Carlos Perez Marin

   Reading the UNESCO criteria carefully, we see that the classification covers a series of aspects that are much more complex than those derived from an architectural work or an archaeological site, including issues related to geology and natural habitats, which could be relevant given our geographical situation. However, in terms of tangible heritage, the parameters could be simplified by identifying elements that are exceptional and of a universal nature, which would require comparison with places or geographies that might have some similarity.

Based on what we have seen so far, we could review which elements of our heritage could be exceptional.

   3.01 Royal Walls Monumental Complex and City Enclosure

   3.02 Benzú rockshelter and cave

   3.03 Mount Hacho fortifications complex

   3.04 Neomedieval forts

   3.05 Huerta Rufino

3.01 The Royal Walls Monumental Complex

   The Royal Walls are probably the best known fortification in Ceuta by its own inhabitants, perhaps because it is obligatory to pass by them when entering or leaving the city centre, or perhaps because all kinds of events are organised in its parade ground (sporting, musical, institutional, festive, gastronomic…), events which unfortunately are not always compatible with the historical complex. For better or for worse, the walls are part of the local imaginary. If to all this we add the possibility of visiting a museum or delving into the depths of our history by visiting the Caliphate Gate, it seems logical that everyone recognises the importance and, why not, the beauty of this legacy, which is why the local authorities usually propose its classification as a "World Heritage Site" every time there is an election. In 1997, the Heritage Commission agreed to submit the Royal Walls for inclusion on the Tentative List, where it remained between 2002 and 2013 as Conjunto monumental de las murallas reales y fortificaciones de la Ciudad de Ceuta (until 2006 it appeared as Conjunto Monumental de las murallas reales de Ceuta) although it never appeared on the UNESCO list.

    The main argument for its universal value was that this defensive system housed the only navigable moat in the world still in use. However, historian Elizabeth Kassler-Taub explains that this is nothing new in the Mediterranean.

   From the fifteenth through the seventeenth centuries, the practice of excavating defensive waterways across the isthmuses of peninsular cities gained currency across the Mediterranean. In this article, I trace the rise and dissemination of this urban type, arguing that the island-city was likely modelled on interventions in ancient settlements in the Greek archipelago and that it emerged as an early modern phenomenon in the Adriatic and Ionian territories of the Venetian stato da mar. Over the course of the sixteenth century, a wave of experimentation with the type swept Iberian outposts in the western Mediterranean basin, from North Africa to the Tuscan coast. By the turn of the seventeenth century, it had been fully assimilated into a shared Iberian vernacular of defensive design. (Building with Water: The Rise of the Island-City in the Early Modern Mediterranean, Kassler-Taub, 2019, p. 145).

   Following this publication, Fernando Villada identified navigable moats in Corfu (Greece), Trogir (Croatia), Zadar (Croatia) and el-Jadida (Morocco). The moat of San Felipe is no exception and therefore its navigability is not a sufficient argument to elevate the Royal Walls to a candidate for the Tentative List.

   Since the discovery in 2002 of the city gate during the Umayyad dynasty, there have been numerous (although not enough) archaeological and scientific works both in the Caliphate Gate and in the Bandera bastion, which have allowed us to have a better knowledge of the "Genesis and evolution of the Royal Wall" (edited by the Department of Education and Culture of the Autonomous City of Ceuta), and what is more interesting, the successive construction stages from the 2nd century to the 18th century which are now visible and recognisable both in terms of construction and spatial elements, with the peculiarity that the superposition of strata is not exclusively vertical (as is common in archaeological excavations) but rather horizontal.

   The clearest example of this can be seen in the Royal Wall, which until 2002 was thought to be made up of the Portuguese wall and the moat, both dating from the 16th century, on its west front and the vaults of the barracks built during the 18th century on the intrados of the Portuguese wall. However, in the interior, in the spaces known today as the Caliphal Gate, the Portuguese wall (16th century) is vertically supported on an Umayyad wall (10th century), which in turn is adapted to a Byzantine fortification (6th-8th century), built taking advantage of the existence of a Roman structure (2nd-3rd centuries), all with various alterations carried out between the main construction periods, such as the Almohad dome of the main tower (12th-13th centuries). As if this were not enough, in the subsoil, this time in vertically superimposed layers, elements and relevant information have been found, such as a Roman sanitation structure (2nd century), a ceramic oven from the 1st century (one of the few pottery kilns in the Tingitana province) and elements associated with lithic production from the Middle Palaeolithic period.

   The most outstanding construction element, in terms of its size (originally around 260 m long) and the elements that still remain (towers, walls and one of the city's entrance gates), is the Caliphal wall, but, is it an exceptional construction in the world? The Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the Great Mosque of Kairouan in Tunis and several citadels in Jordan and Syria are still standing from the same Umayyad period. In other words, this is not a heritage of universal and exceptional value. The same situation arises with the Byzantine wall (even more so if it were confirmed that the fence continues up to the Coraza bastion, reaching a length of 225 m). In Istanbul, kilometres of Byzantine period walls (Theodosius' walls, the seafront walls, the Blachernai walls...) are still preserved, and some of them probably have elements from different periods. However, if in Ceuta we were to consider not one wall but the whole as the succession, vertically and horizontally, of all these walls, then they would be exceptional, not only because of the adherence of strata but also because of their identity, making the whole a testimony to the history of Ceuta, and of something more, as we shall see later on.

   There are still many unknowns to be clarified in the Royal Wall; the different structures hidden by the Coraza bastion; the elements that may be found between the two bastions and the Caliphal Gate (according to ancient sources there were two more gates); we should study whether after the first bend of the Umayyad gate we are not facing what was once the Byzantine gate; is there physical continuity between the two bastions with the Umayyad, Byzantine and Roman walls?

   It seems clear that the Royal Wall is not only a component of the defensive system laid out by the Portuguese and Spanish but also formed part of the Umayyad, Byzantine and Roman systems, which leads us to extend the fortification in the Umayyad period eastwards, at least as far as Queipo de Llano street, and to the north and south to the respective still-visible walls and some from the same period. From the Byzantine and Roman periods, it is assumed that it was limited to a fortification that could occupy the area on which the Parador La Muralla and the General Headquarters were built, as no remains associated with these fortifications have been found in other parts of the area known as the City Enclosure.

   As we have pointed out above, being able to visualise the evolution of the main fortifications built over the last 20 centuries places this complex in another dimension that allows us to give a historical account, in an enclosure of reduced dimensions, of a city like Ceuta. As if that were not enough, we are not talking about an isolated place, but a very special one that has been, and is, the object of desire of civilisations, dynasties, kingdoms and states, given its position on the Strait of Gibraltar, that is, as a link between Africa and Europe, and between the Mediterranean sea and the Atlantic ocean, which in itself gives it a certain exceptional nature.

3.02 Benzú rockshelter and cave

   A minimal economic investment in 2001 by the University of Cadiz and directed by Darío Bernal to draw up the Archaeological Terrestrial Map of Ceuta identified five prehistoric sites in the Campo Exterior, including a cave and a rockshelter in the Benzú neighbourhood, which could be dated to the Middle Palaeolithic period according to the initial surface surveys carried out for the preparation of the archaeological map. This document already pointed out the enormous potential of the site, as has been confirmed after 21 years of studies directed by Darío Bernal and José Ramos Muñoz (the first campaign was carried out in 2002). During all this time, a transdisciplinary team of researchers linked to Spanish and foreign universities has been able to reconstruct with reliable data what life was like in this part of the city during the Middle Palaeolithic (250,000 years ago); zoology, flora, terrestrial and marine fauna, geology, habitat...

   While this information is of exceptional value for any city, in our case, there are also other geographical circumstances. If from today's point of view the Strait of Gibraltar can be thought of as an impassable barrier 15 kilometres long (the distance between Punta Leona in Belyounech, Morocco, and Punta del Acebuche in Algeciras, Spain), especially at a time when navigation had not been developed, the studies carried out show that during the Palaeolithic this distance was shorter due to the lower sea level (estimated at 110 m), which caused the coastline to move inland and the appearance of intermediate islands. This geographical situation, with distances of less than 5 km between land points, has allowed researchers to develop a working hypothesis, still in progress, on the relationships between Pleistocene and Holocene prehistoric societies between the northern and southern shores of the Strait. Abrigo de Benzú, Ceuta. Aportaciones al conocimiento de las sociedades con tecnología de modo III en la región histórica del estrecho de Gibraltar (Mainake magazine nº33). When hominid remains are found (for the moment only utensils have been found) it may be possible to demonstrate that the Strait was used as a passage for these societies, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens, instead of the current theory that the passage was from Africa to Asia (through the Nile delta and the Bab al-Mandab strait between Djibouti and Yemen) and from there to Europe. In addition, the work has established that the exploitation of marine resources began earlier than previously thought in the rest of the world, 250,000 years ago, instead of 100,000 years ago. (El aprovechamiento de los recursos acuáticos por sociedades prehistóricas en la región histórica del Estrecho de Gibraltar, Juan Jesús Cantillo Duarte).

   The exceptional nature and universality of the Benzú site seems evident in view of the possibility of changing theories on the evolution of the genus Homo and, therefore, affecting the whole of humanity.

3.03 Mount Hacho fortifications complex

   Mount Hacho has 36 Assets of Cultural Value, of which 22 are concentrated in the coastal perimeter (half are coastal batteries) and the rest, within what is known as the Hacho fortress, although the batteries of Valdeaguas, San Amaro and San Antonio, the walls between watchtowers, even some fortification works carried out at the end of the 90s of the last century which are no longer in use and even buildings such as the lighthouse at Almina point which remains active, should be included as BICs.

   With the exception of the fortress itself, these are works of reduced size, adapted to the abrupt topography (which acts as another element of the perimeter fortification) with the aim of preventing the approach and landing of ships in its tiny coves. This first walled enclosure could not be understood without the fortress that crowns the hill, a defensive system that is paradoxical today as it is the BIC that has the greatest visual presence in the city and yet its history is unknown, at least from its first settlements until the construction of the bastions in the 18th century. A planning of studies and archaeological campaigns could determine whether it was really a place already occupied in Roman times and subsequently reused by the different civilisations that have passed through the city. Undoubtedly, the confirmation of a recurrent occupation of this part of Ceuta's territory from ancient times to the present day would significantly change the importance of this complex (as has happened with the Royal Walls), making it not only a catalogue of fortifications dating back more than 20 centuries but also a witness to our history and that of the Strait of Gibraltar.

   Another element to consider would be the Punta Almina lighthouse whose construction began in 1851 but which did not enter into service until 1855, considered to be one of the oldest lighthouses in Africa still in operation. In South Africa we have the Green Point lighthouse in Cape Town, operational since 1824, the Cape Agulhas lighthouse since 1849 and the Cape Recife lighthouse since 1851.In North Africa, in addition to the one in Ceuta, there is the one at Cape Espartel in Tangier, which has been in operation since 1864, the one in Gibraltar from 1841 and the one in Tarifa from 1813.

3.04 Neomedieval forts

   These are the fortifications built on the border line established in Ceuta after the peace treaty of Wad-Ras signed in 1860 between Spain and Morocco. Currently, seven of the nine that were built remain, and they have the particularity of recovering elements of medieval fortifications, hence the name given by the historian Luis de Mora Figueroa, Neomedieval. According to the researcher, this typology had already been used previously in France since the beginning of the 19th century as part of a plan for the defence of the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts, Towers and redoubts types 1811, with a series of towers and redoubts to protect the coastal batteries against attacks from land; these were artillery positions with protective embankments and a small guardhouse. These fortifications were equipped with artillery and housed a small garrison, and all three models could be used as lookout posts or as protection for coastal and harbour batteries. Constructively, (at least those that could be compared to our neomedieval forts) they were square towers, built in stone, on three levels, with bomb-proof vaults and loopholes in the façades. In 1846, a new plan was launched, Towers and redoubts models type 1846 (01 and 02), based on the same principle but improving the constructions and adding the possibility of placing artillery pieces on the roof of the towers. These new fortifications were completed around 1860.

   Although the sections and certain elements may be similar to the neomedieval forts of Ceuta, it could be said that they are different concepts. The traditional medieval tower, i.e. the circular tower used to reinforce the corners of the walls, was replaced from the 16th century onwards by bastions to ensure visual control over all possible points of attack. This element, introduced by Italian military engineers, was later developed throughout the 17th century and part of the 18th century by the French engineer Vauban in the defence against sieges of numerous cities, and became a model for the whole of Europe.

   Perhaps the closest precedent to our forts is to be found in the Martello towers (01) built by the British army in many parts of their empire from the end of the 17th century until the second half of the 18th century. They were circular towers built of stone, with 2 or 3 levels, light artillery and an access on the first level (with the possibility of removing the ladder to remain isolated in case of siege). However, they did not have loopholes or machicolations for defence in case of attack.

   In fact, the Ceuta model arose from an evolutionary process, based on trial and error after building the first position, the Príncipe fort, in accordance with the polygonal-attenuated model prevailing in the mid-19th century in Europe, when its shortcomings to resist enemy army attacks became apparent, As a result, the military engineers modified the different projects on plans (closer to the French redoubts of the 1846 plan) until they reached the conclusion that it was best to build a contemporary version of the medieval towers, even innovating in the construction system, using mass concrete to build the groin vaults of the forts of Isabel II and Benzú (the latter of which is no longer in existence)

   Similar fortifications were also built in Melilla (Las nuevas fronteras españolas del siglo XIX: La arquitectura de los fuertes neomedievales de Ceuta y Melilla, Antonio Bravo Niento) for the same purposes after the delimitation of the new border line, between 1881 and 1891, but they are later than those in Ceuta (built between 1860 and 1884); Camellos, San Lorenzo and Cabrerizas Bajas follow the models of Isabel II and Benzú in Ceuta. As for the polygonal models with caponiers, the first was that of Príncipe Alfonso in Ceuta and later in Melilla various evolutions were built; Rostrogordo, Cabrerizas Altas, María Cristina and Sidi Guariach.

   There is another place where fortifications with similar characteristics were built at almost the same time. This is the defensive system to control the natural pass between Spain and France across the central Pyrenees, in the town of Canfranc (Huesca). However, the two gun turrets (of which only one remains, La Torreta) that accompanied the Coll de Ladrones fort were built between 1888 and 1900, after the forts of Ceuta and Melilla. were built between 1888 and 1900, later than the forts of Ceuta and Melilla, and seem more like an inheritance of the French fortifications of the 1846 plan discussed above.

   It can be affirmed that the defensive system used in Ceuta was pioneering and that its exceptional nature does not lie in the dimensions of its components or in the surface area covered but in the evolutionary process of the projects, in terms of model and construction system and, above all, in the fact that it constitutes a separation between different civilisations that is shown in the constructive and functional solutions of the projects. It may not be a universal heritage, but it could be attributed a certain exceptionality.

3.05 Huerta Rufino archaeological site

   The urbanisation work begun in 1995 in the area known as Huerta Rufino uncovered an entire 14th-century neighbourhood built during the Merinid dynasty. The delay in the work on the site led to the loss of a large part of the wall paintings in the dwellings (the surface area of which was larger than those preserved in the Alhambra and Medina Azahara combined) and after the urbanisation work only a small part of the site was preserved and later integrated into the State Public Library. The importance of the archaeological site (Retazos de la Ceuta del siglo XIV. El yacimiento arqueológico de Huerta Rufino. Fernando Villada) oes not lie in its size or the exceptional nature of the buildings, as complete buildings from the same period are still preserved in Morocco and are still in use. What makes this site unique is the information that has come down to us, which is quite unusual. When the Portuguese troops landed in Ceuta in 1415, the families living in this and other neighbourhoods of the city had to leave their homes in haste, with no time to take anything with them. During the following years, the Portuguese garrison was concentrated in the City Enclosure, between the two moats, and the Huerta Rufino neighbourhood was at the mercy of landslides from higher up, gradually burying the streets and buildings until they filled up a plot of land that was later used as an orchard. These two facts, the sudden abandonment and the burying of the neighbourhood (which remained unaltered until the end of the 20th century) have made it possible to preserve numerous objects that have provided unusual information on how people lived in the city at that time, to the point of knowing what food they were eating just before the Portuguese troops broke in.

3.06 Evaluation of Ceuta's heritage

   After having analysed the main elements of our heritage, it seems that only the Royal Walls and the Benzú rockshelter and cave are clearly eligible, at least, to be included in the Indicative List. However, if we take into account the overall value of the Royal Walls as a catalogue of fortifications from the 2nd to 18th centuries, we can see that if we extrapolate to the rest of the municipality, this repertoire would be extended and complemented by other sites mentioned above, especially if research were carried out in the Hacho fortress  and a regular occupation from Roman times could be demonstrated. In this case, we would no longer be talking about an isolated settlement concentrated in the narrowest area of the isthmus or in an isolated fortification, but rather about an inhabited territory from which we have received elements built from the 2nd to the 20th century. But for this to happen, it is imperative that the necessary means be provided to be able to answer the numerous questions that our heritage still raises and thus be able to claim its value and exceptional nature, as has been shown by the research in the Benzú, in the Caliphal Gate and in the Bandera bastion.

   The following synthesis could be made by indicating the existing architectural remains and their periods:

01 Roman walls, 2nd-3rd centuries (Royal Wall)

02 Byzantine walls, 6th-8th centuries (Royal Wall)

03 Umayyad walls, 10th century (Royal Wall, City Enclosure)

04 Almohad dome, 12th-13th centuries (Royal Wall)

05 Arab baths, 12th-14th centuries

06 Portuguese bastions, wall and moat, 16th century (Royal Wall, Royal Moat and City Enclosure)

07 walls and towers of the Merinid enclosure, 14th century (al-Mansura)

08 towers, 8th-15th centuries (coastal fortifications of Mount Hacho, Almina and towers of Campo Exterior)

09 supply warehouse, 17th century

10 bastions, defensive lines, coastal batteries, magazines and barracks, 18th century (Royal Walls, Almina and Mount Hacho)

11 neomedieval forts and coastal batteries, 19th century (Campo Exterior and Mount Hacho)

12 Coastal batteries, barracks and gunsights (and optical sensors) facilities, 20th century (Mount Hacho)

   If we add to this list the main archaeological sites that show an occupation of the territory, we can see how the existing material heritage could be used to tell the history of our city, and perhaps not only of it:

01 Benzú rockshelter and cave 250.000 BC

02 Royal Wall 250.000 BC

03 Phoenician archaeological site in África square VII BC

04 Bandera bastion, 2nd century

05 Late Roman basilica, 4th and 5th centuries

06 Huerta Rufino archaeological site, 14th century

   It is true that there are significant gaps, such as the Visigothic period (7th century), the first centuries of the Islamic period and above all the Almoravid dynasty of the 11th and 12th centuries. If we focus on the latter two centuries, it is striking that, given the importance of the city at that time, no defensive structures have been found. Let us remember that during this period illustrious figures were born in our city: Cadi Ayyad, Sidi Bel Abbas, al-Idrisi and even the second emir of the dynasty itself, Ali Ibn Yusuf. Ceuta became an educational reference point, attracting students from distant places, such as al-Haj Othman and Abd al-Moumim Salih who, after their stay to study with Cadi Ayyad, returned to their lands and founded the city of Ouadane in Mauritania in 1141. (Ouadane et Chinguetti. Deux villes anciennes de Mauritanie. Abdel Wedoud Ould Cheikh et Bruno Lamarche). This brings us to two reflections that I think are pertinent to mention.

   Firstly, the absence of Almoravid walls at a time when the Sanhaja, Lamtuna and Jazula confederation were able to build a whole network of fortifications connecting the Sahel with our city, in order to control the caravan trade. (Azougui, Chinguetti, Ouadane, Tiftil, Tidjikja, Rachid, Tichit, Oualata in Mauritania, Agwidir, Taghjijt, Tazagourt, Aoufil, Jebel Mudawar, Tasghimout, Hajar, Amergou… in Morocco). But why didn't they build a fortification in Ceuta? Most probably because they did not need to, given the existence of the Umayyad wall, of such dimensions and constructive characteristics that it served as a defence for the city for six centuries, from the 10th to the 16th century.

   The second reflection revolves around material heritage; is the existence of a legacy in the form of buildings or archaeological sites really the only measure of a city's importance at a given moment in history? This question was raised in 2019 during the conference to which I was invited by the Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco in Rabat on the potential of the Noun river basin in Guelmim to be included on Morocco's Tentative List. For three days, groups of experts divided into three workshops (architecture and archaeology, crafts and traditions, and culture) presented and discussed the values of the material heritage in order to confirm, or not, the exceptional nature of a territory known since the 9th century as Noul Lamta, which was one of the Saharan ports of Morocco (along with Sijilmasa, Taragalte and Tamedoult), acting as a logistical centre for caravans heading to or arriving from Mauritania, Mali and Senegal, forming part of a complex network of Saharan desert communication infrastructures that connected the Sahel with the Maghreb, and the Maghreb with the Middle East and Europe, and which to some extent remained in place, at least in the Atlantic region of the Sahara, until the early 1990s. In 2004 there was an attempt by UNESCO to create a Cultural Itinerary of the Sahara Desert: desert routes and salt route, holding meetings in various countries along the Saharan coast, however, poor diplomatic relations during those years between some of the countries made the agreement impossible, at a time when a network of heritage elements that affected more than one country required collaboration and joint elevation to the Indicative List. The first thing the UNESCO representative in the Maghreb and Tunisian architect made clear to us was that we should identify the elements of tangible heritage that were exceptional and that we should compare them with surrounding cities. On the one hand, we found an oasis, Asrir-Tighmert (today divided but formerly forming a single palm grove) barely 10 km long and 1.5 km wide, while in the Drâa valley in Zagora we found a succession of 6 palm groves forming a complex 200 km long with areas up to 8 km wide. Therefore, the oasis, as such, was not an exception (it should be clarified that oases are human creations and therefore are not considered natural heritage but material heritage, as the Palmeral of Elche in Spain, declared World Heritage in 2000, testifies). The problem was that the same was true of architectural heritage, except for the fortification of Agwidir (dated to the 11th century but with insufficient information to determine whether it was a citadel or a fortress) next to the present-day town of Asrir (occupation has been established in nearby plots since at least the 9th century), only a few small kasbahs were built in the oasis now known as Tighmert. Once again, the exceptional nature of the site could not be compared with the 307 mud-brick and adobe structures (235 citadels, 26 kasbahs, 40 zawiyas and 6 watchtowers) in the Drâa valley in Zagora (a number very similar to that of Errachidia province, with the valleys of the Ziz and Gheris rivers). It was clear that from an architectural heritage point of view, the Noun river basin did not merit any classification. However, all of us present were aware of the importance that Noul Lamta had had throughout history, and how the Saharan caravans were the basis (commercially, militarily, but also socially and culturally) for the main dynasties that reigned in the western Maghreb and southern Europe. The Almoravids and the Almohads were the ones who came to control the largest areas of territory, spanning two continents, but other dynasties such as the Merinids, the Saadis and the Alaouites also originated in these desert regions. Well, one of the tribes that gave rise to the Almoravid confederation was precisely from this territory known as Noul Lamta, the Lamtuna, who together with the Sanhaya and the Gudula (or Jazula) initiated the Almoravid movement, according to current data, in the Adrar region of Mauritania, more specifically in the oasis of Azugui. As I realised that there were very close links between the two regions of Morocco and Mauritania (Guelmim and Adrar), I made a proposal that we should not only consider the geographical territory of the Noun river basin, but that we should incorporate the connections that this territory had with both the Drâa valley in Zagora and the valleys of the Ziz and Gheris rivers in Errachidia, adding the Adrar in Mauritania. Faced with the proposal, the UNESCO representative accepted it, explaining that when the extension of the study area increased, detail was less important, i.e. the existence and importance of the architectural and archaeological heritage was no longer relevant, but rather the historical relevance of a place connected to other regions by means of "transport infrastructures" through which trade and culture flowed. Some questions were raised about the predisposition of neighbouring countries to join the proposal, but the Tunisian architect clarified that the acquiescence of the countries concerned was no longer necessary (perhaps this was an evolution of the institution's criteria to avoid failures like the Sahara Desert Cultural Itinerary).

   The three days allowed me to learn more about the parameters on which UNESCO bases its study of the candidatures and, more importantly, they provided us with a multitude of new clues for assessing the importance of Ceuta throughout history, for which it was necessary to study its connections and compare it with other places that might have similar characteristics, in its immediate surroundings and in distant regions.

Credits texts, photos and drawings: Carlos Pérez Marín