We lead off this issue of The Forum with a letter from an experienced marine archaeologist, Edward Von der Porten, criticizing my November/December 2003 editorial (“Why Not Work with the Salvors?”) and suggesting that I’m being beguiled by smiling sharks in encouraging marine archaeologists to work with salvors.
Mr. Von der Porten makes some interesting observations. He ends by lauding me for deploring looting on land, then asks why I encourage it at sea.
But he suggests no ways of stopping the salvors who loot. I want at least to retrieve what we can from their activities.
Major salvor operations take millions of dollars to mount. There is no way archaeologists can raise this money to do their own work at these sites. So we either leave it to the salvors or we try to impose rules, standards and restrictions. Even though it may not be perfect, it’s better than the alternative. That’s the important point: Look at the alternative. Don’t just morally pontificate and wring your hands.
Moreover, the archaeological community is not quite so helpless as Mr. Von der Porten suggests. It can affect the situation. There is enough common interest between the professional archaeological community and the salvor community to make a deal. At least the archaeological community should consider this possibility instead of simply fulminating at salvors.
Why doesn’t the archaeological community consider promulgating rules incorporating minimal standards that all salvage operations should meet and respect? Why not begin with the document I referred to in my editorial in which the British government laid out the rules governing a specific agreement with salvors? Perhaps this agreement could be applied more generally.
Mr. Von der Porten says that when archaeologists have been employed on salvor operations, they soon find “that they [are] mere window dressing—trotted out to provide legitimacy in front of officials, then ignored.” Mr. Von der Porten underestimates the power of an archaeologist in such a situation. The salvor teams up with the archaeologist to give a certain scientific legitimacy to his work. If the salvor doesn’t meet his part of the bargain, the archaeologist makes this known. The salvor has to worry that ultimately the archaeologist will go to the press. In extreme situations, the archaeologist can resign in the hope that the salvor would be blackballed in the archaeological community.
Indeed, salvors would be taking quite a risk in agreeing to meet professional archaeological standards and to employ an archaeologist in their operations. From the salvor’s viewpoint, it’s like inviting a sting nettle into his bed.
Obviously, there will be disagreements. After all, archaeologists, no less than salvors, are only human beings. Sometimes it won’t work. Sometimes situations like the ones Mr. Von der Porten describes will arise. The archaeological community, however, could play an important role in resolving disputes and laying blame.
Admittedly, it ain’t perfect. But it’s worth a try. The attitude of the archaeological community comes across simply as moral posturing. The moral purity of the archaeological community seems to be more important to it than reducing looting.
We lead off this issue of The Forum with a letter from an experienced marine archaeologist, Edward Von der Porten, criticizing my November/December 2003 editorial (“Why Not Work with the Salvors?”) and suggesting that I’m being beguiled by smiling sharks in encouraging marine archaeologists to work with salvors. Mr. Von der Porten makes some interesting observations. He ends by lauding me for deploring looting on land, then asks why I encourage it at sea. But he suggests no ways of stopping the salvors who loot. I want at least to retrieve what we can from their activities. Major salvor […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
