ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The Archaeology of the Spanish Protectorate of Morocco:a Short History

Margarita Díaz-Andreu

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract This article analyses the archaeology in the Spanish Protectorate of Moroccothroughout its history. After a historical background of the nature and development ofSpanish colonialism in North Africa, information about the archaeology in the firstyears of the Spanish Protectorate in North Morocco is given, both before and after theCivil War. The academic and political manoeuvres that brought a bright youngarchaeologist to Tétouan, Miguel Tarradell Mateu (or Miquel Tarradell i Mateu, inCatalan), is then discussed. Tarradell’s main successes for the understanding of thehistorical development of the area up to the end of the Roman period will be contrastedwith the way Tarradell felt about living in Africa. The article concludes with adiscussion of events after decolonisation and of the nature of Spanish colonialism inNorth Morocco and of Spanish academia. The aim of this article, therefore, is not todetail the scientific discussions taking place about interpretation of the past, but thesocial, political and economic contexts in which these took place.

Résumé Cet article analyse l’archéologie dans le Protectorat Espagnol du Maroc toutau long de son histoire. On commence avec l’histoire du développement de la coloni-sation espagnole en Afrique du Nord et de l’archéologie fait avant et après la GuerreCivil espagnol. Les manœuvres politiques et académiques qui ont amené un brillantjeune archéologue à Tétouan, Miguel Mateu Tarradell (ou Miquel Mateu i Tarradell, encatalan), seront ensuite exposés. Les propositions de Tarradell en ce qui concerne lacompréhension de l’évolution historique de la région jusqu’à la fin de la périoderomaine seront contrastés avec la manière dont Tarradell se sentait en vivant enAfrique. Quelques données sur les événements après la décolonisation serontproposées et l’article se terminera par une discussion sur la nature du colonialismeespagnol dans le nord du Maroc et de du milieu universitaire espagnol. Le but de cetarticle n’est donc pas détailler les discussions scientifiques qui ont lieu pourl’interprétation du passé, mais expliquer le contexte social, politique et économiquedans lequel elles ont eu lieu.

Afr Archaeol RevDOI 10.1007/s10437-014-9179-y

M. Díaz-Andreu (*)ICREA-Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spaine-mail: m.diaz-andreu@ub.edu

Keywords Historyofarchaeology.HistoryofAfricanarchaeology.SpanishProtectorateofMorocco . Colonialism . Institutionalisation

Introduction

In 1990, Peter Robertshaw edited A History of African Archaeology (1990). The 18contributions covered the whole of Africa, although the emphasis fell on those areas thathad been under either British or French colonial rule. There was little about areas thathad been under Portuguese, Spanish or German domination. This article endeavourspartly to cover this gap by providing an overview of how archaeological heritage wasmanaged and interpreted in one of the areas under Spanish control, the SpanishProtectorate of Morocco (1912–1956). It will do so by looking at each of the majorperiods of the protectorate’s history. In each of these periods, an analysis will be made ofthe social, political and economic contexts in which archaeological management andresearch took place, the extent to which archaeology in Spanish Morocco was related toevents in Spain, what institutions provided the support for archaeology and what weknow about the main archaeologists who lived and experienced archaeology in acountry, in most cases, far from where they had developed most of their careers.

Background: Spanish Colonialism in North Africa

North Africa was no stranger to colonialism when the European powers set their sightson it in the nineteenth century. In most of the area, there was, in effect, a substitution ofthe political dependence from the Ottoman to the French Empire. The Ottoman Empirehad invaded the area from Egypt to Argelia in the sixteenth century, leaving onlyMorocco as an independent country. In 1830, France occupied the coastal region ofAlgeria, and Tunisia became a French protectorate in 1881, with Morocco put underinternational control in the same year. Libya was invaded by Italy in 1911 (Cherif 1989;Ivanov 1989, p. 513). During the nineteenth century, Spain had other problems to dealwith and did only occasionally join the colonial enterprise. Most of Latin America hadbecome independent from 1811 to 1831 but Spain maintained many interests in thearea, which led the country to become involved in several wars in America. Spain stillgoverned the islands of Cuba and Puerto Rico, but these also became independent in1898. The loss of the colonial overseas territories was perceived as a failure of Spain asa nation (Balfour 1997). During the nineteenth century, the situation was not good inSpain herself, for internal politics were marked by political instability and Civil Wars—the three Carlist wars of 1832–1839, 1846–1849 and 1872–1876. This led to slowgrowth of the middle classes in most of Spain, and the insistence of some of theirmembers on the need to become part of the colonial race (notably Joaquín Costa, butalso others) was not heard (Cañete 2010a, Chap. 4; Pedraz 2000). Finally, at theAlgeciras Conference in 1906, France and Spain were allowed to establish protectionand legal control of Morocco, whilst Germany, Great Britain and Italy gained com-mercial and financial power. The inclusion of Spain as an imperial metropolis was notdue to its own merits, but to British diplomacy, for it was thought that the surveillanceof the Strait of Gibraltar was in danger if France became the only power to the south ofthe Mediterranean (Morales 1986, pp. 46–47).

Afr Archaeol Rev

The Treaty of Fez of May 20, 1912 converted Morocco into an area under theprotection of Europe. Morocco was divided into three influence zones: the internationalzone of Tangier, the French Protectorate in the south, and the Spanish Protectorate ofNorth Morocco, a narrow strip that served to guarantee sovereignty over the SpanishNorth African cities of Ceuta and Melilla and to prevent France from strangling Spaingeographically (Morales 1986, p. 43). The area of the Spanish Protectorate of Moroccoextended from Melilla to Larache (Fig. 1), and the small coastal area to the south, Ifni,and the area of Cabo Juny with the town of Tarfaya. The first years were dominated bythe conflict in the Rif mountains, where an independent movement led by MuhammadIbn ’Abd al-Karim al-Khattabi (known as Abd el-Krim or Abdelkrim in Spanish) tookplace (Balfour 2002; Madariaga 1999). After the pacification of the area in 1926, noother major conflict clouded Spanish dominance. From the start, Spanish colonialismwas more ideological than economic (Fernández Martínez 2001, p. 177), as thecolonised area was small, agriculturally poor and inhabited by small-scale groupsresistant to control; no great fortunes were made by Europeans living in the area. Thepolitical instability of the area, however, fostered the ambitions of army officers whosaw in the unrest an opportunity for quick promotion (Balfour 2002, see below).

During the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) the African Army (mostly composed oflocal Moroccans) joined General Francisco Franco in the rebellion against the legiti-mate government. Franco arrived in Morocco on the second day of the uprising to leadthe army, and from there, his troops advanced towards southern and western Spain(Madariaga 2002, Chaps. IV–VI). Despite initial promises of independence in ex-change for their help, Morocco had nothing of it. On the contrary, Francoist Spainused the colonial status of Morocco as a demonstration of its imperial prowess(Gozalbes 2012, pp. 68–69).

The problems that led to the end of the protectorate started in the French area. Unrestin Casablanca’s Arab working-class district in December 1952 led to the Communistparty being outlawed and to the exile of Sultan Mohammed V to Madagascar in 1953.Ensuing opposition to the French Protectorate from all sectors of Moroccan society ledthe French government to allow the return of the Sultan and the start of negotiations forindependence. After a limited home rule in February 1956, full independence was

Fig. 1 Map of the Spanish Protectorate of Morocco with indication of regions, towns and main archaeologicalsites

Afr Archaeol Rev

signed on March 2, 1956. The French Protectorate fully ended the following month,and a few days later, Spain followed suit.

Independence did not favour the northern area. The re-emergence of Berber claimsfor political independence in the early years of the new state of Morocco were firmlysuppressed in 1959 by then-prince Hassan (the future King Hassan II) in 1959.Throughout his kingdom (1961–1999), he maintained an economic boycott to the area,although in the mid-1980s he appropriated the General Consulate of Spain in Tétouanand transformed it into his official residency in the town (however, he never used it).The development of North Morocco suffered from this situation, and correspondingly,the financing of all cultural and scientific events, including those related to archaeology,were affected as well.

A Kingdom of Amateurs: Archaeology in the Spanish Protectorate of Moroccofrom 1912 Until the Spanish Civil War

The organisation of archaeology in the Spanish Protectorate of Morocco had somesymbolic institutional creations—at least in the realm of archaeology—but not much inthe way of proper scientific results. From the start, there were institutions dealing witharchaeology. As a protectorate and not a colony, institutions’ setup did not depend onsimilar ones in Spain. Thus, the creation in Spain of the Junta Superior de Excavacionesy Antigüedades (Higher Council for Excavations and Antiquities) in 1912 did notdirectly affect the Protectorate. Being outside its remit, archaeology in Morocco becamethe responsibility of a series of purposefully conceived, but in practice short-terminstitutions. On August 18, 1913, a Dahir (Royal Order) was passed for the protectionof monuments and artistic and historical objects in the area (Gozalbes 2012, p. 49). Thefirst fiasco was soon to come: An expert in Arabic culture, Antonio Ramos y Espinosade los Monteros, was asked to organise the area of culture, but seeming opposition to hisarrival by local (self-proclaimed) experts led to his decision to return to Spain (Gozalbes2008a, p. 77); this loss by the Protectorate had an effect on ensuing events.

On April 30, 1916, a Junta Superior de Historia y Geografía de Marruecos (HigherCouncil of History and Geography of Morocco) was established (Salas and Maier 2003,p. 190). This institution, which had first been mentioned in 1909, had as one of its aimsto organise the geographic and archaeological exploration and historical study of theProtectorate (Salas and Maier 2003, p. 191). In 1927, it became part of a so-called Juntade Investigaciones Científicas deMarruecos y Colonias (Council for Scientific Researchof Morocco and Spanish Colonies) (Salas and Maier 2003, p. 190n). Its location inMadrid, however, resulted in its complete lack of efficiency (Gozalbes 2008a, pp. 77–78; Parodi 2008, p. 105). By then, a specific council to deal with monuments had beencreated in Spain, the Junta Superior de Monumentos Históricos y Artisticos (JSMHA,Higher Council of Historical and Artistic Monuments) founded on April 22, 1919 (Salasand Maier 2003, p. 191), although it would take another year, until December 11, 1920,to be organised in Tétouan (Gozalbes 2008a, p. 78; Gozalbes 2012, pp. 54–55).

This maze of institutions were behind (or at least aware) of some excavations, butthey did not provide much funding and produced little in terms of scientific or otherpublications. In contrast to French Morocco, where much work was carried out (Naji2011), in the Spanish area, archaeological exploration was undertaken by interested

Afr Archaeol Rev

amateurs such as the diplomat Ricardo Ruiz Orsatti (Valderrama 1956 in Gozalbes2008a, p. 78) and, especially, the artist (and retired traveller) César Luis Montalbán(Fig. 2). The social composition of those interested in antiquities was, in fact, similar tothat most likely still existing in other colonies (Malarkey 1984, but see, for Spain at thistime Díaz-Andreu 1997, p. 408, with an almost 40 % of professionals working in thearchaeology of mainland Spain). Being the colony small in size, there was no compe-tition for writing up results. This may partly explain why written production wasextremely scarce: there are only a few publications in this period, counting certainlyno more than 30 titles. In the same period, French archaeologists produced some 220publications on West African archaeology (Holl 1990, p. 298). The official lack ofinterest in archaeology is also shown by the absence of experts in antiquities in at leastsome of the scientific expeditions organised at this time (e.g., Bernaldo de Quirós et al.1914). The low quality and quantity of scientific production did not preclude theSpanish authorities from naming one of the main actors, Montalbán, Director ofExcavations from 1924 to 1936 (Gozalbes 2008a, p. 80). He would also be active inthe promotion of an archaeological museum in Tétouan, which would be realised at thestart of the Spanish Republic in 1931 (Gozalbes 2007, p. 80). However, the insistenceof later scholars that the museum had been created a decade later makes us doubt theexcellence of what was founded in the early 1930s.

Not much is known about the reasons that led Montalbán to archaeology, but it ismost likely that he was interested in forming a collection of antiquities as were manyartists of his time. In the early 1920s, his surveys resulted, among other things, in theidentification of the ruins of the Roman town of Tamuda and of the eighteenth-centuryruins of Sania Sultan, vizier Ahmad al-Riffi’s second home (Gozalbes 2005, p. 231,

Fig. 2 César Luis de Montalbán y Mazas (Gozalbez family archive)

Afr Archaeol Rev

2007, p. 80; see also Ghotes 2008). Montalbán never published anything on the site,although we know of his excavations because of Gómez-Moreno (1922) and alsobecause of one of his own poorly written, unpublished reports (Gozalbes 2008a, p.81, 2012, p. 61). In any case, his interest in Tamuda would soon transfer to Lixus, aPunic and Roman site more convenient for his work, located near Larache where helived. His earliest work in Lixus dates from 1923 (Gozalbes 2005, p. 231, 2008a, pp.82–84; Cañete 2010). About his excavations in the tumulus of Mezora, little is known.These were sponsored with funds aimed at building up the touristic potential ofnorthern Morocco (Gozalbes 2006). The comparison between the abundant work byLouis Chatelain on Volubilis (López and Mederos 2008, p. 27) and the almost completelack of publications by Montalbán clearly exemplifies that the Spanish state wasindifferent to the production of published scientific data and proper curation ofarchaeological collections.

The lack of interest of the Spanish government in maintaining good scientific stan-dards is also seen in lost opportunities. The archaeology of the Spanish Protectorate ofMorocco attracted the attention of first-rate archaeologists such as the professors GómezMoreno and Obermaier in Madrid. However, probable lack of appropriate financialsupport for their research led them to return quickly to their previous work. In 1922,the Islamic archaeology specialist and professor at the University of Madrid, ManuelGómez Moreno, published an excellent study on the monuments and archaeology ofTétouan based on his observations during a study trip. He focussed his attention onTamuda but also wrote on Islamic antiquities and the dungeons in Tétouan (GómezMoreno 1922). Gómez Moreno did not mention Montalbán in his writings, likelyshowing his dissatisfaction with the work done by him. In turn, Montalbán nevermentioned Gómez Moreno (Gozalbes 2005, p. 233). Regarding Hugo Obermaier, hesurveyed the area in the late 1920s looking for prehistoric sites (Obermaier 1928).Perhaps, as a way of rejecting possible future interference, after his visit, the JSMHAordered Montalbán to explore the area in search of early sites, and the work resulted inanother unpublished manuscript (Gozalbes 2008a, p. 85). Before his fieldwork in NorthAfrica, Obermaier had already published on the relationship between the lithic industriesin North Africa and Spain. Following the French authors, he saw cultures such as theMousterian and Capsian as the origin of other industries in Spain (Obermaier 1925, pp.98–99, 226–227). This belief in influences going south to north would be contested inthe 1940s by French archaeologists.

Pelayo Quintero’s Exile in the Spanish Protectorate of Morocco

In July 1936, as soon as the Civil War began, Montalbán was deposed of his job andthen purged (depurado) (Gozalbes 2007). This situation, however, would not last forlong. After the Civil War, he was rehabilitated and given the post of Director ofExcavation of the Western Zone (1940–1945), during which he excavated several sites(Papi 2004–2005), and then of Archaeologist of the International Area of Tangier(1947–1959). Yet, as his rehabilitation from the purge only took place in 1940, hecould not avoid the arrival of a well-trained archaeologist, Pelayo Quintero (Fig. 3),who would leave Montalbán behind in terms of productivity, but still cause moreharm than good because of the latter’s failure to publish results.

Afr Archaeol Rev

Pelayo Quintero’s arrival in Morocco was not voluntary. When he moved toMorocco in 1939, he was 72 years of age and had been for the previous three decadesthe main archaeologist of Cádiz, the southernmost province of Spain. His move toTétouan was as an internal exile: he joined a group of scholars considered by theregime not fully embracing of the new ideology, who were sent to what were consid-ered underdeveloped areas of the Spanish state such as Murcia and the SpanishProtectorate of Morocco. Pelayo Quintero was conservative but monarchical (and,therefore, not totally in step with the fascistic Franco dictatorship). Apparently, hisbad temper had made him enemies, leaving him without personal contacts to protecthim in the volatile early post-war period. Thus, his post as Director of the Museum ofFine Arts in Cádiz was given to César Pemán, the brother of one of the key politiciansin the regime, José María Pemán (Díaz-Andreu 2011, p. 47; Ramos 2008, p. 142).

In 1941, the new head of archaeology in Spain, Julio Martínez Santa-Olalla, tried tocontrol the archaeology of the Spanish Protectorate of Morocco. Before the Civil War,Santa-Olalla already had written a short note on Montalbán’s excavations in Mezora(Martínez Santa-Olalla 1935). His publications on Morocco appeared in the very early1940s, before the problems with Pelayo Quintero (Alonso del Real et al. 1940;Martínez Santa-Olalla 1941). Santa-Olalla was a Falangist (Spanish version ofFascist) and head of the institution, which provided permits and funds for excavationsin Spain (but not in the Spanish Protectorate of Morocco), the General Commissariat

Fig. 3 Pelayo Quintero (Gozalbez family archive)

Afr Archaeol Rev

for Archaeological Excavations (CGEA, Comisaría General de ExcavacionesArqueológicas). Unfortunately for Santa-Olalla, his fortunes started to dwindle in1942, when the balance of power in World War II began to change (Díaz-Andreu2012, p. 43; Díaz-Andreu and Ramírez 2004). This most likely helped Pelayo Quinteroto oppose Santa-Olalla’s attempt to control the archaeology in the protectorate.However, although the struggle was won by Quintero, he had to suffer the conse-quences for he would receive little in terms of funding from this moment on (Gozalbes2009, p. 60). In 1942, Quintero showed the first signs of unhappiness with the lack ofenthusiasm from the authorities towards archaeology (Gozalbes 2007, p. 88–89). Hisopposition to Martínez Santa-Olalla can also be seen in Spanish archaeologicaljournals, for he sent articles to Archivo Español de Arqueología published by theCSIC in Madrid and the favourite journal of Santa-Olalla’s opposers (on this topic,see also Díaz-Andreu 2011, pp. 47, 55). Despite the lack of funds, Quintero published14 reports in the 7 years he worked in Morocco. Pelayo’s work was supported byFather César Morán (Gozalbes 2005) and the secretary of the Museo Tetuaní (theethnograhic museum), Cecilio Jiménez, which also published its own studies. Withthem, the archaeology of the Spanish Protectorate of Morocco reached an acceptableacademic standard.

In addition to them, we should mention Carlos Posac Mon (1922–), who surveyedfor archaeological sites in the Spanish Protectorate of Morocco. In these years, he livedin Melilla (1932–1940, 1947–1950), and later would move to Ceuta (1954–1967) andTangier (1967–1981). He had become one of Santa-Olalla’s students during his years atthe University of Madrid. As such, he participated in his excavations (La Bastida deTotana in Murcia) and published in Santa-Olalla’s journal, Cuadernos de HistoriaPrimitiva. From 1944 to 1950, he surveyed the eastern and central area of theprotectorate searching for prehistoric sites (Posac 1947a, b, 1949, 1951; see Bravoet al. 2004).

Tarradell and Archaeology in the Spanish Protectorate of Morocco

Fight for the Control of Archaeology in the Protectorate After Quintero’s Death

Pelayo Quintero’s death in 1946 led to a fight of succession that followed the linesestablished by the contest taking place in Spain at that time (Díaz-Andreu and Ramírez2004). On the one hand, there was Julio Martínez Santa-Olalla, and on the other, acoalition of professors all over Spain. The reason was that the first, who had a keyposition as head of the CGEA, instead of using funds to allow professional research,very early on became suspicious of all other professionals and stopped financing them.Instead, he sponsored many non-professionals and kept a great deal of funding forhimself (10 % of the total, with unclear results). The increasing deterioration of hisrelationships with other professionals was unavoidable (Díaz-Andreu 2012, p. 43;Díaz-Andreu and Ramírez 2004; Gracia 2009). One of the consequences was thatwhenever the others (García Bellido, Taracena, Almagro, etc.) were able to, theystopped Santa-Olalla from acquiring additional power. Thus, when Santa-Olalla triedto infiltrate the CSIC, the others led by CSIC member and Madrid professor AntonioGarcía Bellido, managed to prevent it (Plácido et al. 1993, pp. 62–63). The CSIC,

Afr Archaeol Rev

though a maze of institutions, became an increasingly powerful means for scholarsincluding university professors for obtaining more funding. It was an institution backedby Opus Dei, a religious group and political faction within the Francoist regime, whichgrew in power from the mid-1940s onward (Pasamar 1991).

As explained above, Santa-Olalla had published a few articles at the start of the1940s, but then seemed to forget North Africa for a few years until 1946, perhaps notcoincidentally the year of Pelayo Quintero’s death (Martínez Santa-Olalla 1946, 1947,1949). His articles did not have an effect on either the Minister of Culture in theprotectorate (Delegado de Cultura), Tomás García Figueras, or with José Díaz deVillegas Bustamante, the General Director of Morocco and Colonies in the govern-ment. The latter was also the director of the Institute of African Studies (IDEA, Institutode Estudios Africanos), an institution born within the CSIC in 1946.

In contrast to Julio Martínez Santa-Olalla, the scholar on excellent terms with theCSIC was Martín Almagro Basch. The publication of his Prehistory of North Africaand the Spanish Sahara by the Institute of African Studies shows that he was alsobenefitting from this institution of the CSIC (in addition to many others as shown byGracia 2012). In this book, Almagro included a first part on the Spanish Protectorate ofMorocco dealing with archaeology up to the Neolithic. Part 2 of the book was moreoriginal and based on the study trip undertaken in 1944 to the Spanish Sahara. Heexplicitly thanked Díaz de Villegas for his help in publication (Almagro 1946).Almagro was most likely behind the arrival of one of his students, Miguel TarradellMateu (1920–1995) (Fig. 4), to Tétouan, although his interest in this happening was notimmediate. Tarradell was—or perhaps would later become—a Catalan nationalist(Llobregat 1995; Sanmartí 2008). Given the period this article discusses I have givenpriority to the Spanish spelling of his name.

Fig. 4 M. Tarradell (in Padró et al. 1993)

Afr Archaeol Rev

To reconstruct some of the events related below, I use documents found at the FonsPericot (Pericot Archive, located at the Biblioteca de Catalunya), in the file name(carpetilla) “Miquel Tarradell i Mateu” Letters found there will be referred to as FP(Fons Pericot) and followed by the date of the letter. In October 1946, whenQuintero died,Tarradell was working in Granada. He was head of what would be a short-livedService for Archaeological Excavations of Granada where he started to work inspring 1946 (Tarradell 1947, p. 224). It was not going to last: the move of themain politician behind the service left him without a job in August 1947 (FP-29-07-1947, see also Díaz-Andreu 2011, pp. 50, 64). In a letter, Tarradell wrote to theBarcelona professor Luis Pericot García (Lluís Pericot Garcia in Catalan); heexplained that, in February 1948, he had been to Tétouan to meet Tomás GarcíaFigueras to discuss the possibility of occupying Pelayo’s posts (FP-25-2-1948).Having accepted in April 1948, Tarradell was already in Tétouan (FP-29-4-1948).

José Díaz de Villegas, the director of the Institute of African Studies, was on goodterms with both Almagro and his friend Pericot. This explains why, when the Instituteannounced the “Franco” prize for prehistoric study in 1948, both their names werementioned in a newspaper (Pericot and Almagro were sent a clip by Tarradell onAugust 3, 1948). No one applied for the prize, and it was not awarded. After Tarradell’sinsistence (FP-4-8-1949), they must have applied the following year, when they won it.Enrique Gozalbes explains that the first year’s fiasco forced the system to change,making the prizes function as grants. After having won the funding, pressure was puton both Almagro and Pericot to visit the area (FP-23-9-1950, 23-10-1950).

A year later, Pericot was asked when he was going to be able to submit a promisedvolume (FP-14-10-1951), and this was done two years later. The volume dealt withthe Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods of Morocco in general, including the Frencharea, although emphasising the information from the north and connecting its archae-ology with that of Spain (Pericot 1953, 1954, 1962). Pericot also wrote some articleson the relationships between Spain and North Africa (Pericot 1954, 1962) andreported on the research undertook in the Spanish Protectorate in international (thethird Pan-African congress) (Pericot 1957) and Spanish venues (Pericot 1966). Thepublication was out just before the Congress Tarradell organised in Tétouan (seebelow). Tarradell also mentioned a book by Almagro (FP-23-4-1952), which shouldhave dealt with the Neolithic (FP-27-8-1952; see also 8-9-1952). Although writtenand submitted, it was not published because it was not considered innovative enough(Gozalbes 2008b, pp. 272–277, esp. 274). Tarradell explained that he had been askedto write the follow-up to Almagro’s volume (FP-23-10-1950, see also 11-7-1952). Hesubmitted his book Punic Morocco in 1955, but it took another 5 years to bepublished (Tarradell 1960). Tarradell’s book was also the result of the “Franco” prize,but when it was finally published, the institution that had provided the prize no longerexisted. He never wrote a planned volume on Rome and Western Mauritania(Gozalbes 2008b). Pericot and Tarradell also wrote an ambitious book on the prehis-tory of Africa (Pericot and Tarradell 1962).

Tarradell’s Archaeology

Tarradell inherited Pelayo Quintero’s jobs as director of the Museum of Archaeology ofTétouan and of the Excavation Service (Servicio de Excavaciones) of the Spanish

Afr Archaeol Rev

Protectorate of Morocco. Tarradell had a frantic agenda over the following eight years.He excavated every year in the Punic and Roman cities of Lixus and Tamuda and alsoconducted shorter excavations in sites such as the Neolithic caves of Gar Cahal(Tarradell 1954b, 1957), Caf That el Gar (Tarradell 1957–1958) and the tumulus ofMezora (Gozalbes 2012, p. 75; Tarradell 1952). He also found some Acheulean andMousterian sites (Garriga and Tarradell 1951). He produced about 60 publications onthe archaeology of Africa covering the Palaeolithic to Roman periods (FernándezMartínez 1997, p. 712), reinaugurated the museum in June 1949 (FP-25-5-1949,Tarradell 1949b) and renovated the exhibition in the museum in 1952–1953(Gozalbes 2012, p. 75). Tarradell established good contacts with French archaeologistsbased in Tunisia and the French Protectorate of Morocco. He established an exchangewith Pierre Cintas of the Service d’Antiquités of Tunisia. Thus, both participated ineach other’s excavations in Carthage and Lixus (López and Mederos 2008, p. 44) (seealso FP-14-10-1951, 15-5-1952, 11-7-1952, 29-10-1952). In addition, Tarradell exca-vated with Michel Ponsich in Lixus after independence between 1957–1960 and laterin 1963–1967 (López and Mederos 2008, p. 60).

Tarradell was not the sole archaeologist working in the Spanish Protectorate ofMorocco, as shown by the list of contributors to Tamuda, a journal published from1953 subsidised by the Department of Education and Culture of the Protectorate,and aimed at publishing ongoing research on the area. Other contributors wereCarlos Posac and the Arabist Fernando Valderrama and, from 1957, AhmadMuhammad Mekinasi (his name was later transcribed as Ahmad Muhammad al-Miknasi and Ahmed Mekinassi). In addition, César Montalbán continued excavat-ing during this period, although in the international area of Tangier. Unfortunately,he did not publish much in these years. Some of the data obtained were saved forposterity by French archaeologists, who visited him and managed to extract someinformation that was later published (López and Mederos 2008, pp. 43–44). Inaddition to Valderrama, other work on Islamic monuments was undertaken by thearchitects Santiago Sebastián (1957) and Alfonso de Sierra Ochoa (1960), whopublished on the palaces and domestic architecture of Tétouan (Gozalbes 2012, p.82), and by the archaeologist Leopoldo Torres Balbás (1957) who wrote on the siteof Beliunes.

With the exception of Almagro, Pericot and Torres Balbás, the archaeology ofMorocco did not attract the attention of archaeologists based in Spain. Good evidenceof this was the Spanish participation at the first (and last) Archaeological Congress ofSpanish Morocco, one of the major events organised by Tarradell during his stay in theSpanish Protectorate. The Congress was held in Tétouan on June 22–26, 1953. It wassponsored by the office representing the Spanish government in the protectorate, theAlta Comisaría de España en Marruecos. Tarradell received the delegates, having justpublished an archaeological guide (Tarradell 1953b) and guide book for the museum(Tarradell 1953a) that complemented Pericot’s recently published book about the area(Pericot 1953). About 200 delegates attended. Most of the Spanish contingent and otherforeigners came from the Seventh International Course of Ampurias (Díaz-Andreu2007) that on that occasion was held in June instead of September. Thus, the delegatesto Ampurias travelled down the coast from the northeast of Spain and crossed theStrait of Gibraltar to reach Tétouan (Gracia 2012, p. 202; Ripoll 1974, p. XIV). Otherscame from France, Germany and Italy. The papers presented at the conference mirrored

Afr Archaeol Rev

the colonial curiosity of North African antiquities; whereas French archaeologistspresented studies on North Africa, the Spanish contributors did not. The latter dealtmainly with Spanish topics related to cultures that supposedly covered both Spain andNorth Africa (Tarradell 1954a).

At the conference, Lionel Balout (1954) argued against the Africanist standdefended by many Spanish archaeologists, especially Pericot. A few years earlierMartínez Santa-Olalla had also opposed the Africanist origin of Spanish cultures, buthe had done so for ideological reasons in agreement with his conservative, racistideology. To the contrary, many Spanish archaeologists had argued that numerousprehistoric cultures from the Palaeolithic to the Iberian Iron Age had arrived fromAfrica (Bosch Gimpera 1925; García y Bellido 1941; Pericot 1923, p. 3, 1942, pp. 308–319). Balout’s position, repeated in 1955, was confirmed for the Neolithic period byTarradell’s excavations in the caves of Gar Cahal and Caf Taht el Gar (Tarradell 1957,1957–1958). These demonstrated stratigraphically that the Moroccan sequence waslater in time than the earliest findings in Spain (Aranegui 2008, pp. 126–127; Aranegui2011, p. 342). Nevertheless, some archaeologists such as Bosch Gimpera maintainedhis belief in the African origin of much of Spanish prehistory for many years (Ramos2008, pp. 144–146).

Another major contribution Tarradell made to the archaeology of North Africaduring his stay in the Spanish Protectorate of Morocco relates to the excavation ofLixus. His results provided a firm archaeological sequence and also indicated that,during the Phoenician period, the Atlantic coast had not been completely dependent onCarthage but had experienced its own development (Tarradell 1956, 1960; seeAranegui 2008, pp. 128–129). Tarradell also argued that the chronology provided inthe texts did not correspond with that demonstrated by archaeology, which could goback only as far as the seventh century BC (Tarradell 1959a; see Aranegui 2008, pp.128–129).

Being in Exile

Tarradell’s great advances in the archaeology of the Spanish protectorate of Morocco,and his respect for Muslim culture and conventions, do not mean that he did not sharewith French archaeologists the colonial ethos (Bacha 2009; Gran-Aymerich 1998;Oulebsir and Volait 2009). Thus, in 1951 he argued that,

The West has lost a territory that logically should be its own—the south of theMediterranean… But it is more difficult to understand the failure of the latinidad1

in Africa Minor. It is too simple to consider that its destiny… only changeddirection with the Muslim invasion. This was a definitive factor but not the onlyone. North Africa did not assimilate Latin culture with the depth that othercountries within the limes [Roman frontier] did. (Tarradell 1951, p. 54)

Tarradell had some initial doubts about moving to Morocco. He explained to Prof.Pericot that,

1 Latinidad here can be read as romanità. There is an ample bibliography on the use of the term romanità(Lewine 2008; Munzi 2004; Stone 1999), whose Fascist origins Tarradell was, most likely, not aware of.

Afr Archaeol Rev

I really think that here one can do an excellent job, with a bit of luck and helpfrom the authorities (which I have been promised). I am not fully convinced that Ihave done the right thing with this job. I fear that my links with Barcelona, withmy masters (maestros) and with my research area will suffer. To avoid it asmuch as possible I have demanded as a first condition to be able to come toBarcelona 2 months in winter, when in Morocco the rain prevents work in thefield. (FP-25-2-1948)

One should not forget that, at the time of his arrival in Morocco, his main focusof research was the Bronze Age of southeastern Spain, about which he was writinghis PhD thesis. The job in Granada had been perfectly located to do this topic, andhe must have been disappointed when the project of the Service for ArchaeologicalExcavations of Granada was discontinued. He needed to finish his PhD if he wereto apply for a university chair, the dream of ambitious archaeologists at this time,and this meant that while in Morocco he also worked on this (FP-9-11-1948, 14-1-1949). He managed to finish his doctorate in 1949 at the age of 29 (FP-2-12-1949;Tarradell 1950).

During his years in Morocco, Tarradell travelled frequently, although less than hewanted. A month after his arrival in Tétouan, he attended the IV Congress of theArchaeology of Southeast Spain in Elche on May 16–19, 1948, where he talked on thestate of archaeology in the Spanish Protectorate of Morocco (Tarradell 1949a). In 1949,most likely following Almagro’s advice, he spent some months with Walter Cook, aProfessor at the Institute of Fine Arts in New York and a member of the HispanicSociety of New York (Doenges 2005, p. 10). Tarradell had a grant from the CSIC andthe Ministry of Foreign Affairs to study abroad (FP-13-12-1949, 28-1-1950; Gracia2012, p. 198–199) (this may explain much of his later involvement with the BryantFoundation). He also had grants to go to Paris and Italy thanks to the Institute ofMediterranean Prehistory of the CSIC in 1951 and 1952 (FP-9-4-1951, 23-4-1952;Gracia 2012, p. 200). He participated as well in a summer course in the north of Spainin 1951 (FP-24-9-1951), and in many letters to Pericot, he alludes to stays in Barcelonaduring the Christmas or summer vacations. Tarradell experienced his stay in Moroccoas an exile. In September 1950, referring to the Barcelona group, he wrote to Pericot:“More than once, from my tent in Lixus, in the exile I am in, I have nostalgicallyremembered it” (FP- 23-9-1950). And when he started excavating in Valencia in 1955,he commented to Pericot that he was “delighted to be able to excavate in a civilisedcountry” (FP-28-6-1955).

Throughout his stay in Morocco, Tarradell made several attempts to find a job inSpain. In 1949, he had applied unsuccessfully for the chairs in Saragossa andSalamanca, and in 1950, he also tried to obtain the chair of Prehistory at theUniversity of Sevilla (FP-20-11-1950; Gracia 2012, pp. 198–199). In 1954, the chairof Archaeology, Epigraphy and Numismatics at the University of Valencia was an-nounced. In several letters dated in 1954, Tarradell made plans about it with Pericot,and he also discussed the project of excavating with the Barcelona professor in theValencian countryside with funds from the Bryant Foundation (FP-7-12-1954, 25-5-1955), a project that bore fruit in June 1955. The oposiciones (official competition) forthe chair in Valencia finally took place in 1956, and this time, Tarradell was successful(Gracia 2012, p. 203) (see also FP-4-8-1954, 7-12-1954, 20-5-1955).

Afr Archaeol Rev

The Spanish Protectorate in Morocco was ceded to Morocco on April 7,1956, but its end had been agreed upon months earlier. On February 17, 1956,Tarradell explained to Pericot that he had been very busy with the move, andorganising the future of the Museum of Tétouan and the Service ofArchaeology. He was not a civil servant (funcionari) any longer, but theauthorities had given him some sort of post by which, it can be understood,he was going to continue being paid. However, he said, the future of theexcavations—he was probably referring to Tamuda, where he excavated againin 1957—was unclear (FP-17-2-1956).

After Decolonisation

Tarradell continued sending contributions about Morocco to Tamuda for several years.He also talked about Moroccan archaeology at conferences and published books andarticles on a variety of topics: Tamuda, Lixus, the Neolithic caves he had excavated(Gar Cahal and Caf Taht el Gar), his surveys in the Martín basin, the Punic world andso on (see bibliography in Tarradell Font 1993). As mentioned above, he also wrote ahandbook of African prehistory with Pericot (1962). Importantly, Tarradell proposedthe influential concept of the [Gibraltar] Strait circle (círculo del Estrecho) by which hemeant that the Strait of Gibraltar should be seen more as a bridge than as a frontierbetween Spain and North Africa (Tarradell 1959b, see Aranegui 2008, 2011, p. 343).Tarradell excavated in Tamuda again in 1957, but his attention soon moved fully to thearchaeology of Spain, mainly of the Valencian countryside and the Balearic Islands. Inthe 1960s, Tarradell’s interest moved definitively away from Morocco.

No Spaniard replaced Tarradell as director of the Archaeological Museum inTétouan. He must have left North Africa soon after his February 1956 letter toPericot, at the time Morocco was being given a limited home rule, and just before fullindependence was granted in April. In his place as director, a Moroccan archaeologisttrained in Spain was chosen: Ahmad Muhammad al-Miknasi. After some initialattention to Tamuda (Mekinasi 1957; Tarradell and Mekinasi 1954) and Lixus(Mekinasi 1958b), his research focussed on medieval Islamic pottery (Mekinasi1958a) and he excavated the sites of Tiguisas and Alcazarseguer and others in theRif mountains (Mekinasi 1959).

In contrast with the absence of Spanish professional archaeologists in the country, inthe French Protectorate of Morocco, several remained. The Inspector of Antiquities,Maurice Euzennat (1926–2004), continued in his post for a few years after indepen-dence on March 2, 1956. Euzennat promoted the creation of a museum in Rabat, whichresulted in the opening of the Museum Louis Chatelain in 1960 (Souville 2006).Euzennat had a team of about 10 French archaeologists in which the two firstMoroccan archaeologists—al-Miknasi and Naïma Khatib-Bougibar—were included.The abolition of the Antiquities Service in 1963, however, took him back to France,where he continued as a research leader in North African archaeology (Hallier 2006;Morel 2006). From his team, only Armand Luquet, who was proficient in Arabic,stayed in Morocco, and Michel Ponsich, who while a keeper at the Museum of Rabatstudied at the University of Rabat and wrote a PhD at Bordeaux (Ponsich 1970),moving in 1970 to the Casa de Velázquez in Madrid (Souville 2004). From 1963,therefore, Moroccan archaeology has been directed by Moroccan archaeologists. The

Afr Archaeol Rev

first director of the Direction des Musées et Antiquités du Maroc was Naïma El Khatib-Boujibar, being later replaced by Mahdi M’hammed Bekkari, in the Division desMonuments Historiques et des Antiquités du Maroc (López and Mederos 2008, p.56). A key role in the organisation of archaeology after decolonisation was played byJoudia Hassar-Benslimane. She would also be the first director of the Institut Nationaldes Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine (INSAP) in 1985.

Spanish archaeologists only returned to Morocco in the 1980s, when theSpanish government’s change of attitude regarding Western Sahara opened thedoors for scholarly collaboration. A Spanish Protocol for Spanish–MoroccanCollaboration on Archaeology and Heritage was signed in 1988, being led byProf. Manuel Fernández-Miranda, one of Almagro’s former students (OnrubiaPintado 1996). Despite a few bureaucratic problems, several projects wentahead. The most important was the involvement of Spanish archaeologists inthe excavation of Lixus from 1995 (AAVV 2001, 2005, 2010; Aranegui andMar 2009).

Discussion

The analysis of Spanish archaeology in North Africa discussed above has highlightedthe achievements and failures of the institutional and research development of thediscipline in the area controlled by Spain. No description has been offered of events inthe French area, but even a passing reading of some of the studies undertaken wouldmake apparent that institutionally, it was usually ahead, and that the work done therewas more abundant in quantity and of a much higher quality for most of the time(Bacha 2009; Gran-Aymerich 1998; López and Mederos 2008; Oulebsir and Volait2009). It has been mentioned above that Spanish colonialism in North Africa was moreideological than economic (Fernández Martínez 2001, p. 177), but one could argue thatthe ideology that underpinned the whole enterprise was feeble. The building of strongcolonial empires needs solid narratives about historical origins. In the case of theSpanish Protectorate of Morocco, this did not take place for half of its existence, forin its first three decades, the control of archaeology was given to one individual, CésarLuis Montalbán, who did not publish his work. This left the Spanish Protectorate ofMorocco without a proper historical foundation. Also during this period, although it ispossible to list a few institutional creations, the reality is that some of them accom-plished little or even existed only on paper for most of the time.

The situation changed after the Civil War, although not as much as it should have,thanks to two individuals, Pelayo Quintero from 1939 to 1946 and, especially, MiguelTarradell from 1948 until 1956. The former was not selected due to his scholarlyqualities, but because he was unwelcomed politically in Cádiz where he had beenliving. The fact that he was a good scholar was not the issue when he was put in thepost at age 72. Yet, under his watch, the archaeology of the Spanish Protectorate ofMorocco finally reached acceptable standards. Similarly, his successor in the post,Tarradell, was not selected because of his scholarship, but because of friendships andthe changing balance of power in Spain between the Falangists and Opus Dei (to whichthe CSIC was intimately linked). This illustrates caciquismo, the system by whichpolitics had been functioning in Spain mainly between 1875 and 1923 and even after.

Afr Archaeol Rev

The cacique system works when the state is too weak and inefficient to establishbureaucratic, administrative control over political (and academic) activity. Spanishpolitics, unfortunately, was still marked by some sort of caciquismo in the 1940s(Moreno Luzón 2007; Pasamar 1991; Ruiz Zapatero 1991; Varela Ortega 2001).

The choice of both Quintero and Tarradell, however, was very positive forMorocco, as they worked hard and published much, following good academicstandards: the first following methodologies already antiquated, and the secondwith the best academic standards of the time. Despite this, they were neverfully happy in Morocco. This should not come as a surprise. As the lack ofinvolvement of most other Spanish archaeologists shows, these men wereisolated not only geographically, but intellectually, from all their colleagues inthe profession. Neither of them had been trained to work on North Africanarchaeology, nor had anyone else in Spain. This contrasts with the situation ofthe French archaeologists in southern Morocco, Argelia and Tunisia. TheFrench state had developed an institutional network through which it waspossible to get training, publish in journals dealing specifically with NorthAfrican antiquities and attend conferences on the subject. The Spanish state’slack of interest in the archaeology of North Africa became apparent again afterdecolonisation. Whereas France continued paying for research there and doingas much as possible to attract Moroccan students for training in France, nothingof the kind took place in Spain. Spain’s small investments, economically andscholarly speaking, were mostly lost afterwards. There has been some remedialresearch from the 1980s onward, organised with fellow Moroccan archaeolo-gists, with good results such as at Lixus (Aranegui 2004).

It is possible that some think that it may have been better for the archaeology ofNorth Africa to have had a weak colonial power, for the colonial abuses regarding thenarratives about the past undertaken in other areas did not take place there. This is notfully right. First, the existence of a weak state did not prevent archaeological remainsfrom being destroyed due to the usual building activity in new areas and also due toarchaeologists, such as the example described above, when they worked in the absenceof scientific standards and failed to publish their results. This was arguably theinstitutionalised equivalent of looting. Secondly, weak colonialism led to an insufficientinstitutionalisation upon which it was difficult to build once independence was granted.Even today, one can see the effects in the old area of the Spanish Protectorate ofMorocco. Finally, despite the colonial background of much archaeology beyondEurope, during the colonial era data were obtained that subsequently have formed thebasis for knowledge about the region’s history. Today’s political world is based on thenation-state and nationalism, and makes the existence of a narrative about the pastessential to building a future. It is the responsibility of archaeologists to provide abalanced interpretation of the past, which is usually formed by an extremely complexseries of actors. The professionalism of Spanish archaeologists Pelayo Quintero andMiguel Tarradell resulted in a series of publications from which modern Moroccanarchaeologists are able to work on the construction of a past for their own country.

Acknowledgments This article is a result of the research project MINECO-Ministerio de Economía yCompetitividad, Plan NacionalI+D+i, ref. HAR2012-334033/Hist. A first version of this work was presentedat the research meeting “Under Western Eyes: Western Approaches to North African Archaeology (19th and

Afr Archaeol Rev

20th Centuries)” held at the University of Neuchâtel (Switzerland) on April 20, 2012. I am grateful to Prof.Hedi Dridi and Dr. Antonella Mezzolani for their invitation to participate. I am also thankful to CarmenAranegui, Carlos Cañete and Enrique Gozalbes for the information they have provided me. Francisco SánchezSalas sent the information about the documentation in the AGA archive referring to Gómez Moreno. Allpossible mistakes are my responsibility.

References

AAVV. (2001). Lixus, colonia fenicia y ciudad púnico-mauritana. Anotaciones sobre su ocupación medieval.Saguntum Extra 4. València: Universitat de València.

AAVV. (2005). Lixus-2 ladera sur. Excavaciones arqueológicas marroco-españolas en la colonia fenicia(campañas 2000–2003). València: Universitat de València. Saguntum Extra 6.

AAVV. (2010). Lixus-3. Area suroeste del sector monumental [Cámaras Montalbán] 2005–2009. València:Universitat de València. Saguntum Extra 8.

Almagro, M. (1946). Prehistoria del Norte de Africa y del Sahara español. Barcelona: Instituto de EstudiosAfricanos.

Alonso del Real, C., Pérez de Barradas, J., & Martínez Santa-Olalla, J. (1940). Investigación científica deMarruecos I. Cuestionarios de etnología (J. Pérez de Barradas), lingüística (C. Alonso del Real) yarqueología (J. Martínez Santa-Olalla). Larache: Artes Gráficas Boscá.

Aranegui, C. (2004). Lixus (Larache, Marruecos). Bienes Culturales: Revista del Instituto del PatrimonioHistórico Español, 3, 171–182.

Aranegui, C. (2008). Tarradell y la historiografía de la arqueología del norte de Marruecos. In J.Beltrán Fortes & M. Habibi (Eds.), Historia de la arqueología en el norte de Marruecosdurante el período del protectorado y sus referentes en España (pp. 121–133). Sevilla:Universidad Internacional de Andalucía.

Aranegui, C. (2011). Miguel Tarradell, en el centenari de Jaume Vicens Vives: Tarradell a la Universitat deValència. Butlletí de la Societat Catalana d’Estudis Històrics, 22, 337–347.

Aranegui, C., & Mar, R. (2009). Lixus (Morocco): From a Mauretanian sanctuary to an Augustan palace.Papers of the British School at Rome, 77, 29–64.

Bacha, M. (2009). Tourisme et patrimoine dans la Tunisie précoloniale et coloniale: Interactions etdépendances. In C. Zytnickiet & H. Kazdaghli (Eds.), Le tourisme dans l’empire français. Politiques,pratiques et imaginaires (XIXe-XXe siècles). Un outil de la domination coloniale? (pp. 155–163). Paris:Publications de la Société française d’histoire d’Outre-Mer.

Balfour, S. (1997). End of the Spanish Empire, 1898–1923. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Balfour, S. (2002). Deadly embrace: Morocco and the Road to the Spanish Civil War. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Balout, L. (1954). Remarques sur l'extension géographique de certaines civilisations préhistoriques du

Maghreb. In, I Congreso Arqueológico del Marruecos Español. Tetuán 22–26 junio, 1953 (pp. 67–74).Tétouan: Servicio de Arqueología de la Alta comisaría de España en Marruecos.

Balout, L. (1955). Préhistoire de l’Afrique du Nord. Paris: Arts et métiers graphiques.Bernaldo de Quirós, C., Fernández, L., Dantín, J., & Cabrera, A. (1914). Yebala y el Bajo Lucas. Expedición

de abril–junio de 1913. Madrid: Real Sociedad Española de Historia Natural.Bosch Gimpera, P. (1925). Los pueblos primitivos de España. Revista de Occidente, 9(25), 153–190.Bravo, A., Bellver, J. A., & Blanco, M. J. (2004). Aproximación a una bibliografía española sobre la

prehistoria del Norte de África. In A. Bravo & J. A. Bellver (Eds.), Prehistoria del Rif Oriental en laobra de Carlos Posac: Yacimientos líticos en la provincia de Nador, ciudad de Melilla e islas Chafarinas(pp. 15–55). Melilla: Instituto de Cultura Mediterránea.

Cañete, C. (2010a). El origen africano de los íberos. Una perspectiva historiográfica. Málaga: Servicio depublicaciones de la Universidad de Málaga.

Cañete, C. (2010b). César Luis de Montalban y Lixus: El discreto encanto de la heterodoxia. In C. Aranegui,C. Cañete, I. Fumado Ortega, H. Hassini, N. Tarradell Font, & G. Tortajada Comeche (Eds.), Lixus 3.Área suroeste del sector monumental [Cámaras Montalbán] 2005–2009. Saguntum. Papeles delLaboratorio de Arqueología de Valencia (pp. 13–20). Valencia: Diputación de Valencia

Cherif, M. H. (1989). European partition and conquest of Africa: An overview. In J. F. Ade Ajayi (Ed.),General history of Africa (Africa in the nineteenth century until the 1880s, Vol. 6, pp. 448–477). London:Heinemann.

de Madariaga, M. R. (1999). España y el Rif: Crónica de una historia casi olvidada. Melilla: CiudadAutónoma de Melilla; UNED.

Afr Archaeol Rev

de Madariaga, M. R. (2002). Los Moros que trajo Franco…: La intervención de tropas coloniales en laguerra civil española. Barcelona: Martínez Roca.

Díaz-Andreu, M. (1997). Nación e internacionalización. La arqueología en España en las tres primerasdécadas del siglo XX. In G. Mora & M. Díaz-Andreu (Eds.), La cristalización del pasado. Génesis ydesarrollo del marco institucional de la arqueología en España (pp. 403–416). Madrid: Ministerio deCultura, Universidad de Málaga.

Díaz-Andreu, M. (2007). Christopher Hawkes and the international summer courses of Ampurias. Bulletin ofthe History of Archaeology, 17, 19–34.

Díaz-Andreu, M. (2011). La historia de la prehistoria andaluza durante el periodo franquista (1939–1975). InM. Sánchez Romero (Ed.), Memorial Luis Siret. I Congreso de Prehistoria de Andalucía (pp. 39–72).Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía.

Díaz-Andreu, M. (2012). Archaeological encounters. Building networks of Spanish and British archaeologistsin the 20th century. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.

Díaz-Andreu, M., & Ramírez, M. (2004). Archaeological resource management under Franco’s Spain: TheComisaría General de Excavaciones Arqueológicas. In M. Galaty & C. Watkinson (Eds.), Archaeologyunder dictatorship (pp. 109–130). Hingham: Kluwer/Plenum.

Doenges, N. A. (2005). The William L. Bryant Foundation: A brief history. Hanover: Dartmouth College.Fernández Martínez, V. (1997). La arqueología española en Africa. In G. Mora & M. Díaz-Andreu (Eds.), La

cristalización del pasado. Génesis y desarrollo del marco institucional de la arqueología en España (pp.705–720). Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura, Universidad de Málaga.

Fernández Martínez, V. (2001). La idea de Africa en el origen de la prehistoria española: Una perspectivapostcolonial. Compt Rendus Geosci, 12, 167–184.

García y Bellido, A. (1941). Los iberos en el Norte de África. Arch Esp Arqueol, 43, 346–349.Garriga, J., & Tarradell, M. (1951). Observaciones sobre el Pleistoceno de Marruecos (Regiones de Tetuán y

Ceuta). Bol R Soc Esp Hist Nat, 9, 99–118.Ghotes, M. (2008). Histoire des fouilles à Tamuda. In D. Bernal, B. Raissouni, J. Ramos, M. Zouak, & M.

Parodi (Eds.), En la orilla africana del Círculo del Estrecho. Historiografía y proyectos actuales. Actasdel II Seminario Hispano-Marroquí de especialización en arqueología (pp. 459–472). Tetuán-Cádiz:Universidad de Cádiz.

Gómez Moreno, M. (1922). Descubrimientos y antigüedades en Tetuán. Suplemento de 10 de noviembre.Madrid: Boletín Oficial de la zona de Protectorado español en Marruecos.

Gozalbes, E. (2005). Los inicios de la investigación española sobre arqueología y arte árabes en Marruecos(1860–1960). Boletín de la Asociación Española de Orientalistas, 41, 225–246.

Gozalbes, E. (2006). El monumento protohistórico de Mezora (Arcila, Marruecos). Archivo de PrehistoriaLevantina, 26, 322–348.

Gozalbes, E. (2007). Algunos avatares de la arqueología colonial en el norte de Marruecos (1939–1942).Boletín de la Asociación Española de Orientalistas [BAEO], 77–96.

Gozalbes, E. (2008a). Los españoles y las antigüedades de Marruecos: De Ali Bey el Abbasi al inicio delprotectorado (1800–1936). In J. Beltrán Fortes &M. Habibi (Eds.),Historia de la arqueología en el nortede Marruecos durante el período del protectorado y sus referentes en España (pp. 63–95). Sevilla:Universidad Internacional de Andalucía.

Gozalbes, E. (2008b). A propósito de la historiografía española sobre Marruecos. Awraq: Estudios sobre elmundo árabe e islámico contemporáneo, 25, 265–284.

Gozalbes, E. (2009). El Padre César Morán. La arqueología y la etnografía, de Salamanca a Marruecos.Salamanca, Revista de Estudios, 57, 51–63.

Gozalbes, E. (2012). Tetuán: Arqueología, historia y patrimonio. Tétouan: Asociación Tetuán-Smir.Gracia, F. (2009). La arqueología durante el primer franquismo (1939–1956). Barcelona: Bellaterra.Gracia, F. (2012). Arqueologia i politica. La gestió de Martín Almagro al front del Museo Arqueològic

Provincial de Barcelona (1939–1960). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona: Museo d’Arqueologia deCatalunya, Fundació Carles Pi i Sunyer.

Gran-Aymerich, E. (1998). Naissance de l’archéologie moderne, 1798–1945. Paris: Centre national de laRecherche Scientifique.

Hallier, G. (2006). Maurice Euzennat et le Maroc antique. Antiq Afr, 46, 45–48.Holl, A. (1990). West African archaeology. Colonialism and nationalism. In P. Robertshaw (Ed.), A history of

African archaeology (pp. 296–308). London: James Currey.Ivanov, N. (1989). New patterns of European intervention in the Maghrib. In J. F. Ade Ajayi (Ed.), General

history of Africa (Africa in the nineteenth century until the 1880s, Vol. 6, pp. 497–514). London:Heinemann.

Afr Archaeol Rev

Lewine, A. E. (2008). Roman history in the Mostra Augustea della Romanitá. Studies in MediterraneanAntiquity and Classics 2: Article 5 (available at http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/classicsjournal/vol2/iss1/5).

Llobregat, E. A. (1995). Miguel Tarradell: Nacionalista, arqueòleg i historiador. Saguntum, 28, 21–28.López, F., & Mederos, A. (2008). La factoría fenicia de la isla de Mogador y los pueblos del atlas. Colección

Canarias arqueológica. Monografías 3. Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Museo Arqueológico de Tenerife.Organismo Autónomo de Museos y Centros del Cabildo de Tenerife.

Malarkey, J. (1984). The dramatic structure of scientific discovery in colonial Algeria: A critique of the journalSociété archéologique de Constantine (1853–1876). In J. C. Vatin (Ed.), Connaissances du Maghreb:Sciences sociales et colonisations. Recherches sur les sociétés méditerranées (pp. 137–160). Paris: Centrenational de la Recherche Scientifique.

Martínez Santa-Olalla, J. (1935). Monumentos megalíticos de Marruecos. Actas y Memorias de la SociedadEspañola de Antropología, Etnografía y Prehistoria, 14, 262–263.

Martínez Santa-Olalla, J. (1941). Las primeras pinturas rupestres del Marruecos español. Atlantis Actas yMemorias de la Sociedad Española de Antropología, Etnografía y Prehistoria, 16, 438–442.

Martínez Santa-Olalla, J. (1946). Solutrense en Africa. Los hallazgos paleoliticos de Tanger Cuadernos deHistoria Primitiva, 2, 97–100.

Martínez Santa-Olalla, J. (1947). África en las actividades del Seminario de Historia Primitiva del Hombre.Publicaciones del Seminario de Historia Primitiva del Hombre Notas, 1, 22.

Martínez Santa-Olalla, J. (1949). La cueva de Mugaret el Aliya de Tanger (Marruecos).Cuadernos de HistoriaPrimitiva, 4, 105–110.

Mekinasi, A. M. (1957). Campaña de excavaciones y exploración arqueológica. Tamuda, 5, 161–164.Mekinasi, A. M. (1958a). Estudio preliminar de la cerámica arcaica musulmana de Marruecos. Tamuda, 6,

110–117.Mekinasi, A. M. (1958b). Madinat Liksus al-atariya: Min tarij al-Magrib al-qadima / biqalam [The city of

Lixus: About the history of ancient Morocco]. Tétouan.Mekinasi, A. M. (1959). Reconocimientos arqueológicos en el Rif. Tamuda, 7, 156–158.Morales, V. (1986). España y en Norte de Africa: El protectorado en Marruecos (1912–56). Madrid:

Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia.Morel, J.-P. (2006). Maurice Euzennat l’Africain. Antiq Afr, 46, 29–34.Moreno Luzón, J. (2007). Political clientelism, elites, and caciquismo in restoration Spain (1875–1923).

European History Quaterly, 37, 417–441.Munzi, M. (2004). Italian archaeology in Libya: From colonial Romanità to decolonization of the past. In M.

Galaty & C.Watkinson (Eds.), Archaeology under dictatorship (pp. 73–108). NewYork: Kluwer/Plenum.Naji, S. (2011). Archéologie coloniale au Maroc: Civiliser l’archaïque. Henri Terrasse, des premières fouilles

archéologiques à leur mise en patrimoine. Les Nouvelles de l’Archéologie, 126, 23–28.Obermaier, H. (1925). El hombre fósil. 2nd edition. Memoria 9. Madrid: Comisión de Investigaciones

Paleontológicas y Prehistóricas.Obermaier, H. (1928). El Paleolítico del Marruecos español. Nota preliminar Boletin de la Real Sociedad

Española de Historia Natural, 28, 269–274.Onrubia Pintado, J. (1996). El profesor Manuel Fernández-Miranda y la cooperación arqueológica hispano-

marroquí. In M. A. Querol & T. Chapa (Eds.), Homenaje al Profesor Manuel Fernández-Miranda. vol. 1(pp. 23–28). Madrid: Complutum, Extra 6. Universidad Complutense.

Oulebsir, N., & Volait, M. (2009). Les orientalismes en architecture à l’épreuve des savoirs. Europe et mondeextra-européen, XIXe et XXe siècles. Paris: Editions Picard/InVisu-NHA.

Padró, J., Prevosti, M., Roca, M., & Sanmartí, J. (Eds.) (1993). Homenatge a Miquel Tarradell. EstudisUniversitaris Catalans XXIX. Barcelona: Curial Edicions Catalanes.

Papi, E. (2004–2005). Gli scavi di Dchar Jdid (Marocco) in un album di César Luis Montalbán. Antiq Afr, 40–41, 319–335.

Parodi, M. J. (2008). Pelayo Quintero de Atauri. Apuntes de arqueología hispanomarroquí, 1939–1946. In J.Beltrán Fortes &M. Habibi (Eds.),Historia de la arqueología en el norte deMarruecos durante el períododel protectorado y sus referentes en España (pp. 97–119). Sevilla: Universidad Internacional de Andalucía.

Pasamar, G. (1991). Historiografía e ideología en la posguerra española: La ruptura de la tradición liberal.Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza.

Pedraz, A. (2000). Quimeras de Africa. La Sociedad Española de Africanistas y Colonistas. Polifemo: Elcolonialismo español de finales del siglo XIX. Madrid.

Pericot, L. (1923). La prehistòria de la Península Ibèrica. Minerva. Col’lecció popular des ConeixementsIndispensables XLI. Barcelona: Consell de Pedagogia de la Mancomunitat de Catalunya & Políglota.

Afr Archaeol Rev

Pericot, L. (1942). La Cueva del Parpalló (Gandía). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas,Instituto Diego Velázquez.

Pericot, L. (1953). Historia de Marruecos I. El Paleolítico y Epipaleolítico. Tétouan: Instituto GeneralísimoFranco de Estudios e Investigación Hispano-Arabe, Editora Marroquí.

Pericot, L. (1954). Sobre el problema de las relaciones preneolíticas entre España y Marruecos. In I CongresoArqueológico del Marruecos Español. Tetuán 22–26 junio, 1953 (pp. 57–65). Tétouan: Servicio deArqueología de la Alta comisaría de España en Marruecos.

Pericot, L. (1957). Los trabajos de los últimos quince años sobre la Prehistoria del Africa Española. In J. D.Clark & S. Cole (Eds.), Third Pan-African Congress on Prehistory. Livingstone 1955 (pp. 274–277).London: Chatto & Windus.

Pericot, L. (1962). Les rapports entre le nord de l'Afrique et l'Espagne au Néolitique. In IV Congrès Pan-Africain du Préhistoire et de l'étude du Quaternaire III, Leopoldville, 1959 (p. 289). Tervuren: Muséeroyal de l'Afrique centrale.

Pericot, L. (1966). La prehistoria africana en el último cuarto de siglo. La aportación española a su estudioArchivos del Instituto de Estudios Africanos, 20, 7–22.

Pericot, L., & Tarradell, M. (1962). Manual de prehistoria Africana. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Africanos.Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.

Plácido, D., Sánchez Palencia, J., & Cepas, A. (1993). El mapa del mundo romano. In J. M. D. Val & J. J.Fernández (Eds.), Inventarios y cartas arqueológicas. Homenaje a Blas Taracena, Soria, 1991 (pp. 57–64). Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León.

Ponsich, M. (1970). Recherches archéologiques à Tanger et dans sa région. Paris: Centre National de laRecherche Scientifique.

Posac, C. (1947a). Industrias líticas en el Marruecos Oriental. Cuadernos de Historia Primitiva, 2, 93–100.Posac, C. (1947b). Yacimientos prehistóricos en el Yebel Gurugú. Saitabi, 25–26, 153–162.Posac, C. (1949). Yacimientos del Río Nano en el Marruecos español. Cuadernos de Historia Primitiva, 4,

109–114.Posac, C. (1951). El yacimiento del Kerker. Industrias prehistóricas en la zona oriental del Protectorado de

España en Marruecos. Tétouan: Instituto General Franco de Estudios e Investigación Hispano-Arabe.Ramos, J. (2008). La investigación de la prehistoria del norte de Marruecos en la primera mitad del siglo XX.

Aproximación, contexto histórico y enfoques metodológicos. In J. Beltrán Fortes & M. Habibi (Eds.),Historia de la arqueología en el norte de Marruecos durante el período del protectorado y sus referentesen España (pp. 135–176). Sevilla: Universidad Internacional de Andalucía.

Ripoll, E. (1974). Crónica de los Cursos Internacionales de Prehistoria y Arqueología en Ampurias. InMiscelánea arqueológica. XXV Aniversario de los Cursos Internacionales de Prehistoria y Arqueologíaen Ampurias (1947–1971) (pp. ix-xxiv). Barcelona: Diputación Provincial de Barcelona.

Robertshaw, P. (Ed.). (1990). A history of African archaeology. London: James Currey.Ruiz Zapatero, G. (1991). Arqueología y universidad. La “reproducción del sistema”. Revista de Arqueología,

118, 6–7.Salas, J., & Maier, J. (2003). Andalucía, Ceuta y Melilla. In M. Almagro Gorbea & J. Maier (Eds.), La real

academia de la historia. Gabinete de Antigüedades. 250 años de arqueología y patrimonio (pp. 175–194). Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia.

Sanmartí, E. (2008). Miquel Tarradell i Mateu (1920–1995). Auriga, 52, 18–21.Sebastián, S. (1957). La arquitectura religiosa tetuaní. Archivo Español de Arte, 117, 55–59.Sierra Ochoa, A. (1960). El plano de la ciudad de Tetuán. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones

Científicas, Instituto de Estudios Africanos.Souville, G. (2004). Maurice Euzennat (1926–2004). Antiq Afr, 40–41, 5–6.Souville, G. (Ed.). (2006). Journée d’études à la memoire de Maurice Euzennat. 29 Janvier 2005. Antiquités

Africaines, 42, 1–47.Stone, M. (1999). A flexible Rome: Fascism and the cult of romanità. In C. Edwards (Ed.), Roman presences.

Perceptions of Rome in European culture, 1789–1945 (pp. 205–220). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Tarradell, M. (1947). Investigaciones arqueológicas en la provincia de Granada. Ampurias, 9–10, 223–236.Tarradell, M. (1949a). Estado actual de la investigación arqueológica en la Zona de Protectorado Español en

Marruecos. In Crónica del IV Congreso Arqueológico del Sudeste Español, Elche, 1948 (pp. 80–88).Cartagena: Papelería Española

Tarradell, M. (1949b). Musée de Tétouan Fasti Archeologici, 4, 30.Tarradell, M. (1950). La Peninsula Ibérica en la época del Argar. Cartagena: Papelería Española.Tarradell, M. (1951). Investigaciones sobre los romanos en el Marruecos español. Arbor, 20, 54–59.Tarradell, M. (1952). El túmulo de Mezora (Marruecos). Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina, 3, 229–239.

Afr Archaeol Rev

Tarradell, M. (1953a). El Museo Arqueológico de Tétouan: Guía sumaria para el visitante con un apéndicesobre los principales yacimientos arqueológicos del protectorado. Madrid: Artes Gráficas Martorell.

Tarradell, M. (1953b). Guia arqueológica del Marruecos Español. Tetuán 22–26 junio, 1953. Tétouan:Servicio de Arqueología de la Alta comisaría de España en Marruecos.

Tarradell, M. (1954a). I Congreso Arqueológico del Marruecos Español. Tetuán 22–26 junio, 1953. Tétouan:Servicio de Arqueología de la Alta Comisaría de España en Marruecos.

Tarradell, M. (1954b). Noticia sobre la excavación de Gar Cahal. Tamuda, 2, 344–358.Tarradell, M. (1956). Las excavaciones de Lixus y su aportación al conocimiento de la expansión fenicia y

cartaginesa en el Extremo Occidente. In Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Ciencias Prehistóricas yProtohistóricas (pp. 789–796). Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza.

Tarradell, M. (1957a). Gar Cahal y su aportación al conocimiento de la Edad del Bronce en el extremooccidental del Mediterráneo. In IV Congreso Nacional de Arqueología (pp. 101–112). Zaragoza:Universidad de Zaragoza.

Tarradell, M. (1957–58). Caf Taht el Gar, cueva neolítica en la región de Tetuán (Marruecos). Ampurias, 19–20, 137–159.

Tarradell, M. (1959a). Aportaciones a la cronología de la cerámica de barniz rojo. In V Congreso Nacional deArqueología (p. 269). Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza.

Tarradell, M. (1959b). El estrecho de Gibraltar ¿puente o frontera? (sobre las relaciones post-neolíticas entreMarruecos y la Península Ibérica. Tamuda, 7, 123–138.

Tarradell, M. (1960). Marruecos púnico. Tétouan: Instituto Muley el Hassan.Tarradell Font, N. (1993). Bibliografia bàsica de Miquel Tarradell. In J. Padró, M. Prevosti, M. Roca, & J.

Sanmartí (Eds.), Homenatge a Miquel Tarradell (pp. 9–23). Barcelona: Curial Edicions Catalanes.Tarradell, M., & Mekinasi, A. M. (1954). La colección de estelas funerarias marroquíes del Museo

Arqueológico de Tetuán. In M. Tarradell (Ed.), I Congreso Arqueológico del Marruecos Español.Tetuán 22–26 junio, 1953 (pp. 479–484). Tétouan: Servicio de Arqueología de la Alta Comisaría deEspaña en Marruecos.

Torres Balbás, L. (1957). Las ruinas de Belyunes o Bullones. Tamuda, 5, 275–296.Valderrama, F. (1956). Historia de la acción cultural de España en Marruecos (1912–1956). Boletín de la

Asociación Española de Orientalistas, 41, 9–22.Varela Ortega, J. (2001). El poder de la influencia: Geografía del caciquismo en España (1875–1923).

Marcial Pons Historia. Madrid: Marcial Pons.

Afr Archaeol Rev