Textbook Competing Values in Archaeological Heritage Stuart Campbell Ebook All Chapter PDF

Competing Values in Archaeological
Heritage Stuart Campbell

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/competing-values-in-archaeological-heritage-stuart-c
ampbell/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Finding Solutions for Protecting and Sharing

Archaeological Heritage Resources 1st Edition Anne P.
Underhill
https://textbookfull.com/product/finding-solutions-for-
protecting-and-sharing-archaeological-heritage-resources-1st-
edition-anne-p-underhill/
Digging into Software Knowledge Generation in Cultural

Heritage: Modeling Assistance Strategies for Large
Archaeological Data Sets 1st Edition Patricia Martin-
Rodilla (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/digging-into-software-knowledge-
generation-in-cultural-heritage-modeling-assistance-strategies-
for-large-archaeological-data-sets-1st-edition-patricia-martin-
rodilla-auth/
Good Practice in Archaeological Diagnostics Non

invasive Survey of Complex Archaeological Sites 1st
Edition Cristina Corsi (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/good-practice-in-archaeological-
diagnostics-non-invasive-survey-of-complex-archaeological-
sites-1st-edition-cristina-corsi-auth/
Competing Arctic Futures Nina Wormbs
https://textbookfull.com/product/competing-arctic-futures-nina-
wormbs/
A tapestry of values: an introduction to values in
science 1st Edition Elliott
https://textbookfull.com/product/a-tapestry-of-values-an-
introduction-to-values-in-science-1st-edition-elliott/
Archaeological chemistry VIII 1st Edition Armitage
https://textbookfull.com/product/archaeological-chemistry-
viii-1st-edition-armitage/
Famine in Somalia: Competing Imperatives, Collective

Failures, 2011-12 1st Edition Daniel Maxwell
https://textbookfull.com/product/famine-in-somalia-competing-
imperatives-collective-failures-2011-12-1st-edition-daniel-
maxwell/
Idle Hands 7 Deadly Sins 1st Edition Barbra Campbell

Campbell Barbra
https://textbookfull.com/product/idle-hands-7-deadly-sins-1st-
edition-barbra-campbell-campbell-barbra/
Competing Imperialisms in Northeast Asia : New

Perspectives, 1894-1953 1st Edition Aglaia De Angeli
https://textbookfull.com/product/competing-imperialisms-in-
northeast-asia-new-perspectives-1894-1953-1st-edition-aglaia-de-
angeli/
Stuart Campbell · Liz White
Suzie Thomas Editors
Competing
Values in
Archaeological
Heritage
Competing Values in Archaeological Heritage
Stuart Campbell • Liz White • Suzie Thomas
Editors
Competing Values in
Archaeological Heritage
Editors
Stuart Campbell Liz White
Treasure Trove Unit Institute of Petrochemical Technology
National Museum Scotland Beijing, China
Edinburgh, UK
Suzie Thomas
Department of Philosophy, History,
Culture and Art Studies
University of Helsinki
Helsinki, Finland
ISBN 978-3-319-94101-1 ISBN 978-3-319-94102-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94102-8
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018951784
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword
Throughout the world, cultural heritage resources are under threat from the impact
of accelerated development, environmental forces, climate change, social and
political changes, and collection practices that are not regulated effectively. Many
of these issues came to my attention during my tenure as President of the World
Archaeological Congress from 2003 to 2014. As this book demonstrates, all coun-
tries have unique cultural heritage and unique challenges to the management of
their heritage resources. Each country has to determine its own specific mix of
strategies for managing this heritage.
This book provides a wonderful new resource for archaeologists and cultural
heritage practitioners around the world. While other publications have considered
this topic from an archaeological and legislative basis, this volume provides a wide
variety of views with an emphasis in addressing ‘real-world’ or practical issues
rather than a simple consideration of legislation. It draws together a range of valu-
able new material relating to cultural heritage management practices that span
eastern, western, northern and southern Europe as well as Britain. A series of
chapters review and critically evaluate and compare facets of national legislation,
policy and practice, accompanied by recommendations for improved outcomes.
The materials analysed range from coins and shipwrecks to plough furrows and
human remains. I was particularly interested in new insights on the changes and
challenges of cultural heritage management in the former Eastern bloc countries of
Slovakia, Romania and the Republic of Moldova.
For the first time, there is broad and nuanced consideration of the value that
people who pursue metal detecting can bring to archaeological understandings of
the past. Taken together, the chapters in this book call for greater cooperation
between archaeologists and non-professional groups, including the metal detecto-
rists that have routinely been demonised by archaeologists. Even as an advocate
for a democratisation of cultural heritage management, I must admit I was a little
shocked, initially at least, by the views of one group of authors who ‘hope to see
professional archaeologists and metal detectorists working side by side on research
projects’. (I will leave you to identify the chapter yourself.) However, a persistent
theme that runs through many of these chapters is that greater cooperation with
v
vi Foreword
n on-professional groups can produce socially nuanced and effective management

of cultural heritage resources. The benefits range from the identification of finds
and recording of site locales to richer understandings of the social relevance of the
past and enhanced site protection. Despite difficulties and historical differences,
the approach is optimistic.
In addressing the complexities of everyday cultural heritage management in an
ever-changing and diverse world, the authors in this book uniformly offer practi-
cal suggestions likely to engender better legislation, policy and practice. Whenever
challenges are identified, solutions are suggested, either in the form of new mod-
els or through reference to successful practices elsewhere. The results can be star-
tling. Something as ‘simple’ as the outreach programme run as part of the Treasure
Trove programme in Scotland can engender a threefold increase in the reporting
of finds by metal detectors. This success seems to rely on the mutual regard and
respect that is generated by direct personal contact between metal detector users
and archaeological professionals, such as regional heritage managers and museum
officers. Other chapters identify commonalities and differences in legislation,
archaeological practice and social attitudes, even in adjacent countries. They high-
light how some countries are learning from each other, as in the case of Romania
and the Republic of Moldova, and how other countries should be learning from
each other, as in the case of England and Scotland.
My hope is that this book will be read not only by archaeologists, cultural heri-
tage managers and those who develop heritage legislation but also by members of
local historical societies and those who are engaged in collecting or metal detect-
ing. This is a book for all who are interested in our rich pasts, whether they be
professional archaeologists or lay people. As several authors in this book observe,
our shared future depends on working together to identify and preserve the cul-
tural heritage that we wish to pass on to future generations.
Professor Claire Smith

College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences
Flinders University
Adelaide, SA, Australia
Barunga, NT, Australia
Contents
1 Introduction�� 1
Liz White, Stuart Campbell, and Suzie Thomas
2 Wreck of the Dutch Merchant Ship Vrouw Maria: Example
of Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural
Heritage in Baltic Waters�� 7
Riikka Alvik
3 Norwegian Archaeological Heritage: Legislation Vs. Reality�� 25
Ghattas Jeries Sayej
4 Archaeological Heritage Resource Management in Romania
and the Republic of Moldova: A Comparative View�� 45
Sergiu Musteață
5 Archaeological Heritage, Treasure Hunters, Metal Detectors
and Forgeries in the Centre of Europe (Archaeology
and Law in Slovakia) �� 63
Tomáš Michalík
6 Legislation and Persuasion; Portable Antiquities and the Limits
of the Law: Some Scottish and British Perspectives�� 77
Stuart Campbell
7 Conflicts Over the Excavation, Retention and Display of Human
Remains: An Issue Resolved? �� 91
Liz White
8 Archaeological Metal Detecting by Amateurs in Flanders:
Legislation, Policy and Practice of a Hobby�� 103
Pieterjan Deckers
9 No Room for Good Intentions? Private Metal Detecting
and Archaeological Sites in the Plow Layer in Norway �� 125
Jostein Gundersen
vii
viii Contents
10 Archaeological Heritage and Metal Detectors:

Should We Be Managing Supply or Demand?�� 139
Ignacio Rodríguez Temiño, Ana Yáñez, and Mónica Ortiz Sánchez
11 Conflicting Values or Common Ground? Some
Concluding Thoughts�� 155
Suzie Thomas
Index�� 165
Contributors
Riikka Alvik The Finnish Heritage Agency, Cultural Environment Services,

Helsinki, Finland
Stuart Campbell Treasure Trove Unit, National Museums Scotland,
Edinburgh, UK
Pieterjan Deckers Department of History, Archaeology, Art, Philosophy & Ethics
(HARP), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
Jostein Gundersen Directorate for Cultural Heritage (Riksantikvaren), Oslo,
Norway
Tomáš Michalík Cultural Heritage Consulting Ltd., Trenčín, Slovakia
Trenčín Museum, Trenčín, Slovakia
Sergiu Musteață History and Geography Faculty, “Ion Creanga” Pedagogical
State University, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova
Mónica Ortiz Sánchez Legal Office of the Department of the Presidency,
Regional Government of Andalusia, Seville, Spain
Ignacio Rodríguez Temiño Carmona Archaeological Ensemble, Regional
Government of Andalusia, Seville, Spain
Ghattas Jeries Sayej Vest-Agder County Council, Department of Regional
Development, Kristiansand, Norway
Suzie Thomas University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Ana Yáñez Department of Administrative Law, Complutense University
of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Liz White CIE Education Group (China and UK), Yantai, China
ix
About the Editors
Stuart Campbell is Head of Treasure Trove, managing the Treasure Trove Unit
based at the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh.
Liz White was awarded a PhD based on her investigation of the impact and
effectiveness of human remains – related legislation and guidance in England and
is currently working as an English expert in Yantai, China.
Suzie Thomas is Professor of Cultural Heritage Studies at the University of

Helsinki, Finland.
xi
Chapter 1
Introduction
Liz White, Stuart Campbell, and Suzie Thomas
Research, practice and even leisure interests in archaeological heritage point to the
fact that there are many different values at play. These conflicts of interest might be
as recognisable as a developer’s wish to exploit a site, thwarted by heritage legisla-
tion protecting that particular category, through to the often complex ranges of dif-
ferent meanings that local communities and individuals may associate with a place,
which may have little or no resemblance to the ‘expert’ opinion (see, e.g. Laurajane
Smith’s premise of the Authorised Heritage Discourse – Smith 2006). Even efforts
to make archaeological knowledge more open and accessible to the public can be
strictly underpinned by the ideology of the national policy behind it (e.g. Börjesson,
Petersson and Huvila 2015). The difficult issue of heritage protection is also com-
plex – with options of preserving in situ, reusing, conserving and a whole range of
preventative or restorative measures affecting what ‘protection’ might actually
mean in practice.
The inspiration for this volume came from a series of discussions and meetings
surrounding sessions held mainly at the annual meetings of the European Association
of Archaeologists. From a range of sessions and debates, one apparent theme
became obvious; what are the challenges and conflicts in heritage stewardship that
may be obvious to the heritage practitioner but which are poorly defined or invisible
to the legal frameworks that actually protect cultural heritage? Whilst the daily frus-
trations and limitations of the job may appear obvious to those who face the chal-
lenge of heritage protection, they are rarely considered in a structured or thoughtful
way; rather, the standard measurement of the effectiveness of legislation is often
L. White (*)
CIE Education Group (China and UK), Yantai, China
S. Campbell
Treasure Trove Unit, National Museums Scotland, Edinburgh, UK
e-mail: s.campbell@nms.ac.uk
S. Thomas
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 1

S. Campbell et al. (eds.), Competing Values in Archaeological Heritage,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94102-8_1
2 L. White et al.
measured against international (or European, in our examples) benchmarks of ‘good

practice’ such as the recommendations of the Valletta Convention. The impact of the
Faro Convention broadens the issue further, considering as it does the impact of
cultural heritage on communities and society as a whole. Whether such laws and
agreements work in practice, or whether there are problems that cannot be solved by
a legal framework, are often at best moot points. Yet they are also crucial as to
whether a cultural heritage framework can actually protect and preserve on a daily
and practical basis.
Consequently the contributors to this volume were given what might appear to be
a simple task; to discuss issues or challenges in heritage management that could not
be resolved or protected by the law or where legal frameworks had proved less than
satisfactory in resolving issues. As a complementary topic, they were asked to con-
sider cases where laws might turn out to have unintended consequences or prove
challenging to implement. It might be no surprise that our contributors chose to
answer this brief in a number of divergent ways, but what came back also was what
might appear to be a high level of consistency and agreement.
In considering the challenges in protecting shipwrecks in the Baltic, Riikka Alvik
touches upon a range of issues from actively protecting archaeological heritage to
tackling looting (and crucially, working with law enforcement to make sure that
effective structures are in place), through to those issues that are outside the control
of legislation, chiefly the threats posed by global warming (Chap. 2). This range of
challenges, from known and quantifiable to those that are not, provides a useful
introduction to the scope of this volume. In a similar vein, Ghattas Sayej considers
not just the aim of the law in a liberal society but looks beyond the ostensibly com-
mendable intentions of the law in Norway to produce a public benefit to the unin-
tended (and counterproductive) consequences of legislation that would otherwise
seem to present a comprehensive solution to many of the problems faced by com-
mercial development and archaeology (Chap. 3). This balance between the law as
practical, and the law as presenting a cultural ideal, can be best seen in the two papers
by Sergiu Musteață (Chap. 4) and Tomáš Michalik (Chap. 5). Both deal, through
case studies of Romania and Moldova and Slovakia, respectively, with the difficult
issues of realising an effective and democratic cultural heritage system in countries
that have made the difficult transition from totalitarian Cold War era regimes. What
is telling, especially from a western European perspective, are the difficulties not so
much in creating the framework and legislation but in the challenges in embedding
these in a society whose very notion of the citizen and the value of heritage has also
had to make transitions. To those who take the ideals of the Valletta Convention for
granted (and this is certainly not across the board, as evidenced by the different
stances towards non-professional archaeological interventions with the heritage),
these chapters are a useful, and perhaps humbling, corrective.
Many of those working in the heritage sector will agree that the translation of
heritage legislation into real life is not always an easy task. One such example is the
paper by Stuart Campbell, which discusses how heritage legislation can be applied
practically in light of the various challenges encountered when dealing with
portable antiquities, whether they are found by people using metal detectors or not.
1 Introduction 3
In the context of Scotland, he mentions a ‘crisis of cultural authority’ – an idea

associated to a much greater extent with conflicts over the retention of human
remains in museums (Jenkins 2010). He believes that: ‘…archaeologists who deal
with metal detector finds face just such a challenge to their cultural and intellectual
discipline’ (Chap. 6).
The idea of a ‘crisis of cultural authority’ can be seen to a much greater extent in
the chapter by Liz White, providing a global overview rather than national or
regional case study, which examines ongoing issues relating to the treatment and
retention of human remains (Chap. 7). Both the excavation and storage of human
remains have been disputed in some countries for a number of decades, and this has
led to either the passing of legislation or guidance, both of which continue to bring
difficulties. This by itself can bring into sharp focus an issue of wider concern,
where the broad public (or at lease espousing to be ‘public’) ideals of archaeology
as articulated through legislation can often marginalise the values of specific cul-
tural groups. In particular this can be seen in South Africa, where the protection of
archaeological sites has excluded cultural groups for whom these sites continue to
have contemporary cultural relevance (Ndlovu 2013). This problem is surprisingly
widespread, ranging from the countries discussed in White’s chapter to those coun-
ties like China, where the state might be said to exert a greater control over civil life
(Zhang and Wu 2016). The universality of this challenge, regardless of cultural and
legal factors, is by itself a demonstration that solutions should be searched for out-
side of the strict letter of the law. It is most easily defined as a question of how do
we, as a profession or collection of related professions, deal with groups who may
feel the interests of archaeology (often viewed within the profession as equating to
a wider ‘public good’) is inimical to their own aims?
This question is posed in a number of ways in the different chapters of this vol-
ume, not least in those dealing with metal-detector users. The number of contribu-
tors who chose to address this issue was initially unexpected but clearly reflects the
nature of concerns within current discourse and practice. For example, Pieterjan
Deckers provides a critical review of the development of policy and practice for
non-professional archaeological metal detecting in Flanders (Chap. 8), whilst
Jostein Gundersen provides a perspective of the challenges faced in Norway (Chap.
9). Ignacio Rodríguez Temiño, Ana Yáñez Vega and Mónica Ortiz Sánchez focus
on legislation in Andalusia, Spain, and on how the enforcement of this legislation
has affected metal detecting (Chap. 10). Like many of the other chapters in this
volume, this provides a useful barometer of how prevalent this issue is in cultural
heritage terms, when it forms the chief area of interest for many practitioners. In
particular it should be noted also the interconnection between topics. For example,
whilst Michalik starts his contribution with a review and assessment of legal frame-
works in Slovakia, his conclusion focuses again on metal detecting and its prob-
lematic (and in this case, illegal) impact on the archaeological record. Whilst
Michalik’s chapter, with its assessment of looting, may seem to encapsulate many
of the issues around metal detecting and archaeology, the sheer variety of chapters
within our volume demonstrate how variegated this area is, running the gamut from
those which deal explicitly with looting and illegal behaviour to those chapters that
4 L. White et al.
describe what is a law abiding and frequently constructive area of non-professional

engagement with the past. It is often the case (at least in the experience of the edi-
tors) that the worst case scenario is often presumed with regard to metal-detector
users, that they form a group who will break the law in pursuit of profit. The range
of papers here certainly demonstrates a more complex picture and most of all
shows that the nature of metal detecting varies on a country by country basis,
reflecting a range of factors from the law and the potential of illicit profit to the
extent of legally acceptable public access to archaeological materials. Whilst not
denying the challenges inherent in promoting a culture of responsible metal detect-
ing, we would submit that the bleakest outcome should never be assumed.
Opportunities for cooperation and information sharing exist, as well as mandates
for prosecution and prevention.
It is, in fact, the divergence in this area that most usefully demonstrates the ten-
sion at the heart of heritage legislation. Whilst on one hand, the aspirations and
ideals of the Valletta Convention point to a recognised and accepted need that there
are universal tenets that should be found in heritage laws across Europe, the other
theme pulls in an opposite and contrasting direction. When reviewing the range of
chapters within this volume, it becomes evident that, no matter what ideals of uni-
versal good practice may be ascribed to, it is impossible to ignore how widely vari-
ant the law is in different jurisdictions. This, by itself, varies the degree to which
cultural heritage can be protected. When reviewing the picture here, it is clear that
the ability to protect an archaeological monument, claim state ownership over an
artefact or enforce and protect in other ways is defined and constrained by that
state’s legal framework rather than reflecting a wider and universal ideal of cultural
heritage protection (notwithstanding the elements of universality, in Europe at least,
that the Council of Europe’s conventions do achieve). At the same time, chapters
such as Musteață’s demonstrate how essential these national frameworks are; not all
countries start from the same place (particularly those undergoing the difficult tran-
sition from former totalitarian regimes), and Musteață demonstrates even how dif-
ferent (though complementary) the approaches of two countries such as Romania
and Moldova can be, even though they are on similar trajectories. On a more prag-
matic level, how can we square a universal acceptance that chance finds of archaeo-
logical material are part of the national patrimony when the laws in different
countries ascribe completely different ownership to these finds, whether state, finder
or landowner? This question is admittedly as much rhetorical as it is literal, yet it
usefully illustrates the divergence between an international ideal and what may be
possible by the law of any one country. The gap between this ideal and legal defini-
tion is best summed up as the space in which other competing values can fill,
whether they are those of the illicit market or the more innocent values of the law
abiding metal detector user. It is, by its very definition, an area that is not demar-
cated by law.
It is precisely in this non-demarcated area, one in particular that is not mapped in
any legislation, that a variety of motivations and actors come into play. Whilst more
subtle than the problem of legislation impacting on the way of life of a cultural or
social group, the question of how other parts of society view heritage legislation
1 Introduction 5
remains pertinent. Reading these chapters, it is striking how often other interest
groups, whether divers or metal-detector users, form coherent groups, with coherent
responses to government agencies; the reluctance of metal-detector users to lend
their help to archaeological research projects that Michalik highlights is one such
instance. This itself is a useful juncture at which to question what a citizen might
expect in their interaction with the state, especially if the ‘official’ treatment of
archaeology may be seen as personally disadvantaging them. Arguably, many of the
issues that Musteață and Michalik highlight may have their issues in a residual dis-
trust of the state in former totalitarian regimes. Nevertheless, these same issues can
be found across Europe, as the chapters on metal detecting testify, and can perhaps
be found also in the caution that the Norwegian property developer exhibits in
Sayej’s chapter. In response, the idealisation of archaeology as a public good for
universal benefit is made clearly and articulately in the chapter from Spain, espous-
ing precisely why activities for personal benefit can and should be restricted. In
contrast to this idea of the public good pushing back against a variety of private
benefits, one other common factor in these chapters should be noted: principally the
commodification of archaeological material. Whilst this can manifest in the issue of
organised criminal looting on both land and sea, it can also be seen to affect other
areas. For example, the very existence of a legal market in antiquities can cause
effects as varied as a counterfeiting workshop in Slovakia and distort the reporting
of artefacts in Scotland as their importance is gauged not so much by their archaeo-
logical significance, but how much they might fetch on the legal market. Effectively,
the licit market can mean that ‘collectible’ is conflated with ‘archaeologically
interesting’.
Amongst this intermixture of universal problems and unique national variants, it
is the universal and accepted ideal of archaeological heritage that is the common
factor in this volume, motivating our contributors to propose and argue for a variety
of solutions to these problems. At the same time, that these ‘others’ who interact
with the archaeological heritage form coherent and (sometimes) resistant groups
can in itself be a solution, from Finnish divers to Scottish metal-detector users, this
volume demonstrates also the value of public and community engagement and
outreach.
This volume clearly demonstrates through its broad topics that there are diverse
challenges being encountered due to inevitable clashes of values, priorities and
agendas. Yet despite this, there are also many commonalities. It is hoped that the
experiences shared in this volume are not only of help to those with an interest in
heritage protection but will also help to foster meaningful discussion and debate
about the future of heritage protection.
6 L. White et al.
References
Börjesson, L., Petersson, B., & Huvila, I. (2015). Information policy for (digital) information in
archaeology: Current state and suggestions for development. Internet Archaeology, 40. https://
doi.org/10.11141/ia.40.4.
Jenkins, T. (2010). Contesting human remains in museum collections: The crisis of cultural
authority. New York: Routledge.
Ndlovu, N. (2013). Ownership of heritage resources in South Africa: Challenges and opportuni-
ties. Internet Archaeology, 33. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.33.5.
Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. London: Routledge.
Zhang, Y., & Wu, Z. (2016). The reproduction of heritage in a Chinese village: Whose heritage,
whose pasts? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(3), 228–241.
Chapter 2
Wreck of the Dutch Merchant Ship Vrouw
Maria: Example of Protection
and Management of Underwater Cultural
Heritage in Baltic Waters
Riikka Alvik
Introduction
In the brackish waters of the Baltic Sea, there are thousands of shipwrecks from
different eras. Some of these wrecks are remarkably well preserved because of the
special conditions of the northern Baltic Sea: the low salinity of the seawater, low
water temperature, lack of daylight and lack of wood-eating molluscs like the ship-
worm Teredo navalis. Also strong currents do not usually occur in the sea areas
except on vessel routes. Moving ice can cause mechanical erosion and changes in
the sea bottom topography if the ship sank in depths less than 20 m, but beneath
that, the conditions are often quite stable. Even so, every site should be evaluated
individually, and both environmental factors and human impact should be taken into
consideration.
A wreck is an artificial reef for flora and fauna, and there is always microbial
activity in the bottom of the sea and on shipwrecks and structures underwater.
Monitoring the sites should be a routine rather than something that is possible only
during specific projects. Changes like increasing eutrophication, climate change
and warming and anoxic bottoms in the Baltic may cause future threats to preserva-
tion of underwater cultural heritage, too. Climate change can relate to changes in
salinity, temperature of seawater, changes in water level, oxygen level and amount
of daylight that can have an effect on underwater cultural heritage too. New species
might occur in flora and fauna, and biological activity can raise to a different level.
The Baltic Sea is very shallow, so the changes can be quick and dramatic. The Baltic
Sea has a two-layered stratification of salinity in the seawater, and there are seasonal
changes in temperature. The range of water temperature varies much between the
depths below 100 metres up to 3–8 °C and surface water up to 25 °C. For example,
in the Gulf of Finland, the temperature of surface water has increased. Clear change
R. Alvik (*)
The Finnish Heritage Agency, Cultural Environment Services, Helsinki, Finland
e-mail: riikka.alvik@museovirasto.fi
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 7

S. Campbell et al. (eds.), Competing Values in Archaeological Heritage,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94102-8_2
8 R. Alvik
in salinity has not yet been detected, but some inflows from North Sea have occurred
also during the summer bringing warm water with high-salinity and low-oxygen
level to the depths of the Baltic Sea. Usually these inflows occur during spring and
winter bringing cold, high-salinity and oxygen-rich water into the Baltic (Elken and
Matthäus 2015, Leino et al. 2011: 133–139). What kind of an effect all these changes
can have to the underwater cultural heritage is not researched yet, but, for example,
biological activity and degradation of wood correlate with each other and shipworm
Teredo navalis already exists in the southern Baltic Sea coast eating wooden ship-
wrecks (Palma 2004:8–39; Gregory 2004b:38–48).
There are approximately 1925 different kind of underwater sites known and reg-
istered in the Finnish Heritage Agency public database of cultural heritage includ-
ing also cultural heritage and archaeological findings on land. Findings of new
wrecks are reported by maritime authorities and divers every year. Side-scan sonars
are more affordable nowadays, so individual divers and diving clubs practice sea
bottom survey nowadays. Sea bottom survey requires permission from the military,
but it is possible all the buyers and users are not aware of the regulations concerning
it. Buying such equipment is not regulated.
Around 90% of the underwater findings are wrecks of different types and sizes
from mediaeval times to modern ages. Most of these wrecks are the remains of
wooden sailing ships, but there are also steam ship remains of the First World War
military and transport vessels and modern wrecks. For example, big building proj-
ects like gas pipelines can provide masses of new information also from the exclu-
sive economic zone. If shipwreck findings occur in such sea bottom surveys, there
are some legislative problems in protecting them. The Antiquities Act covers only
Finnish territorial waters. Finland has not ratified the UNESCO Convention 2001 on
the protection of underwater cultural heritage. Ratifying the convention might give
one solution to the protection of shipwrecks at the exclusive economic zone and also
measures in the management of them.
According to the Antiquities Act of 1963, all ship findings and shipwreck parts
sunk more than 100 years ago are protected by law, so around 750 of the registered
sites fulfil this condition. Since 2015, some of the First World War wrecks are now
protected. They are both transport vessels and warships that were lost during the
First World War. Many of these wrecks have some special features like ammunition
and human remains on board that have to take into consideration in the research,
protection and management of the wrecks.
With wartime wrecks and transport vessels, there are also issues to solve around
fuels or materials used that are can cause conflict between protecting a wreck site
and protecting the surrounding natural environment. This theme was studied in an
international project “Sunken Wreck Environmental Risk Assessment” (SWERA).
There are more than 8500 wrecks around the world that are potential for polluting.
The project risk assessment was made in partner countries, and wrecks with fuel
and explosives were searched in the archives and databases. In Finnish waters we
have some like 33 high-risk modern shipwrecks with a possibility of hazardous
waste leaking to the environment. Some of them are Second World War military
vessels with seriously hazard fuels inside their fuel tanks like some German Second
2 Wreck of the Dutch Merchant Ship Vrouw Maria: Example of Protection… 9
World War destroyers. In the Finnish and Estonian waters, Finnish diving group
Badewanne also documented these shipwrecks in situ. One example with historical
significance is the ship called Park Victory. This more than hundred metres long
Victory-class ship was originally built for military purpose in the United States but
was used for transporting livestock and other cargo to the countries that had suffered
in the Second World War. The ship sank in the Christmas Eve 1947 off Finnish
Coast near island Utö in the cargo of coal. Most of the crew members survived.
Unfortunately, the ships’ fuel tanks started to corrode and leak during the decades
even though the waters are cold and often the heavy oil in the tanks is usually quite
stable. Between 1994 and 2000, around 410 m3 fuel was taken out from the wreck.
The Finnish Environmental Institute was responsible of the operation, and it was
conducted together with the Finnish Navy. This very impressive shipwreck is very
popular among divers (Suomen ympäristökeskus SYKE 2015).
Also as an assumption, the age is a sufficient ground for protection. Now, the
Antiquities Act does not give possibility to protect younger wrecks even with his-
torical significance, because there are other laws that can be at variance with the
Antiquities Act or give other measures for protection. For example, lost Second
World War navy vessels belong to the country of their origin, and it is considered
that the flagship country is also responsible for the measures considering the wreck.
In Finland divers have free access to the historical shipwrecks excluding military
and nature protection and shipwrecks with special projection zone. Also the Åland
Islands is excluded of free access, because of their autonomic position to Finland,
they can have different regulations concerning cultural heritage. There a permission
for diving is needed from the heritage board. In the territorial waters of Finland,
diving to military shipwrecks is regulated, and permission is needed from the
Military Museum. Some military wrecks are in total diving ban if they are consid-
ered a risk for divers’ safety or there is possibly some risk of fuel leaks or other risk
factors like ammunitions. Many wrecks have, for example, ghost nets that are seri-
ously risky for divers to trap into, or they sank in the middle of a minefield.
Unfortunately, the Antiquities Act does not give the possibility to protect modern,
less than hundred-year-old wrecks even in some cases they could have historical sig-
nificance. It is assumed that they have an owner – maybe an insurance or shipping
company, and then the owner is responsible of the measures considering the wreck
like removing it from the sea bottom. We have evidence that, for example, the cargo
vessel that operated during the First World War have been looted just before they
would be protected by law. Unfortunately, at the moment there is no measures for
preventing the looting of modern wrecks if the owner of the shipwreck cannot be
found, or the owner is abandoned the wreck or the ownership is somehow unclear.
In Finland ancient monuments including shipwrecks are registered by the Finnish
Heritage Agency (later FHA). The register is on the Internet, and the data related to it
is the archives of the Finnish Heritage Agency. At the moment the register is only in
Finnish, which limits the user audience. Publicity of the register is based on the EU
Inspire Directive (2007/2/EY) for spatial data infrastructure across Europe. This has
both pros and cons. The information can be searched anonymously and used for work,
leisure and sometimes even criminal purposes like looting shipwrecks, which
10 R. Alvik
u nfortunately comes out every year in Finland, too. Despite of the number of cases
that the Finnish Heritage Agency has notified to the police, by 2016 only one looting
case has come to court. The reason for this is usually lack of evidence and may be also
poor resources for investigating crimes like this. The automatic identification system
(AIS) for vessels is required only for vessels of more than 300 gross tonnages and all
passengers ships, so many of the smaller vessels do not have this equipment on board,
so they are not visible in the vessel traffic system. Many wrecks are quite easy to
approach with small boats that are not easy to notice especially when they are not
close to ship lanes. One problem is also the lack of valid archaeological data of them.
The quality and quantity of the data concerning shipwrecks in the Finnish Heritage
Agency register varies a lot. There are shipwrecks like Vrouw Maria regularly sur-
veyed visually by video shooting or photographing a list of 30 check-up points and
researched with multidisciplinary methods starting from the very beginning after she
was found. Then there are sites with very indefinite information based only from the
information given by finder, which occurred already decades ago. Some shipwrecks
are just recently found or in so deep waters that they are accessible only with very
specific equipment and a limited amount of divers. A survey at that kind of a site is
very expensive, and the resources for that are limited.
One of the coast guards’ tasks is also to safeguard historic shipwrecks. Because
of the free access to most of the historical shipwrecks and amount of divers and
wrecks, it is not possible to keep an eye of all of them. Last year there were almost
10,000 member register in the diving clubs that belong to Finnish Diver’s Federation.
The number of unregistered divers is not known. Wreck and mine diving are very
popular in Finland. Most of the divers are very good informants and co-operate with
the Finnish Heritage Agency, but in this very large group, there are always the few
“rotten apples.” Despite of the looting cases, free access has been seen a better tool
for safeguarding. There are many very active divers who photograph and video
shoot the wrecks and also distribute information to other divers and the Finnish
Heritage Agency. Nowadays, we have cases when the disappearance of an artefact
or other illegal activity has been reported by several divers. Once a diver had lifted
iron cannon balls off an eighteenth-century fortification and tried to sell them via
Facebook. This was reported to the FHA by three divers by email as soon as the
announcement was noticed.
The looting case that ended up in court came out during the making of a docu-
mentary film of looting shipwrecks and antique markets. The documentary film is
called “Who robbed the wreck?” by documentarist Ari Heinilä. In this case, the
FHA was not the body who required the police investigation. Police did their own
inquiries, and as a result of that, four persons were prosecuted of theft according
to the criminal act and Antiquities Act. They were prosecuted of stealing artefacts
from a shipwreck that was dated to late eighteenth century based on certain fea-
tures on the ship and her equipment. All four of them were discharged even there
was a reasonable doubt that one of them had taken artefacts from the wreck. The
prosecutor complained about the decision of the District Court, and the case was
taken to the Court of Appeal in March 2016. Only one person was prosecuted
then. The decision was that the person was guilty of theft, and verdict was 50 daily
penalties, and he had to pay back 6600 euros of economic benefits he has gained
to the government of Finland.
The wreck that was looted is a cargo ship from late eighteenth century. According
to the information like videotapes, sketches and written description of the wreck, it
is a wooden ship with her hull still quite intact, and even lower parts of the masts are
still standing on their original places. According to the diver who was most likely
the first one to dive on the site after the wreck was located, there were also different
kinds of artefacts such as dishes of porcelain of or faience. Almost all of the arte-
facts that belonged to the same context are now lost, except for one tiny porcelain or
faience vessel and a big bowl of red ware that were still inside of the wreck and the
lead seal from a hemp bale that was taken from the wreck. It was later sent back to
the FHA anonymously. The wreck is in quite deep waters at 46 m, so the amount of
divers able to reach it is limited. The site is at open sea and very opposed to winds,
and because of the depth, it is not safe to dive there with compressed air, so mixed
gas diving skills and experience in deep diving is needed. Diving to such depth is
time consuming, so it is not possible to just pop in and dive there. The bottom time
is limited, and coming up safely to the surface might take hours so that the risk of
getting decompression sickness or other serious consequences could be avoided.
Because of the looting, now a lot of information is gone forever. This wreck was
not surveyed by maritime archaeologists before it was looted, but luckily, at least
some divers had drawn sketches, taken pictures and videos of her. The ship was
most likely carrying, for example, hemp, so it is obvious that she was on her way
from east to west because hemp was one of the most typical export products of
Russia and St. Petersburg was one of the main harbours for transportation of it.
According to the studies of the lead seal sent to the FHA, the hemp seal is most
likely from St. Petersburg. In this case, faith of the looted artefacts is unknown.
According to the documentary film and Internet research done during the court
process, there is market for such artefacts. They are sold in the Internet market
places and in antique shops. It also seems that if something is lifted from a ship-
wreck, it has an extra value. We assume that often the buyers are not aware and that
all the artefacts lifted from water require conservation conducted by a professional
conservator. For example, glass and metal objects are often difficult to conserve
because of the glass disease or corrosion processes in the metals. Metal artefacts can
react very unpredicted ways after they are lifted because of the level of oxygen is
increasing. We have an old report that guns lifted from the historical shipwreck at a
sea battle site in the 1940s became soon so hot that they could not be touched by
hand. That was because of the corrosion process speeded so much after the lift. The
difficulty in handling submerged archaeological findings is also one reason, why
they should always be handled by professional archaeologists and conservators, and
all the measures should be planned properly beforehand.
The case is not just getting the looters caught, it is also preventing these kinds of
actions. How to do that in co-operation with different kind of actors from authorities
to divers and the great public interested in their common heritage? By more serious
punishments or is it the last option when nothing else works out? The problem with
legislation is that minor offences against cultural heritage must be examined and
12 R. Alvik
prosecuted in 2 years’ time since the criminal activity has occurred. In case of
underwater cultural heritage, it is very difficult to find out exactly when the crime
has happened if there are no witnesses or any other evidence. Unfortunately, there
are markets for sea antiques, shipwrecks artefacts, and also valuable metals like
gold, silver and copper. At 2016 there was a case of salvage of scrap metal from
WWI shipwrecks lost in the battle of Jutland. Approximately 8000 men were lost at
this battle, but despite of these wrecks are war graves, they are robbed by Dutch
salvage companies (Metcalfe 2016).
Legislation for Protection of Cultural Heritage in Finland
In Finland ancient monuments are protected by the Antiquities Act of 1963.

According to the law, wrecks of a vessel or other wreckage found in the sea or in a
waterway, which can be assumed to have sunk at least one hundred years ago, or any
part thereof, are protected. If it is evident from the external circumstances that the
wreck has been abandoned by the owner, it belongs to the State. Other types of
ancient monuments, such as dwelling sites, forts and bridges, are protected as antiq-
uities pertaining to the past settlement and history of Finland. The Finnish Heritage
Agency is responsible of research, management and protection of all kinds of
ancient monuments. It is also the authority who permits investigations of archaeo-
logical sites on land and under water. In 2004 the law was amended to make the
coast guard responsible for guarding the shipwreck sites. In practice that means
exchanging information with the coast guard, and at some sites extra measures are
put in place for the protection because of the vulnerability of the sites. In these kinds
of cases, the site can be extremely well preserved and has a lot of artefacts visible.
At special areas like nature protection sites or those with military areas, permission
for activities is needed (Alvik and Matikka 2011: 149).
During the twenty-first century, some additions and changes have been made in
legislation concerning the safeguarding of shipwrecks and sea salvage. In 2002
Antiquities Act a subsection was added in section concerning shipwrecks. Ship find-
ings (shipwreck or a part of it) that can be interpreted as abandoned by the owner
belong to the state of Finland. In 2005 there was an addition to the legislation that
the Border Guard of Finland is one of the authorities responsible of safeguarding of
archaeological and historical shipwreck sites.
In 2007 Finland made a reservation to the International Convention on Salvage
not to apply the provisions of the Convention, when the property involved is mari-
time cultural property of prehistoric, archaeological or historic interest and is situ-
ated on the seabed (Alvik and Matikka 2011: 152). The case of Vrouw Maria and
also some international examples like the case of Spanish shipwreck Nuestra Señora
de las Mercedes proved the need for refining the legislation from 1963. This is the
case of a Spanish frigate sank by the British Navy off the coast of Portugal at 1804 in
the battle off Cádiz. A salvage company lifted a huge amount of silver coins from
the wreck in the so-called Black Swan Project. When the origin of coins came out
despite of an attempt to keep in secrecy by the salvage company, the government of
Spain sued the company, and the conclusion was that the coins were returned to
Spain at 2012 and are shown in public museum. The case was solved in the USA. The
Court’s decision rested on its interpretation on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act. The company also had to pay 1 million dollars to Spain for bad faith and abu-
sive litigation (Penn 2013).
Management and Protection of Shipwreck Remains
In Finland the state organization Finnish Heritage Agency is responsible for the
management of the underwater cultural heritage. Shipwrecks that have sunk more
than hundred years ago are owned by the state if the owner of the wreck has aban-
doned it. Most of the historic shipwrecks are remains of sailing vessels with wooden
hulls and rigging, and many of them are related to maritime trade. Since St.
Petersburg was founded 1703, the sailing route along the Gulf of Finland has been
very important for the Dutch and British merchants who were eager to have access
to the grain, tar, pitch, hemp, wax, fur and sail cloth from Russia, Finland and Baltic
Countries. Because of the rocky and dangerous coastline of the Gulf of Finland,
there are thousands of wrecks along these water areas. New discoveries are reported
every year to the Finnish Heritage Agency.
The protection and management of warships is often a complicated topic; many
of them are also mass graves or war graves, they might belong to another state than
the jurisdiction they are located now, and they may often have ammunition and fuel
that are hazardous to the environment. In the case of historic wooden sailing ships,
there are similar issues to consider like how to preserve and prevent deterioration
and looting and how to consider the ethics when thinking of the people who have
lost their lives in the tragedies.
In Finland recreational diving to shipwreck sites is very popular and because of
modern camera techniques, photographing and videoing the wrecks is a popular
hobby and also conducted by professional photographers who have diving skills.
This kind of documentation work is encouraged by the Finnish Heritage Agency.
The Finnish Heritage Agency has a long history of co-operation with the divers and
they were also the first to conduct maritime archaeological survey in Finland at late
1950s. The first field course in maritime archaeology was held at Helsinki University
at 1995 and the first professional research divers training course for archaeologists
and students of archaeology was held at 1996 at Innofocus, Western Uusimaa
Municipal Training and Education Consortium. Because of very small resources for
maritime archaeology, the work of voluntary divers and people interested in mari-
time history and archaeology is crucial. Volunteers have been involved in maritime
archaeology since the late 1950s when sports diving started in Finland. Already at
late 1950s some remarkable shipwreck findings were surveyed by divers who were
interested in maritime history, archaeology and shipwrecks. Many of the measur-
ings, sketches and photographs are still valuable information and also show how the
changes like degradation caused by natural reasons or very intensive diving at the
wrecks or the measures conducted during the research like excavation. Unfortunately,
14 R. Alvik
in many cases the early excavations were not conducted or documented in archaeo-
logical standards because the whole branch was so new. Nowadays, for systematic
survey of shipwrecks a research permission from the Finnish Heritage Agency is
required and for archaeological research, a professional archaeologist must be
involved. Co-operation between voluntary divers and authorities is still ongoing and
very important for us.
Photos and videos given to the authorities and researchers serve multiple pur-
poses: they help us in research, manage and protect the wrecks. If the wrecks are
monitored systematically and regularly, it is possible to collect a series of docu-
ments where, for example, changes at the site can to some point be detected. That
concerns only visual changes. Waterlogged wood often looks quite well preserved
in the depths of the Baltic Sea when not touched, but is often very soft on the sur-
face. During the project Monitoring, Safeguarding and Visualizing North-European
Shipwreck Sites, a management plan was created as a tool for management and
regular monitoring of the sites.
The wreck of Vrouw Maria is one of the five historically and archaeologically
significant ship findings, which have a specific protection zone. At these sites recre-
ational diving is forbidden. The story of Vrouw Maria is presented later in the arti-
cle. Nearby the wreck of Vrouw Maria there is even a surveillance camera operated
by the coast guard, which has been quite effective. The camera was originally put
there for surveillance of the nature protection area where all human activity is
strictly restricted all year round. The surveillance camera is monitored by the coast
guard, and it can be seen on station that is on duty. The effectivity of the camera has
been demonstrated several times: when the Finnish Heritage Agency’s maritime
archaeologist have been conducting research at the site or entered the area, the coast
guard has called the research vessel and checked the status of it. To make a call
directly to the ship requires that the vessel has the automatic identification system.
If there is no possibility to recognize the vessel and there is no beforehand informa-
tion of the action conducted at the site, the coast guard sends a patrol if it is possible.
However it is quite natural that if there are vessels in trouble or people in danger,
safeguarding underwater cultural heritage is not a priority task.
he Case of Vrouw Maria: Historical Background

T
of the Finding
Vrouw Maria was a two-mast, snow-rigged merchant ship of a late eighteenth-

century date. Her home harbour was Amsterdam, and the shipmaster was Dutch
Reynoud Lourens, an experienced skipper who had completed several previous
voyages to the Baltic. On September 1771 Vrouw Maria was on her way to St.
Petersburg from Amsterdam with the cargo of valuables ordered by the Russian
Court. She started her last voyage from Amsterdam in early September 1771 and
passed the Danish Custom Station in the Sound in the 23rd of September. According
to the Sound Customs Register, she had approximately 40 tons of sugar, zinc and
dyestuff like indigo and madder, cloth, mercury, cheese, butter and unspecified
items with a high value in the cargo. This latter cargo was remarkable: the nobility
of Russian court had pre-ordered items like maps, books, flower bulbs, art, tobacco,
snuff, coffee, tea and other luxury products. Even more remarkable was the order
made by Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia who wanted European seventeenth-
century art in her collections. Before the auction in Amsterdam, Catherine the Great
had bought an entire art collection from France. This did not please the French
nobility. Her representatives bought art for her from all around Europe. In the end
of July 1771, a remarkable art collection of the late merchant de Braamcamp from
Amsterdam was for sale. Several high-value paintings were bought for Catherine
the Great and transported in ships, some of them with Vrouw Maria. That made this
quite ordinary merchant vessel special, because of the high status of the cargo, the
shipwreck features heavily in the documentary record (Ahlström 2000a: 4–16,
Alvik 2012a: 13, Ehanti 2012: 15–18).
The ship foundered in the Gulf of Finland in a storm quite soon after leaving the
Sound Customs Station. In the evening, while the shipmaster and crew were at
prayer and with two crew members steering the ship, she hit rocks twice near the
coast of Finland approximately 90 km off from the city of Turku. After the collision
the crew tried to save her by pumping the entering water away and emptying the
cabins and cargo hold and for several days spending the nights in a tiny island
nearby. Silver and some pieces of art were salvaged, but most of the cargo was lost
because the coffee beans filled the pumps, and the cargo hold was soon full of water.
On the fifth day after the accident, the ship was lost. This event started the diplo-
matic correspondence between Swedish authorities and Russian nobility. The aim
of the correspondence was salvaging the art, and the cargo that was lost to the sea
and even the conservation of the wet art were mentioned. The attempts failed and
the ship was forgotten for more than 200 years (Ahlström 2000b: 5–12; Gelderblom
2003:95–115; Leino 2002: 13–17; Leino 2003: 4; Malinen 2003: 13).
The fate of Vrouw Maria is known in Finland since the early 1970s when Dr.
Christian Ahlström went through Danish and Swedish archives and found docu-
ments about the shipwreck of the vessel carrying valuable cargo for Empress
Catherine the Great of Russia. The aim of Dr. Ahlström was to identify another
cargo ship found near the island of Borstö in the 1950s. After the news of the
treasure ship carrying goods for Russian nobility was released, many sports divers
tried to find the wreck in the following years. Already in the 1970s, the paintings
bought for Catherine the Great were of interest to both professional researchers and
divers, who were interested in shipwrecks and maritime archaeology. The first
search attempts were conducted in 1973 by the predecessor of the Maritime Museum
of Finland, the Bureau of Maritime History at the Finnish Heritage Agency. The
attempts failed due to lack of resources, and it was a big disappointment for the
chief of the bureau, Christoffer Ericsson, who already then saw the value of ship-
wrecks for research and museum collections. The research plan made by him was
reasonable and, if updated to modern research methods, could have been conducted
today (Alvik 2012a: 13).
In 1998, the wreck was for the first time searched for by a group of divers with
side-scan sonar. The wreck was not found at the time at the first time, but a second
attempt in the following year was successful. The members of an association “Pro
16 R. Alvik
Vrouw Maria” and diver Rauno Koivusaari conducted the practical search work.
The association had just been founded to promote and support the locating and
investigations of the wreck of Vrouw Maria. The divers who participated in this
were all voluntary divers, and no archaeologist participated in the search. Dr.
Christian Ahlström was consulted about the historical documents related to the
wreck and the salvage operation conducted after the accident.
When the wreck was found, the Finnish Heritage Agency awarded the finders a
medal. The Antiquities Act does not oblige the Agency to pay a reward for finding
ancient monuments on land or underwater, and rewarding finders is not a common
practice in Finland.
Since 2000 the Finnish Heritage Agency has researched, monitored, safeguarded
and managed Vrouw Maria. She is located in an area belonging to the National Park
of Finnish Archipelago managed by Metsähallitus, which is a governmental body.
The site has also a special protection area around her, where diving and anchoring
are prohibited. This area is marked in marine charts. The coast guard is responsible
for the surveillance of the area, and the NBA is monitoring the wreck regularly by
visual check-ups done by divers. The wreck is also photographed and videotaped
during these surveys. (Leino and Klemelä 2003: 5–7).
Vrouw Maria was one of the case studies in an EU-funded project Monitoring,
Safeguarding and Visualizing North-European Shipwreck Sites (the MoSS project),
which was an international project monitoring and safeguarding well-preserved
shipwreck sites in Northern Europe. After the MoSS project, there were several
years when the site was monitored for possible changes or illegal activity by photo-
graphing or recording the most vulnerable spots. More than a century-old historical
shipwrecks are often built of wood and have both metal and wooden fittings, the
degradation processes of which were researched during the project. According to
the analysis of several years of monitoring data, the environmental conditions at the
site are quite stable, and the changes at the site are slow because of the depth (41 m),
lack of daylight and cold water with low salinity and no shipworm. Despite of the
stable conditions, the research conducted during the MoSS project shows there is
still an ongoing degradation process on the wreck. There is fungi and also bacteria
on the surface of the wood, and in 1 year samples, the bacteria has already pene-
trated the wood cells, and there are changes in the structure of the wood (Palma
2004: 9, 27, 35–36). That is why calling a wooden shipwreck as a time capsule is
somehow misleading; it is subject to a slow degradation and change that may not be
obvious through tradtional survey methods.
The Vrouw Maria Court Proceedings in Finland
Unfortunately, there were also other dimensions than archaeological and historical
in the wreck of Vrouw Maria. After the finding of Vrouw Maria in 1999, most of the
members of the Pro Vrouw Maria Association had been in active co-operation with
the Finnish Heritage Agency earlier, and they told beforehand the Board that they
were looking for the wreck solely because of their interest in maritime history.
However, when the wreck was found, the state of affairs turned out to be somewhat
different. The regulations of the Antiquities Act were put to the test.
Two members of the Pro Vrouw Maria association summoned the State of
Finland and Finnish Heritage Agency to court. The complainants demanded a
reward for salvaging six items the Finnish Heritage Agency had permitted them to
raise from the wreck soon after it was found. The artefacts were raised in order to
help researchers at the FHA to confirm the origin, the identification and the dating
of the wreck, and the objects were immediately taken to the FHA’s conservation
laboratory and are now part of the National Museums collections. Nevertheless, the
complainants also demanded a right to sea salvage all the items in and near the
wreck of Vrouw Maria and a sea salvage reward for all these items based on the
international maritime law. The concept of maritime salvage means that a person
who recovers another person’s ship or cargo after peril or a loss at sea is entitled to
a reward equivalent with the value of the salvaged property. There are certain condi-
tions or categories that salvaging and salvors’ rights must fulfil. The ship really
needs to be in peril, the salvor has to act on voluntary basis, and there should not be
an existing contract of the salvage. Also, the salvor must be capable of performing
the salvage operation successfully. In the case of Vrouw Maria, an interesting ques-
tion was if the wreck was in immediate danger in the middle of strictly regulated
Natura 2000 area in the middle Archipelago National Park.
In the Nordic countries, it is also considered that historical shipwrecks and the
artefacts belonging to them have been desired to be kept from the international
maritime salvage regulations. When this case was in court, the FHA also pointed out
that individual countries’ national legislation may differ from the international mar-
itime regulations if the shipwreck has cultural historic value. Additionally, the com-
plainants demanded the ownership of the wreck, and thus the right to salvage the
wreck itself or the privilege to decide to whom the salvage operation was to be
delegated. The complainants argued that by giving the licence to raise six artefacts
for the possible dating of the wreck, the Finnish Heritage Agency had concluded a
sea salvage agreement with the finders. Moreover, the complainants saw that as the
finders of the wreck, they had the right to sea salvage it because they were the first
ones on the spot and, in their opinion, equipped to start the salvage operation and
because they had become the owners of the wreck by appropriation of the object
(Alvik and Matikka 2011: 150).
The Turku District Court handled the case of Vrouw Maria in a composition of
one judge in the autumn of 2002 and gave a provisional decision according to which
the Antiquities Act and the Maritime Act are not mutually exclusive but comple-
mentary and both acts can be applied to a wreck that is over one hundred years old
and protected by the Antiquities Act. The provisional decision led to the extension
of proceedings. The actual hearing of the case, which was conducted in a composi-
tion of three judges in the spring of 2004, led to the dismissal of the complainants’
action – in spite of the provisional decision. The court decision was that as a special
act, the regulations of the Antiquities Act eliminate the possibility of applying the
sea salvage and reward regulations of the Maritime Act to wrecks and objects dis-
18 R. Alvik
covered in wrecks, or objects evidently originating from such contexts, that are
protected by the Antiquities Act. The court also saw that the wreck of Vrouw Maria
is not in immediate danger and that neither the wreck nor the objects originating
from it cause any danger to navigation or the environment. The wrecks are not near
sailing routes, and these are located in a nature protection area where human activity
is strictly regulated and a permission for any activity is needed from Finnish
Metsähallitus, who is the authority responsible of national parks. For this reason
there is no need to salvage the wreck. The need to raise the wreck or the objects
originating from it is archaeological or historical. The regulations of the Antiquities
Act direct a need of this kind, and the Finnish Heritage Agency has the exclusive
discretionary power and authority to decide what is to be done with the wreck and
the objects with it (Alvik and Matikka 2011: 150).
The complainants appealed to the Turku Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal
came to a decision in March 2005 that the complainants’ appeal was dismissed. The
court concluded that both the Antiquities Act and the Maritime Act have to be
applied to the case of Vrouw Maria. However, the regulations of the Antiquities Act
prevent the finders of the wreck from having a relationship of control over the wreck
and therefore possession of it. One must have actual possession or control over an
object in order to become an owner of an object by appropriation, and therefore the
complainants do not have the ownership of the wreck. According to the law, the
owner of the wreck of Vrouw Maria is the state of Finland. The Court of Appeal also
saw that there was no sea salvage agreement between the Finnish Heritage Agency
and the finders of the wreck when it comes either to the wreck with its cargo or to
those six items the Agency had permitted the finders to raise from the wreck soon
after it was found. According to the Turku Court of Appeal, the complainants do not
have the right to start any salvage operations against the will of the owner of the
wreck, the state of Finland, that is, since the wreck is not in actual danger and there
is no urgent need to salvage the wreck or its cargo. As an owner, the state has the
right to prohibit anybody from starting a salvage operation of the wreck or the
objects originating from it (Alvik and Matikka 2011: 151).
The court proceedings concerning the case of Vrouw Maria were exceptional in
Finland. It was the first time a private party aimed at getting the ownership of an
underwater ancient monument. Before this no one had wanted to openly deny the
state’s authority and responsibility regarding underwater ancient monuments. After
the case was in the Turku Court of Appeal, both the complainants and the Finnish
Heritage Agency asked for permission to take the case to the Supreme Court. While
the complainants no longer claimed the ownership of the wreck, they still claimed
the salvage right and salvage reward. The Finnish Heritage Agency argued that the
Turku Court of Appeal was wrong when thinking that the Maritime Act can be
applied to an ancient monument. Surprisingly perhaps, in light of the significance of
the case, in November 2005 the Supreme Court refused to leave to appeal. Therefore,
the decision of the Turku Court of Appeal will stand (Alvik and Matikka 2011:
151–152).
Claim to the European Court of Human Rights
In year 2006 two members of Pro Vrouw Maria association made a claim to the
European Court of Human Rights that the state of Finland had violated their right to
the ownership of Vrouw Maria. They also demanded a salvage reward or monetary
compensation of the lost property. The European Court of Human Rights made a
decision in March 2009 and rejected the case. According to the ruling, Finland did
not violate the divers’ rights by forbidding them from raising the sunken shipwreck
or from taking objects found in it, and the wreck was not in immediate danger
(Alvik and Matikka 2011: 152). The majority of the diving community seemed to
accept the decision, and most of the divers in Finland have a positive attitude for
safeguarding shipwrecks. But because of the popularity of wreck diving, some div-
ers are suspicious of reporting their findings to the Finnish Heritage Agency. When
the amount of divers visiting the site increases, the risk of damage and looting is
also increasing. there is a slogan by the Finnish Heritage Agency “Leave nothing
else than bubbles” and majority of the divers follow that rule. For example, the
Finnish Heritage Agency, Military Museum, Finnish Divers’Federation and
Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI) have had campaings for
respecting and protecting shipwrecks, the last campaing was a serie of photos with
different slogans in Facebook. The attitude has been positive. One positive sign is
also that divers send us messages via email or social media if there is something
happening in the diving community or someone is trying to sell or has been lifting
underwater findings. There are some sites where the surveillance of coast guard is
active, and the Finnish Heritage Agency co-operates with them and the Navy in
protection and survey of underwater cultural heritage. Both parties have modern
equipment like side-scan sonars and remotely operated vehicles (ROV) with a video
camera attached, so when ever their other duties leave them time, they sometimes
conduct survey at shipwrecks. The Finnish Heritage Agency proposes to sites to
them, and information is always changed about the conditions and measures. At the
same time, they can develop their methods and practice. For example, coast guard
co-operates also with the police and Finnish Environmental Institution in different
kinds of tasks.
Vrouw Maria Underwater Project 2009–2012
In year 2009 the more intensive research at the wreck of Vrouw Maria started again,
when the Finnish Heritage Agency created a project called “Vrouw Maria
Underwater” in co-operation with the association for support of the Maritime
Museum of Finland. The project was funded by the Ministry of Culture and
Education. The project had three research periods. The Finnish Heritage Agency pro-
ceeded a 2-week fieldwork annually including the recording of the hull and the rig-
ging of the ship and taking samples from the cargo hold. The cargo hold was
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
have vastly increased the product,—would have improved and
beautified the whole face of the country; and the Moral and
Intellectual advantages thence accruing would alone have been
inestimable. A season of suspension of labor in a community is
usually one of aggravated dissipation, drunkenness, and crime.
But let me more clearly illustrate the effect of foreign competition
in raising prices to the consumer. To do this, I will take my own
calling for an example, because I understand that best; though any of
you can apply the principle to that with which he may be better
acquainted. I am a publisher of newspapers, and suppose I afford
them at a cheap rate. But the ability to maintain that cheapness is
based on the fact that I can certainly sell a large edition daily, so that
no part of that edition shall remain a dead loss on my hands. Now, if
there were an active and formidable Foreign competition in
newspapers,—if the edition which I printed during the night were
frequently rendered unsalable by the arrival of a foreign ship
freighted with newspapers early in the morning,—the present rates
could not be continued: the price must be increased or the quality
would decline. I presume this holds equally good of the production of
calicoes, glass, and penknives as of newspapers, though it may be
somewhat modified by the nature of the article to which it is applied.
That it does hold true of sheetings, nails, and thousands of articles, is
abundantly notorious.
I have not burdened you with statistics,—you know they are the
reliance, the stronghold, of the cause of Protection, and that we can
produce them by acres. My aim has been to exhibit not mere
collections of facts, however pertinent and forcible, but the laws on
which those facts are based,—not the immediate manifestation, but
the ever-living necessity from which it springs. The contemplation of
these laws assures me that those articles which are supplied to us by
Home Production alone are relatively cheaper than those which are
rivalled and competed with from abroad. And I am equally confident
that the shutting out of Foreign competition from our markets for
other articles of general necessity and liberal consumption which can
be made here with as little labor as anywhere would be followed by a
corresponding result,—a reduction of the price to the consumer at
the same time with increased employment and reward to our
Producing Classes.
But, Mr. President, were this only on one side true,—were it
certain that the price of the Home product would be permanently
higher than that of the Foreign, I should still insist on efficient
Protection, and for reasons I have sufficiently shown. Grant that a
British cloth costs but $3 per yard, and a corresponding American
fabric $4, I still hold that the latter would be decidedly the cheaper
for us. The Fuel, Timber, Fruits, Vegetables, &c., which make up so
large a share of the cost of the Home product, would be rendered
comparatively valueless by having our workshops in Europe. I look
not so much to the nominal price as to the comparative facility of
payment. And, where cheapness is only to be attained by a
depression of the wages of Labor to the neighborhood of the
European standard, I prefer that it should be dispensed with. One
thing must answer to another; and I hold that the farmers of this
country can better afford, as a matter of pecuniary advantage, to pay
a good price for manufactured articles than to obtain them lower
through the depression and inadequacy of the wages of the artisan
and laborer.
You will understand me, then, to be utterly hostile to that idol of
Free Trade worship, known as Free or unlimited Competition. The
sands of my hour are running low, and I cannot ask time to examine
this topic more closely; yet I am confident I could show that this Free
Competition is a most delusive and dangerous element of Political
Economy. Bear with a brief illustration: At this moment, common
shirts are made in London at the incredibly low price of three cents
per pair. Should we admit these articles free of duty and buy them
because they are so cheap? Free trade says Yes; but I say No! Sound
Policy as well as Humanity forbids it. By admitting them, we simply
reduce a large and worthy and suffering class of our population from
the ability they now possess of procuring a bare subsistence by their
labor to unavoidable destitution and pauperism. They must now
subsist upon the charity of relatives or of the community,—unless we
are ready to adopt the demoniac doctrine of the Free Trade
philosopher Malthus, that the dependent Poor ought to be rigorously
starved to death. Then what have we gained by getting these articles
so exorbitantly cheap? or, rather, what have we not lost? The labor
which formerly produced them is mainly struck out of existence; the
poor widows and seamstresses among us must still have a
subsistence; and the imported garments must be paid for: where are
the profits of our speculation?
But even this is not the worst feature of the case. The labor which
we have here thrown out of employment by the cheap importation of
this article is now ready to be employed again at any price,—if not
one that will afford bread and straw, then it must accept one that will
produce potatoes and rubbish; and with the product some Free-
Trader proceeds to break down the price and destroy the reward of
similar labor in some other portion of the earth. And thus each
depression of wages produces another, and that a third, and so on,
making the circuit of the globe,—the aggravated necessities of the
Poor acting and reacting upon each other, increasing the
omnipotence of Capital and deepening the dependence of Labor,
swelling and pampering a bloated and factitious Commerce, grinding
down and grinding down the destitute, until Malthus’s remedy for
Poverty shall become a grateful specific, and, amid the splendors and
luxuries of an all-devouring Commercial Feudalism, the squalid and
famished Millions, its dependants and victims, shall welcome death
as a deliverer from their sufferings and despair.
I wish time permitted me to give a hasty glance over the doctrines
and teachings of the Free Trade sophists, who esteem themselves the
Political Economists, christen their own views liberal and
enlightened, and complacently put ours aside as benighted and
barbarous. I should delight to show you how they mingle subtle
fallacy with obvious truth, how they reason acutely from assumed
premises, which, being mistaken or incomplete, lead to false and
often absurd conclusions,—how they contradict and confound each
other, and often, from Adam Smith, their patriarch, down to
McCulloch and Ricardo, either make admissions which undermine
their whole fabric, or confess themselves ignorant or in the dark on
points the most vital to a correct understanding of the great subject
they profess to have reduced to a Science. Yet even Adam Smith
himself expressly approves and justifies the British Navigation Act,
the most aggressively Protective measure ever enacted,—a measure
which, not being understood and seasonably counteracted by other
nations, changed for centuries the destinies of the World,—which
silently sapped and overthrew the Commercial and Political
greatness of Holland,—which silenced the thunder of Van Tromp,
and swept the broom from his mast-head. But I must not detain you
longer. I do not ask you to judge of this matter by authority, but from
facts which come home to your reason and your daily experience.
There is not an observing and strong-minded mechanic in our city
who could not set any one of these Doctors of the Law right on
essential points. I beg you to consider how few great practical
Statesmen they have ever been able to win to their standard,—I
might almost say none; for Huskisson was but a nominal disciple,
and expressly contravened their whole system upon an attempt to
apply it to the Corn Laws; and Calhoun is but a Free-Trader by
location, and has never yet answered his own powerful arguments in
behalf of Protection. On the other hand, we point you to the long
array of mighty names which have illustrated the annals of
Statesmanship of modern times,—to Chatham, William Pitt, and the
Great Frederick of Prussia; to the whole array of memorable French
Statesmen, including Napoleon the first of them all; to our own
Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison; to our two
Clintons, Tompkins, to say nothing of the eagle-eyed and genial-
hearted LIVING master-spirit [Henry Clay] of our time. The opinions
and the arguments of all these are on record; it is by hearkening to
and heeding their counsels that we shall be prepared to walk in the
light of experience and look forward to a glorious National destiny.
My friends! I dare not detain you longer. I commit to you the cause
of the Nation’s Independence, of her Stability and her Prosperity.
Guard it wisely and shield it well; for it involves your own happiness
and the enduring welfare of your countrymen!
Henry A. Wise
Against Know-Nothingism, Sept. 18, 1852.
The laws of the United States—federal and state laws—declare and
defend the liberties of our people. They are free in every sense—free
in the sense of Magna Charta and beyond Magna Charta; free by the
surpassing franchise of American charters, which makes them
sovereign and their wills the sources of constitutions and laws.
In this country, at this time, does any man think anything? Would
he think aloud? Would he speak anything? Would he write anything?
His mind is free; his person is safe; his property is secure; his house
is his castle; the spirit of the laws is his body-guard and his house-
guard; the fate of one is the fate of all measured by the same common
rule of right; his voice is heard and felt in the general suffrage of
freemen; his trial is in open court, confronted by witnesses and
accusers; his prison house has no secrets, and he has the judgment of
his peers; and there is nought to make him afraid, so long as he
respects the rights of his equals in the eye of the law. Would he
propagate truth? Truth is free to combat error. Would he propagate
error? Error itself may stalk abroad and do her mischief, and make
night itself grow darker, provided truth is left free to follow, however
slowly, with her torches to light up the wreck! Why, then, should any
portion of the people desire to retire in secret, and by secret means to
propagate a political thought, or word, or deed, by stealth? Why band
together, exclusive of others, to do something which all may not
know of, towards some political end? If it be good, why not make the
good known? Why not think it, speak it, write it, act it out openly and
aloud? Or, is it evil, which loveth darkness rather than light? When
there is no necessity to justify a secret association for political ends,
what else can justify it? A caucus may sit in secret to consult on the
general policy of a great public party. That may be necessary or
convenient; but that even is reprehensible, if carried too far. But here
is proposed a great primary, national organization, in its inception—
What? Nobody knows. To do what? Nobody knows. How organized?
Nobody knows. Governed by whom? Nobody knows. How bound? By
what rites? By what test oaths? With what limitations and restraints?
Nobody, nobody knows! All we know is that persons of foreign birth
and of Catholic faith are proscribed; and so are all others who don’t
proscribe them at the polls. This is certainly against the spirit of
Magna Charta.
A Prussian born subject came to this country. He complied with

our naturalization laws in all respects of notice of intention,
residence, oath of allegiance, and proof of good moral character. He
remained continuously in the United States the full period of five
years. When he had fully filled the measure of his probation and was
consummately a naturalized citizen of the United States, he then,
and not until then, returned to Prussia to visit an aged father. He was
immediately, on his return, seized and forced into the Landwehr, or
militia system of Prussia, under the maxim: “Once a citizen, always a
citizen!” There he is forced to do service to the king of Prussia at this
very hour. He applies for protection to the United States. Would the
Know-Nothings interpose in his behalf or not? Look at the principles
involved. We, by our laws, encouraged him to come to our country,
and here he was allowed to become naturalized, and to that end
required to renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to the king
of Prussia, and to swear allegiance and fidelity to the United States.
The king of Prussia now claims no legal forfeiture from him—he
punishes him for no crime—he claims of him no legal debt—he
claims alone that very allegiance and fidelity which we required the
man to abjure and renounce. Not only so, but he hinders the man
from returning to the United States, and from discharging the
allegiance and fidelity we required him to swear to the United States.
The king of Prussia says he should do him service for seven years, for
this was what he was born to perform; his obligations were due to
him first, and his laws were first binding him. The United States say
—true, he was born under your laws, but he had a right to expatriate
himself; he owed allegiance first to you, but he had a right to
forswear it and to swear allegiance to us; your laws first applied, but
this is a case of political obligation, not of legal obligation; it is not
for any crime or debt you claim to bind him, but it is for allegiance;
and the claim you set up to his services on the ground of his political
obligation, his allegiance to you, which we allow him to abjure and
renounce, is inconsistent with his political obligation, his allegiance,
which we required him to swear to the United States; he has sworn
fidelity to us, and we have, by our laws, pledged protection to him.
Such is the issue. Now, with which will the Know-Nothings take
sides? With the king of Prussia against our naturalized citizen and
against America, or with America and our naturalized citizen? Mark,
now, Know-Nothingism is opposed to all foreign influence—against
American institutions. The king of Prussia is a pretty potent foreign
influence—he was one of the holy alliance of crowned heads. Will
they take part with him, and not protect the citizen? Then they will
aid a foreign influence against our laws! Will they take sides with our
naturalized citizen? If so, then upon what grounds? Now, they must
have a good cause of interposition to justify us against all the
received dogmas of European despotism.
Don’t they see, can’t they perceive, that they have no other grounds
than those I have urged? He is our citizen, nationalized, owing us
allegiance and we owing him protection. And if we owe him
protection abroad, because of his sworn allegiance to us as a
naturalized citizen, what then can deprive him of his privileges at
home among us when he returns? If he be a citizen at all, he must be
allowed the privileges of citizenship, or he will not be the equal of his
fellow-citizens. And must not Know-Nothingism strike at the very
equality of citizenship, or allow him to enjoy all its lawful privileges?
If Catholics and naturalized citizens are to be citizens and yet to be
proscribed from office, they must be rated as an inferior class—an
excluded class of citizens. Will it be said that the law will not make
this distinction? Then are we to understand that Know-Nothings
would not make them equal by law? If not by law, how can they
pretend to make them unequal, by their secret order, without law
and against law? For them, by secret combination, to make them
unequal, to impose a burthen or restriction upon their privileges
which the law does not, is to set themselves up above the law, and to
supersede by private and secret authority, intangible and
irresponsible, the rule of public, political right. Indeed, is this not the
very essence of the “Higher Law” doctrine? It cannot be said to be
legitimate public sentiment and the action of its authority. Public
sentiment, proper, is a concurrence of the common mind in some
conclusion, conviction, opinion, taste, or action in respect to persons
or things subject to its public notice. It will, and it must control the
minds and actions of men, by public and conventional opinion.
Count Molé said that in France it was stronger than statutes. It is so
here. That it is which should decide at the polls of a republic. But,
here is a secret sentiment, which may be so organized as to
contradict the public sentiment. Candidate A. may be a native and a
Protestant, and may concur with the community, if it be a Know-
Nothing community, on every other subject except that of
proscribing Catholics and naturalized citizens: and candidate B. may
concur with the community on the subject of this proscription alone,
and upon no other subject; and yet the Know-Nothings might elect B.
by their secret sentiment against the public sentiment. Thus it
attacks not only American doctrines of expatriation, allegiance, and
protection, but the equality of citizenship, and the authority of public
sentiment. In the affair of Koszta, how did our blood rush to his
rescue? Did the Know-Nothing side with him and Mr. Marcy, or with
Hulseman and Austria? If with Koszta, why? Let them ask
themselves for the rationale, and see if it can in reason abide with
their orders. There is no middle ground in respect to naturalization.
We must either have naturalization laws and let foreigners become
citizens, on equal terms of capacities and privileges, or we must
exclude them altogether. If we abolish naturalization laws, we return
to the European dogma: “Once a citizen, always a citizen.” If we let
foreigners be naturalized and don’t extend to them equality of
privileges, we set up classes and distinctions of persons wholly
opposed to republicanism. We will, as Rome did, have citizens who
may be scourged. The three alternatives are presented—Our present
policy, liberal, and just, and tolerant, and equal: or the European
policy of holding the noses of native born slaves to the grind-stone of
tyranny all their lives; or, odious distinctions of citizenship tending
to social and political aristocracy. I am for the present laws of
naturalization.
As to religion, the Constitution of the United States, art. 6, sec. 3,
especially provides that no religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
The state of Virginia has, from her earliest history, passed the most
liberal laws, not only towards naturalization, but towards foreigners.
But I have said enough to show the spirit of American laws and the
true sense of American maxims.
3d. Know-Nothingism is against the spirit of Reformation and of
Protestantism.
What was there to reform?
Let the most bigoted Protestant enumerate what he defines to have
been the abominations of the church of Rome. What would he say
were the worst? The secrets of Jesuitism, of the Auto da fe, of the
Monasteries and of the Nunneries. The private penalties of the
Inquisition’s Scavenger’s Daughter. Proscription, persecution,
bigotry, intolerance, shutting up of the book of the word. And do
Protestants now mean to out-Jesuit the Jesuits? Do they mean to
strike and not be seen? To be felt and not to be heard? To put a
shudder upon humanity by the masks of mutes? Will they wear the
monkish cowls? Will they inflict penalties at the polls without
reasoning together with their fellows at the hustings? Will they
proscribe? Persecute? Will they bloat up themselves into that bigotry
which would burn nonconformists? Will they not tolerate freedom of
conscience, but doom dissenters, in secret conclave, to a forfeiture of
civil privileges for a religious difference? Will they not translate the
scripture of their faith? Will they visit us with dark lanterns and
execute us by signs, and test oaths, and in secrecy? Protestantism!
forbid it!
If anything was ever open, fair, and free—if anything was ever
blatant even—it was the Reformation. To quote from a mighty British
pen: “It gave a mighty impulse and increased activity to thought and
inquiry, agitated the inert mass of accumulated prejudices
throughout Europe. The effect of the concussion was general, but the
shock was greatest in this country” (England). It toppled down the
full grown intolerable abuses of centuries at a blow; heaved the
ground from under the feet of bigoted faith and slavish obedience;
and the roar and dashing of opinions, loosened from their
accustomed hold, might be heard like the noise of an angry sea, and
has never yet subsided. Germany first broke the spell of misbegotten
fear, and gave the watchword; but England joined the shout, and
echoed it back, with her island voice, from her thousand cliffs and
craggy shores, in a longer and louder strain. With that cry the genius
of Great Britain rose, and threw down the gauntlet to the nations.
There was a mighty fermentation: the waters were out; public
opinion was in a state of projection; liberty was held out to all to
think and speak the truth; men’s brains were busy; their spirits
stirring; their hearts full; and their hands not idle. Their eyes were
opened to expect the greatest things, and their ears burned with
curiosity and zeal to know the truth, that the truth might make them
free. The death-blow which had been struck at scarlet vice and
bloated hypocrisy, loosened tongues, and made the talismans and
love tokens of popish superstitions with which she had beguiled her
followers and committed abominations with the people, fall harmless
from their necks.
The translation of the Bible was the chief engine in the great work.
It threw open, by a secret spring, the rich treasures of religion and
morality, which had then been locked up as in a shrine. It revealed
the visions of the Prophets, and conveyed the lessons of inspired
teachers to the meanest of the people. It gave them a common
interest in a common cause. Their hearts burnt within them as they
read. It gave a mind to the people, by giving them common subjects
of thought and feeling. It cemented their Union of character and
sentiment; it created endless diversity and collision of opinion. They
found objects to employ their faculties, and a motive in the
magnitude of the consequences attached to them, to exert the utmost
eagerness in the pursuit of truth, and the most daring intrepidity in
maintaining it. Religious controversy sharpens the understanding by
the subtlety and remoteness of the topics it discusses, and braces the
will by their infinite importance. We perceive in the history of this
period a nervous, masculine intellect. No levity, no feebleness, no
indifference; or, if there were, it is a relaxation from the intense
activity which gives a tone to its general character. But there is a
gravity approaching to piety, a seriousness of impression, a
conscientious severity of argument, an habitual fervor of enthusiasm
in their method of handling almost every subject. The debates of the
schoolmen were sharp and subtle enough: but they wanted interest
and grandeur, and were besides confined to a few. They did not affect
the general mass of the community. But the Bible was thrown open
to all ranks and conditions “to own and read,” with its wonderful
table of contents, from Genesis to the Revelation. Every village in
England would present the scene so well described in Burns’s
“Cotter’s Saturday Night.” How unlike this agitation, this shock, this
angry sea, this fermentation, this shout and its echoes, this impulse
and activity, this concussion, this general effect, this blow, this
earthquake, this roar and dashing, this longer and louder strain, this
public opinion, this liberty to all to think and speak the truth, this
stirring of spirits, this opening of eyes, this zeal to know—not
nothing—but the truth, that the truth might make them free. How
unlike to this is Know-Nothingism, sitting and brooding in secret to
proscribe Catholics and naturalized citizens! Protestantism protested
against secrecy, it protested against shutting out the light of truth, it
protested against proscription, bigotry, and intolerance. It loosened
all tongues, and fought the owls and bats of night with the light of
meridian day. The argument of Know-Nothings is the argument of
silence. The order ignores all knowledge. And its proscription can’t
arrest itself within the limit of excluding Catholics and naturalized
citizens. It must proscribe natives and Protestants both, who will not
consent to unite in proscribing Catholics and naturalized citizens.
Nor is that all; it must not only apply to birth and religion, it must
necessarily extend itself to the business of life as well as to political
preferments.
Kenneth Raynor, of North Carolina, on
Fusion of Fremont and Fillmore Forces.
Extracts from his Speech at Philadelphia, November 1, 1856.

My brother Americans, do you intend to let these mischief-makers
put you and me together by the ears? [Many voices; “no, no.”] Then
let us beat James Buchanan for the Presidency. [“We will—we will,”
and great applause.] He is the representative of slavery agitation; he
is the representative of discord between sections; he is the man
whom Northern and Southern agitators have agreed to present as
their candidate. If he be elected now, and the difficulties in Kansas be
healed, at the end of four years they will spring upon you another
question of slavery agitation. It will be the taking of Cuba from Spain,
or cutting off another slice from Mexico for the purpose of
embroiling the North against the South; and then, if I shall resist that
agitation, I shall be called an Abolitionist, again.
My countrymen, God forbid that I should attempt to dictate to you

or even advise you. I am not competent to do so. I know that
divisions exist among you, while I feel also confident that the same
purpose animates all your hearts. Do not suppose for one moment
that I am the representative of any clique or faction.
Unfortunately, I find that our friends here are in the same
condition in which the Jews were, when besieged by the Roman
general, Titus. Whilst the battering-rams of the Romans were beating
down their walls, and the firebrand of the heathen was consuming
their temple, the historian tells us that that great people were
engaged in intestine commotions, some advocating the claims of one,
and some of another, to the high priesthood of that nation; and
instead of the Romans devouring them, they devoured each other.
God forbid that my brother Americans should devour each other, at a
time when every heart and every hand should be enlisted in the same
cause, of overthrowing the common enemy of us all.
Who is that common enemy? [Voices, “The Democratic party.”]
Yes, that party have reviled us, abused us, persecuted us, and all only
because we are determined to adhere to the Constitution of our
country. Give Buchanan a lease of power for four years, and we must
toil through persecution, submit to degradation, or cause the streets
of our cities to run blood. But we will submit to degradation provided
we can see the end of our troubles. We are willing to go through a
pilgrimage, not only of four years, but of ten, or twenty, or forty
years, provided we can have an assurance that at last we shall reach
the top of Pisgah, and see the promised land which our children are
to inherit. God has not given to us poor frail mortals the power, at all
times, of controlling events. When we cannot control events, should
we not, where no sacrifice of honor is involved, pursue the policy of
Lysander, and where the lion’s skin is too short, eke it out with the
fox’s [applause]—not where principle is involved—not where a
surrender of our devotion to our country is at stake. No; never,
never!
I know nothing of your straight-out ticket; I know nothing of your
Union ticket; I know nothing of Fremont. I do know something of
Fillmore; but I would not give my Americanism, and the hopes which
I cherish of seeing Americanism installed as the policy of this nation,
for all the Fillmores, or Fremonts, or Buchanans, that ever lived on
the face of the earth.
St. Paul says, “if it offends my brother, I will eat no meat;” and if it
offends my brother here, I will not open my mouth. Nobody can
suspect me. [Voices: “certainly not.”] Then I say, can’t you combine
the vote of this state, and beat Buchanan? [This question was
responded to in the affirmative, with the greatest enthusiasm.]
Repeated cheers were proposed for the straight ticket, but the
responding voices were by no means numerous, and were mingled
with hisses. Such was the universal excitement, that for some
minutes the speaker was obliged to pause. He finally raised his voice
above the subsiding storm, and said:—
Come, my friends, we are all brothers; we are all seeking the same
end. Our object is the same. We are all struggling to reach the same
haven of safety. The only difference of opinion is as to the proper
means by which to accomplish our common end. Will not Americans
learn prudence from the past? Misfortune should have taught us
charity for each other. We have passed through the ordeal of
persecution together; we have been subjected to the same difficulties,
and the same oppression; we have been baptized (I may say) in the
same stream of calumny. Then, in the name of God—in the name of
our common country—in the name of Americanism—in the name of
American nationality—in the name of religious freedom—in the
name of the Union, I beseech you to learn charity for the difference
of opinion which prevails among you. Let brethren forbear with
brethren. Let us recollect that it is not by vituperation, by the censure
of our brethren, that we can ever accomplish this great end of
conquering a common enemy. My friends, how long are we to suffer?
How long will it be before we shall learn that it is only by a union of
counsels, a concentration of energy, a combination of purpose, that
we can destroy the common enemy of every conservative man. [Great
applause.]
I shall not attempt to advise you, for I am not competent to do it.
You have information which I do not possess. You know all the
undercurrents of opinion which prevail here in your community,
with which I am unacquainted; but will you allow an humble man to
express his opinion to brethren whom he loves? May I do it? I am a
Fillmore man—nothing but a Fillmore man, and if I resided here, I
would vote no ticket which had not the name of Millard Fillmore at
its head, and I would advise no Fillmore man to vote a ticket with
Fremont’s name on it; but I would vote for that ticket which would
make my voice tell at the polls.
Now let us look at this thing practically. In reading history I have
always admired the character of Oliver Cromwell. What was the great
motive by which he was actuated in overthrowing the house of
Stuart? It was unfailing devotion to principle. His motto was, “Put
your trust in God, and keep your powder dry.” I admire the devotion
to principle in every man who says that he does not intend to vote
any but the straight ticket, for it shows that Americanism has such a
lodgment in his heart, that he cannot bear even seemingly to
compromise it. That is “putting your trust in God;” but, my friends, is
it “keeping your powder dry?” The enemy may steal into the camp
while you are asleep, and may pour water upon your cartridges, so
that when the day of battle shall come, you may shoot, but you will
kill nobody. I want the vote of every American, on Tuesday next, to
tell. Would to God that you could give the twenty-seven electoral
votes of Pennsylvania to Fillmore. Then vote the straight ticket, if
that will give him the twenty-seven votes. But suppose it will not
(and I am afraid it will not), then the question is, had you better give
Buchanan the twenty-seven votes, or give Fillmore eight, ten, twelve,
or twenty, as the case may be. I go for beating Buchanan.
Gentlemen, you do not know what we Americans suffer at the
South. I am abused and reviled for standing up in defence of you.
When I hear the whole North denounced as a set of Abolitionists,
whose purpose it is to interfere with the peculiar institutions of the
South, I brand such charges as slanders on the Northern people. I tell
them that the great mass of the Northern people are sound on this
question; that they are opposed to slavery, as I should be if I were a
Northern man; but that I do not believe that the great mass of the
Northern people have any idea of interfering with the constitutional
rights of the people of the South. I know that such men as Garrison
and Forney have. I know that Garrison believes the Constitution to
be a “league with hell,” and would therefore destroy it if he could;
and I know that Forney loves office so well, that even at the risk of
snapping the Union, he will keep alive slavery agitation. But Garrison
does not represent New England, and Forney does not represent you.
As much as I have been reviled for standing by you, I am so
anxious to have Buchanan beaten, that were I residing here, if I could
not give Fillmore the whole twenty-seven votes, I would give him all I
could, by giving him the number to which he might be entitled by the
numerical proportion of the votes at the ballot-box. Yet, if there is a
brother American here who feels in his “heart of hearts,” that by
voting that Union ticket, he would compromise his Americanism, I
say to such an one, “do not vote that ticket.” At the same time,
candor compels me to say, that I differ in opinion with him. If I
believed that that ticket was a fusion, or that it called upon any
Fillmore man to vote for Fremont, I would advise no one to vote it. I
would not vote a ticket that had on it the name of Fremont; but I
would vote a ticket with Fillmore’s name upon it, and which would
give him (if not the twenty-seven electoral votes) seven, or ten, or
twenty, just as the numerical proportion of the votes might decide.
I appeal to every conservative, Union-loving man in this nation,
who is disposed to give to the South all the constitutional privileges
to which she is entitled, and who wishes to rebuke the Democratic
party for the repeal of the Missouri compromise, and for keeping up
the eternal agitation of slavery. I appeal to you as a southern man—as
a slaveholder. I do not ask you to be pro-slavery men, to be the
advocates of slavery, when I say to you that we, your brethren of the
South, expect you to preserve our constitutional rights—and, God
knows, we ask nothing more—against fanatics, either north or south.
Will you do it?
My friends, the election is fast approaching. There is but little time
for deliberation left. Is there no way by which the votes of the anti-
Buchanan party can be concentrated on the same ticket? I would
shed tears of blood—God knows I would—if I could be instrumental
in prevailing on all true Americans to combine. I cannot tell you how
to combine; but is it yet too late? If it is too late to do it throughout
the state, cannot you in Philadelphia do it? The Presidential election
may depend upon the state of Pennsylvania, and the state of
Pennsylvania may depend upon the city of Philadelphia. On the vote
of the city of Philadelphia may depend not only our own rights, but
the rights of our children and our children’s children. I appeal to my
brother Americans, for I have no right to appeal to anybody else; I
cannot address the Fremont party, for I have no affiliation with
them; I cannot address the Buchanan party, for my object is to
destroy them if possible. To my American brethren, then, I appeal,
for God’s sake, do not let the sun rise upon that wrath, which I see
divides you. Your object is the same—to rescue your common
country.
Let me advise you who know nothing of your divisions—who
belong neither to one clique or the other. I say with the deepest
sincerity that I think all parties ought to have concentrated upon the
Fillmore ticket. Mr. Fillmore is a northern man. Your southern
brethren were willing to support him. He had guided the ship of state
safely through the storm, and it was but reasonable to suppose that
in time of difficulty he would again be found the same good pilot. But
if we cannot get all others to unite on Mr. Fillmore, each of us must
inquire, “What is my duty? If the mountain will not come to
Mahomet, shall not Mahomet go to the mountain; and if he will not
go to the mountain, in heaven’s name, shall he not go half way?”
I am fighting for the victory which we may obtain in this contest.
And what an issue is now pending! We read in the Iliad how, for ten
long years, a great people of antiquity were engaged in the siege of
Troy. What was the stake for which they contended? It was nothing
more than a beautiful woman, who had been ravished by a sprig of
the royal line of Troy. What is the stake for which we contend? It is
constitutional liberty—the right of the American people to govern
their own country—the right of every citizen to worship God
according to the dictates of his conscience. The great issue is,
whether the American flag shall still wave in glory when we shall
have gone to our graves, or whether it shall be trailed in dishonor—
whether the “blackness of darkness” which would follow the
dissolution of this Union, shall cover the land.
I do not tell you how to combine: but I urge you to resort to that
mode (if there is such a mode possible), by which you can get
together—by which your votes can be made effectual at the polls—by
which Millard Fillmore can go before the House of Representatives
with the strong moral power which a large electoral vote will give
him.
That is the way in which we must view the question as practical
men. Yet so different are the conditions of our nature, so different
the sentiments which actuate us, that I will not be guilty of such
presumption, as to tell any man what particular course he should
take. You know my opinions; if they are worth anything, receive
them into your hearts, simply as the sentiments of a brother
American; if they are worth nothing, let them pass as the idle wind.
In conclusion I will only say that whether we be defeated or
whether we be victorious, the only reward I ask for in the labor in
which I am engaged is, that you may recollect me as one who had at
heart only the welfare of his country, and who endeavored to
promote it by appealing to the associations of the past, and all the
hopes of the future.
Religious Test.
Debate in the Convention on that article in the Constitution in

regard to it.
Mr. Pinkney moved that no religious test shall ever be required as
a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Mr. Sherman thought it unnecessary, the prevailing liberality
being a sufficient security against all such tests.
Rev. Mr. Backus of Mass. I beg leave to offer a few thoughts upon
the Constitution proposed to us; and I shall begin with the exclusion
of any religious test. Many appear to be much concerned about it;
but nothing is more evident, both in reason and the Holy Scriptures,
than that religion is ever a matter between God and individuals; and
that, therefore, no man or set of men can impose any religious test
without invading the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ministers first assumed this power under the Christian name, and
then Constantine approved of the practice when he adopted the
profession of Christianity as an engine of state policy. And let the
history of all nations be searched, from that day to this, and it will
appear that the imposing of religious tests hath been the greatest
engine of tyranny in the world.
Oliver Wolcott of Conn. For myself I should be content either
with or without that clause in the Constitution which excludes test
laws. Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I
do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to
establish one religious sect and lay all others under legal disabilities.
But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test
would be destructive of the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it
superfluous to have added a clause which secures us from the
possibility of such oppression.
Mr. Madison of Va. I confess to you, sir, that were uniformity of
religion to be introduced by this system, it would, in my opinion, be
ineligible; but I have no reason to conclude that uniformity of
government will produce that of religion. This subject is, for the
honor of America, left perfectly free and unshackled. The
government has no jurisdiction over it—the least reflection will
convince us there is no danger on this ground. Happily for the states,
they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from
that multiplicity of sects which pervades America, and which is the
best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For, where
there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one
sect to oppress and persecute the rest.
Mr. Iredell of N. C. used this language: “Every person in the least
conversant with the history of mankind, knows what dreadful
mischiefs have been committed by religious persecution. Under the
color of religious tests, the utmost cruelties have been exercised.
Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centred in
themselves, that they alone had the right to dictate to the rest of
mankind, and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and
impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit has been that each
church has in turn set itself up against every other, and persecutions
and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place
in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to
think more rationally—that a man may be of religious sentiments
differing from our own, without being a bad member of society. The
principles of toleration, to the honor of this age, are doing away those
errors and prejudices which have so long prevailed even in the most
intolerant countries. In Roman Catholic lands, principles of
moderation are adopted, which would have been spurned a century
or two ago. It will be fatal, indeed, to find, at the time when examples
of toleration are set even by arbitrary governments, that this country,
so impressed with the highest sense of liberty, should adopt
principles on this subject that were narrow, despotic, and illiberal.”

Textbook Competing Values in Archaeological Heritage Stuart Campbell Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Competing Values in Archaeological Heritage Stuart Campbell Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Competing Values in Archaeological

Heritage Stuart Campbell

Finding Solutions for Protecting and Sharing

Digging into Software Knowledge Generation in Cultural

Good Practice in Archaeological Diagnostics Non

Competing Arctic Futures Nina Wormbs

Archaeological chemistry VIII 1st Edition Armitage

Famine in Somalia: Competing Imperatives, Collective

Idle Hands 7 Deadly Sins 1st Edition Barbra Campbell

Competing Imperialisms in Northeast Asia : New

ISBN 978-3-319-94101-1 ISBN 978-3-319-94102-8 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018951784

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Printed on acid-free paper

n­ on-­professional groups can produce socially nuanced and effective management

Professor Claire Smith

10 Archaeological Heritage and Metal Detectors:

Riikka Alvik The Finnish Heritage Agency, Cultural Environment Services,

Suzie Thomas is Professor of Cultural Heritage Studies at the University of

Liz White, Stuart Campbell, and Suzie Thomas

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 1

measured against international (or European, in our examples) benchmarks of ‘good

In the context of Scotland, he mentions a ‘crisis of cultural authority’ – an idea

describe what is a law abiding and frequently constructive area of non-professional

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019 7

Legislation for Protection of Cultural Heritage in Finland

In Finland ancient monuments are protected by the Antiquities Act of 1963.

Management and Protection of Shipwreck Remains

 he Case of Vrouw Maria: Historical Background

Vrouw Maria was a two-mast, snow-rigged merchant ship of a late eighteenth-­

The Vrouw Maria Court Proceedings in Finland

Claim to the European Court of Human Rights

Vrouw Maria Underwater Project 2009–2012

A Prussian born subject came to this country. He complied with

Extracts from his Speech at Philadelphia, November 1, 1856.

My countrymen, God forbid that I should attempt to dictate to you

Debate in the Convention on that article in the Constitution in

You might also like

n on-professional groups can produce socially nuanced and effective management

10 Archaeological Heritage and Metal Detectors:

Legislation for Protection of Cultural Heritage in Finland

Management and Protection of Shipwreck Remains

he Case of Vrouw Maria: Historical Background

Vrouw Maria was a two-mast, snow-rigged merchant ship of a late eighteenth-

The Vrouw Maria Court Proceedings in Finland

Claim to the European Court of Human Rights

Vrouw Maria Underwater Project 2009–2012