They’re at it again. American treasure hunting firm Odyssey Marine Exploration last week announced (belatedly) the discovery in the English Channel of an 18th-century shipwreck, identified as HMS Victory. It’s another spectacular boon for the company, bound to haul in yet more treasure, tie-ins and profit. The company’s boss, Greg Stemm, said “the money is not as important as the cultural and historical significance of the discovery.” Sure. Yet coin collectors are already salivating over the prospect of 4 tons of gold. Oh, and its also a grave site of more than a thousand people. With a compliant British government, Odyssey can expect none of the lawsuits or bad press caused by those pesky Spaniards.
In a PR blitz that secured airplay worldwide, the company stressed how, far from a snatch and sell operation, it was performing a public service (eg comments on Channel 4 News report). Operating in a deep water no-mans-land, the company is a benevolent cultural saviour, a salvager of shipwrecks that would otherwise be destroyed by erosion and fishing nets. The time-tested argument of the good collector. In contrast to the prudish archaeologist, who would wish that the past lay buried, unknown or accessible only to the initiated elite, the good collector not only brings the past to light, but saves the past from destruction. The good collector’s magnanimity knows no bounds.
Well here’s a suggestion. Since Britain’s archaeological resource is officially up for grabs to whoever looks for it (as long as they’re not an archaeologist), perhaps Odyssey should establish an onshore operation. Using its massive budget to invest in cutting edge technology that can detect metal over many acres and far beneath the ploughsoil, it could set to work across the countryside, scanning every inch of the nation, revealing to us the wonders of the past, delighting in the hoards of context-less antiquities, and then selling them to us for a profit.
Tags: HMS Victory, maritime 'archaeology', Odyssey Marine Exploration, underwater looting
February 14, 2009 at 5:15 am
Your argument falls apart, because it’s not that Archaeologists would keep it for some “elite,” but instead that they would not find the HMS Victory in the first place.
If you are against the profit of a company that finds objects, catalogs, documents, and emphasizes public service – I think you would be against any private company finding these objects/sites.
What would be a good solution?
February 15, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Would archaeologists have found this shipwreck in the first place? Perhaps not. Would archaeologists have found the tens of thousands of coins discovered by metal detector users in the UK over the past 30 or so years? Does it matter?
I’ve read the company’s preliminary report on the HMS Victory investigations: ‘Odyssey Papers 2′ at http://www.shipwreck.net/pdf/OMEPapers2-HMS_Victory.pdf
There’s plenty of nice images and description of the canons etc.
I see a couple of unanswered questions about Odyssey’s work:
1. Does the act of investigating/investing in digging up an archaeological site entitle you to claim ownership of finds? If ownership means direct monetary benefits then surely the answer is no. (The problem of ‘intellectual ownership’ is different. And by the way, one that archaeologists should urgently address). So if Odyssey are seeking remuneration, then it should not be in the form of whatever booty they can profitably take from the wreck site. If they do claim material ownership of the wreck then that entails responsibilies. Can they guarantee the level of care (and public access) given to wrecks like the Mary Rose and Vasa?
2. And, why does Odyssey insist on digging for the sake of it? There is an argument that underwater archaeological sites are being damaged by modern shipping, pollution etc. I’m not an expert and don’t know how true this is. It sounds a bit like the frequently cited argument by metal detector users that fertilizer is causing artefacts to corrode in the ploughsoil, an argument that Paul Barford reckons is a bit dodgy. But if it is true that underwater sites are being destroyed then there should be provisions introduced for the shipwreck to be documented, preserved and, as a last resort, excavated. Thus, with the technology that Odyssey has at its disposal, it is perfectly possible to have in situ protection and conduct a non-destructive investigation without hauling everything to the surface, thereby complying with UNESCO guidelines and Britain’s Protection of Wrecks Act (though i suppose this only applies to that territory’s waters). Somehow, though, I don’t think the company would think much of this idea…