A Proposal: Future Solutions

 In this blog I wish to propose future solutions for archaeologists to work with salvors.

1. I think that above all, all wrecks (whether they are found by salvage companies, the Navy, archaeological surveys, etc.) should be evaluated by an academic archaeologist in order to determine if the site is arcaheologically significant or not. I think that with time this stipulation should become an enforced law. Then, if the site is archaeologically significant, the proper steps for the proper excavation, conservation, and publication can be taken.This law will also allow for the protection of sites because they have been evaluated, that way if an academic archaeologist cannot get to the site right away, it will not be looted or salvaged. 
2.  Secondly, I think that there should be a law that forces salvage companies to properly excavate and record a site to academic standards. The salvage company should also provide the adequate financing required in order to carry out projects beyond the retrieval of the artifacts to conservation, publication, and curation of the finds.

a.       This law may be enacted for an archaeological site that poses some sort of threat, such as environmental, and can therefore not be postponed until an academic archaeologist is able to perform the excavation.

3.       With the second point being said, I also believe that in order for a salvage company’s excavation and    research to be deemed legal or legitimate, it must have an academic archaeologist present during the excavation who will ensure that the proper excavation and recording of artifacts is carried out. 
4.    I also think that in order for academic archaeologists to participate well and willingly with salvage companies, an agreement must be made concerning who benefits financially from the excavation. I think that all archaeologists, including non-academic archaeologists, should be forbidden by law to participate in any projects that profit from the sale of artifacts. I think that this stipulation will require the utmost effort on behalf of all parties involved in an excavation.

a.       I can only suggest that salvage companies will be compensated for their findings by governments or by those who support academic archaeology. I also think that some sort of agreement may be reached between salvage companies and museums, for example, which can rent objects from the salvage companies, that way the salvage company still benefits financially from its finds, but it is equally participating in the public outreach and education aspect of archaeology.

      5.     Conversely, I think that if academic archaeologists are not able to form a working relationship with salvage companies, they must look for assistance elsewhere. I think that one of the best bets for academic archaeologists would be to partner with government organizations, such as the Navy, which has far superior techonology. This advanced technology can give academic institutions the edge on salvage companies, as very few can afford similar technology.

a.       An example of this idea being put into use today is the NR-1 nuclear submarine. This submarine can remain submerged for weeks, even months, and uses high-resolution side-scan sonar which allows it to “see” more than 600 feet on either side of the vessel. This technology is being used to pinpoint debris fields which are all potential targets for archaeological research (James Delgado 2006, 215 in Archaeological Ethics).

Issue: Urban Sprawl VS Archaeology

"The architectural and artistic value of the temple is immense. The temple can be saved and honoured as part of Greece's rich history if its importance is realized and respected by the government. Cultural pride and history must be preserved and valued. Only one third of the possible artifacts have been excavated from this site."

This article first intrigued my interest because it sparked my interest towards archaeological sites being destroyed by construction efforts. The site that this article and blog talks about is completely covered by vegetation and litter. This is completely against the archaeological ethic of preserving the past and it is actually quite shocking that a known archaeological site is still not being given the respect that it should have.

                The archaeological site to which I am referring is the 6^th century BC Temple of Aphrodite located in a part of the ancient area of Thessaloniki and now resting within the municipality of modern Thermaikos in the city Square of Antigoninon. The article from Popular Archaeology explains that the temple is a “Late Archaic period temple, 200 years older than the Parthenon, [which] was originally built to honour the Greek goddess of Aphrodite (Venus), the goddess of love, in the 6th century B.C.  It was later moved during Roman times to another location, which was considered a sacred area where there was a concentration of temples and shrines.” It is clear that this temple had extreme significance in ancient times as it was not destroyed, but moved to a place of extreme religious importance.

                The remains of the temple are in no way preserved or presented properly to the public. The temple is currently sandwiched between modern buildings, hardly recognizable to anyone who walks by, and is tucked away behind metal construction fences. The temple is in danger in its position due to growing urban sprawl. It is fair to note that some of the temple’s objects and architecture features have been can be seen by visitors today preserved in the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki. Although some parts of the temple are being properly preserved, the majority of it still lies unprotected in a damaging area. The article states that “the temple is a symbol of national pride, thought of as not only a treasure of Greece but a priceless representation of global heritage.” Therefore, we have the ethical right to push to have it properly protected and preserved. 

The Central Archaeological Council has not been able to expropriate the land which the temple sits on, as the owners are not interested in expropriation. This problem will ensure that new construction will hide the remains of the temple indefinitely. The issue of the Temple of Aphrodite represents an issue of urban development versus archaeological protection and preservation and therefore much be addressed effectively and in a timely manner.

Below I have posted some pictures of the site of the Temple of Aphrodite, and how it stands currently in its position within the city. It is shocking to see that the temple has become completely overgrown with vegetation and is covered with litter and refuse. This is NOT the way an important part of our history should be treated, especially since we are aware of its location and importance.

 For more information about the Temple of Aphrodite and the issues surrounding it, please visit: http://templeofvenus.gr/en.

Issue: Construction Damaging Archaeology

An article from ArchaeoNews is as follows:

“Ancient Bulgarian settlement destroyed by bulldozers”

An archaeological site in Bulgaria, including remnants of a village said to date back 8000 years, has been destroyed by bulldozers, allegedly the work of a construction company building part of a new road from Bulgaria to Greece. A special commission from the Ministry of Culture is inspecting the damage to the site, near Momchilgrad, and police are investigating.
     Zharin Velichkov, chief inspector of the Bulgarian Ministry of Culture said that the site had individual layers dating back thousands of years, believed to reach back as far as 6000 BCE. He said that he could not say who had committed the destruction but it was most likely the company that had been carrying out work in the area.
     The construction company had been given accurate maps of the area, with archaeological sites marked. The mound of the site, which also included a medieval church, were a few hundred metres from the planned road to Greece. Archaeologists are now trying to rescue anything remaining after the bulldozing.

This article brings to light the issues surrounding construction around archaeological sites. The article states that the construction company was given maps of the area in order to avoid doing damage to the surrounding sites. One would think that this sort of information would have been enough to keep the company from damaging the archaeological sites. I feel that this information should have been enough for the construction company, but it brings up the idea that maybe more efforts and supervision have to be put towards all construction sites close to archaeological sites. The archaeological sites should be protected and respected by any and all, and an instance such as this may be a sign that construction sites and companies need to be more informed about the damaging effects that they can have on precious archaeology, and that maybe there needs to be something set up in order to supervise these sites more efficiently.

Issue: Local People Protecting Local Archaeological Sites

       

        

         An aerial view of one of Nasca's giant animal tracings.

         In Lima, a Peruvian farmer is facing fines after digging a well in the middle of the Nasca archaeological site. Nasca is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and thus should be protected and respected by locals. The farmer, who owns land nearby, drove his tractor past warning signs and ended up destroying three geometric lines in the ‘campos barridos, or ‘swept fields,’ section of the site. Nasca’s giant tracings of lines and animal figures in Peru’s southern Ica desert can only be seen fully from the air, though the ancient drawings date back to the fifth or sixth century BC. Since they date more than two millennia before human flight, they are one of the world’s greatest archaeological mysteries.

       

        According to the newspaper report of the incident, the farmer will have to pay fines and restoration costs. Although I am not well versed in legal proceedings for an offense of this nature, I would think that the farmer should be subject to more punishment. Not  only is Nasca already protected under UNESCO as a World Heritage Site, but the site itself was also marked off and the farmer, being a local, was most likely aware of its existence and location. If the case is that the farmer was not aware of the site, then I think that strong efforts should be made towards educating local peoples of archaeological sites and the importance of protecting and preserving them. Local peoples are one of the first defences that an archaeological site can rely on for protection. But if the local peoples aren’t able to protect these sites because of lack of knowledge, then we are not doing all that we can to protect our heritage.