— 1 —

Strategies for Underwater Cultural heritage:

The Case for the Bajo de la Campana

Phoenician shipwreck

Mark E. PolzerResearch Associate, Institute of Nautical Archaeology, USA, and Flinders University, Australia

mark.polzer@flinders.edu.au

Mark Polzer is a Prescott Doctoral Candidate in the departments of Archaeology and Classics& Ancient History at the University of Western Australia and is the Principal Investigator of theBajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck. He is a Research Associate and part-time lecturerin the Department of Archaeology at Flinders University and a Research Associate of theInstitute of Nautical Archaeology. He also serves on the Maritime Archaeology AdvisoryCommittee for the Western Australian Museum. Mark is a National Geographic Explorer and hasdirected shipwreck surveys and excavations across the Mediterranean and Black Sea.

Introduction

From 2007-2011, the Institute of Nautical Archaeology (INA) conducted the complete archaeo-logical excavation of a Phoenician shipwreck at Bajo de la Campana, located off La Manga delMar Menor (San Javier) in Murcia, Spain. ARQUA, Spain’s National Museum of Underwater Ar-chaeology in Cartagena, supported the excavation and is responsible for the ongoing conservationand curation of the recovered materials. Following is an overview of the excavation and researchmethodologies employed, and some thoughts on alternative strategies for underwater culturalheritage –in particular, shipwrecks– in light of the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection ofthe Underwater Cultural Heritage (the Convention).

The Bajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck excavation (2007-2011)

The ancient shipwreck site of Bajo de la Campana has been known since at least 1958, whenscrap-metal salvaging on modern shipwrecks at the site turned up various archaeological mate-rials. Shortly thereafter, sport divers visited the site and picked up exposed artefacts from thebottom for souvenirs. Most of the significant pieces were turned over to the authorities in 1979(Roldán Bernal et al., 1995: 12) and now form part of ARQUA’s permanent exhibition. Spanishheritage authorities investigated the site in 1972 and 1988 and, in 1992, made a complete re-assessment of all known materials removed from the site since its discovery (Roldán Bernal etal., 1995: 12-13).

In 2007, the Institute of Nautical Archaeology at Texas A&M University (INA) signed an agree-ment with the Ministry of Culture of Spain to investigate the ancient shipwreck site with supportfrom the National Museum of Maritime Archaeology (now ARQUA) and its National Centre forUnderwater Archaeological Research (CNIAS). That same year, INA and ARQUA undertook an

initial survey of Bajo de la Campana to relocate the area where the Phoenician objects had beenfound and assess the environmental and logistical conditions at the site, to gauge the extent ofthe remaining archaeological materials, and to determine definitively whether the site warrantedfull-scale excavation (Polzer, 2012: 27-28). The 2007 expedition was funded by a grant from theSpain-USA Foundation and project funds from INA, along with equipment and logistical supportfrom ARQUA.

The seabed surrounding Bajo de la Campana is rocky, consisting of boulders of all sizes in-terspersed with pockets of coarse sand, rock debris, and shell. Over this grows a dense carpet ofseagrass (Polzer, 2012: 28). It became clear after our initial dives to the site that, although all ofthe obvious and diagnostic pieces had been picked up by recreational divers or recovered duringprevious investigations, there still was archaeological material –mostly pottery sherds– scatteredacross the seabed. Equally apparent was that a simple visual survey would be ineffective, giventhe nature of the bottom environment. We attempted to probe the seabed using thin steel rods,in order to gain an understanding of the sub-bottom stratigraphy, but the abundance of bouldersand the gravelish nature of the «sandy» areas proved impenetrable to mechanical probing. Simi-larly, the dense seagrass cover made photogrammetry and photographic recording virtually im-possible.

Ultimately, we decided to approach the site survey like a «surface excavation». We set up a 2 × 2 m grid over the survey area, assigned divers to individual grid squares, and meticulously

Strategies for Underwater Cultural heritage: The Case for the Bajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck

Mark E. Polzer

— 2 —

The Phoenician shipwreck excavation site at the base of Bajo de la Campana in 2010. Diving archaeologists use airliftsto excavate the site, which is sectioned off by a 2 ´ 2 m rope grid; white and black markers, situated on top of steeltripod towers and on the side of the Bajo, serve as control points for photogrammetry; and a crate, filled with rocksand with two lift bags attached, is ready to be taken off site and dumped. (Photo by Patrick Baker, courtesy the Instituteof Nautical Archaeology). BC2010_19478_Patrick_Baker.jpg

Strategies for Underwater Cultural heritage: The Case for the Bajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck

Mark E. Polzer

— 3 —

examined the entire site, square by square. Any archaeological material that was found wasrecorded, mapped and collected, and later was catalogued at the excavation house before beingdeposited in ARQUA’s conservation facility. For mapping purposes, the grid sectors weresubdivided into sixteenths and each item located to within a 50 cm square area. All intact artefactsand diagnostic fragments also were mapped using metre tapes and trilateration. If, when a surfaceartefact was raised, another was revealed beneath it, it was exposed fully by hand-fanning,recorded, mapped and then recovered as well. Similarly, the team hand-fanned around and underboulders in order to estimate the amount of remains buried beneath. In this manner, the teamsuccessfully surveyed a 20 m square area of seabed at the foot of the Bajo, and recovered fourelephant tusks, numerous fragments of pottery from at least three different assemblages, awooden comb, lumps of raw amber, pine nuts, metal ingots and raw ore, dunnage material,ballast stones, and lead sheathing, copper nails and wooden scraps from a ship’s hull. Theseresults clearly indicated that a substantial amount of wreckage remained buried at the site andthat it was comprised of an array of object and material types that included both raw and finishedgoods. In addition, the plotted distribution of the finds provided some indication of where theconcentration of Phoenician material was situated, which later helped form the basis for theensuing excavation plan.

In light of such positive results, a full-scale excavation and conservation program wasinitiated, with INA leading the excavation and research and ARQUA overseeing the materialconservation. The project was permitted by the Heritage Office of the Region of Murcia andfunded by INA, the National Geographic Society, the Center for Maritime Archaeology andConservation at Texas A&M University, and the Program for Cultural Cooperation Between Spain’sMinistry of Culture and United States Universities.

The underwater archaeological methods and techniques that we employed to excavate,record and map the Bajo de la Campana site are well established (Muckelroy, 1978; Ruppé andBarstad, 2002; Green, 2004; Bowens, 2009; Nieto Prieto and Cau Ontiveros, 2009; etc.). Thebeginning weeks of each field season involved the removal of tons of rock debris and boulders,with divers manually carrying basketfuls of the former off the site, while employing straps andlift bags to move the latter. The largest boulder removed from the site required four large liftbags with a combined 4.5 tons of lifting capacity. At the end of each season, we had to put manyof these same rocks back onto the site in order to protect it from looting and winter stormsduring the intervening months (Polzer, 2012: 28).

Excavation and mapping were facilitated by setting a grid over the site, which effectivelydivided the excavation area into a matrix of 2 m squares labelled by columns and numbered byrows. The grid oriented divers to their assigned work areas and provided a simple means formapping non-diagnostic fragments. As during the preliminary survey, these were located visuallyto within a 50 × 50 cm area by subdividing each grid sector into sixteenths. For mapping intactand diagnostic artefacts, we established a network of datums, or control points, placedstrategically around the site. The relative 3-dimensional position of each datum was establishedby measuring the direct distances from each datum to all of the others, and using a direct surveymethod (DSM) computer program to perform the iterative least-squares fit of the data (Rule,1989). The true positions of the datums were established using a GPS unit sealed in an underwaterhousing and connected to a receiver floating on the surface directly above. This network of fixeddatums allowed us then to map items much more precisely, and in three dimensions, usingphotogrammetry and the computer software PhotoModeler® (Polzer and Casabán, 2012: 13-14;see also Green et al., 2002).

Archaeologists used airlifts to remove overburden and expose buried archaeological material;a compressor housed on our expedition boat anchored near the wreck site supplied the air. Once

an object was exposed fully, its excavator sketched it, recorded its orientation and associatedcontext, then mapped its location and, finally, carefully raised it to the surface. Back at theexpedition house, team members spent long afternoons and evenings recording, photographingand accessioning all of the recovered artefacts; processing the day’s photogrammetry andupdating the site plan; entering dive log data, journal entries and artefact information into theproject database; planning for the next day’s site work; and performing a myriad of other tasks.At the end of each week, all of the archaeological materials were transferred to the ARQUAconservation facility in Cartagena.

The initial survey and four consecutive seasons of excavation resulted in the recovery of aremarkably varied assemblage of raw materials and manufactured goods (Polzer and Pinedo,2011: 8-11; Polzer, 2012: 28-33). The ship’s bulk cargo consisted of more than 50 elephant tusks,some marked with Phoenician inscriptions (Roldán Bernal et al., 1995: 28-30); 154 small, mostlycircular, plano-convex tin ingots and 13 similar ingots of copper; and approximately 10,000nuggets of galena representing a ton of the lead ore. The ship also carried a collection of potterythat represents most types of the western Phoenician repertoire, including an assortment of am-phoras, pots, plates, bowls, tripod mortars, lamps, oil bottles and other small jugs and pitchers.These were accompanied by a consignment of more luxurious objects, many of which are attestedin tomb deposits and, to a lesser extent, habitation sites from both Phoenician and Indigenouscontexts across the Iberian Peninsula and in other western and central Mediterranean locales.These include ivory-handled knives or daggers, a pin made of antler, double-ended boxwoodcombs, bronze furniture elements, bronze thymiateria stands and a bronze ceremonial piece,decorated ostrich eggshells and an ivory ring-stand, fragments of an alabaster jar, and a flutedlimestone pedestal. The conservation, restoration and detailed study and interpretation of allthese materials are ongoing.

In-situ preservation of shipwreck sites

Since the adoption in 2001 of the UNESCO Convention, there has been a growing emphasis to-wards in-situ preservation (Article 2.5, Annex Rule 1) as the standard approach to underwaterarchaeological sites such as shipwrecks (Manders, 2008; Maarleveld et al., 2013: 20). But whatexactly in-situ preservation means has been a point of contention and debate (Kingsley, 2010b:3; Ortmann et al., 2010; Shefi, 2011).

What, most definitely, in-situ preservation is not is an excuse for authorities, constrained bystressed budgets and reduced staffs, to simply do nothing (Ortmann et al., 2010: 34, 38). At theminimum, in-situ preservation is in-situ protection and involves active monitoring and oversight,whether a site is excavated or not. Such a method is employed by ARQUA for the protection ofthe Mazarrón 2 boat remains left in-situ in the waters off playa de la Isla, Mazarrón (Negueruelaet al., 2004). In the case of more modern shipwrecks sites, with iron hulls and superstructure,anchors or cannon, in-situ conservation methods using sacrificial anodes to provide cathode pro-tection have proved successful (MacLeod, 1996a; 1996b; 1998).

Intrusive in-situ methods that have been applied to excavated sites include backfilling,installation of barriers and reburial of excavated materials (Oxley, 1998a: 97-100; 1998b; Manders,2008; Manders, 2011; Khakzad and Van Balen, 2012; see Staniforth and Shefi, 2010 for a goodsummary of projects that have employed these different methods and related research projects).Backfilling an excavation area with the removed overburden is the easiest and most economicaloption for reburial, and can be effective in the short-term, as at Bajo de la Campana, but thismethod rarely succeeds in re-developing the anaerobic environment necessary to ensurelong-term protection against continued degradation from marine biota (Oxley, 1998b). Similarly,

Strategies for Underwater Cultural heritage: The Case for the Bajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck

Mark E. Polzer

— 4 —

dumping sediment onto a site after excavation has failed to consistently provide adequatelong-term protection (Staniforth and Shefi, 2010: 1547), and the common practice of placingsandbags on top to maintain coverage has had little positive impact (Oxley, 1998b; Staniforthand Shefi, 2010: 1548).

Like at Bajo de la Campana, seagrass grows naturally on many shipwreck sites. The frondsof seagrass slow down water-currents across the bottom and increase sedimentation, and theroots and rhizomes stabilise the seabed. However, once removed by excavation, the seagrass israrely able to re-establish itself (Godfrey et al., 2005: 15, 51). Various methods have been usedto duplicate the effect that seagrass has on shipwreck sites to ensure their long-term coverage.Artificial seagrass has been installed on top of sites (Harvey, 1996; Richards, 2011b: 35), but thesesystems are expensive and dependant upon specific and consistent environmental conditions(Staniforth and Shefi, 2010: 1549); so far, they have met with variable success (Moran, 1997). Ge-otextiles have been employed successfully over sites, providing a physical barrier and trappingsediment to maintain good coverage and protection (Oxley, 1998a: 100-104; 1998b: 159, 165).

The key to any type of reburial is reaching the proper depth required to achieve anaerobicconditions, and quantifying of the environmental factors of the site, including temperature, salinity,pH, Redox potential, dissolved oxygen, sulphide levels, turbidity and sediment particle size(Florian et al., 1977; Gregory, 1998; Pournou et al., 2001; Staniforth and Shefi, 2010: 1550; Richards,2011a). A detailed management plan (Green, 2004: 370-371; Manders, 2004) and continuousmonitoring (Richards, 2011b: 34-36) also are critical to achieving long-term preservation.

Another approach to in-situ preservation that seeks to address the need for examination,recording and study of underwater cultural material, while being mindful of the limitations onconservation, storage and curatorial resources, is excavation and reburial of recovered materials.The Red Bay project in Canada pioneered this approach (Grenier, 2007). Between 1980 and 1985,Parks Canada excavated and recorded in its entirety a 16th-century Basque whaling ship.Dismantling the vessel completely, the project team raised some 3000 timbers to the surface,where they were recorded in detail and then kept in a temporary underwater storage area untilbeing systematically reburied in the seabed (Stewart et al., 1995; Curci, 2006; Waddell, 2007).

A number of research projects have been designed to trial different in-situ reburial methodsand to assess the impacts of materials and environmental conditions. Three such projects are the‘Reburial and Analyses of Archaeological Remains’ (RAAR) project in Marstrand, Sweden, designedto study long-term (50 years) impacts of reburial on archaeological materials (RAAR, 2002;Bergstrand and Nyström Godfrey, 2007; Nyström Godfrey et al., 2011; Nyström Godfrey et al.,2012); the European Commission’s ‘Monitoring, Safeguarding and Visualizing North-EuropeanShipwreck Sites’ (MoSS) project (Cederlund, 2002; Cederlund, 2004a; 2004b; 2004c); and the‘James Matthews’ project conducted by the Western Australian Museum (Richards, 2003; 2011b;Godfrey et al., 2005; Winton and Richards, 2005). Most recently, the Australian Historic ShipwreckProtection Project completed the initial fieldwork phase of its investigation of the excavation,reburial and in-situ preservation of shipwrecks and their associated artefacts, using as a casestudy the Clarence (1850) shipwreck in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria (Veth et al., 2011; Philippou,2012a; 2012b). The project aims to develop a protocol for the rapid excavation, detailed recordingand subsequent in-situ preservation and monitoring of endangered historic shipwreck sites.

When dealing with large numbers of hardier archaeological materials, such as ceramic am-phoras, in-situ storage on underwater sites may not involve reburial, but rather designated long-term surface storage depots. The advantage of this method is that it provides for easy access tothe stored objects for future retrieval and study by researchers (Bass, 1990: 11). Of course, thesecurity of the objects will be a concern and must be addressed before resorting to this approach.

Strategies for Underwater Cultural heritage: The Case for the Bajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck

Mark E. Polzer

— 5 —

Archaeological excavation and recovery

At a conference in 2010, the Secretary of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of theUnderwater Cultural Heritage clarified that the Convention does not make in-situ preservation the«only» or «preferred» managerial strategy for underwater cultural heritage, only that it be consideredas a primary option, and that it certainly does not prohibit intrusive excavation (Kingsley, 2010c:23, n. 21). This clarification subsequently was expanded in published guidelines to the ConventionAnnex (Maarleveld et al., 2013: 20-23). Excavation should be undertaken only for compellingreasons: for protection, should underwater cultural heritage be threatened by development projectsor by environmental instability; for making a significant contribution to knowledge, firmlycontextualised in the broader research and founded on sound research design and questions; orfor enhancement of underwater cultural heritage, always with an eye towards public access andbenefit (Maarleveld et al., 2013: 21-28). As for what constitutes the level of «importance» or«significance» of a particular shipwreck to justify excavation, no universally accepted set of criteriaexists, although, within the structure of the Convention, some, for example, have tried to definesites in terms of evidential, historical, aesthetic, and communal values (Dunkley, 2008: 24-25).

Within this framework, the determination to excavate the Bajo de la Campana Phoenicianshipwreck was justified. As the only shipwreck of a Phoenician seagoing vessel to be fullyexcavated and subjected to systematic archaeological and scientific investigation, it has thepotential to yield new primary evidence for specific objects of Phoenician material culture, forPhoenician seafaring and maritime trade, for Phoenician colonial commerce in south-easternSpain, for mineral and raw metal sourcing in the Western Mediterranean, for particular aspectsof Phoenician-Indigenous (orientalising) interactions in Iberia, and for much more.

Significance of the Bajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck

In her seminal work, The Phoenicians and the West, the eminent Spanish scholar María EugeniaAubet (2001: 166) notes that «Underwater archaeology has not so far succeeded in recoveringany Phoenician ship from the period of expansion into the Mediterranean.» Indeed, Archaic-period shipwrecks in the Mediterranean are rare, as are those of seagoing Phoenician vessels. Ofmore than 1200 ancient shipwreck sites catalogued in the Mediterranean region (Parker, 1992),a mere eight date between 850 and 600 B.C., and only six of those are potentially Phoenician(three additional Phoenician sites have been discovered since publication of Parker’s com-pendium). Regardless, none of the sites had been excavated, nor their material subjected to sys-tematic study, making the Bajo de la Campana research project unique and significant.

The theoretical approach used both to justify excavation of the Phoenician shipwreck at Bajode la Campana and shape its study has a strong historical particularistic bent, and was chosenbased in part on the quality and especially variety –raw (lead, tin, amber and ivory); finished(combs, pottery, ship fasteners and hull remains); epigraphical (tusk inscriptions); typological(ceramics); chronological (ceramics, organics)– of the archaeological materials and their potentialto provide new information (Bass, 1966: 143; 1983; Gibbins and Adams, 2001: 284-285). Under-pinning the selection of this approach is the absence of Phoenician shipwrecks and their asso-ciated comparative data (Bass, 1983: 96-97; Parker, 1990: 345).

The Bajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck represents an essentially closed and con-temporaneous assemblage of material from a common cultural horizon, much like the contentsof a tomb or other buried or ceremonial deposit. However, grave goods were chosen for morespecific and selective ends, and thus differ in the information they can provide. The inferential

Strategies for Underwater Cultural heritage: The Case for the Bajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck

Mark E. Polzer

— 6 —

benefit of shipwrecking events, like other catastrophic occurrences, is that they preserve indicatorsof normal, daily life (albeit in a specialised social context) and trade commodities in transit(Parker, 1992: 3). This is important especially with respect to transported raw materials, sincelittle trace of these survives in the archaeological record once they reach their destination ashoreand are processed and otherwise altered by their conversion to manufactured product.

The project aims to increase knowledge of the Phoenician presence in south-eastern Spainin the 7th-6th centuries B.C. The research is designed to address several interrelated thematicareas: the nature of Phoenician colonisation in the region; organisation of supply chains withinthe Iberian Peninsula and connections to wider trade networks in the Western Mediterraneanand beyond; and the mechanics of trade and/or exchange amongst Phoenician colonies and withtheir indigenous neighbours. These broad processual questions are being addressed throughstudies of the cargo and equipment recovered from the Bajo de la Campana shipwreck. Evaluationand analysis of the archaeological finds will attempt to determine the sources of the various ma-terials, the ship’s port of origin, route and intended destination, and the nature and purpose ofthe original venture (Polzer, Forthcoming). The special characteristics of shipwreck assemblagesand the singular nature of this site with regards to Phoenician archaeology make the Bajo de laCampana shipwreck a highly attractive subject for excavation and study.

For-profit archaeology

Shipwreck salvage for monetary gain through the sale, trade or commercial exchange ofrecovered archaeological artefacts goes by many names: salvage, treasure hunting, for-profitarchaeology, and, most recently, commercial marine archaeology. No matter what it is called, itis incompatible with proper protection and management of underwater cultural heritage and isexpressly prohibited in Article 2.7 and Annex Rule 2 of the UNESCO Convention (Maarleveld etal., 2013: 35).

The debate between archaeologists and treasure hunters has raged on for decades, typicallythrough the media or, in the more recent past, on the internet. On 11 February 2010, academics,businessmen and lawyers from both sides of the argument met at the Underwater Interventionconference in New Orleans to discuss, in a more civil and productive manner, the question offor-profit archaeology in light of the UNESCO Convention (Kingsley, 2010a).

Despite the many arguments put forth by both sides, whatever their merit, the fundamentaland irreconcilable reality is that one approach to underwater cultural heritage profits theindividual or the few through commercial exploitation of public property, while the other profitssociety through the acquisition, interpretation and dissemination of knowledge about its past(Hall, 2007: 8). The business model of commercial archaeology has an internal contradiction thatprevents it from serving the public good, or at least to its fullest extent: the aim of maximizingprofit ultimately is incompatible with the goal of maximizing the archaeological potential of thecultural material (i.e., maximizing the quality of the recording, recovery, conservation, curationand research of the material) (Castro, 2010; Kingsley, 2010b: 4).

In July 2010, then INA President James Delgado visited the Bajo de la Campana excavationand spent several days working with the expedition team. He joined me on a number of divesto the site and assisted me in excavating one particular grid sector. During his visit, he postedseveral comments about his experience on the INA Facebook page:

We spend our dives crouching on the seabed, meticulously collecting every fragment inplastic containers, even seeds, possibly part of the amphora’s contents. Mark hand-fanned

Strategies for Underwater Cultural heritage: The Case for the Bajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck

Mark E. Polzer

— 7 —

Strategies for Underwater Cultural heritage: The Case for the Bajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck

Mark E. Polzer

— 8 —

and used a small camel-hair brush to painstakingly expose the fragments of a completePhoenician amphora that was crushed when it sank 2,700 years ago. Archaeology is allabout PATIENCE, and for days now, we have worked a corner of a small unit, inincrements of hour-long dives. Your world as an archaeologist shrinks to focus on theminiscule landscape of your 2 × 2 meter unit, and in this attention to detail, minute tracesof the past mount into the evidence that will one day fill in a blank page in the historybooks. (Delgado, 2010).

It is this type of tedious and meticulous work and these types of finds –thousands of smallpine nuts, individual pinecone scales, twigs from brushwood dunnage, etc.– that a profit-drivenexcavator would never consider, because it takes too much time (i.e., is too costly) and becausethey have absolutely no commercial value (Grenier, 2006). The types of sites selected forexcavation, the types of materials recovered, and the quality of the work is all subject to thisinescapable reality (Pringle, 2013: 803). In the words of Odyssey Marine Exploration CEO GregStem, «Maritime operations can cost at least 25,000 Euros a day, so devoting two weeks torecovering a treasure of 70,000 Euros is not worth it,...» (Elkin, 2009: 61, my translation).

The most tangible difference between true archaeology and commercial salvage is what takesplace after the fieldwork is completed (Bass, 1990). Conservators at ARQUA have spent yearsdesalinating, removing concretion and corrosion, consolidating, stabilising, drying and restoringthe thousands of fragmentary and whole objects recovered from the Bajo de la Campanashipwreck. They analyse materials in order to ascertain their condition and to quantify anycontaminants that they will have to remove. And through it all they keep meticulous notes todocument all sorts of data, observations and responses to treatments.

Archaeological illustrators spend long hours carefully measuring and drawing each piece,while photographers make photographic records of objects and features. Archaeologists cata-logue each piece and try to determine its identity, provenance, purpose, meaning and datethrough comparison with similar objects from other sites, references in ancient texts and modernscholarship, and myriad physical and chemical analyses. The Bajo de la Campana material isbeing subjected to a barrage of analytical tests –lead isotope, elemental, petrographic, neutronactivation, chemical composition, x-ray and radiocarbon dating, to mention a few– that hopefullywill provide the evidence needed to determine when the ship sank, the route it was travelling,who was on board, the nature of the venture and answers to many other questions that willallow us to better interpret the shipwreck and, through it, gain a greater understanding of thebroader social, cultural, political and economic contexts to which it belonged-Phoenician Spainin the late 7th century B.C. This effort will continue for years and will require a dedication wellbeyond what a profit motive would suffer. However, the labour is obligatory, since ultimatelythe objective of «[a]rchaeology is not just description, […] its primary aim is explanation»(Bowens, 2009: 37).

In July 2009, midway through the second season of excavation, I received a telephone callfrom a writer for Vanity Fair who wanted to interview me for an article he was writing aboutGreg Stemm and the controversial salvage of the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes shipwreck byOdyssey Marine Exploration. He informed me that the article was going to discuss the differencesbetween shipwreck salvage, like in the Mercedes case, and the archaeological excavation andstudy I was conducting at Bajo de la Campana. The distinction is one that the general publicoften does not make, or understand, so I welcomed the chance to engage in the conversation.

I spent more than an hour on the phone with him explaining the different methodologiesused by archaeologists and treasure hunters and the implications of each to the managementof cultural materials and the interpretation of their meaning and significance. I provided him

with numerous examples of sites excavated by INA and the extraordinary knowledge andinsight to the past that their meticulous studies have revealed. And I described to him theamazing Bodrum Museum of Underwater Archaeology –Turkey’s most popular museum– thatthese excavations and years of dedicated conservation, research and interpretive work havefilled with reconstructed hull remains, full-scale ship section replicas, and the astonishing arraysof ancient objects that the ships had carried, either as cargo, equipment or personal belongingsof their crews (see http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/museums-and-tourism/ and http://www.bodrum-museum.com). Unfortunately, as sooften seems to be the case with popular periodicals, the published article (Elkin, 2009) wasmostly a romanticisation of Greg Stemm as a modern-day swashbuckler, with little genuinediscussion about archaeology and treasure hunting and the real damage done by the latter tounderwater cultural heritage and the public interest. As for my hour-long interview, it wasreduced to a single, token quote to provide the typical sound bite from the academic opposition(Elkin, 2009: 60).

Treasure hunters certainly are winning the public relations war at this point (cf. Cockrell,1990 and Hall, 2007, who offers a convincing response to the clever deceptions regardingunderwater cultural heritage that treasure hunters have used to manipulate public opinion).Archaeologists, cultural heritage managers and museum curators must do a better job of engagingthe public and informing them about the very real ways that for-profit salvage impacts themthrough the loss of cultural property and, with it, the information and tangible links it providesto their history and heritage.

As artefacts recovered from the Bajo de la Campana shipwreck complete their conservationtreatment, the pieces are entering public display in ARQUA’s permanent exhibition hall. Themuseum not only provides the public with access to the material, but it affords them a holisticperspective of underwater archaeology that explains the discipline and the methods by whichthe pieces entered into the public domain. It seeks to explain what underwater archaeology is,how it is performed, how it preserves, studies and interprets the underwater cultural heritage,and how that enriches all of our lives (see http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/museums-and-tourism/).

In 2014, ARQUA will loan a selection of objects from the Bajo de la Campana Phoenicianshipwreck to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City to be featured in an ambitiousexhibition titled «From Assyria to Iberia: Crossing Continents at the Dawn of the Classical Age».The exhibition is a sequel to two previous major shows dealing with 3rd and 2nd millenniumB.C. civilisations of the Near East and Mediterranean, respectively. The exhibition will present acompelling picture of the origins and development of artistic traditions in the western world andtheir deep roots in the interaction between ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean cultures. Theexhibition will provide the public with a broader contextualisation of the shipwreck within thecultural and socio-economic conditions of the Archaic Mediterranean world and the role thereinof the Phoenicians.

Fine institutions like ARQUA not only promote the sustainable management of theunderwater cultural heritage through preservation and research, but the exhibitions, academiccongresses, publications, interactive displays and websites, and other public outreach programsthat they provide are excellent means of educating and entertaining the public with respect tounderwater cultural heritage, and of combating those individuals or companies that would exploitit for personal gain. It is hoped that the successful collaboration between INA and the Ministryof Culture of Spain in the Bajo de la Campana shipwreck project is contributing to that effortand to the ongoing labour of preserving Spain’s cultural heritage under the sea.

Strategies for Underwater Cultural heritage: The Case for the Bajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck

Mark E. Polzer

— 9 —

Strategies for Underwater Cultural heritage: The Case for the Bajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck

Mark E. Polzer

— 10 —

References

AUBET, M. E. (2001): The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies, and Trade, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

BASS, G. F. (1966): Archaeology Under Water, Thames & Hudson, London.— (1983): «A Plea for Historical Particularism in Nautical Archaeology», in Gould, R. A. (ed.)

Shipwreck Anthropology, 1st ed., University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque: 91-104.— (1990): «After the Diving is Over» in Carrell, T. (ed.) Underwater Archaeology. Proceedings

from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference, 11-13 January 1990, Tucson,Arizona, Society for Historical Archaeology, Pleasant Hill, CA: 10-13.

BERGSTRAND, T., and NYSTRÖM GODFREY, I. (eds.) (2007): Reburial and Analyses of Archaeological Re-mains. Studies on the Effect of Reburial on Archaeological Materials Performed in Marstrand,Sweden 2002-2005, Bohusläns Museums Förlag, Uddevalla.

BOWENS, A. (ed.) (2009): Underwater Archaeology: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice, BlackwellPublishing, Oxford.

CASTRO, F. (2010): «Archaeologists, Treasure Hunters, and the UNESCO Convention on the Protectionof the Underwater Cultural Heritage: A Personal Viewpoint», Odyssey Papers, 13: 7-9<http://www.shipwreck.net/featuresarchpapers.php> [4 November 2011].

CEDERLUND, C. O. (ed.) (2002): «Theme: Introduction», MoSS Newsletter, 1.— (2004a): «Theme: Monitoring», MoSS Newsletter, 2.— (2004b): «Theme: Safeguarding», MoSS Newsletter, 3.— (2004c): Monitoring, Safeguarding and Visualizing North-European Shipwreck Sites: Final

Report, National Board of Antiquities, Helsinki.

COCKRELL, W. A. (1990): «Why Dr. Bass Couldn’t Convince Mr. Gumbel: The Trouble with Treasure Re-visited, Again», in Carrell, T. (ed.) Underwater Archaeology. Proceedings from the Society for His-torical Archaeology Conference, 11-13 January 1990, Tucson, Arizona, Society for HistoricalArchaeology, Pleasant Hill, CA: 13-18.

CURCI, J. (2006): «The Reburial of Waterlogged Archaeological Wood in Wet Environments», TechnicalBriefs in Historical Archaeology, 1: 21-25.

DELGADO, J. P. (2010): «Institute of Nautical Archaeology» <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Institute-of-Nautical-Archaeology/139031258221?fref=ts%3E> [20 June 2010].

DUNKLEY, M. (2008): «The Value of Historic Wreck Sites», in Rossi, I. R., Gaspari, A. and Pydyn, A. (eds.)Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists (Zadar,Croatia, 18-23 September 2007). Underwater Archaeology: Past, Present, Future, Croatian Archae-ological Society, Zagreb: 18-28.

ELKIN, M. (2009): «Vida de pirata», Vanity Fair Spain, 14: 59-63.

FLORIAN, M.-L. E.; SECCOMBE-HETT, C. E., and McCAWLEY, J. C. (1977): «The Physical, Chemical, and Mor-phological Condition of Marine Archaeological Wood Should Dictate the Conservation Process»,in Papers from the First Southern Hemisphere Conference on Maritime Archaeology, Oceans So-ciety of Australia, Melbourne: 128-144.

GIBBINS, D., and ADAMS, J. (2001): «Shipwrecks and Maritime Archaeology «, World Archaeology, 32(3):279-291.

GODFREY, I. M.; REED, E.; RICHARDS, V. L.; WEST, N. F., and WINTON, T. (2005): «The James Matthews Ship-wreck - Conservation Survey and In-Situ Stabilization» in Hoffmann, P.; Strætkvern, K.; Spriggs, J.A., and Gregory, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th ICOM Group on Wet Organic ArchaeologicalMaterials Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 7-11 June 2004, Hauschildl, Bremerhaven: 40-76.

GREEN, J.; MATTHEWS, S., and TURANLI, T. (2002): «Underwater Archaeological Surveying Using Photo-Modeler, VirtualMapper: Different Applications for Different Problems», International Journal ofNautical Archaeology, 31(2): 283-292.

GREEN, J. N. (2004): Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook, Elsevier Academic Press, Amster-dam.

GREGORY, D. (1998): «Re-burial of Timbers in the Marine Environment as a Means of Their Long-TermStorage: Experimental Studies in Lynaes Sands, Denmark», International Journal of Nautical Ar-chaeology, 27(4): 343-358.

GRENIER, R. (2006): «Introduction: Mankind, and at Times Nature, are the True Risks to UnderwaterCultural Heritage», in Grenier, R., Nutley, D. and Cochran, I. (eds.) Underwater Cultural Heritageat Risk: Managing Natural and Human Impacts, ICOMOS: X-XI.— (2007): «The Parks Canada Red Bay Project: A Synopsis», in Grenier, R., Bernier, M.-A. and

Stevens, W. (eds.) The Underwater Archaeology of Red Bay: Basque Shipbuilding andWhaling in the 16th Century. Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa: 17-20.

HALL, J. L. (2007): «The Fig and The Spade: Countering the Deceptions of Treasure Hunters», AIA Ar-chaeology Watch, August 15 <http://www.archaeological.org/pdfs/archaeologywatch/figandspade.pdf%3E [10 April 2009].

HARVEY, P. (1996): «A Review of Stabilization Work on the Wreck of the William Salthouse in PortPhillip Bay», Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, 20(2): 1-8.

KHAKZAD, S., and VAN BALEN, K. (2012): «Complications and Effectiveness of In Situ Preservation Meth-ods for Underwater Cultural Heritage», Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites,14(1-4): 469-478.

KINGSLEY, S. (ed.) (2010a): «Underwater Cultural Heritage & UNESCO in New Orleans», Odyssey Papers,13 <http://www.shipwreck.net/featuresarchpapers.php> [4 November 2011].

KINGSLEY, S. (2010b): «Underwater Cultural Heritage & UNESCO in New Orleans: An Introduction»,Odyssey Papers, 13: 1-6 <http://www.shipwreck.net/featuresarchpapers.php> [4 November 2011].— (2010c): «UNESCO, Commerce & Fast-Food Maritime Archaeology», Odyssey Papers, 13: 20-

24 <http://www.shipwreck.net/featuresarchpapers.php> [4 November 2011].

MAARLEVELD, T. J.; GUÉRIN, U., and EGGER, B. (eds.) (2013): Manual for Activities Directed at Under-water Cultural Heritage: Guidelines to the Annex of the UNESCO 2001 Convention, UNESCO,Paris.

MACLEOD, I. D. (1996a): «In Situ Conservation of Cannon and Anchors on Shipwreck Sites», Studies inConservation, 41: 111-115. Preprints of the Contributions to the Copenhagen Congress, 26-30 Au-gust 1996: Archaeological Conservation and its Consequences.— (1996b): «An In-Situ Study of the Corroded Hull of HMVA Cerberus (1926)», in Proceedings

of the 13th International Corrosion Congress, Melbourne, Australia, Australasian CorrosionAssociation, Clayton, VIC: 1-10.

— (1998): «In-Situ Corrosion Studies on Iron and Composite Wrecks in South Australian Waters:Implications for Site Managers and Cultural Tourism», Bulletin of the Australasian Institute forMaritime Archaeology, 22: 81-90.

MANDERS, M. (2004): «Safeguarding a Site: The Master-Management Plan», MoSS Newsletter, 3: 14-19.— (2008): «In Situ Preservation: ‘The Preferred Option’», Museum International, 60(4): 31-41.— (2011): Guidelines for Protection of Submerged Wooden Cultural Heritage, Including Cost-

Benefit Analysis, WreckProtect, Amersfoort.

MORAN, V. (1997): «Sea Scour Control Systems - Some Considerations for Use», Bulletin of the Aus-tralasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, 21(1-2): 133-134.

Strategies for Underwater Cultural heritage: The Case for the Bajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck

Mark E. Polzer

— 11 —

MUCKELROY, K. (1978): Maritime Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

NEGUERUELA, I.; GALLERO, R. G.; CLAUDIO, M. S.; SANMARTÍN, A. M.; PRESA, M., and MARÍN, C. (2004): «Ma-zarrón-2: el barco fenicio del siglo VII a. C. Campaña de noviembre 1999/marzo 2000», in Blanco,A. G.; Séiquer, G. M., and Vivancos, A. E. (eds.) El mundo púnico: religión, antropología y culturamaterial : actas II Congreso Internacional del Mundo Púnico, Cartagena, 6-9 de abril de 2000,Universidad de Murcia, Instituto del Próximo Oriente Antiguo, Área de Historia Antigua, Murcia:453-484.

NIETO PRIETO, X., and CAU ONTIVEROS, M. Á. (eds.) (2009): Arqueologia Nàutica Mediterrània, Museud’Arqueologia de Catalunya, Centre d’Arqueologia Subaquàtica de Catalunya, Girona.

NYSTRÖM GODFREY, I.; BERGSTRAND, T., and PETERSSON, H. (eds.) (2011): Reburial and Analyses of Ar-chaeological Remains, the RAAR project. Phase II – Results from the 4th Retrieval 2009, BohuslänsMuseums Förlag, Uddevalla.

NYSTRÖM GODFREY, I.; BERGSTRAND, T.; PETERSSON, H.; BOHM, C.; CHRISTENSSON, E.; BJÖRDAL, C. G.; GREGORY,D.; MACLEOD, I.; PEACOCK, E. E., and RICHARDS, V. (2012): «The RAAR Project - Heritage ManagementAspects on Reburial After Ten Years of Work», Conservation and Management of ArchaeologicalSites, 14: 360-371.

ORTMANN, N.; MCKINNON, J. F., and RICHARDS, V. (2010): «In-Situ Preservation and Storage: PractitionerAttitudes and Behaviours», Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, 34: 27-44.

OXLEY, I. (1998a): The Environment of Historic Shipwreck Sites: A Review of the Preservation of Materials,Site Formation and Site Environmental Assessment, M.A. thesis, University of St Andrews, St An-drews.— (1998b): «The In-Situ Preservation of Underwater Sites», in Corfield, M.; Hinton, P.; Nixon, T.,

and Pollard, A. M. (eds.) Preserving Archaeological Remains In Situ: Proceedings of theConference of 1st–3rd April 1996, Museum of London Archaeology Service, London: 159-173.

PARKER, A. J. (1990): «Classical Antiquity: The Maritime Dimension», Antiquity, 64: 335-346.— (1992): Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces, Tempus

Reparatum, Oxford.

PHILIPPOU, C. (2012a): «Clarence Excavation and Rapid Recording, April/May 2012», AIMA Newsletter,31(2): 21-24.— (2012b): «Goodnight Clarence - In Situ Reburial, November 2012», AIMA Newsletter, 31(4): 1,

13-14, 16.

POLZER, M. E. (2012): «The Iron Age Phoenician Shipwreck Excavation at Bajo de la Campana, Spain:Preliminary Report from the Field», in Günsenın, N. (ed.) Between Continents: Proceedings of theTwelfth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Ege Yayınları, Istanbul: 27-36.

POLZER, M. E. (Forthcoming): The Phoenician Shipwreck at Bajo de la Campana: Iron Age ColonialCommerce in South-Eastern Spain. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Western Australia, Crawley.

POLZER, M. E., and CASABÁN, J. L. (2012): «Photogrammetry: A Legacy Reaching Back to Yassiada. Map-ping the Shipwreck Site at Bajo de la Campana», INA Quarterly, 39(1): 13-17.

POLZER, M. E., and PINEDO, J. (2011): «The Final Season of the Claude and Barbara Duthuit Expeditionto Bajo de la Campana, Spain: Excavation of a Late Seventh-Century B.C.E. Phoenician Shipwreck»,INA Annual, 5: 6-17, 65.

POURNOU, A.; JONES, A., and MOSS, S. (2001): «Biodeterioration Dynamics of Marine Wreck-Sites Deter-mine the Need for Their In Situ Protection», International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 30(2):299-305.

PRINGLE, H. (2013): «Troubled Waters for Ancient Shipwrecks», Science, 340: 802–807.

Strategies for Underwater Cultural heritage: The Case for the Bajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck

Mark E. Polzer

— 12 —

RAAR (2002): «Re-burial and Analyses of Archaeological Remains - the RAAR project»,<http://www.bohuslansmuseum.se/kulturvast_templates/Kultur_ArticlePage.aspx?id=69084%3E>[25 June 2013].

RICHARDS, V. L. (2003): «‘James Matthews’ (1841), Reburial Project, Conservation Research Design», In-ternal Reports, Department of Materials Conservation, Western Australian Museum, Fremantle.— (2011a): «In Situ Preservation - Application of a Process-Based Approach to the Management

of Underwater Cultural Heritage», in Staniforth, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the Asia-PacificRegional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage, 8-12 November 2011, Manila,Philippines, Asian Academy for Heritage Management, Manilla.

— (2011b): «In Situ Preservation and Reburial of the Ex-Slave Ship James Matthews», AICCMBulletin, 32: 33-43.

ROLDÁN BERNAL, B.; MARTÍN CAMINO, M., and PÉREZ BONET, A. (1995): «El yacimiento submarino del Bajode la Campana (Cartagena, Murcia): catálogo y estudio de los materiales arqueológicos», Cua-dernos de Arqueología Marítima, 3: 11-61.

RULE, N. (1989): «The Direct Survey Method (DSM) of Underwater Survey, and its Application Under-water», International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 18(2): 157-162.

RUPPÉ, C., and BARSTAD, J. (eds.) (2002): International Handbook of Underwater Archaeology, KluwerAcademic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

SECRETARIAT OF THE UNESCO CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF THE UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE (2012):«Submerged Archaeological Sites: Commercial Exploitation Compared to Long-Term Protection»<http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/museums-and-tourism/> [12 June 2013].

SHEFI, D. (2011): «Legally In Situ: Legislative Allowance for the Practical Application of In Situ Preser-vation Pertaining to Marine Archaeological Materials:, in Staniforth, M. (ed.) Proceedings of theAsia-Pacific Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage, 8-12 November 2011, Manila,Philippines, Asian Academy for Heritage Management, Manilla.

STANIFORTH, M., and SHEFI, D. (2010): «Protecting underwater Cultural Heritage: A Review of In SituPreservation Approaches to Underwater Cultural Heritage and Some Directions for the Future»,in World Universities Congress Proceedings, Canakkale Onseklz Mart University, Cannakale: 1546-1552.

STEWART, J.; MURDOCK, L. D., and WADDELL, P. (1995): «Reburial of the Red Bay Wreck as a Form ofPreservation and Protection of the Historic Resource», in Vandiver, P. V.; Druzik, J. R.; Madrid, J.L. G.; Freestone, I. C., and Wheeler, G. S. (eds.) Material Issues in Art and Archaeology IV. Mate-rials Research Society, Pittsburgh: 791-806.

THROCKMORTON, P. (1990): «World’s Worst Investment: The Economics of Treasure Hunting with RealLife Comparisons», in Carrell, T. (ed.) Underwater Archaeology. Proceedings from the Society forHistorical Archaeology Conference, 11-13 January 1990, Tucson, Arizona. Society for HistoricalArchaeology, Pleasant Hill, CA: 6-10.

VETH, P.; VIDUKA, A.; STANIFORTH, M.; MACLEOD, I.; RICHARDS, V., and BARHAM, A. (2011): «The AustralianHistoric Shipwreck Protection Project», in Staniforth, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Re-gional Conference on Underwater Cultural Heritage, 8-12 November 2011, Manila, Philippines,Asian Academy for Heritage Management, Manilla: 753-763.

WADDELL, P. J. A. (2007): «Technical Innovations, Timber Reburial», in Grenier, R., Bernier, M.-A. andStevens, W. (eds.) The Underwater Archaeology of Red Bay: Basque Shipbuilding and Whaling inthe 16th Century, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottowa: 149-153.

WINTON, T., and RICHARDS, V. (2005): «In Situ Containment of Sediment for Shipwreck Reburial Projects»,in Hoffmann, P.; Strætkvern, K.; Spriggs, J. A., and Gregory, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th ICOMGroup on Wet Organic Archaeological Materials Conference, Copenhagen, 7-11 June 2004, In-ternational Council of Museums, Committee for Conservation Working Group on Wet OrganicArchaeological Materials, Bremerhaven: 77-89.

Strategies for Underwater Cultural heritage: The Case for the Bajo de la Campana Phoenician shipwreck

Mark E. Polzer

— 13 —