Professional Documents
Culture Documents
B.A. Salmons
Summer 2007
Introduction
"There are three approaches to coastal erosion: armor, beach nourishment and
retreat. Until the twentieth century, retreat was the favored option. A growing number
of people say it should be our policy again" (Dean 1999: 185). Fortunately, a good deal of
coastal management issues are amenable to this third approach, even in the face of
considerable opposition by property owners and elected officials who favor the first two
troublesome when the "retreat" approach is applied. The problem stems from the
interrelation of the value of a coastal site with the coastal location of the site. In other
words, coastal properties are valuable because they are on the coast, rather than inland.
zones is one example of this conundrum. Coastal erosion threatens historic and
archaeological sites in the same way it threatens contemporary structures and the
infrastructure that supports them. Yet, while moving historic structures inland and ex
situ preservation of (i.e. excavation of) archaeological sites is possible (Dean 1999: Chp.
9; English Heritage 2003), this is not always the preferred solution in historic
preservation and archaeological practice. The reason for this, once again, is the value
lent to a site by its location. In the case of preservation, that value is an interpretive and
pedagogic one, rather than an economic one as in the case of private property. The
educational value of an historic structure is greater in situ, on the site where its history
happened, than when it is moved inland or above water and out of this physical context.
The situation for archaeological sites is somewhat more complex. An archaeological site
encompasses more than just pottery sherds, bones and stone tools: micro–faunal
2
remains and fossilized pollen contained in the soil, and features like post hole
impressions and charcoal pits, are as important in site interpretation as the more
tangible artifacts. These features are actually a part of the site, and excavating them, or
allowing them to erode before excavation occurs, destroys them along with the site. As a
result, valuable information is lost not only to us, but to future generations who may
important to consider in the preservation of coastal cultural heritage sites. Most of the
passing, as one of many factors considered in any particular coastal management plan
(e.g. US Department of Commerce 1997; Georgia Ports Authority 1998; NOAA 2000;
Cassar 2003; Craig 2004; Doody 2004). Similarly, with few exceptions, the historic
implications of erosion processes and tourist activities on coastal structures and sites
and how policy can address it. The purpose of this paper is to provide on overview of
The UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical,
3
terms ‘cultural heritage’, ‘maritime heritage’, ‘underwater heritage’, ‘historic resource’
and ‘cultural resource’ will be used loosely and interchangeably throughout this paper.
literature does exist on the subject covers the various ways in which coastal historic and
archaeological sites are affected by their environment and how policy makers have
responded. The policy issues covered in the literature are highly varied and include such
things as managing the threat of sea-level rise to historic resources in national parks
(Pendleton, Thieler & Williams 2005), mitigating the damage of high-speed watercraft
on coastal archaeological sites (Parnell & Kofoed-Hansen 2001), and the facilitation of
preservation efforts by the very forces that threaten historic resources (Savouret 2004).
The literature will be analyzed in the context of the holistic approach to coastal
management called Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Following the analysis some
activity (economic and social) and natural processes is the management focus of ICZM
aspects of coastal resource use, rather than focusing on just one aspect (e.g. natural
resources, real estate or historical resources) as if it were unrelated to the others. From
cannot be extricated from the broader coastal context of nature conservation, land
4
development, recreational use and mitigation of natural hazards to human activity,
namely shoreline erosion, tropical storms (hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons) and sea-level
rise.
Historic and archaeological sites are valuable resources in terms of their intrinsic
value. They are a “patrimony testifying [to] the history and the visions of the world” held
conflicting uses between scientists, “treasure hunters” and tourists. Likewise, the
preservation are being played out on land as well. The ICZM approach holds promise for
the resolution of many of these issues by incorporating historic and archaeological sites
ICZM programs and projects have been developed in many parts of the world that
organized along many different lines: location, threat to resource, and ICZM strategies
for preservation. The organizational approach used in this review will be according to
resource type. The following sections will look at the literature as it applies to two
broadly defined resource types: 1) supra-tidal and inter-tidal sites and 2) sub-tidal, or
submerged, sites.
5
Supra-tidal and inter-tidal sites
Supra-tidal sites are those situated on ground located above the high-tide line.
This includes structures and artifact assemblages on the beach yet above the high-tide
line, as well as those located further inland yet still affected by coastal natural processes
like erosion and tropical storm surges, or by tourism and economic activities. An
complex. Inter-tidal sites are those situated within the inter-tidal zone, or between the
high- and low-tide lines. Examples of inter-tidal sites include forts (like the Castillo de
San Marcos in St. Augustine, Florida) and rock paintings located in partially submerged
coastal cave systems. There is considerable overlap between these two categories of sites,
which is why they are dealt with under one heading in this paper. The literature as
Figure 1 - Archaeologists excavate in the Sigatoka Dunes on Fiji (from: Simon Fraser University
website, http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/, accessed 10 July 2007.
6
it applies to supra- and inter-tidal historic and archaeological sites will be examined in
understanding of the natural processes that affect these sites and the mechanisms
through which they act. The archaeological literature provides some examples of studies
of these mechanisms. Przywolnik (2002) studied the effect of tropical storm surges on
shell middens on the northern coast of Australia. She found that storm surges were a
significant factor in the modern appearance of middens located seaward of dunes and
that sites located landward of the dunes were considerably less affected. The
Castro, Figueiredo & Aires-Barros (2005), in their concern for the preservation of
practice of cultural heritage management as it allows for a more systematic and less
centered around St. Boniface church on the island of Papa Westray in Orkney, Scotland.
cultural and natural heritage lands, their concern was “to develop a cost-effective means
7
of tackling the assessment of large, extensive, deep sites with complex stratigraphy”
(Sec. 1.1.2).
what is perhaps the most sincere effort at incorporating historic and archaeological
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is responsible for funding
local coastal management plans in England. Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) are
plans emphasize that “all of the generic coastal defence options can have implications
for the historic environment” (p. 3). Other aspects of coastal management dealt with by
English Heritage include the policy environment, procedures for ensuring that the
cultural heritage “be considered as part of the cost-benefit analysis of coastal defence
systems” (p. 9), English Heritage has demonstrated exemplary leadership on the issue of
sites in the Lesser Antillian island of Carriacou and determined that the local practice of
sand mining was causing as much damage. They suggested that management programs
should address theses traditional activities, noting that “it is easier to manage the
activities of people than to manage the coast” (p. 260). Two studies from Portugal and
Mexico approach the issue of coastal cultural heritage from a broader point of view than
the previous studies, seeking conclusions that are applicable to other policy areas.
Carrasco, Ferreira, Matias & Dias (2007) studied a pair of historic ruins in Portugal for
8
the effects of shoreline erosion and developed a set of policy scenarios consisting of no
intervention, armoring of the shoreline and removal or relocation of the historic ruins
and artifacts. They note that “it is not easy to balance costs and benefits in complex
coastal management issues” like those involving historic structures and sites (p. 170).
Téllez Duarte (1993) discusses this complexity within the context of Mexico’s Baja
Waterfront revitalization
multiple stakeholders is again an important concern. In his study of a naval base in the
UK, Riley (1999) concludes with a pointed questioning of how the economic benefits of
historic sites (in this case, historic naval vessels) can be balanced against the “elite” need
for authenticity in the preservation community (p. 906). The issue here is not erosion or
storm surge, but rather the impact of coastal tourism on preservation and the tension
this creates for policy makers trying to balance the two interests. Clark & Pinder (1999)
also address this conflict between tourism and preservation uses of historic sites. In
their study of Venice’s Renaissance-era naval docks (the Arsenale), they encourage a
more diverse range of uses, encompassing not only tourism, but adaptive reuse by
universities and the modern Italian military as well. Whatever its range of uses, a
revitalized Arsenale has great potential to generate income for the local economy due to
Venice’s historic ties to the water and the tourism-related appeal of using the Arsenale
9
as a water gateway (a historic method of entry into the city). The impact that this kind of
tourism would have on coastal management in Venice is unexamined in the study and
coastal zones. He concludes that awareness of cultural heritage and its economic
Figure 2 - The late-16th century Gaggiandre docks (from Clark & Pinder 1999)
potential is not enough to garner support for preservation projects. To address this
problem in the UK’s coastal zones, he proposes a national adoption of a series of policy
guides formulated by the European Union that incorporate heritage preservation within
10
Submerged sites
Submerged sites are those situated below the high-tide line under modern
climatic conditions. These sites consist of material and structures that once existed
above the water, although their cultural functions are usually related to coastal
activities. The type of submerged site most commonly dealt with in the preservation and
sites of occupation, such as prehistoric occupation sites and other artifact assemblages.
The discussion that follows will focus primarily on shipwrecks. Although many natural
shipwreck sites, the impacts discussed in the literature reviewed here are mostly from
human activity.
that of other types of coastal heritage sites. Likewise, policy concerning the management
of shipwreck sites is more coherent and specifically focused on the unique set of
environmental and cultural factors that impact the preservation of these sites.
Nonetheless, in the two jurisdictions that are subject to the most attention in the
literature, the UK (particularly England) and the US, faults with policy as it pertains to
coastal cultural heritage are readily apparent. In their comprehensive survey of the
Oxley & O’Regan (2001) conclude that national guidelines need to come to terms with
the fact that underwater cultural heritage “transcends environmental boundaries and
11
historically derived administrative limits” (p. 24). Current English policy relies heavily
underwater resources difficult. They cite a hopeful case of a local organization taking the
lead in a push for comprehensive, national vision for the management of underwater
cultural heritage (p. 12). They also note that England is behind its fellow countrymen in
(Cadw, Historic Scotland, and the Environment & Heritage Service, respectively).
The situation in the United States is no better. In a recent article, Street (2006)
outlines the current legislative environment that frames the management of Underwater
Cultural Heritage (UCH) in national waters. He describes the three regimes under which
this management falls: the General Maritime Law, the Abandoned Shipwreck Act and
the Marine Sanctuaries Act (p. 468). The first delineates the laws of salvage and finds.
industry. The latter two regimes are of more recent vintage and have proven more
amenable to the aims of cultural resource management. All three tend to focus on
shipwrecks and “[ignore] other submerged archaeological sites” (p. 468). The author
concludes that the current regulatory regime in the U.S. is neither coordinated nor
holistic and is “inadequate to govern UCH” (p. 475). In contrast to Oxley & O’Regan’s
proposal for the UK, Street proposes a management approach based on the devolution
of management of resources within 3 nautical miles (NM) of the shore to the state-level,
while giving the federal government more control over resources located up to 24 NM
from shore, all without intruding on the domain of applicable international laws.
12
Noting the arbitrariness of the nautical mile standards in American legal regimes
governing UCH, Elia (2000) suggests a three-prong approach that includes replacing
the Abandoned Shipwrecks Act with a more comprehensive legal regime that extends
outward to the Economic Extension Zone (EEZ), generally 200 NM from shore, with
equal application of the law to all sites within this zone (p. 54). Further addressing the
issue of UCH management beyond the current regulatory reach of 24 NM, Smith &
Couper (2003) emphasis the need to consider protection of resources lying beyond the
EEZ, in an area called the Deep Seabed (p. 27). They encourage the preservation
resources located outside territorial waters are not destroyed. The precarious situation
of sites on the Deep Seabed is made even more urgent by mining and commercial fishing
operations, both of which have the potential to do great harm to shipwreck sites.
plan is more holistic than that of the UK, or of the US for that matter, and is viewed with
his discussion of the Environment and Heritage Services’ (EHS) role in managing
regime, Williams (2001) expresses concern about the effect of deep seabed activities on
underwater sites. While not all of these activities are currently practiced within
of the potential activities (oil and gas exploration and extraction, mineral dredging,
cable and pipe laying, dredging of shipping channels, commercial fishing, and fish and
shellfish farming) (p. 5). Notable in his overview is the optimism he holds regarding
Northern Ireland’s policy environment and the potential for compromise and mutual
13
agreement that can result from a holistic management plan incorporating the goals of
In addition to the local and national arenas discussed thus far, the United Nations
also has a role to play in the management of underwater cultural heritage. Jeffrey
(2004b) considers this possibility for a group of sunken World War II ships and aircraft
in Chuuk Lagoon in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM). The popularity of this
site with scuba divers exacerbates the problems already inherent in managing an
Figure 3 - Archaeologists survey the upside-down wreck of a Japanese fighter plane in Chuuk Lagoon (from
Jeffrey 2004b)
underwater site as vast as this through the authority of an impoverished country like the
FSM. The current legislative regime under which the site is governed consists of local
state (Chuukese) law and FSM national law, as well as the United States’ National
14
Historic Preservation Act (FSM was an American protectorate until 1986 and still
maintains ties through economic aid and military bases) (p. 110, 117). UNESCO World
Heritage Listings for underwater sites are uncommon (as are listings for sites in the
Pacific region) and, ironically, Jeffrey sees the site’s current management problems as
an impediment to its qualification for the World Heritage Listing. This highlights the
need for competent local management of heritage sites as even a World Heritage Listing
better local management, which may in turn allow for Chuuk’s inclusion in the World
Heritage Listing. Noting the diverse ways in which the various stakeholders (American,
Japanese and Chuukese) of the Chuuk Lagoon site interpret the site in terms of their
own history, Jeffrey suggests that by including all of these stakeholders in the
the site.
Two other studies on the management of shipwreck sites (Cuthill 1998; Kaoru &
Hoagland 1994) look at the pragmatism of an approach that involves all stakeholders
and considers alternate methods of valuation of cultural resources. Kaoru & Hoagland
assessment of historic resources as similar to that used to assess natural resources (p.
196). This is promising given the utility of non-market valuation in natural resource
management (e.g. Hall, Hall & Murray 2002; Arin & Kramer 2002) and Kaoru &
balancing the needs of stakeholders, otherwise there will be “too much treasure hunting
or too much preservation” (p. 210). Cuthill’s (1999) study continues on the theme of
15
stakeholder collaboration, utilizing an “action research approach” that “focuses on the
involvement of, and collaboration with, stakeholders” (p. 36). He even proposes the
process (a very compassionate and thoughtful suggestion) (p. 44). Like Kaoru &
preferred method. Oxley (2001) notes that management of shipwrecks in situ is more
cost-effective than preserving them outside of the marine environment (p. 418).
Consistent with this Jeffrey (2004b) notes that the recently adopted UNESCO
preservation as does the NOAA in its administration of sites protected by the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act (Street 2006:474). The common exception to the rule is when
the site is threatened by destruction, in which case excavation is the option of last resort
(p. 474). Breaking with the consensus, Vrana & Mahoney (1995) suggest that not all
historic sites need to be preserved. Recognizing that the recreational and resulting
economic significance of historic shipwrecks are of importance leads, once again, to the
question of how to balance the often competing needs of stakeholders. Vrana &
Mahoney question whether all sites consisting of underwater cultural heritage are
necessary to achieve the needs of the scientific community and proposes that shipwreck
sites that do not meet “significance criteria, or for which numerous substitutes exist to
16
answer important research questions” (p. 178) should be preserved solely for
recreational use. While the historic and cultural uniqueness of all heritage sites might
Summary
between national jurisdictions and between local jurisdictions existing within the same
country (e.g. in the case of the United Kingdom, where England’s program, though
from the ad hoc manner in historic and archaeological sites are managed under the
current policy environment. This problem is present nearly worldwide. From the
literature reviewed in this paper, it would appear that to address the issue of ineffective
broaden and strengthen the legal and administrative regimes at the national level to
allow for the unequivocal administration of local management plans, and 2) seek to
include the participation of all possible stakeholders and to recognize the multiple
valuations that stakeholders place on coastal historic and archaeological resources. This
17
threatened by more severe global weather events, a surge in preference for coastal living
and tourist activities, and the greater access afforded to underwater tourists and large-
Bibliography
Arin, T. & R.A. Kramer. (2002). Divers' Willingness to Pay to Visit Marine Sanctuaries:
Carrasco, A.R., O. Ferreira, A. Matias & J.A. Dias. (2007). Historic Monuments
Cassar, M. (2003). A project for the integrated management of protected coastal areas in
Clark C. & D. Pinder. (1999). Naval heritage and the revitalisation challenge: lessons
Craig, R.K. (2004). Europe’s Network of Marine Protected Areas: Legal and policy
(1): 33-46.
18
Dean, C. (1999). Against the Tide. The Battle for America's Beaches. New York, New
Doody, J.P. (2004). Sea cliffs a neglected European habitat? Proceedings of Littoral
Elia, R.J. (2000). US protection of underwater cultural heritage beyond the territorial
English Heritage. (2003). Coastal Defence and the Historic Environment English
Fitzpatrick, S.M., M. Kappers and Q. Kaye. (2006). Coastal erosion and site destruction
Georgia Ports Authority & Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. (1998).
Hall, D.C., J.V. Hall & S.N. Murray. (2002). Contingent Valuation of Marine Protected
Modeling, 15(3):335-368.
Jeffrey, B. (2004a). World War II Shipwrecks in Truk Lagoon: The Role of Interest
Jeffrey, B. (2004b). World War II Underwater Cultural Heritage Site in Truk Lagoon:
Archaeology, 33(1):106-121.
Kaoru, Y. and P. Hoagland (1994). The value of historic shipwrecks: conflicts and
19
Lowe, C. & S. Boardman. (1998). Coastal erosion and the archaeological assessment of
Maurício, A.M., A.M.G. Pacheco, P.S.D. Brito, B. Castro, C. Figueiredo & L. Aires-Barros.
Press.
NOAA. (2000). Summary Report: Town Meeting on America's Coastal Future: Using
Oxley, I. & D. O'Regan. (2001). The marine archaeological resource. Institute of Field
Parnell, K.E. & H. Kofoed-Hansen. (2001). Wakes from Large High-Speed Ferries in
Pendelton, E.A., E.R. Thieler & S.J. Williams. (2005). Coastal Vulnerability Assessment
Pinder, D. (2003). Seaport decline and cultural heritage sustainability issues in the UK
20
Przywolnik, K. (2002). Coastal sites and severe weather in Cape Range peninsula,
Management, 42:891-908.
Smith, H.D. & A.D. Couper. (2003). The management of the underwater cultural
Street, T. (2006). Underwater Cultural Heritage Policies of the United States Coastal
21
Vrana, K.J. and E.M. Mahoney (1995). Impacts on underwater cultural resources:
Washington, D.C., January 1995 (ed. P. Forsythe Johnston). Tucson, AZ: Society
30(1):5-11.
the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO, Paris, France. Retrieved 11
22