In the August 2010 issue of Naval History, maritime archaeologist James P. Delgado offers his comments on the ongoing saga of Odyssey Marine Exploration’s excavation of the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes. Delgado’s insights are particularly valuable due to the fact that he was among the team of researchers who identified the wreck site, code named “Black Swan” and cloaked in secrecy by Odyssey Marine, as the Mercedes. The Mercedes, a warship of Spain, is protected under the rules of sovereign immunity, but was nonetheless excavated by Odyssey. This in itself is slightly unusual, since Odyssey’s website declares that the company principally targets ships that will not be protected by sovereign immunity and it is in their best interest to avoid ships owned by sovereign governments at the time of their sinking. In the court case brought against Spain, Odyssey argued that the Mercedes, despite being a Spanish warship, was conducting non-governmental operations and should thus not be immune to salvage. Delgado corroborates the fact that the Mercedes was carrying goods owned by Spanish civilians, but argues that this does not undermine the ship’s military status. It seems that in pursuing the Mercedes, which Odyssey appears to have done, Odyssey either believed its argument that the ship would not be immune or believed they could more effectively defend this point in court.
Delgado goes on to discuss the sale of artifacts, especially coins, by commercial salvage companies like Odyssey, who argue that recovered coins are mass-produced and thus not likely to yield significant scientific information. Delgado describes DNA testing done on amphorae recovered from underwater sites that have revealed fascinating details about the vessels’ former contents.
I both agree and disagree with Delgado’s assertions here. Coins made before the industrial period may, as Delgado writes, reveal important information under analysis and the sale of these coins damages the archaeological and historical record. However, when dealing with coins minted after the advent of industrialization, the issue becomes more complicated. George Bass, founder of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology, has written, “Society must decide if it is worth the cost of curating thousands upon thousands of lead bullets or glass bottles made in the same molds. Should we keep every plastic ashtray manufactured today since each will in time be an antique?” When exhibits created by Odyssey Marine are hosted by museums, coins from the SS Republic, a Civil War-era steamship, are sold in museum gift shops. Thus, the museums that have hosted these exhibits have found no insurmountable ethical issue with selling post-industrial coins. It would be interesting to investigate, however, museums’ positions if they were to be charged with selling pre-industrial coins like those recovered from the Mercedes on Odyssey’s behalf.
A final interesting point made by Delgado is his remark on the fact that Odyssey advertises itself as a salvage company with an unusual and commendable interest in performing archaeology. He writes,
Odyssey Marine…maintains that it works with qualified archaeologists and employs high-tech equipment and a careful approach to its undersea efforts. However, the objection that I and my colleagues have is akin to a debate in medical circles: Does the competence of a surgeon, even a brilliant, ground-breaking one, justify harvesting organs from living patients to be sold to the highest bidder?
In other words, the quality of Odyssey’s work does not justify its commercial interests. American and international museums interested in working with Odyssey on the creation of exhibits would do well to keep these arguments in mind.
Bass, George. “The Ethics of Shipwreck Archaeology.” In Ethical Issues in Archaeology. Eds. Larry J. Zimmerman, Karen D. Vitelli, Julia J. Hollowell Zimmer. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira, 2003, 58-59.
Delgado, James P. “The Trouble with Treasure.” Naval History 24, No. 4 (August 2010): 18-25.
No comments:
Post a Comment