Strategy and Response in Maritime Cultural Resource Management Della Aleta Scott-Ireton

Home , Chuuk Lagoon, Diver down flag, John Halsey (privateer), Save Ontario Shipwrecks, Wreck diving

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2005 Preserves, Parks, and Trails: Strategy and Response in Maritime Cultural Resource Management Della Aleta Scott-Ireton

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

PRESERVES, PARKS, AND TRAILS:

STRATEGY AND RESPONSE IN

MARITIME CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

DELLA ALETA SCOTT-IRETON

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2005

The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Della Aleta Scott-Ireton defended on October 31, 2005:

______Cheryl Ward Professor Directing Dissertation

______Sally McRorie Outside Committee Member

______Allys Palladino-Craig Outside Committee Member

______Michael Uzendoski Committee Member

______Glen Doran Committee Member

______Roger Smith Committee Member

______Margaret Leshikar-Denton Committee Member

Approved:

______Dean Falk, Chair, Department of Anthropology

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

This work is dedicated to my parents, Douglas and Aleta Scott, whose support and love has made everything possible. And to my husband, John Drew Ireton, whom I love.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of a number of people to whom I am greatly indebted. I thank my major professor Cheryl Ward for good advice and keeping me on track, and Allys Palladino- Craig, Michael Uzendoski, and Glen Doran for their experience, wisdom, and willingness to sit on my committee. Peggy Leshikar-Denton provided the impetus for the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail and shared her home and kitties during my many visits to the Islands; she became a dear friend through the course of the project. Roger Smith again gave to me his time, experience, vast knowledge of underwater archaeology and cultural resource management, support and encouragement. He is my colleague, mentor, and friend; I learn from him every day. At the Cayman Islands National Museum I especially thank Director Anita Ebanks for museum support and volunteers Sue and Robin Gibb for assisting in site visitation and selection. Dennis Denton helped in all steps of the trail project, made me welcome in his home, and shared his excellent wine. All members of the Trail Partners contributed their valuable time, unique talents, and good ideas, ultimately making the trail project an enjoyable and successful endeavor; my thanks to each of them. Maritime resource managers around the world shared their knowledge and experiences and I appreciate their candor and insight. In particular I thank Chris Amer, Charles Beeker, Art Cohn, John Halsey, Susan Langley, Daniel LaRoche, Richard Lawrence, Keith Meverden, Jim Spirek, Mark Wilde-Ramsing, and Joe Zarzynski. I thank my friends at work, in the field, and at school for ideas, advice, and sympathetic ears. Sincere gratitude to my family who make my world complete: Daddy, Mom, Dana, Jim, Rick, Diane, Cara, Lamar, and Shirley. Finally, for John – thank you for putting up with more than any husband ever should have to endure.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures...... vi Abstract ...... viii

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. MUSEOLOGY, MANAGEMENT, AND PUBLIC EDUCATION ...... 11

3. EXPERIENCE IN UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVES, SHIPWRECK PARKS, AND MARITIME HERITAGE TRAILS...... 42

4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS MARITIME HERITAGE TRAIL: A CASE STUDY ...... 76

5. STRATEGIES AND ISSUES ...... 98

6. CONCLUSION: MUSEOLOGY AND MARITIME SITES ...... 124

APPENDIX A...... 132

APPENDIX B...... 134

APPENDIX C ...... 136

REFERENCES...... 140

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...... 161

LIST OF FIGURES

1. A diver visits the wreck of SS Copenhagen, Pompano Beach, Florida...... 3

2. Divers explore the wreck of El Infante, galleon of the 1733 Spanish plate fleet wrecked in the Florida Keys ...... 22

3. Heritage tourists explore Castillo de San Marcos, St. Augustine, one of Florida’s premier heritage tourism attractions...... 28

4. Local people, tourists, and news crew speak with archaeologists recording the Ponte Vedra Wreck, Ponte Vedra, Florida...... 31

5. Historic photo of City of Hawkinsville, Suwannee River, Florida, and the bronze plaque designating the wreck as a State Underwater Archaeological Preserve...... 37

6. Florida’s Shipwreck Preserves poster features all underwater archaeological preserves around the state...... 49

7. Brochures for South Carolina’s Underwater Heritage Trails describe diving conditions ...... 55

8. Adelaide’s Underwater Heritage Trail features signage for the South Australia shipwreck Star of Greece; the red buoy marking the wreck is visible in the distance...... 59

9. The Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail Grand Cayman poster features photos and information about sites on Grand Cayman...... 86

10. The Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail Sister Islands poster features photos and information about sites on Cayman Brac and Little Cayman...... 87

11. Roadside signs for the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail correspond to information on the poster/brochures ...... 89

12. The wreck of Glamis on East End reef, Grand Cayman, will become the Cayman Islands’ first Shipwreck Preserve...... 95

13. Brochures are produced for each of Florida’s Underwater Archaeological Preserves...... 108

vii

ABSTRACT

One of the most pressing concerns facing archaeologists and cultural resource managers in the twenty-first century is how to protect cultural resources for meaningful research and future investigation while ensuring access to citizens who, in many cases, own the resource. In the face of the failure of legislation to protect cultural resources, public education and outreach programs appear to be the most effective tools available to managers. Maritime cultural resources are interpreted for the public with the aim of encouraging access, educating visitors, and preserving the resource. These are fine goals which, in most cases, are met. The problem, however, is that while interpreted in situ maritime resources often are promoted as underwater or open-air museums, they rarely are managed as such. Museological techniques and, especially, the theoretical approach of the New Museology can effectively be applied in the establishment and management of underwater archaeological preserves, shipwreck parks, and maritime heritage trails. This dissertation examines the history and new approaches of museology to provide a theoretical background, and explores existing preserve, park, and trail programs to provide an overview of current practices. Knowledge gained from practical experience together with the theoretical approach of New Museology is applied to the public interpretation of in situ maritime cultural resources. The result, the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail, is presented as a case study for the use of museum theory and working models in creating new heritage attractions. Strategies and issues in creating preserves, parks, and trails, both theoretical and practical, are discussed. This research contributes to the field of submerged and maritime cultural resource management a comprehensive, scholarly discussion of practical and theoretical strategies used in public interpretation of in situ maritime cultural resources

viii

and the testing of these strategies through a real-world case study. This dissertation provides cultural resource managers and archaeologists with a theoretical framework for increasing the perceived value of their resources through public involvement and effective interpretation, and with a practical reference for initiating and sustaining successful public outreach programs through heritage tourism at maritime historical sites.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Problem Orientation Programs aimed at educating the public about the value of archaeology are a paramount focus for organizations such as the Society for Historical Archaeology and the Archaeological Institute of America and help to inform people about the knowledge value of cultural remains and the information that can be retrieved through scientific investigation. Many archaeological deposits are located on public uplands or submerged bottomlands and management responsibility is vested with governmental agencies at the local, state, or federal level. These agencies are charged with protecting and managing the resources for the public benefit, including ensuring public access to resources. Terrestrial archaeological sites benefit from interpretational programs ranging from elaborate reconstruction and living-history programs such as those practiced at

1 Colonial Williamsburg and Jamestown in Virginia to informal tours and “public days” now incorporated at many archaeological projects. Long-standing volunteer programs encouraging public participation also are mainstays of modern archaeology, providing not only free labor but also a way to educate and involve the public in research. Only recently, however, have archaeologists and resource managers begun to consider submerged sites appropriate for similar treatment. The growth of sport diving as a popular recreational pursuit increases the potential volunteer base for underwater projects and the number of people interested in archaeology under water (Figure 1). The proliferation of divers also leads to additional pressure through visitation on already limited and fragile shipwrecks and other submerged sites. Additionally, there exists a pervasive attitude among sport divers, fostered by the popular media, that anything under water can be taken by the person who finds it, regardless of existing laws protecting submerged cultural resources. Public education and outreach efforts often, and intentionally, lead to the public’s desiring to visit the resource, resulting in heritage tourism becoming one of the fastest growing segments of the travel industry (Boniface and Fowler 1993; Jeffries 2001). While visitation generally is encouraged, managers must strive to ensure zero or low impact to the (often fragile) resource in order to create a sustainable attraction and to preserve the resource for future research and enjoyment. Education and interpretation strategies often are designed to explain the knowledge value of the resource to the public and to describe the benefits of preservation. Promoting maritime cultural resources, particularly shipwrecks, as heritage tourism attractions is a relatively new method of management. To date, little scholarly literature has been devoted to this topic. Published works include brief contributions describing individual efforts, primarily in conference proceedings (Giesecke 1989; Miller 1989; Peebles and Skinas 1989; Smith 1991). A book of edited papers presented in a conference symposium on underwater archaeological preserves, shipwreck parks, and maritime heritage trails is available (Spirek and Scott-Ireton 2003), as are some interpretation programs described in an encyclopedia (Delgado 1997). The strategies

Figure 1. A diver visits the wreck of SS Copenhagen, Pompano Beach, Florida. (Photograph courtesy of Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, 1993.)

3 presented in these volumes attest to the ingenuity of resource managers who often are faced with limited budgets and challenging environments. Maritime cultural resources are interpreted for the public with the aim of encouraging access, educating visitors, and preserving the resource. These are fine goals which, in most cases, are met. The problem, however, is that while interpreted in situ maritime resources often are promoted as underwater or open-air museums, they rarely are managed as such. I argue that museological techniques and, especially, the theoretical approach of the New Museology can be applied in the establishment and management of underwater archaeological preserves, shipwreck parks, and maritime heritage trails.

Purpose of Research In order to preserve known resources and to encourage the protection of newly discovered sites, archaeologists and resource managers must find ways of promoting the inherent value of submerged sites. Sport divers often find shipwrecks and, even more frequently, seek out known sites to visit. Unfortunately, many divers still view shipwrecks as repositories of treasure to be mined for personal gain and have a “finders-keepers” mentality for any object found under the water. Generations of television programs, movies, books, magazines, and other media reinforce this image, and the legal salvage of shipwrecks still permitted in some areas adds to the struggle faced by archaeologists. In recent years, conservation and preservation efforts by archaeologists were aided by developments in business and governmental arenas. Dive training agencies began to promote conservation of shipwrecks just as they promote conservation of natural resources such as manatees and coral reefs; the Professional Association of Diving Instructors’ (PADI) Respect Our Wrecks initiative through its Project AWARE is one such program (PADI 2005). Additionally, passage of the federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act in 1987 not only gives states title to shipwrecks in their waters, but also mandates management of the shipwrecks to include public access. The legally mandated requirement of public access to submerged and other maritime cultural sites is addressed by archaeologists in several ways. One of the most popular ways is

4 through the establishment of shipwreck parks, underwater archaeological preserves, and maritime heritage trails. Maritime parks, preserves, and trails all share two basic goals: 1) the in situ preservation of maritime resources; and 2) the interpretation of these resources for public education and enjoyment. The ideal end result is for the public, having experienced the park, preserve, or trail, to gain an understanding of the importance of the resource as an irreplaceable element of our common history and of the need to protect it and all others for future generations. Toward this end, archaeologists and resource managers seek to create an experience that not only is exciting enough to capture visitors’ time and attention, but is meaningful enough to inform the visitor as well. In this endeavor archaeologists can learn from museum and historic preservation professionals who develop and continue to improve effective methods of exhibition and interpretation for public audiences. Although many archaeologists and resource managers seem to have unwittingly followed one of the main tenets of New Museology by involving communities when establishing a new preserve or park, a theoretical framework for creating in situ maritime heritage attractions is missing. The interpretation of submerged resources in particular lacks a sound museological foundation for encouraging and controlling visitation, educating visitors, and promoting the message of preservation. Research in applying museum theory and techniques to non-traditional museums will provide archaeologists and resource managers with theoretical guidance and practical tools to use when establishing an in situ maritime resource as a heritage attraction.

Methodology This dissertation will examine the history and new approaches of museology to provide a theoretical background, and will explore existing preserve, park, and trail programs to provide an overview of current practices. Knowledge gained from practical experience together with the theoretical approach of New Museology is applied to the public interpretation of in situ maritime cultural resources. The result, the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail, is presented as a case study for the use of museum

5 theory and working models in creating new heritage attractions. Strategies and issues in creating preserves, parks, and trails, both theoretical and practical, are discussed. The concept of value is central to the analysis, focusing on the cultural issue of the value of historical sites and objects as links to the past (Lowenthal 1985; Weiner 1992; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998; Bell and Werner 2004), and the economic value of such sites as opportunities for heritage tourism (Burkart and Medlick 1981; Boniface and Fowler 1993). If not used for heritage tourism purposes, historical sites do not possess inherent value in terms of generating personal wealth; in particular, shipwrecks have utterly lost their intended economic potential. Cultural resources do possess inherent value as elements of social and cultural identity and may be considered inalienable objects which must not be given or sold (Godelier 1999, 2004).

Data Collection Data for this dissertation may be divided into two major categories. The first data category includes literature from the field of museology and museum theory surveyed to provide a foundation for the research project. This data category also includes experiences and materials generated by preserve, park, and trail programs developed in nine countries. Although relatively new in the field of submerged cultural resource management, these types of data reveal strategies that are tested and, in some cases, refined in various areas and environments. While little published scholarly information exists, many brochures, pamphlets, booklets, web sites, posters, and other literature generated for public consumption are available. This material, while not necessarily written or presented in a strictly scholarly manner, is nevertheless valuable in its presentation of the programs under study, including informational content, historical context, archaeological significance, and educational value. The dearth of scholarly information on what is becoming a primary means of managing maritime, and especially submerged, cultural resources is a key impetus of this dissertation. Interpretive material is collected, collated, analyzed, and compared to generate a discussion of interpretive strategies implemented on sites around the world in a variety of settings and environments. An assessment of the various strategies implemented and tested is presented. The assessment is based on contributions from resource

6 managers and on the author’s experience with the test case and during eleven years of managing submerged cultural resources for the state of Florida. The second data category incorporates primary information generated as part of the case study in creating the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail, undertaken as part of this research project. Practical experience, from planning to creation, is offered based on minutes from meetings, correspondence between the Maritime Heritage Trail Partners, brochure distribution data, visitation statistics, and records kept by the author. Problems encountered, solutions generated, and final results of the project are discussed. This research contributes to the field of submerged and maritime cultural resource management a comprehensive, scholarly discussion of practical and theoretical strategies used in public interpretation of in situ maritime cultural resources and the testing of these strategies through a real-world case study. This dissertation provides cultural resource managers and archaeologists with a theoretical framework for increasing the perceived value of their resources through public involvement and effective interpretation, and with a practical reference for initiating and sustaining successful public outreach programs through heritage tourism at maritime historical sites.

Description of Dissertation The dissertation is organized to follow a logical progression from identifying and explaining the problem, to presenting previous theoretical and practical work in the fields of museology and cultural resource management, to applying museum theory in the creation of a maritime heritage trail. An analysis of data collected as a result of the case study and experience in maritime cultural resource management is presented as a theoretical and practical model for the interpretation and promotion of maritime resources. A discussion of the project, data, and results concludes the dissertation. The following is an explanation of the information presented in each chapter. Chapter 2 focuses on museum theory and strategy and how these concepts may be applied to in situ maritime cultural resources. Because the majority of these resources are located in open air or submerged environments, as is the case with

7 maritime heritage trails and shipwreck parks and preserves, they may be considered to be museums in non-traditional settings (Fyfe and Ross 1996; Whitcomb 2003). Museum theory, museological strategies, methods of cultural resource management, and techniques of public education and interpretation are presented and discussed. Museum theory is an accepted element in museum and historic preservation studies and often concentrates on the material object as the focus of exhibition and interpretation strategies (Macdonald and Fyfe 1996; Henderson and Kaeppler 1997). The theoretical concept called “the New Museology” presents museums as societal components that both draw from and contribute to community identity (Vergo 1989; Bennett 1995; Weil 2002; Anderson 2004) and is of particular value in thinking about in situ maritime cultural resources as museums in non-traditional settings. This chapter considers the effect of resource interpretation on human behavior, that is, how methods of interpretation affect public perceptions of value pertaining to an object (shipwreck) that otherwise has lost its economic potential. Topics include exhibition and interpretation, heritage tourism, methods of presenting archaeology to the public, ethical considerations, and the field of cultural resource management. The concept of “value” and its economic, historical, and cultural connotations is explored. In particular, the value of historic site preservation is presented through examining why people consider archaeological resources to be worthy of the investment of time, energy, and money, and how the concept of value can be used to encourage preservation of archaeological resources. Chapter 3 presents an overview of underwater archaeological preserves, shipwreck parks, and maritime heritage trails around the United States and the world. Program histories, methodologies, and interpretive and educational strategies are described to provide a background for the practical work of establishing preserves, parks, and trails for public access and education. New directions for submerged and maritime cultural resource preservation and interpretation are discussed. The experiences and opinions of archaeologists experienced in managing maritime cultural resources as preserves, parks, and trails are presented as examples of the efficacy and effects of such programs.

8 Chapter 4 describes a case study in establishing a maritime heritage trail using the theoretical concepts of New Museology and practical ideas from other preserve, park, and trail programs. The project was conducted by the author and Margaret “Peggy” Leshikar-Denton, Cayman Islands National Archaeologist, in conjunction with governmental agencies and the public in the Cayman Islands, British West Indies. Experiences and events that occurred during the project to create the trail are presented, focusing especially on crucial theoretical and practical elements identified in earlier chapters and deemed essential for a successful outcome. Tactics involved in establishing the trail, including initial conception of the idea, research of sites, community involvement, development of interpretive literature and signage, and public outreach efforts, are described. Future directions for cultural resource management and maritime heritage tourism in the Cayman Islands are presented. Lessons learned over the approximately fifteen years of global preserve, park, and trail experience and tested through the establishment of the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail are analyzed and discussed in Chapter 5. As is inevitable in the early stages of a new endeavor, some strategies succeed while others do not meet all expectations. Based on the growth of some programs, the deterioration of others, and effects on the resource, certain elements appear to be crucial in the success of this type of public education effort in increasing the perceived value of submerged historic sites. These elements are discussed together with interpretation strategies, as well as issues and problems affecting managers and archaeologists in the presentation of maritime cultural resources to the public. Finally, Chapter 6 presents conclusions about the concepts of museology, value, and public education in submerged and maritime cultural resource management. The theoretical foundation of the New Museology is discussed as a framework for establishing and managing in situ maritime cultural resources as non-traditional museums. As the first to propose a theoretical approach for in situ maritime cultural resource management, the purpose of this dissertation is to present a new direction for the preservation and interpretation of these non-renewable resources. The advantages of interpreted in situ maritime sites as vehicles for changing and enhancing public perceptions of the value of shipwrecks and other maritime sites are discussed, as are

9 the disadvantages and future challenges. A model for developing preserves, parks, and trails is offered, combining the best elements of existing programs with suggestions, both theoretical and practical, for improvements on the premise.

CHAPTER 2

MUSEOLOGY, MANAGEMENT, AND PUBLIC EDUCATION

Museums engage the fascination of the public because they are about real things: the real airplane Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic, real ancient spear points used by Paleoindians, real plates used by Colonial Americans. Museums are explicit about what is genuine and what is imitation, and the public responds to that honesty with trust and interest (Thomas 2002:132). Visits to historic sites and museums help people feel connected to their past. At least part of the reason for this, according to one study, is visitors feel they discover “true” history at historic places that provide a sense of personal participation in the past not obtainable from books or television programs (Rosenzweig and Thelen 1998:32, 105). In situ maritime historical sites offer the same sort of attraction where visitors can see the tangible remains of maritime activities and learn about a part of the past in which they may otherwise not participate. In this dissertation I argue that museum theory can be meaningfully applied to the management of in situ maritime cultural resources interpreted for public education and enjoyment. Museums are loci for transmitting messages; because of the authoritative and legitimizing status of museums, the messages can be powerful tools for changing or reinforcing public opinion (Macdonald 1996:5). By regarding maritime terrestrial and underwater archaeological resources as museums in non-traditional settings, resource managers can use museum method and theory to transmit a message of preservation and protection rather than consumption and exploitation. This chapter examines strategy and theory of museology, resource management, heritage tourism, and education as applied to museums in non-traditional settings. How museum theory and practice relate to exhibition and interpretation, management and protection of cultural resources, and the enterprise of presenting archaeological sites to the public are explored. The chapter concludes with a discussion of value theory and

11 the concept of value as it relates to archaeological resources and their management and interpretation for the public. I define the “public,” in this dissertation, as people, often with interests in shipwrecks, underwater archaeology, maritime history and heritage, and historic preservation, who are the targets of education and interpretation initiatives.

Museology and Cultural Resource Management: Theory and Strategy

The following discussion explores the development of museum theory with emphasis on exhibition and interpretation methods and the museology of non-traditional museums. These elements of museum studies are particularly applicable to the public presentation of in situ maritime sites. The field of cultural resource management is introduced with heritage tourism and strategies for presenting archaeology to the public as background for the public interpretation of maritime cultural resources.

Museum Theory In the last century museums as establishments evolved from Victorian origins as buildings housing collections of curiosities to institutions presenting objects as elements of the past, present, and future with multiple interpretations (Impey and MacGregor 1985; Henderson and Kaeppler 1997:1). As early as 1917 museology pioneer John Cotton Dana (2004[1917]:21, 29) argued museums should serve a greater public good, should “broaden sympathies and multiply interests,” rather than simply house rare and expensive objects. In the 1940s Theodore Low (2004[1942]:43) called for museums to become “active institutions serving the total populations of their respective communities.” The modern museum is no longer a self-serving bastion for the display of random collections of objects, but rather is a “cultural institution in service to the public” (Anderson 2004:1). Museums have undergone a paradigm shift from being collection-driven to being visitor-centered, from “being about something to being for someone” (Weil 2002:30).

12 Early museum theory focused on critical ideological analyses of museums perceived as social regulatory establishments. For example, Marxist critiques present museums as purely political institutions of ruling-class authority, representing and reinforcing the tastes and values of the social elite (Witcomb 2003:2-3, 8). Foucaldian ideas depict museums as sites of power relations where the processes of dominant interests are performed (Sherman and Rogoff 1994:ix-x; Witcomb 2003:15). These views proposed a conscious manipulation by museum professionals to control and influence a gullible, passive audience. The idea that museums exist to perpetuate social hierarchies and to control the public proved to be narrow-minded in light of modern museum approaches to community involvement and service (Macdonald 1996:5). Pierre Bourdieu (1984) theorized that people who go to museums have the most cultural capital, that is, the education, taste, manners, and style, to understand museum exhibits and to know how to behave in museums (Merriman 1989:161). People who have acquired the cultural competence to understand museums feel comfortable in a museum setting and are most likely to visit museums. People without cultural capital are uncomfortable in museums, confused, and often overwhelmed, and therefore less likely to visit, he suggested. His theory does not account for the current popularity of museums among the public, or for the efforts of museologists to include all aspects of the community in museum programs (Merriman 1989:163). Contemporary museologists explore progressive theories that are more open and fluid, benefiting from many perspectives and able to absorb new ideas without being bound by rigid, power- centric constructs (Macdonald 1996:6). Much contemporary museum theory is concerned with questions about the changing character of museums, the evolution and efficacy of interpretive methods, the relationship between museums and their communities, and how displays and texts influence the visitor experience (Vergo 1989b; Karp et al. 1992; Bennett 1995; Macdonald and Fyfe 1996; Preziosi and Farago 2004). Case studies often are used to illustrate strategy (both successes and disappointments) in a field that frequently appreciates practical experience over theoretical discourse (Henderson and Kaeppler 1997; Witcomb 2003:3). Museology, the science and profession of museum

13 organization and management, contributes to the development of museums as locations where cultural and social messages are presented, questioned, challenged, and explored (Karp 1992:4; Macdonald 1996:2). Interpretive methods beyond simple identification labels encourage visitors to think about exhibited artifacts in terms of meaning, symbolism, and factual description rather than simply as objects. Museologists strive to make their museums significant to the surrounding community, to provide their communities with a service more valuable than simple existence to house collections (Weil 2002:4-5). The dedication to community service and relations is one of the major guiding principles of the theoretical perspective called the “New Museology” (Vergo 1989b). The New Museology focuses on the evolving mutual relationships between museums and communities, rather than on museums as sites of power relations (Witcomb 2003:79). For example, ways museums help to construct community identities by responding to the desires and needs of the community are explored as equal sides of a social equation (Karp et al. 1992). At the level of the individual museum, the curator becomes someone who, in addition to being an expert in ordering and organizing an exhibit of objects, also is capable of using their technical skills in assisting groups outside the museum environment to use museum resources to understand their past (Bennett 1995:104). In serving the community, museum professionals recognize the unique strengths, weaknesses, and needs that characterize the community and use this information to design programs for present and future community requirements (Gaither 1992:63). Museum theory and strategy, including the New Museology, is not without criticism and challenges. For example, while the need for museums to engage in community relations is recognized by museologists, who has the authority to speak for or to represent a community (Karp 1992:10)? There is no easy answer to this question; museum professionals can only strive to include and involve the various interest groups who make up the “community.” Museums and heritage sites also are criticized for limiting the past, and in some cases “silencing the past” (Trouillot 1995), through interpretive media that artificially organize and restrict history, presenting the past merely as a text of the present (Bennett 1995:129-130). Because museums operate in

14 the present and rely on interpretive media for education, this critique seems unavoidable. Presupposing a public who cannot, or will not, extrapolate, consider, use, contrast, and question interpretive materials, however, assumes a level of ignorance and credulity among museum-goers that also may be criticized. The New Museology recognizes that all museum displays and exhibits place a certain “construction upon history” that is created, sometimes unwittingly, by the experiences, education, cultural assumptions, and aspirations of makers of the display (Vergo 1989a:3; Riegel 1996:89). Uses and interpretations of the past seldom are “value neutral” (Fowler 1987:241). Political and social agendas shape the way sites and objects are interpreted and define what is featured and what is ignored (Lavine 1992:138; Macdonald 1996:14). This construct is not necessarily a negative attribute nor does it automatically mean the display is untrue or intentionally presents a false history. New Museologists recognize that multiple texts exist in museum settings and are an appropriate subject matter for study (Jordanova 1989:32). Ultimately, challenges in museum/community relations are unavoidable. Rather than viewing challenges as problems, museums can view challenges and critiques as opportunities to “engage in conversations with the shifting publics” who make up the museum audience (Lavine 1992:156). Elements of museum theory and museology are particularly relevant to management and public interpretation of in situ maritime archaeological resources as non-traditional museums. For example, museums are regarded as powerful elements for social discourse and as creative agencies that can offer and encourage different interpretations of long-held notions about art, culture, and history (Macdonald 1996:4). Resource managers and archaeologists can use museum authority to challenge public perception of shipwrecks, to encourage protection of non-renewable cultural resources, and to involve communities in the preservation and interpretation of their maritime heritage.

Museology of Non-Traditional Museums Just as museums evolved from collections of curiosities to institutions promoting the questioning and meaning of exhibits, the concept of what a museum is continues to

15 change. André Malraux (1978[1954]) introduced the notion of “museums without walls,” or imaginative museums composed of the ideas of art and aesthetics each person carries in the mind; an art book, for example, could be a museum without walls (Malraux 1978[1954]:14; Hetherington 1996:154). David Hurst Thomas (2002:132), curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, states, “…an archaeology museum is anything that publicly presents something important from the past.” The display of objects and entire sites in their original archaeological and/or historical contexts is another form of non-traditional museum without walls. The idea of exhibiting objects in their original locations is not new. As early as the late eighteenth century, antiquarians in France deplored the Napoleonic looting of art and archaeological sites to fill the halls of the Louvre (Sherman 1994:123). Arguing that objects have meaning only when in situ, early preservation proponents criticized museums as mausoleums that “killed” the object and its meaning; this issue remains a concern for museum professionals (Sherman 1994:123-124; Witcomb 2003:8). Traditional museums counter this critique through exhibitive and interpretive methods highlighting the object as part of a larger context and encouraging the viewer to consider alternative or symbolic meanings for the object. Archaeological resources exhibited in situ take advantage of contextual integrity by encouraging visitors to understand relationships between the site and its environment, to feel a direct connection with the content of the “display,” and to appreciate the knowledge available from a site preserved in context (Potter 1997:38-39). The first “open-air” museum at a historic site was opened in 1891 at the town of Skansen near Stockholm, Sweden, and the concept was transplanted to the United States in the 1920s and 30s (Bennett 1995:115; Murtagh 1997:90). Although terrestrial historical sites were considered appropriate candidates for non-traditional museums, the idea of submerged archaeological sites as underwater museums lagged far behind. One of the earliest published sources dedicated to the museology of materials from submerged contexts primarily is concerned with conservation methods and explains in great detail proper methods for care, handling, and storage of waterlogged objects in order to create static, traditional museum displays (Harrison 1981:139-141). Methods for effective interpretation or display of the artifacts, or for designing educational

16 programs based on the items, are not presented. Interpretation of maritime objects, including the ship itself, is discussed as a function of the traditional museum; the possibility of leaving the shipwreck in situ for diving and snorkeling visitors is not considered (Harrison 1981:144-145). Public interpretation and access to in situ archaeological resources owe some developmental history to open-air and open-water ecological parks and preserves. These areas protect natural resources, including wildlife, plant life, and geological features, while granting and encouraging public access to the resource in a controlled and sustainable manner. Ecologists recognize that allowing public access to resources encourages visitors to learn about them which, in turn, promotes appreciation and conservation (Andrews 1999:138). Environmental managers also pioneered directly involving the public, as trustees or stakeholders, in the management and conservation of natural resources (Griffith 2003). Ecological parks dedicated to submerged natural resources are growing in visitor popularity. In the United States, the federal National Marine Sanctuary Program, operated through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), includes over 18,000 square miles of ocean and Great Lakes waters encompassing a wide variety of natural and cultural resources and is dedicated to comprehensive resource protection and management (Terrell 1995; Broadwater 1997a:289-290). Florida’s John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, located in Key Largo, encompasses 25 miles of coral reef and each year hosts over a million visitors who enjoy and learn about coral reefs and their ecosystems (Calta 2005). The success of ecological parks and preserves in protecting natural resources while educating the public about the importance of conservation encouraged resource managers to adapt the idea for in situ cultural resources. Because museums without walls do not have the socially constructed boundaries of ownership associated with traditional museums, they often are contested spaces. Opinions are expressed through arguments about what the sites represent, appropriate use of the resource, and who should decide the answers to these questions (Hetherington 1996:157). In the case of shipwreck sites, for example, rights to use the resource are declared by groups as diverse as archaeologists, maritime historians,

17 fishing enthusiasts, sport divers, marine biologists, and survivors and victims’ families or their descendants. Each may have a legitimate claim that must be recognized by the resource manager of the site. Treasure hunters and commercial salvors also may make a claim to the shipwreck. While the removal of archaeological materials from shipwreck sites for commercial sale is unethical archaeologically, in some areas commercial salvage is lawfully permitted and salvage of historic wrecks will continue until the public demands that laws are changed. If the claim results in destruction of archaeological data, the power of the museum as an agent of public reform may be used to change opinion and educate the claimant about the site as an archaeological resource (Bennett 1998; Witcomb 2003:17). A significant attribute of archaeological resources exhibited in situ is they are never “finished,” a condition some museologists argue constrains displays in traditional museums (Porter 1996:113). Because of their location in ever-changing environments and changes wrought by natural influences, particularly for submerged resources, displays of archaeological sites are not finished or static. The visitor can construct new meanings with each viewing. For example, dramatic movement of sand at a shipwreck may cover or uncover features of the ship not previously seen, allowing the diver to better understand construction of the vessel or to realize that features covered by sand are better preserved than those exposed to currents and waves. Even if entirely covered by sand for a time, a site can illustrate the effects of natural phenomena on cultural objects. Open-air heritage museums sometimes are criticized for not providing visitors with sufficient information or interpretive latitude to allow the past as presented to be meaningfully related to their present. Some programs counter this critique by enabling and encouraging visitors to question the interpretation and the authorial voice behind the interpretation (Potter and Leone 1992:477-481). Colonial Williamsburg, one of the largest open-air heritage sites in the world, has been criticized for “creating” a past that did not exist and presenting that past as accurate (Handler and Gable 1997). While this critique is correct in that the “real” past is long gone and cannot be visited, it seems to discount the fact that Colonial Williamsburg (and other heritage sites) strives to present what is known about the past in the most realistic and accurate way possible based on

18 continuing archaeological and historical research. Challenges to knowing and interpreting the “real” past are recognized and often are explicitly stated for visitors. Ultimately, a visitor to an in situ archaeological site becomes an active participant rather than merely a passive spectator in the management of the site as a museum. Due to the increased level of interaction with the exhibit, and in the case of underwater and remote open-air museums the lack of on-site professional staff, the visitor is asked to fill the role of interpreter, curator, educator, and trustee and may even become part of the exhibit itself if viewed by others (Hetherington 1996:173). Visitors to in situ museums often are out of sight of curators and other visitors and simply are trusted to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the preservation goals of the museum. The museum as a “micro-world” where visitors are “constantly surveyed” by staff who control their behavior does not apply (Bennett 1995:69). The continued existence of the in situ museum depends on the visitor taking an active part in its preservation. Visitors are, in most cases, simply trusted to participate in the site’s conservation due to their belief, fostered by interpretation, that the site is valuable and should be left intact for future visitors.

Exhibition and Interpretation In Presenting Archaeology to the Public, Potter and Chabot (1997:48) state, “…most stories about the past are trying, in one way or another, to get people in the present to do one thing or another.” In a traditional museum setting, the “stories about the past” are in the exhibition and interpretation. Display of the object and accompanying interpretive messages tell stories that may encourage the visitor to see the object in a different way or to think about the object outside its “normal” context. For example, dinner plates often make up part of the exhibit at historic house museums and are evocative of everyday meals. A plate displayed to show the careful repair of a crack encourages visitors to think about the plates as prized possessions, family heirlooms, or objects of social status. Experience in managing in situ maritime archaeological sites, especially submerged sites, indicates the story often is the need for preservation and protection of the resource because managers see and must respond to evidence of looting,

19 vandalism, and uninformed “souvenir collecting” (Zarzynski et al. 1996; Keith Meverden 2004, pers. comm.). Interpretive literature often includes variations of the “take only photos and leave only bubbles” message. Resource managers seize the opportunity provided by interpretive methods to encourage the public to value shipwrecks and other maritime sites as historical resources. The interpreted shipwreck can tell a compelling story about, among other themes, maritime heritage, social history, ecological conservation, and knowledge through archaeology. Political discourse in the form of messages conveyed through interpretation takes place at all museums, and museums are encouraged to be open and honest about their messages (Greenhalgh 1989:95). In situ museums may have multiple messages or texts, as do traditional museums, and may be read with multiple meanings (Smith 1989:12). A ship that wrecks, for example, has meaning as a technological accomplishment, representation of martial or economic authority, means of transportation for goods and people, earner of profit, symbol of loss and tragedy, icon of aesthetic beauty, artifact mine, grave site, ecological reef, fishing spot, and underwater museum, among others. Each meaning generated through the ship’s “life history” (Appadurai 1986:5) is legitimate, accurate, and has value for the viewer. Any or all of the meanings can be featured through interpretation. Effective public interpretation of in situ cultural resources helps to illustrate their value as inalienable objects in the public conscience. Placing objects in traditional museums signifies this value because the mode of display creates a visual context that shapes the way audiences see and comprehend the object (Roberts 2004:224). Objects behind glass or in a case or specially lighted are perceived as inherently valuable (either intrinsically or culturally) (Kurin 1997:64-65). For example, the Hope Diamond is displayed by the National Museum of Natural History in an alarmed and armored case, an illustration of its intrinsic and cultural value. In very few cases are shipwrecks entirely raised, conserved, and placed in an exhibit (the Tudor warship Mary Rose and the Swedish warship Vasa are among well- known exceptions [Franzén 1974; Marsden 2003]). The vast majority of shipwrecks accessible to the public are “displayed” in situ at the location where they collided with the sea floor (Figure 2). Archaeologists and managers employ interpretive strategies,

20 rather than exhibition techniques, to illustrate and emphasize the cultural value of the shipwreck. In situ displays are described as “immersive and environmental” (Kirshenblatt- Gimblett 1998:3). Nothing could better describe shipwrecks and other maritime sites in their original contexts. In situ resources provide a context of meaning often missing in static displays of objects behind glass in a traditional museum. Museum visitors seek the human element in the static object and a way to feel connected to the maker or owner of an artifact (Bower 1995:36). Shipwrecks as tangible remains of what often was a dramatic and tragic human event can evoke powerful feelings in those who visit. Divers see the ship and feel connected to those who sailed and sank on it; they relate their watery experience to those who were lost (Bower 1995:37). Visitors traveling a maritime heritage trail experience the same places past maritime peoples encountered, allowing them to feel connected to and a part of the maritime heritage. Cultural resources are a part of both the past and the present, allowing the contemporary viewer to feel he or she has experienced the past through a real and direct contact in the present (Lipe 1984:4). Museum professionals recognize two “hallmarks” of display of an object, whether a vase or a shipwreck: the foreignness of objects to contexts of presentation and the location of meaning at their destinations (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998:1). ‘Foreignness of objects to contexts of presentation’ describes objects placed in an exhibit out of the context where they were used. The displayed object no longer possesses its original use or its original meaning. ‘Location of meaning’ illustrates the object’s change of meaning by being located in a new place. Shipwrecks displayed and interpreted in situ are by definition foreign to the context of presentation by virtue of the ship’s location at the bottom of the sea rather than floating on it. Their location under water is their location of meaning: How did it get there? What were the effects of sinking (including personal, economic, and political)? What did the sinking mean to the people involved? Artifacts and displays are made relevant to the experiences and identities of the visitor

Figure 2. Divers explore the wreck of El Infante, galleon of the 1733 Spanish plate fleet wrecked in the Florida Keys. (Photograph courtesy of Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, 1983.)

22 through interpretation. The best interpretation methods seize visitors’ attention and interest by enabling them to relate the site to their own framework of knowledge and experience (Roberts 2004:219). The context of meaning created by interpretation aids the viewer in understanding the value of the past and the importance of preserving it for future generations (Bower 1995:38). A shipwreck displayed as an exhibit of itself and interpreted as a non-renewable historical resource is a compelling message for preservation. Interpretation also can impart cautionary messages or relate information that is not entirely correct. For example, a popular interpretation of England’s Stonehenge involves its supposed use as a sort of ancient astronomical computer and much archaeological evidence has been used to support this theory (Fowler 1987:236). The goal of saving the physical remains of the past can be presented in such a way that resulting interpretive literature appeals to public concepts of heritage, ancestry, and nationalistic pride (Arnold 1990); the patriotic displays of presidents’ homes are an example. While not necessarily a poor form of interpretation, this method can lead to the reinforcement of stereotypes and culture-historical preconceptions (Ucko 2000:ix). Nevertheless, interpretive materials are the primary way resource managers educate and inform the public about submerged cultural resources. Intellectual access to the past and to the diversity of human experience are, ultimately, the goal of all archaeological interpretations for the public (McManus 2000:xiii).

Cultural/Historical Resource Management Archaeologists play a significant role in museum operation and interpretation, not only as the traditional procurers of items for display but more importantly as experts in material culture who help curators and museum professionals with interpretation and education initiatives. Archaeologists specialize in speaking for people who no longer have a voice and in enabling static, mute objects to communicate their histories (Kennedy 2002:xiii). Archaeologists and cultural resource managers also find themselves in positions akin to museum professionals when charged with managing and interpreting in situ archaeological resources for the public. The field of cultural resource management grew from the necessity of preserving finite archaeological

23 materials for future scientific research and, particularly for resources located on public lands, public enjoyment. While archaeologists recognize the need for resource management, the field often is viewed as an atheoretical and purely practical branch of archaeology where little research into theories of cultural resource management is conducted (Carman 1995:19; Drennan and Mora 2001:3). Much cultural resource management (CRM), particularly in the United States, depends on private archaeology firms that specialize in survey, inventory, and mitigation. These firms are contracted to satisfy requirements of state and federal regulations protecting archaeological resources threatened by development both on land and under water. Some firms include public education and interpretation initiatives in contracted scopes of work (James et al. 2003; Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 2003). Governmental agencies at the state and federal levels practice cultural resource management as mandated through legislation and often focus on preservation and management of resources specifically for public benefit rather than for strictly scientific research purposes. Confusion exists about whether archaeological remains are records or resources. Some scholars define the archaeological record as material that is the focus of research into the past and define resources as archaeological materials that are used (Carman et al. 1995a:10). An early proponent of cultural resource management defined cultural resources as materials having “potential value or use in the present or future” and pointed out that not all materials have the same resource potential (Lipe 1984:2). “Resource” is the term most often employed by managers of archaeological and cultural material. Managers recognize that “resource” carries overtones of commercialization. A paradox of the CRM field is that although publicly owned cultural resources are not commodities eligible for sale or trade (Carman 1995:24), they often are managed like commodities with emphases on conservation of finite resources and preservation of fragile resources and best use of the resource for the public benefit. When managers promote heritage to encourage and increase visitation, resources are marketed like commodities; the resources are presented as products and visitors become customers (Bower 1995:34).

24 Cultural resource management is described as “…a process by which contested issues are resolved in favor of specific values” (Firth 1995:52). Historic preservation professionals propose cultural resources be managed in accordance with their relative significance (Forrest 2002:8). That is, resources judged to be scarce, especially fragile, or of heightened historical and/or archaeological importance, or in other words more valuable, should be managed in a more conservative manner than those resources that are abundant, sturdy, or of limited importance. This simple rule of thumb, while conceptually useful, often is difficult to employ on a practical level. For example, who should decide which resource is significant and which is more expendable? Additionally, what is significant in one place and time may not be in another (Kristiansen 1989:27). The archaeologist or manager responsible for an individual cultural resource must determine the best plan of action for the resource in question and then must implement the plan. Ideally, the best course of action is resolved with advice from stakeholders, those who are interested and affected. Stakeholders often are members of the public who own the resource and who require the manager to ensure access and interpretation for even the most fragile and significant of sites. In some cases, stakeholders include those whose intentions are not aligned with archaeological ethics or public benefit. For example, treasure hunters and commercial salvors are concerned with management plans developed for shipwrecks and may go to some length to ensure that their interests are represented (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration et al. 1998:17-21). The ideal management plan sought by resource managers is one that balances access and appropriate use with steps to preserve the resource, thereby balancing values of public access and preservation in the present and future. Archaeologists, through their recognized expertise, can influence public opinion to contribute to preservation efforts so that resources may be used and enjoyed by future generations (Bower 1995:34). As a result of the development and growth of cultural resource management in both commercial and governmental spheres in the United States, the field of CRM sometimes is criticized as imposing a “western hegemony” on archaeology because managers may believe their methods and solutions have application the world over (Byrne 1991; Carman et al. 1995b:237). While imposing western-style cultural resource

25 management on archaeological resources regardless of location and sociopolitical situation is a narrow-minded and probably ineffectual management method, experienced managers and archaeologists can assist archaeologists in other nations to develop management strategies. In particular, experience in public education initiatives as part of archaeological resource management may benefit developing programs so that time and limited funds are not wasted by repeating unsuccessful strategies (Kelly 2003:vii-viii).

Heritage Tourism The United Nations General Assembly designated the year 1967 as International Tourism Year. In describing the importance of tourism the UN stated, “…tourism is a basic and most desirable human activity deserving the praise and encouragement of all peoples and all governments” (Burkart and Medlick 1981:59). In stating this opinion the United Nations recognized that tourism not only is a recognized human quest but also is advantageous in terms of the economic development of the destination. For example, travel and tourism revenue makes up approximately 6% of the annual gross national product of the United States (Jeffries 2001:20), or approximately $720 billion. Tourism is a major industry for several states including Florida and California, two of the wealthiest states in the Union. Although private corporations such as Disney and Busch operate popular tourist destinations, the longest tradition of official promotion of tourism is municipal, dating to the middle of the nineteenth century and focusing on local historical and cultural sites, structures, and monuments (Jeffries 2001:121). This was the beginning of what now is termed heritage tourism (Boniface and Fowler 1993). As the industry of tourism diversified, it spawned a large range of specialized attractions and destinations catering to the needs and desires of distinct market segments. Each segment consists of people with particular motives and interests who congregate in specific areas possessing the attractions they seek (Jeffries 2001:133). Heritage tourism is one of the fastest growing segments of the tourism industry, ranking alongside other specialty tourist draws such as environmental and educational tourism (which heritage tourism often incorporates as well). In 1999, the World Tourism

26 Organization reported that 37% of global tourism was cultural/heritage tourism and that this figure was expected to grow (Richards 2000:1). Contemporary tourism is described as a “quest for the other” (Selwyn 1996; Burns 1999:21) as tourists seek new sights, locations, and experiences. People interested in heritage tourism must travel to areas featuring attractions of historical interest (Figure 3). For example, eastern Virginia depends on its abundance of colonial sites (Williamsburg, Jamestown) and historic battlefields (Manassas, Yorktown) for its heritage tourism industry. Heritage and tourism are collaborative – heritage causes locations to become destinations and the trappings of tourism make the destinations economically feasible. The concept of “heritage” is dependent upon display and interpretation to give a dead location, culture, or economy a second life as an exhibit of itself (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998:7, 151). Methods by which this is accomplished, including interpretational accuracy, entertainment factor, and sustainable management, are the determining factors for successful education, preservation, and visitation. The growth of heritage tourism and its attendant economic benefits encourages ever more communities to promote their pasts to lure tourists. In this climate, sites and exhibits must be authentic and high-quality to attract visitors and to sustain their interest. Credibility can be maintained only if visitors are told explicitly what is real and what is re-created. Archaeologists are vital to this effort. Poorly explained sites that do not provide the best possible experience for every visitor ultimately have a negative impact on every other historic site (Slick 2002:222). Archaeology can provide authenticity to objects and sites, not only by identifying age and cultural context, but also in the larger sense of providing a connection to “real things” of the past. This concept is crucial for interpreters who use authenticity to help shape the visitor’s encounter (Lipe 2002:22). Furthermore, authenticity as an aspect of heritage tourism is used to draw visitors seeking a unique experience for their limited leisure time. Studies in leisure theory within the last decade indicate that the pace of leisure is increasing (Rojek 1995). In response to pressures in the workplace and other aspects of everyday life people seek forms of leisure that are fun and entertaining. Leisure activities involving learning and intellectual experiences may suffer as a result. To successfully compete with theme parks and other fun-oriented leisure attractions,

Figure 3. Heritage tourists explore Castillo de San Marcos, St. Augustine, one of Florida’s premier heritage tourism attractions. (Photograph by Ray Stanyard; courtesy of Florida Division of Historical Resources, 1997.)

28 museums and heritage attractions often choose to align with the “ideal” fun and entertaining experience (Scott 2000:122). Tourism in general, and heritage tourism in particular, strives to provide an experience that is “different” from that which the visitor is accustomed to encountering (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998:152). Heritage sites, including museums and cultural resources interpreted in situ, offer two experiences that other leisure attractions cannot. The experience is authentic because the visitor has contact with actual objects of the past. The experience has value because heritage sites can be shared with others to create collective memories and to make new meanings, making heritage attractions “…a type of value experience not available elsewhere” (Scott 2000:122-123). A major attribute of promoting interpreted in situ submerged archaeological resources as leisure attractions is that the resources combine the growing heritage tourism market with the increasing diving tourism market. Because most diving destinations feature natural resources and aquatic life, they also are sites for ecological tourism. According to a survey performed in 2003 by the Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI), divers as a demographic tend to be well educated and affluent, attributes making divers more likely to travel to exotic locations to pursue their chosen sport (PADI 2003). Sport diving as a hobby is neither inexpensive to initiate nor to continue and requires several weeks of classroom and water instruction to become officially certified by a recognized training agency such as PADI, the National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI), or Scuba Schools International (SSI). Once certified, many sport divers travel to diving destinations featuring warm, clear water and interesting sea life and underwater attractions. By combining heritage, ecological, and educational tourism, shipwreck parks and underwater archeological preserves fill a tourism niche that no other attraction can match. Shipwrecks are out of the realm of most people’s everyday experiences and, consequently, are seen as exotic or romantic or adventurous, thus fulfilling the need for difference and providing the value of difference for visitors (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998:152). Archaeologists and resource managers can extrapolate from the value of difference to encourage visitors to think about other values of shipwrecks, such as their value to history, social identity, and the economy.

29 Presenting Archaeology to the Public While archaeological research may produce results relating to the larger context of cultural change, all archaeology is, first and foremost, local (Smith and Ehrenhard 2002:123). Sites are discovered and protected, or looted and destroyed, at the local level and in the context of surrounding communities’ attitudes toward their pasts. Communities have different pasts and are made up of various “audiences” who want, and need, to know different things about their pasts (Potter 1990:610). These audiences include, among others, school children, advanced students, civic organizations, indigenous groups, divers and snorkelers, media associations, historical societies, tourism promoters, and the community at large, all of whom make up “the public.” All major professional archaeological associations, including the Society for Historical Archaeology, the Society for American Archaeology, the Archaeological Institute of America, the American Anthropological Association, and the Register of Professional Archaeologists, have statements within their codes of ethics requiring their members to share information with the public (Smith and Ehrenhard 2002:126). Public education and outreach are considered professional obligations along with ethical research and reporting of results (Jameson 2003). Members of the public are encouraged to indulge their interest and curiosity, and archaeologists respond by providing information (Figure 4). Nevertheless, as recently as 2002 one critic stated, “It is not yet a convention of the profession to assume public discourse to be an essential aspect of the work” (Kennedy 2002:xiii). In addition, little research has been or is conducted into how best to communicate about the past to the public (Ucko 2000:ix-x). At least one archaeologist writes, “Theory alone is not meaty enough to touch the hearts and minds of the people” (South 1997:55), implying archaeologists need to communicate broader cultural meanings and synthesized information of more interest to the general public in addition to focusing on the minutiae of their research. Despite these criticisms of current public outreach efforts, archaeologists recognize that public education in archaeology is indelibly tied to the quality of scientific research conducted (Jameson 1997). If archaeological research does not produce a better understanding of the past, or if the field loses its scientific credibility where the public is concerned, the

Figure 4. Local people, tourists, and news crew speak with archaeologists recording the Ponte Vedra Wreck, Ponte Vedra, Florida. (Photograph courtesy of Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, 2003.)

31 value of archaeology will decrease in the eyes and minds of the public. Interest will wane, to the overall detriment of the field (Lipe 2002:20). Public education is proposed as one of the most powerful tools available to historic preservationists and resource managers and is declared much more effective than “… the enactment of apparently draconian measures which cannot be properly enforced” (Prott and O’Keefe 1981:177). The purpose behind the establishment of underwater archaeological preserves, shipwreck parks, and maritime heritage trails is to encourage the public to grasp the value of preservation instead of consumption of a non-renewable resource through exposure to and education about shipwrecks and other maritime cultural resources. A vast majority of interpretive media created about in situ maritime sites is aimed toward this end. Although archaeological sites, including shipwrecks, in the United States and in many other countries are protected under federal and state law (Skeates 2000; Spirek and Scott-Ireton 2003), this approach does not ensure the protection of shipwrecks (and other submerged cultural resources) from the effects of treasure hunters, souvenir seekers, construction companies, and well- meaning but uninformed divers. Educating the diving public seems to be the only viable alternative to legislation which, although based on good intentions, generally is ineffective and unenforceable (Flatman 2003:148).

Public Education: Explaining Value

The concept that some objects are socially endowed with cultural value that is symbolic and/or sacred and that cannot be reduced to monetary or materialistic worth is recognized by anthropologists (Bell and Werner 2004:xi). Renowned economic anthropologist Maurice Godelier (1999:8) states, “No society, no identity can survive over time and provide a foundation for the individuals or groups that make up a society if there are no fixed points, realities that are exempted (provisionally but lastingly) from the exchange of gifts or from trade.” At least some of these fixed points are a society’s history and heritage, the tangible remains of its past as a reminder of its origins and development. For modern western cultures these include, but are not limited to, historic

32 sites, structures, and buildings, archaeological remains, and shipwrecks. The challenge for archaeologists and cultural resource managers is to explain to the public why and how archaeological and historical resources are culturally valuable. Museological techniques of exhibition and interpretation are the way to explain the message, but the message itself is about value. The basic theory of value describes how people define what is “beautiful, or worthwhile, or important” about their world (Graeber 2001:ix). Anthropologists consider and illustrate value in different ways. Sociologically, value is described as what is desirable, or what should be desirable. Economically, value is the measurement of how much an object is desired, gauged by the amount given up to obtain it (Graeber 2001:1- 3). Marx (1990[1887, 1976]:129) defined value as relative to commodities and derived from the human labor that goes into their production. Alternatively, Simmel (2004[1907]:66, 78-81) stated that value is not based on labor but rather on desire and exchange. As inalienable cultural fixed points, however, cultural resources are exempt from exchange as commodities or as objects of desire. Instead, their value is rooted in, as Weiner (1992:8-12) proposes, achieving their preservation and fearing their loss. This concept of value, which casts cultural resources as inalienable possessions of society deserving protection, is, I propose, the most useful for cultural resource managers. Explaining to the public the value, or worth, of cultural resources so that their preservation is achieved is a primary goal for archaeologists and resource managers. Most cultures place symbolic value on the objects of their past; government- sponsored museums and protected historic sites are a common manifestation of this value. Many nations enact laws and legislation to protect their history from being damaged, destroyed, or sold for profit (Skeates 2000:42-54), although the looting of antiquities is a continuing problem and laws are only as effective as the extent to which they are obeyed and enforced (Schadla Hall 1996:12). Symbolic resources, particularly those with antiquity, are used by nations in various ways. The growing industry of heritage tourism increasingly is used as a means of enhancing local economies as communities encourage visitors to experience local museums, restored historic buildings, and cultural events. Additionally, historical resources occasionally are

33 manipulated by the state as a means of legitimizing power and authority, and as a way to justify nationalistic ideologies (Fowler 1987:229). Archaeological remains, for example, may be used to “prove” ancestral ownership of land or dominance over other groups (Arnold 1990; Ucko 2000:x). Research into the value of archaeological resources tends to focus on social processes involved in ascribing value, although much of the literature pertaining to management of archaeological resources addresses valuing the resource in terms of determining significance for legal purposes (Carman et al. 1995a:6-7). Archaeologists and resource managers describe the value of cultural resources in various ways, including “types” such as economic value, aesthetic value, associative/symbolic value, and informational value (Lipe 1984:3). Types offer ways to discuss value although archaeologists recognize that value is not contained within the resource but rather is ascribed to the resource through social contexts such as the economic marketplace, cultural traditions, and academic research (Carman 1995:26). In particular, resource managers stress the symbolic value of cultural resources as tangible connections to the past in a way that written or narrated histories cannot convey (Lipe 1984:4).

The Value of Shipwrecks Ships that sink lose all intended and expected value. A shipwreck, by definition, is a failure: by virtue of the fact that the ship is no longer floating, it has failed in its intended job and purpose. All economic value expected from the transport and exchange of people and goods is lost the moment the vessel sinks. Perhaps the recently sunken ship is salvaged, its parts sold for reuse or for scrap, and some economic value is realized. Sometimes the ship itself is worth less than the cargo it carried and the hull is destroyed to salvage the contents. Once resting undisturbed on the ocean floor, however, the ship - over time - becomes something more and its context of value is changed. Some degree of deterioration is unavoidable (Muckelroy 1978:165), but the shipwreck eventually reaches a state of equilibrium with its environment and, if left undisturbed, represents a microcosm of the culture that created it and a gift from the past that is invaluable as an element of the archaeological record. Shipwrecks can represent several kinds of value, including cultural, historical,

34 archaeological, anthropological, aesthetic, recreational, and monetary (Delgado 1988:5). Archaeologists value shipwrecks as relatively closed-context sites that contain items known to be associated at a moment in time, useful for study as a feature unto itself and for comparison to other sites and artifacts. Cultural resource managers encourage the public to understand the values of shipwrecks to foster appreciation in the present and to encourage preservation for future research and enjoyment. Despite their value as inalienable cultural objects, shipwrecks often are targets for commercial salvage and treasure hunting ventures – legalized activities in many areas, even where unauthorized excavation or disturbance of publicly owned terrestrial sites is strictly prohibited (Florida Historical Resources Act: Rule 1A-31). Shipwrecks often have an image, fostered by the popular media which romanticizes treasure hunting, of being merely repositories of fabulous riches. Archaeologists and cultural resource managers struggle to change this fallacious perception by educating the public about the broader cultural value of shipwrecks as repositories of information and links to the past rather than as commodities that can be bought and sold. As long as shipwrecks remain legal targets for commercial salvage enterprises, they do not have status as inalienable cultural objects. As social fixed points, historic shipwrecks should be exempted from sale or trade. Because shipwrecks are located in an alien environment, the general public often disconnects their cultural value from the more easily accepted value of cultural sites on land (Jasinski 1999:18). Shipwrecks are out of sight and out of mind, and out of reach for a large segment of the public. Examples are the World War II sites on the South Pacific island of Chuuk (Truk) in the Federated States of Micronesia. These sites have significant cultural value for the native islanders as reminders of their suffering during the war. The remains of bunkers, gun emplacements, and other war relics are left alone and in situ, without commemorative markers or educational literature, as symbols of a hard past (Jeffery 2004:60). The Japanese WWII shipwrecks littering the bottom of Chuuk Lagoon, however, do not seem to produce the same emotional impact. They are promoted as one of the world’s top diving destinations (Scuba Diving 2004:53), and the diving tourism industry in Chuuk is the primary economic mechanism for the region. This situation has been interpreted to mean that the terrestrial sites are “revered” and

35 therefore are left alone. The shipwrecks are “promoted, developed, and disturbed, and thus are not revered” (Jeffery 2004:62). The wrecks are regarded merely as dive sites and places to enjoy by the majority of visitors (primarily Americans) although Japanese visitors view them as war graves and places to pay respect (Jeffery 2004:62). Little archaeological or scientific importance is ascribed to the shipwrecks of Chuuk Lagoon (Jeffery 2004:63). Perhaps World War II sites in general are still too new to be considered archaeologically significant. Despite their relatively young age, however, the ships in the lagoon can provide information that is lost, including details of Japanese equipment and shipping, as well as data pertaining to the American bombing that sank the vessels (Jeffery 2004:63). Nevertheless, the shipwrecks have a different, even lesser, cultural importance to the Chuuk islanders than land-based war sites and are less valued. Many visitors adopt similar attitudes, and the shipwrecks suffer from casual souvenir collecting. Regulations enacted by the local government to prevent looting are aimed primarily at preserving the wrecks as recreational attractions to sustain diving tourism rather than aimed at preserving their cultural and historical integrity (Jeffery 2004:58). The lack of interpretation for diving visitors explaining how the shipwrecks relate to WWII dynamics reinforces the notion that the wrecks are important merely as interesting places to dive. Ships that lose their value may become significant in a different way. The value of a shipwreck fluctuates with each event or transaction in its history and what once was discarded may recover its value in another arena (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998:259-260). For example, the sternwheeler City of Hawkinsville, the largest and last steamboat to ply Florida’s Suwannee River, once was abandoned by its owner as valueless, made obsolete by the construction of the cross-Florida railroad (Smith 1991:44). Today, Hawkinsville has acquired a new value and is now a heritage attraction by virtue of its age (over 50 years, a criteria of state law and the National Register of Historic Places), existence (there is no other Suwannee steamboat as intact), and designation and interpretation (through its listing on the National Register and by the state of Florida as an Underwater Archaeological Preserve) (Figure 5). The story of Hawkinsville is distributed throughout the United States on brochures and posters and serves to educate the public about the history of the southern steamboat era (Scott-Ireton

Figure 5. Historic photo of City of Hawkinsville, Suwannee River, Florida, and the bronze plaque designating the wreck as a State Underwater Archaeological Preserve. (Photographs courtesy of Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, 1991.)

37 2003a:99). Although its economic value as a transporter of goods and people is long past, the steamboat still serves the community economically as an attraction for heritage and recreational tourism and symbolically as one of the last remnants of an important and extinct commercial history and transformed technology.

The Value of Protecting and Preserving Submerged Cultural Sites As the notion that “everything is for sale” gains acceptance in the global economy, anthropologists and heritage resource managers must examine more closely the social role of non-exchangeable items in a culture of commerce (Godelier 2004:8). Shipwrecks in many parts of the world routinely are commercially salvaged by treasure hunters who often are romanticized by the popular media and viewed as adventurous entrepreneurs by the general public (Cockrell 1990). One of the best ways archaeologists have found to stop this practice is to change public perception, through education, of the value of the resource, from having value only as repositories of things that can be sold to having value as inalienable heritage sites (Harris 2002:59; Scott- Ireton 2003a:95). Loss of a society’s inalienable objects results in more than just loss of the material item itself; the society also loses its symbolic fixed points. Loss of inalienable objects equals loss of heritage and can be considered a warning of social damage such as the destruction of identity and social cohesion (Arnould et al. 2004:211). The process of protecting cultural and historical sites, through legislation or education, results in adding value to them as places of reverence and as symbols of a particular society’s past (Carman 1995:22). The designation of sites as important and protected places of heritage imbues an existing place or object with new value, even if it has ceased to be viable in its original context. This is accomplished by featuring its values of “pastness,” uniqueness, authenticity, and difference (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998:150). The ultimate archaeological value, for any site, is the information that the site can provide about the human past. In the United States, this value is defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979. ARPA’s definition ascribes a monetary value to archaeological resources for the purposes of prosecution and punishment of looters and vandals of cultural sites [43 CFR § 7.14(a)]:

38 …the archaeological value of any archaeological resource involved in a violation…shall be the value of the information associated with the archaeological resource. This value shall be appraised in terms of the costs of the retrieval of the scientific information which would have been obtainable prior to the violation.

Costs for preparing a research design, carrying out field excavations, conservation and analysis, and preparing reports can be included, as can the “fair market value” of the artifact(s) illegally removed. Ethically, this practical necessity is anathema to archaeologists, who hold that all elements of the archaeological record are priceless remnants of the human past. Putting a price on an artifact not only degrades its value as a piece of cultural heritage, but also contributes to the proliferation of the illicit antiquities market. Nevertheless, the judicial system needs a method to determine punitive value for vandalism of archaeological sites in order to repair damage and to help deter future crime. At least one scholar argues that methods of protecting archaeological resources should not begin by ascribing a monetary value to artifacts. Rather, the process should stem from an inherent social mandate to protect important classes of artifacts (Carman 1993:34). For comparative purposes, in the United Kingdom archaeological value is assessed by how the resource in question meets two main criteria: 1) significance within the structure of an established research agenda; and 2) significance as representative of the archaeological record (Wenban-Smith 1995:148). The issue of cultural significance, rather than monetary worth, is used to determine archaeological value. Weiner (1992:104) writes, “Someone must attest to the authentication of a possession and to the history that surrounds it. Those whose knowledge is honored by others enhance or diminish what an inalienable possession represents.” Archaeologists, as specialists educated to recognize and interpret the inalienable objects of society’s past, are in a prime position to enhance or diminish what those objects mean, their perceived symbolic value, and how they should be treated. Expert knowledge is trusted by members of modern society and archaeologists can use that trust in their knowledge to influence and change value systems (Darvill 1995:42). Archaeologists have the knowledge to instill in the public an appreciation for the science of archaeology and for the objects that archaeologists study, including shipwrecks.

39 Some scholars argue that archaeologists have a duty to share their research and findings with the public to educate people about both the knowledge gained regarding their heritage and the value of archaeology in obtaining that knowledge (Smith and Ehrenhard 2002:126; Jameson 2003:154). Other scholars state that archaeologists have a duty to ensure the preservation of cultural resources for future generations to use, learn from, and enjoy (Darvill 1995:46).

Conclusion

Maritime cultural resources exhibited in situ can benefit from strategies and methods developed by museologists for interpretation, education, museum management, and community involvement. The New Museology stresses the importance of the interrelationship between museums and their communities and encourages museum professionals to become facilitators for community service and education. These theoretical principles provide a model for cultural resource managers and archaeologists to follow in developing museums in non-traditional settings for public access. The involvement of the community in development, creation, promotion, and continuing management of underwater archaeological preserves, shipwreck parks, and maritime heritage trails is crucial and is explored further in subsequent chapters. Archaeologists and resource managers engaged in the public interpretation of in situ archaeological sites have the opportunity to benefit from theoretical and practical experiences gained by professionals in museology, cultural resource management, and heritage tourism. By synthesizing the knowledge and skills of these fields, those charged with archaeological resource management and public education can profit from lessons learned over many years and in many situations. Allowances and modifications must be made for resources in non-traditional interpretive environments – open air or under water - but the theory and method remains the same. The foundation of preservation and management of in situ maritime cultural resources is the idea that these materials have value that is important socially and that is worth preserving for the future. Weiner’s theory of value related to preservation of

40 cultural objects and places from our past and fear of their loss is a useful tool for archaeologists and resource managers. The goal of interpretation is to explain this value to the public so the site in question (and other sites) is protected. Effective interpretation and exhibition are the keys to successful transmission of the idea. Interpretive materials about the past try to get the audience to do something in the present. In the case of archeological sites, that “something” usually is related to site preservation. Explanations of value incorporate site history, significance, and the role of archaeology as a tool to learn about the past. When these concepts are presented to the public in an interesting, entertaining manner, the message of value is easily transmitted. People who believe archaeological sites are worth saving make the management of cultural resources an easier task for archaeologists. Eventually, site preservation is encompassed in a positive cycle of explanation, acceptance, and protection. Archaeological sites preserved through effective management and interpretation can be promoted for visitation as part of the booming heritage tourism market, leading to economic opportunities for the surrounding communities. Local people actively involved in the preservation of their own heritage and in how that heritage is used and sustained are fulfilling the goals of New Museology by building relationships between community and museum that transcend power relations and ideological manipulation.

CHAPTER 3

EXPERIENCE IN UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVES, SHIPWRECK PARKS, AND MARITIME HERITAGE TRAILS

The establishment of underwater archaeological preserves, shipwreck parks, and maritime heritage trails is a relatively new endeavor in cultural resource management, particularly for submerged resources. Although plans for preserving and promoting submerged cultural resources through public education and interpretation were introduced as early as the late 1970s (Council of Europe 1978:21-25), nearly a decade passed before the establishment of the first underwater archaeological preserves. Programs to provide public access to interpreted shipwrecks and other historic maritime sites began to develop in the mid-1980s and continue to grow today (Spirek and Scott- Ireton 2003). Depending on location, public access to archaeological resources, including those underwater, often is mandated by laws specifying that these resources belong to the public and that managers must ensure accessibility. Sustainable use of cultural resources is dependent upon educating the public about the nature of the sites, which often are fragile and susceptible to damage, whether unwitting or intentional. In the case of submerged sites, educational efforts focus on the diving public. Public education efforts generally include printed and electronic media as well as other types of interpretive literature and site markers. In promoting access to submerged sites, however, managers should be aware of the risks inherent in scuba diving and the nature of the environment surrounding their shipwrecks so that visitors are not led into dangerous situations. The previous chapter presented a theoretical foundation for public interpretation of archaeological and historical resources. This chapter presents practical applications

42 of public access, education, and interpretation strategies employed for maritime cultural resources. Preserve, park, and trail programs are discussed together with information about their specific management procedures, educational materials, and interpretive endeavors. Table 1 illustrates and compares program features. The chapter concludes with new directions for public access and interpretation and with a discussion of opinions and experiences shared by archaeologists and resource managers engaged in establishing and maintaining preserve, park, and trail programs. Data was collected from a variety of sources, including published works, promotional and interpretive literature, web sites, site visits, and personal communication with program managers. Information presented for each program is current as of the time of writing and encompasses all known maritime heritage trails, shipwreck parks, and underwater archaeological preserves. Programs are presented geographically by state or country and are in chronological order, from earliest established to most recent, to provide a temporal progression of development as later programs built on the experiences of previous endeavors. In researching terrestrial and submerged maritime cultural resources interpreted and promoted for public enjoyment, no explicit discussion of museological theory was encountered. Many practical reasons for establishing preserves, parks, and trails were given, such as the need for controlling access, promoting preservation and sustainable use of the resource(s), and encouraging divers to think of shipwrecks as non-renewable historical resources, but in no case did a manager or published source indicate concepts of museum theory were consciously examined or applied. In several instances, managers spoke of interpreted in situ maritime resources as “open-air museums” or “museums in the sea” but theories of museum management did not appear to be considered during program development. Although not explicitly stated, interpretive methods, both portable brochures and guides and permanent markers and plaques, borrow concepts derived from strategies developed in traditional museums. Significantly, despite the lack of an overt grounding in museological theory, nearly all of the programs presented here appear to ascribe to one of the major tenets of the New Museology – the importance of community involvement and ownership in creating a meaningful museum.

43 TABLE 1. Preserve, Park, and Trail Programs Around the World

s ,

s e s t r c s e d r e e l t e d u d k e s n i d o o g n o e u u s r r o a o e P o e s i G e e n r B t , t N R r R r s k , g a - u s a s i t g r e l e e t r r s i o t e t t a w S a n n e a e / i i T i l r s a c a m r i e r r M r e s r L h e t / t w w u t r g d o Y u i i e r s r s p d e e h e e o o s b e e e y n P n i c k / d d m s r b R d d i i M o r e r U h e o a e e a n n u u u r p e x e P R U T U G G B B W M E F O Michigan XX X XX Vermont X XXXX X Florida XXX XXXXX X North Carolina X XXXXX New York X X XXXX X California XXXX Maryland X XXX XX South Carolina XXXXX Wisconsin XXX X X X Puerto Rico XXX NOAA Nat'l Marine XX XXXXX Sanctuaries South Australia XXX X X Western Australia XX XXX Victoria XX X X New South Wales XXXX Tasmania XXX Canada X XXX XX Scotland X XX XXX England X X XXXX X Finland XXXXXXX Israel XXXX XX X Curacao X X X XXX Dominican Republic XX X Cayman Islands XX XXX

44 TABLE 1. - continued.

s n d e e i y s e t s e c i a g e k e g r i t t S t a r i B r h i u - / a n t L e m O i S ) o n S / n o o

t i r s s o m y a O t w s 5 ( t B 5 n t e e m t e b l a a i k e v r d n o o n i c u R e c c n c u r e i a a l l m B n f o u R O e S o c h - h e r a p n L t r t r s T d n m n n v e w / o l i i e u s e a e t s p t s R r m o h v l a a h e e i r s t l t t o o v o u o n e i i h e n O G C E L M I S S S C B P M Michigan XXXXXX Vermont XXXX X Florida XX XXXX North Carolina XX XX New York X XXX X California XXX X Maryland XX XX X South Carolina XX XX XX Wisconsin XXXX Puerto Rico XXXX NOAA Nat'l Marine X XXXX Sanctuaries South Australia XXX Western Australia XXXX Victoria XXXX New South Wales XXXX Tasmania XXXX Canada XXXX Scotland XXX England XX XXX Finland XXX Israel XXXX Curacao XX XX X Dominican Republic XX XX X Cayman Islands XXXX

45 United States

In 1987 the federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act (Pub.L. 100-298; 43 U.S.C. 2101- 2106) was passed granting title to historic shipwrecks to the states in whose waters they are imbedded. The Act charged states with management responsibility and recommended the creation of underwater parks at shipwreck sites to ensure public access. The first proposal for implementing state management plans based on the Act included suggested criteria for developing parks and preserves (Partners for Livable Places and the National Trust for Historic Preservation 1988; Jefferson 1988:41). The official guidelines for the Abandoned Shipwreck Act state explicitly that underwater parks and preserves should be established and that interpretive materials should be created for divers and non-divers (National Park Service 1990:55 FR 50116). Several states responded to the Act by implementing programs to promote and interpret historic shipwrecks and other submerged cultural resources in their waters. Nine states, one territory, and a federal sanctuary program utilize formal, government-sponsored plans of interpretation to educate the public, to encourage visitation to submerged historical sites, and to foster preservation efforts. An overview of United States programs, in order of date begun, follows.

Michigan The State of Michigan’s Departments of State and Natural Resources established its first preserves in 1981 with the designation of the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve in Lake Huron and the Alger Great Lakes State Bottomland Preserve in Lake Superior. Both preserves contain a number of shipwrecks, as well as opportunities to feature the maritime cultural landscape of Great Lakes shipping (Vrana and Vander Stoep 2003:20-22). The Michigan Underwater Preserve Council, Inc. (MUPC), a not-for-profit private organization, assisted in early efforts to create, promote, and manage the underwater preserves, including publishing interpretive literature and installing uniform buoys at shipwreck sites (MUPC 1993). Eleven preserves exist and are featured in a booklet published by the state (Halsey 1990; Halsey and Lindquist 2003:107). Submerged sites featured in the preserves include a canal schooner, a

46 freighter, and docks. Archaeological investigations of the sites, including site plans and non-disturbance recording, helped to produce information used in interpretive materials (Halsey 1990). In 2000, the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) designated the area of Thunder Bay a National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve. The Sanctuary/Preserve is jointly managed by the State of Michigan and NOAA, with input from local communities (Vrana and Vander Stoep 2003:22). The Alger and other natural Preserves are managed by the state, which monitors cultural sites within the Preserves. Interpretive literature includes a guide and underwater signage for one site, Bermuda, created through contract with a private firm, and an underwater plaque at another site, Sport. Additionally, the Alger Preserve hosts a private entrepreneur who operates a glass-bottomed tour boat to take non-divers to see shipwrecks visible in the clear water (Halsey and Lindquist 2003:107, 114-117).

Vermont The State of Vermont’s Division for Historic Preservation began the Vermont Underwater Historic Preserve Program in 1985 with the designation of three shipwrecks as preserves. Now called the Lake Champlain Underwater Historic Preserve Program, the number of sites has increased to seven including sailing canal boats and the nation’s only known horse-powered ferry (Cohn 2003:85, 88). Vermont’s Preserves are established by the state with input from a formal Underwater Preserve Advisory Committee which considers preserve-related issues and makes recommendations to the state. The Lake Champlain Maritime Museum and various university programs help with archaeological and historical research and recording, producing scholarly publications and reports of investigations (Bratten 2002; Cohn 1995; Cohn and True 1992; Crisman and Cohn 1993). Trained personnel, called Underwater Preserve Monitors, patrol the sites during summer months to monitor diver activities and to offer advice and emergency services. Divers are asked to register each season so that visitation statistics can be gathered. A program brochure presenting individual site information and diving protocol is distributed to the registrants (Arthur B. Cohn 2004, pers. comm.). Each shipwreck is marked with a seasonal mooring buoy

47 that helps to prevent anchor damage. Signage on the shipwreck identifies the site and asks for diver help to preserve the wreck (Cohn 2003:88, 86). State officials have considered turning the Preserve Program over to a private, non-profit organization or perhaps coordinating with the State of New York to combine their respective preserve systems in Lake Champlain, but to date neither has occurred.

Florida The State of Florida’s program of Underwater Archaeological Preserves is managed through the Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Archaeological Research. The program began in 1987 with the establishment of a shipwreck park at the site of one of the 1715 Spanish plate fleet wrecks (Smith 1988:95- 96, 1991:43). To date, the preserve system consists of eleven historic shipwrecks interpreted especially for divers and snorkelers (Figure 6). The preserve sites are referred to as “museums in the sea” and range in age and type from a colonial Spanish galleon, to the nation’s oldest battleship, USS Massachusetts (BB-2), to a German racing yacht wrecked in the twentieth century (Scott-Ireton 2003a:95-98). The Florida Preserve program is based on state and community partnerships wherein the state responds to local nominations for new preserves and the community is consulted for advice and evidence of local support for the proposed preserve. State personnel, during 15 years of experience, developed an effective step-by-step process for creating preserves (Appendix A).

1. A shipwreck is nominated by a member of the public to become a preserve. 2. The wreck is inspected to determine if it meets the necessary criteria: in State waters recognizable features accessible to public identity and history verifiable safe diving conditions plentiful marine life 3. If the shipwreck meets the criteria it becomes a Preserve Candidate. 4. Local businesses and civic organizations are approached to determine level of local support. 5. A community support organization is formed to help drive establishment.

Figure 6. Florida’s Shipwreck Preserves poster features all underwater archaeological preserves around the state. (Image courtesy of Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research.)

49 6. Archaeological and historical research is completed. 7. An official Proposal for the new preserve is presented to the community and any questions or concerns are addressed. 8. Public support for the Proposal indicates the preserve is accepted. 9. An opening ceremony is held. 10. Interpretive materials are prepared and distributed. 11. A cooperative management plan is developed by the state and the community support organization.

Once a site is determined to be suitable to become a preserve, based on established criteria, state personnel work with local people through a community support organization to research and record the shipwreck. Archaeological and historical information is presented to the public, civic organizations, and local media in an official proposal to establish the preserve (Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research 1992, 2000). Once the wreck is established as a preserve, the community, with assistance from the state, is primarily responsible for management and monitoring. Interpretive materials consist of a brochure and laminated site guide for each wreck, a comprehensive poster, a web site, and a bronze plaque placed on the wreck site; additionally, most preserves also are interpreted through a shore-based exhibit in a public building near the site. All preserve shipwrecks also are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the Underwater Archaeological Preserve program, the Division also developed and manages the Florida Maritime Heritage Trail. The trail is divided into six themes: Historic Shipwrecks, Lighthouses, Coastal Forts, Ports, Coastal Communities, and Coastal Environments. Each theme is interpreted through a comprehensive website and a poster/brochure with images on one side and information about individual sites on the other. Although many of the sites featured on the trail are open for public visitation, it primarily is an “information trail” consisting of literature rather than a driving or walking trail because visiting every site around the state is not feasible for the average visitor.

50 North Carolina The State of North Carolina currently has one Historic Shipwreck Preserve at the site of USS Huron, wrecked in 1877. Created by the Underwater Archaeology Branch within the Department of Cultural Resources’ Division of Archives and History, the Preserve was opened in 1991. The state worked with the U.S. Navy’s Naval Historical Center to manage the shipwreck through an official Memorandum of Agreement (Lawrence 2003:66). The preserve was established by the state utilizing work performed on the shipwreck as part of an academic research project which provided an accurate site plan and detailed vessel history (Friday 1988). Local volunteer assistance was used as well. A formal partnership established with the community directly on-shore, Nags Head, was instrumental in creation of the preserve. The town agreed to be responsible for continuing management of the preserve including the maintenance of seasonal marker buoys and the exhibit and the preparation of a yearly report regarding visitation and any changes to the site (Lawrence 2003:67, Richard W. Lawrence 2004, pers. comm.). Interpretive materials include a brochure, a shore-based display in a gazebo located at the beach access, an underwater commemorative marker at the wreck site, and a traveling exhibit. USS Huron also is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

New York New York’s Submerged Heritage Preserves program is administered by the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation, although monitoring responsibilities and installation of site equipment are undertaken by the not-for-profit organization Bateaux Below, Inc. The program began in 1993 with the establishment of “The Sunken Fleet of 1758” Preserve, a group of seven wooden watercraft intentionally sunk by British forces, and “The Forward” Preserve, a 1906 gasoline-powered launch, both in Lake George (Zarzynski et al. 1996:36; Zarzynski 1997:463-464). In 1994, the nation’s oldest intact warship, the 1758 radeau Land Tortoise, was added to the preserve system (Zarzynski and Abbass 1997:238). A replica bateau was placed at “The Sunken Fleet of 1758” site in 1997 to enhance the preserve and to test theories about colonial scuttling methods (Zarzynski 2002:82). In 1998, “The Forward” Preserve was expanded

51 and transformed into “The Forward Underwater Classroom.” The steamer Lake Champlain II became New York’s first preserve in Lake Champlain in 1998 (Cohn 2003:88). All of the sites were recorded and researched with volunteer assistance. Preserve booklets for Lake George and Lake Champlain are available and provide site information, location maps, mooring instructions, and emergency procedures. The sites are marked with mooring buoys and with guidelines and underwater signage to aid divers in touring the sunken vessels (Zarzynski 1997:464). Due to its historical significance and fragility, access to the “Land Tortoise – A 1758 Floating Gun Battery” Preserve is more strictly controlled. Divers are required to obtain a permit for a specific date and time to visit the shipwreck, and the wreck is encircled by a barrier perimeter to prevent divers getting too close (Zarzynski et al. 1996:36-37). Despite these precautions, damage to the radeau occurs (Zarzynski et al. 1996:39). Unique among underwater preserves, “The Forward Underwater Classroom” is used as an underwater education facility with stations that describe lake geology and vegetation, explain zebra mussel infestation, and have permanent instruments to measure temperature and water transparency, among other activities (Zarzynski 2002:84). Two of Lake George’s preserves are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and Land Tortoise also has National Historic Landmark status. Lake Champlain’s Champlain II Preserve is likewise listed on the National Register of Historic Places (Joseph Zarzynski 2004, pers. comm.).

California The Emerald Bay Historic Barges State Park was opened as California’s first underwater shipwreck park in 1994. Located on the California shore of Lake Tahoe, the park is managed by the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation. Historic resources in the park consist of two large early twentieth-century wooden barges used to transport cargo on the lake (Indiana University 2001). The barges are well-preserved in the cold, fresh water of the lake. Smaller sunken vessels are included within the state park but are not interpreted for visitors. The underwater shipwreck park was established with assistance from Indiana University and the Los Angeles Maritime Museum. A mooring buoy allows easy access

52 for boaters and a submerged interpretive panel provides historical information about the barges for diving visitors (Indiana University 2001).

Maryland The State of Maryland currently has one historic shipwreck preserve with several others under consideration. The program is operated through the Maryland Historic Trust’s Office of Archaeology, specifically the Maryland Maritime Archaeology Program. Opened in 1995, Maryland’s preserve is unique - a World War II German submarine, U- 1105, surrendered at the close of the war and sunk in the Potomac River (Pohuski and Shomette 1994; Langley 2003:46). The preserve was established through a cooperative agreement between the State of Maryland and the U.S. Navy which owns the wreck. Additionally, the state partnered with the county adjacent to the wreck site to provide monitoring services, host an exhibit of artifacts, and distribute educational materials. The non-profit Maritime Archaeological and Historical Society (MAHS) aids in monitoring the site and its marker buoy (Langley 2003:48). Due to its location in deep, dark water with high currents and low visibility, the preserve is not often visited. Interpretation efforts include a shore- based exhibit, a brochure, web site, and information printed on the marker buoy. Divers are requested to “check-in” via radio and are asked to submit an information form to help track visitor numbers, although this is not always done (Langley 2003:49).

South Carolina The State of South Carolina’s program of heritage trails is administered through the Maritime Research Division of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA) at the University of South Carolina. At this writing, two trails are in place: a paddling trail on the Ashley River, opened in 1995, with thirteen sites interpreted for canoers and kayakers, and a trail on the Cooper River, opened in 1999, with six sites for divers. Each trail consists of submerged cultural remains including shipwrecks and landing areas as well as opportunities to visit terrestrial interpreted historic sites such as restored plantations (Spirek and Harris 2003:165-172).

53 Both trails were created by SCIAA as a way to manage intertidal submerged resources; the Ashley River trail was fostered through a state-wide heritage tourism initiative. Volunteer assistance was used in recording, researching, and producing archaeological reports about the submerged sites (Harris, Moss, and Naylor 1993; Spirek and Harris 2003:170). Despite local and volunteer involvement, initial response from the local sport diving community was ambivalent until the need for pro-active management was explained (Spirek and Harris 2003:169). SCIAA is responsible for management of the trails including monitoring and maintenance of the shipwrecks and repairing or replacing mooring buoys and guidelines (James D. Spirek 2004, pers. comm.). Interpretive material consists of a promotional brochure (Figure 7) and laminated slates that illustrate the natural and cultural history of the area, provide details of the shipwrecks, and offer tips for safe diving in the dark, swift water.

Wisconsin The Wisconsin Historical Society’s Maritime Preservation and Archaeology Program and the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute jointly created in 2000 a system of maritime heritage trails featuring submerged and terrestrial sites from Wisconsin’s maritime past, primarily those in Lakes Michigan and Superior. The trails are located in four areas of the state, Lower Lake Michigan, Mid Lake Michigan, Green Bay & Door County, and Lake Superior, and include a variety of attractions including shipwrecks, floating historic vessels, lighthouses, museums, waterfront parks, and historic markers (University of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute 2003a). The Wisconsin Maritime Trails were established with assistance from volunteer and avocational groups and academic programs to record the shipwrecks (Cooper 1991). The trails continue to be managed with the assistance of individual volunteers and regional organizations such as the Wisconsin Underwater Archaeological Association, the Great Lakes Shipwreck Research Foundation, and the Great Lakes Shipwreck Preservation Society (Keith Meverden 2004, pers. comm.). These organizations promote protection of shipwrecks through zero-impact diving, strict observance of laws regarding cultural resources, and self-policing practices (University of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute 2003b). The trails are interpreted for

Figure 7. Brochures for South Carolina’s Underwater Heritage Trails describe diving conditions. (Image courtesy of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.)

55 divers and non-divers primarily through a comprehensive web site, although most individual sites have additional information available to visitors in the form of shore-side signage (Keith Meverden 2004, pers. comm.). Eighteen shipwrecks on the trails are marked with mooring buoys; visitors’ guides in the form of waterproof slates with site plans, diving information, and vessel histories are available as well (University of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute 2003c).

Puerto Rico Puerto Rico first explored the idea of interpreting historic shipwrecks around the island in the 1990s using Florida’s Underwater Archaeological Preserves as a model. The “National Underwater Parks” were intended to be administered through the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture. Proposals were made to interpret the shipwrecks Alicante and Antonio Lopez but the projects never were completed (Roger C. Smith 2005, pers. comm.). In 2002, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, worked with the Historic Preservation Officer of Puerto Rico to record, interpret, and relocate the remains of two historic vessels located during a survey in preparation for the dredging of San Juan Harbor (Michael C. Krivor 2004, pers. comm.). The remains of the iron-hulled steamer Manuela and the side-wheel paddleboat Cristóbal Colón were recorded by archaeologists with Panamerican Consultants, Inc., a contract archaeology firm (Jameson et al. 2003). Once an accurate site plan was generated, the shipwrecks were removed in pieces to a location off-shore of San Juan to serve as an artificial reef and an historic shipwreck dive site. A brochure, printed in both English and Spanish, describes the vessels’ histories and the relocation project (Panamerican Consultants 2003). No formal, systematic monitoring plan exists for the transplanted shipwrecks, although personnel with Panamerican Consultants periodically visit the site to check its condition and note any changes (Michael C. Krivor 2005, pers. comm.).

National Marine Sanctuaries The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Sanctuaries and Reserves Division hosts the National Marine Sanctuary Program under the

56 auspices of the National Marine Sanctuary Act of 1972. The Sanctuaries are intended to protect and promote special ecological, historical, recreational, and aesthetic marine resources in the nation’s waters (Terrell 2003:151). To date, fourteen Sanctuaries exist around the country in diverse environments and with a variety of resources. The Sanctuary Program’s mission is to manage marine areas of special significance in a way that enables multiple uses while promoting sustainable utilization of both ecological and cultural resources. Most of the National Marine Sanctuaries boast cultural resources, particularly shipwrecks, as part of their resource base and several have initiated public interpretation programs (Terrell 1995, Bruce G. Terrell 2004, pers. comm.). The Monitor National Marine Sanctuary, designated in 1975, is the nation’s first Sanctuary and was created especially to protect the wreck of USS Monitor, the Union gunboat famed for its battle with CSS Virginia (aka Merrimac). Because the wreck site is too deep for conventional sport diving and underwater interpretation, archaeological activities focus on preserving the deteriorating shipwreck as much as possible (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2003a). Portions of the wreck, including the distinctive turret, were recovered and conserved for display (Broadwater 1997b:281- 282). In 1998, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary entered into a formal partnership with the State of Florida’s Department of State to manage submerged historical resources within its waters. Specifically stated within the agreement is that the parties would establish a system of underwater parks and shipwreck trails (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration et al. 1998:8-9). In response, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary developed a Shipwreck Trail consisting of nine interpreted shipwrecks. Sites were selected and advice solicited from local Keys dive and charter operators and volunteers are used to monitor the sites. Interpretive materials include site guides, identification buoys, and a web site; a land-based exhibit and community outreach program are planned (Terrell 2003:156, 162). The nation’s newest sanctuary, designated in 2000, is the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in Lake Huron, jointly managed by NOAA and the State of Michigan. With nearly 120 shipwrecks believed to lie within the sanctuary, preserving and

57 promoting submerged cultural resources is a primary objective. A volunteer Sanctuary Advisory Council provides recommendations relating to diving, interpretation, management options, and education efforts. An interpreted shipwreck trail and interpretation center is envisioned for the sanctuary (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2003b).

Australia

Australia’s network of shipwreck trails is one of the largest efforts in public education and management of submerged cultural resources in the world. A major objective of the country’s 1985 Australian Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Program is the identification and implementation of methods for promoting Australia’s shipwrecks to the public (Smith 2003:121). The creation of shipwreck trails is in response to the Program with efforts sponsored by individual states and administered through either local maritime museums or governmental resource management agencies. The first trail was implemented by the Western Australian Maritime Museum in 1981 at Rottnest Island (Smith 2003:121-122). To date, however, a concerted effort has not been made to coordinate education and preservation efforts across the states (Philippou and Staniforth 2003:137; Smith 2003:125). If such an effort were made, existing trails could be linked resulting in significant stretches of coastline being included in a trail. The following is an overview of the state programs.

South Australia Heritage South Australia manages the state’s South Australian Maritime Heritage Program. Since the late 1980s the Program created eight maritime heritage trails featuring nearly 200 shipwrecks. Interpretive literature includes pamphlets and, more recently, waterproof booklets with site plans of accessible shipwrecks, historical information, and maps of on-shore signage (Figure 8). The most recent trail boasts a comprehensive booklet with data about the shipwrecks, as well as related maritime

BUOY

Figure 8. Adelaide’s Underwater Heritage Trail features signage for the South Australia shipwreck Star of Greece; the red buoy marking the wreck is visible in the distance. (Photograph by Della Scott-Ireton, 2003.)

59 cultural landscape attractions such as lighthouses and jetties, stories of maritime disasters, and other facts about the region (Philippou and Staniforth 2003:139).

Western Australia The Western Australian Maritime Museum manages the state’s maritime archaeology program, including twenty established heritage trails. Most of the trails were created in the early 1990s with assistance from high school students in work experience programs. Featured sites include approximately 200 shipwrecks and associated objects (Philippou and Staniforth 2003:138). In the case of the first Rottnest Island Trail, shipwrecks surrounding the island are interpreted through above-ground and underwater signage (Smith 2003:122-123). Literature produced for additional trails includes pamphlets with varying amounts of information; some contain instructions for diving, some have maps, and some provide links to other forms of interpretive media and attractions (Philippou and Staniforth 2003:138). Western Australia has the only pamphlet featuring trail sites accessible to the physically challenged.

Victoria The Maritime Heritage Unit of Heritage Victoria, the governmental agency responsible for historic preservation in the state, manages the Victorian Historic Shipwrecks Program. The program consists of eight trails and two larger regional trails linking some of the original trails. Interpretation of shipwrecks along the trails consists of pamphlets containing historical information, site plans, and often underwater and/or artifact photographs. Heritage Victoria also produced the Underwater Shipwreck Discovery Trail Kit, a collection of pamphlets in waterproof casings (Philippou and Staniforth 2003:141). Web-based components of Victoria’s trails, including the Discovery Kit, are under development (Cassandra Philippou 2004, pers. comm.).

New South Wales In contrast to the other states, New South Wales’s program of maritime heritage trails is not managed through the state Heritage Office. Rather, the Heritage Office produced guidelines to assist other organizations, such as community groups and local

60 governments, to develop trails. Eight trails are designated featuring bronze plaques, signs, and some underwater markers. One pamphlet describes three of the trails located in one city. The lack of mandatory consistency in design of the interpretive literature is intended to allow creative freedom for the organizations establishing the trails (Philippou and Staniforth 2003:142).

Tasmania In 2001 Tasmania completed a shipwreck trail on King Island, created by a consortium of local and governmental organizations. The King Island Maritime Trail features a web site and stops around the island with interpretive signage about various shipwrecks (King Island Online Access Centre 2002). The island also has a shore- based trail devoted to whaling stations.

Northern Territory and Queensland These two states currently are in the process of establishing maritime heritage trails. Queensland’s trail is intended to be a web-based information trail with some sites marked and will be hosted through a partnership between the state government and the Museum of Tropical North Queensland (Cassandra Philippou 2004, pers. comm.).

Canada

Canada has, despite its size, relatively few initiatives offering interpreted visitor access to historic shipwrecks (Daniel LaRoche 2004, pers. comm.). Some interpreted sites are administered through the Canadian government’s Parks Canada Agency, which hosts an archaeology team responsible for cultural resources in the entire National Parks and Historic Sites system. Traditionally, public access to archaeological sites located in submerged environments was through museum displays and exhibits, often the best means of interpretation due to the fragile nature of the remains and to poor diving conditions at the wreck locations. In the early 1980s the province of Ontario created Fathom Five Provincial Park in Lake Huron to protect historic shipwrecks from

61 looting through a program of resource inventory, documentation, and monitoring (McClellan 1984). In 1987, Fathom Five Park became Canada’s first National Marine Park. The park is devoted to preserving natural and cultural resources, including promoting public access to 27 historic shipwrecks within the park. Diving activities are monitored and limited accessibility restrictions are in place, including visitation schedules and requiring divers to register annually (LaRoche 2003:37-38). Also in 1987, controlled public access to historic shipwrecks in Louisbourg Harbor, Nova Scotia, was permitted. Parks Canada archaeologists located, identified, and recorded many historic shipwrecks in the harbor (Stevens 1989); this information was used to develop informational material. Local dive shops permit diving visitors and agree to enforce diving regulations developed by Parks Canada archaeologists (LaRoche 2003:33). While numbers of visitors at Louisbourg Harbor have dropped over the years, Fathom Five hosts 8,000 to 9,000 divers and over 40,000 people on glass-bottomed and tour boat excursions. An introduction to the wrecks and proper diving techniques is offered upon registration and all wrecks are marked with mooring buoys. A website and leaflet with information about the ships is available and a small interpretation center provides basic information about natural and cultural resources within the park (LaRoche 2003:38-39). Additionally, some avocational underwater archaeology groups in Canada, with the support of the government, initiated programs to protect popular historic shipwreck dive sites. These groups, including Save Ontario’s Shipwrecks (SOS) and Protect Ontario Wrecks (POW), work with governmental agencies to install mooring buoys, erect interpretive panels, and publish informative pamphlets (LaRoche 2003:39-40, Daniel LaRoche 2004, pers. comm.).

United Kingdom

The countries of the United Kingdom are progressing in granting public access to certain historic shipwrecks in UK waters. Shipwrecks designated as historically significant under the Protection of Wrecks Act of 1973 are protected by law and access

62 is restricted to licensed divers, a situation unpopular with the country’s sport divers (Robertson 2003:73). Scotland’s visitor schemes and the trails established at some sites in England are creative ways to allow visitors to explore protected sites while ensuring preservation intended by legislation.

Scotland Two seventeenth-century shipwrecks in Scotland, designated as important historic wrecks under the Protection of Wrecks Act of 1973, are interpreted for divers through specially administered “visitor schemes” (Martin 1998:46-83). Visiting the shipwrecks, Swan and HMS Dartmouth, requires licenses from Historic Scotland, an agency of the Scottish parliament. Beginning in 1994, licenses were issued for divers participating in the Nautical Archaeological Society’s (NAS) underwater archaeology training course to visit the wreck of Swan during field activities of St. Andrews University’s Archaeological Diving Unit (Martin 1998). In 1995, the license program was broadened to include any sport diver. The popular program was extended in 1997 to include the near-by wreck of Dartmouth (Robertson 2003:73-74). The visitor schemes for diving at the wrecks are administered through a local dive center; the former owner of the center is a trained archaeologist and was instrumental in the development of the schemes. Before diving, visitors are briefed about the history of the wrecks, the importance of maintaining proper buoyancy to avoid damaging fragile wooden remains, and the need for preservation. Guidelines and interpretive signs on the shipwrecks allow divers to explore major features; site plans may be taken along as well. Hundreds of divers have visited the shipwrecks with little impact to the wrecks (Robertson 2003:74, 76). Shore-based exhibits provide additional information. Biology proved to be a challenge to interpretation at the Scottish shipwreck sites. Heavy kelp growth steadily obscures ship structure, artifacts, underwater signage, and guidelines, necessitating the repeated removal of tons of the fast-growing plant (Robertson 2003:80-81). Despite the efforts of site managers and volunteers to keep the sites and interpretive structures clear, the kelp is proving to be uncontrollable. As a result, underwater signage gradually is being removed from the shipwrecks, although

63 visitors still have use of guidelines and underwater guides (Philip Robertson 2005, pers. comm.).

England The Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology (HWTMA), an organization dedicated to promoting the maritime archaeology and heritage of Great Britain and specifically the counties of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, developed in 2004 the West Wight Dive Trails at the Needles Protected Wreck Site and Alum Bay (HWTMA 2004:17). The Needles Site trail consists of several wrecks including warships, other vessels, and an array of artifacts collected in submerged gullies around the site. The Alum Bay trail encompasses two unidentified shipwrecks and near-by reef structure (HWTMA 2004:17). A third trail at the wreck of HMS Hazardous off the Isle of Wight was developed by HWTMA in partnership with the Hazardous Project Team (HWTMA 2005). The trails are marked with underwater numbered markers corresponding to an underwater guide booklet that identifies key features. Divers are briefed before visiting the sites to acquaint them with conditions and to stress diving safety (HWTMA 2004:17). Video presentations, a website, and a shore-based exhibit are available for non-divers.

Finland

Finland’s first underwater park at a shipwreck site, sponsored by the National Board of Antiquities, opened in 2000 at the wreck of Kronprins Gustav Adolf near Helsinki. The park is interpreted on-site with mooring and marker buoys, a map, and a guideline around the wreck with information signs at major features. A webpage provides basic information and rules for visiting the park. Diving the underwater park does not require permission from the National Maritime Museum, as is necessary for diving any other Finnish shipwreck over one hundred years old. A mandatory entrance fee provides the diver with the map and directions to the wreck site (Finland National Board of Antiquities 2004).

64 Israel

The Roman harbor of Caesarea Maritima on the Mediterranean coast of Israel has long been a significant archaeological site and premier location for cultural tourism. Managed by the Israeli Antiquities Authority, the site hosts a major annual terrestrial and underwater excavation performed primarily by volunteers under the direction of several university archaeology departments (Holum et al. 1988). Since 2002, education efforts focus on the harbor and its submerged features. Four dive areas including the harbor entrance, inner harbor, outer harbor walls, and the ancient foundations of the modern breakwater are marked by guidelines and signs numbered to correspond to a waterproof harbor guide. The guide is available to purchase or to borrow from the single dive shop that operates within the limits of the city and that is responsible for maintenance of the guidelines and numbered features (Raban 2003). In addition to the interpreted self-guided diving tour, glass-bottomed boats provide tours of the harbor to non-diving tourists and school children. On land, a visitor’s center and near-by museum offer displays, artifact exhibits, real-time video, and documentaries. Since inception of the underwater interpretation program, 6,000 to 10,000 divers per year explore the harbor (Raban 2003). An effort by private entrepreneurs at the attraction to gain permission to create a sort of “Caesarea theme park” a few miles away, envisioned to include reconstructions of the ancient city’s major buildings and a 1:1 recreation of the harbor, was not approved by the Antiquities Authority (Raban 2003).

Caribbean

The island nations of the Caribbean Sea are among the world’s top sport diving destinations, offering clear, warm water and a variety of colorful and interesting natural and cultural marine resources. Recognizing the need for protection of marine resources in order to sustain tourism, several islands enacted laws and regulations for the benefit of protecting natural resources such as fish species and coral reefs. Cultural resources,

65 however, still are relatively unprotected and are not promoted, except as artificial reefs for marine life. A few islands are in the vanguard of submerged cultural resource management including promoting public education and access.

Curaçao The Dutch Antilles island of Curaçao established its first shipwreck preserve in 2001 in the harbor of Willemstad. SS Mediator, sunk in 1884 after being rammed by another ship, lies alongside a quay still loaded with cargo and is within walking distance of the national museum (Nagelkerken et al. 2003). MAHS personnel participated in the project in conjunction with the government of Curaçao and local divers performed an extensive clean-up of the site to clarify its boundaries and to remove debris generated by harbor traffic (Raymond Hayes 2004, pers. comm.). An exhibit in the national museum features the shipwreck while a brochure describes its history and condition. Divers are required to register at the museum for permission to dive. Groups of registered divers are led around the shipwreck by trained guides who point out features and monitor diver activities.

Dominican Republic The government of the Dominican Republic, with assistance from Indiana University’s Office of Underwater Science, established in 2002 that nation’s first underwater museum. Unlike other underwater archaeological preserves at the sites of shipwrecks, the Dominican Republic’s underwater museum features an assortment of artifacts from two galleons, Guadalupe and Tolosa, sunk in 1724. Excavated by commercial salvage firm under contract with the Dominican government, the artifacts were stored away from public view for several years until replaced on the sea floor and interpreted for divers and snorkelers (Smith 1988:103-104; Indiana University 2003a). In 2004, a second underwater museum, Guaraguao Reef Cannons Preserve, was opened featuring artifacts recovered from several Spanish shipwrecks and replaced on the sea floor to resemble a replica shipwreck. The second preserve also is interpreted for divers and snorkelers (Indiana University 2003b).

66 Cayman Islands The Cayman Islands, including Grand Cayman, Cayman Brac, and Little Cayman, is the wealthiest nation in the West Indies. The Islands possess a diverse array of natural and cultural resources visited by millions of tourists every year (Cayman Islands Government Information Service 2001). The maritime heritage of the Islands, including shipwrecks, lighthouses, the remains of maritime industry, and other resources, recently was featured through development of the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail, the first of its kind in the Caribbean. Establishment of the trail, including planning, selection of sites, public participation, interpretation, and execution, is the author’s case study in development and is presented in Chapter 4 of this dissertation.

New Directions

New ideas for promoting visitation to submerged resources constantly are tested. One of the most exciting and innovative concepts for enabling public access to submerged cultural resources is the use of glass-bottomed boats (Michigan, Israel, Canada). Glass-bottomed boats allow children, the elderly, the physically challenged, and the non-diving public to experience shipwrecks in a way they otherwise could not and have proven extremely lucrative in areas where they are implemented (Halsey and Lindquist 2003:115; La Roche 2003:37). Moving threatened shipwreck remains to areas with better diving conditions has proven practical (Puerto Rico), making the wrecks more accessible and saving them from total destruction. Underwater museums featuring shipwreck artifacts that are conserved and then returned to the marine environment (Dominican Republic) enables the public to see items that otherwise may not be available for viewing. Some sites are enhanced with replica materials, either discrete artifacts such as cannons (Florida) or entire replica ships (New York). Tourist submarines, remotely operated cameras and live “web-cams” may be feasible at some locations. The success of preserve, park, and trail programs is inspiring new programs in several locations. Archaeologists with Argentina’s Instituto Nacional de Antropología

67 recently proposed the creation of a shipwreck park at the site of HMS Swift, a British sloop wrecked in 1770 (Elkin and Cafferata 2001). Park proponents recognize that “…many places in the world have shown how attractive for tourism a shipwreck can be.” (Elkin and Cafferata 2001:85). A park at the Swift site is envisioned to increase tourism to Patagonia and to provide economic and educational incentives for local people to preserve their historical resources along with their natural resources (Elkin and Cafferata 2001:86-87). Shipwrecks considered to be especially historically significant traditionally are not promoted for public access. Citing potential problems with looting, vandalism, ignorant souvenir collection, and damage to carefully placed excavation grids, resource managers generally discourage the diving public from visiting shipwrecks in the midst of investigations. The managers of the wreck believed to be Queen Anne’s Revenge, the flagship of the pirate Blackbeard sunk off the coast of North Carolina in 1718, propose an innovative means for allowing the diving public to visit the shipwreck. The North Carolina Underwater Archaeology Branch, in partnership with the North Carolina Maritime Museum, is developing a program that will balance public education and site preservation by allowing divers who complete a shipwreck awareness course to visit the shipwreck under the supervision of a guide who will accompany limited groups as they tour the site (Hermley and Wilde-Ramsing 2004). Intended to offer a unique experience for sport divers, the program will provide divers with “… a better understanding of shipwrecks as underwater laboratories, worthy of preservation, and capable of holding valuable natural and cultural information important to both researchers and the public.” (Hermley and Wilde-Ramsing 2004:13).

Voices of Experience

Only a few nations support programs that interpret submerged and maritime cultural resources for the public. Archaeologists and resource managers employed by those programs gain invaluable experience and insight in interpretation and management of underwater archaeological preserves, shipwreck parks, and maritime

68 heritage trails. Their experiences in management are published in relatively few sources (Delgado 1997; Ruppé and Barstad 2002; Spirek and Scott-Ireton 2003) consisting primarily of case studies and program descriptions. This is valuable information useful for comparing programs and strategies, but for purposes of this research the personal opinions, thoughts, and judgments about the effectiveness of public interpretation and access to maritime cultural resources is more significant. Leaders in this small but growing field were asked to provide opinions about their endeavors by answering three questions:

1. How has promoting public access affected your resources? i.e., have you noticed increased or decreased looting/vandalism on your sites, etc.? 2. Do you think the preservation message is worth the cost/effort to create and maintain preserves and trails, and the wear on the resource? 3. Overall, do you think the preserve/park/trail strategy promotes preservation of submerged cultural resources?

These questions were formulated to elicit thoughtful responses regarding the efficacy and effects of public interpretation of maritime cultural resources. Because managers tend to have many responsibilities and little free time, only three questions were asked with the idea that a few questions would generate more responses than would a lengthy questionnaire. All responses to the questions presented below are personal communications via email in 2004/2005; they are archived at the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research in Tallahassee. Due to the nature of the interview, responses tend toward the anecdotal with examples and individual experiences used to illustrate managers’ beliefs and opinions. Nevertheless, the professional resource managers surveyed have, in many cases, years of experience with a diverse array of resources in a variety of environments. Their judgments, although not formally published elsewhere, are valid and offer insights not otherwise available. Managers for every program described in this chapter were contacted and asked for their answers to the preceding questions. Respondents include the following

69 professional archaeologists and resource managers responsible for public access, interpretation, and management of submerged and maritime archaeological sites: Christopher Amer, State Underwater Archaeologist, State of South Carolina Charles Beeker, Associate Professor, Indiana University Office of Underwater Science Arthur Cohn, Executive Director, Lake Champlain Maritime Museum John Halsey, State Archaeologist, State of Michigan Susan Langley, State Underwater Archaeologist, State of Maryland Daniel LaRoche, Archaeological Resource Management Analyst, Parks Canada Richard Lawrence, Branch Head, North Carolina Underwater Archaeology Branch Keith Meverden, Underwater Archaeologist, Wisconsin Historical Society James Spirek, Underwater Archaeologist, State of South Carolina Mark Wilde-Ramsing, Project Director, Queen Anne’s Revenge Shipwreck Project Joseph Zarzynski, Executive Director, Bateaux Below, Inc.

The first question addresses effects of increased visitation on the resource due to promotion of submerged archaeological sites as diving attractions and whether educational and interpretive efforts result in decreased incidences of looting and vandalism at shipwreck sites. Cohn says intentional vandalism is nearly non-existent at underwater preserves in Vermont and, further, the positive message of preservation reflected by shipwreck preserves affects divers’ attitudes long after the site is visited. Lawrence agrees, stating looting of artifacts at the site of USS Huron in North Carolina essentially stopped as a result of educational efforts, placing the shipwreck in a preserve setting, and, particularly, effective monitoring by the Nags Head community. Wilde-Ramsing concurs with Lawrence and notes the community is extremely protective of Huron. Beeker states he has not witnessed increased looting of any underwater park sites he has worked on and, rather, they seem to be in better condition than uninterpreted sites. Langley indicates only two instances of vandalism occurred at

70 Maryland’s U-1105 preserve in ten years, although she relates the low incidence directly to the difficulty of the dive and resulting low numbers of visitors. Meverden writes, “Promoting protection and preservation coincides with promoting access.” He comments that visitation to all shipwrecks in Wisconsin’s Great Lakes increases yearly but that peer pressure from divers educated about the preservation message serves to control other divers who might be tempted to take artifacts or to vandalize the wrecks. He also notes increased traffic results in inadvertent damage to the wrecks, such as fragile structures accidentally broken by unwary divers. Amer and Spirek state that South Carolina’s trails do not have the level of monitoring, from either the state or local communities, necessary to curb diver- caused injury to sites. They also note that better trail maintenance, such as mooring buoy repairs, would likely result in less damage from anchoring. Like several other managers, Halsey points out that most of the easily removable artifacts from Michigan’s preserve wrecks were taken long ago, leaving little to tempt current divers. He adds that the economic benefits of the preserves are a strong incentive for dive operators to ensure remaining artifacts are left in place and wrecks are preserved. LaRoche believes educational efforts in Canada help to protect shipwrecks from vandalism and says damage generally is caused by inexperienced divers having difficulty controlling their buoyancy. Finally, Zarzynski attributes increased incidences of vandalism at “The Sunken Fleet of 1758” and “Land Tortoise - A 1758 Floating Gun Battery” Preserves in New York primarily to weak preservation laws with little enforcement and lack of state-supported diver education initiatives. He believes that a more forceful education and preservation approach would help to curb intentional damage to the shipwrecks. The second question asks professionals whether the education and preservation message of underwater archaeological preserves and maritime heritage trails is worth the cost and effort required to establish, interpret, and maintain the sites and the inevitable damage to cultural resources. LaRoche is adamant that public interpretation of maritime sites is one of the most valuable, and least expensive, preservation tools available in a vast country like Canada. He also thinks basic legislation to regulate use of submerged cultural resources is vital to provide a foundation for public interpretation

71 programs. Meverden’s exclamatory “Absolutely!” reveals his opinion about the efficacy of education programs. He explains how the race to get the “best stuff” from well- preserved deep-water wrecks turned into a race to get the best photographs instead and attributes this change of attitude among divers directly to preserve, park, and trail programs. Wilde-Ramsing likens use of shipwrecks as educational facilities to use of terrestrial sites such as historic houses and battlefields for the same purpose. He declares some loss is expected and should be anticipated and mitigated as necessary, but public use of shipwrecks is needed to raise awareness of cultural resource management and research. Langley points out that costs associated with public interpretation of shipwrecks are not exceptionally high, especially as compared to excavation and conservation. She states the return on investment is good, meaning that divers benefit from educational programs and shipwrecks benefit from increased preservation with the expense of relatively little public money. Halsey concurs, noting the state of Michigan contributes relatively little funding to their extensive and popular preserve program. He states wear on the shipwrecks is more apparent as time passes and prompted a local diver to produce a video showing the effects of diver-related impact to one of the wrecks. The video is a strong statement for shipwreck conservation through no-impact diving practices and, because it came from the diving community, has considerable power among divers. Beeker feels the biological integrity of submerged sites is an accurate indicator of the archaeological integrity and believes a more integrated cultural/biological interpretation of underwater sites is needed. Lawrence emphasizes the role of the local community in monitoring the Huron preserve, relieving the state of much of the cost associated with management. Additionally, because the wreck frequently was visited before it became a preserve, he does not think making it a preserve increased either visitation or wear. Amer and Spirek state that South Carolina bears all costs for its trails, although the costs are not major. A more pressing issue is personnel limitations which prevented proper monitoring and maintenance for some time. Zarzynski again notes stronger preservation laws are needed in New York but feels the preserve program is a positive step toward educating divers about shipwrecks and “water

72 stewardship” in general. Finally, Cohn states, “We (meaning archaeologists and resource managers) must provide reasonable access to appropriate sites or we will be in continual conflict with divers and suffer significant site degradation as well as conflict.” The final question pertains to the broad issue of whether interpreting maritime cultural resources as preserves, parks, and trails results in preservation of maritime cultural resources in general. No quantitative study regarding this issue exists, making the personal opinions and experiences of managers engaged in the practice of particular interest. Lawrence and Langley feel the preserve/park/trail concept promotes preservation, and Langley notes she believes shipwreck preserves get the message of preservation across to the public just as natural preserves do for environmental concerns. LaRoche agrees, providing interpretation and promotion is well-organized and backed by appropriate legislation to protect shipwrecks. Halsey says, “Clearly, yes,” but stresses the need for community participation, stating that promotion and development happen at the local level and success depends on consistent and long- term local involvement. He also notes the need for public education efforts to include non-divers. Zarzynski believes shipwreck preserves are valuable, although not all shipwrecks are viable candidates for interpretation and structural integrity, water depth, and significance must be evaluated. Beeker concurs that not all sites are suitable for interpretation, but for those that are suitable “nothing works better than some peer pressure” to protect the resource. He believes the best preservation strategy for easily accessible shipwreck sites is to manage them as underwater museums. Amer and Spirek have a neutral opinion, noting South Carolina’s program of permitting sport divers to collect artifacts from the state’s rivers as a particular detriment to any preservation message from the trails. They hope an impending revitalization of their trial program through new staff and stronger promotion will have a positive effect. Wilde-Ramsing stresses the “hands-on connection” between the resource and the public that becomes available when shipwrecks are interpreted for visitors, and states preserves, parks, and trails encourage trust and stewardship among the visitor, manager, and community. Meverden opines trails are more effective for his area of management than are simple preserves because they stress the maritime relationship

73 between the resource and the community rather than simply focusing on wrecks as diving attractions. He states, “When people begin to understand the broader context to which these vessels (i.e., Wisconsin’s shipwrecks) fit, their importance becomes much more self-evident, making their preservation more self-evident as well.” Cohn echoes these sentiments, believing interpretation programs promote preservation by instilling in divers a sense of direct involvement and investment in the resource.

Conclusion

The growth and proliferation of preserve, park, and trail programs around the world indicates this strategy of cultural resource management fulfills requirements for both preservation and public access, and encourages the visiting public to value submerged historic resources as tangible elements of the past to be maintained. By turning resources into attractions, archaeologists and managers can guarantee access and can use the opportunity to educate visitors about the resource. Through intensive education and outreach efforts, visitors are made aware of the value of the resource to local and national heritage and of the need for preserving the resource for future generations to visit and enjoy. By illustrating the value of one shipwreck, managers hope the public will gain an understanding of the value of all. A comparison of preserve, park, and trail programs shows the variety of interpretive and promotional materials and methods that have been developed and tested. For example, many locations incorporate both terrestrial and submerged resources into one attraction that combines elements of several kinds of maritime activity (Florida, Wisconsin, Cayman Islands, South Australia). Generally termed a trail and connected through thematic publications or markers, these attractions are ideal for illustrating the maritime cultural landscape of a region or locality. Isolated shipwrecks and groups of shipwrecks usually are interpreted for the diving public as a shipwreck park or underwater archaeological preserve (Finland, Scotland, Maryland, Vermont, New York, North Carolina, Florida), although trails of submerged attractions also have proven feasible (South Carolina, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary). Ideal wrecks

74 for this type of promotion are in relatively shallow, clear water and are near the shore. Certainly shipwrecks not in this type of environment are successfully promoted, but the most popular tend to be easy to access and easy to dive. Many also are accessible to snorkelers, which increases the visitor base tremendously. New ideas for public access are explored through the use of glass-bottom boats and developing plans for sport divers to visit shipwrecks in the midst of excavation. Of the methods and strategies shared by preserve, park, and trail programs, one of the most common attributes is community involvement. Of 24 programs studied, 17 included some level of community participation in the initial establishment and/or subsequent management and monitoring of resources. Even if the surrounding community was not directly involved in initial establishment, once opened, the preserve, park, or trail offers a community service. Although perhaps not recognizing it as such, archaeologists and resource managers working with local communities to ensure access to their maritime heritage were (and are) following one of the guiding principles of the New Museology. Several of the managers I interviewed stressed the importance of involving local people in the interpretation and management of maritime sites, and in particular of including divers in efforts aimed at submerged sites. At this writing, the interpretation of submerged cultural resources for the public seems to be a phenomenon limited to those areas with established bureaucracies capable of organizing and managing submerged cultural resources. As the growth of diving tourism leads divers to ever more exotic locations, local peoples must decide how their submerged history will be treated: destroyed to make way for cruise ship terminals and harbor expansions, exploited for the personal gain of a few treasure-hunting salvors, or protected to preserve their heritage and to sustain future visitors and the subsequent economic advantages.

CHAPTER 4

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS MARITIME HERITAGE TRAIL: A CASE STUDY

What makes an underwater archaeological preserve or maritime heritage trail successful in terms of popularity and resource preservation? What determines significant visitation by people who will, ideally, come away with a new understanding of maritime cultural resources as valuable elements of the common past? These questions, and others like them, occupy the time and energy of submerged cultural resource managers who are charged (often by law) with protecting and promoting underwater historic resources for the public benefit. Having studied preserve, park, and trail programs throughout the world and with over a decade of personal experience in the creation and management of underwater archaeological preserves, the author decided to identify necessary steps for the establishment of a successful preserve, park, or trail, and to test the hypothesis with a case study as part of dissertation research. This exercise also is practical experience useful for maritime archaeologists and submerged cultural resource managers interested in applying the strategy. This chapter presents a test case for consciously applying the theoretical principles of the New Museology to the practical establishment of a maritime heritage trail. Previous chapters explored the theoretical nature of museology and public interpretation of archaeological resources, and the variety of practical strategies employed in preserve, park, and trail programs. The Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail Project is described, including a brief history of the Islands to provide context for the maritime resources interpreted on the Trail, a history of the Trail project to describe the process of conception and establishment, and a description of the theoretical and logistical considerations of creating an in situ heritage tourism attraction. The test case

76 originally was intended to be hypothetical in nature, using the maritime resources of a particular location as an example but not actually creating a physical trail. The resulting project turned out much differently than anticipated.

History and Heritage of the Cayman Islands

The Caribbean nation of the Cayman Islands is composed of Grand Cayman, largest of three islands at 22 miles long and 4 miles wide, and, 75 miles to the northeast across open sea, two smaller islands, Cayman Brac and Little Cayman (termed the Sister Islands), each approximately 10 miles long and 1 mile wide. No evidence of prehistoric Amerindian habitation or visitation has been discovered on the Cayman Islands (Craton 2003:1, 11-12), which were discovered by Christopher Columbus during his fourth voyage to the New World in 1503 (Smith 2000:25). The islands swarmed with sea turtles and they first were called Las Tortugas (The Turtles). Early mariners harvested the reptiles for fresh meat and reported the presence of caymanas (crocodiles), from which the Islands’ modern name is derived (Smith 2000:58-59, 26). Because the islands lacked a native population, terrestrial resources such as precious metals, or significant arable land, they were virtually ignored by Spanish explorers and colonists, who used them merely as navigational landmarks and provisioning grounds (Smith 2000:57). The first permanent settlements were established on Grand Cayman in the early 1700s, although seasonal turtle fishing camps were located on Little Cayman as early as the 1660s (Smith 2000:66; Craton 2003:33). As the population of the Islands grew, the inhabitants continued to rely upon the sea for their livelihood and a distinctly maritime culture developed that was unique in the Caribbean. Due to the limited nature of land-based industries such as plantation agriculture, logging, or livestock ranching, Caymanians viewed the sea as a necessary means for survival. Unlike other Caribbean peoples who focused on terrestrial subsistence, Cayman Islanders ranged far across the sea in pursuit of fish and turtles, becoming famed for their seamanship (Smith 2000:51). Maritime-related industries such as boatbuilding, fishing, and wrecking prospered on all three Islands and spawned

77 improvements in traditional methods and equipment. A unique type of vernacular watercraft designed specifically for capturing turtles, the Caymanian catboat, was developed on Cayman Brac in the early 1900s (Smith 1985). Today, the culture and prosperity of the Cayman Islands still are tied to the sea. The capital of George Town, located on Grand Cayman, is visited every year by hundreds of cruise ships bringing over a million tourists. Hundreds of thousands more fly in, primarily to enjoy watersports such as scuba diving, snorkeling, and fishing (Cayman Islands Government Information Services 2001:59). Additionally, “offshore” or foreign banking contributes to the Islands’ economy, helping to make the Cayman Islands the wealthiest of West Indian nations (Cayman Islands Government Information Services 2001:66).

Maritime Heritage Preservation

This discussion describes the variety of maritime heritage resources in the Cayman Islands as context for the development of public education and heritage preservation strategies, specifically the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail.

Maritime Heritage Sites The maritime history and nautical archaeology of the Cayman Islands was documented in 1979 and 1980 through a project sponsored by the Institute of Nautical Archaeology (INA) at Texas A&M University (Smith 1980). A database of known shipwrecks was compiled as a result of the survey, including site locations, cultural affiliation, and historical information (Smith 1981). Further research resulted in data pertaining to specific episodes in the Islands’ maritime history, such as the Wreck of the Ten Sail (Leshikar 1993; Leshikar-Denton 1994). In 1990, the Cayman Islands National Museum opened with exhibits featuring the Islands’ maritime heritage. The Museum employs a Museum Archaeologist who manages the nation’s archaeological resources, both submerged and terrestrial, including a database of documented wrecking events and recorded sites. To date, the shipwreck inventory contains 130 sites spanning five

78 centuries and fourteen nationalities, and the terrestrial inventory lists over 100 sites (Leshikar-Denton 2004:82). In 2000, a seminal book, Roger C. Smith’s The Maritime Heritage of the Cayman Islands, was published, providing comprehensive introductory information on the Islands’ history, maritime connections, and maritime industries including turtling, wrecking, fishing, and shipbuilding. The remains of maritime activities exist on the three Islands, but most were not interpreted and, consequently, were overlooked by the average tourist and forgotten by many residents. The sustained health of the tourism industry in the Cayman Islands indicated that dedicated heritage-themed attractions, such as the Pedro-St. James National Historic Site, could be supported (Cayman Islands Government Information Services 2001:75). Additionally, the local people are becoming aware and proud of their heritage and want to preserve the few surviving physical remains, many of which are threatened by development and construction activities (Cayman Islands National Museum 2003; Leshikar-Denton 2003).

Conception of Project The Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail began as a hypothetical idea and a test case for the hypothesis that museological techniques, especially the theoretical approach of the New Museology, can be applied effectively in the establishment and management of underwater archaeological preserves, shipwreck parks, and maritime heritage trails. A museological approach to public access and interpretation of in situ resources will help to create a heritage tourism attraction that effectively interprets maritime resources for the public, increases the perceived value of the resource, and promotes the continued preservation of the resource. In the fall of 2001, I approached Margaret “Peggy” Leshikar-Denton, the Cayman Islands’ national archaeologist, and proposed the idea of a project to create a hypothetical underwater archaeological preserve or maritime heritage trail in a Caribbean country, utilizing principles of the New Museology and ideas and methods developed over years of testing in Florida and other locations. Leshikar-Denton was enthusiastic about the idea and, in fact, had for several years considered creating a preserve or trail but was unable to pursue the idea due to budgetary and personnel limitations. Upon further consideration and discussion with

79 other members of the National Museum staff, including Director L. Anita Ebanks, Leshikar-Denton suggested that instead of planning an imaginary project, we organize an actual project and develop a preserve or trail in the Cayman Islands. In January of 2002, I met with Leshikar-Denton, Roger Smith, and Cheryl Ward about the idea of creating an underwater archaeological preserve in the Cayman Islands to help satisfy the requirements of my Ph.D. degree as a test case for the hypothesis. Smith recommended rather than dealing with the logistical and funding difficulties of an underwater project, I instead focus on a land-based maritime heritage trail similar to one developed in Florida. Further, the trail could incorporate several aspects of the maritime heritage of the Islands, not just shipwrecks. Leshikar-Denton concurred with this suggestion, and remarked on the potential benefits of reaching a wide range of residents and visitors with the proposed land-based trail that later could be followed by a succession of shipwreck preserves. A land-based trail could include all districts of all islands, rather than focusing on one area, and it could be established in a timely manner with limited logistical concerns and with the involvement of existing Cayman Islands personnel, agencies, and facilities.

Tourism Base and Effect on Historical Resources The Cayman Islands are especially suitable for hosting a maritime heritage trail, with a high standard of living and a thriving economy based primarily on tourism (especially watersports) and offshore banking. The Islands are a British Overseas Territory with a governor appointed by the Crown and a government composed of five ministers and a legislative assembly who are locally elected (Cayman Islands Government Information Service 2001:25-48). Funding for cultural projects, including the National Museum, the National Archives’ oral history collection, and other historic preservation initiatives, largely is provided through the government budget (other funds are obtained through generated revenue and donations). Infrastructure for cultural and historical programs exists in the form of the National Museum and other agencies that ultimately became the Maritime Heritage Trail Partners. Over 1.25 million tourists visit the Islands every year, and this number is steadily increasing (Cayman Islands Government Information Services 2001:70). Most visitors

80 arrive on cruise ships and rarely leave the vicinity of George Town, where their time generally is spent in shopping at the many duty-free establishments. The government has long sought to encourage visitors to explore more of Grand Cayman and, where possible, to visit the Sister Islands as well to enjoy the beauty of the Islands and to spread the economic benefits of tourism. A maritime heritage trail spanning all three Islands helps to meet this goal by providing incentives and attractions for visitors in all locations. A major consideration was to balance increased tourism with protection for the physical remains of the Islands’ cultural heritage, which often are subtle and fragile.

Public Education and Resource Protection An interpreted trail that includes many aspects of the Cayman Islands’ maritime history serves to educate the public, both visitors and residents, about the heritage of the three Islands and their inhabitants. The trail provides an opportunity for tourists to learn about the Islands and to appreciate them as more than just a cruise-line port call to buy duty-free rum and jewelry. For residents, a trail preserves and presents elements of their history that they otherwise might not know existed or perhaps thought were lost. Another important contribution of a trail is the protection of maritime historical resources. Development in the Cayman Islands is rampant and increasing (Cayman Islands Government Information Services 2001:84-85) and puts pressure on existing resources which often are located on prime areas of real estate, such as Fort George on the waterfront in George Town and the wreck of the freighter Balboa in the path of planned harbor expansion. Calling attention to these tangible remains of the Islands’ past by featuring them on the Maritime Heritage Trail serves to increase public awareness of their existence and, ideally, encourages public participation in their continued preservation. Due to the current lack of strict preservation laws protecting historic and archaeological resources in the Cayman Islands, public concern and intervention are a key element in their preservation (Margaret Leshikar-Denton 2004, pers. comm.).

81 Methodology for Establishing the Trail

The following discussion presents the evolution of the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail project and is intended to serve as a history of the trail project and as a record of how ideas were formed, logistics planned, and problems solved.

Community and Governmental Support and Involvement The New Museology tenet of community participation in the establishment and management of a heritage attraction was a crucial component of the theoretical framework for the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail. Additionally, data from existing preserve, park, and trail programs and personal experience in Florida demonstrated the benefits of having local people involved in the project from the beginning, rather than having a new attraction thrust upon them, in order to foster a sense of ownership of the trail. Toward this end, official partners to represent community interests regarding the trail were asked to participate. The partners were envisioned to represent the wants and needs of the people of the Cayman Islands and to work together to maintain historical and cultural integrity. Due to the integral role of Leshikar-Denton, the Cayman Islands National Museum always was involved and became the lead partner. Three additional entities, the National Trust for the Cayman Islands, the Cayman Islands National Archive, and the Department of Environment, were approached to become partners. The Museum serves as the repository of artifacts from the Islands’ past, hosts exhibits featuring Cayman Islands natural and cultural history and art, and employs the only government archaeologist in the country. The Archive is the Islands’ records management agency and archive; it maintains collections of historic documents and photographs pertaining to the Islands’ history including an extensive and growing oral history bank. The Trust manages environmental and historic preservation programs in the Islands including the creation of several walking trails for touring historic structures, the interpretation of historic lighthouses, and the promotion of preservation initiatives. The Department of Environment is responsible for the protection of the nation’s natural resources including submerged natural resources such as coral reefs, and the creation of marine protected

82 areas. By extension, the Department of Environment, in cooperation with the National Museum, addresses submerged historic sites (primarily shipwrecks) colonized by marine species and integrated into the natural environment of the Islands. These four entities were selected to spearhead the trail because of their respective areas of responsibility, expertise, and community relations and were expected to serve as a “driving force” for the project. Further, they were administered, at the time of the trail creation, by two governmental ministries with the necessary authority, interest, and funding capability to support the trail: the Ministry for Education, Human Resources, and Culture, The Honorable J.A. Roy Bodden, Minister (National Museum and National Archive) and the Ministry for Tourism, Environment, Development, and Commerce, The Honorable W. McKeeva Bush, OBE, JP, Minister (National Trust and Dept of Environment). Additionally, the partners were able to control the direction of the trail in terms of appropriate interpretation and historical accuracy. None of the partnering agencies are directly associated with the commercial tourism industry, either governmental or private-sector, as are other organizations such as the Cayman Islands Tourism Association (CITA), which might be more interested in generating revenue than in preserving historical integrity.1 From the beginning of the project, the trail was intended to educate residents and draw tourists but, more importantly, the trail was desired as a way to protect and preserve elements of the Islands’ maritime heritage that are being destroyed or negatively impacted by the spectacular growth of the Islands as a tourism destination. The premise is that public awareness fosters appreciation and creates a sense of stewardship for heritage sites. The partners want to protect remaining heritage sites for future generations and are focused on education and preservation, while recognizing the key role of tourism. In the spirit of community involvement, other governmental agencies, Island organizations such as the Seafarer’s Association, Cayman Catboat Club, and the Maritime Heritage Foundation, and residents were invited to focus group meetings to discuss site selection and were invited to participate in trail promotion.

1 The annual celebration of “Pirate Week” is an example. Held in October, Pirate Week is entertaining and draws many tourists who sail on a replica “pirate ship” and participate in pirate-themed activities but, despite the Cayman Islands’ link to historic pirates and privateers, the event has little to do with history or fact.

83 In the spring of 2002, the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail project was announced by the Governor in the annual Crown Speech, a presentation of the Cayman Islands’ activities to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Once the speech was delivered, the Ministries encouraged the partners to proceed with the trail so the project promised to the Queen would be completed in a timely manner.

Selection of Sites Once the decision was made to pursue a maritime heritage trail, Leshikar-Denton and I worked together to develop a schedule for creating the trail. The National Museum supported the project from the outset, funding several visits to the Cayman Islands. On the first visit to the Islands, we and volunteers Dennis Denton and Sue and Robin Gibb toured Grand Cayman with the goal of identifying and photographing sites that could be included in the trail. We created a proposed list of trail sites based on ease of visitation, visual impact, and historical significance and presented these sites to the Partners for consideration and preliminary selection. A second visit afforded the opportunity to tour, photograph, and revise a list of possible Cayman Brac and Little Cayman sites. The visits also offered opportunities to present the trail idea in focus group meetings to local people and to ask their advice and contributions. The partners developed a list of criteria for sites to be included on the trail (Leshikar-Denton and Scott-Ireton 2003a, 2006). These criteria helped organizers to select historical resources that best illustrate the complex maritime history of the Islands and encourage visitation to all of the Islands while ensuring both visitor safety and resource preservation.

• Historical significance: sites would be important in the history of the Islands • Range of maritime themes: sites would incorporate a range of themes, including shipwrecks, lighthouses, maritime industry, and maritime architecture • Island-wide representation: sites would be located on or near all three of the Islands

84 • Interesting visual features: sites would provide visually interesting elements, such as remains of the site itself and views out to sea toward shipwreck locations • Public access: sites would provide avenues for public access so visitors would not trespass on private property • Safety: sites would be safe for visitors • Sensitivity: sites would be robust enough to sustain regular visitation

Sites on all three Islands that met the criteria were included on preliminary lists submitted to the partners for their consideration. During a series of meetings the partners determined the sites best suited for inclusion on the trail, taking into account comments received during the focus group meetings. Utilizing the criteria, the partners chose eight sites on Little Cayman, eight on Cayman Brac, and twenty on Grand Cayman for interpretation on the Maritime Heritage Trail.

Interpretation Methods The partners considered various forms of interpretation used at maritime heritage trails in other locations, such as signage with text at each site or a series of brochures. After deliberation, the partners decided the Cayman Islands Trail would be a land-based driving trail connecting signed sites, interpreted through two poster/brochures with information and site images on one side and a poster collage of images on the other. Interpretive literature is modeled on material developed for the Florida Maritime Heritage Trail that features information about the state’s maritime history divided into themes presented on six different poster/brochures: historic shipwrecks, lighthouses, coastal forts, ports, coastal communities, and coastal environments. The Cayman Islands Trail literature features sites of all maritime types on the poster/brochures for Grand Cayman (Figure 9) and for the Sister Islands (Figure 10). Visitors who wish to follow the trail acquire poster/brochures at any of a number of venues, including watersports operators, hotels, the National Museum, and visitor information centers. Following maps provided on the brochures, visitors drive along the trail route, stopping at signed sites. Signs marking heritage sites are simple and eye-

Figure 9. The Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail Grand Cayman poster features photos and information about sites on Grand Cayman. (Image courtesy of Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Partners.)

Figure 10. The Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail Sister Islands poster features photos and information about sites on Cayman Brac and Little Cayman. (Image courtesy of Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Partners.)

87 catching, painted blue and white with the site’s name (Figure 11). Signage is placed in locations easily visible from the road and adjacent to convenient parking areas for those visitors who choose to explore the site. The name on the sign corresponds to the site name on the poster/brochure where it is linked to a photograph and brief text about the site’s history and cultural importance. Visitors proceed from site to site, exploring those that pique their interest. The Grand Cayman trail can be fully circumnavigated within a day, depending on time spent at each site; the Sister Islands trails take approximately half a day to a day each. Of course, visitors may choose to visit only a few sites along the trails. The Maritime Heritage Partners expect the trail to expand to include more sites; for this reason the signs are not numbered. Sites can easily be added to the trail by installing a new sign and adding new information to the poster/brochure at the next printing without renumbering all existing signs. If enough new sites are added in the future, another poster/brochure can be designed and printed. Once the Partners completed the preliminary selection of sites and decided the form of the trail, public focus group meetings were held on all three Islands to acquaint local people with the trail plan and to ask for ideas and suggestions. Invitations were sent to specific government and public sector organizations such as tourism entities, watersports associations, and historical societies. On each Island the focus groups approved of the trail idea and offered to lend support. Useful planning information was acquired as well, including ideas for placement of signs and contacts who could provide site details. Additionally, public concerns about possible trespassing and site destruction were addressed.

Logistics and Official Designation of the Trail Once local people were canvassed for suggestions at the focus group meetings, their responses and suggestions were incorporated into the next meeting of trail partners for discussion and possible adoption. The partners also made decisions about practical elements of trail creation including hiring companies to handle graphic design and printing of the poster/brochures, sign creation and installation, and shipment of signs and brochures to the Sister Islands. The partners researched the location of each

Figure 11. Roadside signs for the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail correspond to information on the poster/brochures. (Photograph courtesy of Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Partners, 2004.)

89 sign, working with the assistance of the Publics Works Department on each island to identify government-owned land parcels or public right-of-way locations suitable for sign placement. The Public Works Department also installed the signs on the Sister Islands, while those on Grand Cayman were installed by Designcraft, the company that created the signs. Most companies hired to produce trail products were local and often provided services at significantly reduced prices (and some free of charge) to show support for the project. Leshikar-Denton and I researched site histories and prepared drafts of text for the poster/brochures. We used written and oral histories as well as archival documents, records, and research reports, kept by the National Museum, Trust, and Archive. Text drafts went through several iterations and editors, including members of each of the Maritime Heritage Partners and a professional copy editor, until the information was determined to be appropriate, entertaining, and historically accurate. Images, many of which were available from the photographic collections of the National Archive, were chosen to illustrate each site. Other images were used by permission of other organizations, individuals, and overseas repositories. All details of trail logistics, such as sign motif and color, poster/brochure size and design, and image selection, were approved by the partners. The cooperative effort enabled the finished trail to benefit from the combined talents and knowledge of a diverse group dedicated to generating a quality attraction. From the beginning of the project, the partners wanted the trail to be completed by spring, 2003, to coincide with planned celebrations to commemorate the quincentennial anniversary of Columbus’ discovery of the Islands. Fast-tracked from the start, all research, design, and preparations were completed and the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail opened in the Sister Islands on 30 May 2003 and in Grand Cayman on 12 June 2003. Opening celebrations, with participation by the partners, governmental officials, residents, and visitors, were held on all three Islands. Minister McKeeva Bush and Minister Roy Bodden, as well as other governmental and civic dignitaries, attended the grand opening ceremony in George Town, Grand Cayman, and expressed their support for and appreciation of the trail as a celebration of Caymanian history and heritage. The Maritime Heritage Partners presented framed

90 poster/brochures to representatives of each of the Cayman Islands governmental districts as a symbolic gesture of the partners “giving” the trail to the people of the Cayman Islands. A final discussion on distribution of poster/brochures was held. The partners agreed that some would be given away for promotional purposes and the majority would be sold by partnering agencies or provided wholesale to any entity, such as hotels, watersports operators, restaurants, and businesses, for resale or to distribute free of charge to their patrons. Funds generated through sales of the poster/brochures are managed by the Museum as part of its business operations and eventually will be used to support reprinting of the poster/brochures and general trail maintenance.

Value and Results of the Trail Project Dissemination of information about the Maritime Heritage Trail took several forms. The trail project was described in professional presentations at conferences including the 5th World Archaeological Congress (Leshikar-Denton and Scott-Ireton 2003a) and the Society for Historical Archaeology (Leshikar-Denton and Scott-Ireton 2003b). Popular articles appeared in magazines such as Key to Cayman (Leshikar- Denton and Scott-Ireton 2003c) and What’s Hot (Leshikar-Denton and Scott-Ireton 2003d), and the Island newspaper Cayman Compass; local radio also hosted several shows featuring the trail. An incentive supply of poster/brochures were provided to the Cayman Islands Tourism Association and to the Ministry of Tourism to use as part of their promotional materials, ensuring the trail is advertised wherever Cayman Islands travel is promoted. The trail’s value for the Cayman Islands is realized in many ways, both symbolic and practical. The trail is the first of its kind in the Caribbean and is a uniquely Caymanian attraction accessible by everyone (not just divers). It utilizes existing resources, which in many cases were previously ignored or overlooked, to promote Islands history, heritage, and national pride. The trail is an attraction that encourages travel around all three of the Islands, supports patronage of business along the trail route to enhance the local economy, and promotes stay-over visitation. It is a sustainable tourism model providing a new attraction for return visitors to the Islands

91 and is a means to manage and interpret Cayman Islands’ historical and cultural resources for the public. Ultimately, the trail is envisioned as a way to protect and preserve Caymanian heritage for future generations (Leshikar-Denton and Scott-Ireton 2003a, 2006). The purpose of the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail is four-fold: 1) to increase protection and appreciation for Cayman Islands maritime heritage sites; 2) to provide enjoyment and education for the public; 3) to strengthen national identity through the promotion of maritime heritage; and 4) to diversify the Islands’ tourism product (Leshikar-Denton and Scott-Ireton 2006). The purposes of the trail are met through its interpretive materials, and in the first year of operation the trail has proven successful in terms of visitation with several thousand poster/brochures distributed (more accurate numbers are not currently available due to the destruction of some stock by Hurricane Ivan in September 2004) (Margaret Leshikar-Denton 2004, pers. comm.). The ministries that supervise and fund the Maritime Heritage Partners have pledged their continuing support for the trail and for other maritime heritage endeavors as well. The partners established a monitoring plan involving circumnavigation of the trail by National Museum personnel to inspect trail signs and sites for damage, vandalism, and maintenance needs. Members of Island communities proved to be of assistance by calling or visiting the Museum to report damaged signs and to request or offer assistance for maintenance. These examples of community stewardship and of Island residents feeling a sense of ownership for the trail illustrates the effects of community involvement early in the project and the benefits of incorporating the New Museology in development and management strategies. By publicizing the Islands’ diverse array of maritime heritage sites, focusing public attention on the need for preservation, and encouraging community participation in development and management, the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail helps to secure the protection of all Caymanian historic sites, both submerged and terrestrial.

92 Future Directions

Establishment of the Maritime Heritage Partners in the Cayman Islands is an important step, not only for the Maritime Heritage Trail but also for future directions in historic preservation and public interpretation of cultural resources in the Islands. This dynamic group is capable of influencing policy, spearheading projects, and securing funds for a number of initiatives. The success of the trail is an encouraging precedent and persuaded the partners to proceed with additional ventures in research and public interpretation.

Underwater Archaeological Preserves From the beginning of the trail project, Leshikar-Denton encouraged the Maritime Heritage Partners to consider the trail as Phase I of a multi-phase project designed to research, protect, and promote the Cayman Islands’ submerged and maritime cultural resources. Phase II, initiated in 2004, consists of the creation of shipwreck preserves at the sites of historic shipwrecks around the Islands (Leshikar-Denton and Ho 2004). Based on the model of Florida’s Underwater Archaeological Preserves (Miller 1989; Smith 1991; Scott-Ireton 2003a), Cayman’s Shipwreck Preserves combine scholarly research, archaeological recording, and public interpretation to create an educational and entertaining heritage tourism attraction designed especially for the tens of thousands of divers and snorkelers who visit the Islands each year. Phase III will, eventually, consist of the scientific investigation of the Islands’ more sensitive submerged sites, such as HMS Jamaica, a British Royal Navy sloop engaged in the suppression of piracy and wrecked in North Sound in 1715 (Smith 2000:37-38; Margaret Leshikar-Denton 2004, pers. comm.). The first Cayman Islands shipwreck chosen to become a Shipwreck Preserve is the Norwegian barque Glamis. Built in Scotland in 1876, the iron-hulled sailing vessel was among the last of the famed “Dundee clippers.” The aging ship was sold to a Norwegian firm in 1905 and, on 19 August 1913, wrecked on the East End of Grand Cayman during a storm (Ho 2004:50-51). Today, the wreck of Glamis is an exciting and picturesque diving location characterized by disarticulated iron wreckage, anchors, and

93 deck fittings scattered on top of a coral reef in clear water (Figure 12). The shipwreck was selected for preserve status because it meets the necessary criteria set by the Maritime Heritage Partners including a verifiable identity, visual appeal, archaeological and historical significance, and safe diving conditions (Leshikar-Denton and Ho 2004). Archival, historical, and archaeological research was conducted in 2003 by Florida State University graduate student Bert Ho in conjunction with Leshikar-Denton and the National Museum. The resulting thesis (Ho 2004) and special report (Leshikar-Denton and Ho 2004) describes the ship and the wrecking event in detail and provides an accurate site plan of the wreckage. This information was used to prepare a proposed interpretive brochure and an underwater site guide for divers and snorkelers; the wrecksite also will be marked with a bronze plaque. The local diving and hotel community participated in the project, providing volunteer assistance and accommodations and equipment for project personnel. Commercial dive resort operators at East End supported the project and will distribute interpretive literature to their guests who visit the site as well as help to manage the preserve through frequent inspection and the reporting of any changes to the site. The Glamis Shipwreck Preserve originally was scheduled to open in October 2004, initiating a new chapter in submerged cultural resource management in the Cayman Islands.

Hurricane Ivan On 11 and 12 September 2004, Grand Cayman was struck by one of the most powerful hurricanes to hit the Cayman Islands in recorded history. Hurricane Ivan flooded most of the island causing extensive damage; two people were killed. Basic utilities were unavailable for months and the Cayman Islands’ economy, based primarily on tourism, reeled in the impact. Effects of the hurricane on the Maritime Heritage Trail were extensive but not irreparable, including damage to trail signs. Of twenty trail signs on Grand Cayman only six were left standing, although posts for other signs remain in place. The majority of the stock of printed poster/brochures was unaffected by flood waters. Trail signs on the Sister Islands, where the effects of Ivan were less intense, were largely unaffected; only two signs need replacement and one of those was damaged before the hurricane

Figure 12. The wreck of Glamis on East End reef, Grand Cayman, will become the Cayman Islands’ first Shipwreck Preserve. (Photograph courtesy Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Partners, 2004.)

95 (Margaret Leshikar-Denton 2005, pers. comm.). Additionally, some elements of the wreckage of Glamis were moved by waves and storm surge. Resulting changes in the site plan must be rectified before interpretive materials are produced, but provide an excellent archaeological opportunity to study site formation processes. The hurricane can be viewed as another chapter in the story of Cayman’s maritime heritage, affected by many storms in the past. In fact, two of the featured sites on the trail include burial places on Cayman Brac where victims of the 1932 hurricane are interred. Changes to trail sites due to Hurricane Ivan and other storms are part of the evolving maritime heritage of the Cayman Islands. Like the Islands, the trail will be repaired. New signs, made of Caribbean mahogany instead of sign foam, are being fabricated and installed so the trail will again be functional before the end of 2005. Glamis will be remapped to ensure the site plan is correct and plans are underway to again focus on the Shipwreck Preserve program in 2006 (Margaret Leshikar-Denton 2005, pers. comm.).

Conclusion

Creation of the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail was an exercise in applying the principles of the New Museology and in using strategies proven successful by existing trail programs to create a viable and sustainable maritime heritage attraction. The first and most crucial step is to gain the support and involvement of local people and civic organizations. Including professional heritage management and interpretation expertise along with centralized coordination from the beginning of the project is a significant step in providing a “driving force” for the project and in maintaining historical accuracy and project control. Governmental entities provide legitimization of the project and also can contribute funding and encourage the assistance of other agencies within the government network. Residents who become stakeholders in the project often make valuable contributions toward site locations and uses, interpretation methods, and historical data and can serve as stewards of the attraction for on-going monitoring and management.

96 The message and meaning of the preserve, park, or trail is communicated through the types of sites selected for interpretation. Development of criteria is a useful tool for choosing sites appropriate for increased visitation and for illustrating the overall theme of the project. Public education and interpretation tie the goals of the project together and promote the multiple texts of historic preservation, national identity, visitor appreciation, and economic opportunity through tourism. Effective interpretive materials, regardless of their form, impart messages about the value of featured sites to local and regional heritage and history and about the need for preservation of fragile cultural resources. Ideally, visitors will extrapolate the concept of local and regional importance and preservation to a larger scale. Logistics and practicalities of preserve, park, and trail establishment range from partnership identification, site selection, and design and writing of signs and brochures to obtaining permission for sign or marker placement to continuing maintenance. These issues may be addressed in many ways, but the assistance of local organizations and communities is an ideal solution beginning with early involvement in the project and leading to continuing support of a locally “owned” and more widely appreciated attraction.

CHAPTER 5

STRATEGIES AND ISSUES

Interpretation and management of maritime sites present unique challenges in the arena of historic preservation and heritage tourism (Oxley and Gregory 2002; Partners for Livable Places and the National Trust for Historic Preservation 1988). Archaeologists and managers struggle to change public perception of what shipwrecks and other maritime sites represent, while encouraging visitation but controlling use- related impact to fragile sites (Spirek and Scott-Ireton 2003). Strategies for establishment and interpretation derived from museological sources can be used to develop management plans for in situ maritime cultural sites, as demonstrated by the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail project. When in situ cultural resources interpreted for the public are treated as museums in non-traditional settings, management and access issues can be approached via museological theory and practice. Preceding chapters focused on theoretical and practical foundations for establishing a community-driven, sustainable maritime heritage attraction for public access, education, and resource preservation. Analysis of experience generated by the case study in the Cayman Islands, as well as by preserve, park, and trail programs in other locations, reveals certain issue and challenges that arise time after time regardless of resource type, environmental conditions, or community situation. The following chapter explores these common concerns involved in the establishment and management of underwater archaeological preserves, shipwreck parks, and maritime heritage trails, presenting examples of problems and solutions.

98 Strategies for Success

An analysis of preserve, park, and trail programs around the world showing by presence/absence the features and elements of each program is presented in Table 1. The most common features represent strategies proven through experience to be most beneficial for resource preservation, public access, and management obligations, assuming the archaeologist or resource manager provides project coordination and heritage interpretation expertise. Whether developed independently through long experience or borrowed from established programs, these attributes appear to be the strategies managers the world over rely on as elements for successful programs. A comparison of preserve, park, and trail programs reveals three common elements of success, regardless of the type of resource or the environment involved: community involvement, effective interpretation, and active management. These elements of success are most effective when combined so that each complements the other to create a program that balances public use with resource preservation. The term “success” in this context means that the resource is visited consistently by the public who are educated as well as entertained by their visit, and that the resource is maintained in a manner consistent with sustainable use (both public and scientific) and long-term preservation. This type of success is difficult to measure quantitatively due to the nature of preserve, park, and trail management. Most data pertaining to relative successes (or failures) of preserve, park, and trail programs is based on personal experience of managers who learn through trial and error and by discussing problems and sharing ideas with other managers. In most cases, the effects of management experiments in preservation and interpretation are not measurable. Success is determined over time if sites are not vandalized, and visitors become stewards of their maritime heritage.

Community Interest and Involvement Public outreach and education strategies often arise from archaeologists’ concerns for the protection and preservation of sites. Threats to non-renewable cultural sites catch the attention of both archaeologists (Hutt et al. 1992; Renfrew 2000) and the

99 public (Ballard 2004; Lawler 2004; Toner 2002). Professional archaeologists realize and embrace not only their responsibilities to the archaeological record, but also to those people whose heritage is contained in that record (Little 2002:10). At least one archaeologist (Fagan 1984:176) argues that because the public has easier access to archaeology (as opposed to extremely technical, specialized fields such as medical research and chemical engineering) through popular media and publicly oriented programs, archaeologists have a responsibility to share findings with the widest possible audience. As early as the 1970s archaeologists recognized the need for effective communication with the public about their projects, purposes, and results (McGimsey and Davis 1977:89). Public education programs now are a routine part of the research design for many archaeological projects, particularly those funded by public monies (Derry and Malloy 2003; Jameson 1997; Little 2002). Further, archaeologists now seek not only to inform the public, but to actively involve the public by creating partnerships that go beyond mere participation. Including communities in the planning and execution of projects and especially in continuing management of the resource builds support and stewardship and enables archaeologists to reap the benefits of community knowledge and insight to increase the quality of their research (Drennan and Mora 2001:5; Malloy 2003:ix). In this, archaeologists adhere to the principles of the New Museology, incorporating and involving in their research projects the communities and people to whom the resource has meaning. No empirical evidence exists that indicates a better understanding of archaeology or that what can be gained by studying the past results in increased protection for historical or cultural sites (Stone 1997:24). On the other hand, no empirical evidence exists that shows a better understanding of archaeology does not result in increased protection. Archaeologists must convince the public to think like archaeologists, to understand and believe the past is important, and to protect and conserve what is left of the past (Zimmerman 2003:9). Responsibility to explain why the physical remains of cultural heritage are important rests with archaeologists. If public education is ignored, archaeologists have no right to blame the uninformed and uneducated for condoning the destruction or sale of archaeological resources (Stone 1997:27).

100 As early as the late 1970s a report by the Council of Europe’s Committee on Culture and Education (1978:23) stressed the importance of public involvement in underwater archaeological projects, explaining that local communities could help protect sites and could host museums of excavated material “as an expression of local pride and an attraction for outside visitors.” Archaeologists have long recognized that a significant portion of the American public is intrigued by their science, i.e., what archaeology is and what it can reveal about the ancient past (Fagan 1984:175). The most savvy archaeologists and cultural resource managers take advantage of this fascination to meet their research and preservation objectives by involving the public in their work. The involvement of local communities in the process of creating and often managing underwater cultural resources is one of the most common attributes of preserve, park, and trail programs around the world. Experience in Florida, as well as other locations, shows that when local communities are involved from the start of underwater archaeological preserve projects they become stewards of the resources, fiercely protecting their historical and physical integrity and becoming proud of their interpreted maritime heritage (Scott-Ireton 2003b). Archaeologists and resource managers can use the New Museology to guide their efforts in responding to the wants and needs of the community and helping the community to interpret their maritime heritage. When presenting a maritime cultural resource as a heritage tourism attraction, managers should consider the effect on the community and actively promote community support. Unlike any other industry, tourism relies on the amity and cooperation of the community surrounding the attraction; local people are a part of the tourism product and must be considered. Where planning and development do not take into account the desires of the community, hostility and resistance are liable to occur (Murphy 1985:153). This kind of opposition can raise costs associated with development and can destroy the potential for cultivating the industry altogether. When community needs are considered and integrated, tourism can foster a sense of environmental and cultural pride in residents who see tourists taking pleasure in and learning from local cultural and historical heritage. In this sense, tourism can help to stimulate aspects of cultural

101 heritage that may otherwise be lost due to lack of appreciation and interest (World Tourism Organization 1998:29).

Effective Interpretation and Advertisement Archaeologists and resource managers find involving communities in maritime heritage preservation is difficult if local people do not know the history of their shipwrecks and other maritime resources and do not understand their importance to the community. For example, many local residents, especially divers, may consider shipwrecks to be a place to engage in their chosen sport, or a place to spear fish, or a place to collect artifacts. The first step in changing this perception is to explain the role of the ship in area history and community development; the wreck almost certainly had some sort of impact that may range from local use of salvaged material, to residents aiding survivors, to shipwrecked sailors deciding to stay and become citizens. Explaining the importance of the wreck and why it should be preserved is the goal of archaeological and museological interpretation. Interpretation by a resource manager who recognizes the importance of the resource and the value of public education can have a powerful effect. Energy is generated when a cause is believed in; this energy is transmitted through the interpretation and can affect the audience (Greenhalgh 1989:95). The concept of interpreting maritime cultural resources for public benefit is employed in several areas of the world. The crucial factor that distinguishes the interpretation of maritime cultural resources from other sites of historical, cultural, and archaeological interest is that they are, by definition, linked to a body of water. This link generally is manifested in the placement of the resource near or in water, whether ocean, river, lake, bay, or spring. The challenges of interpreting resources located near or under water are met in several ways, as discussed in Chapter 3. Methods of interpretation primarily depend on the nature of the resource, that is, placement on (or within) the landscape, environmental conditions, and type of resource. Various methods of interpretation and education are implemented in preserves, parks, and trails around the world. These methods may be divided into two major categories, those targeted to terrestrial audiences and those targeted to submerged

102 audiences, although the two often, and intentionally, overlap. Interpretive materials range from visual attractions on-site to printed media for distribution, and often also incorporate mass media such as television, magazine and newspaper articles, and the world-wide web. The most common interpretive strategy, for both submerged and terrestrial maritime sites, is the production of literature such as brochures and pamphlets describing the site. Some types of interpretive materials are targeted directly at diving and snorkeling visitors who wish to tour the site with information in hand. The form of these materials must be modified in order to make them suitable for use under water. Signage and markers in various configurations also are applied to maritime sites above and below water. From a museological aspect, interpretive methods seek to impart accurate information about the resource in an engaging and easily comprehensible manner that allows intellectual access to the past (Roberts 2004:217). The most effective interpretation for imparting information does not simply give facts but integrates the resource into the larger historical picture and describes what impact the resource had on local cultural identity and community history. This goal is not easy to meet in a small brochure and many programs employ several forms of interpretive material to provide the whole picture or to enable the visitor to choose the form best suited to their particular desires. Advertising of maritime cultural sites often imitates marketing of other heritage tourism attractions. Archaeology is an interesting and newsworthy discipline and archaeologists and managers can use media attention to generate publicity for sites and projects (Blockley 1995:113). Public/private partnerships usually prove an effective and beneficial means of stimulating tourism in a general political climate that favors privatization (Jeffries 2001:137). Additionally, these relationships help to achieve greater efficiency in development and advertisement of attractions because local organizations, such as chambers of commerce and visitor centers, can provide accurate information regarding area tourism demographics (Slick 2002:225). The public/private strategy also incorporates the important aspect of involving the community in the promotion of their maritime cultural heritage and helps to foster a sense of stewardship toward the resource.

103 Florida’s Underwater Archaeological Preserves utilize a variety of interpretive methods, including a brochure and guide for each site, a comprehensive poster, underwater markers, a web site, and shore-based exhibits. Interpretation of the preserve shipwrecks is specifically designed to attract the attention of divers and snorkelers with colorful literature advertising exciting experiences and incorporating recognizable icons such as the red and white diver-down flag (Figure 6). Brochures and posters are given free of charge, and the preserve system also is marketed in popular diving publications such as Scuba News and Rodale’s Scuba Diving. Exhibits are intended to offer additional educational opportunities and to cater to people who cannot dive but who want to learn about the shipwrecks. The web site is part of the larger Division of Historical Resources web site (www.flheritage.com), linking Florida’s shipwrecks to the state’s other historical and cultural resources and heritage attractions.

Active Management and Protection The most effective methods for the management and protection of maritime cultural sites, particularly those that are submerged, directly and intentionally involve programmatic aspects of community involvement and interpretation. By combining the three elements of successful management, a well-rounded and dynamic program can be created that will result in the best possible outcome for the resource, its sustained preservation. I have witnessed such programs sustain active community-based management for more than a decade. Especially where budgetary and personnel restrictions limit the amount of direct management that the administering agency can afford, community management of sites is an effective and desirable solution. Relying on the community, in the form of a community support organization (or similar group) created to help establish and manage the preserve, park, or trail, encourages local people to become and to stay actively involved in their heritage attraction. This, in turn, promotes protection of the resource because the community has a vested interest in maintaining the resource for sustained tourism and as a part of their local history. In Florida, every Underwater Archaeological Preserve has an affiliated Friends of the Shipwreck group involved from the beginning of a preserve project; the original

104 nominator of the site usually becomes president of the group. Some Friends are highly organized – the Friends of USS Massachusetts (BB-2) incorporated as a 501(c)3 not- for-profit organization, held formal elections for officers, and attended monthly meetings governed by strict parliamentary procedure. Other Friends are not so formal – the Copenhagen Clan met occasionally at a local bar. Despite the differences, both Friends groups are extremely devoted to their shipwrecks, assisted state personnel in recording the wreck and preparing interpretive material, and continue to be actively involved in managing and monitoring their preserves nearly 15 years after the preserves were dedicated. This local active management is strongly tied to a high level of community interest and involvement from the beginning of the project.

Issues in Preserve, Park, and Trail Establishment and Management

Although the creation and management of underwater archaeological preserves, shipwreck parks, and maritime heritage trails may seem to be straightforward ventures in public education, they are, actually, endeavors filled with challenges. Programs rarely have direct legislative support, a situation that results in limited dedicated funding. Additionally, public support is not always easy to garner, especially if local residents are not fully aware of the project and what it means for their community. Practical and logistical concerns also can be challenging and range from ethical considerations involving the enhancement of sites to how increased use will affect the resource. Resource managers and archaeologists, in many cases charged by law with ensuring public access to sites, meet these challenges in a variety of innovative ways. The following information is based on the author’s fifteen years of experience in maritime cultural resource management, research conducted during the establishment of the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail, and from the personal experiences of resource managers around the world. Although examples often are anecdotal in nature and lack statistical evidence, the experiences reflect truths encountered repeatedly in establishing and managing preserves, parks, and trails.

105 Definition of “Park,” “Preserve,” and “Trail” One of the first issues a manager faces is what to call the project. Every term has its own connotation in public perception that can affect how the project is received and ultimately how it is marketed. Discussions between the author and members of the public about what to call interpreted in situ maritime cultural sites reveal the possible implications of using certain terms. For example, “preserves” and “reserves” often are thought of in ecological terms as areas where people may not be allowed to enter or may be permitted only in limited numbers or locations. Some states define “preserves” as areas that do not offer shore-based services, facilities, or interpretive programs (Jefferson 1988:41). Many people think of “trails” as nature trails, where paths are marked and a route can be completed in a matter of a couple of hours or less. At least one archaeologist stated that any place where the public is encouraged to visit a submerged cultural resource is not a “preserve” or a “reserve” or a “sanctuary” but should be termed a “park” (Hannahs 2003:5). A “park,” however, usually is thought of as an area or site that is open to the public without limitation and that has certain facilities such as rangers or other personnel available to assist the visitor and accommodations including restrooms and campgrounds (Jefferson 1988:41), which submerged and remote in situ sites do not possess. In the case of interpreted maritime resources, these terms need to be defined for visitors to avoid misunderstandings. Managers should consider what message they are trying to impart and how the name of their program will affect visitor perception of what is offered. An example of how misunderstandings can arise is the story of Florida’s City of Hawkinsville Underwater Archaeological Preserve. Local people heard a new “shipwreck park” was planned and interpreted it to mean the banks of the Suwannee River at the wrecksite would be clear-cut and paved for parking and portable toilets would be installed. Incensed at what they thought the state had planned for their community, a large group of irate townspeople arrived at a scheduled public meeting ready to fight for their pristine river environment. Once they understood the intended plan called only for mooring buoys and some literature, their mood changed completely and the group became some of the most vocal supporters of the project. The entire

106 cause of the misunderstanding was perception of the term “park,” a source of confusion which community involvement early in the project would have eliminated.

Funding As with any underwater project, creating a preserve, park, or trail is expensive and some entity must bear the financial burden (Appendix B). Even when excavation and conservation are not planned, recording the site and preparing interpretive materials is costly. Some programs rely on funds granted from sources such as (in the U.S.) NOAA’s Coastal Zone Management initiative, state historic preservation or greenways and trails programs, or other agencies. A few programs, primarily those based in government, have dedicated budgets conferred by legislative authority. Other programs are private ventures or are incorporated organizations and some are staffed entirely by volunteers. Regardless of the method used, securing funding is one of the chief hurdles for establishing and maintaining an interpreted maritime heritage attraction. Additionally, funding is not limited to a one-time expenditure but rather requires a continual outlay to maintain the site(s), reprint and distribute literature, replace signs, buoys, and other hardware, and monitor the site’s condition. One example of a continuing funding issue is the creation and distribution of interpretive materials. Printed literature is the primary method of interpreting sites, whether on land or underwater, and ranges from small-format brochures and pamphlets to booklets and large-scale posters. Printing is, however, expensive, especially material for underwater use such as guides which must be laminated. For example, in 2005, brochures for one of Florida’s preserves cost $950.00 for graphic design and $1,500.00 to print 8,000 (Figure 13); laminated site guides with grommets are $425.00 to design and $500.00 to produce 200; 7,500 full-color, 18” by 28” posters are $1,625.00 to design and $2,490.00 to print. Brochures and posters often are printed by the thousands and distributed free of charge, resulting in excellent promotion of the resource and a continual drain on funding sources. Interpretive material sometimes is provided on the internet as a printable download in portable document format (PDF) or similar program. This method, however, lacks the panache of putting a colorful

107

Figure 13. Brochures are produced for each of Florida’s Underwater Archaeological Preserves. (Photograph courtesy of Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, 2005.)

108 brochure or poster in the hands of a diver or schoolchild and is less useful for instilling excitement in the program. The ethics of utilizing public funding sources to establish submerged attractions should be considered. Because preserve, park, and trail programs often are government-sponsored in some way, either directly through governmental agencies or via grants and other funding, the monies used are intended to benefit the entirety of the public. The use of governmental sources such as tax revenue to fund projects that ultimately cater to a small segment of the public, i.e., scuba divers (who generally have above-average incomes [PADI 2003]), may not be appropriate in every case (Hermley and Wilde-Ramsing 2004:16). One way to augment budgetary limitations is to involve the local people, who will benefit economically from the attraction through heritage tourism spending, in the funding process. The Friends of USS Massachusetts (BB-2), the community support organization for Florida’s fourth Preserve, organized fund-raising activities ranging from book sales to diving gear raffles. The money generated was used to purchase a larger and more ornate bronze plaque than the $935.00 plaque typically provided by the state. Citizen groups also can be encouraged to take over the printing of brochures and other literature, particularly if design and layout has been completed. Additionally, local businesses often are amenable to contributing in-kind donations, including cement for monuments, boat and barge services, creation of web sites, and venues for holding meetings. Other states and countries find success in dealing with the issue of funding limitations by encouraging community participation. Maryland’s preserve program relies on the assistance of the avocational archaeology MAHS organization to inspect and monitor its interpreted wrecks. In New York, the private Bateaux Below, Inc. is responsible for the state’s entire program of interpreting historic shipwrecks and underwater classrooms. Scotland’s visitor schemes for visiting interpreted historic shipwrecks in the Sound of Mull was developed and continues to be operated through a partnership between governmental agencies and a privately owned dive shop. Some of Australia’s maritime heritage trails are designed and established solely through

109 volunteer efforts, although this approach causes other quandaries for interpretation and coordination with other states.

Site Selection Deciding which maritime site(s) to interpret can be one of the most challenging tasks associated with preserve, park, and trail creation. Each case is unique, requiring managers to consider archaeological significance, site sensitivity, potential for research, physical integrity, environmental conditions, and safety concerns, among other issues. Establishing a shipwreck or other maritime site as an attraction without consulting the community is a recipe for disaster, while promoting any and every site as a preserve or park, as some communities wish, also is not desirable. Not every site can (or should) be promoted for visitation. Most resource managers in the United States are mandated by federal and state law to guarantee and encourage public access to the resources. The Abandoned Shipwreck Act (Pub.L. 100-298; 43 U.S.C. 2101-2106), signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, states explicitly that sport divers and other interested parties have access to shipwreck sites. Guidelines developed by the National Park Service to aid states in implementing the Act specifically suggest developing underwater parks and preserves, including facilities to support diver access and visitor enjoyment (National Park Service 1990:55 FR 50116). Because the Act gives title to shipwrecks to the states in whose waters they are imbedded, the responsibility to grant and promote public access to shipwrecks devolves onto the state resource managers. These managers navigate a precarious course, particularly in areas where salvage of shipwrecks by for-profit organizations (which also creates an ethical dilemma for archaeologists) is sanctioned as well. In deciding what course of action is best for the resource, managers are required to consider ensuring public access, protecting scientific research potential, following instructions mandated by state and federal law, supervising legal salvage contracts (where allowed), and administering permits for archaeological research. Additionally, preservation advocates are quick to point out increased visitation is not necessarily good for the resource because escalation in tourist traffic can cause serious problems for more fragile cultural resources. The

110 balance between encouraging visitation and protecting the resource often is precarious, requiring resource managers to temper promotion with the best use of the resource both now and in the future. Ideally, site selection decisions take into account the target audience; in some cases, several audiences can be successfully targeted. Underwater sites prepared for divers and snorkelers also can be accessed by glass-bottom boats and tourist submarines; additionally, virtual tours are becoming more popular for limited-access sites. Terrestrial maritime sites such as lighthouses, careenages, shipyards and slipways, coastal forts, ports, and even entire communities are ideal for divers and non- divers alike due to ease of access and interpretation. These types of attractions can be grouped into maritime heritage trails to provide an additional or alternative activity for areas that may already draw visitors for other attractions. The State of Florida’s Bureau of Archaeological Research approached the issue of site selection by encouraging the public to nominate sites to the Underwater Archaeological Preserve system, thus neatly avoiding the problem. In the case of the first preserve, officials of St. Lucie County approached the state to make the 1715 wreck of Urca de Lima off-limits to treasure hunters and to create an underwater park at the site (Smith 1991:43). This request for state assistance by a local community was the impetus for the entire preserve program and set precedent for nominations of new sites. By responding to formal requests from local people the state avoids being perceived as a bureaucratic entity with no regard for the preferences and opinions of its constituents. Rather, state involvement and assistance is regarded as validation of community opinion about the importance of local sites. Not all nominated sites, however, are appropriate for promotion as heritage attractions. Determining which sites are appropriate for interpretation while considering archaeological ethics and mandates for public access can be a difficult process for managers. A strategy for decision-making that works well in several locations is the development of criteria to help select sites suitable for increased visitation. Criteria for choosing appropriate shipwrecks for public access and interpretation were suggested by an early management proposal and included recreation potential, diving quality, public support, economic impact, and vulnerability to threats (Jefferson 1988:41).

111 Resource managers and archaeologists use criteria to eliminate sites too archaeologically sensitive or physically fragile to sustain increased visitation and to choose sites that best illustrate the theme of the preserve, park, or trail program. For example, criteria for selecting sites for the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail were developed by the Maritime Heritage Partners with the goal of promoting access only to appropriate sites, thereby eliminating from the trail sites that are archaeologically sensitive or are too fragile to support increased visitation. The criteria take into account historical significance, variety of maritime themes, island-wide representation, interesting visual features, public access, safety, and site sensitivity. With many possible sites to consider, these criteria helped organizers to select the best sites for illustrating the maritime history of the islands and to eliminate sites that were inappropriate for increased use. The criteria used in Florida for selecting Underwater Archaeological Preserves have been refined over 15 years of experience to aid resource managers in selecting appropriate sites for inclusion in the preserve program and in excluding those sites not desirable due to inhospitable or unsafe diving conditions, lack of historical data, or unknown identity. To become a Florida preserve a site must be located in state waters, have recognizable features, be accessible to the public, have a verifiable identity and history, have safe diving conditions, and have plentiful marine life. The criteria do not specify that preserves must be “natural” shipwrecks, making possible the designation of abandoned or scuttled vessels as Underwater Archaeological Preserves. Because abandoned or scuttled ships were not sunk in a violent manner, they may offer the best opportunities for education and safe visitation, and may be better preserved than a ship wrecked, for example, in a hurricane. Florida’s USS Massachusetts was scuttled and City of Hawkinsville was abandoned; both are relatively intact with recognizable features and easily interpreted construction. An additional subject for preserve consideration is ships sunk intentionally as artificial reefs. Such vessels may be historically significant, usually support a variety of marine life, and because they are sunk specifically for divers, generally possess safe visitation conditions.

112 Use of Resource One of the negative impacts of tourism on a fragile resource, whether ecological or historical, is the possible damage that may occur due to increased traffic and use (Jeffries 2001:45-47). Shipwrecks are especially vulnerable because their continued preservation depends on maintaining an equilibrium established over time between wrecks and their environment. In a state of equilibrium, degradation slows to minimal (often imperceptible) levels (Oxley and Gregory 2002:715). Once disturbed, shipwrecks (both wooden and metal) tend to degrade at a faster rate. A major challenge for managers and archaeologists is to balance public access with maintaining the cultural resource, both for future enjoyment and for future scientific research. In some cases, these goals can be mutually exclusive; particularly sensitive sites, for example, may be too fragile both in terms of physical condition and scientific potential to sustain public visitation. The task of deciding the best use of the resources usually falls to the resource manager who evaluates the benefits of public education and likelihood of damage to the site and the information it contains. The ideal situation is to close archaeologically sensitive sites to public visitation (Hannahs 2003:7). This option, however, is not a practical solution because many shipwrecks (particularly those in shallow water) are known to sport divers and there is no realistic way to ensure zero visitation. Impact from visitors is expected (Mark Wilde-Ramsing 2004, pers. comm.) and management strategies usually include the inspection of interpreted sites by managers or their designees to monitor changes to the condition of the sites. Archaeological site plans, often initially created to aid visitor interpretation of the site, may be used to measure changes caused by human and natural forces and to evaluate the necessity of changing visitation practices. Unfortunately, experience shows that educational efforts, and even actual physical barriers, sometimes are not enough to protect shipwrecks from damage, whether intentional or inadvertent. Managers for New York’s 1758 radeau Land Tortoise Submerged Heritage Preserve in Lake George installed a chain mounted on stanchions around the wreck, the oldest intact warship in North America (Zarzynski et al. 1996). The barrier is intended to keep visitors from hanging onto and damaging the

113 fragile wooden hull; the chain does not at all hinder viewing the radeau and serves the same purpose as a velvet rope at a historic house museum. Despite this measure the wreck was damaged in 1995 by divers who attempted (unsuccessfully) to remove two cannon port lids; diver-caused damage also was noted to other portions of the wreck (Zarzynski et al. 1996:39). Despite the best efforts of managers through interpretation and education, the diving vandals did not appreciate, or chose to ignore, the message of preservation. In this case the managers walk a fine line. The radeau is historically significant and has National Register and National Landmark status; as a wooden-hulled vessel in fresh water it is well preserved but also fragile. The most effective option for preservation of the shipwreck is to prohibit visitation (Zarzynski et al. 1996:36). Managers do not consider this a viable option because the radeau is widely known in the local sport diving community, is a fascinating piece of American history, and belongs to the public. The preserve managers control visitation through requiring divers to obtain a permit and educating the diving public about the significance of the warship and the need for zero-impact visitation. These efforts have proven, for the most part, to be successful; of the hundreds of divers who visited Land Tortoise, apparently only a few missed, or ignored, the message. Nevertheless, increased use negatively affects the wreck and is an issue managers constantly address. Submerged cultural resource managers recognize that diving visitors cause wear and tear on the resource. At least one manager likens interpreted shipwrecks to historic buildings and battlefields open to the public, stating, “Some loss is expected, should be anticipated, and mitigated as needed” (Mark Wilde-Ramsing 2004, pers. comm.). A manager of Great Lakes shipwrecks indicates, because his program’s public education efforts are aimed at divers, peer pressure is exerted on those who would loot sites and results in dramatically decreased incidents. Additionally, the preservation message helps preserve shipwrecks in deep water that, due to advances in diving technology, are regularly visited; divers race to get the first photos, rather than bring up the first artifacts (Keith Meverden 2004, pers. comm.). A manager of shipwrecks in Lake Champlain believes, while some use-related wear is unavoidable, controlled access helps prevent

114 damage from anchors and vandalism that otherwise would be far worse (Arthur Cohn 2004, pers. comm.). Despite evidence that interpreted maritime sites sustain a degree of damage from visitors, resource managers remain committed to ensuring public access to appropriate sites. As related above, many archaeologists believe their education efforts are effective, resulting in appreciation for the resources and their continued preservation. The wants and needs of the community, in this case the community of divers and shipwreck enthusiasts as well as the geographical surrounding community, are recognized and are satisfied, with the expectation that visitors will help to protect the resource for future visitors to experience.

Authenticity As the popularity of submerged heritage attractions grows, managers may find themselves dealing with stakeholders encouraging the interpretation of inappropriate sites. As discussed previously, some shipwrecks may be too fragile to support increased tourism. Alternatively, vessels sunk on purpose to become habitats for marine life, commonly termed artificial reefs, generally are not considered candidates to become shipwreck parks because they are not “natural” shipwrecks. Neither, however, are abandoned or scuttled ships which often are promoted as heritage attractions. Florida’s City of Hawkinsville and USS Massachusetts Preserves fall into this category, the former abandoned when it reached the end of its useful life and the latter scuttled for target practice. Both of these ships, although not technically wrecked, are popular diving destinations and are interpreted so visitors can learn about their histories and their unique places in Florida’s maritime heritage. Vessels sunk as artificial reefs may have historical significance apart from their function as biological habitats. For example, the ship Ancient Mariner, sunk in 1991 near Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, as an artificial reef, was launched as the Coast Guard cutter Nemesis. Nemesis was instrumental in trying to save survivors from the wreck of Regina, now one of Florida’s Underwater Archaeological Preserves. After decommissioning, the ship was used for many years as a floating restaurant. It became famous, or perhaps infamous, as the site of the largest outbreak of hepatitis A in

115 Florida. Ancient Mariner’s story can engage the fascination of visitors and its historical significance is deserving of interpretation, despite being recently sunk on purpose. While not authentic shipwrecks, some artificial reef ships have authentic histories that can be interpreted, although perhaps in a different way than shipwrecks are interpreted.

Enhancement and Alteration of Sites Divers visit shipwreck parks and preserves to see shipwrecks. The more dramatic the experience, the more they will garner from the visit in terms of excitement for the topic and interest in the resource. Personal experience indicates an interested and excited diver is open to education. But to what extent is dramatizing a shipwreck ethically acceptable and how much enhancement can a site sustain before it becomes a parody of itself and little better than a shipwreck theme park? There is no easy answer to the question, but managers develop a variety of solutions to fit their resources and their standards. Replica artifacts, and in some cases entire replica vessels, are effectively employed. In Florida, cement cannons were placed at the Urca de Lima and San Pedro Preserves in an attempt to recreate a semblance of how the shipwrecks appeared before their ordnance was removed by treasure hunters (Scott-Ireton 2003a:103-104). New York’s “The Sunken Fleet of 1758” Preserve boasts an accurately replicated bateau in addition to authentic historic wrecks; the replica bateau is intended to relieve visitor pressure on the historic ships by allowing divers to touch and thoroughly explore it (Zarzynski 2002:82). The Dominican Republic has two preserves that are entirely fabricated (Indiana University 2003a, 2003b) but they nevertheless present an opportunity for the public to see shipwreck artifacts that otherwise would be stored away and never displayed. The Dominican preserves are not presented as shipwreck sites - their interpretation is very clear – but their representation of shipwrecks is an innovative way to educate the public about shipwreck archaeology. Two historic shipwrecks in Puerto Rico were removed from their original context to prevent their destruction by planned harbor dredging (James et al. 2003). Using site plans and photographs, contract archaeologists replaced the ship elements in an area more conducive to visitation. Although the wrecks sites no longer possess their

116 original archaeological context, they remain valuable additions to the heritage tourism industry.

Biological Considerations Any structure in oceans, rivers, or lakes creates a foundation for the growth of indigenous plants and animals. Shipwrecks usually host vibrant communities of marine life including fish, corals, mollusks, sponges, crustaceans, and algae. Artificial reefs are sunk specifically for this reason, providing a place for marine species to grow and live. Divers and anglers are drawn to these locations to view, photograph, or harvest the plants and animals. Cultural resource managers have a responsibility to the living creatures that inhabit interpreted maritime cultural sites. Cultural and natural resource managers may be able to work together to manage interpreted maritime sites and their attendant biological resources. For example, the Cayman Islands Department of Environment (DoE) has jurisdiction over the marine environment in which shipwrecks are imbedded and have become part of the coral reef ecosystem. DoE and the National Museum work together to investigate and manage historic shipwrecks and their surrounding environments. Cultural resource managers often do not have jurisdiction to regulate the management or use of natural resources at interpreted historical sites. In these cases, communities can be encouraged to manage the environment at their maritime heritage sites. Florida’s Copenhagen Preserve provides a case study for a successful grass- roots effort to preserve the natural beauty, as well as the historical integrity, of a shipwreck site. The wreck of Copenhagen is located on the Pompano Ledge offshore of Pompano Beach, in an area famed for warm, clear Gulf Stream water and prolific marine life. Because the Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, the agency responsible for the preserves, has no authority to regulate natural resources, local Pompano Beach dive shop owners and charter boat captains decided among themselves to limit the harvesting of marine life at the Copenhagen Preserve. Divers who want to spearfish or collect lobsters and anglers who want to catch fish are taken to other locations. Very little fishing, lobstering, or removal of any sealife has occurred since the preserve was established in 1994. As a result, the biological population at the

117 wreck of Copenhagen increased dramatically and the diving experience is likened to diving in an aquarium. The prolific and diverse ecosystem is directly attributed to local efforts, rather than to governmental control.

Interpretive Methods The museological goals of interpretation, explored earlier in this chapter, include explaining the cultural and historical context of the resource, its importance to community heritage, and enabling the visitor’s intellectual access to the past. This section is more concerned with the logistical methods of interpretation. The first consideration in developing the format and types of interpretive materials is determining the target audience. In the case of submerged sites, the target audience primarily is divers and snorkelers; these visitors are interested in knowing safe visitation procedures nearly as much as they are in knowing the site’s history. Including information on the brochure or guide regarding tidal changes, recommended gear, times of best visibility, and safe anchoring is beneficial and results in a meaningful and, most importantly, safe visitor experience. Resources located on land often are appropriate for visitation by all audiences; maritime heritage trails in Western Australia offer information for access to the physically challenged, a consideration often overlooked in the interpretation of maritime resources (Philippou and Staniforth 2003:139). Many logistical issues associated with interpreting maritime sites can be addressed using techniques developed and tested in museums. Examples of brochures produced for museum exhibits illustrates effective form, content, layout, and size. As a practical consideration, the average brochure (in the United States) measures 8½ inches by 14 inches and folds into 3½ inches by 8½ inches in order to fit into a standard brochure holder. Brochures for cultural resources must, therefore, contain all information, including history, interpretation, images, site plan(s), and visiting instructions, in this limited space. Materials must catch the visitor’s eye and interest and present information in an entertaining manner while remaining historically accurate and delivering the message of preservation and protection. For maximum impact they also need to be written to benefit adults and children. Many managers and archaeologists who produce interpretive materials find that engaging the services of a professional

118 graphic designer is the best way to deliver a superior product. Signage also presents limited space and, in some cases, are required to comply with local ordinances regulating size, color, and placement. Most land-based trails are marked with signage to alert the visitor to an interpreted resource but signage and other markers are much less ubiquitous on submerged sites. This is partially due to the difficulties inherent in maintenance, but some managers choose not to place plaques, markers, or signs on shipwreck sites so the historical vista is not compromised in any way. Despite the near-constant need for cleaning and repair, however, underwater signage is used at many interpreted shipwreck sites around the world including Florida, Michigan, Vermont, New York, North Carolina, Western Australia, New South Wales, Israel, Finland, and Scotland. The overall theme or design of signage and other interpretive materials is an important consideration. In Australia several shipwreck and maritime heritage trails were created by various governmental and museum agencies. Although the trails feature accurate historical information they are inconsistent in quality and format (Philippou and Staniforth 2003:137; Smith 2003:125). A major improvement in the trail concept would be achieved if the agencies worked together to coordinate signage and interpretive literature, allowing visitors to travel a consistent maritime heritage trail for a significant portion of the continent’s coastline (Philippou and Staniforth 2003:147). Development in recent years of submersible Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) offers archaeologists and managers a new way of presenting submerged sites to the public. ROVs equipped with video cameras enable non-divers to explore shipwrecks and make possible virtual visitation to sites in extremely deep, cold, or otherwise inaccessible locations. For example, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution uses its deep-water submersible ROV JASON as part of a joint project with the National Science Teachers Association to introduce school children to deep-water scientific exploration (Armour 1997). Students all over the United States participated in the JASON Project to virtually explore the War of 1812 shipwrecks Hamilton and Scourge, almost 300 feet deep in Lake Ontario (Armour 1997; McCann 1997). Shipwrecks in extremely deep waters such as Titanic (Ballard 1995) and the recently discovered Black Sea wrecks (Ward and Ballard 2004) cannot realistically be promoted for public

119 visitation, although ROVs can provide a virtual experience. ROVs, however, are expensive to procure and to operate, at present limiting their extensive use for public education purposes.

Tracking Visitation One of the most difficult aspects of the establishment and management of underwater and maritime preserves, parks, and trails is determination of their success both in terms of resource protection and popularity as an attraction because these sites are notoriously hard to monitor. In areas where diving visitors can access sites through charter boats, personal boats, or shore entry, accurately counting the number of visitors a shipwreck park receives may not be possible. Some underwater preserves, such as those in Vermont and New York, are strictly controlled and visitors are required to register before diving the sites, making monitoring divers and collecting statistics easier (Cohn 2003:88; Zarzynski et al. 1996:36). In the case of Scotland’s visitor schemes visitors take a short orientation class before they are granted a license to dive interpreted historic shipwrecks (Robertson 2003:74); guided tours are the only way to see Curaçao’s SS Mediator preserve (Raymond Hayes 2004, pers. comm.). Such measures, which may be considered extreme in the world of sport diving, are practical in these locations because of the relatively light visitor traffic. Submerged resource managers in locations such as Florida (the top sport diving destination in the United States) and many parts of the Caribbean would find instituting similar regulations difficult due to the sheer volume of diving and snorkeling visitors. Several methods are used to attempt to collect accurate counts of the numbers of visitors to underwater preserves and shipwreck parks. Because these historical attractions, by their very nature, are not housed in buildings like museums or fenced like battlefields, wildlife preserves, and other discrete land sites, visitor numbers are difficult to calculate. Gates, turnstiles, ticketing machines, and other mechanical means for counting visitors are unsuitable for submerged sites, and for most terrestrial trails. Surveys and questionnaires, often distributed through participating dive shops or via the internet, are useful when visitors make the effort to complete and submit them; the state of Maryland employs this method with limited success (Langley 2003:50). Some

120 managers propose divers to preserve sites be permitted only through certain charter boat businesses that agree to participate in preservation and management efforts. This, however, will not account for divers who use private vessels or who enter the water from shore if the site is nearby. Use of interpretive literature to help track visitation is successful in some areas. For example, diving visitors to the Roman harbor of Caesarea Maritima in Israel borrow from the single local dive shop laminated cards illustrating the sunken harbor breakwaters and other structures. After the diver uses the card for a self-guided tour around the harbor the card is returned to the dive shop. Diving visitors are counted based on the number of times each card is borrowed. This method is not perfect, however, as a single diver may borrow a card for a buddy team of two or even more divers or the diver may opt not to use the card at all.

Legality and Liability Legal issues, especially liability concerns, are a subject of particular interest to managers of, especially, submerged cultural attractions. Interpreted terrestrial sites, such as maritime heritage trails, likely are subject to the same legal standards in terms of accessibility and liability that apply to other land-based attractions such as wilderness areas or nature trails, although this has not been tested in a court of law. Submerged interpreted sites, however, may pose a higher risk of liability. SCUBA diving carries an inherent risk that cannot be reduced to zero; by promoting shipwrecks as places to visit managers encourage the public to engage in an inherently risky activity. Archaeologists for the state of Florida asked their legal counsel to consider this fact and to provide an opinion regarding liability if a diver were to be injured while visiting a state Underwater Archaeological Preserve. The State’s Attorney determined that shipwrecks in Florida waters already are visited by divers and by interpreting the sites, providing safe diving suggestions, and recommending minimum certification levels the state’s preserve program made visitation safer, therefore the state did not assume any additional liability by encouraging visitation to the Archaeological Preserves. The state of Vermont’s Attorney General’s Office issued a similar opinion. Because the state allowed divers to visit its shipwrecks it already assumed a degree of liability and, assuming conditions

121 were no more hazardous than what normally is encountered in diving, additional liability was minimal (Lawrence 2003:66). Fortunately for preserve, park, and trail programs around the world, no reported incidents of diving accidents are recorded, and no legal action has been brought against government-operated programs. If liability ever is tested in a court case, however, the resulting decision most likely will have ramifications for all submerged cultural attractions.

Conclusion

Encouraging public access to archaeological sites is described as both incompatible with and contradictory to the goal of preserving a site intact (Hannahs 2004:6). Certainly the best-case scenario for preservation is for a site never to be discovered, but that is disingenuous and defeats the point of archaeology. Once a shipwreck is discovered, however, it cannot be “undiscovered” and the job of managing the site - taking into account relevant legislation, needs of the public, and needs of science - begins. Educating people who visit the site is the best method we have to ensure the site is treated with respect and care so it will last into the future. Legislation, while effective to help control large-scale threats such as commercial salvage, treasure hunting, and construction, has long been shown to be relatively ineffective in controlling individualized looting and vandalism (Prott and O’Keefe 1981:177). Grass-roots education initiatives are the best, and perhaps only feasible, means to combat ignorance and malice (Derry and Malloy 2003). These initiatives involve the community in understanding and preserving their own heritage, a museologically sound strategy for resource management. Vital partnerships are created among state and local government, civic organizations, local businesses, and interested individuals for resource management and protection. The archaeologist’s and resource manager’s job is showing the community why resource preservation is a worthy goal and helping the community to reach that goal.

122 As stressed by the New Museology, community participation is crucial for successful management of in situ archaeological sites, especially where public access is promoted. People helping to monitor shipwrecks in their own “backyards” are among the most effective means for protection. The charter boat captain who tells divers on his boat, “Don’t disturb this wreck and don’t collect ‘souvenirs,’ or don’t get back on this boat,”2 is a voice of authority that both exerts peer pressure and illustrates local pride of heritage. Based on experience in Florida, the captain’s strategy is many times more effective than legislation and threat of arrest and prosecution. The captain’s respect for the shipwreck is communicated to the divers, ideally with positive results: the shipwreck is preserved, the divers are entertained and educated, and the captain’s source of revenue is sustained. Nascent preserve, park, and trail programs in areas find more success if local people are involved. Archaeologists in Argentina recognize the need to involve local people so they understand why shipwrecks are important. Initially considered by local residents to be the cause of restrictions on fishing, managers worked to show the shipwreck park to be an economic advantage as a tourist attraction (Elkin and Cafferata 2001:86-87). By encouraging local people to become engaged and invested in their maritime resources as economic attributes (as well as historical attributes) of their community, long-term preservation goals can be met as well. Ultimately, the exact process for effective management of in situ maritime heritage sites is not universal but rather depends upon the individual resource, environment, community, and situation (Elkin and Cafferata 2001:88; Scott-Ireton 2003b:74-76). Experience shows, however, that if the community involvement and local participation principles of New Museology are engaged together with effective interpretation and active management – the Elements for Success - preservation and sustainable use is, if not absolutely guaranteed, certainly more likely than if the resource is left unattended and unappreciated.

2 Heard by the author on a charter dive boat in Pensacola, Florida. The wreck was not disturbed.

123

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION: MUSEOLOGY AND MARITIME SITES

The challenge in applying museological strategy and theory to the management of in situ terrestrial and submerged maritime sites is that museum professionals and historic preservationists have not yet left the shore (Hannahs 2003:14). Much effort in museum studies is in areas not applicable to management of archaeological resources, such as the way visitors move through museums (Wright 1989) or how they look at art objects (Fyfe and Ross 1996). Historic preservationists primarily are preoccupied with the built environment, even defining outdoor museums by whether the buildings are original or reconstructions (Murtagh 1997:90). Museum professionals, and some archaeologists, often regard interpretation of shipwrecks in terms of how to raise, conserve, and exhibit in a traditional setting. The concept of what a museum is, however, has changed, and outdoor, open-air archaeological and historical sites, such as Chaco Canyon in New Mexico and Mount Vernon in Virginia, are recognized as museums without walls. By extension, open-water sites including underwater archaeological preserves and shipwreck parks also are museums without walls. Contemporary museological theory stressing the vital role of the community in design, creation, interpretation, and management can be applied to in situ maritime cultural sites, making possible their management as museums in non-traditional settings. The hypothesis for this research is that museological techniques and, especially, the theoretical approach of the New Museology can effectively be applied in the establishment and management of underwater archaeological preserves, shipwreck parks, and maritime heritage trails. Interpretation and promotion of in situ maritime sites for public access and education and for heritage tourism is an innovative method of cultural resource management growing in popularity around the world. Although

124 interpreted maritime resources are presented as exhibits or as “museums in the sea” for public visitation, preserves, parks, and trails usually are instigated and administered by archaeologists or cultural resource managers rather than by museum professionals. Archaeologists can use techniques of museology, including theoretical foundations, interpretive methods, and public education strategies, to help increase the public perception of value of the resource. If submerged archaeological sites and open-air maritime heritage trails are considered museums without walls and are managed as such, museological tools can effectively be employed to positively shape public perceptions about the value of maritime resources and to enhance preservation efforts. Once we have the knowledge to effect social change, we have the moral obligation to use it (Mauss 1990[1950]). This type of advocacy is considered one of the aims of anthropology (Singer 1990). Managers of preserve, park, and trail programs around the world developed a variety of schemes to protect resources while encouraging public access. Interpretive methods include literature, underwater markers, signage, and internet-based guides. Tracking visitation numbers and controlling visitor-related damage to sites (intentional and inadvertent) is a primary challenge that has not, to date, been adequately met. Archaeologists and resource managers seem to agree that public interpretation of in situ maritime sites is an effective means of protecting sites while educating visitors about the need for preservation of non-renewable cultural resources. They stress the need for legislative authority and active community-based management. Managers recognize the need to involve local communities in all phases of interpreting and promoting resources to foster stewardship. By encouraging communities to participate in the investigation of their own heritage and in how that heritage is presented, resource managers unconsciously acknowledge the guiding principle of the New Museology. The encompassing community approach of the New Museology was used, together with successful strategies for interpretation and education developed by similar programs, to create the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail. This heritage attraction is uniquely Caymanian and is open to all, promotes visitation to all three Islands, enhances the local economy, and educates residents and visitors about the nation’s maritime history and development. After journeying around the trail, visitors

125 have experienced a variety of historic sites exemplifying the maritime connections of Cayman Islands culture. Cayman Islands governmental agencies, civic organizations, and citizens participated in all phases of the project, helping to select sites, research histories, develop interpretive materials, and install and maintain signs. The success of the project enabled a second phase of research and interpretation focusing on submerged historic sites. Experience in promoting in situ maritime sites for public visitation reveals consistent challenges and issues for management and protection. Personal experience in submerged cultural resource management together with knowledge shared by professional archaeologists and resource managers help to generate ideas about the best ways to interpret maritime resources for the public and to decide the best course of action in dealing with practical and logistical issues of access and interpretation. Lessons from experience and case study research enabled the creation of a set of “steps for success” to aid in the establishment of interpreted submerged and maritime cultural resources for the public.

A Model for Successful Establishment of an Underwater Archaeological Preserve, Shipwreck Park, or Maritime Heritage Trail

The following discussion presents a model for interpreting submerged and maritime sites for public education and heritage tourism. The steps, based on research elaborated in previous chapters, are the steps used to create the Cayman Islands Maritime Heritage Trail. This model is based on the New Museological principles of community participation and public service. Archaeologists and resource managers, who generally are the initiating force of the project, can use this model as a tool for interpreting and promoting public access to in situ terrestrial and submerged maritime cultural resources.

126 Initiate and Sustain Community Involvement Enabling and encouraging community involvement from the start of any public interpretation project is the single most crucial step toward creating a heritage attraction that promotes visitation, preservation, and education. A major tenet of the New Museology and one of three strategies for success presented in Chapter 5, this step cannot be overemphasized and absolutely must not be overlooked. Community participation encourages a feeling of local stewardship for the interpreted resource(s), helps managers to determine the best course of action for the project, and ensures local people take an active role in continuing management of the heritage attraction. Shipwreck parks and maritime heritage trails allow communities to represent themselves and their own maritime history and connections (Witcomb 2003:81). By working with communities to determine and implement what local people want rather than imposing a pre-determined and inflexible design, archaeologists and resource managers may become “honorary” members of the community and can work toward building a team mentality with positive effects on historic preservation throughout the community.

Determine the Audience The manner of explaining heritage and its meaning to the public depends on the audience, whether free and willing adults, “captive” schoolchildren, indigenous peoples, visitors, or residents (Ucko 2000:ix). Determining the audience has ramifications for the entire project, including interpretation and exhibition design, management practices, and possible need for future changes or additions to the attraction. Advice from the community helps to decide if, for example, schoolchildren, tourists, or divers are the primary audience. Interpretive materials can be tailored to the specific desires, needs, and abilities of the audience.

Decide the Form of the Maritime Heritage Attraction Community involvement is crucial in deciding what aspect of their maritime heritage to feature as an attraction. Submerged sites such as shipwrecks appeal to a relatively small audience but may draw divers from far away to visit and learn about the

127 site. Trails enable a more holistic approach where shipwrecks, lighthouses, sites of marine industry, and other related resources can be interpreted as a maritime cultural landscape. This step may depend entirely on logistical considerations and what is possible to accomplish in a timely manner. Actual establishment of the preserve, park, or trail should consider the strategies and issues presented in Chapter 5 and the ways other programs meet and overcome challenges.

Conduct Research Thorough and accurate archaeological and historical research is vital for sustaining the authenticity of the heritage attraction. Together with interpretation, authenticity is vital to the visitor’s experience (Lipe 1984:4). Interpretive materials rely on accurate information to pique visitor interest and to reinforce the message of archaeological sites as locations of meaning. Once visitors see the value of knowledge about the past that can be recovered from archaeological resources they are more inclined to promote preservation. Community involvement again is crucial, providing local insight and information to the historical context.

Create Interpretive Materials to Explain Value Effective interpretation is the second strategy for success and is a critical step for influencing public attitudes about submerged and maritime cultural resources. Archaeologists are cautioned to recognize their hidden influences and make them explicit in their interpretations of the past (Fowler 1987:241). Some influences are not hidden, however. Archaeologists and resource managers know their influences include resource protection and preservation and most see no reason to hide this from the public. If one goal of interpretation is to allow informed and accurate intellectual access to the past (McManus 2000:xiii), another goal is to impart to audiences the message of conservation. In the case of submerged cultural resources, the conservation message can include natural and ecological conservation as well as preservation of cultural resources.

128 Secure Marketing and Promotion All the interpretation imaginable is useless if no one reads or views it. Interpretation of historical and archaeological resources encourages tourism but people need to know the opportunity for visitation exists. Effective marketing and promotion ensures people visit the interpreted site; interpretation ensures they learn something about it. A strategy for success together with interpretation, marketing and promotion help to advertise the heritage attraction and to encourage people to visit. Economic advantages of heritage tourism are important for local communities and are a primary impetus for community involvement, along with altruistic historic preservation. The State of Florida lists economic benefits of historic preservation as a major goal of historical resource management (Florida Division of Historical Resources 2002:18). Marketing heritage attractions to promote tourism leads not only to greater numbers of educational opportunities but also to increased tourism revenue for the area.

Guarantee Active and Continuing Management The final step is ensuring interpreted sites remain places people want to visit. The third strategy for success, this step also relies on community involvement to maintain the resources as inviting, safe attractions for visitors. Community groups involved from the beginning of a project have a vested interest in maintaining the results of their hard work and in sustaining their tourism attraction. Additionally, programs relying on local communities for the continual maintenance required by maritime resources, and submerged sites in particular, realize more success in maintaining interpretive materials such as on-site signage, markers, and guidelines and in monitoring the state of promotional literature.

Future Challenges

As with any new and growing endeavor, archaeologists and managers involved in public interpretation of in situ maritime cultural sites face new challenges every day.

129 This work is not intended as the final word on interpreting and promoting maritime cultural resources for the public, but rather as a foundation on which to build a strong program that can change and adapt as necessary. The many challenges and issues affecting archaeologists and managers in this developing field are described and programs around the world are examined to present examples of methods that work and of some that are under revision. As a final note, here are a few challenges archaeologists and managers likely will face in the future. While granting public access to shipwrecks is a primary means of ensuring resource preservation, more is not necessarily better. The perfect blend of access and protection is difficult to achieve and even more difficult to maintain. The wreck that today may be in excellent condition, perfect for interpretation and visitation, may tomorrow be ravaged due to increased human activities and interaction, deteriorated to the point that access should be restricted. The resulting dilemma is, once granted, how can the resource manager restrict access to divers who have visited the wreck many times and for whom the site may be a favorite diving location? On the other hand, the human effect can be regarded as a natural effect and the results of human activity a part of the wreck’s story just as valid as the original construction or wrecking event in the history and archaeology of the shipwreck. The New Museology stresses the importance of community relations in developing heritage attractions and experience affirms the validity of the theory. An issue that will become more critical as time passes is the need for sustaining a vital community role. Individuals and groups who become interested and are active in the initial establishment of a preserve, park, or trail likely will remain active for some time. Eventually, however, people relocate, may be distracted by other projects, or become physically unable to participate. Long-term management depends on sustaining community interest, a challenge for future resource managers who inherit the administration of preserves, parks, and trials. Archaeologists and cultural resource managers around the United States and the world can take advantage of insights offered by museum theory and practice, especially the New Museology, to develop strategies for interpretation, exhibition, management, preservation, public education, and community involvement. As more maritime cultural

130 sites are interpreted for the public, experience continues to expand offering new approaches in encouraging and sustaining public access to archaeological and historical sites and in explaining the value of preservation. Interpreted maritime sites are vehicles for changing public perception of the value of shipwrecks and other historical resources. Every interpreted shipwreck can have positive effects on visitors, effects that influence their opinions about other shipwrecks and that help to offset disadvantages of increased visitation such as use wear and possible damage to interpreted sites. In situ maritime cultural sites often are described as “open-air museums” or as “museums in the sea.” It is time they are managed as museums in non-traditional settings.

131

APPENDIX A

Suggested Steps for the Establishment of a Florida State Underwater Archaeological Preserve

1. A shipwreck is nominated to become a Preserve, generally by a local diver, boat captain, or school children, by submitting a nomination form to the Bureau of Archaeological Research.

2. The wreck site is visited by State archaeologists to determine if the shipwreck meets criteria for Preserve status: in State waters recognizable features accessible to public identity and history verifiable safe diving conditions plentiful marine life

3. If the shipwreck meets the criteria it becomes a Preserve candidate.

4. State personnel visit area businesses, local government, Chamber of Commerce, boating and fishing clubs, dive shops, museums, etc. to garner interest and assistance.

5. An informal Friends of the Preserve group is formed by interested individuals and is aided by State personnel. The Friends promote and help to establish the Preserve, and also raise funds and solicit in-kind donations and services which may range from providing refreshments at the public meeting to raising funds for a site plaque.

6. State archaeologists, with the help of local divers, survey and record the shipwreck and prepare a detailed site plan. Together with the Friends group, State personnel

132 research the ship’s history and verify its identity. An assessment and inventory of the site’s biological diversity also is conducted.

7. Once the site plan and history are complete, an official proposal for the new Preserve is presented to area citizens and businesses and any questions or concerns are addressed.

8. The proposal, which includes the site plan and ship’s history as well as educational and economic benefits of the Preserve, is distributed to area media. If there is public support, the proposal is considered to be accepted.

9. A formal opening ceremony with State and local dignitaries is held to dedicate the new Preserve and to place an underwater plaque designating the site a State Underwater Archaeological Preserve and Florida Heritage Site.

10. The Preserve is interpreted for the public through a brochure, an underwater guide for divers and snorkelers, a web page, a poster, and a local museum exhibit of artifacts, photos, etc. The Preserve also is nominated to the National Register of Historic Places.

11. The Friends of the Preserve provide continuing support by monitoring the site, distributing brochures and posters, and promoting visitation.

133

APPENDIX B

Sample Schedule and Budget for an Underwater Archaeological Preserve

Half Moon Underwater Archaeological Preserve Miami-Dade County, Florida

12-Month Project Schedule: First Quarter Preliminary inspection of site Creation of community support organization Host sport diver workshop to train volunteers Record shipwreck

Second Quarter Prepare site plan Prepare draft proposal including history of ship Organize public symposium to distribute proposal

Third Quarter Respond to comments received from proposal Preparation of brochure and underwater guide Fabrication of bronze plaque and cement monument

Fourth Quarter Dedication of new Preserve Distribution of interpretive literature Installation of plaque

Budget: Salaries Archaeologist to oversee (2 months) $5,000.00 Archaeologist to direct (8 months) 16,000.00 Archaeologist (12 months) 22,000.00 Graduate intern (6 months) 9,500.00 Administrative assistant (1 month) 2,000.00

134 Travel Between Tallahassee and Miami (6 trips @ $250 airfare+$150 per diem) 3,000.00

Equipment Computer equipment ($100/mo @ 12 mos) 1,200.00 Diving/Boat equipment ($500/mo @ 4 mos) 2,000.00

Supplies Office supplies 500.00 Mapping supplies 500.00

Other Office space rental ($300/mo @ 10 mos) 3,000.00 Telephone/Communications 400.00 Brochure design & printing 2,500.00 Guide design & printing 1,000.00 Fabrication of bronze plaque 1,000.00 Copying/Reproduction 1,000.00 Distribution & postage 1,000.00

TOTAL $71,600.00

135

APPENDIX C

Permissions to Use Personal Communication

Of course you may use my spoken or written communication in your dissertation. All the best. Christopher F. Amer State Underwater Archaeologist Head, Maritime Research Division South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 1321 Pendleton Street Columbia, SC 29208

You have my permission to use my spoken or written communication for your dissertation. Charles Beeker Director Underwater Science Indiana University HPER Building, Suite 296 Bloomington, IN 47405

Please feel free to use whatever information I gave you in personal communications for your dissertation, and I wish you the best of luck. Arthur B. Cohn Executive Director Lake Champlain Maritime Museum 4472 Basin Harbor Road Vergennes, VT 05491

Yes, you have my permission to use my spoken and written communications to you. John R. Halsey State Archaeologist Office of the State Archaeologist

136 Michigan Historical Center Michigan Department of History, Arts and Libraries 702 W. Kalamazoo P. O. Box 30740 Lansing, MI 48909-8240

This message is to extend to you my permission to use any or all spoken and written communications with me in your dissertation. Ray Hayes Assistant Dean for Medical Education Howard University 520 W Street NW Washington, DC 20059

You have my permission to use our communication. Michael Krivor Maritime Archaeologist PanAmerican Consultants, Inc. 15 S. Idlewild Memphis, TN 38104

Yes, of course, Della. Please use whatever I've shared with you. Obviously credit material as appropriate, but I know you will. Susan B.M. Langley State Underwater Archaeologist Maryland Historical Trust 100 Community Place Crownsville, MD 21032

You have my permission to use the written or verbal material that I have provided to you in the context of your dissertation on public interpretation of maritime cultural resources and entitled Preserves, Parks, and Trails: Strategy and Response in Maritime Cultural Resource Management. Daniel LaRoche Archaeological Resources Management Analyst Parcs Canada/Parks Canada Archaeological Services Branch 25 Eddy, étage/floor # 5 (25-5Y) Gatineau Québec, KIA OM5

137 By way of this email I give you permission to use our personal communication, both spoken and written, in your dissertation research. Richard W. Lawrence State Underwater Archaeologist North Carolina Underwater Archaeology Unit Kure Beach, NC 28409

It has been a pleasure to work with you on this topic in the Cayman Islands. You have my permission to use our communications in your dissertation. Peggy Leshikar-Denton National Archaeologist Cayman Islands National Museum PO Box 2189 Grand Cayman, BWI

You have my permission to use any personal communication. Keith Meverden Maritime Preservation and Archaeology Historic Preservation-Public History Division Wisconsin Historical Society 816 State Street Madison, WI 53706

No problem with using those details, go ahead. Cassandra Philippou Maritime Heritage Unit Heritage Victoria Level 17, 80 Collins Street Melbourne, Victoria 3000

Of course you can use any pers.comm., we have had in the past. Philip Robertson Lochaline Dive Centre Lochaline, Morvern Argyle PA34 5XT

You may use our spoken and written communications in your dissertation. Roger Smith State Underwater Archaeologist Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research 500 S. Bronough St

138 Tallahassee, FL 32399

Della Scott-Ireton has my permission to quote any and all personal communications, written or spoken, that I have had with her concerning her dissertation topic. James D. Spirek Deputy State Underwater Archaeologist Maritime Research Division/Review and Compliance South Carolina Institute of Archaeology & Anthropology University of South Carolina 1321 Pendleton Street Columbia, SC 29208-0071

You have my permission to cite our personal communications regarding maritime cultural resources for your dissertation. Bruce G. Terrell Archaeologist NOAA/National Marine Sanctuary Program 1305 East-West Highway, 12th Floor Silver Spring, MD 20910

You have my permission to use information and my personal opinions I have provided for your research. Mark Wilde-Ramsing Project Manager Queen Anne's Revenge Shipwreck Unit NC Underwater Archaeology Branch 3431 Arendell Street Morehead City, NC 28557

You have my permission to use my comments and communication, written or spoken, in your dissertation. Joseph W. Zarzynski Underwater Archaeologist & Executive Director Bateaux Below, Inc. PO Box 2134 Wilton, NY 12831

139

REFERENCES

Anderson, Gail (editor) 2004 Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Andrews, Richard N.L. 1999 Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Appadurai, Arjun 1986 Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value. In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Arjun Appadurai, editor, pp. 3-63. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Armour, Tim 1997 JASON Project. In Encyclopedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology, James P. Delgado, editor, pg. 217. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Arnold, Bettina 1990 The Past as Propaganda: Totalitarian Archaeology in Nazi Germany. Antiquity 64:464-478.

Arnould, Eric J., Carolyn Folkman Curasi, and Linda L. Price 2004 Inalienable Wealth in North American Households. In Values and Valuables: From the Sacred to the Symbolic, Cynthia Werner and Duran Bell, editors, pp. 209-230. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Ballard, Robert D. 1995 The Discovery of the Titanic. Warner Books, New York, NY. 2004 Titanic Revisited. National Geographic 206(6):96-113.

Bass, George F. 1966 Archaeology Under Water. Praeger Press, New York, NY.

Beach, Michael J. 2000 The Half Moon Underwater Archaeological Preserve Project. Master’s thesis, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL. 2001 Whatever did happen to Germania? Classic Boat 152:46-51.

140 Bell, Duran and Cynthia Werner 2004 Introduction. In Values and Valuables: From the Sacred to the Symbolic, Cynthia Werner and Duran Bell, editors, pp. xi-xxv. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Bennett, Tony 1995 The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. Routledge, London, UK. 1998 Culture: A Reformer’s Science. Routledge, London, UK.

Blockley, Marion 1995 Archaeologists in the Marketplace. In Managing Archaeology, Malcolm A. Cooper, Antony Firth, John Carman, and David Wheatley, editors, pp. 101-118. Routledge, London, UK.

Boniface, Priscilla and Peter J. Fowler 1993 Heritage and Tourism in the Global Village. Routledge, New York, NY.

Bourdieu, Pierre 1984 Distinction. Routledge, London, UK.

Bower, Mim 1995 Marketing Nostalgia. In Managing Archaeology, Malcolm A. Cooper, Antony Firth, John Carman, and David Wheatley, editors, pp. 33-39. Routledge, London, UK.

Bratten, John R. 2002 The Gondola Philadelphia & the Battle of Lake Champlain. Studies in Nautical Archaeology, No. 6. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.

Broadwater, John D. 1997a National Marine Sanctuaries. In Encyclopedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology, James P. Delgado, editor, pp. 289-290. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 1997b USS Monitor. In Encyclopedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology, James P. Delgado, editor, pp. 281-282. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Burkart, Arthur J. and S. Medlick 1981 Tourism Past, Present, and Future. Second edition. Heinemann, London, UK.

Burns, Peter M. 1999 An Introduction to Tourism and Anthropology. Routledge, London, UK.

Byrne, Dennis 1991 Western Hegemony in Archaeological Heritage Management. History and Anthropology 5:269-276.

141 Calta, Marialisa 2005 Rapture of the Deep. Smithsonian 36(1):110-111.

Carman, John 1993 Valuing Ancient Things: Archaeology and Law in England. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 1995 The Importance of Things. In Managing Archaeology, Malcolm A. Cooper, Antony Firth, John Carman, and David Wheatley, editors, pp. 19-32. Routledge, London, UK.

Carman, John, Malcolm A. Cooper, Antony Firth, and Davie Wheatley 1995a Introduction. In Managing Archaeology, Malcolm A. Cooper, Antony Firth, John Carman, and David Wheatley, editors, pp. 1-15. Routledge, London, UK. 1995b Conclusion. In Managing Archaeology, Malcolm A. Cooper, Antony Firth, John Carman, and David Wheatley, editors, pp. 235-241. Routledge, London, UK.

Cayman Islands Government Information Services 2001 Cayman Islands 2000: Annual Report & Official Handbook. Government of the Cayman Islands, George Town, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, BWI.

Cayman Islands National Museum 2003 Unearthing Pieces of Cayman's Past Reveals a Rich Legacy. The Caymanian Compass Weekender. 21 March 2003.

Center for Governmental Responsibility at the University of Florida and Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University (CGR/CUPR) 2003 Economic Impacts of Historic Preservation in Florida. Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

Cockrell, Wilburn A. 1990 Why Dr. Bass Couldn’t Convince Mr. Gumbel: The Trouble with Treasure Revisited, Again. In Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from The Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1990, Toni L. Carrell, editor, pp. 13-18. Tucson, AZ.

Cohn, Arthur B. 1995 The 1992 Fort Ticonderoga-Mount Independence Submerged Cultural Resources Survey. Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, Basin Harbor, VT. 2003 Lake Champlain’s Underwater Historic Preserve Program: Reasonable Access to Appropriate Sites. In Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage, James D. Spirek and Della A. Scott-Ireton, editors, pp. 85-94. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

142 Cohn, Arthur B. and Marshall True 1992 The Wreck of the General Butler and the Mystery of Lake Champlain’s Sailing Canal Boats. Vermont History Magazine 60(1):29-45.

Cooper, David J. (editor) 1991 By Fire, Ice, and Storm: Underwater Archaeological Investigations in the Apostle Islands. Technical Publication No. 3. Office of the State Archaeologist, Madison, WI.

Council of Europe 1978 The Underwater Cultural Heritage. Report of the Committee on Culture and Education, Strasbourg, France.

Craton, Michael 2003 Founded Upon the Seas: A History of the Cayman Islands and Their People. Ian Randle, Kingston, Jamaica.

Crisman, Kevin J., and Arthur B. Cohn 1993 The Burlington Bay Horse Ferry Wreck and the Era of Horse-Powered Watercraft. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.

Dana, John Cotton 2004 The Gloom of the Museum. Originally published in 1917. In Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift, Gail Anderson, editor, pp. 13-29. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Darvill, Timothy 1995 Value Systems in Archaeology. In Managing Archaeology, Malcolm A. Cooper, Antony Firth, John Carman, and David Wheatley, editors, pp. 40-50. Routledge, London, UK.

Delgado, James P. 1988 The Value of Shipwrecks. In Historic Shipwrecks: Issues in Management, pp. 1- 10. Partners for Livable Places, Washington, D.C.

Delgado, James P. (editor) 1997 Encyclopedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Derry, Linda and Maureen Malloy (editors) 2003 Archaeologists and Local Communities: Partners in Exploring the Past. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Drennan, Robert D. and Santiago Mora 2001 Archaeological Research and Heritage Preservation. In Archaeological Research and Heritage Preservation in the Americas, Robert D. Drennan and

143 Santiago Mora, editors, pp. 3-9. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Elkin, Dolores and Hebe Cafferata 2001 Underwater Archaeology and Cultural Tourism – A Mutual Benefit Proposal for Patagonia. Bulletin of the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology 25:83-88.

Fagan, Brian M. 1984 Archaeology and the Wider Audience. In Ethics and Values in Archaeology, Ernestene L. Green, editor, pp. 175-183. The Free Press, New York, NY.

Finland National Board of Antiquities 2004 Maritime historical underwater park. 28 September 2005. National Board of Antiquities, Helsinki, Finland.

Firth, Antony 1995 Ghosts in the Machine. In Managing Archaeology, Malcolm A. Cooper, Antony Firth, John Carman, and David Wheatley, editors, pp. 51-67. Routledge, London, UK.

Flatman, Joe 2003 Cultural Biographies, Cognitive Landscapes and Dirty Old Bits of Boat: ‘Theory’ in Maritime Archaeology. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 32(2):143-157.

Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research 1992 A Proposal to Establish the USS Massachusetts as a State Underwater Archaeological Preserve. Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee. 2000 A Proposal to Establish the shipwreck Half Moon as a State Underwater Archaeological Preserve. Florida Bureau of Archaeological Research, Tallahassee.

Florida Division of Historical Resources 2002 Planning for the Past: Preserving Florida’s Heritage. Florida Department of State, Tallahassee.

Forrest, Craig J.S. 2002 Defining “Underwater Cultural Heritage.” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 31(1):3-11.

Fowler, Don D. 1987 Uses of the Past: Archaeology in the Service of the State. American Antiquity 52(2): 229-248.

144 Franzén, Anders 1974 The Warship Vasa: Deep Diving and Marine Archaeology in Stockholm. Norstedt, Stockholm, Sweden.

Friday, Joseph D. 1988 A History of the Wreck of the USS Huron. Master’s thesis, Department of History, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.

Fyfe, Gordon and Max Ross 1996 Decoding the Visitor’s Gaze: Rethinking Museum Visiting. In Theorizing Museums, Sharon Macdonald and Gordon Fyfe, editors, pp. 127-150. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Gaither, Edmund Barry 1992 “Hey, That’s Mine”: Thoughts on Pluralism and American Museums. In Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture, Ivan Karp, Christine Mullen Kreamer, and Steven D. Lavine, editors, pp. 56-64. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Giesecke, Anne G. 1989 States and Their Shipwrecks. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from The Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1989, J. Barto Arnold III, editor, pp. 35-41. Baltimore, MD.

Godelier, Maurice 1999 The Enigma of the Gift, translated by Nora Scott. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 2004 What Mauss Did Not Say: Things You Give, Things You Sell, and Things That Must Be Kept, translated by Nora Scott. In Values and Valuables: From the Sacred to the Symbolic, Cynthia Werner and Duran Bell, editors, pp. 3-20. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Graeber, David 2001 Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams. Palgrave, New York, NY.

Greenhalgh, Paul 1989 Education, Entertainment and Politics. In The New Museology, Peter Vergo, editor, pp. 74-98. Reaktion Books, London, UK.

Griffith, William B. 2003 Trusteeship: A Practical Option for Realizing Our Obligations to Future Generations? In Moral and Political Reasoning in Environmental Practice, Andrew Light and Avner de-Shalit, editors, pp. 131-153. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

145 Halsey, John R. 1990 Beneath the Inland Seas: Michigan’s Underwater Archaeological Heritage. Bureau of History, Michigan Department of State, Lansing.

Halsey, John R. and Peter Lindquist 2003 Beneath Pictured Rocks. In Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage, James D. Spirek and Della A. Scott-Ireton, editors, pp. 107-118. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology (HWTMA) 2004 A Year in Depth: Solent Archaeological Review 2003/2004. HWTMA, Hampshire, UK. 2005 Hazardous Dive Trail. 28 September 2005. HWTMA, Hampshire, UK.

Handler, Richard and Eric Gable 1997 The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.

Hannahs, Todd 2003 Underwater Parks Versus Preserves: Data or Access. In Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage, James D. Spirek and Della A. Scott-Ireton, editors, pp. 5-16. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

Harris, Lynn 2002 Underwater Heritage and the Diving Community. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, Barbara J. Little, editor, pp. 59-73. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Harris, Lynn, Jimmy Moss, and Carl Naylor 1993 The Cooper River Survey: An Underwater Reconnaissance of the West Branch. Research Manuscript Series 218. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Harrison, Richard F. 1981 Museological Problems Associated with the Underwater Heritage. In Protection of the Underwater Heritage: Technical Handbooks for Museums and Monuments 4, pp. 137-163. UNESCO, Paris, France.

Henderson, Amy and Adrienne L. Kaeppler 1997 Exhibiting Dilemmas: Issues of Representation at the Smithsonian. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

146 Hermley, Lauren and Mark Wilde-Ramsing 2004 Queen Anne’s Revenge Shipwreck Project: Phase I – Dive Access Marketing Research and Feasibility Study, Need and Requirements. Manuscript, North Carolina Underwater Archaeology Branch, Morehead City.

Hetherington, Kevin 1996 The Utopics of Social Ordering – Stonehenge as a Museum Without Walls. In Theorizing Museums, Sharon Macdonald and Gordon Fyfe, editors, pp. 153-176. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Ho, Bert 2004 An Archaeological Study of Glamis: The Role of a 19th-Century Iron Barque. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Holum, Kenneth G., Robert L. Hohlfelder, Robert J. Bull, and Avner Raban 1988 King Herod’s Dream: Caesarea on the Sea. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, NY.

Hutt, Sherry, Elwood W. Jones and Martin E. McAllister 1992 Archeological Resource Protection. The Preservation Press, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.

Impey, Oliver and Arthur Macgregor (editors) 1985 The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Indiana University 2001 Emerald Bay Historic Barges. 28 September 2005. Indiana University, Bloomington. 2003a 1724 Guadalupe Underwater Archaeological Preserve. 28 September 2005. Indiana University, Bloomington. 2003b IU helps Dominican Republic sink shipwreck museum. 28 September 2005. Indiana University, Bloomington.

James, Stephen R., Jr., Gregory C. Cook, and Chuck Meide (with contributions by Armondo Marti, John DeBry, and Michael C. Krivor) 2003 Archaeological Data Recovery of the Iron-Hulled Vessel Manuela and Documentation of the Cristóbal Colón in the Entrance Channel to San Juan Harbor, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, from Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Memphis, TN, under subcontract to Great Lakes Caribbean Dredging, Inc., Oak Brook, IL.

147 Jameson, John H., Jr. 2003 Purveyors of the Past: Education and Outreach as Ethical Imperatives in Archaeology. In Ethical Issues in Archaeology, Larry J. Zimmerman, Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer, editors, pp. 153-162. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Jameson, John H. Jr. (editor) 1997 Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Jasinski, Marek E. 1999 Which Way Now?: Maritime Archaeology and Underwater Heritage into the 21st Century. Paper presented at the 4th World Archaeological Congress, Cape Town, South Africa. 28 September 2005.

Jefferson, Mary Lee (with contributions by Lynn Hickerson and Marcia Myers) 1988 Developing a State Management Program. In Historic Shipwrecks: Issues in Management, pp. 35-48. Partners for Livable Places, Washington, D.C.

Jeffery, Bill 2004 World War II Shipwrecks in Truk Lagoon: The Role of Interest Groups. In CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship 1(2):51-67.

Jeffries, David 2001 Government and Tourism. Butterworth & Heinemann, Oxford, UK.

Jordanova, Ludmilla 1989 Objects of Knowledge: A Historical Perspective on Museums. In The New Museology, Peter Vergo, editor, pp. 22-40. Reaktion Books, London, UK.

Karp, Ivan 1992 Introduction. In Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture, Ivan Karp, Christine Mullen Kreamer, and Steven D. Lavine, editors, pp. 1-17. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Karp, Ivan, Christine Mullen Kreamer, and Steven D. Lavine (editors) 1992 Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Kelly, Robert 2003 Foreword. In Archaeologists and Local Communities: Partners in Exploring the Past, Linda Derry and Maureen Malloy, editors, pp. vii-viii. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

148 Kennedy, Roger G. 2002 Forward. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, Barbara J. Little, editor, pp. xiii-xv. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

King Island Online Access Centre 2002 King Island Maritime Trail. 28 September 2005. King Island Online Access Centre, King Island, Tasmania, Australia.

Kirschenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara 1998 Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Kristiansen, Kristian 1989 Perspectives on the Archaeological Heritage: History and Future. In Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World, Henry F. Cleere, editor, pp. 23-29. Unwin Hyman, London, UK.

Kurin, Richard 1997 The Hope Diamond: Gem, Jewel, and Icon. In Exhibiting Dilemmas: Issues of Representation at the Smithsonian, Amy Henderson and Adrienne L. Kaeppler, editors, pp. 47-69. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

La Roche, Daniel 2003 A Review of Cultural Resource Management Experiences in Presenting Canada’s Submerged Heritage. In Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage, James D. Spirek and Della A. Scott-Ireton, editors, pp. 29-41. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

Langley, Susan B. M. 2003 Historic Shipwreck Preserves in Maryland. In Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage, James D. Spirek and Della A. Scott-Ireton, editors, pp. 45-58. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

Lavine, Steven D. 1992 Audience, Ownership, and Authority: Designing Relations between Museums and Communities. In Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture, Ivan Karp, Christine Mullen Kreamer, and Steven D. Lavine, editors, pp. 137-157. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Lawler, Andrew 2004 Saving Afghan Treasures. National Geographic 206(6):28-41.

149 Lawrence, Richard W. 2003 From National Tragedy to Cultural Treasure: The USS Huron Historic Shipwreck Preserve. In Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage, James D. Spirek and Della A. Scott- Ireton, editors, pp. 59-70. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

Leshikar, Margaret E. 1993 The 1794 Wreck of the Ten Sail, Cayman Islands, British West Indies: A Historical and Archaeological Survey. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Leshikar-Denton, Margaret E. 2003 Historic George Town Step Well. The Logbook 7(1). Cayman Islands National Museum. George Town, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, BWI. 2004 The Situation in the Caribbean. In Underwater Cultural Heritage: Latin America and the Caribbean, Victor Marín, editor, pp. 80-85. Oficina Regional de Cultura para América Latina y el Caribe de la UNESCO, La Habana, Cuba.

Leshikar-Denton, Margaret E. (editor) 1994 The Wreck of the Ten Sails. Our Islands’ Past, Volume 2. Cayman Islands National Archive and Cayman Free Press, George Town, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, BWI.

Leshikar-Denton, Margaret and Bert Ho (with contributions by Della Scott-Ireton, Amanda Evans, and Whitney Anderson) 2004 The Probable Glamis Site: Archaeological Mapping and Potential for a Shipwreck Preserve, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands. Cayman Islands National Museum Shipwreck Preserve Series, Volume 1. Cayman Islands National Museum, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, BWI.

Leshikar-Denton, Margaret “Peggy” and Della Scott-Ireton 2003a The Cayman Islands’ Experience: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Paper presented at the 5th World Archaeology Congress, Washington, D.C. 2003b Riding the Quincentennial Wave: A Maritime Heritage Trail for the Cayman Islands. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Providence, Rhode Island. 2003c In the Footsteps of the Past. Key to Cayman Summer 2003:52-53. 2003d Discover Our Maritime Heritage. What’s Hot September 2003:26-27, 30-31. 2006 The Cayman Islands’ Experience: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. In Underwater and Maritime Archaeology in Latin America and the Caribbean, Pilar Luna Erreguerena and Margaret Leshikar-Denton, editors, in press. One World Archaeology Series. University College London Press, London, UK.

150 Lipe, William D. 1984 Value and Meaning in Cultural Resources. In Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage: A Comparative Study of World Cultural Resource Management Systems, Henry Cleere, editor, pp. 1-11. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 2002 Public Benefits of Archaeological Research. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, Barbara J. Little, editor, pp. 20-28. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Little, Barbara J. 2002 Archaeology as a Shared Vision. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, Barbara J. Little, editor, pp. 1-19. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Low, Theodore 2004 What is a Museum? Originally published in 1942. In Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift, Gail Anderson, editor, pp. 30-43. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Lowenthal, David 1985 The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Macdonald, Sharon 1996 Introduction. In Theorizing Museums, Sharon Macdonald and Gordon Fyfe, editors, pp. 1-18. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Macdonald, Sharon and Gordon Fyfe (editors) 1996 Theorizing Museums. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Malloy, Maureen 2003 Introduction. In Archaeologists and Local Communities: Partners in Exploring the Past, Linda Derry and Maureen Malloy, editors, pp. ix-xiii. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Malraux, André 1978 The Voices of Silence, translated by Stuart Gilbert. Reprint of 1954 edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Marsden, Peter 2003 Sealed by Time: The Loss and Recovery of the Mary Rose. The Archaeology of the Mary Rose, Volume 1. The Mary Rose Trust Ltd, Portsmouth, UK.

Martin, Colin 1998 Scotland’s Historic Shipwrecks. B.T. Batsford Ltd/Historic Scotland, London, UK.

151 Marx, Karl 1990 Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1, translated by Ben Fowkes. Reprint of 1976 edition, originally published in 1887. Penguin Books, London, UK.

Mauss, Marcel 1990 The Gift, W.D. Halls, translator. Translated reprint of 1950 edition. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, NY.

McCann, Anna Marguerite 1997 Hamilton and Scourge. In Encyclopedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology, James P. Delgado, editor, pg. 187. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

McClellan, Stan 1984 Fathom Five Provincial Park – A Successful Experiment. In Nautical Archaeology: Progress and Public Responsibility, Susan B. M. Langley and Richard W. Unger, editors, pp. 32-36. BAR International Series 220. BAR, Oxford, UK.

McGimsey, Charles R. III and Hester A. Davis 1977 The Management of Archeological Resources: The Airlie House Report. Special publication of the Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

McManamon, Francis P. 2002 Heritage, History, and Archaeological Educators. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, Barbara J. Little, editor, pp. 31-45. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

McManus, Paulette 2000 Introduction. In Archaeological Displays and the Public: Museology and Interpretation, edited by Paulette M. McManus, pp. xiii-xvii. Second edition. Archetype Publications, London, UK.

Merriman, Nick 1989 Museum Visiting as a Cultural Phenomenon. In The New Museology, Peter Vergo, editor, pp. 149-171. Reaktion Books, London, UK.

Miami Herald (Florida) 1926 Kaiser’s Yachts Here. Miami Herald 9 April 1926:16H.

Michigan Underwater Preserve Council, Inc. (MUPC) 1993 Diving Michigan’s Underwater Preserves 1993. Maritime Press, St. Ignace, MI.

152 Miller, James J. 1989 Managing Florida’s Historic Shipwrecks. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from The Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1989, J. Barto Arnold III, editor, pp. 53-55. Baltimore, MD.

Muckelroy, Keith 1978 Maritime Archaeology. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Murtagh, William J. 1997 Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America. Revised edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Nagelkerken, Wil, T. van Giessen, Raymond Hayes, and D. Knepper 2003 Development of Maritime Archaeological Tourism Using the Wreck of the English SS Mediator in Curaçao. Paper presented at the 5th World Archaeological Congress, Washington, D.C.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2003a Monitor National Marine Sanctuary. 28 September 2005. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 2003b Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve. 28 September 2005. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the State of Florida 1998 Programmatic Agreement among the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the State of Florida for Historical Resource Management in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, Tallahassee.

National Park Service 1990 Abandoned Shipwreck Act Guidelines. 28 September 2005. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1991 National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Oxley, Ian and David Gregory 2002 Site Management. In International Handbook of Underwater Archaeology, Carol V. Ruppé and Janet F. Barstad, editors, pp. 715-725. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

153 Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 2003 Manuela & Cristóbal Colón Shipwrecks: Dive a Forgotten Piece of Puerto Rico’s History brochure. Panamerican Consultants, Memphis, TN.

Partners for Livable Places and the National Trust for Historic Preservation 1988 Historic Shipwrecks: Issues in Management. Partners for Livable Places, Washington, D.C.

Peebles, Giovanna N. and David C. Skinas 1989 Vermont’s Underwater Historic Preserves: Challenges, Benefits, Problems, and Process. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from The Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1989, J. Barto Arnold III, editor, pp. 49-53. Baltimore, MD.

Philippou, Cassandra and Mark Staniforth 2003 Maritime Heritage Trails in Australia: An Overview and Critique of the Interpretive Programs. In Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage, James D. Spirek and Della A. Scott- Ireton, editors, pp. 135-149. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

Pohuski, Michael and Donald Shomette 1994 The U-1105 Survey: A Report on the 1993 Archaeological Survey of 18ST636, A Second World War German Submarine in the Potomac River, Maryland. Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville.

Porter, Gaby 1997 Seeing Through Solidity: A Feminist Perspective on Museums. In Theorizing Museums, Sharon Macdonald and Gordon Fyfe, editors, pp. 105-126. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Potter, Parker B., Jr. 1990 The “What” and “Why” of Public Relations for Archaeology: A Postscript to DeCicco’s Public Relations Primer. American Antiquity 55:608-613. 1997 The Archaeological Site as an Interpretive Environment. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, John H. Jameson, Jr., editor, pp. 35-44. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Potter, Parker B., Jr. and Nancy Jo Chabot 1997 Locating Truths on Archaeological Sites. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, John H. Jameson, Jr., editor, pp. 45-53. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Potter, Parker B., Jr. and Mark P. Leone 1992 Establishing the Roots of Historical Consciousness in Modern Annapolis, Maryland. In Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture, Ivan

154 Karp, Christine Mullen Kreamer, and Steven D. Lavine, editors, pp. 476-505. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Preziosi, Donald and Claire Farago (editors) 2004 Grasping the World: The Idea of the Museum. Ashgate, Hampshire, UK.

Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI) 2003 Survey of Sport Diver Demographics. PADI, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA. 2005 Respect our Wrecks. 28 September 2005. Project AWARE, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA.

Prott, Lyndel V. and Patrick J. O’Keefe 1981 Law and the Underwater Heritage. In Protection of the Underwater Heritage: Technical Handbooks for Museums and Monuments 4, pp. 167-200. UNESCO, Paris, France.

Raban, Avner 2003 Presenting the Submerged Ancient Harbor at Caesarea to the Public. Paper presented at the 5th World Archaeological Congress, Washington, D.C.

Renfrew, Colin 2000 Loot, Legitimacy, and Ownership. Duckworth Debates in Archaeology. Duckworth & Co., London, UK.

Richards, Greg 2000 Cultural Tourism. In Archaeological Displays and the Public: Museology and Interpretation, edited by Paulette M. McManus, pp. 1-11. Second edition. Archetype Publications, London, UK.

Riegel, Henrietta 1996 Into the Heart of Irony: Ethnographic Exhibitions and the Politics of Difference. In Theorizing Museums, Sharon Macdonald and Gordon Fyfe, editors, pp. 83-104. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Roberts, Lisa C. 2004 Changing Practices of Interpretation. In Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift, Gail Anderson, editor, pp. 212-232. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Robertson, Philip 2003 The Visitor Schemes on the Historic Shipwrecks of the Swan and HMS Dartmouth, Sound of Mull, Scotland (UK). In Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage, James D. Spirek and Della A. Scott-Ireton, editors, pp. 71-84. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

155 Rojek, Chris 1995 Decentring Leisure: Rethinking Leisure Theory. Sage, London, UK.

Rosenzweig, Roy and David Thelen 1998 The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.

Ruppé, Carol V. and Janet F. Barstad 2002 International Handbook of Underwater Archaeology. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

Schadla Hall, Tim 1996 Antiquities Legislation: A Proper Basis? In Museum Archaeology: What’s New?, G.T. Denford, editor, pp. 12-16. Society of Museum Archaeologists, London, UK.

Scott, Carol 2000 Heritage Marketing in the Not-for-Profit Sector: The Case for Branding. In Archaeological Displays and the Public: Museology and Interpretation, edited by Paulette M. McManus, pp. 115-124. Second edition. Archetype Publications, London, UK.

Scott-Ireton, Della A. 2003a Florida’s Underwater Archaeological Preserves. In Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage, James D. Spirek and Della A. Scott-Ireton, editors, pp. 95-105. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY. 2003b Florida’s Underwater Archaeological Preserves: An Exercise in Community Participation in Submerged Cultural Resource Management. In Archaeologists and Local Communities: Partners in Exploring the Past, Linda Derry and Maureen Malloy, editors, pp. 67-76. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Scuba Diving 2004 World’s Best Wreck Diving. Scuba Diving November 2004:53-57.

Selwyn, Tom (editor) 1996 The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism. Wiley Press, London, UK.

Sherman, Daniel J. 1994 Quatremere/Benjamin/Marx: Art Museums, Aura, and Commodity Fetishism. In Museum Culture: Histories, Discourses, Spectacles, Daniel J. Sherman and Irit Rogoff, editors, pp. 123-143. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

156 Sherman, Daniel J. and Irit Rogoff (editors) 1994 Museum Culture: Histories, Discourses, Spectacles. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Simmel, Georg 2004 The Philosophy of Money, translated by Tom Bottomore and David Frisby. Third edition, originally published in 1907. Routledge, London, UK.

Singer, Merrill 1990 Another Perspective on Advocacy. Current Anthropology 31(5):548-550.

Skeates, Robin 2000 Debating the Archaeological Heritage. Duckworth Debates in Archaeology. Duckworth & Co., London, UK.

Slick, Katherine 2002 Archaeology and the Tourism Train. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, Barbara J. Little, editor, pp. 219-227. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Smith, Charles Saumarez 1989 Museums, Artefacts, and Meanings. In The New Museology, Peter Vergo, editor, pp. 6-21. Reaktion Books, London, UK

Smith, George S. and John E. Ehrenhard 2002 Protecting the Past to Benefit the Public. In Public Benefits of Archaeology, Barbara J. Little, editor, pp. 121-129. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Smith, Roger C. 1980 Cayman Islands Survey. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 9(1):85-86. 1981 The Maritime Heritage of the Cayman Islands. Master’s thesis, Department of History, Texas A&M University, College Station. 1985 The Caymanian Catboat: A West Indian Maritime Legacy. World Archaeology 16(3):329-336. 1988 Treasure Ships of the Spanish Main: The Iberian-American Maritime Empires. In Ships and Shipwrecks of the Americas: A History Based on Underwater Archaeology, George F. Bass, editor, pp. 85-106. Thames and Hudson, London, UK. 1991 Florida’s Underwater Archaeological Preserves. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from The Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1991, John D. Broadwater, editor, pp. 43-46. Richmond, VA. 2000 The Maritime Heritage of the Cayman Islands. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

157 Smith, Tim 2003 Shipwreck Trails: Public Ownership of a Unique Resource? In Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage, James D. Spirek and Della A. Scott-Ireton, editors, pp. 121- 133. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

South, Stanley 1997 Generalized Versus Literal Interpretation. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, John H. Jameson, Jr., editor, pp. 54-62. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Spirek, James and Lynn Harris 2003 Maritime Heritage on Display: Underwater Examples from South Carolina. In Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage, James D. Spirek and Della A. Scott-Ireton, editors, pp. 165-175. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

Spirek, James D. and Della A. Scott-Ireton (editors) 2003 Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

Stevens, E. Willis 1989 Louisbourg Submerged Cultural Resource Survey. Federal Archaeology Office, Parks Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Stone, Peter G. 1997 Presenting the Past: A Framework for Discussion. In Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths, John H. Jameson, Jr., editor, pp. 23-34. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Terrell, Bruce G. 1995 Fathoming Our Past: Historical Contexts of the National Marine Sanctuaries. The Mariner’s Museum, Newport News, VA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C. 2003 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Shipwreck Trail: A Model for Multiple- Use Resource Management. In Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage, James D. Spirek and Della A. Scott-Ireton, editors, pp. 151-163. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

158 Thomas, David Hurst 2002 Roadside Ruins: Does America Still Need Archaeology Museums? In Public Benefits of Archaeology, Barbara J. Little, editor, pp. 130-145. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Toner, Mike 2002 The Past in Peril. Readings in Archeological Resource Protection Series #5. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, FL.

Trouillot, Michel-Rolph 1995 Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Beacon Press, Boston, MA.

Ucko, Peter 2000 Foreword. In Archaeological Displays and the Public: Museology and Interpretation, edited by Paulette M. McManus, pp. ix-xii. Second edition. Archetype, London, UK.

University of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute 2003a Visit Wisconsin’s Maritime Trails. 28 September 2005. University of Wisconsin, Madison. 2003b Protecting Our Heritage. 28 September 2005. University of Wisconsin, Madison. 2003c Dive Guides. 28 September 2005. University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Vergo, Peter 1989a Introduction. In The New Museology, Peter Vergo, editor, pp. 1-5. Reaktion Books, London, UK.

Vergo, Peter (editor) 1989b The New Museology. Reaktion Books, London, UK.

Vrana, Kenneth J. and Gail A. Vander Stoep 2003 The Maritime Cultural Landscape of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve. In Submerged Cultural Resource Management: Preserving and Interpreting Our Sunken Maritime Heritage, James D. Spirek and Della A. Scott-Ireton, editors, pp. 17-28. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

Ward, Cheryl and Robert D. Ballard 2004 Deep-water Archaeological Survey in the Black Sea: The 2000 Season. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 33(1):2-13.

Weil, Stephen E. 2002 Making Museums Matter. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C.

159 Weiner, Annette B. 1992 Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-While-Giving. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Wenban-Smith, Francis 1995 Square Pegs in Round Holes. In Managing Archaeology, Malcolm A. Cooper, Antony Firth, John Carman, and David Wheatley, editors, pp. 146-162. Routledge, London, UK.

Witcomb, Andrea 2003 Re-Imagining the Museum: Beyond the Mausoleum. Routledge, London, UK.

World Tourism Organization 1998 Guide for Local Authorities on Developing Sustainable Tourism. World Tourism Organization, Madrid, Spain.

Wright, Philip 1989 The Quality of Visitors’ Experiences in Art Museums. In The New Museology, Peter Vergo, editor, pp. 119-148. Reaktion Books, London, UK

Zarzynski, Joseph 1997 Wiawaka Bateaux Cluster. In Encyclopedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology, James P. Delgado, editor, pp. 463-464. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 2002 Lake George, New York: Recent Archaeological Investigations at a Mountain Waterway. In International Handbook of Underwater Archaeology, Carol V. Ruppé and Janet F. Barstad, editors, pp. 75-87. Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.

Zarzynski, Joseph and Donna K. Abbass 1997 Land Tortoise. In Encyclopedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology, James P. Delgado, editor, pp. 237-238. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Zarzynski, Joseph, D.K. Abbass, Bob Benway, and John Farrell 1996 “Ring-Around-a-Radeau,” or, Fencing in a 1758 Shipwreck for Public Access and Preservation. Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from The Society for Historical Archaeology Conference 1996, Stephen R. James and Camille Stanley, editors, pp. 35-40. Cincinnati, OH.

Zimmerman, Larry J. 2003 Presenting the Past. Archaeologist’s Took Kit #7. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

Zimmerman, Larry J., Karen D. Vitelli, and Julie Hollowell-Zimmer (editors) 2003 Ethical Issues in Archaeology. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.

160

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Della Aleta Scott-Ireton was born December 7, 1968, at Ft. Meade, Maryland. She married John D. Ireton February 14, 1992. Della earned a B.A. in anthropology from the University of West Florida in 1990, a M.S. in international relations from Troy State University in 1991, and a M.A. in historical archaeology from the University of West Florida in 1998. In 1991, she was certified as a scuba instructor, #13824, with the National Association of Underwater Instructors. Della works for the State of Florida’s Division of Historical Resources as an underwater archaeologist.

161