[CW] Titanic salvage: recovering the ship's radio could signal a disaster for underwater cultural heritage

[D.J.J. Ring, Jr.]

https://theconversation.com/titanic-salvage-recovering-the-ships-radio-could-signal-a-disaster-for-underwater-cultural-heritage-139795

The RMS Titanic’s Marconi radio was last used to make distress calls from
the north Atlantic after the ship struck an iceberg on April 14 1912. Now
the radio could become the target of a salvage operation after a private
company was granted permission
<https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/19/us/titanic-radio-court-ruling/index.html>
to
recover the artefact from the wreck’s interior.

This recovery for profit is directly at odds with the ethics of modern
archaeological practice. It also raises questions about legal protection
for shipwrecks such as the Titanic and how we choose to value our shared
cultural heritage.

A federal judge for the Virginia Eastern district in the US has ruled that
RMS Titanic Inc., which owns salvage rights to the shipwreck, can retrieve
the radio. This is despite the fact the operation may involve damage to the
hull, much of which remains intact 12,500 feet (3,800 metres) underwater.
This case reverses a previous ruling
<https://archive.archaeology.org/0101/etc/titanic2.html> from 28 July 2000
that prevents damage to the ship in line with existing agreements.

This won’t be the first time items are salvaged from the shipwreck. Since
the Titanic was located in 1985, there has been a battle to safeguard it.
Even with international recognition of its historical and cultural
importance, including through legislation
<https://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_titanic-act.html>, by 1987 over a thousand
artefacts had been salvaged.

After multiple court cases, a ruling allowed artefacts to be publicly
exhibited
<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/titanic-show-goes-on-despite-grave-robbing-row-maritime-museum-says-it-is-satisfied-none-of-the-1430981.html>.
The court refused a subsequent request
<https://global.oup.com/academic/product/international-cultural-heritage-law-9780198723516?cc=gb&lang=en&>
to
sell the artefacts in 2001 and further planned auctions were subsequently
postponed.

But the recent ruling, allowing invasive salvage of the radio, differs from
previous ones in that it is now more than 100 years
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00908320.2013.750978> since
the ship sank. As of April 15 2012, the RMS Titanic falls under the 2001
UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage
<http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/2001-convention/>
.

This provides some protection to the Titanic by forbidding the commercial
exploitation of heritage. The US and UK are not signatories to the
convention but broadly honour its principles via legislation


The  US 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act
<https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/244/text> specifically
forbids “any research, exploration, salvage, or other activity that would
physically alter or disturb the wreck or wreck site of the RMS Titanic
unless authorized”.

The act adds that any such work should be in line with the Multilateral
Agreement Concerning RMS Titanic
<https://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_titanic-intl.html>. This agreement (which
came into force in November 2019) between the US, UK, Canada and France
recognises the wreck for its international significance and as a memorial
to the 1,514 people who lost their lives.

The agreement explicitly states that any recovered materials should be kept
together as a collection to enable study. Materials should be left on the
seabed unless there are compelling educational, scientific or cultural
interests that require an intervention.
Public interest?

In the recent court hearing
<https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.115575/gov.uscourts.vaed.115575.612.0.pdf>,
the US government agency the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA, advised that the proposed salvage of the radio did
not clearly meet these criteria.

The justification for the removal of the radio was made on the basis of its
unique status, interest to the public and the threat that it will be lost
to degradation in coming years. Each of these are valid points. The radio
has a unique story, is highly evocative and will (like the majority of
materials) eventually degrade.

But the estimated rate of this degradation is controversial
<https://archive.archaeology.org/0101/etc/titanic1.html>. The ship lies at
such depth that conditions are fairly stable, and it seems that much of the
damage to the ship since its discovery is due to salvage activity.

The RMS Titanic may not be the oldest shipwreck in the world, but it is
arguably one of the most famous. The site is internationally recognised as
a memorial to those who lost their lives.

>From an archaeological perspective, recovering the radio will involve
further damage to the memorial site for very limited gain with regard to
scientific and cultural knowledge. We already know the make, model and
history of this radio. So motivation for the salvage appears to lie in the
radio’s economic potential as a tourist attraction and through a possible
future sale.

As archaeologists we understand there are times when intrusive and
destructive interventions are required. But such acts need to be carefully
considered in light of their impact on our shared global heritage. Once
such actions take place they cannot be undone.

A court ruling for such a culturally significant site that goes against advice
from NOAA <https://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_titanic.html> and counter to the
principles of UNESCO, risks suggesting that the principles of shared
heritage and selective intervention can be easily negated through
simplistic arguments of degradation and profit.

Once artefacts are removed from shipwrecks, they lose their context and
potentially their wider scientific and cultural value. Commercial
exploitation gives them a different, financial value that could encourage
looting and site destruction. If it is acceptable to salvage material from
what is arguably the wold’s most famous shipwreck, how can we protect
lesser known sites that are even more scientifically or culturally
important?

As maritime archaeologists, we strive to protect underwater cultural
heritage in the face of ongoing destruction
<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/apr/18/mediterranean-shipwrecks-reveal-birth-of-globalisation-in-trade>
of
underwater sites that would not be tolerated on dry land, where cultural
heritage is more visible to the authorities and public. So, while this
salvage operation may be legal, we strongly query whether it is ethical.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/attachments/20200611/d4759b29/attachment.html>