- The Ethics of the Lost -
A New Era of In-situ Preservation of Maritime Cultural Heritage
Jason Lain Lunze.
Introduction:
When dealing with the ethics of any discipline one is often easily drawn into arguments over what is right and what is wrong in any general instance. These debates are always also heated in any field or discipline which is new. Like angry children the participants can often be heard at conferences criticizing each other for choices they themselves were not present at the time of the circumstances to give themselves. It is always easier to criticize an action after the fact than it is to give sound and honest advice when it is needed the most. Maritime archaeology is one of those new fields where what is needed is less finger pointing and more honest construction of a professional code of ethics that all participants adhere to. No current problem in the discipline, and there are many, is more cogent of this lack of unity to the topic of a unified code of ethics to our discipline than that of in-situ preservation.
I in this paper humbly propose the formation of a code of ethics as it pertains to in-situ preservation versus excavation. The arguments in this paper are not meant to be all encompassing, there will always be exceptions to any rule, and however for clarity a discussion is needed and therefore given. I therefore propose a formation ethics of excavation based upon three criteria: 1) Is there enough conservation knowledge to preserve the maritime heritage in question?, 2) Are there facilities and infrastructure in place to conserve the maritime heritage?, 3) Is there a community with sufficient ownership to take care and research the heritage for perpetuity? Only after those in charge of the care of the cultural heritage in regards to the questions above can any ethically unbiased and mature decision be made in regards to its future.
The reader will automatically notice that I have left out any mention of “rescue excavations” in the above mentioned criteria. This is due to the fact that the author believes that many in the professional field have taken advantage of the personal argument of “salvage archaeology” to justify the partial or rushed excavation of material culture. Necessity has often been used to justify actions which have no other means to be set into motion and I therefore will address the necessary under the topic of the “polluter pays” principle in the concluding remarks of this text. After reading and going through the three moral prima fade questions above and going through some examples it is hoped that the reader will come to the same conclusion that the author has drawn as well as many already at practice in the field; that the bulk of maritime archaeology should be done with in-situ preservation as its core premise.
Artifact Conservation Science:
The definition of in-situ preservation is tied in directly to the science and what many in the field would consider the art of artifact conservation. For the readers sake we will discuss the morality of excavation versus in-situ preservation with the framework that the definition of in-situ preservation would include partial excavation and documentation with reburial of the examined material culture. This is a controversial topic as well for any movement of artifacts and or sediment could potentially enhance the natural degrading forces found on shipwrecks and other types of maritime heritage that could potentially be found, such as wharves or other structures. This defintition is the only logical one which can be used as we must as the caretakers of the past with woe admit that it is most likely that it will be a fisherman or a sportdiver who makes the first discovery of the wreck and they may undertake their own form of excavation. “All too often finds from underwater sites are indiscriminately removed and, in the process, important archaeological contexts are destroyed. Another mistake is the over-zealous cleaning, which may remove important evidence about the find’s history or usage and destroy the protective coatings that enabled it to survive in the first place. Some finds are discarded when they are found to have little or no monetary value and, after the novelty of discovery has worn off, others are neglected and allowed to fall into decay. All this is to be condemned as nothing short of vandalism.”(Robinson, 1998 p. 3)
In this case which will be discussed more in the section on the role of museums and the community of ownership a judgment call must be made as to the immediate threat level versus what should be preserved for future generations. World agencies have produced guidelines to protect from the abovementioned vandalism. “The reason for protecting underwater sites is partly the large amount of archaeologically interesting shipwrecks and partly because of the growing notion of protecting a representative part of our maritime heritage for future generations. Article 1 of the ICOMOS-charter of 1996 as well as Article 1 of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Maritime Heritage of 2001 put emphasis on the fact that protection in situ should be the first option.” (Manders, 2006 p. 70) However, in the following paragraphs the author will try to convey to the reader the fundamentals of preserving material excavated from a marine setting to add more to the strength of the argument that in-situ preservation should be a first choice in every situation.
As stated in the introduction- Is there enough conservation knowledge to preserve the maritime heritage in question? The answer to this question if you ask any curator or conservator who has had any dealing with material from marine settings will almost always be unanimously NO! A good example of what happens when a artifact from the maritime realm is removed from the environment it has reached equilibrium in can be seen in Figure 1. Whatever form of eutectic crystallization and working the iron or other metal alloy in question takes upon removal from an in-situ environment where it has reached equilibrium its corrosion and decay rapidly increases. This is due to the change of the amount of dissolved oxygen which can reach corrosion cells on the surface as well as deep within the material which is being electrochemically corroded by a dissolved and in some cases a bonded electrolyte of Cl 1- ions. Without the removal of these free ionic species even when kept very dry the corrosion products expand and shatter the artifacts from the inside out. If any moisture comes in contact with this material it hydrolyzes to form hydrochloric acid which solvates already oxidized iron molecules and stripes the surface down for further corrosion to take place deeper in the artifact. Treatment of these objects takes years and even afterwards some artifacts of iron spontaneously decompose in front of those who so carefully conserved them.(Pearson, 1987 p. 76)(Lunze, 2008 p. 79)
Iron is of course not the only material to be considered. For the bulk of ships, if we consider their hulls to be artifacts, are constructed of wood prior to the movement of industrialism which became prominent in the early 19th century. Whole treatises are written on this subject- but to the person who actually develops a practical solution will receive much acclaim. In 1979 after the salvage and partial conservation of the Bremen Cog, Vasa, and Batavia a conference was held in Amsterdam to consider the techniques
Figure 1. Cast iron cannonball which has undergone the typical damage due to the premature air drying of the artifact which has resulted in the expansion of the iron and iron-Cl corrosion products.(Pearson, 1987 p. 213)
which could be employed in the conservation of the wreck of the Amsterdam of 1749 as it resided in Hastings, Sussex. This volume of papers show the technology as it was then. It has for most techniques described not advanced much further to the present day save maybe the fact that freeze dryers have gotten better in water removal.(de Vries-Zuiderbaan, 1979 p.9-110) This work was highly influential in the recovery of the Mary Rose by the Mary Rose Trust even though the Amsterdam herself was never brought ashore but a replica was built for the public. This work was preceeded by another work on the conservation of ships for display, The Conservation of Waterlogged Wood in the National Museum of Denmark, by Dr. Christensen in 1970 which is very similar in outlining the treatment of almost a decade later. The conservation of wood by whatever method you choose is fraught with perils as unlike the conservation of metals like iron you are no longer dealing with simpler in-organic chemistry for the most part, but rather the complex reactions of various chemically organic molecules which make up wood.(Pearson, 1987 p. 164-206)
These are the typical woes of the conservator; to take something which has been lost and recover it not only from the sea but the degradations of time. Pearson in his work talks of the pain it is for the conservator to see degraded artifacts or those artifacts which have been treated by amateurs. As to the necessary “salvage” or “rescue” archaeology of maritime heritage as much of it must be carefully removed from the seabed the premise of necessity is limited. However, rescue operations do occur as the seafloor is a dynamic environment where scour and burial processes can expose and disintegrate shipwrecks just as quickly as a fishing trawler or sport divers.(Manders, 2006 p. 70) The Netherlands has had a long tradition of in-situ preservation and in some cases those wreck which are in areas of reclaimed land must be excavated due biological decay.(de Vries-Zuiderbaan, 1979 p. 9-24) However, these instances mark the exception to the rule and for both can to a certain degree be predicted, necessitating conservation in advance. Many sites can exist for centuries or decades undisturbed- or weeks or months without conservation.
Facilities for Conservation:
Another question that arose in the beginning of this text was- Are there facilities and infrastructure in place to conserve the maritime heritage? The archaeologist is interested in what the archaeological site can tell us about our collective past; in most cases a regional or ethnic groups past.(Greene, 1996 p. 159-184) The archaeologist uses an archaeological site which is a non-renewable cultural resource to try to gather all the sites stratigraphy and material culture to human level. In this at many conferences we see peoples personal stories written hundreds and thousands of years ago, and many anthropologists have debated whether we can actually objectively have a meaningful discourse on our past with regards to those areas not in documents but only represented by archaeology. Whatever theory family you belong to in anthropology if you belong to the subdiscipline of archaeology you are going to need to conserve the material culture you wish to tell a story about.
Most conservation facilities are tied with museums and with a few cases universities dedicated to the training of the next generation of conservators. Other facilities are those which are temporary. Figure 2 shows a crude form of this. The material excavated in the 1984 excavations of the Amsterdam of 1749 which was not particularly sexy for display was returned to the site and reburied. It was removed, however, to expose deeper cultural levels within the wreck.(Marsden, 1985 p. 147-163)
This hints at an underlying problem when we consider the second question on infrastructure. If musuem and or universities are the agencies which are going to be responsible for the facilites to conserve and maintain these objects do they have the funds to do so? and would they want the material? The second question will be addressed in the next section. I have been part of collections meetings at the Virginia Museum of Natural History where I am was employed before becoming a grad student here and can say from experience that no Museum would want an undirected salvage dig or haste as planning is essential for government agencies with budgets that only allow them to preserve and display that which they currently own.(Knell, 2004 p. 179-180)
“The majority of museums concentrate the resources they have allocated to archaeology on the collection of archives from systematic field archaeology projects.”(Knell 2004, p.179) These are the projects which have the long term potential for research and collaboration with other agencies. It is this which is from my own
Figure 2. Timbers excavated from the Amsterdam in a temporary makeshift pool before reburial. (Robinson, 1998 plate 32)
personal experience with museum curation as a tech that they justify to the government and population a museums continued existence through taxpayer support. It is the tenuous connections between museums and researchers which are used to continue research but also keep these unprofitable businesses afloat. Museums therefore want to do nothing to alienate their constituency or their patrons. An example of this can be seen in the Albert Dock regeneration project in Liverpool, England; the Maritime Museum there has a display on the institution of the slave trade which was common there until outlawed in the early 19th century. “This museum’s consideration of the slave trade is dispassionate to say the least. The discussion of the trade is remarkably brief, and is dealt with as if the slaves were just another commodity, like the tobacco and sugar. Certainly, during the period of slave-trading this would have been the common perception of those involved with slavery, but it might be expected that a museum in the twentieth century could afford to take a more critical stance, unless we want our children to equate slaves with cigarettes and bags of sugar.”(Walsh, 1992 p. 141)
This may well be very moral but if the museums have no patrons, then there is no collecting or research. If there is no collecting and research there is also no conservation or excavation. Beyond this interesting political crutch which comes from having museums and universities be the keepers of our material culture the abovementioned instance leads into the founding principle of ICOMOS and UNESCO that was mentioned by Manders. What is important to us now, will that be more or less important to our descendant communities in the future? The trade of humans as possessions will always be controversial especially to the descendant communities who took part in the trade, but as mentioned by Walsh is this not something we should teach the next generation? I would argue that the preservation of all of our past including that which we do not want to be part of is important for our growth as descendant communities. I would want my children to know so that those mistakes would not be made again. Because of these realities the preservation of maritime cultural heritage becomes that much more important. A museum with a limited budget and under the scrutiny of the political correctness of the time in question cannot help in the excavation, conservation, and research of all facets of maritime culture and heritage. This necessitates the use of in-situ preservation for those sites which are not important to us now but that will possibly become important to us in the future.
Ethics of the Receivers Community:
The last question we must ethically address is, is there a community with sufficient ownership to take care and research the heritage for perpetuity? While this seems a vague and arbitrary question it is actually the most important in regards to weather a relic of a descendant community’s maritime heritage is to be preserved. Artifacts or whole ships are hard to preserve, but if there is a community who “owns” the heritage than this may not be a limiting factor to whether it is excavated or not. If the descendant community which takes ownership wants, unless laws prohibiting, they can retrieve their cultural material without the infrastructure of a museum or university. A good example of community ownership can be seen in Figure 3. The Netherlands as mentioned prior has a long standing tradition of in-situ preservation. They also have a long standing tradition of excavation of maritime culture which dates to the middle of the 19th century and earlier due to the expansion of the dikes and levees to reclaim the sea. Many archaeologists in Europe, however, would consider anything post medieval to be the subject of historians and not archaeologists.(de Vries-Zuiderbaan, 1979 p. 11) It would not be until later that people like Thijs Maarleveld would begin to look a more historic wrecks.
It is not the academic community which will be the receiver of the wreck if it is to be excavated but the receiving community of ownership. These people will be those who have a vested interest in the story past present and future of that item of cultural heritage. They may be from the country where, if it is a ship, the ship was lost. It may however, be a ship lost on a distant shore like that of the Batavia. It might be a dockyard or some other infrastructure. No matter what it is someone will have to take ownership of it, otherwise it will be lost. the cultural material can be lost from lack of proper conservation as was the case in the 21 wrecks documented by Nils Akerlund in the Harbor of Kalmar.(de Vries-Zuiderbaan, 1979 p. 21) They could be lost due to the fact that they were not recognized like the Gredstedbro ship. Or they could be lost like the Amsterdam from lack of a community to house and preserve her.
Figure 3. Wreck of a 17th century Dutch Fluyt being excavated in the Northeastpolder prior to lifting and being cut into four pieces for transport to the Museum for Shiparchaeology at Ketelhaven. (de Vries-Zuiderbaan, 1979 p. 11)
The descendant or owning community may not understand a shipwrecks importance. They may also contribute to its destruction as been sport divers and looters. the academics role in this situation should be complimentary with that of the museum and local law enforcement in not only helping the descendant community understand the importance of the wreck or other monument even if it is only for the purpose of explaining why it should be left alone. While there is no strictly adhered to policy on in-situ preservation of maritime cultural heritage, there are rules to further the settlement of this question of how the archaeologists should work in the field. Laid down by the Nautical Archaeology Society. “ i.) NAS members shall adhere to the highest standards of ethical and responsible behavior in the conduct of archaeological affairs. ii.) NAS members have a responsibility for the conservation of the archaeological heritage. iii.) NAS members will conduct their archaeological work in such a way that reliable information about the past may be acquired, and shall ensure that the results are properly recorded. iv.) NAS members have a responsibility for making available the results of archaeological work with reasonable dispatch.”(Greene, 1996 p. 88) UNESCO has similar guidelines for its members and without these guidelines the looting and pillaging of sites without regard for future generations would be rampant and the principle of in-situ preservation would be hopelessly unsupported.
Concluding Remarks:
I in the beginning of this paper humbly proposed the formation of a code of ethics as it pertains to in-situ preservation versus excavation. The arguments and dialogue in this paper show the complexity of the ethics behind in-situ preservation. The three criteria were: 1) Is there enough conservation knowledge to preserve the maritime heritage in question?, 2) Are there facilities and infrastructure in place to conserve the maritime heritage?, 3) Is there a community with sufficient ownership to take care and research the heritage for perpetuity? The answers to these questions can now be summarized in brief.
There is never enough conservation staff, equipment, or knowledge to go around. A wreck can survive undisturbed and will only slowly degrade through time if sandbags and or protective coverings are placed on it when the scour and burial process uncovers it.(Manders, 2006 p. 72) Assuredly as the sun will rise tomorrow however, artifacts for the most part will not survive for any length of time when removed from their equilibrium environment.(Pearson, 1987 p. 105-107). As with the archaeological community in general the facilities as well as the personnel are improvised at best. Most work is conducted through museums which, “...have notoriously limited budgets; far from engaging in rescue excavation or field projects, many of them have enough difficulty in conserving and displaying their existing collections.”(Knell, 2004 p. 180) Most communities have a hard time feeling ownership of a wreck before its significance is explained to them. The archaeologists and academics may not be interested in more historic sites.(de Vries-Zuiderbaan, 1979 p. 11)
With these answers the use of in-situ preservation for the bulk of the maritime heritage around the world seems justified. However, there are some instances in which our ethics must be put aside as can be seen in Figure 4. We live in a modern world full of progress whether we want it or not. Wind farms are being constructed. Pipelines are being laid. Harbors are being expanded and aggregate is being dredged.(Newell and Garner, 2006 p. 132-136) In these cases however, it is important to focus on the principle of “polluter pays”. This would mean that while we continue to grow as a modern globalized society we are allowed to retain our cultural heritage. A stricter guideline on conservation beyond recording is needed and mandated by many professional nautical and maritime archaeological agencies. New work on at risk areas to prevent the loss of cultural heritage must also be funded; searching for those lost wrecks for not only their study and the enjoyment of the world but for their protection in-situ. That is truly what this paper is about; we cannot save everything here and now, but over long enough time we can learn far more by highly selective excavation with in-situ preservation of at the moment stable and safely in-situ sites. That should be the goal of our discipline; not only to ask questions of academic importance, but to ask the questions related to the future of what and how we save our non-renewable cultural resources for the future.
Figure 4. Cooperative windfarm under construction along the Norfolk Coast of England in 2006. One of many potential dangers to undiscovered maritime cultural heritage.(Newell and Garner, 2006 p. 98)
References Cited:
Christensen, B. B., Museumstekniske Studier 1. The Conservation of Waterlogged Wood in the National Museum of Denmark, The National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen 1970.
de Vries-Zuiderbaan, L. H., Conservation of Waterlogged Wood: International Symposium on the Conservation of Large Objects of Waterlogged Wood. Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO, Amsterdam 24-28 September, 1979.
Greene, K., Archaeology: An Introduction. B. T. Batsford LTD, London 1996.
Knell, S. J., Museums and the Future of Collecting, Second Edition. Ashgate Publishing LTD. Burlington Vermont, 2004.
Lunze, J. L., The Distribution, Morphology, and Chronology of Rusticle Growth on the Confederate Submarine H. L. Hunley, unpublished William and Mary undergraduate thesis, 2008 84 pgs.
Manders, M. R., The In Situ Protection of a 17th-Century Trading Vessel in the Netherlands, in In Situ Preservation in the Netherlands 2006.
Marsden, P., The Wreck of the Amsterdam. Hutchinson, London 1985.
Newell, R. C., and Garner, D. J., Marine Aggregate Extraction, Helping to Determine Good Practice. Marine Ecologicl Surveys Limited, 2006.
Pearson, C., Conservation of Marine Archaeological Objects. Butterworths, London 1987.
Robinson, W., First Aid for Underwater Finds. In association with the National Maritime Museum and the Nautical Archaeology Society, Archetype Publications 1998.
Walsh, K., The Representation of the Past, Museums and Heritage in the Post-Modern World. Routledge, London and New York 1997.
No comments:
Post a Comment