Researching, Conserving and Managing Submerged Prehistory: National Approaches and International Collaboration

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

The management and conservation of submerged prehistoric archaeology poses considerable difficulties for national heritage agencies. International collaboration is plainly essential, since submerged landscapes do not respect modern political boundaries. However, national jurisdiction, and hence the extent of agencies’ legal responsibilities, may not extend formally to cover the requisite area. Moreover, the ‘cultures’ of heritage management, even in adjacent nations, can be strikingly different. Nevertheless, within Europe, a common research and management framework for the North Sea has been developed between the Netherlands, UK and Belgium (North Sea prehistory research and management framework (NSPRMF) 2009), and discussions are underway between the UK and French archaeologists. In this chapter, progress in developing coordinated management of offshore prehistoric assets in Europe and elsewhere in the world is reviewed. Consideration is given to the impact of legislative and regulatory frameworks and the benefits of collaborative approaches with marine industrial partners are highlighted. Examples of research and management of submerged prehistory across Europe and North America are considered and a ‘lessons learnt’ exercise highlights the resulting difficulties that can occur when the heritage agencies of adjacent nations begin collaborating over the submerged prehistoric landscapes beneath their seas.

Keywords

Prehistoric archaeology Underwater archaeology CRM Continental shelf Netherlands UK Belgium North Sea 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements go to Geoff Bailey and Dimitris Sakellariou for contributions to the sections on Deukalion and COST.This chapter was researched and written between September 2010 and January 2013 and reflects the information available at this time.

References

  1. BGS. (2010). The south coast regional environmental characterisation. London: Marine Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund.Google Scholar
  2. BMAPA & English Heritage. (2003). Marine aggregate dredging and the historic environment: Guidance note. London: British Marine Aggregate Producers Association and English Heritage.Google Scholar
  3. BMAPA & English Heritage. (2005). Protocol for reporting finds of archaeological interest. London: British Marine Aggregate Producers Association and English Heritage.Google Scholar
  4. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Environmental stewardship. http://www.boem.gov/OEP/. Accessed 1 Nov 2012.
  5. Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. Marine aggregate levy sustainability fund. http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/alsf.aspx Accessed 20 Oct 2012.
  6. Coles, B. J. (1998). Doggerland: A speculative survey. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 64, 45–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS). 7th framework programme (FP7). http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html Accessed 1 Nov 2012.
  8. COWRIE. (2007). Historic environment guidance for the offshore renewable energy sector. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology on behalf of COWRIE Ltd. (ARCH 11 05).Google Scholar
  9. COWRIE. (2008). Guidance for assessment of cumulative impacts on the historic environment from offshore renewable energy. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology on behalf of COWRIE Ltd. (CIARCH 11 2006).Google Scholar
  10. Dellino-Musgrave, V., Gupta, S., & Russell, M. (2009). Marine aggregates and archaeology: a golden harvest? Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 11, 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dix, J. (2010). The Relic Palaeolandscapes of the Thames Estuary: Site of the earliest hominid occupation of the British Isles? Project summary (MEPF 09/P126) presented at the MALSF round 3–3rd work in progress meeting held at the Royal Society. London, 5th–6th July 2010.Google Scholar
  12. (COST 2008). Memorandum of Understanding for the Implementation of a European Concerted Research Action designated as COST Action oc-2008-2-2687: Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes and Archaeology of the Continental Shelf (SPLASH). Brussels: COST.Google Scholar
  13. Flatman, J., & Doeser, J. (2010). International marine aggregates management strategic review. London: UCL Centre for Applied Archaeology on behalf of English Heritage.Google Scholar
  14. Flemming, N. C. (2002–05). The scope of strategic environmental assessment … in regard to prehistoric archaeological remains … (SEA Areas 2-5). London: Department of Trade and Industry.Google Scholar
  15. Flemming, N. C. (Ed.). (2004). Submarine prehistoric archaeology of the North Sea. Research priorities and collaboration with industry. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 141.Google Scholar
  16. Flemming, N. C., Bailey, G., & Sakellariou, D. (2010). Presentation to DG MARE: Project deukalion. Discovering Europe’s submerged prehistoric landscapes on the seabed. http://php.york.ac.uk/projects/splashcos/sites/Project_Deukalion_Brussels.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2010.
  17. Fulford, M., Champion, T., & Long, A. (1997). England’s coastal heritage: A survey of english heritage and the RCHME. London: English Heritage Archaeological Report 15.Google Scholar
  18. Gaffney, V., Thomson, K., & Fitch, S. (2007). Mapping Doggerland: The mesolithic landscapes of the southern North Sea. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  19. Glimmerveen, J., Mol, D., Post, K., Reumer, J. W. F., van der Plicht, H., de Vos, J., van Geel, B., van Reenen, G., & Pals, J. P. (2004). The North Sea project: The first palaeontological, palynological and archaeological results. In N. C. Flemming (Ed.), Submarine prehistoric archaeology of the North Sea (pp. 43–52). York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 141.Google Scholar
  20. Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology. (2008). Aggregates to outreach: Teaching pack and associated initiatives extension final report. Southampton: Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology.Google Scholar
  21. Holden, C. (2008). Stone axes from the deep. Science, 320, 159.Google Scholar
  22. Hansard HC Deb 24 January (2005). Column 46W ref 210917. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/vo050124/text/50124w13.htm. Accessed Sept 2010.
  23. Jelgersma, S. (1961). Holocene sea level changes in the Netherlands. Mededelingen Geologische Stichting C, VI-7, 1–100.Google Scholar
  24. Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee JNAPC position statement. http://www.jnapc.org.uk/ Accessed 23 Oct 2010.
  25. Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee. (2006). Maritime cultural heritage and seabed development: The JNAPC code of practice for seabed development. London: JNAPC and the Crown Estate.Google Scholar
  26. Long, D., Wickham-Jones, C. R., & Ruckley N. A. (1986). A flint artefact from the northern North Sea. Studies in the upper palaeolithic of Britain and North western Europe. BAR International Series No. 296.Google Scholar
  27. Marine, Environment Protection Fund/English, Heritage. (2009). The outer thames estuary regional environmental characterisation. Southampton: Emu Ltd.Google Scholar
  28. Maarleveld, T., & Peeters, H. (2004). Can we manage? In N. C. Flemming (Ed.), Submarine prehistory of the North Sea (pp. 102–112). York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 141.Google Scholar
  29. Mercyhurst College. (2009). Underwater exploration seeks evidence of early Americans. Science Daily. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090709120654.htm. Accessed 10 Nov 2010.
  30. Mercyhurst University Archaeological Institute. Exploring the submerged new world. http://mai.mercyhurst.edu/research/anthropologyarchaeology-research/noaa-exploration/. Accessed 10 Nov 2010.
  31. Morey, G. (1968). The North Sea. London: Frederick Muller.Google Scholar
  32. Murphy, J. M., Sexton, D. M. H., Jenkins, J. G., Booth, B. B. B., Brown, C. C., Clark, R. T., Collins, M., Harris, G. R., Kendon, E. J., Betts, R. A., Brown, S. J., Humphrey, K. A., McCarthy, M. P., McDonald, R. E., Stephens, A., Wallace, C., Warren, R., Wilby, R., & Wood, R. A. (2009). UK climate projections science report: Climate change projections. Exeter: Met Office Hadley Centre.Google Scholar
  33. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Ocean Explorer. Exploring the submerged new world. http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/09newworld/welcome.html. Accessed 10 Nov 2010.
  34. Parfitt, S. A., Barendregt, R. W., Breda, M., Candy, I., Collins, M. J., Coope, G. R., Durbridge, P., Field, M. H., Lee, J. R., Lister, A. M., Mutch, R., Penkman, K. E. H., Preece, R. C., Rose, J., Stringer, C. B., Symmons, R., Whittaker, J. E., Wymer, J. J., & Stuart, A. J. (2005). The earliest record of human activity in northern Europe, Nature, 438, 1008–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parfitt,, S. A., Ashton,,N. M., Lewis, S. G., Abel, R. L., Coope, G. R., Field, M. H., Gale, R., Hoare, P. G., Larkin, N. R., Lewis, M. D., Karloukovski, V., Maher, B. A., Peglar, S. M., Preece, R. C., Whittaker, J. E., & Stringer, C. B. (2010). Early pleistocene human occupation at the edge of the boreal zone in north-west Europe. Nature, 466, 229–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peeters, H. (2011). How wet can it get? Approaches to submerged prehistoric sites and landscapes on the Dutch continental shelf. In J. Benjamin, et al. (Eds.), Submerged prehistory (pp. 55–64). Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  37. Peeters, H., Murphy, P., & Flemming, N. (2009). North Sea prehistory research and management framework (NSPRMF) 2009. Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed/English Heritage.Google Scholar
  38. Roberts, P., & Trow, S. (2002). Taking to the water: English heritage’s initial policy for the management of maritime archaeology in England. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
  39. Submerged Landscapes Archaeological Network. (2008a). Newsletter Issue_ 003.Google Scholar
  40. Submerged Landscapes Archaeological Network. (2008b). Newsletter Issue_ 004.Google Scholar
  41. Submerged Landscapes Archaeological Network. Update: Fieldwork 2011-2012. http://submergedlandscapes.wordpress.com/. Accessed 1 Nov 2012.
  42. The Council of the European Union, European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research—COST. (2008). Memorandum of Understanding for the Implementation of a European Concerted Research Action designated as COST Action oc-2008-2-2687: Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes and Archaeology of the Continental Shelf (SPLASH). Brussels: Unpublished.The Crown Estate. (2012). Offshore wind energy.http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/energyinfrastructure/offshore-wind-energy/ Accessed Nov 2013
  43. Tizzard, L. (2010). Seabed prehistory: Site evaluation techniques (Area 240). Project summary (EH 5684DT) presented at the MALSF Round 3–3rd work in progress meeting held at the Royal Society. London, 5th–6th July 2010.Google Scholar
  44. University of Southampton. (2008). Maritime and marine historic environment research framework: Stage one. Southampton: University of Southampton on Behalf of English Heritage.Google Scholar
  45. University of Southampton. (2013). People and the sea: A maritime archaeological research agenda for England. Southampton: University of Southampton on Behalf of English Heritage.Google Scholar
  46. Van Kolfshoten, T., & van Essen, H. (2004). Palaeozoological heritage from the bottom of the North Sea. In N. C. Flemming (Ed.), Submarine prehistoric archaeology of the North Sea (pp. 70–80). York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 141.Google Scholar
  47. Ward, I., Larcombe, P. & Lillie, M. (2006). The dating of Doggerland: Post-glacial geochronology of the southern North Sea. Environmental Archaeology, 11, 207–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Waller, M. (1994). The Fenland project number 9: Flandrian environmental change in the Fenland. Cambridge: East Anglian Archaeology 70.Google Scholar
  49. Waterbolk, H. T. (1981). Archaeology in the Netherlands: Delta archaeology. World Archaeology, 13(2), 240–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wessex Archaeology. (2004). Artefacts from the sea: Catalogue of the Michael White Collection. Ref. 51541.05. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology [Re-printed 2008].Google Scholar
  51. Wessex Archaeology. (2006). Seabed prehistory round 2: Happisburgh and Pakefield exposures project. ref. 57422.01. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.Google Scholar
  52. Wessex Archaeology. (2007). Seabed prehistory: Gauging the effects of marine aggregate dredging. round 2. Final Report. Volume VIII: Results and conclusions: Ref. 57422.17. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.Google Scholar
  53. Wessex Archaeology. (2008). Seabed prehistory: Gauging the effects of marine aggregate dredging, round 2, Final Report. Volume I: Introduction. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.Google Scholar
  54. Wessex Archaeology. (2011). Seabed prehistory: Site evaluation techniques (area 240). Synthesis. Ref. 70754.03. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology.Google Scholar
  55. Wilkinson, T. J., & Murphy, P. L. (1995). Archaeology of the Essex Coast, Volume 1: The Hullbridge survey. Cambridge: East Anglian Archaeology 71.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MarineSpace Ltd.Ocean Village Innovation CentreSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.SouthseaUK
  3. 3.Groningen Institute of ArchaeologyGroningenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations