The Mary Rose Site–Geophysical Evidence for Palaeo-Scour Marks
The hilernationd J014r?ifllqf Na~iticalArclineologj~ ( 1997) 26.1: 3-16 The Mary Rose site-geophysical evidence for palaeo-scour marks R. Quinn, J. M. Bull, J. K. Dix* Deprirtnieiit of Geology, *Departnient of Oceanography, Southainpton Oceaiiographv Centre, University of Sozrtlianpon, Etnpress Dock. Soutliunipton SO14 3ZH, UK J. R. Adams Department of Archneology, University of Soirtkcimpton, Higllfield SO1 7 1BJ, UK Introduction co-ordinated surveys. This trend is also Since the development-led boom in rescue reflected in the UK Government’s inter- archaeology in the 1960s and 1970s, the pretation of current legislation, in particu- vicissitudes of funding and the growing lar with respect to historic wrecks, as well recognition of the non-renewable nature as dove-tailing with the recently estab- of the archaeological resource, have lished database for maritime sites at the prompted much more circumspect atti- National Monuments Record Centre at tudes to excavation (Cleere, 1989; Hunter Swindon, UK. & Ralston, 1993). Hence the justification Over the past 30 years, various marine of decisions to excavate are generally based seismic reflection techniques have been either on the threat from development or used in the investigation of sites of other agency, or the need for research, archaeological interest, (McGhee et al., where excavation is viewed as the best or 1968; Frey, 1971; Chauhan & Almeida, only way to answer certain questions, or 1988; Rao, 1988; Redknap, 1990). To date, occasionally both. As a result, greater the application of sub-bottom profiling emphasis is now based on desk-top assess- systems to maritime archaeology has ments, non-intrusive evaluations such as been restricted by poor resolution and an fieldwalking and geophysical surveys, and inability to image the seabed in very on the associated task of building Sites’ shallow water depths.
[Show full text]