University of Southampton, 2006

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY

USING UNDERWATER HERITAGE IN BERMUDA AS A BENCHMARK IN

ORDER TO ASSESS THE POSSIBILITIES FOR A HOLISTIC APPROACH
TO UNDERWATER HERTITAGE MANAGEMENT IN THE CARIBBEAN

By Lillian Azevedo-Grout

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for MA

(Maritime Archaeology) by Instructional Course
 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without much advice, guidance,
and support. I would like to thank Dr. Edward Harris and the staff at the Bermuda
Maritime Museum for their outstanding hospitality and advice, for providing me with
shelter and a base from which I might gather data and knowledge. For their expertise,
local knowledge, breathing air, and petrol I would like to thank Bermudian Captains Bob
Steinhoff and Russel Whayman. For his advice and patience, I thank my dissertation
supervisor: Dr. Jonathon Adams. For their correspondence and support, I thank the
heritage managers and contacts throughout the Caribbean including Dr. Basil Reid, Dr.
“Peggy” Leshikar-Denton, Mr. Bob Conrich, and Mrs. Della Scott-Ireton among many
others. Thank-you all! Finally, for his encouragement and love, I thank my husband,
Carl Grout.
 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures and Tables…………………………………………………..……………iv

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1
1. Underwater Sites and Resources:
Observations and Experiences from Bermuda…………….………………………3
2. Legislation and Patterns in Past Heritage Management:
Bermuda’s Changing Policies and Changing Attitudes.…………………………16
3. Previous Underwater Research in Bermuda on the Historic Environment……………26
4. The People’s Heritage? Non-Professional Local Interest and Claims on the
Underwater Cultural Heritage of Bermuda………………………………………34
5. Official Perspectives: Challenges, Goals, and Accomplishments…………………….44
6. Underwater Cultural Heritage Management in Practice:
A look at the Turks and Caicos, the Caymans, and Trinidad and Tobago…….…50
7. A Consensus for Change: Attitudes and Progress:
Four Recognized Areas for Improvement in the Management of the Underwater
Heritage………………………………………………………………………..…58
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….........67
References………………………………………………………………………………..70
 4

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: List of Unprotected Wrecks published by the Wrecks Authority………………5

Figure 1: MakinWaves Chart showing dive locations around Bermuda…………………6
Figure 2: L’Hermione…………………………………………………………………….7
Figure 3: Constellation…………………………………………………………….….….8
Figure 4: Nola: Paddlewheel Civil War Blockade Runner resting thirty meters from
Constellation………………………….………………………………….…….9
Figure 5: Caraquet……………………………………………………………………….10
Figure 6: North Carolina……………………………………………………….………..11
Figure 7: Caesar Grindstones……………………………………………………………12
Figure 8: Pottery visible amongst the San Antonio ballast stones……………….………14
Figure 9: Map of the Caribbean showing the Turks and Caicos, the Caymans, and
Trinidad and Tobago…………………………………………………………...51
 INTRODUCTION

Using Bermuda as a case study and resource for primary material, this research
synthesizes previous archaeology work and local attitudes (amateur, vocational, and
professional) to assess whether it is feasible for small, independent islands to support a
blanket policy that protects the entire region’s underwater cultural heritage (UCH).
To that end, the bulk of material presented is Bermuda-specific. Chapters one
through four are based on the author’s experiences, observations, and research into the
island’s history of underwater heritage management, from four weeks’ research and
participant observation on-site. This analysis which makes up this dissertation’s main
body is founded on a detailed case study of a particular island which has been forced to
deal with the challenge of managing its underwater heritage sooner than other islands.
Although Bermuda is located midway between the USA and UK in the Atlantic Ocean
and not in the Caribbean, her experiences illustrate common challenges that are faced by
islands throughout the Caribbean region. Chapter five addresses eight of these
challenges, not as insurmountable obstacles but as factors which must be considered
when recommending a change to how UCH should be managed.
Experience working on Bermuda has shown that an examination of the Caribbean
region’s underwater cultural heritage and its related issues deserves in-depth examination.
Each island must be understood in its own, unique context. For this reason, I have limited
my application of observations of Bermuda to three islands presented in chapter six: The
Cayman Islands, the Turks and Caicos, and Trinidad and Tobago. As this author has not
conducted research on these islands, opinions and observations on the current state of
affairs have been collected from interested individuals and managers currently working
on the islands through correspondence and related published materials.
Despite this limitation, experience on Bermuda and a cursory examination of several
of the Caribbean islands have revealed that a number of challenges are regionally shared,
despite particular differences in circumstance. For example, the lack of existing or
effective legislation for the protection of underwater cultural heritage is common on many
islands. Islands in the Caribbean do not have a single, central government and
understanding local laws and politics that are involved is therefore crucial. A unilateral
one-size-fits-all policy will not be acceptable to all governments. As interested
conservationist Bob Conrich said, there are too many chiefs and too few Indians.
Chapter seven looks at four areas for improvement in UCH management and what
steps have been taken by individual islands to address them, working on an individual and
regional level. Individually, islands have collaborated with overseas institutions and
underwater archaeology programs including the Mary Rose Trust and the Institute of
Nautical Archaeology. Regionally, maritime archaeologists have found a voice through
the Museums Association of the Caribbean (MAC), the International Association for
Caribbean Archaeology (IACA) and other international organizations.
Personal observation has shown that in order to assess the possibility for a holistic
approach to underwater heritage management in the Caribbean, there must be an in-depth
working knowledge of each of the islands which would be holistically integrated. Based
on the author’s experience on Bermuda and communication with heritage managers in the
Caribbean region, a holistic approach is currently possible, not legislatively, but on a
brainstorming and communication level. For blanket legislation to work in the future
there must be a greater understanding of each island’s historical management practices,
current policies, local attitudes and politics, and there must be local individuals who are
concerned with and active in local affairs. This dissertation’s aims are two fold: 1) to
present those key ingredients to successful heritage management that have been
developed on Bermuda over time through trial in such a way that 2) a template is made
for those interested individuals and heritage managers living and working in the
Caribbean to better recognize those challenges to UCH management they face.
 Chapter One
UNDERWATER SITES AND RESOURCES: OBSERVATIONS AND
EXPERIENCES FROM BERMUDA

Bermuda is a likely place for shipwrecks. Situated mid-way between the New
World and Europe, the islands have been used throughout history as a stopover place and
navigational beacon. Reefs extend over ten miles off-shore in places, and historically
vessels often found themselves in trouble long before reaching the safety of Bermuda’s
sandy shores. Despite laws requiring local pilots, the prevalence of hurricanes and the
limitations of navigation instruments in the days before global positioning systems,
helped to create over three hundred wrecks by the turn of the 21st century. Even with the
introduction of new technologies ships continue to find themselves in trouble as
evidenced by the running aground of a cruise ship two days before my arrival. On
Bermuda I wanted to see for myself what remained after over forty years of active
salvaging. My experiences and observations are the subject of this chapter, as they left
me with two major impressions: the scale of the resource and the permanent effects of
treasure salving and artifact collecting.
While there has been a less active program for excavation since the Historic
Wrecks Act came into force (current emphasis is on in-situ preservation), volunteers
continue to assist the Bermuda Maritime Museum with the management and cataloguing
of its collections. As a result, I was encouraged to come to Bermuda at Dr. Edward
Harris’ invitation to explore both the Island’s archives and underwater sites. The
experience provided me with hands-on data on which to base the body of this dissertation
in addition to exposing me to the practical aspects of working, diving, and living on an
island.
Of the seventeen wrecks salvaged by Teddy Tucker and Mendel Peterson in the
1960s, I had the pleasure of visiting five (Caesar, L’Herminie, Montana, New Old
Spaniard, and San Antonio). I also dove several wrecks classified as “unprotected”
including the Blanche King, Caraquet, Constellation, Frenchman, and North Carolina.
The ships I dove were representative. I visited both sites that tourists would see with a
commercial dive operator and others with great historical interest but little to visually
attract the tourist. To round off the experience, I dove a number of sites with ship
wreckage whose identity was unknown even to the divers who served as my guides.
Bermuda is a small island with an even smaller diving population. Everyone
knows everyone. For example, diving with Bob Steinhoff, a local businessman, museum
trustee and boat captain, I asked why he didn’t display a dive flag on his boat. He
explained that Bermuda doesn’t have the same amount of boat traffic as other islands.
Tourists don’t usually go far offshore without a guide and any local dive boat would
recognize his boat and know he was diving. On the reef, he recognizes other boats and
the sites they are over. On one occasion, he called the individual diving a site he did not
recognize to determine if it was worth going over and having a look for himself.
Divers like Steinhoff are familiar with Bermuda’s reefs and will pick out a site
using a number of natural markers. These may include lining up two points on land, the
location of particular reef markers and buoys, or the shape of sand holes or coral
formations. On a clear day, many wrecks are visible from the surface. Sand, turtle grass,
reef, and ship ballast all have unique shades that are visible from the surface to the keen
observer. I observed boat captains using a combination of local and technical aids to
locate the sites we dove. Some of the better known, large iron wrecks have recently been
marked with mooring balls, both to facilitate locating them and to prevent damage to the
surrounding reef by anchoring. The less well-known wrecks are located using either GPS
(Global Positioning System) or visible clues. For example, we would often run to a
particular GPS location that I had located in the files. As the coordinates might have been
altered or incorrectly taken we would travel up and down the reefs, searching for a
difference in bottom composition that would indicate the location of a wreck. Having a
flying bridge, or deck above the main body of the boat made this easier as it was possible
to see possible hazards from a distance.

Tourist Sites (unprotected wrecks)

The first list of unprotected sites was published by the Wrecks Authority as
Government Notice No. 368-196.
 Description of Wreck General Area
th
19 Century- conspicuous large ballast S.W. Breakers
piles- misc. iron
North Carolina US Clipper- 1882 S.W. Breakers
“Darbington” Iron Steamer- 1894 Chub Heads (Western Ledge Flats)
L’Hermione French Frigate 1836 Chub Heads (Western Ledge Flats)
Late 18th or early 19th century Chub Heads (Western Ledge Flats)
Constellation US Schooner- 1943 Western Blue Cut
Montana/Nola 1857 Western Blue Cut
A wreck- late 18th Century Western Blue Cut
Caraquet Iron Steamer 1923 North Rook
Matiana Iron Steamer early 1900s North Rook
Cristobal Colon Spanish passenger vessel, N.E. Breakers
1936
Taunton Iron Steamer 1914 N.E. Breakers
Blanche King wooden schooner 1914 S.W. Breakers
Iristo steamer 1937 N.E. Breakers
Avenger iron brig Mills Breaker
Colonel William G. Bell iron yacht 1942 Mills Breaker
Pollockshields steamer 1915 Elbow Beach
Marie Celeste Paddle Steamer- blockade Sinky Bay
runner 1853
Schooner- early 1900s Mills Breaker
Sailing Vessel- late 19th century Castle Harbour
Kate Iron Steamer 1915 Tucker’s Town
Schooner- coal cargo 1890s Hungry Bay
Minnie Bresseieur iron steamer 1872 Warwick Long Bay
Table 1: List of Unprotected Wreck Sites published by the Wrecks Authority. The sites
visited and photographed by the author are in bold.

Government Notice No. 368-196 stated that:

any person may dive on these wrecks without being in possession of a

license…but nothing herein contained shall be construed as granting
permission to use any explosive or pressure air-hose, water-hose or vacuum-
hose upon or in the vicinity of any wreck (Government Notice No. 368-196).

Table 1 lists the updated list of these wrecks and their descriptions as published
by the Wrecks Authority. Their position in latitude and longitude is also given to
facilitate locating them. These wrecks were chosen by the committee because they were
considered less fragile and profitable than others (i.e. Spanish Galleons). Their large,
Figure 1: Map of Bermuda showing some of the most common dive sites published by
MakinWaves, a local dive operator

iron profiles meant that they were more easily located and attracted large numbers of reef
fish. As a result, many are good photographic subjects and remain popular among
recreational divers today. Figure 1 shows a common tourist map showing the location of
the more popular dive sites around the island. Notice how a large proportion of
unprotected wrecks that are listed in Table 1 are also shown as dive sites on the map.
L’Hermione (Figure 2)
L’Hermione is the oldest shipwreck on the original unprotected wreck list.
Designed by Martin Boucher in 1823, L’Hermione was one of eight frigates in
La Surveillante class. After a distinguished career in the Mediterranean, West Indies,
South Africa, and Mexico she succumbed to foul weather and leaking bilges off Bermuda
in 1838 (Watts 2003: 102). 495 of her crew were rescued following a storm and her
cargo salvaged. Today the site consists of over twenty canon spread out over an acre of
ocean floor. Her massive anchor and half-buried canon make excellent photographic
subjects and she is popular among recreational divers (Berg 1991: 38). The Bermuda
Maritime Museum and East Carolina University examined the site in 1994 and
commented that even though there was no current license to excavate the wreck “it was
Figure 2: L’Hermione’s characteristic canon. Popular among photographers, a few of the canon
are completely covered in sediment while others are easily distinguishable among the coral.
Photo taken by author.

obvious that excavation was going on” (Watts 2003: 105). A large hole near the ship’s
capstan was filled with broken glass, broken ceramics, and fragmented wood.
When I dove this site, I did not see any small artifacts and it is likely that they
have long-since been removed and salvaged. Discovered in 1956 by French diver Jean
Archie, the site has been consistently “worked” by divers using both low and high-tech
excavation methods. At least two divers have been licensed by the Wrecks Authority to
remove artifacts using suction dredges and there is no official record of their finds. Up to
the Bermuda Maritime Museum’s projects in 1994 and 1995 there had been no systematic
survey or site plan made.
Despite the loss to archaeology, the site’s popularity with recreational divers
might still be used to support historic shipwreck conservation. A waterproof card giving
details of the ship’s history and site could be produced and made available in local dive
Figure 3: Constellation debris field with Captain Bob Steinhoff. Notice the solidified bags of
cement and cultural conglomerate in the foreground. Photo taken by the author.

shops. Similar cards are available in Florida Keys and have been quite popular among
both tourists and local guides; information on the card provides detailed information on
the site and would be ideal to brief divers before the dive.
Constellation (Figure 3)
The inspiration behind Peter Benchley’s book “The Deep” as well as the movie by
the same title, the Constellation is a fascinating wreck. Built in 1918, she was one of the
last of her kind, a four-masted cargo schooner of 1034 tons. For twenty-five years she
transported coal, lumber, and a variety of cargos up and down the eastern coast of the
United States. Sailing from New York to Venezuela in 1943 in heavy seas, her pumps
failed and the Captain made for Bermuda to make repairs. Having misplaced his only
Bermuda map, he made an error in judgment and wrecked his ship near Western
Figure 4: Paddlewheel of the American Civil War Blockade Runner Nola (aka Montana) which
wrecked just thirty meters from the Constellation. The wreck’s close proximity is a reminder just
how treacherous Bermuda’s reefs can be. Photo taken by the author.

Blue Cut off Bermuda, only thirty meters from the Nola (Figure 4), an American Civil
War Blockade Runner.
The Constellation’s interesting cargo including tennis racquets, nail polish,
ceramic tiles, yo-yos, bottles, lead crucifixes, and glass ampoules with medicine led locals
to call the site the “Woolworth wreck.” Since its discovery, the site has been loved to
death by trinket-collecting tourists. Over the years, thousands of pieces have been
removed by divers; light salvage has been supported in the media, popularized in “The
Deep” as a fun and harmless activity. As a result, during my dives I spotted few intact
bottles and none of the items listed above. Today the site is easily identified by stacks of
solidified cement bags, fifty-five gallon drums, and a conglomerate of cultural material
including broken bottles and ceramics. Today the dive is often combined with the Civil
Figure 5: Caraquet debris field. Photo taken by the author.

War Blockade Runner, Nola, a reminder how treacherous Bermuda’s reefs can be and
how many wrecks can accumulate over time in a single spot.
The site provides an excellent example of the damage caused by wide-scale
pilfering over time. Now, dive operators and captains stress the importance of leaving
objects on the site but it was not always so. I wonder why the essence of something
appears only when it is threatened with disappearance (Sanz 2005). Why is it that we
often only become conscious of a finite resource when it is nearly gone?
Caraquet (Figure 5)
The British iron steamer Caraquet sunk en-route from Antigua to Halifax in 1923.
Scattered over two acres of ocean floor, visible structural remains include four large
boilers, deck plates, capstans, winches, and lead pipes. The scattered wreckage provides
an example of a relatively modern, widely spread out site. During my dives I noticed
shipwrecks in various states of decay. A few including the North Carolina (Figure 6)
Figure 6: North Carolina. Another popular site, much of the rigging is still in-tact. Notice the
crow’s nest (center) and dead-eye (left). Photo taken by author.

presented intact hulls and identifiable vessel forms while many others appeared as
scattered wreckage or ballast stones.
Observing this variety of wreck forms impressed on me how much might still be
learned (even from salvaged sites) on the processes of wreck formation from the sheer
number and variety of sites available for study.

Historical Interest
In addition to diving many of the more popular sites, I was privileged to dive on
several, older historic wrecks including the Caesar, New Old Spaniard, and San Antonio.
Caesar (Figure 7)
The newest of these three sites, the Caesar, was an English brig built in 1814 and
sunk just four years later, in 1818. The site is also known as the Millstone wreck for the
Figure 7: Caesar millstones (right) with Bob Steinhoff in background. Photo taken by author.

ship’s cargo of millstones ranging from one to four feet in diameter. In the mid 1960s,
Teddy Tucker salvaged a portion of the site, recovering a number of millstones which he
used to pave a path through his garden. In addition to millstones, medicine vials,
decorated flasks, grandfather clock parts, glassware, and a marble cornice for a Baltimore
church were all part of the cargo (Berg 1991: 12).
When I dove the site, I noticed a number of wine bottle fragments and small
ceramic fragments. Aside from the grindstones, I found no intact artifacts. This in itself,
is hardly surprising. Berg’s book on Bermuda Shipwrecks includes images of the site
being searched with metal detectors and deep holes being dug with dredges “in search of
finding one of the rare bottles the Caesar carried as part of her cargo. The ship provides a
typical example of an interesting site that has been heavily impacted by divers for purely
recreational reasons.
New Old Spaniard
The New Old Spaniard wreck is also known as the Lumberyard Wreck and
IMHA2 (Bermuda Maritime Museum Files). The site was first uncovered and examined
by Mendel Peterson and Teddy Tucker in 1960. The ship was given the nickname
Lumberyard Wreck, as extensive hull remains were discovered preserved in an excavated
sand pit. The original excavation removed a one meter square hull section for
examination. Nothing, however, was published and the section is reported to be
warehoused at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History in its original
crates (Cooke 1999). As such, it ought to remain a warning to all archaeologists that
excavating a wreck without plans for conservation, study, and exhibition can cause as
much damage as outright salvage.
The ship was rediscovered by Cathryn and Steven Hoyt in 1987 working for the
Maritime Museum and the site dated to between 1560 and 1580. The extensive hull
remains described by Peterson were still present and included the keel, keelson, floors,
first futtocks, planking, and bilge ceilings (minus the one-meter section removed). They
are particularly interesting as they may represent a traditional period of shipbuilding
between “shell-first” and “frame-first” construction methods (Cooke 1999). The ship’s
remaining features have been covered with sand to protect them and the only noticeable
features when diving the site today are ballast stones. The availability of site plans, 1:1
drawings, dive logs, slides, and detailed inventories located in the Bermuda Maritime
Museum’s archives distinguishes the site from others. They show the extent of
information missing from many previous excavations (the Sea Venture being a notable
exception with excellent records on file).
San Antonio (Figure 8)
In 1621 the Spanish San Antonio en route from Cartagena, Columbia to Spain fell
victim to Bermuda’s reefs. The wrecking event and subsequent salvage were well
documented in Bermudian and English documents and the modern rediscovery of the
vessel has produced a number of outstanding artifacts. Included among the reported
discoveries were tools and implements, combs, beads, pearl baptismal shells, crucifixes,
shoe soles, incendiary and wooden case shot, stone and iron shot for guns, musket and
Figure 8: Fragments of pottery are still visible among the San Antonio’s ballast stones despite
extensive salvaging of the site. Photo taken by author.

arquebus balls, bones from pickled fish and meat, intact olive jars, pottery fragments, “a
treasure of gold and gem jewelry, gold chain links, and silver pieces of eight” (Cooke
1998). Unfortunately these artifacts were excavated without regard to archaeology. As a
consequence, the site represents a huge loss to Bermuda’s UCH. Today, little remains of
the massive ninety feet of ships’ timbers described by Tucker in 1958 although it is still
possible to pick out fragments of 17th century pottery hiding among the ballast stones.

Mystery Sites
My experience would not have been complete without diving a number of sites
whose identity and composition is still unknown. Sometimes, we would dive a set of
coordinates where a wreck was reported and find nothing. On other occasions we would
spot a piece of iron or wood with no other attachments. Searching, we would scan the
bottom and reef for bits of cultural material that might give us a clue.
 Russell Whayman, a photographer and Bermudian I was diving with, expressed
his opinion that these unidentified sites were archaeology’s greatest challenge. As sites
are “discovered” they are often named for a particular trait or its discoverer. When
another diver finds the site, he may give it a different name for a different reason. As a
result, even well-known wrecks may have two, three, or even four names. The
identification of these sites and their correlation to historic records remains an impressive
challenge that only increases if more material is removed without proper archaeological
guidance.

Observations
Diving different sites every day for a month, I soon began to appreciate the scale
of Bermuda’s underwater resource. In a month I barely had the chance to scrape the
surface and I relied on locals whose diving experience dated back decades before my
birth. As the people I dove with spoke on their experiences, I realized that over time their
attitude and experience had changed. Time has taken its toll of the number of quality
sights left to be discovered and excavated. Many locals feel that everything of value has
been found. As the resource has become more precious, their attitude towards its
preservation has become more protective.
 Chapter Two
LEGISLATION AND PATTERNS IN PAST HERITAGE MANAGEMENT:
BERMUDA’S CHANGING POLICIES AND CHANGING ATTITUDES

Do changing policies reflect changing attitudes or are certain practices and

opinions ingrained deeper than others? Looking at underwater cultural heritage
management on Bermuda, this chapter will examine how heritage on the island has been
managed historically.
Law, according to author Gary Gentile, “is a reflection of society’s code of
morality” (Gentile 1989). That the Bermuda Wreck and Salvage Act passed in Bermuda
in 1959 was upheld for more than forty years in regards to shipwreck and salvage law
shows that it is possible to change what a society believes is right but that it is a long and
arduous process. An analysis of the 1959 Act and the attempts to revise it in 1989, 1997,
and 2001 when the Historic Wrecks Act was finally passed reveals a changing attitude
from one supporting regulated exploitation by a few privileged Bermudians to an attitude
supporting historic preservation and controlled, scientific exploration.
The 1959 Act focused primarily on the correct salvage of vessels found in distress
on Bermuda’s many reefs and is similar to other legislature based on Admiralty law with
a few notable exceptions. Salvage under Admiralty law requires three elements to be
shown: 1) the vessel was in maritime peril and required assistance, 2) the salvor acted
voluntarily (i.e. he was not under contract or had a legal duty to assist) and 3) the salvor
was successful in saving at least part of the property at risk. The Bermuda legislature
varies in that it distinguishes between recent and historic wrecks and lists criteria, albeit
vaguely for the difference between the two types of wreck. A historic wreck is, according
to the legislature, not less than fifty years old and “of historic interest or value” (1959 Act
Part II: 28.1). The act does not specify what requirements a ship must meet to have
historic value and thus classification as “historic” was based purely on a committee’s
evaluation.
Bermuda’s 1959 Act recognized the growing presence and interest of sub-aqua or
scuba divers in exploring and exploiting these sites. Even before Jacque-Yves Cousteau’s
The Silent World had won an Oscar in 1956, Teddy Tucker and a small group of
Bermuda treasure salvors had explored the depths. Tucker’s famous discovery off
Bermuda of a gold cross set with seven emeralds in 1955 sparked the imagination of the
world and led Smithsonian’s curator Dr. Mendel Peterson to travel to Bermuda to inspect
the find. The resulting excitement and treasure furor helps explains why Bermuda
included provisions for the salvage of historic wrecks in the 1959 Act (to prevent a free-
for-all).

What the Act did

The Act sought to regulate diving activities by forbidding diving in the vicinity of
“historic wreck” and the “marking, mutilating, destroying, removing, or otherwise
interfering with the wreck UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY LICENCE.” To compensate for
excluding divers from wrecks, the Act stated that some wrecks would be designated as
“unprotected,” a list of these sites were published in Bermuda’s official Gazette, and
made open to the public for enjoyment and consumption. Today, these mostly
iron-hulled wrecks continue to make up the majority of sites visited by local dive
operators (Table 1).
According to the 1959 Act, any of these “unprotected” sites might be visited
without a license. While use of explosives, pressure hoses, water-hoses, and vacuum-
hoses were forbidden, nothing excluded the visiting diver from removing and collecting
bits of wreck by hand. In practice, many operators actively encouraged visiting divers to
recover artifacts to enrich their experience. These finds and collections of artifacts were
often displayed on board and used by operators to encourage further scavenging.
Unprotected sites include about twenty wrecks, including several visited by the author
during her study in Bermuda. They vary in date from 1838 (L’Hermione) to 1943
(Constellation).
For the management of these and other wrecks, an advisory committee of three to
seven persons was appointed. This committee, or Wrecks Authority, issued licenses to
applicants for the survey or excavation of sites not listed as unprotected. Under salvage
law, artifacts recovered would be reported to the Receiver who, under the 1959 Act,
might release some or all of the finds to the licensee. The licensee would be compensated
for any retained finds with “an unspecified agreed upon or arbitrated amount.”
Although the government might retain finds, they were required under the 1959
Act to compensate the salvor. In practice, very few artifacts were retained and the salvors
were rewarded for their efforts by being allowed to keep them to keep and/or dispose of
the recovered artifacts. As conservation was often sporadic and successful methods only
developed through unsuccessful trial and error, it is little wonder that only a fraction of
items recovered under this law survive today. In trying to understand shipwrecks worked
under this system, archaeologists have often had to rely on newspaper pictures depicting
artifact assemblages (interview with Charlotte Andrews).
While this act stood out from earlier salvage law by acknowledging the presence
of historic wrecks it lacked any provision for the protection, study, exhibition, or
conservation of retained finds. Additionally, members of the advisory council were not
required to possess any specific qualifications. As a consequence the membership of the
committee represented wreck diving interests above those of archaeologists, historians, or
conservators, none of which were represented until the 1980s.
Although the Bermuda Wreck and Salvage Act was passed in 1959, the Wrecks
Authority’s did not hold its first meetings until 1964 and 1965. The committee was
composed of six members including Teddy Tucker and several keen divers. Their
expressed aims included exploiting the large number of historic wrecks around the
Bermudas, both as a tourist attraction and as a long-term method of placing the Colony
permanently on the map as a unique contributor to world knowledge in this particular
field (1964 Meeting Minutes).
With this aim, the committee created a list of designated “unprotected” wreck
sites. Today, a map showing Bermuda’s wreck dives will list these wrecks and
occasionally others (such as the famous Sea Venture). Sites that were not “unprotected”
were permitted but permits were handed out irregularly and at the discretion of the
committee. That they were awarded to a small group of privileged individuals is
supported by the fact that out of all the individuals and groups to apply for a license, only
a few white, male Bermudians were ever officially granted excavation rights.
Early Attitudes
Although Teddy Tucker was not the only enthusiast searching Bermuda’s clear
waters for treasure in the 1950s and 1960s, his public statements and interviews reflect a
common, early view that taking artifacts and treasure from the sea was both a natural and
good pursuit. Submerged artifacts were, in the era’s parlance, rotting away and ought to
be rescued by people with the knowledge, ability, and skill to do so. In 1962 Tucker
wrote, “In a way I can compare the reefs of Bermuda to a semiprivate Fort Knox. I know
the locations of 112 shipwrecks scattered among the thousands of sand holes which dot
the Bermuda reefs…Little by little I am uncovering these [7] galleons, working patiently
over one wreck at a time until I am satisfied that I have picked it clean” (Tucker 1962).
Thus an early attitude viewed artifacts as a resource that should be mined and
exploited. That Tucker compared shipwrecks to a private Fort Knox further illustrates the
early treasure diver’s monetary incentive to recover gold and valuables over other
artifacts.

Changing Attitudes
The 1960s and 1970s witnessed a shift in public attitude. While the motto of the
1950s had too often been to tear down the old to make way for the new, the 1960s saw the
spread of heritage management programs across the globe. Spain, France, and Great
Britain all passed laws to expand the protection of historic monuments on land in the
1960s with the Charter of Athens, “Commission des Secteurs Sauvegardes,” and Civic
Amenities Act (Fisch 2005). While governments were quick to realize that protecting
historical heritage on land could benefit the region, attracting tourists and boosting the
economy, a veritable free-for-all persisted underwater. This difference reflects in part,
the discipline’s youth.
While the public were familiar with archaeology on land, maritime archaeology
was a brand new field. Treasure salving as imagined and practiced on Bermuda was still
considered to be respectable and exciting work. That the Smithsonian worked alongside
divers to recover objects further legitimized their actions (Johnson 2001), especially as all
work was supposedly conducted under permit by the Wrecks Authority and Bermudian
government. Glossy spreads of Tucker and his treasure in Time magazine lent even
further support.
The turning point for Bermuda and the management of its heritage lies in 1974,
the year that the Bermuda Maritime Museum was established, acquiring the derelict
grounds at the Naval Dockyard. Between the creation of the maritime museum and the
passage of the 2001 Historic Wrecks Act, several attempts were made to pass protective
legislature. The first, in 1989, shows a growing concern to protect the underwater
heritage and the polarization of both sides of the argument. On one side were the
archaeologists and individuals who wrote the bill. Their aims were multiple; they sought
to tighten control over the exploration and excavation of historic wrecks, change the
organization that handled licenses from the Department of Finance to the Department of
Culture, and reduce the minimum age for protection of sites from fifty to twenty-five
years. They emphasized that all finds should be entrusted to an institution for
preservation, study and exhibition and NO compensation would be given to licensees who
recovered artefacts. The bill also stated that the committee would be made up of three to
five members from the fields of history, archaeology, education, and related professions.
Those in support of the 1959 Legislation whose interest lay in maintaining the
status quo included treasure salvors, members of the Wrecks Authority, and author Peter
Benchley. As a group they deplored the legislature as too restrictive. In newspaper
editorials and short articles, they attacked the conservationists and archaeologists as
elitist, overzealous, selfish intellectuals who in their opinion, sought to retain possession
of the wrecks for their sole benefit at the exclusion of others. In their opinion, the 1959
law wasn’t broke and didn’t need fixing. As Benchley wrote, “The 1959 Act has worked
well for Bermudians and visitors alike. I hope that it will not be mutilated for the benefit
of a vociferous few” (Benchley 1988). Benchley, in an effort to preserve the status quo
calls the 1959 Act “one of the most enlightened shipwreck acts in the world” and the
efforts to change it by:
 a misguided band of overzealous academics …in such a way as effectively
to shut down wreck diving in Bermuda, or rather, to make it their private
province. Their theory is that any old shipwreck is of historical value and
should either be excavated only by folks who append the alphabet to their
surnames, or left to rot in her grave (Benchley 73: 1988).

The colourful mudslinging debate between polarized groups was published in the
Royal Gazette and other Bermudian newspapers. As a collection of articles, it illustrates
that passionate opinions existed on both sides and that there was little suggestion for
future compromise from either side.
Unfortunately for the preservationists, according to Bermuda Maritime Museum
director Dr. Edward Harris, the legislation was “wrecked in the political election of 1989”
(Harris 2002: 13). Unsuccessful, it was shelved for eight years until it was revised and
rewritten in 1997. In the meantime, Bermuda’s policies towards the salvage of historic
wrecks attracted criticism from outside Bermuda. During a visit to the islands,
Vancouver Maritime Museum director James Delgado observed land restoration work by
the Bermuda National Trust on various buildings. Similar steps ought to be taken
underwater, he argued. “The international trend,” he said, “is towards conservation and
preservation ethics” (The Royal Gazette: 1994). Dive operators should encourage the
preservation of sites and oppose wreck pilfering, he stated, after observing how the
Constellation, one of Bermuda’s unprotected wrecks had “basically been pilfered to
death” (1994). That Delgado’s visit was covered by The Royal Gazette demonstrates a
strong interest by locals in underwater affairs.
The second attempt at legislation in 1997 outlined general licensing procedures
and established the concept of a national collection “to be held, preserved, studied, and
exhibited in a designated institution.” It also required the submission of artefact lists and
established what qualifications a licensee should possess. The Act stated the importance
of preserving the wreck before and after conservation. Importantly, it redressed the
compensation issue by allowing licensees to be compensated for artefacts recovered, a
point that was deeply criticized by the archaeologists. This Bill, like the 1989 Act failed.
According to Bermuda Maritime Museum director Dr. Edward Harris, it was “scuppered
in 1997 in the House of Assembly by a team of enlightened Members of Parliament led
by Trevor Moniz” (Harris 2002: 13).
 Newspapers (The Royal Gazette, Bermuda Sun) emphasized the strained
relationship between the archaeological and diving communities. On one side,
archaeologists claimed that the 1997 legislature sold out their heritage while on the other
side, advocates of the act claimed it would “safeguard wrecks and encourage divers to
report their finds” (Zuill 1997: 1).
With the 1959 Legislation still on the books, the Bermuda Wrecks Authority
continued to regulate which divers should have access to wreck sites. While several local
divers were allowed to continue working local wrecks based on the recommendation and
referral of committee members, others were refused access. The Authority continued to
operate from a Bermudian-first policy, refusing to grant licenses to applicants without a
direct connection to the Island or an institution on the island like the Bermuda Maritime
Museum. Applications filed by the American-based company, Golden Quest, Ltd. to
excavate “a known 16th-Century vessel” were repeatedly refused on fears that the
company would “plunder historic sites without thought for the archaeology of the
wrecks” (Greenfield 1998). Interestingly, it was not the removal of artefacts that worried
the committee but the idea that it would be non-Bermudians exploiting a jealously-
guarded local resource.
When local divers discovered an eighteenth-century headless figurehead exposed
on a reef they chose to remove it from the other ship timbers and deliver it without
conservation treatment to the Bermuda Maritime Museum without obtaining a license
from the committee (themselves). This put the Bermuda Maritime Museum in a
dilemma. According to the Museum’s official policy on the acquisition of objects, the
museum “will not accept any object recovered since 1980 from an archaeological or
historic site in an unscientific manner” and any object accepted must be properly stored
and conserved (Collections Management Policy of the Bermuda Maritime Museum). By
accepting an object that would otherwise be lost, the museum assumed responsibility for
an artefact that not only required an extensive investment in time and money to conserve,
but also challenged their policy on artefact acquisition.
Most recently, Bermuda finally succeeded in replacing its 1959 legislature (the
Bill passed in 2001, the Act in January 2002, and the full law came into effect in 2003).
The thirteen-page Bill, based partly on British legislation, declares all Bermuda wrecks
and historic artefacts to be “Crown property.” It divides wrecks into two categories: open
and restricted and activity on the sites into three: non-invasive surveys, recovery of
restricted wreck remains, and recovery of open wreck materials. No mention is afforded
to treasure salvage or salvors, although a “good faith honorarium” is offered to
individuals who report the discovery of unknown wrecks to the proper authorities
(Historic Wrecks Act: 9).
The 2002 Act government backbencher Delaney Robinson reportedly claimed,
“The days of the cowboys and Indians are over” (Johnson Ayo 2001: 7) and Dr. Paul
Johnston, curator of Maritime History, national Museum of American History,
Smithsonian, applauded the bill as

a paradigm for other nations-both large and small- with long, strong
relationships to the sea but no preservation legislation in place to protect
their dwindling underwater cultural heritage for their citizens and visitors
alike (Johnston 11).

The implications of the 2001 Bill for the management of Bermuda’s underwater
cultural resources were numerous and included the “establishment of the Authority…to
be called the Historic Wrecks Authority” who would advise both the Minister and
Custodian (two elected government officials) on 1) the management of historic wrecks, 2)
the national collection, 3) the classification of wrecks and sites and 4) licenses to conduct
research (HWA 2001: 3).
The Historic Wrecks Act passed in 2002 is not without its critics. Hailed as a
giant step forward by preservationists, it immediately fell under attack by those who
wished to maintain the 1959 status quo. The strength and influence of these individuals is
demonstrated by their efforts to amend the act in their favor. Working with the existing
bill, they attempted to and continue to work to amend specific clauses in their favor.
They sought to extend the amnesty period indefinitely for the reporting of objects (such
would mean an object recovered after the passage of the act could be reported to have
been recovered prior to its passage, thereby avoiding penalty or confiscation). They also
worked to revise the defined role of the Authority, so to include control of marine
heritage sites rather than control over all sites. By giving the Authority exclusive control
of designated marine heritage sites rather than control over all sites, the authority would
have limited control over sites not officially designated. Sites under threat would
therefore have to undergo a designation process before they could be officially protected.
Most recently, they are working to define the “National Collection” as a virtual collection
whereby the finders of objects are allowed to keep artefacts privately and images are
stored on an electronic database.
The question of whether objects recovered by treasure hunting should be publicly
displayed can be contentious. The Bermuda Maritime Museum’s policy offers one stance
while the Bermuda Underwater Exploration Institute (BUEI) offers another. The former,
under the direction of archaeologist Edward Harris, adheres to the ethical standards set
down by the International Congress of Maritime Museums (ICMM) in 1990, which
forbids the acceptance, purchase, or display of objects so recovered. BUEI which was
established by a private government bill in 1992 and opened in 1997 has adopted a more
lenient policy.
Described by critics as an anti-museum, the BUEI displays objects recovered from
the waters around Bermuda including those obtained by treasure hunters and shell
collectors. The Institute offers individuals including Teddy Tucker and Jack Lightbourn
the opportunity to display their collections while other museums might ethically have to
decline them. Thus at one site, the public is told that artefacts taken without regard to
archaeology is not acceptable while on the other, they are displayed without mentioning
the effect their removal had on the archaeological record. In this way the public is mis-
educated.
The public’s impression and attitude is also affected by the portrayal of
“explorers” and underwater treasure hunters in the media. The 1970s film ‘The Deep’
captures the Bermudian scene prior to the revision of the 1959 legislature. Based on the
actual wreck of the Constellation which contained thousands of ampoules of adrenaline
and other war-time drugs, the heroes of the 1978 film are a wreck diving couple on
vacation in Bermuda. Recovering artefacts from the modern drug ship they stumble upon
golden treasure from the 16th century. The dangerous nature of salvage is emphasized as
they battle both the underwater elements and the local drug lords in an effort to find the
historic provenance that will enrich their discoveries.
 The lack of a single stance on the issue of treasure hunting in the media is
unfortunate and contributes to public misunderstanding. Many locals and tourists alike
are not sure what is legal or illegal on Bermuda. During my time diving in Bermuda I
found that many divers were unsure whether it was legal to collect objects. That
collecting occurs despite laws prohibiting it is quite likely. On one of my first dives with
long-time diver and boat Captain Bob Steinhoff, he emphatically stated, “this boat doesn’t
collect artifacts.” When I asked him if he thought collecting was still a problem on other
boats he said that he was sure it was but that it was becoming less so as people became
aware of the new law.
Despite the success of the Historic Wrecks Act some attitudes remain unchanged.
Bottles collected from the seafloor are still hawked to tourists, expensive price tags
touting the rarity of each find. Even as legislation now prevents the legal removal of
artefacts, the sale of previously recovered objects goes unchecked.
 Chapter Three
PREVIOUS UNDERWATER RESEARCH IN BERMUDA ON THE
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

Submerged history has fascinated people for as long as they have explored the sea.
Sunken ships and lost cities have inspired authors to create fabulous adventures long
before archaeologists turned their attention to such work. Before archaeologists there
were salvors and wreckers; local free divers who challenged the elements to wrest a living
from the sea. Modern treasure salvers claim to be following in these footsteps; they claim
to be taking back what has been permanently lost and constantly destroyed. As
archaeologists, we know this is false.
The difficulties in creating a systematic review of underwater work done around
Bermuda are multiple. Although the Bermuda Maritime Museum has maintained a full
record of every excavation and survey it has participated in, other groups have not. In
analyzing sites previously worked, museum workers have often had to rely on newspaper
articles and photographs for information on artefacts recovered and since lost.

Sources for Underwater Work in Bermuda

When I first arrived on Bermuda I thought it would be possible to recreate a
history of previous underwater work from the official records of the Wrecks Authority. I
soon discovered that not only was the location for the majority of these records unknown
but that even if they were located, they would paint an incomplete picture.
As the official licensing authority established under the 1959 Act, the Wrecks
Authority was responsible for deciding which sites should be “unprotected.” It was also
responsible for regulating diving and issuing permits (for any activity) on all other sites.
I learned that these records would not provide a complete picture because there was much
activity that occurred without licensing. Why? Two main reasons: enforcement and
encouragement. The Wrecks authority was not provided with any means by which to
enforce the 1959 Law. An individual was usually only caught “working” a site when
another (usually competitive) individual spotted his vessel over a site. The second
reason, encouragement, lies is understanding the politics of a small island. The
individuals who sat on the wrecks authority were divers and treasure salvors. Individuals
seeking to obtain a license to dive a new site were required to provide a detailed
description of the site and its coordinates to the Committee for approval. Depending on
the site, a committee member would often volunteer to ground-truth the licensee’s
application. Ground-truthing the site could involve using a prop-wash, suction dredge, or
air hose to assess the potential value of a site (Jane Downing). The committee member
could then offer his recommendation whether the license application should be granted or
refused (perhaps allowing him to work the site). As a result, applicants often provided
incorrect coordinates or sought to downplay any significant finds they had made. Divers
were not encouraged to provide accurate information, and often delayed their application
in order to protect their claim on a site (which could be made after the site’s integrity was
lost). Any filed information is therefore suspect.
Another source of information for underwater work in Bermuda is local
newspaper and magazine articles featuring famous or significant discoveries. The
significance of this source, incomplete as it is, is demonstrated by the Bermuda Maritime
Museum staff’s own admission that they have often relied on images of early collections
to accurately date a number of early 16th-17th Century shipwrecks (Charlotte Andrews).
A third source of information lies in two sixty page books published in the 1990s
by Noel Hume and Daniel and Denise Berg. These books, both based on interviews with
Teddy Tucker provide a snapshot glimpse of many of the sites and their artefacts. They
are not written from an archaeologist’s perspective but rather from the historically
interested treasure salvor. The conclusion of Hume’s book not only criticizes
archaeologists for their careless treatment of artefacts but also claims that archaeologists
see excavation as an abstract intellectual exercise in which the sites being excavated are
expendable (Hume 63)1.
A fourth source is the memory of the remaining, living treasure salvors, although
this source, too, has faults. Memory of a particular site after forty years may not be
accurate. Particular discoveries of treasure may be more memorable than the size or
layout of a site, dates may be confused, and memory just plain wrong. I learned from
1
Hume writes on Edwin Dethlefson’s 1972 excavation of the Stonewall Wreck with Franklin Pierce
College.
numerous people of a particular salvor who enjoyed spinning a yarn and out and out lied
about some things. Oral history is not stagnant but is constantly reinvented to suit the
attitude of the era or even interviewee. The personality of the interviewee must be
considered as well as the interviewer’s point of view. An event may be recollected in
different ways to suit different interviews.
Finally, the fifth and most accurate source is the Maritime Museum’s records.
Although the museum was established in 1974, it did not become involved in underwater
archaeology until the next decade. Consequently, its records begin around 1984, six years
after the Sea Venture was first surveyed and recorded. The following history has been
pieced together using all the sources mentioned above. A similar activity may be possible
for other islands but its success would depend on the quality and quantity of primary data
available.

Bermuda’s Underwater Work in the 1960s

Underwater Work in the 1960s came on the heels of Teddy Tucker’s discovery in
1955 of a famous gold cross encrusted with emeralds. Spreads of the discovery in Time
Magazine and the Saturday Evening Post had placed Bermuda on the map and
encouraged interpret adventurers to prospect Bermuda’s clear waters for treasure. The
passage of the 1959 Act sought to regulate this and succeeded in many ways by limiting
the number and nationality of licensees to a small group of white, male Bermudians.
Individuals from outside Bermuda who conducted work during this period closely
relied on the experience and expertise of these men. For example, Mendel Peterson
traveled to Bermuda and worked throughout the decade on a number of sites including the
1812 Caesar, the 1659 Eagle, the General Armstrong, the Jug Wreck, the 1838
L’Hermione, the Lord Amherst, the Marie Celeste, the Montana/Nola, the New Old
Spaniard wreck, the Richard Buck, the 1611 San Antonio, the 1609 Sea Venture, the 1594
San Pedro, the Tankard wreck, the 18th Century Twisted Stem Wreck, the 1661 Virginia
Merchant, and the 1619 Warwick. Peterson worked with Tucker and other locals,
gathering information on each site’s history and developing ideas for better ways to
excavate. Unfortunately the link between local explorers and academic institutions did
not bear additional fruit and the Smithsonian’s involvement was an exception rather than
the rule (Harris 1993).

Bermuda’s Underwater Work in the 1970s

The 1970s witnessed a number of changes including the creation of the Bermuda
Maritime Museum. Heritage on land, thanks to the efforts of Dr. Edward Harris and
others, assumed greater significance. Underwater, Edwin Dethlefson conducted two field
schools with students from Franklin Pearce College in New Hampshire, examining the
Hunter Galley and the Stonewall Wreck2. On the Stonewall Wreck near Western Blue
Cut, he writes that the vessel is in such good condition that “it demands further close
attention.” His reports, some of the few surviving records for the decade’s work, reveal
some of the challenges faced by early maritime archaeologists (IJNA 1977). They would
also prove useful in 1992, when the site was relocated by Gordon Watts team’s survey.
Dethlefson writes of the general condition of archaeological sites on Bermuda in
the 1970s:

While it is hard to imagine a place more broadly representative of

transatlantic and transcolonial nautical history than Bermuda, we are
unaware that any of Bermuda’s historical wrecks has ever been more than
sketchily described in the popular press…yet the location of many Bermuda
wrecks are already well-known by salvors and sport divers (Dethlefson IN
Godet 5: 1993).

On Bermuda Law he comments that “no archaeological reportage or excavation

supervision is required, with the consequence that a good many of her historical
shipwrecks have been more or less butchered, while next to nothing has been published
about them” (Dethlefson IN Godet 5: 1993). The 1970s also witnessed the first of several
excavations undertaken jointly by the Bermuda Maritime Museum. Discovered in 1958
by Edmund Downing, the museum launched an archaeological investigation of the Sea
Venture in 1978. Not only was the wreck responsible for Bermuda’s early colonization
but it also made literary history: Shakespeare dramatized the event in one of his last plays,
“The Tempest” written in 1611. Work on the site continued through the 1980s and

2
Hume reports the field school occurred in 1972 (Hume 1995: 63) while Gordon Watts writes that the work
occurred in May and June of 1975 (Watts 2003: 63).
represents one of the first successful collaborations between archaeologists, interested
divers, and the public (Dr. Jonathon Adams).

Bermuda’s Underwater Work in the 1980s

A partnership between the Maritime Museum and East Carolina University began
in 1982 when American underwater archaeologists Gordon P. Watts and John Broadwater
visited Bermuda to view the remains of the Sea Venture. East Carolina University’s
program in Maritime History and Nautical Archaeology (established 1981) established a
field school in Bermuda. Throughout the 1980s, the field school served to educate
graduate students in the methods of underwater archaeology while providing the museum
with information from a variety of sites. From 1983 to 1986, these projects in Bermuda
assessed historic source material and submerged cultural resources relating to the
American Civil War. The blockade runners Mary Celestia and Nola benefited from
survey work. Results from the investigations were published in the Bermuda Journal of
Archaeology and Maritime History in 1993.
Meanwhile, the Sea Venture Trust was organized to document, survey, and
excavate the wreck of the Sea Venture. Between 1982 and 1990 the site was excavated
and recorded in annual four to six week seasons. The work represents one of the first
collaborative efforts in the region between local divers, museum members, and visiting
archaeologists. Several articles were published and major efforts were made to keep the
public involved in each step of the project. In addition to local write-ups in Bermuda’s
newspapers, work was summarized in the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology
and several books (Adams 1985; Bass 1988; Wingood 1982, 1986). Site plans, recovered
artifacts, and reports were entrusted to the Bermuda Maritime Museum for conservation
and exhibition.
In 1987, ECU moved their attentions to revisiting the New Old Spaniard or
Lumberyard wreck, a site which Tucker and the Smithsonian had investigated in the
1960s. Investigations dated the wreck to between 1620 and 1640 (Watts 1993: 33). The
following years’ work examined an early 16th century wreck located on Western Ledge
Reef. Only after work progressed into the following year (1989) was a prior claim on the
vessel discovered. In 1964, Brian Malpas and Donald Canton had applied for and
received a license to excavate the site. Their finds included cast iron cannon, olive jars,
coins, and a ship’s bell. A series of test excavations to determine whether vessel structure
uncovered in the 1960s survived, revealed associated debris but no articulated vessel
structure. Removal of a small area of undisturbed ballast revealed a portion of hull which
was determined significant enough to be lifted from the seabed in 1990.

Bermuda’s Underwater Work in the 1990s

Work on the Western Ledge Wreck continued through 1991. The hull structure
was recovered and transported to the Corange Laboratory in Bermuda for storage and
conservation. Timbers were cleaned thoroughly to identify tool marks and important
features. Mylar sheets were used to record at least three sides of each piece of timber in
1:1 scale.
In 1992, a systematic shipwreck survey was initiated using a Differential Global
Position System (DGPS). The survey succeeded in locating twenty-three sites containing
shipwreck material. One of these, simply named the 18th Century Wrecks, became the
subject of investigation the following year and another, the 17th Century Stonewall Wreck
was relocated (Dean 1996).
The investigation of the 18th Century Wreck served as a useful test for a newly
developed software program created by Nick Rule for use on the 16th century warship
Mary Rose. Links with ECU and England during the 1990s facilitated the exchange of
new techniques, ideas, qualified labour, and the publication of numerous theses, all based
on various projects in Bermuda. For example, the Stonewall Wreck was used by ECU
graduate student Kelly Bumpass and the 19th Century wreck was used by Michael Krivor
(1998).
The 1990s saw student archaeologists revisit numerous sites that were well-known
but poorly recorded. For example, in 1995, the French frigate L’Hermione was visited by
graduate student Sarah Waters who undertook a historical and archaeological
investigation of the site for her thesis, using volunteers from the Maritime Archaeological
and Historical Society (Waters 1996). Her thesis was completed in 1999. The Bermuda-
built Hunter Galley (one of Dethlefson’s research sites) became the subject for Chris
Southerly’s thesis completed in 2003 and the derelict steamer Ready was used by Sarah
Milstead in 1998. Thus by the end of 1990s students from across the United States were
coming to Bermuda from a number of institutions including the University of Rhode
Island, the University of California Berkeley, and St. Mary’s College.
In the 1990s, conservation work on a number of artefacts occurred in Bermuda.
For example, two canon and two swivel guns which were recovered in 1983 from the
Santa Lucia, a 16th century Spanish Vessel, finally underwent active conservation in 1998
after fifteen years of wet storage. Their treatment was completed in 2001 (Smith 2001).

Bermuda’s Underwater Work since 2000

From 1999 to 2001, a team sponsored by Earthwatch conducted archaeological
and historical research on the North Carolina, a three-masted iron barque resting in
Bermuda’s waters. Their preliminary findings are reported in Volume 13 of the Bermuda
Journal of Archaeology and Maritime History.
Despite progress and work done by the museum and ECU field schools, many of
Dethlefson’s derogatory 1970s comments on Bermuda’s shipwreck management
continued to be valid (Godet 6: 1993). The efforts to pass effective legislation described
in chapter two reveal a growing movement to preserve Bermuda’s underwater cultural
heritage by creating blanket legislature. These efforts, as previously described finally
cumulated with the passage of the Historic Wrecks Act in 2002 which finally came into
force in 2003.
Since the passage of the Historic Wrecks Act, there has been less activity by
treasure salvers on Bermuda’s wrecks. In 2001, the Smithsonian Collection, a collection
of artefacts salvaged from Bermuda’s shipwrecks in the 1960s by Teddy Tucker and
Mendel Peterson, were returned to the Island. Since the collection’s return, a number of
small research studies have examined the artefacts and their importance (Seeb 2004).
That this collection of thousands of historic artefacts was entrusted to the Maritime
Museum and not to the Bermuda Underwater Institute for Exploration (BUEI) is telling.
The Bermuda Maritime Museum conforms to all ICMM guidelines while the BUIE does
not. The BUIE’s collections policy is more lenient to allow treasure hunters to display
their finds. Unfortunately such policies also prevent the institute from acquiring
collections from some sources.
 Despite shifts in opinion that have allowed legislation to be passed, there remain a
minority of individuals who seek to avoid or undermine that law. The actions of this
minority should not be understated. Just as it does not take a majority of people to be
criminals in order to make an entire city unsafe, it does not take a majority of divers to be
treasure hunters to destroy sites so that no one can benefit from their preservation.
Despite a history of mismanagement and destruction, Bermuda’s wreck resources remain
a valuable and interesting tool for archaeologists. Thanks to the recent Historic Wrecks
Act and efforts by the Bermuda Maritime Museum, Bermuda has taken important steps to
ensure that at least a small part of its heritage is preserved for posterity.
 Chapter Four
THE PEOPLE’S HERITAGE? NON-PROFESSIONAL LOCAL
INTEREST AND CLAIMS ON THE UNDERWATER CULTURAL
HERITAGE OF BERMUDA

We take for granted that heritage belongs to the public but who has the right to
manage, access and consume it? Who are the true stewards of this resource? For this
chapter, I have relied on a combination of informal interviews, personal observations, and
newspaper articles and editorials to assess the public’s perception of this resource. In
general, I found Bermudians to be interested, concerned individuals who are proud of
their local Island heritage. I also found that the average non-diver knew at least
something about local treasure hunting and “trinkets” recovered from wreck sites.
Efforts to conserve Bermuda’s natural resources have resulted in local pressure to
leave sea shells and other natural resources in-situ. As a result, individuals are quick to
condemn the removal of sea shells or other “natural” artefacts from the seabed and
support the introduction of mooring balls to reduce damage to the coral reef system.
Interestingly, sea shells and other natural resources which used to be considered free for
the taking are now often protected by much stronger legislation than finite, cultural
resources including submerged archaeological sites. While institutions like the Maritime
Museum try to foster this protective attitude towards historic artefacts and shipwrecks,
there remains a strong sense of nostalgia and local pride in the “achievements” of early
wreck salvors. Many locals feel that the contribution of these individuals to the Island far
outweighs any loss of knowledge to archaeology. Despite efforts to educate the public,
many Bermudians continue to believe that cultural artefacts removed from the sea belong
to the finder, especially if they were uncovered prior to the introduction of protective
legislation.
The Difference in Perspectives between the Natural and Historic Underwater
Environment
Until recently, it was a common to collect seashells. No one thought twice about
picking up a pretty cowry shell or breaking off a piece of coral for a souvenir. Now,
however, as the diving community increasingly feels the impact of collecting on local
ecosystems and fish populations and as divers increasingly notice the wear and tear to
their favourite dive sites, shell collecting has become taboo in most parts of the world.
I was interested to see whether the same divers who discouraged any form of shell
collecting were opposed to artefact collection. I discovered an interesting split which
relates to the enforcement of particular laws and policies as well as the role of local
stewardship. Divers diving in areas with laws protecting the underwater cultural
resources who are aware of the law generally avoid removing artefacts, especially if they
are found on a coherent wreck site. Their logic is that if they remove the bits and pieces
which attract others to the site, the entire diving community will suffer. An example of
this is the site of the Thistlegorm in Eygpt. Where there were once boxes of boots and
dozens of perfectly preserved trucks, there are now a few scattered soles and dozens of
smashed windshields. As divers familiar with the site witnessed the destruction, they
became increasingly adamant that no more artefacts were removed. Such stewardship
only became prominent, however, after divers began to realize that the vessel was a finite
resource. Once the artefacts that make it an enjoyable dive are gone, they will not be
replaced and divers will go elsewhere. Unlike natural resources like sea shells which will
gradually replace themselves, shipwrecks are a unique resource that once lost, are gone
forever.
On the other hand, many divers who would not remove artefacts from a ship like
the Thislegorm, will not hesitate to pick up a bottle or canon ball as a souvenir from a
holiday in the Caribbean, especially if it is not part of a coherent site. The logic behind
their action is that these particular artefacts are not archaeologically or historically
significant. They incorrectly believe that a bottle or canon ball of known type cannot
inform archaeology. Besides, they believe they are diving in an area where there is no
protective legislature and if they do not remove the object, another diver will. Even in
areas where protective legislation exists, many divers are unaware of its presence and
continue to collect because “that is what people do here.”

Local Interest
Bermudians are proud of their heritage. The individuals I spoke with professed an
interest and knowledge in a vast array of affairs ranging from local politics to Island
history. One taxi driver passed me bottles of sand given to him by Teddy Tucker that
were taken from wreck sites around the island. He wanted to illustrate the difference
between sites and where Bermuda got its reputation for pink-sand beaches. As he
rambled from topic to topic, he demonstrated that even individuals who have never dove
are familiar with the Island’s history and its main charismatic figures of treasure hunting.
This interest among non-divers was further demonstrated when, tying up at the dock after
a long day of diving, one of the station employees leaned over the edge, eye on dive gear
and asked, half-serious, half-joking, “Did you find any treasure?” It occurred to me that
if we had pulled up in a car for petrol with shovels and screens in the back of a truck, it
never would have occurred to him to ask if we had found any gold. To many non-divers,
the sea remains an unconquered and therefore free territory.
Thanks to educational efforts by PADI and other professional dive organizations,
these opinions among divers are slowly being changed; the majority of divers are now
taught to look but not touch when diving. Scuba diving manuals teach students to “take
only pictures, leave only bubbles” (PADI Open Water Dive Manual: 132).
People who dive around Bermuda can be divided into two groups: organized
recreational divers who use one of the Island’s dive operators and divers who dive with a
local guide either from shore or a private boat.
The former group dives with one of three dive operators who work out of
Bermuda from five locations. These recreational divers are dependent on a dive briefing
to provide detailed information on the site they are diving. Their expectations vary; some
want to find a particular fish species, others want to add another “wreck” dive to their log
book, and still others are interested in the particular history of a site. As divers their skill
level varies from newly certified divers to experienced Scuba professionals enjoying a
day off. Chapter six gives an example how these divers have been more fully involved in
heritage management on other islands by using shipwreck trails and other forms of public
education.
Divers who do not dive with one of the dive operators will often find themselves
as I did with an experienced and knowledgeable boat captain who will use his own boat
as a dive platform and serve as a guide for each dive location. Personalities differ and so
does “local” knowledge. Two captains might dive the same site but use different names
for the ship or, the name of the site might change over time. I found in one case, the
captain was extremely knowledgeable about the site’s layout but lacked any idea what
type of ship it was. When I asked him what ship it was he answered that he did not know.
“I just find them” was his reply.
Many local boat captains and divers are curious about where particular sites are
located; they are interested to discover new sites or sites which may have been known and
subsequently lost. Information on a particular site and its location may be shared between
a small group of divers who take turns using each others’ boats to visit sites. Observing
local divers made me appreciate that the underwater cultural heritage is valued by many
groups who accept this resource is both finite and diminishing.

Who’s Heritage is it?

Until 2001, the legal answer to the question who owns Bermuda’s underwater
cultural heritage was best expressed by the old adage, “Finders keepers losers weepers.”
Under the 1959 Act, finders were allowed to keep their finds provided they offered the
government the chance to buy them, first. Finders were rewarded as salvors for their
efforts working to wrest bits of cultural history from the sea. As owners of their
discoveries, they had the right to choose what happened to the artefacts. Consequently, it
was at their personal discretion whether artefacts were conserved and put on public or
private display. It was their decision whether assemblages were broken up and sold or
given away as presents to friends and influential individuals.
As attitudes changed, the risks of diving decreased, and the heritage movement
gained momentum, artefact collectors chose to emphasize several “critical facts” in an
effort to assert their ownership over finds. The finder, they argued, worked long and hard
and was therefore entitled to whatever he might uncover. The vast majority of artefacts
uncovered were, they argued, merely duplicates offering no new information about ship-
building techniques. Further, they were entitled to them because “most museums do not
want and will not accept shipwreck artefacts that are not either unique or of acute
historical importance;” consequently it is only natural for them to own what they worked
hard to obtain (Mathewson 1986; Benchley 1988). They argued that the recovery of
shipwreck artefacts by entrepreneurs was for the community’s greater good and if it were
not for the individuals who worked the wrecks in the past, we would not have the
information and knowledge we have today.
The other side of the argument states that the removal of the Island’s heritage by a
few individuals for their personal gain and enjoyment does not benefit anyone except
themselves. The loss of information through insufficient conservation outweighs any
gain through increased publicity and tourism. Heritage ought to be preserved and
conserved so it remains for the enjoyment of future generations. But who is right?
The concept that material uncovered from the past is “property” and can be owned
by those charged with its care is taken for granted and agreed on by both sides of the
debate. John Carman argues that this is in fact false, and that heritage should not be
considered “property” as is does not properly fit any of the four types of property relation
that is recognized by economists and lawyers (private ownership, state ownership,
communal ownership, and open access). The debate over who owns the heritage is,
according to Carman, incorrect as the real debate ought to be whether heritage can in fact
be owned (Carman 2005). Regardless of the theoretical implications if heritage cannot be
owned, the fact remains that on Bermuda and elsewhere there exists real animosity
between different groups who claim ownership over the underwater cultural heritage. On
Bermuda, this debate is illustrated by two groups: the “treasure salvers” and the
“archaeologists.” It is by no means unique and although the groups might have different
names elsewhere (i.e. “wreck divers” and “wreck huggers”), the argument is remarkably
similar. One group wishes to retain the status quo “cowboy days” and the other seeks to
control or regulate the exploitation of the underwater cultural heritage by limiting access
or increasing penalties for disturbing the site and/or removing artifacts.
Bermuda Case Study: Cultural Heritage Ownership Debate
On Bermuda this argument came to a head in the 1970s and 1980s. At this time,
the 1959 Act remained unaltered, the Bermuda Maritime Museum was established, and
the Management of Bermuda’s underwater cultural resources was governed by the
Wrecks Authority, a body of individuals with strong wreck diving interests. Despite
progress integrating divers, archaeologists, and the community on the Sea Venture
project, many opinions continued to differ on how the underwater cultural heritage should
be managed. The polarization of these opinions was brought to the head of public
attention with the establishment of the Bermuda Underwater Exploration Institute in
1992. The same men who supported the 1959 Act and were active artefact collectors
made up the new institute’s Board of Trustees. Many wondered whether the new
institute’s artefact collection policy would reflect modern conservation ethics supporting
in-situ preservation or whether the committee member’s previous and current policy of
active artefact collection would govern policy.
This concern was appropriately expressed in the local paper’s editorial:

Mr. Lightbourn and other trustees of the BUEI wear three hats. Under one
they are BUEI trustees, under another they are members of the Wrecks
Authority which licenses divers, and under the third they are the divers
themselves to whom they grant licenses under their second hats (“Conflict of
interest” 1994).

The BUEI adopted a policy whereby artefacts could be loaned or given to the
institute for display regardless of the origin as long as they were acquired prior to the
establishment of the BUEI in 1992 (BUEI: 4). In this manner, they paid lip service to the
International Congress of Maritime Museum’s (ICMM) standards which forbids the
acquisition or exhibition of artefacts that have been stolen, illegally exported, salvaged, or
commercially mined while allowing artefacts obtained by the committee members’
salvage efforts to be publicly displayed. After all, under the 1959 Act the individual
finder owns the artefact, and he or she has the right to sell it, display it, or give it away as
he wishes.
Importantly if he is allowed to sell it, there is potential to make a profit. Where
there’s profit based on salvage, there is destruction and where there is destruction there
will be a loss of underwater cultural heritage for future generations. This was
demonstrated in December 1999 when artefacts from the San Antonio, an early 17th
Century slave vessel wrecked off Bermuda were auctioned on Ebay and sold for just $76.
The artefacts, four copper trade ingots, were advertised as “much scarcer than coins and
would make an interesting addition to a “shipwreck” display” (Ebay item view). That
they were originally part of the Smithsonian’s “Mendel Peterson” collection probably
added value to them by associating their collection with a scientific expedition. The
seller failed to mention how he had come to acquire them.
Artefacts sold through Ebay, Christies, and other auction houses serve to remind
archaeologists that they can proselytize all they want but regrettably, the bottom line
cannot be ignored.

When set against the reality that people tend to value turning a profit above,
say, preserving old forts- and almost anything else, for that matter- the
proselytizing voice of this archaeologist, anthropologist and historian [Dr.
Harris] becomes distinctly thin and lonely” (“Edward versus the Beastly
Boys” 1997).

It is a fact that the selling of artefacts taken from submerged historic sites for
profit is common. Bermuda’s underwater resources, like every other island’s in that
region of the world, have been exploited by profit seekers. To archaeologists, it is an
unacceptable loss of information and history. To others, it is the unavoidable nature of
recovery.
On Bermuda, both treasure salvers and archaeologists claim to be doing what is
best in the national interest. But just what is best from the Government’s perspective?
Without government guidance and official recommendations which state what the
national policy is, a free-for-all exists. In such a situation, any group may be capable of
convincing the government that their actions are in fact best-for-all. Treasure hunting
groups like Treasure Salvors, Inc. and Golden Quest Ltd are much more likely to obtain
salvage rights in a country which does not have legislature that supports underwater
heritage maritime heritage than in one which does (see Government’s Official Position in
chapter seven).
 There is a consensus that heritage can be an important economic resource for a
small island’s tourist-driven economy. In an increasingly competitive market, heritage
has the potential to attract visitors who would not otherwise visit an island destination.
As Hume stated in 1988, the importance of Bermuda’s underwater cultural heritage
should not be underestimated. “Foreign tourism is Bermuda’s premier industry, and it is
fair to claim that the shipwrecks and treasures found by Teddy Tucker and others have
done more to foster the Island’s revenue-creating mystique than any other promotional
gambit” (Hume 1988).
But who are the stewards of Bermuda’s underwater cultural heritage? Are they the
divers who actively seek to find and uncover sites or the archaeologists who seek to
preserve the UCH in-situ for posterity? Benchley writes, “Bermuda is blessed with a
community of divers who are well-versed in history, ship-building, numismatics, and
techniques of excavation and preservation. They are the true stewards of Bermuda’s
cultural heritage.” (Benchley 1988). But Maritime Museum director Dr. Harris retorts
that, “It is a fact that much of the material taken from Bermuda shipwrecks since the
1950s has decayed or been destroyed because it was not conserved. The true stewards of
Bermuda’s cultural heritage (Mr. Benchley’s comments in Thursday’s paper) are largely
responsible for this loss” (“Accusations fly” 1988).

From the perspectives of commerce and tourism…Bermuda’s reefs have

been largely fished out3. Few schools of fish, few imposing predators
survive to thrill the visiting diver. There is little to lure divers to Bermuda
except shipwrecks. And Bermuda’s wrecks are a unique attraction, for on
no other islands are so many wrecks so close to shore, so well mapped, so
easy to patrol and so diverse historically. A more sensible answer is to open
more shipwrecks to tourist divers. For just as familiarity with wild animals
breeds not contempt but respect, so more instruction, more education, more
knowledge will encourage the uninitiated to cherish the relics of the past
(Benchley 73: 1988).

Which is more valuable to an island government’s economy: the promised

immediate return of millions by a treasure hunter or the long term benefits of a carefully
managed irreplaceable resource? Peter Throckmorton asks such a question in, “The
World’s Worst Investment: The Economics of Treasure Hunting with Real Life
3
Thanks to protective measures and the elimination of fish pots, fish are returning to Bermuda.
Comparisons.” In it, he breaks down the perceived and actual economic returns on
treasure hunting. He shows that the actual return for investors who put their money on
treasure hunting is a pittance. The economic return made from salvaging historic
shipwrecks to sell at auction is not only an illusion, but has the potential to damage
unexcavated artefact assemblages that have the potential to attract thousands of visitors
annually (Throckmorton 1990). He demonstrates that there are long-lasting economic
benefits to developing maritime heritage displays and protecting archaeological resources.
The success of the Wasa in Stockholm and the Mary Rose in Portsmouth, he believes,
should be an example for countries to develop their own maritime displays.
Despite claims to the contrary by treasure hunters, warm water can also yield unique
and valuable collections. Those uncovered during the excavation of La Belle off the coast
of Texas and the Molasses Reef Wreck off the Turks and Caicos are two such examples.
Unfortunately, before adequate protection was established several significant wrecks in
Bermuda were destroyed in the search for displayable and saleable artefacts. A recent
example is The Frenchman admittedly excavated and salvaged by Bermuda’s self-
professed expert laymen. The lost value to archaeology (and Bermuda) is demonstrated
by the excavators’ own descriptions: marveling at seeing clouds of indigo dye released as
the excavator “plunges a hand into a mass of indigo unseen since before America’s
Revolution” (Benchley 1988).
The true lost value will never be truly known. Despite the above description, its
excavators claimed “there is nothing special enough about her to claim expensive,
exhaustive academic exploration” but the archaeologists rightly pointed out that without
proper excavation that was impossible to determine. The site’s integrity had been
compromised by the time the first archaeologists learned of the site, and with that
integrity, untold amounts of information lost. The treasure divers’ jealous instinct to
excavate whole objects quickly before the site was discovered and “worked” by others
was incompatible with archaeology’s deliberate process of systematic excavation
(Henderson 1992).
The enthusiasm and action of Bermuda’s laymen in the past, however well-founded
on a genuine curiosity for the past and not on profit was not stewardship. After forty plus
years of active stewarding, there is little to show for their efforts. There are no site plans,
artefact inventories, or complete in-tact collections, and the sites themselves have been
ravaged to such a degree that much of their integrity has been lost.
As Harris points out, when Bermuda’s shipwrecks and historic buildings are
destroyed, they will be impossible to replace. All that will remain are parking lots, and
people will not travel to Bermuda to see parking lots. A few preserved artefacts will not
replace a vanished national resource.
 Chapter Five
OFFICIAL PERSPECTIVES: CHALLENGES, GOALS, AND
ACCOMPLISHMENTS

In addition to combating the local attitudes described in chapter four, small island
nations have a number of challenges unique to their size and location. This chapter
overviews eight challenges common to small islands which affects how islands manage
their underwater cultural resources. The following chapter (six) examines three
Caribbean island states: the Turks and Caicos, the Cayman Islands, and Trinidad and
Tobago as case studies. These islands have been chosen to represent the larger region as
examples of the challenges that are commonly faced and the steps that have been taken to
overcome these challenges.

Data Sources
Interviews with heritage managers on Bermuda including Dr. Edward Harris and
Jane Downing and correspondence with Dr. Basil Reid, an archaeologist working on
Trinidad and Tobago provided a key data source. Copies of legislation passed by
Bermuda, Trinidad and Tobago and the Turks and Caicos were also useful to see
similarities and differences. Correspondence with Bob Conrich, a heritage activist retired
on Anguilla offered another perspective. Finally, articles by heritage managers working
on the islands provided a perspective on the state of underwater cultural heritage “in their
own words.”

Challenges for the average small island

The challenges faced by the average small island in protecting its underwater
cultural heritage are considerable but not insurmountable. As discussed in chapters two
and three, there are many local and foreign groups with an interest to utilize these
resources. While the legislation of larger nations (Australia, United Kingdom, United
States of America) is sometimes imitated by small, semi-dependent island countries, there
are many limitations to its implementation. The following eight are usually applicable:
1. An Island’s Size and Wealth
First, an island’s size must be considered. Although an island’s size does not
necessarily reflect its wealth (i.e. Bermuda is a small, yet wealthy island and Trinidad and
Tobago is a larger, poorer country), it can reflect the amount of resources potentially
available. Bermuda is roughly the size of the Isle of Wight. For its size and population,
however, the island has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world ($36,0004
compared to $29,600 in England). On islands with higher levels of poverty and fewer
government resources, funding for underwater cultural heritage may be more limited and
other government expenditures may take priority. Even on Bermuda and other “wealthy”
islands, poverty exists. Rising real estate value on Bermuda has caused an increase in the
cost of living and people living in poverty despite full-time employment. Rented
accommodation ranges from $2,000 to $4,000 per month for a two-bedroom apartment
and transportation costs are 50% higher than in the USA. Food and staples are imported
from abroad and underwater heritage must therefore compete with other daily concerns
which affect the average quality of life.
Other related challenges include small populations and economies, lack of
resources, remoteness, susceptibility to natural disasters and climate change, fragility of
land and marine ecosystems, high cost of communication, dependence on international
trade, and costly public administration and infrastructure (Mulongoy 5: 2006). As a result
small island economies are vulnerable.
Tourism plays an increasingly vital role in Small Island Developing States’
(SIDS) economies. Beautiful sand beaches and crystal clear water attract tourists from
around the world and tourism is currently the leading source of income in the Caribbean
(second on Bermuda behind international banking). Over 50% of all jobs in the British
Virgin Islands were in the tourist sector six years ago (“Tourism Economic Impact” 2000)
and in 2002 tourism contributed to 85% of the islands’ GDP. Tourism’s impact cannot be
overestimated and is expected to grow by between three and seven percent annually for
the next decade (CEP 1997, ECLAC 2006).

4
All $ are U.S. Dollars
2. Multiple Interests
A second limitation lies in the multiple interests of politicians. Like it or not,
advocates to protect an island’s submerged heritage are a small, special interest group.
Island governments are faced with a number of larger issues: crime, tropical storm
management, utilities, taxation, and tourism are daily, pressing concerns whose
importance takes precedence over the management of UCH.
An island’s government is preoccupied with the day to day task of surviving in a
competitive global economy. Efforts linking tourism and underwater cultural heritage
have been made but more needs to be done (Scott-Ireton 2006). Support and pressure
from international organizations including the Nature Conservancy and the Convention of
Biological Diversity (CBD) have helped Small Island Developing States (SIDS) realize
that protecting their natural resources will benefit their islands economically. The same
case needs to be made for archaeological resources. Linking the protection of underwater
cultural heritage with larger issues is therefore an important step to ensuring their
protection.

3. Lack of Education/Official Interest

A related and third issue is the politicians’ lack of interest in or education about
the local underwater cultural heritage. Without rudimentary education or outreach,
officials in charge remain unaware of the potential historic/cultural resources at their
doorstep. By extension, any group claiming to be a legitimate operation that seeks
permission to work/excavate in local waters will more likely gain permission to work on
an island where officials are unclear/blasé about the distinction between archaeology and
treasure salving.
A solution would be to have local maritime archaeologists who act in an advisory
role to government organizations. Maritime archaeologists can clamour for change but
until the government decides how it wishes to manage its maritime cultural resources,
their efforts will be in vain. If archaeologists who support underwater cultural heritage do
not pressure the government for increased protection, the government will understandably
act in the interest of the petitioner who convinces the elected officials that supporting
treasure salving is in the island’s national interest.
4. Few Local Maritime Archaeologists
Few islands have a maritime archaeologist who lives locally and is actively
involved. Those who do, are often overtaxed and extended well beyond their available
resources. Bermuda is fortunate in that although the director of the Bermuda Maritime
Museum is not specifically a maritime archaeologist, he has taken an equal interest in
affairs under the surface as he has with those on land. Until the past year, Bermuda
employed not only a full-time maritime archaeologist but also a full-time conservator who
specialized in underwater artefacts. Bermuda has also encouraged partnerships with
academic institutions including East Carolina University in the United States of America
and Bristol University in the United Kingdom. By creating and improving networks
between maritime archaeologists living on different islands, as well as supporting links
with foreign institutions, it is possible to increase the influence of the current maritime
archaeologists in the region and to encourage others to become active locally.

5. Pride in Local Heritage

Fifth, in order to support local preservation efforts, an island’s population must be
made to feel that it is their history and heritage that is being protected. In a region where
that heritage is often a painful reminder of enslavement, relocation, and hardship, it is a
delicate task to pay proper respect to two distinct groups of historic haves and have-nots.
A recent conference on slave heritage held on the Turks and Caicos in 2004 brought
attention to this issue and challenged archaeologists and historians to develop new ways
of presenting this heritage. Once that heritage is adopted and supported locally, the
protection of archaeological sites becomes a national concern rather than the domain of
salvors and archaeologists.

6. Legislation
The sixth limitation is the lack of legislation or, as found on Bermuda, ineffective
legislation. Chapter seven examines various local legislatures and their role in current
heritage management. As the Caribbean lacks a central government, submerged cultural
resources are not managed by a single authority but by many local and foreign
governments. The challenge of instituting regional, unilateral protection is therefore
daunting. Not only would a detailed understanding of every island’s individual laws be
necessary but also experience dealing with the British, French, Spanish, and Dutch home
governments be required. Making a coherent piece of legislation incorporating this
understanding might be possible and if so, the next challenge would be to convince each
and every Island that it would be in their interest to adopt the legislation. There the
process would probably falter, as individual government’s unique concerns become
apparent. Also, at this point, individuals with an economic incentive to maintain the
status quo would attack the legislation at a local level, as happened each time Bermuda
attempted to increase its protection.
The possibility of creating blanket legislation at present is therefore remote, and
better protection must begin locally with locally interested and concerned individuals.
Only after brainstorming and communication networks are in place throughout the region,
may the underwater heritage be successfully protected on a regional scale.

7. Enforcement
Even when effective local legislation is passed, there is often an issue with
enforcement. The seventh limitation is therefore enforcement. Islands with small
policing forces and extensive reef-line will often claim that it is impossible to police and
enforce anti-treasure hunting legislation. Therefore, they argue the passage of any such
legislation is useless. It is a familiar, but faulty argument.
No law is absolutely enforceable but if it is coupled with education a new law can
change attitudes, after which enforcement becomes a secondary issue. Drunk driving
legislation in the USA is an example. Coupled with efforts from MADD (Mothers
Against Drunk Driving) and campaigns for Sober Grad Night in High Schools, the
number of associated drunk driving accidents dropped considerably. This was after
politicians and pessimists had claimed that changes in the law were not enforceable and
would not make a difference. As a result, attitudes have changed to discourage drunk
driving and accident figures have dropped.
On the other hand, when legislation exists but is not adequately enforced as on
Bermuda, existing attitudes are often a factor preventing positive change. On Bermuda,
the 1959 Legislation could have been applied to protect the Islands’ underwater cultural
heritage but its governing body (The Wrecks Authority) used the legislation to promote
their own interests. Permits which should have been issued to responsible individuals
were instead issued to the committee’s own members. It was, according to Dr. Edward
Harris, like having a fox guard the henhouse. However, as with drunk driving, a new law
coupled with active campaigning has helped change attitudes so that enforcement is no
longer a major issue. Local divers act as stewards who report any unusual activity on the
reef.

8. Funding
An eighth and final limitation discussed here is a lack of funding. Bermuda is
fortunate in that unlike other islands there is a potential, large source of funding from the
islands’ local inhabitants. Bermudians, as mentioned, are proud of their heritage and
often find supporting the work of local archaeologists and projects a self-fulfilling job. A
high GDP combined with a local interest and pride in things Bermudian is a boon to
archaeology. On islands where the local heritage is an unpleasant reminder of an
inequality that continues to exist, heritage managers must find new ways of engaging the
public interest in a positive way (see chapter six: Turks and Caicos).
 Chapter Six
UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT IN
PRACTICE: A LOOK AT THE TURKS AND CAICOS, THE CAYMANS,
AND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

Every Island is unique but the limitations discussed here are almost universally
applicable. A few islands have excellent laws or individuals dedicated to historic
preservation. Others are not so lucky. The following three islands have been chosen
because they: a) represent a geographically wide area which will demonstrate shared
difficulties, and b) the presence of individuals on the island with experience in underwater
cultural heritage who have provided data for this research.
The Caribbean is a large area made up of over two dozen countries and territories,
each with its own regulatory schemes and laws. This chapter does not attempt a full
synthesis of the area but examines three: The Turks and Caicos, the Cayman Islands, and
Trinidad and Tobago. The first two of these are British Overseas Territories and the
third, an independent state. I have included the latter to illustrate the considerable range
of Island types and sizes in the region.

Turks and Caicos

The Turks and Caicos are a chain of over forty islands, eight of which are
inhabited and which are located 575 miles southeast of Miami. Like Bermuda, the
islands’ major industries are tourism and off-shore financial banking. The islands’
population is approximately 21,000 and its GDP per person is around $11,500 (CIA
figures for 2002). Prior to 1998, Turks and Caicos allowed groups to salvage shipwrecks
in their waters; during the 1980s, these included the team of Peter Benchley, Stan
Waterman and Teddy Tucker from Bermuda, Nomad Treasure Seekers, and Turks and
Caicos Marine and Archaeological Recoveries, Ltd. among others. The government
finally became concerned about the potential loss of heritage, when Caribbean Ventures,
a treasure salving group, discovered a particularly old site on Molasses Reef , claimed
Figure 9: Map of the Caribbean showing location of three Island case studies

it was the Pinta, and predicted they would make $100 million salvaging it and other
treasure bearing ships lying nearby (Keith 2006). Although excavations by INA later
showed that it was not Columbus’ ship, it is still thought to be the earliest shipwreck
discovered to date in the Western Hemisphere (Leshikar-Denton 286: 2002).
Efforts to pass legislature to protect the underwater cultural heritage have been
successful and the islands’ resources are protected by the Protection of Historic Wrecks
Ordinance passed in 1998. The Turks and Caicos are a British Overseas Territory and
although the Historic Wrecks Ordinance is based on the U.K.’s Protection of Wrecks Act,
there are several notable differences. The Historic Wrecks Ordinance protects any wreck
site more than fifty years old located on the shores or in the territorial waters of the
Islands. The governor (as opposed to the secretary of state in the U.K.) may further
restrict access to an area surrounding the site; any person committing an offence in the
area (including the use of a vacuum hose or explosives) is liable to a summary conviction
including a fine of $10,000, a two year imprisonment, or both. Any vessel used is also
liable for forfeiture to the Crown (Chapter 82 Protection of Historic Wrecks Ordinance).
Hefty penalties are meant to deter individuals who would not be swerved by smaller fines
and to demonstrate to treasure hunters how important these resources are to the island.
Currently, two areas have been designated as restricted areas around the main island of
Providenciales.
Nigel Sadler is the current director of the Turks and Caicos National Museum and
president of the Museums Association of the Caribbean (2003-2006). He has made a
large effort to educate the public and increase interest in the underwater cultural heritage
in the Turks and Caicos, including organizing underwater excavations and regional
conferences. The archaeological survey and excavation of the Molasses Reef Shipwreck
and the Endymion were the first two wrecks professionally excavated in a region rife with
treasure hunting. In 2004 Nigel Sadler helped increase local interest and awareness of
slave heritage by organizing a conference and using the wreck of the Trouvadore Slave
Ship. The conference’s successful aims included raising “issues of slave heritage
including historical findings, challenges in research and presentation of slave heritage and
heritage tourism” (SHA Meetings of Interest 2004).
The islands also benefited from an excavation by the Institute of Nautical
Archaeology at Texas A&M that ran from 1982 until 1986. The Molasses Reef wreck,
one of the oldest shipwrecks discovered in the New World was a Spanish vessel from the
early 16th century and was excavated and conserved by Texas A&M (using their facilities
in Texas). The artefacts were then returned to the Turks and Caicos in 1990 where they
are permanently displayed at the Turks and Caicos National Museum (Keith 1988: 62;
2006: 84).
The Turks and Caicos provide a successful example of an island that has
overcome challenges with treasure hunters and continues to work at effective underwater
heritage management. Although Nigel Sandler is expected to resign this year, there are
plans to open a new museum site on Providenciales and hire a replacement director.
Providenciales was chosen as over 90% of tourists land on the island and the island is
served by direct and non-stop air service from New York, Miami, Boston, Charlotte,
Philadelphia, Toronto, London, Montego Bay, Nassau, Inagua, Puerto Plata, Cap Haitien,
and Santiago.
Cayman Islands
Moving west of the Turks and Caicos, on the other side of Cuba, are the Cayman
Islands. Approximately half the size of the Turks and Caicos, the islands’ population is
around 45,000 with the average GDP per person an astonishing $32,000. Like Bermuda,
the inhabitants enjoy a high standard of living. There is no direct taxation and the islands
are a haven for off-shore banking. In 1998 more than 40,000 companies were registered
in the islands. Tourism is important and accounts for approximately 70% of the national
GDP. Recreational diving is also popular; over forty dive operators have facilities to
cater to over 1,800 divers per day (http://www.caymanvacations.com). Hundreds of
cruise ships visit the island annually, bringing over a million visitors each year, many of
which come specifically to enjoy the islands’ water sports. Balancing the benefits of
increased tourism with protecting the physical remains of the islands’ cultural heritage is
a delicate yet vital necessity (Scott-Ireton 2006).
Dr. Margaret “Peggy” Leshikar-Denton has written that despite lingering
problems with treasure-hunters, the Cayman Islands are “experimenting with the notion
that there is more long-term value, profit, and public benefit in heritage protection,
management, and interpretation” (Leshikar-Denton 2006: 23). The Cayman Islands
National Museum established 1990, like the Bermuda Maritime Museum on Bermuda,
has played a key role in creating heritage management initiatives.
Efforts to catalogue the Cayman Islands’ submerged maritime resources began in
1979 and 1980 with a survey by the Institute of Nautical Archaeology at Texas A&M.
INA chose the Caymans for their first archaeological research in the Caribbean “because
they believed the survey might provide an example to other West Indian nations of how
scientific scrutiny, rather than the hunt for treasure, can bring aspects of national heritage
to light” (Leshikar-Denton 2002: 284). The islands’ maritime history was further
investigated during the archaeological and historical research of the Ten Sail Wreck
between 1991 and 1993 under the auspices of the Cayman Islands National Museum
(Leshikar-Denton 1992; 1993; 1994). In addition to published reports, a database of over
130 recorded wrecks and wrecking events has been compiled.
Politically, preserving the underwater cultural heritage on the Cayman’s is
supported by the government despite ineffective legislature. The Abandoned Wreck Law
of 1966 which was revised in 1997 provides blanket protection for shipwrecks more than
fifty years old. However, it was created to ensure that the government received a portion
of the value of the wreck and guarantees the salvor at least one-half its value. It also fails
to recognize shipwrecks as cultural property. Fortunately, its faults have been recognized
by the government which has not (to date) entered into any agreements with treasure
hunters (Leshikar-Denton 2006: 24). This is due to a great extent on efforts by heritage
managers like Leshikar-Denton.
A partnership between the National Museum, the Department of Education, and
the Archive and Trust has worked to integrate UCH with recreational tourism and
education. A new initiative started by Della Scott-Ireton as part of her doctoral thesis, the
Maritime Heritage Trail is designed to encourage “a sense of national pride in existing
maritime heritage resources” (Leshikar-Denton 2006: 24). Its proponents believe that it
can serve as “a model for the interpretation and protection of maritime cultural resources
in other Caribbean nations.” Like Bermuda, the island is currently emphasizing the
importance of in-situ preservation and there are, at present, no active excavations.
Scott-Ireton believes that,

A museological approach to public access and interpretation of in situ

resources will help to create a heritage tourism attraction that effectively
interprets maritime resources for the public, increases the perceived value of
the resource, and promotes the continued preservation of the resource
(Scott-Ireton 2005).

Unlike heritage trails in Florida, the Cayman Islands trail follows the coast and is
accessible to non-divers. Submerged points of interest are incorporated using a number
of terrestrial vantage points marked with signs. The Cayman Islands provide a good
example how steps towards preservation can be made without strict preservation laws by
using public concern and intervention.

Trinidad and Tobago

At the South-east corner of the Caribbean, next to South America lies Trinidad
and Tobago. At twenty times the size of the Cayman Islands and ten times the size of the
Turks and Caicos, Trinidad and Tobago is one of the larger Caribbean island states. The
Islands are densely populated with over one million inhabitants (August 2006 estimate).
Unlike the Caymans and the Turks and Caicos which are both British Overseas
Territories (like Bermuda), Trinidad and Tobago is an independent state. The islands are
the Caribbean’s leading producer of gas and oil, with tourism an important but not
exclusive income. The average GDP per person in 2005 was about $16,000.
Although English is the official language, Hindi, French, Spanish, and Chinese are
also prevalent. With a growing population, deforestation is a major concern as is a recent
increase in violent crimes (CIA factbook). Such multiple concerns mean that the UCH
must compete against other interests for funding and attention. Despite its size,
information on the Islands’ UCR is limited. In 2001, the Department of History at the
University of the West Indies on Trinidad hired a full-time archaeologist for the first time
in thirteen years.
Legislation to protect the archaeological heritage has been created in retrospect,
after wide-scale pillaging. In 1990, during the dredging of Scarborough Harbour to
expand the port, an undisclosed number of artefacts including coins, jewelry and cutlery
were salvaged from the hulls of several 17th century Dutch and French vessels. The
artefacts were pocketed by the divers working on the project and never reported
(Hernandez curator of Tobago Museum). The first law passed in 1992 declared
Scarborough Harbour a Restricted Area and in 1994, the Bill for Historic Wreck was
passed. Three years later a committee was formed to handle applications to excavate and
study historic wreck. Unfortunately, according to local archaeologists, these restrictions
are not enough (Broadbridge 2000). In type, Trinidad and Tobago’s laws are based on
American and British examples. Like the 1973 Protection of Wrecks Act in the UK,
Trinidad and Tobago law is based on a process of designation rather than blanket
protection. Further, the government lacks the resources or interest to adequately patrol
the islands’ large coastline.
Begun in 1999, the Scarborough Harbour Project on Trinidad and Tobago typifies
efforts to protect the islands’ submerged heritage. This project (an archaeological survey
and expedition to assess the potential resources in the harbour and on the island) has
experienced a number of setbacks including but not limited to irregular and insufficient
funding, sponsorship withdrawal as a result of misinformation published locally, and a
lack of adequate facilities. As carefully crafted budgets and schedules ran from a tight
two-year operation into a decade of effort and work, its managers struggled to find the
resources to meet planned objectives. The absence of local heritage managers meant that
in an effort to keep the project’s reputation untarnished, all efforts had to be coordinated
with overseas institutions with impeccable records and no connection to treasure hunters
such as the Mary Rose Trust, the Nautical Archaeology Society, or the Institute of
Nautical Archaeology.
Most significantly, Trinidad and Tobago lacks a successful outreach program to
educate the public and visitors on the islands’ UCH. According to one report, “small
attention and no funds” were allowed for informing people on the nature and benefits of
the Scarborough Harbour Project. Slide shows by visiting staff of the Mary Rose Trust in
February 2000 and a workshop by the NAS were both poorly attended as insufficient
preparation and notice were given to the public.

Synthesis: Accomplishments and Future Goals

These examples do not simply illustrate a case of two successful islands and one
unsuccessful island. A closer examination reveals weaknesses and strengths unique to
each island. Why have the Turks and Caicos succeeded at passing legislation while the
Caymans have failed? Why have carefully crafted plans on Trinidad and Tobago come to
grief? My research on Bermuda has taught me that there is always more happening than
initially meets the eye. Negotiating local politics and strong personalities is a delicate and
integral part of underwater heritage management on a small island. Not every heritage
manager and archaeologist has the skills and experience necessary to do so successfully.
Every step forward is therefore significant and every failure worthy of examination.
The Caribbean, its people, and its archaeological resources are diverse. The
challenges listed above are illustrative and not exclusive of the many challenges islands
face. That these challenges can be overcome, however, is proven by the steps taken by
Bermuda and the current state of underwater archaeology on that island. Like the Turks
and Caicos, Caymans, and Trinidad and Tobago, Bermuda experimented with ineffective
legislature. Bermuda has also dealt with elected officials’ ignorance of modern
management strategies and greed with associated misguided attitudes to recovered
material, an absence of local underwater archaeologists, and an established group of local
and influential treasure hunters.
Bringing together bits of information on the underwater heritage of the area has
been more challenging than I anticipated. The internet has proved to be less than ideal
and I have needed to rely more on personal correspondences. My experience has been a
small sample of the real challenges faced by those heritage managers working on the
islands discussed. The future goal must be greater inter-territorial communication.
Workshops and conferences have taken place on each of the islands discussed but more
effort must be taken to disseminate that information to the interested public. If as a
student charged with discovering the recent state of affairs on these islands I am faced
with these challenges, how much more difficult is it for the public!
 Chapter Seven
A CONSENSUS FOR CHANGE: ATTITUDES AND PROGRESS:

FOUR RECOGNIZED AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN UNDERWATER

HERITAGE MANAGEMENT

The island nations of the Caribbean Sea are among the world’s top sport diving
destinations, offering clear, warm water and a variety of colorful and interesting natural
and cultural maritime resources. Recognizing the need for protection of marine resources
in order to sustain tourism, several islands have enacted laws and regulations for the
benefit of protecting natural resources such as fish species and coral reefs. Cultural
resources, however, still are relatively unprotected and are not promoted, except as
artificial reefs for marine life. A few islands are in the vanguard of submerged cultural
resource management including promoting public education and access but unfortunately
many lag behind (Scott-Ireton 2005: 65).
Areas for improved management of underwater heritage include: 1) community
involvement and public education, 2) heritage tourism as a part of sustainable tourist
development, 3) improved inter-territorial communication (i.e. conferences), and 4) the
need for governments to adopt an official position.
This chapter provides a concluding section that analyzes the similarities between
the underwater heritage of the Caribbean and Bermuda, shared difficulties, and the steps
that might be taken by islands individually and co-operatively for the improved
management of underwater cultural heritage.

1. Community Involvement: Changing local attitudes through Public Education

The growth and success of initiatives to protect the underwater cultural heritage
depends on community involvement where there is a dialogue between professional
archaeologists and the public. This dialogue may exist in the form of printed or electronic
media including pamphlets, brochures, documentaries, site markers, or interpretive
literature. Regardless of the format, it is crucial that information is disseminated to the
public and put in a format that is both educational and engaging. In her dissertation on
the Maritime Cultural Resource Management of Preserves, Parks, and Trails, Della Scott-
Ireton observed that of twenty-four preserve, park, and trail programs she studied,
seventeen included some level of community participation. She writes on the importance
of this involvement: “In the face of the failure of legislation alone to protect cultural
resources, public education and outreach programs appear to be the most effective tools
available to managers” (Scott-Ireton 2005: 75).
That education is needed is further demonstrated by many recreational divers’
lingering disrespect towards submerged artefacts, an attitude that can be corrected
through proper education (and not, as was suggested to me, by letting the older
generations die off in time). The NAS Training Scheme developed in 1986 by the
Nautical Archaeology Society is a direct consequence to acknowledging the need to
educate divers at a grass-roots level. The scheme teaches recreational divers the facts of
underwater archaeology and works to correct false beliefs including the wrong opinion
that artefacts left in salt water will decay and be lost forever unless they are recovered.
Divers get their information from a variety of sources. Practicing archaeologists who are
supported by treasure salving groups, treasure salvors, and glossy spreads in National
Geographic and Time which focus on the physical recovery of objects often misrepresent
the true nature of archaeology. Scavenging divers often cite the Titanic and other iron-
hulled vessels as examples, pointing out that these wrecks will soon be gone due to the
corrosive properties of sea water on iron. Unlike seashells which divers have been taught
are part of a natural ecosystem, many divers feel that shipwrecked vessels are an
unnatural part of the environment; they will disintegrate unless they are recovered and
their only function is to serve as an “artificial” reef for sea life. Recovering artefacts is
therefore considered a good thing because by recovering artefacts you are “saving” them
from a hostile environment where they do not belong and would naturally disintegrate
and be lost forever.
This damaging attitude is being challenged, however, by the world’s major Scuba
certification agencies. Project Aware’s “Protect Our Wrecks” initiative is a multi-agency
effort begun in 2001 that urges divers to consider the following:
 Respect the heritage and loss [of life], respect the environment…and respect
the history and archaeology. If a wreck or an object of historical importance
is located, divers are reminded to leave it where it lies, mark its position and
seek advice from local government authorities (Nimb 2003).

Project AWARE Foundation supports the UNESCO’s Convention on the Protection of

Underwater Cultural Resources. The major diver certification agencies support the
foundation and offer recommendations to their divers. BSAC (British Sub-Aqua Club)
tells its divers to “Avoid the temptation to take souvenirs…do not dive on a designated
protected site, and do not lift anything that appears to be of historic interest” (BSAC
Technical Publications 2002).

2) Integrating Cultural Heritage Tourism with Sustainable Development

The Caribbean has an immense cultural and natural heritage due to a particular
historical development and to specific geographical and climatic conditions…
Notwithstanding, these values are threatened due to their fragility, economic
conditions, recurrent natural disasters, and in many cases, by a lack of
understanding of the heritage as an asset in the sustainable development
process (The Dominica Document 2001).

Heritage tourism, one of the fastest growing segments of the travel industry,
responds to public education and outreach. As more people become interested in viewing
underwater cultural resources, managers must ensure that increased traffic does not
damage or adversely impact this fragile resource (Boniface and Fowler 1993). Managers
are confronted with the task of managing a resource that in many cases belongs to the
public. To increase awareness of this resource and to encourage public participation more
people must be made aware of submerged culture in a way that fosters conservation rather
than consumption. Just as tourists visiting the Florida Everglades a hundred years ago
were encouraged to take pot shots at birds and gators but are now taught the principals of
conservation through native gator farms, divers who once broke off bits of living coral as
a souvenir are now taught to “take only pictures, leave only bubbles.”
Heritage tourism is often integrated with cultural tourism to promote and increase
tourism in an area. Cultural heritage tourism is simply traveling to experience activities
and sites that “authentically represent the stories and people of the past and present” and
include cultural, natural, and historic resources that are irreplaceable (Cultural Heritage
Fact Sheet National Trust 2005). Heritage tourism, when unsuccessfully managed,
creates a number of problems including pressuring and threatening the very resources
which sustain it (Newsweek July 2002). For example, the International Association for
Caribbean Archaeologists (IACA) reported in 2005, that several important cave sites
including La Cueva de las Maravillas and Las Cuevas de Borbon in the Dominican
Republic were destroyed in preparation for public visitation. No proper archaeological
research was done prior to the development and archaeological deposits on the cave floor
were destroyed without study or salvage during construction (IACA Minutes). Balancing
public access without compromising conservation aims is therefore crucial.

Cultural heritage…has considerable impact in many areas of economic and

regional development, sustainable tourism, job creation, improving skills
through technological innovation, environment, social identity, education, and
construction (The London Declaration, 2004).

Heritage and culture amenities including museums, festivals, concerts, and

archaeological sites are advertised to tourists as day or weekend excursions. As a
supplement to white sand beaches and crystal clear waters, local heritage is marketed to
extend a tourist’s visit by a few hours to a couple of days. Cultural heritage tourism is
part of a larger business that puts demands on an island’s infrastructure including its
roads, public services, water supplies, and airports. Its greatest challenge is to attract
visitors without destroying the historic, cultural, and natural resources responsible for
attracting visitors in the first place. When successful, cultural heritage tourism preserves
and protects these resources. It focuses on quality and authenticity and makes a site or
program come alive for the visitor. It successfully integrates the local community’s needs
and collaborates with locals rather than alienating them from visiting tourists.
Recent efforts on Bermuda in increase cultural heritage tourism include increased
marketing of the Bermuda Maritime Museum. Showcasing the islands’ history through a
number of exhibits, the maritime museum is housed inside the fortress Keep of the old
Royal Naval Dockyard and is toted in brochures as “the major attraction in the western
parishes.” Since its opening the museum has attracted over one million visitors and
serves to educate both tourists and visiting scholars on Bermuda’s unique and finite
resources. In addition, Bermuda is hosting the Global African Diaspora Conference in
October 2006, a conference to create a Diaspora Heritage Trail linking Bermuda, Africa,
and the Caribbean in a unified cross-cultural trail. The mission statement of the trail is to
“identify places and phenomena relevant to the global presence and influences of people
and culture of African descent and to develop mechanisms to promote and facilitate
informed and socially conscious travel to these sites including enhancement of the quality
of life of host country communities” (ADHT Mission Statement).
On Turks and Caicos, Hitesh Mehta has helped develop a master plan for
sustainable development, “An Integrated Approach to Protecting Heritage through
Sustainable Tourism Planning” in 2002. In 2004, the Turks and Caicos Hotel and
Tourism Association (TCHTA) agreed to support the National Museum’s archaeological
work on the Trouvadore, a 19th Century slave ship wrecked off the islands in 1841.
TCHTA President and Managing Director Gary Greenwood explained,

Heritage and cultural tourism is of great importance to sustainable

development. The Association and our members are doing everything we can
to assist the Turks and Caicos National Museum to preserve and present the
unique history of the Turks and Caicos Islands and this wonderful story of
shipwreck, survival and freedom (Miller 2004).

The Cayman Islanders have also recognized the importance of sustainable

heritage and cultural tourism. They have embraced “nature tourism” as a way to
preserve the marketability of their island for the future. The Cayman’s National Trust
was established with responsibility to: a) preserve the natural, historic, and maritime
heritage of the Cayman Islands, b) conserve lands, natural features, and submarine areas
of beauty, historic, or environmental importance, and c) protect native flora and fauna
(Cayman National Trust).

3) Improved Inter-territorial Communication

There has not been, up to now, any widely applicable international legal
instrument for preservation of the underwater cultural heritage. The absence
of clear regulations raises a problem for divers, archaeologists and legal
experts who seek to exploit, enhance and protect this heritage (UNESCO
2004).
 The need for improved communication between Caribbean Islands has long
been recognized. Despite small success at political and economic integration through
the efforts of international organizations like the Caribbean Community and Common
Market (CARICOM) and the Caribbean Unity Foundation (CUF), there is little hope of
full integration in the near future. Such integration, were it to occur, would greatly
benefit the management of maritime historical resources, as it would provide a single
government and organization to oversee the region rather than the multitude of small
governments which exist at present.
In the meantime, despite political and economic fragmentation in the region,
heritage managers have found a common voice through the Museums Association of the
Caribbean (MAC), the International Congress of Maritime Museums (ICMM), the
International Association for Caribbean Archaeology (IACA), the International Council
on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the Dominica UNESCO Heritage Organization
(DUHO), and other organizations.
MAC provides a forum for discussion and it members include not only museums
but also individuals, tourist boards, and historical societies interested in the history of the
Caribbean. Islands with a shared socio-economic history including the Turks and Caicos,
Bermuda, and the Bahamas are also included despite their geographic location outside the
Caribbean basin. Each year MAC brings together professionals from throughout the
region and hosts a conference.
In 1995, the Cayman Islands National museum spearheaded an effort to increase
regional awareness in protecting the Caribbean’s underwater heritage sites. At the 1995
MAC meeting, each participant in a workshop, “Protecting Archaeological Sites
Underwater: Tools for the Caribbean” received a reference notebook on the current
state of underwater heritage around the world. A network of information exchange was
established among IACA, MAC, and the Caribbean Conservation Association
(Leshikar-Denton 2002: 285) which continues today. Such efforts may be the basis for
greater integration, communication, and co-operation in the future.
In 2004, in collaboration with IACA, an annual conference was held on St. Lucia
and papers were presented on the theme “Our Heritage, Preserve and Present It.” Since
its foundation in 1961 “nearly every Caribbeanist, whether professional, amateur or
student, Caribbean or international, has belonged or still belongs to the Association”
(Association’s statement). Currently the IACA holds conferences and publishes both a
biannual newsletter and a directory of Caribbean Archaeologists.
ICMM is an international professional association that many of the Caribbean
Museums belong to. The organization is “a guild of colleagues and friends dedicated to
maintaining world-wide professional contacts, providing a forum for the free exchange of
ideas, improving the quality and standards of maritime preservation and nautical
archaeology, and fostering a network of friendship and mutual support” (ICMM
statement). Its conferences range in venue from New Zealand to Malta.
UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization, provides the glue which holds these associations together. As a group,
they follow the guidelines laid down in the Convention Concerning the Protection of the
World Cultural and Natural Heritage and the Convention on the Protection of the
Underwater Cultural Heritage, both held in 2001. Recognizing the need for improved
inter-territorial communication, the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World
Cultural Heritage and Natural Heritage aimed to provide a forum for networking and
collaboration between NGOs, experts from the Caribbean and States Parties. The
Dominica Document, supported by the participants of the Regional Training Course on
the Application of the World Heritage Convention and its Role in Sustainable
Development and Tourism in the Caribbean declared that:

1) Every government and regional NGO partner in the Caribbean needs to

take urgent, systematic action in a coordinated manner.
2) Preservation and conservation of Caribbean heritage should be examined
as a matter of priority at government levels (CARICOM, Association of Caribbean
States, etc)
3) Urgent action should be taken to integrate the preservation of heritage in
national policies and development strategies
4) Legislation should be reviewed, revised, and more fully applied to give
heritage a role in contemporary society
5) Systematic sub-regional training programmes with a Caribbean focus
integrating heritage protection, management and tourism should be initiated by the
Caribbean counties utilizing new technologies for better dissemination of information at
a regional level with the assistance of UNESCO, MAC, IACA, and other entities
(World Heritage Committee 2001)
 The Dominica Document has resulted in several islands pursuing and achieving
World Heritage status for individual sites. The World Heritage Committee gives
particular attention to the Caribbean as despite its wealth of cultural and historic
heritage, it is one of the most under-represented sub-regions in the World Heritage List.
Two cultural landscapes, the Viñales Valley and the archaeological landscape of Cuba’s
first coffee plantation are inscribed as World Heritage sites but many more might be
proposed. Currently, the historic town of St. George on Bermuda is the only World
Heritage Site on the islands discussed in this paper.
Although UNESCO and the organizations described provide a way for some
inter-territorial communication between archaeologists located on different islands,
many small islands do not have a heritage manager or archaeologist on-site. The state
of affairs on these islands is unregulated and there are no professional guidelines to
govern activities. At the very least, governments need to recognize this void and adopt
some form of official policy that will inform the decision-making process.

4) Government’s Official Position

Until a country formalizes its position, it is open to discussion from groups (local
and foreign) who claim to be acting in everyone’s best interest. For example, one such
group claims,

Every old wreck is no more of historical value than every old car in a
junkyard is a Duesenberg. Each one must be judged individually, and
Bermuda’s expert laymen are eminently qualified judges (Benchley 73:
1988).

while another asserts that all these wrecks are of historical and educational importance.
They are being destroyed by both the unchecked collecting of sports divers and by the
licensed stripping of salvors working for personal gain” (Harris 1990). Without
government support through existing legislature and, in order for a site to be protected,
the wheel must be reinvented every time a state receives a petition by treasure hunters to
salvage a site.
 Every time some looter or plunderer applies to one of the British Overseas
Territory governments to carry away the treasure of the Indies there is a
major crisis. The wheel must be invented all over again and attempts made
to educate elected officials whose natural-born greed has been re-ignited by
these neo-pirates of the Caribbean (Conrich 2006).

Elected officials must be educated to understand the benefits of protecting

underwater cultural heritage resources. This can be a challenge on some islands; For
example, on Trinidad and Tobago various government agencies and authorities each play
a single role in the management of resources and no one exercises direct authority.
Within the state there are several small bureaucracies which are each responsible for
handling a single aspect of the cultural heritage. These groups’ responsibilities range
from managing a single collection to granting land development rights. The Tobago
Trust is appointed by the Tobago House of Assembly; the Tobago Museum is an
institution of the Trust. The Division of Community Development and Culture develops
the arts and cultural heritage for the government, the Division of Tourism manages
monuments, building and historical sites, the Regional Library is responsible for archives,
and the Town and Country Planning Division is responsible for granting permission for
development. In addition to these, maritime cultural heritage may also fall under the
jurisdiction of the fisheries department and Department of Economy, a layover from
when wrecking was a major industry (Hernandez 2001).
This fragmentation of management often results in one or more parts being
excluded from the process. Compounding the situation in the British Overseas Territories
is a lack of guidance from London. Officially, no local law pertaining to underwater
heritage management supersedes British Law. Consequently, in theory the Protection of
Wrecks Act (1973) and other relevant UK legislation could be applied on a case by case
basis. However, the UK has yet to become involved in any case overseas and even if it
were to, it is unclear how the UK’s other lenient policies towards treasure salvage would
benefit the islands.
 CONCLUSION

This dissertation’s initial aim was to use Bermuda as a case study to determine
whether a holistic approach to managing the Caribbean regions’ underwater cultural
heritage was feasible. Not only has research demonstrated the degree to which this is
possible, but it has also identified those key factors that if properly developed, will
increase protection.
In conclusion what is needed is a combination of local, home-grown efforts and
official guidance. On the ground, work needs to be done to correct attitudes and foster
enthusiasm and respect for the region’s underwater cultural heritage. A greater number of
dedicated and qualified individuals are needed to carry on old projects and initiate new
programs. On an official level, governments need to assume responsibility for the
underwater heritage and decide what official position should be adopted. Cultural
heritage needs to be more completely integrated into government departments and
communication between archaeologists and other groups must be improved. Improved
communication and co-operation (not only between archaeologists but also between
interested stakeholders) will in turn lead to increased inter-territorial collaboration for
better protection throughout the Caribbean. This supporting infrastructure will pave the
way for blanket legislature. This cannot happen, however, until individual islands assume
responsibility for managing their underwater cultural heritage and qualified individuals
are in place. Only then can a successful effort be made to integrate islands on a regional
scale.
Ultimately, archaeologists’ responsibility lies in communicating their goals and
aims with officials in charge who have the power to change official policies. Dr. Edward
Harris writes, “It is for the Government to decide what the future will be for these
important remains of our past” (Harris 1988). Archaeologists have the power to convince
the government that improving protection of the underwater cultural resources is not only
necessary from an archaeological viewpoint but also beneficial from a sustainable
development perspective.
The Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee (JNAPC) in England provides
a successful example of how such an action group can successfully petition authorities for
greater change. Not only does the JNAPC campaign for greater education on the
importance of our nautical heritage but it also seeks to improve funding for the discipline
and disseminate information through publications including “Heritage at Sea” (1989) and
“Heritage Law at Sea Proposals for Change” (2000) among others. Although the process
of enacting change can be long an arduous as on Bermuda, success can also occur
quickly. A project carried out jointly by the NAS and the Uruguayan Heritage
Commission successfully demonstrated to that government and public that there was a
better option available than having the navy license treasure hunters. In 2006, Uruguay’s
parliament passed a law banning treasure hunting. While the archaeologists’
collaborative efforts were not the sole factor in instigating change, their work provided a
base of material to win the debate.
Since the 2001 Convention on the Protection of Underwater Heritage, eight
countries have ratified it including Panama (May 2003), Bulgaria (October 2003), Croatia
(December 2004), Spain (June 2005), Libya (June 2005), Nigeria (October 2005),
Portugal (April 2006), and most recently, Mexico (June 2006). This ongoing progress
demonstrates that countries outside the Caribbean are also serious about creating blanket
protection and international legislation is a future possibility.
At present, a holistic approach is possible on a level where information is
exchanged and networks between archaeologists and heritage managers between islands
are improved. A holistic approach to legal protection and blanket legislation in the
Caribbean is not possible at this time due to the factors identified.
Most importantly my experience on Bermuda taught me that each island is unique.
An assessment on the current state of affairs needs to be carried out on each and every
island as individual politics and personalities are unique. For blanket legislation to be
possible in the future, the community must become involved, engaged and willing to
support change. Public education and dissemination of information is vital. Finally, just
as many archaeologists believe that maritime archaeology needs to be more fully
integrated with mainstream (terrestrial) archaeology, I believe underwater cultural
heritage needs to be better incorporated into cultural heritage and heritage tourism
initiatives. Integration will not only take underwater cultural heritage out of the domain
of a specialist academic subfield and into the mainstream but will also give governments
the chance to see its wider applicability and the benefits of long-term management.
This dissertation has shown that it is possible to use a single island to represent a
larger region. Research has shown that by identifying local challenges and obstacles that
an island has overcome, that example can be used and applied with care to a larger region.
The next step, then, is to fully document the state of affairs on each island throughout the
region and recognize those islands where change is most desperately needed, based on the
absence of ingredients present on islands where heritage management is more fully
developed. The current infrastructure of maritime heritage managers, archaeologists, and
interested individuals in the islands will then allow international pressure to be applied to
those islands to encourage those factors to be developed. Once those factors are
developed on each island, holistic legislative protection will be possible.
 REFERENCES

“Accusations fly over ship diving.” 1988. The Royal Gazette. May 16, 1988

Adams, J. 1985. “Sea Venture: A second interim report- Part 1.” The International
Journal of Archaeology and Underwater Exploration. Vol. 14 (4): 275-189

ADHT. 2006. “African Diaspora Heritage Trail Mission Statement.” ADHT/Henderson

Associates

Akin, M. S. 2003. “Review of Caribbean Economies in the Twenty-first Century by

Irma Alonso.” The Journal of Developing Areas. Vol. 37 (1): 99-112

Andrews, C. Interview. July 2006

Bass, G., ed. 1996. Ships and Shipwrecks of the Americas. New York: Thames and
Hudson

Benchley, P. 1988. Letter to the Editor. The Royal Gazette. May 11, 1988.

Benchley, P. 1998. “A Diver’s Map of Bermuda: Here There Be Treasures.”

Sophisticated Traveler. Sunday March 12, 1988.

Berg, D. 1991. Bermuda Shipwrecks. New York: Aqua Explorers, Inc.

Boniface, P. 1993 Heritage and Tourism in the Global Village. London: Routledge

“Bermuda Wreck and Salvage Act, The.” 1959: No. 152. Bermuda Maritime Museum
copy

Broadbridge, Ph.D. 2000. “Scarborough Harbour Project Heritage Development

Consultants Interim Progress Report to Tobago House of Assembly.” The University of
the West Indies: Trinidad and Tobago

BSAC Technical Publications. 2002. “Safe Diving Practices.”

BUEI. Bermuda Underwater Exploration Institute. 1993. “Policies Governing

Collections, Preservation, and Ethical Considerations.” Bermuda Maritime Museum
Files.

Carman, J. 2005. Against Cultural Property: Archaeology, Heritage, and Ownership.

London: Duckworth

Cayman Islands Dive Operators List. http://www.caymanvacations.com. Accessed on

August 30, 2006
Collections Management Policy of the Bermuda Maritime Museum. Bermuda Maritime
Museum files.

“Conflict of interest.” 1994. Letter to the Editor. The Royal Gazette. February 2, 1994

Conrich, B. August 2006. Underwater Heritage Activist. Anguilla. Email

correspondence and Interview

Cooke, W. 1999. “Shipwreck Files.” Bermuda Maritime Museum

“Coastal Tourism in the Wider Caribbean Region: Impacts and Best Management
Practices.” 1997. CEP Technical Report No. 38

Deacon, J. “UBP puts off debate on wrecks legislation.” The Royal Gazette. Friday,
March 14, 1997: 5

Dean, L. 1996. “Secrets of the Stonewall.” Maritimes. Autumn 1996: 18-19

Delgado, J., ed. 1997. British Museum Encyclopaedia of Underwater and Maritime
Archaeology. London: British Museum Press

Dethlefson, I., Davidson, E., & Buchman, D.L. 1977. “The Stonewall Wreck.”
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. Vol. 6 (4): 315-329

Downing, J. Archivist. Bermuda Maritime Museum. Interview. July 2006

“Economic Survey of Latin America and the Caribbean 2005-2005.” 2006. ECLAC
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.

“Edward Versus the Beastly Boys.” 1997. Bermuda. Summer 1997

Fisch, S. 2005. “National Approaches to the Administration of Historical Heritage.”

International Institute of Administrative Sciences.” France

Gentile, G. 1989. “Shipwreck Legislation: Legality vs. Morality.” The Freeman. June
1989

Godet, N. 1993. “Marine Salvage and Archaeology in Bermuda.” Bermuda Journal of

Archaeology and Maritime History Vol. 5: 1-11

Gould, R. 2002. “The Wreck of the Barque North Carolina, New Year’s Day, 1880.”
Bermuda Journal of Archaeology and Maritime History. Vol. 13: 28-56

Greenfield, T. 1998. “Salvor claims wreck is being plundered.” The Royal Gazette.
March 16, 1998
Harris, E. 1988. Letter to the Editor. Royal Gazette. May 12, 1988

Harris, E. 1990. “Bermuda’s Threatened Underwater Cultural Heritage.” Bermuda

Maritime Museum copy of letter submitted to the Committee of Inquiry on the Maritime
Environment

“Heritage at Sea.” 1989. Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee.

Wolverhampton: The School of Legal Studies

“Heritage Law at Sea: Proposal for Change.” 2000. Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy
Committee. Wolverhampton: The School of Legal Studies

Henderson, G. 1992. “Current Approaches to the Underwater Cultural Heritage-

Strengths and Weaknesses: The International Perspective” IN Australia ICOMOS
Underwater Cultural Heritage, Principles and Practice Historic Environment Volume
Nine- Number 3, 1992

Hernandez, E. No Date (2001?). “Networking: ‘Coordination and Collaboration among

Diverse Institution and Organisation in Emergency Preparedness and Response’ in the
Island of Tobago.” Curator Tobago Museum

“Historic Wrecks Act (HWA).” 2002. Bermuda Maritime Museum Archives

Hume, I. 1995. Shipwreck! History from the Bermuda Reefs. Bermuda: Capstan
Publications

Hume, I. 1988. “Use the amateur enthusiast.” The Royal Gazette. Saturday September
17, 1988

IACA Meeting Minutes 2005. Minutes of the Plenary Meeting of the 21st Congress of
the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology Trinidad and Tobago, July 27,
2005, University of the West Indies, St Augustine

“In the national interest…” 1994. Letter to the Editor. The Royal Gazette. February 4,
1994

“Island urged to toughen up salvage laws.” 1994. The Royal Gazette. Monday, March
14, 1994

Johnson, A. 2001. “Island heritage to come home.” The Royal Gazette. Monday,
December 17, 2001: 1

Johnson, A. and K. Smith. 2001. “Historic Wrecks Act makes waves with MPs.” The
Royal Gazette. Monday, December 17, 2001: 7

Johnston, P. 2002. “Milestone legislation.” Maritimes. Vol. 15 (1): 11-12

Keith, D. 1988. “Shipwrecks of the Explorers” IN Ships and Shipwrecks of the Americas.
George F. Bass, editor. New York: Thames and Hudson

Keith, D. 2006. “The Molasses Reef Wreck” IN Underwater Cultural Heritage at Risk.
R. Grenier and I. Cochran, editors. ICOMOS. Muchen: Biedermann Offsetdruck

Leshikar-Denton, M. 1992. “Investigation of the Wreck of the Ten Sail, Cayman

Islands, British West Indies” IN Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society
for Historical Archaeology Conference, Kingston Jamaica, edited by D.H. Smith and T.L.
Carrell

Leshikar-Denton, M. 1993. The 1794 Wreck of the Ten Sail, Cayman Islands, British
West Indies: A Historical Study and Archaeological Survey. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas
A&M University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor

Leshikar-Denton, M. 1994. Our Islands Past, Volume II, The Wreck of the Ten Sail.
Cayman Islands National Archive and Cayman Free Press

Leshikar-Denton, M. 2002. “Problems and Progress in the Caribbean” IN International

Handbook of Underwater Archaeology, edited by C. Ruppe and J. Barsted. New York:
Plenum Publishers

Leshikar-Denton, M. 2006. “Foundations in Management of Maritime Cultural Heritage

in the Cayman Islands” IN Management of Maritime Cultural Heritage: Underwater
Cultural Heritage at Risk 2006: 23-26

Mathewson, D. 1986. Treasure of the Atocha. New York: E.P. Dutton

Mehta, H. 2002. “North West Point Sustainable Master Plan- An Integrated Approach to
Protecting Heritage through Sustainable Tourism Planning.” EDSA, Fort Lauderdale,
USA

Miller, Marylyn. 2004. “Turks and Caicos Shipwreck Story: Hotel and Tourism
Association Wants to Increase Heritage Tourism.” TravelLady Magazine. August 2004

“Moniz: Delay wreck bill debate.” 1997. The Royal Gazette. Thursday, March 13, 1997:
4

Mulongoy, K., J. Webbe, M. Ferreira, and C. Mittermeier. 2006. The Wealth of Islands:
A Global Call for Conservation. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
March 2006
Nimb, H. 2003. “PADI and Project Aware- Marine Conservation and Protection of
Underwater Cultural Heritage.” UNESCO Asia-Pacific Regional Workshop on the
Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. Hong Kong, 18-20
November 2003

Open Water Dive Manual, PADI. 1999. GO DIVE. Rancho Santa Margarita, PADI, Inc:
California

“Scubaroo.” 2004. “Artefacts vs. Seashells” www.scubaboard.co.uk

Scott-Ireton, D. 2005. Preserves, Parks, and Trails. Strategy and Response in Maritime
Cultural Resource Management. Unpublished Thesis. Florida State University.

Seeb, S. 2004. “Artifacts Abound: Glimpses of colonial life surface from Eagle and
Virginia Merchant.” Maritimes. Vol. 17 (1): 14-15

Smith, C. 2001. “Conservation Completed! Santa Lucia guns breathe air for first time in
400 years.” Maritimes. Vol. 14 (1): 21

Throckmorton, P. 1990. “The World’s Worst Investment: the economics of Treasure

Hunting with Real Life Comparisons” IN Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the
Society for Historical Archaeology Conference, Tucson, Arizona 1990

Tucker, T. 1962. “Adventure is My Life as told to Don A. Schanche.” The Saturday

Evening Post. March 10, 1962

“Tourism Economic Impact Assessment Study Released.” 2000. Island Sun. October
2000

Turks and Caicos Islands. “Chapter 60 Wreck and Salvage Ordinance Revised Edition
showing the law as at 15 May 1998.” Bermuda Maritime Museum Copy

Turks and Caicos Islands “Chapter 82 Protection of Historic Wrecks Ordinance and
Subsidiary Legislation” Revised Edition showing the law as at 15 May 1998. Bermuda
Maritime Museum Copy

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Convention Concerning

the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. 2001. World Heritage
Committee. Twenty-fifth Session Helsinki, Finland 11-16 December 2001

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Caribbean Archaeology

and World Heritage Convention. 2004. Martinique 20-23 September 2004

Waters, S. 1996. “The wreck of L’Herminie A Preliminary Report.” Maritimes. Spring

1996: 16-18
Watts, G. 1988. “Bermuda in the American Civil War: A Reconnaissance Investigation
of Archival and Submerged Cultural Resources.” International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology Vol. 17

Watts, G. 1993. “A Decade of Shipwreck Research in Bermuda.” Bermuda Journal of

Archaeology and Maritime History Vol. 5

Watts, G. 2003. “A Second Decade of Shipwreck Research in Bermuda.” Bermuda

Journal of Archaeology and Maritime History. Vol. 14: 61-147

Wingood, A. 1982. “Sea Venture: An interim report on an early 17 th century shipwreck

lost in 1609.” The International Journal of Archaeology and Underwater Exploration.
Vol. 11 (4): 333-347

Wingood, A. 1986. “Sea Venture: Second Interim Report—Part 2 The Artefacts.” The
International Journal of Archaeology and Underwater Exploration. Vol. 15 (2): 149-159

“Wreck and Salvage Act, The.” 1959. Bermuda Legislature Administrative File.
Bermuda Maritime Museum Copy

“Wrecks Authority Meeting Minutes.” 1964-5. Bermuda Maritime Museum Copy.

Accessed July 2006

Zuill, R. 1997. “Veteran diver blasts critics of wrecks bill.” Mid-Ocean News. Friday
March 14, 1997: 1