DOCSLIB.ORG

The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Guest Blogger Anthology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Guest Blogger Anthology The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Guest Blogger Anthology 2009 – 2010 Edited by T. Kurt Knoerl The MUA Guest Blogger Anthology 2009 - 2010 The Museum of Underwater Archaeology Guest Blogger Anthology 2009 – 2010 Edited by T. Kurt Knoerl Copyright © 2010 The Museum of Underwater Archaeology http://www.themua.org Cover image of the Walter B. Allen courtesy Tamara Thomsen and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Acknowledgements The Museum of Underwater Archaeology gratefully acknowledges the authors contained in this publication for their contributions to both this document and the fields of underwater archaeology and historical research. In addition we’d like to thank the University of Rhode Island History Department, Dr. Rod Mather, Dr. John Jensen, and Ms. Michelle Damian for their support of our mission to encourage public outreach. The MUA Guest Blogger Anthology 2009 - 2010 Contents Introduction – T. Kurt Knoerl ….………….…………………………….1 So, Who Cares About Underwater Cultural Heritage? – Dr. John Broadwater ...5 ‘Where there’s Muck there’s Brass’: Archaeology and the Real World? - Dr. Joe Flatman .........................................................................8 Squeaky Wheels – David Ball .........................................................13 50 Years Later – Dr. Filipe Castro ....................................................17 The Seventh “P” – Dr. Susan Langley ...............................................21 Treasure Hunters, So Few So Loud – United States Perspective – Dr. Anne Giesecke .................................................................................26 The Institute of Nautical Archaeology – Dr. James P. Delgado ...................29 Integrating Underwater and Terrestrial Archaeology – Matthew A. Russell .....33 What Does it Mean to “Go Digital”? – Dr. T. Mills Kelly ............................39 The Historic Environment: Shared Heritage and Joint Responsibilities? – Ian Oxley ...............................................................................43 Deepwater Archaeology in Oil and Gas - Kimberly L. Faulk …..…….….... 48 Conclusion – Michelle Damian ..………….…………………………. 53 The MUA Guest Blogger Anthology 2009 - 2010 Introduction I founded the online Museum of Underwater Archaeology in 2004 as a way to encourage underwater archaeologists to share their research with the general public via the Internet. This seemed the best way to reach the widest possible audience and to date the site receives visits from over ninety countries from around the world. It took some cajoling on my part to get the first few participants to take a chance and post with us but within a relatively short time period our staff grew and researchers began coming to us asking for assistance with their digital public outreach efforts. As time went by, however, we began wondering how we might involve underwater archaeologists who were not posting their research on our site either because they had no current projects underway or their own websites provided them with an online outlet to the world. We wanted to reach out to these individuals and provide them with a venue they could use to voice their opinions on topics of their choosing related to the field of underwater archaeology. From this idea sprang forth the Guest Blogger (GB) feature. We wanted to create relationships between the top minds in the field and our audience and with the MUA. We’ve been thrilled at the response both from our guest bloggers and the general public as we have introduced this feature. Throughout 2009 and 2010 we sought to encourage conversations between our guests and their colleagues, students, and the general public. While the comments sections might not always show it, we believe the posts did spark discussion. That is what happens when you let folks write about whatever is on their mind. Outside of minor typos we did not edit the posts or try to persuade the authors to be either controversial or politically correct. That freedom is one of the things that make this collection of posts so valuable. Readers get to see not only what the authors think about certain issues but also what the authors 1 The MUA Guest Blogger Anthology 2009 - 2010 decided to write about when given the opportunity to address a world wide audience. Perhaps it is no great surprise that many of the posts deal with the future and where the field of underwater archaeology is headed. It is a subject that occupies most people’s minds including those of us that spend so much time thinking, ironically enough, about the past. Issues like the economy, the environment, digital media, future responsibilities, and yes, even the age old debate over treasure salvage vs. preservation are all covered in this collection. That inclusiveness is what makes it so valuable. Why produce a PDF version of what can already be found online? Great question! I’m glad I asked. As an underwater archaeologist myself I share with my colleagues the desire to learn from the past. The MUA has amassed over 300 pages of content written by over 70 underwater archaeologists. As the website grew it began to bother me that some of the older posts might not receive as much attention because links to them just couldn’t possibly all fit on the website’s front page. We looked for ways to bring them back into the light, and we have succeeded through incorporating portions of posts into our learning paths that school teachers can use to show excellent examples of how underwater archaeologists conduct their research. We can and will do this with the GB posts as well but by presenting all of the GB posts together in one document we gain a perspective that is lacking when looking through the website one post at a time. This anthology provides a bird’s eye view of some of the current issues of the last two years that were of concern to our authors. In addition by providing a downloadable PDF collection we hope to make it easier for teachers to incorporate the posts into their classrooms, thereby avoiding the necessity of having all of their students go online to get them. Returning for a moment to 2004 I recall spending time explaining the MUA concept to someone I hoped would contribute to the site. The archaeologist listened patiently but as I went on I began to fear I was beginning to ramble 2 The MUA Guest Blogger Anthology 2009 - 2010 based on the look on my friend’s face. I wrapped up my “pitch” upon which she asked, “Yeah ok Kurt, that sounds good but how much are you charging for this?” I was shocked. “Charge? Nothing” I responded. It never occurred to me to charge for the posts on the MUA. Of course the realities of operating a website have long since set in but through grants and the generous, donations of server space, and bandwidth from institutions like the University of Rhode Island and grants of service from companies like Dreamhost and Google we have never charged underwater archaeologists for posting on the MUA. I believe now as I did then that our collective past belongs to everyone and in the sharing of scholarly research with the public that in most cases funds research through their tax dollars. Yes, these challenging economic times require everyone to tighten their belts but I believe that it is an obligation on our part as archaeologists to share our research freely with as many people as we can without jeopardizing the resource. We must find ways to make this information freely available even when there are ways to profit from it. I believe that is one of the things that separate us from those who wish to own the past. So, we invite you to download this PDF and share it with your class, your officemates, and your friends and don’t forget to share your knowledge as well. T. Kurt Knoerl Director The Museum of Underwater Archaeology 3 The MUA Guest Blogger Anthology 2009 - 2010 So, Who Cares About Underwater Cultural Heritage? By Dr. John Broadwater Posted May 19, 2009 Back in the 1970s, when I first became interested in protecting shipwrecks, the picture was pretty bleak. In the United States, there was no national legislation to protect shipwrecks or other submerged archaeological sites. Among the very few states with protective legislation, most imposed few—if any—archaeological requirements, and the bulk of the recovered cultural material was given to the salvors. Frequently, salvors turned to the Admiralty courts where they were usually designated “salvor in possession,” often being given complete control of the site and its contents. Back in the day, few people were even aware of “underwater archaeology,” but almost everyone knew about treasure hunting. The term conjured up images of Spanish gold and silver spilling out of rotting hulks on the seabed, being “rescued” from the perils of the sea by brave, adventurous explorers who risked their lives in hopes of “finding the mother lode.” Even when legitimate underwater archaeology projects came to the public’s attention, most people assumed that archaeology and treasure hunting was the same thing. Other factors, too, were destroying important sites, including souvenir collecting, dredging, construction projects, and erosion. Now, more than 30 years later, do you think the situation has improved? Recently I clicked to the Discovery Channel, hoping for a program on underwater archaeology, but instead found “Treasure Quest,” an entire series of new programs about brave, adventurous explorers seeking their fortune among the deepwater shipwrecks that had been, until very recently, protected by their inaccessibility from discovery and exploitation. 4 The MUA Guest Blogger Anthology 2009 - 2010 So… who really cares about underwater cultural heritage, and what are they doing to protect these unique resources for future generations? Well, from my point of view: (a) quite a few people care, and (b) quite a lot has been done to protect and preserve our collective maritime heritage and to disseminate information about that heritage to a global audience. Here are several examples that give me encouragement for the future: First of all, national and regional protective legislation is now more prevalent and more restrictive.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stone Tidal Weirs, Underwater Cultural Heritage Or Not? Akifumi
    Stone Tidal Weirs, Underwater Cultural Heritage or Not? Akifumi Iwabuchi Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 135-8533 Email: [email protected] Abstract The stone tidal weir is a kind of fish trap, made of numerous rocks or reef limestones, which extends along the shoreline on a colossal scale in semicircular, half-quadrilateral, or almost linear shape. At the flood tide these weirs are submerged beneath the sea, while they emerge into full view at the ebb. Using with nets or tridents, fishermen, inside the weirs at low tides, catch fish that fails to escape because of the stone walls. They could be observed in the Pacific or the Yap Islands, in the Indian Ocean or the east African coast, and in the Atlantic or Oleron and Ré Islands. The UNESCO’s 2001 Convention regards this weir as underwater cultural heritage, because it has been partially or totally under water, periodically or continuously, for at least 100 years; stone tidal weirs have been built in France since the 11th century and a historical record notes that one weir in the Ryukyu Islands was built in the 17th century. In Japan every weir is considered not to be buried cultural property or cultural heritage investigated by archaeologists, but to be folk cultural asset studied by anthropologists, according to its domestic law for the protection of cultural properties. Even now in many countries stone tidal weirs are continuously built or restored by locals. Owing to the contemporary trait, it is not easy to preserve them under the name of underwater cultural heritage.
    [Show full text]
  • Side Scan Sonar and the Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage Timmy Gambin
    259 CHAPTER 15 View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by OAR@UM Side Scan Sonar and the Management of Underwater Cultural Heritage Timmy Gambin Introduction Th is chapter deals with side scan sonar, not because I believe it is superior to other available technologies but rather because it is the tool that I have used in the context of a number of off shore surveys. It is therefore opportune to share an approach that I have developed and utilised in a number of projects around the Mediterranean. Th ese projects were conceptualised together with local partners that had a wealth of local experience in the countries of operation. Over time it became clear that before starting to plan a project it is always important to ask oneself the obvious question – but one that is oft en overlooked: “what is it that we are setting out to achieve”? All too oft en, researchers and scientists approach a potential research project with blinkers. Such an approach may prove to be a hindrance to cross-fertilisation of ideas as well as to inter-disciplinary cooperation. Th erefore, the aforementioned question should be followed up by a second query: “and who else can benefi t from this project?” Benefi ciaries may vary from individual researchers of the same fi eld such as archaeologists interested in other more clearly defi ned historic periods (World War II, Early Modern shipping etc) to other researchers who may be interested in specifi c studies (African amphora production for example).
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory and Analysis of Archaeological Site Occurrence on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf
    OCS Study BOEM 2012-008 Inventory and Analysis of Archaeological Site Occurrence on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Gulf of Mexico OCS Region OCS Study BOEM 2012-008 Inventory and Analysis of Archaeological Site Occurrence on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Author TRC Environmental Corporation Prepared under BOEM Contract M08PD00024 by TRC Environmental Corporation 4155 Shackleford Road Suite 225 Norcross, Georgia 30093 Published by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management New Orleans Gulf of Mexico OCS Region May 2012 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared under contract between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and TRC Environmental Corporation. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM, and it has been approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of BOEM, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endoresements or recommendation for use. It is, however, exempt from review and compliance with BOEM editorial standards. REPORT AVAILABILITY This report is available only in compact disc format from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, at a charge of $15.00, by referencing OCS Study BOEM 2012-008. The report may be downloaded from the BOEM website through the Environmental Studies Program Information System (ESPIS). You will be able to obtain this report also from the National Technical Information Service in the near future. Here are the addresses. You may also inspect copies at selected Federal Depository Libraries. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Technologies for Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation
    Technologies for Underwater Archaeology and Maritime Preservation September 1987 NTIS order #PB88-142559 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies for Underwater 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 Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (order form on the last page of this background paper) Foreword Exploration, trading, and other maritime activity along this Nation’s coast and through its inland waters have played crucial roles in the discovery, settlement, and 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 Atlantic and Pacific coasts; abandoned lighthouses; historic vessels like Maine-built coastal schooners, or Chesapeake Bay Skipjacks; and submerged prehistoric villages in the Gulf Coast. Together, this country’s maritime activities make up a substantial compo- nent of U.S. history. This background paper describes and assesses the role of technology in underwater archaeology and historic maritime preservation. As several underwater projects have recently demonstrated, advanced technology, often developed for other uses, plays an increasingly important role in the discovery and recovery of historic shipwrecks and their contents. For example, the U.S. Government this summer employed a powerful remotely operated vehicle to map and explore the U.S.S. Monitor, which lies on the bottom off Cape Hatteras. This is the same vehicle used to recover parts of the space shuttle Challenger from the ocean bottom in 1986.
    [Show full text]
  • The Geoarchaeology of Mound Key, an Anthropogenic Island in Southwest Florida, USA
    RESEARCH ARTICLE From Shell Midden to Midden-Mound: The Geoarchaeology of Mound Key, an Anthropogenic Island in Southwest Florida, USA Victor D. Thompson1☯*, William H. Marquardt2☯, Alexander Cherkinsky3‡, Amanda D. Roberts Thompson4‡, Karen J. Walker2‡, Lee A. Newsom5‡, Michael Savarese6‡ 1 Center for Archaeological Sciences and Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States of America, 2 Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, a11111 Florida, United States of America, 3 Center for Applied Isotope Studies, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States of America, 4 Laboratory of Archaeology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States of America, 5 Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, United States of America, 6 Department of Marine and Ecological Science, Florida Gulf Coast University, Ft. Myers, Florida, United States of America ☯ These authors contributed equally to this work. ‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work. * [email protected] OPEN ACCESS Citation: Thompson VD, Marquardt WH, Cherkinsky A, Roberts Thompson AD, Walker KJ, Newsom LA, et al. (2016) From Shell Midden to Midden-Mound: Abstract The Geoarchaeology of Mound Key, an Mound Key was once the capital of the Calusa Kingdom, a large Pre-Hispanic polity that Anthropogenic Island in Southwest Florida, USA. PLoS ONE 11(4): e0154611. doi:10.1371/journal. controlled much of southern Florida. Mound Key, like other archaeological sites along the pone.0154611 southwest Gulf Coast, is a large expanse of shell and other anthropogenic sediments. The Editor: Karen Hardy, ICREA at the Universitat challenges that these sites pose are largely due to the size and areal extent of the deposits, Autònoma de Barcelona, SPAIN some of which begin up to a meter below and exceed nine meters above modern sea levels.
    [Show full text]
  • + Conservation Considerations for Archaeology Collections. the Following Discussion Is Adapted from the SHA Standards and Guidel
    + Conservation Considerations for Archaeology Collections. The following discussion is adapted from the SHA Standards and Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections (1993) and the NPS Museum Handbook, Part I (1996). Archaeological objects “in situ” have generally reached a state of equilibrium with their environment. Although taphonomic processes, (what happens to an object or organic material after disposal or death), might have altered the object in some manner and erosion and weathering may continue to alter the object, many artifacts are recovered from stable environments. The excavation process disturbs this stability and recommences deterioration. A critical task for any archaeological project is to reestablish equilibrium before total destruction of the object occurs. Different materials, i.e. glass, metal, ceramics, stone, etc., are subject to different destructive forces and require different preventative measures. Therefore, as mentioned in Chapter 2, it is recommended that archaeologists consult with conservators before excavation begins. This allows the archaeologist to become conversant with the types of artifacts that may be encountered, the conditions in which they are found, and preliminary conservation measures. At any time, when difficulties are encountered in the field, consultation with conservators can help in the recovery process. This allows for retention of as much factual information about the artifact as possible (Bourque, et. al. 1980, Storch 1997). The Table below lists the most common archaeological materials with their associated problems and curatorial requirements. This list is not inclusive and provides guidelines only. The optimal temperature listed varies among the materials. MHS’s storage facilities are kept at 65°(+/- 3% in 24 hours) with 50% relative humidity (+/- 3%), providing an average suitable for most materials.
    [Show full text]
  • The Marine Archaeological Resource
    The marine archaeological resource IFA Paper No. 4 Ian Oxley and David O’Regan IFA PAPER NO. 4 THE MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE Published by the Institute of Field Archaeologists SHES, University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 227, Reading RG6 6AB ISBN 0 948393 18 1 Copyright © the authors (text), illustrations by permission © IFA (typography and design) Edited by Jenny Moore and Alison Taylor The authors Ian Oxley, formerly Deputy Director of the Archaeological Diving Unit, University of St Andrews, is researching the management of historic wreck sites at the Centre for Environmental Resource Management, Department of Civil and Offshore Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. David O’Regan is a freelance archaeologist, formerly Project Manager for the Defence of Britain Project, Imperial War Museum. Acknowledgements A document attempting to summarise a subject area as wide as UK maritime archaeology inevitably involves the input of a large number of people. It is impossible to name them all and therefore any omissions are regretted but their support is gratefully acknowledged. Particular thanks go to Martin Dean, Mark Lawrence, Ben Ferrari, Antony Firth, Karen Gracie-Langrick, Mark Redknap and Kit Watson. General thanks go to the past and present staff members of the Archaeological Diving Unit and the Scottish Institute of Maritime Studies at the University of St Andrews, and officers and Council members of the IFA and its Maritime Affairs Special Interest Group. The IFA gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, Historic Scotland, and the Environment and Heritage Service, Historic Buildings and Monuments, DoE(NI), for funding this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Privateering, Faye Kert
    Measuring Effects of Treasure Salvors on Spanish Colonial Shipwreck Sites By Melissa R. Price he treasure salvage of submerged archaeological sites has been a topic of continuous discussion T within the realm of maritime archaeology. In Florida especially, a culture of treasure salvage developed in the 1950s and became widespread, as much a result of SCUBA technology as of romanticized tales of sunken treasure. As more shipwrecks were discovered and exploited, the State of Florida was faced with a dilemma: how should these underwater resources be managed? In 1964, as Florida’s shipwreck salvage movement accelerated, the state hired its first underwater archaeologist to oversee exploration and salvage activities. Starting in 1967, the Division of Archives, History, and Records Management retained responsibility for protecting Florida’s cultural heritage, including its underwater heritage. State-owned properties and territorial waters (three nautical miles from the mean low water mark) could only be salvaged with a contract from the Division, with field agents overseeing salvage activities. The state initially instituted a contract system, with contracts being issued for either exploration or salvage purposes, thus giving rise to the Florida Exploration and Salvage Program (now Exploration and Recovery Program). Eventually, the contract system was replaced with a permitting system, and more stringent requirements were placed on commercial salvors. Students from the East Carolina University investigate the Pillar Dollar Wreck in Biscayne Bay. What could an academic investigation of the (Photo courtesy of Charles Lawson/NPS). treasure salvage industry and looting activities reveal continued on page 3 INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Effects of Treasure Salvors ................................ 1 Two Oceans Aquarium ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Cultural and Historic Newsletter Monthly Compilation of Maritime Heritage News and Information from Around the World Volume 2.1, 2005 (January)1
    Marine Cultural and Historic Newsletter Monthly compilation of maritime heritage news and information from around the world Volume 2.1, 2005 (January)1 his newsletter is provided as a service by the All material contained within the newsletter is excerpted National Marine Protected Areas Center to share from the original source and is reprinted strictly for T information about marine cultural heritage and information purposes. The copyright holder or the historic resources from around the world. We also hope contributor retains ownership of the work. The to promote collaboration among individuals and Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and agencies for the preservation of cultural and historic Atmospheric Administration does not necessarily resources for future generations. endorse or promote the views or facts presented on these sites. The information included here has been compiled from many different sources, including on-line news sources, To receive the newsletter, send a message to federal agency personnel and web sites, and from [email protected] with “subscribe MCH cultural resource management and education newsletter” in the subject field. Similarly, to remove professionals. yourself from the list, send the subject “unsubscribe MCH newsletter”. Feel free to provide as much contact We have attempted to verify web addresses, but make information as you would like in the body of the no guarantee of accuracy. The links contained in each message so that we may update our records. newsletter have been verified on the date of issue. Federal Agencies National Park Service (Department of the Interior) National Register of Historic Places (courtesy of Erika Martin Seibert, Archaeologist at the National Register of Historic Places) The National Register of Historic Places listed the Portland Shipwreck and remains on the National Register.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation of Underwater Archaeological Organic Materials)
    UNIVERSIDADE AUTÓNOMA DE LISBOA LUIS DE CAMÕES Departamento de História Tese de Doutoramento em História Conservação de Materiais Orgânicos Arqueológicos Subaquáticos (Conservation of Underwater Archaeological Organic Materials) Tese apresentada para a obtenção do grau de Doutor em História Orientador: Adolfo Silveira Martins Co-orientador: Donny L. Hamilton Doutoranda: Andreia Ribeiro Romão Veliça Machado Junho, 2013 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The work presented here would not have been possible without the help and collaboration of a group of people I would like to thank. To start with, the members of my committee, Prof. Adolfo Silveira Martins and Prof. Donny L. Hamilton. They kindly accepted me as their student and since then have been most supportive and helpful. Enough cannot be said about the help I received from Helen Dewolf, at the Conservation Research Laboratory, and also Dr. Wayne Smith. They were willing to teach me everything that they knew, get me any supplies and samples that I needed and they were always there to check my work and to guide me when needed. Deep gratitude is reserved for Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (SFRH / BD / 49007 / 2008), to Dr. Jorge Campos of the Câmara Municipal de Portimão , without whose interest in supporting me, this research would not have been accomplished. A thank you to Madalena Mira, Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa Library Director, and to Doctors Mike Pendleton and Ann Ellis from the Microscopy & Imaging Center, at Texas A&M. Another word of appreciation to Dr. Adolfo Miguel Martins and Dr. João Coelho from DANS, for the enlightening conversations and help during the research.
    [Show full text]
  • Prospects and Pitfalls in Integrating Volcanology and Archaeology: Areview
    Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 401 (2020) 106977 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvolgeores Invited review article Prospects and pitfalls in integrating volcanology and archaeology: Areview Felix Riede a,⁎, Gina L. Barnes b, Mark D. Elson c, Gerald A. Oetelaar d, Karen G. Holmberg e, Payson Sheets f a Laboratory for Past Disaster Science, Department of Archaeology and Heritage Studies, Aarhus University, Denmark b Department of Earth Sciences, Durham University, United Kingdom c School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, United States of America d Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Calgary, Canada e Gallatin School of Individualized Study, New York University, United States of America f Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder, United States of America article info abstract Article history: Volcanic eruptions and interactions with the landforms and products these yield, are a constant feature of human Received 28 February 2020 life in many parts of the world. Seen over long timespans, human–volcano interactions become stratified in sed- Received in revised form 15 June 2020 imentary archives containing eruptive products and archaeological remains. This review is concerned with Accepted 15 June 2020 charting the overlapping territory of volcanology and archaeology and attempts to plot productive routes for fur- Available online 17 June 2020 ther conjoined research. We define archaeological volcanology as a field of study that brings together incentives, insights, and methods from both volcanology and from archaeology in an effort to better understand both past Keywords: Social volcanology volcanism as well as past cultural change, and to improve risk management practices as well as the contemporary Geoarcheology engagement with volcanism and its products.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 the Hoabinhian of Southeast Asia and Its Relationship
    Chapter 4 The Hoabinhian of Southeast Asia and its Relationship to Regional Pleistocene Lithic Technologies Ben Marwick This chapter has been peer-reviewed and published in: Robinson, Erick, Sellet, Frederic (Eds.) 2018. Lithic Technological Organization and Paleoenvironmental Change Global and Diachronic Perspectives. Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-64407-3 Abstract The Hoabinhian is a distinctive Pleistocene stone artefact technology of mainland and island Southeast Asia. Its relationships to key patterns of technological change both at a global scale and in adjacent regions such as East Asia, South Asia and Australia are currently poorly understood. These key patterns are important indicators of evolutionary and demographic change in human prehistory so our understanding of the Hoabinhian may be substantially enhanced by examining these relationships. In this paper I present new evidence of ancient Hoabinhian technology from Northwest Thailand and examine connections between Hoabinhian technology and the innovation of other important Pleistocene technological processes such as radial core geometry. I present some claims about the evolutionary significance of the Hoabinhian and recommend future research priorities. Introduction The Hoabinhian represents a certain way of making stone artifacts, especially sumatraliths, during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene in island and mainland Southeast Asia. Although it has been a widely accepted and used concept in the region for several decades, its relationships to key patterns of technological and paleoenvironmental change both at a global scale and in adjacent regions such as East Asia, South Asia and Australia are currently poorly understood. What makes these relationships especially intriguing is that the geographical locations of Hoabinhian assemblages are at strategic points on the arc of dispersal from Africa to Australia.
    [Show full text]