Abstract
Despite the United Kingdom (UK) having been regarded as one of the richest hotspots for underwater cultural heritage (UCH), its policy and practice regarding its protection has displayed some areas of weakness. This paper makes a case to review the legal framework and its overall administration in the UK, in order to protect and preserve any remaining UCH before it is further lost or damaged. First, we introduce some of the flaws in the UK’s legal system protecting UCH, demonstrating how it has led to a considerable loss of cultural heritage and underlining how it is in need of modernisation. This includes discussion of issues raised in a number of recent cases, including the proposed Victory (1744) recovery project, the proposed Goodwin Sands dredging licence and various cases relating to the illegal recovery of material. We then map out how policy is implemented in practice and the role played by various institutions involved with its administration, where we find a schism between what policy intends and what it is achieving in practice. This takes us towards a broader discussion on how legislative reform might look, including a more proactive and ambitious approach to the future management and enjoyment of the UK’s impressive UCH. Here we argue the need for better engagement at the global and regional negotiating table, as well as in favour of adopting a unified and consistent policy which aims to be more sustainable, precautionary, proportionate and inclusive.
Highlights
The Need to Protect the United Kingdom’s Underwater Cultural HeritageThe waters around the United Kingdom (UK) are perhaps the world’s richest in terms of underwater cultural heritage (UCH)
As a result of fragmented legislation which has not kept in line with contemporary challenges, or which has traditionally tolerated or incentivised the removal of and interference with UCH, large numbers of the heritage assets found in UK waters have since been damaged or destroyed (e.g. Tomalin et al 2000, 32; Rednap 1990, 23–30; Parham et al 2013, 403–438)
It was clear among many in the archaeology community that OME and the UK government were motivated largely by the financial reward available from salvaging the estimated £500 million worth of gold and silver coins believed to be on board (Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee 2010)
Summary
The Need to Protect the United Kingdom’s Underwater Cultural HeritageThe waters around the United Kingdom (UK) are perhaps the world’s richest in terms of underwater cultural heritage (UCH). Despite many of the world’s major nations seeing UCH as outside the purview of commerce and the law of salvage—a doctrine traditionally providing financial reward for the raising and resale of wrecked vessels and cargo—the UK remains a member of a decreasing number of states who suggest that archaeological sites can be salvaged for commercial gain (UK UNESCO 2001 Convention Review Group 2014, 73–75; English Heritage 2004, 7–8).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
