This is an interesting problem for an ethics bowl.
After a long court battle, RMS Titanic, Inc., had been awarded salvage
rights, but not ownership of the wreck or artifacts. This meant that
the company could control the wreck site, and would own all media
produced from the wreck or exhibitions based upon the objects
recovered from the site, but they could not sell objects
individually. It was my understanding that this ruling created a
covenant on the wreck's salvage that assured that no future owner
would be able to sell the objects.
That arrangement turned RMS Titanic, Inc, into an "Edutainment
company" like National Geographic or the Discovery Channel. It also
opened up an ethical "loophole" for collaboration between professional
archaeologists and the company that held salvage rights to the wreck.
Make money from education and exhibition, but disallow sale of objects.
I was pretty surprised to hear that the upcoming expedition by RMS
Titanic, Inc./Premier Exhibitions LLC had been joined by The Institute
of Nautical Archeology, Woods Hole, The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Natural Marine Sanctuaries Program, and
The National Park Service's Submerged Resources Center. These
partnerships were announced at the end of July:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/premier-exhibitions-schedules-investor-teleconference-to-discuss-2010-expedition-to-titanic-wreck-site-2010-07-27?reflink=MW_news_stmp
The ruling described in the article that Geoff posted means that the
company, or the court, may start selling artifacts. This creates a
very clear and serious ethical and professional conflict for the
research partners announced two weeks ago.
I wonder how they will react.
Best,
Tim
For a detailed legal overview of Titanic salvage by a law student,
click here:
http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/eilr/20/20.1/Miller.pdf
On Aug 16, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Robert L. Schuyler wrote:
> I do not think the issue is that the Titanic is a grave (I doubt if
> any bodies are still in the wreck) but rather that it is an
> historic, underwater site. It should be explored but explored by
> professional underwater archaeologists. Such exploration should be
> based on a research design centered on the archaeological study of
> the early 20th century, the resulting artifacts or other materials
> should go into a Titanic Museum where future scholars can study them
> and where the public can see them up close, and if the site is too
> deep for proper exploration it should be left alone until future
> researchers have the technology to reach it safely to do underwater
> archaeology, not artifact grabbing. None of the artifacts should be
> sold by anyone.
>
> I think the "grave - cemetery" issue is a red herring. It is a
> question, rather, of expanding the horizons of historical
> archaeology (land or underwater) to recognize the 20th century,
> along with the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as a full
> part of our subject matter.
>
> Bob Schuyler
>
> At 08:09 AM 8/16/2010, you wrote:
>> This certainly continues to muddy the waters over what constitutes
>> a grave
>> and what is considered salvage. The "H.L. Hunley" seems to have
>> expanded the
>> possibility and now it appears it is creeping into other locations.
>> I wonder
>> when those over loaded German Army hospital ships that were sunk in
>> the
>> Baltic during World War II will be picked over and the graves of
>> thousands
>> ransacked? ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "geoff carver" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 6:29 AM
>> Subject: US firm awarded $110m for salvaging Titanic artefacts
>>
>>
>> > Could have some interesting consequences:
>> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10973009
>> > I had thought the "Titanic" was supposed to be "off-limits" to
>> salvagers,
>> > but if it really is decaying this quickly, then there's not much
>> point in
>> > trying to argue for preserving it as a monument.
|
