Centenary of World War I

[Grocio]

Protection of underwater cultural heritage from WW I from 2014 onwards:

World War I | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

 

[Fundive123]

Wow, very interesting and thank you for sharing and posting the link. Also, the photos in the photo gallery are really neat.

 

[TomZ]

Did a little reading on this: Publication Name: (see pg. 7 of the linked documents FAQ's)

I'm not so sure I agree with their in situ directive. That's like saying, yes we know significant artifacts are buried at XX location, but we don't want them dug up, displayed or be used as educational devices. What good is done here? I'm against looting any historical site, but ethical archaeological practices bring artifacts to light for the world to see.

 

[Grocio]

TomZ,

I agree with you in that best archeological practices help recovering underwater cultural heritage for the world to see. It seems that UNESCO's encourages to visit wrecks in situ, but discourages artefact removal by non-scientists (see Museums and In situ visits | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, first paragraph).

 

[koozemani]

Did a little reading on this: Publication Name: (see pg. 7 of the linked documents FAQ's)

I'm not so sure I agree with their in situ directive. That's like saying, yes we know significant artifacts are buried at XX location, but we don't want them dug up, displayed or be used as educational devices. What good is done here? I'm against looting any historical site, but ethical archaeological practices bring artifacts to light for the world to see.

From a legal and/or moral standpoint, what amount of time would need to pass before a grave becomes an archeological site? I'm asking seriously, and wondering if there is an established time period.

excavating a Egyptian pyramid = archeology
digging up grandma = looting/grave robbing

with the sea taking its toll on the wrecks, I would be in favor of some limited archeological artifact recovery.

 

[Grocio]

Koozemani,

The 2001 UNESCO's Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage stipulates a period of 100 years. I quote here the relevant part of Article 1 of the Convention:

"Article 1 – Definitions

For the purposes of this Convention:

1. (a) “Underwater 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 such as:

(i) sites, structures, buildings, artefacts and human remains, together with their archaeological and natural context;

(ii) vessels, aircraft, other vehicles or any part thereof, their cargo or other contents, together with their archaeological and natural
context; and

(iii) objects of prehistoric character.

(b) Pipelines and cables placed on the seabed shall not be considered as underwater cultural heritage.

(c) Installations other than pipelines and cables, placed on the seabed and still in use, shall not be considered as underwater cultural heritage."

 

[Lorenzoid]

From a legal and/or moral standpoint, what amount of time would need to pass before a grave becomes an archeological site? I'm asking seriously, and wondering if there is an established time period.

excavating a Egyptian pyramid = archeology
digging up grandma = looting/grave robbing
. . .

Some previous discussion of this: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/un...aeology-salvage-shipwrecks-human-remains.html

 

[koozemani]

Some previous discussion of this: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/un...aeology-salvage-shipwrecks-human-remains.html

Thanks, I was looking for thread but couldn't find it.

 

[Redshift]

It's really an interesting year. Wrecks from WW I will start to fall under the Unesco Convention! Although I think that sites of historical importance should be protected even if younger than 100 yo.

Unesco is trying to go in the direction of protecting archaeological artifacts in situ and I think it's a really interesting idea. They are not saying that sites should not be studied not artifacts collected. But that it should always be considered the possibility of leaving the site underwater instead of lifting everything. I think that small, fragile and important objects will always be collected, when they being left there presents a risk and when there is historical value to collecting them.
Very often when a site was studied, everything would be taken, even when nothing was gained in doing so. Many of those things are not even displayed for the public and cannot be reconstructed after. Furthermore they can be very hard to preserve. Canons rust and disintegrate, wood dries up, splinters and disintegrates... If left in their original place and a structure and service is put in place, they will still be accessible (at least for divers, but I wonder if some of those underwater museums won't be also for non-divers), will remain in their original context and disposition.

 

[Jared0425]

The wrecks only fall on the UNESCO if the country signs the treaty. Although I do not agree with many things about the UN and Archeology, I also know the feeling of diving a wreck with nothing on it.