Wreck of HMS Victory Found in English Channel - NYTimes.com
I love shipwrecks. Add in "possibly four tons of gold coins valued at $1 billion." Maybe this could be part of the economic stimulus package? Federally funded treasure hunts. Not so different from what we're doing now really....
Posts
"In July 1744, the flagship and its fleet of warships were sent to rescue a Mediterranean convoy blockaded by a French fleet at Lisbon. After chasing the French away, the Victory escorted the convoy as far as Gibraltar and then headed home."
ReplyDelete"A furious gale scattered the British fleet shortly after it entered the English Channel, and on Oct. 5, 1744, somewhere off the Channel Islands, Victory went down with all hands. The flagship was the only part of the returning British fleet lost at sea."
'Maybe this could be part of the economic stimulus package? Federally funded treasure hunts.'
ReplyDeleteJust because you find something doesn't mean that you have a right to take it. HMS Victory belongs to Britain - she's a military vessel, found in our waters, which makes her legally ours twice over. She's also an important part of our heritage, and those are the bones of our ancestors being disturbed. What gives anyone the right to profit from somebody else's history?
How would you feel if a British salvage crew found an important American ship and took things from it without permission? If you wouldn't like it, then imagine how we feel about your 'treasure hunters' doing this to one of ours. If you want other countries to respect American heritage, then please pay others the same courtesy.
Fair point gresley. The stimulus comment was just a joke, but I do think there's a fine line between discovery and grave-robbing. Let's be honest though, this isn't unique to Americans-- Brits have been "finding" and taking antiquities for hundreds of years, from the Elgin Marbles to half of the artifacts in the British Museum. We could all do a better job of respecting and preserving heritage. Treasure hunting is still cool though.
ReplyDeleteWhile there is a strong element of truth in that, there are two main differences for the majority of museum artifacts. Most of the antiquities within the British Museum were either donated to them, or abandoned by their original owners. The Elgin Marbles are a good example of that - if the British Museum hadn't recovered them over 190 years ago, they might have been completely lost to the elements by now, and at the time there were no official or legal owners. If there had've been, it is unlikely that they'd be in England right now. Victory has always been the legal property of the Royal Navy, so ownership shouldn't be in dispute.
ReplyDeleteAnd preservation was and still is, the primary goal for museums and similar institutions. They don't seek out such things just to make money. Although I fully support returning things like human remains (skeletons and mummies for example), to their home countries. I don't feel that it's right to disturb graves.
The other major difference regards respect towards the antiquities themselves - I have no issue with careful examination of, or the display of historical remains and artifacts within museums, wherever they are in the world, or whoever they originally belonged to (with permission from the owners of course). I'm concerned over damage done for the purposes of profit, which I don't agree with. Museums care for and preserve their artifacts, but those seeking profit might think only about that profit, and may not handle the site and contents with as much care as say, archaelogists would.
That's where my discomfort of this situation comes from. Would this salvage company (or our Ministry of Defence for that matter), be even remotely interested in the ship if there wasn't any gold? Would they have any interest in searching for anything that doesn't harbour treasure?
If something is going to be treated with respect and cared for, then I have no problem with heritage and history of one country being taken to another. If Victory's cannons for example, were to be recovered so that they could be donated to an American museum for historical education and display, that I would have no problem with. It's the principle of treasure hunting that bothers me, not who ends up with what. And in one article I read, somebody mentioned melting down the bronze cannons to make the metal easier to sell, which would be a permanent loss.
Many countries in the past have been involved in treasure hunting - none of it was ethically right as far as I'm concerned. Lots of things that were once seen as acceptable are no longer so, as humanity has learned and changed. Past treasure hunters may not have considered the implications of what they were doing, but we have the benefit of much greater knowledge regarding the consequences of our behaviour.
For every piece of history that's destroyed or profiteered for whatever reason, I think everybody becomes a little poorer. And that saddens me. We should know better than past generations by now, and pay attention to the legislation put in place to protect such things. Regardless of how people used to behave, or the mistakes and wrongs that they committed, we should be able to treat both our ancestors and each other with more kindness and understanding. The fact that we don't, saddens me further.
I apologise for misunderstanding your joke - I often have difficulty in telling when somebody is being serious or not.