V1 - Vico 2012

Maritime
Archaeology
ASSIGNMENT
Course: Master Thesis
Semester: 4th semester spring/summer 2012
Name: Isger Manuel Vico Sommer
Date of birth: 27th of February 1986
Number of pages and characters: 94 pages and 130.360 characters
I, the undersigned declare solemnly that I have written this assignment

personally and independently. All quotes in the text are marked as such,
and the assignment or substantial parts of it have not previously been
presented for other exams.

Signature
i
The development of underwater
archaeology in the Bay of Cadiz

A master thesis from the Maritime Archaeology Programme, University of
Southern Denmark
By
Isger Manuel Vico Sommer
2012
ii
Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Staff of the Maritime Archaeology
Program at the University of Southern Denmark for allowing me to receive such a
high quality of education in theoretical as well as practical aspects of maritime
archaeology. Further I would like to give special thanks to my tutor Jens Auer for
managing to work with me on this thesis regardless of geographical difficulties.
I would further like to thank all members of staff of the Centre of Underwater
Archaeology in Cadiz. Without them this Thesis would have never been possible.
Lastly and most importantly I would like to thank my family for supporting me
throughout my studies in particular my father who I dedicate this thesis too for all
the wisdom and knowledge he passed onto me throughout the years.
iii

Contents:

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. iii
Contents:.................................................................................................................. iv
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Aims and Objectives ...................................................................................................................................3
1.2 Geographical context: ....................................................................................................................................4
1.3 Sources:................................................................................................................................................................6
2. Background ........................................................................................................... 7
2.1 A short overview of the global development of maritime archaeology: .................................7
2.2 History of Cadiz (an overview)..................................................................................................................8
3. The Development of Underwater Archaeology in the Bay of Cadiz....................... 10
3.1 Analysis criteria.............................................................................................................................................10
3.2 The C.A.S. (Centre of Underwater Archaeology).............................................................................12
3.3 Methodology:..................................................................................................................................................17
3.3 Changes in legislation .................................................................................................................................33
4. Changes in the public perception of underwater archaeology in the Bay of Cadiz 46
4.1 Public perception until 1986 ................................................................................................................... 47
4.2 Public Perception from 1985-2000 ...................................................................................................... 50
4.3 Public Perception from 2002 until present....................................................................................... 52
4.4 Analysis............................................................................................................................................................. 57
5. Archaeological theory in the Bay of Cadiz ............................................................ 62

5.1 Archaeological theory and the development of underwater archaeology in the Bay of
Cadiz ..........................................................................................................................................................................62
6. Discussion............................................................................................................ 66
7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 72
8. Outlook ............................................................................................................... 77
iv
9. References........................................................................................................... 78
v

1
1. Introduction

The Bay of Cadiz has provided the archaeological community with many important
finds during the past years. Thanks to its geographical location and the fact that it
is the oldest city in Western Europe, it is no wonder that it stands out as a rich
archaeological source for underwater archaeology. Phoenician, Roman, and Arabs
as well as decisive historical events like the battle of Trafalgar left artefacts,
shipwrecks and construction’s rests that are being discovered, excavated and
studied nowadays. Some of the most recent finds incorporate, beside the
archaeological and historical aspects, important questions regarding the general
development of the underwater archaeology, as the recent Odyssey case exposes.
2

1.1 Aims and Objectives

The aim of this thesis is to provide an analysis of the developments of maritime
archaeology in the Bay of Cadiz. Further, the reasons for this development will be
explained and it will be discussed whether there was a main single factor or a
combination of factors driving the development.
To begin with, the Bay of Cadiz will be introduced and its location and geographical
peculiarities exposed.
A short resume of the historical and archaeological background, as well as short
overview of the global development of maritime archaeology, will cover the
necessary information to make clear the context of the research work.
Then, the development of underwater archaeology in Cadiz will be studied from
different points of view, some of which look into the specifics of underwater
archaeology and one that looks into its social implications:
At first, the advances in methodology, technology and legislation will be
commented and their effect on the creation of the Underwater Archaeology Centre
in Cadiz, discussed.
The second part is dedicated to exposing the revisions of archaeological theories as
well as the public perception’s evolution in relation to underwater archaeology
and their relation to the development of maritime archaeology in the Bay of Cadiz.
The aspects that can be considered improvements will then be described and
analysed to unravel their advantages and their effects in the development of the
underwater archaeology in the Bay of Cadiz. Moreover the links between the
development of legislation, public outreach, public opinion and
technological/methodological developments will be exposed and contrasted.
To finish, I will summarise my findings, formulate my conclusions and suggest
further research into this topic.
3
1.2 Geographical context:

The Bay of Cadiz is located in the Autonomous Community of Andalusia, in southern
Spain. It is part of the province of Cadiz.

4

Following municipalities border the bay:
• Cadiz
• San Fernando
• Puerto Real
• El Puerto de Santa Maria
• Rota

(http://www.laisladelsur.com/historia/cartografia.asp accessed 21/05/2012)
5
1.3 Sources:
The description of the methodological/technological developments at local level

will be done by looking through the records of the underwater archaeological
work previously done, ranging from the 1960s until present day.
The changes in legislation that concern the research area include changes on
international, national and regional level.
The public perception of underwater archaeology is researched through the media
archive of the Centre for Underwater Archaeology in Cadiz (CAS) dating back to
the beginnings of the 20th century.
6
2. Background

2.1 A short overview of the global development of maritime archaeology:

Although there have always been attempts to salvage goods from sunken wrecks,
be it by diving bells, apnoea divers or other methods from the 15th century and
even before (Ruppé and Barstad), technically, this can’t be considered maritime
archaeology. Maritime archaeology developed over time from different branches of
archaeology.
Just as land archaeology, maritime and underwater archaeology had its origins in
the stratigraphic excavation and proper recording of archaeological sites by key-‐
figures such as Schliemann, Pitt-‐Rivers and Findus Petrie. However the methods
developed on land were not easily applicable under water. The available
technology and dive equipment placed a lot of restrictions on maritime
archaeologists (Muckelroy).
This changed with the widespread use of Cousteau’s “SCUBA” (Self contained
underwater breathing apparatus) technology. SCUBA allowed divers to excavate
underwater to similar standards as on land. Until then, there were no
archaeologists having diving skills. The usual underwater archaeological
procedure saw the archaeologists trying to direct from above the professional
divers working underwater, which lead to mistakes and inaccuracies. Thanks to
the Scuba technology this changed: In 1960 the site Cape Gelidonya was the first
underwater site to be entirely excavated by a diving archaeologist. This started a
trend, which is now the norm, as more archaeologists were trained in the use of
SCUBA (Catsambis, Ford, and Hamilton). This and other technological advances
from the 1960s onwards brought about methods that allowed the archaeologists to
work at the same standard they did on land.
During the 1970s, a general change in the archaeological attitude towards finds
and sites could be observed. For example, in the case of a shipwreck, instead of
7
focussing on the recovery of artefacts, a lot of attention was paid towards the
observation of the ship’s construction and other characteristics of the find.
Further, various degree-‐granting programmes focusing solely on maritime

archaeology opened up, as well as many courses for training maritime
archaeologists. Thanks to this approach, maritime archaeologist started to
incorporate aspects and techniques from other disciplines. In recent years the
technology available to archaeologists has snowballed, giving even more
possibilities in such fields as conservation, diving, wreck location and excavating,
to name a few.
2.2 History of Cadiz (an overview)

To cover the topic of this thesis it is essential to show Cadiz’s importance in terms
of underwater archaeology. Cadiz is one of the oldest cities in south-‐western
Europe. From ancient times to the age of exploration, because of its dominant
position over Gibraltar, proximity to Africa and its hinge situation between the
Atlantic and Mediterranean, this location made it an important base for maritime
and land based trade.
According to several theories, the Phoenicians founded the town in 1100 BC as a
place where sailors passing the Straight of Gibraltar towards the Atlantic would
give a sacrifice to the gods once they passed the Pillars of Hercules. At first, this
ritual was done at sacrificial shrines around the isthmus and later at temples
situated on the mainland. The sacrifice was supposed to give them safe onwards
passage (Cubiella 16). Archaeological evidence points towards most temples,
located very close to the sea, being used for religious practices, functioning as well
as points of reference for navigation (Castro and (Cádiz)). The location of Cadiz
allowed for extensive maritime trade between Northern Europe and the rest of the
Mediterranean.
8
Later on, from 500 BC, the forces of the former Phoenician colony of Carthage
crossed over to the peninsula and took Cadiz making it a naval base for their
conquest of south-‐western Europe. The defeat against Rome during the Second
Punic War meant the loss of Cadiz, paving the end of Carthaginian military
presence in Hispania by the conquest of Roman forces (Salmonte 109). Later on,
Cadiz grew prosperous under Roman, Visigoth and Byzantine rule, partly because
of its rich copper and silver mines but also due to its key maritime location (Millan
Chivite).
From 709 AC onwards the Arab invasion of Visigoth Spain begins and Cadiz is soon
captured and incorporated into the Moorish empire. The Moorish period lasts
more than 500 years, until the “Reconquista” of Cadiz by Alfonso X of Castillia in
1262 (Salmonte).
Cadiz is put under the rule of the Habsburg empire in the 16th century, gaining
influence and wealth as a commercial and military port city and becomes one of
the main connections to the new world. This growing importance resulted in
attacks by the British naval forces during the Eighty Years War, leading to the
destruction of some parts of the city.
From the 18th century on, Cadiz becomes a main trading point between Spain and
its Colonies, gaining an economical and cultural power that impelled Cadiz to be
proclaimed the liberal capital of Spain from 1810 until 1813, in the aftermath
convulsions of the French occupation during the Napoleonic war. In this period,
the first constitution for Spain “La Pepa“ (1812) was redacted and proclaimed,
entering in force during a short period (Horozco).
With the monarchic restoration, the progressive loss of the Spanish colonies and
consequent economical decay, Cadiz lost its past importance, although kept its
harbour activities, shipyards and naval attachments, such as the naval bases for the
Spanish navy and the USA navy.
9
3. The Development of Underwater Archaeology in the Bay of
Cadiz

3.1 Analysis criteria

How do we analyze these developments?
The main development in maritime archaeology is the moment as begins to be
practiced as a science and considered as a science. Maritime archaeology has a
strong practical component and a theoretical, notably enquiring, component. By
gathering empirical evidence and systematic observation and measurements, its
practice, methodological component is complemented by the formulation, testing
and modification of theories to acquire, interpret and correct knowledge.
Further, there is a social responsibility that has its origins in the delicate nature of
the subject of the research.
In the case of maritime archaeology in the Bay of Cadiz, the last is also true. The
development goes from a non-‐regulated activity to a scientific activity in some
decades. Nevertheless, this development folds rather in the practical,
methodological aspect and is biased by the acute conscience of social
responsibility. From this reality, various factors indicate together the progress.
• Technological and methodological advances
• Legislative developments
• The evolution of institutions dealing with underwater archaeology
Most of the technological and methodological developments can be described
using published articles mentioning what methods are used and what
technological advances are made with each project.
Legislative developments can be found by looking through changes in the laws
regarding maritime archaeology.
10
The evolution of the institutions that deal with maritime archaeology can be
described by looking at the information published about them, their internal
publications and by analyzing their impact in society.
11

3.2 The C.A.S. (Centre of Underwater Archaeology)

To sketch the context of the current archaeological situation in Andalusia and,
more specifically, the Bay of Cadiz, it is important to describe the institution that
deals with all underwater cultural heritage in Andalusia: the C.A.S. “Centro de
Arqueología Subacuatica, Andalucía ” (Centre of Underwater Archaeology
Andalucía).
The arrival of democracy in Spain brought the decentralization of the state
structures. Many competences were passed to de autonomic regions. In 1984 the
responsibilities for cultural heritage were passed from the central government to
the different autonomous communities of Spain. In the case of Andalucía, the
responsibility was given to the regional government body: La Junta de Andalucía
(Andalusia regional government) and attached to its subdivision for cultural
heritage the IAPH, “Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico” (Andalusia Institute
of Historical Heritage), which had been founded in 1982.
Andalusia is the autonomous community with most coastlines of whole Spain. A
total coastline of 812 km stretches from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic Ocean.
Due to this fact and to the special needs, recourses and requirements that apply to
underwater archaeology, La Junta de Andalucía created a centre dedicated to the
protection, investigation and promotion of the underwater cultural heritage. This
institution was denominated CAS and 1997 was directly placed on one of the most
popular beaches of Cadiz, “La Caleta” in the site of the old “Balneario de Cádiz”.
Its mission, which is defined in the “introduction to the CAS booklet (CULTURAL)”
Includes:
• To develop and execute underwater cultural heritage projects with the aim of
advancing the practical knowledge of working in an underwater environment.
• To develop methods of protecting and conserving underwater cultural
heritage.
12
• To identify underwater cultural heritage in Andalucía and to create a working
data storage system where available information is easily accessible. This
allows easy ways of determining diversity, value to Spanish cultural heritage,
spatial distribution and risk of exposure, be it human or natural.
• To develop new and expand existing laws to protect underwater cultural
heritage.
• To reach out to the public informing them as well as encouraging to participate
in the protection of and interaction with the underwater cultural heritage.
• To improve techniques and methods used in underwater archaeology as well
as to engage and train specialised professionals in the field.
The CAS has been structured as to maximise efficiency. It has been split into four
different departments: Direction, Administration, Department of Intervention and
the Department of Documentation, Formation and Public Outreach.
The Direction is responsible for the coordination between the IAPH and the CAS. It
decides which projects, actions and investigations are taken and which dismissed.
In cooperation with the administration they manage the distribution of recourses
between the two departments.
The department of intervention is in charge of developing and executing projects
and proposals for the preservation, investigations and conservation of underwater
cultural heritage.
The department of documentation, formation and public outreach deals with all
projects related to creating a data information system available to correlate all
data acquired by the department of intervention and outside sources. It is
responsible for the distribution of information regarding the results of the projects
as well as for the preparation and management of a team specialised in maritime
archaeology (Cultura, Libro Verde Del Plan De Protección Del Patrimonio
Subacuático).
13
As one of its aims, the CAS has been promoting maritime archaeology since it was
set up in the “Balneario de la Caleta” in 1997. This promotion takes two main
forms: formation and outreach projects. In regards to outreach projects the main
action has been a project called “Sumérgete” (Plunge) which consisted of different
events and productions.
As part of “Sumérgete” there have been three expositions in the CAS:
“Los naufragios de Trafalgar” (2005) was the one with most direct impact, as it
involved a group of actors that worked with visiting children. A total of 7000
students reportedly visited the exhibition according to “La voz de Cádiz” (“Más De
Siete Mil Alumnos Han Visitado Ya ‘Los Naufragios De Trafalgar’”). Further,
compared to the museum, which gets a total of 22.000 visitors per year, the CAS’s
exposition received 37.000 visitors in just one month (“Estoy Convencida De Que
Este Vas Ser El Año Del Teatro Romano”) showing the degree of success that the
CAS had with this program. Other successful expositions include “Historias bajo el
mar” (2008) and “La restauración de las cerámicas de la Ballenera (Algeciras,
Cádiz)” (2004). However neither of them compared with the success of “Los
naufragios de Trafalgar”.
Further, as part of the “Sumérgete” project there are various videos and interactive
activities for children on the homepage of the Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio
Histórico, including booklets introducing children and adults to underwater
archaeology which have also been handed out at the various expositions.
It is noticeable that there is a lot of focus on having projects for children and young
adults. The idea is to bring the underwater cultural heritage and the importance of
its protection to the people from a young age, when they are still easier to
influence compared to the older generations, which are less likely to sway towards
a new approach regarding underwater archaeology and underwater cultural
heritage (Carlos Alonso Villalobos, “Patrimonio Subacuático y Su Diffusion”).
Concerning training, there have been a total of thirteen different courses and
seminars. Some of these are of a practical and some of theoretical nature. So far
these are increasing in frequency as maritime archaeology is developing further.
14
The seminars and courses can be split into two categories, archaeological courses
and conservation courses:
Archaeological courses (“Programa De Formación Del Instituto Andaluz Del

Patrimonio Histórico (IAPH)”):
• The underwater cultural heritage: methods and techniques for its study and
conservation -‐ Patrimonio cultural sumergido: métodos y técnicas para su
estudio y conservación (theoretical) -‐ 29/03/2004
• Prospection techniques in underwater archaeology -‐ Técnicas de prospección en
arqueología subacuatica (theoretical) – 18/05/2005
• Initiation course for graphic underwater archaeological documentation
methods: Photography -‐ Iniciación a las técnicas de documentación gráficas
aplicadas a la arqueología subacuática: la fotografía (practical) – 03/05/2006
• Initiation course for underwater archaeological prospection methods -‐ Curso de
iniciación a las técnicas de prospección arqueológica subacuática (practical) -‐
09/05/2007
• Initiation in the methods of underwater archaeological drawing -‐ Iniciación a
las técnicas de dibujo arqueológico subacuático (practical) – 23/06/2008
• Ship architecture: archaeological recording methods -‐ La construcción naval: su
registro arqueológico (practical) -‐13/04/2011
• Graphic documentation of the underwater archaeological heritage: the photo
mosaic -‐Documentación gráfica del patrimonio arqueológico subacuático: el
fotomosaico (practical) -‐ 15/06/2012
• The use of Geographical information systems applied to the underwater
cultural heritage -‐ Los sistemas de información geográfica aplicados al
tratamiento de la información sobre el patrimonio arqueológico subacuático
(practical and theoretical) -‐ 09/05/2012
Conservation Courses:
• The conservation of the underwater cultural heritage -‐ La conservación del
patrimonio arqueológico subacuático -‐ 08/06/2009
15
• Preventative conservation workshop for “in situ” archaeological excavations -‐
Taller de conservación preventativa en excavaciones arqueológicas in situ -‐
26/03/2003
• Stabilization of waterlogged organic material through impregnation of
Polydimethylsiloxane -‐ Estabilización de materiales orgánicos de procedencia
subacuática mediante impregnación con polisiloxanos -‐ 18/04/2012
• Methodology and techniques for the conservation and restoration of siliceous
materials from a underwater environment -‐ Metodología y técnicas de
conservación-restauración de materiales silíceos extraídos de un medio
subacuático – 15/05/2006
• Metals from an underwater environment: Methodology and techniques for
their conservation and restoration -‐ Los metales de procedencia subacuática,
metodología y técnicas de conservación restauración -‐ 23/05/2007
• Preventative treatment of archaeological artefacts in humid and salty
environments -‐ Tratamiento preventivo de objetos arqueológicos en yacimientos
húmedos y salinos -‐ 25/02/2004

As we can see, the CAS actively works on the divulgation of the underwater
cultural heritage and one can assume that it, at least partially, contributes to the
changes in public perception described in chapter 4. Rather than something that
does not concern the everyday citizen it has become a known institution that has
gained Cadiz’s public’s respect.
16

3.3 Methodology:

The methodology used in underwater excavations and underwater surveys have
undoubtedly changed since the beginnings of underwater archaeology. The
archaeology of the Bay of Cadiz is no exception. By looking at the documentation of
the successive projects from the 1950s on, fundamental changes in the approach
and methodology of these underwater excavations can be perceived. When
analysing these changes, one must take into account that in the Bay of Cadiz, just as
in other places around the world, some methods work better than others due to
the environmental surroundings and the availability of funding. What follows is a
chronological resume of the main changes.
Previous to 1970 after which we have more published articles, the underwater
archaeology in the Bay of Cadiz relied mostly on reports by fishermen or local
sport divers. Until this year one cannot talk properly of archaeological methods.
Fisherman’s and sport divers would find artefacts in their fishing nets or on dives
and usually retrieve them. That was the case after a casual find close the castle of
San Sebastian by a local fisherman in 1959, what initiated one of the first reported
search for artefacts. After listening to a free lecture given at the local museum, he
decided to donate it to the museum rather than keeping it, as was common case
during this period (Feman).
However, the news article concerning this find mostly describes the artefact itself
rather than the location or any other context that might have been of use to the
archaeologists in the future (Feman). Due to the good state of conservation of the
artefact, the former general art’s Director at the museum of Cadiz decided that it
was necessary to investigate the area around the find spot.
When sport divers and fishermen brought random finds to the local museum, they
usually indicated where they found it, but these indications couldn’t be accurate.
Before the 1980s, GPS wasn’t available and the find-‐location of the artefact in
17
question was difficult to establish (Vlacic, Parent, and Harashima). Until GPS
became standard, archaeologists and divers working on projects usually were
given three reference points on land from which they would try to establish the
position of the site. The references could for example be the tip of a church against
another building or the position of a tree in relation to another landmark as shown
in this example below. This type of triangulation usually gives the most accurate
position without GPS or compass.
During this time, and in order to make a museum’s collection, a team of
professional divers was hired which retrieved a collection of different artefacts.
Beside that, the museum of Cadiz made great efforts to acquire all artefacts that
locals found. Unfortunately, the professional divers as well as the local divers had
an object-‐oriented approach and ignored the context of where the artefacts were
found. They just retrieved them without looking at the actual site. The artefacts
were therefore mostly identified by typology rather than by looking at the context
they were found in (MÍNGUEZ).
Nevertheless, to value properly these experiences we have to consider that there
were no funded underwater archaeological projects before the year 1968
(MÍNGUEZ). In this year, the director of the local museum of Cadiz ordered
prospection in an area where several artefacts were previously found. This area
18
was at the outskirts of the fortifications of the Castle of San Sebastian (Blanco). The
archaeological team along with a team of commercial divers searched throughout
the fortifications, moving up and down the assumed finding point of each artefact.
Divers went along both sides of the fortification and retrieved artefacts on the way
[as marked by the green path in the picture below] No mention was made whether
the search was done with a swim line or not (Larn and Whistler)or by single
divers. The artefacts retrieved were of Roman and Phoenician origin and were
found on various locations near San Sebastian as well as other areas and particular
spots pointed out by sport divers and fishermen (MÍNGUEZ).
Image of the search path 1968 taken from Google earth
After this project, archaeologists started to keep record of a variety of underwater
search methods used by divers and employed them in their prospection. Other
advances included working together with other institutions related to maritime
activities, using the archives available in Spain to research possible locations of
shipwrecks and using techniques such as geomorphology. This new approach will
be illustrated by using the surveys commissioned in 1973 by the General
Commission of Archaeological Excavations as an example (Artístico).
The aim of the project was to pinpoint the locations of previous finds and establish
other underwater archaeological sites in the Bay of Cadiz. During this project, local
19
divers and fishermen were asked to report again the locations of the areas where
they had retrieved and found artefacts before. This time however, archaeologists
also asked the nautical school “D. Mario Vallejo Grandes” about the areas of the bay
where they knew that there were navigational hazards (G. C. García).
Archaeologists also started focusing on archive work related to the locations of
shipwrecks. This included details about cargo, dates and the location where it
sank. With the help of various archives, the archaeologists were often capable of
determining the locations of the shipwrecks with the help of the landmarks
mentioned in the texts (Reina).
Another essential part of the archaeological prospection method that has not been
described is geomorphology. This technique is particularly important for the
archaeological research in the Bay of Cadiz, as there are various sites that were
submerged because of shifting coastlines.
Although geomorphology as a helpful science began to be systematically used
much later, there was already an attempt in the 1970’s at combining geological
studies with archaeology at the Bay of Cadiz. Prof D. Antonio Garcia and Bellido
brought up the idea that the centre of the ancient part of Cadiz used to be split into
two parts, by a river that went through it (Francisco). This started an
interdisciplinary approach, which would influence later projects to do similar
collaborative work (C. Alonso Villalobos, Navarro, and Vicente).
In 1985 Carlos Villalobos started the project: “Prospección para la localización de
yacimientos de producción anfórica de época Romana Cádiz” (Prospection to locate
amphorae production sites of Roman origin in Cadiz) that included a part on the
localization and prospection of sites in and around the Bay of Cadiz. In a similar
line as the previous, this project included a topological study of the area, done by
looking at coastal maps of the area and marking the points that seemed dangerous
for navigation. As in 1973, this project included the research of primary sources
and archives in its methodology. An innovative aspect was that, apart from
primary sources and maps, a list of newspaper articles, which mention amphorae-‐
finds, was established. This list was then transferred onto a map to visualize if
there were any areas with high concentration of finds (Costa and Fernández;
20
Carlos Alonso Villalobos, “Prospección Para La Localización De Yacimientos De
Producción Anforica De Época Romana Cádiz”).
The main difference between this and previous projects was the selection criteria
for the prospecting areas. The team selected which areas were to be prospect by
divers, by correlating the data obtained from research and analysis with that
obtained from local divers and fishermen (described as areas of archaeological
interest) (Carlos Alonso Villalobos, “Prospección Para La Localización De
Yacimientos De Producción Anforica De Época Romana Cádiz”).
Carlos Alonso Villalobos’s also used in his 1989 project Informe de la Campaña de
prospecciones Subacuaticas en la zona noroeste de la playa de la Caleta (Report on
the campaign of underwater prospection’s of the area northeast of the beach
“Caleta”) a geomorphologic approach on finding submerged sites, by looking at
changes in maps of the near coastline (Carlos Alonso Villalobos, “Informe De La
Campaña De Prospecciones Subacuaticas En La Zona Noroeste De La Playa De La
Caleta (Cádiz)”). He gathered information about where could there be submerged
land sites, as well as about the localization of the spots on the previous coastlines
that could have been a hazard to navigators (Carlos Alonso Villalobos, “Informe De
La Campaña De Prospecciones Subacuaticas En La Zona Noroeste De La Playa De
La Caleta (Cádiz)”).
During the 1980’s, the Bay of Cadiz had not counted with a team of underwater
archaeologists and had therefore very few organized underwater excavations
compared to underwater archaeological surveys. Most finds during this decade
still came from local fishermen or sport divers hired to search for artefacts (Rivera
and Orden). From the beginning of the 1980s onwards, archaeological projects
were started up to retrieve artefacts as well as setting up prospections.
Within these projects the idea started to develop that an archaeologist should
closely monitor any archaeological underwater project. The most logical solution
seemed to be an archaeologist who is also a diver, as was the case of Ramon
Ramirez Delgado, who was working in the project related to the Punic terracotta
found in 1981 (Montes, “Terracota Púnica En Cádiz”; Montes, “Trabajos
Arqueológicos Submarinos En Cádiz”). This is also evident in the “Carta
21
Arqueológica de la Caleta” a project of Olga Vallespin, where the team of divers was
lead by a diving archaeologist and was mostly completed with archaeologist.
However, due to insufficient funding the project was shut down, which manifested
the importance of resources management and proper planning to grant sufficient
funding for artefact conservation (Vallespin, “Carta Arqueológica De La Caleta”;
Vallespin, “La Caleta: Puerto Antiguo De Cádiz”). The latter is an especially
important issue, considering that the main objectives of these campaigns were the
retrieval of artefacts rather than looking at the context of the site or the analysis of
the naval architecture (Angel).
In 1985, during the second phase of Olga Vallespin’s project, an attempt was made
to use stratigraphy and cultural affiliation to identify the artefacts discovered. It
was found that, especially in the Caleta, this methodology was not very effective, as
the uncovered layers would be from Roman origin to Phoenician and back to
Roman. It was concluded that stratigraphic work in the Calera was not possible,
due to shifting sand. The materials found were therefore documented and the
artefacts classified by typology (Olga).
The next decade brought plenty of changes in technology and consequently to the
methods used to search for, and identify underwater archaeological sites. This will
be illustrated on the basis of the projects of Sancti Petri, which revealed the head of
a statue of Phoenician origin (Delgado and Alonso). Ten years later, a construction
project was going to start and there were many reports of illegal fishing and
treasure hunting. Therefore “La junta Andalucía” decided to fund a project to
prospect the area.
Just as in earlier projects, the documentary research was done in the first phase of
the project (Vallespin, “Carta Arqueológica De La Caleta”). This time however,
there was more funding granted to the team of archaeologists and a professional
cartographer was hired. It was his assignment to evaluate changes in the coastline
to help identify possible locations of wrecks and correlate this data with sites
established on the archive material (Rivera and Orden).
22
A further innovation was the use of ground penetrating radar. It was the first time
that it was used for underwater archaeological purposes within the bay Cadiz.
After testing seismic reflection with equipment that yielded few results, ground-‐
penetrating radar (GPR) for sub bottom profiling of the make Edgetech (formerly
ORE) was used.
The GPR together with a differential GPS were used to survey an area of 12.440
m2. The use of a differential GPS, a technology that had not been available before,
made a huge difference in the localization of these areas of interest as it let
archaeologists find the same location down to a few meters.
However during these prospects with the GPR only small objects were detected
and of these, many could have had natural origins (Abárzuza, Rivera, et al.). Once
these areas of possible interest could be established, it was necessary to do further
prospection location by divers.
Apart from the need for an intervention it was the first attempt by “La Junta de
Andalucía” to start up a training process for underwater archaeologists. As
mentioned, there were divers who were also archaeologists, but never a dedicated
team of underwater archaeologists. This project had the intention to enlarge the
number of specialised technicians in the field.
All the teams participating in the project took part in a scientific diving course,
which included research methods for underwater archaeology. This paved the way
for a standard in maritime archaeology, where it was essential that archaeologists
would be divers as well. Considering that for many of these archaeologists it was
first time diving, a lot of time was dedicated during this first part of the project to
familiarization with equipment, methods and environment. In the second part of
the campaign each archaeologists specialized in different aspects of maritime
archaeological methods, such as: underwater photography, -‐video and –drawing
(Abárzuza, Josefa Mari Solano, et al.).
In the year 1994, during the second phase of this project, it was deemed necessary
to do emergency excavations on several sites, in particular at the possible location
of the temple of Heracles (Abárzuza and Josefa Marti Solano).
23
The prospection by divers in the area of Sancti Petri tested different diving search
methods:
Once the site was clearly established, depending on its character, a different
method was used for the location of artefacts and other archaeological remains.
Usually the visual prospection method chosen depended on various factors: On
one hand, of the number of divers available and on the other hand on the character
of the site: visibility in the water; bottom characteristics and state of sea and
currents. Thereafter, one of the following prospection methods was chosen:
jackstay search; circular search; compass grid search; swim line search;
progressive square search and search along a terrain (Costa and Fernández). I will
describe some of the more often used methods and give some examples of their
uses:
The circular search is one of the most basic search methods used in underwater
archaeology. It involves the diver being attached or holding a compact roller tape
measure with patented automatic rewind or rope which is attached to a sinker
with a buoy on it or any other object which is unlikely to move. From there the
divers will take one or two meters of rope or tape measure and swim in circles
around the centre point (the sinker or the object) keeping the rope or tape
measure tight. Once the diver has completed a full circle he will add another meter
or two (depending on visibility) and continue so on.
In the case of the “El Bajo de Chapitel”, a part of the project to establish a general
underwater archaeological map of the Bay of Cadiz, the location of a few canons
was known, the wreck itself wasn’t. However the team suspected that various
other canons as well as the hull of the ship were close. Therefore they started a
circular search from each of the furthest known northern or southern cannon. The
area to the east of the cannons was surveyed by a pendular search with a range of
150 meters (Abárzuza, Josefa Mari Solano, et al.).
In another site, one that consisted of artefacts of Roman and Phoenician origin
near Sancti Petri [illustrated below] (Josefa Marti Solano et al.), a modified version
to the compass grid search was used: A point 0 marked by two stone anchors was
24
chosen. From this point two baselines of 50 meters going north to south and east
to west were set up. On both these baselines starting from point 0 going at a 15-‐
degree angle a diver would swim outwards and mark all objects and their distance
from the point 0.
North
Direction of the diver
15 degree angle change from starting

point
South
Illustration 1
A total of 286 objects were found through this method.
Another method used during the projects in Sancti Petri was the jackstay search
The jackstay search: [see illustration 2]. In this method the area that is to be
searched was split up into various rectangles. Two divers would then go across the
rectangle from one corner to the next as pictured below. There are various
advantages of using the jackstay search pattern. Each covered area was checked
between two and three times, first by the primary diver and then by the secondary
diver. The divers have the ability to communicate with each other throughout the
search except when visibility was very low. Another advantage was the fact that
both ends of the marked site have buoys attached to them allowing the surface
team to know in which area the divers are and giving the divers an ascension aid to
25
the surface. Further the buoys allow for the surface team to take exact coordinates
of the area searched with the help of a differential GPS, which could then be
transferred onto a computer. This method was used during the projects in Sancti
Petri. As for some of the archaeologists it was the first underwater archaeological
project, it was deemed an intensive and methodological search pattern. Another
reason why this method was used is that due to the low visibility in the area no
other less time consuming method proofed to be effective.
(Josefa Marti Solano et al.)
Area still to be prospected
9 10
7 8 Movable rope
Movement of Sinker
5 6
Movement of the Divers
3 4
Boundaries of the sector
1 2
Illustration 2
For the first time the basic excavation techniques used in the project are
mentioned. As the site had been left untouched for 10 years, a clamshell dredger
was used to clear the various layers of sediments (mostly fang and lime). However
only the top layers were cleared to avoid destroying any archaeological
information. The site was then prospected using augering equipment. An area of
25 square meters was established through ropes, splitting it up into various
different trenches. A stainless steel auger of 2 meters length was used to establish
if any materials, which might indicate statues or buildings, were lying below. Due
to the fang and lime it was thought that archaeological material was indeed below
26
so a prospection of the area with a metal detector was done. However only modern
materials were found (Josefa Marti Solano et al.; Abárzuza and Josefa Marti
Solano). The intention was drawn a topographical map of the site with all
materials and characteristics if any archaeological material was found. This
information would be then used for future projects on the site. This would also
allow any artefacts that were found in the site to be marked there and put into
context later. This method was established to prevent previous problems where
the context of the artefact within the site was unknown making it less useful in the
bigger context (Costa and Fernández).
During the next years, the mentioned and by then established methods for
underwater archaeological searches were further developed, evolving slightly.
With the adoption of the ARQUEOS database – a database of all archaeological sites
in the Bay of Cadiz – it was easier to establish whether the wrecks reported by
sport divers and fishermen were “underwater archaeological sites catalogued in
the ARQUEOS database”, “underwater archaeology sites that should be included in
the ARQUEOS database” and “underwater sites and wrecks of no archaeological
context”. This also gathered all the previous information available on underwater
archaeological sites (Josefa and E).
In 2001 there was a broad collaboration between the German University of
Bremen, the Universities of Cadiz and Seville, a private company (Koelling & Tesch
Umweltplanung) and volunteering local archaeologists. The aim of this project was
to minimize the risk of having emergency excavations by preventative
archaeological studies. Different areas, where it was possible that archaeological
sites existed, were established on land as well as in the surrounding waters. The
combination of maps, soil samples, stratigraphic archives, drawings and historical
documents, established various areas that were deemed free of archaeological
material, while others were established to be possible archaeological sites,
enforcing construction work done on these grounds to have emergency
prospection’s and excavations first (Arteaga et al.). This brought about a solid
foundation for emergency interventions, which is used up to this date on projects.
27

Following the results of the UNESCO convention of 2001 and the creation of the
three centres of underwater archaeology throughout Spain, the archaeologist have
made an effort to standardize criteria, procedures and methods. Further, a
paradigm shift can be observed: from aiming at the recovery of artefacts, towards
considering the finds in their material and cultural context and rather focusing on
the study of their civilization and age.
In 2009, the publication of the “National Plan for the Protection of Underwater
Cultural Heritage” (Libro Verde) created through the cooperation between the
working groups of technical coordination committee of the heritage council, the
CAS, the CASC, the national museum for underwater archaeology and the CASCV
set up the necessary planning framework to develop the underwater archaeology
in Spain (Carles; Cultura, Libro Verde Del Plan De Protección Del Patrimonio
Subacuático).
A proposed system was at beginnings of most archaeological projects in Cadiz. This
methodical approach could be described as follows:
The prospection phase:
1. Preliminary establishment of the general cartography of the seabed, which
includes the benthos as well as the geological characteristics. This is
indispensable to be able to evaluate and choose an adequate method of
prospection.
2. Analysis of costs and benefits. The value of the information that could be
acquired shall be compared to the environmental impact and the cost to the
employer.
3. Previous and exhaustive research of the known sources. This would include:
• Historical cartography and toponymy
28
• Archive work
• Previous projects related to the site
• Historical reports and news
• Oral reports
• Random finds related to the site
• Geomorphology and cartography of the seabed from previous works
4. Analysis of the conditions of the area that will be prospected. Should be
established:
• Bathymetry
• Visibility
• Maritime climate
• Specific cartography of the area in question
• Human, material and financial resources
5. Adoption of the most suitable methodology
Two different types are considered:

• Indirect methods:
.i.Planimetric prospection (Sidescan sonar and multibeam scan)
.ii. Sub bottom profilers
.iii. Ferromagnetism: Magnetometers
• Direct Methods:
.i.Inspection of an enclave; usually an area previously recognized
as an archaeological site which would then be inspected by
divers moving freely about without any sort of pattern
.ii. Previously planed visual inspection: This would include a
number of different search methods that have been planned
from the surface. These include:
.ii.1. Jackstay search
.ii.2. Swim line search
.ii.3. Circular search
.ii.4. And searches using a compass
.iii. Towed diver searches
29
The standard procedure is to employ the indirect method followed by a direct
method, if funding allows it.
Excavation phase: (including: prerequisites to a project; phases of projects; the
underwater archaeological team and the methods used in projects) (Cultura, Libro
Verde Del Plan De Protección Del Patrimonio Subacuático)
Before any project is started a certain number of things should be considered:
• The importance of the site (is intrusive action necessary?)

• A realistic time frame should be established
• Any budget plan should include post excavation funds for such things as
conservation of artefacts and publication
• Any technical problems that might arise should be accounted for
Since each underwater site is unique, the methods suggested may, of course, differ.
Three things however should be taken into account for all type of underwater
excavations, according to Xavier Nieto, the current director of ARQVA, the national
museum of underwater archaeology (Xavier):
1. Clear in their aims and objectives -‐ this ensures that individuals working on
the project can take decisions while working, without any
misunderstandings.
2. Execution of the excavation should be done as fast as possible since time is
limited underwater.
3. It should be ensured that the excavation plan keeps simple. This grants that
as few complications as possible occur in the underwater environment.
A project should have five different stages, even though these could merge
sometimes.
1. Preliminary work and documentation

2. Direct action taken at the site
3. Organization of temporary or permanent in-‐situ preservation of the site
30
4. The conservation of artefacts extracted from the site
5. The scientific study, dissemination and publication.
As mentioned earlier the funding should be available for each and all of the
different stages of a project.
The team can be made up of individuals from different branches such as the crew
of the vessel, commercial divers (these should be used for the technical works and
not for the actual archaeological excavation), auxiliary excavation technicians and
archaeologists forming part of the management and scientific team (Cultura, Libro
Verde Del Plan De Protección Del Patrimonio Subacuático). The ideal scenario
would be a team that included all these but was made up entirely of underwater
archaeologists who could assume different roles. Depending on whether this is the
case or not, the team can then be split up into four different subgroups (Xavier):
• A surface team, which takes pressure off the diving team, making sure all
equipment and machines work and start underwater dredges.
• A diving team, in charge of the work being done below surface.
• An extra team usually located on land or on the boat/platform if space is
available. The extra team is in charge of documenting the artefacts, keeping of
the logbooks and recording of events.

The extra team will rotate with the surface team, which in turn will go diving,
leaving the previous diving team time to rest and recuperate (Especially if
decompression is needed).
The last team is the laboratory team, which usually will work past the end of the
excavations. It is in charge of the study and the restoration of the artefacts as well
as of ensuring the publication and dissemination of the results of the project.
It is a requirement for archaeologists working on these kinds of projects to have at
least a scientific diving license or equivalent. Commercial diving licenses are also
accepted but not required. Archaeologists managing the excavation must have a
MA or PhD in maritime archaeology and have worked as archaeologist in at least 3
different projects lasting over 15 days or managed at least 1 project lasting over 15
days (Cultura, Libro Verde Del Plan De Protección Del Patrimonio Subacuático).
31
Further nowadays, more thought is given to documentation of the site and
documenting and labelling artefacts, as any excavation means at least the partial
destruction of the site. Further, much less items are recovered and if so a trained
underwater conservator must be present to handle all finds (Xavier).
An example of this methodological system in action can be found in the most
recent part of the project, the “Plan Nacional”, a collaboration between the
Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Defence (Cultura, “Segunda Fase De Las
Actuaciones Para Investigar y Proteger El Patrimonio Arqueológico Subacuatico En
Andalucía”). After researching sources as mentioned in point 3, page 27, the team
undertook a selection of different areas that were thought to have a high
concentration of archaeological sites. Through geophysical surveys in
collaboration with the Spanish armada over 150 different anomalies had been
identified. The use of the geophysics equipment allowed the archaeologists to
obtain the exact coordinates of the anomalies. In turn archaeological and military
divers dropped a buoy with sinker on these coordinates located by differential GPS
and performed a circular search. If the visibility allowed it, they could then identify
the anomalies.
To recap the development:
During the first examples of what can be considered underwater archaeological
projects, the search methods are based on the information given by local
fishermen in combination with localized reference points that they could see on
land. The projects focused on artefact retrieval, which was done by sports divers.
From the1980’s onwards, known navigation-‐ hazards points provided by the
nautical school and topological studies were included in the search for possible
underwater sites. There was a change in the professional attitude towards
archaeology. Moreover, archaeologists who were also divers started managing the
excavations. There was still a focus on artefact retrieval, but methods of
statigraphy and cultural affiliation were used to determine the origin of the items
rather than typology.
32
From the 1990’s onwards there was an attempt to create a dedicated team of
underwater archaeologists, with specialized technicians in different fields of
maritime archaeology. The introduction of the use of GPS coordinated and
geophysics from 1995 onwards reflects this specialization. Artefact retrieval was
not considered the most important part of underwater excavations any more and
archaeologists started focusing on the context of the site more than ever before.
Further, for the first time the divers in these projects were all archaeologists. This
change in attitude set the trend for the coming years and for the
professionalization of the activity. The UNESCO Convention of 2001, the Green
Book and Xavier Nieto’s articles implemented the global framework and prepared
the way for future developments. The mentioned changes influenced as much the
underwater archaeology methodology in the Bay of Cadiz, as that of the whole of
Spain.
One can clearly see the development of a methodology in the underwater
archaeological practice in the Bay of Cadiz from its beginning to the present day.
Driven by the technological advances and learning from own experiences and the
growing international exchanges that complemented the practice with a
theoretical basis, changing the focus of the underwater archaeology in the Bay of
Cadiz and contributing to a standardization of methods and techniques.
3.3 Changes in legislation

To get a better overview of the archaeological developments in the Bay of Cadiz,
the legislative changes have to be considered. A chronological overview of the
changes during the last 40 years and what the current plans for future changes are
will give a more thorough overview of the archaeological advancements in the Bay
of Cadiz and Spain as a whole.
Andalucía’s underwater cultural heritage legislation is made up of a hierarchy of
laws. These include laws on an international, national and regional level. These
laws have significantly changed during the last 40 years. It follows a brief overview
of their evolution during this time, focusing mainly in the aspects that concern
maritime archaeology. Then, the national legislation that is applied to Andalucía
33
and therefore to the Bay of Cadiz will be outlined from a chronological point of
view.
The first relevant law that demarcated the frame for all others regulations was the
Constitution of 1978, which set the basis for the development of the Spanish
democracy and the Spain of the Autonomies after Franco’s dictatorship.
The “Law 16/1985 de Protección del Patrimonio Cultural” and the “Ley 4/1986, de
5 de mayo, del patrimonio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía” (Law 4/1986
of may the 5th of the Heritage of the autonomous community of Andalusia),
regulated respectively the national and regional cultural policy and the broad
frame of the cultural heritage. On the wave of the normalisation of its international
relationships, Spain assumed some international conventions with direct
implications for underwater archaeology: In 1989 Spain ratified the “International
Salvage” convention. The ratification of the “UNESCO convention on underwater
cultural heritage of 2001” was signed in 2005 and the “Ley 14/2007 26 de
Noviembre de el Patrimonio Histórico de Andalucía” (law 14/2007 of the 26th of
November on the Historical Heritage) introduced in 2007.
Spain's legislation on Cultural Heritage goes back to the liberal constitution of the
18th century (coincidentally written in Cadiz) but its actual form and character
develop from the constitution of 1978. This general law set some principles that,
although not directly referring to the cultural heritage or any form of archaeology,
marked the lines for a more concrete legislation. The main points in this context
were:
a) “Public commitment to the conservation and promotion of the artistic, cultural
and historical heritage of the whole Spanish people regardless of ownership or
legal status”. This makes sure the state is obliged to protect the archaeological
material, promotes the conservation and information and enables the prosecution
of any offence against the heritage.
b) “Regional decentralization”. This enabled the autonomous communities to take

control of the local archaeological and cultural heritage within the regulations of
the law. However the state keeps the authority on the legislation of cultural goods’
34
export, legislation on vandalism and control of certain museums, which are
regulated on a national level.
c) “Subordination of private property to public interest”, which gives

archaeological material in public ownership special rights (Cleere)
Seven years after the Constitution entered in force, a new law developed and
concreted these principles: the “Ley 16/1985 de Protección del Patrimonio Cultural”
(Law 16/1985 dated 25 June, on the Spanish Historical Heritage). In accordance
with the above-‐mentioned principle “b”, the law concedes power to the
autonomous communities to further develop the legislation and to act
independently on the subject of their cultural heritage.
In the Law 16/1985, historical heritage is newly defined and includes more items
than ever before. This is made up (1.2): “of movable and immovable objects of
artistic, historical, paleontological, archaeological, ethnographic, scientific or
technical interest. It also comprises documentary and bibliographical heritage,
archaeological sites and areas as well as natural sites, gardens and parks having
artistic, historical or anthropological value“ (Law 16/1985 dated 25 June, on the
Spanish Historical Heritage).
The 16/1985 Law brings together all the different aspects of cultural heritage.
Further, it creates a platform of tools for the protection of archaeological material
in Spain and Cadiz, as it includes archaeological heritage in historical heritage,
creates a legal bond between public bodies and items covered by the law (1.2),
characterizes the archaeological material in line with the archaeological method
and differences between movable and immovable material (with specific legal
features for each). According to this, the different public bodies are obliged to
promote and protect the national archaeological interests. The degree of
protection depends of course on the nature of the archaeological material. In case
of danger for archaeological areas, which are being looted, for example, the public
35
body has to ensure that this does not happen by using all necessary means (such as
policing the area (Cleere).
Further, this national legislation gives specific instructions about construction

works, chance finds, protection of UCH (Underwater cultural heritage) and
excavation procedures:
In order to carry out any building works or earth moving in an area considered of
historical or archaeological importance the builders will need authorization by the
administration (In the case of Andalusia it would be La Junta Andalucía), which
may order prospecting, or, in the case of chance finds, excavations on that
particular site. The excavation has to be authorized and inspected by the
corresponding authority, which makes sure that it is done in professional manner.
The same laws regulate any other finds.
The legal framework set up by this national law to regulate discoveries
distinguishes between archaeological prospection (“Surface or under-‐water
exploration not involving earth moving for the purpose of study”), chance finds
(“by chance or as a result of any type of earth moving, demolition or work of any
type”) and archaeological excavation (“earth moving on the surface, under ground
or under water”) (CÉSAR ANTONIO MOLINA SÁNCHEZ). These prospections and
excavations have to be authorized and monitored by the appropriate authority,
which in the case of Cadiz would be the CAS or someone authorized by the Junta
Andalucía. Any finds in the course of an authorized excavation are to be delivered,
inventoried and catalogued with an accompanying report to the CAS or any other
institution chosen by the “Junta Andalucía”.
Any excavations or prospections carried out without the proper authorizations,
especially if it yields finds as well as any manner of chance finds, that aren't
notified directly to the appropriate administration, are illegal and handled in
compliance with the law. Finds on private and public property by discoverers and
owners will be compensated half of the value attributed to it in legal valuation. In
the case of underwater archaeology this would apply to divers or fishermen that
discover a chance find and directly report it to the local authority. However it is
36
annulled if the discovery is not reported properly and can lead to severe legal
consequences. These finds are considered to be public domain(Sarah Dromgoole).
The corresponding permits for excavations and building works set up various
prerequisites (Gobierno de España), which were defined by the autonomous
community of Andalusia a year later. These include qualification standards, plan of
activities, continuous feedback to the authorities, no criminal record related to
archaeology and sometimes a good reputation and no involvement in treasure
hunting or archaeological misconduct (Ministerio de Cultura).⁠
In Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH), as well as in land archaeology, there are
similar specific protection methods as specified for the normal archaeological
cultural heritage (Sarah Dromgoole). Since the law of 16/1985 there were and still
are three different protection levels:
a) The protection of Spanish cultural heritage which allows the owners to receive
tax benefits but obliges them to arrange for the maintenance, conservation and
protection as well as limiting them on legal transmission of the object, demolition
and reconstruction.
b) The second option for protection is to include them on the General Inventory
(Catalogo General de Bienes Culturales), which is a higher form of protection and
the same benefit of tax benefits is given to the owner although the obligations are
greater. These include that the use of this object cannot affect its protection and
any change must be authorized by the appropriate administration. Inspections
have to be permitted as well as study by experts. These objects are also bound by
temporary loan for public exhibition and disposition is subject to strict measures
of surveillance by public authorities.
c) The third option is to declare the item as an “Object of Cultural Interest” (Bien de
Interés Cultural, BIC). This gives them the highest degree of protection in Spain.
This would usually be a Royal Decree together with an inscription in the General
Registry, both as specified in the royal decree Nr. 111 of 10 January 1986. The local
37
authority will then draw up a protection plan specifically for the site, which has to
be accepted by the administration. This has the effect to cease any municipal
consent to division of plots, building or demolition of the site and requires all other
work or advertisement in the area to obtain a special permit.
There are currently over 900 BIC in Spain split into the later mentioned groups.
Some particular sites can also be included in the world heritage list, what signifies
particular importance to human history. Unfortunately, out of these none are
Underwater Cultural Heritage (“Portada De Patrimonio Mundial En España”).
The national legislation applied to Cadiz and Andalusia until 1986 when “ la Junta
de Andalucía” assumed its legislation competences.
As the autonomous communities now had more freedom to adequate or regulate
the law of 1985, further local legislation such as the law “4/1986, de 5 de mayo, del
Patrimonio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía” (Law 16/1985 of the
Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Andalusia) was introduced. The law is
intended to complement the law 16/1985. It does not contradict the previous law
in any way, but rather extends it and gives Andalusia more freedom in applying its
own laws on cultural heritage. However the ways of protecting underwater
cultural heritage was not affected in any particular way as the newly applied law
mostly relates to the administration of the licensing system. Further it also covers
some aspects such as fieldwork programs, promotion, protection and others. The
state administration will usually not intervene in the regional cases except in cases
such as the danger of illegal export and spoliation.
In 1991, with the regional and national legislation already in place, an addendum
was added to the law 4/1986. It extended the national catalogue by adding a
general database of Cultural Heritage in Andalusia (Catálogo General del
Patrimonio Histórico Andaluz) (Gobierno de España). The reasoning for the
introduction of a regional catalogue was that it is much easier to organize such
catalogues in regional sub groups than at the national scale, as this facilitates the
38
work on and organization of the catalogue from the regional authority. Further it is
supposed to encourage cross-‐cultural diffusion, spreading knowledge about
Andalusia’s cultural heritage, by exhibitions and events organized by museums
and institutions such as the CAS (Consejeria de Cultura).
In 1989, Spain ratified the International Salvage convention. However, added

special cases, one of the most relevant is that: Beyond territorial sea (12 nautical
miles from a coastal state) the Spanish government insures that any recovery or
extraction of goods of archaeological or historical value from seabed or subsoil,
which is in the contiguous zone and not authorized, would infringe Spanish and
Andalusia’s law. If the object is beyond Spanish territorial sea it will be “subject to
treaties in force”. However in any other case the normal laws of the historical
heritage 16/1985 and the law 4/1986, de 5 de mayo, del patrimonio de la
Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía are applicable. This however in the case of UCH
often creates a dilemma for the corresponding authorities as well as archaeologists
working in their name, This is mostly due to the fact that most finds are best
preserved where they are found (in situ). If an excavation is forced this will cost
the autonomous communities a lot of money and put archaeologists under
pressure to spend the least amount of money possible in the shortest time period
possible. This can cause the results produced to not be thorough.
In April 2005 the Spanish Parliament authorized the ratification of the 2001
UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, after
which King Juan Carlos signed it on May 26th and was finally passed on 6th of June
2005. Spain was thereafter the first major maritime power to ratify the convention
giving underwater cultural heritage a significant importance within the law. This
was a significant step towards creating a specific legislation regarding underwater
cultural heritage (Sarah Dromgoole).
39

In 2007 an Andalusia law regarding cultural heritage was introduced to reform
and actualize the by then outdated laws. The new law (La ley 14/2007 de 26 de
noviembre) was introduced on the 26th of November 2007. This law is still active
today and has various different aims. It classifies the BIC’s in the catalogue of
cultural heritage of Andalusia by subdividing it into different categories. These
include: Monuments, sites of historic importance, historic gardens, “Conjuntos
Históricos” (which would apply to more complex historic sites such as for example
whole villages or a very big area of various underwater archaeological sites) or
archaeological sites (Querol; Andalucía and Reche).
However it furthers creates categories for ethnological landmarks such as:
Heritage zone, ethnological area of historical interest and industrial area of
historical interest. Any urban planning on these types of sites or in close proximity
to them must be reported to the Ministry of Culture (Consejeria de Cultura).
Further, the law includes the concept of visual pollution and introduces tougher
penalties than the state law, for anyone breaking these laws (Andalucía and Reche;
Querol). In 2009 under the new law 56 new zones were protected as
archaeological zones within the “Decreto 285/2009, de 23 de junio, por el que se
inscriben 56 Zonas Arqueológicas” (Decree 285/2009, of June for the addition of 56
Archaeological Zones).
A further legal development that refers to the maritime heritage, or rather to the
defence of the maritime heritage, is a collective agreement between the different
autonomous communities. This agreement is formulated on the plan for protection
of underwater cultural heritage on the 10th of October 2007 (“Convenios De
Colaboración”; Reunión del Consejo de Patrimonio Histórico en Cartagena). In this
agreement the Spanish state, with support of the National Museum of Underwater
Archaeology in Cartagena, urges the autonomous communities to a certain
standard of protection of UCH.
40
The plan sets certain guidelines for the protection, preservation and promotion of
underwater cultural heritage (Gobierno de España, “La Moncloa. Aprobado El Plan
Nacional De Protección Del Patrimonio Arqueológico Subacuático”).
Between others, these include guidelines for documentation and inventory, in an
attempt to create an “Underwater Archaeological Map of Spain”. The local
Ministries of Culture of the different autonomous communities (In the case of
Andalusia, the Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico) should, with the help of
remote sensing and other archaeological search methods, create a compatible and
integrated management program related to geographic information of underwater
cultural heritage. Each autonomous community should then contribute their
information for a national map of underwater cultural heritage [see picture
below]. Even though such a management program has been done to a certain
degree in previous projects such as the prospection works of Sancti Petri, in the
frame of the Bay of Cadiz, it had not been attempted on such a regional or national
scale (Abárzuza, Josefa Mari Solano, et al.).
41

• It urges for the protection, both physical and legal to declare the most
important underwater archaeological zones BIC or a similar category of
protection.
• The autonomous communities should create and promote national and
international training programmes in regards to underwater archaeology.
42
• An interdepartmental commission for the coordination of the collaborations
with the aim of carrying out this plan for the protection of underwater cultural
heritage. This would include collaboration between the Ministry of Culture and
the Ministry of Development to create a protocol for archaeological works in
port infrastructures. Further between the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry
of Culture for the protection and locating of these sites (as seen in the project
the “Plan Nacional” in Andalusia). It also works in collaboration with third
countries if this helps in the protection of UCH.
• A campaign to raise awareness and promote information about the value of
Spain’s UCH to the general public.
• Further, the plan sets out to have another meeting within one year to evaluate
and comment on the approved methods so far and their effectiveness.
Concluding, we can clearly see that, even though underwater archaeology was and
is included in the general law for cultural heritage, the laws in place were and
aren’t specific enough. This is especially clear when we consider that little
consideration was given to underwater archaeology during the writing of the
constitution in 1978 and the law regarding cultural heritage in 1985 (Since
underwater archaeology was still developing in that period, this is partly
understandable). Special consideration to the underwater cultural heritage was
introduced by the UNESCO convention of 2001, which was ratified in 2005. This
was the first national attempt to create better conditions for the protection of
underwater cultural heritage. The signature of the convention together with the
enhanced laws of 2007 and the creation of the “Plan Nacional de Protección del
Patrimonio Arqueológico Subacuático” (Plan for the protection of underwater
archaeological heritage) marked the first steps towards a specific legislation for
the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. Nevertheless, the law of 2007
lacks the detail needed to efficiently protect the UCH.
This is partly because the legislation does not take into account the differences
between archaeological works underwater and on land, what means that the
management of such projects doesn’t always fall in the responsibility of
archaeologists with enough experience in/with underwater archaeological
43
projects, but this would be important as a good management of the projects could,
for example, improve the safety of diving archaeologists and the conservation of
underwater archaeological remains. An even more important, although more
general deficiency of the law of 2007 is that the regulated aims of archaeological
projects underwater fall short, compared to archaeological projects on land.
Looking back at the beginnings of underwater archaeological legislation in Spain
and Cadiz, even though the regulation and protection of UCH has experienced a lot
of progress, there is still much to do. However the foundations are there and the
increasing public awareness of the underwater cultural heritage gives hope for the
future.
In this sense, it must be added that in 2009, the working group of the Technical
Coordination Committee of the Historical Heritage Council (Grupo del trabajo del
comité de coordinación técnica del consejo del patrimonio histórico) published the
“Libro verde” (Green Book). This official publication is concerned with the future of
underwater and maritime archaeology in Spain. It has a specific chapter in which it
proposes outlines for changes regarding the legislation and protection of UCH.
Further it comments on how current legislation is still inadequate and proposes
various changes for the future (Cultura, Libro Verde Del Plan De Protección Del
Patrimonio Subacuático).
The proposals see new archaeological heritage’s legislation with a specific part
dedicated to underwater archaeology. The new legislation should include various
relevant points:
• It should focus on the implementation of in-‐situ preservation as a means of
protecting and conserving the Spanish UCH.
• It should create maps that define protection areas around the UCH. Any
protection area around an UCH should have an archaeological impact report
that should be reviewed by corresponding government officials.
• The new laws should not be subject to any other regulations or laws that
reduce the degree of effective protection.
44
• The government’s administration in charge of the protection of the UCH should
ensure that there are specialized technicians available for each of the different
aspects of maritime archaeology.
• The new law must ensure that the general public and specialists have access to
the UCH.
As we can see proposed ideas are in accordance with the UNESCO Convention of
2001. However these are so far only proposed plans and the government has
committed to make no changes in the archaeological heritage laws for the moment
(Cultura, Libro Verde Del Plan De Protección Del Patrimonio Subacuático).
45

4. Changes in the public perception of underwater archaeology

in the Bay of Cadiz
For an evaluation of the changes in the public perception of maritime archaeology
and the underwater cultural heritage in the Bay of Cadiz, it is essential to analyse
how archaeological knowledge and other news and events regarding maritime
archaeology are brought to the public. Usually, this happens in two ways: outreach
programs and casual and transcultural diffusion by the media.
To objectively document and review the public perception of the developments in
maritime archaeology during the last century is a difficult task as the main sources
are newspaper articles, which can’t be taken as empirical sources. Since the rise of
the new social media from around 1995 onwards, new sources are available and
different approaches possible that allow a more contrasted evaluation of these
changes. From then on, there are videos available from the news on TV, many
articlesand critics about exhibitions, museum forums, websites and blogs. Further,
in these years the firsts outreach programs were started: a designated bureau for
underwater archaeology was set up and cultural diffusion of underwater
archaeology was stated as one of its main aims.
The analysis of the changes in public perception will be done chronologically and
mainly consist on a quantitative survey of the sources, although, where
appropriate, will also inspects the quality of the information. This survey will cover
what the media reported and how this influenced the public perception.
To conclude, the possible correlation between the archaeological development in

the Bay of Cadiz and the public perception will be examined. Three different parts
will describe the public perception changes: up to 1986, between 1985 and the
year 2000 and from the year 2000 until today.
46
The reviewed sources come mainly from the archive of the CAS and the news
section of the Cadiz University Library. The archives are structured chronologically
by year and month and have gathered most newspaper articles, magazines, news,
website entries and other related information.
In the archive of the CAS however there is one time period that has parts missing.
The newspaper articles before 1995 have all been collected as part of the project
“Prospecciones Arqueológicas Subacuaticas en Sancti-Petri. Proyecto General de
Investigación De la Bahía de Cádiz. Carta arqueológica Subacuatica”. Due to the fact
that a librarian dedicated to the archive only started working in the year 2002
there is a gap in the archive.
4.1 Public perception until 1986

As mentioned previously, most information related to maritime archaeology and
its perception before 1985 comes from newspaper articles and scientific
publications mentioned in the methodology chapter. The review and
interpretation of newspaper articles give us an insight, although subjective, on how
underwater archaeology was perceived and how this perception changed, while
the scientific publications can help understand the development of maritime
archaeology as a science.
The first articles related to maritime archaeology that can be found, appear in the
newspapers in the year 1905. Since these articles give us a very good insight into
the maritime archaeology during the first decade of the 20th century, they will be
reviewed in more detail. There are three articles, all from the “Diario de Cádiz”.
Two of these articles describe expeditions to different locations of interest, known
through oral and written testimony that were part of the cultural tradition.
Wealthy individuals with a personal interest in underwater archaeology usually
organize these expeditions. The articles resemble a story written to entertain the
reader, rather than an article containing scientific information or results. The other
article is about a statue found by a local fisherman. This article includes a
description of the statue and the speculation by the author of the article and
47
various other reporters about its origins. No archaeologist seemed to have been
assigned to open research about the statue at this point.
The next articles are in the year of 1926 and 1928, during which two statues were
found during building works related to the harbour. In one of them, the find is
described and an archaeologist is reported to be of the opinion that this find is
hugely important for the history of Cadiz, however without a concrete explanation.
Another article mentions the further search for places anchored in the popular
traditions, such as the temple of Hercules, by wealthy individuals. Archaeology
seems to be seen still as a past time for wealthy individuals who enjoy it as a
hobby.
With the development of diving as a recreational activity from the 1960s onwards,
diving magazines start commenting about the considerable amount of
archaeological material in the Bay of Cadiz. The articles mention ships full of
treasures for the divers, which the magazine claims that would promote
archaeology in the Bay of Cadiz and in Andalusia. Very little differentiation was
done between treasure hunting and archaeology, especially since during this
period the person who found any object was considered the owner in legal terms.
This attitude towards treasure hunting and underwater archaeology started to
change between 1955 and 1975. While foreign individuals were still treasure
hunting under the cover of archaeology, sport-‐divers who previously were
retrieving all artefacts started to dedicate themselves to archaeology showing a
slow change in attitude. For the first time it was considered that underwater
cultural heritage deserved preservation and not looting by private individuals for
their personal gain.
From 1975 onwards, even though articles written to entertain the reader about
underwater archaeology are still written, articles with a more scientific approach
can also be found, as well as archaeological publications by such authors as Feman,
Concepción and Genaro Chic (Feman; MÍNGUEZ; G. C. García). Articles treating on
the subject of the advancements in underwater archaeology begin to be published.
These give accurate information, including interviews with archaeologists and
showing pictures and archaeological findings. The articles clearly reveal the
48
problems underwater archaeologists encounter with funding, the legal system and
treasure hunters. For the first time, underwater archaeology is presented as an
aspect of human sciences. In different articles and open letters the argument about
whether recreational divers should be allowed to continue diving on shipwrecks
despite the claims of archaeologists that this is putting Underwater cultural
heritage in danger of being looted by unknowing individuals or individuals looking
for financial gains. Some articles repeat the opinion of divers who are however
trying to convince the archaeologists that cooperation between the two sides
would be most beneficial for both, saying that both sides could learn from each
other.
From the year 1980 onwards the newspaper reports tend to split into two
categories: one takes a serious approach to maritime and underwater archaeology
while the other takes a more entertaining approach. Articles about legends, such as
the temple of Hercules and Atlantis, are written with very little scientific
information, giving the impression that underwater archaeology is “treasure
hunting” and are merely written to entertain the readers. But in the same period,
newspapers and magazines include facts based articles about the maritime history
of the Bay of Cadiz and various articles about finds which take a scientific
approach, such as the inclusion of the “Dressel chart” (a reference on amphorae) in
an article describing a random found amphorae through pictures and layouts.
A recurrent subject in that period is the debate on the importance of creating
maritime infrastructure compared to the importance of preserving the UCH. This
subject is discussed to a great degree. The result of this debate was gathered in
various articles, concluding that it was essential to establish what should be done
with the UCH. Since building works stopped excavation, and at the time there was
no conservation lab in Cadiz, it was thought that in situ preservation might be a
preferred option, which angered the some of the public since they saw this as a
neglect of public or private interest (this was not considered preservation by the
general public at this point). The discussion brought out three representative
opinions expressed in different newspapers:
a) That there was need for more interdisciplinary collaboration
49
b) That the cost of underwater archaeology was too high and not desirable
considering the results
c) That if in situ preservation were to be implemented, a change in national to
autonomous communities legislation would have to reflect this.
4.2 Public Perception from 1985-‐2000

During the mid 1980s, a self proclaimed archaeologist, an American by the name of
Robert Marx, tries to convince the authorities that it is essential that he excavates
various sites throughout the Bay of Cadiz. This brought about a discussion in the
newspapers focusing on treasure hunting and underwater archaeology. The
differences between treasure hunters and archaeologists are discussed and
examples of both including archaeologist George Bass and treasure hunter Robert
Marx are mentioned. Newspapers are distinguishing between organized treasure
hunting and sport divers looting for treasure, claiming that the divers are not
working for their own gains but to bring the UCH to the public. What in turn brings
up the question to the means to an end i.e., if the sale of archaeological artefacts to
support underwater archaeology should be preferred to leaving them in situ
(which, at that time, was still not considered a preservation method by the public)
Repeated calls from the newspaper for more public outreach by the authorities on
the UCH in the Bay of Cadiz characterized this period. The general public seems to
have gathered interest about underwater archaeology due to the amount of
publicity it received through the American treasure hunter Robert Marx. A few
months later the Junta Andalucía responds to this growing interest by creating
various public conferences focused on underwater and maritime archaeology.
Notable is also that during these conferences the call for more protection of the
UCH comes from the Guardia Civil too.
From 1987 onwards, as a result of the legislative changes of the law “4/1986, de 5
de mayo, del patrimonio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía” the newspapers
express the expectation that more archaeological projects with more funding, start.
However it is mentioned that, to accomplish this, the “Junta de Andalucía” admits
the necessity of a dedicated team for underwater archaeology, which uses and
50
develops an appropriate methodology for the Bay of Cadiz. Further the new
legislation prevents privately funded treasure hunters from working on
Andalusia’s coasts, increasing the need for government-‐funded projects.
An important change also occurs after various articles are published, outing the
Spanish armada as treasure hunters that are destroying UCH. This brings a
substantial change from the atavistic previous attitude of not criticizing the
Spanish (naval) Forces. A sense of anger can be noted in the newspaper about the
fact that, instead of preserving and protecting Spanish cultural heritage, they are
retrieving it for themselves.
Further notices denote that there are changes in the attitude towards in-‐situ
preservation. During the excavation of a wreck that was buried in sludge, and
therefore well preserved, even the newspapers seems to change their opinion on
leaving wrecks on the bottom of the seabed.
From the beginning of 1990 onwards, a more reasonable approach, in regards to
the protection and importance of underwater archaeology for the Bay of Cadiz,
becomes mainstream. Part of the general public seems to give more priority to the
protection of UCH during dredging works in the Bay of Cadiz than previously. The
newspapers increasingly support the new legislation, which makes mandatory the
prospection previous to any building work, as well as the presence of
archaeological inspectors at any building project. The previous discussion of the
urgent need for infrastructure in contrast to the protection of the cultural heritage
seems to be resolved in favour of the cultural heritage. With the need for regular
prospection’s and archaeological inspectors, the formation of the CAS is seen as
vital and mentioned as the means to deal with these needs. However even though
this need is mentioned, the authorities at this point are still working together with
local divers as much as possible, since this is a good way of reaching out to people
interested but not working in underwater archaeology.
Other news report that, while some of the public is helping the government on the
issue of preservation, others knowingly or unknowingly are hindering the efforts
of the maritime archaeology policy. Even though there have been some educational
conferences, a great deal of the local population still thinks that it is acceptable to
51
take archaeological casual finds home. The newspapers describe this as a culture of
“just take one home” (Japon), which continues to exist. This is directly related to
the first arrests made regarding the protection of UCH in 1991. An alleged
treasure-‐hunting ring is uncovered and the ringleaders arrested. Various
newspaper report this incident including a lot of detail: Some, supporting the
claims of the treasure hunter that he was not collecting the artefacts for
commercial gain but rather for the good of the community, while others take the
side of the government in condemning such actions. It is notable that most of the
support the treasure hunter received was from peoples in his locality (San
Fernando) as they claimed he was running an unofficial museum for them. The
legal proceedings between the treasure hunter nicknamed ”Fofi” and the “Junta de
Andalucía” continues until 1995 where he was condemned to pay a total of
seventeen million pesetas [€102.172,-‐]. Since this was the first arrest made
regarding the salvage of archaeological goods from the seabed in Cadiz, it was an
important moment for the future protection of the UCH. It sent a clear message to
those divers who were still treasure hunting in the area, be it for financial gain or
just as hobby.
From the beginnings of the 21st century onwards we can observe big changes in
the public's and politicians perception of underwater cultural heritage in Cadiz.
Due to a further out-‐reach project of the CAS and through the mentioned “Fofi”
case, the Guardia Civil is being forced to patrol underwater archaeological sites
more frequently.
4.3 Public Perception from 2002 until present

From the year 2002 onwards, a controversial series of incidents involving the
treasure hunting company Odyssey, Spanish and British governments and “La
Junta de Andalucía”, brings maritime archaeology into the spotlight, splitting the
public opinion. Some articles highlight the fact that nothing is being done with
Spain’s UCH and that this would be one way of financing underwater archaeology.
However after Odyssey’s ships had been caught in Spanish territorial waters
without permission by the Spanish Armada and found some of its own divers
working on board, the public seems to be more inclined to condemn the company
52
and its aims. The fact that the Spanish Navy divers were of course not allowed
working with Odyssey in salvage operations and that they were actively helping a
company salvage Spanish UCH was not received well by the public. However one of
the main reasons people were infuriated was the fact that Odyssey was a foreign
company that would take the artefacts they found away from Spain. This attitude
shows again how little understanding the public had on how maritime archaeology
works and what its aims are. In a similar way of thinking as shown by the
archaeologist at the beginnings of the underwater archaeology in Spain, little
attention was given to the context of the finds, focusing instead on the recovery of
artefacts. The HMS Sussex project from Odyssey in some ways however also
helped to further justify in increased in the protection of UCH just like the “Fofi”
case did.
Politicians started to emphasize the importance of the role of the CAS in relation to
the protection and cultural diffusion of the UCH. This at the time seems to be
essential as the general population still has very little knowledge of what exactly
the CAS is. As the building “El balneario de Cádiz“, a former spa bath resort, is a BIC
(building included in the catalogue of places of cultural interest) itself, a feeling
that something had been removed from the public eye was notable. However this
changed during the following years for three reasons.
Firstly an increasing number of in depth articles about techniques used and
projects that have been concluded are published in various newspapers.
Secondly there is a lot more exposure about the projects of the CAS thanks to the
collaboration with the National Geographic Magazine on a special project about the
Trafalgar battle, which included a very extensive outreach program and exposition
in the CAS. Due to its size this project attracted a lot of public attention.
Thirdly the CAS itself started giving public seminars teaching principles in
underwater archaeology and holding conferences about maritime archaeology
open to the general public.
At the same time, even though treasure hunting is still being actively practised by
groups of individuals or individual’s acting alone, it is not as commonplace as
previously. Divers who would previously keep any artefacts they found while
53
diving recreationally are oft handing their finds to the museum. Further, it is the
first time that volunteers offer to work together with the Guardia Civil to protect
UCH.
It is also notable that during 2004 the first commercial underwater archaeology
company opens in Andalucía, which receives various prizes as the best young
entrepreneurial company in Andalucía.
From the years 2005 until 2008 we have various events that have an influence on
public perception of underwater archaeology in Cadiz and Spain, which indicate
some trends occurring.
In particular we have various issues, which led to the public demanding reforms in
legislation and protection of the UCH. One of these was the still ongoing case of
Odyssey. The exceptional characteristics of the case Odyssey and the length of the
process over several years and its evolution make the case worthy of a thesis in its
own right, exceeding the extent of this work. However, the main facts are that after
2005 there is an internal argument between the “Junta de Andalucía” and the
Spanish government, which results in further calls for legal reform. Further, after
many articles by local newspapers about Odyssey and its activities throughout the
world, comparing what the company does to what the CAS does, a great interest
was generated in the public. To illustrate this interest one could use this particular
example: While the legal situation of Odyssey is further being discussed by the
Spanish government and the Junta Andalucía, the treasure hunting company tries
to continue to excavate. However “20 different civilian ships band together and
stop any movement of Odyssey ships by surrounding them blocking their access to
the site”(“Más De Veinte Barcos Protestan Con Bocinas Ante El ‘Odyssey
Explorer’”).
The second event is the arrests of three different Spanish treasure-‐hunting gangs,
with partial involvement of some officers of the Guardia Civil. The arrests made
“show a mafia like organization” (“Una Segunda Inspección Al Barco ‘Louisa’
Concluye Con El Hallazgo De Cartas Nauticas”) which spans its network
throughout Spain. Especially the fact that these gangs were well organized with
historians working in the former colonial archives of “Archivos de las Indias” and
54
all armed with military weapons such as M16’s and automatic handguns seems to
attract a lot of attention from the public.
The result of these two events put the Junta Andalucía and the Spanish
government under public pressure, as a consequence allowing the archaeologists
to establish a new manifesto the “Plan Nacional para la Protección del Patrimonio
Cultural Subacuático” designed to protect UCH, which was introduced in the year
2009. Before the new manifesto was introduced, the “Junta de Andalucía”
provisionally increased the protection of the UCH by making it an option on their
website to denounce treasure hunters anonymously as well as introducing an
special formation for the Guardia Civil, teaching their members how to detect and
prevent the illicit trading of archaeological goods.
Apart from these two “negative” events that affected the public perception there is
also feedback from the public about the public outreach programs organized by
the CAS. The Trafalgar exhibition alone seemed to have been a great success with
the public: “while the museum of Cadiz got a total of 22.000 visitors in a year the
exhibition in the CAS got a total of 37.000 visitors in a month”(“Estoy Convencida
De Que Este Vas Ser El Año Del Teatro Romano”). Further, various articles going in
depth about new technologies used in the projects of the CAS and its collaborations
with the government of Cape Verde are giving the Centre for Underwater
Archaeology good publicity. This is reflected in the increasing number of “letters to
the editor” on the newspapers regarding underwater archaeology, to which the
CAS reacted by increasing the amount of seminars and presentations to inform
tourists and locals about the value of the UCH.
From the year 2008 to the beginnings of 2012 the mentioned trend holds on. A
high number of articles still deal with Odyssey during this time period, as the legal
battle regarding “Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes” was not fully resolved until
2012. Due to the attention gained by the Odyssey case, newspapers start reporting
about cases involving Odyssey all around the world, giving the population insight
into issues about the protection of underwater archaeological heritage around the
world. Further, politicians use the interest in maritime archaeology that this case
has created to relaunch their political campaigns. Two points are in particular
focus: the argument about what should be done to protect UCH against further
55
salvage attempts and whether this is done correctly so far and the argument about
where, if the court fails, the so called “treasure” should be returned to in Spain.
However it is notable that while some arguments over the treasure ensued
between the government and various autonomous regions, there is a new
consensus that the artefacts themselves are not as important as the knowledge
that is to be gained from the wreck.
It is also notable that more articles from international newspapers are written
regarding this case, explaining the decrease in reports about maritime archaeology
in Spain after the case finished at the beginning of the year 2012.
During this period, the “Plan Nacional para la Protección del Patrimonio Cultural
Subacuático” which includes the “Libro verde” is implemented and greeted with
consent by politicians and the public.
Some news point out that the Spanish “Armada” (Navy) and the Guardia Civil (Civil
Police) will be working with “La Junta Andalucía” to protect and research the UCH
in Andalucía. Further, the implementation of in-‐situ conservation of a total of 30
sites that are declared underwater national heritage as part of the “Libro verde”
brings further public support to “La Junta de Andalucía”.
However the question of why this had not been done at an earlier point, since this
is the first legislative reaction of the government to the Odyssey case, is formulated
repeatedly. At the same time the question of how this will be financed in the long-‐
term appears in the media. Comparisons to the funding of maritime archaeology
programs on other countries are done, underlining in particular the success of the
Swedish policy of creating a museum about the “Vasa”. There seems to be a
consensus by the public that protection of the UCH is essential but since the
economic crisis is increasingly perceived, no one wants to pay for it.
Throughout this period a large number of newspapers also start publishing in-‐
depth articles about a wide range of topics related to maritime archaeology
including methodology, conservation, preservation, cultural diffusions etc. This
also includes articles and documentaries by the National Geographic making
Spanish archaeology available to people outside of Spain. Especially the random
find of a wreck on one of the beaches in the Bay of Cadiz gathers particular
56
interest, as the reporters are able to follow the CAS project on the wreck from its
discovery up to the finished project, letting the public see everything that happens
along the way.
Various articles report that there has been a huge advancement in maritime
archaeology in Spain during the recent years. Measures are put in place to make it
a scientific discipline as it is in other countries. In particular Andalucía is seen as
the most advanced in matters of maritime archaeology with El PAÍS labelling the
CAS poetically as “the guardians of history below the sea”(Espinosa). Some
newspapers put this boom in the interest in maritime archaeology down to the
case of “Odyssey” and “Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes” claiming that as negative in
relation to UCH as Odyssey might be, it did “wake the country up” (Perez).
This interest is not only reflected in the public but also in some banks, which start
funding projects and exhibitions related to maritime archaeology.
Further the newspaper reports start including results from projects in other
countries including the UK, India, United States and the “Hedvig Sophia” project on
which Syddansk universitet (SDU) collaborated with.
4.4 Analysis
The relationship between cultural heritage policies and its protection and
conservation should, by now, be clear. The more there is a conscience of heritage
in the public perception, the easiest is to put forwards and finance favourable
policies in a domain that very oft is in conflict with other domains, especially
where economical interest are priority.
In this context, the prominence of UWA in the public eye will be analysed through
its presence in the media, which is one of the few indicators on the level of social
concern about UWA heritage. To evaluate this, we will be looking at several
criteria:
• The frequency of related articles in the media. A quantitative analysis on how
often the subject of UWA appears in the media (Number of reports and articles
57
about it per year) has been done by looking at newspapers, TV reports and
online newspapers
• The interest of the public in underwater archaeology shown through
demonstrations, letters to editors and responses to articles.
• The quality and depth of the article and reports.

The opinion brought forward in the media is often representative of part of the
population and, as the subject is relatively specialized, tends to have great
influence on a larger part of the population. This gives a good indicator of what the
general population thinks of underwater archaeology at that current moment, but
depending on who wrote it can also be misleading in the case that they have
ulterior motives.
This is where the newspaper articles differ from most scientific publication in
archaeology as will be based on facts interpreted by the author but allow other
interpretations by the reader.
This said, the following is an overview of the changes of maritime archaeology in
the public perception during the last century:
At the beginning of the twentieth century, maritime archaeology was rather seen
as romantic historicism instead of being considered related to social sciences.
Through the development of diving as a recreational activity, from 1950s onwards,
maritime archaeology was more often associated with treasure hunting and not as
a scientific activity.
From the 1970s onwards and there is a change in the tone of the articles about
maritime archaeology. While some newspapers still seem to treat it as treasure
hunting activity, others start to see it as a social science. There is also a lot of
debate between recreational divers and archaeologists about what the difference
between archaeology and treasure hunting is.
From the 1980s onwards and due to an increase in treasure hunters in the Bay of
Cadiz, the first calls for the need to protect the underwater cultural heritage are
published. With the introduction of the law of 1985 there is a slow but steady
58
pressure against treasure hunting activities. At the same time, the publicity about
treasure hunting gives the chance to the responsible on cultural heritage to react
in accordance to the menace and create a team of dedicated underwater
archaeologists for the Bay of Cadiz, resulting in the creation of CAS in the year
1997. The articles of this period seem to be more in depth, and focused on the
scientific and ethical aspects of underwater archaeology. The number of articles
about maritime archaeology in the newspapers and TV are steadily increasing as
seen in this graph Nr.1-‐3.
Graph 1 - Articles Spain

40
35
30
25
20
15 Number of Articles
10
5
0
1905
1969
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1928
Graph 2 - Articles Spain

800
700
600
500
400
300 Number of articles
200
100
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2006
2008
59
Graph 3- Articles Spain
800
700
600
500
400
300 Number of Articles
200
100
0
1905
1969
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
2000
2002
2004
2010
2012
1928
2006
2008

Graph 4- International Articles

45
40
35
30
25
20 Number of International
15 articles
10
5
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2006
2008
After the institution of the CAS, there is another single success that makes
converge the focus of the public opinion in archaeology: the Odyssey Case of the
HMS Sussex. Over the period of 8 years the treasure hunting company Odyssey
tried to salvage what was believed to be the HMS Sussex but was refused to do so
by the Spanish government and the Junta Andalucía, resulting in various legal
proceedings. This case shows to what extent the feeling of the need to protect the
UCH has changed since the 1970s, where an attitude of plundering the “treasure’s
of the sea” was common. One example of the commitment to the protection of the
UCH would be the blockade of the Odyssey ship by groups of boats owners.
60
Moreover, a further increase in the depth, quality and length of the articles can be
noted.
In addition, the Odyssey case generated international interest on the maritime
archaeology in Cadiz, setting the Junta Andalucía and the Spanish government
under further pressure to protect its UCH (see graph Nr. 4). Together with
outreach programmes conceived and developed the by the CAS, this media
presence contributed to a degree of support for the archaeologists to develop the
national plan for the protection of the underwater cultural heritage.
As consecuence, we can say that the public perception of underwater and maritime
archaeology has undoubtedly increased, as shows the increasing number of
articles published in Spain every year. As was to be expected, international
newspapers seem to focus rather on extraordinary events such as the Odyssey
cases. While the number of articles go up so does the length and depth of the
articles. More articles that go into technical and historical details are published the
more maritime archaeology developed.
It is quite clear that the development of underwater archaeology in the Bay of
Cadiz and the public perception of underwater archaeology and cultural heritage
go, if not hand in hand, in direct relationship, although, as was to be expected, no
empirical conclusion can be deduced.
61

5. Archaeological theory in the Bay of Cadiz

5.1 Archaeological theory and the development of underwater archaeology in
the Bay of Cadiz

There was no school of thought producing theoretical work in underwater
archaeology in Cadiz or Andalucía that accompanied the development of
underwater archaeology in the Bay of Cadiz. The development of a theoretical
approach towards archaeology as a science is a rather new aspect in the general
development in Andalusia.
Even if we look at a national level, the developments of maritime archaeology as a
science and the realisation of its different theoretical approaches, are relatively
recent.
To describe the changes in archaeological theory during the last three to four
decades it is essential that we also look, at least briefly, at the attitude to
archaeology and History during the Franco regime.
It is also interesting to examine if different theoretical approaches have played an
important role in the development of underwater archaeology in the Bay of Cadiz.
Further, the question arises of whether the underwater archaeology praxis in the
Bay of Cadiz has contributed to the developments of archaeology as a science or
not and whether they have adopted some particular school of archaeological
thought.
The end of the Spanish civil war and the consolidation of Franco’s regime brought
some changes to the Spanish archaeology thought and praxis. Those archaeologists
and academics loyal to Franco kept their positions while new regime like-‐minded
and loyal archaeologists replaced those with leftist or liberal background. The long
lasting international isolation of the regime and the appropriation of cultural
62
issues for its political views and aims marked the regime. Corporate-‐spirit and
cultural autarky prevented the flow of ideas. Many archaeologists who achieved a
position during this period kept these until they retired at the end of the Franco
regime. Further there was reorganization from regional centres to a hierarchical
structure with its power centre in Madrid (Galaty and Watkinson).
However even though there was some restructuring, the culture historical
approach seen in Spain and most other European countries before Franco
continued. The Franco regime was not interested in Spain’s history previous to the
middle ages. The reason for this was that previous to the middle ages a unified
Spanish nation did not exist which went against the nationalist-‐imperial vision of
the regime and its political propaganda. Archaeology, which at the time was seen
as a speciality of the pre-‐history and antique, was therefore neglected as the focus
was put on the more recent history of the periods before the Middle Ages (DÍaz-‐
Andreu).
Spanish archaeology before and during Franco regime was mostly cultural
historical archaeology. While German archaeology had a very strong influence on
Spanish archaeology during the time before the end of the Second World War this
influence ceased at the end of the war leaving Spanish archaeology with no
theoretical developments and in isolation from the rest of the academic world.
Nevertheless, there were some changes in the management of the archaeological
institutions throughout the dictatorship, but these did not change the state of
isolation that characterized the Spanish archaeology of the period. With the recent
and timid opening of the regimen from the 1960s on, archaeology in Spain got new
impulses. The Spanish archaeologists, still using the cultural historical approach,
which managed to gain influence during the 1960s, increased their academic
weight with the expansion of Spanish universities during the 1970s. This meant
that that there were growing numbers of trained archaeologists coming from the
universities, which opened the possibility of further developments. Unfortunately,
changes went on slowly, as the old school’s archaeologists trained these new
archaeologists and the opening to international exchanges was very limited and
under a tight control of the administration. Changes materialized first with the end
63
of Franco’s regime, and from then on there was some archaeological theory
development in Spain.
Especially the political freedom and the new decentralisation of the Spanish
administration in seventeen autonomous regions, instituted the conditions that
gave archaeologists the chance to move forward from their previous gridlock. A
move away from the previous Central European influence (anchored to the pre
war thinking for most of a century) towards the more recent in the English-‐
speaking world developed theories, coud be observed (Lull and Micó). The new
external influences gave archaeologists the opportunity of testing and applying
these new archaeological theories to their archaeological works. This resulted in
different archaeologists trying out in the 1980s new theories such as behavioural
archaeology, “chaîne opératoire”, rules of correspondence and annals, to name a
few (Hodder, Archaeological Theory in Europe).
But only a few of these ideas established themselves for on the long term:
• Some Marxist ideas

• Clarke’s work on processual archaeology
• American influences from New archaeology
Notable is also that a similar archaeological theory as the English school of
Cognitive Archaeology developed in Spain parallel to England. Vincent Lull used a
linguistic-‐structuralist approach in which aim was to “define the dimensions of
structural complexities, as well as significant regular patterns in the archaeological
register, in order to reveal their structural function” (Hodder, Archaeological
Theory in Europe 39)
Even though some of these theories overlap each other, all of them together helped
bringing about new methodologies and techniques. Through them, the scientific
approach to archaeology, based on the use of hypothesis, verification and
deduction, became widespread in Spain and gave Archaeology to this day the
status of a scientific activity (Johnson).
After the knowledge and adoption of the international archaeological theories and
the sudden surge of archaeological activity, there have been very few new
64
contributions to archaeological theory throughout Spain. In spite of Spain’ rich
archaeological remains, few books, which solely deal with archaeological theory,
have been published in Spanish.
65
6. Discussion
What is archaeological development?
Continuity and change, local and global, tradition and innovation were features of
the enlarged, one world, but this world was also characterised by local identities and
specificities” (Funari, Hall, and Jones 52)
Some might question the term archaeological development, due to it being
subjective to the implication that underwater archaeology in the Bay of Cadiz was
previously underdeveloped. However, as we could see in the previous chapters,
there have been most certainly changes through the last half of the century and a
lot of them favourable towards the protection of the underwater cultural heritage.
Therefore the term archaeological development should be considered appropriate.
In regards to underwater archaeological development, various parts of what has
become the historical science of maritime and underwater archaeology are
included in the thesis in an attempt to explain the driving forces of its
development. These underwater archaeological developments are:
• Legislative action
• Methodological/Technological innovation
• Archaeological theory dialectic
• Institutional acts dealing with maritime and underwater archaeology
The question of whether the development of maritime and underwater
archaeology in the Bay of Cadiz is unique or similar to global developments in its
field has to be considered too. The relative isolation of Spain during the
dictatorship and the evolution of this branch of archaeology as a response to the
accumulation of casual findings could have spread an autarchic development.
If we look at the direction underwater archaeology has evolved in the Bay of Cadiz
we can see that this is certainly not unique and goes with the general pattern of the
development of archaeological theory as described by archaeologists such as Bruce
Trigger (Trigger). Further, its development is very similar to other isolated
66
developments as, for example, the underwater archaeology of Mayan remains
which, “during the twentieth Century [underwater archaeology] has gradually
evolved from a vocational activity whose primary focus was on the recovery of
artefacts to a sub discipline with more focused professional concerns” (Andrews
and Corletta), even if this developments started from different traditions. In the
case of Spain this development is linked with philology and history rather than
American archaeology (dominant in the case of Mayan archaeology), which is more
closely related to anthropology (Funari, Hall, and Jones). Trigger even goes as far
as claiming that “those who have been trained in the Western European and Soviet
tradition of archaeological research, history, both as a discipline and as a
methodology, has always been viewed as largely irrelevant to prehistoric
archaeology in the United States”, showing the importance of the different
traditions of archaeological thought (Trigger 19).

From today’s point of view, one could say that there is a convergence in
archaeological development and a multiplicity of coexistent approaches as
consequence of the globalisation and broad and quick knowledge diffusion.
This is also true for the development of underwater archaeology in Andalucía,
where, as we could see, the main driving forces are globalisation, increase of
archaeological perception in the public and finally archaeological development in
itself driven by the praxis-‐theory dialectic.

For the archaeology of the Bay of Cadiz, globalization meant the aperture to
international exchanges, a boom on underwater discoveries, international and
public diffusion of the heritage and reinforcement of underwater archaeology as a
necessary discipline. This is particularly evident because of the lack of support
during the Franco regime until the suppression of the CGEA in 1955 (Comisaría
General de Excavaciones Arqueológicas) and the slowly disappearance its heritage
towards 1968 definitively overcame 1975 with the coming of democracy, at which
point many new influences came to Spain(DIAZ-‐ANDREU, Margarita and SANCHEZ,
Manuel E., Ramirez). This globalisation has brought and pushed for advancements
in the fields of:

67
• Archaeological theory: The penetration of exterior influences into the local
archaeological theory inspired changes from a cultural-‐historical approach
to what can be considered a processual archaeological approach. The
argument that there is a post-‐processual approach shows in some of the
changes in methods (as described in chapter 3) from a focus on artefact
towards focusing on the context. Nevertheless, this change can also be seen
as influenced by Ian Hodder’s idea of contrasts, as he describes in “Function
and meaning” (Hodder, “Postprocessual Archaeology” 2). However the idea
of the processual approach still stands very strong due to fact there is still a
focus on “scientism”(Patterson 557) as we can see by the focus on much
empirical data during the last decade in Cadiz. In any case, to trace the
theoretical influences on the archaeological development of the Bay of
Cadiz and Spain, further research should be done.

• Legislation: The introduction of a convention to protect the underwater
cultural heritage on a global level by the UNESCO in 2001 has pushed for
tougher laws supporting this convention in countries that have ratified it
[the convention]. This claim has been supported by various different
scholars after the convention was ratified and can be seen having an effect
in Cadiz looking at legislative changes during the last half a decade
(González, O’Keefe, and Williams) (Garabello 193)(Mariano J. Aznar
Gomez)(Sarah Dromgoole).

• Archaeological methods: The technological developments in the field and
from other fields throughout the globalised world imply new methods
involving these technologies, which are far easier to be tested and adopted
by archaeologists. Further, even methods that don’t involve new technology
are spread through archaeological publications available on the Internet
and through international seminars and conventions. However, many of the
advances in archaeological methodology came along with the development
of new archaeological theories, which in turn came to Spain as a
consequence of the globalisation. An example of how a theory introduces
new methodologies can be seen on the neo-‐Darwinian theory, where we see
68
that “studies use this theoretical basis to resolve archaeological problems at
varying degrees of temporal depth, at varying scales of social complexity,
and employing varying methodologies” (Barton and Clark). Another
example of the importance of theory in the development of methodology
would be the use of empirical data and scientific approach in the New
Archaeology, which can be seen in the geomorphologic approaches in 2001
in Cadiz (Johnson) (Dyson)(Arteaga et al.).

• UA institutions: The creation of such institutions as the CAS is to some
extent due to the example of similar institutions set up throughout Spain,
such as the CASCV, CASC and the National Museum of Archaeology
(ARQVA), which in turn mirrors other international experiences where the
success of such centres spurred the creation of similar institutes impelled
by the cultural globalization. The success of institutes such as the
Underwater Archaeology Centre on the Isle of Wight (1990), UK, the
DRASSM (1966) in Marseille(Ministère de la Culture et de la
Communication), France, or the Vasa Museum (1990) in Stockholm,
Sweden, certainly have gained acknowledgement on a international level
(Medland)(Cederlund and Hocker). Although the Wight centre and the
VASA museum have departments dedicated to research, these are far
smaller than the ones at the DRASSM and the CAS. This might indicate that
the structure of the DRASSM probably influenced the structure of how the
CAS was set up although no direct proof of this influence could be found.

Another motor propelling archaeological development in the Bay of Cadiz has been
public perception and the increasing grade of information about underwater
archaeology in the society. Further the need to protect the underwater cultural
heritage and the constraints of this protection have become more evident to the
public thanks to the numerous public debates on the subject and their increasingly
in-‐depth content, compared to previously. People in Cadiz are aware of their rich
cultural heritage, available below the water, and don’t want it to be destroyed. This
becomes evident through various aspects of underwater archaeology:

69
• Legislation: This has been described in previous chapters. The publics
increasing awareness of maritime archaeology through the media and
archaeological institutions has also made them more aware of the loss of it,
which has led to increasing pressure for tougher laws regarding land based
and underwater cultural heritage. Various scholars indicate that “rousing
and developing an awareness in public opinion of the UCH” (Blake) is
essential to its protection (Bederman).

• Archaeological Institutions: Without the urge of the public to further
maritime archaeology activity and to protect the underwater cultural
heritage, there would be no rational reasons to open underwater
archaeological centres and to have specialised technicians dedicated to
underwater archaeology. Places such as the CAS have a two-‐way
relationship with the public. They need the public to exist, but at the same
time have to ensure that the public wants them to exist. That is to say they
have to create public outreach programs that inform the public about
maritime archaeology. This also shown in the focus of outreach programs
by centres such as the CAS towards young people and students, trying to
focus its impact on future generations which would themselves pass the
information onto the next generation (Carlos Alonso Villalobos,
“Patrimonio Subacuático y Su Diffusion”).

Lastly, the recognition of underwater archaeology as a science with a strong
practical component in itself generates a dynamic of changes, testing and new
developments.

• Institutions such as the CAS engage experienced specialised professionals that
work in the field of maritime archaeology. As such, these professional study the
theoretical body and are able to develop own theories from their praxis based on
methods and technologies, which they have the opportunity to test out and
develop further. The combination of archaeological methods experimented with
and theories create standards that can be applied not only on a local level, but also
on a national or international level. The structure of the CAS can stand as an
70
example of this, and the publication of the Green Book (Libro Verde del Plan de
Protección del Patrimonio Subacuático), which tries to create standards in the field
of maritime archaeology through the experience of different maritime
archaeologists working in various areas throughout Spain, is a good example of the
convergent, praxis orientated approach that the UWA in the Bay of Cadiz has
chosen.
71
7. Conclusion

The main aim of this work was to analyze the development of Underwater
Archaeology in the Bay of Cadiz, trying to document its historical evolution,
uncovering the causes of its development and pointing out their relationship.
As it has been shown, there were three characteristic phases:
1. Recuperation and looting

2. Unstructured approach: archaeologists and treasure hunters
3. Consolidation of maritime archaeology as science
The first phase covers the decades from1950s to 1980s, when the developments in
diving technology enable access to scuba diving equipment to an increasingly
number of people, allowing them the exploration of archaeological remains within
reach. During these years, the looting of archaeological goods is predominant.
Archaeology is not yet a developed science, and there is no legal body to protect
cultural heritage. On the contrary, the “finders keepers” principle is applied during
Franco’s regime, and even institutionalized, enabling treasure hunters to salvage
as much as they can without any fear of repercussions (M. D.-‐A. García, Mora, and
Cortadella).
During this period, even though some archaeologists were working underwater,
this was not the norm. Some archaeologist focused on some special random finds,
as it happened in the case of “El Capitel” (Feman), about which, due to its good
state of conservation, an article was published. Lacking a specialised body of
underwater archaeologist, the museums were keen to acquire artefacts found by
treasure hunters, what can partly be explained by the cultural-‐ historical approach
to archaeology during Franco’s regime, which encouraged the retrieval of artefacts.
The second phase, from the 1980s onwards, can be also called “the phase of two
approaches” since both, treasure hunters and archaeologists, were active in the
72
Bay of Cadiz. During this period we see the first archaeologists fully dedicated to
working in maritime and underwater archaeology, such as Olga Vallespin. Even
though the efforts were there it was unstructured and done by individual
researchers.
The end of Franco’s regime meant an aperture to the exterior and a new cultural
frame that allowed new international developments in archaeological theory to be
known in Spain. An example of this influence was the combined use of stratigraphy
and cultural affiliation by Vallespin in 1985. The changes brought a different
approach towards archaeology as a whole, which partly explains the new
legislation introduced in 1985, the “Ley 16/1985 de Protección del Patrimonio
Cultural” (Law 16/1985 of the Protection of the Cultural Heritage).
However, the abundance of archaeological material in the Bay of Cadiz attracts
further treasure hunters such as Robert Marx. Stimulated by the nonexistence of
particular laws protecting the underwater cultural heritage, they continue to
salvage as much archaeological material as possible.
As mentioned, in this period professional archaeologists engaged with maritime

and underwater archaeology, spreading a new attitude towards the cultural
heritage that had the effect on the public to start objecting the looting of their
underwater cultural heritage by these treasure hunters.
The decentralisation of legislative power from the state to the autonomous
communities permitted the changes in legislation that the growing conscience on
cultural heritage was demanding. In 1986, the “Ley 4/1986, de 5 de mayo, del
Patrimonio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía” (Law 4/1986 of may the 5th
of the Heritage of the autonomous community of Andalusia), which also protected
the underwater cultural heritage, was introduced.
This brought the start of a new era for maritime archaeology. Treasure hunters
started having it far more difficult to justify their actions. Further the changes in
the public’s and local government’s attitude towards maritime and underwater
archaeology changed, due to the need to protect the rich archaeological heritage.
These circumstances lead to the creation of the Centre of Underwater Archaeology
(Centro Arqueología Subacuatica) also known as the CAS, in 1998.
73
The creation of the institute marks what can be considered the third phase in the
development in maritime archaeology in the Bay of Cadiz. With a dedicated team of
maritime archaeologists, a standardization of criteria, procedures and methods
started to be applied in the Bay of Cadiz. A change from a focus on artefact retrieval
towards the scientific study of the site and the context took place. This change
reflected the adoption of a processual approach in accordance to more actual
developments on the archaeological theory, as mentioned in chapter five.
But even though such a specialised institute that counts with a team of maritime
archaeologists now exists, the “Odyssey” and “Fofi “cases (as mentioned in chapter
4), show the impossibility of an institute such as the CAS to protect the UCH
without adequate legislation. With the public eye onto these two cases there were
further calls for the protection of the local underwater cultural heritage, as shown
by the blockade of the Odyssey boat by recreational boats owners in 2006 (“Más De
Veinte Barcos Protestan Con Bocinas Ante El ‘Odyssey Explorer’").
This urgency to protect its cultural heritage brought further changes in legislation,
such as the ratification of the UNESCO convention in 2005, the introduction of the
“ley 14/2007 de 26 de noviembre” (law 14/2007 of the 26th of November) in 2007
and the addition of 56 archaeological sites that are being protected in 2009 under
the “Decreto 285/2009, de 23 de junio, por el que se inscriben 56 Zonas
Arqueológicas” (Decree 285/2009). Further, out of this urgency, the “Libro verde
Del Plan De Protección Del Patrimonio Subacuático” (Green book about the
protection plan of the underwater cultural heritage) was published, which
proposes further standards and improvements in maritime archaeology.
However, the development itself cannot be put down to a single driving force but
rather to various interdependent factors, some with more importance than others.
These include:
• The abundance of archaeological material in the Bay of Cadiz
• The activity of treasure hunters in the Bay of Cadiz
• The changes in political structures, which allowed to changes in
archaeological theory
74
• The political decentralisation and creation of “La Junta Andalucía” (the local
government)
• The creation of the Centre of Underwater Archaeology (CAS) and, previous
to it, the Andalusia Institute for Cultural Heritage (IAPH)
• The growing interest of the medias on maritime archaeology and their
influence.
• The acquisition of a conscience of its cultural heritage by the public
• Globalisation
A clear conclusion from case of the Bay of Cadiz highlights the need of public
relations work for the archaeological institutions. In the age of the medias,
collaboration with the media and public will benefit all parties. The CAS leans on
the examples of the “Vasa” (Cederlund and Hocker), the “Bremer Cog” (Hoffmann
and Schnall) and the Roskilde Viking ships, which show that the identification with
cultural heritage improves with its objectification. Without outreach programs like
these, it is hard to imagine that maritime archaeology would have developed the
characteristic it has today. What, again, brings the question about in situ
preservation and to which extent this is positive for the development of
underwater archaeology. The factors mentioned above are strongly
interdependent. In a society increasingly prone to highlights and display, and
highly mediatised, public perception tends to be monopolized by special events
and finds. Politicians and cultural policies that grant the necessaries outreach
programmes are difficult to be set up without public support and without proper
outreach programmes, at least the current generation miss the access to its own
cultural heritage. However this topic has many different angles and arguments and
it would not be possible to debate this properly within the spectrum of this master
thesis.
Another point that has not been made yet is the importance of interdisciplinary
collaboration within maritime archaeology. Conservation, geophysics, excavation
and prospection, specific computer programs, history, archive work and outreach
are all needed to create an environment where maritime archaeology can progress.
This approach was practiced in the most recent part of the “Plan Nacional de
Protección del Patrimonio Arqueológico Subacuático” (the national plan for the
75
protection of the underwater cultural heritage) (Gobierno de España, “La Moncloa.
Aprobado El Plan Nacional De Protección Del Patrimonio Arqueológico
Subacuático”), in which I shortly collaborated and which reinforced my conviction
in this kind of collaboration.
It is also very important to acknowledge the importance of an exchange of
knowledge and methods within different archaeological institutions, as it has been
demonstrated by the changes in archaeological theory and praxis in Spain through
its international aperture after the dictatorship. For Andalusia, the exchange has
been very slow in the area of maritime archaeology, in part due to the language
barrier between Spain and the English-‐speaking world. However in recent years
this has changed with the access to higher studies to a larger number of young
people. Further, thanks to the influence of the EU, its exchange programmes and
other international exchanges, such as the UNESCO course in Cartagena in 2011
(“International Training Programme for Underwater Archaeologists. From 19
September to 28 October 2011 in Cartagena, Spain. | United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization”) between others, the Spanish archaeologists
are more prominent in international maritime archaeology conferences, and new
links and contacts between international institutions are established. The
Internship program of the CAS, in which I took part and developed this thesis, is a
good example of the last, too.
76
8. Outlook

Outlook:
A comparative study of the underwater archaeological development in the Bay of
Cadiz with other regions with rich underwater archaeological funds would be of
interest. Comparing these developments would provide us with a clearer picture of
which driving forces are the most important and valuable for the development of
underwater archaeology. Further the account of this historical development could
make underwater archaeology better known to the public.
It would also be interesting to do further research into the influence of public
perception on maritime archaeology in the underwater archaeological practice, as
mentioned in the conclusion. This could go into detail about the effects of public
outreach programs, in situ preservation and the relationship between the media
and maritime archaeology.
Since globalisation is happening at an increasing rate it would also be interesting
to research into the effect of globalisation on maritime archaeology. Especially in
the case of Spain which used to be rather isolated in regards to maritime
archaeology compared to most of northern Europe, it would be interesting how
this can be changed and what are the reasons for it.
77
9. References
VV. AA. Anuario arqueológico de Andalucía 1994. Vol. 1–3. 3 vols. Sevilla,1999: Consejería de Cultura.
Print.
---. Anuario arqueológico de Andalucía 1995. Vol. 1–3. 3 vols. Sevilla,1999: Consejería de Cultura. Print.
---. Anuario arqueológico de Andalucía 1996  : informes y memorias. Sevilla,2001: Consejería de Cultura. Print.
---. Anuario arqueológico de Andalucía 1998. Vol. 1–3. Sevilla,2001: Consejería de Cultura. Print.
---. Anuario arqueológico de Andalucía 2003. Vol. 1–3. Sevilla ,2006: Consejería de Cultura. Print.
---. Anuario Arqueológico De Andalucía 2004.1. Sevilla,2009: Consejería de Cultura. Print.
---. Anuario arqueológico de Andalucía 2004.2. Sevilla,2010: Consejería de Cultura. Print.
---. Anuario arqueológico de Andalucía: 2005. Sevilla,2010: Consejería de Cultura. Print.
---. Museo de Cádiz  : guía oficial. Sevilla,2009: Consejería de Cultura. Print.
Abárzuza, Mercedes Gallardo, Carmen García Rivera, et al. “Prospección Arqueológica Subacuatica En Sancti
Petri.” AAA 92.II 79–88. Print.
Abárzuza, Mercedes Gallardo, Josefa Marti Solano, et al. “Prospección Arqueológicas Subacuaticas En Sancti
Petri. Proyecto General De Investigación De La Bahía De Cádiz- ‘Carta Arqueológica Subacuatica’.”
AAA 94 II 44–48. Print.
Abárzuza, Mercedes Gallardo, and Josefa Marti Solano. “Prospección Arqueológica De Emergencia En El
Cano De Sancti-Petri.” AAA 94 II 41–46. Print.
Andalucía, and Guillermo López Reche. La ley 14/2007, de 26 de noviembre, del Patrimonio Histórico de
Andalucía: primera aproximación. Dirección General de Bienes Culturales, 2008. Print.
Andrews, Anthony P., and Robert Corletta. “A Brief History of Underwater Archaeology in the Maya Area.”
Ancient Mesoamerica 6 (1995): 101–117.
78
Angel, Muñoz Vicente. “Las Cerámicas Fenicio-púnicas De Origen Submarino Del Área De La Caleta
(Cádiz).” Cuadernos de prehistoria y arqueología castellonenses 15 (1991): 287–334. Print.
Arteaga, Oswaldo et al. “El Puerto De Gadir. Investigación Geoarqueológica En El Casco Antiguo De Cádiz.”
REVISTA ATLÁNTICA-MEDITERRÁNEA DE PREHISTORIA Y ARQUEOLOGÍA SOCIAL (11389435)
2001, n.4 p. 345-416. 2001. Web. 26 Jan. 2012.
Artístico, Comisaría Nacional del Patrimonio. “Prospecciones Submarinas En Cádiz Agosto, 1973.” Comisaría
Nacional del Patrimonio Artístico (1977): n. pag. Print.
Arturo del Pino Ruiz, and Maria Rosario Rodriguez Gonzales. “Zonas y Servidumbres Arqueologicas: La
novedosa proteccion del patrimonio arqueologico subacuatico en Andalucia.” PH Boletin del Instituto
Andaluz del Patrimonio Historico 67 (2008): 88–100. Print.
Ayuso, Victor M Guerrero. Navios y Navegantes En Las Rutas De Baleares Durante La Prehistoria (El Tall
Del Temps). 1. ed. El Tall Editorial, 1993. Print.
Barton, C. Michael, and G. A. Clark. “Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation.” Archeological
Papers of the American Anthropological Association 7.1 (2008): 3–15. Web. 17 May 2012.
Bederman, David J. “UNESCO Draft Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage: A Critique and Counter-
Proposal, The.” Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 30 (1999): 331. Print.
---. “UNESCO Draft Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage: A Critique and Counter-Proposal, The.”
Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 30 (1999): 331. Print.
Belén, María, María Belén Deamos, and José Beltrán Fortes. Las instituciones en el origen y desarrollo de la
arqueología en España. Universidad de Sevilla, 2007. Print.
Binford, Lewis R. “Some Comments on Historical Versus Processual Archaeology.” Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 24.3 (1968): 267–275. Print.
Blake, Janet. “The Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage.” International & Comparative Law
Quarterly 45.04 (1996): 819–843.
Blanco, A. “Notas De Arqueología Andaluza: La Capitel De Cádiz.” Zephirus XI (1960): n. pag. Print.
79
“Boletin del Museo de Cadiz IV 1983-1984.” n. pag. Print.
Carles, Juan Fuertes. “La Prospección Arqueológica Subacuática. Principios y Métodos.” (2009): 121–132.
Print.
Carlos Alonso Villalobos et al. “El Conocimiento Del Patromonio Arqueologico Subacuatico Desde La
Perspectiva De Las Fuentes Documentales.” Revista PH 73 (2010): 14. Print.
Castro, Adolfo de, and Imprenta de la Revista Médica (Cádiz). Historia de Cádiz y su provincia: desde los
remotos tiempos hasta 1814. Imprenta de la Revista Médica, 1858. Print.
Catsambis, Alexis, Ben Ford, and Donny L. Hamilton. The Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology. Oxford
Univ Pr, 2011. Print.
---. The Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology. Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
Cederlund, Carol Olof, and Frederick M. Hocker. Vasa I: The Archaeology of a Swedish Warship of 1628.
National Maritime Museums of Sweden, 2006. Print.
CÉSAR ANTONIO MOLINA SÁNCHEZ. REAL DECRETO 1508/2008, De 12 De Septiem- Bre, Por El Que
Se Regula El Museo Nacional De Arqueología Subacuática. 2008. Print.
Cleere, Henry. Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World. Routledge, 1990. Print.
Consejeria de Cultura. “Consejería De Cultura / Áreas / Bienes Culturales / Proteger / Catálogo General Del
Patrimonio Histórico Andaluz.” Web. 12 Mar. 2012.
Consejería de Cultura, ed. Anuario arqueológico de Andalucía: 2006. Sevilla,2010. Print.
“Convenios De Colaboración.” Text. 26 Nov. 2008. Web. 12 Mar. 2012.
Costa, Benjamín, and Jordi H. Fernández. “Prospección Para La Localización De Yacimientos De Producción
Anforica De Época Romana. Cádiz.” Rutas, Navíos y Puertos Fenicio-Púnicos . XI Jornadas De
Arqueología Fenicio-púnica. EIVISSA, 1996. Print.
Cubiella, Juan Antonio Fierro. Gadir: la historia de un mito. J.A. Fierro, 1995. Print.
80
Cuevas, Tomás Rodríguez, and Juan Ivars Perelló. Historia del buceo: su desarrollo en España. Mediterráneo,
1987. Print.
Cultura, Ministerio de. Libro Verde Del Plan De Protección Del Patrimonio Subacuático. SECRETARÍA
GENERAL TÉCNICA, 2011. Web. 9 Feb. 2012.
---. “Segunda Fase De Las Actuaciones Para Investigar y Proteger El Patrimonio Arqueológico Subacuatico En
Andalucía.” n. pag. Print.
CULTURAL, CONSEJERÍA DE. “Centro de Arqueología Subacuática del IAPH.” n. pag. Print.
Curtis, Robert I. Garum and Salsamenta: Production and Commerce in Materia Medica. Brill Academic Pub,
1991. Print.
Delgado, Juan R. Ramírez, and Victorina Mateos Alonso. “La Arqueología Subacuatica En La Bahía De
Cádiz.” Cartagena, 1982. Print.
Delgado, Juan Ramón Ramírez, and Victorina Mateos Alonso. “La Campaña Arqueológica Submarina De 1981
En El Litoral De Cádiz- Breve Avance De Resultados.” Club Marítimo Gaditano – La Caleta 1982 : n.
pag. Print.
---. “Terracota Negroide De La Punta Del Nao (Cádiz).” Boletín del Museo de Cádiz (1992): n. pag. Print.
DÍaz-Andreu, M. “Theory and Ideology in Archaeology: Spanish Archaeology Under the Franco Régime.” 1
Mar. 1993. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.
DIAZ-ANDREU, Margarita, and SANCHEZ, Manuel E., Ramirez. “La Comisaría General de Excavaciones
Arqueológicas (1939-1955). La administración del patrimonio arqueológico en España durante la primera
etapa de la dictadura franquista = The General Commissariat for Archaeological Excavations (1939-
1955). Archaeological heritage management in Spain at the beginning of Francoist regime.” Complutum
(Madrid) 12 (2001): 325–343. Print.
Dyson, Stephen L. “From New to New Age Archaeology: Archaeological Theory and Classical Archaeology-A
1990s Perspective.” American Journal of Archaeology 97.2 (1993): 195–206. Web. 17 May 2012.
“El Plan Nacional De Protección Del Patrimonio Arqueológico Subacuático Ha Iniciado Su Andadura.” PH
Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico : 6–15. Print.
81
Espinosa, Pedro. “Guardianes Del Pasado Bajo El Agua.” EL PAÍS 29 June 2009 : n. pag. Print.
“Estoy Convencida De Que Este Vas Ser El Año Del Teatro Romano.” Diario de Cadiz 1 July 2006 : n. pag.
Print.
Feman, Cesar. “El Capitel, De Tipo Proto-jónico, De Cádiz.” Archivo Español de Arqueológica XXXII (1959):
n. pag. Print.
Francisco Cavilla Sánchez-Molero, Juan Abellán Pérez, and Juan A. Fierro Cubiella. Yazirat Qadis. Cádiz
Islámico. Sevilla,2008: Consejería de Cultura. Print.
Francisco, Ponce Cordones. “Sobre La Ubicación Del Cádiz Fenicio.” (2000): 905–914. Print.
Funari, Pedro Paulo A., Martin Hall, and Siân Jones. Historical Archaeology: Back from the Edge. Routledge,
1999. Print.
Funari, Pedro Paulo A., Martin Hall, and Sian Jones, eds. Historical Archaeology: Back from the Edge. 1st ed.
Routledge, 1999. Print.
Galaty, Michael L., and Charles Watkinson. Archaeology Under Dictatorship. Springer, 2004. Print.
Garabello, Roberta. The Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: Before and After the 2001 UNESCO
Convention. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003. Print.
García, Gabriel M. Cano. Geografía de Andalucía: Geografía de los servicios en Andalucía. Tartessos, 1990.
Print.
García, Margarita Díaz-Andreu, Gloria Mora, and Jordi Cortadella. Diccionario Histórico de la Arqueología en
España: (Siglos XV-XX). Marcial Pons Ediciones de Historia, 2009. Print.
Gavala, J. Geologia De La Costa y Bahia De Cadiz. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Diputacion de Cadiz, 1992.
Print.
Geier, Clarence R., Lawrence E. Babits, and Douglas D. Scott. The Historical Archaeology of Military Sites:
Method and Topic. Texas A&M University Press, 2010. Print.
Gobierno de España. “Bienes Culturales Protegidos.” Text. 30 Dec. 2011. Web. 12 Mar. 2012.
82
---. “La Moncloa. Aprobado El Plan Nacional De Protección Del Patrimonio Arqueológico Subacuático.” Web.
13 Mar. 2012.
González, Ariel, Patrick O’Keefe, and Michael Williams. “The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the
Underwater Cultural Heritage: a Future for Our Past?” Conservation and Management of Archaeological
Sites 11.1 54–69. Print.
Gould, Richard A. Archaeology and the Social History of Ships. Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print.
“Hacía La Normalización De La Arqueologia Subaquática En España.” Web. 23 Oct. 2009.
Hispalois. “Aerial View of the Bay of Cádiz, Spain.”
Hodder, Ian. Archaeological Theory in Europe: The Last Three Decades. Routledge, 1991. Print.
---. “Postprocessual Archaeology.” Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8 (1985): 1–26. Print.
Hoffmann, Gabriele, and Uwe Schnall. Die Kogge: Sternstunde Der Deutschen Schiffsarchäologie. Ed.
Bremerhaven Deutsches Schiffahrtsmuseum. Convent Verlag Gmbh, 2003. Print.
Hormaeche, Ernesto Pérez. “: Unguentarios Púnicos (1).” Arqueología Gaditana 2. 1989. Print.
Horozco, Agustin de. Historia de la Ciudad de Cadiz. Man. Bosch, 1845. Print.
hoyesarte.com. “¿Una nueva era de la arqueología subacuática en España?” n. pag. Print.
“Instituto Andaluz Del Patrimonio Historico- Método y Técnicas De Excavación.” Web. 30 Sept. 2011.
“International Training Programme for Underwater Archaeologists. From 19 September to 28 October 2011 in
Cartagena, Spain. | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” Web. 9 May 2012.
“Invierte: Nerea Arqueología Subacuática.” Fábrica de ideas. 17 Nov. 2008. Television.
Ivars Perello Juan, and Rodriguez Cuevas T. Historia Del Buceo Su Desarrollo España. MEDITERRANEO,
1987. Print.
J. Blázquez. “La carta arqueológica-subacuática de la costa de Almería  : (1983-1992).” Sevilla 1998 : n. pag.
Print.
83
J.R, Ramirez Delgado. “Prospecciones Subacuaticas En La Punta Del Nao.” Vol. 2. Cádiz, 2000. Print.
Japon, Suarez. “Suarez Japon Califica De Puntuales Los Expolios Arqueologico.” Diario de Cadiz 7 Mar. 1992
: n. pag. Print.
Johnson, Matthew. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print.
---. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print.
Jong, F. de. Miscellanea Arabica Et Islamica. Peeters Publishers, 1993. Print.
Josefa, Martí Solano, and Rodríguez Mariscal, Nuria E. “Actuación Arqueológica Subacuática En Los Bajos Al
Noroeste De La Ciudad De Cádiz.” PH: Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico 9.36
(2001): 75–82. Print.
Juan Pedro Velázquez-Gaztelu. Estado marítimo de Sanlúcar de Barrameda. 1774. Madrid.
Larn, Richard, and Rex Whistler. Commercial Diving Manual. David & Charles, 1984. Print.
Ley 16/1985 De 25 De Junio, Del Patrimonio Histórico Español. Print.
Lull, Vicente, and Rafael Micó. Archaeology of the Origin of the State: The Theories. Oxford University Press,
2011. Print.
Manuela, Barthelemy, and Aubet Semmler, María Eugenia, eds. Actas Del IV Congreso Internacional De
Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos  : Cádiz, 2 Al 6 De Octubre De 1995. Servicio de Publicaciones, 2000. Web.
23 Jan. 2012.
Mariano J. Aznar Gomez. “La Definicion Del Patrimonio Cultural Subacuatico En La Convencion UNESCO
De 2001.” PH Boletin del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Historico 67 100–110. Print.
“Más De Siete Mil Alumnos Han Visitado Ya ‘Los Naufragios De Trafalgar’.” Voz de Cadíz 26 Oct. 2005 : n.
pag. Print.
“Más De Veinte Barcos Protestan Con Bocinas Ante El ‘Odyssey Explorer’.” Diario de Cadiz 24 Jan. 2006 : n.
pag. Print.
84
Maschner, Herbert D. G., and Christopher Chippindale. Handbook of Archaeological Methods. Rowman
Altamira. Print.
Medland, J. C. The Making of the Wight: An Illustrated History of the Isle of Wight. Isle of Wight Beacon Ltd.,
2007. Print.
Mercedes Gallardo Abarzuza, and Lourdez Marques Carmona. “Los Naufragios De La Batalla De Trafalgar.”
PH Boletin del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Historico 55 (2005): 86–93. Print.
Milagrosa Jimenez Melero, Carlos Alonso Villalobos, and Francisco Javier Benitez. “Exposición Los
Naufragios De Trafalgar. Aprendizaje Con Visitas Teatrilazadas.” PH Boletin del Instituto Andaluz del
Patrimonio Historico 61 (2007): 52–64. Print.
Millan Chivite, José. Historia De Cádiz. Madrid: Silex, 1991. Print.
MÍNGUEZ, CONCEPCIÓN BLANCO. “Nuevas Piezas Fenicias Del Museo Arqueológico De Cádiz.” Archivo
Español de Arqueología, Madrid 1970 : n. pag. Print.
Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication. “Le Département Des Recherches Archéologiques
Subaquatiques Et Sous-marines.” Web. 17 May 2012.
Ministerio de Cultura. “ARQUA - Museo Nacional De Arqueología Subacuática - Misión Del PCS.” Web. 23
Oct. 2009.
Montes, Ricardo. “Terracota Púnica En Cádiz.” Revista de Arqueología Madrid 1981.N.10 n. pag. Print.
---. “Trabajos Arqueológicos Submarinos En Cádiz.” Revista de Arqueología Madrid 1981.N.10 n. pag. Print.
Muckelroy, Keith. Maritime Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, 1978. Print.
---. Maritime Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, 1978. Print.
Noticias. “España ya tiene Plan Nacional de Protección del Patrimonio Arqueólogico Subacuático.” PH Boletin
del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Historico 65 (2008): 4–6. Print.
Nuria E Rodriguez Mariscal. “Investigaciones En El Pecio Camposoto: Hacia La Identificacion Del Navio
Frances Foguex.” Revista PH 75 (2010): 12. Print.
85
Olga, Vallespín Gómez. “La Caleta: Puerto Antiguo De Cádiz.” (2000): 915–921. Print.
Patterson, Thomas C. “History and the Post-Processual Archaeologies.” Man 24.4 (1989): 555–566. Web. 17
May 2012. New Series.
Perez, Daniel. “De Malta a Cabo Verde.” Voz Digital 6 Mar. 2008 : n. pag. Print.
“Programa De Formación Del Instituto Andaluz Del Patrimonio Histórico (IAPH).” Web. 8 May 2012.
Querol, María Ángeles. MANUAL DE GESTION DE PATRIMONIO CULTURAL. Ediciones AKAL, 2010.
Print.
Reina, Antonio. “Hallazgos Submarinos En Nuestra Bahía- El Mayor Museo Sumergido Del Mundo.” Club
Marítimo Gaditano –LA CALETA 1980 : n. pag. Print.
Reunión del Consejo de Patrimonio Histórico en Cartagena. Aprobado El Plan Nacional De Arqueología
Subacuática Elaborado Por El Ministerio De Cultura. 2007. Print.
Rivera, Carmen García, and M. Dolores López de la Orden. “Elementos De Anclas Antiguas Del Museo De
Cádiz.” Boletín del Museo de Cádiz 1981-1982.3 n. pag. Print.
Ruppé, Carol, and Jan Barstad. International Handbook of Underwater Archaeology. Springer, 2002. Print.
---. International Handbook of Underwater Archaeology. Springer, 2002. Print.
Salmonte, Francisco Javier Lomas. Historia de Cádiz / Francisco Javier Lomas Salmonte ... [et al.]. Silex
Ediciones, 2005. Print.
Sánchez, Ramón Corzo. “El Templo Hércules Gaditano En Época Romana.” Boletín del Museo de Cádiz
(1992): 37–47. Print.
Sarah Dromgoole. The Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage: National Perspectives in Light of the
UNESCO Convention 2001, Second Edition. 2nd ed. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006. Print.
Society, Minnesota Historical. Diving into the Past: Theories, Techniques, and Applications of Underwater
Archaeology: The Proceedings of a Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Sponsored by the
Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, April 26-27, 1963. Minnesota Historical Society, 1964. Print.
86
Solano, Josefa. La carta de riesgo Antrópico - Applicación a la realidad del Patrimonio Arqueológico
Subacuático de Andalucía. Provincia De Cadiz. Cadiz: Instituto Andaluz del Patrimono Historico Centro
de arqueología Subacuática, 1997. Print.
Solano, Josefa Marti et al. “Prospecciones Arqueológicas Subacuaticas En Sancti-Petri. Proyecto General De
Investigación De La Bahía De Cádiz. Carta Arqueológica Subacuatica.” AAA (1995): 15–25. Print.
Trigger, Bruce G. A History of Archaeological Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print.
“Una Segunda Inspección Al Barco ‘Louisa’ Concluye Con El Hallazgo De Cartas Nauticas.” La voz de Cadiz
2 July 2006 : n. pag. Print.
United States, Congress. Office of Technology. “Technologies for underwater archaeology & maritime
preservation.” UNT Digital Library. Report. Sept. 1987. Web. 12 Mar. 2012.
Vallespin, Olga. “Carta Arqueológica De La Caleta.” Cartagena, 1985. p59–74. Print.
---. “La Caleta: Puerto Antiguo De Cádiz.” (1985): n. pag. Print.
Villalobos, C. Alonso, C. Florido Navarro, and A. Muñoz Vicente. “Aproximación a La Topología Anforica De
La Punta Del Nao (Cádiz, España).” Vol. vol.2. Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle ricerche per la civilte
fenicia e punica, 1991. Print.
Villalobos, Carlos Alonso. “Informe De La Campaña De Prospecciones Subacuaticas En La Zona Noroeste De
La Playa De La Caleta (Cádiz).” AAA ’89.II pp.329–330. Print.
---. Patrimonio Subacuático y Su Diffusion. 5 Aug. 2012.
---. “Prospección Para La Localización De Yacimientos De Producción Anforica De Época Romana Cádiz.”
AAA IAS (86): pp.97–105. Print.
Vlacic, Ljubo, Michel Parent, and Fumio Harashima. Intelligent Vehicle Technologies. Butterworth-
Heinemann, 2001. Print.
Working Group of the Technical Coordination Comittee oftheHistorical Heritage Council. “Green Paper -
National Plan for the protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage.” Cartagena 2009 : n. pag. Print.
87
Xavier Nieto. Hacía La Normalización De La Arqueología Subaquatica En España. Girona: Centre
d’Arqueologia Subaquàtica de Catalunya, 2001. Print.
Xavier, Nieto Prieto, Francisco. “Principios Metodológicos De Una Excavación Arqueológica Subacuática.”
(2009): 183–188. Print.
88

89

V1 - Vico 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

V1 - Vico 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

V1 - Vico 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maritime

Course: Master Thesis

Semester: 4th semester spring/summer 2012

Name: Isger Manuel Vico Sommer

Date of birth: 27th of February 1986

I, the undersigned declare solemnly that I have written this assignment

Isger Manuel Vico Sommer

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. iii

5. Archaeological theory in the Bay of Cadiz ............................................................ 62

1.1 Aims and Objectives

(http://www.laisladelsur.com/historia/cartografia.asp accessed 21/05/2012)

The description of the methodological/technological developments at local level

Further, various degree-­‐granting programmes focusing solely on maritime

2.2 History of Cadiz (an overview)

3.1 Analysis criteria

How do we analyze these developments?

• Technological and methodological advances

• The evolution of institutions dealing with underwater archaeology

3.2 The C.A.S. (Centre of Underwater Archaeology)

Archaeological courses (“Programa De Formación Del Instituto Andaluz Del

Direction of the diver

15 degree angle change from starting

A total of 286 objects were found through this method.

(Josefa Marti Solano et al.)

Area still to be prospected

Boundaries of the sector

The prospection phase:

• Historical cartography and toponymy

Two different types are considered:

• The importance of the site (is intrusive action necessary?)

1. Preliminary work and documentation

To recap the development:

3.3 Changes in legislation

b) “Regional decentralization”. This enabled the autonomous communities to take

c) “Subordination of private property to public interest”, which gives

Further, this national legislation gives specific instructions about construction

In 1989, Spain ratified the International Salvage convention. However, added

4. Changes in the public perception of underwater archaeology

To conclude, the possible correlation between the archaeological development in

4.1 Public perception until 1986

a) That there was need for more interdisciplinary collaboration

4.2 Public Perception from 1985-­‐2000

4.3 Public Perception from 2002 until present

Graph 1 -­ Articles Spain

Graph 2 -­ Articles Spain

Graph 4-­ International Articles

5. Archaeological theory in the Bay of Cadiz

• Some Marxist ideas

As it has been shown, there were three characteristic phases:

1. Recuperation and looting

As mentioned, in this period professional archaeologists engaged with maritime

---. Anuario Arqueológico De Andalucía 2004.1. Sevilla,2009: Consejería de Cultura. Print.

---. Anuario arqueológico de Andalucía 2004.2. Sevilla,2010: Consejería de Cultura. Print.

---. Anuario arqueológico de Andalucía: 2005. Sevilla,2010: Consejería de Cultura. Print.

---. Museo de Cádiz : guía oficial. Sevilla,2009: Consejería de Cultura. Print.

Petri.” AAA 92.II 79–88. Print.

Petri. Proyecto General De Investigación De La Bahía De Cádiz- ‘Carta Arqueológica Subacuatica’.”

Further, various degree-‐granting programmes focusing solely on maritime

4.2 Public Perception from 1985-‐2000

Graph 1 - Articles Spain

Graph 2 - Articles Spain

Graph 4- International Articles

---. Museo de Cádiz  : guía oficial. Sevilla,2009: Consejería de Cultura. Print.