A centuries-old shipwreck may cause Spain to sacrifice future recoveries and reopen colonial wounds.
On October 5, 1804, Spanish navy captain José Bustamante probably frowned when he looked through his telescope and discovered the Union Jack waving at the top of the mast approaching his frigate, off Cape St. Mary near Gibraltar. After overcoming illnesses, storms and attacks from pirates during five long weeks, the Spanish fleet that was bringing a cargo of gold, silver and other valuable goods from South America, was just 180 kilometers away from its final destination in Cadiz. But they never got to enter the safe waters of the Andalusian port.
A fierce attack from the British Navy commanded by Commodore Graham Moore was lethal for the four Spanish frigates. Three of them were conducted to Great Britain after Captain Bustamante surrendered. The fourth one, the frigate Santa MarÃa de las Mercedes was heavily bombed by the British guns and sank, filled with gold and silver coins, and 254 human lives.
The treasure has lain on the ocean floor for over two centuries. On May 18, 2007 the Tampa-based company Odyssey Marine Exploration Inc. announced that it had recovered 17 tons of coins, mostly silver, off the Portuguese coast. It was the most valuable finding from a single shipwreck in history, the company said. A few days later, Odyssey showed some of the coins to the media. The Spanish Government immediately recognized the effigy of King Carlos IV and, matching the archive of vessels sunk, soon concluded that the treasure discovered by Odyssey belonged to Las Mercedes' shipwreck, which contained over one million coins from Peru shipped from the port of Montevideo in 1804.
A new battle began. It is a battle that has lasted almost five years, where diplomacy and the legal arguments have replaced shotguns; a battle undertaken not in the fierce waters of the Atlantic Ocean but in the quiet halls of the American Courts. Its latest episode took place on February 17, 2012, when U. S. Magistrate Judge Mark Pizzo ruled against the American company and ordered Odyssey to return the coins to Spain. At the same time, the U.S. Supreme court declined to hear the case. Nine days later the 600,000 pieces -- worth $500 million -- flew to Spain in two military planes and are now officially part of the Spanish cultural heritage.
The ruling has caused very different reactions on both sides of the Atlantic. The Spanish Minister of Culture, Jose Ignacio Wert, expressed the enormous satisfaction of the Spanish Government; Odyssey Vice President Melinda MacConnel, visibly disappointed, stated that the ruling had been politically influenced and that this precedent would discourage other treasure hunters from reporting their finds in the future. "The items will be hidden or even worse, melted down or sold on eBay," she said.
Despite its euphoria, Spain should not overlook the future consequences of the case. According to estimations of the Spanish Army, there could be as many as 3,000 Spanish shipwrecks that sank during the fourth century colonial age. Some say that the gold and silver inside them could be worth €100 billion, ten percent of the Spanish GDP. These figures could be realistic since the first archeological campaign undertaken by the Spanish Army in 2010 has detected only 128 shipwrecks in the Gulf of Cádiz.
Odyssey is an example of how private initiatives can move further and faster than governments in gathering the information and technology necessary to archeological discoveries. For that reason, the Spanish Government should be careful about the incentives and signals sent to the private agents. This case would have been a unique opportunity to establish a framework of collaboration between private and public agents that could increase the number of discoveries -- and the world's cultural heritage -- as well as profit treasure hunters.
However, Spain has decided not to share the findings and now will have to strengthen the surveillance operations and increase the budget allocated to these activities. While Spain is certainly allocating more money and attention to cultural discovery, it may also be giving up future recoveries. By deterring private initiative, funds and technology, Spain may be forestalling the discovery of cultural treasures.
But this is not the only missed opportunity. During the legal process, the government of Peru has claimed part of the treasure, since most of the precious metals and coins --that were intended to finance the war between Spain, France and Great Britain -- came from the former Spanish colony. Minister Wert has announced that the coins will be split and shown in different museums once they are classified. Nonetheless, it seems that all of them will be museums in Spain. Again, Spain is missing the opportunity to share the cultural heritage with its legitimate co-owners and pay back, at least symbolically, the moral debt that former empires have with their colonies. Indeed, culture and common heritage is an effective instrument to heal wounds from the past, but Spain has discarded it.
The episode of Las Mercedes is a rich legacy in colonial history that marks European wars, maritime battles, colonialism, high tech treasure hunting and international law. But above all, it demonstrates that the final word is never written and that history continues to provide modern countries with means for cooperation and mutual respect. By failing to lead a new approach to the cultural legacy, Spain may be incurring a cost much higher than what the coins of Las Mercedes can pay.
Manuel Garcia-Hernandez has been an adviser to the Spanish Minister of Industry, Tourism and Trade. He is completing his Master's of Public Administration at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
They are completely opposite goals. Treasure hunters may have the best technology, but they don't care about the scientific value of what they salvage - they just want to sell the shiny stuff. Archaeologists care about the cultural value of sites, but require lots of time and money to record, conserve, and interpret the sites.
Suggestions? How can everyone get along?
Melinda is damn right about that. Interesting article, Miguel. Personally, I think that Odyssey should have gotten at least 30 percent of the FMV of the treasure.
"Coins? What coins?"
Odyssey did everything within the laws of the sea and U.S. law. They brought the coins straight to the court system ...and had the rug pulled out from under them. Were it not for Wikileaks we would not know the truth.
The U.S. courts ruled they had NO JURISDICTION, yet ordered the coins returned to Spain. Sounds like jurisdiction to me! Imagine if the courts had said, "We have no jurisdiction, so we request the US State Department arbitrate an agreement between ALL parties - otherwise we will release the coins to Odyssey. You have 60 days."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan_Project
IMO, Spain does have a point inasmuch as this was about the (obviously disputed) waters in the triangle between Gibraltar (UK), Spain and Portugal AND the company refused to disclose the exact position and identity of the ship.
So, what I find disturbing in the actions/ behavior of the company and what IMO rightfully raised suspicion of the Spanish government is this: The company signed an exclusive treaty with Britain but was well aware that Spain (and Portugal) did not want to sign similar treaties. At one point they find somewhere near (or inside) the Spanish (or British? or Portuguese?) waters/ jurisdiction these coins. Why didn't the company disclose the location to prove their claim it was in international waters/ waters outside the Spanish jurisdiction? Why did they, in a cloak-and-dagger action, quickly transport the treasure to an (again) undisclosed location under US jurisdiction?
"the company refused to disclose the ... identity of the ship" - LIE - there was NO ship.
"The company signed an exclusive treaty with Britain" - companies do NOT sign treaties.
"Why did they, in a cloak-and-dagger action, quickly transport the treasure to an (again) undisclosed location under US jurisdiction?" - because Spain keeps acting like JERKS.
Without doubt, the law of the seas does recognize territorial waters (and thus jurisdiction over them). And without doubt, law of the seas does recognize national naval (historic) property. Both aspects could favor Spain's claims over those of a company.
Now, if Odyssey had with their actions set precedence, they simply would dodge these legal national claims by just not disclosing the location and not making an attempt to identify the ship. Plus, it what also prevent others (in this case Spain) to make an attempt at identifying the ship in order to prove their claims in a lawsuit.
Thus, companies could salvage whatever they like, leaving established legal national claims being worthless. They could in the future salvage treasure from ANY vessel ANYWHERE by just escaping to answer questions about location and identity.
"...prevent others (in this case Spain) to make an attempt at identifying the ship" - then Spain should be EAGER to contract with Odyssey. Lets learn the truth! Did you watch the Discovery Channel show "Stolen Gold..."?
"Thus, companies could salvage whatever they like..." - not true,false claim. Stop telling lies and read up!