Underwater cultural heritage protection in the UK: the failure to commit to the future
Channel: Recording Archaeology
Date: 16/09/2017

The UK has the fifth largest economy in the world and yet very little government investment is made to support the historic environment, and that investment is getting smaller. For the marine environment there are some stark figures. Protection of the 50,000 sqm in Historic England’s terrestrial remit requires a listing team of around 80 and a planning team of around 320. Compare this to the roughly 21,000 sqm of English territorial waters. There are two on the listing team and three on the planning team. The remit of this team also stops at the 12-mile limit, as apparently the regulator does not consider archaeology of any consequence to exist beyond 12 miles from shore.
Government policy documents like Our seas – a shared resource: High level marine objectives will fill the reader with hope. Phrases like ‘There will be appropriate protection for, and access to, our marine heritage assets’ are comforting. Objectives like ‘People appreciate the diversity of the marine environment, its seascapes, its natural and cultural heritage and its resources and act responsibly’ give the impression that the emphasis is on protecting the UK’s rich maritime assets.
The reality is considerably different: acts of parliament actively reward salvage intervention, even on historic sites; backroom deals are conducted with thinly disguised salvors; sovereign immune war graves are picked apart with impunity and scant resources given to the advisory body for marine matters. The unwillingness of the UK government to become signatories to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage makes the prognosis for tangible protection look bleak. When compared to other developed nations, many significantly poorer, we are failing the marine historic environment. This paper looks at the reasons why this is the case, the actions other nations take and what might need to happen to prevent further widespread loss.

Toby Gane, Wessex Archaeology