ISS/v' 0/4/ 0814. Journal (!( Ihe Society/or Undefli'Gter Techno/agy, Vol. 24, .No. 3, pp. 1/5 118, ]()()() l {Jzde 'l '(l er ec no ogy m c ;;: CI.I Reflections on the Legal Standing of 'i: ID Underwater Archaeology in the UK -~ Co» .c'e G. MOMBER Co» CI.I Hampshire and WiRht Trust for lvfaritime Archae%RY, Southampton OceanoRraphy Centre, Southampton, SO 14 3ZH, UK ~

1. Introduction Henry VIII who employed the first King's Antiquary. In the early part of the 16th century, In this paper the value of archaeology is discussed J ohn Leyland was appointed to search out old and its development in Britain outlined. The con- manuscripts, from which he created his Itinerary trasting development of archaeology both under- (1535-1543). This rational approach continued water and on land is examined to assess their under the reign of Elizabeth I when the antiquary relative positions in the profession. Both terres- William Camden produced the first archaeolo- trial and maritime archaeology have undergone gical illustrations in his Britannia of 1586. By significant changes in structure over recent the 18th century Gothic romanticism became years, a review will give an insight into the the vogue and wanton excavations for grave status of archaeology today. goods were conducted in many barrows around the country. 2. Importance of Archaeology Ouring the 19th century, Imperialist ambitions in the Mediterranean opened up a new source of As an archaeologist concerned with mantllne high quality artefacts. Many were brought to artefacts, individuals often ask 'What is the England to be displayed as symbols of ancient point?' or 'Why da we need to measure, record cultures, but little was known of the people who and study artefacts underwater when we can just created them. F ortunately, towards the end of the heave up the good bits and enjoy their splendour 19th century the inadeq uacies of this approach on dry land?' began to be recognised and a new breed of pro- The answer is embodied in a weil recorded fessionalism developed. The qua1ity of excavation quote by the eminent archaeologist Sir improved in sites overseas and more studied Mortimer Wheeler: 'the archaeologist is digging methods were adopted in Britain. up, not things, but people.' This does not imply The Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882 an interest in nothing but skeletons, it means that was the first conservation measure passed by knowledge of the individuals who created the British Parliament. This act protected 26 monu- artefacts are what concerns us, not the material ments in England, three in Wales, 21 in Scotland value Qf the objects themselves. and 18 in Ireland. Oespite government acknowl- A more philosophical answer suggests the need edgement of the heritage, financial support for to study the past to appreciate our own culture. archaeology did not really begin until the The culture of any society is a product of its pre- Second World War when resources were provided decessors. By interpreting its development, an for the rescue excavation of sites threatened by understanding of social evolution is possible. wartime activities. This continued in the 1950s This in turn can enhance national identity and and 1960s when increasing development pressure give citizens a sense of belonging and security. occasioned the Oepartment of the Environment By looking at objects for their own sake, without (OoE) to establish a comprehensive network of employing the tool of archaeology to place them regional Archaeological Units. These all received in a wide context, the opportunity to fully inter- annual OoE grants towards their running costs. pret the past is lost. The Ancient Monuments and Areas Act 1979 (AMAA) changed this, for the first time it stipu- 3. Terrestrial Archaeology in Britain la ted a basis for government funding which was to go to individual projects that justified financial It could be said that the roots of modern day support. In the National Heritage Act 1983 the archaeology in Britain began as a result of the powers to undertake archaeological investiga- European Renaissance. The extensive remains of tions and to publish the results were assumed by the classical world fertilised an appetite for English Heritage (Historie Buildings and knowledge of the past. Intrigue surrounded the Monuments Commission for England), which httle understood relics of former times which led was created on 1 April 1984. The role of English to their study and in turn, respect. Such senti- Heritage (EH) was to provide grants for appro- ments reached England during the reign of priate sites where destruetion was beyond the

115 G. Momber. Rejfeclions on lhe Legal Slanding oI Underwaler Archaeology in {he UK

control of agencies with the powers and resources merged maritime heritage. An area of particular to deal with the problem. Support was to be interest are submerged landscapes. encouraged from developers, and Local As the sea level rose during the last 10000 Planning Authorities were to ensure the archae- years, vast tracts of coastline became inundated. ological implications of planning decisions were In many areas the encroaching sea has covered properly addressed. Clarification of this policy the ancient landscapes in sediment protecting followed the Rose Theatre incident on the South them and the archaeology therein. Investigation Bank of the River Thames in late 1989 when in of this resouree could not only tell us about the 1990, the OoE published Planning Policy contemporary occupants but help to predict the Guidance Note 16 (PPG 16). This document nature, scale and pace of coastal change. puts the onus on the applicants to accommodate Orowned archaeological horizons of particular the cost of any archaeological implications as part interest are those containing organic remains of their planning proposals. Unfortunately for such as peaL These can be dated indicating the maritime archaeology, however, the remit of period that land became submerged and analysis English Heritage and the Local Authorities of pollen and diatoms from within deposits ean currently does not extend below the low water tell us about vegetation and environmental con- mark. Consequently, while the legislation has ditions. As a model is developed, a pattern of sea been of great benefit to the rescue of archaeolo- level fluctuations and associated climatic change gical sites on land, it has very limited applications will emerge. This pattern could then be incorpor- in coastal waters. ated with geophysical and geoteehnical evidenee to aid interpretation of changes in the coastal geomorphology which would be invaluable infor- 4. Marine Archaeology in Britain mation when predicting sea level fluctuations and their potential impact on the coast in the future. Until relatively recently, the potential for finding preserved archaeological material underwater has been little appreciated. Unfortunately, the in- 6. Shipwrecks accessibility of submerged sites has historically Artefact retrieval underwater was being practised placed them beyond the reach of arehaeology. as far back as the 17th century. Divers would be As a result, resources devoted to marine archae- lowered from avessei in a bell from where they ology are only a small proportion of those allo- could salvage cargo or cannon from shipwrecks. cated to land sites. The imbalance is clear when A prime example ofthis is the Vasa which sank in estimates put the area of seabed within the 12mile Stockholm Harbour in 1628 where 53 guns out of territorial limit at almost 50% of the UK land an armament of 64 were raised. Early in the 19th mass. We now know the archaeological wealth century the Dean brothers developed an under- within this sphere can be substantial, including, water suit fed by air from the surface with a fixed not only shipwreck but submerged landscapes. It hood. Using this suit, salvage was carried out on is also clear that the anaerobic silts found on the the Carnbrea Castle, the Guernsey Lily, the Mary seabed have preservation properties that can Rose, the Venerable, the Col/osus and the Royal permit greater survival of organic materials than George. Although activity beneath the water had dry land sites. begun, the restrietions in technology limited large In 1992 responsibility for marine archaeology numbers of people entering the underwater world was adopted by the Department of National and damaging the heritage. Ship salvage was seen Heritage (ONH), which then became part of the as an achievement not as a threat and this was Department of Culture Media and Sport reflected in the legislation. (OCMS) following the General Election of The main concern for ship owners was the pro- 1997. The OCMS is responsible for the adminis- tection of their property after wrecking. This was tration of The Proteetion of Wrecks Act 1973, reflected in The Merchant Shipping Act 1894, they also grant aid training via the Nautical revised in 1995. The act recognises the rights of Archaeology Society (NAS) and currently sup- the original owners and stipulates that any vessels port the Hampshire and Wight Trust for or their contents retrieved from tidal waters Maritime Archaeology (HWTMA) through the should be reported to the Receiver of Wreck. Heritage Grant Fund. Efforts would be made to locate the original owner who had one year to claim the material, 5. Submerged Landscapes following which the Crown gained entitlement to unclaimed wreck. Unfortunately, the law indir- 1t is clear that inaceessibility and relative invisi- ectly encourages the retrieval of goods from sites bility of maritime sites in the past has restricted where salvers have been allowed to keep the development necessary for effective manage- unclaimed finds in lieu of a salvage award. With ment of our submerged heritage. Despite the the development of scuba diving equipment, vast gloomy picture, attention is now beginning to be numbers of dives are made each year all around focused on the question of identifying the sub- the coast, this could be described as an extra

116 Underwater Technology. Vol. 24 No. 3, 2000 threat to the resource which was not anticipated types are given as reqmnng an EIA under the when the act was passed. The reasons for the leg- directive. Included are 'Trading Ports and islation being the protection of the rightful Inland Waterways'. Annex III requires informa- owners, not to encourage responsible archaeolo- tion concerning the Architectural and gical investigation. Archaeological heritage. In 1969 a team of construction workers laying The problems inherent in these policies are the an outfall down the beach, broke from their task relatively limited funds available for full marine at lunch time to dig into the remains of a silt filled archaeological investigation. Most of the best hulk on Hastings Beach with mechanical diggers. preserved marine archaeology is buried beneath The remains were those of the Amsterdam, a the silt. To identify a site of archaeological im- Dutch East Indiaman that stranded in 1749. At portance you need to prove it is there. To prove the time she quickly sank into the alluvium silts at it is there, you need to spend a lot of money on the bottom of the be ach where she is visible at remote sensing surveys and ground truthing. To extremely low tides. Today about two thirds of this end the Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy the ship remain preserved in the silt. The treasure Committee (JNAPC) has produced a document hunters caused a lot of damage which highlighted called the Code of Practice for Seabed the vulnerability of historic wreck sites. A main Developers which has been signed by a large concern was its position, Iying below low water number of seabed users who have promised to mark, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the local report any finds quickly. In addition, the authorities and there was not a suitable International Council on Monuments and Sites mechanism to protect the wreck. The identifica- (ICOMOS) General Assembly ratified an tion of the Mary Rose in 1971 was another event International Charter on the Protection and that raised the profile of marine Archaeology and Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage the need for protection was addressed. In 1973 in October 1996. The Charter is intended to The Protection of Wrecks Act was passed. encourage the protection and management of The Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 (PWA) is the underwater cultural heritage in inland and used to protect a wreck site from unauthorised offshore waters. It is appreciated that it is in the interference due to its historical, archaeological interest of all concerned not to damage the or artistic importance. To date 49 wrecks resource, not only for the reasons outlined earlier, around UK waters are protected. The number is but for practical reasons. If contact is made with very sm all compared with the 32000 records of unknown vessels during mineral extraction, Wreck incidents compiled by the Maritime expensive equipment could be damaged or Section of the National Maritime Record in the adverse publicity could be attracted if unintended Royal Commis sion on the Historical Monuments damage is caused to historically significant of England. Unlike the AMAA which prescribes wrecks. funds for the upkeep of monuments on land, below the water the PW A, as a private members 7. Conclusions bill, cannot. Other legislation which protects wrecks is the Marine archaeology underwater differs from land Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. The archaeology only because it is conducted in a dif- Act has been passed to protect the remains of ferent environment. The archaeologieal material aircraft or vessels used in military service that diseovered below low water is as important as have crashed, sunk or stranded. Once avessei is that found on land and is often in a better state designated, unauthorised interference is illegal of preservation. The relative inaeeessibility of and the perpetrators would be prosecuted by the submerged sites, however, has restrieted our Ministry of Defence. understanding of this resouree resulting in a bias More recent developments which have recog- favouring terrestrial arehaeology whieh in turn is nised the value of the resource are Planning refleeted in the legislation. As soeial and develop- Policy Guidance Note 20 (PPG 20) and EEC ment press ures inerease in eoastal waters, so too Directive 85/337. The DoE set out PPG 20 does the threat to the drowned landscape and the (1992) to remain in keeping with the philosophy arehaeology therein. Perhaps it is about time the of PPG 16, where the developer has to pay. This threat to this finite resouree is reeognised and leg- extends the responsibility of Local Authorities islative parity is aehieved between arehaeologieal beyond the low water mark, although still sites whatever their loeation. within the bounds of dry land. EEC Directive In thc meantime, thc national [aseination with 85/337 evolved in Brussels from a eoneern about arehaeologieal artefacts from the sca is one that the state of the physieal environment and an can be exploited by the maritime industry. We eagerness to prevent further environmental de- only need look to the publicity awarded to terioration. Planning permission is not to be wreck diseovery, the prime example being the granted until an adequate Environmental Mary Rose (which had 24 hour news coverage Impact Assessment (EIA) has been eondueted. during the final stages of recovery) to see the In Annex I of the direetive, a list of nine projeet potential. Sponsorship of marine arehaeology is

117 G. Momber. Reflections on the Legal Standing o[ Underll'ater Archaeology in the UK

not only beneficial to the discipline itself and the Management or Coastal Archaeology. English associated merits previously outlined, it can also Heritage. have many benefits for the sponsor. Firth, A., 1999, Making Archaeo1ogy: The history of the Protection of Wrccks Act 1973 and the con- Bibliography stitution of an Archaeological Resource. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, Dean, M., Ferrari, B., Oxely, 1., Redknap, M., and 28(1), pp. 10-24. Watson, K., 1992, Arehaeology Underwater: The International Council on Monuments and Sites, 1996, NAS Guide to Principles and Praetiee. Archetype International Charter on the Protection and Publications, London. Management or Underwater Cultural Heritage. Delgano, J.P. (Ed.), 1997, Eneyclopaedia of Underwater International Counci1 on Monumcnts and Sites. and Maritime Arehaeology. British Museum. Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee, 1995, Department of the Environment, 1990, Plannin[? Poliey Code of Praetiee .ror Seahed Developers. Joint Guidanee 16: Arehaeolo[?y and Planning. PPG 16, Nautica1 Archaeology Policy Committee. HMSO. Wood, c.. and Joncs, c., 1991, Monitoring Dcpartment of the Environment, 1992, Planning Poliey Environmental Assessment and Plannin[? Guidance 20: Coastal Plannin[? PPG 20, HMSO. Department of the Environment, Planning Eng1ish Heritage and RCHME, 1997, En[?land's Research Programme, HMSO. Coaslal Heritage. A Statement on the

If you i nterested in the science of the sea, and would like to be kept informed about what is happening in oceanography in the UK and other parts of Europe ... Why not join the Challenger Society for Marine Science?

The UK Marine Science Conference is being held on 10-15 September 2000 at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, with talks on biologieal, chemieal, geological and physical oceanography Members may attend this event at reduced rates. Further information and registration detai Is are posted on the conference website at http://ms2000.uea.ac.uk

Ocean Challenge, the 50ciety's magazine, published three times a year, covers the whole range of marine-related sciences in an accessible style

Membership of the Society costs BO a year (f12 for students) For more information, contact Jenny Jones, Challenger Society for Marine 5cience, Room 251/20, Southampton Oceanography Centre, Waterfront Campus, Empress Dock, 50uthampton 5014 3ZH, UK Email: [email protected] Fax: 023-80-596149

118