The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2002) 31.1: 83–88doi:10.1006/ijna.2002.1001

Underwater archaeological parks: a new perspective and achallenge for conservation—the Italian panorama

Barbara DaviddeIstituto Centrale per il Restauro, Piazza San Francesco di Paola 9, 00184, Rome, Italy

The conservation in situ of underwater archaeological heritage is a highly stimulating subject for both archaeologist andconservator as it permits planning and experimentation of new treatment methods opening up new possibilities forconservation, protection and scientific research. This paper offers some remarks on this subject and shows the experience ofsome Italian underwater archaeological parks. � 2002 The Nautical Archaeology Society

Key words: Italy, conservation in situ, natural marine reserves, Baia, Ustica, Torre Astura

Introduction

T he conservation in situ of underwater ar-chaeological heritage is a highly stimulat-ing subject for both archaeologist and

conservator as it permits planning and experimen-tation of new treatment methods and opens upnew possibilities for conservation, protection andscientific research.

As a general rule, isolated artefacts found underwater such as anchors, ceramics, cannon andstatues that risk being stolen if left on the seabed,are recovered after recording the precise circum-stances of their discovery and ensuring that theyreally are merely individual finds.

Recovering the wreck of an ancient ship and itscargo is instead more complicated. We are allaware that recovering, conserving and exhibitingan ancient vessel is so costly that it is preferablejust to salvage its contents, leave the hull on theseabed, and thereby limit the operation strictly toarchaeological documentation. Costs are affectedby diagnostic tests, the duration of conservationtreatments and the capacity of a museum to housethe vessel in air-conditioned rooms or glass dis-play cabinets with controlled humidity, tempera-ture and light. If the hull is left on the seabed, thearchaeologist and conservator must see that thewreck is provided with protection from externalagents and above all from the possibility of beingmanhandled or stolen by treasure seekers.

1057–2414/02/010083+06 $35.00/0

Many countries, of course, have legislationwhich permits the archaeologist to enclose thearea in question and, when necessary, to intro-duce special regulations to impede navigation andmooring in zones where there are importantunderwater archaeological remains.[1]

The Italian approachOne of the most common systems used in Italy toprotect ancient wrecks is to employ sacks of sandand wire netting, with a covering of sand. Thissystem is relatively economical and easy to set up,but provides limited protection in the long termboth from the attack of marine agents and frompotential raiders who can easily disrupt it. In fact,it requires periodic monitoring and needs to berenewed every so often, as our surveys conductedon certain wrecks protected in this way haveshown. These include: the Santa Caterina ofNardo, a cargo ship of the 2nd century AD offPuglia (de Juliis, 1986); the Secca deiMattoni—Bank of Bricks—a cargo ship of the 1stcentury AD off the island of Ponza in Lazio(Galli, 1993) and that at Giglio Porto, a cargoship of the 3rd century AD (Celuzza & Rendini,1991). With regard to the latter discovered in theport of the island of Giglio at a depth of 37–38 m,the Superintendence of Tuscany has installed aclosed-circuit television camera on the seabed to

� 2002 The Nautical Archaeology Society

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 31.1

combat the continual tampering. The camera islinked to a screen monitor in the harbour officeand to another video screen in the lounge of alocal hotel so that tourists are also able to viewthe remains of the ship along with the guardswhose job it is to control them.

A protective system of buoys with flashinglights and alarms has been employed in the smallalpine lake of Viverone to control the area con-taining remains of a lake settlement (Fozzati &Nisbet, 1982; Lattanzi, 1993). To experimentwith more efficient solutions the ArchaeologicalSuperintendence for Southern Etruria under thedirection of R. Petriaggi devised a special typeof covering to protect the wreck of a 2nd-centuryBC cargo ship, discovered at a depth of 38–40 mnot far from Montalto di Castro (Lazio). It wasmade of modular galvanized sheet iron panelscovered in glass fibre, each measuring 2 sq m. Thesides of each panel were reinforced with a steelrod welded on to the plate, which was alsocovered in glass fibre. The rod makes it particu-larly difficult to cut through with shears. Thepanels were connected to each other with 12 mmthick galvanized chain links and assumed theshape of a ‘tortoise shell’. To perfect the camou-flage, a gel coating the same colour as the mud onthe lake bottom was applied to the glass fibre. Thecovering shield was then anchored to the sea flooraround its lower perimeter rim, with special anti-tear galvanized iron pegs, 1–1·5 m long and50 mm in diameter, with movable locking lugs attheir lower ends. This type of modular cover canalso be removed in sections and, if excavationand salvage of the wreck is decided upon, thecover can be re-used for another vessel (Petriaggi,1997).

In Italy, covering a site to protect it not onlyfrom marine agents, but above all from treasureseekers, has at times proved counterproductive,frequently only exciting the curiosity of ill-intentioned persons with the resultant partial ortotal loss of the artefacts. Additionally, it isimportant not to forget that there are certaincategories of underwater archaeological site, suchas coastal settlements, lake-villages, ports withtheir related infrastructures and vivaria, whichdemand special attention, given that they cannotbe salvaged and transferred to a museum. Theestablishment of underwater archaeological parkstherefore represents a useful means for the pro-tection, but above all for the enhancementand conservation, of underwater archaeologicalheritage.

84

Underwater parks

Underwater parks may be summarized under thefollowing headings (Fozzati & Davidde, 1996):+ Underwater archaeological parks. Under-

water archaeological areas open to the publicwith fixed itineraries both for underwater visitsand those from glass-bottomed boats on thesurface. These are areas that have already under-gone excavation and such public access does notpresent any potential threat to the conservationin situ of monumental architectural remains orstratigraphic deposits (exposed or otherwise). Inthis category are included lake villages, urbansettlements, seaside villas now under water as aresult of bradyseismic events, and shipwreckswith cargoes of not easily removable materialsuch as marble blocks and columns.

+ Underwater archaeological reserves. Underwater archaeological areas open to experts forsurveys, investigation and sampling campaigns,but not equipped to be opened to the publicgiven the impossibility of providing a propermuseum context that has been adequately re-searched. These are underwater sites awaitingstudy and evaluation and may eventually betransformed into underwater archaeologicalparks. The establishment of such a reserve makesit possible to protect the water space.

+ Underwater eco-archaeological or underwaternature-archaeological parks and reserves. Areasof particular geological or morphological en-vironmental importance that contain underwaterarchaeological sites. Also in these parks, as in thefirst case, there are planned underwater itinerar-ies and others on the surface that permit thevisitor to view the underwater world both for itsnature and its archaeology.

+ Untouched underwater archaeological reserves.Archaeological areas where excavation and re-covery of ancient artefacts has not been plannedin the short term. In these areas the transit ofboats, fishing and underwater diving are eitherprohibited or restricted. Creating reserves of thisnature makes it possible to reach two importantobjectives: (1) to preserve a variety of sites forstudy by future underwater archaeologists; (2) toprotect endangered sites from destruction due tonatural (erosion) or human causes (constructionof ports or damage caused, for instance, byindustrial fishing or offshore drilling for oil).Over the last 20 years the Ministry of the

Environment has established 15 natural marinereserves in Italy with the aim of enhancing and

B. DAVIDDE: UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL PARKS: A NEW PERSPECTIVE

conserving the rich natural coastal and marineheritage of the country. A further 35 are beingplanned and for the present have been defined as‘designated areas’. Then there are three nationalparks that also protect the portion of sea adjacentto them (Fozzati & Davidde, 1996). The marinereserves and the parks are selected accordingto: the quality of their water; their geo-morphological, physical and biochemical charac-teristics, with particular emphasis on coastal andmarine flora and fauna; and their scientific,ecological, cultural, educational and economicimportance.

Protected marine areas are usually divided intosectors of differing degrees of protection. Zone Ais for untouched reserves, zone B for generalreserves and zone C for partial reserves. In manycases, these protected areas contain sub-areas orindividual artefacts of archaeological interest andtherefore their degree of protection and enhance-ment is specified in the same law that establishesthem (Bassi, 1990; Caporioni, 1992; Zannovello,1999). Some of the Italian underwater archaeo-logical parks and some of the archaeological areasthat form part of the natural marine reserves aredescribed below.

The natural marine reserve of the island ofUstica in Sicily offers visitors an underwater ar-chaeological itinerary in the area of PuntaGavazzi (Purpura et al., 1992; Pruneti & Riccardi,1993). The itinerary ranges from a minimumdepth of 10 m to a maximum of 24 m. Signs givingdirections and different coloured lines under watermake it easy to visit all the archaeological finds onview. These include anchors made of lead, am-phoras and pottery. Special panels describe thefunction, date and provenance of each find. Otherpanels provide general information on navigationin antiquity, the different types of anchors andamphoras, maps of the itinerary and the ruleswith which visitors must comply. Photography ispermitted and those interested may carry outsurveys of the objects. The visit can also be madeon board a boat with a transparent bottom.

A marine research laboratory, run by the Uni-versity of Palermo, has been set up inside themarine reserve to co-ordinate all the scientific andcultural activities related to the sea. Public interestin underwater heritage and a boom in tourismhave led to the opening of a school at Usticawhere courses in underwater archaeology are heldevery summer. Tourists visiting the island mayalso enrol. The course, run by archaeologists andunderwater diving experts, includes lessons in the

theory of underwater archaeology and the historyof commerce and ancient navigation, as well aspractical lessons in underwater surveying andphotography. One of the courses is held in Eng-lish. Over the years the natural marine reserve ofUstica has become the driving force of the island’seconomy and is much prized and protected by itsinhabitants. The life of the reserve has beenculturally and economically integrated with thatof the islanders so that every year the island isenlivened by various initiatives that bring highquality tourism and local employment.

The volcanic region of the Phlegraean Fieldsextends to the west of Naples overlooking thewaters of the Gulf of Pozzuoli, well-knownboth for its numerous archaeological sites of theRoman Period and for the bradyseismic phenom-ena that have radically altered the original struc-ture of the coastline over the centuries. AncientBaia was a bathing resort for the Roman aristo-cracy between the 4th and 1st centuries BC and,as a result of bradyseism, began to sink into thewater around the 3rd century AD.[2] The ancientcity that is now almost completely submerged wasfamous for its luxurious seaside villas, publicoffices, baths, shops and coastal installations.

The area of underwater Baia is an ideal site forthe creation of an underwater archaeologicalpark. It covers an area of around 13,000 sq m ofwell-conserved ancient buildings where very oftenit is not only possible to identify the wall struc-tures clearly, but also to see the painted or stuccodecorations, mosaics, and marble wall-cladding.Unfortunately, due to local problems, the parkhas taken many years to materialize. Up until afew years ago, modern Baia was a fairly busycommercial port where, among other things, thedaily shipment of pozzolano took place. Theurban fabric is in a state of decay due to illegalbuilding construction and high unemployment.The Archaeological Superintendence has for along time fought to have the commercial porttransferred to another area, because the shipswere inflicting severe damage on the underwaterarchaeological structures, destroying them withtheir propellers and keels and ploughing throughthem with their anchors. In agreement with theneighbouring district councils, various projectswere devised to convert the port from a commer-cial to a tourist centre and provide a new incentivefor the city—that of cultural tourism. The mainchanges that led to the establishment of the parktook place in 1994 when loading operations ofpozzolano were suspended and in 1996 when

85

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 31.1

regulations prohibited pleasure craft from moor-ing in the small bay where the submerged city wasto be found. It has been possible to visit under-water Baia for the last two years. The area thatcomprises the underwater archaeological park hasbeen mapped out and its borders have beendefined.

Prior to this the area was protected by HarbourOffice regulations and sequestration orders issuedby the courts. The park, bounded by buoys,includes the architectural ruins of a villa of animportant Roman family of the Early ImperialAge, the Pisoni, which later became imperialproperty, the remains of the nymphaeum-triclinium of the Claudian palace, the baths of theimperial palace and remains of some bathingpremises with mosaic floors and wine shops flank-ing a main road.

The local diving club has been authorized bythe Superintendence to accompany underwatertourist visitors to the submerged city. Visitorsmay read information about the ancient remainson panels. After visiting the underwater city ofBaia, tourists may proceed to the ArchaeologicalMuseum housed in the Aragonese Castle, wherethe nymphaeum-triclinium has been reconstructedwith the original statues, recovered during under-water excavation.

An underwater archaeological park like that ofBaia can become an important training ground totry out new methods for conservation in situ. Theconservator can test new products to consolidatewall structures, to protect wall paintings, stuccoesand mosaics, and programme monitoring cyclesto assess the extent of deterioration. In certaincases, in order to enhance their didactic function,it may be worth examining the possibility ofinstalling resin reproductions of statues or otherfinds that, for security reasons, have beenrecovered and are now exhibited in museums.

In the summer of 2001 the Central Institute ofRestoration, under the direction of R. Petriaggi,commenced a study programme on deteriorationof submerged structures, experimenting with newmethods of treatment at Torre Astura, a site nearRome, where there are remains of a Roman villawith a large vivarium (basin for fish-farming) anda port. The archaeological complex dates back tothe 1st century BC (Castagnoli, 1963; Piccarreta,1977). The site of Torre Astura is situated in avery well-conserved natural oasis, because it lieswithin a military zone and the ArchaeologicalSuperintendence is planning to transform it into anature park.

86

A less extensive underwater archaeologicalpark, but no less interesting for this reason, is thatbeing planned in the bay of Camarina in Sicily,commonly known as the ‘ship graveyard’ becauseof the large number of ancient wrecks that hasbeen discovered on its sea floor. Many of thesehave been excavated and their contents are nowexhibited in Camarina Museum. An underwatervisit may be made to the Wreck of the Columns(yellow marble coming from Egypt) dating fromAD 215. This wreck contained many preciousartefacts which have been recovered and are nowexhibited in the museum. A project for this under-water archaeological park has been presentedwhich proposes the construction of a transparenttunnel running from the mainland along the seafloor, through which tourists can walk and viewthe wrecks without having to actually go underwater.[3]

In Calabria at Monasterace, ancient Caulonia,it is possible to visit the remains of a marbleworkshop that is now under water due to thereceding shoreline (Ianelli et al., 1993). At just afew metres below the surface, underwater visitorscan view the sandy seabed covered with blocks ofstone that were in the process of being worked:pieces of masonry and bases and shafts of col-umns. A short distance away on the beach lie theruins of the city’s Doric temple (430 BC). Theremains of marble sculptures and columns, as inthis case, and the wrecks with cargoes of marble,such as a shipwreck with a cargo of half-workedsarcophagi dating to the 3rd century AD, discov-ered in Puglia at San Pietro in Bevagna (Alessio &Zaccaria, 1997), are particularly suitable for un-derwater tourism both for their spectacular qual-ity and because they can be easily controlled andare less vulnerable to pillaging and possible dam-age. For example, the Superintendence of Liguriais the supervisor of underwater visits to the wreckof Albenga (1st century BC) and to a RomanImperial wreck with a cargo of columns off Lerici,both included in a natural marine reserve.

As remarked at the beginning of this article,many parks and reserves may contain importantarchaeological remains within their waters. Theorganization responsible for them not only sees totheir protection but also, if possible and in ac-cordance with the Archaeological Superintend-ence, to their utilization by organizing guidedtours. For example, the remains of the imperialpalace at Capri that has now fallen into the seahave become a popular destination for under-water tours. Also in this case, non-divers may

B. DAVIDDE: UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL PARKS: A NEW PERSPECTIVE

enjoy the spectacle on board boats with trans-parent bottoms.

ConclusionThe concept of the underwater archaeologicalpark is proving to be extremely useful not only inthe protection and enhancement of the archaeo-logical heritage, but also in the generation of newemployment in towns and cities located in thearea. Wherever parks have been established andwork efficiently, hotels and restaurants havesprung up as well as a number of small privateconcerns that deal with everyday and specialmaintenance of the park, surveillance and guidedtours. In short, a new frontier for organizedtourism has been created.

In addition there is the potential, in such areas,of setting up research projects in the field of

underwater archaeology, marine biology and con-servation and thereby creating new professionalopenings for graduates in these subjects.

It is essential that each country draws up a‘risk map of underwater archaeological heritage’,as a necessary and indispensable instrument forthe protection and conservation of these sites,where all the data relating to them—their stateof conservation and the different categories ofrisk involving either total or partial loss of theheritage—is catalogued and kept up to date. Onthe basis of the incidence of different risk factorsrecorded on this map the archaeologist andconservator may plan operations involvingexcavation, consolidation, recovery and con-servation with the aim of eventually being ableto create and open to the public this new formof museum—the underwater archaeologicalpark.

Notes[1] Pomey, 1993; Nafziger, 1994; de Bocccard, 1995; Strati, 1995; Vedovato et al., 1995; Desee ‘National Parks’, in Delgado,

1997.[2] Castagnoli, 1977; Andreae et al., 1983; Scognamiglio, 1997; Miniero, 2001.[3] Di Stefano, 1994; for a similar project but in the Mezzano lake near Rome, see Mitchell, 1988.

ReferencesAlessio, A. & Zaccaria, A., 1997, Nuove ricerche sul relitto di San Pietro in Bevagna (Manduria-Taranto). Atti del Convegno

Nazionale di archeologia subacquea, Anzio, 30–31 maggio, 1 giugno 1996, 211–224. Bari.Andreae, B. & Zevi, F. (Eds), 1983, Baia. Il Ninfeo imperiale sommerso di Punta Epitaffio. Napoli.Bassi, C., 1990, Il Parco del Delta del Po. Ferrara.Caporioni, V., 1992, Il parco della laguna di Venezia. Provincia di Venezia, XVI, 5–6: 39–40.Castagnoli, F., 1963, Astura. Studi Romani, 11: 637.Castagnoli, F., 1977, I Campi Flegrei nell’archeologia e nella storia. Atti dei Convegni dell’accademia dei Lincei, 33: 64.Celuzza, M. & Rendini, P. (Eds), 1991, Relitti di storia. Archeologia subacquea in Maremma. 117–144. Siena.de Juliis, E. M., 1986, Santa Caterina di Nardo (Lecce), Bollettino d’Arte. Archeologia Subacquea, 3 (Suppl 37–38): 213.Delgado, J. P. (Ed.), 1997, Encyclopaedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology. London.Di Stefano, G., 1994, Ipotesi di un parco archeologico subacqueo a Camarina. I Siti archeologici. Un problema di

musealizzazione all’aperto. Atti del Secondo seminario di studi sulla ricerca archeologica in Italia, 248–254. Roma.de Boccard, A. (Ed.), 1995, 100 sites historiques d’interet commun mediterraneen. Protection du patrimoine archeologique

sous-marin in Mediteranee. Documents techniques, V, A.M.P.H.I., Atelier du Patrimoine. Marseille.Fozzati, L. & Davidde, B., 1996, Le aree archeologiche sommerse italiane. I parchi subacquei. XIII International Congress of

Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forlı, Italia-8/14 Sept. 1996, Colloquium XXXVI. Archaeological Parks, 83–96.Fozzati, L. & Nisbet, R., 1982, Archeologia delle acque in Piemonte, Bollettino d’Arte. Archeologia Subacquea, 4: 104–109.Galli, G., 1993, Ponza, il relitto della ‘Secca dei Mattoni’. Archeologia Subacquea. Studi, ricerche e documenti, I: 117–129.Iannelli, M. T., Lena, G. & Mariottine, S., 1993, Kaulonia. Rinvenimenti archeologici subacquei tra il tempio dorico e il fiume

Assi. Archeologia Subacquea. Studi, Ricerche e Documenti, I: 1–20.Lattanzi, G., 1993, Allarme elettronico per le palafitte. Archeo, VII, 7(101), luglio:79.Miniero, P., 2001, Baia: dallo scavo subacqueo, al Museo, al parco archeologico sottomarino . . . e le prospettive per la tutela?

Forma Maris. Forum Internazionale di Archeologia Subacquea. Pozzuoli, 22–24 settembre 1998: 29–36. Napoli.Mitchell, E., 1988, Il Lago di Mezzano: un esperimento di collaborazione fra Enti di tutela ed Enti locali per la salvaguardia

e la valorizzazione di un sito archeologico sommerso. I Siti archeologici. Un problema di musealizzazione all’aperto. Atti delPrimo seminario di studi sulla ricerca archeologica in Italia. Roma.

Nafziger, J. A. R., 1994, The Buenos Aires draft convention on the protection of underwater cultural heritage. InternationalJournal of Cultural Property, 6,1: 119–133.

Pruneti, P. & Riccardi, E., 1993, Lezioni di Archeologia a Ustica. Archeologia Viva, 37, aprile: 90–93.Petriaggi, R., 1997, Un nuovo metodo di copertura per il relitto di Montalto di Castro (VT). Atti del convegno Nazionale di

Archeologia Subacquea, Anzio, 30–31 maggio e 1 giugno 1996: 341–344. Bari.

87

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 31.1

Petriaggi, R., 2001, Recupero, o quali altre scelte nel caso dei relitti antichi? Forma Maris. Forum Internazionale di ArcheologiaSubacquea. Pozzuoli, 22–24 settembre 1998: 149–152. Napoli.

Piccarreta, F., 1977, Astura. Forma Italiae, (RI, 13). Firenze.Pomey, P., 1993, Preservation of Underwater Archaeological Heritage: Marseille case. Atelier du Patrimoine. Marseille.Purpura, G., Fioravantia, A., Riccardi, E. & Pruneti, P., 1992, L’itinerario di Ustica. Archeologia Viva, 29, maggio: 44–55.Scognamiglio, E., 1997, Aggiornamenti per la topografia di Baia sommersa. Archeologia Subacquea. Studi, ricerche e documenti,

II: 35–45. Roma.Strati, A., 1995, The Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage: an Emerging Objective of Contemporary Law of the Sea. The

Hague.Vedovato, G. & Vlad Borelli, L. (Eds), 1995, La tutela del patrimonio archeologico subacqueo. Atti del Convegno Internazionale

tenutosi a Ravello dal 27 al 30 maggio 1993 presso il Centro Universitario Europeo di Beni Culturali. Istituto Poligrafico e Zeccadello Stato. Roma.

Zannovello, F., 1999, Parco archeologico della Laguna Nord: metodologia e progettualita. Archeologia delle Acque, I.1: 88–107.

88