The Investigation of the Factors That Affect the Preservation of Underwater Archaeological Sites

  • Ian Oxley
Part of the The Springer Series in Underwater Archaeology book series (SSUA)

Abstract

In recent years site environmental assessments have been recognized as a fundamental part of effective cultural resource management. However, the inclusion of an assessment of the natural and burial environment in underwater archaeological investigation has not been adopted universally. This paper reviews the various benefits of environmental impact assessments and geographic information systems (GIS), to develop methodologies to enable such evaluations to be carried out routinely on underwater archaeological sites in the future.

Keywords

Geographic Information System Geographic Information System Archaeological Site Environmental Impact Assessment Historical Archaeology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, K.M., Green, S.W., and Zubrow, E.B.W., 1990, Interpreting Space: G/S and Archaeology. Taylor & Francis: London.Google Scholar
  2. Bump, H.D., and Muncher, D.A., 1987, Conservation of Historic Artifacts from Marine and Coastal Environments. In Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference, edited by A.B. Albright, pp. 52–53. Savannah, Georgia.Google Scholar
  3. Carpenter, J., 1987, The Uses of Soil Stabilizing Gel Media in the Conservation of Large and Small Shipwreck Artifacts. Internationaljournal of Nautical Archaeology 16(2): 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cederlund, CO., 1980, Systematic Registration of Older Sinkings and Wrecks in Swedish Waters. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 9(2): 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Erickson, P.A., 1979, Environmental Impact Assessment: Principles and Applications. Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
  6. Fischer, G.R., Donnellan, R.A., Skowronek, R.K., Wild, K.S., Jr., Vernon, R.H., and Johnson, R.E., 1984, Investigation of the Legare Anchorage Shipwreck, Biscayne National Park, Florida. In Search of Our Maritime Past: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Underwater Archaeology, edited by J.W. Bream, R. Folse-Elliott, C.V. Jackson, III, and G.P. Watts, pp. 145–167. East Carolina University, Williamsburg, VA.Google Scholar
  7. Gibbins, D., 1990, Analytical Approaches in Maritime Archaeology: A Mediterranean Perspective. Antiquity 64: 376–389.Google Scholar
  8. Lenihan, D.J. (ed.), 1989, USS Arizona Memorial and Pearl Harbor National Historic Landmark. Submerged Cultural Resources Study: Southwest Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers No. 23, Santa Fe, NM.Google Scholar
  9. McCarthy, M., 1982, A Wreck Inspection Program as an Aid to the Coordinated Management of a Large Number of Wreck Sites. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 11(1): 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McCarthy, M., 1988, S.S. Xantho: The Pre-Disturbance Assessment: Excavation and Management of an Iron Steam Shipwreck off the Coast of Western Australia. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 17(4): 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MacLeod, I.D., 1987, Conservation of Corroded Iron Artifacts — New Methods for On-Site Preservation and Cryogenic Deconcreting. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 16(1): 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MacLeod, I.D., 1991, Identification of Corrosion Products on Non-ferrous Metal Artifacts Recovered from Shipwrecks. Studies in Conservation 36: 222–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MacLeod, I.D., et ai, 1986, The Excavation, Analysis and Conservation of Shipwreck Sites. In Preventive Measures during Excavation and Site Protection. ICROM, International Center for the Study of the Prevention and Restoration of Cultural Property, Rome.Google Scholar
  14. Muckelroy, K., 1977, Historic Wreck Sites in Britain and Their Environments. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 6(1): 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Murphy, L.E., 1990, 8SL17: Natural Site Formation Processes of a Multiple-Component Underwater Site in Florida. Submerged Cultural Resources Special Report. Southwest Cultural Resources Center: Santa Fe, NM.Google Scholar
  16. Nagelkerken, W., 19185, Preliminary Report on the Determination of the Location of the Historical Anchorage at Orange Bay, St. Eustatius, Netherlands Antilles. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Underwater Archaeology, edited by P.F. Johnston, pp. 60-76. Boston.Google Scholar
  17. National Research Council, 1990, Managing Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental Monitoring. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. Pearson, C. (ed.), 1987, Conservation of Marine Archaeological Objects. Butterworths: London.Google Scholar
  19. Robinson, W.S., 1981, Observation on the Preservation of Archaeological Wrecks and Metals in Marine Environments. Internationaljournal of Nautical Archaeology 10(1): 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rodgers, B.A., 1989, The Case for Biologically Induced Corrosion at the Yorktown Shipwreck Archaeological Site. Internationaljournal of Nautical Archaeology 18(4): 335–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wildesen, L.E., 1982, The Study of Impacts on Archaeological Sites. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory Vol. 5, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 5-96.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Oxley

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations