Advertisement

Mapping and Site Characterization in Zero Visibility

The C.S.S. Georgia
  • James G. Baker
  • Richard J. Anuskiewicz
  • Ervan G. Garrison
Part of the The Springer Series in Underwater Archaeology book series (SSUA)

Abstract

The purpose of this presentation is to share the ways in which computer-generated graphics were an aid to wreck site visualization for the C.S.S. Georgia. The Georgia lies in the totally black water of the Savannah River where a combination of strong currents and a 6-ft tide fall limits the work time for divers to brief periods at slack and high tide. During the spring there is only an hour each day of acceptable diving conditions. To further complicate the picture, indications were that dredging had scattered the wreckage over a broad area of the channel and a salvage attempt in 1868 involving the use of dynamite had destroyed an undetermined portion of the superstructure. An extensive search of archival sources failed to produce a set of ship’s plans, but six sources gave her length and beam — each different, varying from 150 to 260 ft in length and 40 to 60 ft of beam (Garrison and Lowery, 1980).

Keywords

Main Channel Site Characterization Tone Contour Back Channel Wreck Site 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold, J., HI, and Clausen, C.J., 1975, A Magnetometer Survey with Electronic Positioning Control and Calculator-Plotter System. Internationaljournal of Nautical Archaeology 4(2):353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breiner, S., 1975, Marine Magnetics Search. Geometrics Technical Report No. 7. Palo Alto.Google Scholar
  3. Clausen, C.J., and Arnold, J.B., III, 1976, The Magnetometer and Underwater Archaeology: Magnetic Delineation of Individual Wreck Sites, a New Control Technique. Internationaljournal of Nautical Archaeology 5(2): 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Frankel, D., 1980, Contour Plans and Surface Plotting: Aids for the Field Archaeologist. Journal of Field Archaeology 7:367–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garrison, E.G., and Lowery, L., Jr., 1980, Archaeological and Engineering Study of the C.S.S. Georgia, Parts 1 and 2. Texas A & M University: College Station.Google Scholar
  6. Hartig, G.W., 1973, Contur—A Fortran IV Routine for Plotting Contour Lines. National Technical Information Services: U.S. Department of Commerce, AD-760437.Google Scholar
  7. Nagy, N.J., III, 1971, The Graphic Representation of Two-Variable Data. Los Alamos Scientific Report No. LA-4796: November.Google Scholar
  8. Reid, T., 1980, Computer Graphics Software for the Amdahl. Data Processing Center: Texas A & M University, College Station.Google Scholar
  9. Upham, S. (ed.), 1979, Computer Graphics in Archaeology Statistical Cartographic Applications to Spatial Analysis in Archaeology Contexts. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. 15. Tempe.Google Scholar
  10. Versatec, A. Xerox Company, 1978, Versaplot Software Programming Manual. Santa Clara.Google Scholar
  11. Weymouth J.W., 1976, A Magnetic Survey of the Walth Bay Site (39WW203). Midwest Archaeological Center: National Park Service, Lincoln.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • James G. Baker
  • Richard J. Anuskiewicz
  • Ervan G. Garrison

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations