Mr. Bob Blumberg and Delegates to UNESCO:

After having spent what I consider to be an enlightening day at the Department of State speaking with members of our delegation to the UNESCO meetings in Paris, I would like to address a few issues that I see as completely misguided in the UNESCO document entitled single Negotiating Text of March 1st, 2001.

First I would like to revisit the last section of the Preamble, Committed to improving the effectiveness for the preservation in-situ or, if necessary and in Article 3 (old 3) Objectives and General Principals regarding #5: The preservation in-situ of underwater cultural heritage shall be considered as the first option Last year I gave testimony before a committee of NOAA officers considering guidelines for the Titanic. Many of the points I tried to make in that testimony hold true in this case so I will reiterate some of them here. Through my 20+ years of participating in the field of underwater archaeology I have seen very few examples where in-situ preservation should have been the first option. The degree of deterioration varies from place to place yet this deterioration continues in most cases. There are some very notable exceptions to this. The Vasa, Mary Rose, some of the fully excavated Viking ships are among these lucky few. Parts of the Monitor, our earliest ironclad vessel are now being salvaged by the joint effort between NOAA and the US Navy at what must be great expense. Why after a mere twenty-five years has this become such an important salvage effort? Why -because the Monitor is in an advanced and rapidly accelerating rate of deterioration. From my recent participation on the Titanic 2000 expedition I can attest first-hand that the depth of a shipwreck has little to do with its state of preservation. The Titanic is quickly decaying on the bottom and as the interior supports give way to the variety of forms of corrosion, a point of critical mass will be reached and the Titanic, like the Lusitania, the Monitor and thousands of other ships before, will begin to collapse down from its own weight. This is not conjecture or guesswork. This is a materials science fact for most shipwrecks. For the overwhelming majority of shipwrecks in-situ preservation is the worst possible course of action (or inaction). In most cases in-situ preservation is a measure of last resort.

Unfortunately, the fact is that in most cases the proper preservation of the known UCH would be impossibly costly for any of the states to contemplate. Thus the in-situ model has been advocated. However, there is another agenda here. In the current document under Article 3 (old 3) Objectives and General Principals #6 states underwater cultural heritage shall not be commercially exploited The agenda is and has been to end what they view as treasure hunting which is viewed as an exploitative enterprise that destroys the UCH and tears apart the retrieved collections. But this is no longer a valid name for the private sector activities or an accurate portrayal of the activities undertaken by the private sector in the commercial utilization of the UCH. For example, in the case of the company that is the salvor in Possession on the Titanic the collection is being kept intact and the moneys being made from the commercial utilization of this wreck are from the gate revenues at the touring exhibits (exhibits which have garnered enormous public interest and support.) Even in the case of more traditionally commercially utilized historic shipwrecks such as the Atocha, the Margarita and the 1715 Fleet, in at least three museums in Florida permanent collections of materials recovered and conserved are displayed and parts of the collection are displayed in other museums around the world. Some of the materials recovered are in private collections, however, a visit to almost any major museum in the world will demonstrate how heavily museums rely on private collections for their exhibits. The simple fact is most states (both in the U.S. and through-out the world) cannot afford to own or support the maintenance of these materials and must rely on the private sector, without which an extraordinary amount of what we know as great art or cultural heritage would never have been found or conserved.

The state of Florida has been the recipient of collections of material produced by the private sector for over forty years, through constant work and searching by the people who were at first only treasure hunters. However, both underwater archaeology and the private sector historic shipwreck salvors have evolved along parallel paths. Each has learned from the other in significant ways. The commercial concerns that utilize the UCH have grown in awareness as to the value of supporting proper archaeology and historical research when dealing with shipwrecks. It is in their best interests to do so. Over the past forty years Florida has worked along with the private sector on the site of the 1715 Plate fleet. The State of Florida has received 20% of all the finds of this endeavor. As a consequence they are the owners of one of the largest collections of Spanish Colonial material in the world. Close to 85% of all the finds from these sites fall into the category of non-commercial. That is, they hold no monetary value to the salvor doing the recovering. These may include items such as fragments of utilitarian pottery, undifferentiated iron fasteners, and the like. Yet all of these items were recovered under a set of archaeological guidelines that were put together by State of Florida archaeologists, historians and historic shipwreck salvors. This recordation effort has allowed us the opportunity, using new technologies for the mapping of the sites to recover a vast amount of meaningful data. It has been my great pleasure to watch and participate in this evolution of one of the most detailed underwater archaeological surveys ever undertaken - the twenty-plus year effort by the private sector in conjunction with the State of Florida on the wrecks of the 1715 Fleet.

I have advocated for many years a private-public effort in the preservation and utilization of the resource. The Monitor and the Hunley are two such models where the private sector and the public sector have come together to preserve the UCH. In this context guidelines must, of course, be drawn up and implemented for dealing with the UCH. But to totally eliminate the participation of the private sector in these endeavors because of antiquated ideas about treasure hunters would mean, ultimately, the loss of a great deal of historical and cultural knowledge. A great tragedy for humanity indeed.

This public ñ private effort in the management of the resource is a trend I hope continues and expands. If we eliminate all chance of commercial involvement ñ as the Single Negotiating Text does, we will have eliminated a whole host of avenues by which this resource might have been saved. The truth is commercial interest is not going to disappear. It has been and will continue to be a driving force behind some of the most creative and innovative work of our time (in all areas of endeavor.) However, the effect of this document will be, in all likelihood, to make criminals out of many people who otherwise would have and might have made real and lasting contributions to the UCH.

Unfortunately, those who have drafted this document seem blind to these realities and to the realities of the resource and the industries that have interests in them. Instead of finding creative ways to include the private sector and harness their creative power and financial resources, this document excludes all but a handful of people in any involvement with the UCH. Once again, a terrible waste and loss of talent and resources.

I would urge the members of not only our delegation but those of states considering ratification of this treaty that before they commit they come to Florida and see what the private sector has accomplished over the decades. It has been an extraordinary cooperative effort between the public and the private sector. I would urge all delegates to look very closely at this document and what it actually says and to investigate the alternatives carefully. We have the opportunity to bring together the forces of both the private and the public sectors to save the UCH ñ if we all work together and make saving this precious resource the top priority. I would urge all delegates not to ratify the treaty as represented in the ì Single Negotiating Text.

Respectfully,
James J. Sinclair, Archaeologist
Searex Inc.
South Florida Museum of Natural History
Board of Directors, IMAC