21st May 2007, 11:39 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by beamo
If this was HMS Sussex then there should have been two RAOs involved.
Giffords were engaged by the salvagers as their archaeologists, and Wessex Archaeology were engaged by HM Government to ensure that all work was carried out to agreed standards.
Beamo
Yes. Did you read what those "agreed" standards were? An agreement between Odyssey Group and the UK Government to split the profits made from the realisation of the value of the ships cargo. No commitment to protection of the archive (particularly the finds) as a whole, no commitment to long-term storage or display in an appropriate museum, inadequate conservation measures for non-precious finds (pottery, leather etc.), spurious and undefined finds classification processes (so as to screen out stuff to leave behind on the sea bed), specific exclusion of Human remains from the definition of the "archaeological" archive, and no independant monitoring arrangements. The "Standards" also specifically mention how pieces of legislation such as the Protection of Military Remains Act (1986), the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973), and the Valletta Convention don't apply - and can presumably thus be ignored. No mention of the Treasure Act though, and the Government's moral obligation to protecting the UK's heritage. Just an interest in recovering the "monetary value of the site" and the benefits to the "UK taxpayer" of doing so.
Standards "agreed" by whom?