Wreck Preservation in Canada of artifacts. Professional ethical codes make it difficult or impossible for many archaeologists to consider working for salvage firms. State Historic Preservation Officers and other review agencies then find it difficult to assure compliance with NHP A, Section 106. Is it more important to acquire data whenever an archaeological site is subjected legally to negative impacts as permitted by the regulatory structure, or to avoid all contact with those going after treasure and other marketable artifacts? Should contact with the treasurehunters be avoided, even at the cost of losing irreplaceable information? And is the archaeological community going to be able to enforce CRM standards in salvage firm operators while the community is boycotting these firms? These questions have yet to be resolved. Continued dissension within the archaeological and historic community caused by the issue of private ownership will lessen the effectiveness of CRM efforts. The abandonment of the field to non-professionals, censorship of information collected by qualified individuals, and the time and energy spent on the ethical questions have already reduced the amount of data which could have been collected and disseminated regarding these important historic archaeological sites. Mr. Hamilton is the Principal Investigator of the Whydah Project, working with Maritime Explorations Inc., PO Box247, South Chatham, Massachusetts 02659.
At the Annual Meeting in May NMHS deplored the action of Sotheby's auction house in dealing in artifacts from the Whydah wreck of/Cape Cod, and ofChristies' in dealing in artifacts from HMS Feversham off Nova Scotia. On these pages Mr. Hamilton defends involvement by the archaeological community in commercial salvage operations like the Whydah Project, on which he works. He suggests that by staying out ofsuch operations the community is losing its opportunity to apply some degree of control, and to recover valuable data. Mr. Ogilvie describes measures to prevent looting such as that of the Feversham and Sea History's Mr. Netter recounts other developments. The forum will continue, with findings to be reached at the NMHS Annual Meeting in May 1990. SEA HISTORY 52, WINTER 1989-90
by Robert Ogilvie, Curator, Special Places, Nova Scotia Mr. MacKinnon (salvor of HMS Feversham) claims to be "the closest thing to a real archaeologist in Canada." This is laughable, although he seems to believe this himself. His skills, which are considerable, are in the realm of diving and exploration. He has shown no real understanding of the science of archaeological excavation. He is a salvor. The "ownership" of the wreck has been a bone of contention. To the Nova Scotia Museum, the issue is a red herring. As the wreck is in the jurisdiction of the Providence of Nova Scotia, no oneincluding the owner-can excavate archaeological or historical remains without a Heritage Research Permit. In the case of excavations, these permits are granted only to qualified archaeologists. Mr. MacKinnon does not qualify. Finally Mr. MacKinnon talks about salvors working with governments to recover booty from wrecks. Unlike Paul Johnston, and perhaps most others in the archaeological community, I believe cooperative ventures are possible in some circumstances. We have evolved what I believe to be a workable structure here in Nova Scotia, involving the complementary application of two pieces of legislation-the Treasure Trove Act and the Special Places Protection Act. The latter takes precedence over the former, so that no one can get a Treasure Trove license without first getting Heritage Research Permit. The untried scenario is this: A person or group decides they want to recover booty from an historic wreck. The Permit forces them to excavate to standards, requires a conservation plan for artifacts as well as submission of photographs, log books, and reports on the work. When the excavation is finished, the conserved and cataloged artifacts go to the Province along with 10% of the treasure trove-precious gemstones and metals in other than their natural state. The other 90% goes to the "salvors," from which they pay their expenses and make a profit or suffer a loss. In other words, the whole process is treated like a business, with appropriate permits, capital, operating expenses, and risk. Needless to say, they'll not be going after "marginal" wrecks. This approach is still untried and until we are approached by a salvage group, it remains conjecture. But it is an arrangement that intends to treat all parties fairly and it should be given a fair chance to succeed.
NMHS Commentary by Michael J. Netter The debate over what to do with salvageable shipwrecks is slowly gaining momentum , each side gaining supporters as new wrecks come to light and new salvage technology is developed. On one hand, NMHS has argued in these pages that historic wrecks should be protected and artifacts from them should not be sold. Paul Johnston, Curator of Maritime History at the Smithsonian outlined in Sea History 51 resolutions passed (specifically by the Council of American Maritime Museums) to inhibit such sales. George Bass, marine archaeologist of distinction, argues that the nature of archaeology should bar the sale of artifacts, as their excavation is only the first of many stages of study they must go through. On the other hand, it has been argued that the rules and guidelines now set up will, if adhered to, save the most important artifacts and information needed for history, while rewarding the finder/salvor by allowing him to sell the rest of what he finds on the wreck. Christopher Hamilton, chief investigator of the Wydah Project sees valuable information slipping through our grip as we argue over the sale of artifacts, and urges archaeological cooperation with responsible salvage efforts that comply with existing laws. But is compliance with the law as it stands enough? The Confederate Naval Historical Society newsletter (CNHS, 710 Ocran Road, White Stone, Virginia 22578) reported on a recent threat to the remains of ironclads of the Jam es River squadron-Stephen Mallory 's famed "chained bulldogs" that protected Richmond from the Federal Navy's monitor fleet and were sunk as obstructions late in the Civil War-seven miles below Richmond, Virginia. By issuing a municipal contract to have the channel dredged (thus destroying most of the wrecks) the Corps of Engineers requirement for archaeological surveys prior to dredging was bypassed. "There are now plenty of laws on the books designed to protect national treasures such as these ... but somehow an entire fleet of ships was slipping rapidly through the cracks to a second and final destruction," notes CNHS. Citizens rallied around to stop this, using among other arguments the value of the historic ships in planned development of the waterfront to attract tourists. The Department of Interior got involved, and now it appears the ships are to be prop9