The Illicit Movement of Underwater Cultural Heritage: The Case of the Dodington Coins

Abstract

In October 1997 the Times of London announced the sale by auction of fourteen hundred gold coins that formed part of the hoard lost by Clive of India when the East Indiaman Dodington was wrecked in Algoa Bay on July 17, 1755. The wreck and its contents lie within South African territorial waters and are protected by South African heritage legislation. Very little gold has ever been reported recovered, despite ongoing excavations, and only a single permit has been issued for the export and sale of twenty–one gold coins. This article will consider the legal steps taken to repatriate the coins, and the difficulties encountered when taking such steps before a foreign court. It evaluates the extent to which existing international conventions, including the recently adopted UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, are able to assist states in repatriating stolen or illegally exported underwater cultural heritage.

Should China access to the convention on the protection of underwater cultural heritage? — A SWOT analysis

“…The 'Convention' and the Regulations both require a timely report when underwater cultural heritages are discovered within a certain scope of application (Forrest and Gribble, 2002) For such a system, there are almost the same provisions in both of the regulations. Despite the difference in reporting object, the central idea of the system that underwater cultural heritages ought to be effectively protected in time via the reporting system as much as possible is the same.…”