Management

Legislation underpins much of the work of the professional maritime archaeologist. There has also been considerable debate within maritime archaeological circles over codes of ethics (see Ethical Issues and Responsibilities). Part of this debate relates to the question of dispersal of collections. Is it acceptable, for example, to excavate a site and then sell the collection? Is it acceptable for a museum to buy material on the auction market which has clearly come from a site that has not been excavated in an archaeological manner? In many situations, the archaeologist is required by law to sell the collection. In other cases, the sale of the collection finances the excavation work, and by necessity the material must be sold in order to carry on working. It is quite clear that, at the turn of the century, we have seen major and important wreck collections sold at auction. While some material has gone to museums, the majority has been dispersed, and thus been lost. Usually the only way that the material has been recorded is in an illustrated auction catalog which, for archaeological purposes, is totally inadequate. The issue has been addressed in a number of forums: the ICOMOS International Committee on the Underwater Cultural Heritage and the International Congress of Maritime Museums being the most significant.

As far as the question of artifacts from shipwreck sites is concerned, there are now several schools of thought holding widely divergent views on these issues. The purists argue that the collection is unique and, if dispersed, the information will be lost forever. Therefore, no excavation should take place unless the material can be conserved and then preserved. The pragmatists state that sites will be excavated or looted and, unless the material is recorded, it will be totally lost. Their approach is to work with the salvors and try to preserve and record as much as possible. The purists claim that this is self-defeating. By giving archaeological respectability to looting or salvage, it is legitimized and, in the long run, even more material will be lost. The treasure hunters argue that, but for them, the sites would never be found. In their eyes, archaeologists are incompetents who are trying to take away the right they have, as treasure hunters, to the rewards for their endeavors. Within this hotbed of dissent exist questions relating to the position of amateurs and nonprofessionals - questions of who is to take responsibility for conservation, storage, and display of material. It is, therefore, not surprising that some terrestrial archaeologists find the maritime field difficult to accept as a fully fledged academic discipline.