Museum International U Underwater cultural heritage Vol LX, n°4 / 240, December 2008Editorial ‘‘‘U nderwater cultural heritage’’ means all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character which have been partially or totally under water, periodically or continuously, for at least 100 years’ (Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, UNESCO, 2001). Over the centuries, vessels of various shapes and sizes have plied our seas and rivers carrying merchandise and men with dreams of trade and conquest. Relics of this past are found in almost every part of the world, buried beneath both freshwater and saltwater. Famed underwater archaeological sites include Port Royal in Jamaica and the ruins of the famous Lighthouse of Alexandria on the island of Pharos (one of the Seven Wonders of the World). But above all, there exist 3 million shipwrecks, some of which are believed to contain valuable items. Unfortunately, underwater excavations of such sites have become associated with treasure hunting. But these remains lying in sand or silt are representative of a much greater wealth: the history of humankind in all its diversity. With modern diving techniques, the underwater kingdom, its wrecks and its archaeological deposits, have become easier to access and as a consequence are now at risk. Because States have concentrated their efforts on preserving land-based cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible), underwater heritage, for its part, is only partially covered by protective legislation. On the basis that the principle of cultural diversity will only be recognized if common interests are defended, UNESCO has drawn up a complete set of hard and soft standard-setting instruments for the cultural sphere. These include the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Following the example of land-based heritage, this offers States Parties ‘common principles’ on safeguarding the underwater cultural heritage of humanity. The 2001 Convention came into force on 2 January 2009 – eight years after it was adopted. This unusually long period is a reflection not only of the range of political and economic issues surrounding the Convention, but also of the stormy nature of the accompanying discussions. The ups and downs of cooperation between States, the market value of underwater heritage, and the role that preservation of submerged sites and wrecks plays 4 ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (vol. 60, No. 4, 2008)  UNESCO 2009 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.in social and economic development are just some of the questions being raised by underwater cultural heritage – a heritage that, for the first time, is being defined by its place of discovery. This current issue of MUSEUM International attempts to address these issues, starting with an overview of site exploration and the problems that this new form of cultural heritage pose for preservation. The first article by David Nutley examines underwater sites as ‘time capsules’, and looks at the ways in which their opening by diving archaeologists can shed light on history. This has obvious benefits for science, while enabling us to better comprehend our roots in time and place. However, this hardly corresponds to the media’s romantic approach to the discovery of submerged remains. But as Tatiana Villegas Zamora demonstrates, underwater treasure hunting may be synonymous with profit for some, but represents an irreversible loss for the great majority. In many cases, archaeological artefacts end up in the hands of unscrupulous traders, with the result that whole swathes of human endeavour are lost to science and the public. This being the case, why not allow wrecks to remain in their original surroundings? Indeed, as Martijn Manders explains, water is also extremely effective in preserving the remains of wrecks it causes. As Jean-Bernard Memet makes clear in his article, increasingly sophisticated technological innovations make possible the conservation of shells of submerged wrecks regardless of the material from which they are made. But then arises the question of how to arrange public access. Ambitious museology projects are already being planned in the Bay of Alexandria and the artificial lake of the Three Gorges Dam in China. The once-distant dream of ‘underwater museums’ as environments not only for divers and snorkellers, but where visitors can view sites without even getting wet, is no longer a figment of our imaginations: it is about to become a reality. Today, we are more aware that in order to preserve a cultural item it is first necessary to recognize its existence in law. Unfortunately, where underwater heritage is concerned, the situation varies considerably from one State to another. Some States had no specific legislation while others had only a bare minimum. Even the most protective domestic law proved insufficient to the task. An international agreement was therefore essential. The UNESCO Convention of 2001 complements States’ existing legal arrangements as well as the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea by providing a specific framework not only for protection, but also for cooperation between its States Parties. The articles by Ulrike Koschtial and Thijs Maarleveld in the second part of this Editorial ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 5issue examine the debate and ensuing controversy surrounding the Convention, and demonstrate that it fills a gap in the law that formerly gave free rein to trafficking, looting and illegal excavation. The Convention and the rules it lays down are not intended to curb intelligent initiatives or affect titles to wrecks. On the contrary, its purpose is to find common ground. Its enforcement nevertheless remains a challenge for many States. In his article, Gilson Rambelli discusses the case of Brazil, which, thanks to the work of ARCHEMAR, among others, is an example of what countries can achieve in terms of public awareness to promote protection. The third part of this issue explores how underwater cultural heritage is rolling back the frontiers of theory and practice with regards to heritage protection. The professional sphere is seeing the emergence of cross-training, with more archaeologists and conservators learning how to dive, and sports divers becoming advocates for underwater heritage preservation. The field of sustainable development is expanding, now reaching beyond the boundaries of coastal areas to encompass entire regions – a subject that Jansen Mesić explores, using the example of Croatia. Francisco J. S. Alves describes advances in the experimental field, with Portugal’s creation of underwater archaeological trails, while Luis Alberto Martos López explains the importance of the exploration of underwater cenotes in the heart of Maya country – themselves unique heritage sites, whose existence is now at risk. The preparation of this issue benefited from the preparatory work of two archaeologists, Rodrigo Solinis Casparius and Tatiana Villegas Zamora, as well as the support of our colleagues in charge of the implementation of the 2001 Convention. We offer to all our thanks for their collaborative efforts. Isabelle Vinson EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Editorial 6 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Submerged Cultural Sites: opening a time capsule by David Nutley David Nutley is a maritime archaeologist and vice-president of both the International Committee for Underwater Cultural Heritage (ICUCH) and the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology (AIMA). He works with the Heritage Branch of the South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage and serves on the Australian Government’s task force for considering ratification of the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. He has established and coordinated the development of an Underwater Cultural Heritage Management Programme for New South Wales (Australia) and has assisted UNESCO in a number of experts’ meetings and other activities as a member of ICUCH. Drop something in the ocean and it is gone forever. Well, perhaps not. With increasingly sophisticated technologies, the world’s oceans and inland waters are delivering up extraordinary evidence of humanity’s past. The secrets of our ancestors, both ancient and more recent, are becoming increasingly accessible. Accessibility however is not just a question of finding and recovering. Understanding these gifts from our predecessors requires best practice, archaeological investigation and analysis. Anything less is likely to destroy these precious time capsules. Visibility and other environmental variables can be extremely challenging underwater, while sites can be very fragile. Protecting and understanding these environments require specialized observation skills. This is the role of archaeology. The sea’s reputation as a destroyer is legendary. Storms, reefs and other natural forces have taken a heavy toll on human life, while sea-based vessels of all types are vulnerable to tempests and sudden impact on rocky shores. ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) ª UNESCO 2009 7 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Rafts, dugout canoes, sailing boats and the most powerful ocean-going iron and steel ships are all found among the lists of vessels lost at sea. To this tally can be added losses arising from warfare and human error. In all, millions of recorded vessels have sunk into the ocean’s depths.1 Inland waters, rivers, lakes and estuaries also have their own hazards and are littered with the remains of wrecked or abandoned riverboats. The sea can also take a heavy toll on land sites. In recent years we have seen the effects of appalling damage visited upon coastal communities by tsunamis in South-East Asia and Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. In addition, the potential impacts of impending rises in sea level as a result of global warming are becoming increasingly apparent. We are not the first generation to deal with such events: many of our present coastlines lie many kilometres back from where our ancestors stood 25,000 years ago, and even further inland from where they stood 140,000 years ago.2 Our coastal towns stand on land they would have considered high ground – up to 100 m above their coastline. Their forestlands, lakes, rivers, farms and dwelling places now lie beneath our coastal waters. The sea does destroy and its immediate effects can be devastating. However, once an object is submerged, water can be a great preserver of ª D av id N u tl ey 1 1. Ship graveyard in Newcastle (Australia). EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 8 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.cultural heritage. This was graphically demonstrated during the December 2004 Asian tsunami. The destruction on land was devastating, particularly at points where the land and sea met. In addition to the human toll, homes, port facilities, farms and trees were unable to withstand the immense power of the breaking waves. However, underwater archaeological sites, even those close to shore, suffered almost no damage. The 1659 Dutch shipwreck, Avondster, for example, was partially covered with a new layer of protective sand.3 Once underwater, material culture generally has a much greater chance of survival than on land. This is powerfully demonstrated in Figure 3, which is based upon materials found in archaeological excavations. This graph shows the relationship between the general survival of different materials on land and in underwater environments. For most materials, the chances of survival are significantly enhanced by underwater immersion. Only very inert materials like gold and certain types of stone are unlikely to demonstrate any difference in behaviour. Many underwater sites have been preserved by the sea for hundreds or even thousands of years. These represent different cultures and lie in varied geographical and environmental settings, scattered across the world’s oceans, seas, waterways, lakes, swamps and bogs. What types of sites lie under water? The 2001 UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage defines this heritage as: ‘all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character which have been partially or totally under water, periodically or continuously, for at least 100 years’.4 Since human beings need water to live, our societies have always been situated predominantly near coasts, rivers or lakes. Oceans, seas and waterways have also been used for transport and industry since time immemorial. The number of human-made artefacts that have ended up underwater, either through natural causes, accident, design or warfare, is thus unsurprising. There are four major overarching categories of submerged archaeological site which determine the nature of the sites that may be found: a) functionality, b) chronology, c) how the ª D av id N u tl ey 2 2. Portion of an anchor from the Kublai Khan fleet wrecked at Taskashima (Japan). Submerged Cultural Sites: opening a time capsule David Nutley ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 9material came to be underwater, and d) environmental. Functionality Functionality relates to the manufacture of the artefacts that comprise the site. For instance, in a shipwreck site this would refer to items such as the ship’s structure, its cargo, or the possessions of the passengers and crew. Important questions include: what was the purpose for which the ship was built? Was cargo, capacity or speed the main consideration? Was it built primarily as a cargo or passenger vessel? Was it meant to operate on rivers, lakes, short coastal voyages or long, open ocean voyages? Was it built for recreational use, commerce or warfare? All these factors will influence the configuration of the ship, the type of materials used in its construction, the strength of the hull, the nature and quantity of the cargo on-board, and the types of personal possessions being carried. A vessel like the Sydney Cove, lost on a small island in Bass Strait off the Australian south coast in 1797, provides an example of a shipwreck site that can be interpreted to reveal the ship’s function. The Sydney Cove was carrying a cargo of general goods from Calcutta in India to Sydney on the east coast of Australia. It would be generally expected that a vessel on this route would be designed to withstand the demanding conditions of the southern Indian Ocean and the Roaring Forties5 south of Australia. Archaeological research at the site, however, revealed a ship that was lightly built and much more suited to work along the relatively sheltered coastline of the subcontinent. The Sydney Cove had been sent on what was to be an ill-judged and fateful voyage6 – one for which the ship was never intended. The Tudor ship Mary Rose in contrast was built for battle at sea. Heavily armed and solidly built as befitting the flagship of the English king, ª N au ti ca l A rc h ae ol og y S oc ie ty (N A S ) ⁄ A ft er C ol es 3 3. Survival of clues on underwater sites relative to dry sites – information is often better preserved and protected underwater. EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 10 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Henry VIII, this was a vessel constructed with the best materials available taking advantage of the latest technologies in naval warfare.7 The holds of the Mary Rose were filled not with goods of trade, but with gun barrels, cannonballs, gunpowder, longbows, arrows and surgeon’s equipment for treating the wounded. In addition, the ship carried the normal materials required to keep a vessel at sea: sails and rigging materials, a ship’s galley with cooking equipment and tableware, navigational aids and the personal items of the soldiers and crew (Figure 4). The tradition of timber fighting ships continued up until the middle of the nineteenth century. Then, in March 1862, the ironclad USS Monitor and CSS Virginia engaged in a four-hour battle. The outcome was a draw with both vessels retiring essentially unhurt; the effectiveness of defensive ironclad hulls had been proven. This encounter hastened the end of wooden-hulled warships and their traditional use of broadside engagement.8 The Monitor later foundered, however, while being towed on New Year’s Eve the same year. Documentation regarding the remains of this warship provides a comparative record of the survival of wooden and iron shipwrecks. Unlike the Mary Rose, the Monitor did not become buried in sand but lay above the seabed for approximately 121 years before being discovered in 1973.9 Instead of rotting away like the exposed wooden hull of the Mary Rose, the Monitor’s exposed hull remained largely intact as a result of the inherent strength of the ironclad hull and the turret gun. For aircraft, the need for speed and relative lightness effectively precluded the application of armour plating. However, lightweight metals such as aluminium corrode rapidly in seawater, and in electrolytic connection with other metals, such as iron, form galvanic cells that can further accelerate decay. However, the functions of aircraft have still determined their form. Cargo planes are generally large and slow whereas military fighter planes are sleek with just enough carrying capacity to accommodate crew, fuel and armaments. Aircraft designed to land and take off from water, such as the Catalina flying boats of the Second World War, ª D av id N u tl ey 4 4. Artist’s impression of Henry VIII’s Mary Rose. Submerged Cultural Sites: opening a time capsule David Nutley ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 11have undercarriages fitted with floats instead of wheels, and may also have fuselage specifically adapted to act as a hull when on the water. When considering harbours and ports as types of site, it should be noted that pipelines and cables are specifically excluded from protection under the Convention, as are other installations that remain in use or have been adapted for other uses (including wharves, jetties and navigational aids or sea walls). Aside from this important consideration, harbours and ports are an important feature of underwater cultural heritage. They not only act as the interface between ships plying the oceans, but also form the infrastructure required to support those ships, and to load and unload their important cargoes. In addition, they potentially include homes and dwelling places used by the crew and their families. A number of major port facilities have been inundated by sea-level rise or tectonic movement over the centuries and have thereafter been the subject of archaeological investigation. These include sites such as Port Royal in Jamaica. Below the waters of modern-day Kingston Harbour is a sunken city dating back to 1655 when the English invaded and took Jamaica from the Spanish.10 An earthquake in 1692 resulted in two-thirds of the town being submerged within minutes; an event that has been likened to the instant burial of Pompeii under volcanic ash. It is therefore unsurprising that the site has been described as ‘perhaps the best-preserved English town in the world’.11 Harbours or ports require the construction of facilities suited to the cargoes, under transportation, the ships transporting those cargoes, and the nature of the marine environment in which the facilities are located. This produces an endless variety of engineering solutions. Facilities located along inland riverbanks that are subject to great variation in river levels may range from a series of stepped easements within the riverbank to a complex, multi-storeyed wharf structure such as that at Bourke on the Darling River in western New South Wales, Australia.12 In estuaries, the wharves or jetties may range from small-scale structures of stone, wood or concrete to massive complexes catering for a large number of ocean- going vessels. Extractive industries such as fishing also make use of underwater infrastructures, including those made from organic materials such as woven reeds, barriers built from wooden sticks or other types of barrier or trap constructed from stone. They may also range from structures unchanged since prehistoric times to relatively modern fish ladders. The choice of materials for construction is decided by the particular function of the structure, the nature of the resources being extracted, and the natural materials available. Once abandoned (due to changes in technology, culture or sea-level), each structure will behave differently depending on the materials employed, the environment in which they were built, and the environmental changes that occured following abandonment. These factors determine how such sites survive or, indeed, whether they survive at all. Sites of human habitation including hearths, stone tools and even organic materials have also been found underwater.13 Some of these are located along original shorelines in ‘open’ EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 12 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.settings,14 while others may exist within the shelter of naturally occurring caves.15 Chronology The nature of sites is inevitably related to the age in which they were created. Cultural values, the availability of certain materials, access to markets and technological developments all play a role in forming the material culture of a particular era. Similar factors have existed throughout the ages, but the choices available or made by different cultures throughout time have varied enormously. This chronological variation is reflected in the nature and distribution of underwater cultural heritage sites as well as in the nature of the sites themselves. Fishing has grown from a daily activity in coastal or inland waters to vessels scouring the oceans over extended periods. Trading vessels have developed from small, one-person rafts or dugouts to multi-level, 400 m-plus steel behemoths. The potential archaeological footprint of a person fishing with a hand spear or fishing line with shell hook in a small canoe in sheltered waters is significantly different to that of a large nineteenth- century whaling ship with a sizeable sturdy wooden keel, enormous wooden frames and framing knees, iron tri-pots, iron or copper-alloy fastenings and a copper-sheathed wooden hull – not to mention a few iron cannons to help protect against marauders. Given the nature of water, with currents, tides, floods and wind all working to drive a vessel where it may not want to go, it was vital for a ship’s captain to be able to anchor the vessel. The era in which a ship was built determined the type of anchor. In certain eras this might consist of a large stone tied to the boat by rope. In fifteenth-century China, a large 5 m wooden and stone structure would likely have been used, an example of which was found at the site of the wreckage of Kublai Khan’s fleet of 4,400 ships, lost as the result of a storm at Takashima, Japan in 1281.16 During the nineteenth century, advances in iron technology led to changes in the form of ship’s anchors. Where the weight of an anchor had originally been the key to holding a ship fast, the focus moved to the size and weight of the anchor chain, which quickly replaced the rope cables that had formerly been used to attach the anchor to the ship. With the weight of the anchor assuming less importance, its size, in proportion to the length of the ship, was correspondingly reduced. In addition, the arms and flukes that fasten the anchor to the seabed underwent changes in form and proportion. Anchors are therefore an important indicator for determining the age and size of a shipwreck. Chronology contributes one other important aspect in terms of the archaeological record. As noted earlier, most of the destruction to cultural heritage occurs during the process of submersion, but, once on the bed of a sea or lake, deterioration begins to slow down. For first few months the rate of deterioration will remain fairly high, and the rate of decay will still be significant over the first few years, despite continually reducing in pace. After a hundred years, a level of stability is normally reached. If the site has survived this long, then a long-term future can usually be expected, short of a major natural event or human- induced upheaval. In 1960, archaeologist George Bass led an archaeological excavation of a Submerged Cultural Sites: opening a time capsule David Nutley ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 13shipwreck site in the Mediterranean that dated from around 1200 BC, thus proving conclusively that underwater cultural heritage can survive thousands of years.17 Whether a site is predominantly organic (e.g. wood), or inorganic (i.e. stone or iron), its character will reflect the time of its construction and its demise. These and other dating options are essential for understanding the stories that these sites can tell us and future generations. How cultural heritage comes to be underwater The third key factor in determining the nature of an underwater cultural heritage site is the manner in which it came to be underwater in the first place. Sites that were originally intended to be underwater (e.g. stone fish traps or concrete port facilities such as Caesarea Maritima) are generally constructed to withstand local forces and pressures. As such, they may survive essentially intact almost indefinitely. However, an item that was never intended to remain underwater is quite a different proposition. Ships were designed to sail on water, not to rest on the seabed. If a ship has been damaged prior to sinking, this will affect the archaeological nature of the wreck site. A ship that has run on to a reef may have a broken keel – the ‘backbone’ of the vessel. This will weaken its overall shape and, may result in increased break-up of the hull on the seabed, and a much wider distribution of artefacts. If the ship caught fire and burned to the waterline before sinking, then the hull is unlikely to retain much of the original cargo or ship’s fittings: these will have been consumed before sinking, fallen into the sea, or washed overboard during the descent. Similarly, a vessel struck by a mine, aerial bombardment or torpedo may also have suffered extensive destruction and weakening of key structural elements before sinking. This will also be a factor in interpretation of the remains on the seabed. If a ship suddenly sinks at sea, however, either as a result of warfare or perhaps extreme weather conditions, it may end up on the seabed relatively intact. Similarly, an aircraft that ditches into the sea after running out of fuel may leave a significantly different record on the seabed than one that crashes into the sea at high speed. Environment The fourth key factor in the creation of an underwater cultural heritage site is the local environment. In 1988, at Eden on the south-east coast of Australia, two very similar fishing boats – the Henry Bolte and the Tasman Hauler – were scuttled in the same area and in similar depths of water. Today the two sites show markedly different patterns of site formation and decay. The Henry Bolte settled on to a hard, flat reef while the Tasman Hauler settled on to sand. The Tasman Hauler has therefore had its hull cushioned, which has created a level of stability that appears to have resulted in a relatively slow rate of deterioration. In addition, this stability also appears to have encouraged colonization by a wealth of brightly coloured marine life, which has attached itself to the surface of the structure. In contrast, the Henry Bolte has developed relatively little marine growth18 and is breaking up at a greater rate. Generally, ships lost on shallow rocky reefs deteriorate very quickly, regardless of whether they EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 14 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.are made of wood, iron or steel. At the other end of the scale lie ships lost in deep water with little if any current, light or oxygen, and very cold temperatures. The Titanic is perhaps the best known of these sites and its ability to remain relatively intact since 1912 reflects the tranquillity of the environment in which it lies. Over relatively recent years that environmental stability has changed significantly following the discovery of the wreck site and subsequent visitations by submarines and remotely operated videos. It is therefore of little surprise that increased deterioration of the site has been noted since the first visitations. Elsewhere, there is dramatic evidence of the ability of wooden ships to survive in conditions of low temperature, low light, low oxygen and minimal current. These include sites such as the 1813 wrecks of the Hamilton and Scourge in Lake Ontario, Canada, which are being managed and documented through the City of Hamilton’s Hamilton-Scourge Project.19 Arguably the most dramatic example of the survival of a wooden ship is the Vasa in Sweden. The Vasa, the pride of the fleet of Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus Rex Sueciae, sank within a nautical mile of the start of the vessel’s maiden voyage in 1628. The remains were found in 1956 and just five years later, the vessel was raised, underwent conservation and was placed on public exhibition. Astonishingly, the ship was about 95 per cent intact. This was due to its partial burial in clay and mud, while the inability of marine borers to exist in these waters was also a key factor.20 These examples of fully preserved ships illustrate the potential for natural conservation on or below the seabed, even in environments that are neither cold nor devoid of oxygen and light, and where strong currents exist. A covering of sand or mud instantly removes the abrasive effects of currents. It also shuts out light, reduces or precludes the presence of oxygen, prevents access by marine borers (such as teredo worm), and keeps temperatures at a constant level. Since ships’ hulls tend to sink into sand or mud, wooden ships in temperate or even tropical waters can remain substantially intact. The Swift off the Argentinean coast21 and the Pandora22 off the north-east coast of Australia are two such examples. Another special group of shipwreck sites are those that have not sunk entirely beneath the waves, but are instead located along riverbanks, on the banks of river estuaries, or wrecked semi- high and dry on coastal shores. These sites provide unique opportunities for observing the effects of constant wetting and drying actions on both timber and iron or steel vessels. Many of these ships were not lost through misfortune but instead abandoned at the end of their working life. The potential to learn from these sites has been well illustrated though projects such as the Submerged Resource Center of the US Department of the Interior’s National Parks Service23 and the ‘Graveyard of Ships’ project in South Australia.24 Context and integrity Sites that have been subject to disciplined archaeological research programmes constantly reveal information on structural details and material culture. This information is dependent on detailed recording of the relationships between Submerged Cultural Sites: opening a time capsule David Nutley ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 15artefacts found at the site. These relationships can be related to the original purposes of the artefacts on-board the functioning ship. Without knowing precisely where an artefact was found it is often impossible to know how it related to the original site – regardless of whether it was a ship, aircraft, port infrastructure, fishing trap or site of human habitation. The documentation of context is just as central to the work of an archaeologist as it is to that of a forensic detective. It is for this reason that the unauthorized disturbance of underwater cultural heritage sites is illegal in many countries and also prohibited by the 2001 Convention. The disturbance of sites without adequate documentation of the context of all site elements results in the irretrievable loss of site integrity. ‘Integrity’ is not a matter of whether a site is intact in the sense of its original form. A shipwreck may have been dashed to pieces against a sheer cliff but the wreck site can still be interpreted. For example, key elements such as anchors and anchor chains will indicate the position of the bow. Rock-solid concretions quickly form after the loss of a large ship and can resist the most powerful currents for many years. Conclusion There are considerable variables within each of the four categories mentioned in this article. In addition, each category overlaps with the others. It is this interaction that produces the almost infinite diversity of underwater cultural heritage sites. This diversity means that no two sites are ever quite alike. The information contained within each site and the behavioural characteristics of the artefacts within it are often particular to the site, as shown previously in the example from Eden. Researchers must constantly remember that the information on site A will not necessarily be the same as that on site B. This of course poses particular challenges. In the same way, it cannot be assumed that site-stabilization methods that work on site A will work in the same way on site B, or that the conservation methods that work on artefact A will also work on artefact B. Underwater cultural heritage sites are truly time capsules of infinite variety, each with a story to tell. There is also the strong possibility of ancient sites lying buried within offshore peat beds or beneath the silt of our coastal estuarine systems and continental shelves which could date back at least tens of thousands of years. If their stories are to be preserved and potentially revealed and recorded, international cooperation and best practice archaeological investigation are absolute imperatives. The 2001 Convention is based on best practice and has been developed with the input of numerous countries. Its key principles acknowledge the variety of site types found underwater, their significance, and the need for sound and sustainable management of this unique heritage. With the increase in access provided by new technologies, the 2001 Convention is the best hope that these sites have for being respectfully treated as windows into the past – as time capsules with meaning. NOTES 1. UNESCO. Information Kit for the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, http://unesdoc. unesco.org/images/0015/001528/152883E.pdf :4. EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 16 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.2. D. Nutley. The Last Global Warming? Archaeological Survival in Australian Waters. Flinders University Maritime Archaeology Monograph Series, Number 10, Adelaide, 2006. 3. ‘Sri Lanka’s maritime museum hopes fade after tsunami reclaims sea treasures’ (AFP). Khaleej Times Online, Dubai, 21 March, 2005. 4. UNESCO. Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage 2001, Article 1.1(a), Paris: UNESCO. 5. ‘The Roaring Forties’ was the name given by sailors to the latitudes located between the 40th and 50th parallels in the southern hemi- sphere because of the existence of strong winds, coming mainly from the west. 6. M. Nash. Cargo for the Colony: The 1797 Wreck of the Merchant Ship Sydney Cove, Canberra: Navarene Publishing, 2001, pp. 97–120. Archaeologists recording structural details of the Sydney Cove wreck, formerly the Begum Shaw, determined that the vessel was built for work in relatively sheltered waters rather than a voyage to Sydney from Calcutta. 7. P. Marsden. Sealed by Time: The Loss and Recovery of the Mary Rose, Portsmouth: The Mary Rose Trust: 1–5, 2003, pp. 11–129. 8. J. D. Broadwater, ‘The USS Monitor: In Situ Preservation and Recovery’, in Underwater Cultural Heritage at Risk: Managing Natural and Human Impacts, Paris: ICOMOS, 2006, p. 79. 9. Ibid. 10. D.L. Hamilton, ‘Port Royal, Jamaica: Archaeological Past and Development Potential’, in Underwater Cultural Heritage at Risk: Managing Natural and Human Impacts, Paris: ICOMOS, 2006, p. 49. 11. Ibid. 12. D. Nutley and T. Smith, ‘Darling River, NSW: Maritime Archaeological Survey’, Parramatta: NSW Heritage Office, 2003, p. 61. 13. J. Muche, ‘An Inundated Aboriginal site, Corral Beach, California’, in J. Barto Arnold III (ed.), Beneath the Waters of Time: The Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Underwater Archaeology. Texas Antiquities Committee Publication No. 6, Austin, Texas, 1978, p. 2. 14. A. Gaspari (ed.) Zalog near Verd: Stone Age Hunter’s Camp at the Western Edge of the Ljubljansko Barje, Ljubljana: Institute of Archaeology at ZRC SAZU and ZRC Publishing, 2006. 15. Nutley (2006), op. cit., pp. 38, 43, 52. 16. W. Ishihara, ‘Underwater Archaeology in Japan’, in N. Takenori (ed.), Underwater Cultural Heritage and Archaeology, Fukuoka: Asian Research Institute of Underwater Archaeology, 2007, p. 2. 17. K. Muckelroy (ed.), Archaeology Underwater: An Atlas of the World’s Submerged Sites, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1980, pp. 32–3. 18. Maritime Heritage Online, New South Wales: Heritage Branch, Department of Planning, 2008, http://maritime.heritage.nsw.gov.au/ public/regionMap.cfm?region_Id=7. 19. http://www.hamilton-scourge.hamilton.ca/. 20. D. Mayol. The Swedish Ship Vasa’s Revival, Miami, Florida: University of Miami, Anthropology 30s – Marine Archaeology, 1996. 21. D. Elkin, ‘HMS Swift: Scientific Research and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Argentina’, in R. Grenier, D. Nutley and I. Cochran (eds), Underwater Cultural Heritage at Risk: Managing Natural and Human Impacts, Paris: ICOMOS, 2006, pp. 76–78. 22. P. Gesner, ‘HMS Pandora’, in J. Delgado (ed.), British Museum Encyclopaedia of Underwater & Maritime Archaeology, London: British Museum Press, 1997, pp. 305–07. 23. M. Russell (2005). Beached Shipwreck Archaeology: Case Studies from Channel Islands National Park, Santa Fe: Submerged Resource Center, National Parks Service, US Department of the Interior. 24. N. Richards, ‘Garden Island 1906–45: Graveyard of Ships’, in M. Nash (ed.), Shipwreck Archaeology in Australia, Crowley, Australia: University of Western Australia Press, 2007, pp. 183–93. Submerged Cultural Sites: opening a time capsule David Nutley ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 17The Impact of Commercial Exploitation on the Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage by Tatiana Villegas Zamora Tatiana Villegas is a Colombian underwater archaeologist who has worked on the development of underwater cultural heritage protection in her own and other developing countries over the last ten years. She is an international tutor for the Nautical Archaeological Society (NAS) and specializes in the field of training and awareness-raising. As part of the Colombian delegation and as a member of ICUCH, she participated in four governmental expert meetings (1996–2001) which studied the draft of the 2001 UNESCO Convention. Introduction Exploring the ocean depths has been one of humanity’s most persistent dreams throughout history, second only to flying. Alexander the Great is thought to have descended into the sea in a glass cage while there is evidence of attempts to reach the famous Armada shipwrecks1 in Ireland, using a diving bell, as early as 1683. In England, in 1836, John Dean recovered cannons from the wreck of the Mary Rose.2 However, these events were isolated and had minimal impact in terms of preservation of the historical value of the sites concerned. The dream only became a reality with the invention of the SCUBA (self-contained underwater breathing apparatus) during the Second World War. Today, highly specialized technology for detecting the presence of foreign objects under the seabed, previously only available to the military and the oil exploration industry, is now relatively accessible to anyone who can afford it. The variety of 18 ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) ª UNESCO 2009 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.equipment – side-scan sonar, magnetometers, sub- bottom profilers, submersibles and ROVs (remotely operated vehicles, some mechanical arms and hands that can grab objects and place them in baskets even at great depths) – underscores the reality that submerged cultural sites are no longer protected by the natural inaccessibility of their environment. Two distinct groups have access to modern technology for the exploration of underwater cultural sites. On the one hand, the archaeological community, conscious of the cultural and historic value of this heritage, develops techniques to carry out scientific archaeological surveys, analysis, registration, interpretation and conservation of sites. Underwater archaeologists around the world create programmes on the basis of international standards, cooperation, capacity building and research to build a critical mass of experts to help identify the technical means to best protect this unique heritage. Their progress is slow but sustainable. On the other hand, commercial salvors and treasure hunters search for sites containing commercially exploitable goods. This group has increased enormously in number over the past twenty years. Moreover, ‘technology has developed much faster than the appreciation of wrecks’ cultural value’.3 As a result, the public is far more aware of technological developments than of the importance of the sites themselves. However, technology is only one aspect of the research involved. This article seeks to clarify further the different approaches, motivations and goals of these very different actors. Archaeology versus commercial exploration Romantic notions of the search for lost treasure, embodied in adventure books and popular movies such as the Indiana Jones series or National Treasure, takes on a different aspect when we realize that commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage has become the most dangerous and devastating threat to preserving this legacy to humanity. Salvors and treasure hunters recover commercially valuable objects such as jewels, coins, navigation instruments, fragile porcelain and other antique objects, with total disregard for the ª N at io n al L ib ra ry , P ar is (m an u sc ri p t N o. 93 42 ) 5 5. A fifteenth-century French manuscript portraying Alexander the Great inside a glass cage. The Impact of Commercial Exploitation on the Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage Tatiana Villegas Zamora ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 19archaeological, cultural and historical value of the site, which they ignore as an entity. From an archaeological perspective, a place where a ship has sunk is a ‘site’, encompassing the complete area where elements of the structure, rigging or artefacts may have ended up after the wreckage. All contain potentially precious information. This explains why archaeologists take the necessary time to accurately register and record the exact location of every element within a pre-established framework and evaluate the associations between the structure and the contents. Samples of substances found in containers and organic materials such as wood are taken to laboratories to be dated and examined by experts who, through analysis, can determine the geographical origin of the wood and even the time when it was felled. Similarly, analysis, survey and registration of all elements of hulls and their fittings can fill gaps in knowledge concerning shipbuilding. Weapons and artillery can provide information about defence and battle strategies; fabrics and other organic elements can help define the clothes worn by sailors and officers; and the study of bones can tell us much about health conditions at a particular moment in history. Lastly, the position and inclination of the objects provide crucial data which can help uncover the exact circumstances leading to the wreck. In short, the structure and content of the ship are interrelated and their systematic, interdisciplinary analysis provides a wealth of information about life and society at the time of navigation. For archaeologists, the priority is to understand the site through interpretation and hypotheses based on the discoveries made. After investigation, the sites are physically and legally protected. Time allows archaeologists to perform meticulous inspections of sites, increasing the possibility of obtaining detailed information. For commercial salvors, time is money and valuable artefacts have to be found and sold as quickly as possible to provide backers with a return on their investment. Fortunately, there has been enormous progress made towards an understanding of the importance of the archaeological context as a whole and the interrelations of all elements of a site. Indiscriminate extraction of artefacts without a serious survey and archaeological analysis destroys all possibilities of interpretation. Re- examination is fundamental to scientific research and can only be achieved if any disturbance to the site is recorded in its most infinite detail. Any isolated object ‘out of context’ loses forever its potential to provide information. Modus operandi of salvors and treasure hunters Salvors and treasure hunters alike frequently boast that their actions save wrecks from destruction by nature or human activity, and that they alone possess the technology to explore wrecks at great depth. In fact, the state of preservation of submerged archaeological sites is often excellent compared to land sites.4 Through the years, the structure, after the initial shock of collision with the seabed and immediate degradation by currents and wood-boring organisms, settles on the ground and is covered by sediment and sand. Eventually, the site lies under layers of sediment where low levels of light, oxygen and temperature preserve organic material much better than on land, creating a stable situation that may last countless years. The natural environment thus protects sites. Scientists have proved that deep-sea wrecks in EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 20 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.particular are even better preserved by their environment and are by no means endangered by nature. The possibility of amateur looters such as fishermen or recreational divers travelling to deep-sea locations is also highly unlikely. The real threat to deep-sea sites is in fact programmed action by salvors themselves. Regarding destruction by ‘accidental’ actions, such as infrastructural coast development, pipelines or telephone cables, the concerned companies are in fact making efforts to minimize the impact of their work and are being increasingly respectful towards cultural sites by including pre-disturbance archaeological surveys in their development programmes, thus in many places assisting the development of underwater archaeology. Another major difference in approach is that, from the archaeological perspective, the discovery of a site does not necessarily lead to excavation. Often, a pre-disturbance survey and video record are sufficient to decide that the site is not in danger and that the natural conditions in which it has been found will remain stable over the long-term. In these instances, there is no sustainable reason for excavation for the present moment. The site can be protected in situ for future study and may even be visited by controlled, non-intrusive forms of tourism such as underwater trails. Treasure hunting, by definition, ignores the principle that in situ preservation of cultural heritage should be considered as the preferred option. Professional salvors often assert that they have the financial resources to fund the exploration of sites that would otherwise go unrecorded. The statement that archaeologists and scientific institutions cannot afford underwater exploration may easily be refuted by examples of serious archaeological programmes such as those in Argentina, Sri Lanka and Croatia.5 Moreover, since the technology used for deep-sea exploration was first exploited for military defence purposes and by the oil industry, most navies are equipped to carry out inventories of submerged archaeological sites, even at great depths. If a country is conscious of the need to protect its underwater cultural heritage, scientific work can be carried out with existing technology belonging to government and military institutions at lower costs and for the benefit of all. Legal coverage Salvage Several international legal instruments have been created to harmonize the assistance provided to vessels and their cargoes in distress at sea. The 1989 London International Salvage Convention,6 for example, applies to events at sea in which a ship in peril can be salvaged and the company charged with the operation seeks to recover property for the purpose of obtaining a reward based on its commercial value. Many salvors defend their activities as being covered by the 1989 Convention. Unfortunately, this Convention assumes that the Law of Salvage applies to the recovery of ‘maritime cultural property’ unless the state concerned chooses to exclude it.7 Since it does not specifically define the age of the property or the relevant skills of the salvor, the activities of commercial salvors on archaeological sites can, by interpretation, be covered by the notion of ‘salvage’. This ambiguity is furthermore reinforced by the United Nations Convention on The Impact of Commercial Exploitation on the Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage Tatiana Villegas Zamora ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 21the Law of the Sea of 1982 (UNCLOS)8 which encourages the protection of archaeological and historical sites,9 but also states that ‘nothing in this article affects the rights of identifiable owners, the law of salvage or other rules of admiralty’. Treasure hunters and salvors disingenuously use these legal notions to justify their actions as saving ships in peril, even though the threat of distress or danger to underwater cultural heritage has long passed. Pillage Since scuba diving and deep-sea exploration techniques were invented in developed countries, the first attempts at treasure hunting and commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage took place in these waters. Consequently, their governments became aware early on of the need to fight this new form of vandalism and to conceive protective legislation.10 This resulted in salvors shifting their activities towards countries where legislation was insufficient or non-existent, often because the issue had not previously arisen. There are numerous examples in Asia, Africa and Latin America; deals are cut with government officials unaware of the historical potential of sites, and concessions are signed between salvage companies and government agencies. The profit is shared between the salvor and the government at varied percentages: this may begin at 50 per cent for each party, but is more likely to be split with 70 per cent going to the salvor and 30 per cent to the government.11 Government officials and cultural managers are duped into believing that this kind of exploration will benefit the country. Once the salvors are underwater, the government concerned can rarely verify the quantity of artefacts raised or the scale of destruction. Highly valuable objects are even carried to separate underwater locations for later recovery. This is particularly the case in countries lacking both an archaeological structure and experts to defend heritage preservation. Insubstantial financial predictions The potential ‘value’ of a cargo estimated by salvors can often reach astonishing figures, in one case as much as US$500 million.12 These figures are ª A n on ym ou s 6 6. Graphic illustrating site formation after wreckage. EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 22 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.usually based upon the expected market sale value of the most unique or rare pieces of jewellery (or similar objects) multiplied by the number of artefacts expected. These often speculative and always hypothetical assertions receive widespread publicity, thus attracting new investors. However, they lack scientific support, particularly as no serious evaluation of cargo and conditions can be undertaken without a full archaeological survey. In the end, the financial concerns of investors overtake the importance of the discovery itself. Auction houses and market demand have also triggered an avalanche of salvors and treasure hunters in places like the South China Sea. Deals are signed on the basis of the eventual sale of artefacts. In the 1980s and early 1990s, following the discoveries of the Atocha and the Titanic, there was unprecedented public interest in sunken objects. The auctions reached their peak, however, and sales started to decline (see the Tek Sing case, below) due to the saturation of certain goods such as porcelain and coins, and an enhanced awareness of ethical standards on the part of collectors. Finally, salvors often claim to invest in prior research. However, the sums spent in sending researchers or hiring local archival experts to go through manuscripts and ‘bills of lading’ in historical libraries in Seville, London, Manila or Lisbon would not differ from the expenses of a young archaeologist undertaking the same archival work as part of a Masters or PhD programme, either through a scholarship or within the framework of a capacity-building project of public scope and interest. Scientific veneer, apparent transparency and disinformation Modern commercial salvors often express their intention to follow appropriate archaeological practice. In reality, they usually hire inexperienced or unscrupulous archaeologists attracted by good wages and the availability of the best state- of-the-art technology.13 These archaeologists naı̈vely believe that a serious archaeological approach is compatible with commercially inclined exploration. However, experience has proven that 6. (Continued) ª A n on ym ou s 6 The Impact of Commercial Exploitation on the Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage Tatiana Villegas Zamora ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 23archaeological standards are inevitably compromised by the demands of investors and the art market operating under a ‘quick profit’ imperative. In order to detach themselves from the ‘looting world’, salvage companies have started to make public statements that claim government approval for their activities and disingenuously attack treasure hunters and looters in order to legitimize their own activities. Looting by fishermen and sport divers is certainly a problem, but encouraging professional commercial exploitation of cultural heritage is not the solution. In some cases, UNESCO statistics are cited on salvage company websites that neither openly comply with nor oppose the Organization’s views on heritage protection. Statements are tinted with sufficient archaeological jargon to provide a scientific veneer to enterprises, while museum exhibitions are organized with a portion of the artefacts recovered as a justification. However, the majority of these exhibitions provide no mention of the relationship of the objects to the structure in which they were found, or traces of serious archaeological surveys of the ship’s construction. In the case of the South China Sea, salvors encouraged the trade in Chinese porcelain and hired experts to produce high-level scientific studies on the production of porcelain in ancient times. This expertise raises the price of pieces on the art market, but the lack of an archaeological approach means that porcelain objects are sold as if mass-produced, with broken or ordinary pieces being thrown back into the ocean. The fact that exploration is carried out under the auspices of governments does not scientifically legitimize these activities, which only contribute to the destruction of cultural heritage. Discoveries made in this fashion may increase knowledge of Chinese ancient ceramics and porcelain, but the approach is far from being archaeology and is in essence destructive. Taking only two months to excavate a ship ‘fully’ is like ‘doing surgery with a chainsaw’ (Crisman, 1997). In short, any legalization of commercial salvage under the guise of archaeology forms a dangerous precedent. The scope of commercial exploitation of sunken cultural heritage The treasure hunter Robert Marx boasts of ‘having discovered more wrecks and raised more treasures than anybody else’.14 He has disturbed or exploited more than 2,500 wrecks scattered around the globe in more than sixty-two countries. He declares that he finances his obsession with shipwrecks by finding private investors and promising them a return for their money. He explains that the normal split is 75 per cent for himself and his investors and 25 per cent for the government in whose waters he works. He is persona non grata in more than thirty countries. In 1985 the treasure hunter Mel Fisher found the wreck of the Nuestra Señora de Atocha. This famous ship sank during a hurricane off the coast of the Florida Keys in 1622 while carrying precious metals to Spain. There was immediate controversy over property rights as the American Government, through the State of Florida, claimed title to the wreck. Finally, after eight years of litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of Fisher who commercialized and merchandised the artefacts found in the Atocha. Fisher died in 1998 but his sons continue to search for EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 24 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.sunken shipwrecks in the Florida waters for commercial purposes. No scientific publications of their activities have reached universities or archaeological institutions. In 2003 Reuters and the Associated Press published the discovery of a shipwreck in Playa Damas off the Atlantic coast of Panama. The wreck was thought to be one of Columbus’ ships lost during his fourth voyage, making it one of the earliest ever found in the New World (dating from the sixteenth century). The Panama-based treasure-hunting company Investigaciones Maritimas del Istmo, SA (IMDI) has been involved in the salvage operation, making use of a ‘Mailbox’ – a highly destructive device – to raise a large collection of artefacts. The Nautical Archaeology Program at Texas A&M University proposed a ten-year protocol of cooperation with the Government of Panama in order to study what remained of the site and to establish a capacity-building programme for Central and South America. The protocol never saw the light of day as a result of pressure and lobbying by the salvors, who demanded that the government honour its previous agreements. Panama has since ratified the UNESCO 2001 Convention for the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Panama is not an isolated case. Another famous treasure hunter, Burt Webber Jr, works in the waters of the Dominican Republic. On 24 March 2008 local newspaper Las Mundiales15 and Spanish news agency EFE announced that an American company planned to recover a treasure worth US$150 million from the Banco de la Plata. Once again the evaluation of the cargo is pure speculation.16 Local archaeologists and intellectuals are mobilizing support to oppose the actions of Webber Jr and support the UNESCO 2001 Convention. The Indian Ocean is not exempt either. In 2005, an article in the newspaper Les Nouvelles17 described the seizure by French customs officials in Mayotte of a container filled with bronze cannons, elephant tusks and miscellaneous objects plundered from an unknown underwater site in the region. François Clavel, a known French treasure hunter, was recognized as the sender of the container. Clavel had been previously accused of espionage in 1998 when his ship Galathée was found excavating a shipwreck site off the west coast of India. He spent several months in a Kerala prison, an experience which did not discourage him. In the Indian Ocean, he was found working on a ship registered under a South African tourist diving company.18 He declared that the retrieved objects came from a site unknown on regional maps, he called the ‘Vines’ reef, which he insisted lay outside state territorial waters. The finds were left in Madagascar while Clavel and his team were permitted to leave the island without giving the exact coordinates of the wreck. Two thousand ancient shipwrecks are thought to lie in the South China Sea according to the Chinese Archaeological Services. Over the past twelve years, one company alone has exploited more than seven ancient vessels with the sole objective of finding sellable ceramics. The company works within a completely legal framework. Exhibitions are organized19 and the company presents itself as an archaeological provider. However no serious archaeological The Impact of Commercial Exploitation on the Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage Tatiana Villegas Zamora ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 25reports have been presented to underwater archaeology departments of universities around the world simply because those issued lack any scientific value. The government is entitled to 30 per cent of the value of the finds; the rest are auctioned or sold directly by the salvor.20 In one of their reports following a first ‘inspection’ of a site they declared: ‘the Company declined the option to excavate, preferring to look for undamaged sites’.21 No self-respecting archaeologist would utter such a phrase. Meanwhile, government officials issue declarations stating that ‘this rare discovery will help us learn more about our region’s heritage and history’. This is certainly the expectation behind underwater archaeology. Unfortunately, this is neither the function nor purpose of these types of company. In 1984, the British salvor Michael Hatcher salvaged the Risdam, a VOC Dutch merchant ship sunk in 1727 off the east coast of Malaysia. In 1986, Hatcher extracted tons of porcelain from the Geldermalsen, another VOC Dutch vessel that sank in the South China Sea in 1752. In 1999, before the cameras of British television channel Channel 4, he surveyed an area of 155 km near the island of Gaspar off the coast of Indonesia during which he found the Tek Sing, sunk in 1822 – also known as ‘the Chinese Titanic’. In 2000, 350,000 pieces of Chinese porcelain from the Tek Sing were auctioned in Stugard, Germany. However the outcome of the auction did not meet expectations. Half the lots failed to sell and angry shareholders lashed out at the directors of the Adelaide shipwreck recovery company.22 The manager informed investors that the operation had cost about US$20 million and that they had hoped to make US$25–45 million at the auction. They were left with 189,000 pieces of leftover porcelain and the company’s salvage equipment. Michael Flecker, another famous salvor operating in the South China Sea, has salvaged several wrecks including the Vaung Tau (sunk in 1690) and the Binh Thuan, a Chinese junk sunk in 1608, both in southern Viet Nam. He is also responsible for ‘‘salvaging’’ the Intan, a tenth- century wreck, the Belitong, a ninth-century wreck and the Java Sea, a thirteenth-century wreck, all sunk in the waters of Indonesia. No scientific and archaeological publications exist of the ships’ structures and construction characteristics. However, Flecker presents his discoveries at scientific symposia where experts in ceramics from the British Victoria and Albert Museum and CNRS in France or known scientists from China present papers on Chinese ceramics.23 It is understandable then that the cultural authorities of countries where these kinds of event take place may consider salvors as scientists and naı̈vely continue to support their activities. During 2007, French customs officials confiscated more than 2,000 objects and arrested several individuals charged with pillage of underwater sites. In December during a two-day raid on a warehouse in Languedoc-Roussillon, 900 objects were found, ranging from Gallo-romaine amphora to eighteenth-century cannons. Five treasure hunters were charged with looting underwater cultural heritage. French underwater archaeologists estimate that there are more than 20,000 shipwrecks in their metropolitan territorial waters24 of which only 1,250 have been scientifically studied by underwater archaeologists. EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 26 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Along the African coast in Mozambique off the east coast and Cape Verde on the west – and around the coast of Indonesia in Asia, one salvage company alone has disturbed more than 150 shipwrecks sites over the past thirteen years. This unique source of information for construction and navigation techniques as well as commercial routes to and from Asia around the African continent is being lost under the legal framework of concessions given by different governments. These activities have been highly criticized by the scientific community worldwide but nothing as yet has been done to stop such actions. There is however hope since the advent of the most widely-covered scandal linked to salvage of underwater cultural heritage in European waters: the Odyssey-Spain case. Odyssey Marine Explorations25 announced the discovery in May 2007 of a shipwreck containing 17 tons of silver and gold artefacts, including 500,000 coins. Odyssey had been contracted in 2001 by the British Royal Naval Museum26 to find HMS Sussex, a British 80-gun flagship active during the war between France and England that sank in 1694 off the coast of Gibraltar. The company received authorization to carry out survey operations in the territorial waters of Spain exclusively to locate the Sussex for the British Naval Museum. During the course of their research they found another vessel (code-named the Black Swan) and quietly flew the extracted artefacts to Tampa in Florida, before disclosing the discovery. Odyssey, citing the need to keep looters away, refused to give the exact location of the wreck, claiming that it lay in international waters and thus no legal instrument obliged them to provide this information.27 However, Spanish historians and archaeologists believe that this wreck is the 36-gun Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes, a Spanish ship of war destroyed in battle in 1804 by the English. Spanish officials filed a suit in the United States to force disclosure of the wreck location, block future recovery, and claim the already extracted artefacts. Spain is currently fighting an international legal battle against Odyssey to regain this cultural heritage based on sovereign immunity of their warships. They have launched a national investigation and issued search and arrest warrants against Odyssey’s two exploration ships. Odyssey intends its haul to be dealt with under US federal law, where previous judgements have sometimes granted exclusive rights to salvors. Archaeologists believe that Odyssey was in fact deliberately looking for this particular wreck and two others, having undertaken archival research.28 To complicate matters, on 19 August 2008, Peru filed a suit against Odyssey at the Tampa court, claiming a right to the treasure as the coins found (if the wreck is the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes) correspond to the reign of Charles IV of Spain and were minted in Peru.29 The salvage operations described above, which are by no means exhaustive, have led to the destruction and dispersion of archaeological objects and the loss of this cultural heritage to scientists and particularly to the people of the countries from which it came. These ‘treasures’ now reside on the shelves of collectors or lie back on the ocean floor out of their archaeological context. Conclusion Treasure salvage and professional archaeology have fundamentally opposing goals, methods and The Impact of Commercial Exploitation on the Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage Tatiana Villegas Zamora ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 27consequences. Paul Johnston, a Smithsonian maritime archaeologist, says ‘virtually every professional archaeological and museum association with published ethical guidelines throughout the globe has condemned treasure hunting and issued ethical policies for the treatment of submerged cultural resources’. Underwater cultural heritage is a non-renewable resource and if not protected will soon disappear. Salvors see it as an inexhaustible commercial product. It is not far-fetched to consider most of their activities as modern-day piracy. Public awareness of these unknown aspects of their so called ‘adventures’ is increasing thanks to growing ethical media coverage of situations such as that of Odyssey and the Spanish Government. International press agencies, film producers and television channels must also take some responsibility and reconsider ethical standards before accepting for publication articles glorifying the actions of salvors. They can also examine the possibility of accompanying scientific archaeological operations carried out by professional archaeologists and government agencies. The public interest generated by the discovery of these dramatic moments of history can often overcome the financial obstacles that face scientists. The cultural value of underwater cultural heritage far exceeds that of the commercial value of shipwrecked cargoes. Museums and cultural managers are now increasingly aware of the potential for sustainable development linked to tourism around shipwrecks and sunken cities. Concerted work between museums, archaeologists, customs officials, cultural managers, local port authorities and journalists can help implement measures to stop the illegal traffic of cultural heritage linked to the underwater world. George Bass, the father of underwater archaeology, says: ‘nobody can name a single country that has ever made money working with treasure hunters. On the contrary, underwater archaeology generates millions of dollars every year in countries that adopted a conservative approach towards their submerged cultural heritage, such as Sweden or Turkey, where both the Vasa and the Bodrum Museum are tourist attractions known worldwide’. Auction houses and art dealers have to come to terms with the evolution in the significance of cultural heritage and identity and its contribution to the development of a country. They must cease their complicit relationships with salvors and stop accepting artefacts for sale that come from illicit traffic in underwater cultural heritage. Underwater cultural sites are not economic resources and will soon disappear if actions are not taken to stop the activities of salvors and treasure hunters. Private companies cannot excavate major historical archaeological sites on land, or sell artefacts at auction while splitting the proceeds with official government agencies. But all is not lost. Most governments that have in the past fallen into the trap acted in good faith, and are now starting to realize how little benefit accrued to them from these agreements. They are now looking to establish protective national and international measures. It is to be hoped that this can be achieved before much more of humanity’s underwater heritage is lost for good. EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 28 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.BIBLIOGRAPHY Blot, J.-Y. (1996). Underwater Archaeology: Exploring the World beneath the Sea, London: Thames and Hudson. Brice, G. (1996). ‘Salvage and the Underwater Cultural Heritage’, Marine Policy: The International Journal of Ocean Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 4, Pergamon, Rochester, July, pp. 337–42. Castro, F. V. (2005). ‘Caçadores de tesouros: proposta de uma taxonomia’, Revista Electrônica Historia e-História – Nucleo de Estudios Estratégi- cos ⁄ Arqueologia, Campinas, 26 January, http://www.historiaehisto- ria.com.br/instituicoes.cfm. Castro, F. V. and Fitzgerald, C. (2006). ‘The Playa Damas Shipwreck: An Early Sixteenth-Century Shipwreck in Panama’, Underwater Cultural Heritage at Risk: Managing Natural and Human Impacts, ICOMOS, Paris, pp. 38–40. Crisman, P. (1997). Personal communication. Delgado, J. P. (1997). British Museum Encyclopaedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology, London: British Museum Press. Hutchinson, G. (1996). ‘Threats to Underwater Cultural Heritage: The Problems of Unprotected Archaeological and Historic Sites, Wrecks and Objects Found at Sea’, Marine Policy: The International Journal of Ocean Affairs, Vol. 20, No .4, Pergamon, Rochester, July. ICOMOS (2006). Underwater Cultural Heritage at Risk: Managing Natural and Human Impacts, ICOMOS, Paris. Rule, M.-H. (1994). The Mary Rose: A Guide to the Exhibition and the Ship, Portsmouth: Mary Rose Trust. UNESCO (1972). Underwater Archaeology: A Nascent Discipline, Paris: UNESCO Publishing. UNESCO (2001). Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. Williams, S. (1997). ‘Underwater Heritage: A Treasure Trove to Protect’, UNESCO SOURCES No. 87, Paris, UNESCO, February, pp. 7–16. NOTES 1. The Spanish Armada sailed against England in 1588, setting out with twenty-two warships of the Spanish Royal Navy and 108 converted merchant vessels, with the intention of launching an invasion of England. The Armada was driven out by the English, regrouped, and withdrew north with the English fleet harrying it for some distance up the east coast of England. A return voyage to Spain was plotted, and the fleet sailed into the Atlantic, past Ireland. But severe storms disrupted the fleet’s course, and more than twenty-four vessels were wrecked on the north and western coasts of Ireland. Of the fleet’s initial complement, about fifty vessels failed to make it back to Spain. 2. The Mary Rose was a 78-gun (500 tons) carrack built in Portsmouth, England (1509–10) for Tudor King Henry VIII. One of the earliest purpose- built warships to serve in the Royal Navy, it was able to fire a full broadside of cannons. It was sunk in the Solent during an engagement with the French fleet on 19 July 1545. The surviving section of the ship was raised in 1982 and is now on display in Portsmouth’s Historic Dockyard along with an extensive collection of well-preserved artefacts, http:// www.maryrose.org. 3. G. Hutchinson, ‘Threats to Underwater Cultural Heritage: The Problems of Unprotected Archaeological and Historic Sites, Wrecks and Objects Found at Sea’, Marine Policy: The International Journal of Ocean Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1996, pp. 287–90. 4. For further information on this see the article by Nutley in this issue and the relevant figure showing the state of preservation of materials in a humid environment as compared to dryland. 5. Argentina: http://www.international.icomos.org/risk/2006/ 26elkin2006an.pdf, http://www.welcomeargentina.com/paseos/ museo-mario-brozoski/index_i.html and http://www.sha.org/ underwater/news/08spring.html; Sri Lanka: http://www.international. icomos.org/risk/2006/20manders2006an.pdf, http://cf.hum.uva.nl/galle/ and http://www.uri.edu/artsci/his/mua/project_journals/un/un_intro. shtml; Croatia: http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID= 38124&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html and http://www. h-r-z.hr/index_en.asp?news=290. 6. Signed in London in 1989, there are now forty-six States Parties to the Convention, http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/imo.salvage.convention.1989/ doc.html. The Impact of Commercial Exploitation on the Preservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage Tatiana Villegas Zamora ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 297. Article 30.1 paragraph (d) of the Convention: ‘When the property involved is maritime cultural property of pre-historic, archaeological or historic interest and is situated on the sea-bed’. 8. Signed in Montego Bay, Jamaica in 1982. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/ convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm. 9. Article 303, paragraph 1 (d): ‘States have the duty to protect objects of an archaeological and historical nature found at sea and shall cooperate for this purpose’. 10. France, Sweden, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Turkey for example have strict and clear legislation forbidding any commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage. 11. See article by J. W. Anderson, ‘Will Finders be Keepers of Salvaged Treasure?’, Washington Post Foreign Service, 27 August 2007. 12. US$500 million was the amount that Odyssey Marine Exploration gave as the estimated value of the Black Swan find. 13. F. V. Castro, ‘Caçadores de tesouros: proposta de uma taxonomia’, Revista Electrônica Historia e-História – Nucleo de Estudios Estratégi- cos ⁄ Arqueologia, Campinas, 26 January 2005. 14. S. Williams, ‘Underwater Heritage: A Treasure Trove to Protect’, UNESCO SOURCES No. 87, Paris: UNESCO, February 1997, pp. 7–16. 15. http://www.listindiario.com.do/app/article.aspx?id=52568. 16. http://www.el-universal.com.mx/notas/492259.html. 17. Article by Théophraste Razokinibe, Les Nouvelles, 10 May 2005, http:// www.les-nouvelles.com/default.php?file=article&mode=detail&id=335. 18. Afrikan Dive Safari – Reef Comer Tours. 19. http://www.maritimeasia.ws/exhib01/pages/index.html. 20. S. Sjostrand, A. b. H. Taha and S. b. Sahar, Mysteries of Malaysian Shipwrecks, Pujangga Design & Communication Sdn Bhd., 2006, p. 18. 21. http://www.maritimeasia.ws/tsimpang/index.html, line 52. 22. Ocean Salvage Corporation associated to Michael Hatcher. 23. Chinese Export Trade Ceramics in Southeast Asia – National Library Board – Singapore, 12–14 March 2007, http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/ showfile.asp?eventfileid=283. 24. V. Aubert and D. Cambon ‘Méditerranée: coup de filet sur les pilleurs d’épaves’, Le Figaro, 29 November 2007, http://www.lefigaro.fr/culture/ 2007/11/29/03004-20071129ARTFIG00666-trois-millions-depavessont- menacees.php. 25. This Tampa-based American deep-sea exploration firm has been working since 1998 in the vicinity of Gibraltar, using specialized technology for the detection of shipwrecks at high depths. 26. This government decision was highly contested by the Cultural Heritage Authorities and the archaeological community. 27. The 2001 UNESCO Convention for the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage would have applied in this case had it then come into force. 28. The Merchant Royal, a 36-gun British Navy vessel that sank in 1641 in the south-west of England, and the SS Ancona, an Italian passenger liner torpedoed by a German U-boat in 1915 off the coast of Sardinia. 29. http://www.elpais.com/articulo/Revista/Verano/Peru/reclama/tesoro/ Odyssey/elpepucul/20080821elprdv_4/Tes. EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 30 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.In Situ Preservation: ‘the preferred option’ by Martijn Manders Martijn Manders is a specialist in excavation techniques and the protection of shipwrecks. He currently works in the Netherlands for the National Service for Archaeology, Cultural Landscapes and Built Heritage (RACM). He is also project manager for the European Community-Culture 2000 project Managing Cultural Heritage Underwater (MACHU), having performed the same function within the Framework of the European Community programme. He has written extensively on the issue of in situ preservation. Over the years, the preservation of archaeological sites in situ – that is to say, the place where the site has been discovered – has assumed increasing importance. This is also the case for underwater archaeological sites. However, by preserving in situ, there is the threat that the richness of underwater cultural resources become less visible to the general public. Is there a way to avoid this? Is it possible to protect in situ and still address the public interest? And what kind of role can museums play in this? This article aims to explain the reasons behind in situ preservation and the effect it can have on traditional museums. It also presents some suggestions on how to provide public access to these sites of great archaeological richness. The concept of in situ preservation The preservation of sites in situ has become an important part of the management of underwater cultural heritage. It is, however, important to note that it forms just one part of management, and not – as often interpreted – the only right way forward. Excavation and preservation ex situ remain options for consideration, but must be ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) ª UNESCO 2009 31 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.backed up with strong arguments and a detailed description of planned execution. One set of guidelines for good practice relating to underwater archaeology is the Annex of the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. So why do we not excavate all archaeological sites immediately after discovery? Why do we deploy in situ preservation? The reasons for this have pragmatic as well as philosophical origins.1 An underwater archive We need to preserve a representative part of underwater cultural heritage for future enjoyment and research. The resource of archaeologically interesting shipwrecks and other sites underwater is immense and spread over a vast area. It is therefore important to know the location of each site and to investigate its probable meaning for cultural heritage. This can be achieved by assessing these locations. The state or condition of the selected sites can then be preserved. If protective measures are not taken then many good examples of maritime heritage will be lost forever. Physical protection in situ was first carried out underwater in the 1980s. In the case of BZN3, a seventeenth-century VOC wreck found in the Dutch Wadden Sea, over 6,000 sandbags and polypropylene nets were placed over the site. These protective actions were specifically undertaken to ensure a legacy for future generations (maybe even for eternity). As a result of scientific EU-funded projects such as MoSS2 and BACPOLES,3 we know that protection in situ offers one way of slowing degradation. However, it is impossible to stop the deterioration of underwater archaeological sites altogether. This is also the case for objects and even whole shipwrecks preserved ex situ (for example, in a museum), as conservators in charge of collections know only too well. The aim is to create an accessible archive underwater, managed as well as possible until excavation becomes necessary. For this reason it is important to have a good sense of the length of time for which the form of (physical) protection must remain effective – five, twenty or a hundred years. Protective measures have to be selected in such a way to ensure site deterioration is reduced to a minimum while still enabling access for future archaeological research. Since it is important to know precisely which elements require protection, a non-intrusive site assessment is executed. This provides answers to certain basic questions concerning the area of the site, the environmental conditions, the age of the wreck and whether the ship was carrying a cargo. These data are extremely helpful, acting as a source for later specific scientific inquiries, and can also be processed through programmes such as MACHU (Managing Cultural Heritage Underwater).4 The precautionary principle The second reason for in situ preservation is legal in nature. Nowadays most countries have well- developed laws and regulatory systems for the protection of underwater cultural heritage. This is the ‘precautionary principle’. These countries have undertaken to preserve not only their own, but also common heritage (above and) under water.5 EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 32 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.The physical preservation of shipwrecks underwater is a logical method for achieving this end. Increase in discovered sites and insufficient research capacity The third reason concerns the increasing number of sites and corresponding constraints in research capacity. The number of shipwrecks being discovered is growing fast and capacity to undertake the necessary research is insufficient. In the mean time, archaeological sites are becoming more easily accessible, both on land and underwater. Diving as a hobby is increasingly common, with many divers reporting shipwrecks. Recent years have seen rapid development in equipment that can penetrate even the dirtiest water6 and down into the seabed7, making underwater sites accessible to almost everyone at a reasonable cost. This has caused a rise in the number of archaeologically interesting underwater shipwrecks listed on monument registers and other archaeological databases worldwide. However, the sudden availability of our maritime8 past has created an immense problem. To keep pace with and investigate the number of wreck sites reported every year would necessitate the addition to the underwater archaeological community of thousands more archaeologists.9 Cost The fourth reason is simply cost. Although diving is no longer an exclusive activity, underwater interventions remain expensive. Special equipment is necessary, and ensuring accuracy requires devoting a substantial amount of time underwater. Moreover, in some countries, underwater archaeologists need special training and licences. This makes underwater excavations far more expensive than equivalent excavations on land. Lack of knowledge An additional reason for protecting archaeological sites in situ is the current lack of knowledge on treating certain deterioration processes. Recent cases include the sulphur problems threatening both the hulls of the Vasa and the Mary Rose.10 It is important to stress the reasons why in situ preservation is deployed and is considered as the preferred first option, particularly as this is not always seen as the best method of promoting underwater cultural heritage protection to the general public. When excavation is necessary Even if a wreck is likely to be excavated, a significant amount of time usually elapses between the discovery of the object and the actual excavation. During this time it is imperative that the following be undertaken: a non-intrusive assessment, a project design,11 a timetable, the sourcing of funding for the total project and the identification of specific research objectives. The project design should clearly describe the methodology and techniques to be employed and provide details of the team’s qualifications. Any legal and political issues must be resolved before excavation can commence. Excavation is destructive, therefore clear research objectives are essential. All the steps given above have to be undertaken in order to regulate archaeological excavations. However, it should be understood that it is impossible to obtain all the In Situ Preservation: ‘the preferred option’ Martijn Manders ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 33information contained within a wreck via excavation. Hundreds of questions may be raised during the study of a vessel’s construction or cargo. By excavating the cargo you take away the source of information. It is therefore important to identify the precise field of research before starting an excavation. In this way the most essential questions can be asked (and answered) before the excavation makes this difficult, if not impossible. What to preserve? Not all wrecks undergo physical protection. Some natural environments – such as the Baltic Sea – are very stable and large-scale physical protection seems unnecessary. Some other environments – like the highly dynamic, shallow Wadden Sea in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, and the Goodwin Sands in the UK – can be both protective but also hostile to archaeological sites underwater, due to the dynamics of their environment. In these areas much effort has to be undertaken to physically stabilize the site. However, it is always a matter of balancing the costs, the effects of protective measures, and the importance of the site. Cultural heritage sites are assessed on their archaeological, historical and artistic or aesthetic value. The prioritizing of sites is pragmatic. Not all sites can be actively protected and managed, simply because of insufficient money, time and human resources. When a wreck site does not seem worth protecting – physically or legally – the choice can be made to leave it unattended. However, the prioritization of sites is highly subjective, so objectivity must be ensured through the establishment of a decision process. Furthermore, sites that are left unattended can still be of interest to sports divers and of great educational value. Sometimes it is not possible to protect a site properly over a long period because of lack of scientific or technical knowledge. Large twentieth-century iron shipwrecks are an example of these kinds of problematic site. What can be done to protect a 150m-long iron hull protruding at least 10 m out of the seabed in a highly dynamic zone? Museums and in situ preservation The preference for keeping archaeological sites on the seabed instead of excavating them has consequences for the way traditional museums deal with underwater archaeological resources. Museums are key places for informing and raising awareness among the general public. Their importance is related not only to the richness and exceptional conditions of our underwater cultural heritage, but more particularly to the stories behind and beyond the objects. For this, archaeologists depend extensively on museums and this relationship benefits both sides: creating awareness is the best way to ensure the protection of underwater cultural heritage, while the people being reached can become regular museum visitors. Museums such as the Mary Rose in Portsmouth (UK) and the Vasa in Stockholm (Sweden) have been highly successful in spreading awareness among the public.12 The Vasa is, with approximately 750,000 visitors annually, the most visited museum in Scandinavia.13 These museums, however, are built on material and information EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 34 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.gathered during excavations. The ships and their contents are preserved ex situ. But how can we accomplish this when the objects in question remain under water and difficult to access? The answer lies in bringing either the visitor physically to the site or the site virtually to the visitor: in other words, taking the museum out of the building. Bringing visitors to the site The first thing that comes to mind when thinking about bringing visitors to a site is that this may involve diving – and indeed, a large part of the visiting public comes from the diving community. But the avocational diving community is not merely a large group, it is also an important stakeholder in the management and protection of underwater cultural heritage.14 In many countries this group comprises the primary source for new discoveries and functions as the ‘eyes and ears’ of professional archaeologists and policy-makers in underwater cultural heritage. It is therefore important to conscript them as allies in site management: turning them from stakeholders into shareholders. In fact in many countries, underwater archaeology began as a result of avocational divers’ interest in marine history. One such worldwide operational maritime archaeology community comprising both amateur and professional archaeologists is the Nautical Archaeological Society.15 Restrictions in access to underwater sites either as a result of legal or physical protection form a serious threat to the involvement of this group. Therefore, denying access to one site should be compensated by enhancing accessibility to other sites and areas. This notion is growing, as is the number of new initiatives to create greater access to archaeological sites underwater. Underwater parks and reserves have been in use for quite some time with new additions being considered in many parts of the world. Examples include Caesarea in Israel, Wardang Island in South Australia and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Emerald Bay State Underwater Park, California in the US. The notion of including shipwrecks within these parks has also taken hold, not only for reasons of biodiversity, but also specifically for their value as cultural heritage. There has also been an increase in individual sites being opened to the public.16 The development of underwater heritage trails and the creation of access to individual sites is potentially a multi-million business, particularly considering the number of active sports divers in the world and the impact the protection of natural and cultural resources can have on national tourism. This has not yet been explored to its full extent.17 Underwater trails or site visits need to be educational. The individual sites open to the public may not be those that are the most archaeologically valuable in the area, as these may be physically covered and closed to the public. Therefore, the publicly accessible sites become by default the places to recount stories of particular ships within the wider context. Diving is an experience; diving around a shipwreck still lying on the seabed where it sank is a multiple experience. It is interesting to consider In Situ Preservation: ‘the preferred option’ Martijn Manders ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 35all the possibilities these educational trails offer. With the development of new visual and aural techniques and aids, trails can be brought vividly to life. For example, diving helmet mounted displays are now being developed with visual projections on the interior of the glass.18 The potential for underwater heritage is remarkable: imagine being able to witness historical reconstructions while the actual shipwreck lies before you on the seabed. Until development of such multimedia techniques has advanced sufficiently for large-scale use, we will continue to make use of information for divers available on the internet and in books, and on information columns on the seabed, plasticized slates or water-resistant booklets. Non-divers can also participate, by visiting shallow sites in clear water while snorkelling or taking guided tours in glass- bottom boats. They can also learn about underwater cultural heritage while sailing in the area or travelling near the coast. GPS route plans and mobile phones can supply information on nearby shipwrecks or other underwater archaeological sites in the vicinity. This method of transmitting information is already in use for land sites and can easily be deployed for sites under water.19 Bringing the site to the people Traditionally, maritime heritage has been brought to the public through artefacts recovered from the seabed and displayed in museums. Ideally, these artefacts have been recovered by archaeologists but many museums possess artefacts in their collection retrieved through commercial salvage or dredging. In these instances, the objects themselves have to tell the story, out of context. Occasionally the ship and its contents are displayed together, as is the case for the Vasa.20 7. Graphic showing the method of physical protection with poly- propylene nets. Sand moved over the seabed by currents penetrates the holes of the net and settles on the site. Within a few weeks, the whole site is covered with a thick layer of sediment. ª M . M an d er s 7 8. Polypropylene nets used for the protection of the Avondster wreck site in Galle (Sri Lanka). ª D ra w in g b y M . M an d er ⁄M . K os ia n 8 EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 36 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.In China, a further step has been taken with the bringing of an unexcavated ship inside a museum to enable the public to experience the excitement of archaeological research and underwater excavation for themselves. The new Maritime Silk Road Museum in Guangdong is being constructed with an enormous basin, 64 m long, 40 m wide and 23 m high, for the Nanhai 1 wreck – a 30 m-long shipwreck from the Song Dynasty (900–1279) discovered in 1987. It was lifted from the seabed in December 2007 to form the centrepiece of the new museum. The growing importance of the non-diving public to underwater cultural heritage is underlined in Alexandria, Egypt, where an underwater museum is being planned consisting of a museum above water, and an underwater area in a controlled environment with better visibility. Artefacts that have already been lifted from the seabed for research will be placed in this area in order to secure public access. In a sense, this could be regarded as a ‘Disneyfication’ of underwater cultural heritage, but it does at least enable the public to experience for themselves the mystery of the underwater environment.21 In certain cases, however, sites lack artefacts or are inaccessible due to their environment (because of depth, sedimentation or 9. The Vasa exhibited in its own museum. ª M . M an d er s 9 In Situ Preservation: ‘the preferred option’ Martijn Manders ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 37water visibility). An excavation may not have taken place with the site instead covered over for protection. How can the public interest be addressed in these instances? From the point of view of a traditional museum this might seem difficult. Museums are used to amassing objects for the purposes of display. But in the years to come, fewer shipwrecks will be excavated; in fact, most of them will be preserved in situ. However, due to enormous pressure on the seabed caused by aggregate extraction and offshore construction works, some archaeological sites will still have to be removed by excavation.22 When this occurs, according to the 2001 UNESCO Convention, the excavations have to be performed according to rules of good practice. These guarantee the proper treatment of artefacts and the gathering of good- quality information, ready for museum display.23 It should also be remembered that many museums have already assembled considerable collections of archaeological material from underwater sites over extended periods of time. These artefacts may constitute a more-than-sufficient resource to form the basis of exhibitions and illustrate the stories that museums wish to recount. If not, then there is the possibility of borrowing artefacts from museums or central archaeological depots. These finds are no longer owned by museums, but instead belong to the State. The artefacts, data and documents from archaeological research that are preserved at central archaeological depots are in some countries linked to governmental museum bodies that encourage displays. Basic information gained through inventories and non-intrusive assessments can be 10. The Nanhai 1 shipwreck will be put on show in the Nanhai museum. ª S u n B o 10 EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 38 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.of great use in creating presentations for the wider public. Specifically, this information places underwater cultural heritage in a larger context, exploring the relationship between sites, the environment, trading routes and markets. Today, the development of interactive digital supports has opened a whole new range of possibilities for transmitting information to the public. Alongside traditional displays of artefacts, it is now possible to create the feel of specific environments, bringing objects and sites to the building. Holographic displays and 3D projections offer tantalizing impressions,24 and even smells can be added, vividly recreating the atmosphere of specific sites.25 The advent of the World Wide Web has provided even more ways of raising awareness. Beyond the museum building, the web has become one of the information exchange forums most frequently used by scientists and others related to the field of underwater archaeology. However, the growing number of links and websites often remain inaccessible to the general public. The information exchanged is frequently presented in a highly academic way, while sites that do consist of approachable information do not reach a broader audience26 due to the search engine prioritization of websites according to visitor numbers. With average visitor numbers amounting to between a few hundred to a couple of thousand, it is difficult for most potentially interesting websites and digital underwater museums to reach and address new visitors in large numbers. This situation can be reversed through the contracting of specialized companies, but funding is not always available. One possible way of breaking this vicious circle is for the organizations involved to join initiatives on centralized archaeological pages.27 Another interesting possibility potentially worth exploring is linking up with larger, commercial internet sites that can sponsor site exposure and thereby increase traffic. Conclusion Although in situ preservation of underwater archaeological sites is considered to be the preferred first option in conservation for many widely accepted reasons, it does create difficulties in raising awareness of the existence and richness of underwater cultural heritage. However, the difficulties it poses to traditional methods of exhibition and communication are also challenges to find new innovative ways forward. Museums housed inside buildings have to review the stories they want to tell. Can these be told with existing collections of artefacts? Can museums introduce new techniques to provide new and varied experiences? Is it possible to link the museum to sites on the seabed? Museums can also be placed outside the building. In some cases sites themselves have become underwater museums. Although less accessible than the museum building, these are highly successful in addressing one major stakeholder in the protection of underwater cultural heritage: the sports diver. With the introduction of new visualization techniques, the challenge is to deploy these in the underwater cultural heritage field, both for research and the general public. In Situ Preservation: ‘the preferred option’ Martijn Manders ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 39Reaching large groups of new people in order to increase awareness remains a challenge. This is not due to the subject, but is largely a problem of resources, and utilizing the right channels of information. With the ratification of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage in 2009 this issue needs to be made a priority to ensure that awareness of the richness of our underwater cultural resource continues to grow. NOTES 1. See also M. Manders, ‘Why do we Safeguard Shipwrecks?’ MoSS Newsletter, 3, Stockholm: The National Board of Antiquities, 2004, pp. 4–6. 2. Monitoring, Safeguarding and Visualizing North European Shipwreck Sites (MoSS) is a European project funded by Culture 2000. Its objective is to ensure the monitoring of the state of wrecks and their environment. See http://www.mossproject.com. 3. Preserving cultural heritage by preventing bacterial decay of wood in foundation piles and archaeological sites (BACPOLES) was an EU-funded project financed through the 5th Framework programme which ended in 2005. See http://www.bacpoles.nl. 4. The Culture 2000 programme project MACHU, funded by the EU, aims to standardize the way assessments are being deployed through the development of general formats. Underwater sites are investigated more or less according to the same standards and are made accessible through web-based GIS. See http://www. machuproject.eu. 5. Shipwrecks from different nations are located all over the globe. For example, German, English, French, American, Belgian, Swedish and Danish shipwrecks have all been discovered in Dutch waters, and over a hundred Dutch shipwrecks have been found in different parts of the world (Maritime Archives RACM, the Netherlands). 6. For example, equipment that uses high-frequency sound waves such as Side-Scan Sonar and Multibeam Sonar. 7. Magnetometers for the detection of metals in the seabed and equipment that uses middle-range frequency sound waves, such as 2D and 3D sub-bottom profilers. 8. Although maritime sites are specifically referred to here, the same is true for underwater archaeological sites in rivers and lakes. 9. In many countries with a long history of maritime archaeological research the number of underwater archaeologists employed by the government is declining (e.g. UK and the Netherlands), while on paper their responsibility for underwater cultural heritage is increasing due to new regulations. 10. See for example M. Sandström, Y. Fors and I. Persson, ‘The Vasa’s New Battle. Sulphur, Acid and Iron’, Vasa Studies, 19, 2003, Stockholm: Swedish National Maritime Museum. 11. These points are all discussed in the rules concerning activities directed at underwater cultural heritage found in the Annex to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (Paris, 2001), http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/underwater. 12. The Tudor ship the Mary Rose sank in the Solent near Portsmouth in 1545, was excavated in the early 1980s, and then lifted from the seabed in 1982. Sixty million spectators worldwide watched this event on television. Since then, the vessel has moved to the Naval Dockyards in Portsmouth, where 4 million people have visited the ship’s hull, presently undergoing conservation, and its artefacts, which are on display in the adjoining museum. See http://www.maryrose.org. The Swedish flagship Vasa sank near Stockholm on its maiden voyage in 1628 and was lifted to the surface in 1961. In 1962 a temporary museum was constructed for the ship and its artefacts. A permanent museum was inaugurated in 1992. See http://www.vasamuseet.se. 13. The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (Information Kit on the Promotion of the Convention), Paris, p. 8. 14. The NOB (Nederlandse Onderwatersport Bond) is the Netherlands’ largest sports diving community with 20,000 members. It is estimated that there are approximately 1.2 million (± 15 per cent) sports divers active in the United States. See http://www.undercurrent.org. 15. See http://www.nasportsmouth.uk. 16. Individual sites made accessible to the public effectively as underwater museums include the eighteenth-century French flagship Océan in EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 40 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Portugal, and the eighteenth-century Swedish warship Kronprins Gustav Adolf in Finland. 17. One initiative in the field of dive tourism in relation to cultural heritage is the seaway trail, which enables diving around the Great Lakes of the United States. See http://www.seawaytrail.com. 18. This technique was first employed for strike fighter pilots. Projection inside dive helmets is used by the Dutch navy to project Side-Scan Sonar pictures (high-frequency sound wave pictures from the seabed) to help the diver find his or her way in low-to-zero visibility water. The same technology is also used in 3D video gaming with the use of glasses. 19. GPS positioning for archaeological sites is available for cities such as (among many others) Split and Nice. There is a GPS heritage trail in the Archaeology Park of Malange in Belgium. See also http://www. archeopass.be. 20. See Note 12. 21. The same kind of idea has been executed at the Guaranguao Reef Cannons Preserve in the Dominican Republic. For more information see http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/underwater. 22. Many European countries have ratified the Valletta Convention (European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage 1992). This European agreement ensures that cultural heritage is taken into account in infrastructural works underwater and on land. See conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/143.htm. 23. Rule 24 of the Annex mentions the conservation of archaeological remains. 24. For an exhibition about the Hoorn, a Dutch ship lost in Patagonia, Argentina, a transparent ‘floating’ 3D projection lent the entire display an almost mystical atmosphere. See also http://www. zoektochtnaardehoorn.nl. 25. For the exhibition ‘Emmers vol verhalen’ (Buckets full of stories), smells were added to create a maritime atmosphere. See http:// www.machuproject.eu. 26. MACHU, which presents web sites from seven different European countries, receives approximately 1,000 visitors per month. For other websites with virtual maritime archaeological projects, see http:// ina.tamu.edu/vm.htm. 27. Two examples are archeologie.startpagina.nl (the Netherlands) and archeologie.start.be ⁄ (Belgium). In Situ Preservation: ‘the preferred option’ Martijn Manders ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 41Conservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage: characteristics and new technologies by Jean-Bernard Memet A professional diver and expert in electrochemistry and metallic materials, Jean-Bernard Memet has spent more than ten years working in the field of saltwater corrosion and the conservation of underwater objects at the Institut Français de Recherche pour l’Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), La Rochelle University and Arc’Antique, for which he has participated in underwater archaeology assignments ( La Natière, the Lapérouse expeditions and the Hermione). In 2007, he set up A-CORROS, and in 2008, with Philippe de Viviès, he established a Mediterranean centre for the conservation-restoration of maritime heritage. The conservation and restoration of underwater cultural heritage calls for comprehensive knowledge of the environment in which a shipwreck or object is found, the materials from which it is constructed, and the degradation processes they have undergone in the surrounding environment. As soon as vessels or artefacts are submerged (as a result of a shipwreck, accidental loss or rising water levels), they are subject to attack by seawater: permeation of pores, corrosion, colonization by algae, sand erosion, hydrolysis, and so on. A process of degradation begins, its nature dictated by the character of the immediate environment, which may be physico-chemical (seawater related), biological (living organism related) or geological (type of substrate and sediment upon which the wreck is lying). A close relationship exists between the depth at which the wreck sits, the nature of the substrate, and the length of time of immersion. 42 ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) ª UNESCO 2009 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Raising objects from the sea causes drying, which accelerates degradation. This causes cracking of pottery and ceramics; delamination (crumbling) of glass; shrinkage and deformation of wood, hemp, leather, fabric and other organic materials; and cracking and corrosion of metals. The worst effects on metals are seen on cast-iron and wrought-iron objects. In the short or medium term, this will cause a partial deterioration of the object’s surface and ornamentation, culminating in the long run in their complete loss. The minute objects leave the water they must be kept in an environment that is identical or as close as possible to that from which they were taken. This is known as ‘preventive conservation’. Next, they must be ‘stabilized’ through the swift extraction of salts – calcium, sodium and magnesium chlorides – and other deleterious chemicals which cause degradation. Material-specific treatments are then carried out in the conservation-restoration laboratory, using both traditional techniques and the most advanced technologies. The aim is to uncover the object’s original surface and the attributes – ornamentation, manufacturing marks and traces of use – that will disclose its origins, how it was used, and the techniques employed in its creation. The laboratory procedure for treating the objects consists of the following stages: a) preventive conservation, b) diagnosis, c) cleaning of concretions, d) stabilizing corrosion, and e) finishing. Water and air: aggressive environments Seawater Seawater is a highly complex environment composed of water, mineral salts, dissolved gases, bacteria, a whole food chain of micro-organisms and macro-organisms, suspended organic matter and sediments. For archaeologists, its aggressive nature lies in the chemical and electrochemical reactions of the various types of seawater with immersed objects, the mechanical actions of waves (the study of currents) and sediments (geology), and the effects of biological – especially bacterial – colonization. 11. Micro sandblasting a 17th century wrought iron perrier cannon. ª A rc ’A n ti q u e, J. G .A u b er t 11 Conservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage: characteristics and new technologies Jean-Bernard Memet ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 43The factor to consider from the point of view of deterioration is the amount of dissolved oxygen in the environment both during an object’s burial and after its excavation. With metals, for example, dissolved oxygen is known as the ‘driving force’ behind corrosion.1 Amounts can vary from one geographical site to another. On a single site, the quantity of dissolved oxygen decreases with depth, temperature (according to the seasons) and the nature of the sediment (sand, mud or rock). By and large, the deeper under water the wreck, the better preserved it will be. In addition, the more deeply buried it is and the denser the silt, the better preserved the state of the artefacts. In terms of restoration time, greater exposure to ambient dissolved oxygen increases the degradation of the artefacts. This is due to the combined effects of water and erosion by sand carried by the waves. Finally, the greater the depth of salt penetration into the objects, the longer it will take to treat them. Drying in the open air: a disaster for artefacts Before any intervention can take place, restorers must stabilize the corrosive elements on metal objects and remove the salts from mineral and organic materials. In order to better evaluate the varied methods, their duration and their cost, restorers must possess a comprehensive knowledge of the degradation processes of underwater objects during and following excavation.2 The most serious damage to archaeological objects is a consequence of allowing them to dry partially or completely in open air. From the start of the excavation, their uncovering, extraction and preventive conservation produces micro- and macro-changes in their environment. These can trigger irreversible physical and chemical mechanisms capable of causing the partial or complete loss of the objects and the information they contain. It is, therefore, important to minimize an object’s surface reactions to ambient air by keeping it, as soon as it is uncovered, in conditions identical or close to its original environment (preventive conservation), and by beginning as soon as possible to remove the salts (first conservation action).3 The best course is to leave the wrecks and artefacts in their sedimentary graves until a decision has been made and restoration funds have been secured. 12. Gun originally made of wrought iron, walnut and brass from the wreck of the Cygne sunk in 1808. The iron, which had disappeared, was reconstituted out of resin thanks to the mould created by the concretions. ª A rc h éo ly se In te rn at io n al ⁄F . G oa le c et P au l M ar d ik ia n 12 EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 44 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Conservation-restoration of underwater archaeological objects: a brief state of the art As mentioned previously, the five major stages of the post-excavation conservation-restoration procedure are: preventive conservation, diagnosis, cleaning concretions, extracting salts or chlorides and finishing. Preventive conservation and diagnosis The aim of preventive conservation is to anticipate, restrict or halt any acceleration in the degradation of objects after their discovery. This is done according to a logical and cautious approach. The object is re-immersed in an environment identical or close to that in which it was found. This prevents it from being exposed to sudden environmental changes. Conservation treatments can take quite some time, so the solutions adopted must be simple and easy to apply. Cleaning concretions, stabilizing deterioration and rinsing Most objects, after long years of being buried in a marine environment, emerge covered in calcium concretions. As a result of cleaning and stabilization of the degradation, the object becomes more ‘intelligible’, paving the way for risk-free restoration work. The hardness, thickness and porosity of the concretions will depend on the burial environment. The degree of hardness and the nature of the object will determine which cleaning methods will be used: mechanical (micro- sandblaster, micro-chisel, scalpel), chemical (immersion), or a combination of the two – electrochemical. Electrochemical cleaning treatments involve cathodic polarization for metal (conductive) objects and electrophoresis for organic and other non-conductive materials. Electrolysis is used to clean concretions from cannons, anchors and other large archaeological objects, and to remove chlorides. Use of an electric current will either cause hydrogen micro-bubbling on the object’s original surface, which helps remove concretions, or trigger chemical changes in corrosion products (reduction), thus speeding up the extraction of chloride ions. Electrolysis also serves to remove chlorides and surface corrosion from non- conductive organic materials and occasionally ceramics. In the case of glass, salt removal is followed by controlled drying in the air or, depending on the object’s conservation condition, consolidation treatments entailing, inter alia, a series of immersions in ethyl lactate followed by very gradual, controlled drying. For organic materials, stabilization treatments aim at preventing any sudden drying 13. Two iron cannon balls from the Lomellina shipwreck – one has been treated and the other has been left in the open air. ª A rc h éo ly se In te rn at io n al ⁄F . G oa le c 13 Conservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage: characteristics and new technologies Jean-Bernard Memet ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 45from contact with the air that might cause shrinkage or distortion. Two types of treatment are known to stabilize organic objects: gradually replacing water in the pores with various concentrations of polyethylene glycol (PEG), or the ARC-Nucléart three-step method (rinsing objects in an acetone solution, impregnating wood with a polyester-styrene resin, and polymerizing the resin through exposure to radiation). For metals, treatments focus mainly on removing chloride ions in order to stabilize corrosion. For larger or more chloride- contaminated objects, the most effective means is electrochemical treatment.4 Weekly solution samples are taken and chloride concentration levels are measured, as described earlier. Depending on the metal, the process can take between six months for wrought iron and more than three years for cast iron. Finishing and long-term conservation Once stabilized, the objects undergo a controlled drying process. Then begins the dual finishing phase: restoration of the original surface so as to make the objects readable and intelligible at a glance, and long-term conservation. This involves gentle cleaning with vegetable or mineral abrasives, depending on the hardness of the substrate, to reveal ornamentation, designs and ⁄ or inscriptions. At times it is necessary to reinforce the original surface by means of a specific reinforcement and ⁄ or filling treatment. This operation is carried out in cooperation with the museum acting as custodian of the collection, and uses, as much as possible, reversible varnish, resins, and so on. Finally, application of a protective (wax, varnish or resin) coating – geared towards the environment of the interior or exterior exhibition site – will help preserve the objects for the foreseeable future. Overall, the past few years have seen advances in conservation and restoration methods. These have correspondingly reduced treatment times, and thus costs, while also enhancing existing treatments. Promising new technologies The main concern of professionals is to make the best possible use of the period between the discovery and raising of underwater objects. Conservator-restorers are increasingly turning to industry in an endeavour to acquire new expertise and ⁄ or extrapolate it to existing methods, or to make use of new technologies, such as subcritical and supercritical fluids and computer-assisted electrolysis – two highly promising avenues of research. The period between excavation and exhibition in a museum can be long, delicate and often expensive. Increasing numbers of archaeologists are developing the in situ conservation approach, applying methods of preventive conservation or in situ restoration with a view to creating underwater archaeological parks and museums. Subcritical and supercritical fluids This technique was devised in France for cleaning sheet metal in the metallurgical industry and for EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 46 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.manufacturing pharmaceutical products. But it was in the United States of America, at the Clemson Conservation Center in Charleston, South Carolina, that it was first used for conservation-restoration work, in connection with the Hunley submarine project.5 It involves immersing the object, under pressure, in a chemical solution that can remain in a liquid phase when heated beyond its boiling point. This gives the solution properties close to those of a gas: high diffusivity, low density and viscosity and low surface tension. Initial testing on wrought-iron objects has shown subcritical fluids to be capable of removing chlorides completely in the space of four days as opposed to the ninety and sixty days needed to achieve the same result with soda baths and electrochemical processes, respectively.6 Efforts are still underway to enhance the treatment parameters and to test the technique on other metals. For the conservation and restoration of waterlogged organic objects, supercritical CO2 fluids have proved useful. The most recent tests have been conducted at the Clemson Conservation Center on cork – a material that controlled drying, freeze-drying and other conventional methods have thus far failed to treat effectively. The treatment involves replacing the water in the material’s cells with liquid CO2. Given that water is non-miscible with liquid CO2, it is replaced in a succession of baths by methanol, an intermediary solution miscible with both water and CO2. Once all the water has been removed, the object is placed in a 120-bar pressure vessel kept at a temperature of 50C. A continuous flow of liquid CO2 is maintained through the treatment unit (under the same pressure and temperature conditions). By a process of diffusion, the CO2 replaces the methanol until it has been completely extracted. When every trace of methanol has gone, the temperature and pressure are returned to normal levels, converting the instantly depressurized liquid CO2 into CO2 gas and, hence, immediately drying the object. This technique has produced promising results with cork, but still needs to be validated for other materials such as waterlogged leather, wood and ivory – an especially difficult material to dry. Computer-controlled electrolysis The first tests on computer-controlled electrolysis for underwater archaeological objects were carried out in 2004 at the Arc’Antique laboratory in Nantes, France.7 This technique enables the electrolysis to be conducted remotely, in real time, via the internet. The idea is drawn from the fact that museums and local authorities are keen to communicate with conservation-restoration professionals, working at a distance, on current treatments. The principle behind the treatment is based on the existing use of electrolysis to remove concretions and chlorides and rinse objects. The chief innovation is that the process is controlled by a potentiostat in place of a more conventional stabilized power supply. A computer helps maintain real-time control over the potentiostat to ensure strict compliance with the treatment parameters. The potentiostat is custom-built for this application, while the real-time control is based on an independent potentiostat computer monitor software system that automatically manages the measurement, monitoring and control operations during the various phases of restoration. Conservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage: characteristics and new technologies Jean-Bernard Memet ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 47The results, after two years of working with the first prototype, have shown a 50 per cent reduction in treatment times, which is a significant saving (bearing in mind that it takes one to three years to stabilize an archaeological object). The system is designed to be set up at the excavation site, and to allow conservator- restorers to access electrolysis parameters and indicators – and even modify the settings – remotely, in real time, via the internet or the telephone network. This type of treatment is currently being applied to a complete collection of seventeenth- century cannons, and there are plans to extend the treatment to in situ shipwreck conservation, the first step being to draw up a global list of iconic wrecks. Approaches for in situ preventive conservation today Months and often years can elapse between the discovery of an underwater site and the initial probes, the actual excavation, the raising of the objects, and the securing of funds to treat them. This is why in situ preventive conservation has grown in importance over the years, with a range of approaches being used: • probing, studying and excavating sites, then reburying them for future generations; • preventive conservation of sites and their conversion into underwater archaeological parks; • preventive conservation of objects in preparation for their excavation or long- term conservation. Archaeologists have come up with three approaches that might be classed according to the materials being protected: an organic object approach favouring post-examination reburial of a wreck and follow-up over time; the built heritage approach, which focuses on creation of underwater archaeological parks; and the metal wreck approach, which offers the choice of cathodic protection and ultimate extraction of wrecks and artefacts on the one hand, and the opening of underwater parks on the other. Running in parallel with these in situ preventive conservation projects is the Italian approach initiated by Petriaggi and Davidde8 for the underwater restoration of the Baia site in Italy. This project has helped develop new methods and tools for interventions and restoration work on underwater architectonic groups that are equal to what can be achieved on land. Conclusion The conservation-restoration of underwater heritage requires a firm grasp not only of the burial environment, but also of the materials and their respective degradation processes in that environment. Also, by dint of its key position in the ‘from the dig to the display cabinet’ chain, conservation-restoration demands a strict protocol, lengthy treatments and a broad range of methods. EXPLORATION AND PRESERVATION 48 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.New methods such as remotely controlled electrolysis, for instance, will establish themselves in the next few years. Moreover, the in situ applicability of remote electrolysis for shipwrecks supports the creation of underwater archaeological parks. The structuring of underwater archaeology teams and services, the constant improvements in prospecting and excavation methods, coupled with the democratization of diving and the growing media impact of underwater artefacts and wrecks, are all generating a steady rise in the number of new underwater archaeological sites discovered each year aroundtheglobe. Inthefaceof this increase–andof the stagnating if not declining levels of public spending – in situ conservation and dissemination to the public have now emerged as promising alternatives, especially when combined with restoration work, as in the case of Baia in the Gulf of Genoa. For the past twenty years, interdisciplinary projectsbringingunderwater archaeologists together with conservator-restorers have helped to promote a more effective take on the issue of preventive conservation of sunken wrecks and artefacts. It is of the utmost importance, if sites are to be preserved in situ for future generations, that these closeworking relations be maintained and strengthened. NOTES 1. J.-B. Memet, ‘La corrosion marine des structures métalliques portu- aires: étude des mécanismes d’amorçage et de croissance des produits de corrosion, PhD, Université de la Rochelle, 2000. 2. N. A. North and I. D. MacLeod, ‘Corrosion of Metal’, in C. Pearson (ed.), Conservation of Marine Archaeological Objects, Sevenoaks, Kent: Butterworths & Co. Ltd, 1987, pp. 68–98. See also: Corrosion Basics: An Introduction, Houston: NACE Publications (1984) and S. Turgoose, ‘The Corrosion of Lead and Tin: Before and After Excavation’, in Lead and Tin: Studies in Conservation and Technology, London, C. E. Miles and S. C. Pollard, UKIC, Occasional papers No. 3, London, 1985, pp. 15–26. 3. J.-B. Memet, N. Huet, M. Rakotonirainy, B. Lavedrine, Q. K. Tran, G. Chaumat and J. Duchene. Développement d’un protocole de traitement de conservation adapté aux objets archéologiques composites fer ⁄ bois gorgés d’eau, Paris: Programme National de Recherche, Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication (final report), 2004; also I. D. MacLeod and R. Wozniak ‘Corrosion and Conservation of Tin and Pewter from Seawater’, I. D. MacLeod, S. Pennec and L. Robbiiola (eds) Metals 95, Proceedings of the International Conference on Metals Conservation, London, James & James, 1997, pp. 118–23; and J. B. Memet and E. Bonnefille (forthcoming) Guide de la conservation préventive du mobilier archéologique découvert en milieu sous-marin. 4. C. Volfovski. ‘Nettoyage et stabilisation de la corrosion par electrolyse’, in La conservation des métaux, Paris, CNRS Editions, 2001; and J- B. Memet La déchloruration des objets archéologiques en fer, Collective Research Programmes Report 1998–2000, Mission de la Recherche et de la Technologie, Paris, Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication, 2003. 5. M. Drews, P. De Viviés, N. Gonzales, D. Cook and P. Mardikian, A Study of the Analysis and Removal of Chloride in Iron Samples from the ‘Hunley’, Proceedings of the interim ICOM-CC Metal WG, Canberra, ed. J. Ashton and D. Hallan, ICOM-CC, 2004, pp. 247–60. 6. P. De Viviés, D. Cook, M. Drews, N. Gonzales, P. Mardikian and J.-B. Memet, Transformation of Akaganeite in Archaeological Iron Artefacts Using Subcritical Treatment, Proceedings of the interim ICOM- CC Metal WG, Vol. 5, ICCROM, 2007, pp. 26–30; and N. Gonzales, D. Cook, P. De Viviés, M. Drews and P. Mardikian, The Effects of Cathodic Polarization, Soaking in Alkaline Solutions and Subcritical Water on Cast Iron Corrosion Products, Proceedings of the interim ICOM-CC Metal WG, Vol. 3, Amsterdam, ICCROM, 2004, pp. 32–37. 7. J.-B. Memet, ‘Conservation and Restoration of Underwater Archaeo- logical Artefacts: A Rapid State of the Art’, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cultural Heritage Disaster Management, Tainan (Taiwan), ICCROM, 2006, pp.11–39. 8. B. Davidde, ‘Underwater Archaeological Parks: A New Perspective and a Challenge for Conservation. The Italian Panorama’, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2002, pp. 83–88. Conservation of Underwater Cultural Heritage: characteristics and new technologies Jean-Bernard Memet ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 49How and Why will Underwater Cultural Heritage Benefit from the 2001 Convention? by Thijs J. Maarleveld Thijs J. Maarleveld is a professor of maritime archaeology responsible for developing professional training for underwater archaeologists. As ICOMOS ⁄ ICUCH adviser and a representative of the Netherlands he was closely involved in negotiations for the 2001 Convention. As a researcher he employs archaeological analysis of ships as a way of understanding cultural entropy and change. He also researches bias in the archaeological record and the meaning of (underwater) heritage in present-day society including the ways in which this is expressed in law. An instrument of law has little meaning if nothing stands to benefit. In the case of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, adopted by UNESCO’s General Assembly on 2 November 2001, the benefits are shared. But what is the basis for the Convention? And how will ‘underwater cultural heritage’ benefit from a set of rules and understandings? Moreover, is this so important? And how will support and ratification of this document improve the present and future situation? It is a range of simple questions, relating to an exciting field. Different levels Both heritage and heritage concerns benefit from the 2001 Convention in several ways and at different levels. Basic principles of joint responsibility and joint enjoyment of the past are repeatedly challenged by States, individual 50 ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) ª UNESCO 2009 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.politicians and private individuals knowingly or naı̈vely acting contrary to principles that they otherwise profess to adhere to. Although such aberrations relate to heritage in the deep, the credibility of all heritage protection lies at stake, both at the international and national levels. The Convention gives national and international communities a firm hold on consistency. Through its well-considered and inclusive approach it adds to the credibility of both international heritage policies and national endeavours. The Convention reconciles international maritime law with the principles of mutual respect that have lain at the core of UNESCO’s development since 1945 and to which its 193 Member States and its associated members have committed themselves. Claims and disproportionate reactions are channelled in a clear and transparent way, easing the mystification that so frequently attends new discoveries and known sites alike. Uncertainties as to the actual character or significance of an archaeological site are not in themselves a reason for such difficulties. A common characteristic of archaeological discovery is that very little is known in advance. The Convention encourages the consideration of matters in a balanced fashion, making a case for those involved to refrain from actions that cannot be undone. Heritage, after all, is vulnerable and easily damaged and such damage is irreversible. But international relations are also vulnerable, and while damaged relationships can to a certain extent be repaired, it is preferable to avoid unfortunate mishaps. The Convention prevents undue contention and may therefore significantly contribute to peaceful relationships. After all, heritage issues can be extremely sensitive in the international arena.1 At a practical level the Convention also provides important professional guidance – a fact that may initially seem slightly odd for an international legal instrument. However, many of the world’s waters fall under the jurisdiction of one State or another, while others are fully international. One thing, though, is quite clear: regardless of its location, underwater heritage possesses a meaning that transcends local interest. Examples include remains of early human settlements found on submerged continental shelves (e.g. between the Indonesian Archipelago and Australia, along the Aleutian Islands between Eurasia and North America, and in the North Sea basin, or on any other submerged shelf located between national territories and waters);2 or the remnants of ships that sank in historic or prehistoric periods hundreds or thousands of miles from ‘home’. There is no way of contending that the interest of underwater heritage is limited to the local community at the place where it is found. In many cases it is hard even to conceive of a local community simply because few people live at sea. In this light, professional guidance is an international issue and its inclusion within a legally binding document is justifiable. In the Convention this guidance is provided in the form of thirty-six operational rules. These constitute the Annex, which is an integral part of the Convention.3 Careful study of these rules is instructive as they have many implications, not only for professionals directly involved with underwater sites and finds, but also for others working in the wider field. It is certain that How and Why will Underwater Cultural Heritage Benefit from the 2001 Convention? Thijs J. Maarleveld ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 51underwater cultural heritage will benefit enormously from these operational guidelines. Confusion between private and public approaches Wrecks are the result of mishaps and such accidents continue to happen. Society has at its service an elaborate set of rules to deal with the ensuing issues that comprise part of customary international law. Subjects covered include assistance in peril, compensation and insurance. Even more relevant in the present context is fair play among afflicted parties, beachcombers and salvors that take possession or are asked to do so. The body of law dealing with these issues has a long tradition, the famous Rhodian sea law being just one early example.4 Accordingly, related thinking is deeply engrained in maritime minds. Individual loss and individual gain are central to the rules governing finds at sea from this perspective. Relevant and appropriate as these rules may be, they are hardly designed to cater for heritage, nor should they be. They are intended more or less for contemporary jetsam, flotsam and wreck. Quite understandably, the approach is object oriented and rife with confidentiality and private allocation. It is meant to serve private interest. Heritage, on the other hand, is qualified by its public interest and by concepts such as accessibility and public ownership. For archaeological heritage context and site are central; for salvage issues they are not. The two approaches imply completely different states of mind. The different states of mind that prevail when we discuss heritage and jetsam, flotsam and wrecks from a salvage perspective are best illustrated graphically by listing a few key concepts. Table 1 places the two lines of thinking side by side. Attempts to solve archaeological issues within the right-hand column have been made many times, but without success. The concepts related to heritage were first introduced into Maritime Law with the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention of 1982.5 In accordance with this new approach, the International Convention on Salvage of 1989, as negotiated in the context of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), explicitly states that maritime cultural property of prehistoric, archaeological or historic interest can be excluded from its working.6 It is only the 2001 UNESCO Convention that consistently bridges the gap between the two lines of thinking, taking for its basis the left-hand column of Table 1. Meanwhile, the two different approaches are frequently confused, and while there have been many attempts to cater for inclusive approaches through exclusive contracts, not one has met with success. To add to the confusion, most States have separate offices to deal with maritime affairs and heritage matters. Although both are used to deploy national policies in a consistent way, each focuses on its own field and is guided by the concepts (shown in Table 1) related to that field. Confusion TABLE 1. A FEW KEY CONCEPTS Heritage Jetsam, flotsam and wreck Public interest Private interest Accessibility Confidentiality Public ownership Private allocation Site and context Object WHY CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION? 52 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.between offices can cause misdirected inquiries resulting in inadequate official answers. This is actually a very simple practical issue that the 2001 Convention adequately solves. Each State Party is obliged to indicate the government body it makes responsible as the ‘competent authority’ in heritage matters (Art. 22). This body also has the central task of keeping track of relevant information and maintaining an inventory of archaeological finds and observations. Our understanding of heritage resources is, after all, built on cumulative data. This is just a simple example, but one from which underwater cultural heritage will certainly profit. Charming middlemen So far, confusion continues. Deals have been struck in which the public dimension of heritage has been forgotten for the sake of confidentiality. The pattern runs as follows: an individual acting on behalf of a group of investors contacts a government office with jurisdiction relating to a lost estate or recent wreck, requesting the exclusive right to look for and dispose of underwater finds. Politicians, informed by an office working on the fringe of its jurisdiction, do not necessarily see the long-term implications of what is presented as an exciting cultural adventure, and deeds of transfer are soon signed. Taking the short-term economic perspective, politicians easily forget that it is a bad idea both culturally and economically to sell off your heritage. Moreover, it is only later that problems arise, when competing claims are filed and the realization dawns of what is at stake.7 A deed of transfer is not the same thing as a permit for an archaeological intervention. Nor is it an order to excavate. Such permits or orders are issued or withheld on completely different grounds, including public considerations. In the maritime arena, however, a deed of transfer is looked upon as a salvage permit, supposedly giving the right to dispose of whatever one raises. As such, it gives legitimacy, although only relative to the party with whom the deed of transfer is signed. In contemporary salvage the ship owner (or rather the insurance company) acts on behalf of all stakeholders. In relation to historic wrecks, such concerted action is rarely possible. Furthermore, operators have little desire to deal with the individual heirs of cargo goods or personal belongings that may have been on board, not to mention contraband or human remains. Typically, therefore, such cases are limited to instances where a State or State Agency can claim (or can be convinced to claim) a measure of ownership of the ship itself, if not of everything that may have been on board. Even so, it is usual for claims to be contested. But this is not the point; a deed of transfer may not be an excavation permit, but it gives at least a measure of legitimacy. And legitimacy relative to a State looks all the more legitimate. Legitimacy is an issue of importance for those whose excavations feed the market. Dealers and clients have become aware of the great harm and injustice in which the illegal antiquities trade is rooted.8 And if not, they are constantly reminded by increasingly vocal public opinion on the matter. Public institutions like museums are no longer supposed to acquire illegal antiquities, and if they transgress, they face complicated claims and proceedings.9 As a result, operators go to great lengths to stress the legality of their operations.10 How and Why will Underwater Cultural Heritage Benefit from the 2001 Convention? Thijs J. Maarleveld ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 53By putting public (shared) interest first, the 2001 Convention creates a common basis on which to assess archaeological significance and heritage values. The quality of underwater archaeological work and decisions on archaeological assignments, including excavations, are made subject to a common goal. New discoveries are to be assessed on the basis of their actual archaeological significance, not on the basis of their supposed identity. This is extremely important. Ruling on the basis of identity, after all, means that the identity needs to be established. In many cases this is not possible, certainly not before extensive intrusion. According to the principles set out in this Convention, deposits should not be ruined in the process of identification. It is certain that the underwater cultural heritage of the world will profit greatly from this. Consultation and mitigation Underwater cultural heritage is not just exposed to risk by targeted surveys; other activities such as fishing, dredging and construction can play a predominant role. In our present-day society it has therefore become usual to include heritage and cultural values among the many interests to be balanced in a planning process. This can take several forms. The most straightforward is to take previously known heritage into account and, depending on the planned activity and significance of the site, devise and implement an avoidance and protection strategy. This is sometimes difficult, but mitigation of negative impacts can be listed on the overall planned activity balance sheet. This may be a virtual exercise in weighing pros and cons, but in many countries it has become usual practice to take this literally. The costs of mitigation, including archaeological excavation if necessary, are seen as integral costs of any planned development if it is to unfold at a particular site. As a consequence it may prove more advantageous to deploy the planned activity elsewhere. Previously known sites, however, are only part of the equation; unknown deposits can be equally exciting and important. This certainly holds true for deposits in the underwater world, where few have looked. Surveys, if undertaken at all, are frequently predisposed towards expected finds, drawing on written records. That translates into a bias towards shipwrecks of the post- medieval West. Moreover, any additional results of such surveys may not be available, due to confused notions of ‘confidentiality’ alluded to earlier. If on the other hand the inventory is based on chance discoveries, then there is a frequent predisposition towards areas where recent activities have promoted discovery and easily recognizable deposits. Areas frequented by recreational divers for instance are intensively explored, while sites with ceramic storage jars lying on rocky sea beds are more easily recognized than deposits with wooden containers embedded in soft sediment, let alone the fragile remains of prehistoric habitats. For planning purposes, current inventories are insufficient as they are not designed for the specific considerations at hand. In fact, in planning for the future it is never wise to limit considerations to what is known in advance. In many planning environments a consideration of un-surveyed archaeological potential is becoming standard practice. This may or may not include models and predictions and lead to decisions on additional WHY CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION? 54 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.surveys. The practice defines a high percentage of all current archaeological activity. Calling in archaeological assistance and consultancy at an early stage may considerably reduce problems later on. On the one hand, it makes fortuitous discoveries manageable; on the other it will reveal potential hazards. The maritime environment is, after all, not as well mapped as one might suppose. Even extensive wreckage may have gone unnoticed. The presence of toxic substances and hazardous items such as ammunition may not necessarily be of archaeological interest, but comes to light as a result of the process, desktop predictions or dedicated surveys. The Convention does not specifically address the planning process. It does, however, acknowledge its importance. It makes a clear distinction between activities that may ‘incidentally affect’ underwater cultural heritage and those activities that are ‘directed’ at it. For the former, mitigation is advised, as is usual in the planning process. For the latter, the professional guidance of the operational rules provides controls. In both cases, underwater cultural heritage and society as a whole benefit from a well-considered approach for which the Convention sets standards. Conservation, enjoyment and research One aspect of the Convention – and of archaeological management policy in general – can be usefully highlighted here: the fifth paragraph of Article 2, ‘objectives and general principles’. It reads: ‘The preservation in situ of underwater cultural heritage shall be considered as the first option before allowing or engaging in any activities directed at this heritage’. Among those only superficially exposed to the subject, this option may appear odd, while the same may be true for those trained to think in terms of jetsam, flotsam and wreck, rather than in terms of heritage. Should not all goods be brought in safety from the sea? It is an understandable presumption. Is it then that nothing can ever be touched or moved? No, this is certainly not the case either. What then does all this mean in practice? In fact, the issue is central to any approach that recognizes public interest, accessibility, public ownership, site and context as important. Why? Well, heritage is vulnerable and easily damaged and underwater cultural heritage is no exception. Damage is irreversible. This, however, is just one reason for an in situ approach as a first option; over the long term there are many more. Some sites derive their significance from their surroundings. The memory of the place or the intricate fusion of cultural and natural deposits are among the reasons that present themselves for study, enjoyment and preservation of heritage in situ. For other sites these aspects are less obvious. For example, some people hold the view that a ship does not belong where it ended up as a wreck. In a way this is true, of course, and especially so for its captain and crew. But what if the wreck has become absorbed into its environment? After the passing of a generation or hundreds of years, many headlands, bays, shoals and channels around the world have derived their names from dramatic wrecks. Could one argue that related remains have no relationship to the landscape or region? No, like any other archaeological site, a site that derives from a wreck is best perceived, How and Why will Underwater Cultural Heritage Benefit from the 2001 Convention? Thijs J. Maarleveld ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 55enjoyed and managed in its environment. It is there that it contributes to past and present experience. Experience and continued experience are certainly an argument for in situ preservation of sites – derived from wrecks or otherwise – that have or can become a recreational attraction. But what of archaeological research? While there may be many archaeological sites, their number is nevertheless finite. Each site, however, is unique. While excavation may add to our understanding of the past, it certainly diminishes the resource as well as future research options. One cannot after all ‘read’ the same deposits twice. Archaeology, from this perspective, is a strange science. Browsing in the same fashion as one browses a book or an archive has a completely different impact as preservation is irrevocably compromised. Such excavation may perhaps seem attractive, but in the long run, frugal management and the consideration of in situ preservation as a first option are much wiser. Despite all these arguments, the ‘in situ doctrine’ is certainly not dogma. The Convention proposes considering it as a ‘first option’, no less, but no more either. By so doing, it promotes decision- making in a considerate manner. In maritime matters some decisions need to be taken quickly, but this should not be confused with acting rashly. On consideration, the first option may not be realistic or desirable, and on very good grounds. Placing this option first, however, obliges stakeholders and decision-makers to articulate their reasons why. In fact, there can be many good reasons, each proportionate to the specific character, environment and integrity of the site. The perceived importance of a planned development may, for instance, outweigh the significance of the site, but the site may be important enough to excavate. Integrating in situ preservation may be meaningless, and yet again the site may be worthwhile. Natural decay or erosion may call for urgent measures, and a safeguarding operation may be necessary. Alternatively, the significance of the heritage site may be greatly enhanced by making it accessible, through limited excavation. Researchers will profitably target these types of situation to deal with queries and research aims high on their agendas.11 In some instances, however, it may be perfectly justifiable to sacrifice a site for reasons of research alone. But these must be good and valid reasons, proportionate to the site’s integrity and importance. The Convention does not aim to prevent considerate action; instead it underlines the nature of underwater archaeology as a serious concern, highlighting the wider importance of heritage for conservation, enjoyment and research. It is in ways such as these that underwater cultural heritage benefits from the Convention. States and stakeholders As with all conventions, the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage is an agreement between States. As noted previously, it is not uncommon for States to be persuaded into signing deeds of transfer relating to long-lost items on which they may claim continued rights of ownership. In the archaeological context this creates mayhem and confusion. But from the perspective of political competition, it makes a sort of sense. What States wish to avoid is the impression that they do not care about their rights from an international perspective. WHY CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION? 56 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Ownership rights, sovereign rights – these are delicate issues. Compromise can appear weak whereas a deed of transfer is a simple sign of assertion. No active involvement seems necessary, but a precedent of non-assertive behaviour is also avoided. This is hardly a matter of archaeology, but it certainly has consequences for underwater cultural heritage. The Convention succeeds in separating these issues completely or at least as completely as has been proved possible in negotiations. Customary rules related to abandonment, continued ownership or ownership expiration are fully recognized and respected. But these are not taken as a basis for heritage. Respect for heritage is made independent of ownership, as are decisions on protection and management. This means that ownership need not be determined before any action can be taken. This will benefit underwater cultural heritage enormously. As indicated above, establishing the identity of a wreck-deposit can prove awkward. And even if this is not the case, it is an unlikely assumption that all deposited items and debris originally belonged to the same party. The solution of making heritage value independent of ownership is in complete agreement with regulations elsewhere. Ownership does not define heritage significance; it will be taken into account and used in resolving management issues, but meaning comes first. Under the Convention, context and integrity have priority over ownership. Sovereign immunity is another issue and a very specific subject. In the maritime context the most relevant type of immunity is the assertion that a warship under a military commanding officer and flying the flag of its State is subject to the law of that State alone. On a friendly visit to another State it will not, for instance, be subject to customs inspections, as is the case for other ships. In order to cater for military secrets, this immunity has been extended to sunken warships. This specific application of sovereign immunity was introduced in international law in the context of the First World War. Sovereign immunities are respected by the Convention and wrecks of warships that fit the definition are therefore exempt from its workings. This may complicate matters in a way similar to ownership. Must protection be challenged? Must deposits first be ruined before we can decide upon them? Most states do not think it reasonable to extend the application of this principle to a period before its introduction in international law. The problems of identification relating to warships of the twentieth century are substantially less than for ships of much earlier periods. But the issue of warships or ‘ships of state’, as the Convention calls them, remains an issue of possible contention. Let us hope that States will be wise enough to take a position in which they can proclaim to uphold this principle, but nevertheless make related archaeological wreck sites subject to the rulings of the Convention wherever this does not pose a threat to national security. This should be the case in most instances. Rational reporting How then is heritage protected under the Convention? How is respect for original stakeholders achieved? Who does what, to make this happen? The answers to these questions depend more or less on the location of the heritage site (see Figure 14). The cornerstone of all How and Why will Underwater Cultural Heritage Benefit from the 2001 Convention? Thijs J. Maarleveld ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 57archaeological heritage protection is information. Once a site has been found, the finder is required to report the discovery. In this way, observations can be combined and meaningful patterns recognized. This also applies to the deep. The wording of reporting requirements may vary slightly across the globe and some countries have different systems in place, but in general reporting is required as soon as the finder suspects or assumes that a find of historical or archaeological importance has been located. As we have seen, each State Party to the Convention must indicate which office it appoints as its competent authority. Many States not yet in the process of ratification have nevertheless declared which competent authority they have nominated for this purpose. This is where the report has to be filed. In most cases, the competent authority is the office where inland finds, finds from inland waters and finds from territorial waters are reported, and where archaeological records are kept. For federal States, the case may be slightly different. If the report relates to a discovery made during an activity that incidentally affects heritage, an assessment is made as to whether continued activity will have a negative impact and if there is any urgent need to take protective measures proportionate to the assessed significance of the site. If the report relates to an activity targeted at heritage, the full range of operational guidelines in the Annex come into play; if not, they have already been implemented. Cautiousness, well-considered decisions and frugality are, after all, the ways in which at least part of the resource can be handed on to the next generation. This is the situation relating to inland waters and the territorial sea, as well as contiguous zones. If such a zone has been declared it may extend up to twenty-four nautical miles from the coast. Many finds, however, are made beyond this limit. After all, numerous activities take place on the continental shelf and in the ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’. Most of these are regulated through permits issued by the coastal State in whose portion of the continental shelf or Exclusive Economic Zone the activity is deployed. Such permits may include reference to reporting procedures. This is especially the case when the activity has been subject to an impact assessment during the planning stage. Accordingly, many coastal States apply their heritage regulations and procedures to such permit-bound activities, as they would for land-based heritage. The Convention stimulates this by setting standards and confirming a framework of procedures. Our understanding of underwater cultural heritage will greatly benefit from this coherent approach. If not obliged to do so through the rulings in a permit, a finder may also opt to report to the competent authority at home, that is to say in the State whose flag their vessel flies. This is the 14. A schematic view of the different maritime zones as regulated by UNCLOS. ª U N E S C O ⁄ A ft er C . L u n d 14 WHY CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION? 58 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.same procedure that applies for finds in the so- called ‘Area’ – the deep sea beyond any form of coastal jurisdiction. In the latter case the information will be put at the disposal of UNESCO and the International Seabed Authority, which the United Nations placed in charge of planning and permitting exploration and mining of the deep sea floor. Underwater cultural heritage in the ‘Area’ will benefit from the fact that such information will be gathered centrally, something that is not presently the case. With regard to finds in ‘foreign’ zones that are reported at home, the information will make something of a detour. It will, however, certainly end up with the coastal State where it can be corroborated. Whose heritage, what links? The commitment to inform the coastal State is part of an elaborate procedure for information sharing. As we have seen, finds and different perspectives on heritage can cause extensive international tension. In order to avoid this, States Parties commit themselves to sharing information. After all, their efforts in respect of heritage are not undertaken to benefit themselves exclusively. This is the underlying logic of joint heritage endeavours agreed at UNESCO, one of the tenets of which is ‘that damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all ª Je n s A u er 15 15. Careful documentation of dispersed wreck remains off Gotland by international students of the newly started Maritime Archaeology Programme at the University of Southern Denmark. How and Why will Underwater Cultural Heritage Benefit from the 2001 Convention? Thijs J. Maarleveld ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 59mankind’.12 Shared responsibilities and a commitment to cooperation do not, however, mean that each and every day-to-day decision needs to be taken in a worldwide colloquy. Delegation is the key, as always. In day-to-day matters, the coastal state is given the coordinating role. It is at the competent authority of the coastal State that information will be gathered and that questions from interested parties can be answered. At State level, each interested State Party can proclaim its interest and ask to be a party to important consultations relevant to a particular site. Others are to be informed as soon as a link with that State becomes apparent. At first, it may only be the coastal State and the reporting State (if these are not the same) that have such a ‘verifiable link’. A report, for instance, on the basis of survey images will hardly give rise to other identifications. But if the assemblage of a site is subject to more detailed scrutiny, all sorts of links may become apparent, and verifiably so. The careful procedures relating to States with a verifiable link are put in place to respect specific feelings of ownership, whether this is based on original ownership or cultural identification. In view of the encompassing nature of maritime trade and communication of which an underwater site may be a reflection, one can imagine that the group of contemporary States with a verifiable link may grow to be extensive, if research points to many directions. Each can decide if it wants to be involved, and in what capacity, but it is clear that only one State will have the coordinating role on behalf of all others. In specific instances, this can be a State other than the coastal State. The verifiable link will be the basis, and information will still be shared. The concept of the verifiable link and an inclusive approach, rather than one based on exclusivity, will greatly benefit underwater cultural heritage. It will contribute to dialogue instead of the confusion of tongues that has so far qualified the field. Conclusion Underwater cultural heritage benefits from the 2001 Convention in many different ways. Most of all, the interests of the heritage site itself and of different stakeholders are taken seriously. The Convention clarifies the ways in which heritage is vulnerable, but can nevertheless be addressed through careful procedures. Conservation, access, enjoyment and research are made subject to widely recognized professional guidance. This will contribute to our understanding, which is important in and of itself. 16. An undisturbed shipwreck site as discovered during a survey in advance of offshore construction. ª C ou rt es y N or d S tr ea m A G 16 WHY CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION? 60 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Moreover, the Convention is inclusive. The importance of this is underlined by the confused, destructive and tension-filled practices of the past. The creation of a base of information sharing will add to mutual trust. The protection of underwater cultural heritage is quite rightly transformed into a joint effort. As such, responsibilities can be shared and tasks can be allocated. It is the exclusivity of earlier approaches that created so much mistrust and misunderstanding, with mutual threats among explorers and international tension as the result. Perhaps the Convention will not mean an end to all our troubles, but it gives a good common basis for the resolution of issues that otherwise tend to derail the process. Underwater cultural heritage has already benefited from the Convention. The general philosophy that it articulates has begun to guide government decisions starting from its adoption in 2001.13 More specifically even, all the States present at the vote – including those that had specific reasons not to back the Convention as a whole – have declared that they will abide by the operational rules of the Annex – unilaterally if need be and as guidance for other agreements. This political commitment benefits underwater cultural heritage in ways now starting to become apparent. Let us hope that speedy and broad ratification will protect us from unpleasant derailments and agitation in the future. NOTES 1. There is hardly a need to underline this point. The Heritage at Risk series that the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) prepares as a tribute to UNESCO provides us with ample examples. P. Gathercole and D. Lowenthal (eds), The Politics of the Past, London: Unwin Hyman, 1990; P.L. Kohl and C. Fawcett (eds). Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995; or Meskell, L. (ed.) Archaeology under Fire, London: Routledge, 1998; D. Lowenthal. Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History, New York: Free Press, 1996. 2. A recent overview, with reference to other regions of the world, is to be found in N. C. Flemming (ed.) Submarine Prehistoric Archaeology of the North Sea, CBA Research Report 141, York: Council for British Archae- ology, 2005. 3. In fact the Annex closely reflects the professional guidance developed by the International Council on Monuments and Sites, ICOMOS, whose General Assembly approved the International Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage in Sofia in 1996. 4. Nomos Rodion nautikos ⁄ Lex Rhodia de iactu. Although with earlier roots, its general codification took place in the Mediterranean in the sixth century. W. Ashburner. The Rhodian Sea-Law, edited from the manu- scripts, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909. 5. Among other references Art. 303 stipulates that ‘States have the duty to protect objects of an archaeological and historical nature found at sea and shall cooperate for this purpose’. 6. International Convention on Salvage, Art. 30 (D). 7. At present, the dealings and law suits relating to the alleged wrecks of HMS Sussex (sunk 1694), Merchant Royal (sunk 1641) and ⁄ or the Black Swan (nickname) are also a case in point for international tension, http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan_Project. 8. See for instance: N. Brodie and K. Walker Tubb. Illicit Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of Archaeology, London: Routledge, 2001; or the studies in: N. Brodie, M. Kersel, C. Luke and K. Walker Tubb (eds) Archaeology, Cultural Heritage, and the Antiqui- ties Trade, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2006. 9. International Council of Museums, ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums, Seoul 2004. 10. See also: C. Renfrew. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership: The Ethical Crisis in Archaeology, London: Duckworth, 2007. How and Why will Underwater Cultural Heritage Benefit from the 2001 Convention? Thijs J. Maarleveld ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 6111. See also: T. Maarleveld, ‘Mitigation as Archaeological Strategy’, Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, Vol. 27, 2003, pp. 135–39. 12. The phrase is from the Preamble of the Hague Convention of 1954 (Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict) and has been at the core of all later instruments, including the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property of 1970, the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972 (the World Heritage Convention), and the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. 13. S. Dromgoole (ed.) The Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: National Perspectives in Light of the UNESCO Convention 2001, Leiden ⁄ Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2001. WHY CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION? 62 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.The 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: advantages and challenges by Ulrike Koschtial Ulrike Koschtial is an assistant programme specialist in the Museum and Cultural Objects Section of UNESCO, in charge of the 2001 Convention. A trained lawyer, she is the author of several publications on intellectual property law and cultural heritage protection, in particular the UNESCO 2001 Convention, as well as a book on the legal protection of industrial design. In early 2007 a commercial enterprise recovered according to its own declarations 17 tons of objects from an ancient shipwreck off Europe’s coast and brought them to Florida, proudly announcing its success.1 The question was soon raised by the media as to why a private firm could, without permission, recover huge amounts of cultural property comparable to the contents of a whole museum, and even openly announce this. Was treasure hunting on archaeological sites not forbidden? For underwater cultural heritage – and leaving aside the question of who owned the exported objects2 – the answer is unfortunately no, in many cases not as it depends upon the location of the wreck. If found in the territorial sea of a State, the law of this State applies and often, but not always,3 protects the site. If it is, however, located in international waters, the situation is different. States only have jurisdiction over their own vessels and nationals at high sea4 and cannot influence vessels originating from other States. ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) ª UNESCO 2009 63 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Even if the concerned site lies not far from the coast the treasure hunter only has to obey the laws of his or her own country. Unfortunately, most countries do not forbid treasure hunting on submerged archaeological sites outside their territorial sea. Assuming that the wreck in the above case lay in international waters, as stated by the commercial firm, the situation is a gloomy one for the nearby coastal States, countries with a link to the history of the wreck, archaeologists, the museum community and the public. The concerned site was not protected. This fortunately may change. In such cases the 2001 international convention will come to the rescue, requiring States not only to protect underwater cultural heritage, wherever they have the power to do so, but also ensuring cooperation. It may even do more. The 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (‘the 2001 Convention’) may open the way to setting worldwide applicable and binding professional standards for any intervention directed at underwater heritage. The UNESCO 2001 Convention In its beginnings the 2001 Convention5 was elaborated amid turbulent and controversial debates, as lawyers, archaeologists, military experts and treasure hunters all tried to influence 17. Wreck located in Porto San Paolo, Italy, third century A.D. ª E . Tr ai n it o ⁄U N E S C O 17 WHY CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION? 64 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.the text. Interest in the commercial exploitation of submerged archaeological sites was brought into conflict with the interests of researchers and the public. In addition, the subject matter of the Convention touched upon legal and policy issues, mainly concerning the Law of the Sea and national defence interests, which alarmed many of the States participating in the elaboration of the text. These battles and fears slowed the adoption as well as the ratification of the text. Seven years later the issues are still there, but support for the Convention has grown. This is not surprising: despite all concerns, it is not unreasonable to say that, taking into account the manifold desires and needs of States and the complex legal context, the Convention, as finally adopted by UNESCO’s General Conference in 2001, is as good a legal solution for the protection of underwater cultural heritage as might be achieved for many years to come. It was elaborated to align the protection of heritage underwater to that on land and to ease and regulate the modes of cooperation between States. Its regulations fulfil not only these two goals, but go even further in opening ways for the development of in situ protection, the advancement of specialized museums, and the progress of underwater archaeology. 18. Wreck of the Umbria, Wingate Reef, Port Sudan. ª E . Tr ai n it o ⁄U N E S C O 18 The 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: advantages and Challenges Ulrike Koschtial ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 65The UNESCO 2001 Convention came into force on 2 January 2009.6 This is therefore the optimum moment to outline its content and explain its importance. The goal and content of the 2001 Convention UNESCO’s 2001 Convention is an international treaty concluded between States, focusing on the protection of submerged archaeological sites.7 Its subject, ‘underwater cultural heritage’, is understood as meaning all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character which have lain partially or totally under water, periodically or continuously, for at least a hundred years.8 Pipelines and other constructions still in use are excluded from the definition. Already this description of the subject of the Convention is an important signal for many States looking to improve the protection of their heritage. It clearly states that underwater cultural heritage is a submerged archaeological site or object together with its context, regardless of monetary value or benchmarks for the significance of the concerned sites. This is a statement that might seem banal in the eyes of land archaeologists, but is indeed a huge step forward for underwater cultural heritage. It does not mean that all shipwrecks have to be excavated or that no harbour works can ever touch a concerned area. However, it does mean that consideration has to be given to a site as a whole and to its research and protection. The Convention aims to set a common standard for the protection of all such underwater cultural heritage with a view to preventing it being looted or destroyed.9 It has to be stressed that it focuses on heritage protection and does not regulate the ownership of wrecks, nor does it change the sovereignty rights of States. The reason for this is that it would have been far too difficult to try to regulate on these issues. It is already in many cases difficult even to clarify a shipwreck’s identity, not to mention the owner. Who owns what under which conditions is also very differently regulated in different States. Nor would a Convention aiming at heritage protection have been the place to deal with complicated issues such as changing sovereignty rights in different maritime zones for the sake of heritage protection. This would have meant impinging upon the economic and defence interests of States. The 2001 Convention therefore respects the framework of the Law of the Sea as it stands, without altering the different maritime zones or their definitions.10 In its structure the Convention consists of a main text and an annex. The first sets out basic protection principles and proposes a detailed State cooperation system, while the latter contains widely recognized practical rules for archaeological work and interventions on submerged archaeological sites. The main protection principles of the Convention stipulate that States Parties undertake to preserve underwater cultural heritage, consider its preservation in situ as a preferred option, and allow recovery only for scientific reasons or public benefit. They also pledge to ban the destruction of underwater cultural heritage for commercial reasons, opting for the application of archaeological standards in authorizing interventions on sites. The Convention furthermore encourages its States Parties to engage in the training of underwater WHY CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION? 66 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.archaeologists and conservation specialists as well as to foster the enjoyment of heritage through responsible public access. The second pillar of the Convention is a detailed State cooperation mechanism. This mechanism seeks to find a solution for the lack of national jurisdiction in certain maritime zones without changing the sovereignty rights of States.11 States Parties agree to prohibit their nationals and vessels from looting underwater cultural heritage, regardless of its location, requesting them instead to report finds and activities; States Parties will then inform other States Parties of this. The interested States can then cooperate in ensuring protection: the Flag State12 sets legal regulations for its nationals and vessels while the other States help through a Coordinating State13 in implementing these as agreed between them and in accordance with the Convention. This system will make it easier to take effective action against treasure hunting in territories outside the national jurisdiction of a coastal State, without extending or diminishing State sovereignty rights. It is clear that this reporting and consultation mechanism will need a certain commitment from the concerned national authorities and the Convention wisely stipulates that every State Party should establish or reinforce competent authorities to ensure the implementation of its regulations.14 The third main part of the Convention, the ‘Rules concerning activities directed at underwater cultural heritage’, contained in the Convention’s Annex, make it the most important international instrument setting professional standards for the protection and research of underwater cultural heritage.15 Indeed these thirty-six rules summarize factors that should be considered in preparing an intervention on an underwater cultural heritage site, and also enumerates the issues a national authority would have to examine in applications for the authorization of such an intervention. The text includes regulations concerning how to design an intervention project, indications concerning the competence and qualifications required for persons undertaking these activities and, lastly, sets standards for conservation and site management. These rules will in future be of great significance as they represent a clear and directly applicable operation scheme for underwater interventions.16 The contribution of the 2001 Convention to museum development While the significance of the 2001 Convention for underwater archaeology as such is evident given the rules explained above for site interventions, it also has immense importance for the development of the presentation of underwater cultural heritage to the public. The 2001 Convention stresses in two instances17 the preference given to in situ protection. It states that the preservation of underwater cultural heritage in its original location should be considered as the first option before allowing or engaging in any activities directed at it. This preference given to in situ preservation is first and foremost a result of lessons learned from the recoveries of immense shipwrecks such as the Swedish Vasa and the English Mary Rose. Both ships, some twenty years after their recovery, The 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: advantages and Challenges Ulrike Koschtial ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 67still give rise to concerns about conservation; the Mary Rose is exposed to a continual shower of conservation fluid to wash the salt out of its timber. These recovery operations cost millions not only in terms of money, but also in terms of working hours. Moreover, the exposed wrecks continue to drain funds, even if they have now developed into flagships for underwater cultural heritage drawing crowds of visitors. Nevertheless, it would now prove difficult to recover many more such vast ship hulls,18 given the limitations of museum spaces and budget. This has led to the development of underwater site visits for divers in many States.19 Recognition that the community of divers is limited, has given rise to considerations to ‘bring the museum to the archaeological remains if the archaeological remains cannot be brought to the museum’. The construction of underwater museums permits the conservation of both the context and historic authenticity of a site, which are indeed much more valuable than the dried object itself. This would also pay respect to the very special environment of the seabed, which adds fascination and awe to the feelings of the visitor. Most underwater archaeological sites are also the sites of tragedies, and a visit there can pay tribute to the event and the persons who lived or died on the spot. The 2001 Convention has thus chosen its camp, recommending the preservation of sites in their original context. This has sometimes been misunderstood as a rejection of any recovery of land-based museums. This is certainly not the intention – the in situ preference is only a first option to be considered. This is clearly demonstrated by two projects for underwater museums currently under preparation – the Baiheliang museum20 at the Three Gorges in China and the underwater museum in the Alexandria bay.21 The preservation of a site at its original location may therefore be a genuine option for non-divers in the future. NOTES 1. The cited case concerns the so-called ‘Black Swan’ wreck, whose actual identity was a long-kept secret, and which was exploited by the American firm Odyssey Marine Explorations despite the wishes of the Spanish Government. 2. This question is important if the cargo has to be returned to a rightful owner, for example, the Spanish Government. See also the cases of the Juno and Galga wrecks, where the ownership of the Spanish Government was recognized. 3. Even if most States request permission for interventions in their territorial sea, some give authorizations for commercial recovery oper- ations on ancient wrecks in order to benefit from the commercial profit made. 4. According to the Law of the Sea, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which has been ratified by 155 States, if a State has no jurisdiction over a location it cannot prevent interference with it. ‘Jurisdiction’ (from the Latin iuris meaning ‘law’ and dicere meaning ‘to speak‘) is the authority to deal with legal matters and to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. 5. The Convention was adopted on 2 November 2001 in the 31st General Conference of UNESCO but not unanimously: eighty-seven States voted in favour, four against and fifteen abstained from voting. 6. Article 27 of the 2001 Convention states that it will come into force three months after the date of the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification (with respect to the twenty States or territories that have ratified). It will come into force for each other State or territory three months after the date on which that State or territory has ratified. See, for a list of States Parties, http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/underwater/ convention. WHY CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION? 68 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.7. Parties to the Convention can only be Member States of UNESCO and certain other States and independent territories (Article 26). They accept certain obligations and rights towards each other (inter partes). The Convention does not apply to States that have not ratified the Convention. Ratification is the declaration of a State on an international level that it wants to be from that moment on bound by the legal instrument in question. 8. Article 1a of the Convention. 9. The standards of the Convention are in line with and comparable to those of other UNESCO Conventions on cultural heritage on land, yet they are specific to archaeological sites underwater. The Convention contains minimum requirements. Each State Party may choose to develop even higher standards of protection. 10. The only moment the Convention comes close to such aspects is when it regulates the right of the coastal States to take protection measures in the case of immediate danger to archaeological sites situated in its exclusive economic zone; in other words, if pillaging is going on and there is no time left to consult the other cooperating States. Not to regulate this issue would however have meant to leave a part of the oceans excluded from factual protection. Much attention has been given during the drafting of the 2001 Convention to keeping it in compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). UNCLOS briefly refers to the protection of underwater cultural heritage in its Articles 149 and 303, leaving however room for a more specific Convention in its Article 303.4. 11. If a State has no jurisdiction over a location, it cannot prevent interference with it and prevent its looting. At sea, a State usually has exclusive jurisdiction only for its territorial sea, limited jurisdiction over the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf, and jurisdiction only over its own vessels and nationals at high sea. 12. The Flag State is the State under whose flag a vessel sails. 13. In the framework of the State Cooperation System of the 2001 Convention (foreseen for the Exclusive Economic Zone, the Continental Shelf and the Area) a ‘Coordinating State’ will issue authorizations to intervene on sites, controlling and regulating them as the representative of the other States Parties concerned. 14. See Article 22.1 of the Convention: ‘In order to ensure the proper implementation of this Convention, States Parties shall establish competent authorities or reinforce the existing ones’. 15. The American Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA) has collected in 2007 and 2008 statements of support from fifteen associations, grouping professionals in the field, among them the World Archaeology Congress and ICOMOS. 16. UNESCO is currently developing a manual to elaborate on the implementation of these rules. 17. See Article 2.5 of the 2001 Convention and Rule 1 of its Annex.. 18. In China, the wreck of the Nanhai 1 was recovered in December 2007. It will however not be dried, as were the Mary Rose and the Vasa, but will be exposed in an oversize aquarium. 19. As for instance in Caesarea in Israel, the Yongala wreck in Australia, in the Florida Keys in the US, or sites protected under cages in Croatia. 20. Baiheliang is an archaeological site in China, now submerged under the waters of the newly built Three Gorges Dam. It displays some of the world’s oldest hydrological inscriptions. 21. UNESCO has recently established an International Scientific Advisory Committee to give advice on the feasibility study process for an underwater museum in the Bay of Alexandria, Egypt. Major archaeological remains are to be found in the Bay, including Cleopatra’s Palace and the fabled Alexandria Lighthouse, or Pharos. The Committee has been established at the invitation of Egypt’s Minister of Culture. The 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: advantages and Challenges Ulrike Koschtial ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 69Safeguarding the Underwater Cultural Heritage of Brazil: legal protection and public archaeology by Gilson Rambelli Gilson Rambelli is currently the director of the Centre for Nautical and Underwater Archaeology (CEANS) of Campinas State University in Brazil, visiting professor at the Department of Anthropology of the Federal University of Bahia, and associate researcher for the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology of the same university. He has held since 2007 (and until 2009) the position of vice-president of the Brazilian Archaeology Society. He is a member of ICUCH and the author of several publications in Portuguese on the protection of underwater cultural heritage. Introduction It is difficult for archaeologists working on underwater heritage worldwide to understand why underwater cultural heritage in Brazil is covered by a legal and conceptual framework different from that of terrestrial cultural heritage. In general, archaeological sites are defined by archaeologists as featuring evidence of human activity, or the presence of tangible cultural artefacts, irrespective of their location on land or under water. The specific features of aquatic environments do not amount to a separate discipline; they merely require that archaeologists master independent diving techniques and adapt fieldwork methods and techniques.1 The worst effect of this unique framework is that it imposes irrevocable compromises on archaeological sites, and in particular on archaeological shipwrecks. These sites are among the most popular with visitors and hence the most 70 ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) ª UNESCO 2009 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.vulnerable to looting by adventurer-divers, souvenir hunters and wreck-diving businesses motivated by visions of sunken treasure.2 This article discusses the complex issues threatening Brazil’s underwater cultural heritage. It also presents recent achievements by Brazilian archaeologists who learned to dive in order to carry out underwater research and thereby overcome the deadlock between traditional and underwater heritage perspectives. This effort has been led by the recently established ARCHEMAR – Centro de Pesquisa e Refêrencia em Arqueologia e Etnografı́a do Mar (Marine Archaeology and Ethnography Research and Excellence Centre). ARCHEMAR falls under the administrative management of the Archaeological and Ethnological Museum of the Federal University of Bahia (MAE ⁄ UFBA), and its headquarters are based in Itaparica City, on the island of Itaparica in the Bay of Todos os Santos in Bahia. ARCHEMAR ⁄ MAE ⁄ UFBA took on a considerable social commitment, in partnership with the Municipal Prefecture of Itaparica, through its Tourist Department, to set up a museum programme – real and virtual – on underwater archaeological sites. This programme falls under the Underwater Archaeological Charter plan: a systematic underwater archaeological heritage inventory of the Bay of Todos os Santos. It encompasses and compares various areas of knowledge such as archaeology, history, anthropology, the geosciences, oceanography, tourism, museum science, technology and diving, among others, and above all covers public policies, sustainability and communities. Different perspectives on Brazil’s underwater cultural heritage Two opposing traditions have emerged which compete in terms of research: hunting for treasure with an eye to making profit out of the sale of 19. Eighteenth-century anchor found in the archipelago of Sao Pedro and São Paulo, north-east of Brazil. ª F . C al lip o 19 Safeguarding the Underwater Cultural Heritage of Brazil: legal protection and public archaeology Gilson Rambelli ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 71underwater cultural heritage based upon the centuries-old tradition of maritime recovery and salvage; and scientific underwater archaeology which seeks to generate knowledge about underwater cultural heritage. The basic principles of the latter are drawn from archaeology, and only emerged in the 1960s when archaeologists began learning to deep-sea dive. The recent international trend in underwater archaeology has focused on underwater research, ruling out the commercial exploitation of underwater cultural heritage. A number of countries have closed their doors to renowned treasure hunters. Unfortunately, Brazil did not follow this example and treasure hunters, some of whom were politically influential, responded to bans in their respective countries by plying their trade elsewhere. In the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s many moved their activities to Brazil. The presence of treasure hunters along the Brazilian coastline stems from various factors. The first is that, in most instances, support for treasure hunting, even today, comes from respected and influential people in the higher echelons of government, such as financiers and aristocrats. Many of these are articulate, skilled lobbyists, and have lately acquired the services of unscrupulous archaeologists.3 A second factor is that Brazil lived through a military dictatorship, and thus it fell to the Brazilian Navy – a military institution devoid of any archaeological tradition – to safeguard 20. Representation of a dugout canoe found in Ceridó, North East of Brazil. ª F . C al lip o 20 WHY CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION? 72 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.underwater archaeological sites and to grant permission to explore them. Responsibility for safeguarding Brazilian archaeological sites on land, however, falls to the National Historical, Artistic and National Heritage Institute (IPHAN), under the Ministry of Culture.4 The third factor is that, at the time, IPHAN’s efforts were unable to stem a practice whereby artefacts were removed from the seabed to supply museum collections in exchange for artefacts sold at auction abroad – a practice often confused with underwater archaeology. This last factor relates to Brazilian archaeology proper, which at this time focused almost exclusively on the study of prehistoric terrestrial archaeological sites, thus ruling out internationally proven opportunities to study systematically historical sites underwater. Archaeologists remained remote from and opposed no resistance to the ongoing process of destruction of underwater cultural heritage.5 Claims by treasure hunters that artefacts were ‘abandoned’ on the ocean floor and the job of businesses was to recover them and place them in museums worked like a charm. In the eyes of the general public, this legitimized the right of so-called archaeologists to seek rewards for exploiting archaeological sites formed by shipwrecks in Brazilian waters. Very little was done to combat this officially sanctioned and ongoing plundering of underwater cultural heritage, which permitted treasure hunters to keep 80 per cent of the property retrieved from the archaeological exploitation of shipwrecks. From 1976 to 1977, research was carried out on the Portuguese galleon Sacramento (wrecked in 1668 off Salvador, Bahia), under the supervision of an archaeologist, Ulisses Pernambucano de Mello Neto. This work could have helped Brazil join the archaeological research community, but instead the fact that he did not dive was used to support the argument that archaeologists were not required in underwater archaeological research.6 It was only in 1986, at the end of the military dictatorship, that a federal law (Law 7.542 ⁄ 86) was enacted which, while it did not ª F . C al lip o 21 21. Archaeologist at work in Salvador de Bahia, Brazil. Safeguarding the Underwater Cultural Heritage of Brazil: legal protection and public archaeology Gilson Rambelli ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 73affirm the relevance of having archaeologists perform systematic underwater archaeological research or include all underwater archaeological sites, stipulated that all archaeological shipwreck sites more than 100 years old were the property of the Brazilian Union. This piece of legislation came as a shock to the unbridled adventurers who worked off the Brazilian coast and they formed a strong political lobby to fight it. On 27 December 2000, Federal Law 10.166 ⁄ 00 – which superseded Federal Law 7.542 ⁄ 86 – was ratified; it conferred a market value on underwater archaeological artefacts salvaged from shipwrecks and allowed them to be traded by national and international treasure-hunting businesses. This new law contradicted existing heritage protection legislation as well as the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988. To make matters worse, it totally disregarded the scientific archaeological criteria established in the twentieth century by the underwater archaeological community as set forth in the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (adopted in Paris in November 2001). Internationally, Brazil was going against the grain. In 1993, I began academic archaeological research work at the University of São Paulo; this marked the official emergence of Brazil on to the international systematic underwater archaeology scene. Since this time, the conceptual gap between Brazilian archaeology and underwater archaeology as an archaeological speciality has narrowed. Over the past fifteen years, Brazilian diving archaeologists have accomplished a good deal of work at home and abroad (foreign support has been instrumental in training new Brazilian specialists) involving many locations, sites, environments and individuals. These archaeologists have been productive, publishing a great many papers. The establishment of a first internationally reputed specialized centre, CEANS (Centre for Nautical and Underwater Archaeology), within the Strategic Studies Complex of Campinas State University (NEE ⁄ UNICAMP), is one example of the influence and recognition this speciality has now attained in Brazil. A further example is the series of hosted international symposia and the inclusion of underwater archaeology on university curricula. The establishment of ARCHEMAR MAE ⁄ UFBA in 2007 epitomizes the progress that has been made in Brazilian cultural underwater heritage.7 The Centre trains qualified specialists in nautical and maritime underwater archaeology and promotes international exchanges among experts. It also designs heritage education and underwater cultural tourism schemes with a view to directly involving local communities both in generating information and in devising sustainable public policies drawing on the social use of underwater cultural heritage. The plan is to roll out this model nationwide. ARCHEMAR: promoting Brazilian public underwater archaeology Underwater archaeology is archaeology. Treasure hunting is not archaeology. These statements should be unequivocally driven home. The general public must realize that there is a difference between these two ways of approaching underwater cultural heritage, so that they can take WHY CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION? 74 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.a stand and make their views known on artefacts that belong to them. Cultural heritage and the knowledge it generates – such as archaeology – take on their true meaning only inasmuch as they remain in public ownership and communities engage with them. In terms of archaeology, this new stance, which casts archaeologists as social agents and legitimizes cultural diversity concerns, gained ground as of 1986 with the founding of the World Archaeological Congress. This brought together archaeologists, experts from other disciplines, and individuals from various walks of life with an interest in the social dimensions of archaeology.8 Furthermore, it led to a new branch of archaeological science – public archaeology – which has gone from strength to strength in recent years; so much so, that it is now unthinkable to undertake archaeological research without the participation of the public. The UNESCO 2001 Convention recognizes that the involvement of the general public in studies is essential, as are public policies in favour of underwater cultural heritage with a view to conserving it for future generations. Consequently, the Convention seeks to include heritage education and underwater tourism components in research projects, wherever possible, so as to associate people with the work and thus give pride of place to this cultural heritage for the history of humanity. The international dimension of underwater cultural heritage also contributes to the enhancement of heritage, in that archaeological sites comprising the remains of shipwrecks, for instance, acquire the status of the heritage of humanity. The reasoning is simple: all the vessels that travelled the seas, bringing lands and peoples closer together, were multi-ethnic, diverse and complex, in particular as regards their crews and ⁄ or cargoes. So, when they sank, they left testimony in the form of these multicultural materials of diverse origins strewn over seabeds and ocean floors across the world.9 As regards the Bay of Todos os Santos, for example, there exist historical records of hundreds of shipwrecks from many origins. These occurred during different epochs and had a direct bearing on regional and national cultural diversity. In archaeological terms, a shipwreck site constitutes a complex system which, like any other representation of society, illustrates inequalities, contradictions and social conflicts. The term ‘vessel’ may be understood as the general description of any construction designed to navigate on water; or as the greatest historical expression of trade flows; or as a power structure; or as the floating representation of social relations; or as a moving humanscape; or, again, as a symbol of social and historical regional, national and international identities.10 To obliterate this potential for generating knowledge for the sake of displaying pieces in museums or for trade is, to put it mildly, frivolous. Thus, to think of underwater cultural heritage in Brazil in terms of underwater and public archaeology is to compare the identities of underwater archaeological sites and the variety of individuals who make up Brazilian society. Moreover, it is to recover, through the social use of heritage and archaeological records, ‘the voices, remains and rights of natives, black people and all Safeguarding the Underwater Cultural Heritage of Brazil: legal protection and public archaeology Gilson Rambelli ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 75other persons excluded from the conventional narrative’.11 ARCHEMAR’s new approach to underwater cultural heritage and, more specifically, to shipwreck sites, examines daily life on-board ships from the standpoint of tangible culture and its in situ archaeological environment, using the assistance of maritime ethnography. This will no doubt reveal stories very different from those found in the diaries of ships’ captains or educated passengers – ‘official’ history – and thus bring us closer to the ordinary people associated with the heritage studied. Written records should be seen as a discourse12 and not as a ‘truth’ illustrated by artefacts recovered from sunken vessels. In the words of the Brazilian archaeologist Pedro Paulo Abreu Funari, the ‘study of the lower orders needs to be greatly expanded and archaeological sources can make a significant contribution thanks to their anonymous and chance nature’.13 How much of the everyday life of illiterate crew members has been lost because of the activities of treasure-seeking wreck divers in Brazil? For example, what happened to ordinary utensils which were discarded because they were not aesthetically pleasing? From this public underwater archaeological perspective, every single archaeological shipwreck site is important, from the dugout canoe to the transatlantic liner. All are seen as complex symbolic systems, imbued with meaning and significance,14 irrespective of whether they are small sailing vessels, galleons or men-of-war. To quote Funari, ‘it is the archaeologist who restores the artefacts of bygone cultures to a living society’.15 Therefore, research should focus more on problems than artefacts and more on issues than treasure.16 Real and virtual museum displays as awareness-raising tools The above concerns, related to the protection and management of underwater cultural heritage, are inspired by the UNESCO 2001 Convention, and its proposed public archaeology commitment – to associate people more closely with their underwater cultural heritage, and to achieve greater public participation in the generation of knowledge regarding this heritage. These are principles embodied in the new Brazilian discipline of underwater archaeology. ARCHEMAR is keenly aware of the challenge it faces and the historical importance of the proposed detailed inventory of underwater cultural heritage lying in the Bay of Todos os Santos – the second largest in the world – through systematic, low-impact archaeological surveys. It is equally aware of the importance of developing and fostering, during this information-gathering process, activities intended to raise community awareness. These include heritage education schemes and underwater cultural tourism, to enable volunteer divers to take part in the various stages of field surveys and tourists to enjoy supervised tours of underwater archaeological sites. These initiatives were sparked off by the need for knowledge of existing underwater cultural heritage with a view to designing an integrated plan for the systematic archaeological study, in situ protection and presentation to the WHY CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION? 76 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.general public of these sites. This entailed generating and disseminating information leading to the adoption of integrated public heritage management policies. We know that apart from the profit to be had from the illegal sale of archaeological materials, the disregard for and looting of underwater cultural heritage and, in particular, the remains of vessels sunk off Brazil is due, for the most part, to ignorance, misinformation and, above all, to the fact that the plunderers go unidentified, as do the archaeological sites they destroy. Hence, we chose to draw up an underwater archaeological charter. Similar projects, supported by universities, research institutes, recreational divers, fishers and persons from other walks of life, have been successful in various countries because they publicize and popularize this heritage as shared and belonging to all. The establishment of underwater museum sites and their inclusion within existing underwater tourism schemes facilitates a dialogue with the tourist industry and also with contemporary museologists. Various countries have successfully turned underwater archaeological sites into museum displays. According to Brazilian museologist Cristina Bruno, ‘the museum display of archaeological sites has taken on a more incisive role and it broadens the links between research and society in terms of the interfaces between conservation and local development’.17 Today, recreational diving has become a fairly affordable leisure activity and recreational observation wreck diving in the Bay of Todos os Santos can be practised throughout the year in clear, warm waters. Why not use this potential to the benefit of underwater cultural heritage? In this way, tours of underwater archaeological sites, guided and supervised by people from the local community, are promoted as heritage and environmental education, integrating the people involved into the survey process, and hence giving them the opportunity to enjoy and share the importance of their cultural heritage. This form of public underwater archaeology spells social inclusion and sustainability. It is worth noting that the Bay of Todos os Santos embraces and, in a manner of speaking, represents various expressions of Brazilian maritime cultural diversity. ARCHEMAR is determined to work within this ethnographic context, mainly as regards traditional fishing and naval construction techniques. Dugout canoes and wooden rafts are still built, and some shipbuilding yards still use sixteenth-century techniques to construct wooden craft. Aside from ‘real’ museums, or tours of underwater archaeological sites and seafaring communities, ARCHEMAR has another innovation to its credit: ‘virtual’ museums. This pioneering project which aims to bring underwater cultural heritage even closer to the people, and in particular to non-divers, is going ahead thanks to partnership with the Computer and Operational Systems Architecture Group (ACSO) of the Bahia State University (UNEB). The ARCHEMAR virtual museum will be housed at the Solar do Rei in Itaparica, where its earthbound rooms will host virtual displays of archaeological underwater sites studied in the Safeguarding the Underwater Cultural Heritage of Brazil: legal protection and public archaeology Gilson Rambelli ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 77Bay of Todos os Santos using augmented reality techniques. According to project coordinator Dr Josemar Rodrigues de Souza,18 this technique combining virtual artefacts with real landscapes generates a virtual environment that overlies the real one, thereby facilitating the analysis of and interaction with this imaginary ⁄ real world. It explores cognitive aspects that help visitors understand the information gathered and passed on by archaeologists. As a result, the museum- going public in Itaparica will have the opportunity to virtually dive, view and interact with underwater archaeological sites. In this way, the results of archaeological records, such as the delineation of sites, three- dimensional planimetry, and photographic and video materials, will all contribute to enhancing archaeological knowledge of the underwater cultural heritage of Bahia – and to building the virtual museum. This systematized body of information will enable people to wreck dive without even getting wet. This innovation is the result of spectacles or helmets fitted with special lenses that directly receive real images while simultaneously incorporating the projection of appropriately adjusted virtual images on to the real scene.19 Conclusion The UNESCO 2001 Convention prefigures a new trend regarding a responsible approach to cultural heritage, particularly in ethical terms, and enjoys international consensus. Hence, new underwater archaeological research guidelines have been set that allow archaeologists to derive much knowledge and information from site research while recovering the smallest possible amount of material. This provides a new kind of social commitment to future generations. ARCHEMAR ⁄ MAE ⁄ UFBA espouses this commitment and intends to serve as a model for underwater cultural heritage management throughout Brazil. This is in response to the urgent need to foster this heritage. This public issue can no longer remain distanced from the people and the authorities. At the time of writing, a bill (PL 7.566 ⁄ 06) has been placed before the Federal Senate, pending adoption, that would put an end to treasure hunting and bring Brazil more closely in line with the UNESCO 2001 Convention. One of the ways forward is described in this article: namely promoting the social use and sustainability of underwater cultural heritage. This can work provided that society in all its diversity is associated with and involved in the whole process. Individuals must be able to identify with and feel affinities towards heritage and the archaeological work undertaken. Moreover, they must be able to enjoy the benefits derived from the services that are provided at archaeological sites to researchers and tourists. When cultural heritage becomes an integral part of the memory of diverse groups, it educates and heightens awareness, generating respect which does not need enforcing through the handing out of sanctions. In other words, the conservation of heritage becomes important and necessary and, as such, secure. This being the case, serious thought should be given to bringing archaeology closer to societies and appropriate action should be WHY CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION? 78 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.demanded. If we fail in this, underwater cultural heritage and the information it embodies will literally disappear before our very eyes.20 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bass, G. F. (1969). Arqueologia subaquática, trans. Tomé Santos Júnior, Lisbon: Verbo. Bruno, C. O. (2005). ‘Arqueologia e antropofagia: a musealização de sı́tios arqueológicos’, Revista do patrimônio. Organizer: Mário Chagas. Rio de Janeiro: IPHAN, No. 31, pp. 235–47. Castro, F. V. (2005). ‘Caçadores de tesouros: proposta de uma taxonomia’, Revista Eletrônica História e-História, http://www.historiaehisto- ria.com.br. CEANS (2004). Livro Amarelo: Manifesto Pró-Patrimônio Cultural Sub- aquático Brasileiro. Campinas, Centro de Estudos de Arqueologia Náutica e Subaquática (CEANS), do Núcleo de Estudos Estratégicos da Univer- sidade Estadual de Campinas (NEE ⁄ UNICAMP), http://www.historiaehis- toria.com.br. Funari, P. P. A. (2003). Arqueologı́a, São Paulo: Contexto. Funari, P. P. A. (1995). ‘Cultura material e a construção da mitologia bandeirante: problemas da identidade nacional brasileira’, Ideáis, Camp- inas, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 29–48. Funari, P. P. A. (2005). ‘Fontes arqueológicas: os historiadores e a cultura material’, Fontes Históricas. Organizer: Carla Bassanezi Pinski. São Paulo, Contexto, pp. 82–110. Funari, P. P. A. (2006a). ‘Teoria e método na Arqueologia contemporânea: o contexto da Arqueologia Histórica’, in P. P. A. Funari, L. Dominguez and L. M. Ferreira, Patrimônio e cultura material. Campinas, Unicamp ⁄ IFCH, pp. 15–22 (Textos Didáticos, No. 59). Funari, P. P. A. (2006b). ‘The World Archaeological Congress from a Critical and Personal Perspective’, Archaeologies, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 73–79. Hoffmann, G. (1987). Mundos submergidos: una historia de la arqueologı́a submarina, trans. Jesús Ruiz, Barcelona: Planeta. Le Goff, J. (1994). História e memoria, trans. I. Ferreira et al., Campinas: Unicamp. Martin, C. (1980). ‘L’archéologie en milieu subaquatique’, in La sauvegarde du patrimoine subaquatique, Paris: UNESCO, pp. 17–78. Muckelroy, K. (1978). Maritime Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rambelli, G. (2002). Arqueologia até debaixo d’água, São Paulo: Maranta. Rambelli, G. (2003). Arqueologia subaquática do baixo vale do Ribeira. PhD thesis, Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas da USP: Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia da USP, São Paulo. Rambelli, G. (2004). ‘Os desafios da Arqueologia Subaquática no Brasil’, Revista Eletrônica História e-História, http://www.historiaehisto- ria.com.br. Rambelli, G. (2006). ‘Reflexões sobre o patrimônio cultural subaquático e a Arqueologia’, Os caminhos do patrimônio no Brasil. Organizers: Manuel Ferreira, Lima Filho and Marcia Bezerra. Goiania. Alternativa, pp. 153–69. Rambelli, G. (2007). Preservação sob as ondas: a proteção do patrimônio subaquático no Brasil, Revista do Patrimônio Histórico e Artı́stico Nacional – Patrimônio Arqueológico: o desafio da sua preservação. Organizer: Tânia Andrade Lima. Rio de Janeiro: IPHAN, No. 32, pp. 136–51. Souza, Rodrigues de, J. (2007). ‘Uso de recursos multimı́diaem expos- ições: Realidade virtual, realidade aumentada e hiper-realidade’, Livro de resumos do I Simpósio internacional de arqueolgia marı́tima nas Américas, Itaparica: ARCHEMAR. NOTES 1. G. F. Bass. Arqueologia subaquática, trans. Tomé Santos Júnior, Lisbon: Verbo, 1969; C. Martin. ‘L’archéologie en milieu subaquatique’, in La sauvegarde du patrimoine subaquatique, Paris, UNESCO, 1980, pp. 17–78. 2. CEANS, Livro Amarelo: Manifesto Pró-Patrimônio Cultural Subaquático Brasileiro. Campinas, Centro de Estudos de Arqueologia Náutica e Subaquática (CEANS), do Núcleo de Estudos Estratégicos da Universidade Safeguarding the Underwater Cultural Heritage of Brazil: legal protection and public archaeology Gilson Rambelli ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 79Estadual de Campinas (NEE ⁄ UNICAMP), 2004, http://www.historiaehistoria. com.br. 3. F. V. Castro, ‘Caçadores de tesouros: proposta de uma taxonomia’, Revista Eletrônica História e-História, 2005, http://www.historiaehistoria. com.br. 4. G. Rambelli, ‘Preservação sob as ondas: a proteção do patrimônio subaquático no Brasil’, Revista do Patrimônio Histórico e Artı́stico Nacional – Patrimônio Arqueológico: o desafio da sua preservação. Organizer: Tânia Andrade Lima, Rio de Janeiro, IPHAN, No. 32, 2007, pp. 136–51. 5. G. Rambelli. Arqueologia até debaixo d’água, São Paulo: Maranta, 2002; Rambelli, ‘Reflexões sobre o patrimônio cultural subaquático e a Arqueologia’, Os caminhos do patrimônio no Brasil. Organizers: Manuel Ferreira, Lima Filho and Marcia Becerra, Goiânia, Alternativa, 2006, pp. 153–69. 6. Rambelli (2002), op. cit. 7. In October 2007, ARCHEMAR hosted the International Symposium of Maritime Archaeology in the Americas and a meeting of the International Committee on Underwater Cultural Heritage (ICUCH ⁄ ICOMOS). 8. P. P. A. Funari, ‘Teoria e método na Arqueologia contemporânea: o contexto da Arqueologia Histórica’, in P. P. A. Funari, L. Dominguez and L. M. Ferreira, Patrimônio e cultura material, Campinas, Unicamp ⁄ IFCH, 2006, pp. 15–22 (Textos Didáticos, No. 59); P. P. A. Funari ‘The World Archaeological Congress from a Critical and Personal Perspective’, Archaeologies, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2006, pp. 73–79. 9. Rambelli (2007), op. cit. 10. Ibid. 11. Funari, ‘Teoria e método na Arqueologia contemporânea’, op. cit. 12. Ibid. 13. P. P. A. Funari, ‘Fontes arqueológicas: os historiadores e a cultura material’, Fontes Históricas. Organizar: Carla Bassanezi Pinski. São Paulo, Contexto, 2005, pp. 82–110. 14. G. Rambelli, Arqueologia subaquática do baixo vale do Ribeira, PhD thesis, Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas da USP: Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia da USP, São Paulo, 2003. 15. Funari, P. P. A.. Arqueologı́a, São Paulo: Contexto, 2003. 16. K. Muckelroy. Maritime Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1978. 17. C. O. Bruno, ‘Arqueologia e antropofagia: a musealização de sı́tios arqueológicos’, Revista do patrimônio. Organizer: Mário Chagas. Rio de Janeiro, IPHAN, No. 31, 2005, pp. 235–47. 18. J. Rodrigues de Souza ‘Uso de recursos multimı́diaem exposições: Realidade virtual, realidade aumentada e hiper-realidade’, Livro de resumos do I Simpósio internacional de arqueolgia marı́tima nas Américas. Itaparica, ARCHEMAR, 2007. 19. Other augmented reality systems can be classified according to the kind of display used – optical viewing or video viewing – which give rise to four kinds of system: direct optical viewing; direct video viewing; monitor- based video viewing; and projected optical viewing (Souza, 2007, op. cit.). 20. I should like to thank UNESCO for the invitation; those responsible for establishing ARCHEMAR: Naomar Almeida (Rector of the UFBA), Carlos Caroso (Director of the MAE ⁄ UFBA), Cláudio Neves (Prefect of Itaparica), Eliana Dumêt, Carlos Etchevarne, Fernando Massa, Josemar Rodrigues de Souza; and my comrades in the battle for Brazilian underwater cultural heritage: Pedro Paulo Abreu Funari, Paulo Bava de Camargo, Flávio Calippo, Leandro Duran, Randal Fonseca, Glória Tega, Carlos Rios, Rodrigo Torres, Ricardo Guimarães, Maria Cristina Mineiro Scatamacchia and Armando de Senna Bittencourt. My thanks also to ICUCH ⁄ ICOMOS, the UFBA Department of Anthropology and to NEE ⁄ UNICAMP. WHY CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION? 80 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Underwater Archaeological Trails1 by Francisco J. S. Alves Francisco J. S. Alves is head of the nautical and underwater archaeology branch of Portuguese Heritage (DANS-IGESPAR) of the Ministry of Culture. In 2003, he was appointed Professor of Nautical and Underwater Archaeology at the (Nova) University of Lisbon. Between 1997 and 2007 he was Director of the National Centre for Nautical and Underwater Archaeology (CNANS) of the Portuguese Archaeology Institute (IPA), and from 1980 to 1996 he was Director of the National Museum of Archaeology in Lisbon. From 1998 to 2001 he participated with the Portuguese Delegation at expert meetings organized by UNESCO on the 2001 Convention, and contributed significantly to its ratification in 2006 by Portugal. The creation of underwater archaeological heritage trails for Portugal closely followed key principles proposed by the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage – in particular, the conservation in situ of underwater cultural heritage and sustainable public access. On public use of archaeological heritage A few years ago, on a visit to the north of Spain, I had occasion to take part in the opening of a new museum in Altamira. The world-famous cave of Altamira, whose walls bear some of the finest examples of rock art of the European Upper Palaeolithic era, on a par with Lascaux, had to be closed some years ago following the discovery that extensive public visits had irreversibly damaged the famous paintings. The marvellous new cultural facility included an exact life-size replica of the original cave in terms of topography and volume, as well as a faithful reproduction of the original paintings created to scale using an innovative 3D photographic reproduction technique made available through sponsorship with Kodak. ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) ª UNESCO 2009 81 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.This case serves as a paradigm for the challenge that public access to archaeological heritage has always posed. It is an extreme case where access is necessarily predicated on the principle of sustainability. Compliance with this concept is an ethical, professional and social imperative, as it alone can secure an adequate return on the property from the public standpoint. In turn, this necessitates an ongoing evaluation of the risks to the cultural heritage in question, as well as of ways to overcome such risks in order to, as far as possible, pass on this legacy to future generations. Ultimately, this implies political and cultural management which can benefit from the advantages of mass public access while guarding against its disadvantages. On public access to underwater cultural heritage The public began accessing underwater cultural heritage sites spontaneously around the middle of the twentieth century due to the availability of scuba diving gear. This technological innovation simultaneously fostered the development of underwater archaeology and its opposite, the hunt for ancient shipwreck treasure. The former is a branch of archaeology carried out in a new and different physical environment, the continuing aim of which is, as on land, to generate knowledge; the latter, in contrast, is a modern version of age-old maritime salvage, associated with the Eldorado myth and the quest for buried treasure, which ultimately obeys the profit motive and ⁄ or, more recently, VIP media celebrity and entertainment considerations. Despite this new form of access – a facility which, at that time, was undeniably only available to a few – scientific and cultural circles began to show an interest in raising from the sea depths the remains of ancient vessels for study, conservation and exhibition, with a view to making them accessible to a much wider audience. This led to a rapid change in the very concept of the value of nautical heritage. So while in 1948 France and the United Kingdom agreed as a symbolic gesture to scuttle the seventy-four-gun vessel Duguay-Trouin, captured by the English at Trafalgar, in the middle of the English Channel, a decade later, in Sweden, plans were already afoot for the underwater recovery of the Vasa, sunk in 1628. This exercise culminated in a museum monograph project, which not only set new challenges for museology and the preservation of organic materials salvaged from a saltwater medium, but also succeeded overwhelmingly in attracting public access to this heritage (22 million people had visited by 2005). Other similar experiences have followed, the most famous of which have been the raising of the Bremen Cog, the Roskilde (Skuldelev) Viking ships (Denmark), the Kyrenia (Cyprus) and the Mary Rose (United Kingdom). Others also deserve special mention including the remains of vessels from the Bronze Age through to the Middle Ages, namely the Gelidonya, Yassi Ada and Serçe Limani wrecks, recovered from Turkish waters and now on show at the Bodrum Templar Castle Museum. In the middle of the last century, wholesale pillage of coastal seabeds took place, particularly on historically busy maritime routes (where there NEW FRONTIERS, NEW CONCEPTS 82 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.were inevitably a high number of shipwrecks) and, over time, the number of divers increased (this applies particularly to the north-west Mediterranean and Florida). In recent years there has been worldwide development of amateur, recreational sports and cultural tourism diving, involving above all contemporary shipwrecks (wreck diving). These activities naturally foregrounded sustainability as their core ethical and educational principle. I will return to this phenomenon later, as I wish to concentrate initially on the issue of ‘ancient’ remains – a concept derived from the timeline definitions of underwater cultural heritage as adopted in the UNESCO 2001 Convention. The UNESCO Convention, moreover, espoused two interrelated principles established in the realm of contemporary ‘terrestrial’ archaeology which were first laid down in the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised) (Valetta, 1992): The protection of underwater cultural heritage through in situ preservation shall be considered as the first option. Accordingly, activities directed at underwater cultural heritage shall be authorized in a manner consistent with the protection of that heritage, and subject to that requirement may be authorized for the purpose of making a significant contribution to protection or knowledge or enhancement of underwater cultural heritage (Art. 2.10 and Rule 1 of the Annex). Public access to in situ underwater cultural heritage shall be promoted, except where such access is incompatible with protection and management (Art. 2.5 and Rule 7 of the Annex). In the latter part of the twentieth century, in various parts of the world, experience was accumulated on various practical methods of providing public access to in situ underwater archaeological heritage sites. This included, for example, properly supervised wreck diving visits in inland water under the supervision of the United States and Canadian park services. The Louisburg Harbour is one such area: the scene of various English and French shipwrecks which occurred as a result of modern-era European conflicts in North American waters. Within the Euro-Mediterranean context, mention should be made of a pioneering underwater experience devised in the 1980s by Edoardo Riccardi and Alessandro Fioravanti implemented at Punta Gavazzi in the heart of the Ustica Island nature reserve, off Sicily. This consisted of an underwater archaeological trail that passed through various remains from classical antiquity, including lead anchor stocks and amphorae. The visit was designed with explanatory panels and linked by a sort of Ariadne’s thread. It offered the diver a remarkable visit akin to a genuine underwater museum. Further initiatives of the kind were undertaken in the Mediterranean including, notably, the underwater archaeological parks of Sebastos in the port of Caesarea, Israel, created in 1991; Baia in Campania, in 1992; and, more recently, Ampurias in Catalonia.2 More recent creative initiatives in Croatia3 are based around consistent and (practically) intact ancient shipwrecks. During 2006 I visited Underwater Archaeological Trails Francisco J. S. Alves ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 83the ‘amphora vessel’ site located in the vicinity of Supetar Island close to Cavtat, south of Dubrovnik. The arrangements for site visits boast a dual method for controlling access. The first part entails a rigorous and effective scheme, devoid of red tape, for monitoring and supervising the dive: the supervising monitor of the local diving club, attached to a local hotel, faxes the names and passport numbers of visiting divers to the Maritime Authority. The second part takes place underwater. It consists of a cubic cage with no bottom, built out of 3 m · 3 m panels fitted together like a box sitting on the seabed. This completely covers the site and the wreckage whilst leaving enough surrounding space (± 2 m to 3 m) to allow visitors to move around freely inside. The panels are made of three-quarter-inch civil construction girders meshed in a network a palmo4 wide. Entry is gained through two swivel doors in the centre of the upper surface, which are fastened with locks on either side and, for the visit, are raised, like a trapdoor, and held upright by two inflated cushion devices. Although the system is ingenious, it is relatively inexpensive. The visit is spectacular. Underwater archaeological trails in Portugal There have been three initiatives in Portugal to provide public access to underwater cultural heritage sites. These involve shipwreck sites with different features, in different phases of development, and with different management methods. The Océan Trail Upon returning from a visit to the archaeological trail in Ustica, and keenly aware of the educational and fun potential of a project of this kind, I decided, under the aegis of the National Museum of Archaeology, to promote a similar experience for the site of the wreck of the French eighty-gun flagship Océan. This vessel was lost on 18 August 1759, west of the city of Lagos following a naval battle with the English known as the Battle of Lagos – an episode in the Seven Years War. The remains of the Océan lie less than 10 m deep, 300 m off Salema beach in the Algarve, Portugal’s southern province. The site came to light in the 1960s. Most of the artillery, particularly that which was cast in bronze, had survived, and qualified for legal salvage at the beginning of the following decade. In 1981, when I visited the site for the first time, I found that the remains covered an 22. Metal cage on the shipwreck site of Pag, Croatia. ª U N E S C O ⁄M in is tr y of C u lt u re of C ro at ia ⁄I . R ad ic 22 NEW FRONTIERS, NEW CONCEPTS 84 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.area more than 50 m long in a band that extended from east to west running parallel to the beach. Among the remains were enormous anchors and various 18-pounder iron guns, typical of the lower deck of this class of ship. The scene was both powerful and breathtaking; a dive at this site is truly an unforgettable experience. It was here, in 1984, that Portugal’s first underwater archaeological campaign was organized and managed. In 1993, signals were placed on the surface of the water to indicate the Océan trail. A huge buoy with markings was anchored to the ring of the largest of the three remaining anchors at the site. This became ‘point zero’, and from this point on the seabed the trail was marked out with guide cables or ‘Ariadne’s threads’ made of fluorescent yellow cords. These linked all the larger artefacts together, nine of which bore acrylic signage. The overall effect was that of a gigantic spider’s web on the ocean floor. Thus, all the remains could be seen in their totality in a single visit, without even the presence of a guide. In 2005, the surface signage system was replaced by a card in Portuguese and English, distributed by dive operators in Portugal. This provides geographical coordinates using a GPS system. As a consequence, the underwater signage system was changed. Concrete plinths with grade 316 stainless steel plates screwed on to each surface were placed close to each of the nine most impressive artefacts, and the relevant information in Portuguese and English was laser-engraved on a pictogram. 23. View of the underwater trail set in 1993 on the site of the Océan, an 80-gun French flagship sunk off Salema beach west of the Algarve in Portugal. ª D A N S -I G E S P A R ⁄F ra n ci sc o A lv es an d P ed ro C al ej a 23 Underwater Archaeological Trails Francisco J. S. Alves ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 85Finally, it should be emphasized that, given the specific conservation demands of the site, divers can enjoy unsupervised access to the Océan trail: the safety conditions for this experience are ideal for novice divers because the site is shallow. The Faro A trail In 1996, by chance, an oblong tumulus lying at approximately 20 m deep was discovered a mile offshore from Cape Santa Maria, in particularly flat surroundings. It turned out to be the compacted remains of the deck of a vessel with, on either side, a number of iron guns dating back to the seventeenth century. The missions subsequently deployed on this site by the Portuguese national centre for nautical and underwater archaeology (CNANS) were designated by convention, ‘Faro A’. These missions were able to define and characterize the footprint of the remains, which were scattered around a main nucleus, shaped like an oblong tumulus, clearly rising up from a flat area. The tumulus, which is approximately 28 m long and 6 m wide, consists of a pile of iron concretions on and around a variety of iron gunnery scattered over a broad spectrum in the wake of the main nucleus. Findings and detailed studies turned up very unusual results thanks, in particular, to the discovery and recovery of a set of pewter plates and a pipe bowl made of kaolin. The former, which was easy to date in terms of type, bears stamped engravings of the well-known and documented Edgecumbe family of Cornwall. The pipe bowl was also characteristic of its type, and either of these finds is sufficient to substantiate the claim that the Faro A wreckage dates from the last quarter of the seventeenth century. Historical research carried out since then leads us to the presumption that this is one of the vessels – possibly English – which belonged to the famous Anglo–Dutch fleet numbering more than a hundred ships and known as the ‘Smyrna convoy’. Some of these vessels were sunk within sight of the Algarve coast following an attack by a French fleet. The relative stability of the site was such that no other wreckage was visible, with the exception of the artillery and salvaged artefacts mentioned earlier. However, with a view to discouraging possible intruder damage, it was agreed that the site should only be opened to divers under proper supervision, and it was thus placed under the close surveillance of the maritime and customs authority. Dive operators, approved under the underwater cultural heritage regulator,5 individually vet all visitors before prior notice is given to the authorities. 24. Abandoned shipwreck on Fraser Island in Australia. ª P h ot o p u b lis h ed in th e n ew sp ap er F u ga s (P or tu g al ) on 1 S ep te m b er , 20 07 24 NEW FRONTIERS, NEW CONCEPTS 86 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.While the educational management in place is ideal, it should be noted that the features of the site, in particular the depth, frequent lack of visibility and currents, albeit moderate, are such that the site is only recommended for divers with some basic experience. The trail of the Pedro Nunes (formerly Thermopylae) In 1868, Bernard Waymouth and Walter Hood designed and built a 948-ton clipper for the ‘Aberdeen Line’ named Thermopylae. It was a composite ship using wooden planking for the hull and iron for the ribs. The type of construction and the shape of the hull combined cargo-carrying capacity with speed – a necessity for the long voyages undertaken on the tea trade routes between England and China. It was the ‘twin’ of the celebrated Cutty Sark now moored and displayed at Greenwich.6 The advent of steam ships and the opening of the Suez Canal a year after the Thermopylae’s construction relegated it to the Pacific trade routes in Canada and subsequently to Australian waters. In 1896, the Thermopylae was sold to the Portuguese navy, renamed the Pedro Nunes, and then underwent changes to become a training ship. After a final period of service a decision was taken to break up the vessel. Its masts were removed and it was converted into a pontoon. It ended its days as a target, torpedoed and sunk on 13 October 1907 beyond the river Tagus sandbar in the presence of the royal family during a naval exercise forming part of the Bay of Cascais maritime festival. 25. The Vasa, which sank in 1628 in Stockholm Harbour minutes into its maiden voyage, and was raised in 1961 after a pioneering project to recover and display it lasting almost ten years. ª A rc h iv e p h ot og ra p h fr om th e V as a M u se u m 25 Underwater Archaeological Trails Francisco J. S. Alves ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 87In recent decades, the popularity of diving in Portugal and growing interest in the Pedro Nunes ⁄ Thermopylae again brought it to the fore. The wreckage had not been visible for many years, which in itself lent it an almost mythical status. In 2002, a CNANS mission, in cooperation with the United States and Norway, managed to pinpoint its location using side-scan sonar technology, and divers subsequently found the wreckage. The visible remains, which lie at a depth of 30 m, are frequently exposed to intermittent silting patterns and extend over an area of about 70 m · 10 m. They have greatly deteriorated, with the outer planking of the hull having come away from the sunken iron ribs. The management and access arrangements for the Pedro Nunes ⁄ Thermopylae are similar to those adopted for the Faro A, although the greater depth and lack of visibility mean that this site is only recommended for experienced divers. Diving around deep-sea wrecks It is worthwhile looking at the long experience of Australia in managing underwater cultural heritage, the excellence of which is recognized worldwide, both as regards research and conservation (in the laboratory and in situ), and also, deservedly, as regards the fostering of public access, particularly to industrial-era heritage artefacts, and pioneering work in what has now become a genuine tourist-cum-cultural industry worldwide, wreck diving. Furthermore, in Australia what passes for industrial refuse and scrap elsewhere – in Europe in particular – is giving rise to a growing interest in ships that have run aground and been abandoned. Recently, one of the biggest-selling Portuguese newspapers7 published an article on Fraser Island with very eloquent illustrations. It showed how nature, time, intelligence and sensitivity brought to bear on such wrecks can transform them into what they really are: monuments to nature and history worthy of our undivided attention and curiosity. Hence all the initiatives described are of the utmost importance for forging an awareness of both the importance of underwater cultural heritage and the ongoing need to protect, study and convey the knowledge acquired to the general public. A short while ago, in Brazil, I came across an unusual advertisement in a journal on underwater activities: an operator was offering an award to the diver who produced the best drawing of a publicly accessible sunken vessel. This goes to show that, on all continents, visits to modern shipwrecks are getting closer and closer, in terms of ethical and methodological standards, to underwater archaeology. This will inevitably spell a return to the true and unique dimension of underwater cultural heritage: the inclusion in it of all human-made remains, irrespective of age (although there will no doubt remain some ambiguity as to the concept of ‘refuse’). Recently, in connection with a Green Paper on a Future Maritime Policy for the European Union, I commented that tourist divers are searching for the remains of vessels that have been preserved, not wrecks that have been destroyed through pillaging. Thus, it is no surprise that dive operators, businesses, schools and associations and, in particular, important European and world bodies, NEW FRONTIERS, NEW CONCEPTS 88 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.such as the World Underwater Federation (CMAS) and the Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI), are today the keenest defenders of the 2001 UNESCO Convention. At a panel promoting the Convention in Hong Kong, a PADI-East representative (an organization that has 8 million members) delivered an outstanding presentation on wreck diving, which was passionate in its defence of the Convention. The lesson to be drawn is clear: this booming industry depends, above all, on the international community waking up to the urgency of safeguarding underwater cultural heritage everywhere. In this regard, Robert Grenier, manager of Parks Canada’s Underwater Archaeology section, always cites Louisburg: a city whose near inland and maritime waters have witnessed some of the most single tragic events in modern warfare. He relates the fact that nobody cares to dive beyond harbour waters, where maritime salvage law prevails, because all the wreck remains have been pillaged. In contrast, plane- loads of tourist divers from all over the world arrive every day in high season to visit the famous submerged intact remains of the beginnings of the European new world, which are located within the harbour. The Park has always managed to conserve these according to sustainable scientific, heritage and tourist principles. Grenier is categoric: those remains lie within the harbour; nobody wants to dive outside. Conclusion To conclude this overview, let it be said that the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, promoted by UNESCO, constitutes an international benchmark for all these initiatives. It also provides the benchmark in many other areas: in particular, ethics and many other scientific, technical and methodological prerequisites of the (already not so) ‘young discipline’ of underwater archaeology. Furthermore, and above all nowadays, the Convention is essential for two crucial areas of contemporary endeavour: sustainable economic development, because of its impact on safeguarding the very essence of tourist maritime activities related to wreck diving; and international cooperation. The latter means rising above the prejudice that deepens the artificial divide between the interests of ‘coastal States’ and ‘flag States’. In fact, the basic purpose of this Convention focuses not on issues of possession, but on the safeguarding of underwater cultural heritage and its universal enjoyment as the scientific and cultural heritage of humanity, as its memory and as a paradigmatic non-renewable resource. NOTES 1. This paper, with a few changes, was first submitted by the author to the international Mediterranean maritime archaeology course in November 2007 at the University of Barcelona. 2. Reference should be made to a recent article by Barbara Davidde, ‘Methods and Strategies for the Conservation and Museum Display in situ of Underwater Cultural Heritage’, in Archaeologia Marı́tima Mediterrânea, Vol. 1, pp. 137–50, Pisa-Roma, 2005, which provides a splendid panorama of the issue and cites an essential related bibliography, scarcely warranting the remark that it does not include Croatian and Portuguese experiences. All the articles in the above volume are indispensable as they cover the in situ conservation of underwater cultural heritage. Underwater Archaeological Trails Francisco J. S. Alves ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 893. For further information on Croatian approaches to sustainable public access to underwater heritage, see the article by Jasen Mesić in this issue. 4. Palmo is a sixteenth-century nautical measurement of 22 cm. 5. The regulator delivers universally accepted basic training to the operators’ monitors, which is designed by the United Kingdom’s Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS). 6. On 21 May 2007, a fire broke out at the Cutty Sark, which was closed to the public at the time for conservation work. Fortunately, much of the original material had been dismantled and stored elsewhere. A full report on the fire was released in the summer of 2008. Various proposals for restoration are now under active consideration. 7. Fugas, supplement of Portuguese newspaper Público, 1 September 2007, pp. 12–13. NEW FRONTIERS, NEW CONCEPTS 90 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.A Resource for Sustainable Development: the case of Croatia by Jasen Mesić Jasen Mesić is the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia. He was formerly part of the Delegation of Croatia, which participated at four expert meetings on the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. A member of the ICOMOS International Committee on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, he has engaged in the protection of Croatian underwater cultural heritage throughout the Adriatic coast of Croatia and the region, encouraging the development of protective legislation. His support enabled the creation of the International Centre for Underwater Archaeology, which opened in Zadar in 2007, for the benefit of European countries and the Mediterranean region. Historical context The Mediterranean has always functioned as a bridge between the civilizations which have developed on its surrounding coasts. Cultural contact and influences have led to the creation of the ‘Mediterranean cultural circle’. Local underwater heritage reflects a 1,000-year-old dynamic of seafaring, trade and historical and political events in the Mediterranean region. This dynamic also encompasses traditional forms of vessels – including boat and fishing equipment – and even the ancient and universal forms of expression used by sailors (lingua franca), still present in everyday maritime language. All of these aspects form a crucial part of Mediterranean cultural heritage, which also comprises a unique climatic and natural environment and coastal lifestyle. Cultural uniformity was especially marked during periods when large parts of the Mediterranean basin were subject to a particular political influence, such as colonization by the Greeks or Roman domination. ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) ª UNESCO 2009 91 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.The need for a concerted approach The cultural heritage of the Mediterranean is very homogeneous in terms of both periods of origin and distribution. Consequently, one could make the assumption that its safeguarding, sustainable development and management could be implemented in identical or similar ways, assuming that the relevant cultural policies are clearly defined. The safeguarding of underwater cultural heritage has been debated among archaeologists for decades. Unfortunately, the majority of topics of discussion relate to its destruction and deterioration, lack of care or economic exploitation. Experts often seem to lag behind on other prominent social concerns, such as the need to take into consideration public access and cultural tourism as part of a concerted development scheme. Decision-makers also seem to ignore certain key debates. It is easy to demonstrate the importance of a particular site to colleagues during a conference, to do before representatives of the fishing industry, divers, companies and Government institutions is another thing completely. The need to sensitize the public to the importance of safeguarding underwater heritage in terms of environmental sustainable development is frequently stressed, but the lack of a clearly defined model providing an explanation of these ideas to enhance public awareness of heritage is evident. A number of papers, generated by the wave of euphoria which followed the adoption by UNESCO of the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001), discussed the risks facing underwater cultural heritage. These risks were underlined, in particular, by Canadian archaeologist Robert Grenier, the president of ICUCH (the ICOMOS International Committee for Underwater Cultural Heritage). As a long-standing advocate of the Convention, he has continually raised the issue of the safeguarding of underwater sites and the threats they face. Important and varied sites The Adriatic Sea constitutes the northernmost intrusion of the Mediterranean into the European mainland. Some of the archaeological sites along its coast can be dated to 7000 BC Greek settlements and colonization by Magna Graecia in the third and fourth century BC encompassed a number of Adriatic islands, including Issa (Vis), Korkyra Melaina (Korčula) and Faros (Hvar). The opulence of the Roman reign is clearly demonstrated by the many great cities, which include Pola (Pula), Aenona (Nin), Jader (Zadar), Scardona (Skradin), Epidaurum (Cavtat), Salona (Solin), and so on. The development of cities was followed by a strong rise in naval traffic, trade and communication. The thousands of islands along the Eastern Adriatic coast, which lies today within the territory of the Republic of Croatia, make it almost perfect for this purpose. Coves, beaches, safe bays and supply points are all easily accessible within a range of a few miles along the entire coast. However, dangerous northern winds such as bura and sharp cliffs took their toll. More than 300 wrecks dating from antiquity have been documented in the Croatian sea. NEW FRONTIERS, NEW CONCEPTS 92 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.The oldest known shipwreck was dated to the fourth ⁄ fifth century BC thanks to a Corinthian type-B amphora. Growing accessibility and development of protection As in other Mediterranean countries, the early beginnings of diving in Croatia were closely related to the sponge and coral harvesting industry. The late 1960s and early 1970s saw the rise of sport and individual diving. At the time, Croatia still formed part of socialist Yugoslavia, and the system prevented the emergence of private diving enterprises. Foreign tourists were not permitted to dive in many areas of the Adriatic, and needed a special permit for other areas. At about the same time, the first organized steps were taken towards the safeguarding of underwater heritage with adoption of the Law on the Protection and Preservation of Cultural Heritage, which came into force in 1967. These actions were the result of the reaction of local museums against the looting of underwater cultural heritage, which was becoming increasingly widespread. Working groups were formed within institutions located along the Adriatic coast, and in the 1970s, the Bureau of the Republic of Croatia for the Protection of Monuments began to coordinate the activities. These groups disappeared gradually during the following decade, the files being taken over by the Bureau. Thereafter, only these institutions had the possibility of undertaking major underwater archaeological excavations. The reorganization of the qualified services in the 1990s led to the formation of the Department for the Protection of Archaeological Heritage as a unit 26. The Vele Orjule athlete, the Croatian Apoxyomenos, in situ and after restoration. ª D an ije l F rk a (p h ot og ra p h co ll ec ti on of th e C ro at ia n C on se rv at io n In st it u te ) 26 A Resource for Sustainable Development: the case of Croatia Jasen Mesić ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 93within the Administration for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of the Ministry of Culture. Through investment in human resources, this department became the most powerful institution specializing in underwater archaeology in Croatia. In 2004, the Department was transferred to the Croatian Restoration Institute, to which it is still attached today. It should be noted that the Archaeological Museum in Zadar also has a Department of Underwater Archaeology, and that underwater archaeology has been introduced as a postgraduate study at the Faculty of Philosophy. Several young archaeologists with diving qualifications are also employed in the local conservation departments of the Ministry of Culture. Since Croatia became an independent state in the 1990s there has been a continual growth in the number of divers and tourists. The majority were not fully aware of the value of cultural heritage, and amphorae and similar objects were carried away as souvenirs. Economic hardship during the 1990s war forced local island divers to earn extra money by selling objects found underwater. Still, such activities remained small- scale due to the protection system, which stipulates state ownership over all archaeological finds. This system was restated in the Law on the Protection and Preservation of Cultural Goods, which was adopted in 1999. Underwater archaeological surveys and excavations are further regulated by the Regulations on Underwater Activities and by the Regulations on Conditions for Archaeological Exploration of Cultural Property on the Seabed. Sites may also be protected as cultural property under the Bed of Inland Waterways and Territorial Sea and by the Regulations on the Register of 27. Late Roman shipwreck at Pakoštane, Croatia. ª P h ili p pe G ro sc au x 27 NEW FRONTIERS, NEW CONCEPTS 94 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Cultural Property of the Republic of Croatia. Archaeological research is provided for in the Regulations on Archaeological Research, which came into force in 2005. Croatia has also ratified the 1992 European Convention on the Protection and Preservation of the Archaeological Heritage (revised). The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage was the next logical step, and it came as no surprise that Croatia was the third country to ratify it. The fact that the Croatian legislature did not demand major changes or adjustments probably accelerated the process. The global concept of risk, as regards the safeguarding of cultural heritage under threat from natural disasters and human activities – including treasure hunting and salvagers – also exists in the Mediterranean. But each country and region has its own specific qualities, and Croatia and the Eastern Adriatic coast are no exception. The modes of safeguarding and sustainable development, as well as existing problems and future challenges, are closely linked to the current situation in the Croatian part of the Adriatic, but also present a possible direction for the global concept of underwater cultural heritage preservation. Applying the protection and means of in situ preservation Every time an intact underwater archaeological site is found, regardless of how attractive or exceptional it may be, the archaeological profession is faced with a number of dilemmas. If left without any type of intervention, it is only a question of time before the site is ransacked and destroyed. On the other hand, archaeological excavations necessitate large-scale conservation of all archaeological finds, meaning primarily desalinization, followed by reconstruction of selected items and storage. However, Croatian museums in the coastal region simply cannot meet the demands of such excavations due to limited capacity. Furthermore, they are not keen on the presentation of large quantities of uniform archaeological finds, usually amphorae, which are frequently found in large quantities. The simultaneous investigation of all underwater sites is not possible, as funds allow only three to four surveys per year. Keeping an inventory of all sites and establishing protected areas for controlled diving helps with the process of supervision and registration of all site visits, but does not ensure their in situ protection. In spite of the efforts of police to keep the location of sites secret, with discreet and frequent patrols, damage to sites is unavoidable. The in situ preservation of sites thus offered itself as a logical solution. It was decided that the sites should have physical protection. Several options were considered, the working hypothesis being that chance visitor-divers should be prevented from damaging a site. The fact that physical protection of a site has changed the legal status of a potential intruder is also very important. Causing damage to protective measures in order to obtain amphorae from a site is now considered, without exception, as theft – in other words, an offence. A method of physical protection has to answer several criteria: it is supposed to be non-intrusive (i.e. it should not damage the site) and removable, if necessary, as the possibility of A Resource for Sustainable Development: the case of Croatia Jasen Mesić ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 95future archaeological excavation of a site should never be excluded. Moreover, its installation should be as simple and cost-effective as possible. Ribbed steel net with a 6 mm diameter has given the best results. The dimensions of the mesh are approximately 30 cm · 30 cm, with 80 kg blocks weighing down the ends of construction, along with wedges distributed evenly to prevent it from moving. Several anchor wedges are also fixed in the rock. The cost of such a construction for a surface area of 200 m2 is approximately €8,000. Examples of cage protection The largest cage in the Adriatic to date was installed on a site that local divers discovered in 1999, in the sea near the town of Cavtat. A ship carrying a cargo of 650 (mostly North African) amphorae sank to a depth of 30 m. Test probes have shown that the amphorae were distributed across at least two layers, in almost 1,200 pieces. The site, which occupies a surface of 240 m2, was inventoried in detail during the same year. With the use of plexiglas tables, the amphorae were recorded on plastic sheets at a scale of 1:1. Survey probes revealed that a fourth-century shipwreck lay under the amphorae. Several bands made out of welded ribbed steel rods were used for the construction of a protective cage, while Z-shapes were used for the sides. The overlying section was positioned 2 m above the amphorae. Since the structure had to cover a large surface, several pillars were built and concrete blocks inserted under the end of the sides to serve as ballast, and to keep the structure from moving. The width of the steel openings was large enough to provide a view of the amphorae, while the growth of marine flora does not obstruct the vision. One segment of the cage could be opened like a trapdoor in the event that a diver needed to go inside. In May 2004, information provided by divers led to an undisturbed underwater site near the coast of the island of Pag. Emergency measures for the protection of the site were undertaken, followed by an inventory of the existing site, small- scale probe surveys and the implementation of protective measures. A clearly visible shipwreck, loaded with first-century BC amphorae, lay on the sea floor at a depth of 24 m to 30 m, at a point where the rock bed yielded to sand. More than a hundred whole or slightly damaged amphorae formed a cluster, 8 m in diameter and up to 2 m in height. Next to the amphorae, the remains of coarse, everyday pottery from the ship’s kitchen were found, together with two antique lead anchor shanks. These were proof of the existence of a shipwreck, rather than part of a discarded cargo. The representative quality of the site and the organic growth on the amphorae (the removal of which would cause irreparable damage) were reason to justify the physical protection of the shipwreck with a metal cage. Part of the find was first removed for display in the Novalja Town Museum. The remaining amphorae, part of a grindstone and two lead shanks were left in the sea and covered with a special steel cage, 12 m long, 10m wide and 2–4 m high. The cage was constructed by welding together 14 mm ribbed steel bars. An access door of 1 m · 1 m was constructed in the upper part of the cage to enable divers to enter to control and study the shipwreck. A zinc undercoat and cathodic protection were also applied to the cage before its placement on the seabed. NEW FRONTIERS, NEW CONCEPTS 96 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Physical protection of the wreck on the seabed has made this site one of the cultural and tourist attractions of Novalja. The local authorities took the initiative of designing and distributing an interactive CD-ROM and a publication entitled Hidden Treasures of Novalja, which together present the archaeological and traditional heritage of the city and its surroundings, with an emphasis on the newly discovered shipwreck. At the end of August 2004, a local diver reported a site containing un-looted amphorae on the northern side of the island of Rab. Research revealed an ancient shipwreck that had transported a cargo of second-century BC amphorae. According to initial estimates, more than sixty whole or only partially damaged amphorae of late Graeco-Italian type were visible in the surface layer. These were primarily used for the transport of wine before the use of Lamboglia 2 amphorae, which were the most widespread in the Adriatic. Based on the representative quality of the site and the threat of devastation, a decision was taken to protect it with a highly resistant galvanized iron cage, chosen because of the high gradient and slippery character of the seabed. The cage had a 1 m · 1 m access door and a trapezoidal cross-section, supplemented at a later stage by a lattice of 14 mm ribbed welded steel bars, with a special anti-corrosive undercoat and zinc cathodic protection. The shipwreck has since become one of the island’s attractions. Encouraging results In the period preceding the beginning of the year 2000, fifty-odd sites were prepared for public presentation, among which were ancient shipwrecks, medieval galleys and warships from the First and Second World Wars. This idea was accepted at all levels of government, from local services to qualified ministries. In 2003, the Ministry of Culture authorized diving permits for a period of five years for ten underwater sites. The objective was to make the sites popular tourist destinations with the use of diving centres as tourism agencies responsible for safeguarding. The project encompassed about sixty diving centres, for whom this activity has become profitable in the long term, while heritage, on its side, has gained new allies. Naturally, the majority of these were motivated by a direct economic interest, but this initiative has also stimulated the awakening of public awareness regarding the need for preservation. The annual figure of 50,000 divers visiting Croatian underwater sites is encouraging. This system guarantees both physical and legal protection of a site. Still, the work on the protection of underwater heritage is far from over. Sites on the coastline are under threat due to large-scale construction work in the area. The same goes for open-sea sites, which are under constant threat from the fishing industry and infrastructural projects. Since a chance for protection exists only if a site is identified, the need for constant work and data gathering becomes even more pressing. However, there are chance finds which come as a complete surprise, and their safeguarding is to be considered the result of a fortunate concatenation of circumstances. The discovery of a statue of a Greek athlete is the most significant example of a completely unexpected underwater archaeological find, and one that can be considered as one of the most important in the Mediterranean over the last decade. The tall bronze statue of a 1.92 m-high young athlete, Apoxiomenos, scraping the oil and A Resource for Sustainable Development: the case of Croatia Jasen Mesić ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 97dust from his body after winning a competition, was discovered by chance by a Belgian diver off the island of Lošinj. After the sculpture was removed from the water, a team of archaeologists and experts in conservation and restoration assessed its condition. The conservation and restoration procedures which followed were entrusted to the Croatian Restoration Institute and its metallurgy workshop, as well as to the experts from Opificio delle Pietre Dure in Florence. Apart from minor damage, the statue was intact. The conservation and restoration work was accompanied by qualitative and quantitative research into alloys and corrosion products, organic and biological material and the sediment found inside the statue. An extensive written document was compiled detailing all conservation and restoration interventions and analyses, including the comments of specialists entered in the restoration journal. Every step in the restoration procedure was photographed and recorded on video. Data obtained as a result of research and analyses, as well as art-historical analysis, made it possible to date the statue to the late-Classical and early-Hellenistic period, in other words, the fourth century BC. Following the completion of conservation and restoration, the statue of Apoxiomenos was exhibited in Zagreb and Florence, accompanied by an exhibition on the conservation and restoration process. New methods and old sources Both post-medieval and modern shipwrecks are at risk. However, historic records and sources allow us to determine the approximate location of a broad zone concealing shipwreck sites. With the use of new methods (side-scan sonar, multi-beam, etc.), some types of remains on the seabed can be identified with greater certainty from on-board ship, making research easier and safer. However, historic sources can be misleading. In the case of the wreck of the Re D’Italia, reports on the position of the wreckage varied up to 5 n.m. The sea north of the island of Vis was the scene of one of history’s most intriguing naval battles. In 1866, the Austro-Hungarian fleet defeated the Italian fleet during a rescue attempt to save the island. The Italians lost a large warship, the Re D’Italia (with 419 casualties) and a smaller ship, Palestro (with 217 casualties). Surveys carried out by the ROV research submarine Remora 2000 and side- scan sonar helped to locate the deck, metal plates, fragments of the mast and the rostrum – a bow for ramming enemy ships – which proved beyond dispute that the sunken ship was indeed the warship Re D’Italia. Two objects were removed from the ship and restored at the Croatian Restoration Institute: an oval porcelain dish and a compass base. The challenge to sites of coastal development Infrastructure projects and the construction of tourist installations along the coastline pose a great threat to underwater archaeological sites located close to the coast or in zones of intense human activity. But they can also serve in the training of young experts in this particular branch of archaeology, and can attract tourists to the region. The underwater archaeological site in the shallow sea of Kaštel Sućurac and the ancient harbour of Vis are the best examples of this. NEW FRONTIERS, NEW CONCEPTS 98 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Research into the underwater archaeological site in the shallow sea of Kaštel Sućurac began in 2002, with the discovery of a large dolium (a large earthenware jar) with a line of square openings. It is the only example of an intact dolium in the Mediterranean. The surface layer also contained several fragments of another dolium, as well as one intact and several broken amphorae. This was most probably the location of an estate for the production and processing of food products characteristic of a maritime farm. Further excavations are necessary to corroborate the initial assumptions, but the awkward construction of the quayside and the presence of tourist installations pose a significant threat to the site. The site of the ancient harbour of Vis is threatened by the development of infrastructures on the island, which include the construction of a petrol station in the vicinity of the modern ferry landing, and repair works on the road and promenade. The site is rich in both land and underwater remains of residential and harbour architecture, as well as fragments of ceramic vessels and construction materials that date from the Greek and Roman periods. The underwater structures were first surveyed and then covered with geo-textile fabric. Further excavations and public awareness raising are henceforth prerequisites for the preservation of chance finds from this site. Training and research projects These and other similar cases gave impetus for the foundation of the International Euro- Mediterranean Centre for Underwater Archaeology in Zadar. The activities within the scope of the Centre will, no doubt, motivate the public to give information on finds and prevent the devastation of sites before excavations can take place. The Centre will comprise a conservation and restoration workshop, a Museum of Underwater Archaeology, and an educational centre for the study of underwater sites of different cultures. Zadar was one of the last stages on the Silk Trade route and underwater finds from China and oriental, Middle-Eastern and European civilizations have been uncovered there. In situ presentation of underwater archaeological sites in the Adriatic Sea (including archaeological research in rivers and lakes) is one of the main tasks and objectives of the Museum of Underwater Archaeology. The purchase of a ship for underwater research is also one of the Centre’s goals. The main aim of the project is to develop a strong centre for underwater archaeology that will ensure the establishment of an educational centre for the region able to draw upon experts from the whole Mediterranean region, a restoration and conservation centre for finds, and a Museum of Underwater Archaeology to raise awareness on the necessity for protecting underwater heritage. Conclusion The introductory part of this article underlined the general characteristics of Mediterranean cultures and their underwater heritage. However, the Croatian example reveals the existence of specific local qualities, which should be used in the long- term effort to safeguard cultural heritage and ensure sustainable development. The local population should be involved in and associated with the preparation of management plans for the protected areas, which should take into account local conditions and needs for the area concerned. A Resource for Sustainable Development: the case of Croatia Jasen Mesić ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 99Underwater Archaeological Exploration of the Mayan Cenotes by Luis Alberto Martos López Luis A. Martos is Director of Archaeological Studies at the National Institute for Archaeology and History of Mexico (INAH). He also teaches archaeological techniques at the National School of Anthropology and History and is a member of the Archaeological Council of the INAH, the Mexican Society of Anthropology and the American Society of Archaeology. He is the archaeological project manager of the Plan de Ayutla in Chiapas and in the past has directed numerous excavations of caves and cenotes. He has collaborated on international projects in Belize, El Salvador and Argentina and is a member of the archaeological scientific committee of ICOMOS in Mexico. Introduction Interest in underwater exploration of Mayan cenotes began to arise in the 1980s. Since then, hundreds of these natural sinkholes have been explored and mapped as the number of cave-diving enthusiasts has increased. Scientists and specialists in archaeology, geology, biology and other disciplines have recently discovered that these natural formations also contain valuable information that greatly enhances our understanding of geological and palaeontological processes, as well as providing a wealth of insights into the cultural and symbolic world of the ancient Maya of the Yucatán Peninsula. Unfortunately, many cenotes have been pillaged by treasure hunters who retrieve archaeological and palaeontological items to sell to collectors at exorbitant prices. But what exactly is a cenote? What palaeontological and cultural evidence do they hide in their deep waters? What symbolic meaning 100 ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) ª UNESCO 2009 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.did they hold for the Mayan people? What special prospecting and recording techniques does their exploration require? This article will attempt to provide answers to these and other frequently asked questions concerning the underwater archaeological exploration of cenotes. What is a cenote? Geologically speaking, Yucatán is a virtually flat calcareous platform, without any folding, which emerged from the sea in the Cenozoic era. It is known that during the Pliocene epoch of the Tertiary period, some 2.5 million years ago, the cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere caused the oceans to freeze, so that the sea level dropped considerably. The karstic constitution of the Yucatán Peninsula is comprised chiefly of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and is hence highly permeable. This has been the cause, over the centuries and under the action of natural processes of water filtration, collapse, construction and dissolution of carbonates, of the formation of a complex and vast network of underground caverns, shelters, dolines, cenotes and rivers, which at present account for much of the peninsula’s physical geography. The Mayan word for cenote stems from tz¢onot, which means ‘natural well of water’. In reality, however, cenotes are complex and highly dynamic hydraulic systems. They are classified according to their origin either as ‘dissolution lakes’ or ‘lakes formed by the action of water on soluble rock’. The most elementary form is what is known as the ‘collapse doline’, that is, an opening or subsidence in the ground that gives access to underground waters. In fact, the term cenote defines any underground space with water, so long as there is an opening to the outside, regardless of its dimensions or characteristics. Cenotes are also classified according to their morphology, based on the configuration of the opening connecting the aquifer to the outside environment. On the basis of shape, the cylindrical open cenote, also known as an ‘open doline’, is characterized by vertical walls and a large mouth. Practically speaking, the surface of the water is exposed to the outside. A second type is the bottle-shaped cenote, where access is more restricted, almost always in the form of a narrow skylight, while within the rock a large water-holding cavity has formed. Finally, we speak of the ‘cavern cenote’, which comprises a series of subterranean galleries or at least one cavity with groundwater. Sometimes the access is no more than a narrow opening that takes the shape of a ‘toad’s mouth’. Cenotes can be classified according to their geological, hydrological, biological and chemical characteristics, so that we speak of ‘young’ or ‘lotic’ cenotes, and ‘old’ or ‘lentic’ cenotes. The former communicate freely with the aquifer through the galleries of the cavern, so that the water flow is horizontal and the water is present for only a very short time. Consequently, there is little organic matter sedimented and ⁄ or in suspension. In the latter case, the cenotes constitute a blockage caused by the collapse of vaults or walls over the centuries, and by natural sedimentation processes. This restricts exchanges with underground waters Underwater Archaeological Exploration of the Mayan Cenotes Luis Alberto Martos López ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 101and makes refilling much slower. In this case there is sedimentation and dissolution of particles of organic matter and detritus, which has a direct impact on the water’s biological, physical and chemical processes. While water clarity is a feature of young cenotes, the water in old cenotes tends to be turbid because of the presence of suspended particles. In fact, the production of organic matter in a cenote depends on the degree of opening or exposure of the aquifer to the outside and on the incidence of light. Such characteristics must of course be taken into account in underwater exploration work. Historical records Interest in cenotes is nothing new; back in the sixteenth century they caught the attention of the Spanish, who, amazed at their singularity, devoted space to describing them in their chronicles and accounts. It was undoubtedly the sacred cenote of Chichen Itzá that most impressed the Europeans. Its surrounding myth told of a legendary cult that practised the sacrifice of beautiful virgins whose bodies, it was said, were cast into the dark and enigmatic waters. Brother Diego Landa, Bishop of Yucatán, included in his Historia de las Cosas de Yucatán one of the first known references to cenotes. He described them as holes in the earth with strong currents able to carry off the cattle that fell into them as far as the sea.1 In addition, the Franciscan Father Diego López de Cogolludo gives us, in his Historia de Yucatán, an extensive account of these natural formations, describing them as underground freshwater rivers fit for drinking and with some fish surfacing at mouths of different sizes.2 In the sixteenth century, Spanish encomenderos (colonists granted control of lands and Indians to work for them) wrote descriptive texts at the King’s request of the history and characteristics of the newly conquered lands. These Relaciones Geográficas de Yucatán contain many references to the cenotes, including the ‘Relación de Tabi y Chunhuhub’ of Pedro Garcı́a, who described them as eyes of clear and healthy water, running deep, where catfish and other small species bred. He refers to them as underground rivers flowing into the sea.3 But sixteenth-century chroniclers were not alone in recording their admiration of these enigmatic places. Every traveller and explorer who visited Yucatán throughout the colonial period and in the nineteenth century – John Lloyd Stephens, Désiré Charnay, Alice Dixon and Augustus le Plongeon, among others – devoted part of their itineraries and accounts to describing them. Underwater expeditions The late nineteenth century saw the first attempt to recover objects from the sacred cenote of Chichen Itzá. In 1882, the eccentric French explorer Désiré Charnay tried to dredge the cenote with a Toselli automatic sounder. However, the irregular bed of the well combined with the presence of stones and roots prevented NEW FRONTIERS, NEW CONCEPTS 102 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.the bucket from extracting anything and Charnay soon gave up. In the early twentieth century, between 1904 and 1907, Edward Thompson, who was then United States Consul in Mérida, bought the Hacienda de Chichen Itzá and set about systematically dredging the cenote. This time the venture met with better results; he recovered a large quantity of items of a variety of materials – ceramic, obsidian, jade, rock crystal, flint, wood, tumbaga, gold, copal, textiles – as well as human bones: remains that the ancient Maya had offered up to the legendary sacred well. Fired by his success, Thompson decided to cease the dredging and instead hired the services of divers with diving suits. In 1909, more artefacts were located, further swelling his collection, which he donated to the Peabody Museum of Cambridge, Massachusetts, US. In 1961, the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) initiated a fresh exploration project, led by William Folan. On this occasion, use was made of propelled-air equipment with a suction hose. However, the 28. Cavern cenote, El Templo, at Quintana Roo (Mexico). ª L u is A lb er to M ar to s L óp ez 28 Underwater Archaeological Exploration of the Mayan Cenotes Luis Alberto Martos López ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 103results fell short of expectations since the equipment was ineffective and the objects tended to get damaged. Furthermore, the artefacts retrieved were similar to those recovered by Thompson. In 1967 and 1968, the INAH organized a new research project for systematic exploration of the cenote, under the archaeologist Román Piña Chan with the support of a team of divers from the Mexican Aquatic Exploration and Sports Club (CEDAM). Improved propelled-air equipment with better control was used in combination with diving gear. The cenote was divided into quadrants marked by buoys for adequate registration of the objects. Use was also made of chemical substances to improve the visibility of the waters, which enabled a large collection of archaeological items to be gathered and recorded. These are now in the collections of the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City and the Palacio Cantón Museum of Mérida, Yucatán. This expedition also put to rest the notion of sacrificed virgin girls, proving it to be little more than a legend. In reality, the great majority of the bones retrieved from the bottom were those of young men and boys. New developments and new evidence The development in recent decades of more sophisticated and efficient diving equipment, together with better exploration and recording techniques, has meant that cenotes can now be regarded as important sites of palaeontological, archaeological and historical interest. The underwater archaeology of cenotes can be regarded as a discipline apart, with its own research issues and distinctive techniques. The INAH, through the Sub-directorate of Underwater Archaeology, manages the interdisciplinary project ‘Atlas arqueológico subacuático para el registro, estudio y protección de los cenotes de la penı́nsula de Yucatán’ (underwater archaeological atlas for the recording, study and protection of the cenotes of the Yucatán Peninsula). The prime purpose of this project is the systematic survey of cenotes by means of a Geographical Information System (GIS) and the 29. Pre-Hispanic ceramic at the bottom of the Homún cenote in Yucatan (Mexico). ª L u is A lb er to M ar to s L óp ez 29 NEW FRONTIERS, NEW CONCEPTS 104 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.recording of palaeontological, archaeological and historical evidence. The project makes use of a database with an image bank, specifying the type of material in each cenote, its condition and the dangers or risks inherent in its conservation. The project has already delivered significant results, both in palaeontological and in archaeological and historical terms. At the end of the Pleistocene epoch, some 10,000 years ago, the sea level dropped markedly, as a result of which the numerous flooded caves and cenotes that had formed on the Yucatán Peninsula gradually dried. There was a resumption of the natural processes of water filtration, transport and sedimentation of carbonates, and in general the caves took on the natural decor of stalactites, stalagmites, columns and other wall, vault and ground formations. Thanks to the underwater archaeological work undertaken over the past decade, we now know that during this period of prehistory the dry caverns were spaces of great activity, both animal and human. In those times, Yucatán was a great expanse of grassland, rich in pastures, and well suited to a variety of fauna including camels, llamas, horses, gonfoterios (proboscidea), giant sloths and sabre-toothed tigers, among other species. Steep cliffs characterized the eastern coast of Quintana Roo, while the west and northern coast of Yucatán consisted of vast stretches of sandy beaches. We also now know that groups of hunter-gatherers exploited both the coastal and the inland environments. At the end of the ice age or glacial period, the steady heating of the Earth combined with constant rains had a significant impact on the region. The vast cavern systems gradually flooded again, transforming into the present network of cenotes and caverns. The floods covered all vestiges of fauna and human activity, which have remained underwater ever since – hence the importance of current underwater archaeology activities. In the Nai Tuchá cenote in Quintana Roo, for example, the remains of a proboscidean and a prehistoric tapir were discovered. In Taj Majá in Quintana Roo, the remains of a cameloid were retrieved. In Cancun in Yucatán, the remains of a llama and a horse were found. But perhaps the most surprising discoveries are the human remains discovered in the Naharón, Las Palmas and El Templo cenotes, all in Quintana Roo. In the first case, the remains were 11,670 ± 60 years old, in the second 8,050 ± 130 years and in the third an estimated 8,000 years at least. Likewise, in the Las Palmas and Aktun Há cenotes, evidence has been found of ancient fires carbon-dated to 8,941 ± 39 and 9,524 ± 84 years ago.4 Both the human remains in the bed of the galleries and the fires indicate certain ritual activities of groups of hunter-gatherers in these caverns.5 Cenotes as sacred sites For the ancient Maya of Yucatán, the cenotes were all-important sources of water and life, and hence constituted the raison d’être and heart of their settlements. Cenotes also functioned as notable elements of sacred geography, symbolic scenarios and holy spaces for rainmaking rituals and ceremonies associated with concepts of life, death, rebirth and fertility. Underwater Archaeological Exploration of the Mayan Cenotes Luis Alberto Martos López ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 105The Mayan reverence of cenotes as sacred sites stemmed not only from their indisputable importance as prime sources of water, but also from their function as portals of communication with other sacred planes: the nether world, the sky and the earth. The cenotes were also portals and means of communication with the region where the gods of rain and fertility dwelt. For the ‘divine lords’, namely the Maya governors, symbolic control of the cenotes meant political and social control – in other words, dominance over life and death. The cenotes were therefore venerated, as shown both by the presence of altars and shrines set up beside them, and by the abundance and variety of offerings discovered beneath their waters. While it used to be thought that only the holy cenote of Chichen Itzá contained offerings buried in its bed, it is now known that this is a general pattern repeated throughout the majority of cenotes. The principle attributes of cavern cenotes – humidity and darkness – gave them a special place in Mayan belief systems, linking them to the time of creation. In common with many other cultures the Maya believed that, long before the universe was created, there existed only a great darkness in which great masses of water moved: the original waters. The divine act of creation consisted in separating the wet from the dry and the light from darkness, whereupon the earth emerged from the waters and the sky was formed. The waters of the cenote were perceived symbolically as the original waters and were the object of a singular cult and of special healing and death ceremonies. The death ceremonies involved throwing in human bones, not with the intention of using the cenote as a cemetery, but as a ritual act to return the remains of forebears to the very waters of creation, in order to guarantee rebirth and existence on another plane. The sacred character of the water itself was also what prompted the Maya to draw water from the cenotes for their ceremonies, as the zuhuy ha or ‘virgin water’ had not been polluted by human presence. The contemporary Maya of Yucatán still believe that the chacs or chaces – gods of rain – live at the bottom of cenotes. In some regions, aluxes – stubborn-natured spirits or imps of the hills – are believed to jealously guard caverns and cenotes, which as a result still receive offerings. There is also a widespread idea that the cavernous waters of the cenotes are the lair of the sukan, a giant serpent guarding the layers of the vital substance of life. Although this belief appears to derive from a real creature, the cenote eel, it also resembles a re-elaboration of the ancient concept of celestial and terrestrial serpents, which have been associated with rain and surface water currents since the time of the Olmec.6 Underwater finds Underwater archaeology work has led to the discovery of many objects in different cenotes, which were cast in by the Maya as part of ceremonies and rituals. However, in contrast to the rich variety of objects and materials found inside the sacred well of Chichen Itzá, the majority of cenote finds tend to comprise ceramic vessels, NEW FRONTIERS, NEW CONCEPTS 106 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.particularly jugs, pots and plates, as well as animal and human bones. In the area of Homún, Yucatán, for example, as many as thirty large earthenware jars have been located at the bottom of a cenote. A collection of vessels found at the bottom of the Mariposa cenote, in Tres Reyes, Quintana Roo, dates from the period known as Upper Pre-classical, indicating that the cult of these natural wells dates back to at least the first century BC. The deposits of bones in certain cenotes are of particular interest. Among the most notable cases are the human remains recovered from explorations of the sacred cenote of Chichen Itzá, the cenote of Mayapán, and the Calaveras cenote in Punta Laguna. The latter is small and bottle shaped, but at the bottom around 118 human skeletons were found, having being thrown in by the Maya. Once the conquest of Yucatán had been completed in the mid-sixteenth century, the Franciscan monks set about evangelizing the Maya. In furtherance of their doctrine, the monks in many cases relocated old populations to bring them closer to a convent or church. The Spanish soon learned the lesson about controlling water and life, and so built the major convents in the most densely populated places, where cenotes guaranteed an adequate water supply for the community. The wells and waterwheels were often built directly on the cenotes, as in the cases of the convents of Manı́ and San Bernardino de Siena in Valladolid, and the churches of Tihosuco and Chikindzonot. Underwater exploration has also enabled the retrieval of material left from the colonial period and the nineteenth century. The main items are the remains of pulleys and the wooden parts of waterwheels, wooden water buckets, olive jars, majolica pottery, porcelain, glass, and so on. Noteworthy among other cases are finds of pre- Hispanic vessels of the late Post-Classical period (AD 1250–1521) discovered with Spanish olive jars and cow and lizard bones in the Cozumel cenote known as the ‘Crocodile system’. But, without any doubt, one of the most startling finds of the historical period was the discovery, in the Ziiz Há cenote, located under the Convent of San Bernardino de Siena in Valladolid, of an arsenal of at least 153 British rifles from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, together with a small campaign cannon with a wooden gun carriage. The rifles were apparently thrown into the cenote in March 1848, during the tragic episode of the destruction and sacking of Valladolid by Mayan rebels in the Caste War of Yucatán. The chronicles mention that the local captain had ordered the city evacuated and all the powder burned, which suggests that the weapons were thrown into the water to prevent them falling into the hands of insurgents. Technical preparation The exploration of cenotes is not easy, and calls for considerable reserves of adventure, curiosity and persistence, and above all, adequate autonomous diving technologies. All of this has permitted access to the previously unreachable labyrinthine networks of flooded caverns in relative safety. The word ‘relative’ should be emphasized because Underwater Archaeological Exploration of the Mayan Cenotes Luis Alberto Martos López ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 107safety depends, when all is said and done, on individual explorers themselves, and the measures they take during the course of their work. To explore cenotes a diver needs to be fully qualified and have attained the grade of ‘full cave diver’. Although cave-diving equipment is varied in type, in general terms it includes double tanks with a special support and ‘wings’ instead of the traditional open water jacket. The regulator hose is at least 2 m in length. The equipment also includes a primary and a secondary light, a diving computer, an instrument console, at least two lifeline reels, line markers and a small knife. A variation of the above configuration is the ‘side mount’, which consists of the diver using tanks worn on the sides instead of the double tanks behind. This has the advantage of facilitating access where space in the cave is limited, but this technique requires a dedicated course and much practice. Rebreather equipment has also been used to good effect in the exploration of cenotes. The use of gas mixes such as nitrox or trimix has also helped to increase the time that can be spent inside cenotes. Likewise, modern diving computers permit adequate reprogramming of immersion times and calculation of the number, depth and time of decompression halts. In general terms, the lifelines placed for exploration of the cenote are also useful for mapping and surveying. Use is made of special diving compasses and the depth gauge of the diving computer. The technique consists of taking readings by means of positioning systems, either by triangulating from a main axis or by creating a web from fixed ‘datum points’.7 The recording of palaeontological and cultural evidence uses similar methods, and on many occasions graticules8 are drawn for the sake of better control. In cases where sedimentation has occurred, underwater excavations are possible and require using the hands as trowels to lift and displace the sediment. Excavation and preservation of cenotes In general, the prevailing conditions in cenotes make for good conservation of palaeontological and cultural material. The water temperature, usually in the vicinity of 25 C, is an important factor. A young cenote with little incidence of light is naturally even better for conservation as it inhibits the development of micro-organisms. In contrast, in old cenotes, the lack of continuous flow or renewal of waters assists the accumulation of organic matter with the consequent development of micro-organisms, which can also affect the Ph level of the water. In such cenotes a form of aquifer stratification usually develops, the water adopting certain vertical chemical grades with layers of non-oxygenous waters towards the surface while acids are concentrated at the bottom. Water acidity may of course be a deterioration agent in the case of archaeological and palaeontological material. Collecting items from the bed of a cenote is work that must be undertaken in coordination with specialists in the restoration of underwater objects. The artefacts are more or less stable in their aquifer environment and any abrupt change may cause NEW FRONTIERS, NEW CONCEPTS 108 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.their destruction. Their collection consequently requires special techniques which permit the object to be raised while conditions close to that of its original environment are maintained. The laboratory then handles the complex processes of exchange, adjustment and stabilization. However, the greatest risk to which archaeological and palaeontological deposits in cenotes are exposed is the threat of humans themselves. The ancient veneration that until a few years ago the Maya campesinos still felt for cenotes is now waning, and with it any interest in preserving them. Furthermore, urban growth and the development of tourism have had a major impact on both the environment and traditional ways of life. At present cenotes are valued from an economic standpoint because of their transformation into tourist attractions and snorkelling and cave-diving centres. Many tourist agencies and diving businesses search for the most beautiful and attractive cenotes to offer tourists. This phenomenon has grown in particular on the coast of Quintana Roo; a fact reflected in attempts to re-designate the region the ‘Maya Riviera’. However, these cenotes often contain considerable archaeological and palaeontological deposits which are frequently looted by enthusiastic ‘explorers’. Another problem affecting protection of the archaeological and palaeontological heritage of the cenotes is the excessive extraction of water from the subsoil for new settlements, residential developments and tourist complexes. This directly affects the aquifers, the constitution of the cenotes and the archaeological deposits. In contrast, it is alarming that no measures exist for recycling and revitalizing the aquifers. At present, and particularly in Quintana Roo, tourist and urban development exerts strong pressures on cenotes and their natural ecosystems without any regard for the fact that subsoil waters are highly sensitive and vulnerable to pollution and transformations. There is little or no treatment of sewage, either household or industrial, and water pumping has been indiscriminate. In view of all this, specialists have concluded that the cenotes are systems at risk and, consequently, that the rich palaeontological, archaeological and historical potential is also endangered. It is therefore particularly important to advance the underwater exploration of cenotes. Given the significance and contexts of cenotes, interdisciplinary projects are recommended that involve cave divers, archaeologists, biologists, geologists and other specialists. This integral approach is essential to ascertaining the dynamics and processes of cenotes, understanding their impact on human development and ensuring their protection. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aizpuru, G. G., Acévez, E. and Martı́nez, L. F. (2004). Cenotes, Dive Guide and Log Book. Mexico City: Underwater Editions. Antochiw, M. (1999). ‘Yucatán, cenotes y grutas’, in L. A. Ruiz Sosa (ed.) Cenotes y grutas de Yucatán. Mérida: Editorial CEPSA ⁄ Secretarı́a de Ecologı́a del Edo. de Yucatán, pp. 11–47. Underwater Archaeological Exploration of the Mayan Cenotes Luis Alberto Martos López ISSN 1350-0775, No. 240 (Vol. 60, No. 4, 2008) 109Beddows, P., Blanchon, P., Escobar, E. and Torres, O. (2007). ‘Los cenotes de la Penı́nsula de Yucatán’, Arqueologı́a Mexicana, Vol. XIV, No. 83, pp. 32–35. Mexico City: Editorial Raı́ces. Chase, C. and Shane, O. C. III (1996). El cenote de los sacrificios. Tesoros mayas extraı́dos del Cenote Sagrado de Chichen Itzá, Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica. De la Garza, M. and Izquierdo, A. L. (1982). Relaciones histórico- geográficas de la Gobernación de Yucatán, Mexico City: UNAM. Escobar Nava, A. (1986). Geografı́a general del estado de Quintana Roo, Mexico City: Fondo de Fomento Editorial del Gobierno del Estado de Quintana Roo. Gallareta, T. N. (2007). ‘Cenotes y asentamientos humanos en Yucatán’, in Arqueologı́a Mexicana, Vol. XIV, No. 83, pp. 36–43, Mexico City: Editorial Raı́ces. González, G. A. and Rojas, C. S. (2006). Informe técnico Atlas arqueológico subacuático para el registro, estudio y protección en los cenotes de la Penı́nsula de Yucatán, Mexico City: Archivo Técnico de la Coordinación Nacional de Arqueologı́a ⁄ INAH. Hooton, E. A. (1977). ‘Skeletons from the Cenote of Sacrificios at Chichen Itza’, in C. L. Hay et al, The Maya and their Neighbours: Essays of Middle American Anthropology and Archaeology, New York: Dover Publications. Landa, F. D. de (1986). Relación de las cosas de Yucatán, Mexico City: Porrúa. López de Cogolludo, D. (1934). Historia de Yucatán, Campeche: Comisión de Historia. Martos López, L. A. (2007). ‘Los cenotes en la actualidad: entre la veneración y la explotación’, Arqueologı́a Mexicana, Vol. XIV, No. 83, pp. 66–70, Mexico City: Editorial Raı́ces. Matthes, A. W. (1999). ‘Una pequeña guı́a de los cenotes de Yucatán’, in L. A. Ruiz Sosa (ed.) Cenotes y grutas de Yucatán, Mérida: Editorial CEPSA ⁄ Secretarı́a de Ecologı́a del Edo. de Yucatán, pp. 62–75. Morales, J. J. (1999). ‘Humedales y Cenotes en Yucatán’, in L. A. Ruiz Sosa (ed.) Cenotes y grutas de Yucatán, op. cit., pp. 76–87. Pérez Aguilar, J. (1999). ‘Espeleobuceo en Yucatán’, in L. A. Ruiz Sosa (ed.) Cenotes y grutas de Yucatán, op. cit., pp. 120–131. Ramı́rez Aznar, L. (1990). El saqueo del Cenote Sagrado de Chichen Itzá, Mérida: Producción Editorial Dante. Scholes, F. V. and Adams, E. B. (1938). Don Diego Quijada, Alcalde Mayor de Yucatán, 1561–1565, Mexico City: Antigua Librerı́a Robredo. NOTES 1. F. D. de Landa. Relación de las cosas de Yucatán, Mexico City: Porrúa, 1986, p. 44. 2. D. López de Cogolludo. Historia de Yucatán, Campeche: Comisión de Historia, 1934, p. 317. 3. M. De la Garza and A. L. Izquierdo, Relaciones histórico-geográficas de la Gobernación de Yucatán, Mexico City: UNAM, 1982, p. 162. 4. G. A. González and C. S. Rojas, Informe técnico Atlas arqueológico subacuático para el registro, estudio y protección en los cenotes de la Penı́nsula de Yucatán, Mexico City: Archivo Técnico de la Coordinación Nacional de Arqueologı́a ⁄ INAH, 2006. 5. Ibid. 6. The Olmec people lived along the Gulf Coast in southern Mexico. The first evidence of their remarkable art appears at about 1200 BC with many stone monuments and colossal carved heads with characteristic flat faces and helmet-like headgear. The Olmecs developed a wide trading network, and between 1100 and 800 BC their cultural influence spread north-west to the Valley of Mexico and south-east to parts of Central America. It is clear that later Mesoamerican native religions and iconography, from all parts of the area, can be traced back to Olmec beginnings. 7. Datum points are reference points from which survey measurements are taken. 8. Graticules are the network of lines of latitude and longitude upon which a map is drawn. NEW FRONTIERS, NEW CONCEPTS 110 Published by UNESCO Publishing and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.