Salvagers v. Sovereigns.

[sechan19]

An interesting article in the news today talks about the struggle erupting between Spain and a US-based deep-sea salvage company. The Spanish believe that this company may have found the remains of a ship belonging to their armada - sunk during the Napoleonic Wars and carrying an inestimable wealth of gold and silver treasure. Naturally, both the salvage company and the sovereign nation want this find. The salvage team contends that they found it, and that's that. The sovereign nation states that they never abandoned the ship and have a right to preserve their cultural heritage, of which the ship is a part.

And thus it goes to the courts.

Most intriguing about this situation is that the salvage team flew the treasure out of Gibraltar before announcing their find and that they have refused to give specifics about it - no location, no pictures, nada - supposedly to protect the find. However, I seem to recall that with previous finds, most famously the Titanic, it was simply a matter of declaring the find to the proper authorities and leaving it at that. Once a legitimate claim is made on a find in International Waters it belongs to whoever claimed it. The company's reticence in the matter forces me to wonder if every thing has indeed been run above board, as they claim.

At any rate, the deeper question of who has a claim on buried treasure - the original nation that owned it when it was lost or the lucky sop who finds it years later - is a contentious one, and it will possibly be facing changes. In the past, it has been a general rule that anything found in International Waters is fair game. However, Italy's recent campaigns to win back looted objects and throw light on the importance of maintaining and protecting a country's cultural artifacts might well change the landscape. Or seascape, as it were.

Here's an article on the subject:
Will Finders Be Keepers of Salvaged Treasure? (Washington Post)

Comments

[reteva.livejournal.com]

I agree; it's a very tricky question. On the one hand, a collector who's going to protect the cultural artifact - determine its provenance and provide for its preservation (say that three times fast) - ought to be able to build a collection. On the other hand, treasure hunters who may not do those things should be prevented from damaging a potentially priceless find. Right now, it's hard to say exactly what's going on in this particular situation, but you're absolutely right to point out that there are two, potentially worthy, sides to this argument.

On the side of the collectors, there was an article in the New York times this past week about an American collector who bought and restored the Maison de Verre in Paris but has clear philanthropic intentions rather than self-centered interests in the project. It was rather heartwarming to read. The link may require login, but here it is - if you're interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/arts/design/26ouro.html