Question for Archies ?

[old man]

Since Unesco is against the salvaging of any warships and Spain considers all Spanish Treasure Fleet ships to be warships. ( My opinion ) Why are archeologists allowed to investigate Spanish Warships and the Private sector is prohibited ( In certain Countries waters ) from salvaging these wrecks ? Isn't that a double standard. Or am I mistaken on this subject ?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[aquanut]

Quite simply Old Man, the private sector is after the gold and silver. The archies are after the artifacts. Since the private sector would leave the artifacts to Spain as would the archies, it's quite obvious that Spain wants the gold!
Do they ever try to steal/salvage wrecks with no treasure?
Aquanut

 

[Alexandre]

"Commercial exploitation (Rule 2)

Rule 2 embodies respect for the public interest in the proper management of cultural heritage for everyone. Our heritage should not be seen as an economic resource available to be used in trade or speculation. Upon recovery, it should be treated so as to preserve those characteristics - scientific and/or cultural - that give it its unique value for humanity. Heritage should remain in the public domain, though the Convention does not address issues of ownership rights.

Rule 2 also implies that heritage derives its value from its context and association. The whole assemblage as included and concealed in an archaeological site is far more significant than the separate individual items would be. It is essential to keep together artefacts, samples, and information relating to a site. Dispersal should clearly be avoided.

Commercial exploitation for trade or speculation is not acceptable, because:

heritage shall not be traded, sold, bought or bartered as commercial goods;
heritage should not be object of art theft or illicit traffic;
heritage should not be commercially exploited for trade or speculation;
heritage should not be irretrievably dispersed; and
heritage should be kept as close to the site where it is found as possible.
The ban on commercial exploitation does not preclude the organisation of professional services, or of access to heritage on the basis of commercial principles.

The ban addresses:

trading,
selling,
buying, and
bartering.

Rule 6 requires that any activity impacting underwater cultural heritage be properly recorded. Conditions and observations that are left unrecorded will never be part of the activity documentation, let alone part of the wider record of archaeological observations that can inform other research. Also, if left unrecorded there will be no account of the impact and damage caused to the site, however well-intentioned the activity. Unless recorded, what has been destroyed will not be available for future study. To this end, activities directed at underwater cultural heritage must be subject to strict regulation.

As such, Rule 6 reiterates what much national legislation states concerning the authorization of interventions at archaeological sites. Authorization is indispensable for all actions that are necessary to further protection, knowledge and enhancement; moreover, it is limited to organizations with qualified and competent staff, who are fully familiar with the wider context of research questions, in which the significance of the site and the proposed intervention are embedded. Only such staff is geared to guarantee the best possible standards of recording and documentation.
The competent authority is requested to verify that strict regulations apply in view of ensuring the quality of archaeological work and in view of documentation and preservation of the results obtained throughout the activity.

Regulation for quality control

Archaeology is a cumulative discipline. This means that results from very different endeavours build up to form a consistent body of information. Conventions that facilitate comparison of data gathered under different circumstances have developed for the description, illustration and drawing of phenomena. Such conventions have developed into professional standards. The competent authority is responsible for ensuring that strict and equal standards are adhered to. In many instances, the standards evolve from combinations of government directives and professional guidelines, which are referred to in permits and authorizations.

Rule 6 simply indicates that proper recording of cultural, historical and archaeological information can only be ensured if it is regulated.

Detailed regulations and comprehensive systems of quality control have been developed in different contexts. International comparison shows, however, that much consensus exists. The most detailed regulations do perhaps apply in those instances where archaeological interventions are tendered out to service providers, especially in systems where in the context of development-led archaeology, the developer acts as client. Very detailed regulations do then apply in order to check competition and balance the market. In other systems, internal directives may suffice. Nevertheless, it is striking how much conformity there actually is in guidelines that govern fieldwork execution.
In authorizing activities directed at underwater cultural heritage, the Competent Authority:

sets the standards,
demands competent and qualified staff, and
regulates the standards of documentation.


Qualifications for underwater archaeologists

The key requirement of Rule 22 is that interventions on underwater heritage should be directed, controlled and overseen by a qualified and competent underwater archaeologist.

Archaeology is a scientific discipline concerned with reconstructing past human life and culture from the material remains that survive. In the case of underwater archaeology, the focus of study is the long human relationship with the sea and other water environments. Archaeologists professionally quest for traces of the human past through the investigation, recording and interpretation of cultural heritage. Their conception of what archaeology means and requires is very different to the perception amongst many divers, particularly those with an interest in the commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage. There is a risk that by paying lip service to archaeology, and drawing an odd rough site plan, some national authorities might be persuaded that a proposed commercial intervention in an underwater heritage site is a legitimate archaeological excavation. However, the practice of archaeology is not easily picked up to meet permitting or licensing requirements.

Archaeology is a professional discipline with:

a strong theoretical base;
a set of investigative techniques; and
a common, established set of guiding principles.
All three can only be mastered through thorough training, including practical experience, and it is this training and the qualifications that result from it that ensure that the archaeological record is not compromised by an intervention.

To be deemed qualified and competent an archaeologist must therefore possess a university degree in archaeology and demonstrate:

thorough understanding of the way in which scientific knowledge is produced;
ability in a range of field techniques from pre-disturbance surveys to complex excavations;
training in artefact recovery;
familiarity with at the least basic artefact handling and conservation techniques;
skills in research and laboratory analysis; and
ability and commitment to report and publish the detailed results of investigations and analysis.
All these abilities and competences need to be learned through patient application, time and effort.

Rule 22 and Rule 23 of the Annex imply that just as competence and qualifications are non-negotiable and expected of members of any professional field, from medicine to engineering, they are just as applicable and important to the practice of underwater archaeology.

Respecting ethics

Most archaeologists work under local, national or internationally accepted codes of practice and ethics. As members of a range of professional bodies, archaeologists are required to abide by professional standards and codes of conduct. Their work will be subject to peer review and they can be disciplined and exposed if they act in contravention of professional ethics. Bodies such as the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) in South Africa, the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) in the United Kingdom, or the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (AIMA), are important instruments in setting and maintaining national standards in archaeological qualification and competence. Membership of such a body will signify a certain level of qualification and competence in an archaeologist.

The importance of ethics:

It is training and qualifications, underpinned by a professional commitment to ensuring that interventions are carried out to the highest professional and ethical standards that sets archaeologists apart from treasure hunters and those with an interest in underwater cultural heritage which is at odds with its proper investigation and conservation.

Archaeologists have an ethical obligation to the archaeological record and to society. This is a very important part of what makes an archaeologist – just as important as the technical skills needed to competently carry out an archaeological investigation. It is what separates archaeologists from treasure hunters and others that only claim to do archaeology.

 

[old man]

"Commercial exploitation (Rule 2)

Rule 2 embodies respect for the public interest in the proper management of cultural heritage for everyone. Our heritage should not be seen as an economic resource available to be used in trade or speculation. Upon recovery, it should be treated so as to preserve those characteristics - scientific and/or cultural - that give it its unique value for humanity. Heritage should remain in the public domain, though the Convention does not address issues of ownership rights.

Rule 2 also implies that heritage derives its value from its context and association. The whole assemblage as included and concealed in an archaeological site is far more significant than the separate individual items would be. It is essential to keep together artefacts, samples, and information relating to a site. Dispersal should clearly be avoided.

Commercial exploitation for trade or speculation is not acceptable, because:

heritage shall not be traded, sold, bought or bartered as commercial goods;
heritage should not be object of art theft or illicit traffic;
heritage should not be commercially exploited for trade or speculation;
heritage should not be irretrievably dispersed; and
heritage should be kept as close to the site where it is found as possible.
The ban on commercial exploitation does not preclude the organisation of professional services, or of access to heritage on the basis of commercial principles.

The ban addresses:

trading,
selling,
buying, and
bartering.

Rule 6 requires that any activity impacting underwater cultural heritage be properly recorded. Conditions and observations that are left unrecorded will never be part of the activity documentation, let alone part of the wider record of archaeological observations that can inform other research. Also, if left unrecorded there will be no account of the impact and damage caused to the site, however well-intentioned the activity. Unless recorded, what has been destroyed will not be available for future study. To this end, activities directed at underwater cultural heritage must be subject to strict regulation.

As such, Rule 6 reiterates what much national legislation states concerning the authorization of interventions at archaeological sites. Authorization is indispensable for all actions that are necessary to further protection, knowledge and enhancement; moreover, it is limited to organizations with qualified and competent staff, who are fully familiar with the wider context of research questions, in which the significance of the site and the proposed intervention are embedded. Only such staff is geared to guarantee the best possible standards of recording and documentation.
The competent authority is requested to verify that strict regulations apply in view of ensuring the quality of archaeological work and in view of documentation and preservation of the results obtained throughout the activity.

Regulation for quality control

Archaeology is a cumulative discipline. This means that results from very different endeavours build up to form a consistent body of information. Conventions that facilitate comparison of data gathered under different circumstances have developed for the description, illustration and drawing of phenomena. Such conventions have developed into professional standards. The competent authority is responsible for ensuring that strict and equal standards are adhered to. In many instances, the standards evolve from combinations of government directives and professional guidelines, which are referred to in permits and authorizations.

Rule 6 simply indicates that proper recording of cultural, historical and archaeological information can only be ensured if it is regulated.

Detailed regulations and comprehensive systems of quality control have been developed in different contexts. International comparison shows, however, that much consensus exists. The most detailed regulations do perhaps apply in those instances where archaeological interventions are tendered out to service providers, especially in systems where in the context of development-led archaeology, the developer acts as client. Very detailed regulations do then apply in order to check competition and balance the market. In other systems, internal directives may suffice. Nevertheless, it is striking how much conformity there actually is in guidelines that govern fieldwork execution.
In authorizing activities directed at underwater cultural heritage, the Competent Authority:

sets the standards,
demands competent and qualified staff, and
regulates the standards of documentation.


Qualifications for underwater archaeologists

The key requirement of Rule 22 is that interventions on underwater heritage should be directed, controlled and overseen by a qualified and competent underwater archaeologist.

Archaeology is a scientific discipline concerned with reconstructing past human life and culture from the material remains that survive. In the case of underwater archaeology, the focus of study is the long human relationship with the sea and other water environments. Archaeologists professionally quest for traces of the human past through the investigation, recording and interpretation of cultural heritage. Their conception of what archaeology means and requires is very different to the perception amongst many divers, particularly those with an interest in the commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage. There is a risk that by paying lip service to archaeology, and drawing an odd rough site plan, some national authorities might be persuaded that a proposed commercial intervention in an underwater heritage site is a legitimate archaeological excavation. However, the practice of archaeology is not easily picked up to meet permitting or licensing requirements.

Archaeology is a professional discipline with:

a strong theoretical base;
a set of investigative techniques; and
a common, established set of guiding principles.
All three can only be mastered through thorough training, including practical experience, and it is this training and the qualifications that result from it that ensure that the archaeological record is not compromised by an intervention.

To be deemed qualified and competent an archaeologist must therefore possess a university degree in archaeology and demonstrate:

thorough understanding of the way in which scientific knowledge is produced;
ability in a range of field techniques from pre-disturbance surveys to complex excavations;
training in artefact recovery;
familiarity with at the least basic artefact handling and conservation techniques;
skills in research and laboratory analysis; and
ability and commitment to report and publish the detailed results of investigations and analysis.
All these abilities and competences need to be learned through patient application, time and effort.

Rule 22 and Rule 23 of the Annex imply that just as competence and qualifications are non-negotiable and expected of members of any professional field, from medicine to engineering, they are just as applicable and important to the practice of underwater archaeology.

Respecting ethics

Most archaeologists work under local, national or internationally accepted codes of practice and ethics. As members of a range of professional bodies, archaeologists are required to abide by professional standards and codes of conduct. Their work will be subject to peer review and they can be disciplined and exposed if they act in contravention of professional ethics. Bodies such as the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) in South Africa, the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) in the United Kingdom, or the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (AIMA), are important instruments in setting and maintaining national standards in archaeological qualification and competence. Membership of such a body will signify a certain level of qualification and competence in an archaeologist.

The importance of ethics:

It is training and qualifications, underpinned by a professional commitment to ensuring that interventions are carried out to the highest professional and ethical standards that sets archaeologists apart from treasure hunters and those with an interest in underwater cultural heritage which is at odds with its proper investigation and conservation.

Archaeologists have an ethical obligation to the archaeological record and to society. This is a very important part of what makes an archaeologist – just as important as the technical skills needed to competently carry out an archaeological investigation. It is what separates archaeologists from treasure hunters and others that only claim to do archaeology.

Alexandre, Nice wish list for the archies, but it still doesn't answer my Legal question. If a wreck is considered a War Grave. Why is anyone allowed to DESECRATE the war grave

I also might add that my dear departed Father had a saying too, I'll use it in regards to the wish list for archies that you posted. " Just because people in Hell want ice water, doesn't mean they're going to get it".

 

[Alexandre]

Alexandre, Nice wish list for the archies, but it still doesn't answer my Legal question. If a wreck is considered a War Grave. Why is anyone allowed to DESECRATE the war grave

In land archaeology, everybody knows the difference between a grave robber and an archaeologist.. why should in the sea be different from land?

I have been invited to help develop a site like the one below, but related to maritime treasure hunting. Please, take some minutes to check all 3 videos (they rock!) and you will see the difference between real archaeology and salvage.


http://www.witnessthepast.gr

 

[VOC]

Alexandre

The issue I have with the whole UNESCO convention is who gave the relatively few marine archaeologists the rights to try and demand that world governments comply with it.

There has never been proper debate across society to discuss if wrecks should only be used as either a Cultural resource, Financial resource, Economic resource or as a Recreational resource.

The archaeologist have just taken upon themselves to claim that all wrecks should only be used only as a cultural resource irrespective of a society that would much prefer a spread across all of the above, with some wrecks used to provide archaeological knowledge and some wrecks used to provide wealth, jobs, dreams or just to provide the chance to own a piece of real history.

If this subject had been widely debated (with proper consultation) with the public, or if the proponents of these regulations had been elected by the public to make these decisions, I would accept them as a majority view, but in reality a few unelected figure heads in a small archaeological community have bamboozled their followers into following a very "selfish ethical stance" that completely ignores the views and wishes of the population at large.

The following projects like the Atocha has had (at all levels) over the last 40+ years, the mass interest in treasure sales, and the vast quantity of books, films and presentations on the subject of sunken treasure has over the last 100 years, just shows the huge interest that the public at large have in using wrecks for other purposes, other than just providing historical knowledge.

I have been interested and involved in shipwreck for over 35 years, but over that time I would never time have been so selfish as to think that my views or wishes should be the only way.

There are plenty of wrecks for all parts of society to be accommodated, and archaeologist should concentrate more on the historically important wrecks and leave treasure wrecks to others.

PS: Those videos on that web site are just disgusting propaganda to twist the minds of vulnerable children, and I hope any web site you prepare for marine archaeology has a much more balanced view.

Most treasure salvors are generally not at all interested in profit, the majority just understand that you need to sell some artefacts to fund excavation, conservation, recording, publication and display as they have the sense to realise that there will never be enough public money to excavate these sites.

 

[ivan salis]

who died and left them GOD ? to have absolute power over all the wrecks in the sea? --since man has gone to sea the recovery of goods from shipwrecks to be put back into "use" by humanity --has been a time honored profession (shipwreck salvaging) -- if all treasure ships are indeed "warships" / war graves as spain trys to claim they are to prevent open water "high seas" salvage by for profiet salvors -then no one should be allowed to "disturb" them at ANYTIME , EVER

I DO FIND IT ODD THAT SPAIN HAS NEVER "ASSERTED A CLAIM" AGAINST A SO CALLED "NON TREASURE" TYPE VESSEL TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE

I guess only treasure vessels have any items of cultural importance to spain -(gold / silver)-since their "culture" was all about the money they made from exploited enslaved people

anyone whos says spain has a "legal right" to the goods taken by force of arms , made by enslaved peoples -- would have to support "nazi" claims tio the goods that they looted as well -- both took over weaker people by force of arms * both used forced slave labor with little to no regards to their victims if spain is "allowed" to claim the gold and silver that was on their vessel as "theirs" then the nazi's by like means sould be able to claim all the loot they stole as "theirs" --oh and the well the nazi's lost the war bit --uh spain did too when it lost it colonies.

 

[Alexandre]

Alexandre

The issue I have with the whole UNESCO convention is who gave the relatively few marine archaeologists the rights to try and demand that world governments comply with it.

As a matter of fact, our opinion is just that: an opinion.

We don't demand - we ask. Politely.

Then, it's up to the governments to decide what to do: side with treasure hunting activities or ratify the Convention.

My guess is that, some years from now, to salvage historical shipwrecks will be a thing of the past, just like shark finnning and coral touching is now for the majority of the diving community.

 

[Alexandre]

I DO FIND IT ODD THAT SPAIN HAS NEVER "ASSERTED A CLAIM" AGAINST A SO CALLED "NON TREASURE" TYPE VESSEL TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
[/quote

Tell me an example of a ransacked and destroyed non-treasure carrying Spanish ship and I will tell you why...

 

[VOC]

"Then, it's up to the governments to decide what to do"

Unfortunately governments are advised by their heritage bodies what to do, and it is these very same heritage bodies that are promoting UNESCO.

"My guess is that, some years from now, to salvage historical shipwrecks will be a thing of the past, just like shark finning and coral touching is now for the majority of the diving community"

You could never be further from the truth, salvage from historical shipwreck is increasing, its just that the archaeologist and general public are no longer getting to hear about it. (governments around the world have spent billions trying to stop drug taking and drug smuggling etc, so what chance do you think they will have in stopping historical wreck salvage ?).

Much better for the archaeologist to work with the salvors as with the Atocha, Odyssey and many other projects.

 

[Alexandre]

Much better for the archaeologist to work with the salvors as with the Atocha, Odyssey and many other projects.

Much better for what or for whom?

 

[VOC]

"Much better for what or for whom?"

For society at large and all stakeholders in a wreck project !

Shipwreck salvage will go on irrespective of what the archaeologist want to happen, as the private and commercial sectors will always have the motivation, dedication, man power, technology and funds to make it happen.

If all underwater archaeologist were genuinely interested in shipwreck history, as opposed to just trying to preserve their publically funded jobs, they would get involved with recording wreck history no matter what the source of the material was.

How they can completely ignore large swaths of historical knowledge just because they don’t like the salvor ?. This is a completely immature and selfish stance, based soley on pure ideological reasons that you would never see in any other profession.

Historians are happy to work with the private and commercial sectors as you also see with art and antiques etc, and land archaeologist are very happy to study the thousands of artefacts randomly recovered by metal detectorist, ( http://finds.org.uk ), but it is only the underwater archaeologist that follow the "current trend" of not working with the private and commercial sectors if they don’t work exactly as they want.

It is time for underwater archaeologist to grow up, act responsible, earn their keep and join the real world, instead of living in an ideological world of LA-LA land !

 

[Alexandre]

"Much better for what or for whom?"

Shipwreck salvage will go on irrespective of what the archaeologist want to happen, as the private and commercial sectors will always have the motivation, dedication, man power, technology and funds to make it happen.

If that's true, why do you bother at all with the UNESCO Convention?

 

[Teredo Navalis]

Alexandre,
Excellent point you are making and glad to see you agree with the majority of the world who knows anything about this topic: "Why should anyone bother at all with the UNESCO Convention?"
I'm an American. My country doesn't endorse it and is not a signature in the Underwater Archaeologic Absurdity Convention. Therefore, it doesn't pertain to me or any other American. It is poorly written and impossible to have a single, cogent legal interpretation made of the language that currently exists. UNESCO's Convention is a tool to finish the colonial rape of Central and South Americans. Period.

 

[Alexandre]

Alexandre,
Excellent point you are making and glad to see you agree with the majority of the world who knows anything about this topic: "Why should anyone bother at all with the UNESCO Convention?"
I'm an American. My country doesn't endorse it and is not a signature in the Underwater Archaeologic Absurdity Convention. Therefore, it doesn't pertain to me or any other American. It is poorly written and impossible to have a single, cogent legal interpretation made of the language that currently exists. UNESCO's Convention is a tool to finish the colonial rape of Central and South Americans. Period.

Funny... I was having coffee and talking with Jim Delgado and Ole Varmer (Americans, too) and their vision was quite opposite yours...

 

[VOC]

"If that's true, why do you bother at all with the UNESCO Convention?"

That is a question for the academic archaeological community and not us, as we in the private and commercial sectors do not agree with or blindly follow all of the principles of the UNESCO convention.

What I fight to stop is the wholesale indoctrination of archaeological students into a misguided cult that has grown up amongst a few in the academic archaeological community. I believe that all students should be free to make up their own minds rather than being brainwashed into a "all Treasure Salvage is bad and all Academic Archaeology is good" theory that is being promoted by the likes of UNESCO.

I will also fight for the rights of individuals and companies to research, find, excavate, and record shipwreck and if necessary part fund this with the sale of some items. (the recording is the important thing not and the eventual ownership or location of any artefact that is of much less importance, and it can also be argued that in many instances such as with coin and porcelain hoards that a wider dispersal of artefacts is a more preferable way of transmitting historical knowledge to the general public at large).

There is some very good marine archaeologist and I totally admire any that show their strengths and beliefs by working with the private and commercial sectors.

It is interesting to see all the academics mutually back slapping each other in Belgium last December, when all they have actually managed to achieve in the last 10 years is the monitored natural and uncontrolled destruction of known historical wreck sites, whilst pushing the vast amount of Artefact Recovery totally underground. “Well done you should all be proud of yourselves".

It is a shame that with someone with your intelligence , drive and enthusiasm for the subject that you would rather follow the views of someone like Filipe Castro than those of someone like Duncan Mathewson. Still there is plenty of time for you to leave the dark side (academic community) and join the people who actually make a difference to the understanding of our past.

I do admire you for posting your views on a Treasure forum and having a informed debate, as many of your contemporaries would never even click on a treasure or commercial shipwreck web site.

 

[Shawmen]

Bottom line, Warships DO NOT carry fare paying passengers...

The ships in the 1715 fleet were functioning in a Cargo ship role, with the armament aboard being used for their own self protection. Would anyone here classify the cargo ships sailing in the Gulf of Aden, that have armed security aboard to protect against Somali pirates, as being Warships I don't think so.

Spain could do it's FAILING economy a whole lot of good by inking some salvage agreements on it's vessels sunken in foreign waters around the globe.

Just my two cents...
(Copper not Zinc)

 

[Teredo Navalis]

Alexandre,
Sorry, but they are poor example of real Americans. Jim Delgado is pompous and self serving who loves to see his face on TV or print. Having been brainwashed in the Texas A&M mantra that they own and rule the seas, he beat their tiny drum. Since Bass started their cult, they have produced maybe 100 mini-me robotic, underwater graduates, most of which are struggling to find real jobs? And they are suppose to bring every wreck and artifact to life on the bottom of the oceans of 70 % of planet earth, with a tooth brush none the less and shrinking budgets?
And Ole Varmer is another arrogant subversive who as made a living with NOAA. Check it out and talk with former colleagues and even superiors (I have and know a few). He is not well liked or respected except in his own mind. He is a career bureaucrat who can't be fired.
I will state again, as an American, Ole Varmit and the thin man don't have the authority to sign a UNESCO Treaty.

 

[piratediver]

Thought you might like to see what else UNESCO is up to:

Whatever the merits, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) has embraced the concept. In fact, Unesco loves heritage so much that it has created two treaties to enshrine it.

The first, the World Heritage Convention, dating from 1972, builds on the notion of the United States national parks system, which was set up to defend a wild landscape before it disappeared. The second, the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, was introduced in 2003 to defend traditions, not places, and is more controversial. Some 188 nations have ratified the first convention. To date, there are 725 cultural, 183 natural and 28 properties combining the two, in 153 countries. The World Heritage list represents a catalog of marvels. Italy, needless to say, includes the Leaning Tower of Pisa (the whole Piazza del Duomo, to be fair) and Venice and its lagoon. Jordan has Petra and Wadi Rum. France even lists the banks of the Seine.

Russia has the Kremlin, Red Square and Lake Baikal. The United States lists Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon and the Everglades (cited as endangered). Independence Hall is on the list, but not the White House. Funny, that.

Luxembourg pretty much lists itself; Afghanistan includes the sad remains of the great Buddhas of Bamiyan, blown up by the Taliban.

The Marshall Islands has one listing only: the Bikini Atoll Nuclear Test Site. Some distinction, to put it gently: to cite for preservation a place of devastation consecrated to the potential end of everything.

In his book “Disappearing World: The Earth’s Most Extraordinary and Endangered Places,” Alonzo C. Addison, a director in Unesco’s external relations department, arranges sites in varying degrees of distress from a variety of causes, including conflict, theft, development, pollution, invaders and tourism.

Conflict is the most obvious threat, whether in Afghanistan, Jerusalem, Kosovo or around the Preah Vihear temple on the border of Cambodia and Thailand, where there have been three armed clashes since the temple was listed.

The Darfur crisis has done extraordinary damage to the Garamba National Park in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and to the northern white rhinoceros there, killed for horns by militias seeking to buy arms, Mr. Addison notes.

But most troubling may be the unintended consequences of mass tourism. Nations want to promote these sites for income. And good or bad, Mr. Addison said in an interview, “The world is more global and some sites can’t deal with all the tourists,” whether it’s Machu Picchu or Angkor Wat. (Unesco is now trying to put Machu Picchu on the list of endangered sites.)

In 2008, this newspaper wrote about the impact on a little town in northern Japan of the naming of the long-disused Iwami silver mines as a World Heritage site. With about 400 inhabitants and little infrastructure, Omori was inundated with hundreds of thousands of tourists, wanting to check off the new site.

Norimitsu Onishi’s article described how one 90-year-old man woke up one day to find three tourists relaxing on a sofa inside his house.

“The dark side, of course, is consumption,” said Francesco Bandarin, assistant director-general of Unesco and head of its World Heritage Center, speaking of the consumerism that so often surrounds heritage sites. “And consumption and preservation do not go together.” If a site is “within an hour of a harbor,” he added, “it becomes inundated by a flood of tourism and geysers of money.”

Angkor, long isolated by war and the Khmer Rouge, he said, now has 200 hotels nearby.

“This is a big problem now,” Mr. Bandarin said. “The tourism industry has a lot of power in many poor countries but a short-term vision.”

UNESCO has drawn more criticism for its second convention, which focuses not on place, but on traditions. The Intangible Cultural Heritage list has been adding what are called “elements” only since 2008. So far, 139 countries have signed the convention, but not the United States. As Mr. Addison said, “Even the word ‘intangible’ is hard for average people to get their heads around.”

There are 267 traditions enshrined so far, with 27 described as “in need of urgent safeguarding,” including “the watertight-bulkhead technology of Chinese junks.” The regular list includes oral traditions and performances, social rituals and crafts — from Cambodia’s Royal Ballet to Indonesian puppet theater. And, perhaps peculiarly, the French gastronomic meal.

Cécile Duvelle, the anthropologist in charge of Unesco’s section for Intangible Cultural Heritage, fiercely defends it to those who think the idea too vague and subjective. “The word ‘intangible’ is recent, but the concept is old: the idea of nonmaterial culture and traditions,” she said.

The point, she emphasized, is not to “preserve and protect, which is to freeze something, but to safeguard.” Traditions can change as they are passed down, she noted, as a kind of living heritage that is continually recreated and evolving, yet provides a sense of identity. In return for listing them, governments commit to specific actions to promote, support and encourage them, whether it is a matter of altering or creating curriculums or even stopping deforestation.

The traditions on the list are not judged on whether they are especially beautiful, let alone marvelous. Rather, they represent the world’s diversity. Their inclusion implies that they may be in danger from modernization and globalization. “The value,” Ms. Duvelle said, “is for the community, not for the world.”

Inclusion on the list can, however, lead to manipulation. The French gastronomic meal, enshrined in 2010, is one example. It is meant to preserve the lavish family occasion that marks major life events: births, communions, weddings, birthdays, exam results, deaths. It recognizes “that the French community puts a gastronomic meal at the center of its celebration of life,” said Ms. Duvelle, herself French.

Unesco was not pleased that three-star French chefs used the designation to try to promote themselves, culminating in a grotesque celebration at Versailles last April where some 60 celebrity chefs largely prepared meals elsewhere that were trucked in and warmed up on portable workstations for celebrity guests and the news media.

Now there is talk, at least, of taking the recognition away because the state has not done much to safeguard the tradition except to advertise it abroad under the slogan, “So French, So Good!” While the United States has hesitated to sign the Intangible convention, citing concerns about its implications for intellectual property rights, Washington’s ambassador to Unesco, David T. Killion, says that “World Heritage is critically important.”

Countries fight hard “for the cultural branding rights,” he said. He points out that Herbie Hancock, a Unesco goodwill ambassador, would like to see jazz recognized as an Intangible Heritage.

And Paducah, Ky., is pushing for quilting.

 

[aquanut]

Thought you might like to see what else UNESCO is up to:

Whatever the merits, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) has embraced the concept. In fact, Unesco loves heritage so much that it has created two treaties to enshrine it.

The first, the World Heritage Convention, dating from 1972, builds on the notion of the United States national parks system, which was set up to defend a wild landscape before it disappeared. The second, the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, was introduced in 2003 to defend traditions, not places, and is more controversial. Some 188 nations have ratified the first convention. To date, there are 725 cultural, 183 natural and 28 properties combining the two, in 153 countries. The World Heritage list represents a catalog of marvels. Italy, needless to say, includes the Leaning Tower of Pisa (the whole Piazza del Duomo, to be fair) and Venice and its lagoon. Jordan has Petra and Wadi Rum. France even lists the banks of the Seine.

Russia has the Kremlin, Red Square and Lake Baikal. The United States lists Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon and the Everglades (cited as endangered). Independence Hall is on the list, but not the White House. Funny, that.

Luxembourg pretty much lists itself; Afghanistan includes the sad remains of the great Buddhas of Bamiyan, blown up by the Taliban.

The Marshall Islands has one listing only: the Bikini Atoll Nuclear Test Site. Some distinction, to put it gently: to cite for preservation a place of devastation consecrated to the potential end of everything.

In his book “Disappearing World: The Earth’s Most Extraordinary and Endangered Places,” Alonzo C. Addison, a director in Unesco’s external relations department, arranges sites in varying degrees of distress from a variety of causes, including conflict, theft, development, pollution, invaders and tourism.

Conflict is the most obvious threat, whether in Afghanistan, Jerusalem, Kosovo or around the Preah Vihear temple on the border of Cambodia and Thailand, where there have been three armed clashes since the temple was listed.

The Darfur crisis has done extraordinary damage to the Garamba National Park in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and to the northern white rhinoceros there, killed for horns by militias seeking to buy arms, Mr. Addison notes.

But most troubling may be the unintended consequences of mass tourism. Nations want to promote these sites for income. And good or bad, Mr. Addison said in an interview, “The world is more global and some sites can’t deal with all the tourists,” whether it’s Machu Picchu or Angkor Wat. (Unesco is now trying to put Machu Picchu on the list of endangered sites.)

In 2008, this newspaper wrote about the impact on a little town in northern Japan of the naming of the long-disused Iwami silver mines as a World Heritage site. With about 400 inhabitants and little infrastructure, Omori was inundated with hundreds of thousands of tourists, wanting to check off the new site.

Norimitsu Onishi’s article described how one 90-year-old man woke up one day to find three tourists relaxing on a sofa inside his house.

“The dark side, of course, is consumption,” said Francesco Bandarin, assistant director-general of Unesco and head of its World Heritage Center, speaking of the consumerism that so often surrounds heritage sites. “And consumption and preservation do not go together.” If a site is “within an hour of a harbor,” he added, “it becomes inundated by a flood of tourism and geysers of money.”

Angkor, long isolated by war and the Khmer Rouge, he said, now has 200 hotels nearby.

“This is a big problem now,” Mr. Bandarin said. “The tourism industry has a lot of power in many poor countries but a short-term vision.”

UNESCO has drawn more criticism for its second convention, which focuses not on place, but on traditions. The Intangible Cultural Heritage list has been adding what are called “elements” only since 2008. So far, 139 countries have signed the convention, but not the United States. As Mr. Addison said, “Even the word ‘intangible’ is hard for average people to get their heads around.”

There are 267 traditions enshrined so far, with 27 described as “in need of urgent safeguarding,” including “the watertight-bulkhead technology of Chinese junks.” The regular list includes oral traditions and performances, social rituals and crafts — from Cambodia’s Royal Ballet to Indonesian puppet theater. And, perhaps peculiarly, the French gastronomic meal.

Cécile Duvelle, the anthropologist in charge of Unesco’s section for Intangible Cultural Heritage, fiercely defends it to those who think the idea too vague and subjective. “The word ‘intangible’ is recent, but the concept is old: the idea of nonmaterial culture and traditions,” she said.

The point, she emphasized, is not to “preserve and protect, which is to freeze something, but to safeguard.” Traditions can change as they are passed down, she noted, as a kind of living heritage that is continually recreated and evolving, yet provides a sense of identity. In return for listing them, governments commit to specific actions to promote, support and encourage them, whether it is a matter of altering or creating curriculums or even stopping deforestation.

The traditions on the list are not judged on whether they are especially beautiful, let alone marvelous. Rather, they represent the world’s diversity. Their inclusion implies that they may be in danger from modernization and globalization. “The value,” Ms. Duvelle said, “is for the community, not for the world.”

Inclusion on the list can, however, lead to manipulation. The French gastronomic meal, enshrined in 2010, is one example. It is meant to preserve the lavish family occasion that marks major life events: births, communions, weddings, birthdays, exam results, deaths. It recognizes “that the French community puts a gastronomic meal at the center of its celebration of life,” said Ms. Duvelle, herself French.

Unesco was not pleased that three-star French chefs used the designation to try to promote themselves, culminating in a grotesque celebration at Versailles last April where some 60 celebrity chefs largely prepared meals elsewhere that were trucked in and warmed up on portable workstations for celebrity guests and the news media.

Now there is talk, at least, of taking the recognition away because the state has not done much to safeguard the tradition except to advertise it abroad under the slogan, “So French, So Good!” While the United States has hesitated to sign the Intangible convention, citing concerns about its implications for intellectual property rights, Washington’s ambassador to Unesco, David T. Killion, says that “World Heritage is critically important.”

Countries fight hard “for the cultural branding rights,” he said. He points out that Herbie Hancock, a Unesco goodwill ambassador, would like to see jazz recognized as an Intangible Heritage.

And Paducah, Ky., is pushing for quilting.

You da Man!