Technologies for Underwater Archaeology

and Maritime Preservation

September 1987

NTIS order #PB88-142559
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies for Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation— Background Paper, OTA-BP-E-37 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, September 1987).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-619848

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

(order form on the last page of this background paper)
Foreword

Exploration, trading, and other maritime activity along this Nation’s coast and through

its inland waters have played crucial roles in the discovery, settlement, and development of the United States. The remnants of these activities include such varied cultural historic resources as Spanish, English, and American shipwrecks off the Atlantic

and Pacific coasts; abandoned lighthouses; historic vessels like Maine-built coastal

schooners, or Chesapeake Bay Skipjacks; and submerged prehistoric villages in the

Gulf Coast. Together, this country’s maritime activities make up a substantial component of U.S. history.

This background paper describes and assesses the role of technology in underwater

archaeology and historic maritime preservation. As several underwater projects have

recently demonstrated, advanced technology, often developed for other uses, plays

an increasingly important role in the discovery and recovery of historic shipwrecks

and their contents. For example, the U.S. Government this summer employed a powerful

remotely operated vehicle to map and explore the U.S.S. Monitor, which lies on the

bottom off Cape Hatteras. This is the same vehicle used to recover parts of the space

shuttle Challenger from the ocean bottom in 1986. The Commonwealth of Virginia

is using a variety of advanced techniques to document and excavate one of General

Cornwallis’s ships, intentionally sunk off Yorktown during the Revolutionary War to

prevent General Washington from capturing it. In international waters, the location

and documentation of the British Iuxury Iiner Titanic was possible only by using a variety of sophisticated positional devices and deep water submersibles. These efforts have

captured the interest and imagination of the American public.

This background paper also examines the legal framework that affects the salvage

of historic shipwrecks and recovery of artifacts. Historic shipwrecks in U.S. coastal waters

contain a wealth of important information about the economic and social history of

this country. Yet they are suffering rapid attrition, in part because the United States

lacks a coherent national policy to guide the identification and preservation of underwater and maritime cultural resources. For example, State laws governing historic shipwrecks found in State coastal waters often conflict with Federal Admiralty law, which

gives private salvers the right to salvage shipwrecks, regardless of their age or historic

value. Attempts to place historic shipwrecks under the same protection as other historic

cultural resources have led to the Historic Shipwreck Act of 1987, which is discussed

and analyzed in this background paper.

In undertaking this work, OTA sought the contributions of a wide spectrum of

knowledgeable and interested experts within Federal and State Governments and the

private sector. Some provided information and guidance, others reviewed drafts of this

background paper. OTA gratefully acknowledges their contributions of time and intel-
Workshop Participants:

Technologies for Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation,

Feb. 20, 1986

Reynold Ruppe, Chairman

Underwater Archaeologist, Department of Anthropology

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

J, Barto Arnold Ill

Underwater Archaeologist

Texas Antiquities Committee

Austin, TX

Calvin R. Cummings

Senior Archaeologist

Denver Service Center

National Park Service

Denver, CO

Anne G. Geisecke

Consultant

Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation

Arlington, VA

Daniel J. Lenihan

Chief

Submerged Cultural Resources Unit

National Park Service

Santa Fe, NM

Charles H. Mazel

Nightsea Research

Charlestown, MA

Craig T. Mullen

President

Eastport International, Inc.

Upper Marlboro, MD

Carol Olsen

Underwater Archaeologist

Maritime Preservation Department

National Trust for Historic Preservation

Washington, DC

J.K. Orzech

Oceanographer

Marine Biology Resources Division

Scripps Institute of Oceanography

La Jolla, CA

Sheli O. Smith

Underwater Archaeologist

Mariners Museum

Newport News, VA

NOTE: OTA appreciates and IS grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the workshop participants. The

workshop participants do not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility

for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
Technologies for Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation

OTA Project Staff

Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA

Energy, Materials, and lnternational Security Division

Peter D. Blair, Energy and Materials Program Manager

Ray A. Williamson, Project Director

Mary Lee Jefferson, Contractor

Jannelle Warren-Findley, Contractor

Administrative Staff

Lillian Chapman Linda Long
Acknowledgments

The following individuals contributed to this study in a variety of ways. OTA is grateful for their assistance:

Richard K. Anderson John R. Kern

National Park Service Department of State

Richard Anusciewicz

Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs

Dover, DE

Minerals Management Service

Michele C. Aubry

Thomas F. King

National Park Service

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Larry Banks

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

johan T. Benson

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Washington, DC

John D. Broadwater

Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks

Research Center for Archaeology

Yorktown, VA

Toni Carrell

National park Service

James Delgado

National park Service

Ralph E. Eshelman

Calvert Maritime Museum

Solomons, MD

Rob Floyd

john E. Chance & Associates, Inc.

Lafayette, LA

John Fowler

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Donald Frey

Institute of Nautical Archaeology

Texas A&M University

College Station, TX

Ed Friedman

Minerals Management Service

James Hand

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Lynn Hickerson

National Trust for

Helen Hooper

National Trust for

Stanley Hordes

HMS Associates

Santa Fe, NM

paul Johnston

Peabody Museum

Salem, MA

John J. Kneed

National Park Service

Garry Kozak

Klein Associates, Inc.

Salem, NH

Emory Kristoff

National Geographic Society

Washington, DC

Edward M. Miller

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Nancy Miller

National Conference of State Historic Preservation

Officers

Washington, DC

Charles Moorhead

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Marcia Myers

National Trust for Historic Preservation

Loretta Neumann

Foresight Science & Technology, Inc.

Washington, DC

Mike Roberts

Timelines, Inc.

Groton, MA

Beth Savage

National Park Service

Carol Shun

National Park Service

Eugene Sterudt

National Endowment for the Humanities

Historic Preservation Melanie J. Stright

Minerals Management Service

Historic Preservation Douglas R. Weimer

Congressional Research Service

Library of Congress

Bill Westermeyer

Office of Technology Assessment

vi
Contents

Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Principal Findings. .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Federal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Private Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

International Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Interest Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Litigation Over ownership of Historic Shipwrecks ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Technology Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Communicating With Universities and Oceanographic Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Technology, Underwater Archaeology, and Maritime Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Technology Transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Technologies for Survey, Identification, Navigation, Excavation, Documentation,

Restoration, and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Identification and Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Navigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Excavation and Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Federal Policy Toward Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

National Park Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

The National Historic Preservation Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

The Abandoned Shipwreck Act... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

The National Maritime Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Center for Preservation Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Incentives for the Restoration and Rehabilitation of Floating and Dry-Berthed Vessels . . . . . . . . . 49

National Survey of Maritime Historic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Boxes

Box Page

A. Title 1, Section 106, Historic Preservation Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

B. The National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II

C. The U.S.S. Monitor Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

D. Regional Baseline Studies Completed for the Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

E. The National Trust for Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

F. The Seven Marine Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

G. State Historic Shipwreck Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

H. Applications of Technology on the Yorktown Shipwreck Archaeological Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

1. Lines Lifting and Lines Drawings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Tables

Tdble No. page

l. Some Research Technologies Discussed in This Background Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. Prehistoric and Historic Preservation Laws and Executive Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3. Federal Agencies With Major Roles in Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation . . 1 0

4. Submerged Resource Areas Surveyed by the National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]]

5. National Marine Sanctuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

6. Threats to Underwater Archaeological and Maritime Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . 30

7. Representative Historic Shipwrecks Exploited for Treasure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

8. U.S. Oceanographic Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

9. Maritime Historic Resource Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

10. Institutions and Agencies Participating in National Maritime Initiative Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

11. Artifacts Representative of Maritime Historical Collections ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

vii
INTRODUCTION

In 1986, at the request of the House Interior

Committee and its Subcommittee on Public Lands

the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)l

completed a report on Technologies for Rehistoric and Historic Reservation.2 The report assesses the use of technologies for locating,

analyzing, and protecting elements of the Nation’s prehistoric and historic heritage, and reviews the legislative basis for historic preservation in the United States.

Because submerged and maritime resources

are among the most neglected of U.S. cultural

resources, and the United States lacks an effective national policy for protecting them, the

House Interior Committee and Public Lands Subcommittee asked that OTA develop this background paper, extending the report’s analysis of

technologies for underwater archaeology and

maritime preservation.4 I nformation contained in

this background paper derives primarily from a

workshop convened by OTA, February 20, 1986,

in which participants met to discuss issues concerni ng the preservation of underwater archaeological and maritime historical resources. OTA

also obtained additional material from staff research, personal interviews with underwater archaeologists and preservation professionals, and

from an informal meeting on underwater archaeology and maritime preservation held at OTA,

November 3, 1986.

The National Historic Preservation Act (16

U.S.C. 470 et seq.) acknowledges the diversity

of America’s cultural heritage. The Congress of

the United States has declared, through this legislation that:

‘ OTA conducted Its assessment i n part by convening a series of

workshops that addressed Issues surrounding the uses of technologies for dry-land archaeology, underwater archaeology, prehistoric

and historic structures, and prehistoric and historic landscapes. A

fifth workshop focused on problems relating to the physical protection of all classes of cultural resources.

2 U, S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Techrio/ogies

for Preh/stor/c and H/stor/c Preservation, OTA-E-319 (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Off Ice, Sept. 1986).

‘The term, preservation technologies, refers broad Iy to any equipment, methods, and tech n Iq ues that can be applied to the d Isco\-

ery; analysis; interpretation; restoration; conservation; protection;

and management of prehistoric and historic sites, structures, and

landscapes.

‘Letter of Oct. 8, 1986, signed by Representatives Morris K, Udall

dnd John F. Selberllng.

. . . the preservation of this irreplaceable heritage

is in the public interest so that its vital legacy of

cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits will be maintained

and enriched for future generations of

Americans. s

Underwater archaeological and maritime resources constitute a significant part of that cu1-

tural diversity, comprising structures, objects, and

sites,

Underwater archaeology refers to the study of

the remains of prehistoric and historic human

activities found underwater. These remains generally include the following:

●

●

●

Shipwrecks, both scattered and intact, in

deep or shallow water, within coral line formations, and on or near shore, when, for example, they are found within landfills or isolated as hulks by uplift, lowered water levels,

or changes in river channels. Shipwrecks and

their cargoes reveal life at the moment of

each sinking, and can provide otherwise unavailable information on marine technology,

shipbuilding, navigation, and warfare. Many

ships served as homes at sea. Study of historic shipwrecks can therefore provide valuable insights into trade, shipboard life, and

the interaction between the Old and New

Worlds in the exploration and settlement of

this country.

Lost objects, such as the contents of early

traders’ canoes lost in rivers and lakes. They

often provide useful information on trade

routes, life in the period of exploration, and

early settlement patterns.

Submerged prehistoric sites, including those

of relatively- recent periods that have subsided near shore or been flooded by reservoirs, and those on the Outer Continental

Shelf that have been inundated by rising sea

levels. The latter, whose existence is only

now being demonstrated, are especially important because they illustrate human adaptations to coastal environments during the

earliest phases of North American prehistory.

5Natlonal Historic Presewatlon Act, Sec. 1 (b) (Purpose of the Act),

para. 4,

1
2

Submerged remains encompass sites that

functioned as work areas, dwellings, or debris deposits. They vary widely and may consist of such remains as farms, warehouses,

piers, middens, wells, villages, towns, even

cities.

Maritime preservation encompasses underwater archaeology but extends to a wide variety

of maritime-related historic cultural resources

such as ships and other vessels still afloat or dryberthed; shore installations such as lighthouses,

shipyards, drydocks, and coastal defense systems;

settlements dependent on shipping, canals, locks

and levees; documents, works of art, and archives

pertinent to maritime activities; and, finally, to

intangible cultural resources such as skills in boatbuilding and navigation.

Publicity surrounding the recovery of artifacts

from several well-known historic shipwrecks, as

well as the development of technologies for locating and preserving historic shipwrecks, have

focused greater attention on underwater cultural

resources. This background paper attempts to articulate the most important policy issues related

to the preservation of underwater archaeology

and maritime cultural resources. Some of the information in this background paper appeared in

Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation in different form and organization. We refer the reader to it for an overview of the issues

common to all disciplines within the preservation field.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

If significant underwater and maritime historic

cultural resources are to receive more effective

protection, the United States will have to develop a coherent national policy for managing

them.

The current lack of a coherent national policy

for underwater archaeology and maritime preservation has impeded the location and protection

of many historically significant cultural resources.

In spite of the many cultural conservation laws

enacted since 1906, particularly the National

Historic Preservation Act, and their supporting

regulations, standards, and guidelines, underwater archaeology and maritime preservation

have received relatively little attention within the

Federal Government. No single Federal department or agency has been specifically charged

with funding, coordinating, and directing a

strong, visible national program for underwater

archaeology and maritime preservation. Nor has

the Federal Government asserted sovereign

prerogative over historic shipwrecks in its waters.

The Federal Government and States have begun to allocate more resources for protecting underwater and maritime cultural resources. For

example, in 1987 the National Park Service published the first criteria for evaluating and nominating historic ships and shipwrecks to the National

Register of Historic Places, and in fiscal year 1986

Congress appropriated $255,000 for Phase I of

the National Maritime Initiative, which is funding:

●

●

●

an exhaustive literature search of the Nation’s maritime resources;

the drafting of standards for documentation

of vessels; and

the drafting of guidelines for nominating maritime resources to the National Register of

Historic Places.

Several other industrialized nations have focused significant resources on underwater archaeology and maritime preservation. Their commitment to the protection of underwater and

maritime cultural resources appears more determined than U.S. efforts. For example, preservation professionals in the United States view the

recovery and restoration of the 17th century

Swedish warship Wasa and the English Tudor

flagship Mary Rose as successful models for U.S.

efforts. The successes of these restorations have

depended on long-term commitment by the governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom,

whose goals are to engender public interest, and

to obtain reliable funding for proper research and

interpretive facilities, and access to technical expertise.

Underwater and maritime cultural resources

are vulnerable to a wide variety of natural and

manmade threats.

Looters and commercial treasure salvers constitute the most serious manmade threats to shipwrecks. In the process of searching out and extracting commercially promising contents they

may destroy significant archaeological information. However, natural threats, such as shoreline

erosion and wave action, may also significantly

deplete irreplaceable underwater and maritime

cultural resources. Weathering, neglect, and lack

of maintenance rapidly deteriorate floating vessels. Rainwater left standing in ships’ holds rapidly destroys interior planking and steel and iron

fittings.

The preservation of submerged and maritime

historical cultural resources depends heavily on

advanced and often costly specialized technologies.

Working underwater is hazardous and difficult.

Such locational technologies as side-scan sonar,

sub-bottom profilers, magnetometers, and remotely operated vehicles were originally developed to explore the sea bottom for national security purposes, laying undersea cables, and for oil

and mineral exploration. Because some of these

specialized technologies are so expensive, only

the best financed users can acquire and apply

them.

Technologies for scientifically analyzing and

stabilizing the ever increasing numbers of objects

recovered from underwater require highly skilled

conservators knowledgeable about a variety of

different materials, such as brass, different species of wood, and iron. These specialists are in

seriously short supply. Likewise, there are not

enough properly trained restorers of the many

3
4

historically significant floating and dry-berthed

ships and other vessels in severe need of protective treatment. Future research on conservation

of cultural resources should focus on training; developing more sensitive, low-cost methods and

instrumentation; and on the exploitation of new

sources of archaeological and technological information.

Historic shipwrecks in U.S. coastal waters

contain a wealth of important information

about the economic and social history of this

country, yet historic shipwreck sites are suffering rapid attrition. Passage and implementation

of the Abandoned Shipwreck Act (H. R. 74 and

S. 858) would assist in preserving significant

historic shipwrecks for future generations by

removing historic shipwrecks from the purview

of Federal admiralty courts and placing them

expressly under Federal historic preservation

law.

The lack of Federal leadership in resolving the

question of jurisdiction over and ownership of

significant historic shipwrecks has severely hampered most efforts to protect them for the public

and has resulted in lengthy court conflicts between commercial treasure salvers and preservationists. Although submerged archaeological

sites under Federal administration are subject to

the same laws, regulations, and management policies that govern sites on dry land, the status of

some submerged cultural sites, especially shipwrecks, situated outside national parks and marine sanctuaries, is adversely affected by a highly

complicated body of law dealing with maritime

activities. Yet, other countries such as Australia,

Canada, Cyprus, Norway, Sweden, and the United

Kingdom have enacted national laws regulating

the management of all cultural resources within

the waters of their outer continental shelves.

In the absence of Federal legislation to safeguard historic shipwrecks, 27 States have passed

antiquities statutes to broaden their jurisdiction

and exert regulatory control over significant

wrecks within their territorial waters. Yet legal actions taken in Federal court by commercial treasure salvers have called into question the validity

of State laws in controlling the recovery of materials at historically significant sites, and have denied the States authority to enforce their statutes.

H.R. 74 and S. 858, which are nearly identical, would treat shipwrecks more like historic

properties on land. Among other things, these

bills:

●

●

●

●

●

assert U.S. ownership of abandoned shipwrecks and transfers to the States title to

those shipwrecks that are embedded in the

submerged lands of a State, in coralline formations, or included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of

Historic Places;

declare that the laws of salvage and of finds

do not apply to these abandoned shipwrecks;

confirm Federal ownership of abandoned

shipwrecks on Federal lands;

retain any existing Federal admiralty and salvage law for all shipwrecks not covered by

these bills; and

direct the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to develop guidelines to assist the

States and the Federal Government in carrying out their responsibilities and to allow for

non-injurious recreational exploration and

private sector salvage of shipwreck sites.

Passage of either bill would not restrict the right

of sport divers to visit and explore such wrecks,

nor would it affect admiralty claims for the ownership of wrecks beyond the three-mile off-shore

State-controlled limit.

A federally funded facility that focuses on the

research and development of preservation technology could make a major contribution to the

study and preservation of underwater and maritime cultural resources.

Although the private sector has a significant role

in developing and using preservation technologies, the Federal Government has the lead

responsibility for guiding preservation efforts

throughout the United States. Participants in the

OTA assessment, Technologies for Prehistoric and

Historic Preservation, cited the critical need for

a federally supported facility for preservation

technologies. A center would foster the research

and development of advanced, cost-effective

technologies, train professionals in their use, develop technical standards, disseminate accurate

technical information, and promote public edu-
5

cation about historic preservation. A center could

also develop automated database systems for archiving and manipulating preservation information.

A federally supported center for preservation

technology would encourage closer interactions

among underwater archaeologists, maritime preservationists, dry-land archaeologists, historians,

scientists, and engineers. It would be the primary

source to which individuals could look for stateof-the-art technical information for all relevant

disciplines in the field.

In order to assist the Federal agencies in carrying out their legislatively mandated responsibilities, Congress may wish to establish such a federally chartered center. It could mandate the

establishment of a Federal Center for Preservation Technology within the Department of the lnterior or some other Federal agency. Alternatively, Congress could create a National Center

for Preservation Technology, managed by a consortium of universities and preservation organizations. Such an institution would be able to draw

on a muItitude of different skills in several universities, and in many university departments. If a

Center for Preservation Technology were established, technologies for underwater archaeology

and maritime preservation could constitute a significant portion of its workload.

A Coalition for Applied Preservation Technology (CAPT) has recently been formed whose

membership represent a wide variety of private

preservation organizations. CAPT is devoted to

establishing a multidisciplinary National Center

for Applied Preservation Technology.

The lack of National and State inventories of

underwater archaeological sites and maritime

historical resources has seriously impeded efforts to protect these resources. If the Federal

Government and the States wish to protect underwater archaeological sites and maritime cultural resources, they should apply greater efforts

to making such inventories.

Although thousands of historic ships and

smaller vessels, and prehistoric sites are suspected

to exist in State and Federal waters, both levels

of government have neglected underwater archaeological and maritime resources in their inventories. For example, the first serious Federal

effort to undertake a computer-based resource

survey did not begin until 1986, with the National

Maritime Initiative, which is directed at surveying historic maritime resources and recommending standards and priorities for their preservation.

The first phase of the Initiative has thus far surveyed only one maritime resource category out

of eight identified—preserved historic vessels over

40 feet long and over 50 years old.

The National Register of Historic Places serves

as an important planning and protective tool for

historic cultural resources. National Register

Bulletin #20, “Nominating Historic Vessels and

Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic

Places,” which is designed to increase National

Register listings of these resources, will assist in

efforts to protect them as well.

Several States have inventoried their underwater and maritime cultural resources. Maryland,

for example, has begun a survey of its maritime

resources. Its Patuxent River Project, which was

begun in 1978, includes a systematic survey of

the river, including shipwrecks, wharfs, ferry landings, and inundated shore areas. In addition, the

State’s Chesapeake Bay Waterways Survey, completed in 1982, resulted in the listing of the Skipjack Fleet in the National Register of Historic

Places, as a district.6

Future inventories of underwater archaeological and maritime resources should be placed on

standardized computer databases. The Shipwreck

Reference File of the Texas State Antiquities Commission, which is now being computerized, could

serve as a possible model. The file is based on

information culled from both historic and contemporary sources such as maps and field reports.

Since 1972, the Commission has listed over 1,000

shipwrecks of which approximately one-half have

proved historic.

Increased identification, interpretation, and

protection of significant underwater and maritime

cultural resources will depend on greater public

‘%kipjacks are Chesapeake Bay-built shallow draft sloops, designed

to dredge oysters. The Skipjack fleet is the last remaining working

sailing fleet in the United States.
6

appreciation of their historical value and the scarcity of their numbers. Federal, State, and local

education programs should be expanded to reach

a wider audience.

The public is often unaware of the crucial differences between treasure hunting, which focuses

on historic objects of high intrinsic cultural or economic value, and archaeology, which focuses on

the scientific understanding of the entire archaeological site within the context of its surroundings.

In their attempts to recover artifacts quickly, treasure hunters both deliberately and inadvertantly

destroy much of the contextual information essential for advancing scientific knowledge of prehistoric and historic sites. Improved education of

the general public, and those whose activities

might adversely affect significant sites, could result in a higher degree of protection. Specifically,

it will be important to educate sport divers, fisherman, salvers, the oil and gas industry, and other

users of underwater resources, as well as Federal

and State agencies and local communities about

the historic value of such sites.

In order to improve the preservation of underwater archaeological and maritime cultural

resources, the National Park Service and other

Federal agencies could focus more consistent attention on them.

The National Park Service could take the lead

in developing and articulating a clear national

policy to guide the preservation of maritime and

underwater cultural resources and coordinate

Federal programs for preserving these elements
7

of the country’s history. It could also include

more in its publications series on the technologies

for underwater archaeology and maritime preservation.

The National Maritime Initiative involves Federal and private groups,7 and is helping to focus

attention on the Nation’s historic maritime resources. Congress might consider an additional

initiative to inventory and protect other submerged non-maritime sites. The greatest need is

for sustained and predictable funding for such initiatives. In addition, it will be particularly important for the Federal agencies to achieve more effective coordination in their efforts to develop

technologies for underwater archaeology and

maritime preservation, An information clearinghouse would be of substantial assistance in this

area. Congressional oversight may be necessary

to assure that information sharing and coordination are truly effective.

Since 1976, tax incentives have promoted the

protection of historic income-producing structures in virtually every congressional district. It

7FOr ~xamPle, the National Trust for Historic preservation, Which

has attempted to promote the concept of a national maritime policy since 1976.

may be appropriate for Congress to extend such

tax incentives and make them available for privately owned, income-producing floating and

dry-berthed historic vessels. Congress might also

consider providing incentives for encouraging salvers to follow established archaeological procedures for excavating shipwrecks.

As manager of the National Marine Sanctuaries,

the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has taken the lead in the efforts to

map and preserve the U.S.S. Monitor, the historic

Union ironclad, which lies off Cape Hatteras.

However, it has little in-house underwater archaeological expertise. If NOAA expects to expand its involvement in underwater archaeology,

as it acquires new ocean areas for sanctuary designation, it could develop its own in-house cultural resource expertise.

The Federal Government could assist State and

local efforts by providing additional funding for

projects in underwater archaeology and maritime

preservation. If properly funded, universities and

other private groups could provide considerable

technological assistance to Federal, State, and

local projects.
MAJOR

Federal admiralty law and contradictory decisions from Federal courts concerning the disposition of historic shipwrecks and their contents

have created uncertainty within State governments over the extent to which they can regulate salvage within their waters for public benefit. This confusion has denied historic shipwrecks

and their contents the long-standing legal protection enjoyed by all other culturally significant resources and has left them vulnerable to the often

destructive actions of those interested in the recovery of commercially profitable objects, rather

than the scientific study of archaeological sites.

Aggravating the risk to historic shipwrecks and

their contents is the increasing availability of new

and powerful technologies that will hasten their

location and possible damage and loss. For example, state-of-the-art remote sensing instruments

are now powerful enough to locate most of the

shipwrecks in U.S. waters. Deep diving remotely

operated vehicles (ROVS) and robots can visit

sites previously unreachable.

Of all cultural resources, submerged archaeological and many maritime historical resources

are among the most heavily dependent for their

preservation on complex and often costly technologies (table 1). Some technologies enable

underwater archaeologists to confront often hazardous working conditions as well as a host of

practical problems that affect breathing, visibility, movement, communication, and length of research time at sites. These include tides, currents,

cold, depth, turbidity, hostile marine animals,

plants, and severe concretion or deep burial of

objects by sediments. Other technologies enable

the constant, highly specialized maintenance essential to all items recovered underwater, and to

many maritime resources, such as floating and

dry-berthed vessels.

Currently, there exists only a small core of

professionals experienced in the wide array of

methods used to survey, record, excavate, recover, analyze, inventory, conserve, and interpret cultural materials. Participants in the OTA

study identified a range of concerns related to

the use of existing or potential technical applications in the underwater archeological and marISSUES

Table I.—Some Research Technologies Discussed in

This Background Paper

●

●

●

●

●

●

slde-scan sonar: locates shipwrecks and sites on the bottom surface by detecting the echoes of high-frequency

acoustic pulses transmitted from an instrument towed behind ship;

sub-bottom profiler: locates shipwrecks and sites below

the bottom by detecting the return signals of lower frequency acoustic pulses from instrument towed behind

ship;

magnetometer: registers changes in the local magnetic

field as detector passes over iron-bearing cultural material. It can be used from a ship or an airplane;

remote/y operated vehicles (ROVS): a variety of submersible vehicles that can carry photographic or video cameras

to image submerged objects. ROVS can also retrieve samples from the bottom.

photography: black and white, color, and infrared at a wide

variety of scales; and

video: color and black and white.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987

itime preservation processes. The following issues

apply generally to most or all technologies for underwater archaeological and maritime historical

sites. They are not necessarily in priority order:

Issue A: The lack of a coherent national policy for underwater archaeology and maritime

preservation has impeded the location and

protection of important cultural resources.

This lack is felt at both the Federal and State

levels, and is ultimately reflected in local communities. Compared with efforts by Federal and

State agencies to preserve other elements of the

Nation’s cultural heritage, the preservation of

both maritime and submerged archaeological resources has been extremely limited. No single

Federal department or agency has been specifically charged with funding, coordinating, and

directing a strong, visible national program for

underwater archaeological and maritime preservation. In addition, the Federal Government has

never even asserted sovereign prerogative over

historic shipwrecks in its waters. In spite of the

body of cultural conservation laws enacted since

the Antiquities Act of 1906 (table 2), particularly

the watershed National Historic Preservation Act,

and its Section 106 (box A),a submerged cultural

8As well as the many supporting regulations, standards, and guidelines, and management and protection mechanisms, Including the

National Register of Historic Places.

8
9

—

Table 2.— Prehistoric and Historic Preservation Laws and Executive Orders

Laws —— . . - :

The Antlqultles Act of 1906, Public Law 59-209 (6 U.S.C. ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

431 -433)

The National Park Service Organic Act (An Act of Aug. 25,

1916), (39 Stat 535, 16 U.S.C. 1)

The Hlstoric Sites Act of 1935, Public Law 74-292 (16 USC.

461 -467)

The National Historic Preservation Trust Act of 1949, Public

Law 81-408 (63 Stat. 927, 16 U.S.C. 468 et seq.)

The Submerged Lands Act of 1953, Public Law 83-31 (67

Stat 29, 43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.)

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Public Law 83-212 (67

Stat. 462, 43 U. SC. 1331 et seq.)

The Management of Museum Properties Act of 1955, PubIic Law 84-69 (16 U.S.C. 18f)

The Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, Public Law 86-523 (16

U. SC. 469-469c)

The Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Publlc Law

89-670 (80 Stat. 931)

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law

89-665 (16 USC. 470)

The National Envlronmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law

90-190 (16 U.S.C 470)

Executive Order 11593, “Protection and Enhancement of

the Cultural Environment, ” May 13, 1971, (36 F,R. 8921)

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Public Law 92-203

(85 Stat. 688, 43 U S.C. 1601-1624)

The Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974,

Public Law 93-291 (88 Stat. 174, 16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.)

American Folklife Preservation Act of 1976, Public Law

94-201 (20 U.S.C. 2101-2107)

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Public

Law 95-341 (92 Stat. 46a, 42 U.S.C. 1996)

Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980, Public Law 96-312

(94 Stat. 948, 16 U. SC. 1274)

National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980,

Public Law 96-515 (94 Stat. 2987, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, Public Law 96-95 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.)

Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, Public Law 97446 (96 Stat. 2350-2363, 19 U.S.C. 2601-2613)

— —

Legislation under consideration in the 99th Congress:

● R.M.S. TITANIC Memorial Act of 1985 (H. R. 3272)

• The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1985 (H. R. 3558 and S.

2569)

. The Olmsted Heritage Landscapes Act of 1985 (HR. 37)

Reguiations: a

● 43 CFR 3 (Antiquities Act)

• 43 CFR 7 (Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979)

. 36 CFR 60 (National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

(NHPA) and EO 11593)

• 36 CFR 61 (NHPA and EO 11593)

. 36 CFR 63 (NHPA and EO 11593)

● 36 CFR 65 (Historic Sites Act of 1935)

• 36 CFR 66 (Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of

1974)

● 36 CFR 68 (N HPA)

● 36 CFR 800 (NHPA and EO 11593)

● 40 CFR 1500 (N EPA) “Regulations for Implementing the

Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy

Act. ”

Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation:

“The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilita.

tion and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, ”

National Park Service (revised 1983), booklet.

“The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines

for Archeology and Historic Preservation, ” Federal Register

48, No. 190, Thursday, Sept. 29, 1983.

“Final Uniform Regulations, Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979,” Federal Register 49, No. 4, Friday, Jan.

6, 1984.

“Draft Guidelines for Historic and Archeological Resource

Management: Federal Agency Responsibilities Under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, ” National

Park Service, Feb. 5, 1986.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Executive Director’s “Procedures for Review of Proposals for Treatment of

Archaeological Properties: Supplementary Guidance, ” 45

Federal Register 78808.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation “Protection of

Historic Properties,” 36 CFR Part 800, Federal Register 51,

No. 169, Sept. 2, 1986.

a Regulations are promulgated adopted, and then compiled (n the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), In order to lfnplef’nent Provisions Of 9eneral laws The name of

the act It Implements follows each c!!atlon

SOURCE U S Department of the Interior and OTA

resources and many historic maritime resources

have, at best, received uneven attention by Federal agencies.

Two recent developments, however, promise

to encourage more aggressive protective Federal

act ion:

1. publication of the first criteria for evaluating

and nominating historic ships and shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic

places, 9 10 and

2. the National Maritime Initiative (see the section, Federal Policy Toward Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation), monies for ‘which were allocated by Congress

Natlonal Register Program, only 44 vessels were Il\ted. ’ James P.

Delgado, ‘‘The National Register of Historic Plac e~ and Marltlrne

Preservation, ’ The APT f?u//etin 9, No. 1, 1987, p. 35.

10james p, De[~ado and a National Park Service Marit I me Task

Force, Nation.]/ Register Bu//efIn #20, “Nominating Historic Ve\-

sels and S h I pw recks to the N’atlona I Rqqster of H isto nc Places

(W.lshlngton, DC: U.S. Dt’lJ,]rtment of the I nterlor, N.]tlonal Park

Ser\l( e inter.]~ency Resources Dml\mn, 1987) This puhllcatton .lid~

prewriatlon [)rotes~tonal~ and other interested cltlzens in identifyI n~, eva I uatl ng, and nom I n,]t I ng h t~torl[ tw~sels and sh Ipwreck$ to

t h~> Nat Ion,) I Re~lster of t i l~torl[ f)la[ e$.
10

Table 3.-Federal Agencies With Major Roles in

Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Bureau of Reclamation (Department of Interior)

Environmental Protection Agency

Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of Interior)

General Services Administration

Minerals Management Service (Department of Interior)

National Endowment for the Humanities

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(Department of Commerce)

National Park Service (Department of Interior)

National Science Foundation

Smithsonian Institution

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Department of Defense)

U.S. Coast Guard (Department of Defense)

U.S. Forest Service (Department of Agriculture)

U.S. Navy (Department of Defense)

U.S. Soil Conservation Service (Department of

Agriculture) - - –,

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.

in fiscal year 1986 to the Department of the

Interior for Phase One.

Federal Programs

Every Federal agency is required by law to preserve prehistoric and historic properties on lands

(including submerged lands) within its jurisdiction and to consider their treatment in general

program planning. Each agency plays a different

part in the process of cultural resource management and the development of relevant technologies (table 3). The National park Service (NPS),

for example (box B), is specifically charged with

protecting cultural resources within the National

Park System and with providing general technical preservation assistance. The U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, by contrast, has jurisdiction over the

Nation’s coasts and navigable waterways, regulating both public and private projects such as

dam building or dredging, and is obliged to balance preservation needs against other program

requirements.

In the absence of a coherent national policy

for safeguarding submerged archaeological sites

and maritime resources, the agencies, which possess varying degrees of expertise, and generally

inadequate funding, have continued to locate,

analyze, and manage them. Although carried out

in a fragmented fashion, some of the government’s activity has produced work of excellent

quality and has involved diverse groups from the

public and private sectors. Federally supported

efforts include the following:

The National Park Service

NPS has long assumed the primary role in providing technical assistance on all aspects of

historic preservation throughout the national park

system, to other Federal agencies, to State agencies, local preservation organizations, and the

general public. Through its Submerged Cultural

Resources Unit (SCRU)ll in Santa Fe, New Mexico, the Service is actively involved in underwater

archaeological field work in many areas under

NPS jurisdiction. SCRU began in 1976 as a special team charged with designing site management strategies based on the impacts of waters

on archaeological materials in selected reservoirs

throughout the country .12 SCRU has now become

a fixture within NPS and the national leader in

underwater park interpretation, park manageI I SCR(J is ~ component of the Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Southwest Regional Office.

IZD.J. Lenihan, T. L. Carrell, S. Fosberg, et al., The Final Repofl

of the National Reservoir Inundation Study, U.S. Department of

the Interior, National Park Service, Southwest Cultural Resources

Center, 1981. This report is the product of a 5-year cooperative

effort involving NPS as lead agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Soil Conser-

*/ation Service.
11

ment, and diver training. it provides the only

professional team within the Federal Government

devoted to underwater archaeological activities.

SCRU has studied shipwreck and other underwater archaeological sites within 23 of the 45 submerged resource areas (table 4) managed by NPS

throughout the United States and its territories.

SCRU has located shipwrecks, and recorded,

measured, and documented them in such dissimilar underwater environments as: Lake Superior, Michigan, where the Isle Royale National

Park contains numerous wrecks; Pearl Harbor,

Table 4.—Submerged Resource Areas Surveyed

by the Nationai Park Service

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, Alaska

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Arizona

Montezuma Well, Arizona

Buffalo National River, Arkansas

Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas

Channel islands National Park, California

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, California

Point Reyes National Seashore, California

Biscayne National Monument, Florida

Everglades National Park (Ft. Jefferson National

Monument), Florida

Gulf Islands National Seashore, Florida

Pu'uhonua o honaunau National Historical Park, Hawaii

U.S.S. Arizona Memorial, Hawaii

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana

Assateague Isiand National Seashore, Maryland

Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts

Isle Royale National Park, Michigan

Ozark National Scenic Riverway, Mississippi

Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Nevada

Chickasaw National Recreation Area, Oklahoma

Amistad National Recreation Area, Texas

Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, Texas

Padre Island National Seashore, Texas

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Wisconsin

Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming

Virgin Islands National Park, Virgin Islands

Buck Island Reef National Monument, Virgin Islands

War In The Pacific National Historical Park, Guam

SOURCE: National Park Service, Submerged Cultural Resources Unit

Hawaii, where the remains of the (U.S.S. Arizona

and U.S.S. Utah lie as a result of the 1941 Japanese aircraft attack that drew the United States

into World War ii; Alaska; and off Kosrae in the

U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific. SCRU has also

successfully secured the participation of volunteer sport divers and local historians at Isle Royale; Channel islands National Marine Sanctuary

off the coast of California; Apostle Islands in Lake

Superior, Wisconsin; and Point Reyes-Farallon lsIands National Marine Sanctuary, California. The

Unit has also worked with local news media, the

National Geographic Society, and the British

Broadcasting Corp. to interpret shipwreck archaeology and “the conservation-oriented, nondestructive technique that is their distinctive trademark.”ls SCRU is often consulted by other

Federal agencies, State offices, and private archaeologists for guidance and is currently advisI James P. Delgado, National Park Service, personal comm uni -

cation, February 1987. See also Peter G. Howorth, “California Shipwrecks: Finders, Weepers, ” Waterfront, February 1986.
12 — — —

Diver drawing engine of Glenlyon, sunk ~ Isle Royale, Ml, in 1924.

 Park Service, Submerged Resources Unit

Illustration of engine done underwater by Submerged Cultural Resources Unit illustrator.
13

ing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on its U.S.S. Monitor preservation

project.

The NPS has recently created a position of Maritime Historian and institutionalized its efforts for

the National Maritime Initiative in its Maritime

Initiative Office. NPS also maintains a National

Maritime Museum in the Golden Gate National

Recreational Area in San Francisco.

Together with the University of New Mexico,

NPS supports a Spanish Colonial Research Center, which is devoted to studying the historical

records and material culture of the Spanish

Colonial period. One objective of the center is

to develop a computerized database from Spanish Colonial and other archival sources. Among

other things, the Center is active in studying and

interpreting the maritime records of Spain.

NOAA’s U.S. National Marine

Sanctuary Program

This program, within the Office of Ocean and

Coastal Resource Management, oversees the

management of seven sites (table 5) within U.S.

waters. These are fragile ecosystems designated

nationally significant pursuant to Title Ill of the

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. (amended in

1984).14

NOAA’s cultural conservation efforts so far affect only one site among the seven–the U.S.S.

Monitor National Marine Sanctuary (box C). Designated for its historic significance in 1975, the

sanctuary encloses a circular area 1 nautical mile

in diameter surrounding the wreck of the historic

Civil War ironclad. The vessel, resting upside

down in the “Graveyard of the Atlantic” off Cape

Hatteras, North Carolina, represented a revolutionary technical advance over the typical broadside warships of that era and changed the character of naval warfare. Sunk during a storm in

1862, she had, during the same year, battled the

Confederate ironclad C.S.S. Virginia (formerly the

IAThiS legislation and its attendant regulations: 1 ) enhance resource protection through comprehensive and coordinated management; 2) support scientific research on discrete marine resources

for Improved long-term planning; and 3) promote public awareness, appreciation, and judicious uses of these rekources through

educational and recreational initiatives.

Table 5.—National Marine Sanctuaries

●

●

●

●

●

●

•

—

U.S.S Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, designated 1975

—a one-square-nautical-miIe area surrounding the wreck

of the historic Civil War ironclad of the Union, sunk off

Cape Hatteras in 1862

Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, designated 1975—a

100-square-nautical- mile area off the Florida keys which

includes part of the largest of North America’s coral reef

systems

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, designated

1980-a 1,252-square-nautical-mile area off the coast of

Southern California, which contains shipwrecks and

supports one of the world’s largest and most diverse

marine mammal populations as well as one of the most

extensive of the State’s few remaining kelp beds

Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary, designated 1981—a

5.3-square-nautical-mile reef area located off the lower

Florida Keys

Gray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary, designated

1981 —a 17-square-nautical-mile area 17.5 nautical miles

off Florida where the warm Gulf stream meets the cooler

waters of the coast over a limestone outcropping which

supports sponges, corals, tropical reef fish, and

invertebrates

Point Reyes-Farallon islands national Marine Sanctuary,

designated 1981-a 948 square-nautical-mile site northwest

of San Francisco, California, representative of near and

offshore northeastern Pacific habitats and notable for its

unique concentration of seabirds

Fagatele Bay national Marine Sanctuary, designated 1986—

a 163-acre bay off Tutuila Island, American Samoa, comprising deep-water coral terraces characteristic of high

volcanic islands in the tropical Pacific

SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Merrimac) in the famous duel of the ironclads off

Hampton Roads, Virginia.

The U.S.S. Monitor’s designation directs NOAA

to extend protection to a cultural resource located beyond the limits of the country’s territorial

sea to the Outer Continental Shelf and to examine interactions between natural and cultural elemerits.15. The agency is managing the site through

its U.S.S. Monitor Project. The project is a multiyear effort by NOAA to develop and begin implementing a master plan, the first phase of which

calls for an assessment of preservation options

ranging from research, survey, recording, documentation, and removal of contents from the site,

to total recovery. These options reflect the full

spectrum of cultural resource management

issues16 and include not only in situ archaeolog1‘Nancy Foster, “National Marine Sanctuaries–Saving Offshore

Ecosystems, ” Sea Technology, November 1986, pp. 22-28.

IGSee Drafi “U .S. S. Monitor National National Marine san CtU -

ary Research Management Plan, ” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1987.
14

ical study, but also conservation, interpretation,

and display requirements in the event of excavation.l7 The project is making the U.S. S. Monitor the centerpiece of a permanent public interpretation and education drive and has selected

a principal museum to curate and display artifacts

and information about the Monitor.

NOAA has examined foreign efforts in underwater archaeology and maritime preservation for

17 In the appears infeasible, NOAA is considering

two alternatives for display purposes: a reconstruction of the ship

within which materials and conserved artifacts would be incorporated; and 2) replicas, one of which would be presented in an

aquarium-like setting, the other as a full-scale replica. These alternatives were developed by the Harper’s Ferry Center of the National Park Service and described in its report to NOAA, “An Assessment of the Interpretive Potential of the Monitor.”

Photo cradit: International, Inc.

Artist’s rendering of the remotely operated vehicle,

Deep Drone, above the wreck of the Civil War Union

ship, U.S.S. Monitor, lying 230 feet deep off

the coast of Cape Hatteras, NC.

guidance on its U.S.S. Monitor Project. NOAA

seeks to avoid mistakes made during the salvage

of the U.S.S. Cairo, a Civil War Union ironclad,

which sank to the bottom of the Yazoo River in

Mississippi after striking a Confederate mine in

1862. The vessel and all contents lay essentially

intact beneath the river’s mud and silts. What

started in 1955 as a well-meant grass-roots venture among local enthusiasts, historians, Civil War

buffs, and businessmen to raise and display the

craft caused its near-destruction and the loss of

a significant portion of its wood and metal components as well as its cargo. The operation,

flawed by inexpert underwater survey, lack of

sufficient research, and inadequate analysis of

technical needs, resulted in the breaking apart

of the ship during lifting and virtual abandonment

of salvaged parts in open air storage. Only with

the intercession in 1977 of the National Park Service was proper rescue, conservation, and display

achieved. 18

NOAA, unlike land-managing agencies, has not

established its own team of archaeologists or cultural resource specialists but has relied during the

18H. Thomas McGrath, “The Preservation of the Cairo,”

Underwater Archaeology: The Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd.),

Special Publication #4 San Marine, CA: Fathom Eight, 1982.
15

past decade on other Federal and State agencies,

universities, private corporations, organizations,

and individuals for interdisciplinary technical expertise. For example, through interagency agreement, NPS staffs and manages the Channel lsIands and Point Reyes-Farallon Islands National

Marine Sanctuaries. NPS’S Senior Archaeologist,

a SCRU archaeologist, the Acting Maritime Historian, and staff from the NPS Harper’s Ferry Center are assisting NOAA in developing general

management policies for submerged cuItural resources (including the U.S. S. Monitor) and managing any archaeological materials extracted from

the Monitor. Likewise, the U.S. Navy Supervisor

of Salvage and Diving is providing NOAA with

planning and operational assistance as well as

some of the latest undersea technologies. Also,

the former Director of Restoration for the Statue

of Liberty/Ellis Island Foundation has established

the National Foundation for Maritime Conservation to aid the U.S.S. Monitor Project.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The Army Corps of Engineers, which was organized by George Washington in 1776, has become a major command. In addition to providing support to the fighting Army, it is responsible

for the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of such facilities as military hospitals, barracks, commissaries, and family housing. Through

its Civil Works Program, the Corps is also responsible for regulating construction, expansion, and

alteration along the nation’s coastlines and

navigable inland waterways. It employs a number of archaeologists who review the many projects carried out or regulated by the Corps to assure compliance with historic preservation laws

and regulations.

The Corps mounts some of the Federal Government’s most expensive and technically complex projects to aid flood control and navigation.

Many of these projects are potentially destructive to shipwrecks and other submerged archaeological sites. They include harbor facility development, reservoir, dam, bridge, levee, dike,

seawall, tunnel, island, canal, lock, and hydroelectric plant construction, filling, ocean dumping, channel improvement, and shoreline stabilization.

In support of these activities, the Corps removes

nearly 300 million cubic yards of material per year

from beneath the sands and sediments of submerged lands, which makes dredging one of the

Corps’ greatest threats to archaeological remains,

One of the most frequently dredged areas is the

lower Mississippi River between Baton Rouge,

Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico. Every year, the

Corps dredges over 18 million cubic yards of material from this waterway because of virtually constant deposition of sediments.19 The Corps also

confronts the problem of disposal of dredging

products, studying their environmental effects,

and seeking ways to put them to beneficial use.

Many activities regulated by the Corps require

authorization through three kinds of permits—

individual, nationwide, and general.20 The Corps

has left the issuance of permits for activities affecting historic shipwrecks to the discretion of individual District Engineers (thirty-six within eleven

Divisions).

Two cases demonstrate that this policy has led

to inconsistent levels of review and differences

from District to District as to the suitability of permits to projects. In the instance of the Whydah,

a pirate ship whose remains are being excavated

off the coast of Cape Cod in Massachusetts, the

New England District Engineer issued an individual permit to private salvers and entered into a

Memorandum of Agreement with the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)

and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in fulfillment of requirements under

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation

19Navigation : The Role of the Corps, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, October, 1983. See also U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Program: A Guide for Applicants, November, 1977, Fifteen Steps

to a Civil Works Project, January, 1986, Channel Improvement and

Stabilization on the Mississippi River, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

October 1979, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environment, Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers,

Washington, D.C.

ZOThe u .S. Army corps of Engineers issues permits u rider the authority of Sec. 10 of the River and Harbors Act of 1899, Sec. 404

of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500), and Section 103 of

the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (Public Law

92-532). These laws, as stated in “Application for a Department

of the Army Permit, ” require permits authorizing structures and

work in or affecting navigable waters of the United States, the d ischarge of dredged fill material into waters of the United States, and

the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping

it into ocean waters. ”
16

Act.21 The Memorandum of Agreement, negotiated as a stipulation of the individual permit, is

designed to ensure that excavation proceeds according to accepted archaeological standards.

By contrast, the Philadelphia District Engineer

authorized recovery at the site of the 18th century Dutch-built vessel DeBraak, located off the

coast of Lewes, Delaware under a nationwide

permit for marine salvage. The Corps did not enter into a Memorandum of Agreement in observance of Section 106, nor did it seek comment

by the ACHP. It deferred oversight of the salvage

to the State which apparently had inadequate

means to assure that properly controlled excavation at the site prevailed. As the hull was raised,

it suffered severe damage and a loss of contents

and interior features as a result of being inadequately supported.22 According to an analysis by

the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP),

the Corps’ Nationwide Permitting Program fails

to allow for Army compliance with Section 106

and is ineffectual for the purposes of historic preservation. It now offers the District Engineer the

option of either requesting ACHP comment or

modifying, suspending, or revoking the permit

altogether. Some effort to correct deficiencies in

Corps permitting of actions affecting historic shipwrecks has begun and involves discussions between NTHP and ACHP with the Corps at the

headquarters level. Locally, the New Orleans District is considering a Programmatic Agreement for

submerged resources as part of a larger proposed

“Nautical Cultural Resource Management Plan.”23

21 “The head of any Federal agency having direct of indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking

in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior

to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may

be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district,

site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for

inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal

agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity to

comment with regard to such undertaking. ”

ZzJohn M. Fowler, Advisory Council on Historic preservation, personal communication, July, 1987.

zJAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation, Memorandum of

June 12, 1987.

Minerals Management Service (MMS)

MMS is an agency of the U.S. Department of

the Interior formed in 1982 and given responsibility for regulating oil, gas, and mineral exploitation on the Outer Continental Shelf. Prior to

1982 such regulatory authority was vested in the

U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Land

Management. These two agencies had, since

1974, administered a program for cultural resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) (43

U.s.c. 1331, ff).

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978 prohibit “the disturbance of any

site, structure, or object of historical or archaeological significance by oil and gas exploration,”24

However, this Section applies only to areas containing mineral-related activities, not to the entire OCS. The Federal Government is obliged to

locate and evaluate the significance of cultural

resources before issuing permits for any actions

including oil or gas leasing and development on

the OCS. According to a November 24, 1980 ruling of the Interior Department Solicitor, however,

the Federal Government can legally transfer these

responsibilities to oil and gas lessees should the

discovery of sites within a given tract appear

Iikely. 25

The OCS program requires lessees to undertake archaeological surveys (generally 9 square

miles in area) of all blocks leased, to apply remote sensing technology (sub-bottom profilers,

side-scan sonar, and proton magnetometers), and

to avoid any areas that resulting data indicate may

contain wrecks or other sites. During the first 5

years of the OCS cultural resources program, before it established positions for professional archaeologists, 26 many surveys were inadequate

and hastily executed, but routinely accepted. in

the late 1970s and early 1980s lessees objected

to these requirements as excessive and burdensome, asserting that none of their surveys had revealed a site of great archaeological significance.

The agency has attempted to address the companies’ concerns by developing, testing, and

24Sec. 206 (g)(3).

z5Melanie J. strigtlt, Fee/era/ Cu/tura/ Resources Management on

the OCS; Prob/erns and Potentia/, U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, November 1981.

Zblbid., p.2.
17

refining a predictive model based on a pilot study

of the northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf,

funded by NPS.27 MMS established predictive

models of all areas where significant leasing is

underway or expected. These models cover both

shipwrecks and other submerged prehistoric sites.

The number of prehistoric archaeological sites

on the OCS is difficult to estimate as there is little information on human activity during the late

Wisconsin glacial period,28 when such sites

would have been above water (about 12,000 to

6,000 years before present). Lately, archaeologists have turned their attentions to inundated

prehistoric sites on the continental shelves, believing in their potential to reveal important information on prehistoric peoples unavailable

from terrestrial sites–evidence concerning their

migrations, their food gathering habits, and how

they established cultural contacts in North America during periods of lowered sea levels.29

MMS has sought to reduce the number of surveys required within the more than 400 millionaire OCS while maintaining an acceptable level

of cultural resource protection through Regional

Baseline Studies (box D). The baseline studies,

10 in all, identify areas of the OCS that most likely

contain significant archaeological materials. With

the exception of the Alaska studies, which focus

on prehistoric sites, all of them discuss both prehistoric and historic sites.

The agency has also begun an effort to characterize all unidentified magnetic anomalies generated by proton magnetometers and recorded

on strip charts during lease block surveys made

over more than a decade. Archaeologists have

been attempting for some time to discern patterns

Zzsee Sherwood M. Gagliano, Charles E. Pearson, Richard A.

Weinstein, et al. (Coastal Environments, Inc.), Sedimentary Studies

of Prehistoric Archaeological Sites: Criteria for the Identification of

Submerged Archaeological Sites of the Northern Gulf of Mexico

Continent/ She/f, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, Washington, DC, 1980. See also Coastal Environments,

Inc., Sherwood M. Gagliano, Project Director, Cu/tura/ Resources

Evaluation of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf, U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC,

1977.

zBThe geologica[ period known as the Wisconsin glaciat period

extended from about 25,000 to 6,000 before the present.

29 Melanie J. Stright, “Evaluation of Archaeological Site Potential

on the Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf Using High-Resolution Seismic Data, ” Geophysics, vol. 51, No. 3, March 1986, p. 605.

that would allow them to recognize, from among

the countless ferrous objects buried beneath the

world’s waterways, those which constitute shipwrecks or their contents. By isolating such sites,

archaeologists could devise strategies to protect

certain submerged cultural sites from destructive

activities, particularly where avoidance and

“ground truthing,” or testing may not be possible.30

State Programs

The State Historic Preservation Offices, as recipients of Federal monies through the Historic

Preservation Fund, act to some extent as agents

or extensions of the Federal Government. Yet,

as noted earlier, no uniform or comprehensive

Federal legislative framework for protecting historically significant shipwrecks on submerged

lands exists to guide the States as they deal with

often intense competition over the uses of their

submerged lands. Twenty-seven States have

enacted laws asserting control over and/or ownership of cultural sites in their waters. These laws

offer differing degrees of protection. A few stipulate stringent and detailed operational requirements through permits or contracts to control the

actions of salvers, sport divers, and archaeologists.

According to a recent study,31 the States spend

approximately 1 percent of their total historic

preservation budgets on survey, evaluation, and

conservation of historic shipwrecks. In 1983 (the

latest year for which figures have been compiled),

16 States spent around $3,379,253. Between

1967 and 1983, 21 States reported some attempts

at survey, totaling 296,201 acres. They discovered 671 historic shipwrecks, using State or Federal criteria. Out of 2,883 shipwrecks, 437 have

been located by States, 2,299 by sport divers, and

147 by salvers. Salvers in seven States have

claimed 34 wrecks. A number of coastal States

have begun to investigate historical records to determine if their waters contain more wrecks than

JoRichard Anuskiewicz, Minerals Management SerViCe, perSOnaf

communication, June, 1987.

J!Anne G, Giesecke, “The Best in State Historic Shipwreck prOgrams, ” Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Underwater

Archaeology, Special Publication Series #4, published by The Society for Historical Archaeology, Ronald L. Michael (cd.), 1985.

74-275 0-87 - 2 : OL 3

19

are currently known. Virginia, Texas, and California have each recorded information on more

than 2,OOO shipwrecks off their respective coasts.

They must now determine what material evidence of those wrecks remains.

Each State has taken its own approach to managing its historic shipwrecks. North Carolina employs a core staff to study the State’s shipwrecks.

South Carolina enlists the aid of hundreds of sport

divers and has obtained supplementary grant

funding for its underwater archaeological activities. Vermont works with the Lake Champlain Society, a private organization. Virginia funds no

underwater archaeology itself, but relies on Federal and private funds for its efforts. It is currently

focusing on the Yorktown shipwrecks, remnants

of Cornwall is’ fleet scuttled in the York River during the Revolutionary War, The State has made

effective use of volunteers, allowing public access to the site for educational purposes. Michigan has established underwater preserves for

areas of special natural and cultural interest. It

was the “first Great Lakes state to enact specific

legislation regulating the salvage of shipwreck materials. ”32

Private Programs

The National Trust for Historic

Preservation (NTHP)

The NTHP (box E) has, since 1976, maintained

a Maritime program to publicize underwater archaeology and maritime preservation issues, to

build and educate new constituencies, to award

grants, communicate more effectively with established constituencies, and to provide technical

publications. 33 It has also completed a maritime

preservation public service video program. With

the assistance of a private broker and financial

service firm, The Trust also sponsors a maritime

heritage insurance program to assist organizations

involved in maritime heritage to obtain insurance

32H i~toric Shipwrecks in Michigan waters are nevertheless under

considerable stress from salvers and divers. See John R. Halsey and

James L. Martindale, “The Sack of the Inland Seas: Shipwreck Plundering in the Great Lakes, ” paper presented at the 52nd Annual

Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Toronto, May

7, 1987.

33 For example, it has published a Directory of Maritirrre Heritage

Resources (Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1984).

for historic vessels. The Trust, as a participant in

the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program, has

provided NOAA with advice on public information and outreach to generate and maintain funding dedicated to protecting the U.S. S. Monitor.

In addition, the Trust has established a Maritime

Advisors Network to deal with critical questions

in the field and has commented on such issues

as the National Register guidelines for nominating historic ships and shipwrecks and current

maritime controversies as the salvage of the 18th

century vessel H.M.S. DeBraak off the coast of

Delaware, 34 The Trust was also a key advocate
20

of the Sailing School Vessels Act.35 The Trust is

expanding its Yankee Intern Program36 for maritime activities and plans to develop a prototype

Antiquities Act for consideration by those States

still lacking specific legislation to protect historic

shipwrecks in their waters. It is preparing a manual for documentation of historic maritime resources and is also studying the possibility of investment Tax Credits for vessels as well as

incentives to encourage archaeologically controlled investigation of submerged sites.37

International Efforts

Several countries have focused significant resources on underwater archaeology and maritime

preservation. Preservation professionals in the

United States view the recovery and restoration

of the 17th century Swedish warship Wasa and

the Tudor flagship Mary Rose as successful

models for U.S. efforts. Although they are not

without problems, these operations have demonstrated especially meticulous planning, execution, and significant governmental funding commitment.

● The Wasa, a warship which sank in Stockholm Harbor in 1628, was raised by the

Swedish Government in 1961. It was spectacularly well-preserved and intact after its

immersion in the Baltic Sea, whose salinity

is too low to sustain the survival of the woodborer Teredo navalis and other shipworms.38

These marine creatures quickly infest and

feed on submerged wood, inflicting heavy

jsLYnn HiCkerSOn, NatiOnal Trust for Historic PKWYVatiOII, IXVsonal communication, August 1987.

JbThe Yankee Intern Program is sponsored jointly by NTHP and

Yankee Publishing, Inc. It allows college and university students

and faculty to participate in maritime-focused activities. Such activities include working with owners and managers of historic ships

and docks to complete measured drawings and restoration, instructing high school students in maritime historical research techniques,

and raising funds to relocate historic lighthouses threatened by shore

erosion, and producing slide and video presentations to educated

and garner the financial support of the public, foundations, and

other institutions.

37Marcia Myers, Maritime Department, National Trust for Historic

Preservation, personal communication, 1986.

J~arl Olof Cderlund, The O/c/ Wrecks of the l?alt;c Sea: AfChaeoIogical Recordings of the Wrecks of Carve/-Built Ships, pp. 19-20,

BAR International Series, Oxford, England, 1983. See also Anders

Franzen, Vasa: The Strange Story ofa Swedish Warship From 1628

(Stockholm: Bonniers Norstedts, 1963).

damage to the piles of piers and wharfs and

wooden components of sunken vessels not

covered by sediments. The conservation of

the Wasa over the past 25 years represents

a pioneering effort both in type and scale.

It established most of the techniques now

governing the treatment of cultural materials excavated from the deep.39 A provisional

curation, education, and display facility permits public visitation.

Although conservation and restoration of

the Wasa represents the highest quality approach and scientific know-how, recent

problems place the health of the vessel in

jeopardy. 40 Rain leaking through the aluminum shed which houses the ship has caused

temperature fluctuations and condensation.

This condensation has contributed to rapid

shrinkage of those areas of her wooden hull

which have apparently not received sufficient treatment with the preservative polyethylene glycol. Conservators ceased applying the preservative in 1980 when it seemed

that the ship could no longer absorb the substance. Respraying resumed after 3-inch

broad cracks appeared in some places. Curators lament the fact that because of inadequate funding a permanent museum which

could provide the essentials of constant temperature and humidity cannot be completed

until 1990. This development illustrates the

level of commitment needed for major preservation projects and the continuing research required to anticipate the effects of

certain treatments under changing conditions.

The Mary Rose, raised in 1982 by the British government, was the flagship of Henry

Vlll’s fleet.41 She foundered at the entrance

to Portsmouth Harbor in 1545 while on her

way to engage the French fleet. The wreck

was located in 1970 after a search using a

39 For example, the use of polyethylene glycol as a Preservative

for waterlogged wood.

@see “New Woes Assault Sweden’s Ill-Fated Naval Monument, ”

Albuquerque )ourna/, Jan. 1, 1987, p. D15.

4] “The Cheesebox, ” The Monitor National Marine Sanctuary

Activities Report, vol. 4, No. 1, May 1985 published by East Carolina University, Department of History, Program in Maritime History and Underwater Archaeology.
21

side-scan sonar and sub-bottom acoustic

profiler located an anomalous signal in the

area in which the wreck was thought to lie.

In raising the Mary Rose, British archaeologists and engineers developed a specially

engineered recovery apparatus, the cradle

of which was designed to continue supporting the hull in dry dock through the initial

conservation phases. It was the product of

extensive multi-professional collaboration.

The Mary Rose project will serve as a test bed

for conservation chemistry and allow chemists

to determine the best methods for conserving water-logged wood.42

The Mary Rose also represents an important collaboration between sport divers and

professional preservationists. The wreck was

discovered by members of the British SubAqua Club, who worked closely with supervising archaeologists. Without these essential volunteers, successful excavation, raising, and subsequent conservation would

have been impossible.

The relatively successful restorations of both the

Wasa and the Mary Rose depended on long-term

commitments by governments, preservationists,

and scientists to engender public interest, and to

obtain reliable funding, proper research and interpretive facilities, and access to technical expertise.

ISSUE B: The lack of Federal legislation to determine jurisdiction over and ownership of

historic shipwrecks has severely hampered

most efforts to protect them for the public.

Recent legislation,43 and more effective enforcement of older preservation laws, have led

to improved protection of archaeological sites on

lands controlled by the Federal Government.

Submerged archaeological sites under Federal

42 Margaret Rule, “The Raising of the Mary Rose, ” The Illustrated

London News, October 1982.

dJThe Archeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974 (public Law 93-291; 88 Stat. 174) which amended the Reservoir Salvage

Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-253; 74 Stat. 220; 16 U.S,C, 469-469c)

and The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (Public

Law 96-95; 93 Stat. 712, 16 U.S.C. 470) and the 1980 amendments

to National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 96-515;

Stat. 2997) among others.

administration are subject to the same laws, regulations, and management policies governing

sites on dry land. These laws, regulations, and

policies are intended to shield submerged sites

from such destructive activities as mineral exploration and dredging, and also limit private access

to them if they lie within national parks and marine sanctuaries. However, the status of historic

shipwrecks situated outside national parks and

marine sanctuaries, is adversely affected by an

additional, highly complex body of law governing maritime activities, as well as ancient legal

principles, such as property ownership, admiralty

law, and the law of finds.44 Further complicating

matters are the several different marine jurisdictions (box F). Other countries such as Australia,

Canada, Cyprus, England, Norway, and Sweden

have enacted national laws regulating the management of all cultural resources within the

waters of their outer continental shelves.45

Maritime salvaging tradition lies at the heart of

continuing conflict over the treatment of U.S.

historic shipwrecks, which has pitted private salvers and State preservation officers against each

other. This tradition, established to motivate privately conducted rescue of vessels in peril, rewards salvers for their attempts, or grants them

possession of abandoned vessels and their contents. However, maritime law treats both historic

and modern vessels identically, considering the

time of abandonment, whether 2 or 200 years

ago, irrelevant.

qqAdmiralty law of salvage rewards the person or persons Who

assist in saving a ship in peril and requires payment by its owner

of a salvage fee. If no owner is found, the ship and its contents

may be sold to raise the award. The law of finds awards lost or

abandoned property to the person or persons finding it. “The law

of finds and the law of salvage are not always clearly distinguished

by admiralty courts.” Thompson M. Mayes, “Current Legal issues

in the Law of Historic Shipwrecks, ” A Memorandum for the ~ffice Of Genera/ counse/, National Trust for Historic preservation,

October 1986.

dssee P.). O’Keefe, current Developments Regarding Regulation

of Marine Archaeology Outside Territorial Waters, University of Sydney; cited by Douglas Shallcross and Anne Giesecke, “The Status

of Federal and State Regulation of Underwater Cultural Resources:

Lessons of the Treasure Salvers and Cobb Coin Cases, ” Un&rwater

Archaeology: The Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Urrderwater Archaeology, 1986, See also George R. Fisher, Lega/ Considerations in Underwater Archaeology, National Park Service,

Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, FI (paper presented

at the annual meeting of the Society on Underwater Archaeology,

Philadelphia, PA, January 1976).
22

Maritime law is in sharp contrast with preservation law, in which prehistoric and historic sites

and objects found on public land are considered

to be held in trust by the U.S. Government for

all its citizens. As such, according to a substantial set of preservation laws (Table 2), cultural resources on public lands must be managed for the

public good.

In the oceans surrounding the U.S. coast, private salvers, particularly treasure hunters, search

out gold and silver items, coins, jewels, and highly

valued antiquities at wreck sites, employing such

devices as dredges, blowers, and explosives. They

may ruin such contextual remnants as hulls, furniture, armament, and cargo, leaving sites unfit

for proper scientific investigation, and for public display and education. Because only an extremely small number of wrecks contain such

desirable artifacts, their searches “have destroyed

the archaeological potential of hundreds of

historic, but not commercially promising sites.”~

4%ee Carol Weare, “Saving Shipwrecks: An Underwater imbroglio,” P/ace, December 1983.
Submerged Cultural Resources Unit diver examines the bow

Interest Groups

Historic shipwrecks are the focus of three competing groups:

1. Treasure Hunters.–As potential profiteers

from the sale of gold, silver, gems, and other

valuables, and as successful claimants of historic wrecks in Florida and Texas, they are

the most aggressive seekers of these fragile

resources, even when, as is often the case, 2.

their quests result in financial losses.47 Although only about a dozen treasure hunters

operate full time, their sometimes flamboyant, high-risk activities have captured the

public interest. They have, through assiduous lobbying in Congress, been instrumental in the repeated defeats (since 1979) of

earlier versions of the Abandoned Shipwreck

Act. One of the most popular means of financing treasure hunting explorations involves investors who form partnerships, syn-

 G. on H. R. 3558 before the House

Subcommittee on Oceanography, Oct. 29, 1985. 3.

of America, sunk at Isle Royale, Ml, in 1928.

dicates, or other business relationships,

Salvaging ventures have been stimulated by

liberal tax shelters for investors in limited

partnerships. However, the tax reforms

enacted by the 99th Congress are likely to

render some salvage efforts less attractive because they place greater restrictions on the

losses investors may claim from high risk,

limited partnerships.

Underwater Archaeologists and Maritime

Historians.–They are joined by Federal and

State Historic Preservation Officers, general

and nautical museum curators, and conservators responsible to governmental agencies

and universities for the care of recovered objects. This group is interested primarily in

preserving and conducting research on maritime and underwater archaeological sites,

and interpreting them to the public. Historic

shipwrecks provide information on such

subjects of historical and public interest as

commerce, naval warfare, exploration, and

vessels—their construction, cargo, passengers, and the details of their loss at sea.

Sport Divers.–This interest group is by far
24

Credit: Brewer, National for Preservation

 for Preservation

Credit: Lynn R. Trust for Preservation National for Preservation

Photo 1: Apprentices at the Maine Maritime Museum, Bath, ME work on the planking of a traditional Maine peapod—one of

many activities and exhibits available for visitors at the museum’s four city-wide and waterfront sites. Photo 2: Bodie Island

Light Station. Now part of Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina. Erected 1872. Photo 3: The E’ala. Double hulled

voyaging canoe, Waianae, HI. 1979 Maritie Grant recipient, National Trust For Historic Preservation. Photo 4: Ronson ship

excavation site, New York City. Archaeologists working amidships, removing ceiling planking to expose frames. Photo 5: The

Charles W. Morgan, Mystic Seaport, CT.
25

 ” Trust Historic 

Credit M 

Credit for 

 U S Navy

Photo 6: The Tacoma Fireboat #1. Tacoma, Washington. Entered service, October 1929. Listed on the National Register of

Historic Places. Photo 7: Blackstone Canal, Providence, RI. Photo 8: Historic Ho//and// submarine, Paterson Museum, Paterson, NJ. Photo 9: Drum Point Lighthouse and the William B. Tennison, Calvert Maritime Museum, Solomons Island, MD. Photo

10: The skipjack, Kathryn, Tilghman Island, MD, ready for the oyster season. Photo 11: The Romanian Bark, Mircea, taking

part in the bicentennial celebration off the Statue of Liberty by the tall ships, called Operation Sail,
26

the largest. The Conference on Underwater

Archaeology and the Society for Historical

Archaeology estimate that there are more

than 2 million sport divers in the United

States, many of whom find diving on wrecks

an enjoyable, exciting, and educational pastime. Along with fishermen, sport divers

locate the bulk of all shipwrecks within U.S.

coastal and inland waters. They collect artifacts, and also photograph and study the

histories of undersea wrecks avocationally.

Many volunteer their services to qualified archaeologists. Some, however, also loot and

disturb sites. Sport divers strongly advocate

their right under protective shipwreck legislation to legal access to submerged wrecks.

Their principal membership and trade organizations, such as the Diving Equipment

Manufacturer’s Association, have supported

the latest version of the Abandoned Shipwreck Bill (H. R. 74 and S. 858).

Litigation Over Ownership of

Historic Shipwrecks

As noted earlier, in the absence of Federal legislation to safeguard historic shipwrecks, 27 States

have passed antiquities statutes to broaden their

jurisdiction and exert regulatory control over significant wrecks within their territorial waters (box

G). Yet several Federal court cases, disputed over

more than a decade, have denied the States authority to enforce their statutes. These cases, dealing with competing claims to historic shipwrecks

between commercial salvers and State preservationists, have also called into question the validity not only of State governments, but the Federal Government, in controlling the recovery of

archaeological materials at significant sites.

Two major litigations in particular have proved

lengthy, complex,48 costly, and ultimately incon-

 Ill, “The Lawsuit Revisited, ”

Underwater Archaeology: The Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference Underwater Archaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd.),

Special Publication #7 (San Marine, CA: Fathom Eight, 1986) for

a description of the complex, expensive, and lengthy litigation process in which the State of Texas has been engaged to claim, for public

benefit, the wreck off Padre Island. Its efforts proved

only partially successful. The case deals primarily with State’s rights,

specifically, permitting authority and the courts requirement that

it pay for or buy back one-third of all artifacts recovered.

 Park Service

Sport divers begin a dive at Isle National Park

on a shipwreck bouyed by the National Park Service

for visiting sport divers.

clusive for preservation purposes because of the

highly inconsistent and even contradictory rulings emanating from State, admiralty, and appellate courts. Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified

Wreck and Abandoned Sailing Vessel (cases 1,11,

and III) concerned efforts by the State of Florida

and the Federal Government to exercise regulatory control over commercial salvaging at historic

shipwreck sites on the Outer Continental Shelf

(OCS). Cobb Coin, Inc. v. Unidentified Wreck

and Abandoned Sailing vessel was part of efforts

by the State of Florida to oversee recovery at

historic shipwrecks within its three-mile territorial

limit. The Treasure Salvors cases even involved

claims by a rival salver and Supreme Court interpretation of the merits of their claims.

Treasure Salvers, Inc., after searching for the

wrecks of the Atocha and the Santa Margarita,
27

Box G.—State Historic Shipwreck legislation

The following States and Trust Territories have,

since 1963, adopted legislation to enable management of historic shipwrecks in their waters

for public benefit. Most of these laws permit, under certain conditions, some recovery of archaeological materials by private parties. No State has

forbidden sport diving on historic shipwrecks :

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . Alaska Stat. 41.35 (1977)

Arizona . . . . . . . . . .Ariz. Rev. Stat. 41.841 (1982)

Colorado . . . . . . . . .Colo. Rev. Stat. 24.80.401-410

(1973)

Florida . . . . . . . . . . .Fla. Stat. Ann. 267 (Supp. 1982)

Georgia . . . . . . . . . .Ga. Code Ann. 12.3 (1981)

Guam ., . . . . . . . . ,Chpt. X111. 13985 .-5

Hawaii. . . . . . . . . . . Hawaii Rev. Stat. 6& (1976)

Indiana . . .. ..,. .Ind. Stat. Ann. 14.3.3.3-4 (Supp.

1983)

Louisiana. . . . . . . . .La. Stat. Ann. RS 41.1601 (Supp.

1982)

Maine . . . . . . . . . . .Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 27.373-378

(1982)

Massachusetts . . . . .Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. 6.179-180

(1974)

Michigan . . . . . . . . .Mich. Comp. Laws. Ann. 299.51-54

(Supp. 1382)

Minnesota . . . . . . . . Minn. Stat. Ann. 138 (1979)

Mississippi . . . . . . . .Code Ann. 39.7 (1972)

Montana . . . . . . . . . Code Ann. 22.3.421442 (1981)

New Hampshire. .,Rev. Stat. Ann. 227.C. (Supp. 1981)

New York . . . . . . . .Consol. Laws Ann. 14 (McKinney

1982)

North Carolina . . . ,Gen. Stat. 121.22-28 (1981)

North Dakota . . . . .Century Code 55.021.03.10 (Supp.

1981)

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . Rev. Stat. 358.905 (1983)

Rhode Island. . . . . .Gen. Laws 42.45.1. (1977)

South Carolina . . . .Code of Laws Ann, 54.7.40. (Supp.

1982)

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . .Code Ann. 191.01 (1978) . . 

Vermont . . . . . . . . . Stat. Ann. 22.701. (1978)

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . Code 10.145. (Supp. 1983)

Wisconsin . . . . . . . .Stat. Ann. 27.012 (1973 )

Northern Mariana

Islands . . . . . . . . .P.L. No. 3-39 11 

SOURCE: Anne G Giesecke, Journal dfidd A@a@o%#Y, ‘I&n.

agement of Historic SMpwre& in the W8f&” 12:W8-I 12,

1985.

ered nearly $6 million in artifacts and treasure

from the wreck site and having learned of an unrelated Supreme Court decision finding that

Florida had no interest in or authority over the

waters surrounding the Atocha site, Treasure Salvers, Inc., severed its contract with the State. It

then initiated an action in admiralty court to obtain title to and possession of the wreck. Treasure Salvers asserted that in the case of an abandoned vessel, the finder assumes possession

according to long-standing principles of maritime

law. The State fought the action and with the intervention of the Federal Government claimed

ownership of the wreck. They cited the Outer

Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) which applies to the area in which the Atocha lay and the

both the Antiquities Act and the Abandoned

Property Act, which reflect the concept of English common law on “sovereign prerogative. ”49

Jurisdiction of the OCS is controlled by two pieces

of legislation, the Submerged Lands Act (143

U.S.C 1301; Public Law 83-31) and the Outer

Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331, ff).

The Submerged Lands Act relinquishes to the

States full control over all submerged lands extending to 3 nautical miles offshore, except for

the gulf coast of Florida and Texas, whose jurisdictions extend 10 nautical miles.so Separate acts

apply to the submerged lands of the Territories .51

The OCSLA reserves the submerged lands on the

OCS to the Federal Government and subjects

them to administrative control by the Secretary

of the Interior.

The Submerged Lands Act:

. . . confirms and establishes the titles of the States

to lands beneath navigable waters within State

boundaries and to the natural resources within

such lands and waters, provides for the use and

discovered in 1971 the first of quantities of gold

artifacts from the Atocha wreck, submerged 9

miles off the coast of Florida in what both the

company and the State believed were territorial

waters. Treasure Salvers, Inc., under the stipulations of the Florida Archives and History Act, entered into a contractual arrangement with the

State for the sole right to continue search and salvage of the Atocha. I n 1975, after having recov49’’The Administrator of the General Services Administration is

authorized to make such contracts and provisions as he may deem

for the interest of the Government, for the preservation, sale, or

collection of any property or the proceeds thereof, which may have

been wrecked, abandoned, or become derelict. being within the

jurisdiction of the United States and which ought to come to the

United States . . .“

5043 U.S. C. 1301 (a)(l),(2) Submerged Lands Act.

51 pue~o Rico: sec. 8 of the Act of Mar. 2, 1917 (48 U.S. C. 749).

Guam, Virgin Islands, and American Samoa: Sec. 1 of the Act of

Oct. 5, 1974 (48 U.S.C. 1705). Northern Mariana Islands: Sec. 3

of the Proclamation No. 4726, Feb. 21, 1980 (48 U.S.C. 1681).
28

control of said lands and resources, and confirms

the jurisdiction and control of the United States

over the natural resources of the seabed of the

Continental Shelf seaward of State boundaries.

The Act deals largely with purview and mineral

exploitation but not with the disposition of manmade or cultural objects—historic shipwrecks and

other submerged archaeological sites.

Federal courts upheld the claims of Treasure

Salvers, Inc., stating that the United States

through the OCSLA asserted ownership of and

jurisdiction over mineral and other natural resources, but not cultural resources. The Abandoned Property Act applied only to property let

go or lost during the Civil War, clearly not the

correct historic period of the cultural materials

under litigation. The courts also concluded that

the English rule of “sovereign prerogative” never

“took root” in America, that the “American

Rule” has prevailed, which places ownership

with the finder. When Treasure Salvers, Inc., in

a further action tried to compel Florida to release

25 percent of the treasure still retained under the

void salvage contract, the State countered by attempting to bar the company’s claim under the

1Ith amendment to the Constitution. The 11th

amendment prohibits citizens from suing States

in Federal courts, but the Fifth Circuit Court rejected Florida’s action, arguing that Treasure Salvers, Inc., was not prohibited under the 1lth

amendment because its suit was against individuals employed by the State, not the State itself.

The 1Ith amendment, however, has been successfully used in Massachusetts to thwart salvers’

maritime claims. 52 The court held that the State

had a “colorable claim of title” to the pirate ship

Whydah, which sank off its coast in April 1717.53

However, in a recent case testing the State’s laws

regarding excavations within its coastal waters,

a State court ruled against the State’s claim. The

ruling is expected to be appealed to the State Supreme Judicial Court,54

52 See, for example, Maritime Underwater Surveys, Inc. V. LJn;derrtified, Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 717 F.2d 6; Subaqueous Exploration &Archaeology, ltd. v. Unidentified Wrecked,

and Abandoned Vessel, 577 F. Supp. 597 (d. Md. 1983); and Cobb

Coin /, 525 F. Supp. 186 (S. D. Fla. 1981).

SJDOUglaS Reid weirner, Legal /ssues Re/ating to Abandoned Shipwrecks, Congressional Research Service, 1986.

Sdjohn H. Kennedy, “State Comes Up Empty in Hunt for Treasure,” Boston G/obe, Tuesday, May 19, 1987, pp. 19-22.

By contrast, in another recent case, Klein v.

Unidentified Wreck and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, the United States Court for the Southern District of Florida found for the Federal Government

on the issue of ownership of excavated shipwreck

items because they had been embedded in land

owned by the United States and administered by

the National Park Service.

In Cobb Coin, Inc., conflict again focused on

the State of Florida, whose submerged lands contain the remains of an unknown number of Spanish treasure galleons from the Plate Fleet, which

sank off the Florida coast in 1715, while bound

from the New World to Europe. Cobb Coin, Inc.,

formed after the president of Treasure Salvers’

dissolved that company, began a search in 1978

for remains of the fleet. After locating and recovering artifacts thought to be part of a galleon, he

then initiated an action in Federal admiralty court

requesting either a declaration of ownership of

the shipwreck or compensation for salvage carried out at the site. Because the site lay well

within Florida’s 3-nautical mile offshore limit, the

State intervened, asking the court instead to

declare it the owner and order restitution for all

items culled from the wreck. The State justified

its claims on the basis of its antiquities law, the

Florida Archives and History Act and sought

criminal action against Cobb Coin, Inc.

The Federal district admiralty court declined to

apply certain parts of Florida’s marine archaeology statute, seeing it in conflict on certain points

with preemptive Federal admiralty Iaw.55 it

deemed the State’s requirement for a license to

explore State waters in conflict with the maritime

principle that potential salvers or finders be free

to search the open waters for salvable sites. Maritime law clearly encourages prompt recovery of

goods; Florida’s would accommodate painstaking

and time-consuming scientific research. Florida’s

55 Douglas Reid Weimer, Legal Issues Relating to Abandoned Shipwrecks, Congressional Research Service, 1986 for a discussion of

the legal issues clouding the treatment of historic shipwrecks in U.S.

waters. See also Douglas Shallcross and Anne G. Giesecke, Recent

Developments in Litigation Concerning the Recovery of Historic

Shipwrecks, Syracuse ]ournal of International Law and Commerce,

10:371-404. See further, Douglas A. Shallcross and Anne G.

Giesecke, “The Status of Federal and State Regulation of Underwater Cultural Resources: Lessons of the Treasure Salvers and Cobb

Coin Cases,” Underwater Archaeology: The Proceedings ot’the 14th

Conference on Underwater Archaeology, 1986.
29

law permits a licensee the exclusive right to salvage an area “regardless of diligence or success. ”

This allowance is at odds with the maritime principle that a salver’s right to act on a wreck is valid

only as long as the salver perseveres as quickly

and efficiently as possible, and is reasonably successful in recovering submerged property. Florida

grants salvers fixed percentages of artifacts, challenging the maritime concept of reward based

on “risk and merit. ” As a result, the court ruled

that historic shipwrecks are subject to the traditional admiralty law of salvage. Although the

courts in Cobb Coin did acknowledge the cultural value of historic shipwrecks and the importance of their provenance to the public, they still

held that such value and importance do not override long established and observed principles of

maritime law.

The Abandoned Shipwreck

Act of 1987

Since 1979, interested parties have sought passage of legislation to strengthen the ability of

States to locate, evaluate, and protect historic

shipwrecks located within their submerged lands.

Without clear Federal legislation establishing public interest in government ownership of historic

submerged vessels, these resources remain at risk

through the activities and claims allowed by treasure hunters under admiralty law.

Abandoned shipwreck Iegislationsb has been

reintroduced before the 100th Congress (H. R. 74;

S. 858). 57 The bills, which as introduced are

nearly identical, 58 seek to treat historic proper56 The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1985 (H. R. 3558 and S. 2569)

failed to pass the 99th Congress.

STOn August 5, 1987, shortly after this background paper went

to press, H.R. 74 was marked up and reported out of the Oceanography Subcommittee of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. It must still be considered by the full committee and by the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

The Senate has not yet acted on S. 858.

5aThe Markup rnacfe several important changes in H.R. 74. h now

provides for an Advisory Committee to “prepare and publish . . . guidelines for use by the States in developing legislation

and regulations to carry out their responsibilities under this Act. ”

It also provides that if, “within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, ” a State has failed to develop a plan consistent

with guidelines established by the Advisory Committee, the title

to a State’s historic shipwrecks then reverts to the United States.

Finally, the markup added a provision that the Secretary of the interior was responsible for managing “all abandoned shipwrecks

to which the United States reasserts title . in a manner consistent with the guidelines . .“

ties on the seabed more like historic properties

on land and:

●

●

●

●

●

●

assert U.S. ownership and transfers to the

States title to abandoned shipwrecks that are

embedded in the submerged lands of a State,

in coralline formations, or included in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National

Register of Historic Places; sg

declare that the laws of salvage and of finds

do not apply to these abandoned shipwrecks;

specify that the Act will not affect any suit

filed before the date of enactment;

confirm Federal ownership of abandoned

shipwrecks on Federal lands;

retain any existing Federal admiralty and salvage law for all shipwrecks not covered by

these bills; and

direct the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to develop guidelines to assist the

States and the Federal Government in carrying out their responsibilities and to allow

for non-injurious recreational exploration

and private sector salvage of shipwreck sites.

The bills do not effect admiralty claims for the

ownership of shipwrecks within the Nation’s

waters between the 3-mile offshore State-controlled limit and the 200-nautical-mile limit of the

Outer Continental Shelf.

While treasure hunters and others resist legislation to limit their exploitation of any shipwrecks

for profit or recreation, some preservationists express serious misgivings about the bills because

they do not explicitly prohibit salvaging at culturally significant sites. They fear that the differing approaches to managing submerged cultural

resources, legalized in 27 States so far, would render appropriate and consistent policies difficult

to implement nationwide. They also point out

that they regard as critical the ability of State programs to allow for the retention of artifacts. They

cite the inadequacy of models, such as Florida’s,

which permits treasure hunters to contract with

the State, survey and excavate, and retain 75 percent of what they find as payment for services.

sqThis transfer clearly resolves the issue of legal jurisdiction over

shipwrecks and the authority of the States to regulate salvage in

their waters.
30

Texas’ model, by contrast, is one of the few which

do not allow the transfer of publicly owned

historic artifacts to private ownership.60 However,

as demonstrated by the cases cited above, legislative action may be necessary to impart acrossthe-board protection for shipwrecks, which are

important elements of the heritage of the United

States.

ISSUE C: Underwater and maritime cultural resources are vulnerable to a wide variety of

natural and manmade threats.

Table 6 summarizes the various threats to

which underwater archaeological and maritime

cultural resources are subject. Historic coastal settlements are jeopardized by changes in land use;

historic lighthouses are endangered by land subsidence, erosion, and neglect when technological advances render them obsolete as aids to

navigation. Historic floating vessels, if not maintained and renewed, are rendered unusable by

the rapid spread of rot and rust. “Ships are less

accommodating than buildings, which can stand

untouched for generations and survive. 61 In

addition, traditional boatbuilding and navigation

skills are being lost as a result of the introduction of modern technology in the practice of these

skills.

Prehistoric sites close to shore are damaged by

wave action and by oil and gas exploration when

they lie on the Outer Continental Shelf. As noted

earlier, treasure salvers can inflict grave damage

to historic shipwrecks and may, in the process

of searching out and extracting treasure and other

commercially valuable features or contents, completely destroy them and any significant archaeological information they might convey.

Even though many treasure salvers cannot afford the kinds of sophisticated and powerful remote sensing locational techniques developed for

the space program and the oil, gas, and mineral

industries, a few have acquired other marine

60 Daniel j. Lenlhafl, NatiOrlal Park Service, persona! Communication, March 1987.

61 Statement of Marcia Myers, Vice President for Maritime preservation, National Trust for Historic Preservation, before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on H.R. 1044, a bill to establish

the National Maritime Museum at San Francisco, March 26, 1987.

Table 6.—Threats to Underwater Archaeological

and Maritime Resources

/Vatural threats:

● Corrosion/concretion of metals

● Earthquakes

. Erosion—of the coastline, river, and stream banks

s Floods

● Storms

● Subsidence

s Wave action

Q Wood-borers

● Volcanoes

Man-made Threats:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

b

●

●

●

●

Anchoring—particularly of freighters

Federal projects—dredging, naval base development,

dam and reservoir construction, channelization, etc.

Looting

Lack of maintenance (maritime resources)

Neglect

Non-conservation of materials recovered from

underwater

Oil/Gas/Mineral extraction

Pipelines

Pollution

Salvaging/Treasure hunting

Shell fishing

Shore facility expansion—ports, marinas, recreation

areas, airports

Sport diving

Vandalism

aNOt listed in priority order.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987

technologies and, in recent years, gained access

to many significant sites. Table 7 lists a few significant historic shipwrecks that have been exploited for treasure. Shipwrecks are attracting the

interest of increasing numbers of groups and individuals able to invest in underwater exploration. One of the most dramatic examples involves

the R.M.S. Titanic, which is located 2-1/2 miles below the surface in international waters, about 350

miles southwest of Newfoundland. An American

oil company executive and a Hollywood broadcasting group, among others, are collaborating

with scientists from the Institute for Research and

Exploitation of the Sea, an agency of the French

government, to retrieve artifacts and open three

safes from the wreck. The project, which will involve spending at least $3 million, will consist of

a series of 10 dives by miniature submarine, and

broadcasts of the event live from the seafloor. The

project’s expedition team has used a three-man

mini-sub to retrieve a leather, “doctor’s-style valise” filled with jewels, bank notes and other valuables, and a safe which is believed to have be-
31

Table 7.—Representative Historic Shipwrecks

Exploited for Treasure

●

●

●

●

●

Espiritu Sante: One of the 1554 New Spain fleet

wrecks located off Padre Island, Texas;

Nuestra Senora de Atocha: A 16th century Spanish

galleon off the Florida Keys;

Whydah: An 18th century English pirate ship off the

coast of Massachusetts;

H.M.S. DeBraak: An 18th century Dutch-built English

privateer off Lewes, Delaware;

Nuestra Senora de la Maravilla: a large 16th century

Spanish galleon 50 miles north of Grand Bahama

Island.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987

longed in the ship’s assistant purser’s office.62 The

recovery venture began in the summer of 1987,

with completion scheduled for September 10.

Recovery of items from the R.M.S. Titanic is being protested by many who believe that the site

should remain untouched as a memorial to those

who perished in the ship’s sinking.63 Others argue that items from the Titanic possess historical value precisely because they come from the

shipwreck and that salvage operations should

continue on the basis that international law provides for the salvage of vessels lost at sea.64

Some treasure salvers employ archaeologists

to oversee or carry out tasks that can minimize

damage to sites. Many archaeologists, however,

believe that the basic goals and interests of archaeological research and treasure salvaging are

inherently antithetical, and that when profit is the

motive for exploitation of shipwrecks, scientific

research and the shipwrecks themselves must inevitably suffer. Particularly when excavation of

a wreck requires the application of expensive

technology, or the salver is operating on a speculative financial shoestring, as many do, it is likely

that the recovery of objects having financial value

will take priority over the recovery and conservation of material that may be priceless to ar-

‘

2 Ken Ringle, “Breathtaking Collection of Jewels Discovered at

Titanic Site, ” Washington Post, Friday, August 21, 1987.

bJ’’Television Special From Titanic Is Plan ned, ” /Vew York Times,

February 1987.

bqsee, for example, William F. Buckley, Jr., “Let Them Sell the

Titanic’s ‘Treasure,’” Washington Post, August 17, 1987, p. A19.

chaeological research but of little or no commercial value. 6s

Treasure salvers who have become aware of

the importance of historical research, may contract for the study of historical documents such

as those found within two particularly rich archives—El Archivo General de lndias in Seville,

Spain, and El Archivo General de la Nacion in

Mexico City, Mexico. These archives, which are

highly valued for a broad range of historical research, contain thousands of records from the

16th through the 19th centuries on all aspects of

exploration, seafaring, and trade sponsored by

the Spanish crown in the New World. Much of

this documentation provides detailed information

on the passengers and cargos carried by the ships

that traveled back and forth between Europe and

the Americas, as well as on disasters at sea.66

ISSUE D: There is a critical need for a Federally

sponsored facility for underwater archaeology and maritime preservation.

Most participants in the OTA study urged the

formation of a federally funded institution

devoted to providing:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

accurate information on current preservation

technologies for the research, location, analysis, and management of prehistoric and

historic structures, objects, and sites;

information on technologies developed in

other fields for possible application to preservation, namely—technology transfer;

training in preservation technologies;

ongoing research;

conservation laboratories;

interdisciplinary teams capable of intervening on an emergency basis in response to

particular technical preservation problems;

a clearinghouse for preservation project information (Federal, State, local, private) to

expedite coordination; and

the leading technical preservation database.

65 Thoma~ F, King, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, personal communication, 1987,

Gbstanley Hordes, Historical Consu Itant, personal communication, 1986. See also “Translated Documents Capture Ambience and

Aroma of the Nina,” The New York Times, Oct. 14, 1986.
32

The facility could be either fully or partially

funded by the Federal Government, in keeping

with its long-standing role as the Nation’s principal conservationist.67 It would include within

its agenda technologies for underwater archaeology and maritime preservation.

A center for preservation technology would

likely encourage closer interactions among underwater archaeologists, maritime preservationists, dry-land archaeologists,68 historians, scientists, and engineers. It would be the primary

source to which individuals could look for stateof-the-art technical information for all relevant

disciplines in the field. A center could also take

advantage of the expertise built up within, for example, the National Park Service’s Submerged

Cultural Resources Unit (SCRU) a valuable source

of technical advice and publications on the preservation of submerged archaeological and maritime sites.

Perhaps most important, a center could

strengthen the partnership among Federal, State,

and local government and private enterprise

established by the National Historic Preservation

Act of 1966 and its amendments of 1980. Enhanced communication should stimulate closer

cooperation and greater coordination of research,

project planning, and technology sharing.

Such organizations as the Society for Archaeological Sciences and the Association for Preservation Technology were founded specifically to

promote the development and use of new technologies in the research and conservation of prehistoric and historic cultural resources. These and

other such groups, however, have not directed

much attention toward problems in underwater

archaeology and maritime technology. Likewise,

although the American Association for the Advancement of Science attracts a broad membership, including social, as well as natural, scientists, it is not the locus within which underwater

bTSee Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation( Ch.

7, “Technology and Preservation Policy” for a discussion on several approaches to structuring such a facility.

besee Richard A. Gould, Shipwreck Anthropology (Albuquerque,

NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1983) for discussions of the

slow acceptance of shipwreck archaeology within archaeology and

anthropology.

archaeologists have learned of methods adapted

from other disciplines to enhance their research.

Research and development are crucial to the

transfer of technologies developed for other scientific and engineering purposes to the disciplines

of underwater archaeology and maritime preservation. The technologies developed for other

fields may need considerable adaptation before

being applied to archaeological research and

preservation. Underwater archaeologists would

benefit by more actively injecting themselves into

R&D processes. Their record in exploiting technical advances made in other disciplines has been

spotty, largely because aspects of these advances

are still very expensive. However, there exist middle range devices, not quite so sophisticated, that

universities or Federal agencies could develop.

Technology Sharing

Many archaeologists have not cultivated Federal agencies or private organizations as assiduously as they might have to explore the possibilities of sharing experts and equipment. Yet the

Navy is often very appreciative of archaeological expertise in such programs as its Submarine

Development Group. It runs manned and unmanned deep-water submersibles and remotely

operated vehicles to depths as great as 20,000

feet. It also operates the U.S.S. Pigeon (ASR-21)

which is capable of deploying saturation divers

to depths as great as 850 feet. The vessel has supported scientists during many deep dives to collect specimens for biological-oceanographic research. The group’s charter obligates it to support

and aid civilian scientists, such as geologists from

institutions of oceanography. Some of its personnel and equipment were involved surveys of the

U.S.S. Monitor and R.M.S. Titanic.

A recent example of technology sharing which

benefited underwater archaeology occurred during the summer of 1986 between the National

Park Service and the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor,

Hawaii. Teams from the Park Service and the

Navy Reserve’s Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit

One (MDSU ONE) examined and mapped the

hulks of the battleships (U.S.S. Arizona and U.S.S.

Utah, which had been destroyed in the Japanese

attack on the Island of Oahu, December 7, 1941.
33

The collaboration assisted both agencies; the Park

Service acquired new information for better longterm maintenance of the wrecks at the Pearl Harbor National Historic Landmark site and the Navy

conducted diver training exercises. This pilot

project has led to further cooperation between

the two agencies. in May and June of 1987, Naval Reserve divers from MDSU ONE trained at

the Ship Repair facility in Guam, by working with

Park Service staff from SCRU to survey World

War I and II historic shipwrecks on Navy property. These efforts wiII also aid the Naval Station

in fuIfilling its historic preservation obligations. 69

Communicating With Universities and

Oceanographic Institutions

Some experts have expressed the desire for a

stronger academic base in support of underwater

archaeology and maritime preservation, and have

suggested that these subjects be included in the

various historic preservation programs offered

throughout the country. Enhanced communications between the universities offering programs

in underwater archaeology and maritime preservation and the scientific and engineering departments of other institutions could result from

a center for preservation technology. Such programs as those established at Texas A & M Univerf59j. K. Otto Orzech, U n iversity of California, San Diego, Scripps

Institution of Oceanography, personal communication, March 1987.

Photo credit National Park Service, Submerged Cultural Resources Unit

U.S. Navy Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit Reservists

and the National Park Service Submerged Cultural

Resources Unit cooperate to map U.S.S. Arizona.

sity’s institute of Nautical Archaeology, East Carolina University in North Carolina, and Arizona

State University could then be linked to the technology information network operating from it.

These two programs offer students the opportunity to earn degrees at the masters level. No

university offers a degree in maritime preservation .70

Oceanographic Institutions (table 8) employ

many kinds of research vessels in conducting

both publicly and privately supported marine scientific projects at sea. Much of their work should

be of interest to archaeologists.

The Joint Oceanographic Institutions, for example, is a consortium of 10 U.S. academic

oceanographic institutions and four foreign institutions (France, Japan, Canada, and Germany)

that coordinates and facilitates the work of individual institutions on large oceanographic research projects. Joint Oceanographic Institutions,

Inc. is the systems manager of the member institutions and subcontracts operating activities to

other academic institutions and industrial groups

as well as its members. At present, under the

Ocean Drilling Program the consortium is analyzing core samples to study the structure and history of the earth beneath the oceans for evidence

of ancient ocean and climatic conditions, as well

as tectonic plate movement, The progress of such

projects could be followed by a technical preservation center, and the results disseminated

among archaeologists,

70Lynn H icker50n,National Trust for H iStOrl C preSer\ atl On ~ personal communication, August 1987.

Table 8.—U.S. Oceanographic Institutions

Duke University

Johns Hopkins University

Lament Doherty Geological Observatory

Oregon State University

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Texas A & M University

University of Alaska

University of Georgia

University of Hawaii

University of Rhode Island

University of Southern California

University of Washington

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1987
34

There is a great need for more underwater archaeological and conservation training programs.

In current graduate programs, there are neither

sufficient emphasis on the assimilation of a large

technological component nor opportunities for

retraining professional archaeologists in the latest

methods. A preservation technology center could

help achieve that end by highlighting, in addition to its own activities, those conducted at the

Institute of Nautical Archaeology at Texas A&M

University. Such facilities as the Conservation

Center of the Institute of Fine Arts in New York,

Cooperstown Graduate Programs in Conservation and Artistic Works in New York, and The

Winterthur/University of Delaware Art Conservation Program in Delaware provide training in

the conservation of bone, ivory, wood, leather,

pottery, gold, silver, copper, lead, tin, iron and

metal alloys. However, they do not concentrate

on once-submerged materials, and the special

problems associated with stabilizing and maintaining such items as hulls or encrusted iron cannon and anchors.71

ISSUE E: The lack of National and State inventories has seriously impeded efforts to protect underwater archaeological sites and maritime historical resources.

“The United States has not undertaken a national inventory of underwater cultural materials which include submerged terrestrial sites as

well as shipwrecks. Although some States have

made substantial progress in surveying their own

coasts, lakes, and rivers and locating submerged

cultural resources, no States have comprehensive data on file, "72 No more than 162 historic

71 Lynn H ickerson, National Trust for Historic preservation, Personal communication, August 1987,

Zzsee u .S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation (Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office, September 1986). Several participants

in the OTA assessment noted the irony inherent in the States surveying their watew for cultural materials. If States do not dedicate

the necessary resources toward protecting them after discovery,

they are in danger of loss. Typically, State law enforcement agencies are scarcely aware of archaeological protection statutes,

whether Federal of local. Inventorying must become part of a comprehensive program that also includes adequate law enforcement,

The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers

(NCSHPO) notes that over the past 20 years the Department of the

Interior could have advocated more funding for meaningful State

surveys at “realistic levels. ” The organization cites Minnesota, for

example, a State whose historic preservation staff is most interested

vessels and small craft are listed in the National

Register of Historic Places, a compilation of over

45,OOO prehistoric and historic structures, objects,

and sites. The total number of shipwrecks is unknown; only 41 are listed on the National Register. Listings range from individual wrecks such

as the C.S.S. Florida, a Confederate, British-built

sail-steamer sunk in 1864, to the 15 to 25 American Revolutionary War ships of the Penobscot

Expedition sunk off the Maine coast in 1779. The

site of the U.S. S. Monitor is a National Historic

Landmark as well as a National Marine Sanctuary. Of only 32 vessels designated as National

Historic Landmarks, 22 are of World War II vintage. Warships outnumber trade vessels listed on

the Register. Shipwrecks illustrating American history from the age of Spanish exploration to World

War II are included, but neither prehistoric craft

nor common fishing vessels are Iisted. 73

Twenty years have passed since enactment of

the National Historic Preservation Act. Yet, the

first serious effort to undertake a computer-based

resource survey did not begin until 1986, with

the National Maritime Initiative. The Federal Government long ago gave up a valuable opportunity to identify, study, document, and record

thousands of ships and other water-going craft

when it disbanded the Historic American Merchant Marine Survey (HAMMS) only 18 months

after its formation during the New Deal in 1937.

Its sister program, the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) has, in 53 years, documented

and recorded thousands of buildings and other

structures.74

The first phase of the National Maritime initiative’s survey is a compilation of known lists and

inventories from a variety of sources scattered

among the maritime community. It includes listings from the South Street Seaport Museum in

New York, the International Congress of Maritime Museums, the World Ship Trust, the National Register of Historic Places, and the National

Trust for Historic Preservation. Thus far, the surin identifying shipwrecks in Lake Superior. At their current allocation level ($345,332 less 10 percent entitlement to local governments) the SHPO cannot undertake the task.

73Anne G. Giesecke, Statement on H. R. 3558 before the House

Subcommittee on Oceanography, Oct. 29, 1985.

zAEditor’s Column, “Listing Ships, ” Preservation News, June 1986.
35

vey covers one maritime resource category out

of eight identified, namely, preserved historic

vessels over 40 feet long, and over 50 years old

(table 8).

Certain types of maritime historical resources

are addressed under current HABS/HAER (Historic American Engineering Record) standards

and guidelines for documenting and recording

structures and buildings. Prehistoric and historic

shipwrecks and other vessels are not. Neither are

they addressed by standards or guidelines for restoration, conservation, or maintenance. Such

standards and guidelines are planned under the

National Maritime Initiative, as well as guidebooks on national inventory format to serve Federal agencies, State Historic Preservation Offices,

historical societies, preservation constituencies,

and others. This level of technical assistance,

along with the publication, National Register

Bulletin #20, “Nominating Historic Vessels and

Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic

Places, “ is designed to increase National Register listings of maritime resources.

A stated objective under The Maritime initiative relates to closer interaction between the Federal Government and the States in correcting deficiencies in cultural resource inventories. Both

levels of government have neglected underwater

archaeological and maritime resources in their

inventories. All inventories will be computerized

eventually. Government agencies now have a

chance to develop fully compatible databases,

and might examine the efforts of the Texas State

Antiquities Commission to computerize their

Shipwreck Reference File as a possible model.

The Texas file is based on information culled from

both historic and contemporary sources such as

maps and field reports. It should help determine

the locations of unidentified wrecks. The file has

been useful in justifying the employment of nondestructive surveys in the face of potentially destructive Federal activity, such as dredging or

harbor facility expansion. Since 1972, the Commission has listed over 1,000 shipwrecks, of

which approximately one-half have proved historic. 75

The State of Maryland has begun a survey of

its maritime resources, As noted earlier, the

Chesapeake Bay Watercraft Survey, completed

in 1982, led to the nomination of the Skipjack

fleet to the National Register. The Patuxent River

Project, which was begun in 1978, has gathered

physical and documentary information in a systematic survey that has included shipwrecks,

wharfs, ferry landings, and inundated shore areas.

The project has carried out an oral and visual historical documentation of the maritime heritage

along the river and created an exhibit of artifacts

representing the commercial fishing activities

throughout the estuary. 76

75J. Barto Arnold, Ill, “Underwater Cultural Resource Management: The Computerized Shipwreck Reference File, ’ Underwater

Archaeology: The Proceedings of the Eleventh Cent’erence on Underwater Archaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd.), (San Marine, CA:

Fathom Eight, 1982) pp. 85-95.

zbRalph E. EShelrnan, calwrt Marine Museum, personal communication, 1987.
TECHNOLOGY, UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY, AND

MARITIME PRESERVATION

Although haphazard and unpredictable, a variety of simple techniques and random searches

have yielded many important underwater archaeological finds through the years, particularly

in northern Europe, the Mediterranean Sea, and

more recently in the waters off the States of Texas

and Florida. Some of these strategies have included interrogating local divers and fisherman

or operating hand-held coring devices from small

boats. As early as 1664, only 30 years after the

sinking of the Wasa in Stockholm Harbor, Hans

Albrekt von Treileben of Sweden and Andreas

Peckell, a German salver, employed a primitive

diving bell to recover artifacts from the wreck.

Struggling in 100 feet of bitterly cold black water,

the pair recovered many items, including 50

bronze cannon, each weighing between 1 and

2 tons. It was an underwater technical feat that

was not matched until the end of the 19th cent ury. 77

In the early 1940s, Jacques Yves Cousteau and

Emile Gagnan perfected the aqua-lung with its

self-contained underwater breathing apparatus

(SCUBA). It was a revolutionary improvement

over bulky, restrictive hard-hat diving gear, which

could not permit genuine archaeological activity. Since the end of World War 11, SCUBA, portable and easy to use, has permitted the kind of

underwater mobility necessary to archaeologists.

It has also made more of the world’s waterways

accessible to treasure hunters, and collectors of

antiquities. 78 Not until the 1960s was the utility

of SCU 6A in over 30 meters of water tested and

proper excavation and site recording carried out.

A University of Pennsylvania Team led by George

Bass demonstrated the effectiveness of SCUBA

and pioneered the development and application

of technologies for use both underwater and in

the conservation lab. They were first employed

in a series of research and excavation projects

off the coast of Turkey on a Bronze Age ship

77Anders Fran Zen, Vasa: The Strange Story of d Swedish Warship

From 1628 (Stockholm: Bonniers-Norstedts, 1963).

zaKeith Muckelroy, Maritime Archaeology (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1978).

which sank around 1200 B.C. in Cape Gelidonya

and on several wrecks near Yassi Ada that date

from the fourth and seventh centuries A.D.79

The “high technology” on which underwater

archaeology is most dependent includes a group

of highly sophisticated, costly, 80 locational instruments designed primari Iy for the oiI and mineral

extraction industries and military missions—sidescan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, proton magnetometer, and remotely operated vehicles (ROVS).

These technologies have opened up vast areas

for exploration previously unavailable to archaeologists, particularly in the deepest parts of

the oceans. Of course, technological applications

extend beyond the search and identification

phases of any underwater archaeological or maritime preservation project. They also encompass

preliminary research, excavation, mapping, recording, documentation, restoration and stabilizing sites in situ, as well as conserving recovered

cultural materials. Although the solutions to saving dilapidated historic floating vessels, under attack from neglect and weather, do not require

complicated technology, they are nevertheless

expensive because they are generally labor intensive and require special training.

Technology Transfer

For the most part, advances in the locational

technologies applied to preservation have been

driven by the oil, gas, and minerals industries and

the Federal Government, rather than by underwater archaeologists, whose budgets are modest. 81 The tailoring of those technologies to archaeological requirements has occurred largely

through the efforts of professionals in the oil and

mineral business, geophysical survey, or the U.S.

Navy who possess keen personal interest in solv79George F. Bass, Archaeology Benedfh the Sea (New York, NY:

Walker & Co,, 1975).

Bosee Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preser!’dtlon for

examples of equipment costs, p. 155.

al The relatively high costs of these technologies deter underwater

archaeology. For an overview of what these costs can be, see U.S.

Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA-E-319, Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation (Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Print[ng Office, September, 1986), p. 155.

36
37

ing marine technological problems. They have,

at times, donated equipment and services to

underwater archaeological projects throughout

the world. Some adaptations are also sparked by

archaeologists who keep abreast of technological trends. In addition, as their field grows in complexity, more archaeologists have realized the

value of acquainting themselves with the capabilities and limitations of available scientific and

engineering technologies. Technological developments must generally be subsidized by grants

because underwater archaeology has not proved

a strong enough market for generating commercial innovations in technology. As one participant

in the OTA study noted, “there is a hit-or-miss

aspect to all of the above . . . Technology will be

transferred if someone is interested or an archaeologist reads the right journal. ” Ideally, a logical progression governs the modification of available technologies or the development of new

ones to meet selected needs. Such a progression

is rarely followed in archaeology, a highly specialized discipline chronically short of funds to

support systematic R&D efforts.

Experts contacted by OTA cautioned that the

latest underwater locational devices cannot, of

themselves, ensure project success. Some users

often select equipment because it is available, not

because it is appropriate, or they lack the training and experience to operate it properly. “Running a sonar search with inadequate navigational

control . . . could lead to failure . . . both too

much or too little technology can be a pro blem. "

8 2

~ZCharles Mazel, “Technology for Marine Archaeology, ” Oceanus, vol. 28, No. 1, spring 1985, pp. 85-89.
TECHNOLOGIES FOR SURVEY, IDENTIFICATION, NAVIGATION,

EXCAVATION, DOCUMENTATION, RESTORATION,

AND CONSERVATION

Preliminary research undertaken carefully before any project can save time and money, and

also provide a focus for applying technologies in

the field and a basis for evaluating cultural significance. Developments in various kinds of archival technology, for example, can make record searches more efficient and cost-effective,

although they have not yet been brought to bear

on the types of widely scattered information of

value to underwater archaeologists and maritime

preservationists.

As noted under Major Issues, underwater

archaeologists require a substantial array of technologies to work in often difficult and perilous

conditions. These help them find, record, and recover components of submerged cultural sites

and cope with formidable limitations on breathing, seeing, moving, and communicating in frequently cold, dark, rough, and turbid environments.

Identification and Survey

Surveys made with the first three of the four

following remote sensing methods result in electronic records, patterns of images, or signals in

either analog strip charts or digital records. These

images indicate both normal and anomalous bottom and sub-bottom phenomena. As in land archaeology, the character of sources of anomalous signals can only be determined through

examination in situ. It is important for underwater

archaeologists to continue building a “catalog”

of representative signals matched with specific

anomalous image sources in order to examine

and test new underwater contexts such as estuaries and deep water more effectively and efficiently.

The side-scan sonar sends out acoustic frequency signals from a torpedo-shaped towfish located beneath a survey ship. Reflected signals received by the towfish then travel through the tow

cable, and are processed on board the survey vessel in a graphic recorder, which produces hardcopy output. They can also be recorded on magnetic tape for post-processing and analysis. The

signals produce excellent images of the floor’s topography, including structures and shipwrecks,

but cannot detect materials covered by sediments. The side-scan sonar can cover wide areas

of the ocean bed, enabling the quick and accurate mapping of such geological phenomena

as drowned river systems. It is portable, batterypowered, and can be operated from small boats

to enable searches in difficult or remote locations. 83

The sub-bottom profilers uses low-frequency

sound (3.5 to 12 kilohertz) to penetrate ocean

bottom sediments. It directs acoustical signals

downward beneath its towing vessel. Where different layers of sediment meet, some fraction of

the incident acoustic energy is reflected to the

vessel, while the rest continues downward. The

device generates a cross-sectional view of the

oceanfloor on strip charts, revealing sediment

layers and underlying bedrock. Buried hulls show

up as localized anomalous reflections below the

bottom. Resolutions of less than a meter are possible. Sub-bottom profilers, designed originally for

use in deep water can now operate in as little

as 3 meters of water. Because they cover only

narrow paths, they must make many closely

spaced sweeps per survey tract.

Magnetometers sense magnetic field anomalies created by ferrous materials on the oceanfloor. Therefore they can only locate shipwrecks

and other historic sites containing such metals.

Their major shortcoming is that they must remain

relatively close to their target because its magnetic field attenuates rapidly as the distance

between them and magnetometric sensors increases. Magnetometers cannot easily trace weak

signals or anomalies, such as those detected from

under sediments, to their sources. Greater use

83C. J. Ingram, “High-Resolution Side-Scan Sonar/Sub-bottom

Profiling to 6,000 Meter Water Depth, ” paper presented at the Pacific Congress on Marine Technology, Hawaii, Mar. 24-28, 1986,

a4Milton B. Dobrin, /introduction to Geophysm/ Pr05pecf/ng (New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1976. )

38
39

Photo credit: Kozak, Associates

Side-scan sonar of the a wooden side-wheel U.S. steamship sunk in 1852, in the Canadian waters of Lake

Erie. The ship rests nearly upright, 160 feet below the surface. Because it lies in cold, freshwater,

it is remarkably well-preserved.

of airborne magnetometry could lead to faster,

broader, and more accurate coverage within survey perimeters.

Remote sensing from aircraft and space, when

it is refined to penetrate more deeply below the

water’s surface, couId be applied to underwater

archaeological site identification and management, as it has been to hydrography. as

Remotely operated vehicles have been undergoing rapid change and development, going

deeper to bring clearer pictures than ever before

of the sea bed. 86 Developed in response to the

 Barto Arnold, Ill, “Remote Sensing in Archaeology, ” 

 Journal/ Nautical Archaeology and Underwater 

 n, nternationa Inc., perSOna m u -

 1986.

needs of the military and oil, gas, and minerals

exploration companies, they are replacing human

divers in a great many underwater tasks. They can

remain submerged for weeks to survey huge

areas of the oceanfloor. For example, the historic

discovery of the wreck R.M.S. Titanics7 in April

1986 was achieved through an unmanned craft,

the Argo, tethered to a ship by 13,000 feet of cable. Outfitted with television cameras, highpowered lights, and sonar scanners, it revealed

new information about an environment that had

previously been closed to archaeological research. The Titanic was later explored by a

manned vehicle, the Alvin, and a remotely operated craft, Jason, jr. in an attempt to gather visual

 D. Ballard, How We Found the Titanic, National 

graphic vol. 1985, pp. 696-722.
40

and other data on the wreck’s condition .88 The

U.S.S. Monitor has been surveyed by the Navy’s

Deep Drone, a highly sophisticated ROV that was

also used in the recovery of the remains of the

Challenger space shuttle.8g

/formation technologies make a substantial

contribution to research and management of

maritime and underwater cultural resources. Although the various technologies for archiving,

retrieving, and manipulating the many research

and historical records related to underwater archaeology and maritime preservation are not

unique to these subjects, they are an integral part

of the preservation process. Of particular interest to underwater archaeologists and maritime

preservationists are automated databases, and the

use of optical disks for the storage and retrieval

of both visual and textual information. Both technologies require the extensive use of computers

to be effective.90

Navigation

Archaeologists can acquire a variety of navigation tools, depending on the nature of their

search and desired accuracy. In the coastal waters

of the United States, the LORAN-C system maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard enables site relocation within around 10 meters. Microwave positioning systems allow “repeatable fixes” within

3 meters or less. Space-based navigation systems

allow positions to be fixed within several

meters. 91

A new satellite-based navigation and positioning system known as Starfix, a joint venture between John E. Chance & Associates and Analytical Technology Laboratories, is now available.

This system allows accuracies of better than five

meters throughout the lower 48 States, including both Atlantic and Pacific coastlines and the

88 Walter Sullivan, “Manned Sub Descends To View the Titanic, ”

 York July 15, 1986, p. Cl.

 D. Lemon “Probing the with a 

Drone, ” June 22, 1987, p, 77.

 of Technology Assessment, OTA-E319, Technologies for and 

 DC: Government Printing Office, September 1986),

ch. 5, for a d of preservation information tech 

“Charles “Technology Archaeology, ” 

 vol. 28, No. 1, 1985, pp. 87.

Gulf of Mexico, out to around 600 nautical miles.

Originated for civilian marine use, primarily by

the oil exploration industry in drill rig situating,

pipeline laying, and geophysical prospecting,

Starfix is the first privately developed satellite positioning system. Starfix offers continuous coverage, 365 days per year in all types of weather.

Sonic High Accuracy Ranging and

Positioning System (SHARPS)

This system is a new, extremely rapid, and

highly accurate means of achieving detailed maps

of shipwreck sites. it represents a technological

advance over the usual method of charting a submerged area, in which investigators establish a

hand-placed grid comprised of plastic lines or
41

Photo credit” Ray 

Coffer dam around shipwreck site, Yorktown Archaeological Project.

Photo Kevin Yorktown Project

Yorktown Shipwreck Archaeological Project Shipwreck.
42

tubing, stretched from a series of posts, over a

wreck to enable the hand calculation of thousands of reference points. The usual approach

can take months or even years to complete, is

labor-intensive, and can be dangerous in deep

water because of diver’s susceptibility to nitrogen narcosis or “the bends.” In the deepest

waters, it can be virtually impossible.

SHARPS involves setting up around a site three

electronic transmitter-receivers. These transmitter-receivers detect signals from an electronic gun

held by a diver at points the diver wishes to measure. When the diver pulls the trigger, the points

are recorded by computer on shipboard. This

technique allows accuracies to within less than

half an inch. The system enables archaeologists

to outline vessels and artifacts, create two and

three-dimensional maps, and label objects.92

Excavation and Documentation

Individuals exploring the sea bottom have a

wide array of technologies at their disposal. Deepwater technologies such as tethered and freeroaming ROVS and saturation diving could exert a profound effect on data recovery in underwater archaeology and maritime preservation.

Underwater Excavation Technologies

These techniques range from the extremely

simple, such as hand-fanning, to the complex,

such as controlled blasting, and include the use

of blowers, prop wash deflectors, air hammers,

and chisels. Excavation required in dark or

“black” water is extremely difficult to carry out,

gZRecent[y, a research team completed several experiments in

the Chesapeake Bay demonstrating that placing grids and artifacts

can be done as much as a thousand times more quickly through

the use of a small shipboard computer and electronic mapping gun.

Emory Kristoff of the Natiorra/ Geographic and associate, Donald

Shommette, with over 1,200 reference points, mapped the remains

of an 1883 oyster boat located in the shallow waters near the mouth

of St. Leonard’s Creek in Calvert County, Maryland, in 1 hour. Previous methods would have required about 6 weeks for the same

results. The researchers assert that SHARPS can change the field

of underwater archaeology, putting all sites within easier reach.

This technology is the product of government and private sector

cooperation, and was developed with the participation of the U.S.

Navy, NOAA, several Maryland State agencies, and the National

Geographic Society, See The Washington Post, Science Notebook,

“Reading Tales of Shipwrecks, ” Susan Okie and Philip J. Hilts, Mar.

23, 1987, p. A3.

even in relatively calm, shallow water. Specially

designed coffer dams such as that developed for

the Yorktown Archeological Park in Yorktown,

Virginia (box H), are improving the ability of

divers to find their way in heavily silted waters.

In Yorktown, excavation of an 18th century shipwreck is carried out within a steel enclosure filled

with river water that is clarified by commercial

filtration units.

SCUBA Diving

As noted earlier in this background paper, archaeologists make extensive use of SCUBA diving equipment and techniques for exploring and

excavating sites in shallow waters.

Deep Sea Diving

The use of saturation divers and deep-diving

systems to collect samples at depths totally unattainable to conventional divers has been a major technical innovation. Saturation divers are

now able to work at extreme depths for prolonged periods. Bottom times are no longer a

function of depth, as they are with SCUBA diving, and each dive can last for many hours instead of minutes. Breathing an atmosphere of

mixed helium-oxygen, divers can attain depths

of over 1,000 feet, although decompression afterward may require several days. Habitats, lockout

submersibles, and tethered deep-diving systems

deploy saturation divers to their destinations.93

Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVS)

ROVS also have an important role in gathering data, and can be used to collect samples or

to photograph or videotape a wreck site. Scorpio, a particular type of new ROV,94 is now being equipped with remotely controlled manipulators. ROVS are now capable of achieving depths

qJ@to Orzech, Scripps Institution of oceanography, personal

communication, 1986.

gd]onathanB. Tucker, ‘‘Submersibles Reach New Depths, ~;gh

Techrrology, February 1986.
43

of up to 13,000 feet and are armed with specialized work packages capable of cleaning oil rig

platforms and recovering a vast array of objects.95

Conservation

Conservation is “the documentation, analysis,

cleaning, and stabilization of an object . . . to

protect the artifactual, faunal, and other archaeological material and prevent their reacting adversely with the environment after recovery. ”96

Participants in the OTA study agreed that no submerged site should be excavated unless archaeologists can guarantee the proper conservation of

the recovered materials. The conservation and

protection of underwater cultural resources, like

other underwater archaeological procedures,

tend to be expensive, require specialized knowledge and facilities, and are complex and timeconsuming. Concreted metal, waterlogged wood,

gSThe University of New Hampshire owns possibly the most advanced ROV, EAVE-EAST, autonomous, outfitted with five

microprocessors to sense data on altitude, depth, obstacles, and

power consumption. Research continues to impart greater dexterity

of manipulation and better systems for autonomy.

96D. L. Hamilton, “Conservation in Nautical Archaeology, ” Underwater Archaeology: The Challenge Before Us, The Proceedings

of the Twelfth Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Gordon

P. Watts, Jr., (cd.) (San Marine, CA: Fathom Eight 1981).
44

and other organic materials such as leather or fabric begin almost instantaneously to deteriorate

when exposed to the open air after having been

submerged or buried under sediments. They must

be immediately reintroduced to water, via holding tanks, or wet-packed for transport to permanent conservation facilities.

In the United States there is a shortage of conservation facilities as well as a dearth of trained,

competent conservation personnel to deal with

the ever-increasing numbers of cultural materials being recovered from the deep. Some successful conservation must rely, in large measure,

on the services of volunteers working u rider supervision. In addition, many projects are directed

by non-research-oriented organizations and individuals whose ignorance of appropriate conservation methods ultimately destroys recovered

materials.

The following approaches represent the range

of conservation treatments available:

● Full-Scale Conservation.—This approach calls

for the stabilization and continuing care of

all waterlogged objects, including ship’s

hulls. This is the most complex and expensive method, but permits scholars and the

public to examine thoroughly historic shipbuilding techniques and any culturally significant contents. This approach necessitates

fully staffed conservation facilities with highly

controlled environments (humidity, temperature, light, etc.). Conservation processes are

time-consuming and tedious and demand a

long-term commitment on the part of any

agency or institution that assumes the

responsibility for applying them.

For example, the Swedish Government

has assumed responsibility for the Wasa for

the past 26 years at a cost of over $20 million. The Mary Rose Trust is in the early

stages of conservation of the Mary Rose. The

Mariner’s Museum in Newport News, Virginia, has taken on the Ronson Ship bow

using private funds.97

gTShel i !jmith, Mariner’s Museum, Newport News, VA, personal

communication, 1986.

●

●

●

Even thoroughly stabilized materials remain extremely fragile. Polyethylene glycol

is the commonly used wood consolidant and

is very costly. However, recent successful experiments using sucrose promise to lower

some stabilization costs. Sucrose is very inexpensive and seems highly stable.98

Combined Conservation and Documentation.–This approach involves stabilizing all

small, portable waterlogged cultural materials and documenting large objects such as

the hull; it dramatically reduces conservation

costs. Though a significant amount of study

is still feasible, some technical knowledge is

lost. However, articles must still be housed

in properly staffed conservation facilities. For

example, the State of Maine conserved the

small artifacts recovered from the Defence99

and documented the hull through drawings

for only $20,000. The Canadian Government

conserved all the small objects from the San

Juan, molded sections of the hull, and

recorded the remaining sections with drawi rigs.100

Conservation Through Technology .–This

technique, as yet unadopted, would involve

recording all small artifacts with holographic

techniques and all large artifacts through

molding and documentation and require

only holding areas and seasonal conservation staffs. The host institution’s commitment

wouId be minimal because its staff can easily transport and store all information. A

drawback to this controversial approach is

that it does not yield any tangible artifacts.

No Action.–This approach leaves sites submerged or buried beneath the seafloor. Deterioration of shipwrecks and other objects

is slow and advances in conservation technologies may significantly improve our ability

to conserve artifacts taken from a submerged

environment. Currently, this approach postpones the detailed acquisition of knowledge

96See James M. Parent, “The Conservation of Waterlogged Wood

Using Sucrose, ” Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Calvin Cummings (cd. ) (San Manno, CA:

Fathom Eight, 1986).

ggAfter they completed drawings of the vessel, archaeologists reburied her in situ, using sandbags to hold her in place.

IoOShel I Sm ith, Mariner’s Museum, Newport News, VA, personal

communication, 1986.
45

about a site. Future technologies might enable the analysis and interpretation of certain buried underwater archaeological components in situ. For example, the Turkish

Government has left several shipwrecks at

Yassi Ada to be investigated in future years.

The State of Maine selected one ship for

study after a survey of the entire Revolutionary War Penobscot fleet. The Commonwealth

of Virginia reburied the Revolutionary War

period Cornwallis Cave wreck in anticipation of more information on the scuttled British fleet.

These alternatives represent different emphases

in terms of costs, commitment, and conservation

facility readiness and capability. Realistic consideration of the pros and cons inherent in each of

the above conservation methods should be explicitly reflected in project research plans. Otherwise, archaeological investigations will result in

only unsatisfactory data bases and poorly conserved artifacts.

Photo National Trust for Historic Preservation

Technical conserving bottle taken from shipwreck,

Maine Maritime Museum, Bath, ME.
FEDERAL POLICY TOWARD UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY AND

MARITIME PRESERVATION

The Federal Government is responsible for providing leadership in preserving the Nation’s prehistoric and historic structures, objects, landscapes, and archaeological sites. This section

outlines several options for improving its efforts

to preserve and protect submerged cultural and

maritime cultural resources.

National Park Service

As the lead agency in providing technical preservation assistance, NPS could focus far greater

attention than it has on the identification, evaluation, and protection of submerged cultural and

maritime resources. It could, for example, develop and articulate a clear national policy to

guide the preservation of maritime and underwater cultural resources and coordinate NPS programs for preserving these elements of the country’s history. In recently creating the position of

Maritime Historian, the Service has highlighted

the importance and visibility of its maritime programs and created a means by which such policy could be developed and clarified.

In devoting increased attention to the health

of maritime and submerged cultural resources

NPS could place greater emphasis on the critical role of technological applications. It could also

do more to include underwater and maritime issues in its publications series. The National Register Bulletin #20, which gives uniform guidelines

for nomination, should result in the listing of more

shipwrecks and other types of craft on the National Register of Historic Places, “The National

Register has been under utilized for maritime resources, particularly historic vessels. ” By 1976,

the 10th year of the National Register Program,

only 44 vessels and 8 shipwrecks, 4 of which had

been fully recovered, had been listed.101 As noted

earlier, of 45,000 properties on the Register only

162 have been included,

NPS attempts to address underwater archaeological and maritime historical matters under the

Maritime Initiative are timely. Commercial exploiIOljames P. Delgado, “The National Register of Historic Places

and Maritime Preservation, ” APT Bu//etin, The)ourna/ of the Association for Preservation Technology, vol. IX, No. 1, 1987, p. 35.

46

tation of the Nation’s coastal zones has intensified and threatens wholesale obliteration of significant sites before they are even recorded.

However, this initiative is limited to objects of

maritime interest, for example, commerce, warfare, and navigation. Yet, as noted in the previous section, the resource base requiring attention is far broader. Archaeologists and historians

would welcome an initiative that would aggressively identify, study, and manage non-maritime

submerged sites. Such sites would include, for

example, historic and prehistoric habitations and

work areas located within little-studied environments such as estuaries.

The National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act contains

no impediment to the identification and protection of underwater archaeological and maritime

historical sites; neither does it specifically mention them.102 However, having no explicit reference to maritime or underwater historical sites

allows agencies to overlook them in cultural resource planning. Some preservationists have suggested that it may be appropriate to amend the

National Historic Preservation Act to include

these specific categories. Likewise, it may be

appropriate to amend Public Law 96-95 (16

U.S.C. 470aa et seq.) the “Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979” which outlines

the consequences of damaging, looting, and destroying archaeological materials within public

lands. This legislation does not explicitly indicate

the underwater context or refer to submerged

cultural resources,103 though portions of shipIOZFor example, see Sec. 101 (a)(l )(A): “The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to expand and maintain a National Register of

Historic Places composed of districts, sites, buildings, structures,

and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture. ”

IOJSee sec. 3(1 ): 1‘The term ‘archaeological resource’ means anY

material remains of past human life or activities which are of archaeological interest, as determined under uniform regulations

promulgated pursuant to this Act. Such regulations containing such

determination shall include, but not be limited to: pottery, basketry,

bottles, weapons, weapon projectiles, tools, structures or portions

of structures, pit houses, rock paintings, rock carvings, intaglios,

graves, human skeletal materials, or any portion or piece of the

foregoing items. ”
47

wrecks are mentioned in the final uniform regulations [49 FR 101 6]. Others have expressed concern that including explicit reference to maritime

or underwater historical sites would subject these

laws to unnecessary and potentially harmful experimentation.

Congress may wish to address the need for

greater attention to maritime and underwater cultural resources by creating additional legislation

that specifically recognizes their importance. Alternatively, Congress may wish to use its oversight authority to encourage the inclusion of maritime and underwater archaeology concerns in the

regulations and guidelines issued by Federal

agencies that treat prehistoric and historic preservation.

The Abandoned Shipwreck Act

Under current law, shipwrecks are treated

according to dual standards and are not afforded

the same consideration and protection as are archaeological remains on dry land. If Congress

wishes all classes of cultural resources to enjoy

full protection under the law, it could consider

passing The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987

(H.R. 74 and S. 858). This legislation should end

much of the courtroom fighting and maneuvering over ownership of and responsibility for

historic shipwrecks. It would also relieve the

States, desirous of preserving their underwater

cultural resources, from having to sacrifice enormous sums out of decreasing financial resources

on protracted legal actions. 104 Federal historic

preservation legislation has clearly been applied

to such maritime cultural objects as lighthouses

and land installations. It is not being applied to

shipwrecks. As noted in Issue B, because admiralty law is being invoked in the case of this

particular resource, the States have been unable

to assert ownership of an especially vulnerable

cultural asset. The result is that historic shipwreck sites in the United States are suffering rapid

attrition. Passage of the Act would remove historic shipwrecks from the purview of admiralty

courts and place them expressly under historic

preservation law. In hearings during the 99th

Congress, the Department of the Interior and the

I o.5ee Techno/og;es for prehistoric and Historic preservation, for

a discussion of historic preservation funding levels.

National Trust for Historic Preservation recommended that protective legislation for historic

shipwrecks be extended to the OCS, in order to

bring that vast area under tighter management

for the purposes of cultural conservation.105

Participants in the OTA study suggested that the

Federal government undertake a review of State

programs to ensure that the public’s interest

would be served. Removal of the threat of admiralty court from historic shipwrecks would be

insufficient if States retain “business as usual”

commercial salvage programs.

The National Maritime Initiative

As noted earlier in this background paper, Congress funded the National Maritime Initiative in

its fiscal year 1986 appropriation for the National

Park Service. Congress directed that a collaborative effort be established involving the National

Park Service, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the “maritime preservation community” to begin . . . “to conduct a survey of

historic maritime resources (table 9), including

those of the Service; recommend standards and

priorities for the preservation of those resources;

and recommend the appropriate Federal and private sector roles in addressing those priorities. ’’lob

10 JTestimony of j. jackson Walter, President of the National Trust

for Historic Preservation, before the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,

April 21, 1987.

l~Congressiona/ Record, Oct. 10, 1984. P. 11922.

Table 9.—Maritime Historic Resource Categories

1. Preserved historic vessels (more than 40 feet long,

more than 50 years old)

2. Hulks (substantially intact vessels neither afloat nor

completely submerged)

3. Relevant documentation (logs, journals, nautical charts,

ship plans, and photographs)

4. Aids to navigation (including life-saving and U.S. Coast

Guard stations)

5. Marine sites and structures (canals, docks, wharves,

ropewalks, waterfront warehouses, sail lofts, etc.)

6. Small craft (less than 40 feet long, weighing less than

20 tons)

7. Intangible cultural resources (traditional shipwright and

rigging skills, oral traditions, sea music, folklore, etc.)

8. Maritime collections (parts of vessels, tools, artifacts,

art, furnishings).

SOURCE: National Maritime /nitiative:Phase One, A Report to the Congress of

the United States, prepared by the National Park Service, 1988.
48

SOURCE: R&had K. An&son, h. W@cAfIWican Buildings

Swvey4+Mdc Amwkm ftecotd (t+AIW

HAER), National Park %xvke, peaond communkatie~,

1987.

Phase I accomplishments to date include the following:

● undertaking an exhaustive literature search

in preparation for inventorying the nation’s

maritime resources, including shipwrecks;

c drafting guidelines for the documentation of

vessels as a result of projects completed by

the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record:

— a 1985 lines lifting (box 1) of the 1897

schooner Wawona in SeattIe, Washington,

listed in the National Register of Historic

Places. A private interest group, Northwest Seaport, Inc., participated;

— a 1986 documentation of small sailing

craft at Mystic, Connecticut with the Mystic Seaport Museum, and the Calvert Marine Museum at Solomons Island, Maryland;

Photo credit: Richard K. Anderson, Jr., Historic American Buiidings

Survey/Historic American Engineering Record

Lines lifting. Triangulations in process near the bow

of schooner Wawona, Seattle, WA.

●

●

— drawings of the archaeologically recovered engine from the 1848 steamer lndi--

ana, the earliest extant marine steam engine in North America, which is listed in

the National Register of Historic Places;

drafting guidelines to stimulate the nomination of maritime resources to the National

Register of Historic Places for inclusion in

National Bulletin #20. “How To Nominate

Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks. ’’107 For the

first time, maritime resources will be evaluated according to uniform criteria;

completion of a computerized inventory of

250 preserved historic vessels over 50 years

old and more than 40 feet long.

107National park Service.
49

Among Phase II goals for fiscal year 1988 are

the

●

●

●

following:

to continue the “maritime inventory”;

to conduct National Historic Landmark

Theme Studies for aids to navigation, Pacific

coast maritime history, Great Lakes maritime

history, etc.; and

to continue HABS/HAER documentation of

a major steamship and engine.

Center for Preservation Technology

A federally supported center for preservation

technology could make a major contribution to

the development of technologies for the study

and preservation of underwater and maritime cultural resources. NPS could take the lead in examining which cost-effective technologies for the

special requirements of underwater archaeology

and maritime preservation such a center should

focus on. Candidate technology areas include

survey, location, navigation, recording, and materials conservation. NPS could assess, among

other things, the potential utility of a central technical facility, or coordinated set of regional facilities, as the primary focus for the development

of preservation technology and for intergovern -

mental technology sharing.

Incentives for the Restoration and

Rehabilitation of Floating and

Dry= Berthed Vessels

Since 1976, tax incentives have been available

to owners of qualified, income-producing privately-owned structures. These incentives have

resuIted in the preservation of many historic structures all over the country, and have increased local property values dramatically. It may be appropriate to make similar tax incentives available for

privately owned, income-producing floating and

dry-berthed historic vessels. Such tax incentives

wouId likely promote the protection of such historic resources.108 Congress might also consider

providing incentives for encouraging salvers to

follow established archaeological procedures in

excavating shipwrecks.

National Survey of Maritime

Historic Resources

If Congress wishes the national survey of

historic maritime resources to continue, it should

continue to fund the National Maritime Initiative

(table 10). As indicated previously, the first phase,

which focused on preserved vessels more than

40 feet long and at least 50 years old, is complete.

However, seven other categories of maritime resources exist (table 9) and are poorly inventoried.

Of possible interest to those engaged in developing and institutionalizing a national survey of

maritime historic resources is the International

Survey of Underwater Cultural Heritage being

sponsored by the United Nations Educational,

Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and managed by the Scientific Committee of the World

Confederation of Underwater Activities. The scope

of the project is worldwide and will include

sunken vessels, artifacts (table 11), and habitation sites from every period. It will also include

all types of marine and inland underwater resources and review mechanisms for their protection, discuss the findings of recent investigations,

and recommend areas for further research .109

I (I~j ,A, G ifford, M. Red knap, and N. C. Fleming, ‘‘The U N ESC[J

I nterr-rational Survey of Underwater Cu Itu ral Heritage, W’or/d 4r -

chaeo/ogy, vol. 16, No. 3, Sept. 1985, pp. 1-4.

Table IO.—lnstitutions and Agencies Participating

in National Maritime Initiative Activities

Association for Preservation Technology

Calvert Marine Museum, Maryland

Council of American Maritime Museums

Historic Naval Ships Association of North America

National Maritime Museum Association, Inc.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Park Service

National Trust for Historic Preservation

Northwest Seaport, Inc.

Tri-Coastal Marine, Inc.

U.S. Navy

U.S.S. Arizona Memorial Foundation, Inc.

SOURCE Naf/or?a/ Mantfrne /n/tiaf/ve. Phase One, A Report to the Congress of

the United States, prepared by the National Park Service, 1986
50

Table Il.—Artifacts Representative of Maritime

Historical Collections

Paintings

Drawings/illustrations

Sculpture

Scrimshaw

Large vessels

Small craft

Ship models

Canal-related objects

Maritime construction-related implements

Hunting/trapping/fishing implements

Rigging/outfitting

Ship equipment

Forecastle artifacts/personal items

Figureheads

Needlework

Macramae/rope work/knot work

Sea shanties/foc’sie songs

River, lake, and canal-related music

Dioramas

Account books

Builders’ models

Films

Maps/charts

Lighthouse lenses

Tales/legends/stories

Musical instruments

Logs

Diaries

Manuscripts

Letters

Ships orders

Records

Recipes

Prints

Shipwrecks/hulls/remains

Whaling artifacts

Plans/blueprints

Lifesaving equipment

Oral histories

Photographs

Other Federal agencies could improve their attention to underwater archaeology and maritime

preservation. For example, the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration could develop

its own program-wide maritime archaeological

program, particularly if it intends to designate

more nationally significant cultural resources as

National Maritime Sanctuaries. Federal agencies

could also give attention to developing a set of

comprehensive data bases for underwater archaeology and maritime preservation.

Tape recordings

SOURCE: National Trust for Historic Preservation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albright, Alan B., “Shipwreck Legislation in South

Carolina: Blueprint for Pillage or Protection, ”

Underwater Archaeology: The Proceedings of

the Fourteenth Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd.) (San

Marine, CA: Fathom Eight, 1986).

APT Bulletin, The Journal of the Association for

Preservation Technology, vol. IX, No. 1, 1987,

Marylee MacDonald (cd). (Note: entire issue

is devoted to underwater archaeological and

maritime preservation issues. )

Archaeological Artefacts Conservation Guidelines

No. 1, Excavated Artefacts for Publication: UK

Sites, Archaeology Section, United Kingdom

(London: Institute for Conservation, 1982).

Arnold, J. Barto, Ill, “Remote Sensing in Archaeology, ” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration

(New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc., 1981).

Arnold, j. Barto, Ill, “An Airborne Magnetometer Survey for Shipwrecks and Associated Underwater Test Excavations,” In the Realms of

Gold: The Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Wilburn A.

Cockrell (cd.) (San Marine, CA: Fathom Eight,

1981 ).

Arnold, J. Barto, Ill, “Underwater Cultural Resource Management: The Computerized Shipwreck Reference File, ” Underwater Archaeology: The Proceedings of the Eleventh

Conference on Underwater Arechaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd. ) (San Marine, CA:

Fathom Eight, 1982).

Arnold, J. Barto, Ill, “The Platoro Lawsuit Revisited, ” Underwater Archaeology: The Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on the Proceedings on Underwater Archaeology, Calvin

R. Cummings (cd.) (San Marine, CA: Fathom

Eight, 1986).

Bass, George F., Archaeology Under Water (New

York, NY: Praeger, 1966).

Bass, George F., Archaeology Beneath the Sea

(New York, NY: Walker & Co., 1975).

Bourque, Bruce J., Brooks, Stephen W., Kley,

Ronald, Morris, Kenneth, “Conservation in Archaeology: Moving Toward Closer Cooperation, Reports, Society for American Archaeology, 1980.

Cederlund, Carl Olof, The O/d Wrecks of the Baltic Sea, Archaeological Recording of the

Wrecks of Carvel-Built ships, vol. 186 (Oxford,

England: British Archaeology Reports, international Series, 1983).

Cockrell, W. A., “Archaeology, Sports Diving, and

Shipwrecks,” Underwater Archaeology: The

Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on

Underwater Archaeology, Calvin R. Cummings

(cd.) (San Marine, CA: Fathom Eight Special

Publication, 1982).

Cockrell, W. A., “Some Moral, Ethical, and Legal Considerations in Underwater Archaeology, ” In the Realms of Gold: The Proceedings

of the Tenth Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Wilburn A. Cockrell (cd. ) (San Marino, CA: Fathom Eight, 1981 ).

Delgado, James P., and A National Park Service

Task Force, Nominating Historic Vessels and

Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic

Places, National Register Bulletin #20 (Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1987).

Fisher, George R., Legal Considerations in Underwater Archaeology, National Park Service,

Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee,

FL (paper presented at the annual meeting of

the Society on Underwater Archaeology, Philadelphia, PA, January 1976).

Foster, Nancy, “National Marine Sanctuaries—

Saving Offshore Ecosystems,” Sea Technology,

November 1986.

Franzen, Anders, The Vasa: The Strange Story of

a Swedish Warship From 7628 (Stockholm,

Sweden: Bonniers Norstedts, 1962).

Gagliano, Sherwood M., Project Director, Coastal

Environments, Inc., Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continent/ She/f (Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of the Interior, National park Service, 1977).

Gagliano, Sherwood M., Pearson, Charles E.,

Weinstein, Richard A., Wiseman, Diane E., and

McClendon, Christopher M. (Coastal Environments, Inc.), Sedimentary Studies of Prehistoric

Archaeological Sites: Criteria for the identification of Submerged Archaeological Sites of

the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service, Washington, DC, 1980.

51
52

Geismar, Joan H., “Digging Into a Seaport’s

Past, ” Archaeology, January/February 1987.

Giesecke, Anne G., “The Best in State Historic

Shipwreck Programs,” Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Special Publication Series No. 4, The Society for Historical Archaeology, Ronald L.

Michael (cd.), 1985.

Gifford, J. A., Redknap, M., and Fleming, N.C.

“The UNESCO International Survey of Underwater Cultural Heritage, ” World Archaeology,

vol. 16, No. 3, September 1985.

Gould, Richard A., Shipwreck Anthropology

(Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico

Press, 1983).

Halsey, John R., “The Sack of the Inland Seas:

Shipwreck Plundering in the Great Lakes,” paper presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of

the Society for American Archaeology, Toronto, May 17, 1987.

Hamilton, Donald L., “Conservation in Nautical

Archaeology,” Underwater Archaeology: The

Challenge Before Us, The Proceedings of the

Twelfth Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Gordon P. Watts, Jr. (cd. ) (San Marine,

CA: Fathom Eight Special Publication, 1981).

Hanson, Dennis, “The Tide is Turning for Old

Beacons Adrift at Land’s End, ” Smithsonian,

VOl. 18, No. 5, August 1987.

Hickerson, Lynn, “Maritime Preservation a Priority Matter, But What Are the Priorities?”

Soundings, September 1985.

Historic Preservation, vol. 37, No. 2, April 1985.

Klein, Martin, “New Capabilities for Side Scan

Sonar,” Underwater Archaeology: The Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd. )

(San Marine, CA: Fathom Eight Special Publication, 1982).

Lawson, Eric, “In Between: The Care of Artifacts

From the Seabed to the Conservation Laboratory and Some Reasons Why It Is Necessary, ”

Beneath the Waters of Time: The Proceedings

of the Ninth Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Texas Antiquities Publication No,

6, J. Barto Arnold Ill (ed.) (Austin, TX: Texas

Antiquities Committee, 1978).

Lenihan, D. J., Carrell, T. L., Fosberg, S., Murphy,

L., Rayl, S. L., and Ware, J. A., The Final Report

of the National Reservoir Inundation Study

(Tucson, AZ: U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service, Southwest Cultural Resources Center, 1981 ).

Lenihan, D. J., and Murphy, Larry, “Considerations for Research Designs in Shipwreck Archaeology, Underwater Archaeology: The

Challenge Before Us, The proceedings of the

Twelfth Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Gordon P. Watts, Jr. (cd. ) (San Marine,

CA: Fathom Eight, 1981).

“Maritime Initiative, ” Forum Newsletter, National Trust for Historic Preservation, vol. 1,

No. 1, August 1987.

Mayes, Thompson M., “Current Legal Issues in

the Law of Historic Shipwrecks, ” A Memorandum for the Office of General Counsel (Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation, October 1986).

Mazel, Charles, “Technology for Marine Archaeology, Oceanus, vol. 28, No. 1, spring

1985.

McGrath, H. Thomas, Jr., “The Preservation of

the U.S. S. Cairo, Underwater Archaeology:

The Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference

on Underwater Archaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd. ) (San Marine, CA: Fathom Eight,

1982).

Monarch 7890-7906, “Isle Royale National Park,

Lake Superior, Michigan, Wreck Site Sketch

Map, Phase 11,” National Park Service, 1986.

Muckelroy, Keith, Maritime Archaeology (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,

1978).

Murphy, Larry, “Shipwrecks as Data Base for Human Behavioral Studies, ” Shipwreck Anthropology, Richard A. Gould (cd.) (Albuquerque,

NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1983).

National Park Service, The National Maritime Initiative: Phase One: A Report to the Congress

of the United States (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1986).

National Trust for Historic Preservation, Directory of Maritime Heritage Resources (Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1984).

National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preserved

Historic Vessels: A Categorized List by Context

of Significance (Washington, DC: June 24,

1986).
53

National Trust for Historic Preservation, Report

of the Committee on the Survey and Inventory

of Maritime Resources (Washington, DC: January 1987).

National Trust for Historic Preservation, Standards and Guidelines for Maritime Preservation:

A Review, May 1985.

National Trust for Historic Preservation, Suggested Standards for the Management of Large

Historic Vessels (Washington, DC: September

1985).

National Trust for Historic Preservation, Tas k

Force Report on the Preservation of America’s

Maritime Heritage 7985-7990 (Washington,

DC: December 1984).

O’Keefe, P. J., “Current Developments Regarding ReguIation of Marine Archaeology Outside

Territorial Waters, ” Underwater Archaeology:

The Challenge Before Us, The Proceedings of

the Twelfth Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Gordon P. Watts, Jr. (cd. ) (San Marino, CA: Fathom Eight, 1981 ).

Parent, James M., “The Conservation of Waterlogged Wood Using Sucrose,” Underwater Archaeology: The Proceedings of the Fourteenth

Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd. ) (San Marine, CA:

Fathom Eight, 1986).

Pendleton, Edith, and Cox, Rachel, “Trouble

Down Below-Whose Treasure Is It?” Historic

Preservation, vol. 37, No. 2, April 1985.

Preservation News, “Special Issue Saluting Our

Maritime Heritage, ” National Trust for Historic

Preservation, June 1986.

Ruppe, Reynold, “Underwater Site Detection By

Use of a Coring Instrument” Beneath the

Waters of Time: The Proceedings of the Ninth

Conference on Underwater Archaeology, J.

Barto Arnold Ill (cd.), Texas Antiquities Publication No. 6 (Austin, TX: Texas Antiquities

Committee, 1978).

Ryan, Paul R., “The Titanic Revisited, ” Oceanus,

vol. 29, No. 3, fail 1986.

Shallcross, Douglas, and Giesecke, Anne, “The

Status of Federal and State Regulation of

Underwater Cultural Resources: Lessons of the

Treasure Salvers and Cobb Coin Cases,” Underwater Archaeology: The Proceedings of the

Fourteenth Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd. ) (San Marino, CA: Fathom Eight, 1986).

Shomette, Donald G., and Eshelman, Ralph E.,

“A Developmental Model for Survey and inventory of Submerged Archaeological Resources in a Riverine System: The Patuxent

River, Maryland, ” Underwater Archaeology:

The Challenge Before Us, The Proceedings of

the Twelfth Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Gordon P. Watts, Jr. (cd.) (San Marino, CA: Fathom Eight, 1981 ).

Stright, Melanie J., “The Future of Federal Cultural Resources Management on the OCS, ”

Underwater Archaeology: The Proceedings of

the Eleventh Conference on Underwater Archaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd. ) (San Marino, CA: Fathom Eight, 1982).

Stright, Melanie, J., Federal Cultural Resources

Management on the OCS; Problems and Potential (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, November 1981 ).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,

Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation, OTA-E-319 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, September 1986).

Weimer, Douglas Reid, Legal Issues Relating to

Abandoned” Shipwrecks;

search Service, 1986.

Congressional Re-