A look at the UNESCO convention manual

[Oceanscience]

Let's take a look at the UNESCO convention manual, how it considers and recommends the ways to tackle the many aspects of shipwrecks.

Any work around shipwrecks costs a lot of money. The treasure hunters way, based on thousands of years of tradition, has been to finance the search and recovery with the sale of the goods recovered.

The treasure hunter takes the risk. Not goods recovered, no pay.

The UNESCO convention does not allow that. How can the search of information about the past be funded?

I am starting this thread, so that we can discuss to pro's and con's about the RULES. Below is Rule 18, for starters.

Raising funds (Rule 18)
A long tradition of government concern for archaeology and archaeological projects suggests that the financing issue is only to be solved through public funding, whether
in the form of institutional funding or subsidies. Force of habit is in this case a powerful factor, and, while for instance the cultural industries operate under market
constraints and therefore reason more or less in terms of profit margins and capital outlay, archaeology has a tendency to think of itself as different; so different, that it
would be compelled to use other than the normal, well-known channels followed by all enterprises. Of course archaeology has its specific features. It is far from certain,
however, that archaeological projects are as specific as is generally believed. In view of the comparative diminishing of dedicated public funding, the involvement of the
business and financial world in cultural life, in the form of sponsoring, takes ever greater importance.
There are various types of funding and sources. A range of them can be considered to support an underwater archaeological project. Eligibility to apply for them will
depend, for example, on the project team’s institutional character: the kind of legal persona that is financially accountable for the project; the kind of legal persona that is
applying for funding

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oceanscience]

This manual is very large. Therefore I will just select a few interesting facts to post here. Below is a pie chart of the income sources of the Mary Rose project.

 

[pvet7521]

Pros and Cons?

I see no Pros in any type of government / governments restrictions, rules, regulations. The red tape and bull will stop any enterprise dead in its tracks. This is what our world has become, a place where you have to hid, sneak and according to THEM steal what was stolen in the first place. Shiver me timbers.

 

[Oceanscience]

Some people look at the glass half empty.
Other people consider the glass half full.

I consider problems as the source of opportunities.

The rewards go to the one who knows how to take advantage of the opportunity when it presents itself.

This UNESCO convention manual has many opportunities hidden between the thousand lines of text.

 

[VOC]

These are the two rules that will prevent any serious wreck excavation in the future as you will never be able to prove you have sufficient funds in place to cover all possible cost before you start. The Mary Rose project could never have shown or bonded the £50m+ it has cost to date to excavate, raise, conserve, and display before they started.

This is the main get out clause for the desk bound archaeologist who don’t have the inclination, motivation, skill or staying power to locate, excavate, record, display and publish a wreck project, as they get the same money sat in offices reading policy reports, having endless meetings, talking at conferences on how our UCH is being destroyed, and calculating what grade they can become before they draw down their grade linked pension.

This is worth a read: Convention Text | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

V. Funding

Rule 17. Except in cases of emergency to protect underwater cultural heritage, an adequate funding base shall be assured in advance of any activity, sufficient to complete all stages of the project design, including conservation, documentation and curation of recovered artefacts, and report preparation and dissemination.

Rule 18. The project design shall demonstrate an ability, such as by securing a bond, to fund the project through to completion.

 

[Oceanscience]

Thanks for the valuable contribution to the discussion. I know that you speak from a base of vast knowledge and experience gained in the field.
I fully agree with your comments. I think it was the desk bound archaeologists who wrote that text.
In a way I can understand their thinking, having seen many tons of artifacts recovered from shipwrecks, by archaeologists, only to let them rot slowly in a storage room for the next 20 years.
However, I feel it is important to analyze every detail of the text, to look at the possibilities and feasibility, of working within these recommendations. There are actually some people doing that.
For example, I do not see the need for a full excavation of every shipwreck. In general a shipwreck project design can be reduced to one or a few specific questions. It may be necessary to recover a few artifacts for this purpose, but after that, the shipwreck can be left without further disturbance "for future generations".
This reduces the cost considerably.
Above, you show the text of Rule 18. I show a small fraction of the explanations that the manual gives for Rule 18. There is much, much more.
I have not even looked up the explanations of Rule 17.
My intent with this thread is to work through the whole text and manual, hopefully we get a few more forum members to help.
Thank you for your help.

 

[VOC]

I agree some of the concept of UNESCO UCH policy has some legitimate merit and was included for very sensible reasons.

Unfortunately most of the problems are with the interpretation of the wording and like the Koran various people can use the wording to suit their own political views.

I don’t think we should ever just dig up a cohesive historic wreck site for the fun of it, but a scattered and dispersed field of metallic artefacts as we see in the Spanish trade wrecks I don’t think there is any harm in looking for these random items as occasionally someone revels an archaeologically important find.

I often think about the future generations issue and have come to the following conclusions:

1. We are the future generations compared to the date of sinking and in some cases the date the wreck was found.
2. At least one vessel sinks every day somewhere in the world, so we are losing the recording battle by not tackling the recording the wrecks we allready know.
3. We have now got the technical ability to find every historic wreck in the world and are doing so. So are we just irresponsible leaving our future generations a bigger and bigger problem of locating historic wrecks that they have to monitor and protect.
4. I don’t thing future generations will thank our generation for not doing what we could or can do with our money, ability and resources to excavate and record rather than leaving it all for them to do.
5. Wreck assemblage does not last for ever so the sooner you excavate, record and conserve theoretically the more information is available.

There are some big questions that we should answer before writing any restrictive policy:

a) Is knowledge of our maritime past “Important” or just “Interesting”
b) Should we concentrate on filling the gaps in our knowledge rather than wasting resources on re-confirming knowledge we already know.
c) Who should own our history and who should control its access.
d) Should common shipwreck material just be treated like many other potentially historically important antiques or art master pieces, in that they can be owned privatally and traded freely at auctions etc.
e) Should we as a society know every single possible thing about our past and hold and conserve every single article from our past (as we say we should do with shipwreck).
f) Does extensive archaeology on a shipwreck give us “actual fact” or is it just one possible scenario of what may have happened in the past. (would most of this costly archaeology stand up if it had to go through the scrutiny of a court trial (as in a murder trial), if other archaeologist were being paid to destroy the report’s findings).

Anyway I digress, UNESCO is here to stay and like you say there are ways to work within it, and if we can flush out the best ways to do it, it will help many future people interested in recovering and recording our past.

We may see a change in years to come once we get rid of some of the "left leaning socialist archaeological dinosaurs" that are in positions of influence and power, as there is a growing breed of disgruntled younger marine archaeologist who are getting frustrated at the lack of projects to work on.

They have come to relise that site monitoring, remote sensing and desk top study etc. is not actually archaeology, it is just other tools to assist archaeology as is photography and measuring tapes etc.

Archaeology, or archeology[1] (from Greek ἀρχαιολογία, archaiologia – ἀρχαῖος, arkhaios, "ancient"; and -λογία, -logia, "-logy[2]"), is the study of human activity in the past, primarily through the "recovery" and analysis of the material culture and environmental data that they have left behind, which includes artefacts, architecture, biofacts and cultural landscapes (the archaeological record).

 

[Oceanscience]

You bring up many very good points. According to the UNESCO, there are more that 1,000,000 shipwrecks littering the oceans, worldwide. Several thousands per year, not just one per day, are added to that. Future generations will have no lack of shipwrecks to explore.
One of the big problems I see, is the fast development of ocean technology in recent years. Oil drilling and it's pipelines are encroaching on the ocean floor in increasing speed. Cable laying is another fast growing threat. Ancient harbors are being dredged to accommodate the modern deep draft vessels (EXAMPLE CADIZ) Huge amounts of priceless information gets destroyed by trawl fishing. Ocean mineral exploration will be a very important industry in 20 years time.
My opinion is that rather than stopping shipwreck exploration, it should be very much accelerated within the areas of greatest danger of destruction.
However, the UNESCO convention is the rule now, even in the countries that have not signed up.
Can we find a way to work under it?

The cost seems to be the biggest problem. We need to find ways to finance the archaeological projects.
The writers of the convention have given this some thought. Just glancing through the manual I saw some interesting recommendations. What they actually recommend, is to make a business plan.

In recent times we have seen many new business models emerge. Not all are successful, but some of these modern business models are very very successful. I name just one: GOOGLE. Just 20 years ago this business model would have been considered absolutely impossible. Much more recently, I remember well how the analysts commented that this new idea would never be profitable.
The same thing with Amazon.com.
Yet, today we have access to millions of old books and documents by Internet, thanks to GOOGLE for having them scanned and made available.

Can we find a business model that will work within the UNESCO convention? I know of several people who are doing this successfully. Each one a bit differently.

I have a few ideas of my own. I would be glad to add my ideas to some more ideas from some dynamic people and make a joined effort.

In the meantime I am going to pick a few paragraphs out of the UNESCO convention manual from time to time and post them here.

Sources of funding (out of the UNESCO manual)
There exists a wide range of funding sources: public or private, local to supranational; from private individuals to enterprises, public authorities, finance institutions, nongovernmental
organizations, international organizations, vocational or semi-vocational organizations, foundations, tourism offices and so forth. Multiple funding has become the general rule. Indeed, potential partners who can provide assistance themselves seek out and encourage - sometimes through coercive measures – the
enlistment of other financial partners.

 

[Oceanscience]

UNESCO MANUAL RULE 17The entrepreneurial approachIn planning an individual underwater archaeological project, it is advisable to adopt an entrepreneurial approach. Before the question of financing is settled, it isrecommendable to devise a project structure, based on a thorough analysis of the significance of preserving this heritage for the public and the costs to be incurred. Inevery individual instance, fund-raising calls for a dedicated effort to define objectives, means and strategies. It is therefore necessary to make an analysis of feasibility,the match between available means and objectives, and to think in terms of evaluation of the public benefits at the start of the Project Design stage. In adopting thisapproach, the research director of an archaeological project may have to reconsider predisposed attitudes and to rethink available options, without compromisingprofessional ethics. Note that in project management and project funding, every project must have its beginning and its end. Open-ended solutions are not an option.Broad visions and strategies are certainly the best foundation on which to build a project, but the specific project objectives should not go beyond what can be overseenand evaluated. It is only by drawing up a ‘balance sheet’ of its costs and benefits that the equation underlying the financing of a project can satisfactorily be solved.To assure successful project funding and implementation, one must adopt a professional approach. This means that one must optimize the project, face up to realitiesand potential risks and adopt the best possible funding plan. A professional, competent and responsible team to carry out the project and to assure its funding is theconditio sine qua non for success. This applies to all underwater archaeological projects, irrespective of their ultimate objectives, their settings or any special constraints.For larger projects in particular, the archaeological team should consider soliciting assistance from professionals with viable experience in project financing, and evenconsider entrusting the issue of acquiring and administering finances to specialists in this field.

 

[VOC]

This is where UNESCO’s lack of logic comes in.

They say so should work out the project from beginning to end and put in place the funding mechanism before you start.

On many wrecks you do not know what you will find until excavation commences.

How many artefacts will you find, what are their historical importance, what are their conservation needs, do the need to be displayed or just recorded and boxed, do they need controlled storage.

That is without knowing how much hull structure survives, does it need saving and conserving or just recording and re-burying.
Will new legislation imposes additional cost (ie Health & Safety, Environmental, wage cost etc.).

None of this can be accurately estimated in advance, so unless you can show clear funding for a $m+ you could not effectively produce a project design to excavate a complete wreck.

To give the government funded archaeologist something to do whilst lacking the funds to excavate a wreck properly (to put all the remaining information into their much alluded to “Context”), they use their very limited funds to do a controlled small excavation or trial trench across a small part of the wreck.

This may answer one or two unknown things about a wreck, but this is largely immaterial as without the rest of the information it proves very little ie knowing it was carrying one type of cargo because it was found in your trial trench but not knowing at all that it was carrying a different cargo further up the hold.

Also knowing things like the beam of a vessel without knowing the length proves very little and is pointless to excavate to find this fact alone, especially if further excavation could prove the length.

My personal view is that the UNESCO Convention on UCH is more to do with archaeologist trying to preserve funds rather than preserving wrecks.

They know that if amatures (“A” Vocationals) or professionals do the work at no cost to the state they know the bean counters will soon start saying why are we paying you lot, and they know that if they have to spend their budget on excavation and conservation they will soon run out of cash to pay their wages.

Someone in each government should look at the total budget spent on underwater archaeology and see what percentage is spent on furthering the knowledge of our past or conservation, and what percentage has been spent on policy making, endless reports on risks and threats etc., attending meetings and conferences and generally running unproductive departments.

The UNESCO Convention is a copout policy to hide behind and will do more damage to our wrecks than looters and salvors could ever do.