• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
The 2001 UNESCO-Convention on the Protectionof the Underwater Cultural Heritage:Origin and Consequences
Thijs J. Maarleveld
Maritime Archaeology Program, University of Southern Denmark 
 Dette bidrag perspektiverer UNESCO’s 2001 konvention og ser på,hvordan den passer sammen med nationale og international beskyttel- sesinitiativer vedrørende kulturarven. I artiklen belyses konventionenstilblivelse og baggrund, og der ses på såvel dens kortsigtede som lang- sigtede konsekvenser. I anledning af ”De nordiske maritime museersarbejdsmøde” på Færøerne lægges der i artiklen særlig vægt på situa-tionen i den nordatlantiske region og konventionens konsekvenser for maritime museer.
Introduction
On November 2
nd
2001 the UNESCO-Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage was adopted by UNESCO’s General
Assembly. The notions that are formalized in this document reect adiscussion on the signicance of heritage -and specically maritime her 
-itage- that has spanned the second half of the twentieth century. Dis-cussions are ongoing now that cautiously and one by one states decideto ratify the Convention. Parts of that discussion seem to be nonsensi-cal or futile from an archaeologist’s point of view. This may especiallyseem to be true in the North, where a solid tradition of appreciation and
 protection has qualied developments and has solidly dened roles of 
museums and archaeologists alike. Discussions on treasure-hunting andexclusive salvage rights that are sold to salvors or historically informedentrepreneurs are easily dismissed as irrelevant. Hadn’t we long agoagreed to do things differently? That may be so, but it actually makesthese discussions even the more relevant as they touch upon the essenceof what heritage management is about.In many ways, the maritime arena is the zone where the mean-ing of heritage for present-day society is most splendidly at stake. Thatapplies to the North-Atlantic as much as to any other region of the world.After all, the regimes for archaeology, for museums and for the treatment
 
10of heritage material are local or national regimes. They do not indisput-ably apply when they are not backed up by regulations and jurisdiction.This circumstance affects the way these regimes are or can be applied tomaritime heritage. Other regimes are all too easily put in their stead. Theways in which this happens, conform to simply predictable templates.Also, such mechanisms operate in the third world and in the North At-lantic alike. The host of the present ‘arbejdsmøde’, the Faroe Islands National Museum itself has recently been contacted by a company dis-
guised as a scientically oriented foundation in order to boost their mu
-seum resources
1
. ‘Give us the exclusive right to look for and dispose of a
specic or any historic wreck in your waters and we will give you won
-derful things’ (keeping or selling the rest, of course). It is such a recog-nizable approach, all around the world. The Faroese government was notas naïve as to be convinced, but unfortunately many others easily are.
 After the discovery of these objects, the Faroese government was contacted by a French
 rm seeking a contract for the recovery of historic wreck-material. They assume that 
the material issues from the Dutch East Indiaman Walcheren that disappeared in the
 North Atlantic in 1667. The identication is highly questionable, but is in conformitywith treasure-hunting lore. Other rms have been looking for the Walcheren along the
 Icelandic and Norwegian coasts. Photo: Føroya Fornminnisavn.
 
11
Today’s middlemen for the antiquities market are as charming and knowl-edgeable as Belzoni or Lord Elgin’s middlemen were in the 18
th
and 1
th
 centuries
2
and politicians do not necessarily see the long-term implica-tions of what is presented as an exciting cultural adventure. Taking a shortterm perspective and inspired by the economy of the day, they easily for-get that it is both economically and culturally stupid to sell off your herit-age when you can have it all.
3
To cite the example of Lord Elgin again:they take the disinterested standpoint of the 17 governor of Athens, theVoivode, regarding the integrity of the Parthenon, rather than the positionthat Melina Mercouri so fervently took and defended 180 years later.
4
 
Disinterest all too often leads to denial of the issues, to denial
of harm and loss as compared to the supposed (nancial) gain. Should
we bother at all? It is evident that not every shipwreck-site is as iconicas Athens’ Parthenon and its marbles. Nevertheless, I am convinced weshould be concerned, and the more so because of disinterest and denial.After all, the reversed argument is just as powerful: isn’t the invisibleand vulnerable, but potentially valuable at least as worthy of our concernas the very obvious?
In fact, there are more reasons why I am glad to present this paper to a Nordic maritime museum audience. Nordic operators citingmuseum interests are active all over the world, notably in Asia. Are theythe ambassadors of the way in which Nordic maritime museums wantto operate? They convince economically more strained and more naïvegovernments than that of the Faroe Islands that with exclusive rights theywill produce wonderful things….. for the world antiquities market, pro-
ducing nice presents for museums (or ofcials) on the way. They cite mu
-
seum curators who are specialized in (oriental) ceramics as their scientic
 backing and forget to mention that this specialization is not necessarily
the same as a specialization in archaeological eld research.
5
The naivetyand vanity with which such specialists get involved beyond their com- petences eclipses the naivety and vanity of the implicated politicians.
6
Alast reason why it is useful to summarize and contextualize developmentshere is that Norway took a very special and exceptional position in thenegotiations on the Convention as well as in the subsequent vote.
7
In this presentation, the Convention and the way it cameabout will be put in the perspective of other instruments developed byUNESCO, as well as by the Council of Europe. Their activities are evi-
dently informed by afliate NGO’s, such as ICOM and ICOMOS, whose
role will also be dealt with.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...