 by Phil Bergeron
Phil Bergeron
The following comments are offered in response to your request for
inputs on the draft UNESCO Convention.
"Cultural Heritage" should be defined in terms of relative historical
value, and whether such objects are worth saving with some expenditure of
(public) money. Underwater Cultural Heritage should be subjected to a
stricter definition than land-based objects, since it requires greater
effort and corresponding expenditure of funds to protect and/or recover.
Since the UNESCO Convention seeks to re-define abandonment, and we
find this (UNESCO) definition unacceptable, this convention and all other
shipwreck management legislation should be limited to wrecks with
significant historical/archaeological importance, using such criteria as
that required for inclusion in the National Register (36 CFR 60).
As a taxpayer, I object to the expenditure of public funds to attempt
recovery or the administration of deep-water wrecks. Such costs range in
the millions of dollars, and should not be borne by the American taxpayer.
There already exists an inexhaustible resource within present territorial
waters. The archaeological work being done by salvors and imposed by U. S.
courts is more than adequate to extract whatever historical value survives
within deep-water wreck sites.
We are in favor of retaining current Admiralty law and the
corresponding definition of abandonment as determined in U.S. federal
courts as opposed to that contained in the draft UNESCO Convention.
Any legislation regarding management of underwater cultural heritage
should not only provide for public access and use, it should clearly define
a reasonable age or other measure for delineating what shipwrecks and other
objects have no substantial historical value, and therefore do not require
protection, preservation, or other expenditure of effort by the government.
Clearly, the number of shipwrecks which have significant historical value,
and those which will be able to be surveyed and studied by the limited
existing archaeological resources are a small minority of the total that
exist. The rest should be left for public use. As a taxpayer, I regard
the expenditure of public monies to study any shipwreck whose age is less
than approximately 200 years old to be substantially a waste of tax
dollars. Wrecks more ancient than this may or may not be of archaeological
significance, and those that are should be singled out and protected on a
case-by-case basis.
In support of the argument for public use of shipwrecks, I offer the
results of a survey conducted by Rodale's scuba diving magazine and
presented in the September/October 1995 issue asking, "Should recreational
divers be allowed to remove artifacts from shipwrecks?". The response from
the general readership was 74% in favor, reflecting the opinion of the
recreational sport diving public in the United States.
In addition, the Underwater Society of America, an organization which
has represented recreational sport divers of the United States for 37
years, passed a resolution in January 1996 condemning the UNESCO Draft
Convention being offered at that time, on the grounds that it abandoned the
principles of Admiralty law and gave up States rights to manage underwater
cultural heritage. The resolution urged the United States to work to
include the diverse interests of all stakeholders in any international
shipwreck management agreement.
Philip D. Bergeron |