Nelson & His World

Yesterday's Times had a short leader on the plans to raise the older HMS Victory that sank on 4 October 1744.

The comment compares 'our' Victory, with its 'adored and eccentric one-armed Admiral' that covered itself in glory and now rests forever honoured in her dry dock with the older Victory, captained by 'plodding Sir John Balchin' who had not gained sufficient prize money to retire until his luck changed and he was sailing homeward with up to £500 million (in modern money) in gold coins when he ran into a storm and sank.

The leader ends:

'Captain Balchin scoured the seas and eventually succumbed to them. Odyssey Marine [the salvage company aiming to raise the sunken Victory] scours the seas more efficiently and stands to profit more handsomely. Is that really so unfair?'

Bearing in mind that the ship is also a grave, do members have any comments?

Well, here we go again!

Contrary to what the article says, 'plodding' Balchin had quite a successful career and missed out on much money through bad luck – sound familiar? (They also failed to pick up on the fact that Nelson was often similarly placed during his career, although Balchin seems to have been the more peeved.)

'Captain' Balchin had, in fact, been an Admiral for some years by the time of the Victory's sinking in 1744. Here is the Wiki entry for him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Balchen

As to the excavation of the wreck, from their earlier DVD of the diving on the Victory I get the impression that the employees of Odyssey Marine are just as much interested in the history of the wreck, as to any potential financial gain there might possibly be. Thus I would imagine that they will treat any human remains found with the respect they deserve. Indeed, with the marine archaeological world, the MOD, and others with a vested interest looking over their shoulder, I find it difficult to believe they would act in cowboy fashion. The DVD finished with the raising of two of the guns. I hope they make another continuing the story, if they go further.

Regarding diving in general on wrecks that have 'war grave' status, I am not so opposed to this, as many who just want to leave them undisturbed. If the diving is carried out in a controlled, respectful way, with all the appropriate organisations and individuals being kept informed and consulted, I can't really see what harm this does and it might add to our maritime knowledge. After all, it is only the living that have this attitude, and naturally any relatives. I would think that those who perished might say, and particularly if the ship disappeared in unusual circumstances: 'Please dive on our ship, find all the evidence you can as to why she sunk, and let the world know about it.'

There is a very trenchant letter in today's Times from Robert Yorke, the Chairman of the Joint Nautical Archaeology Committee expressing strong objection to the activities of Odyssey Marine. Unfortunately, there is a paywall so I can't give a link. However his argument is briefly, that many of the artefacts will be dispersed as Odyssey Marine sells a number of them to recover its costs instead of ensuring that they are kept in one place, like the Mary Rose finds, as a coherent narrative for future generations. He makes the point that this sort of practice is not allowed on land excavations and asks why it should be allowed underwater. Moreover, an annex to the Unesco Convention on the Protection of Underwater Heritage 2001, to which the UK is a signatory, states that wrecks should not be exploited for commercial gain. The writer is concerned that, if the MOD were to allow the Maritime Heritage Foundation and Odyssey Marine to sell off Victory's artefacts, it would be in breach of UK government policy and also set a dangerous precedent, allowing future treasure hunters to finance their explorations by selling off the contents of historic wrecks.

I think any 'coherent narrative' that involves the ship being left at the bottom of the ocean slowly rotting away due to entropy if nothing else is of less value than the items being rescued.

Pull the ship up. Treat any remains with respect. I have no problem with them selling stuff to cover costs or even make a profit as long as they do not destroy what might be saved to make a quick buck...

Joss..

Anna,

To be fair, it's probably worth reading again what Odyssey Marine themselves say about their operations. Their website would appear to show that they are just as interested in the archaeological and historical aspects and there would appear to be quite a few names there, together with details of their papers and reports, from the academic world.

They also highlight the fact (as Matrim has reiterated) that the wreck itself is slowly deteriorating on the seabed, for various reasons, both natural and otherwise. It is also worth bearing in mind that it was Odyssey that pinpointed the actual position of the wreck, some distance from the Casquets in the Channel Islands where it has always been assumed she went down:

http://www.shipwreck.net/hmsvictory.php

There have been a few more letters on the subject published in The Times in recent days. I am, as usual, pressed for time, but thought the following remarks of interest - again I must précis because of a paywall/copyright restrictions:

Joe Flatman, Senior Lecturer in archaeology at University College, London, argues that the suggestion that the recovery and resale of materials from the wreck will ensure the site will be preserved for posterity is a fallacious one. Commercial salvage operations, as has been demonstrated time and again around the world [though he cites no examples]lead to a loss of archaeological knowldge from the site itself as time-pressures on profit based recovery preclude a full archaological analysis in situ; lead to irretrievable dispersal of historic materials, the loss of knowledge that can only stem from the sustained analysis of an entire collection, the loss of public access to,and knowledge of such sites through education and the display of complete collections. he suggests that charitable foundations such as the Nautical Archaeology Society should be supported as they are driven by the desire for knowldge of the past and not private profit.

(Please note, I am only the reporter here!)

There have been a few more letters on the subject published in The Times in recent days. I am, as usual, pressed for time, but thought the following remarks of interest - again I must précis because of a paywall/copyright restrictions: (Please note, I am only the reporter here!)

Joe Flatman, Senior Lecturer in archaeology at University College, London, argues that the suggestion that the recovery and resale of materials from the wreck will ensure the site will be preserved for posterity is a fallacious one. Commercial salvage operations, as has been demonstrated time and again around the world [though he cites no examples] lead to a loss of archaeological knowledge from the site itself as time pressures on profit based recovery preclude a full archaological analysis in situ; lead to irretrievable dispersal of historic materials, the loss of knowledge that can only stem from the sustained analysis of an entire collection and the loss of public access to,and knowledge of such sites through education and the display of complete collections. He suggests that charitable foundations such as the Nautical Archaeology Society should be supported as they are driven by the desire for knowledge of the past and not private profit.

Anna,

Apologies if it seemed that I came over rather strong. It was not intentional and, of course you, are not to blame. I have no intention of (metaphorically) shooting the messenger!

Interesting views of other authorities that you have posted. However even though valid, these thoughts would appear to remain just that and do not seem to have turned into any form of action plan. One also has to ask: If Odyssey, who have the time, expertise and specialist equipment, do not do it – who is going to? No-one else has come up with a plan, so far as I know, and I would imagine this comes pretty low down on the government's list of priorities, if it appears on it at all in these hard times. Perhaps too, even the RN may not have the expertise, or time, to do this.

I might be wrong, but I still think Oddysey have the MOD and the government breathing down their necks, and wouldn't want to put a foot wrong. It certainly wouldn't do there reputation much good in this case. I know they have been accused of treating other wrecks in a 'cavalier' fashion, but would they be able to do so with such a historical and well-documented vessel?

It will be interesting to follow this, but perhaps it might be a case of 'rather the devil you know'.

Looks like Odyssey Explorer is anchored & at work on HMS Victory wreck site already - they seem to have requested 1 mile clearance for 'seabed op'. See her position here on a Live Ships Map: http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/defaul ... pe_color=9 . Zoom out for a better idea of the location - almost halfway between Guernsey and the Lizard.

And here's a link to a summary of Margaret Rule's defence of Odyssey's excavation: http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=24960 . Margaret Rule was Archaeological Director of the Mary Rose project (1974-94). It's a shock to read that one cannon has actually been dragged 200 metres from its 2008 position and that another has been removed by a Dutch salvage company.

Thanks for comments - and, Kester, it's OK, no apology needed. It's just that I can see the arguments on both sides and so had no fixed position on this: though I'm swinging to the 'anything's better than nothing' camp. Ideally, everything would be carefully analysed and catalogued by specialists untainted by the lure of filthy lucre, but where's the money to come from for that in these difficult days? Unless we can persuade the Chinese to stump up..........

Anna,

Then I shall retract it.

Here's a further page from Odyssey's website, the second half of which relates to the information Tony has just posted:

http://www.shipwreck.net/hmsvictoryoper ... erview.php

I think we can all see both sides of the argument but, from what is written there, I thInk I would give Odyssey the benefit of the doubt. It would seem too, as if time is of the essence.

The Chinese, now there's a thought... although one wonders what they would want in exchange.

I'm far from convinced, and like Joe Flatman, would like to know more about the Maritime Heritage Foundation. Its website is far from informative!!! http://www.maritimeheritagefoundation.org/

And apparently the MOD gifted the Victory wreck to them without knowing that they already had a contract with Odyssey, and without the normal departmental minute in the House of Commons as is customary with gifts exceeding £250,000.

This is from the MOD website. It gives a little more about the MHF (although not much), and there are other Victory links:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Defen ... dation.htm

Re the site being a grave: graves are regularly dug up (either purposely or accidentally) by archaeological excavations on dry land. Whatever human remains are left can be taken away and poked, prodded and pulled apart by forensic scientists etc for the purpose of research. I actually am against such things and believe the dead should be left to rest, though, but for that reason I don't think there's much of an argument for not disturbing the human remains in the Victory, but I'd hope they'd be treated with respect.

That said, though, I doubt there'd be much of them left after all this time underwater so it may be a moot point!

As for the site being plundered... I don't see what purpose it serves to leave all the bits and pieces where they are especially as a lot of it has already been dragged about and moved by trawlers and whatnot. Also, all sorts of historical artifacts are sold and kept in private collections all the time, but here it sounds like the MHF would be interested in preserving anything that is pulled up so I don't see much of a problem with it. However I don't agree with the original point that because 'Captain' Balchin scoured the seas for profit, it's ok for anyone else nowadays to do the same. The argument that what someone has done in the past justifies someone doing the same thing now is a bit silly.

I thought I would post this from the BBC news website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe- ... y-16686628

Although dated January, thus the information might already be known by some of those here, it says that the chairman of the Maritime Heritage Foundation is a descendant of Admiral Balchin. Obviously then, some of those intimately connected with the wreck are not opposed to: a) an official dive on the site, to recover the artefacts and put them on display; b) the idea of carrying out these operations on a 'war grave' (and here the grave of an ancestor); or c) the methods employed by Odyssey Marine Exploration.

It is worth reading the consultation documents, if anyone hasn't already done so, which were given a link on the MOD site (right hand side) that I posted earlier. As one might imagine they are of some length, but provide much useful background information. It is obvious that any decision based on them was not going to please everybody, but serves to highlight just how difficult it is to come to any form of agreement.