Technologies for Underwater Archaeologyand Maritime Preservation

September 1987

NTIS order #PB88-142559

Recommended Citation:U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies for Underwater Archaeol-ogy 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 DocumentsU.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 throughits inland waters have played crucial roles in the discovery, settlement, and develop-ment of the United States. The remnants of these activities include such varied cul-tural historic resources as Spanish, English, and American shipwrecks off the Atlanticand Pacific coasts; abandoned lighthouses; historic vessels like Maine-built coastalschooners, or Chesapeake Bay Skipjacks; and submerged prehistoric villages in theGulf Coast. Together, this country’s maritime activities make up a substantial compo-nent of U.S. history.

This background paper describes and assesses the role of technology in underwaterarchaeology and historic maritime preservation. As several underwater projects haverecently demonstrated, advanced technology, often developed for other uses, playsan increasingly important role in the discovery and recovery of historic shipwrecksand their contents. For example, the U.S. Government this summer employed a powerfulremotely operated vehicle to map and explore the U.S.S. Monitor, which lies on thebottom off Cape Hatteras. This is the same vehicle used to recover parts of the spaceshuttle Challenger from the ocean bottom in 1986. The Commonwealth of Virginiais using a variety of advanced techniques to document and excavate one of GeneralCornwallis’s ships, intentionally sunk off Yorktown during the Revolutionary War toprevent General Washington from capturing it. In international waters, the locationand documentation of the British Iuxury Iiner Titanic was possible only by using a vari-ety of sophisticated positional devices and deep water submersibles. These efforts havecaptured the interest and imagination of the American public.

This background paper also examines the legal framework that affects the salvageof historic shipwrecks and recovery of artifacts. Historic shipwrecks in U.S. coastal waterscontain a wealth of important information about the economic and social history ofthis country. Yet they are suffering rapid attrition, in part because the United Stateslacks a coherent national policy to guide the identification and preservation of under-water and maritime cultural resources. For example, State laws governing historic ship-wrecks found in State coastal waters often conflict with Federal Admiralty law, whichgives private salvers the right to salvage shipwrecks, regardless of their age or historicvalue. Attempts to place historic shipwrecks under the same protection as other historiccultural resources have led to the Historic Shipwreck Act of 1987, which is discussedand analyzed in this background paper.

In undertaking this work, OTA sought the contributions of a wide spectrum ofknowledgeable and interested experts within Federal and State Governments and theprivate sector. Some provided information and guidance, others reviewed drafts of thisbackground paper. OTA gratefully acknowledges their contributions of time and intel-

Workshop Participants:Technologies for Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation,Feb. 20, 1986

Reynold Ruppe, ChairmanUnderwater Archaeologist, Department of Anthropology

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

J, Barto Arnold IllUnderwater ArchaeologistTexas Antiquities CommitteeAustin, TX

Calvin R. CummingsSenior ArchaeologistDenver Service CenterNational Park ServiceDenver, CO

Anne G. GeiseckeConsultantUnderwater Archaeology and Maritime Preser-

vationArlington, VA

Daniel J. LenihanChiefSubmerged Cultural Resources UnitNational Park ServiceSanta Fe, NM

Charles H. MazelNightsea ResearchCharlestown, MA

Craig T. MullenPresidentEastport International, Inc.Upper Marlboro, MD

Carol OlsenUnderwater ArchaeologistMaritime Preservation DepartmentNational Trust for Historic PreservationWashington, DC

J.K. OrzechOceanographerMarine Biology Resources DivisionScripps Institute of OceanographyLa Jolla, CA

Sheli O. SmithUnderwater ArchaeologistMariners MuseumNewport News, VA

NOTE: OTA appreciates and IS grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the workshop participants. Theworkshop participants do not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibilityfor the report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv

Technologies for Underwater Archaeology and Maritime PreservationOTA Project Staff

Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTAEnergy, 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

Administrat ive Staff

Lillian Chapman Linda Long

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

Richard K. Anderson John R. KernNational Park Service Department of State

Richard AnusciewiczDivision of Historical and Cultural AffairsDover, DE

Minerals Management Service

Michele C. AubryThomas F. King

National Park ServiceAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation

Larry BanksU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

johan T. BensonAmerican Institute of Aeronautics and AstronauticsWashington, DC

John D. BroadwaterVirginia Division of Historic LandmarksResearch Center for ArchaeologyYorktown, VA

Toni CarrellNational park Service

James DelgadoNational park Service

Ralph E. EshelmanCalvert Maritime MuseumSolomons, MD

Rob Floydjohn E. Chance & Associates, Inc.Lafayette, LA

John FowlerAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation

Donald FreyInstitute of Nautical ArchaeologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TX

Ed FriedmanMinerals Management Service

James HandU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Lynn HickersonNational Trust for

Helen HooperNational Trust for

Stanley HordesHMS AssociatesSanta Fe, NM

paul JohnstonPeabody MuseumSalem, MA

John J. KneedNational Park Service

Garry KozakKlein Associates, Inc.Salem, NH

Emory KristoffNational Geographic SocietyWashington, DC

Edward M. MillerNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Nancy MillerNational Conference of State Historic Preservation

OfficersWashington, DC

Charles MoorheadU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Marcia MyersNational Trust for Historic Preservation

Loretta NeumannForesight Science & Technology, Inc.Washington, DC

Mike RobertsTimelines, Inc.Groton, MA

Beth SavageNational Park Service

Carol ShunNational Park Service

Eugene SterudtNational Endowment for the Humanities

Historic Preservation Melanie J. StrightMinerals Management Service

Historic Preservation Douglas R. WeimerCongressional Research ServiceLibrary of Congress

Bill WestermeyerOffice of Technology Assessment

vi

ContentsPage

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Principal Findings. .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Major Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Federal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Private Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19International Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Interest Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Litigation Over ownership of Historic Shipwrecks ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Technology Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Communicating With Universities and Oceanographic Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

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

Technologies for Survey, Identif ication, Navigation, Excavation, Documentation,Restoration, and Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Identification and Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Navigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Excavation and Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Federal Policy Toward Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46National Park Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46The National Historic Preservation Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46The Abandoned Shipwreck Act... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47The National Maritime Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Center for Preservation Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Incentives for the Restoration and Rehabilitation of Floating and Dry-Berthed Vessels . . . . . . . . . 49National Survey of Maritime Historic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

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

BoxesBox Page

A. Title 1, Section 106, Historic Preservation Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10B. The National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II

C. The U.S.S. Monitor Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14D. Regional Baseline Studies Completed for the Minerals Management Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18E. The National Trust for Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19F. The Seven Marine Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22G. State Historic Shipwreck Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27H. Applications of Technology on the Yorktown Shipwreck Archaeological Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431. Lines Lifting and Lines Drawings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

TablesTdble No. page

l. Some Research Technologies Discussed in This Background Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82. Prehistoric and Historic Preservation Laws and Executive Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93. Federal Agencies With Major Roles in Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation . . 1 04. Submerged Resource Areas Surveyed by the National Park Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]]5. National Marine Sanctuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136. Threats to Underwater Archaeological and Maritime Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . 307. Representative Historic Shipwrecks Exploited for Treasure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318. U.S. Oceanographic Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339. Maritime Historic Resource Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

10. Institutions and Agencies Participating in National Maritime Initiative Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4911. Artifacts Representative of Maritime Historical Collections ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

vii

INTRODUCTIONIn 1986, at the request of the House Interior

Committee and its Subcommittee on Public Landsthe Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)lcompleted a report on Technologies for Re-historic and Historic Reservation.2 The report as-sesses the use of technologies for locating,analyzing, and protecting elements of the Na-tion’s prehistoric and historic heritage, and re-views the legislative basis for historic preserva-tion in the United States.

Because submerged and maritime resourcesare among the most neglected of U.S. culturalresources, and the United States lacks an effec-tive national policy for protecting them, theHouse Interior Committee and Public Lands Sub-committee asked that OTA develop this back-ground paper, extending the report’s analysis oftechnologies for underwater archaeology andmaritime preservation.4 I nformation contained inthis background paper derives primarily from aworkshop convened by OTA, February 20, 1986,in which participants met to discuss issues con-cerni ng the preservation of underwater archaeo-logical and maritime historical resources. OTAalso obtained additional material from staff re-search, personal interviews with underwater ar-chaeologists and preservation professionals, andfrom an informal meeting on underwater archae-ology and maritime preservation held at OTA,November 3, 1986.

The National Historic Preservation Act (16U.S.C. 470 et seq.) acknowledges the diversityof America’s cultural heritage. The Congress ofthe United States has declared, through this leg-islation that:

‘ OTA conducted Its assessment i n part by convening a series ofworkshops that addressed Issues surrounding the uses of technol-ogies for dry-land archaeology, underwater archaeology, prehistoricand historic structures, and prehistoric and historic landscapes. Afifth workshop focused on problems relating to the physical pro-tection of all classes of cultural resources.

2 U, S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Techrio/ogiesfor 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 equip-ment, 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, andlandscapes.

‘Letter of Oct. 8, 1986, signed by Representatives Morris K, Udalldnd John F. Selberllng.

. . . the preservation of this irreplaceable heritageis in the public interest so that its vital legacy ofcultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, eco-nomic, and energy benefits will be maintainedand en r iched for fu ture generat ions ofAmericans. s

Underwater archaeological and maritime re-sources constitute a significant part of that cu1-tural diversity, comprising structures, objects, andsites,

Underwater archaeology refers to the study ofthe remains of prehistoric and historic humanactivities found underwater. These remains gen-erally include the following:

●

●

●

Shipwrecks, both scattered and intact, indeep or shallow water, within coral line for-mations, and on or near shore, when, for ex-ample, they are found within landfills or iso-lated as hulks by uplift, lowered water levels,or changes in river channels. Shipwrecks andtheir cargoes reveal life at the moment ofeach sinking, and can provide otherwise un-available information on marine technology,shipbuilding, navigation, and warfare. Manyships served as homes at sea. Study of his-toric shipwrecks can therefore provide val-uable insights into trade, shipboard life, andthe interaction between the Old and NewWorlds in the exploration and settlement ofthis country.Lost objects, such as the contents of earlytraders’ canoes lost in rivers and lakes. Theyoften provide useful information on traderoutes, life in the period of exploration, andearly settlement patterns.Submerged prehistoric sites, including thoseof relatively- recent periods that have sub-sided near shore or been flooded by reser-voirs, and those on the Outer ContinentalShelf that have been inundated by rising sealevels. The latter, whose existence is onlynow being demonstrated, are especially im-portant because they illustrate human adap-tations to coastal environments during theearliest phases of North American prehistory.

5Natlonal Historic Presewatlon Act, Sec. 1 (b) (Purpose of the Act),para. 4,

1

2

Submerged remains encompass sites thatfunctioned as work areas, dwellings, or de-bris deposits. They vary widely and may con-sist of such remains as farms, warehouses,piers, middens, wells, villages, towns, evencities.

Maritime preservation encompasses under-water archaeology but extends to a wide varietyof maritime-related historic cultural resourcessuch as ships and other vessels still afloat or dry-berthed; shore installations such as lighthouses,shipyards, drydocks, and coastal defense systems;settlements dependent on shipping, canals, locksand levees; documents, works of art, and archivespertinent to maritime activities; and, finally, tointangible cultural resources such as skills in boat-building and navigation.

Publicity surrounding the recovery of artifactsfrom several well-known historic shipwrecks, aswell as the development of technologies for lo-cating and preserving historic shipwrecks, havefocused greater attention on underwater culturalresources. This background paper attempts to ar-ticulate the most important policy issues relatedto the preservation of underwater archaeologyand maritime cultural resources. Some of the in-formation in this background paper appeared inTechnologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preser-vation in different form and organization. We re-fer the reader to it for an overview of the issuescommon to all disciplines within the preserva-tion field.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGSIf significant underwater and maritime historic

cultural resources are to receive more effectiveprotection, the United States will have to de-velop a coherent national policy for managingthem.

The current lack of a coherent national policyfor underwater archaeology and maritime preser-vation has impeded the location and protectionof many historically significant cultural resources.In spite of the many cultural conservation lawsenacted since 1906, particularly the NationalHistoric Preservation Act, and their supportingregulations, standards, and guidelines, under-water archaeology and maritime preservationhave received relatively little attention within theFederal Government. No single Federal depart-ment or agency has been specifically chargedwith funding, coordinating, and directing astrong, visible national program for underwaterarchaeology and maritime preservation. Nor hasthe Federal Government asserted sovereignprerogative over historic shipwrecks in its waters.

The Federal Government and States have be-gun to allocate more resources for protecting un-derwater and maritime cultural resources. Forexample, in 1987 the National Park Service pub-lished the first criteria for evaluating and nominat-ing historic ships and shipwrecks to the NationalRegister of Historic Places, and in fiscal year 1986Congress appropriated $255,000 for Phase I ofthe National Maritime Initiative, which is funding:

●

●

●

an exhaustive literature search of the Na-tion’s maritime resources;the drafting of standards for documentationof vessels; andthe drafting of guidelines for nominating mar-itime resources to the National Register ofHistoric Places.

Several other industrialized nations have fo-cused significant resources on underwater ar-chaeology and maritime preservation. Their com-mitment to the protection of underwater andmaritime cultural resources appears more deter-mined than U.S. efforts. For example, preserva-tion professionals in the United States view therecovery and restoration of the 17th centurySwedish warship Wasa and the English Tudor

flagship Mary Rose as successful models for U.S.efforts. The successes of these restorations havedepended on long-term commitment by the gov-ernments of Sweden and the United Kingdom,whose goals are to engender public interest, andto obtain reliable funding for proper research andinterpretive facilities, and access to technical ex-pertise.

Underwater and maritime cultural resourcesare vulnerable to a wide variety of natural andmanmade threats.

Looters and commercial treasure salvers con-stitute the most serious manmade threats to ship-wrecks. In the process of searching out and ex-tracting commercially promising contents theymay destroy significant archaeological informa-tion. However, natural threats, such as shorelineerosion and wave action, may also significantlydeplete irreplaceable underwater and maritimecultural resources. Weathering, neglect, and lackof maintenance rapidly deteriorate floating ves-sels. Rainwater left standing in ships’ holds rap-idly destroys interior planking and steel and ironfittings.

The preservation of submerged and maritimehistorical cultural resources depends heavily onadvanced and often costly specialized tech-nologies.

Working underwater is hazardous and difficult.Such locational technologies as side-scan sonar,sub-bottom profilers, magnetometers, and re-motely operated vehicles were originally devel-oped to explore the sea bottom for national secu-rity purposes, laying undersea cables, and for oiland mineral exploration. Because some of thesespecialized technologies are so expensive, onlythe best financed users can acquire and applythem.

Technologies for scientifically analyzing andstabilizing the ever increasing numbers of objectsrecovered from underwater require highly skilledconservators knowledgeable about a variety ofdifferent materials, such as brass, different spe-cies of wood, and iron. These specialists are inseriously short supply. Likewise, there are notenough properly trained restorers of the many

3

.—

4

historically significant floating and dry-berthedships and other vessels in severe need of protec-tive treatment. Future research on conservationof cultural resources should focus on training; de-veloping more sensitive, low-cost methods andinstrumentation; and on the exploitation of newsources of archaeological and technological in-formation.

Historic shipwrecks in U.S. coastal waterscontain a wealth of important informationabout the economic and social history of thiscountry, yet historic shipwreck sites are suffer-ing rapid attrition. Passage and implementationof the Abandoned Shipwreck Act (H. R. 74 andS. 858) would assist in preserving significanthistoric shipwrecks for future generations byremoving historic shipwrecks from the purviewof Federal admiralty courts and placing themexpressly under Federal historic preservationlaw.

The lack of Federal leadership in resolving thequestion of jurisdiction over and ownership ofsignificant historic shipwrecks has severely ham-pered most efforts to protect them for the publicand has resulted in lengthy court conflicts be-tween commercial treasure salvers and preser-vationists. Although submerged archaeologicalsites under Federal administration are subject tothe same laws, regulations, and management pol-icies that govern sites on dry land, the status ofsome submerged cultural sites, especially ship-wrecks, situated outside national parks and ma-rine sanctuaries, is adversely affected by a highlycomplicated body of law dealing with maritimeactivities. Yet, other countries such as Australia,Canada, Cyprus, Norway, Sweden, and the UnitedKingdom have enacted national laws regulatingthe management of all cultural resources withinthe waters of their outer continental shelves.

In the absence of Federal legislation to safe-guard historic shipwrecks, 27 States have passedantiquities statutes to broaden their jurisdictionand exert regulatory control over significantwrecks within their territorial waters. Yet legal ac-tions taken in Federal court by commercial treas-ure salvers have called into question the validityof State laws in controlling the recovery of ma-terials at historically significant sites, and have de-nied the States authority to enforce their statutes.

H.R. 74 and S. 858, which are nearly identi-cal, would treat shipwrecks more like historicproperties on land. Among other things, thesebills:

●

●

●

●

●

assert U.S. ownership of abandoned ship-wrecks and transfers to the States title tothose shipwrecks that are embedded in thesubmerged lands of a State, in coralline for-mations, or included in or determined eligi-ble for inclusion in the National Register ofHistoric Places;declare that the laws of salvage and of findsdo not apply to these abandoned ship-wrecks;confirm Federal ownership of abandonedshipwrecks on Federal lands;retain any existing Federal admiralty and sal-vage law for all shipwrecks not covered bythese bills; anddirect the Advisory Council on Historic Pres-ervation to develop guidelines to assist theStates and the Federal Government in carry-ing out their responsibilities and to allow fornon-injurious recreational exploration andprivate sector salvage of shipwreck sites.

Passage of either bill would not restrict the rightof sport divers to visit and explore such wrecks,nor would it affect admiralty claims for the owner-ship of wrecks beyond the three-mile off-shoreState-controlled limit.

A federally funded facility that focuses on theresearch and development of preservation tech-nology could make a major contribution to thestudy and preservation of underwater and mar-itime cultural resources.

Although the private sector has a significant rolein developing and using preservation technol-ogies, the Federal Government has the leadresponsibility for guiding preservation effortsthroughout the United States. Participants in theOTA assessment, Technologies for Prehistoric andHistoric Preservation, cited the critical need fora federally supported facility for preservationtechnologies. A center would foster the researchand development of advanced, cost-effectivetechnologies, train professionals in their use, de-velop technical standards, disseminate accuratetechnical information, and promote public edu-

5

cation about historic preservation. A center couldalso develop automated database systems for ar-chiving and manipulating preservation infor-mation.

A federally supported center for preservationtechnology would encourage closer interactionsamong underwater archaeologists, maritime pres-ervationists, dry-land archaeologists, historians,scientists, and engineers. It would be the primarysource to which individuals could look for state-of-the-art technical information for all relevantdisciplines in the field.

In order to assist the Federal agencies in car-rying out their legislatively mandated responsi-bilities, Congress may wish to establish such a fed-erally chartered center. It could mandate theestablishment of a Federal Center for Preserva-tion Technology within the Department of the ln-terior or some other Federal agency. Alterna-tively, Congress could create a National Centerfor Preservation Technology, managed by a con-sortium of universities and preservation organi-zations. Such an institution would be able to drawon a muItitude of different skills in several univer-sities, and in many university departments. If aCenter for Preservation Technology were estab-lished, technologies for underwater archaeologyand maritime preservation could constitute a sig-nificant portion of its workload.

A Coalition for Applied Preservation Technol-ogy (CAPT) has recently been formed whosemembership represent a wide variety of privatepreservation organizations. CAPT is devoted toestablishing a multidisciplinary National Centerfor Applied Preservation Technology.

The lack of National and State inventories ofunderwater archaeological sites and maritimehistorical resources has seriously impeded ef-forts to protect these resources. If the FederalGovernment and the States wish to protect un-derwater archaeological sites and maritime cul-tural resources, they should apply greater effortsto making such inventories.

Although thousands of historic ships andsmaller vessels, and prehistoric sites are suspectedto exist in State and Federal waters, both levelsof government have neglected underwater ar-

chaeological and maritime resources in their in-ventories. For example, the first serious Federaleffort to undertake a computer-based resourcesurvey did not begin until 1986, with the NationalMaritime Initiative, which is directed at survey-ing historic maritime resources and recommend-ing standards and priorities for their preservation.The first phase of the Initiative has thus far sur-veyed only one maritime resource category outof eight identified—preserved historic vessels over40 feet long and over 50 years old.

The National Register of Historic Places servesas an important planning and protective tool forhistoric cultural resources. National RegisterBulletin #20, “Nominating Historic Vessels andShipwrecks to the National Register of HistoricPlaces,” which is designed to increase NationalRegister listings of these resources, will assist inefforts to protect them as well.

Several States have inventoried their under-water and maritime cultural resources. Maryland,for example, has begun a survey of its maritimeresources. Its Patuxent River Project, which wasbegun in 1978, includes a systematic survey ofthe river, including shipwrecks, wharfs, ferry land-ings, and inundated shore areas. In addition, theState’s Chesapeake Bay Waterways Survey, com-pleted in 1982, resulted in the listing of the Skip-jack Fleet in the National Register of HistoricPlaces, as a district.6

Future inventories of underwater archaeolog-ical and maritime resources should be placed onstandardized computer databases. The ShipwreckReference File of the Texas State Antiquities Com-mission, which is now being computerized, couldserve as a possible model. The file is based oninformation culled from both historic and con-temporary sources such as maps and field reports.Since 1972, the Commission has listed over 1,000shipwrecks of which approximately one-half haveproved historic.

Increased identification, interpretation, andprotection of significant underwater and maritimecultural resources will depend on greater public

‘%kipjacks are Chesapeake Bay-built shallow draft sloops, designedto dredge oysters. The Skipjack fleet is the last remaining workingsailing fleet in the United States.

6

appreciation of their historical value and the scar-city of their numbers. Federal, State, and localeducation programs should be expanded to reacha wider audience.

The public is often unaware of the crucial differ-ences between treasure hunting, which focuseson historic objects of high intrinsic cultural or eco-nomic value, and archaeology, which focuses onthe scientific understanding of the entire archaeo-logical site within the context of its surroundings.In their attempts to recover artifacts quickly, treas-ure hunters both deliberately and inadvertantlydestroy much of the contextual information es-sential for advancing scientific knowledge of pre-historic and historic sites. Improved education ofthe general public, and those whose activitiesmight adversely affect significant sites, could re-

sult in a higher degree of protection. Specifically,it will be important to educate sport divers, fisher-man, salvers, the oil and gas industry, and otherusers of underwater resources, as well as Federaland State agencies and local communities aboutthe historic value of such sites.

In order to improve the preservation of un-derwater archaeological and maritime culturalresources, the National Park Service and otherFederal agencies could focus more consistent at-tention on them.

The National Park Service could take the leadin developing and articulating a clear nationalpolicy to guide the preservation of maritime andunderwater cultural resources and coordinateFederal programs for preserving these elements

7

of the country’s history. It could also includemore in its publications series on the technologiesfor underwater archaeology and maritime pres-ervation.

The National Maritime Initiative involves Fed-eral and private groups,7 and is helping to focusattention on the Nation’s historic maritime re-sources. Congress might consider an additionalinitiative to inventory and protect other sub-merged non-maritime sites. The greatest need isfor sustained and predictable funding for such ini-tiatives. In addition, it will be particularly impor-tant for the Federal agencies to achieve more ef-fective coordination in their efforts to developtechnologies for underwater archaeology andmaritime preservation, An information clearing-house would be of substantial assistance in thisarea. Congressional oversight may be necessaryto assure that information sharing and coordina-tion are truly effective.

Since 1976, tax incentives have promoted theprotection of historic income-producing struc-tures in virtually every congressional district. It

7FOr ~xamPle, the National Trust for Historic preservation, Whichhas attempted to promote the concept of a national maritime pol-icy since 1976.

may be appropriate for Congress to extend suchtax incentives and make them available for pri-vately owned, income-producing floating anddry-berthed historic vessels. Congress might alsoconsider providing incentives for encouraging sal-vers to follow established archaeological proce-dures for excavating shipwrecks.

As manager of the National Marine Sanctuaries,the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administra-tion (NOAA) has taken the lead in the efforts tomap and preserve the U.S.S. Monitor, the historicUnion ironclad, which lies off Cape Hatteras.However, it has little in-house underwater ar-chaeological expertise. If NOAA expects to ex-pand its involvement in underwater archaeology,as it acquires new ocean areas for sanctuary des-ignation, it could develop its own in-house cul-tural resource expertise.

The Federal Government could assist State andlocal efforts by providing additional funding forprojects in underwater archaeology and maritimepreservation. If properly funded, universities andother private groups could provide considerabletechnological assistance to Federal, State, andlocal projects.

MAJOR

Federal admiralty law and contradictory deci-sions from Federal courts concerning the dispo-sition of historic shipwrecks and their contentshave created uncertainty within State govern-ments over the extent to which they can regu-late salvage within their waters for public bene-fit. This confusion has denied historic shipwrecksand their contents the long-standing legal protec-tion enjoyed by all other culturally significant re-sources and has left them vulnerable to the oftendestructive actions of those interested in the re-covery of commercially profitable objects, ratherthan the scientific study of archaeological sites.

Aggravating the risk to historic shipwrecks andtheir contents is the increasing availability of newand powerful technologies that will hasten theirlocation and possible damage and loss. For ex-ample, state-of-the-art remote sensing instrumentsare now powerful enough to locate most of theshipwrecks in U.S. waters. Deep diving remotelyoperated vehicles (ROVS) and robots can visitsites previously unreachable.

Of all cultural resources, submerged archaeo-logical and many maritime historical resourcesare among the most heavily dependent for theirpreservation on complex and often costly tech-nologies (table 1). Some technologies enableunderwater archaeologists to confront often haz-ardous working conditions as well as a host ofpractical problems that affect breathing, visibil-ity, movement, communication, and length of re-search time at sites. These include tides, currents,cold, depth, turbidity, hostile marine animals,plants, and severe concretion or deep burial ofobjects by sediments. Other technologies enablethe constant, highly specialized maintenance es-sential to all items recovered underwater, and tomany maritime resources, such as floating anddry-berthed vessels.

Currently, there exists only a small core ofprofessionals experienced in the wide array ofmethods used to survey, record, excavate, re-cover, analyze, inventory, conserve, and inter-pret cultural materials. Participants in the OTAstudy identified a range of concerns related tothe use of existing or potential technical appli-cations in the underwater archeological and mar-

ISSUESTable I.—Some Research Technologies Discussed in

This Background Paper

●

●

●

●

●

●

�

slde-scan sonar: locates shipwrecks and sites on the bot-tom surface by detecting the echoes of high-frequencyacoustic pulses transmitted from an instrument towed be-hind ship;sub-bottom profiler: locates shipwrecks and sites belowthe bottom by detecting the return signals of lower fre-quency acoustic pulses from instrument towed behindship;magnetometer: registers changes in the local magneticfield as detector passes over iron-bearing cultural materi-al. It can be used from a ship or an airplane;remote/y operated vehicles (ROVS): a variety of submersi-ble vehicles that can carry photographic or video camerasto image submerged objects. ROVS can also retrieve sam-ples from the bottom.photography: black and white, color, and infrared at a widevariety of scales; andvideo: color and black and white.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987

itime preservation processes. The following issuesapply generally to most or all technologies for un-derwater archaeological and maritime historicalsites. They are not necessarily in priority order:

Issue A: The lack of a coherent national pol-icy for underwater archaeology and maritimepreservation has impeded the location andprotection of important cultural resources.

This lack is felt at both the Federal and Statelevels, and is ultimately reflected in local com-munities. Compared with efforts by Federal andState agencies to preserve other elements of theNation’s cultural heritage, the preservation ofboth maritime and submerged archaeological re-sources has been extremely limited. No singleFederal department or agency has been specifi-cally charged with funding, coordinating, anddirecting a strong, visible national program forunderwater archaeological and maritime preser-vation. In addition, the Federal Government hasnever even asserted sovereign prerogative overhistoric shipwrecks in its waters. In spite of thebody of cultural conservation laws enacted sincethe Antiquities Act of 1906 (table 2), particularlythe watershed National Historic Preservation Act,and its Section 106 (box A),a submerged cultural

8As well as the many supporting regulations, standards, and guide-lines, and management and protection mechanisms, Including theNational Register of Historic Places.

8

9—

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

L a w s :—— . . -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, PublicLaw 81-408 (63 Stat. 927, 16 U.S.C. 468 et seq.)The Submerged Lands Act of 1953, Public Law 83-31 (67Stat 29, 43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.)Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Public Law 83-212 (67Stat. 462, 43 U. SC. 1331 et seq.)The Management of Museum Properties Act of 1955, Pub-Iic Law 84-69 (16 U.S.C. 18f)The Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, Public Law 86-523 (16U. SC. 469-469c)The Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Publlc Law89-670 (80 Stat. 931)The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law89-665 (16 USC. 470)The National Envlronmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law90-190 (16 U.S.C 470)Executive Order 11593, “Protection and Enhancement ofthe 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 Law94-201 (20 U.S.C. 2101-2107)The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, PublicLaw 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, Pub-lic Law 96-95 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.)Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, Pub-lic 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 PolicyAct. ”

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 Guidelinesfor Archeology and Historic Preservation, ” Federal Register48, No. 190, Thursday, Sept. 29, 1983.

“Final Uniform Regulations, Archaeological Resources Pro-tection Act of 1979,” Federal Register 49, No. 4, Friday, Jan.6, 1984.

“Draft Guidelines for Historic and Archeological ResourceManagement: Federal Agency Responsibilities Under Sec-tion 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, ” NationalPark Service, Feb. 5, 1986.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Executive Direc-tor’s “Procedures for Review of Proposals for Treatment ofArchaeological Properties: Supplementary Guidance, ” 45Federal Register 78808.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation “Protection ofHistoric 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 ofthe act It Implements follows each c!!atlon

SOURCE U S Department of the Interior and OTA

resources and many historic maritime resourceshave, at best, received uneven attention by Fed-eral agencies.

Two recent developments, however, promiseto encourage more aggressive protective Federalact ion:

1. publication of the first criteria for evaluatingand nominating historic ships and ship-wrecks to the National Register of Historicplaces, 9 10 and

2. the National Maritime Initiative (see the sec-tion, Federal Policy Toward Underwater Ar-chaeology and Maritime Preservation), mo-nies 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 MarltlrnePreservation, ’ The APT f?u//etin 9, No. 1, 1987, p. 35.

10james p, De[~ado and a National Park Service Marit I me TaskForce, 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 ParkSer\l( e inter.]~ency Resources Dml\mn, 1987) This puhllcatton .lid~prewriatlon [)rotes~tonal~ and other interested cltlzens in identify-I n~, eva I uatl ng, and nom I n,]t I ng h t~torl[ tw~sels and sh Ipwreck$ tot h~> Nat Ion,) I Re~lster of t i l~torl[ f)la[ e$.

.

10

Table 3.-Federal Agencies With Major Roles inUnderwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation

Advisory Council on Historic PreservationBureau of Reclamation (Department of Interior)Environmental Protection AgencyFish and Wildlife Service (Department of Interior)General Services AdministrationMinerals Management Service (Department of Interior)National Endowment for the HumanitiesNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(Department of Commerce)National Park Service (Department of Interior)National Science FoundationSmithsonian InstitutionU.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 theInterior for Phase One.

Federal Programs

Every Federal agency is required by law to pre-serve prehistoric and historic properties on lands(including submerged lands) within its jurisdic-tion and to consider their treatment in generalprogram planning. Each agency plays a differentpart in the process of cultural resource manage-ment and the development of relevant technol-ogies (table 3). The National park Service (NPS),for example (box B), is specifically charged withprotecting cultural resources within the NationalPark System and with providing general techni-cal preservation assistance. The U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, by contrast, has jurisdiction over theNation’s coasts and navigable waterways, regu-lating both public and private projects such asdam building or dredging, and is obliged to bal-ance preservation needs against other programrequirements.

In the absence of a coherent national policyfor safeguarding submerged archaeological sitesand maritime resources, the agencies, which pos-sess varying degrees of expertise, and generallyinadequate funding, have continued to locate,analyze, and manage them. Although carried outin a fragmented fashion, some of the govern-

ment’s activity has produced work of excellentquality and has involved diverse groups from thepublic and private sectors. Federally supportedefforts include the following:

The National Park Service

NPS has long assumed the primary role in pro-viding technical assistance on all aspects ofhistoric preservation throughout the national parksystem, to other Federal agencies, to State agen-cies, local preservation organizations, and thegeneral public. Through its Submerged CulturalResources Unit (SCRU)ll in Santa Fe, New Mex-ico, the Service is actively involved in underwaterarchaeological field work in many areas underNPS jurisdiction. SCRU began in 1976 as a spe-cial team charged with designing site manage-ment strategies based on the impacts of waterson archaeological materials in selected reservoirsthroughout the country .12 SCRU has now becomea fixture within NPS and the national leader inunderwater park interpretation, park manage-

I I SCR(J is ~ component of the Southwest Cultural Resources Cen-

ter, 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 ofthe Interior, National Park Service, Southwest Cultural ResourcesCenter, 1981. This report is the product of a 5-year cooperativeeffort involving NPS as lead agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Soil Conser-*/ation Service.

11

ment, and diver training. it provides the onlyprofessional team within the Federal Governmentdevoted to underwater archaeological activities.

SCRU has studied shipwreck and other under-water archaeological sites within 23 of the 45 sub-merged resource areas (table 4) managed by NPSthroughout the United States and its territories.SCRU has located shipwrecks, and recorded,measured, and documented them in such dis-similar underwater environments as: Lake Su-perior, Michigan, where the Isle Royale NationalPark contains numerous wrecks; Pearl Harbor,

Table 4.—Submerged Resource Areas Surveyedby the Nationai Park Service

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, AlaskaGlen Canyon National Recreation Area, ArizonaMontezuma Well, ArizonaBuffalo National River, ArkansasArkansas Post National Memorial, ArkansasChannel islands National Park, CaliforniaGolden Gate National Recreation Area, CaliforniaPoint Reyes National Seashore, CaliforniaBiscayne National Monument, FloridaEverglades National Park (Ft. Jefferson National

Monument), FloridaGulf Islands National Seashore, FloridaPu'uhonua o honaunau National Historical Park, HawaiiU.S.S. Arizona Memorial, HawaiiIndiana Dunes National Lakeshore, IndianaAssateague Isiand National Seashore, MarylandCape Cod National Seashore, MassachusettsIsle Royale National Park, MichiganOzark National Scenic Riverway, MississippiLake Mead National Recreation Area, NevadaChickasaw National Recreation Area, OklahomaAmistad National Recreation Area, TexasLake Meredith National Recreation Area, TexasPadre Island National Seashore, TexasApostle Islands National Lakeshore, WisconsinGrand Teton National Park, WyomingVirgin Islands National Park, Virgin IslandsBuck Island Reef National Monument, Virgin IslandsWar In The Pacific National Historical Park, GuamSOURCE: National Park Service, Submerged Cultural Resources Unit

Hawaii, where the remains of the (U.S.S. Arizonaand U.S.S. Utah lie as a result of the 1941 Japa-nese aircraft attack that drew the United Statesinto World War ii; Alaska; and off Kosrae in theU.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific. SCRU has alsosuccessfully secured the participation of volun-teer sport divers and local historians at Isle Ro-yale; Channel islands National Marine Sanctuaryoff the coast of California; Apostle Islands in LakeSuperior, Wisconsin; and Point Reyes-Farallon ls-Iands National Marine Sanctuary, California. TheUnit has also worked with local news media, theNational Geographic Society, and the BritishBroadcasting Corp. to interpret shipwreck archae-ology and “the conservation-oriented, nonde-structive technique that is their distinctive trade-mark.”ls SCRU is often consulted by otherFederal agencies, State offices, and private ar-chaeologists for guidance and is currently advis-

I James P. Delgado, National Park Service, personal comm uni -cation, February 1987. See also Peter G. Howorth, “California Ship-wrecks: 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 Ad-ministration on its U.S.S. Monitor preservationproject.

The NPS has recently created a position of Mar-itime Historian and institutionalized its efforts forthe National Maritime Initiative in its MaritimeInitiative Office. NPS also maintains a NationalMaritime Museum in the Golden Gate NationalRecreational Area in San Francisco.

Together with the University of New Mexico,NPS supports a Spanish Colonial Research Cen-ter, which is devoted to studying the historicalrecords and material culture of the SpanishColonial period. One objective of the center isto develop a computerized database from Span-ish Colonial and other archival sources. Amongother things, the Center is active in studying andinterpreting the maritime records of Spain.

NOAA’s U.S. National MarineSanctuary Program

This program, within the Office of Ocean andCoastal Resource Management, oversees themanagement of seven sites (table 5) within U.S.waters. These are fragile ecosystems designatednationally significant pursuant to Title Ill of theMarine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Actof 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. (amended in1984).14

NOAA’s cultural conservation efforts so far af-fect only one site among the seven–the U.S.S.Monitor National Marine Sanctuary (box C). Des-ignated for its historic significance in 1975, thesanctuary encloses a circular area 1 nautical milein diameter surrounding the wreck of the historicCivil War ironclad. The vessel, resting upsidedown in the “Graveyard of the Atlantic” off CapeHatteras, North Carolina, represented a revolu-tionary technical advance over the typical broad-side warships of that era and changed the char-acter of naval warfare. Sunk during a storm in1862, she had, during the same year, battled theConfederate ironclad C.S.S. Virginia (formerly the

IAThiS legislation and its attendant regulations: 1 ) enhance re-source protection through comprehensive and coordinated man-agement; 2) support scientific research on discrete marine resourcesfor Improved long-term planning; and 3) promote public aware-ness, appreciation, and judicious uses of these rekources througheducational 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 wreckof the historic Civil War ironclad of the Union, sunk offCape Hatteras in 1862Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, designated 1975—a100-square-nautical- mile area off the Florida keys whichincludes part of the largest of North America’s coral reefsystemsChannel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, designated1980-a 1,252-square-nautical-mile area off the coast ofSouthern California, which contains shipwrecks andsupports one of the world’s largest and most diversemarine mammal populations as well as one of the mostextensive of the State’s few remaining kelp bedsLooe Key National Marine Sanctuary, designated 1981—a5.3-square-nautical-mile reef area located off the lowerFlorida KeysGray’s Reef National Marine Sanctuary, designated1981 —a 17-square-nautical-mile area 17.5 nautical milesoff Florida where the warm Gulf stream meets the coolerwaters of the coast over a limestone outcropping whichsupports sponges, corals, tropical reef f ish, andinvertebratesPoint Reyes-Farallon islands national Marine Sanctuary,designated 1981-a 948 square-nautical-mile site northwestof San Francisco, California, representative of near andoffshore northeastern Pacific habitats and notable for itsunique concentration of seabirdsFagatele Bay national Marine Sanctuary, designated 1986—a 163-acre bay off Tutuila Island, American Samoa, com-prising deep-water coral terraces characteristic of highvolcanic islands in the tropical Pacific

SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Merrimac) in the famous duel of the ironclads offHampton Roads, Virginia.

The U.S.S. Monitor’s designation directs NOAAto extend protection to a cultural resource lo-cated beyond the limits of the country’s territorialsea to the Outer Continental Shelf and to exam-ine interactions between natural and cultural ele-merits.15. The agency is managing the site throughits U.S.S. Monitor Project. The project is a multi-year effort by NOAA to develop and begin im-plementing a master plan, the first phase of whichcalls for an assessment of preservation optionsranging from research, survey, recording, docu-mentation, and removal of contents from the site,to total recovery. These options reflect the fullspectrum of cultural resource managementissues16 and include not only in situ archaeolog-

1‘Nancy Foster, “National Marine Sanctuaries–Saving OffshoreEcosystems, ” 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 Atmos-pheric Administration, 1987.

14

ical study, but also conservation, interpretation,and display requirements in the event of exca-vation. l7 The project is making the U.S. S. Moni-tor the centerpiece of a permanent public inter-pretation and education drive and has selecteda principal museum to curate and display artifactsand information about the Monitor.

NOAA has examined foreign efforts in under-water archaeology and maritime preservation for

17 In the appears infeasible, NOAA is consideringtwo alternatives for display purposes: a reconstruction of the shipwithin which materials and conserved artifacts would be incorpo-rated; and 2) replicas, one of which would be presented in anaquarium-like setting, the other as a full-scale replica. These alter-natives were developed by the Harper’s Ferry Center of the Na-tional Park Service and described in its report to NOAA, “An Assess-ment 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 offthe coast of Cape Hatteras, NC.

guidance on its U.S.S. Monitor Project. NOAAseeks to avoid mistakes made during the salvageof the U.S.S. Cairo, a Civil War Union ironclad,which sank to the bottom of the Yazoo River inMississippi after striking a Confederate mine in1862. The vessel and all contents lay essentiallyintact beneath the river’s mud and silts. Whatstarted in 1955 as a well-meant grass-roots ven-ture among local enthusiasts, historians, Civil Warbuffs, and businessmen to raise and display thecraft caused its near-destruction and the loss ofa significant portion of its wood and metal com-ponents as well as its cargo. The operation,flawed by inexpert underwater survey, lack ofsufficient research, and inadequate analysis oftechnical needs, resulted in the breaking apartof the ship during lifting and virtual abandonmentof salvaged parts in open air storage. Only withthe intercession in 1977 of the National Park Serv-ice was proper rescue, conservation, and displayachieved. 18

NOAA, unlike land-managing agencies, has notestablished its own team of archaeologists or cul-tural resource specialists but has relied during the

18H. Thomas McGrath, “The Preservation of the Cairo,”Underwater Archaeology: The Proceedings of the Eleventh Con-ference 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 ex-pertise. For example, through interagency agree-ment, NPS staffs and manages the Channel ls-Iands and Point Reyes-Farallon Islands NationalMarine Sanctuaries. NPS’S Senior Archaeologist,a SCRU archaeologist, the Acting Maritime His-torian, and staff from the NPS Harper’s Ferry Cen-ter are assisting NOAA in developing generalmanagement policies for submerged cuItural re-sources (including the U.S. S. Monitor) and man-aging any archaeological materials extracted fromthe Monitor. Likewise, the U.S. Navy Supervisorof Salvage and Diving is providing NOAA withplanning and operational assistance as well assome of the latest undersea technologies. Also,the former Director of Restoration for the Statueof Liberty/Ellis Island Foundation has establishedthe National Foundation for Maritime Conserva-tion to aid the U.S.S. Monitor Project.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The Army Corps of Engineers, which was orga-nized by George Washington in 1776, has be-come a major command. In addition to provid-ing support to the fighting Army, it is responsiblefor the planning, design, construction, and main-tenance of such facilities as military hospitals, bar-racks, commissaries, and family housing. Throughits Civil Works Program, the Corps is also respon-sible for regulating construction, expansion, andalteration along the nation’s coastlines andnavigable inland waterways. It employs a num-ber of archaeologists who review the many proj-ects carried out or regulated by the Corps to as-sure compliance with historic preservation lawsand regulations.

The Corps mounts some of the Federal Gov-ernment’s most expensive and technically com-plex projects to aid flood control and navigation.Many of these projects are potentially destruc-tive to shipwrecks and other submerged archaeo-logical sites. They include harbor facility devel-opment, reservoir, dam, bridge, levee, dike,seawall, tunnel, island, canal, lock, and hydro-electric plant construction, filling, ocean dump-ing, channel improvement, and shoreline stabili-zation.

In support of these activities, the Corps removesnearly 300 million cubic yards of material per yearfrom beneath the sands and sediments of sub-merged lands, which makes dredging one of theCorps’ greatest threats to archaeological remains,One of the most frequently dredged areas is thelower Mississippi River between Baton Rouge,Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico. Every year, theCorps dredges over 18 million cubic yards of ma-terial from this waterway because of virtually con-stant deposition of sediments.19 The Corps alsoconfronts the problem of disposal of dredgingproducts, studying their environmental effects,and seeking ways to put them to beneficial use.

Many activities regulated by the Corps requireauthorization through three kinds of permits—individual, nationwide, and general.20 The Corpshas left the issuance of permits for activities affect-ing historic shipwrecks to the discretion of indi-vidual District Engineers (thirty-six within elevenDivisions).

Two cases demonstrate that this policy has ledto inconsistent levels of review and differencesfrom District to District as to the suitability of per-mits to projects. In the instance of the Whydah,a pirate ship whose remains are being excavatedoff the coast of Cape Cod in Massachusetts, theNew England District Engineer issued an individ-ual permit to private salvers and entered into aMemorandum of Agreement with the Massachu-setts State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)and the Advisory Council on Historic Preserva-tion (ACHP) in fulfillment of requirements underSection 106 of the National Historic Preservation

19Navigation : The Role of the Corps, U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers, October, 1983. See also U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Per-mit Program: A Guide for Applicants, November, 1977, Fifteen Stepsto a Civil Works Project, January, 1986, Channel Improvement andStabilization on the Mississippi River, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,October 1979, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environ-ment, 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 au-thority of Sec. 10 of the River and Harbors Act of 1899, Sec. 404of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500), and Section 103 ofthe Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (Public Law92-532). These laws, as stated in “Application for a Departmentof the Army Permit, ” require permits authorizing structures andwork in or affecting navigable waters of the United States, the d is-charge of dredged fill material into waters of the United States, andthe transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumpingit into ocean waters. ”

16

Act.21 The Memorandum of Agreement, negoti-ated as a stipulation of the individual permit, isdesigned to ensure that excavation proceeds ac-cording to accepted archaeological standards.

By contrast, the Philadelphia District Engineerauthorized recovery at the site of the 18th cen-tury Dutch-built vessel DeBraak, located off thecoast of Lewes, Delaware under a nationwidepermit for marine salvage. The Corps did not en-ter into a Memorandum of Agreement in obser-vance of Section 106, nor did it seek commentby the ACHP. It deferred oversight of the salvageto the State which apparently had inadequatemeans to assure that properly controlled exca-vation at the site prevailed. As the hull was raised,it suffered severe damage and a loss of contentsand interior features as a result of being inade-quately supported.22 According to an analysis bythe National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP),the Corps’ Nationwide Permitting Program failsto allow for Army compliance with Section 106and is ineffectual for the purposes of historic pres-ervation. It now offers the District Engineer theoption of either requesting ACHP comment ormodifying, suspending, or revoking the permitaltogether. Some effort to correct deficiencies inCorps permitting of actions affecting historic ship-wrecks has begun and involves discussions be-tween NTHP and ACHP with the Corps at theheadquarters level. Locally, the New Orleans Dis-trict is considering a Programmatic Agreement forsubmerged resources as part of a larger proposed“Nautical Cultural Resource Management Plan.”23

21 “The head of any Federal agency having direct of indirect juris-diction over a proposed Federal or federally assisted undertakingin any State and the head of any Federal department or independ-ent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, priorto the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the un-dertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case maybe, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district,site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible forinclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federalagency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservationestablished under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity tocomment with regard to such undertaking. ”

ZzJohn M. Fowler, Advisory Council on Historic preservation, per-sonal communication, July, 1987.

zJAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation, Memorandum ofJune 12, 1987.

Minerals Management Service (MMS)

MMS is an agency of the U.S. Department ofthe Interior formed in 1982 and given responsi-bility for regulating oil, gas, and mineral exploi-tation on the Outer Continental Shelf. Prior to1982 such regulatory authority was vested in theU.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of LandManagement. These two agencies had, since1974, administered a program for cultural re-sources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) (43U.s.c. 1331, ff).

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amend-ments of 1978 prohibit “the disturbance of anysite, structure, or object of historical or archaeo-logical significance by oil and gas exploration,”24

However, this Section applies only to areas con-taining mineral-related activities, not to the en-tire OCS. The Federal Government is obliged tolocate and evaluate the significance of culturalresources before issuing permits for any actionsincluding oil or gas leasing and development onthe OCS. According to a November 24, 1980 rul-ing of the Interior Department Solicitor, however,the Federal Government can legally transfer theseresponsibilities to oil and gas lessees should thediscovery of sites within a given tract appearIikely. 25

The OCS program requires lessees to under-take archaeological surveys (generally 9 squaremiles in area) of all blocks leased, to apply re-mote sensing technology (sub-bottom profilers,side-scan sonar, and proton magnetometers), andto avoid any areas that resulting data indicate maycontain wrecks or other sites. During the first 5years of the OCS cultural resources program, be-fore it established positions for professional ar-chaeologists, 26 many surveys were inadequateand hastily executed, but routinely accepted. inthe late 1970s and early 1980s lessees objectedto these requirements as excessive and burden-some, asserting that none of their surveys had re-vealed a site of great archaeological significance.The agency has attempted to address the com-panies’ 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 studyof the northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf,funded by NPS.27 MMS established predictivemodels of all areas where significant leasing isunderway or expected. These models cover bothshipwrecks and other submerged prehistoric sites.

The number of prehistoric archaeological siteson the OCS is difficult to estimate as there is lit-tle information on human activity during the lateWisconsin glacial period,28 when such siteswould have been above water (about 12,000 to6,000 years before present). Lately, archaeolo-gists have turned their attentions to inundatedprehistoric sites on the continental shelves, be-lieving in their potential to reveal important in-formation on prehistoric peoples unavailablefrom terrestrial sites–evidence concerning theirmigrations, their food gathering habits, and howthey established cultural contacts in North Amer-ica during periods of lowered sea levels.29

MMS has sought to reduce the number of sur-veys required within the more than 400 million-aire OCS while maintaining an acceptable levelof cultural resource protection through RegionalBaseline Studies (box D). The baseline studies,10 in all, identify areas of the OCS that most likelycontain significant archaeological materials. Withthe exception of the Alaska studies, which focuson prehistoric sites, all of them discuss both pre-historic and historic sites.

The agency has also begun an effort to char-acterize all unidentified magnetic anomalies gen-erated by proton magnetometers and recordedon strip charts during lease block surveys madeover more than a decade. Archaeologists havebeen attempting for some time to discern patterns

Zzsee Sherwood M. Gagliano, Charles E. Pearson, Richard A.Weinstein, et al. (Coastal Environments, Inc.), Sedimentary Studiesof Prehistoric Archaeological Sites: Criteria for the Identification ofSubmerged Archaeological Sites of the Northern Gulf of MexicoContinent/ She/f, U.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService, Washington, DC, 1980. See also Coastal Environments,Inc., Sherwood M. Gagliano, Project Director, Cu/tura/ ResourcesEvaluation 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 periodextended from about 25,000 to 6,000 before the present.

29 Melanie J. Stright, “Evaluation of Archaeological Site Potentialon the Gulf of Mexico Continental Shelf Using High-Resolution Seis-mic Data, ” Geophysics, vol. 51, No. 3, March 1986, p. 605.

that would allow them to recognize, from amongthe countless ferrous objects buried beneath theworld’s waterways, those which constitute ship-wrecks or their contents. By isolating such sites,archaeologists could devise strategies to protectcertain submerged cultural sites from destructiveactivities, particularly where avoidance and“ground truthing,” or testing may not be possi-ble.30

State Programs

The State Historic Preservation Offices, as re-cipients of Federal monies through the HistoricPreservation Fund, act to some extent as agentsor extensions of the Federal Government. Yet,as noted earlier, no uniform or comprehensiveFederal legislative framework for protecting his-torically significant shipwrecks on submergedlands exists to guide the States as they deal withoften intense competition over the uses of theirsubmerged lands. Twenty-seven States haveenacted laws asserting control over and/or owner-ship of cultural sites in their waters. These lawsoffer differing degrees of protection. A few stipu-late stringent and detailed operational require-ments through permits or contracts to control theactions of salvers, sport divers, and archaeol-ogists.

According to a recent study,31 the States spendapproximately 1 percent of their total historicpreservation budgets on survey, evaluation, andconservation of historic shipwrecks. In 1983 (thelatest year for which figures have been compiled),16 States spent around $3,379,253. Between1967 and 1983, 21 States reported some attemptsat survey, totaling 296,201 acres. They discov-ered 671 historic shipwrecks, using State or Fed-eral criteria. Out of 2,883 shipwrecks, 437 havebeen located by States, 2,299 by sport divers, and147 by salvers. Salvers in seven States haveclaimed 34 wrecks. A number of coastal Stateshave begun to investigate historical records to de-termine if their waters contain more wrecks than

JoRichard Anuskiewicz, Minerals Management SerViCe, perSOnafcommunication, June, 1987.

J!Anne G, Giesecke, “The Best in State Historic Shipwreck prO-

grams, ” Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on UnderwaterArchaeology, Special Publication Series #4, published by The So-ciety for Historical Archaeology, Ronald L. Michael (cd.), 1985.

74-275 0 - 8 7 - 2 : OL 3

[Page Omitted]

This page was originally printed on a gray background.The scanned version of the page is almost entirely black and is unusable.

It has been intentionally omitted.If a replacement page image of higher quality

becomes available, it will be posted within the copy of this report

found on one of the OTA websites.

19

are currently known. Virginia, Texas, and Cali-fornia have each recorded information on morethan 2,OOO shipwrecks off their respective coasts.They must now determine what material evi-dence of those wrecks remains.

Each State has taken its own approach to man-aging its historic shipwrecks. North Carolina em-ploys a core staff to study the State’s shipwrecks.South Carolina enlists the aid of hundreds of sportdivers and has obtained supplementary grantfunding for its underwater archaeological activi-ties. Vermont works with the Lake Champlain So-ciety, a private organization. Virginia funds nounderwater archaeology itself, but relies on Fed-eral and private funds for its efforts. It is currentlyfocusing on the Yorktown shipwrecks, remnantsof Cornwall is’ fleet scuttled in the York River dur-ing the Revolutionary War, The State has madeeffective use of volunteers, allowing public ac-cess to the site for educational purposes. Michi-gan has established underwater preserves forareas of special natural and cultural interest. Itwas the “first Great Lakes state to enact specificlegislation regulating the salvage of shipwreck ma-terials. ”32

Private Programs

The National Trust for HistoricPreservation (NTHP)

The NTHP (box E) has, since 1976, maintaineda Maritime program to publicize underwater ar-chaeology and maritime preservation issues, tobuild and educate new constituencies, to awardgrants, communicate more effectively with estab-lished constituencies, and to provide technicalpublications. 33 It has also completed a maritimepreservation public service video program. Withthe assistance of a private broker and financialservice firm, The Trust also sponsors a maritimeheritage insurance program to assist organizationsinvolved 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 andJames L. Martindale, “The Sack of the Inland Seas: Shipwreck Plun-dering in the Great Lakes, ” paper presented at the 52nd AnnualMeeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Toronto, May7, 1987.

33 For example, it has published a Directory of Maritirrre HeritageResources (Washington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preserva-tion, 1984).

for historic vessels. The Trust, as a participant inthe U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program, hasprovided NOAA with advice on public informa-tion and outreach to generate and maintain fund-ing dedicated to protecting the U.S. S. Monitor.In addition, the Trust has established a MaritimeAdvisors Network to deal with critical questionsin the field and has commented on such issuesas the National Register guidelines for nominat-ing historic ships and shipwrecks and currentmaritime controversies as the salvage of the 18thcentury vessel H.M.S. DeBraak off the coast ofDelaware, 34 The Trust was also a key advocate

20

of the Sailing School Vessels Act.35 The Trust isexpanding its Yankee Intern Program36 for mari-time activities and plans to develop a prototypeAntiquities Act for consideration by those Statesstill lacking specific legislation to protect historicshipwrecks in their waters. It is preparing a man-ual for documentation of historic maritime re-sources and is also studying the possibility of in-vestment Tax Credits for vessels as well asincentives to encourage archaeologically con-trolled investigation of submerged sites.37

International Efforts

Several countries have focused significant re-sources on underwater archaeology and maritimepreservation. Preservation professionals in theUnited States view the recovery and restorationof the 17th century Swedish warship Wasa andthe Tudor flagship Mary Rose as successfulmodels for U.S. efforts. Although they are notwithout problems, these operations have dem-onstrated especially meticulous planning, execu-tion, and significant governmental funding com-mitment.

● The Wasa, a warship which sank in Stock-holm Harbor in 1628, was raised by theSwedish Government in 1961. It was spec-tacularly well-preserved and intact after itsimmersion in the Baltic Sea, whose salinityis too low to sustain the survival of the wood-borer Teredo navalis and other shipworms.38

These marine creatures quickly infest andfeed on submerged wood, inflicting heavy

jsLYnn HiCkerSOn, NatiOnal Trust for Historic PKWYVatiOII, IXV-

sonal communication, August 1987.JbThe Yankee Intern Program is sponsored jointly by NTHP and

Yankee Publishing, Inc. It allows college and university studentsand faculty to participate in maritime-focused activities. Such activ-ities include working with owners and managers of historic shipsand docks to complete measured drawings and restoration, instruct-ing high school students in maritime historical research techniques,and raising funds to relocate historic lighthouses threatened by shoreerosion, and producing slide and video presentations to educatedand garner the financial support of the public, foundations, andother institutions.

37Marcia Myers, Maritime Department, National Trust for HistoricPreservation, personal communication, 1986.

J~arl Olof Cderlund, The O/c/ Wrecks of the l?alt;c Sea: AfChaeo-Iogical Recordings of the Wrecks of Carve/-Built Ships, pp. 19-20,BAR International Series, Oxford, England, 1983. See also AndersFranzen, Vasa: The Strange Story ofa Swedish Warship From 1628(Stockholm: Bonniers Norstedts, 1963).

damage to the piles of piers and wharfs andwooden components of sunken vessels notcovered by sediments. The conservation ofthe Wasa over the past 25 years representsa pioneering effort both in type and scale.It established most of the techniques nowgoverning the treatment of cultural materi-als excavated from the deep.39 A provisionalcuration, education, and display facility per-mits public visitation.

Although conservation and restoration ofthe Wasa represents the highest quality ap-proach and scientific know-how, recentproblems place the health of the vessel injeopardy. 40 Rain leaking through the alumi-num shed which houses the ship has causedtemperature fluctuations and condensation.This condensation has contributed to rapidshrinkage of those areas of her wooden hullwhich have apparently not received suffi-cient treatment with the preservative poly-ethylene glycol. Conservators ceased apply-ing the preservative in 1980 when it seemedthat the ship could no longer absorb the sub-stance. Respraying resumed after 3-inchbroad cracks appeared in some places. Cu-rators lament the fact that because of inade-quate funding a permanent museum whichcould provide the essentials of constant tem-perature and humidity cannot be completeduntil 1990. This development illustrates thelevel of commitment needed for major pres-ervation projects and the continuing re-search required to anticipate the effects ofcertain treatments under changing con-ditions.The Mary Rose, raised in 1982 by the Brit-ish government, was the flagship of HenryVlll’s fleet.41 She foundered at the entranceto Portsmouth Harbor in 1545 while on herway to engage the French fleet. The wreckwas 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 Caro-lina University, Department of History, Program in Maritime His-tory and Underwater Archaeology.

21

side-scan sonar and sub-bottom acousticprofiler located an anomalous signal in thearea in which the wreck was thought to lie.

In raising the Mary Rose, British archaeol-ogists and engineers developed a speciallyengineered recovery apparatus, the cradleof which was designed to continue support-ing the hull in dry dock through the initialconservation phases. It was the product ofextensive multi-professional collaboration.The Mary Rose project will serve as a test bedfor conservation chemistry and allow chemiststo determine the best methods for conserv-ing water-logged wood.42

The Mary Rose also represents an impor-tant collaboration between sport divers andprofessional preservationists. The wreck wasdiscovered by members of the British Sub-Aqua Club, who worked closely with super-vising archaeologists. Without these essen-tial volunteers, successful excavation, rais-ing, and subsequent conservation wouldhave been impossible.

The relatively successful restorations of both theWasa and the Mary Rose depended on long-termcommitments by governments, preservationists,and scientists to engender public interest, and toobtain reliable funding, proper research and in-terpretive facilities, and access to technical ex-pertise.

ISSUE B: The lack of Federal legislation to de-termine jurisdiction over and ownership ofhistoric shipwrecks has severely hamperedmost efforts to protect them for the public.

Recent legislation,43 and more effective en-forcement of older preservation laws, have ledto improved protection of archaeological sites onlands controlled by the Federal Government.Submerged archaeological sites under Federal

42 Margaret Rule, “The Raising of the Mary Rose, ” The IllustratedLondon News, October 1982.

dJThe Archeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974 (pub-

lic Law 93-291; 88 Stat. 174) which amended the Reservoir SalvageAct of 1960 (Public Law 86-253; 74 Stat. 220; 16 U.S,C, 469-469c)and The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (PublicLaw 96-95; 93 Stat. 712, 16 U.S.C. 470) and the 1980 amendmentsto National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 96-515;Stat. 2997) among others.

administration are subject to the same laws, reg-ulations, and management policies governingsites on dry land. These laws, regulations, andpolicies are intended to shield submerged sitesfrom such destructive activities as mineral explo-ration and dredging, and also limit private accessto them if they lie within national parks and ma-rine sanctuaries. However, the status of historicshipwrecks situated outside national parks andmarine sanctuaries, is adversely affected by anadditional, highly complex body of law govern-ing maritime activities, as well as ancient legalprinciples, such as property ownership, admiraltylaw, and the law of finds.44 Further complicatingmatters are the several different marine jurisdic-tions (box F). Other countries such as Australia,Canada, Cyprus, England, Norway, and Swedenhave enacted national laws regulating the man-agement of all cultural resources within thewaters of their outer continental shelves.45

Maritime salvaging tradition lies at the heart ofcontinuing conflict over the treatment of U.S.historic shipwrecks, which has pitted private sal-vers and State preservation officers against eachother. This tradition, established to motivate pri-vately conducted rescue of vessels in peril, re-wards salvers for their attempts, or grants thempossession of abandoned vessels and their con-tents. However, maritime law treats both historicand modern vessels identically, considering thetime of abandonment, whether 2 or 200 yearsago, irrelevant.

qqAdmiralty law of salvage rewards the person or persons Whoassist in saving a ship in peril and requires payment by its ownerof a salvage fee. If no owner is found, the ship and its contentsmay be sold to raise the award. The law of finds awards lost orabandoned property to the person or persons finding it. “The lawof finds and the law of salvage are not always clearly distinguishedby admiralty courts.” Thompson M. Mayes, “Current Legal issuesin the Law of Historic Shipwrecks, ” A Memorandum for the ~f-fice 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 Syd-ney; cited by Douglas Shallcross and Anne Giesecke, “The Statusof 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 Urrder-water Archaeology, 1986, See also George R. Fisher, Lega/ Con-siderations in Underwater Archaeology, National Park Service,Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, FI (paper presentedat the annual meeting of the Society on Underwater Archaeology,Philadelphia, PA, January 1976).

22

Maritime law is in sharp contrast with preser-vation law, in which prehistoric and historic sitesand objects found on public land are consideredto be held in trust by the U.S. Government forall its citizens. As such, according to a substan-tial set of preservation laws (Table 2), cultural re-sources on public lands must be managed for thepublic good.

In the oceans surrounding the U.S. coast, pri-vate salvers, particularly treasure hunters, searchout gold and silver items, coins, jewels, and highlyvalued antiquities at wreck sites, employing such

devices as dredges, blowers, and explosives. Theymay ruin such contextual remnants as hulls, fur-niture, armament, and cargo, leaving sites unfitfor proper scientific investigation, and for pub-lic display and education. Because only an ex-tremely small number of wrecks contain suchdesirable artifacts, their searches “have destroyedthe archaeological potential of hundreds ofhistoric, but not commercially promising sites.”~

4%ee Carol Weare, “Saving Shipwrecks: An Underwater im-broglio,” P/ace, December 1983.

Submerged Cultural Resources Unit diver examines the bow

Interest Groups

Historic shipwrecks are the focus of three com-peting groups:

1. Treasure Hunters.–As potential profiteersfrom the sale of gold, silver, gems, and othervaluables, and as successful claimants of his-toric wrecks in Florida and Texas, they arethe most aggressive seekers of these fragileresources, even when, as is often the case, 2.

their quests result in financial losses.47 Al-though only about a dozen treasure huntersoperate full time, their sometimes flamboy-ant, high-risk activities have captured thepublic interest. They have, through assidu-ous lobbying in Congress, been instrumen-tal in the repeated defeats (since 1979) ofearlier versions of the Abandoned ShipwreckAct. One of the most popular means of fi-nancing treasure hunting explorations in-volves investors who form partnerships, syn-

G. on H. R. 3558 before the HouseSubcommittee on Oceanography, Oct. 29, 1985. 3.

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

d i c a t e s , o r o t h e r b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,

Salvaging ventures have been stimulated by

liberal tax shelters for investors in limitedpartnerships. However, the tax reformsenacted by the 99th Congress are likely torender some salvage efforts less attractive be-cause they place greater restrictions on thelosses investors may claim from high risk,limited partnerships.Underwater Archaeologists and MaritimeHistorians.–They are joined by Federal andState Historic Preservation Officers, generaland nautical museum curators, and conser-vators responsible to governmental agenciesand universities for the care of recovered ob-jects. This group is interested primarily inpreserving and conducting research on mar-itime and underwater archaeological sites,and interpreting them to the public. Historicshipwrecks provide information on suchsubjects of historical and public interest ascommerce, naval warfare, exploration, andvessels—their construction, cargo, passen-gers, 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 ofmany activities and exhibits available for visitors at the museum’s four city-wide and waterfront sites. Photo 2: Bodie IslandLight Station. Now part of Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina. Erected 1872. Photo 3: The E’ala. Double hulledvoyaging canoe, Waianae, HI. 1979 Maritie Grant recipient, National Trust For Historic Preservation. Photo 4: Ronson shipexcavation site, New York City. Archaeologists working amidships, removing ceiling planking to expose frames. Photo 5: TheCharles W. Morgan, Mystic Seaport, CT.

25

” Trust Historic

C r e d i t M

Credit for

U S Navy

Photo 6: The Tacoma Fireboat #1. Tacoma, Washington. Entered service, October 1929. Listed on the National Register ofHistoric Places. Photo 7: Blackstone Canal, Providence, RI. Photo 8: Historic Ho//and// submarine, Paterson Museum, Pater-son, NJ. Photo 9: Drum Point Lighthouse and the William B. Tennison, Calvert Maritime Museum, Solomons Island, MD. Photo10: The skipjack, Kathryn, Tilghman Island, MD, ready for the oyster season. Photo 11: The Romanian Bark, Mircea, takingpart in the bicentennial celebration off the Statue of Liberty by the tall ships, called Operation Sail,

26

the largest. The Conference on UnderwaterArchaeology and the Society for HistoricalArchaeology estimate that there are morethan 2 million sport divers in the UnitedStates, many of whom find diving on wrecksan enjoyable, exciting, and educational pas-time. Along with fishermen, sport diverslocate the bulk of all shipwrecks within U.S.coastal and inland waters. They collect ar-tifacts, and also photograph and study thehistories of undersea wrecks avocationally.Many volunteer their services to qualified ar-chaeologists. Some, however, also loot anddisturb sites. Sport divers strongly advocatetheir right under protective shipwreck leg-islation to legal access to submerged wrecks.Their principal membership and trade orga-nizations, such as the Diving EquipmentManufacturer’s Association, have supportedthe latest version of the Abandoned Ship-wreck Bill (H. R. 74 and S. 858).

Litigation Over Ownership ofHistoric Shipwrecks

As noted earlier, in the absence of Federal leg-islation to safeguard historic shipwrecks, 27 Stateshave passed antiquities statutes to broaden theirjurisdiction and exert regulatory control over sig-nificant wrecks within their territorial waters (boxG). Yet several Federal court cases, disputed overmore than a decade, have denied the States au-thority to enforce their statutes. These cases, deal-ing with competing claims to historic shipwrecksbetween commercial salvers and State preserva-tionists, have also called into question the valid-ity not only of State governments, but the Fed-eral Government, in controlling the recovery ofarchaeological materials at significant sites.

Two major litigations in particular have provedlengthy, complex,48 costly, and ultimately incon-

Ill, “The Lawsuit Revisited, ”Underwater Archaeology: The Proceedings of the Fourteenth Con-ference Underwater Archaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd.),Special Publication #7 (San Marine, CA: Fathom Eight, 1986) fora description of the complex, expensive, and lengthy litigation proc-ess in which the State of Texas has been engaged to claim, for publicbenefit, the wreck off Padre Island. Its efforts provedonly partially successful. The case deals primarily with State’s rights,specifically, permitting authority and the courts requirement thatit pay for or buy back one-third of all artifacts recovered.

Park Service

Sport divers begin a dive at Isle National Parkon a shipwreck bouyed by the National Park Service

for visiting sport divers.

clusive for preservation purposes because of thehighly inconsistent and even contradictory rul-ings emanating from State, admiralty, and appel-late courts. Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. UnidentifiedWreck and Abandoned Sailing Vessel (cases 1,11,and III) concerned efforts by the State of Floridaand the Federal Government to exercise regula-tory control over commercial salvaging at historicshipwreck sites on the Outer Continental Shelf(OCS). Cobb Coin, Inc. v. Unidentified Wreckand Abandoned Sailing vessel was part of effortsby the State of Florida to oversee recovery athistoric shipwrecks within its three-mile territoriallimit. The Treasure Salvors cases even involvedclaims by a rival salver and Supreme Court inter-pretation of the merits of their claims.

Treasure Salvers, Inc., after searching for thewrecks 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 man-agement of historic shipwrecks in their watersfor public benefit. Most of these laws permit, un-der certain conditions, some recovery of archae-ological materials by private parties. No State hasforbidden 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 .-5Hawaii. . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . .S t a t . A n n . 2 7 . 0 1 2 ( 1 9 7 3 )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 treasurefrom the wreck site and having learned of an un-related Supreme Court decision finding thatFlorida had no interest in or authority over thewaters surrounding the Atocha site, Treasure Sal-vers, Inc., severed its contract with the State. Itthen initiated an action in admiralty court to ob-tain title to and possession of the wreck. Treas-ure Salvers asserted that in the case of an aban-doned vessel, the finder assumes possessionaccording to long-standing principles of maritimelaw. The State fought the action and with the in-tervention of the Federal Government claimedownership of the wreck. They cited the OuterContinental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) which ap-plies to the area in which the Atocha lay and theboth the Antiquities Act and the AbandonedProperty Act, which reflect the concept of Eng-lish common law on “sovereign prerogative. ”49

Jurisdiction of the OCS is controlled by two piecesof legislation, the Submerged Lands Act (143U.S.C 1301; Public Law 83-31) and the OuterContinental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331, ff).

The Submerged Lands Act relinquishes to theStates full control over all submerged lands ex-tending to 3 nautical miles offshore, except forthe gulf coast of Florida and Texas, whose juris-dictions extend 10 nautical miles.so Separate actsapply to the submerged lands of the Territories .51The OCSLA reserves the submerged lands on theOCS to the Federal Government and subjectsthem to administrative control by the Secretaryof the Interior.

The Submerged Lands Act:

. . . confirms and establishes the titles of the Statesto lands beneath navigable waters within Stateboundaries and to the natural resources withinsuch lands and waters, provides for the use and

discovered in 1971 the first of quantities of goldartifacts from the Atocha wreck, submerged 9miles off the coast of Florida in what both thecompany and the State believed were territorialwaters. Treasure Salvers, Inc., under the stipula-tions of the Florida Archives and History Act, en-tered into a contractual arrangement with theState for the sole right to continue search and sal-vage of the Atocha. I n 1975, after having recov-

49’’The Administrator of the General Services Administration isauthorized to make such contracts and provisions as he may deemfor the interest of the Government, for the preservation, sale, orcollection of any property or the proceeds thereof, which may havebeen wrecked, abandoned, or become derelict. being within thejurisdiction of the United States and which ought to come to theUnited 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 ofOct. 5, 1974 (48 U.S.C. 1705). Northern Mariana Islands: Sec. 3of the Proclamation No. 4726, Feb. 21, 1980 (48 U.S.C. 1681).

28

control of said lands and resources, and confirmsthe jurisdiction and control of the United Statesover the natural resources of the seabed of theContinental Shelf seaward of State boundaries.

The Act deals largely with purview and mineralexploitation but not with the disposition of man-made or cultural objects—historic shipwrecks andother submerged archaeological sites.

Federal courts upheld the claims of TreasureSalvers, Inc., stating that the United Statesthrough the OCSLA asserted ownership of andjurisdiction over mineral and other natural re-sources, but not cultural resources. The Aban-doned Property Act applied only to property letgo or lost during the Civil War, clearly not thecorrect historic period of the cultural materialsunder litigation. The courts also concluded thatthe English rule of “sovereign prerogative” never“took root” in America, that the “AmericanRule” has prevailed, which places ownershipwith the finder. When Treasure Salvers, Inc., ina further action tried to compel Florida to release25 percent of the treasure still retained under thevoid salvage contract, the State countered by at-tempting to bar the company’s claim under the1Ith amendment to the Constitution. The 11thamendment prohibits citizens from suing Statesin Federal courts, but the Fifth Circuit Court re-jected Florida’s action, arguing that Treasure Sal-vers, Inc., was not prohibited under the 1lthamendment because its suit was against individ-uals employed by the State, not the State itself.

The 1Ith amendment, however, has been suc-cessfully used in Massachusetts to thwart salvers’maritime claims. 52 The court held that the Statehad a “colorable claim of title” to the pirate shipWhydah, which sank off its coast in April 1717.53However, in a recent case testing the State’s lawsregarding excavations within its coastal waters,a State court ruled against the State’s claim. Theruling is expected to be appealed to the State Su-preme Judicial Court,54

52 See, for example, Maritime Underwater Surveys, Inc. V. LJn;derr-tified, Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 717 F.2d 6; Suba-queous Exploration &Archaeology, ltd. v. Unidentified Wrecked,and Abandoned Vessel, 577 F. Supp. 597 (d. Md. 1983); and CobbCoin /, 525 F. Supp. 186 (S. D. Fla. 1981).

SJDOUglaS Reid weirner, Legal /ssues Re/ating to Abandoned Ship-

wrecks, Congressional Research Service, 1986.Sdjohn H. Kennedy, “State Comes Up Empty in Hunt for Treas-

ure,” Boston G/obe, Tuesday, May 19, 1987, pp. 19-22.

By contrast, in another recent case, Klein v.Unidentified Wreck and Abandoned Sailing Ves-sel, the United States Court for the Southern Dis-trict of Florida found for the Federal Governmenton the issue of ownership of excavated shipwreckitems because they had been embedded in landowned by the United States and administered bythe National Park Service.

In Cobb Coin, Inc., conflict again focused onthe State of Florida, whose submerged lands con-tain the remains of an unknown number of Span-ish treasure galleons from the Plate Fleet, whichsank off the Florida coast in 1715, while boundfrom the New World to Europe. Cobb Coin, Inc.,formed after the president of Treasure Salvers’dissolved that company, began a search in 1978for remains of the fleet. After locating and recov-ering artifacts thought to be part of a galleon, hethen initiated an action in Federal admiralty courtrequesting either a declaration of ownership ofthe shipwreck or compensation for salvage car-ried out at the site. Because the site lay wellwithin Florida’s 3-nautical mile offshore limit, theState intervened, asking the court instead todeclare it the owner and order restitution for allitems culled from the wreck. The State justifiedits claims on the basis of its antiquities law, theFlorida Archives and History Act and soughtcriminal action against Cobb Coin, Inc.

The Federal district admiralty court declined toapply certain parts of Florida’s marine archaeol-ogy statute, seeing it in conflict on certain pointswith preemptive Federal admiralty Iaw.55 itdeemed the State’s requirement for a license toexplore State waters in conflict with the maritimeprinciple that potential salvers or finders be freeto search the open waters for salvable sites. Mar-itime law clearly encourages prompt recovery ofgoods; Florida’s would accommodate painstakingand time-consuming scientific research. Florida’s

55 Douglas Reid Weimer, Legal Issues Relating to Abandoned Ship-

wrecks, Congressional Research Service, 1986 for a discussion ofthe legal issues clouding the treatment of historic shipwrecks in U.S.waters. See also Douglas Shallcross and Anne G. Giesecke, RecentDevelopments in Litigation Concerning the Recovery of HistoricShipwrecks, 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 Under-water Cultural Resources: Lessons of the Treasure Salvers and CobbCoin Cases,” Underwater Archaeology: The Proceedings ot’the 14thConference on Underwater Archaeology, 1986.

29

law permits a licensee the exclusive right to sal-vage an area “regardless of diligence or success. ”This allowance is at odds with the maritime prin-ciple that a salver’s right to act on a wreck is validonly as long as the salver perseveres as quicklyand efficiently as possible, and is reasonably suc-cessful in recovering submerged property. Floridagrants salvers fixed percentages of artifacts, chal-lenging the maritime concept of reward basedon “risk and merit. ” As a result, the court ruledthat historic shipwrecks are subject to the tradi-tional admiralty law of salvage. Although thecourts in Cobb Coin did acknowledge the cul-tural value of historic shipwrecks and the impor-tance of their provenance to the public, they stillheld that such value and importance do not over-ride long established and observed principles ofmaritime law.

The Abandoned ShipwreckAct of 1987

Since 1979, interested parties have sought pas-sage of legislation to strengthen the ability ofStates to locate, evaluate, and protect historicshipwrecks located within their submerged lands.Without clear Federal legislation establishing pub-lic interest in government ownership of historicsubmerged vessels, these resources remain at riskthrough the activities and claims allowed by treas-ure hunters under admiralty law.

Abandoned shipwreck Iegislationsb has beenreintroduced before the 100th Congress (H. R. 74;S. 858). 57 The bills, which as introduced arenearly identical, 58 seek to treat historic proper-

56 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 wentto press, H.R. 74 was marked up and reported out of the Ocean-ography Subcommittee of the House Committee on Merchant Ma-rine and Fisheries. It must still be considered by the full commit-tee 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 nowprovides for an Advisory Committee to “prepare and pub-lish . . . guidelines for use by the States in developing legislationand regulations to carry out their responsibilities under this Act. ”It also provides that if, “within 5 years after the date of the enact-ment of this Act, ” a State has failed to develop a plan consistentwith guidelines established by the Advisory Committee, the titleto a State’s historic shipwrecks then reverts to the United States.Finally, the markup added a provision that the Secretary of the in-terior was responsible for managing “all abandoned shipwrecksto which the United States reasserts title . in a manner consist-ent with the guidelines . .“

ties on the seabed more like historic propertieson land and:

●

●

●

●

●

●

assert U.S. ownership and transfers to theStates title to abandoned shipwrecks that areembedded in the submerged lands of a State,in coralline formations, or included in or de-termined eligible for inclusion in the NationalRegister of Historic Places; sg

declare that the laws of salvage and of findsdo not apply to these abandoned ship-wrecks;specify that the Act will not affect any suitfiled before the date of enactment;confirm Federal ownership of abandonedshipwrecks on Federal lands;retain any existing Federal admiralty and sal-vage law for all shipwrecks not covered bythese bills; anddirect the Advisory Council on Historic Pres-ervation to develop guidelines to assist theStates and the Federal Government in car-rying out their responsibilities and to allowfor non-injurious recreational explorationand private sector salvage of shipwreck sites.

The bills do not effect admiralty claims for theownership of shipwrecks within the Nation’swaters between the 3-mile offshore State-con-trolled limit and the 200-nautical-mile limit of theOuter Continental Shelf.

While treasure hunters and others resist legis-lation to limit their exploitation of any shipwrecksfor profit or recreation, some preservationists ex-press serious misgivings about the bills becausethey do not explicitly prohibit salvaging at cul-turally significant sites. They fear that the differ-ing approaches to managing submerged culturalresources, legalized in 27 States so far, would ren-der appropriate and consistent policies difficultto implement nationwide. They also point outthat they regard as critical the ability of State pro-grams to allow for the retention of artifacts. Theycite the inadequacy of models, such as Florida’s,which permits treasure hunters to contract withthe State, survey and excavate, and retain 75 per-cent of what they find as payment for services.

sqThis transfer clearly resolves the issue of legal jurisdiction overshipwrecks and the authority of the States to regulate salvage intheir waters.

30

Texas’ model, by contrast, is one of the few whichdo not allow the transfer of publicly ownedhistoric artifacts to private ownership.60 However,as demonstrated by the cases cited above, legis-lative action may be necessary to impart across-the-board protection for shipwrecks, which areimportant elements of the heritage of the UnitedStates.

ISSUE C: Underwater and maritime cultural re-sources are vulnerable to a wide variety ofnatural and manmade threats.

Table 6 summarizes the various threats towhich underwater archaeological and maritimecultural resources are subject. Historic coastal set-tlements are jeopardized by changes in land use;historic lighthouses are endangered by land sub-sidence, erosion, and neglect when technologi-cal advances render them obsolete as aids tonavigation. Historic floating vessels, if not main-tained and renewed, are rendered unusable bythe rapid spread of rot and rust. “Ships are lessaccommodating than buildings, which can standuntouched for generations and survive. 61 Inaddition, traditional boatbuilding and navigationskills are being lost as a result of the introduc-tion of modern technology in the practice of theseskills.

Prehistoric sites close to shore are damaged bywave action and by oil and gas exploration whenthey lie on the Outer Continental Shelf. As notedearlier, treasure salvers can inflict grave damageto historic shipwrecks and may, in the processof searching out and extracting treasure and othercommercially valuable features or contents, com-pletely destroy them and any significant archaeo-logical information they might convey.

Even though many treasure salvers cannot af-ford the kinds of sophisticated and powerful re-mote sensing locational techniques developed forthe space program and the oil, gas, and mineralindustries, a few have acquired other marine

60 Daniel j. Lenlhafl, NatiOrlal Park Service, persona! Communi-cation, March 1987.

61 Statement of Marcia Myers, Vice President for Maritime pres-

ervation, National Trust for Historic Preservation, before the Sub-committee on National Parks and Public Lands of the House Com-mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on H.R. 1044, a bill to establishthe National Maritime Museum at San Francisco, March 26, 1987.

Table 6.—Threats to Underwater Archaeologicaland Maritime Resources

/Vatural threats:● Corrosion/concretion of metals● Earthquakes. Erosion—of the coastline, river, and stream bankss Floods● Storms● Subsidences Wave actionQ Wood-borers● Volcanoes

Man-made Threats:●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

b

●

●

●

●

Anchoring—particularly of freightersFederal projects—dredging, naval base development,dam and reservoir construction, channelization, etc.LootingLack of maintenance (maritime resources)NeglectNon-conservation of materials recovered fromunderwaterOil/Gas/Mineral extractionPipelinesPollutionSalvaging/Treasure huntingShell fishingShore facility expansion—ports, marinas, recreationareas, airportsSport divingVandalism

aNOt listed in priority order.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987

technologies and, in recent years, gained accessto many significant sites. Table 7 lists a few sig-nificant historic shipwrecks that have been ex-ploited for treasure. Shipwrecks are attracting theinterest of increasing numbers of groups and in-dividuals able to invest in underwater explora-tion. One of the most dramatic examples involvesthe R.M.S. Titanic, which is located 2-1/2 miles be-low the surface in international waters, about 350miles southwest of Newfoundland. An Americanoil company executive and a Hollywood broad-casting group, among others, are collaboratingwith scientists from the Institute for Research andExploitation of the Sea, an agency of the Frenchgovernment, to retrieve artifacts and open threesafes from the wreck. The project, which will in-volve spending at least $3 million, will consist ofa series of 10 dives by miniature submarine, andbroadcasts of the event live from the seafloor. Theproject’s expedition team has used a three-manmini-sub to retrieve a leather, “doctor’s-style va-lise” filled with jewels, bank notes and other val-uables, and a safe which is believed to have be-

31

Table 7.—Representative Historic ShipwrecksExploited for Treasure

●

●

●

●

●

�

Espiritu Sante: One of the 1554 New Spain fleetwrecks located off Padre Island, Texas;Nuestra Senora de Atocha: A 16th century Spanishgalleon off the Florida Keys;Whydah: An 18th century English pirate ship off thecoast of Massachusetts;H.M.S. DeBraak: An 18th century Dutch-built Englishprivateer off Lewes, Delaware;Nuestra Senora de la Maravilla: a large 16th centurySpanish galleon 50 miles north of Grand BahamaIsland.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987

longed in the ship’s assistant purser’s office.62 Therecovery venture began in the summer of 1987,with completion scheduled for September 10.

Recovery of items from the R.M.S. Titanic is be-ing protested by many who believe that the siteshould remain untouched as a memorial to thosewho perished in the ship’s sinking.63 Others ar-gue that items from the Titanic possess histori-cal value precisely because they come from theshipwreck and that salvage operations shouldcontinue on the basis that international law pro-vides for the salvage of vessels lost at sea.64

Some treasure salvers employ archaeologiststo oversee or carry out tasks that can minimizedamage to sites. Many archaeologists, however,believe that the basic goals and interests of ar-chaeological research and treasure salvaging areinherently antithetical, and that when profit is themotive for exploitation of shipwrecks, scientificresearch and the shipwrecks themselves must in-evitably suffer. Particularly when excavation ofa wreck requires the application of expensivetechnology, or the salver is operating on a spec-ulative financial shoestring, as many do, it is likelythat the recovery of objects having financial valuewill take priority over the recovery and conser-vation of material that may be priceless to ar-

‘2 Ken Ringle, “Breathtaking Collection of Jewels Discovered atTitanic 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 commer-cial value. 6s

Treasure salvers who have become aware ofthe importance of historical research, may con-tract for the study of historical documents suchas those found within two particularly rich ar-chives—El Archivo General de lndias in Seville,Spain, and El Archivo General de la Nacion inMexico City, Mexico. These archives, which arehighly valued for a broad range of historical re-search, contain thousands of records from the16th through the 19th centuries on all aspects ofexploration, seafaring, and trade sponsored bythe Spanish crown in the New World. Much ofthis documentation provides detailed informationon the passengers and cargos carried by the shipsthat traveled back and forth between Europe andthe Americas, as well as on disasters at sea.66

ISSUE D: There is a critical need for a Federallysponsored facility for underwater archaeol-ogy and maritime preservation.

Most participants in the OTA study urged theformation of a federally funded institutiondevoted to providing:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

accurate information on current preservationtechnologies for the research, location, anal-ysis, and management of prehistoric andhistoric structures, objects, and sites;information on technologies developed inother fields for possible application to pres-ervation, namely—technology transfer;training in preservation technologies;ongoing research;conservation laboratories;interdisciplinary teams capable of interven-ing on an emergency basis in response toparticular technical preservation problems;a clearinghouse for preservation project in-formation (Federal, State, local, private) toexpedite coordination; andthe leading technical preservation database.

65 Thoma~ F, King, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, per-

sonal communication, 1987,Gbstanley Hordes, Historical Consu Itant, personal communica-

tion, 1986. See also “Translated Documents Capture Ambience andAroma of the Nina,” The New York Times, Oct. 14, 1986.

32

The facility could be either fully or partiallyfunded by the Federal Government, in keepingwith its long-standing role as the Nation’s prin-cipal conservationist.67 It would include withinits agenda technologies for underwater archaeol-ogy and maritime preservation.

A center for preservation technology wouldlikely encourage closer interactions among un-derwater archaeologists, maritime preserva-tionists, dry-land archaeologists,68 historians, sci-entists, and engineers. It would be the primarysource to which individuals could look for state-of-the-art technical information for all relevantdisciplines in the field. A center could also takeadvantage of the expertise built up within, for ex-ample, the National Park Service’s SubmergedCultural Resources Unit (SCRU) a valuable sourceof technical advice and publications on the pres-ervation of submerged archaeological and mari-time sites.

Perhaps most important, a center couldstrengthen the partnership among Federal, State,and local government and private enterpriseestablished by the National Historic PreservationAct of 1966 and its amendments of 1980. En-hanced communication should stimulate closercooperation and greater coordination of research,project planning, and technology sharing.

Such organizations as the Society for Archaeo-logical Sciences and the Association for Preser-vation Technology were founded specifically topromote the development and use of new tech-nologies in the research and conservation of pre-historic and historic cultural resources. These andother such groups, however, have not directedmuch attention toward problems in underwaterarchaeology and maritime technology. Likewise,although the American Association for the Ad-vancement of Science attracts a broad member-ship, including social, as well as natural, scien-tists, 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 sev-eral approaches to structuring such a facility.

besee Richard A. Gould, Shipwreck Anthropology (Albuquerque,NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1983) for discussions of theslow acceptance of shipwreck archaeology within archaeology andanthropology.

archaeologists have learned of methods adaptedfrom other disciplines to enhance their research.

Research and development are crucial to thetransfer of technologies developed for other sci-entific and engineering purposes to the disciplinesof underwater archaeology and maritime pres-ervation. The technologies developed for otherfields may need considerable adaptation beforebeing applied to archaeological research andpreservation. Underwater archaeologists wouldbenefit by more actively injecting themselves intoR&D processes. Their record in exploiting tech-nical advances made in other disciplines has beenspotty, largely because aspects of these advancesare still very expensive. However, there exist mid-dle range devices, not quite so sophisticated, thatuniversities or Federal agencies could develop.

Technology Sharing

Many archaeologists have not cultivated Fed-eral agencies or private organizations as assidu-ously as they might have to explore the possibil-ities of sharing experts and equipment. Yet theNavy is often very appreciative of archaeologi-cal expertise in such programs as its SubmarineDevelopment Group. It runs manned and un-manned deep-water submersibles and remotelyoperated vehicles to depths as great as 20,000feet. It also operates the U.S.S. Pigeon (ASR-21)which is capable of deploying saturation diversto depths as great as 850 feet. The vessel has sup-ported scientists during many deep dives to col-lect specimens for biological-oceanographic re-search. The group’s charter obligates it to supportand aid civilian scientists, such as geologists frominstitutions of oceanography. Some of its person-nel and equipment were involved surveys of theU.S.S. Monitor and R.M.S. Titanic.

A recent example of technology sharing whichbenefited underwater archaeology occurred dur-ing the summer of 1986 between the NationalPark Service and the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor,Hawaii. Teams from the Park Service and theNavy Reserve’s Mobile Diving and Salvage UnitOne (MDSU ONE) examined and mapped thehulks of the battleships (U.S.S. Arizona and U.S.S.Utah, which had been destroyed in the Japaneseattack on the Island of Oahu, December 7, 1941.

33

The collaboration assisted both agencies; the ParkService acquired new information for better long-term maintenance of the wrecks at the Pearl Har-bor National Historic Landmark site and the Navyconducted diver training exercises. This pilotproject has led to further cooperation betweenthe two agencies. in May and June of 1987, Na-val Reserve divers from MDSU ONE trained atthe Ship Repair facility in Guam, by working withPark Service staff from SCRU to survey WorldWar I and II historic shipwrecks on Navy prop-erty. These efforts wiII also aid the Naval Stationin fuIfilling its historic preservation obligations. 69

Communicating With Universities andOceanographic Institutions

Some experts have expressed the desire for astronger academic base in support of underwaterarchaeology and maritime preservation, and havesuggested that these subjects be included in thevarious historic preservation programs offeredthroughout the country. Enhanced communica-tions between the universities offering programsin underwater archaeology and maritime pres-ervation and the scientific and engineering de-partments of other institutions could result froma center for preservation technology. Such pro-grams as those established at Texas A & M Univer-

f59j. K. Otto Orzech, U n iversity of California, San Diego, ScrippsInstitution of Oceanography, personal communication, March 1987.

Photo credit National Park Service, Submerged Cultural Resources Unit

U.S. Navy Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit Reservistsand the National Park Service Submerged Cultural

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

sity’s institute of Nautical Archaeology, East Caro-lina University in North Carolina, and ArizonaState University could then be linked to the tech-nology information network operating from it.These two programs offer students the opportu-nity to earn degrees at the masters level. Nouniversity offers a degree in maritime preserva-tion .70

Oceanographic Institutions (table 8) employmany kinds of research vessels in conductingboth publicly and privately supported marine sci-entific projects at sea. Much of their work shouldbe of interest to archaeologists.

The Joint Oceanographic Institutions, for ex-ample, is a consortium of 10 U.S. academicoceanographic institutions and four foreign in-stitutions (France, Japan, Canada, and Germany)that coordinates and facilitates the work of indi-vidual institutions on large oceanographic re-search projects. Joint Oceanographic Institutions,Inc. is the systems manager of the member insti-tutions and subcontracts operating activities toother academic institutions and industrial groupsas well as its members. At present, under theOcean Drilling Program the consortium is analyz-ing core samples to study the structure and his-tory of the earth beneath the oceans for evidenceof ancient ocean and climatic conditions, as wellas tectonic plate movement, The progress of suchprojects could be followed by a technical pres-ervation center, and the results disseminatedamong archaeologists,

70Lynn H icker50n, National Trust for H iStOrl C preSer\ atl On ~ per-

sonal communication, August 1987.

Table 8.—U.S. Oceanographic Institutions

Duke UniversityJohns Hopkins UniversityLament Doherty Geological ObservatoryOregon State UniversityScripps Institution of OceanographyTexas A & M UniversityUniversity of AlaskaUniversity of GeorgiaUniversity of HawaiiUniversity of Rhode IslandUniversity of Southern CaliforniaUniversity of WashingtonWoods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionSOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1987

34

There is a great need for more underwater ar-chaeological and conservation training programs.In current graduate programs, there are neithersufficient emphasis on the assimilation of a largetechnological component nor opportunities forretraining professional archaeologists in the latestmethods. A preservation technology center couldhelp achieve that end by highlighting, in addi-tion to its own activities, those conducted at theInstitute of Nautical Archaeology at Texas A&MUniversity. Such facilities as the ConservationCenter of the Institute of Fine Arts in New York,Cooperstown Graduate Programs in Conserva-tion and Artistic Works in New York, and TheWinterthur/University of Delaware Art Conser-vation Program in Delaware provide training inthe conservation of bone, ivory, wood, leather,pottery, gold, silver, copper, lead, tin, iron andmetal alloys. However, they do not concentrateon once-submerged materials, and the specialproblems associated with stabilizing and main-taining such items as hulls or encrusted iron can-non and anchors.71

ISSUE E: The lack of National and State inven-tories has seriously impeded efforts to pro-tect underwater archaeological sites and mar-itime historical resources.

“The United States has not undertaken a na-tional inventory of underwater cultural materi-als which include submerged terrestrial sites aswell as shipwrecks. Although some States havemade substantial progress in surveying their owncoasts, lakes, and rivers and locating submergedcultural resources, no States have comprehen-sive data on file, "72 No more than 162 historic

71 Lynn H ickerson, National Trust for Historic preservation, Per-sonal communication, August 1987,

Zzsee u .S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, Technol-ogies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation (Washington, DC:Government Printing Office, September 1986). Several participantsin the OTA assessment noted the irony inherent in the States sur-veying their watew for cultural materials. If States do not dedicatethe necessary resources toward protecting them after discovery,they are in danger of loss. Typically, State law enforcement agen-cies are scarcely aware of archaeological protection statutes,whether Federal of local. Inventorying must become part of a com-prehensive 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 theInterior could have advocated more funding for meaningful Statesurveys at “realistic levels. ” The organization cites Minnesota, forexample, a State whose historic preservation staff is most interested

vessels and small craft are listed in the NationalRegister of Historic Places, a compilation of over45,OOO prehistoric and historic structures, objects,and sites. The total number of shipwrecks is un-known; only 41 are listed on the National Regis-ter. Listings range from individual wrecks suchas the C.S.S. Florida, a Confederate, British-builtsail-steamer sunk in 1864, to the 15 to 25 Amer-ican Revolutionary War ships of the PenobscotExpedition sunk off the Maine coast in 1779. Thesite of the U.S. S. Monitor is a National HistoricLandmark as well as a National Marine Sanctu-ary. Of only 32 vessels designated as NationalHistoric Landmarks, 22 are of World War II vin-tage. Warships outnumber trade vessels listed onthe Register. Shipwrecks illustrating American his-tory from the age of Spanish exploration to WorldWar II are included, but neither prehistoric craftnor common fishing vessels are Iisted. 73

Twenty years have passed since enactment ofthe National Historic Preservation Act. Yet, thefirst serious effort to undertake a computer-basedresource survey did not begin until 1986, withthe National Maritime Initiative. The Federal Gov-ernment long ago gave up a valuable opportu-nity to identify, study, document, and recordthousands of ships and other water-going craftwhen it disbanded the Historic American Mer-chant Marine Survey (HAMMS) only 18 monthsafter its formation during the New Deal in 1937.Its sister program, the Historic American Build-ings Survey (HABS) has, in 53 years, documentedand recorded thousands of buildings and otherstructures.74

The first phase of the National Maritime initia-tive’s survey is a compilation of known lists andinventories from a variety of sources scatteredamong the maritime community. It includes list-ings from the South Street Seaport Museum inNew York, the International Congress of Mari-time Museums, the World Ship Trust, the Na-tional Register of Historic Places, and the NationalTrust for Historic Preservation. Thus far, the sur-

in identifying shipwrecks in Lake Superior. At their current alloca-tion level ($345,332 less 10 percent entitlement to local govern-ments) the SHPO cannot undertake the task.

73An ne 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 outof eight identified, namely, preserved historicvessels over 40 feet long, and over 50 years old(table 8).

Certain types of maritime historical resourcesare addressed under current HABS/HAER (His-toric American Engineering Record) standardsand guidelines for documenting and recordingstructures and buildings. Prehistoric and historicshipwrecks and other vessels are not. Neither arethey addressed by standards or guidelines for res-toration, conservation, or maintenance. Suchstandards and guidelines are planned under theNational Maritime Initiative, as well as guide-books on national inventory format to serve Fed-eral agencies, State Historic Preservation Offices,historical societies, preservation constituencies,and others. This level of technical assistance,along with the publication, National RegisterBulletin #20, “Nominating Historic Vessels andShipwrecks to the National Register of HistoricPlaces, “ is designed to increase National Regis-ter listings of maritime resources.

A stated objective under The Maritime initia-tive relates to closer interaction between the Fed-eral Government and the States in correcting defi-ciencies in cultural resource inventories. Bothlevels of government have neglected underwaterarchaeological and maritime resources in theirinventories. All inventories will be computerizedeventually. Government agencies now have achance to develop fully compatible databases,and might examine the efforts of the Texas StateAntiquities Commission to computerize their

Shipwreck Reference File as a possible model.The Texas file is based on information culled fromboth historic and contemporary sources such asmaps and field reports. It should help determinethe locations of unidentified wrecks. The file hasbeen useful in justifying the employment of non-destructive surveys in the face of potentially de-structive Federal activity, such as dredging orharbor facility expansion. Since 1972, the Com-mission has listed over 1,000 shipwrecks, ofwhich approximately one-half have proved his-toric.75

The State of Maryland has begun a survey ofits maritime resources, As noted earlier, theChesapeake Bay Watercraft Survey, completedin 1982, led to the nomination of the Skipjackfleet to the National Register. The Patuxent RiverProject, which was begun in 1978, has gatheredphysical and documentary information in a sys-tematic survey that has included shipwrecks,wharfs, ferry landings, and inundated shore areas.The project has carried out an oral and visual his-torical documentation of the maritime heritagealong the river and created an exhibit of artifactsrepresenting the commercial fishing activitiesthroughout the estuary. 76

75J. Barto Arnold, Ill, “Underwater Cultural Resource Manage-ment: The Computerized Shipwreck Reference File, ’ UnderwaterArchaeology: The Proceedings of the Eleventh Cent’erence on Un-derwater Archaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd.), (San Marine, CA:Fathom Eight, 1982) pp. 85-95.

zbRalph E. EShelrnan, calwrt Marine Museum, personal commu-nication, 1987.

TECHNOLOGY, UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY, ANDMARITIME PRESERVATION

Although haphazard and unpredictable, a va-riety of simple techniques and random searcheshave yielded many important underwater ar-chaeological finds through the years, particularlyin northern Europe, the Mediterranean Sea, andmore recently in the waters off the States of Texasand Florida. Some of these strategies have in-cluded interrogating local divers and fishermanor operating hand-held coring devices from smallboats. As early as 1664, only 30 years after thesinking of the Wasa in Stockholm Harbor, HansAlbrekt von Treileben of Sweden and AndreasPeckell, a German salver, employed a primitivediving bell to recover artifacts from the wreck.Struggling in 100 feet of bitterly cold black water,the pair recovered many items, including 50bronze cannon, each weighing between 1 and2 tons. It was an underwater technical feat thatwas not matched until the end of the 19th cen-t ury. 77

In the early 1940s, Jacques Yves Cousteau andEmile Gagnan perfected the aqua-lung with itsself-contained underwater breathing apparatus(SCUBA). It was a revolutionary improvementover bulky, restrictive hard-hat diving gear, whichcould not permit genuine archaeological activ-ity. Since the end of World War 11, SCUBA, port-able and easy to use, has permitted the kind ofunderwater mobility necessary to archaeologists.It has also made more of the world’s waterwaysaccessible to treasure hunters, and collectors ofantiquities. 78 Not until the 1960s was the utilityof SCU 6A in over 30 meters of water tested andproper excavation and site recording carried out.A University of Pennsylvania Team led by GeorgeBass demonstrated the effectiveness of SCUBAand pioneered the development and applicationof technologies for use both underwater and inthe conservation lab. They were first employedin a series of research and excavation projectsoff the coast of Turkey on a Bronze Age ship

77Anders Fran Zen, Vasa: The Strange Story of d Swedish WarshipFrom 1628 (Stockholm: Bonniers-Norstedts, 1963).

zaKeith Muckelroy, Maritime Archaeology (Cambridge, MA: Cam-bridge University Press, 1978).

which sank around 1200 B.C. in Cape Gelidonyaand on several wrecks near Yassi Ada that datefrom the fourth and seventh centuries A.D.79

The “high technology” on which underwaterarchaeology is most dependent includes a groupof highly sophisticated, costly, 80 locational instru-ments designed primari Iy for the oiI and mineralextraction industries and military missions—side-scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, proton magne-tometer, and remotely operated vehicles (ROVS).These technologies have opened up vast areasfor exploration previously unavailable to ar-chaeologists, particularly in the deepest parts ofthe oceans. Of course, technological applicationsextend beyond the search and identificationphases of any underwater archaeological or mar-itime preservation project. They also encompasspreliminary research, excavation, mapping, re-cording, documentation, restoration and stabiliz-ing sites in situ, as well as conserving recoveredcultural materials. Although the solutions to sav-ing dilapidated historic floating vessels, under at-tack from neglect and weather, do not requirecomplicated technology, they are neverthelessexpensive because they are generally labor in-tensive and require special training.

Technology Transfer

For the most part, advances in the locationaltechnologies applied to preservation have beendriven by the oil, gas, and minerals industries andthe Federal Government, rather than by under-water archaeologists, whose budgets are mod-est. 81 The tailoring of those technologies to ar-chaeological requirements has occurred largelythrough the efforts of professionals in the oil andmineral business, geophysical survey, or the U.S.Navy who possess keen personal interest in solv-

79George 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, Technol-ogies 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 tounderwater archaeological projects throughoutthe world. Some adaptations are also sparked byarchaeologists who keep abreast of technologi-cal trends. In addition, as their field grows in com-plexity, more archaeologists have realized thevalue of acquainting themselves with the capa-bilities and limitations of available scientific andengineering technologies. Technological devel-opments must generally be subsidized by grantsbecause underwater archaeology has not proveda strong enough market for generating commer-cial innovations in technology. As one participantin the OTA study noted, “there is a hit-or-missaspect to all of the above . . . Technology will betransferred if someone is interested or an ar-chaeologist reads the right journal. ” Ideally, a log-ical progression governs the modification of avail-

able technologies or the development of newones to meet selected needs. Such a progressionis rarely followed in archaeology, a highly spe-cialized discipline chronically short of funds tosupport systematic R&D efforts.

Experts contacted by OTA cautioned that thelatest underwater locational devices cannot, ofthemselves, ensure project success. Some usersoften select equipment because it is available, notbecause it is appropriate, or they lack the train-ing and experience to operate it properly. “Run-ning a sonar search with inadequate navigationalcontrol . . . could lead to failure . . . both toomuch or too little technology can be a pro b-l e m . "8 2

~ZCharles Mazel, “Technology for Marine Archaeology, ” Ocea-nus, vol. 28, No. 1, spring 1985, pp. 85-89.

TECHNOLOGIES FOR SURVEY, IDENTIFICATION, NAVIGATION,EXCAVATION, DOCUMENTATION, RESTORATION,

AND CONSERVATIONPreliminary research undertaken carefully be-

fore any project can save time and money, andalso provide a focus for applying technologies inthe field and a basis for evaluating cultural sig-nificance. Developments in various kinds of ar-chival technology, for example, can make rec-ord searches more efficient and cost-effective,although they have not yet been brought to bearon the types of widely scattered information ofvalue to underwater archaeologists and maritimepreservationists.

As noted under Major Issues, underwaterarchaeologists require a substantial array of tech-nologies to work in often difficult and perilousconditions. These help them find, record, and re-cover components of submerged cultural sitesand cope with formidable limitations on breath-ing, seeing, moving, and communicating in fre-quently cold, dark, rough, and turbid envi-ronments.

Identification and Survey

Surveys made with the first three of the fourfollowing remote sensing methods result in elec-tronic records, patterns of images, or signals ineither analog strip charts or digital records. Theseimages indicate both normal and anomalous bot-tom and sub-bottom phenomena. As in land ar-chaeology, the character of sources of anoma-lous signals can only be determined throughexamination in situ. It is important for underwaterarchaeologists to continue building a “catalog”of representative signals matched with specificanomalous image sources in order to examineand test new underwater contexts such as estu-aries and deep water more effectively and effi-ciently.

The side-scan sonar sends out acoustic fre-quency signals from a torpedo-shaped towfish lo-cated beneath a survey ship. Reflected signals re-ceived by the towfish then travel through the towcable, and are processed on board the survey ves-sel in a graphic recorder, which produces hard-copy output. They can also be recorded on mag-

netic tape for post-processing and analysis. Thesignals produce excellent images of the floor’s to-pography, including structures and shipwrecks,but cannot detect materials covered by sedi-ments. The side-scan sonar can cover wide areasof the ocean bed, enabling the quick and ac-curate mapping of such geological phenomenaas drowned river systems. It is portable, battery-powered, and can be operated from small boatsto enable searches in difficult or remote loca-tions. 83

The sub-bottom profilers uses low-frequencysound (3.5 to 12 kilohertz) to penetrate oceanbottom sediments. It directs acoustical signalsdownward beneath its towing vessel. Where dif-ferent layers of sediment meet, some fraction ofthe incident acoustic energy is reflected to thevessel, while the rest continues downward. Thedevice generates a cross-sectional view of theoceanfloor on strip charts, revealing sedimentlayers and underlying bedrock. Buried hulls showup as localized anomalous reflections below thebottom. Resolutions of less than a meter are pos-sible. Sub-bottom profilers, designed originally foruse in deep water can now operate in as littleas 3 meters of water. Because they cover onlynarrow paths, they must make many closelyspaced sweeps per survey tract.

Magnetometers sense magnetic field anoma-lies created by ferrous materials on the ocean-floor. Therefore they can only locate shipwrecksand other historic sites containing such metals.Their major shortcoming is that they must remainrelatively close to their target because its mag-netic field attenuates rapidly as the distancebetween them and magnetometric sensors in-creases. Magnetometers cannot easily trace weaksignals or anomalies, such as those detected fromunder sediments, to their sources. Greater use

83C. J. Ingram, “High-Resolution Side-Scan Sonar/Sub-bottomProfiling to 6,000 Meter Water Depth, ” paper presented at the Pa-cific Congress on Marine Technology, Hawaii, Mar. 24-28, 1986,

a4Milton B. Dobrin, /introduction to Geophysm/ Pr05pecf/ng (NewYork, 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 LakeErie. 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 sur-vey perimeters.

Remote sensing from aircraft and space, whenit is refined to penetrate more deeply below thewater’s surface, couId be applied to underwaterarchaeological site identification and manage-ment, as it has been to hydrography. as

Remotely operated vehicles have been under-going rapid change and development, goingdeeper to bring clearer pictures than ever beforeof 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 mineralsexploration companies, they are replacing humandivers in a great many underwater tasks. They canremain submerged for weeks to survey hugeareas of the oceanfloor. For example, the historicdiscovery of the wreck R.M.S. Titanics7 in April1986 was achieved through an unmanned craft,the Argo, tethered to a ship by 13,000 feet of ca-ble. Outfitted with television cameras, high-powered lights, and sonar scanners, it revealednew information about an environment that hadpreviously been closed to archaeological re-search. The Titanic was later explored by amanned vehicle, the Alvin, and a remotely oper-ated 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 TheU.S.S. Monitor has been surveyed by the Navy’sDeep Drone, a highly sophisticated ROV that wasalso used in the recovery of the remains of theChallenger space shuttle.8g

/formation technologies make a substantialcontribution to research and management ofmaritime and underwater cultural resources. Al-though the various technologies for archiving,retrieving, and manipulating the many researchand historical records related to underwater ar-chaeology and maritime preservation are notunique to these subjects, they are an integral partof the preservation process. Of particular inter-est to underwater archaeologists and maritimepreservationists are automated databases, and theuse of optical disks for the storage and retrievalof both visual and textual information. Both tech-nologies require the extensive use of computersto be effective.90

Navigation

Archaeologists can acquire a variety of navi-gation tools, depending on the nature of theirsearch and desired accuracy. In the coastal watersof the United States, the LORAN-C system main-tained by the U.S. Coast Guard enables site relo-cation within around 10 meters. Microwave posi-tioning systems allow “repeatable fixes” within3 meters or less. Space-based navigation systemsallow positions to be fixed within severalmeters. 91

A new satellite-based navigation and position-ing system known as Starfix, a joint venture be-tween John E. Chance & Associates and Analyti-cal Technology Laboratories, is now available.This system allows accuracies of better than fivemeters throughout the lower 48 States, includ-ing 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-E-319, 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 bythe oil exploration industry in drill rig situating,pipeline laying, and geophysical prospecting,Starfix is the first privately developed satellite posi-tioning system. Starfix offers continuous cover-age, 365 days per year in all types of weather.

Sonic High Accuracy Ranging andPositioning System (SHARPS)

This system is a new, extremely rapid, andhighly accurate means of achieving detailed mapsof shipwreck sites. it represents a technologicaladvance over the usual method of charting a sub-merged area, in which investigators establish ahand-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 awreck to enable the hand calculation of thou-sands of reference points. The usual approachcan take months or even years to complete, islabor-intensive, and can be dangerous in deepwater because of diver’s susceptibility to nitro-gen narcosis or “the bends.” In the deepestwaters, it can be virtually impossible.

SHARPS involves setting up around a site threeelectronic transmitter-receivers. These transmit-ter-receivers detect signals from an electronic gunheld by a diver at points the diver wishes to meas-ure. When the diver pulls the trigger, the pointsare recorded by computer on shipboard. Thistechnique allows accuracies to within less thanhalf an inch. The system enables archaeologiststo outline vessels and artifacts, create two andthree-dimensional maps, and label objects.92

Excavation and Documentation

Individuals exploring the sea bottom have awide array of technologies at their disposal. Deep-water technologies such as tethered and free-roaming ROVS and saturation diving could ex-ert a profound effect on data recovery in under-water archaeology and maritime preservation.

Underwater Excavation Technologies

These techniques range from the extremelysimple, such as hand-fanning, to the complex,such as controlled blasting, and include the useof 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 artifactscan be done as much as a thousand times more quickly throughthe use of a small shipboard computer and electronic mapping gun.Emory Kristoff of the Natiorra/ Geographic and associate, DonaldShommette, with over 1,200 reference points, mapped the remainsof an 1883 oyster boat located in the shallow waters near the mouthof St. Leonard’s Creek in Calvert County, Maryland, in 1 hour. Pre-vious methods would have required about 6 weeks for the sameresults. The researchers assert that SHARPS can change the fieldof underwater archaeology, putting all sites within easier reach.This technology is the product of government and private sectorcooperation, and was developed with the participation of the U.S.Navy, NOAA, several Maryland State agencies, and the NationalGeographic 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. Speciallydesigned coffer dams such as that developed forthe Yorktown Archeological Park in Yorktown,Virginia (box H), are improving the ability ofdivers to find their way in heavily silted waters.In Yorktown, excavation of an 18th century ship-wreck is carried out within a steel enclosure filledwith river water that is clarified by commercialfiltration units.

SCUBA Diving

As noted earlier in this background paper, ar-chaeologists make extensive use of SCUBA div-ing equipment and techniques for exploring andexcavating sites in shallow waters.

Deep Sea Diving

The use of saturation divers and deep-divingsystems to collect samples at depths totally un-attainable to conventional divers has been a ma-jor technical innovation. Saturation divers arenow able to work at extreme depths for pro-longed periods. Bottom times are no longer afunction of depth, as they are with SCUBA div-ing, and each dive can last for many hours in-stead of minutes. Breathing an atmosphere ofmixed helium-oxygen, divers can attain depthsof over 1,000 feet, although decompression after-ward may require several days. Habitats, lockoutsubmersibles, and tethered deep-diving systemsdeploy saturation divers to their destinations.93

Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVS)

ROVS also have an important role in gather-ing data, and can be used to collect samples orto photograph or videotape a wreck site. Scor-pio, a particular type of new ROV,94 is now be-ing equipped with remotely controlled manipu-lators. ROVS are now capable of achieving depths

qJ@to Orzech, Scripps Institution of oceanography, personalcommunication, 1986.

gd]onathan B. Tucker, ‘‘Submersibles Reach New Depths, ~;ghTechrrology, February 1986.

43

of up to 13,000 feet and are armed with special-ized work packages capable of cleaning oil rigplatforms and recovering a vast array of objects.95

Conservation

Conservation is “the documentation, analysis,cleaning, and stabilization of an object . . . toprotect the artifactual, faunal, and other archaeo-logical material and prevent their reacting ad-

versely with the environment after recovery. ”96

Participants in the OTA study agreed that no sub-merged site should be excavated unless archaeol-ogists can guarantee the proper conservation ofthe recovered materials. The conservation andprotection of underwater cultural resources, likeother underwater archaeological procedures,tend to be expensive, require specialized knowl-edge and facilities, and are complex and time-consuming. Concreted metal, waterlogged wood,

gSThe University of New Hampshire owns possibly the most ad-vanced ROV, EAVE-EAST, autonomous, outfitted with fivemicroprocessors to sense data on altitude, depth, obstacles, andpower consumption. Research continues to impart greater dexterityof manipulation and better systems for autonomy.

96D. L. Hamilton, “Conservation in Nautical Archaeology, ” Un-derwater Archaeology: The Challenge Before Us, The Proceedingsof the Twelfth Conference on Underwater Archaeology, GordonP. Watts, Jr., (cd.) (San Marine, CA: Fathom Eight 1981).

44

and other organic materials such as leather or fab-ric begin almost instantaneously to deterioratewhen exposed to the open air after having beensubmerged or buried under sediments. They mustbe immediately reintroduced to water, via hold-ing tanks, or wet-packed for transport to perma-nent conservation facilities.

In the United States there is a shortage of con-servation facilities as well as a dearth of trained,competent conservation personnel to deal withthe ever-increasing numbers of cultural materi-als being recovered from the deep. Some suc-cessful conservation must rely, in large measure,on the services of volunteers working u rider su-pervision. In addition, many projects are directedby non-research-oriented organizations and in-dividuals whose ignorance of appropriate con-servation methods ultimately destroys recoveredmaterials.

The following approaches represent the rangeof conservation treatments available:

● Full-Scale Conservation.— This approach callsfor the stabilization and continuing care ofall waterlogged objects, including ship’shulls. This is the most complex and expen-sive method, but permits scholars and thepublic to examine thoroughly historic ship-building techniques and any culturally sig-nificant contents. This approach necessitatesfully staffed conservation facilities with highlycontrolled environments (humidity, temper-ature, light, etc.). Conservation processes aretime-consuming and tedious and demand along-term commitment on the part of anyagency or institution that assumes theresponsibility for applying them.

For example, the Swedish Governmenthas assumed responsibility for the Wasa forthe past 26 years at a cost of over $20 mil-lion. The Mary Rose Trust is in the earlystages of conservation of the Mary Rose. TheMariner’s Museum in Newport News, Vir-ginia, has taken on the Ronson Ship bowusing private funds.97

gTShel i !jmith, Mariner’s Museum, Newport News, VA, personalcommunication, 1986.

●

●

●

Even thoroughly stabilized materials re-main extremely fragile. Polyethylene glycolis the commonly used wood consolidant andis very costly. However, recent successful ex-periments using sucrose promise to lowersome stabilization costs. Sucrose is very in-expensive and seems highly stable.98Combined Conservation and Documenta-tion.–This approach involves stabilizing allsmall, portable waterlogged cultural mate-rials and documenting large objects such asthe hull; it dramatically reduces conservationcosts. Though a significant amount of studyis still feasible, some technical knowledge islost. However, articles must still be housedin properly staffed conservation facilities. Forexample, the State of Maine conserved thesmall artifacts recovered from the Defence99

and documented the hull through drawingsfor only $20,000. The Canadian Governmentconserved all the small objects from the SanJuan, molded sections of the hull, andrecorded the remaining sections with draw-i rigs.100Conservation Through Technology .–Thistechnique, as yet unadopted, would involverecording all small artifacts with holographictechniques and all large artifacts throughmolding and documentation and requireonly holding areas and seasonal conserva-tion staffs. The host institution’s commitmentwouId be minimal because its staff can eas-ily transport and store all information. Adrawback to this controversial approach isthat it does not yield any tangible artifacts.No Action.–This approach leaves sites sub-merged or buried beneath the seafloor. De-terioration of shipwrecks and other objectsis slow and advances in conservation tech-nologies may significantly improve our abilityto conserve artifacts taken from a submergedenvironment. Currently, this approach post-pones the detailed acquisition of knowledge

96See James M. Parent, “The Conservation of Waterlogged WoodUsing Sucrose, ” Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Under-water Archaeology, Calvin Cummings (cd. ) (San Manno, CA:Fathom Eight, 1986).

ggAfter they completed drawings of the vessel, archaeologists re-buried her in situ, using sandbags to hold her in place.

IoOShel I Sm ith, Mariner’s Museum, Newport News, VA, personalcommunication, 1986.

45

about a site. Future technologies might en-able the analysis and interpretation of cer-tain buried underwater archaeological com-ponents in situ. For example, the TurkishGovernment has left several shipwrecks atYassi Ada to be investigated in future years.The State of Maine selected one ship forstudy after a survey of the entire Revolution-ary War Penobscot fleet. The Commonwealthof Virginia reburied the Revolutionary Warperiod Cornwallis Cave wreck in anticipa-tion of more information on the scuttled Brit-ish fleet.

These alternatives represent different emphasesin terms of costs, commitment, and conservationfacility readiness and capability. Realistic consid-eration of the pros and cons inherent in each ofthe above conservation methods should be ex-plicitly reflected in project research plans. Other-wise, archaeological investigations will result inonly unsatisfactory data bases and poorly con-served artifacts.

Photo National Trust for Historic Preservation

Technical conserving bottle taken from shipwreck,Maine Maritime Museum, Bath, ME.

FEDERAL POLICY TOWARD UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY ANDMARITIME PRESERVATION

The Federal Government is responsible for pro-viding leadership in preserving the Nation’s pre-historic and historic structures, objects, land-scapes, and archaeological sites. This sectionoutlines several options for improving its effortsto preserve and protect submerged cultural andmaritime cultural resources.

National Park Service

As the lead agency in providing technical pres-ervation assistance, NPS could focus far greaterattention than it has on the identification, evalu-ation, and protection of submerged cultural andmaritime resources. It could, for example, de-velop and articulate a clear national policy toguide the preservation of maritime and under-water cultural resources and coordinate NPS pro-grams for preserving these elements of the coun-try’s history. In recently creating the position ofMaritime Historian, the Service has highlightedthe importance and visibility of its maritime pro-grams and created a means by which such pol-icy could be developed and clarified.

In devoting increased attention to the healthof maritime and submerged cultural resourcesNPS could place greater emphasis on the criti-cal role of technological applications. It could alsodo more to include underwater and maritime is-sues in its publications series. The National Reg-ister Bulletin #20, which gives uniform guidelinesfor nomination, should result in the listing of moreshipwrecks and other types of craft on the Na-tional Register of Historic Places, “The NationalRegister has been under utilized for maritime re-sources, particularly historic vessels. ” By 1976,the 10th year of the National Register Program,only 44 vessels and 8 shipwrecks, 4 of which hadbeen fully recovered, had been listed.101 As notedearlier, of 45,000 properties on the Register only162 have been included,

NPS attempts to address underwater archaeo-logical and maritime historical matters under theMaritime Initiative are timely. Commercial exploi-

IOljames P. Delgado, “The National Register of Historic Placesand Maritime Preservation, ” APT Bu//etin, The)ourna/ of the Asso-ciation for Preservation Technology, vol. IX, No. 1, 1987, p. 35.

46

tation of the Nation’s coastal zones has intensi-fied and threatens wholesale obliteration of sig-nificant sites before they are even recorded.However, this initiative is limited to objects ofmaritime interest, for example, commerce, war-fare, and navigation. Yet, as noted in the previ-ous section, the resource base requiring atten-tion is far broader. Archaeologists and historianswould welcome an initiative that would aggres-sively identify, study, and manage non-maritimesubmerged sites. Such sites would include, forexample, historic and prehistoric habitations andwork areas located within little-studied environ-ments such as estuaries.

The National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act containsno impediment to the identification and protec-tion of underwater archaeological and maritimehistorical sites; neither does it specifically men-tion them.102 However, having no explicit refer-ence to maritime or underwater historical sitesallows agencies to overlook them in cultural re-source planning. Some preservationists have sug-gested that it may be appropriate to amend theNational Historic Preservation Act to includethese specific categories. Likewise, it may beappropriate to amend Public Law 96-95 (16U.S.C. 470aa et seq.) the “Archaeological Re-sources Protection Act of 1979” which outlinesthe consequences of damaging, looting, and de-stroying archaeological materials within publiclands. This legislation does not explicitly indicatethe underwater context or refer to submergedcultural resources,103 though portions of ship-

IOZFor example, see Sec. 101 (a)(l )(A): “The Secretary of the In-terior is authorized to expand and maintain a National Register ofHistoric Places composed of districts, sites, buildings, structures,and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeol-ogy, engineering and culture. ”

IOJSee sec. 3(1 ): 1‘The term ‘archaeological resource’ means anYmaterial remains of past human life or activities which are of ar-chaeological interest, as determined under uniform regulationspromulgated pursuant to this Act. Such regulations containing suchdetermination shall include, but not be limited to: pottery, basketry,bottles, weapons, weapon projectiles, tools, structures or portionsof structures, pit houses, rock paintings, rock carvings, intaglios,graves, human skeletal materials, or any portion or piece of theforegoing items. ”

47

wrecks are mentioned in the final uniform regu-lations [49 FR 101 6]. Others have expressed con-cern that including explicit reference to maritimeor underwater historical sites would subject theselaws to unnecessary and potentially harmful ex-perimentation.

Congress may wish to address the need forgreater attention to maritime and underwater cul-tural resources by creating additional legislationthat specifically recognizes their importance. Al-ternatively, Congress may wish to use its over-sight authority to encourage the inclusion of mari-time and underwater archaeology concerns in theregulations and guidelines issued by Federalagencies that treat prehistoric and historic pres-ervation.

The Abandoned Shipwreck Act

Under current law, shipwrecks are treatedaccording to dual standards and are not affordedthe same consideration and protection as are ar-chaeological remains on dry land. If Congresswishes all classes of cultural resources to enjoyfull protection under the law, it could considerpassing The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987(H.R. 74 and S. 858). This legislation should endmuch of the courtroom fighting and maneuver-ing over ownership of and responsibility forhistoric shipwrecks. It would also relieve theStates, desirous of preserving their underwatercultural resources, from having to sacrifice enor-mous sums out of decreasing financial resourceson protracted legal actions. 104 Federal historicpreservation legislation has clearly been appliedto such maritime cultural objects as lighthousesand land installations. It is not being applied toshipwrecks. As noted in Issue B, because ad-miralty law is being invoked in the case of thisparticular resource, the States have been unableto assert ownership of an especially vulnerablecultural asset. The result is that historic ship-wreck sites in the United States are suffering rapidattrition. Passage of the Act would remove his-toric shipwrecks from the purview of admiraltycourts and place them expressly under historicpreservation law. In hearings during the 99thCongress, 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 recom-mended that protective legislation for historicshipwrecks be extended to the OCS, in order tobring that vast area under tighter managementfor the purposes of cultural conservation.105

Participants in the OTA study suggested that theFederal government undertake a review of Stateprograms to ensure that the public’s interestwould be served. Removal of the threat of ad-miralty court from historic shipwrecks would beinsufficient if States retain “business as usual”commercial salvage programs.

The National Maritime Initiative

As noted earlier in this background paper, Con-gress funded the National Maritime Initiative inits fiscal year 1986 appropriation for the NationalPark Service. Congress directed that a collabora-tive effort be established involving the NationalPark Service, the National Trust for Historic Pres-ervation, and the “maritime preservation com-munity” to begin . . . “to conduct a survey ofhistoric maritime resources (table 9), includingthose of the Service; recommend standards andpriorities for the preservation of those resources;and recommend the appropriate Federal and pri-vate sector roles in addressing those priorities. ’’lob

10 JTestimony of j. jackson Walter, President of the National Trustfor Historic Preservation, before the Subcommittee on Oceanog-raphy 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 norcompletely submerged)

3. Relevant documentation (logs, journals, nautical charts,ship plans, and photographs)

4. Aids to navigation (including life-saving and U.S. CoastGuard 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 than20 tons)

7. Intangible cultural resources (traditional shipwright andrigging 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 ofthe United States, prepared by the National Park Service, 1988.

48

SOURCE: R&had K. An&son, h. W@c AfIWican BuildingsSwvey4+Mdc Amwkm ftecotd (t+AIWHAER), National Park %xvke, peaond communkatie~,1987.

Phase I accomplishments to date include the fol-lowing:

● undertaking an exhaustive literature searchin preparation for inventorying the nation’smaritime resources, including shipwrecks;

c drafting guidelines for the documentation ofvessels as a result of projects completed bythe Historic American Buildings Survey/His-toric American Engineering Record:— a 1985 lines lifting (box 1) of the 1897

schooner Wawona in SeattIe, Washington,listed in the National Register of HistoricPlaces. A private interest group, North-west Seaport, Inc., participated;

— a 1986 documentation of small sailingcraft at Mystic, Connecticut with the Mys-tic Seaport Museum, and the Calvert Ma-rine Museum at Solomons Island, Maryland;

Photo credit: Richard K. Anderson, Jr., Historic American BuiidingsSurvey/Historic American Engineering Record

Lines lifting. Triangulations in process near the bowof schooner Wawona, Seattle, WA.

●

●

— drawings of the archaeologically recov-ered engine from the 1848 steamer lndi--ana, the earliest extant marine steam en-gine in North America, which is listed inthe National Register of Historic Places;

drafting guidelines to stimulate the nomina-tion of maritime resources to the NationalRegister of Historic Places for inclusion inNational Bulletin #20. “How To NominateHistoric Vessels and Shipwrecks. ’’107 For thefirst time, maritime resources will be evalu-ated according to uniform criteria;completion of a computerized inventory of250 preserved historic vessels over 50 yearsold and more than 40 feet long.

107National park Service.

-.

49

Among Phase II goals for fiscal year 1988 arethe

●

●

●

following:

to continue the “maritime inventory”;to conduct National Historic LandmarkTheme Studies for aids to navigation, Pacificcoast maritime history, Great Lakes maritimehistory, etc.; andto continue HABS/HAER documentation ofa major steamship and engine.

Center for Preservation Technology

A federally supported center for preservationtechnology could make a major contribution tothe development of technologies for the studyand preservation of underwater and maritime cul-tural resources. NPS could take the lead in exam-ining which cost-effective technologies for thespecial requirements of underwater archaeologyand maritime preservation such a center shouldfocus on. Candidate technology areas includesurvey, location, navigation, recording, and ma-terials conservation. NPS could assess, amongother things, the potential utility of a central tech-nical facility, or coordinated set of regional facil-ities, as the primary focus for the developmentof preservation technology and for intergovern -mental technology sharing.

Incentives for the Restoration andRehabilitation of Floating and

Dry= Berthed Vessels

Since 1976, tax incentives have been availableto owners of qualified, income-producing pri-vately-owned structures. These incentives haveresuIted in the preservation of many historic struc-tures all over the country, and have increased lo-cal property values dramatically. It may be appro-priate to make similar tax incentives available forprivately owned, income-producing floating anddry-berthed historic vessels. Such tax incentiveswouId likely promote the protection of such his-toric resources.108 Congress might also consider

providing incentives for encouraging salvers tofollow established archaeological procedures inexcavating shipwrecks.

National Survey of MaritimeHistoric Resources

If Congress wishes the national survey ofhistoric maritime resources to continue, it shouldcontinue to fund the National Maritime Initiative(table 10). As indicated previously, the first phase,which focused on preserved vessels more than40 feet long and at least 50 years old, is complete.However, seven other categories of maritime re-sources exist (table 9) and are poorly inventoried.

Of possible interest to those engaged in devel-oping and institutionalizing a national survey ofmaritime historic resources is the InternationalSurvey of Underwater Cultural Heritage beingsponsored by the United Nations Educational,Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and man-aged by the Scientific Committee of the WorldConfederation of Underwater Activities. The scopeof the project is worldwide and will includesunken vessels, artifacts (table 11), and habita-tion sites from every period. It will also includeall types of marine and inland underwater re-sources and review mechanisms for their protec-tion, 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[JI 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 Participatingin National Maritime Initiative Activities

Association for Preservation TechnologyCalvert Marine Museum, MarylandCouncil of American Maritime MuseumsHistoric Naval Ships Association of North AmericaNational Maritime Museum Association, Inc.National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Park ServiceNational Trust for Historic PreservationNorthwest Seaport, Inc.Tri-Coastal Marine, Inc.U.S. NavyU.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 MaritimeHistorical Collections

PaintingsDrawings/illustrationsSculptureScrimshawLarge vesselsSmall craftShip modelsCanal-related objectsMaritime construction-related implementsHunting/trapping/fishing implementsRigging/outfittingShip equipmentForecastle artifacts/personal itemsFigureheadsNeedleworkMacramae/rope work/knot workSea shanties/foc’sie songsRiver, lake, and canal-related musicDioramasAccount booksBuilders’ modelsFilmsMaps/chartsLighthouse lensesTales/legends/storiesMusical instrumentsLogsDiariesManuscriptsLettersShips ordersRecordsRecipesPrintsShipwrecks/hulls/remainsWhaling artifactsPlans/blueprintsLifesaving equipmentOral historiesPhotographs

Other Federal agencies could improve their at-tention to underwater archaeology and maritimepreservation. For example, the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration could developits own program-wide maritime archaeologicalprogram, particularly if it intends to designatemore nationally significant cultural resources asNational Maritime Sanctuaries. Federal agenciescould also give attention to developing a set ofcomprehensive data bases for underwater ar-chaeology and maritime preservation.

Tape recordingsSOURCE: National Trust for Historic Preservation.

— —

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albright, Alan B., “Shipwreck Legislation in SouthCarolina: Blueprint for Pillage or Protection, ”Underwater Archaeology: The Proceedings ofthe Fourteenth Conference on Underwater Ar-chaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd.) (SanMarine, CA: Fathom Eight, 1986).

APT Bulletin, The Journal of the Association forPreservation Technology, vol. IX, No. 1, 1987,Marylee MacDonald (cd). (Note: entire issueis devoted to underwater archaeological andmaritime preservation issues. )

Archaeological Artefacts Conservation GuidelinesNo. 1, Excavated Artefacts for Publication: UKSites, Archaeology Section, United Kingdom(London: Institute for Conservation, 1982).

Arnold, J. Barto, Il l, “Remote Sensing in Ar-chaeology, ” The International Journal of Nau-tical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration(New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc., 1981).

Arnold, j. Barto, Ill, “An Airborne Magnetome-ter Survey for Shipwrecks and Associated Un-derwater Test Excavations,” In the Realms ofGold: The Proceedings of the Tenth Confer-ence on Underwater Archaeology, Wilburn A.Cockrell (cd.) (San Marine, CA: Fathom Eight,1981 ).

Arnold, J. Barto, Ill, “Underwater Cultural Re-source Management: The Computerized Ship-wreck Reference File, ” Underwater Archae-ology: The Proceedings of the EleventhConference on Underwater Arechaeology, Cal-vin R. Cummings (cd. ) (San Marine, CA:Fathom Eight, 1982).

Arnold, J. Barto, Ill, “The Platoro Lawsuit Revis-ited, ” Underwater Archaeology: The Proceed-ings of the Fourteenth Conference on the Pro-ceedings on Underwater Archaeology, CalvinR. Cummings (cd.) (San Marine, CA: FathomEight, 1986).

Bass, George F., Archaeology Under Water (NewYork, 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 Ar-chaeology: Moving Toward Closer Coopera-tion, Reports, Society for American Archaeol-ogy, 1980.

Cederlund, Carl Olof, The O/d Wrecks of the Bal-tic Sea, Archaeological Recording of theWrecks of Carvel-Built ships, vol. 186 (Oxford,England: British Archaeology Reports, interna-tional Series, 1983).

Cockrell, W. A., “Archaeology, Sports Diving, andShipwrecks,” Underwater Archaeology: TheProceedings of the Eleventh Conference onUnderwater Archaeology, Calvin R. Cummings(cd.) (San Marine, CA: Fathom Eight SpecialPublication, 1982).

Cockrell, W. A., “Some Moral, Ethical, and Le-gal Considerations in Underwater Archaeol-ogy, ” In the Realms of Gold: The Proceedingsof the Tenth Conference on Underwater Ar-chaeology, Wilburn A. Cockrell (cd. ) (San Mar-ino, CA: Fathom Eight, 1981 ).

Delgado, James P., and A National Park ServiceTask Force, Nominating Historic Vessels andShipwrecks to the National Register of HistoricPlaces, National Register Bulletin #20 (Wash-ington, DC: National Park Service, 1987).

Fisher, George R., Legal Considerations in Un-derwater Archaeology, National Park Service,Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee,FL (paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe Society on Underwater Archaeology, Phil-adelphia, PA, January 1976).

Foster, Nancy, “National Marine Sanctuaries—Saving Offshore Ecosystems,” Sea Technology,November 1986.

Franzen, Anders, The Vasa: The Strange Story ofa Swedish Warship From 7628 (Stockholm,Sweden: Bonniers Norstedts, 1962).

Gagliano, Sherwood M., Project Director, CoastalEnvironments, Inc., Cultural Resources Evalu-ation of the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continen-t/ She/f (Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof the Interior, National park Service, 1977).

Gagliano, Sherwood M., Pearson, Charles E.,Weinstein, Richard A., Wiseman, Diane E., andMcClendon, Christopher M. (Coastal Environ-ments, Inc.), Sedimentary Studies of PrehistoricArchaeological Sites: Criteria for the identifi-cation of Submerged Archaeological Sites ofthe Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental ShelfU.S. Department of the Interior, National ParkService, Washington, DC, 1980.

51

52

Geismar, Joan H., “Digging Into a Seaport’sPast, ” Archaeology, January/February 1987.

Giesecke, Anne G., “The Best in State HistoricShipwreck Programs,” Proceedings of the Six-teenth Conference on Underwater Archaeol-ogy, Special Publication Series No. 4, The So-ciety for Historical Archaeology, Ronald L.Michael (cd.), 1985.

Gifford, J. A., Redknap, M., and Fleming, N.C.“The UNESCO International Survey of Under-water Cultural Heritage, ” World Archaeology,vol. 16, No. 3, September 1985.

Gould, Richard A., Shipwreck Anthropology(Albuquerque, NM: University of New MexicoPress, 1983).

Halsey, John R., “The Sack of the Inland Seas:Shipwreck Plundering in the Great Lakes,” pa-per presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting ofthe Society for American Archaeology, To-ronto, May 17, 1987.

Hamilton, Donald L., “Conservation in NauticalArchaeology,” Underwater Archaeology: TheChallenge Before Us, The Proceedings of theTwelfth Conference on Underwater Archaeol-ogy, Gordon P. Watts, Jr. (cd. ) (San Marine,CA: Fathom Eight Special Publication, 1981).

Hanson, Dennis, “The Tide is Turning for OldBeacons Adrift at Land’s End, ” Smithsonian,VOl. 18, No. 5, August 1987.

Hickerson, Lynn, “Maritime Preservation a Pri-ority 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 Pro-ceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Under-

water Archaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd. )(San Marine, CA: Fathom Eight Special Publica-tion, 1982).

Lawson, Eric, “In Between: The Care of ArtifactsFrom the Seabed to the Conservation Labora-tory and Some Reasons Why It Is Necessary, ”Beneath the Waters of Time: The Proceedingsof the Ninth Conference on Underwater Ar-chaeology, Texas Antiquities Publication No,6, J. Barto Arnold Ill (ed.) (Austin, TX: TexasAntiquities Committee, 1978).

Lenihan, D. J., Carrell, T. L., Fosberg, S., Murphy,L., Rayl, S. L., and Ware, J. A., The Final Reportof the National Reservoir Inundation Study

(Tucson, AZ: U.S. Department of the Interior,National Park Service, Southwest Cultural Re-sources Center, 1981 ).

Lenihan, D. J., and Murphy, Larry, “Considera-tions for Research Designs in Shipwreck Ar-chaeology, Underwater Archaeology: TheChallenge Before Us, The proceedings of theTwelfth Conference on Underwater Archaeol-ogy, Gordon P. Watts, Jr. (cd. ) (San Marine,CA: Fathom Eight, 1981).

“Maritime Initiative, ” Forum Newsletter, Na-tional Trust for Historic Preservation, vol. 1,No. 1, August 1987.

Mayes, Thompson M., “Current Legal Issues inthe Law of Historic Shipwrecks, ” A Memoran-dum for the Office of General Counsel (Wash-ington, DC: National Trust for Historic Preser-vation, October 1986).

Mazel, Charles, “Technology for Marine Ar-chaeology, Oceanus, vol. 28, No. 1, spring1985.

McGrath, H. Thomas, Jr., “The Preservation ofthe U.S. S. Cairo, Underwater Archaeology:The Proceedings of the Eleventh Conferenceon Underwater Archaeology, Calvin R. Cum-mings (cd. ) (San Marine, CA: Fathom Eight,1982).

Monarch 7890-7906, “Isle Royale National Park,Lake Superior, Michigan, Wreck Site SketchMap, Phase 11,” National Park Service, 1986.

Muckelroy, Keith, Maritime Archaeology (Cam-bridge, England: Cambridge University Press,1978).

Murphy, Larry, “Shipwrecks as Data Base for Hu-man Behavioral Studies, ” Shipwreck Anthro-pology, Richard A. Gould (cd.) (Albuquerque,NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1983).

National Park Service, The National Maritime Ini-tiative: Phase One: A Report to the Congressof the United States (Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of the Interior, 1986).

National Trust for Historic Preservation, Direc-tory of Maritime Heritage Resources (Washing-ton, DC: National Trust for Historic Preserva-tion, 1984).

National Trust for Historic Preservation, PreservedHistoric Vessels: A Categorized List by Contextof Significance (Washington, DC: June 24,1986).

— ——

53

National Trust for Historic Preservation, Reportof the Committee on the Survey and Inventoryof Maritime Resources (Washington, DC: Jan-uary 1987).

National Trust for Historic Preservation, Stand-ards and Guidelines for Maritime Preservation:A Review, May 1985.

National Trust for Historic Preservation, Sug-gested Standards for the Management of LargeHistoric Vessels (Washington, DC: September1985).

National Trust for Historic Preservation, T a s kForce Report on the Preservation of America’sMaritime Heritage 7985-7990 (Washington,DC: December 1984).

O’Keefe, P. J., “Current Developments Regard-ing ReguIation of Marine Archaeology OutsideTerritorial Waters, ” Underwater Archaeology:The Challenge Before Us, The Proceedings ofthe Twelfth Conference on Underwater Ar-chaeology, Gordon P. Watts, Jr. (cd. ) (San Ma-rino, CA: Fathom Eight, 1981 ).

Parent, James M., “The Conservation of Water-logged Wood Using Sucrose,” Underwater Ar-chaeology: The Proceedings of the FourteenthConference on Underwater Archaeology, Cal-vin R. Cummings (cd. ) (San Marine, CA:Fathom Eight, 1986).

Pendleton, Edith, and Cox, Rachel, “TroubleDown Below-Whose Treasure Is It?” HistoricPreservation, vol. 37, No. 2, April 1985.

Preservation News, “Special Issue Saluting OurMaritime Heritage, ” National Trust for HistoricPreservation, June 1986.

Ruppe, Reynold, “Underwater Site Detection ByUse of a Coring Instrument” Beneath theWaters of Time: The Proceedings of the NinthConference on Underwater Archaeology, J.Barto Arnold Ill (cd.), Texas Antiquities Pub-lication No. 6 (Austin, TX: Texas AntiquitiesCommittee, 1978).

Ryan, Paul R., “The Titanic Revisited, ” Oceanus,vol. 29, No. 3, fail 1986.

Shallcross, Douglas, and Giesecke, Anne, “TheStatus of Federal and State Regulation ofUnderwater Cultural Resources: Lessons of theTreasure Salvers and Cobb Coin Cases,” Un-derwater Archaeology: The Proceedings of theFourteenth Conference on Underwater Ar-chaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd. ) (San Ma-rino, CA: Fathom Eight, 1986).

Shomette, Donald G., and Eshelman, Ralph E.,“A Developmental Model for Survey and in-ventory of Submerged Archaeological Re-sources in a Riverine System: The PatuxentRiver, Maryland, ” Underwater Archaeology:The Challenge Before Us, The Proceedings ofthe Twelfth Conference on Underwater Ar-chaeology, Gordon P. Watts, Jr. (cd.) (San Ma-rino, CA: Fathom Eight, 1981 ).

Stright, Melanie J., “The Future of Federal Cul-tural Resources Management on the OCS, ”Underwater Archaeology: The Proceedings ofthe Eleventh Conference on Underwater Ar-chaeology, Calvin R. Cummings (cd. ) (San Ma-rino, CA: Fathom Eight, 1982).

Stright, Melanie, J., Federal Cultural ResourcesManagement on the OCS; Problems and Po-tential (Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Bureau of Land Management, No-vember 1981 ).

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Pres-ervation, OTA-E-319 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, September 1986).

Weimer, Douglas Reid, Legal Issues Relating toAbandoned” Shipwrecks;search Service, 1986.

Congressional Re-