pegleglooker
Bronze Member
- Jun 9, 2006
- 1,857
- 237
- Detector(s) used
- ace 250
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
hey gang,
found this online at http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba68/issues.shtml
PLL
Government and the treasue hunters
The Government should find better ways of protecting historic wrecks than by taking part in commercial treasure hunts and sharing out the bullion, writes George Lambrick
In a coup for the highly speculative, multi-million dollar underwater treasure-hunting industry, an American salvage company has struck an unprecedented profit-sharing deal with the UK Government.
In 1694 a British warship, the Sussex, sank in a storm off Gibraltar on the way to provide British financial support to the Duke of Savoy during the war against Louis XIV. She was believed to have been carrying a million pounds-worth of bullion (some say worth £2.5 billion today). Following five years of prospection, Odyssey Marine Explorations, a commercial salvage company based in Florida, believes it has found the wreck in waters too deep to explore except by using submersibles or robots. It is not certain that the wreck is that of the Sussex.
Secret agreement
Notwithstanding the highly speculative nature of the venture, the British Government - in the unlikely shape of the Ministry of Defence Disposal Services Agency - has now signed an extraordinary agreement with Odyssey to recover the bullion. In return for taking on the whole financial risk, the deal entitles the company to 80 per cent of the first $45m (£29m) of the proceeds from selling artefacts from the wreck, reducing to 40 per cent when the total haul is worth over $500m (£320m).
In return for various financial bonds and other profit-sharing arrangements the Government has also handed over exclusive merchandising rights and committed itself to joint marketing of artefacts. Arrangements have been made for archaeological supervision, but the scope and status of such control is unclear in the published summary of the secret agreement.
The mod has claimed that the deal represents 'an important step in the development of a "partnering" approach to deep sea archaeology whereby any recoveries from the wreck will be conducted under accepted archaeological methodologies.'
So is this the start of a grand new chapter in how to do archaeological research? - No, it is not. This deal would not have been struck if millions (perhaps billions) of dollars were not at stake. With its eye firmly on booty not culture, it looks as if the Government is reneging on basic principles of archaeological management that it has championed elsewhere.
Last year the Government did not sign, but did publicly endorse the unesco Convention on Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, especially its Annex which states that 'the commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage for trade or speculation or its irretrievable dispersal is . . . incompatible with the protection and proper management of underwater cultural heritage. Underwater cultural heritage shall not be traded, sold, bought or bartered as commercial goods.'
Going for the gold
On land, this sort of deal would be completely out of line with policy on Treasure finds, or with well-established archaeological procedures in public-private finance contracts for roads. The Government has also had some success in encouraging metal detectorists to work with archaeologists in seeking not merely treasure, but also knowledge.
There is nothing inherently wrong in working with private companies to recover cultural heritage. The vast majority of archaeological investigations carried out in Britain - to the tune of an estimated £68m a year - are funded by developers using archaeological contractors and consultants on a commercial basis. But such excavations are never financed by selling off the cultural assets that are being recovered. In the Odyssey deal, archaeology has been used to legitimize commercial treasure hunting for financial rewards on the grand scale.
Nobody denies that the protection of underwater heritage is fraught with problems, especially in international waters. But this deal does not remove the threat of treasure hunting, nor is it the only scenario for commercial partnering to protect wreck sites. What is more, the deal is already being seen around the world as a dangerous precedent for the exploitation of wrecks in other waters.
Instead of twisting the unesco convention into a treasure hunter's charter, the British Government should get on with signing the convention and helping to make it work.
George Lambrick is Director of the CBA
found this online at http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba68/issues.shtml
PLL
Government and the treasue hunters
The Government should find better ways of protecting historic wrecks than by taking part in commercial treasure hunts and sharing out the bullion, writes George Lambrick
In a coup for the highly speculative, multi-million dollar underwater treasure-hunting industry, an American salvage company has struck an unprecedented profit-sharing deal with the UK Government.
In 1694 a British warship, the Sussex, sank in a storm off Gibraltar on the way to provide British financial support to the Duke of Savoy during the war against Louis XIV. She was believed to have been carrying a million pounds-worth of bullion (some say worth £2.5 billion today). Following five years of prospection, Odyssey Marine Explorations, a commercial salvage company based in Florida, believes it has found the wreck in waters too deep to explore except by using submersibles or robots. It is not certain that the wreck is that of the Sussex.
Secret agreement
Notwithstanding the highly speculative nature of the venture, the British Government - in the unlikely shape of the Ministry of Defence Disposal Services Agency - has now signed an extraordinary agreement with Odyssey to recover the bullion. In return for taking on the whole financial risk, the deal entitles the company to 80 per cent of the first $45m (£29m) of the proceeds from selling artefacts from the wreck, reducing to 40 per cent when the total haul is worth over $500m (£320m).
In return for various financial bonds and other profit-sharing arrangements the Government has also handed over exclusive merchandising rights and committed itself to joint marketing of artefacts. Arrangements have been made for archaeological supervision, but the scope and status of such control is unclear in the published summary of the secret agreement.
The mod has claimed that the deal represents 'an important step in the development of a "partnering" approach to deep sea archaeology whereby any recoveries from the wreck will be conducted under accepted archaeological methodologies.'
So is this the start of a grand new chapter in how to do archaeological research? - No, it is not. This deal would not have been struck if millions (perhaps billions) of dollars were not at stake. With its eye firmly on booty not culture, it looks as if the Government is reneging on basic principles of archaeological management that it has championed elsewhere.
Last year the Government did not sign, but did publicly endorse the unesco Convention on Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, especially its Annex which states that 'the commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage for trade or speculation or its irretrievable dispersal is . . . incompatible with the protection and proper management of underwater cultural heritage. Underwater cultural heritage shall not be traded, sold, bought or bartered as commercial goods.'
Going for the gold
On land, this sort of deal would be completely out of line with policy on Treasure finds, or with well-established archaeological procedures in public-private finance contracts for roads. The Government has also had some success in encouraging metal detectorists to work with archaeologists in seeking not merely treasure, but also knowledge.
There is nothing inherently wrong in working with private companies to recover cultural heritage. The vast majority of archaeological investigations carried out in Britain - to the tune of an estimated £68m a year - are funded by developers using archaeological contractors and consultants on a commercial basis. But such excavations are never financed by selling off the cultural assets that are being recovered. In the Odyssey deal, archaeology has been used to legitimize commercial treasure hunting for financial rewards on the grand scale.
Nobody denies that the protection of underwater heritage is fraught with problems, especially in international waters. But this deal does not remove the threat of treasure hunting, nor is it the only scenario for commercial partnering to protect wreck sites. What is more, the deal is already being seen around the world as a dangerous precedent for the exploitation of wrecks in other waters.
Instead of twisting the unesco convention into a treasure hunter's charter, the British Government should get on with signing the convention and helping to make it work.
George Lambrick is Director of the CBA
