Editorial #4: Archaeology and Sovereignty

Some maintain there are certain archaeological discoveries that are hushed up in NZ - because what is found is not Maori and reveals a pre-existing people that are supposed to have been here before (according to more recent teaching and now enshrined in law, Maori were here first). To be honest, at present there is actually nothing able to offered as evidence that cannot be challenged, either because it doesn't exist, or it has been hushed up - depending to which camp you belong. Political or current mindset can also determine how archaeological finds are interpreted. (ie they are interpreted differently now compared to 1910, and they will be interpreted differently again in 2085, and maybe in 2018!)

But is it really possible for politics to get in the way of archaeology? Can monetary or political motives really get in the way of amazing physical evidence unearthed that has been hidden for millennia? Consider the following before answering.

Archaeology has long been exploited as a political tool. Hitler used artifacts and symbols to manufacture a narrative of Aryan racial superiority. The Islamic State proves its zealotry by destroying evidence of ancient history. Underwater archaeology — the world of shipwrecks and sunken cities — has mostly avoided these kinds of machinations, though. Since no one lives beneath the sea, leaders haven’t found many opportunities for political gains from archaeological sites there. That is, until now.

In the past few years, politicians in Canada, Russia and China have realized that they can use shipwrecks on the sea floor to project their sovereignty into new maritime territories. And this politicized abuse of science is putting the world on a path toward conflict. Last year, Canada announced the discovery of H.M.S. Erebus, Sir John Franklin’s flagship, which disappeared during a Northwest Passage expedition in 1845. Stephen Harper, then the prime minister, personally announced the discovery. His government and its allies provided significant funding for the research. But Mr. Harper isn’t just a history buff; his interests are practical. Global warming has made the Northwest Passage more accessible to shipping, which could be an economic windfall for Canada if the government is able to demonstrate sovereignty and charge other countries a transit fee.

China has been similarly aggressive. While the South China Sea has historically been shared between China and its neighbors, in the past year Beijing has begun building artificial islands to claim the sea as its own territorial waters. Archaeology laid the groundwork for this belligerence: Starting in 2007 China began archaeological excavations and opened several shipwreck museums, each costing tens of millions of dollars. In 2014, China’s government launched a $60 million archaeological research vessel to find shipwrecks in the South China Sea. Archaeologists rewarded the investment by locating more than 120 shipwrecks inside the contested areas. China’s deputy minister of culture, Li Xiaojie, put it bluntly: “Marine archaeology is an exercise that demonstrates national sovereignty.”

Russia has followed suit. In 2011, when he was prime minister, Vladimir V. Putin made headlines by retrieving two ancient ceramic jars from a shipwreck at Phanagoria, the ancient Greek city that is 10 miles from Crimea. The media cast it as a publicity stunt, but alarm bells sounded within the archaeological community. Mr. Putin’s political allies had invested $3.5 billion in research at Phanagoria, a submerged harbor with Roman-era shipwrecks. And while Phanagoria was the site of Greek colonies, Russian nationalists have adopted its ancient kings as proto-Russians. When Mr. Putin made his speech announcing that Russia had annexed Crimea in March 2014, he justified the move in part based on historical ties to the peninsula. “This is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptized,” he said. The annexation added tens of thousands of square miles to Russia’s Black Sea maritime zone. And this summer a Russian expedition began a major underwater archaeology survey off Crimea’s Sevastopol, a region rich in oil and gas.

For the above countries politicians, natural resources are the ends and shipwrecks are the means.

But what about NZ? What if the stories and rumours were true? Why would they be suppressed politically? Why are stories told of archaeologists being paid large sums of money to be quiet about certain finds (yes, we now know of some). Maybe because of similar reasons as above - ie resources!

Imagine if no treaty had been signed...if no settlements were possible...if no money were involved...if no privilege were afforded? If you are the first peoples in this land then you have the rights, you need to be consulted, and you need to be paid.

Make no mistake, (and something I have learned very recently), there are some who have no idea what is progressing and what has been found, but when they do and cannot control the outcome, they will be very angry - very angry.

Sovereignty currently controls the archaeology presented to us. But what when archaeological proof (that cannot be shut down or paid off), changes the sovereignty issue? What then?

The treaty will be largely intact as it was made between the Crown and Maori, but the 'mana' of being first will be swept away in a single day. That holds a potentially dangerous outcome for us, which is why this blog exists, all contacts and comments are recorded, and much more...

And unfortunately, we had to state that...