From sub-Arch today:
I do want to be responsive to questions through this board, but as you can imagine, we're quite busy at the moment preparing for three major excavation/recovery project this year, so unfortunately I'm going to have to limit my time spent here and group answers together. I also want to make clear that I am not an archaeologist (nor do I play one on TV
but I do have access to our research, archaeology and conservation teams (as well as all other areas of our operations) to get answers.
Regarding the recent comments/questions:
It is amazing to me that so many people, including scholars such as many on this board, will fully believe one side of a story without even reading or considering the other side. I always thought the ability to think critically about both sides of an issue was one of the most important qualities to encourage - and having an open mind means you might actually learn something new.
Veronica - No proof was ever presented in the court documents that Spain actually paid the claims of the private cargo owners. If this proof exists somewhere it was never shared with Odyssey. Claims were invited but never paid. Here is what we found out:
In 1809, after Napoleon usurped the Spanish throne, the provisional government based in Andalucia received a large subsidy from Great Britain. The Spanish asked at the time if some of that was indemnification for the Mercedes and other lost ships of the squadron. Great Britain said no, and subsequently refused Spanish requests for indemnification to pay private parties for their losses. That was the first of several such attempts by Spanish officials to get Great Britain to pay indemnification - in the 1820's, in 1831, and again in 1852. Spain, at that time perpetually in a state of civil turmoil and desperate for money, had no resources to pay indemnification to private parties herself. For its part, Great Britain was convinced that if money was given to Spain to make payments, it would end up being diverted anyhow.
And in the provisional constitution of 1869, the authors again invited persons who suffered from the loss of the squadron to submit claims by 1870. That constitution was shortly replaced and no claims ever presented.
This round-robin of inviting claims and asking Great Britain to pay for them is demonstration that no one ever got anything from the government. Each time the issue arose, it was part of an attempt to curry favor with the factions affected by the sinking of Mercedes and capture of the other three ships. And each time the invitation to submit claims was made, the government itself was too far deep in debt to pay anything out. No evidence has ever been submitted that shows any payments, either.
Regarding identification of the site: Spain claimed immediately that the site was the Mercedes (one of the items of "proof" offered was the presence elegantly sculpted dolphin handles on a culverin found on the Black Swan site when in fact, these handles were a cosmopolitan trait not unique or even typical of Spanish warships. In fact, identical dolphin handles were found on the cannon found on the HMS Victory site) We did say in court documents that the most likely hypothesis was that the coins came from the Mercedes, but that we were not prepared to definitively identify the site as that of the Mercedes as there were conflicting pieces of evidence (including the number of cannon found 18 - vs the 50 which armed the Mercedes, the coins found were about 66% of the reported cargo and it is likely that an addition amount was aboard as contraband, eyewitness accounts of the sinking placed the vessel within sight of land masses, which are not visible at all from the Black Swan site). We were willing to return to the area to do more work to identify the site and search the surrounding area to see if we could locate additional materials associated with the site (with Spanish archaeologists aboard). As a public company, we are very careful about issuing a positive identification on a site. We spent over 6 months working with the UK government before giving a positive ID to the HMS Victory site. And we still say "the site believed to be HMS Sussex"
Peter - your statement that: "Odyssey asked Spain and Spain said no." is not correct. During a meeting to move forward with work to positively identify the site believed to be Sussex (for which we already had a contract from the legal owner but Spain was obstructing work - and according to released Wikileaks documents never intended to allow work to move forward ) Spain was notified that we were planning to work in an area where we believed there were many shipwrecks and some of them might have cultural interest to Spain. We invited Spain to send someone along on the expedition. Spain refused. This exchange is one of several disputed "facts" in the case. Our court documents include affidavits from lawyers who were at this meeting.
Simon - lovely to hear from you. I have no idea where the 450 ton number came from and I don't recall seeing that in the Spanish press. Our disclosures always said approximately 17 tons. Approximately 595,000 coins were recovered. The majority of these coins remain in concretions which have been stabilized in a conservation solution so an exact count has not been tabulated. While the coins have been under the care of professional coin conservators, full research and documentation work has not been conducted pending the outcome of the case. (Thorough study and documentation were planned prior to any disbursements of coins by Odyssey had we been awarded any of the coins in the case.) Our base budget for research and conservation is over $1 million per year and this increases exponentially when specific projects are included - conservation and documentation costs for coins can run up to $40 PER COIN depending on the type, condition and other factors. Regarding other artifacts recovered - there were a few artifacts recovered and I believe a list was included in one of our legal filings available on our website. No cannon were recovered contrary to press reports. We intended to return to the site to record and recover the other artifacts on the site after removing "temptation" from the site - recovering all of the coins visible to protect the rest of the site. There were piles and piles of coins scattered on the seabed. If we had recovered a few coins and a few artifacts and announced the find, there was the fear that everyone with access to a grab bucket or deep ocean fishing net would be dragging the area trying to pick up the rest.
And Alexandre - - I believe this statement is naïve "for the archaeological community, it's a blessing - next time someone is considering to pull a stunt like this, they will think twice. And maybe, on that second tought, they simply won't do it." I don't believe the Black Swan case will keep people from recovering valuables from the ocean floor - what they simply won't do is report it. Sad but likely outcome.
Laura Barton
Odyssey Marine Exploration
Odyssey are working very hard at the moment, hoping to announce to the
(these sort of things happen you know sea travel is risky)
