The latest post by the University of West Florida’s underwater archaeology students helps answer that question. Get a recap of last week’s events and take a closer look at some of the artifacts discovered on the Emanuel Point II wreck.
You can view the post by clicking here:
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/project_journals/wf09/wf09_week4.shtml
Our friends at LAMP down in St. Augustine have posted a great blog on their current field school. You can view it here:
http://www.staugustinelighthouse.com/blog/lamposts/field_school_students_take_the.php
There is nothing like a recession to get everyone thinking about value– what people value in terms of personal as well as professional ethics, and more cynically about how they themselves are valued, how much their jobs are ‘worth’ both socially and economically. Issues like this are especially important to archaeologists– or at least they should be if we are to genuinely lay claim to Mortimer Wheeler’s maxim that ‘archaeologists are digging up, not things, but people’. Identifying the tangible benefits to society of archaeology is difficult at the best of times but especially so when finances are pinched; to paraphrase from the macroeconomic term, we do not produce either guns or butter, so what is the value of our contribution? How does archaeology ‘work’ in the ‘real world’ of profit and loss?
Two recent publications in particular have got me thinking about this issue. Both question the types of archaeology that many others and I practice. On the one hand, the magazine British Archaeology has debated the practice of ‘for profit’ shipwreck recovery in its two most recent issues (No’s 105 and 106, March-April and May-June 2009); on the other hand, a host of contributors have debated the whole structure of modern archaeology in the recently edited book Archaeology and Capitalism (Left Coast Press, 2008). The debates in these two publications come literally from opposite ends of the spectrum– the former essentially arguing that submerged cultural heritage is a free-market resource to be bought and sold just like any other commodity, the latter effectively the opposite, that the archaeological community would be best to disentangle itself from established social, political and thus economic power structures and adopt an entirely new political ‘ethic’ for the discipline.
I disagree with both of these perspectives. Somewhere between the two poles outlined above lie most of the archaeologists I know and most of the work that we do. I am employed within a profession regulated both formally and informally by the state, funded by public as well as private finance– a regulated free-market. I fiscally as well as morally support this system, and am in return supported by it, individually via my work and corporately via the excellent social welfare system of Britain. I am also both a supporter and beneficiary of private enterprise, again professionally as well as personally: although employed jointly by a university and local government, the greater proportion of the income streams that are used to pay my salary are ultimately derived on the one hand from taxes and on the other hand from capital-driven innovation and investment by these organizations. The situation in international waters, and even in hotly disputed exclusive economic and contiguous zones may be rather different, but within the territorial boundaries of my nation state (and with comparable models at work within the boundaries of many other nations) the ‘polluter pays’ principle that funds the majority of archaeological activity – including the majority of my own work – is a well-established system that works, if not perfectly, then of a fashion, which has at heart a positive objective if not necessarily a positive outcome, and which is accepted both as an economic imperative as well as a social necessity.
If archaeologists do not ‘make’ things, we do still ‘produce’, and by any standards, archaeology contributes to society more than it costs, even in terms of pure financial profit/loss. Some of these products are tangible: publications and reports, websites, TV and radio media that people use and even pay for; lectures, seminars and presentations given to public and private audiences alike, usually in return for a fee of one sort or another; excavated materials that end up on display in or storage at museums and archives that people choose to visit, and even whole historic sites that are open to the public, as well as the archaeological projects that people volunteer, some even pay, to go on in order to become formally involved in archaeology. Other products are intangible: the benefits to society of an enhanced understanding of our common past; the transferable skills that students gain from their studies; and the pure economics of the ‘polluter pays’ system where legislation requires industries to pay for work on sites in advance of development. Altogether, such forms of ‘regulated’ capitalism pay an estimated 90 per cent of all archaeology: only some 10 per cent of money spent comes from the public purse or private philanthropy. And that 90 per cent of industrial funding represents at most a very few per cent of the total costs, let alone the end profits, of any development, so such environmental regulations are not the burden to or ‘block’ on development that might be supposed. The broader intangible and purely economic benefits of archaeology and more broadly ‘heritage’ to society are then incalculable– the money made through public interest in/participatory payment when visiting historic sites, of people choosing to pay a premium to live in old houses or historic districts, of people buying themed books, toys and computer games and watching related TV shows. And yet for all this good, people from both ends of the political spectrum clearly remain dissatisfied with the heritage community in general and with professional archaeology in particular.
Where, then, does this leave maritime archaeology in 2009? We have a global recession well underway, with no signs of abatement any time soon; a future that is looking increasingly towards the oceans for space, energy and resources; a risk of climate-change induced coastal change; and ongoing marine cultural resource management issues, merely one of which is the debate about the rights and wrongs of ‘for profit’ shipwreck recovery noted above. This is an issue brought to the fore of late through the ratification by more than twenty nations of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. But looking beyond such things as the Convention, what of other options? Many nations are unlikely to every ratify the Convention– informal disinterest on the one hand and formal lobbying by those opposed to it on the other will see to that. But the Convention was never meant to be a catchall solution to every problem.
From my own experiences in Britain at least, I look to the excellent relationship that has grown up in the last decade between the marine aggregates industry and archaeology, and wonder if a similar model cannot be followed for other industries, in other environments (both marine and terrestrial), and even between nations in international waters. The origins of this relationship lie in ‘big government’ – specifically, the ‘Aggregates Levy’ and its associated ‘Sustainability Fund’ (the ALSF) that began in the financial year 2002 and which is scheduled to remain in place until at least 2011. The Levy is, pure and simple, a preemptive environmental tax on the commercial exploitation of aggregates. A percentage of that tax has since its inception been redistributed via the government department DEFRA (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) to address the overarching environmental impacts associated with aggregate extraction, and a small proportion of that percentage of the Levy has been directed specifically towards the historic environment. Over the years the ALSF has funded over 250 projects involving the historic environment to a total value of over UK£23.1m. But the key thing is that although initially forced together, both industry and archaeology have come to appreciate the mutual benefit of this relationship. The aggregates industry may not like paying such a tax, but they like even less paying a tax for which they see no obvious benefit. But the involvement of archaeologists has shown this benefit: a reactive tax regime has evolved into a proactive and extremely cost-effective form of strategic resource management of both aggregate and heritage resources. Industry and the planning sector benefit from the acquisition of new datasets (allowing for better pre-planning and risk-avoidance); archaeology benefits from new investment (supporting management-based research into archaeological sites as well as the development of analytical techniques); all sectors benefit from collaborative data acquisition, analysis and management, together with the additional public relations benefit through media friendly enterprises, data-sharing and sponsorship.
As a direct model for the management of global marine cultural heritage, the Levy and the ALSF are not applicable: they were designed for the particular circumstances of the British territorial sea zone and this particular industry. But the basic principles that evolved here in the relationship between one industry and archaeology are workable for other industries, in other environments, and in collaboration with other nations:
o Be strategic, timely and well-managed, responding to currently pressing needs to identify, and help mitigate, shared risks;
o Show immediate functionality of use to all partners, such as modeling the locations of sites or seabed/water column dynamics around particular locations;
o Undertake from the outset partnership, with all partners being included in project development and design, data sharing and collection, and/or processing;
o Show efficiency, through the use of legacy data or industry platforms, or the industry provision of in-kind support via the loan of equipment;
o Undertake outreach, including significant PR potential for all partners, and the provision of accessible, user-friendly resources.
This is ‘for profit’ archaeology in the ‘real world’ that really works.
________________________________
Dr. Joe Flatman is the County (administratively comparable to a US State) Archaeologist of Surrey in Southeast England, and a lecturer in archaeology at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. A Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, he was formerly a lecturer in archaeology at Flinders University in Australia, and before that at Cardiff University in Wales. Since 2000 he has served on the Executive Committee of the UK-based marine archaeological charity the Nautical Archaeology Society. His most recent publication is Ships and Shipping in Medieval Manuscripts (London and Chicago: British Library Press and the University of Chicago Press, 2009). He has a BA Archaeology and History, an MA Maritime Archaeology, a PhD Archaeology, all from the University of Southampton, England, and is a Member of the Institute for Archaeologists (MIfA).
KudoSurf Me!
Dave Howe of IMH provided us with a link to an interesting article on plans for a survey of what may be HMS Wolfe.
From The Province:
“A team of divers is set to plunge into Lake Ontario near Kingston, Ont., next week in a bid to confirm the discovery of a legendary Canadian-built ship from the War of 1812, the HMS Wolfe.”
You can view the full article here:
http://www.theprovince.com/Life/Divers+hope+identify+1812+warship+Lake+Ontario/1683034/story.html
University of West Florida students return to EP II 16th century shipwreck site.
The University of West Florida has begun its online project journal for summer 2009.
Co-Principal Investigator Greg Cook leads off with an entry on what students will be learning. From remote sensing to excavating a sixteenth-century shipwreck site it promises to be an exciting season.
You can view Greg’s post as well as the first student entry here:
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/project_journals/wf09/wf09_intro.shtml
Check back later this week for entry number three.
This is a little off topic but very cool.
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=214169335485&h=a-akt&u=nuMcG&ref=mf
This just in from the AP. Thanks to Dave Howe and Stephanie Meredith for passing this on to us.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/ap_on_re_us/us_shipwreck_treasure
Back in the 1970s, when I first became interested in protecting shipwrecks, the picture was pretty bleak. In the United States, there was no national legislation to protect shipwrecks or other submerged archaeological sites. Among the very few states with protective legislation, most imposed few—if any—archaeological requirements, and the bulk of the recovered cultural material was given to the salvors. Frequently, salvors turned to the Admiralty courts where they were usually designated “salvor in possession,” often being given complete control of the site and its contents.
Back in the day, few people were even aware of “underwater archaeology,” but almost everyone knew about treasure hunting. The term conjured up images of Spanish gold and silver spilling out of rotting hulks on the seabed, being “rescued” from the perils of the sea by brave, adventurous explorers who risked their lives in hopes of “finding the mother lode.” Even when legitimate underwater archaeology projects came to the public’s attention, most people assumed that archaeology and treasure hunting was the same thing. Other factors, too, were destroying important sites, including souvenir collecting, dredging, construction projects, and erosion.
Now, more than 30 years later, do you think the situation has improved? Recently I clicked to the Discovery Channel, hoping for a program on underwater archaeology, but instead found “Treasure Quest,” an entire series of new programs about brave, adventurous explorers seeking their fortune among the deepwater shipwrecks that had been, until very recently, protected by their inaccessibility from discovery and exploitation.
So… who really cares about underwater cultural heritage, and what are they doing to protect these unique resources for future generations?
Well, from my point of view: (a) quite a few people care, and (b) quite a lot has been done to protect and preserve our collective maritime heritage and to disseminate information about that heritage to a global audience. Here are several examples that give me encouragement for the future:
First of all, national and regional protective legislation is now more prevalent and more restrictive. Many of these laws apply to large dredging and construction projects as well as to salvage. Recent improvements in protective legislation involve more than just words. More frequently than before, these laws are being enforced and salvors are being required to meet archaeological standards. Also, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage entered into force in 2009, providing a global structure and best-practices guidelines. Even though relatively few countries have ratified the Convention so far, many others have indicated that they will adhere to the Convention’s Annex Rules to the fullest extent practicable.
We still have a long way to go, legislation-wise, but we’re far better off than before. In fact, commercial salvors are beginning to accept these new restrictions and, ironically, many have found that their artifacts sell at higher prices when they are accompanied by a detailed provenance and site history. Odyssey Marine Enterprises, featured on the “Treasure Quest” series, invested millions of dollars in state-of-the-art robotics and electronics so they could document and excavate deepwater shipwrecks to very high standards. Other salvors, too, seem to be moving in that direction. (All expect to retain the right to sell the recovered material, however, which is a direct violation of the UNESCO Convention’s Annex Rules. Oh well, at least more of the site information is being recorded and, in a very few cases, published.)
A final topic I’m very excited about is outreach. In the past, archaeologists were often too busy digging and publishing in scholarly journals to reach out to the wider public. Fortunately, that’s no longer the case. Most archaeologists now consider public education and outreach to be part of their jobs, and recent technological advances have made it much easier for them to share their findings.
For instance, if you’re reading this blog, you’re experiencing one of the most incredible means of information exchange the world has ever seen: the Internet. Through the World Wide Web, archaeologists are explaining why they do what they do and why it is important: the need to excavate archaeological sites in a systematic, scientific manner in order to extract valid information, and the public benefits to be reaped when this information—along with the physical objects recovered—remain in the public domain, accessible to everyone. They are sharing their research, too.
The Museum of Underwater Archaeology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Maritime Heritage Program, and many others are facilitating the process of sharing our maritime past with the world through a variety of media and techniques. We can read about what others are doing, see images of their excavations and artifacts, even watch videos of the work in progress; we can take school children on virtual tours of those sites, where they can speak directly to the archaeologists and ask questions. To me this is the perfect way to share our passion for history and archaeology. After all, what archaeologist doesn’t love to spin a good yarn!
__________________________
Dr. John D. Broadwater is the Chief Archaeologist at the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). During his career he headed the development of NOAA’s Maritime Heritage Program and served as Sanctuary Manager of the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary. He was also Virginia’s first State Underwater Archaeologist. He was a member of the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology and other advisory boards and is a Fellow of The Explorers Club. He has published a variety of technical and popular articles and contributed to several archaeological books and encyclopedias. He has a master’s degree in American Studies from the College of William and Mary, and a Ph.D. in Maritime Studies from the University of St. Andrews, Scotland.
Today we present the third part of Sarah Holland’s study on how the dynamic nature of the natural environment found at the warship Hazardous shipwreck site may have moved artifacts across the seabed during a single season. You can read Sarah’s post by clicking on the link on our main page here: http://www.themua.org
The MUA has always sought contributors from all parts of the globe. Today we present our first post from Sorna Khakzad from Belgium who provides us with a brief summary of some of the work that has taken place in Europe. In future posts we hope to broaden our coverage of European projects both large and small.
You can view her post by clicking on the “Maritime Archaeology in Europe” link on our main page here: http://www.uri.edu/mua
