Global experience in locating submerged prehistoric sites and their relevance to research on the American continental shelves

Flemming, N. C.

doi:10.1080/15564894.2020.1781712

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the use of improved mapping technologies and geoarchaeological approaches (e.g., Bailey & Cawthra, 2021;Flemming, 2021;Wiseman et al, 2021) is welcome, their use alone cannot contribute to improving the understanding of underwater cultural heritage (UCH). A geoarchaeological approach necessitates understanding past and present processes to form a robust foundation (i) for resolving site formation, (ii) to explore and test ideas around past resource use and social landscapes, so it becomes possible to (iii) integrate these with associated environmental change (e.g., Marean et al, 2015Marean et al, , 2020.…”

Section: Valuing Secondary Context Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is an exciting time for submerged prehistoric archaeology (Lemke, 2021), with significant growth in awareness, research and associated publications and an ever‐increasing number of underwater finds, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. The increased potential for understanding the origins of human culture, global human expansion, early coastal adaptations and early seafaring is becoming evident (see Bailey et al, 2020; Evans et al, 2014; Harff et al, 2015 and references therein) as well as how these studies might aid the location and discovery of submerged prehistoric sites (e.g., Bailey & Cawthra, 2021; Faught & Smith, 2021; Flemming, 2021; O'Shea, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

RETRACTED: Applying geoarchaeological principles to marine archaeology: A reappraisal of the “first marine” and “in situ” lithic scatters in the Dampier Archipelago, NW Australia

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The absence of known prehistoric underwater cultural heritage (UCH) sites on the Australian inner shelf stands in stark contrast to the thousands of sites revealed elsewhere in the world. Two recent claims—Dortch et al. (D2019) and Benjamin et al. (B2020)—put forward the first in situ (i.e., primary context) UCH sites in the shallow waters of the Dampier Archipelago, North West Australia, each arguing that the stone artefact scatters are at least 7000 years old and are now submerged because of postglacial sea‐level rise. We present new hydrodynamic modelling and data on coastal erosion and bathymetry, and reassess each site's sedimentary setting and archaeological site‐formation history. D2019 and B2020 clearly present lithic cultural artefacts, but the arguments for their sites being of primary context and reflecting early Holocene land surfaces are mistaken. Rather, these sites occur in the intertidal zone, and many or all artefacts are likely to have been reworked. Sites of secondary context, if treated appropriately, can inform our understanding of site‐formation process and change, and may support more powerful contributions to submerged archaeology than attempts to seek the first or the oldest.

show abstract

Section: Valuing Secondary Context Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

RETRACTED: Applying geoarchaeological principles to marine archaeology: A reappraisal of the “first marine” and “in situ” lithic scatters in the Dampier Archipelago, NW Australia

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sites are diverse in nature, including areas where people lived or visited (e.g. mapping of ancient topographies), more or less recently submerged due to sea level rise due to local seismic events or broader continental-scale climate change (Flemming, 2021b), wells, remnants of infrastructure (bridges, harbors), and waste or debris (garbage, ships, aircraft, munitions, and machinery) disposed of by dumping at sea, lakes, or rivers (Benjamin and MacKintosh, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specific initial training standards are needed to dive for science in Europe, Occupational vs. Citizen Science Diving

Féral,

Norro

2023

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today, collaboration between scientific research and civil society is growing significantly. The general public’s curiosity drives it to engage with the scientific process and culture and in the search for solutions to complex issues (economic, social, health, environmental, cultural, educational, or ethical). Clarification is needed to differentiate between occupational scientific activity and citizen-based science. They do not require the same scientific and technical skills despite using similar equipment and their legal and administrative frameworks being totally different. The confusion created by the indiscriminate use of the same term “scientific diving” to refer to different training courses and activities compromises the quality of existing occupational standards and, ultimately, has a negative impact on the safety of the activity at work. A clear definition of Citizen Scientific Diving and Occupational Scientific Diving makes it possible to differentiate between the objectives and target groups of these two activities and their legal framework. There is a need to establish an accepted and shared standard in the occupational field and to ensure the mobility of scientists. A long process undertaken by a motivated scientific community (late 1980s-2000s) led to the establishment of European initial training standards for Occupational Scientific Diving through the ESDP-European Scientific Diving Panel (firstly under the aegis of the European Marine Board, now of the MARS-European marine stations network). The quality and general acceptance of these standards by a large part of the European scientific community have already adopted them in the occupational health and safety legislation of seven European countries (Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the UK in 2023). Adopting them in other countries’ health and safety legislation is still desirable. This will increase their recognition, acceptance and use for the benefit of scientific work. Building bridges between academic science and non-academic citizen science is possible and this is done by developing coherent projects that produce results that benefit both science and society. While distinguishing between the two, as an added value, this approach could better guide the recreational diving training sector in developing a new market.

show abstract

Shell Midden Archaeology: Current Trends and Future Directions

Rick

2023

J Archaeol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 19th century, the study of shell middens has played an important role in archaeological research. Shell midden and broader coastal archaeology have transformed our understanding of human relationships with aquatic habitats, demonstrating the importance of marine environments to human evolution and ecology, the colonization of islands and establishment of maritime trade networks, changing social and political dynamics, and a variety of other issues. During the past two decades, shell midden research has greatly increased, marking an exciting time for new discoveries and heightened collaboration with Indigenous communities. Several key research trends in shell midden archaeology during the past 10–15 years include research on site distribution and temporality, underwater archaeology, historical ecology, terraforming, landscape legacies, and community collaboration. These research trends demonstrate the ways in which shell midden archaeologists are shaping our understanding of the human past and environmental change around the world.

show abstract

Global experience in locating submerged prehistoric sites and their relevance to research on the American continental shelves

Cited by 11 publications

References 72 publications

RETRACTED: Applying geoarchaeological principles to marine archaeology: A reappraisal of the “first marine” and “in situ” lithic scatters in the Dampier Archipelago, NW Australia

RETRACTED: Applying geoarchaeological principles to marine archaeology: A reappraisal of the “first marine” and “in situ” lithic scatters in the Dampier Archipelago, NW Australia

Specific initial training standards are needed to dive for science in Europe, Occupational vs. Citizen Science Diving

Shell Midden Archaeology: Current Trends and Future Directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About