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

Fri Jun 12 00:03:06 EDT 2020

    David, thank you so much for copying this to the list. I hope 
that greed does not win here.

On 6/11/2020 8:45 PM, D.J.J. Ring, Jr. wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:CW at mailman.qth.net
> CW List ARCHIVES: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/
> Unsubcribe send email to
> cw-unsubscribe at mailman.qth.net
> Subscribe send email to cw-subscribe at mailman.qth.net
> Support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> =30=

-- 
Richard Knoppow
1oldlens1 at ix.netcom.com
WB6KBL