has allready been looted, and any of the few remaining finds they may get will not be shown with the other finds, because they are too arrogant to allow the public to make up their own minds over what they would like to see.

All these guys should be booted out for pure incompetence.

Well said! Now, who do we contact that has the power and the common sense to do something about the idiots who subscribe to this kind of BS.
Aquanut

[old man]

What a bunch of idiots;

First they want to stop the public seeing and studying important artefacts, just because they have put themselves on a ideological stance that they have to maintain at all cost (whilst at the same time studying the thousands of artefacts that fill our museums that have very dubious histories of how they got to their in the first place).

Then they want to use public funds to re-excavate a wreck that they say has allready been looted, and any of the few remaining finds they may get will not be shown with the other finds, because they are too arrogant to allow the public to make up their own minds over what they would like to see.

All these guys should be booted out for pure incompetence.

Well said! Now, who do we contact that has the power and the common sense to do something about the idiots who subscribe to this kind of BS.
Aquanut

John, I'm with you. Unfortunately I think we are dealing with the same type of people that think the way the Pilgrims did when they first came to this Country and burned Women at the stake as Witches.

[ivan salis]

so "no matter" what the letter of the law says * - they the archies say "its not "right or proper" for professional treasure hunters to find and display items found in the ocean ? --- uh I have a question- who died and left them "god" to hold judgement over all others and their legally allowed salvage work and to say what should be "allowed" or not allowed in a sovereign counties waters --isn't that left up to the countries the wrecks are in? - and since Indonesia ALLOWS legal salvage of said items , who are they to dictate was is and or is not "allowed" to be displayed , so long as it was legally obtained --- pompus, huge ego asses

[humble]

I'm tired of being screwed by State Archies. I'm donating my artifacts to a Bahamas museum where it is appreciated. humble