Odyssey Marine Article...

I'm dying waiting this trial be over and see all $500M of coins be back at home(Spain). I will be there to celebrate, cover a news video shooting, drink wine and see Flamenco dancer on any plaza.

I'm dying waiting this trial be over and see all $500M of coins be back at home(Spain). I will be there to celebrate, cover a news video shooting, drink wine and see Flamenco dancer on any plaza.

And if one of your ancestors had a shipment of coins on the Mercedes you would be rooting for Odyssey.   

Archcad WE will be celebrating when the coins go at auction next year at the Orlando coin show. The Flamenco dancers will be bidding.
    Jeff, according to Amrhein, he found the exact spot of the La Galga in a sand dune on shore. That means Sea Hunt found a different ship but Spain still prevented them from doing salvage work on a wreck they didn't even identify!

Archcad WE will be celebrating when the coins go at auction next year at the Orlando coin show. The Flamenco dancers will be bidding.

Salvor

Don't be stupid, you, you hunting activities and the Floridian shipwreck hunter had been bid for your own people already. Remember, I'm waiting for those coins be in auction since were found(stole) by your people(Odyssey) but still I'm waiting.  Flamenco is shown in Miami every weekend but I understand, you hate Miami like much Floridian there.

And if one of your ancestors had a shipment of coins on the Mercedes you would be rooting for Odyssey.

I'm proud of those ancestor but not for your brotherhood of theft.

Hey,..To all Odyssey advocate

Today, the King of Spain arrived in White house to meet with the president Obama, just go there and makes all proper complain about the $500M's trials, it's the best moment to do it, I wish to see there protesting Jeff K.

 

Guardian Article...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/feb/26/shipwreck-navy

From the Sub-Arch Board.

"In early February I spend two wonderful days with Greg Stemm and the Odyssey
team.  Greg is making an enormous effort to publish his work, and I felt
that his attitude makes him a player in our field, whether we like it or
not, and accepted to join him in New Orleans for the 2010's Shipwreck Track.

In the past 15 years we have been throwing tarts at each other’s faces
because we don’t have anything to discuss.  Treasure hunters’ work is often
involved in smoke – I cannot resist teasing Pete here, and his little secret
report, that only Jan-Peter “Harry Potter” Balkenende can see ).

To try to find out what THs do is difficult.  If we ask too many questions
they send us letters from their lawyers, or make threats, etc.  In the
process I learned that in the UK it is a crime “to ask malicious questions”
)  I am not kidding you: a guy with a curly wig wrote me saying exactly that.

Even when THs publish reports – and some have done it in the past, which is
a lot more than we can say for many archaeologists – it is difficult
criticize them in a scholarly way without worsening the bad blood between
us:  no matter how much they try, most treasure hunters have an antiquarian
approach, focusing on artifacts, while we aim at “reconstructing past human
activity based…” 

But now Greg has hired a bunch of competent archaeologists, who genuinely
care for the underwater cultural heritage and are willing to engage in
constructive brainstorming.

I do not agree with them on many instances and I strongly oppose what
Odyssey does, etc., but now we all know what Odyssey does, and they have
gained the right to ask archaeologists for their reports, and their ethics,
and their little clans, and the legitimacy of their little clan’s mandarins,
and their little secrets, and their little tribal wars… 

I am looking forward to be a cheerful participant in these discussions, as
always, and I think that this time we may actually be doing something
constructive: we need standards (the Annex of the UNESCO Convention is a
good starting point).

Odyssey is raising the standards!  This is going to be funny to watch. )

Filipe Castro"

Filipe is going through a midlife crisis...

It is clear to me that the ONLY reason Spain is interested in this wreck , or any of the others, is because there is treasure aboard. Treasure that can be converted into MONEY! There is NO cultural or historical value here. So all you bleeding hearts, and you know who you are, have absolutely no reason to celebrate the loss of treasure to the finder. I still stand on the position that if given the opportunity and the means, that all of us serious treasure hunters are better equipped than the state archaeologists to hunt for and salvage old wrecks. Let's have a little game here. How many wrecks have the archaeologists found? How many wrecks have the treasure hunters found?
Who has donated the most treasure and artifacts to the state and various museums? Who has enlightened the world to submerged history? I GUARANTY YOU it was NOT the archaeological community! The archaeologists have contributed greatly, but only after someone else has made the discovery. So get off your arrogant High Horse!
...Aquanut

It is clear to me that the ONLY reason Spain is interested in this wreck , or any of the others, is because there is treasure aboard. Treasure that can be converted into MONEY! There is NO cultural or historical value here. So all you bleeding hearts, and you know who you are, have absolutely no reason to celebrate the loss of treasure to the finder. I still stand on the position that if given the opportunity and the means, that all of us serious treasure hunters are better equipped than the state archaeologists to hunt for and salvage old wrecks. Let's have a little game here. How many wrecks have the archaeologists found? How many wrecks have the treasure hunters found?
Who has donated the most treasure and artifacts to the state and various museums? Who has enlightened the world to submerged history? I GUARANTY YOU it was NOT the archaeological community! The archaeologists have contributed greatly, but only after someone else has made the discovery. So get off your arrogant High Horse!
...Aquanut

Aquanut, I agree with you about "some" of the archaeologists. The underwater archeology is poor, no money but plenty of laws (would be interesting to make a nice museum of laws). The problem is that UNESCO suggests to have the money to start and finish projects, but no money. It's like the snake biting its tail.
About Odyssey, they planted storm and now we see all the results. And this can not be denied. They razed and alarmed institutions, universities, UNESCO, the international community of archaeologists giving weapons where and when did not. Have aroused the sleeping lion. Nice work for treasure hunters.
Cheers VV

O.K.
So you think Odyessy was wrong. I think they knew as soon as Spain got wind of "TREASURE" that they were going to have a problem. I would have done exactly what they did. Spain, nor anyone else, for that matter has claim to unidentified treasure. The ship was not in evidence and until treasure is brought to the surface, who in the hell can determine its source. I also disagree with these laws of late where governments can lay broad claims and step in to make a salvor look like a criminal.
By the Way... I don't see where Universities, Museums, UNESCO, Institutions or archaeologists should concern themselves over a bunch of coins with the same date on them. Where is the cultural/historical value? Is it perhaps in the repetitive artwork on the coins?
Aquanut

Voc, Odyssey was not, and is not wrong! I would have done the same...

Tom

O.K.
So you think Odyessy was wrong. I think they knew as soon as Spain got wind of "TREASURE" that they were going to have a problem. I would have done exactly what they did. Spain, nor anyone else, for that matter has claim to unidentified treasure. The ship was not in evidence and until treasure is brought to the surface, who in the hell can determine its source. I also disagree with these laws of late where governments can lay broad claims and step in to make a salvor look like a criminal.
By the Way... I don't see where Universities, Museums, UNESCO, Institutions or archaeologists should concern themselves over a bunch of coins with the same date on them. Where is the cultural/historical value? Is it perhaps in the repetitive artwork on the coins?
Aquanut

Aquanut,
Time will show that the big boss of Odyssey are wolves in sheep.
The "big move" began with the subject JUNO / GALGA, who was the first step. Strangely enough scratch every nugget of gold from the bowels of the earth with many sacrifices (I've been in many mining camps in Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, etc.). But knowing that there are 125,000 tons of gold from shipwrecks on the bottom of the sea nothing is done!
From 1998-2005 TH hardly work in Florida. NPS, archaeologists, Spain, Bolivia, Peru, descendants, all claim an ounce of gold. What happened from 1998-2005? JUNO / GALGA and Odyssey.
This is a reality, like it or not.

Italy, Greece, and another... what would that be... hmmm, oh yes, Spain!  All in the Euro tank at the moment, being 'underwater' (pardon the pun) with their national debt.  Let's see now... hmmm...  yes the United States as well!  Then there's the rest of the European Union who don't think much of bailing us out.  Good for them.  They are coming to their senses.  So here is a pot of money, lying on the sea floor, but what part of the sea floor?  Is it England's sea floor, or Spain's sea floor?  OR maybe Portugal's sea floor.  And, its not phoney greenbacks... its real SILVER, with real VALUE! The whole Black Swan issue is a macro-cosmic stage of current political events at the global level.

There would be no argument on this Black Swan issue if it were not for the moronic progressives currently running the criminal enterprise in Washington.  Were it not for them, the constructive abandonment of the wreck in international waters would already be recognized by American courts and the salvage would be divied up by Odyssey and they would be on to bigger things. 

It will change.  The European Union will come apart for the sake of a few dollars, UNESCO will fade from the North American continent, the NPS will be relegated to mowing lawns and feeding the bears, the Chinese will own the Smithsonian and Greg Stemm will be selling bulk silver to them. At the moment, what you have is all of us working folks (that would be the salvage community) being plucked from the top and the bottom.

How many wrecks have the archaeologists found? How many wrecks have the treasure hunters found?
Who has donated the most treasure and artifacts to the state and various museums? Who has enlightened the world to submerged history? I GUARANTY YOU it was NOT the archaeological community! The archaeologists have contributed greatly, but only after someone else has made the discovery. So get off your arrogant High Horse!
...Aquanut

Aquanut, here are the wrecks I have found so far:

1) Angra A (late 19th century)
2) Angra B (mid-16th century)
3) Angra C (mid 17th century)
4) Angra D (late 16th century)
5) Nossa Senhora da Luz (1615)
6) HMS Pallas (1782)
7) l'Astrée (1796)
Lidador (1878)
9) Caroline (1901)

also, I have pinpointed the location of 4 other wrecks, which I intend to find in the near future: a Spanish galleon (1589), a VOC treasure ship (1626) and a french/spanish brig (1783).

Tell me: how many wrecks have you found so far? ;)

Alexandre, I have found two, both unidentified. However, the limitations of my personal budget shouldn't be of any concern to you.
Did you find your wrecks yourself, or with the help of the private community?
Aquanut

Besides Lidador, which was sitting on the middle of a bay (unidentified and undated), all other were found by careful archival research and a lot of eyeballing.

The finding of the "Nossa Senhora da Luz", a Portuguese Eastindiaman, for example, took me almost 4 years (I was really searching intensively for it, though).

If yours are still unidentified, to what period do they belong to?

Filipe Castro was one of the biggest critics of commercial treasure hunters. Now he is coming to his senses. After seeing the quality of the archaeological work that Odyssey is doing he cannot find a fault. Thats the future of shipwreck salvage and institutional archaeologists should take note. Odyssey employs more archaeologists than INA, they publish papers for the people to see and they display artifacts to the public. After all, its the peoples cultural heritage.

Alexandre, how many artifacts from those wrecks are in your private collection?

Alexandre
If you have found all these wrecks and you are a archaeologist, then I am sure you have photographed everything and have reports on everything you have recovered, or have you recovered or learned anything? Publishing your photos and reports here on tnet will actually give you some credibility.
Seahunter

Alexandre, I'm not at liberty to disclose any further information on these finds to satisfy either my ego or your curiousity. There are others to consider and since we aren't funded or salaried by the state and the state has proven it will not issue permits, those wrecks will remain "unknown".
Aquanut

Alexandre, to answer one of your questions to Filipe: "will Odyssey excavate any wrecks without treasure?" They already have. Thats the problem with archies that criticize without doing their research.
   In 2003 Odyssey found a 19th century wreck off the coast of Florida filled with ceramics. Two years later they visited the site again and were appaled at the destruction that trawling nets did. Odyssey decided to perform "rescue archaeology" of the wreck and it is ALL on display at their museum. NOT ONE PIECE WAS SOLD! It is known as the blue china wreck if you have not heard.

About Odyssey, they planted storm and now we see all the results. And this can not be denied. They razed and alarmed institutions, universities, UNESCO, the international community of archaeologists giving weapons where and when did not. Have aroused the sleeping lion. Nice work for treasure hunters.
Cheers VV

Well, I've been over the Odyssey presence in Spain for a long time and I didn't see they alarmed or razed all those institutions. What I've seen was a kind of organised group of people alarming with the presence of Odyssey in Spain. This group (actually three or four persons) went to the media to be the stars of the day. They didn't care about saying the truth or lying loud and clear (about the position where Odyssey found the Black Swan, showing a photograph with a coin in a hand that was taken from an old web page assuring it was taken at the Gibraltar airport, etc, etc). And I think they make this big noise trying to hide something else on they where involved and that has something to do with a wild treasure hunting on the Cadiz Bay, but this is just a theory I cant prove at this moment. Odyssey didn't give any weapon to anybody. The real weapons were aboard other boat that has nothing to do with Odyssey and a lot to do with the noisy group that spent a lot of time and energy pointing at Odyssey trying to cover with a mist a real case of looting.

Alexandre, how many artifacts from those wrecks are in your private collection?

None. I am not a collector.

[Scientific papers]

Alexandre
If you have found all these wrecks and you are a archaeologist, then I am sure you have photographed everything and have reports on everything you have recovered, or have you recovered or learned anything? Publishing your photos and reports here on tnet will actually give you some credibility.
Seahunter

Sure thing.


Scientific papers


1) GARCIA, Catarina & MONTEIRO, Paulo (1998) "Intervenção de Emergência na Baía de Angra do Heroísmo” in Al-madan, II série, nº 7, 1998. Centro de Arqueologia de Almada, pp. 126 e 128.

2) ALVES, Francisco & MONTEIRO, Paulo (1999) "Arqueologia Subaquática" in MATOS, Artur ed. Enciclopédia Açoriana. Lisboa: Centro de Estudos dos Povos e Culturas de Expressão Portuguesa/Universidade Católica, p. 87.

3) ALVES, Francisco, GARCIA, Catarina & MONTEIRO, Paulo (1999) "Estratégias e metodologias da intervenção arqueológica subaquática no quadro do projecto da construção de uma marina na baía de Angra do Heroísmo (Terceira, Açores)" in Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia, vol. 2, nº 2. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia, pp. 199-210.

4) GARCIA, Catarina, MONTEIRO, Paulo & PHANEUF, Erik (1999) "Os destroços dos navios Angra C e D descobertos durante a intervenção arqueológica subaquática realizada no quadro do projecto da construção de uma marina na baía de Angra do Heroísmo (Terceira, Açores)" in Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia, vol. 2, nº 2. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia, pp. 211-232.

5) MONTEIRO, Paulo (1999) "Os destroços dos navios Angra C e D descobertos durante a intervenção arqueológica subaquática realizada no quadro do projecto da construção de uma marina na baía de Angra do Heroísmo (Terceira, Açores). Discussão preliminar" in Revista
Portuguesa de Arqueologia, vol. 2, nº 2. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia, pp. 233- 261.

6) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2000) "Carta Arqueológica Subaquática dos Açores: metodologia, utilização e resultados na gestão do património cultural subaquático" in Actas do 3º Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular, vol. VIII. Porto: ADECAP/Universidade de Trás-os-Montes, pp. 497-523.

7) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2000) "Angra D: the survey, excavation and dismantling of an Iberian seagoing ship (Azores, Portugal)" in Proceedings of the 33rd Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology. Society for Historical Archaeology, 4 a 9 de Janeiro de 2000, Quebec City.

MONTEIRO, Paulo (2000) "The expansion of the North African corsair activity from the Mediterranean into the Azores islands and the Atlantic in the early 17th century: fear, loath and naval war" in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on Graeco-Oriental and African
Studies. Atenas: Institute for Graeco-Oriental and African Studies.

9) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2000) "The Azores underwater cultural heritage: strategies, surveys, excavations and results (1995-2000)" in Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists. Lisboa: European Association of Archaeologists.

10) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2000) "A perda do galeão São Pantaleão (1651): um naufrágio da Companhia Geral do Comércio do Brasil nos Açores" in As ilhas e o Brasil - Actas do VI Colóquio Internacional das Ilhas Atlânticas. Funchal: Centro de Estudos de História do Atlântico/Secretaria Regional do Turismo e Cultura, pp. 215-240.

11) GARCIA, Catarina & MONTEIRO, Paulo (2001), "The excavation and dismantling of Angra D, a probable Iberian seagoing ship, Angra bay, Terceira Island, Azores, Portugal. Preliminary assessment" in Alves, F., ed., Proceedings of the International Symposium on Archaeology of Medieval and Modern Ships of Iberian-Atlantic Tradition – Hull remains, manuscripts and ethnographic sources: a comparative approach (Lisboa, 7-9 de Setembro de 1998). Trabalhos de Arqueologia, 18: 431-447. Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Lisboa.

12) MONTEIRO, Paulo, PINHEIRO, Sérgio & ALVES, Francisco (2007) "Arade 23: arqueografia preliminar de um naufrágio estuarino" in Xelb 8 (2008) - Actas do 5º Encontro de Arqueologia do Algarve. Câmara Municipal de Silves, pp. 355-363.

13) MONTEIRO, Paulo, PINHEIRO, Sérgio & ALVES, Francisco (2007) "Arade 23: a arqueografia de um naufrágio através de Site Recorder 4: problemática e metodologia" in Congresso de Aplicações Informáticas à Arqueologia – CAAPortugal 2007. Leiria: Associação para o Desenvolvimento das Aplicações Informáticas e Novas Tecnologias Aplicadas à Arqueologia, 2008.

14) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2007), "O naufrágio do vapor Lidador na ilha Terceira, Açores (1878):relatório preliminar", in Al-madan, II série, nº 15, 2007, Adenda electrónica. Centro de Arqueologia de Almada, pp.1-2.

15) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2007), "Canhões na Roca: Análise Preliminar de um Conjunto Submerso de Peças de Artilharia", in Al-madan, II série, nº 15, 2007. Centro de Arqueologia de Almada, pp. 158-160.

16) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2008) “Rotas, escalas e comércio: proposta teórica para um modelo de navegação Ibero-atlântica na Antiguidade” in Actas do Encontro de História do Alentejo Litoral (Sines), Centro Cultural Emmerico Nunes, 2008.

17) MONTEIRO, Paulo & PINHEIRO, Sérgio (2008) “O naufrágio da Nuestra Señora del Rosário (1589): uma nau da prata perdida nas costas de Tróia” in Actas do Encontro de História do Alentejo Litoral (Sines), Centro Cultural Emmerico Nunes, 2008.

18) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2008) “Da nota de rodapé ao monte de lastro: naufrágios ibéricos na área dos Açores (1526-1906)”, in Symposium Os Naufrágios Portugueses e Espanhóis no Arquipélago dos Açores/Naufragios de Buques Españoles y Portugueses en el Archipiélago de
las Azores, co-organizado pelas Academia de Marinha e Fundácion Iberoamericana para el Fomento de la Cultura y Ciencias del Mar. Lisboa, 04 a 07 de Novembro de 2008, pp. 43-97.

19) ALVES, Francisco, MONTEIRO, Paulo & PINHEIRO, Sérgio (2008) Relatório da campanha de arqueografia preliminar dos destroços do navio Arade 23. Trabalhos da DANS nº 44. Lisboa: Instituto de Gestão do Património Arquitectónico e Arqueológico (IGESPAR)/Divisão de
Arqueologia Náutica e Subaquática (DANS).

20) ALVES, Francisco & MONTEIRO, Paulo (2009) Assessment on the Arade 23 wreck site: 2007-2008. in MANDERS, Martijn et al eds. MACHU (Managing Cultural Heritage Underwater: a maritime research project funded by the European Union Culture 2000 Programme) num. 2. Rotterdam: Educom Publishers BV, pp. 16-17.

21) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2009) “O naufrágio do navio da VOC Schoonhoven na costa de Melides, Grândola (1626)” in Actas do 1º Encontro de Arqueologia e História de Alcácer do Sal: Tributo a João Faria (22, 23 e 24 de Maio de 2009). Alcácer do Sal: Câmara de Alcácer do Sal, no prelo.

22) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2009) “O afundamento do galeão da frota do Brasil São Francisco pela esquadra inglesa do Parlamento (Sesimbra, 1650)” in Actas do II Encontro de História do Alentejo Litoral (Sines), Centro Cultural Emmerico Nunes, 2009.


Reports

Projecto de Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática Preventiva e de Emergência na baía de Angra do Heroísmo (1995), MAH (Museu de Angra do Heroísmo).

Relatório Preliminar sobre a Recuperação de uma Boca de Fogo Quinhentista (1996), MAH.

Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática na baía de Angra: Relatório Preliminar, em co-autoria com GARCIA, Catarina (1996), MAH.

Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática na baía de Angra: Relatório Final, em co-autoria com GARCIA, Catarina (1996), MAH.

Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática em Santa Cruz das Flores: Relatório Preliminar. (1997), MAH.

Projecto de Posicionamento e Inventariação das Âncoras do Monte Brasil. (1997), MAH.

Projecto de Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática. Fragata L'Astrée (1796), Ilha do Pico, Açores. (1998), CNANS.

Projecto de Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática Prospectiva de Emergência na baía da Horta, Ilha do Faial, Açores. (1999), CNANS.

Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática Prospectiva de Emergência na baía da Horta, Ilha do Faial, Açores: Relatório Final. (1999), CNANS.

O naufrágio da nau da Carreira da Índia Nossa Senhora da Luz (1615): caracterização histórico-arqueológica (1999), CNANS.

Carta Arqueológica Subaquática dos Açores: metodologia e sua aplicação prática (1999), DRC (Direcção Regional de Cultura, Açores):

Projecto de Implementação de Reservas Arqueológicas Subaquáticas na Região Autónoma dos Açores (2000), DRC.

Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática de Emergência na baía da Calheta, Ilha de São Jorge, Açores. Fragata HMS Pallas (1783): relatório preliminar. (1999), DRC.

Análise preliminar do conjunto de peças de artilharia submersas na Baixa do Broeiro, Cabo da Roca. (2007)

Public Presentations

Incentivos ao uso da arqueologia subaquática nas nossas escolas. Seminário Os Oceanos e a Escola, Programa Oceanofilia, EXPO'98, 14 a 15 de Novembro de 1995, Estoril

A arqueologia subaquática nos Açores. 11º Encontro Nacional de Mergulho, 1 de Março de 1996, Ponta Delgada

A arqueologia subaquática nos Açores e a sua importância para as ilhas do Grupo Ocidental. Museu das Flores, 1 e 2 de Agosto de 1997, Santa Cruz das Flores

A arqueologia subaquática nos Açores. Escola Preparatória C+S de Angra do Heroísmo, 5 de Novembro de 1997.

A arqueologia subaquática nos Açores e a sua importância para as ilhas do Grupo Central Museu de São Jorge, 25 e 26 de Novembro de 2000, Calheta de São Jorge.

Os Açores na encruzilhada da rota da prata e das riquezas do Novo Mundo: naufrágios, batalhas, mitos, história e lendas. EGEAC/Câmara Municipal de Lisboa - DANS-IGESPAR, 3 de Novembro de 2007, Padrão dos Descobrimentos, Lisboa


Diving and generic magazine and newspaper articles



“O que é a Arqueologia?”, A União, 25 de Novembro de 1995

“O que não é a Arqueologia Subaquática?”, A União, 02 de Dezembro de 1995

“A Armada da VOC no Faial em 1673”, A União, 16 e 23 de Dezembro de 1995

“O império espanhol e a sua articulação naval com o Novo Mundo”, A União, 06 de Janeiro de 1996

“A intervenção arqueológica de urgência na baía de Angra do Heroísmo”, A União, 13 de Janeiro de 1996

“A iniquidade do Dec-Lei 289/93 e a defesa dos interesses dos Açores”, A União, 20 de Janeiro de 1996

“O naufrágio do galeão São Pantaleão em Água de Pau, São Miguel”, A União, 27 de Janeiro de 1996

“A documentação histórica de naufrágios”, A União, 03 de Fevereiro de 1996

“O naufrágio do vapor Lidador”, A União, 10 de Fevereiro de 1996

“INA - o Institute of Nautical Archaeology nos Açores”, A União, 17 de Fevereiro de 1996

“O naufrágio do Slavonia na ilha das Flores”, A União, 24 de Fevereiro de 1996

“A insuportável leveza da lei e a defesa dos interesses dos Açores”, Notícias do Mar, Março de 1996

“A jazida arqueológica de Aveiro A”, A União, 9 de Março de 1996

“O equívoco do C.S.S. Alabama”, A União, 23 de Março de 1996

“Um naufrágio da Carreira das Índias”, A União, 23 de Março de 1996

“A protecção jurídica do património cultural subaquático”, A União, 30 de Março de 1996

“Baía de Angra - uma intervenção inadiável”, Notícias do Mar, Abril de 1996

“O mergulho na Arqueologia”, A União, 06 e 13 de Abril de 1996

“Anatomia de um naufrágio”, A União, 20 de Abril de 1996

“O mito do ouro espanhol na paragem do Corvo”, A União, 27 de Abril de 1996

“O naufrágio do São Pantaleão”, Notícias do Mar, Maio de 1996

“Uma caçada real”, A União, 04 de Maio de 1996

“E se falássemos de património?”, A União, 11 de Maio de 1996

“A prospecção electrónica em Arqueologia”, A União, 18 de Maio de 1996

“Uma ilha à venda?”, A União, 25 de Maio de 1996

“O naufrágio do navio espanhol Poderoso”, A União, 01 de Junho de 1996

“A conservação do património submerso”, A União, 08 de Junho de 1996

“Portos e ancoradouros da ilha Terceira”, A União, 15 de Junho de 1996

“O naufrágio da nau Chagas”, A União, 22 de Junho de 1996

“Os naufrágios da Baía de Angra”, A União, 29 de Junho de 1996

“O pioneirismo de Baptista de Lima”, A União, 06 de Julho de 1996

“A artilharia em Arqueologia”, A União, 20 de Julho de 1996

“O naufrágio do Padre António Vieira”, A União, 24 de Agosto de 1996

“Os naufrágios do ouro do Brasil””, A União, 31 de Agosto de 1996

“A prospecção nas baías de Angra”, A União, 7 de Setembro de 1996

“Os navios do descobrimento dos Açores”, A União, 14 de Setembro de 1996

“O turismo e o património subaquático”, A União, 21 de Setembro de 1996

“Dois naufrágios da Restauração”, A União, 28 de Setembro de 1996

“Jewels in the midst of lava coral”, Revista de bordo SATA-Air Açores, Inverno 1996

“Naufrágios na Baía de Angra”, Mundo Submerso Magazine, nº 4, Outubro de 1996

“A Lex Rhodia”, A União, 12 de Outubro de 1996

“À Flor do Mar”, A União, 19 de Outubro de 1996

“A New Era”, A União, 26 de Outubro de 1996

“O potencial arqueológico da baía de Angra”, Notícias do Mar, Outubro de 1996

“A prospecção em Arqueologia Subaquática”, Notícias do Mar, Novembro de 1996

“Baía de Angra - reserva arqueológica?”, A União, 2 e 9 de Novembro de 1996

“Naufrágios de São Jorge”, A União, 16 de Novembro de 1996

“Naufrágios do Pico e da Graciosa”, A União, 30 de Novembro de 1996

“As ilhas dos tesouros”, Notícias do Mar, Dezembro de 1996

“Naufrágios do Faial”, A União, 7 de Dezembro de 1996

“Naufrágios de São Miguel”, A União, 21 de Dezembro de 1996

“O afundamento do l’Océan”, A União, 22 e 28 de Fevereiro de 1997

“O naufrágio do Run’Her e a Guerra Civil Americana”, A União, 8 de Março de 1997

“A conservação do património submerso”, Notícias do Mar, Março de 1997

“Métodos de datação de naufrágios”, A União, 22 de Março de 1997

“Angra e o seu porto”, A União, 29 de Março de 1997

“A pilhagem do Porto Santo”, A União, 19 de Abril de 1997

“A nova lei da arqueologia subaquática”, A União, 26 de Abril de 1997

“Marinas e arqueologia”, Diário Insular, 26 de Abril de 1997

“1591 - O Revenge”, A União, 3 de Maio de 1997

“1591 - As frotas espanholas”, A União, 10 de Maio de 1997

“1591 - A batalha naval”, A União, 17 de Maio de 1997

“1591 - A tempestade e os naufrágios”, A União, 24 de Maio de 1997

“O ‘cemitério’ das âncoras”, A União, 31 de Maio de 1997

“As naus da Carreira das Índias”, A União, 21 de Junho de 1997

“O afundamento do U-581”, A União, 28 de Junho de 1997

“O naufrágio da fragata Astrea”, A União, 5 de Julho de 1997

“O naufrágio da barca Bidart”, A União, 12 de Julho de 1997

“O naufrágio do bergantim John”, A União, 26 de Julho de 1997

“O naufrágio da barca Brillant nas Flores”, A União, 9 de Agosto de 1997

“Estrelas e astrolábios”, A União, 20 de Setembro de 1997

“A UNESCO e os naufrágios profundos”, A União, 27 de Setembro de 1997

“O naufrágio da Nuestra Señora de las Angustias y San Jose”, A União, 4 de Outubro de 1997

“O naufrágio do Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes”, A União, 11 de Outubro de 1997

“Corsários argentinos nos Açores”, A União, 25 de Outubro de 1997

“Os destroços de ANGRA B”, A União, 15 de Novembro de 1997

“Dois naufrágios quatrocentistas em Angra”, A União, 22 de Novembro de 1997

“Moçambique a saque?”, A União, 24 de Janeiro de 1998

“Às bombas”, A União, 31 de Janeiro de 1998

“Expedição às Flores”, A União, 21 de Fevereiro de 1998

“Naufrágios brasileiros e turismo subaquático”, A União, 14 de Março de 1998

“ O naufrágio do galeão Sacramento (1668)”, A União, 21 de Março de 1998

“A construção naval portuguesa”, A União, de 3 e 11 de Abril de 1998

“Uma análise preliminar do naufrágio ANGRA D”, A União, 18 de Abril de 1998

“A conservação de madeiras encharcadas”, A União, 24 de Abril de 1998

Also, some of my papers are online, here:

http://independent.academia.edu/AlexandreMonteiro

About Odyssey, they planted storm and now we see all the results. And this can not be denied. They razed and alarmed institutions, universities, UNESCO, the international community of archaeologists giving weapons where and when did not. Have aroused the sleeping lion. Nice work for treasure hunters.
Cheers VV

Well, I've been over the Odyssey presence in Spain for a long time and I didn't see they alarmed or razed all those institutions. What I've seen was a kind of organised group of people alarming with the presence of Odyssey in Spain. This group (actually three or four persons) went to the media to be the stars of the day. They didn't care about saying the truth or lying loud and clear (about the position where Odyssey found the Black Swan, showing a photograph with a coin in a hand that was taken from an old web page assuring it was taken at the Gibraltar airport, etc, etc). And I think they make this big noise trying to hide something else on they where involved and that has something to do with a wild treasure hunting on the Cadiz Bay, but this is just a theory I cant prove at this moment. Odyssey didn't give any weapon to anybody. The real weapons were aboard other boat that has nothing to do with Odyssey and a lot to do with the noisy group that spent a lot of time and energy pointing at Odyssey trying to cover with a mist a real case of looting.

Trinidad,
about Odyssey was evidence that lied. When asserted that an agreement was reached with the Government of Andalucia (Junta de Andalucia) those issued a press release denying. When they said they were "working" with the Odyssey Explorer, Pipe Sarmiento took a picture seeing that was docked. To prove he used a newspaper of Gibraltar becoming clear that they were "not working" and they were lying. He later published this photo.
Luckily there is abundant documentation of this and in previous investigations orchestrated by the police operation to sweep these people, many gory details, including precisely, since 2005 it was negotiating with Spanish and Portuguese institutional support, to recover the Mercedes with the Spanish Ministry of Culture. I repeat, about all this there is abundant documentation that is very telling not mere baseless gossip.

[Scientific papers]

Alexandre
If you have found all these wrecks and you are a archaeologist, then I am sure you have photographed everything and have reports on everything you have recovered, or have you recovered or learned anything? Publishing your photos and reports here on tnet will actually give you some credibility.
Seahunter

Sure thing.


Scientific papers


1) GARCIA, Catarina & MONTEIRO, Paulo (1998) "Intervenção de Emergência na Baía de Angra do Heroísmo” in Al-madan, II série, nº 7, 1998. Centro de Arqueologia de Almada, pp. 126 e 128.

2) ALVES, Francisco & MONTEIRO, Paulo (1999) "Arqueologia Subaquática" in MATOS, Artur ed. Enciclopédia Açoriana. Lisboa: Centro de Estudos dos Povos e Culturas de Expressão Portuguesa/Universidade Católica, p. 87.

3) ALVES, Francisco, GARCIA, Catarina & MONTEIRO, Paulo (1999) "Estratégias e metodologias da intervenção arqueológica subaquática no quadro do projecto da construção de uma marina na baía de Angra do Heroísmo (Terceira, Açores)" in Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia, vol. 2, nº 2. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia, pp. 199-210.

4) GARCIA, Catarina, MONTEIRO, Paulo & PHANEUF, Erik (1999) "Os destroços dos navios Angra C e D descobertos durante a intervenção arqueológica subaquática realizada no quadro do projecto da construção de uma marina na baía de Angra do Heroísmo (Terceira, Açores)" in Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia, vol. 2, nº 2. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia, pp. 211-232.

5) MONTEIRO, Paulo (1999) "Os destroços dos navios Angra C e D descobertos durante a intervenção arqueológica subaquática realizada no quadro do projecto da construção de uma marina na baía de Angra do Heroísmo (Terceira, Açores). Discussão preliminar" in Revista
Portuguesa de Arqueologia, vol. 2, nº 2. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia, pp. 233- 261.

6) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2000) "Carta Arqueológica Subaquática dos Açores: metodologia, utilização e resultados na gestão do património cultural subaquático" in Actas do 3º Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular, vol. VIII. Porto: ADECAP/Universidade de Trás-os-Montes, pp. 497-523.

7) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2000) "Angra D: the survey, excavation and dismantling of an Iberian seagoing ship (Azores, Portugal)" in Proceedings of the 33rd Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology. Society for Historical Archaeology, 4 a 9 de Janeiro de 2000, Quebec City.

MONTEIRO, Paulo (2000) "The expansion of the North African corsair activity from the Mediterranean into the Azores islands and the Atlantic in the early 17th century: fear, loath and naval war" in Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on Graeco-Oriental and African
Studies. Atenas: Institute for Graeco-Oriental and African Studies.

9) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2000) "The Azores underwater cultural heritage: strategies, surveys, excavations and results (1995-2000)" in Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists. Lisboa: European Association of Archaeologists.

10) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2000) "A perda do galeão São Pantaleão (1651): um naufrágio da Companhia Geral do Comércio do Brasil nos Açores" in As ilhas e o Brasil - Actas do VI Colóquio Internacional das Ilhas Atlânticas. Funchal: Centro de Estudos de História do Atlântico/Secretaria Regional do Turismo e Cultura, pp. 215-240.

11) GARCIA, Catarina & MONTEIRO, Paulo (2001), "The excavation and dismantling of Angra D, a probable Iberian seagoing ship, Angra bay, Terceira Island, Azores, Portugal. Preliminary assessment" in Alves, F., ed., Proceedings of the International Symposium on Archaeology of Medieval and Modern Ships of Iberian-Atlantic Tradition – Hull remains, manuscripts and ethnographic sources: a comparative approach (Lisboa, 7-9 de Setembro de 1998). Trabalhos de Arqueologia, 18: 431-447. Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Lisboa.

12) MONTEIRO, Paulo, PINHEIRO, Sérgio & ALVES, Francisco (2007) "Arade 23: arqueografia preliminar de um naufrágio estuarino" in Xelb 8 (2008) - Actas do 5º Encontro de Arqueologia do Algarve. Câmara Municipal de Silves, pp. 355-363.

13) MONTEIRO, Paulo, PINHEIRO, Sérgio & ALVES, Francisco (2007) "Arade 23: a arqueografia de um naufrágio através de Site Recorder 4: problemática e metodologia" in Congresso de Aplicações Informáticas à Arqueologia – CAAPortugal 2007. Leiria: Associação para o Desenvolvimento das Aplicações Informáticas e Novas Tecnologias Aplicadas à Arqueologia, 2008.

14) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2007), "O naufrágio do vapor Lidador na ilha Terceira, Açores (1878):relatório preliminar", in Al-madan, II série, nº 15, 2007, Adenda electrónica. Centro de Arqueologia de Almada, pp.1-2.

15) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2007), "Canhões na Roca: Análise Preliminar de um Conjunto Submerso de Peças de Artilharia", in Al-madan, II série, nº 15, 2007. Centro de Arqueologia de Almada, pp. 158-160.

16) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2008) “Rotas, escalas e comércio: proposta teórica para um modelo de navegação Ibero-atlântica na Antiguidade” in Actas do Encontro de História do Alentejo Litoral (Sines), Centro Cultural Emmerico Nunes, 2008.

17) MONTEIRO, Paulo & PINHEIRO, Sérgio (2008) “O naufrágio da Nuestra Señora del Rosário (1589): uma nau da prata perdida nas costas de Tróia” in Actas do Encontro de História do Alentejo Litoral (Sines), Centro Cultural Emmerico Nunes, 2008.

18) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2008) “Da nota de rodapé ao monte de lastro: naufrágios ibéricos na área dos Açores (1526-1906)”, in Symposium Os Naufrágios Portugueses e Espanhóis no Arquipélago dos Açores/Naufragios de Buques Españoles y Portugueses en el Archipiélago de
las Azores, co-organizado pelas Academia de Marinha e Fundácion Iberoamericana para el Fomento de la Cultura y Ciencias del Mar. Lisboa, 04 a 07 de Novembro de 2008, pp. 43-97.

19) ALVES, Francisco, MONTEIRO, Paulo & PINHEIRO, Sérgio (2008) Relatório da campanha de arqueografia preliminar dos destroços do navio Arade 23. Trabalhos da DANS nº 44. Lisboa: Instituto de Gestão do Património Arquitectónico e Arqueológico (IGESPAR)/Divisão de
Arqueologia Náutica e Subaquática (DANS).

20) ALVES, Francisco & MONTEIRO, Paulo (2009) Assessment on the Arade 23 wreck site: 2007-2008. in MANDERS, Martijn et al eds. MACHU (Managing Cultural Heritage Underwater: a maritime research project funded by the European Union Culture 2000 Programme) num. 2. Rotterdam: Educom Publishers BV, pp. 16-17.

21) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2009) “O naufrágio do navio da VOC Schoonhoven na costa de Melides, Grândola (1626)” in Actas do 1º Encontro de Arqueologia e História de Alcácer do Sal: Tributo a João Faria (22, 23 e 24 de Maio de 2009). Alcácer do Sal: Câmara de Alcácer do Sal, no prelo.

22) MONTEIRO, Paulo (2009) “O afundamento do galeão da frota do Brasil São Francisco pela esquadra inglesa do Parlamento (Sesimbra, 1650)” in Actas do II Encontro de História do Alentejo Litoral (Sines), Centro Cultural Emmerico Nunes, 2009.


Reports

Projecto de Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática Preventiva e de Emergência na baía de Angra do Heroísmo (1995), MAH (Museu de Angra do Heroísmo).

Relatório Preliminar sobre a Recuperação de uma Boca de Fogo Quinhentista (1996), MAH.

Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática na baía de Angra: Relatório Preliminar, em co-autoria com GARCIA, Catarina (1996), MAH.

Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática na baía de Angra: Relatório Final, em co-autoria com GARCIA, Catarina (1996), MAH.

Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática em Santa Cruz das Flores: Relatório Preliminar. (1997), MAH.

Projecto de Posicionamento e Inventariação das Âncoras do Monte Brasil. (1997), MAH.

Projecto de Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática. Fragata L'Astrée (1796), Ilha do Pico, Açores. (1998), CNANS.

Projecto de Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática Prospectiva de Emergência na baía da Horta, Ilha do Faial, Açores. (1999), CNANS.

Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática Prospectiva de Emergência na baía da Horta, Ilha do Faial, Açores: Relatório Final. (1999), CNANS.

O naufrágio da nau da Carreira da Índia Nossa Senhora da Luz (1615): caracterização histórico-arqueológica (1999), CNANS.

Carta Arqueológica Subaquática dos Açores: metodologia e sua aplicação prática (1999), DRC (Direcção Regional de Cultura, Açores):

Projecto de Implementação de Reservas Arqueológicas Subaquáticas na Região Autónoma dos Açores (2000), DRC.

Intervenção Arqueológica Subaquática de Emergência na baía da Calheta, Ilha de São Jorge, Açores. Fragata HMS Pallas (1783): relatório preliminar. (1999), DRC.

Análise preliminar do conjunto de peças de artilharia submersas na Baixa do Broeiro, Cabo da Roca. (2007)

Public Presentations

Incentivos ao uso da arqueologia subaquática nas nossas escolas. Seminário Os Oceanos e a Escola, Programa Oceanofilia, EXPO'98, 14 a 15 de Novembro de 1995, Estoril

A arqueologia subaquática nos Açores. 11º Encontro Nacional de Mergulho, 1 de Março de 1996, Ponta Delgada

A arqueologia subaquática nos Açores e a sua importância para as ilhas do Grupo Ocidental. Museu das Flores, 1 e 2 de Agosto de 1997, Santa Cruz das Flores

A arqueologia subaquática nos Açores. Escola Preparatória C+S de Angra do Heroísmo, 5 de Novembro de 1997.

A arqueologia subaquática nos Açores e a sua importância para as ilhas do Grupo Central Museu de São Jorge, 25 e 26 de Novembro de 2000, Calheta de São Jorge.

Os Açores na encruzilhada da rota da prata e das riquezas do Novo Mundo: naufrágios, batalhas, mitos, história e lendas. EGEAC/Câmara Municipal de Lisboa - DANS-IGESPAR, 3 de Novembro de 2007, Padrão dos Descobrimentos, Lisboa


Diving and generic magazine and newspaper articles



“O que é a Arqueologia?”, A União, 25 de Novembro de 1995

“O que não é a Arqueologia Subaquática?”, A União, 02 de Dezembro de 1995

“A Armada da VOC no Faial em 1673”, A União, 16 e 23 de Dezembro de 1995

“O império espanhol e a sua articulação naval com o Novo Mundo”, A União, 06 de Janeiro de 1996

“A intervenção arqueológica de urgência na baía de Angra do Heroísmo”, A União, 13 de Janeiro de 1996

“A iniquidade do Dec-Lei 289/93 e a defesa dos interesses dos Açores”, A União, 20 de Janeiro de 1996

“O naufrágio do galeão São Pantaleão em Água de Pau, São Miguel”, A União, 27 de Janeiro de 1996

“A documentação histórica de naufrágios”, A União, 03 de Fevereiro de 1996

“O naufrágio do vapor Lidador”, A União, 10 de Fevereiro de 1996

“INA - o Institute of Nautical Archaeology nos Açores”, A União, 17 de Fevereiro de 1996

“O naufrágio do Slavonia na ilha das Flores”, A União, 24 de Fevereiro de 1996

“A insuportável leveza da lei e a defesa dos interesses dos Açores”, Notícias do Mar, Março de 1996

“A jazida arqueológica de Aveiro A”, A União, 9 de Março de 1996

“O equívoco do C.S.S. Alabama”, A União, 23 de Março de 1996

“Um naufrágio da Carreira das Índias”, A União, 23 de Março de 1996

“A protecção jurídica do património cultural subaquático”, A União, 30 de Março de 1996

“Baía de Angra - uma intervenção inadiável”, Notícias do Mar, Abril de 1996

“O mergulho na Arqueologia”, A União, 06 e 13 de Abril de 1996

“Anatomia de um naufrágio”, A União, 20 de Abril de 1996

“O mito do ouro espanhol na paragem do Corvo”, A União, 27 de Abril de 1996

“O naufrágio do São Pantaleão”, Notícias do Mar, Maio de 1996

“Uma caçada real”, A União, 04 de Maio de 1996

“E se falássemos de património?”, A União, 11 de Maio de 1996

“A prospecção electrónica em Arqueologia”, A União, 18 de Maio de 1996

“Uma ilha à venda?”, A União, 25 de Maio de 1996

“O naufrágio do navio espanhol Poderoso”, A União, 01 de Junho de 1996

“A conservação do património submerso”, A União, 08 de Junho de 1996

“Portos e ancoradouros da ilha Terceira”, A União, 15 de Junho de 1996

“O naufrágio da nau Chagas”, A União, 22 de Junho de 1996

“Os naufrágios da Baía de Angra”, A União, 29 de Junho de 1996

“O pioneirismo de Baptista de Lima”, A União, 06 de Julho de 1996

“A artilharia em Arqueologia”, A União, 20 de Julho de 1996

“O naufrágio do Padre António Vieira”, A União, 24 de Agosto de 1996

“Os naufrágios do ouro do Brasil””, A União, 31 de Agosto de 1996

“A prospecção nas baías de Angra”, A União, 7 de Setembro de 1996

“Os navios do descobrimento dos Açores”, A União, 14 de Setembro de 1996

“O turismo e o património subaquático”, A União, 21 de Setembro de 1996

“Dois naufrágios da Restauração”, A União, 28 de Setembro de 1996

“Jewels in the midst of lava coral”, Revista de bordo SATA-Air Açores, Inverno 1996

“Naufrágios na Baía de Angra”, Mundo Submerso Magazine, nº 4, Outubro de 1996

“A Lex Rhodia”, A União, 12 de Outubro de 1996

“À Flor do Mar”, A União, 19 de Outubro de 1996

“A New Era”, A União, 26 de Outubro de 1996

“O potencial arqueológico da baía de Angra”, Notícias do Mar, Outubro de 1996

“A prospecção em Arqueologia Subaquática”, Notícias do Mar, Novembro de 1996

“Baía de Angra - reserva arqueológica?”, A União, 2 e 9 de Novembro de 1996

“Naufrágios de São Jorge”, A União, 16 de Novembro de 1996

“Naufrágios do Pico e da Graciosa”, A União, 30 de Novembro de 1996

“As ilhas dos tesouros”, Notícias do Mar, Dezembro de 1996

“Naufrágios do Faial”, A União, 7 de Dezembro de 1996

“Naufrágios de São Miguel”, A União, 21 de Dezembro de 1996

“O afundamento do l’Océan”, A União, 22 e 28 de Fevereiro de 1997

“O naufrágio do Run’Her e a Guerra Civil Americana”, A União, 8 de Março de 1997

“A conservação do património submerso”, Notícias do Mar, Março de 1997

“Métodos de datação de naufrágios”, A União, 22 de Março de 1997

“Angra e o seu porto”, A União, 29 de Março de 1997

“A pilhagem do Porto Santo”, A União, 19 de Abril de 1997

“A nova lei da arqueologia subaquática”, A União, 26 de Abril de 1997

“Marinas e arqueologia”, Diário Insular, 26 de Abril de 1997

“1591 - O Revenge”, A União, 3 de Maio de 1997

“1591 - As frotas espanholas”, A União, 10 de Maio de 1997

“1591 - A batalha naval”, A União, 17 de Maio de 1997

“1591 - A tempestade e os naufrágios”, A União, 24 de Maio de 1997

“O ‘cemitério’ das âncoras”, A União, 31 de Maio de 1997

“As naus da Carreira das Índias”, A União, 21 de Junho de 1997

“O afundamento do U-581”, A União, 28 de Junho de 1997

“O naufrágio da fragata Astrea”, A União, 5 de Julho de 1997

“O naufrágio da barca Bidart”, A União, 12 de Julho de 1997

“O naufrágio do bergantim John”, A União, 26 de Julho de 1997

“O naufrágio da barca Brillant nas Flores”, A União, 9 de Agosto de 1997

“Estrelas e astrolábios”, A União, 20 de Setembro de 1997

“A UNESCO e os naufrágios profundos”, A União, 27 de Setembro de 1997

“O naufrágio da Nuestra Señora de las Angustias y San Jose”, A União, 4 de Outubro de 1997

“O naufrágio do Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes”, A União, 11 de Outubro de 1997

“Corsários argentinos nos Açores”, A União, 25 de Outubro de 1997

“Os destroços de ANGRA B”, A União, 15 de Novembro de 1997

“Dois naufrágios quatrocentistas em Angra”, A União, 22 de Novembro de 1997

“Moçambique a saque?”, A União, 24 de Janeiro de 1998

“Às bombas”, A União, 31 de Janeiro de 1998

“Expedição às Flores”, A União, 21 de Fevereiro de 1998

“Naufrágios brasileiros e turismo subaquático”, A União, 14 de Março de 1998

“ O naufrágio do galeão Sacramento (1668)”, A União, 21 de Março de 1998

“A construção naval portuguesa”, A União, de 3 e 11 de Abril de 1998

“Uma análise preliminar do naufrágio ANGRA D”, A União, 18 de Abril de 1998

“A conservação de madeiras encharcadas”, A União, 24 de Abril de 1998

Paulo, impressive work.

Alexandre and Aquanut, I think comparing resumes misses the point. Especially when a professional lures a hobbyist into comparing experience. Apples and oranges. It's like standing on either side of the Grand Canyon arguing that your view is better.

The point Filipe was making is that both thunters and archies have merit and can work together. Extremists mess it up for all involved.

Here's what Filipe also said:


Filipe Castro para SUB-ARCH
mostrar detalhes 24 fev (4 dias atrás)
(...) Perhaps I did not explain myself well.  I do not endorse the sale of any artifacts, and much less if it is intended to pay the excavation/destruction of an archaeological site.

What I said is that Odyssey is changing tack - probably partly because of the Mercedes gigantic blunder - and we must applaud their guts and encourage them to show their game. I will do that cheerfully, as I am pushing the UNESCO Convention Annex as the best practice rules to adopt.

Treasure hunters don't make their money from the sale of artifacts.  I don't believe that Odyssey will never manage to sell all the coins from the Republic, as I don't believe that they would manage to sell many coins from the Mercedes.  I think that there is actually space for some of these companies to maneuver away from the sale of artifacts.

My point is that we have spent too many years exchanging the same arguments BECAUSE treasure hunters would not show what they were doing.  There were rumors and stories and artifacts for sale whose provenience we could only guess - like the astrolabe in the Museo Naval de Madrid, for example.  That was all we had until now.

Now that Odyssey is making a move in our direction, I truly believe that we can pull our discussions a couple of notches up, and we encourage them to share what they know.  Anything to try to improve the standards.

We don't have to sell our souls in order to have a good constructive conversations with people we strongly disagree with.  )

You can relax.  I did not sell to the enemy.

Alexandre
A nice list, but I think you missed the point. Could you show us a report and the photos to go with it, or is that for archaeologists only? We could all learn something here if you would share with us.
Seahunter

Alexandre and Aquanut, I think comparing resumes misses the point. Especially when a professional lures a hobbyist into comparing experience. Apples and oranges. It's like standing on either side of the Grand Canyon arguing that your view is better.

The point Filipe was making is that both thunters and archies have merit and can work together. Extremists mess it up for all involved.

Darren, I wasn't interested  in, nor did I question Alexandres' resume' or integrity. I am already familiar with his background.
Aquanut

Veritas, I dont see the point.You tell that the Junta de Andalucía didnt give permision to Odyssey. The way you tell it it sound like Odyssey go in the middle of the night and tried to recover the Sussex. Far away from the truth. As soon as Odyssey noticed that the regional Gov. has something to do with the research and recovery of the Sussex, they get in touch and tried to get an agreement. You talk about the picture Pipe Sarmiento took but you say nothing of the fake picture of a coin in hand. Plus, working doesnt mean sailing. You can be working aboard Odyssey Explorer and not sailing on the Odyssey Explorer. It seems not big deal the "discovery" of Pipe Sarmiento. Anyway, I add the words of the Consejera of Culture from the Junta de Andalucía. I assume you understand spanish. You will read her statements and you can see that Odyssey and the Junta were talking and trying to get an agreement good for all of them. Something easy if they dont have on their backs the noisy group alarming people and media with their lies. And here you have the transcription of the words of the Consejera:

Pregunta: ininteligible.

Respuesta (Consejera): Vamos a ver. Os explico, aunque sea brevemente, porque es ...una odisea, nunca mejor dicho. Nosotros llevamos, yo creo, casi dos años trabajando de una manera seria y rigurosa en relacion con el cumplimiento de la Ley de Patrimonio que rige en la Comunidad y también, cómo no, con el cumplimiento de  la Ley de Patrimonio a nivel nacional. Por tanto, coordinados con la Dirección General de Bellas Artes del Ministerio, con Julián Martínez.  A lo largo de ese tiempo, y a fuerza de trabajo, de explicación y de diálogo, hemos conseguido que, tanto la empresa americana como el Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores inglés, comprendan que además de la legislación estatal existe una legislación autonómica. Yo sé que el Estado de las Autonomías no es conocido en otros países pero aquí tenemos esa doble legislación. Por lo tanto, lo que hemos obtenido ha sido el respeto a la legalidad y el respeto a la institución Junta de Andalucía-Consejería de Cultura...Eso nos ha llevado un tiempo, pero hemos conseguido que, finalmente, es una reunión,..una de las reuniones,.. la última..., que se celebró el viernes (25 may 07), tanto la empresa como el Ministerio inglés nos expresasen su voluntad de cumplimentar todo el procedimiento necesario para llevar a cabo ..de lo que estamos hablando... que es una primera inmersión para que puedan documentarnos que efectivamente se trata del Sussex. Porque hasta ese momento no podremos autorizar ninguna otra actuación. Por lo tanto esta primera actuación está dirigida solo a la identificación del Sussex. A partir de ese momento estaremos hablando de otra cuestión, pero ahora mismo es identificarlo. Para que esa identificación se lleve a cabo tiene que haber un mínimo proyecto, por llamarlo de alguna manera, o por lo menos una metodología de trabajo que nosotros autoricemos y esa es la que estos momentos se está realizando por parte de la empresa para que sea finalmente la que rija esos trabajos. En todo momento esos trabajos, además, se van a hacer acompañados por un arqueólogo de la Junta de Andalucía, con lo cual eso nos va a garantizar que efectivamente lo que se lleve a cabo sea ese programa, esa metodología, ese proceso que previamente habremos autorizado. Esa es la situación del Sussex.

PREGUNTA: ininteligible (algo sobre la autorización por parte del Mº de AA EE)

RESPUESTA: Ha sido un proceso largo y seguramente seguirá siendo un proceso largo y complejo porque es la primera vez que está ocurriendo y, por tanto, de alguna manera, estamos sentando precedente. Una de las dificultades que había añadida era precisamente determinar la titularidad de las aguas. Si eran aguas internacionales, si eran aguas nacionales, si eran intercontinentales,  si eran... o sea, determinar... determinando qué tipo de aguas eran se determinaba qué institución era la que tenía la competencia para autorizar el proceso, ¿de acuerdo?..

PREGUNTA: ¿Y las aguas son?

RESPUESTA: De las que afectan a nuestra legislación. ¿De acuerdo?

Trinidad... That's right, there was an agreement with the Junta. It was the Minister of Culture Calvo that said Culture never signed the agreement. She was fired not to long after that.

Veritas, I dont see the point.You tell that the Junta de Andalucía didnt give permision to Odyssey. The way you tell it it sound like Odyssey go in the middle of the night and tried to recover the Sussex. Far away from the truth. As soon as Odyssey noticed that the regional Gov. has something to do with the research and recovery of the Sussex, they get in touch and tried to get an agreement. You talk about the picture Pipe Sarmiento took but you say nothing of the fake picture of a coin in hand. Plus, working doesnt mean sailing. You can be working aboard Odyssey Explorer and not sailing on the Odyssey Explorer. It seems not big deal the "discovery" of Pipe Sarmiento. Anyway, I add the words of the Consejera of Culture from the Junta de Andalucía. I assume you understand spanish. You will read her statements and you can see that Odyssey and the Junta were talking and trying to get an agreement good for all of them. Something easy if they dont have on their backs the noisy group alarming people and media with their lies. And here you have the transcription of the words of the Consejera:

Pregunta: ininteligible.

Respuesta (Consejera): Vamos a ver. Os explico, aunque sea brevemente, porque es ...una odisea, nunca mejor dicho. Nosotros llevamos, yo creo, casi dos años trabajando de una manera seria y rigurosa en relacion con el cumplimiento de la Ley de Patrimonio que rige en la Comunidad y también, cómo no, con el cumplimiento de  la Ley de Patrimonio a nivel nacional. Por tanto, coordinados con la Dirección General de Bellas Artes del Ministerio, con Julián Martínez.  A lo largo de ese tiempo, y a fuerza de trabajo, de explicación y de diálogo, hemos conseguido que, tanto la empresa americana como el Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores inglés, comprendan que además de la legislación estatal existe una legislación autonómica. Yo sé que el Estado de las Autonomías no es conocido en otros países pero aquí tenemos esa doble legislación. Por lo tanto, lo que hemos obtenido ha sido el respeto a la legalidad y el respeto a la institución Junta de Andalucía-Consejería de Cultura...Eso nos ha llevado un tiempo, pero hemos conseguido que, finalmente, es una reunión,..una de las reuniones,.. la última..., que se celebró el viernes (25 may 07), tanto la empresa como el Ministerio inglés nos expresasen su voluntad de cumplimentar todo el procedimiento necesario para llevar a cabo ..de lo que estamos hablando... que es una primera inmersión para que puedan documentarnos que efectivamente se trata del Sussex. Porque hasta ese momento no podremos autorizar ninguna otra actuación. Por lo tanto esta primera actuación está dirigida solo a la identificación del Sussex. A partir de ese momento estaremos hablando de otra cuestión, pero ahora mismo es identificarlo. Para que esa identificación se lleve a cabo tiene que haber un mínimo proyecto, por llamarlo de alguna manera, o por lo menos una metodología de trabajo que nosotros autoricemos y esa es la que estos momentos se está realizando por parte de la empresa para que sea finalmente la que rija esos trabajos. En todo momento esos trabajos, además, se van a hacer acompañados por un arqueólogo de la Junta de Andalucía, con lo cual eso nos va a garantizar que efectivamente lo que se lleve a cabo sea ese programa, esa metodología, ese proceso que previamente habremos autorizado. Esa es la situación del Sussex.

PREGUNTA: ininteligible (algo sobre la autorización por parte del Mº de AA EE)

RESPUESTA: Ha sido un proceso largo y seguramente seguirá siendo un proceso largo y complejo porque es la primera vez que está ocurriendo y, por tanto, de alguna manera, estamos sentando precedente. Una de las dificultades que había añadida era precisamente determinar la titularidad de las aguas. Si eran aguas internacionales, si eran aguas nacionales, si eran intercontinentales,  si eran... o sea, determinar... determinando qué tipo de aguas eran se determinaba qué institución era la que tenía la competencia para autorizar el proceso, ¿de acuerdo?..

PREGUNTA: ¿Y las aguas son?

RESPUESTA: De las que afectan a nuestra legislación. ¿De acuerdo?

Trinidad, source or link please.

Darren, I wasn't interested  in, nor did I question Alexandres' resume' or integrity. I am already familiar with his background.
Aquanut

I didn't think you had. I actually felt he questioned you as a hobbyist from his professional experience. Sorry, I wasn't trying to offend. I was simply hoping to point out the ongoing extremes that block out wonderful collaboration among both viewpoints. I applaud Odyssey for their commitment to both.

Vox, when you ask for the source or the link, it's because you don't believe what you read? This was a public press conference of the Consejera in 2007. It was recorded by, at least, five different communication media (press, radio, Tv´s). Curiously, nothing of this was released or, at least, I don't remember it was. I personally heard the statements and fix exactly with the transcription. Any comment?

Vox, here you have a link:

http://www.diariosur.es/prensa/2007...-junta-afirma-acuerdo_20070329.html

How many wrecks have the archaeologists found? How many wrecks have the treasure hunters found?
Who has donated the most treasure and artifacts to the state and various museums? Who has enlightened the world to submerged history? I GUARANTY YOU it was NOT the archaeological community! The archaeologists have contributed greatly, but only after someone else has made the discovery. So get off your arrogant High Horse!
...Aquanut

Aquanut, here are the wrecks I have found so f

1) Angra A (late 19th century)
2) Angra B (mid-16th century)
3) Angra C (mid 17th century)
4) Angra D (late 16th century)
5) Nossa Senhora da Luz (1615)
6) HMS Pallas (1782)
7) l'Astrée (1796)
Lidador (1878)
9) Caroline (1901)

also, I have pinpointed the location of 4 other wrecks, which I intend to find in the near future: a Spanish galleon (1589), a VOC treasure ship (1626) and a french/spanish brig (1783).

Tell me: how many wrecks have you found so far? ;)

Alexandre, In what Countries waters is the 1589 Spanish Galleon you are looking for and what is the name of it??? Just curious.

So.....getting back on topic here....what is the latest in regards to Odyssey keeping the coinage?

Short version, please   

SWR, every court in the land is telling them to give it back, Including the US government 
Jeff would know when they have to comply with court.
Ossy

The case is on appeal to a higher court. The appelate court will award the coins to Odysssey.

The case is on appeal to a higher court. The appelate court will award the coins to Odysssey.

It's nice to dream, that's one thing in life that doesn't cost money
Ossy

If the appellate court disagrees with the lower court then it will go back to the lower court for trial. If they agree with the lower court then Odyssey will appeal to the Supreme Court. If a trial is held I'm sure the loser will appeal that decision. In other words, the coins aren't going anywhere for the next year or two unless Spain decides to settle.

If the appellate court disagrees with the lower court then it will go back to the lower court for trial. If they agree with the lower court then Odyssey will appeal to the Supreme Court. If a trial is held I'm sure the loser will appeal that decision. In other words, the coins aren't going anywhere for the next year or two unless Spain decides to settle.

Thanks for your reply.

It appears, as of now...Odyssey has lost. Due to the fact they (Odyssey) are appealing the ruling/judgment.

SWR, that's like calling the game at half time...
or declaring the election before the poles close (a Florida thing)...

I'm just saying...

If the appellate court disagrees with the lower court then it will go back to the lower court for trial. If they agree with the lower court then Odyssey will appeal to the Supreme Court. If a trial is held I'm sure the loser will appeal that decision. In other words, the coins aren't going anywhere for the next year or two unless Spain decides to settle.

Thanks for your reply.

It appears, as of now...Odyssey has lost. Due to the fact they (Odyssey) are appealing the ruling/judgment.

SWR, that's like calling the game at half time...
or declaring the election before the poles close (a Florida thing)...

I'm just saying...

Tom, Spain 2 Odyssey 0 and we have the referee on our side
Ossy

more like tied at half time, and Odyssey has the ball (in a warehouse in Tampa).

... in a state and country that appear to be hostile to treasure hunters. 

more like tied at half time, and Odyssey has the ball (in a warehouse in Tampa).

The problem is they stole the match ball and the officials will disqualify odyssey for tampering
Ossy

Alexandre, In what Countries waters is the 1589 Spanish Galleon you are looking for and what is the name of it??? Just curious.

It's in Portuguese waters. We have 1589 Spanish shipwrecks from the Corvo Island, in the Azores, all the way till the Cape São Vicente, in the mainland...

Alexandre
A nice list, but I think you missed the point. Could you show us a report and the photos to go with it, or is that for archaeologists only? We could all learn something here if you would share with us.
Seahunter

Seahunter

As I have posted above, I have some of those documents online (link also above).

Also, I have posted a lot of photographs here on TNET, look for example, for the Namibia Shipwreck Update thread.

I didn't think you had. I actually felt he questioned you as a hobbyist from his professional experience.

Aquanut is right. I was just answering to his comment that underwater archaeologists do not find wrecks, TH's do - as I have shown, I have 8 such discoveries under my belt... ;)

As for being a professional, I have to disagree. Besides a brief stint done as a paid employee of the Portuguese Ministry of Culture (1998-2000), all my archaeological activity (travels, dives, lectures, academic fees, etc.) have been paid from my own pocket - as a matter of fact, I work for a living for a private company who deals in something else rather diferent than archaeology or wrecks. ;)


I do, however, remain attached by academic and professional liasions with the government agency that oversees this area of our heritage.

Alexandre I am also curious, are the Spanish wrecks of 1589 from the same fleet of Alvaro Flores or Martin Perez de Olazaual?

Alexandre I am also curious, are the Spanish wrecks of 1589 from the same fleet of Alvaro Flores or Martin Perez de Olazaual?

This one is from the Álvaro Flores Quiñones fleet.

Spanish Press...

http://tinyurl.com/ylytgoy

Now's the time to buy some more shares in Odyssey since it is below $1.50 a share.  If they lose, I don't expect it to take a plummet.  If they win the case, expect the shares to jump to $6-9 a share for the first day or two after the win.  Regardless, they are working on bringing up a lot of silver from another wreck, so the stock prices should rise once that is released.  Now I need to find a way to divert some money without the wifey finding out!

No surprise on the bill. Goold is taking now the money for the Black Swan and for the Juno and Galga. Five millions and his ass is completely dry. That's a real treasurehunter and not the people listed in this forum. I would like to see the faces of the crowd that has been crying at Odyssey for being something close to pirates. They must be with their mouths open and their eyes wide open asking then selves what happened here.

No surprise on the bill. Goold is taking now the money for the Black Swan and for the Juno and Galga. Five millions and his ass is completely dry. That's a real treasurehunter and not the people listed in this forum. I would like to see the faces of the crowd that has been crying at Odyssey for being something close to pirates. They must be with their mouths open and their eyes wide open asking then selves what happened here.

Will the real PIRATE please stand up!

No surprise on the bill. Goold is taking now the money for the Black Swan and for the Juno and Galga. Five millions and his ass is completely dry. That's a real treasurehunter and not the people listed in this forum. I would like to see the faces of the crowd that has been crying at Odyssey for being something close to pirates. They must be with their mouths open and their eyes wide open asking then selves what happened here.

Trinidad, It is pay the five million or let Odyssey keep it, simple choice nobody works for free !
Do you think Odyssey would give you any coins or sell them to you for as much as they can get ( $1000 each ) or more.
As a Spanish tax payer it would cost you no more than 9 euro ( 45,000,000 population ) I'd pay $100 euro for Spain to have it returned.
Any sales from the coin's will be used to benefit the Spanish people and further protect their heritage.
Ossy

"Finally, the substitute custodian, Odyssey, is ordered to return the res to Spain within ten days under the
circumstances and in a manner subject to approval by the Magistrate Judge. However, the order to the substitute custodian to return the res is STAYED, the order vacating the arrest warrant is STAYED, and the status quo of the res shall persist until the earlier of
(1) the day after the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issues a mandate in this case or,
(2) if no party appeals, the expiration of the time to notice an appeal.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 22, 2009.
Judge Merryday"

As I said, the coins are going nowhere until the process is over.

Ossy:
          The central point of disagreement between the pro-UNESCO Convention supporters (Spain amongst others) and its detractors is precisely that the coins can not be sold, commercialized in any way, as this is the main pillar in this Convention that has produced the current chaos in the protection of underwater cultural patrimony. Eight years after it was approved in Paris, only 24 counties have ratified it and serious problems have arisen in the ones that have, 66 countries that voted in favor have not yet ratified it at this late point.
          No, Spain will have to pay the services of its attorneys with tax payers’ money, which is also the only source available to fund any exploration and recovery projects in its territorial waters or in the waters of the other co-adherents of this nefarious excuse of a protection policy. Good lawyers are very expensive and one would guess that Odyssey has also had to spend a handsome penny in its defense, which brings to mind this thought: in the future how many companies will follow this path…how many fortuitous finds in Spanish waters will never be known, disappearing in the night? If Spain were to win this lawsuit (the opera ain’t over…) the pertinent question is, has Spain and its cultural patrimony benefited from this judgment? I have serious doubts
.     

Vox, when you ask for the source or the link, it's because you don't believe what you read? This was a public press conference of the Consejera in 2007. It was recorded by, at least, five different communication media (press, radio, Tv´s). Curiously, nothing of this was released or, at least, I don't remember it was. I personally heard the statements and fix exactly with the transcription. Any comment?

Trinidad, I am anxious to get to a trial of the case "Operation Bahia 2" to hear all the garbage Sussex-Odyssey-Mercedes. The official documents speak for themselves. Cheers VV

Pánfilo, you got it. Those are the points. Anyway, I don't believe Spain will sell anything from La Mercedes or any other spanish historical shipwreck. And if does, we will never know about it. I think this is just a press information and all of us know how this goes about the Black Swan case on almost all the the spanish media. Vox Veritas, you didn't answer my question. Why did you ask for the source or the link after reading the Consejera statements?

[Vox Veritas, you didn't answer my question. Why did you ask for the source or the link after reading the Consejera statements?]

Pánfilo, you got it. Those are the points. Anyway, I don't believe Spain will sell anything from La Mercedes or any other spanish historical shipwreck. And if does, we will never know about it. I think this is just a press information and all of us know how this goes about the Black Swan case on almost all the the spanish media. Vox Veritas, you didn't answer my question. Why did you ask for the source or the link after reading the Consejera statements?

Because it's all explained in the official records of the case "Operation Bahia 2". You just have to read them.

Vox, I don't want to sound rude or something, but your answer and nothing it's the same. Tell me why you ask for the source of the statement, does it sounds strange to you? Does it corroborates your point of view? Is it the opposite of what you are soustaining since a long time? Not so difficult to be clear about a question that has to do with your public image and credibility.

Trinidad,

It is common on this board to ask for source statements. It has nothing to do with Vox Verita's credibility. It has more to do with accurate research, which I'm sure you can understand. No one wants to base their research on undocumented sources.

Yes Darren, I noticed that and it's more than OK to me. But I have to be a little pushy in this case because I really want to know what is the Vox´s opinion about an spanish politician public statement that doesn't fix with a predominant opinion stream here in Spain about the behaviour of Odyssey on the Sussex case. It's just that. And to this statement Vox answer with a question but not with an argument to refuse it or accept it, that was what I was looking for. Sorry, I knew it would sound rude. Excuse me all of you and, first, excuse me Vox.

Ossy:
          The central point of disagreement between the pro-UNESCO Convention supporters (Spain amongst others) and its detractors is precisely that the coins can not be sold, commercialized in any way, as this is the main pillar in this Convention that has produced the current chaos in the protection of underwater cultural patrimony. Eight years after it was approved in Paris, only 24 counties have ratified it and serious problems have arisen in the ones that have, 66 countries that voted in favor have not yet ratified it at this late point.
          No, Spain will have to pay the services of its attorneys with tax payers’ money, which is also the only source available to fund any exploration and recovery projects in its territorial waters or in the waters of the other co-adherents of this nefarious excuse of a protection policy. Good lawyers are very expensive and one would guess that Odyssey has also had to spend a handsome penny in its defense, which brings to mind this thought: in the future how many companies will follow this path…how many fortuitous finds in Spanish waters will never be known, disappearing in the night? If Spain were to win this lawsuit (the opera ain’t over…) the pertinent question is, has Spain and its cultural patrimony benefited from this judgment? I have serious doubts
.     

Hola Panfilo, By sale of some of the coins, I meant sale to other museum's. Spain unlike Odyssey doesn't sell it's cultural
Patrimony on eBay.
My point was It will cost every Spaniard 9 euro in Tax about the price of a packet of cigarettes, Well worth every cent to have the
goods return to Spain.
All the people that died on the Mercedes died trying to keep the goods from the English, need I say more !!!
Ossy

" The pertinent question is, has Spain and it's cultural patrimony benefited from this judgment? I have serious doubts" Panfilo.
I disagree Panfilo, sure nothing is perfect but it has given Spain a kick in the back side and has brought it to the attention of
the Spanish people.
If the judgment goes Odyssey way, how is this going to benefit Spain They would be there digging up the straights the
very next day. Greg would buy his new penthouse and Ferrari, Bigger recovery ship How will this help Spain?
unless he buys his penthouse in Spain ( one with bar's )
Ossy

The coins can not be sold Ossy to anybody, to museums nor to the Vatican nor to his Majesty himself, the Convention is very clear here, Cultural patrimony can not be commercialized, (see Rule 2 “Underwater cultural heritage shall not be traded, sold bought or bartered as commercial goods”) Mas claro no canta un gallo!

Sure the Black Swann case has brought the subject to the Spanish public attention but at what price and with which results? I am willing to make a friendly wager Ossy that Odyssey will win this case in the appellate Court or at best in the Supreme Court, then what will happen in Spain? There is a false sense of confidence in Spain that the press has made prevalent, and I might add that the general coverage of the news has been very biased and lacking in objectivity. The cardinal point that will be defined by the US courts  Ossy is if the Mercedes was a military ship on a military non-commercial mission at the time of its sinking. The evidence is overwhelming, alpaca wool, cascarilla wood, discarded cannons, women and children, 76% of the registered coins were privately owned, do you think Ossy that the Spanish ships on their way to Trafalgar a few months later had this kind of cargo? Not likely! The appellate judges will see the light and will rule in Odysseys favor, have no doubts on this and by all means don’t be surprised when it happens.

The coins were not returning to Spain Ossy, they were never there and never ever got there in the first place, they belonged to private merchants, doing business and if you believe in private property, these coins were never expropriated so Spain can hardly say it owned them or now owns them. With the exception of course of the ones owned by the crown, the 24% remaining, those they can and should claim.

Lastly Ossy, when you speak of Spain “benefitting” the true and bottom issue is exactly that, how should Spain benefit in preserving its very valuable submerged cultural patrimony? And the answer is certainly not doing what it is doing for many reasons: nobody who finds a valuable wreck in Spanish waters will in his right mind denounce it, sad case for the history involved. The Spanish press has made Odyssey and Greg Stemm look like pirates and villains unjustly, saying that the coins were taken from Spanish territorial waters and we now all know that it is not the case, a classical case of disinformation. Now if the Mercedes is ruled to be a military ship on a commercial mission (it certainly was!) and Odyssey is awarded a salvage fee, according to accepted international law and Spain ended up paying five million Euros to its lawyers…there will be heads rolling. Not a distant or unrealistic scenario my friend.

Paniflo... I might add that Spain never paid the merchants one penny in compensation, although they introduced evidence to the court as if they did. Odyssey will also be able to show that before the ships sailed from Peru, they (Navy?) advertised for merchants to ship their goods and specie. How anybody can claim this was a non-commercial voyage is beyond me.

Panfilo, Si muy Claro. The coins being sold to museums or not is not my issue, they can be shared with museums in Peru and Spain, my issue is Odyssey
selling them for their personal gain, how is that going to benefit Spain in any way or it's people or the people of Peru ?
I regards to it being a military mission, they were under orders from naval comand and on a Royal naval vessel under the control of naval officers !
and under the Spanish flag, they could have being transporting anything does not matter ( under royal naval command orders ) The English thought
as much or they would not have attacked, they thought the crown was going to use this silver to fund the french war effort against them.
As Spain instructed Odyssey leave the Mercedes alone ! I would prefer for the coins, as some have mentioned here to put them back where they
came from, in respect for all the people that died.
As you mentioned, they latter headed for Trafalgar with gun power, why ? cause of the deadly attack on the Mercedes. Spain never wanted another
war with the English.
The Mercedes has a very important meaning to me, and who cares about the coins, it's the people who died trying to stop the English from taking
them forcefully, it should be about their memory.
The US government and two judges have agreed it's a sovereign vessel ! so i am happy to have a bet Panfilo.
Panfilo, how is Odyssey selling the coins on Ebay going to benefit anybody apart from Odyssey
Ossy

First things first Ossy, we cleared the point that bothered me because I have never believed that the no commercialization clause of this Convention is applicable or pertinent in a poor country like ours and in 90% of the rest of the world (In Europe and the US perhaps, not sure the way the economy is going there now!)You inadvertedly thought “let’s sell some coins so we can recover the 5 million Euros we had to pay the lawyers to get those coins”, what I would believe to be a reasonable idea. Can’t be done so lets move ahead:

You’re missing the point regarding the sovereign immunity Ossy. If you read the Law of the Sea Convention you will see that it states that for a ship to be categorized as such it must be in an “exclusively military non commercial mission” and if you read the dreadful UNESCO Convention it states the same concept. You are either in a military or in a commercial mission, not both and it doesn’t matter if the ship is the Royal Spanish Navy flagship if it was sent to buy some slaves and it sinks on its way back, it is not a sovereign vessel, its that simple. It has been calculated that over 80% of all commerce between Spain and its then colonies was performed aboard state vessels. Here is the delicate issue Ossy, if what you and Spain are saying is true (and judge Pizzo) then all the wrecks in American waters belong to Spain…not a very easy idea to swallow for many of us whose families died in the emancipation process and wars. This is a very touchy subject here in “Indias” Ossy and it really doesn’t seam very fair because we can surely differentiate between a military mission from a commercial mission even if the ship was a military one flying the Spanish flag.

The “respect for the people that died” is another smoke screen used very cleverly by Spain’s lawyers because we all know the Mercedes exploded and broke into millions of pieces. Odyssey perhaps found only a part that drifted away, its too far from the coast (read Claudios comments and his finds near the coast). The fact that the descendants are claiming the family artifacts and the coins does not mean they are disrespectful for their ancestors. I’m sure it has a deeper meaning to all the descendants who believe that the family objects still belong to them. Some Alvear family claimants believe that a silver tea set that was seen in a video might belong to dona Maria Josefa Balbastro, the wife of don Diego who died with her seven children aboard the Mercedes. If they don’t have a right to claim this, who does Ossy? Nobody wants to disrespect the memory of those who died aboard the Mercedes, much less the descendants who are claiming their ancestor’s property. If you father dies in an automobile crash there is nothing wrong in retrieving his watch and wallet and personal effects. The scatter pattern of the Mercedes found is so large that it is very improbable to find any human remains, none were seen in the videos and we all know that 200 years under the sea will destroy the bones and remains that managed to survive the explosion. Supposing the remains are there, can’t you recover the artifacts and leave the remains still at the sea bottom?

You’re right in that the lower court has given Spain a favorable judgment Ossy, chapeau for you but this is only the beginning of this legal battle, two more mayor appeals are forthcoming and we shall see…”the opera ain’t over ‘till the fat lady sings”

Panfilo, that was a very well stated argument.

...how is that going to benefit Spain in any way...

Recovering abandoned wrecks never is supposed to benefit the previous owner, but the salvor. The entire point of salvage law (that has been steadfast for centuries) was to put lost cargo back into circulation. The law was generous with salvors to motivate them to do so. Now after centuries of precedence, the law "must be" reinterpreted to benefit lawgivers rather than stay true to its original intent.

Are you all familiar with the "General Armstrong" story?

http://bobrowen.com/warof1812/


It was captained by a guy, Samuel Reid, that not only prevented the fall of Washington at British hands in 1814, but also later designed the Star and Stripes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chester_Reid

(The US Navy has had four "destroyers named in honor of Sailing Master Samuel Chester Reid, U.S. Navy (1783-1861), hero of the War of 1812 and designer of the United States flag in its present form. He received the thanks of the New York State Legislature for gallantry in command of the New York privateer brig GENERAL ARMSTRONG which inflicted such casualties and damage to a powerful British squadron at Fayal, Azores, that it delayed the arrival of the British invasion fleet off New Orleans sufficiently to aid General Andrew Jackson's defense preparations for victory.")

There's a lot of documentation regarding this wreck, namely 19th century photographs of the "Long Tom" gun being lifted from it's watery grave in order to be sent to the USA as a gift from the then Portuguese Government.

Now, I know where it is. The wreck. It's in Portuguese waters. And it's not a former, formal, US Navy vessel - it was just a corsair ship.

Now what would the US Navy and the majority of the Americans say if I went there and ripped it to pieces, just for the fun of it (or God permit, to sell some artifacts from the wreck)?

Alexandre,
What does that have to do with Treasure?
Aquanut

Nothing. We are talking about vessels that States consider to be flagships. That's all.

Personally, I think the reason the Governments big deal about Flagships etc. began when treasure hunters found gold and silver aboard. The ships that had none were ignored and the state had nothing to do with them. It is still the case. Spain doesn't care one bit about any wreck that doesn't contain treasure, period! This case has all been presented to the --deleted-- public that thinks it's a good idea to conserve historical culture. There is none when you are talking about thousands of coins scattered over the ocean bottom with no other tie to historical culture. Again I say, It's all about the money! Show me where it's not!
Aquanut

Well said, Darren.

And by the way, the legal owner of the ship/cargo also benefits by receiving a percentage of the lost cargo. It may not be a high percentage in some cases but it is higher than the zero they would receive if the wreck was not recovered. The owner often gets more by reaching an agreement with the salvor than he would have been awarded by a court. Look at the agreement that Odyssey reached with Britain on the Sussex, even though I personally doubt that Odyssey actually found that particular wreck.

I believe in the application of law, and of proper archaeological methods, but the law of salvage has existed for a long time, and I don't think its underlying principles should be undermined for political purposes, as has been the case with some of the recent cases, such as the Black Swan project.

Mariner

Aquanut,

Were the Juno and LaGalga supposed to be carrying treasure? I can't remember, though I suspect that it must have been the case for SeaHunt to have spent so much money trying to find them.

Mariner

Salvage is when you put back into the market goods that have economic value, only.

Archaeology is when those goods, having or having not any economical value, are considered the have archaeological value, as well - that is, they are valued for the information they contain, or are able to unlock, when considered with an archaeological perspective.

In land archaeology, when you do salvage, you are plundering and ransacking History - helas, when you do it underwater, people tend to consider that a romantic and adventurous activity.

Salvage is when you put back into the market goods that have economic value, only.

No argument there. By intent, salvage deals only with economic recovery.

Archaeology is when those goods, having or having not any economical value, are considered the have archaeological value

Again, no argument. That is one of the great lessons history lovers have taught salvors. It is also why many salvors are also history lovers, too.

...ransacking History - helas, when you do it underwater, people tend to consider that a romantic and adventurous activity.

Discovering treasure has been romantic and adventurous from the beginning of time. I doubt you'll change human nature.

No serious treasure hunting group would be permitted to salvage without a qualified archie present, so your argument about ransacking history is moot. If you really care about destruction, fight dredging.

I had a principal in high school who acted much like many extreme archies today. Instead of helping the cheerleading squad work through their problems, he banned cheerleading from all sports. Their absence sure didn't bring much cheer or morale to the games.

This is not an either-or proposition, but a both-and. As Mariner aptly posted, let's work together.

Alexandre, you have to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges, you can’t mix them all up and reach any kind of valid conclusion. You are asking what would the American public think if you destroyed an important historical wreck just for fun? They would, and I’m not American, I presume think you are crazy, there is no logic to your action. Is this example supposed to compare with what Odyssey did in Cabo de Santa Maria? I fail to see the logic here Alexandre. Let’s suppose for a second that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concludes and rules that the Mercedes was a state vessel on a commercial mission therefore not subject to Sovereign Immunity. The court would award Odyssey a percentage of the recovered coins IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT INTERNATIONAL LAW. Therefore Odyssey could not be branded as pirates and their behavior could not be criticized by the Spanish government more so since the coins never entered Spanish waters, were the property of private merchants and they are being claimed by the rightful descendants.

How about if a descendant of Samuel Chester Reid shows up in Portugal to claim his granddaddies’ compass and they tell him it’s a sovereign ship that belongs to Portugal? Apples with apples?

Panfilo we don't have to agree, but what Odyssey did was wrong ! Plain and simple ! The Spanish government made it quite
clear that no Spanish shipwreck was to be touched.
In the court report Judge Pizzo makes note that Odyssey had the Mercedes in their sights from the beginning. For Odyssey to
play dumb after the fact shows there true character and intent.
They only took the coins from the site also planned, they didn't want any other artifacts as this would point to the Mercedes.
But they make out to be archeologist's
I do agree the descendants should get something, But I want Spain to be the controlling party not a US company that will only
think of their bottom line and nothing else.
Ossy

Very good point Panfilo and Darrens comment about returning artifacts back to the mainstream of commerce is the intent of the law. What More And Beyond is arguing about is pure fantasy. I invited my hero, Filipe Castro to join our discussion and give his opinion but he said he is too busy with teaching and publication. We shall see.

Mariner,
Spain  laid claim to the salvage of the Juno and La Galga. Spain was only interested in those ships that supposedly had treasure aboard. Seahunt was a treasure salvor. Deductive reasoning here... Also, I would hope that the researchers we have here aboard Tnet could shed some light from the archives of Seville or elsewhere on the ships manifests. I too seem to remember that theses ships were carrying treasure, but I can't say for certain.
Aquanut

Here you go Salvor6 all the way from fairy land. http://www.abc.es/gestordocumental/...s/cultura/ody_report_and_recomm.pdf
 Ossy

Here YOU go Ossy: here is a whole fleet of Spanish Royal Naval ships under orders of the King of Spain that sank in Florida waters. They are now being excavated by the University of West Florida. Problem is that theres no treasure on board. Therefore Spain is not interested: http://www.flheritage.com/archaeolo...y/projects/shipwrecks/emanuelpoint/.
   Let me ask you something Ossy, why doesn't Spain claim any of the 1715 fleet wrecks currently being salvaged by treasure hunters? How about the Atocha? Why does Spain allow treasure hunters to salvage Spanish warships in Equador? They (Equador) even signed the UNESCO Convention to preserve UCH.

Mariner, Dave Horner states in reference to the Galga: “This frigate carried a substantial cargo of miscellaneous Mexican commodities destined for European markets as well as more than $1,000,000 of treasure from King Ferdinand VI”. With respect to the Juno he is very vague: “…bound for Cadiz and loaded to the gunwales with caudales de Indias” One can certainly agree that there was an important shipment of silver in both of these frigates. Hope it is of help.

Mariner the wreck that Sea Hunt found was not the La Galga but a coastal trader carrying coins from that era. The La Galga was found by John Amrhein buried under a sand dune: http://www.thehiddengalleon.com/.
   Check out that link and click on "wreck location" for an aerial view of where the La Galga lies today.

Salvor 6,

Yes I understand that one of the wrecks that SeaHunt claim to have found found and that was the subject of Spain's intervention in the courts might not have been LaGalga, but I don't think that either SeaHunt or Spain knew that at the time. SeaHunt claimed that they had spent $1.5 million dollars looking for the two wrecks, and Spain intervened in the Appeals Court case, at the behest of the US Government. I assume that SeaHunt must have thought that the two ships were carrying valuable cargoes to have spent that amount of money, but the nature and value of the cargo was not brought up in the Appeals Court case in 2000.

Spain's intervention (again at the behest of the US Government, who had earlier tried to intervene itself but was ruled to have no standing in the matter) was intended to establish the principle that under the 1902 Treaty of Friendship between the US and Spain, Spanish shipwrecks in US waters, and vice versa, were not "abandoned" except by specific action or declaration, and as such were not covered by the 1987 Abandoned Ships Act. Therefore title of Spanish wrecks did not devolve to the coastal states (Virginia, in this particular case) but remained the property of the original owner or its successors, be that the State or a private individual. The Court agreed with this principle, and found in favour of Spain. It doesn't actually matter whether whether the wrecks that were found by SeaHunt actually were the Juno and LaGalga, it was the principle that the US and Spanish Governments were trying to establish, and they succeeded in doing so.

SeaHunt were ordered to hand over to Spain all the artifacts they had recovered during their search, but I don't think that these included any "treasure", as such.

My point is that this intervention by Spain was not motivated by the hope that they would get a financial gain. Its intervention was just a part of a plan by the United States Government, mostly National Parks and the Department of State, to prevent Spanish shipwrecks in US waters from being salvaged. No permits for new finds have been issued since, as far as I can tell, and will not be issued in the future for wrecks in US waters that were owned by the Kingdom of Spain, whether they were Sovereign Vessels or on commercial missions.

Personally, I don't think that Spain's intervention in the Black Swan case was was motivated by financial gain, either. They just want to stop others from salvaging the wrecks of ships that were owned by the Kingdom of Spain when they sank. However that does not align with the LOS definition of Sovereign Vessel, which has been well established over the years, and should continue to be the touchstone.

Of course, the 1902 Treaty also covers privately owned Spanish ship wrecks in US waters, and though these are protected from unwelcome Salvage claims, their owners can choose to have them recovered, and are entitled to do so. Anybody finding a wreck that belonged to Hernan Cortes or his descendants should contact me, as I am the sole agent for the present heir to Cortes in such matters. Needless to say, any recovery would have to be carried out using the highest standards of underwater archaeological techniques and practices, but I see nothing wrong with the commercial disposal of artifacts, including their sale to suitable museums and other such repositories where the public can have access to them.

Mariner

 

Salvor 6,

Yes I understand that one of the wrecks that SeaHunt claim to have found found and that was the subject of Spain's intervention in the courts might not have been LaGalga, but I don't think that either SeaHunt or Spain knew that at the time. SeaHunt claimed that they had spent $1.5 million dollars looking for the two wrecks, and Spain intervened in the Appeals Court case, at the behest of the US Government. I assume that SeaHunt must have thought that the two ships were carrying valuable cargoes to have spent that amount of money, but the nature and value of the cargo was not brought up in the Appeals Court case in 2000.

Spain's intervention (again at the behest of the US Government, who had earlier tried to intervene itself but was ruled to have no standing in the matter) was intended to establish the principle that under the 1902 Treaty of Friendship between the US and Spain, Spanish shipwrecks in US waters, and vice versa, were not "abandoned" except by specific action or declaration, and as such were not covered by the 1987 Abandoned Ships Act. Therefore title of Spanish wrecks did not devolve to the coastal states (Virginia, in this particular case) but remained the property of the original owner or its successors, be that the State or a private individual. The Court agreed with this principle, and found in favour of Spain. It doesn't actually matter whether whether the wrecks that were found by SeaHunt actually were the Juno and LaGalga, it was the principle that the US and Spanish Governments were trying to establish, and they succeeded in doing so.

SeaHunt were ordered to hand over to Spain all the artifacts they had recovered during their search, but I don't think that these included any "treasure", as such.

My point is that this intervention by Spain was not motivated by the hope that they would get a financial gain. Its intervention was just a part of a plan by the United States Government, mostly National Parks and the Department of State, to prevent Spanish shipwrecks in US waters from being salvaged. No permits for new finds have been issued since, as far as I can tell, and will not be issued in the future for wrecks in US waters that were owned by the Kingdom of Spain, whether they were Sovereign Vessels or on commercial missions.

Personally, I don't think that Spain's intervention in the Black Swan case was was motivated by financial gain, either. They just want to stop others from salvaging the wrecks of ships that were owned by the Kingdom of Spain when they sank. However that does not align with the LOS definition of Sovereign Vessel, which has been well established over the years, and should continue to be the touchstone.

Of course, the 1902 Treaty also covers privately owned Spanish ship wrecks in US waters, and though these are protected from unwelcome Salvage claims, their owners can choose to have them recovered, and are entitled to do so. Anybody finding a wreck that belonged to Hernan Cortes or his descendants should contact me, as I am the sole agent for the present heir to Cortes in such matters. Needless to say, any recovery would have to be carried out using the highest standards of underwater archaeological techniques and practices, but I see nothing wrong with the commercial disposal of artifacts, including their sale to suitable museums and other such repositories where the public can have access to them.

Mariner

 

Gentlemen,
this writer became active and produced the allegations made by Sea Hunt to the Ministry of Culture of Spain to get the finder's right established by Spanish law, which is 50% of the value of what was found or contained in the find. In parallel, Sea Hunt signed an agreement with the ministry. This occurred on 21 June 2003. I think I'm pretty qualified to say in this matter. Sea Hunt never officially said to have found the JUNO / GALGA. I repeat, the finder's right were recognized (and the award of 50%) and the agreement signed.
I insist, Sea Hunt never officially said to have found these two wrecks. Another thing was what the press said, but this is a tactic employed by several companies.

Vox,

I genuinely have the greatest respect for you and your work, but I suggest you read the transcript of the US Court of Appeals hearing in May 2000. Although I think the hearing was entitled an SeaHunt-vs-Unidentified Wrecks, it was clear that SeaHunt thought that the wrecks they had found, and obtained permits from the Commonwealth of Virginia to recover, were those of the Juno and LaGalga. I have not looked at the transcripts for some time, but will dig them out of my files in the next few days and check them.

Of course, I believe you that there were discussions some three years later between a re-constituted SeaHunt and Spain, and that an agreement to allow SeaHunt to recover the vessels was made, and subsequently thwarted by the US National Parks service, but I never really understood why Spain did this. Perhaps, having established the principles about Spanish shipwrecks in US waters, they wanted to give SeaHunt the chance to recover the $1.5 million that they had spent on their their original search, for which the Appeals Court offered them no compensation.

Mariner
Mariner

Vox,

I genuinely have the greatest respect for you and your work, but I suggest you read the transcript of the US Court of Appeals hearing in May 2000. Although I think the hearing was entitled an SeaHunt-vs-Unidentified Wrecks, it was clear that SeaHunt thought that the wrecks they had found, and obtained permits from the Commonwealth of Virginia to recover, were those of the Juno and LaGalga. I have not looked at the transcripts for some time, but will dig them out of my files in the next few days and check them.

Of course, I believe you that there were discussions some three years later between a re-constituted SeaHunt and Spain, and that an agreement to allow SeaHunt to recover the vessels was made, and subsequently thwarted by the US National Parks service, but I never really understood why Spain did this. Perhaps, having established the principles about Spanish shipwrecks in US waters, they wanted to give SeaHunt the chance to recover the $1.5 million that they had spent on their their original search, for which the Appeals Court offered them no compensation.

Mariner
Mariner

Mariner,
I checked many documents from 1998 to 2000 and do not remember seeing one where SH claims to have found evidence of JUNO / GALGA. My impression is that there were certain "rush" to make it happen. In fact, everything came from Spain. But I may be wrong.

Just a couple things. I'm rereading the Fernandez Duro book "Naufragios de la Armada española" (Spanish navy shipwrecks) and curiously, although it is generally accepted that it is a very well documented work, there is not mention at all about the Reina Mercedes (Black Swan). It's strange that a so exhaustive list of spanish shipwrecks (in a limited space of time because Fernández Duro died in 1908) he didn't mention it, and more strange because he lived the most of his live on the same century when happened the Reina Mercedes disaster and it was a very famous armed conflict beetween Spain and England. Could be possible that Fernandez Duro, navy official of the spanish army, didnt considerate the Reina Mercedes a flagship of Spain? Or is it an unbelievable lapse on such a meticulous writer?
Second thing. Vox, it´s strange that you use against Odyssey (in others forums) the argument that they never denied hardly and publicly the "price" of the coins from the Black Swan and a lot of public accusations, so Odyssey were saying that the "price" and the accusations were right, (because who keeps the silence accept what others says about him), and in the SeaHunt- Juno/Galga case you insist in the argument that SeaHunt never said they found the Juno and La Galga while everybody were saying they did.

Just a couple things. I'm rereading the Fernandez Duro book "Naufragios de la Armada española" (Spanish navy shipwrecks) and curiously, although it is generally accepted that it is a very well documented work, there is not mention at all about the Reina Mercedes (Black Swan). It's strange that a so exhaustive list of spanish shipwrecks (in a limited space of time because Fernández Duro died in 1908) he didn't mention it, and more strange because he lived the most of his live on the same century when happened the Reina Mercedes disaster and it was a very famous armed conflict beetween Spain and England. Could be possible that Fernandez Duro, navy official of the spanish army, didnt considerate the Reina Mercedes a flagship of Spain? Or is it an unbelievable lapse on such a meticulous writer?
Second thing. Vox, it´s strange that you use against Odyssey (in others forums) the argument that they never denied hardly and publicly the "price" of the coins from the Black Swan and a lot of public accusations, so Odyssey were saying that the "price" and the accusations were right, (because who keeps the silence accept what others says about him), and in the SeaHunt- Juno/Galga case you insist in the argument that SeaHunt never said they found the Juno and La Galga while everybody were saying they did.

Trinidad, I hate to accuse anyone. I just notice some undeniable facts that can prove with official documents. Sea Hunt in official documents that I have seen and verfic never mentioned Juno / Galga. It is for this reason that the legal department of the Ministry of Culture of Spain was recognized by the award of 50%, otherwise it would not have done.

Ok. I do have to believe you hate to accuse if you say so. Me too. And I take my hat off before you because you have the wonderful ability of answering what you want and not what you´ve been asked for. And talking about other thing: how comes that Spain mentions all the time the "precedent" of the Juno and La Galga to avoid the payment of a "salvor right" to Odyssey (Ministry of Culture soustain publicly that never paid to SeaHunter) and there is a document where it´s recognised the 50% award? Did SeaHunter get the money or something directly from a spanish ministry or from a Spain-USA Foundation? Or there was a debt recognition but it was never paid? Just curious.

Here YOU go Ossy: here is a whole fleet of Spanish Royal Naval ships under orders of the King of Spain that sank in Florida waters. They are now being excavated by the University of West Florida. Problem is that theres no treasure on board. Therefore Spain is not interested: http://www.flheritage.com/archaeolo...y/projects/shipwrecks/emanuelpoint/.
   Let me ask you something Ossy, why doesn't Spain claim any of the 1715 fleet wrecks currently being salvaged by treasure hunters? How about the Atocha? Why does Spain allow treasure hunters to salvage Spanish warships in Equador? They (Equador) even signed the UNESCO Convention to preserve UCH.

Good point Salvor6 , I don't know why ? maybe some like Alexandre can answer that question.
If your asking me if I had a say would I claim for Spain, you bet ! But i would do it fairly and made sure that the country of
origin would have a say. As I have said before a 50/50 split would be fair.
The gold Emerald cross's that came off the Atocha belong in a museum not in some ones private collection.
The point of the Mercedes and I know Odyssey want to do a deal, their smash and grab tactics didn't go down to well.
Ossy

Vox,

I have dug up the published judgement of the US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, in the case Sea Hunt vs Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, Cases no. 99-2035/36. SeaHunt were being represented at the hearing by David Jeremy Bederman of Atlanta, Georgia.

Despite the title of the case, here are verbatim extracts from the judgement:

Item (13) This in rem admiralty action concerns the sovereign rights of the Kingdom of Spain to two of its Royal Naval vessels, LA GALGA and JUNO, which were lost off the shores of present-day Virginia in 1750 and 1802 respectively. Pursuant to the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (ASA), Virginia has asserted ownership over the shipwrecks and has issued Sea Hunt permits to conduct salvage operations and recover artifacts from the wrecks. These efforts resulted in the discovery of two wrecks believed to be LA GALGA and JUNO. Sea Hunt filed an in rem admiralty complaint, and the district court ordered an arrest of the shipwrecks, appointing Sea Hunt the exclusive salvor. The district court found that Spain retained title to JUNO, but had expressly abandoned LA GALGA in the 1763 DefinitiveTreaty of Peace. See Sea Hunt, Inc. v. Unidentified Vessel or Vessels, 47 F. Supp. 2d 678 (E.D. Va. 1999) The district court also denied Sea Hunt a salvage award.

Item (14) As sovereign vessels of Spain, LA GALGA and JUNO are covered by the 1902 Treaty of Friendship and General Relations between the United States and Spain. The reciprocal immunities established by this treaty are essential to protecting United States shipwrecks and military gravesites. Under the terms of this treaty, Spanish vessels, like those belonging to the United States, may only be abandoned by express acts. Sea Hunt cannot show by clear and convincing evidence that the Kingdome of Spain has expressly abandoned these ships in either the 1763 Treaty or the 1819 Treaty of Amity, Settlement and Limits, which ended the war of 1812. we therefore reverse the judgement of the district court with regard to LA GALGA, and affirm the judgement of the district court concerning JUNO and the denial of a salvage award.
Item (18) The Commonwealth of Virginia ............... Sea Hunt has spent about a million dollars in conducting remote sensing, survey, diving and identification operations. Sea Hunt claims that its efforts have resulted in finding the remains of LA GALGA and JUNO.

Item (23) In order for Virginia to acquire title ............ Sea Hunt and the Commonwealth argue that the the ASA requires application of an implied abandonment standard for shipwrecks in coastal waters, and that Spain has abandoned LA GALGA and JUNO ..........

Item (49) Third, Article XX provides ..... ....... The district court found that this included the wreck of the LA GALGA. See Sea Hunt, 47 F Supp. 2d at 689. It is anything but clear, however .............................

Item (47) ........................ Sea Hunt and the Commonwealth urge that "on the continent" included coastal waters, and that consequently the 1763 Treaty constitutes an express abandonment of LA GALGA. ......................

Item (64) We affirm the district court's denial of a salvage award to Sea Hunt. ............................. Sea Hunt knew before bringing this action that the JUNO was a Spanish ship and that Spain might make a claim of ownership and deny salvage. ....................  Because Sea Hunt had prior knowledge had prior knowledge of Spain's ownership interests and had reason to expect Spain's ownership claim and refusal to agree salvage activity on JUNO, Sea Hunt can not be entitled to a salvage award."


It's absolutely clear from the above that Sea Hunt had identified the two wrecks as Juno and La Galga, or believed this to be the case.  This is a summary of the judgement. If you go into the actual transcript, I am sure you will find even more specific evidence to that effect, as you will if you look at the original district court case where Sea Hunt applied for the arrest of the two wrecks. At no time in this Appeal Court Hearing did Sea Hunt and their lawyers try to get round Spain's intervention by trying to say that the two wrecks were not the Juno and La Galga.

Mariner

Vox,

I have dug up the published judgement of the US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, in the case Sea Hunt vs Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, Cases no. 99-2035/36. SeaHunt were being represented at the hearing by David Jeremy Bederman of Atlanta, Georgia.

Despite the title of the case, here are verbatim extracts from the judgement:

Item (13) This in rem admiralty action concerns the sovereign rights of the Kingdom of Spain to two of its Royal Naval vessels, LA GALGA and JUNO, which were lost off the shores of present-day Virginia in 1750 and 1802 respectively. Pursuant to the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (ASA), Virginia has asserted ownership over the shipwrecks and has issued Sea Hunt permits to conduct salvage operations and recover artifacts from the wrecks. These efforts resulted in the discovery of two wrecks believed to be LA GALGA and JUNO. Sea Hunt filed an in rem admiralty complaint, and the district court ordered an arrest of the shipwrecks, appointing Sea Hunt the exclusive salvor. The district court found that Spain retained title to JUNO, but had expressly abandoned LA GALGA in the 1763 DefinitiveTreaty of Peace. See Sea Hunt, Inc. v. Unidentified Vessel or Vessels, 47 F. Supp. 2d 678 (E.D. Va. 1999) The district court also denied Sea Hunt a salvage award.

Item (14) As sovereign vessels of Spain, LA GALGA and JUNO are covered by the 1902 Treaty of Friendship and General Relations between the United States and Spain. The reciprocal immunities established by this treaty are essential to protecting United States shipwrecks and military gravesites. Under the terms of this treaty, Spanish vessels, like those belonging to the United States, may only be abandoned by express acts. Sea Hunt cannot show by clear and convincing evidence that the Kingdome of Spain has expressly abandoned these ships in either the 1763 Treaty or the 1819 Treaty of Amity, Settlement and Limits, which ended the war of 1812. we therefore reverse the judgement of the district court with regard to LA GALGA, and affirm the judgement of the district court concerning JUNO and the denial of a salvage award.
Item (18) The Commonwealth of Virginia ............... Sea Hunt has spent about a million dollars in conducting remote sensing, survey, diving and identification operations. Sea Hunt claims that its efforts have resulted in finding the remains of LA GALGA and JUNO.

Item (23) In order for Virginia to acquire title ............ Sea Hunt and the Commonwealth argue that the the ASA requires application of an implied abandonment standard for shipwrecks in coastal waters, and that Spain has abandoned LA GALGA and JUNO ..........

Item (49) Third, Article XX provides ..... ....... The district court found that this included the wreck of the LA GALGA. See Sea Hunt, 47 F Supp. 2d at 689. It is anything but clear, however .............................

Item (47) ........................ Sea Hunt and the Commonwealth urge that "on the continent" included coastal waters, and that consequently the 1763 Treaty constitutes an express abandonment of LA GALGA. ......................

Item (64) We affirm the district court's denial of a salvage award to Sea Hunt. ............................. Sea Hunt knew before bringing this action that the JUNO was a Spanish ship and that Spain might make a claim of ownership and deny salvage. ....................  Because Sea Hunt had prior knowledge had prior knowledge of Spain's ownership interests and had reason to expect Spain's ownership claim and refusal to agree salvage activity on JUNO, Sea Hunt can not be entitled to a salvage award."


It's absolutely clear from the above that Sea Hunt had identified the two wrecks as Juno and La Galga, or believed this to be the case.  This is a summary of the judgement. If you go into the actual transcript, I am sure you will find even more specific evidence to that effect, as you will if you look at the original district court case where Sea Hunt applied for the arrest of the two wrecks. At no time in this Appeal Court Hearing did Sea Hunt and their lawyers try to get round Spain's intervention by trying to say that the two wrecks were not the Juno and La Galga.

Mariner

Mariner, I do not have all documents on the matter because it took the police house searches in which someone will have to explain in due course. Then they had much interest in this matter and some of the allegations that 2006 no longer exist, including those related to the same subject and Sea Hunt agreement with the Ministry of Culture. As I said, among the themes covered, was the Mercedes, because I was managing with Portugal and Spain to work in this wreck, among other things, to fill the museums (as is evidenced by phone calls recorded by police). But apparently Odyssey passed us. Follow the accumulation of coincidences related to everything that is Sea Hunt, Juno / Galga, Mercedes, Odyssey. But I do not believe in coincidences. Only fools believe in them.