The Wetland Book pp 1391-1395 | Cite as

Archaeological Resources and the Protection of Cultural Services

Reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter outlines the exceptional potential of wetland environments to preserve organic archaeological remains and associated evidence of past environments (the palaeoenvironmental record) that rarely, if ever, survives in terrestrial contexts. The future preservation of these records are closely tied to the fate of wetlands environments and processes such as erosion, development, drainage and pollution that impact negatively on these ecosystems represent a threat to the long term survival of the resource. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that our knowledge of the archaeological potential of wetlands across the world tends to be focussed on areas that are already threatened by processes that have exposed archaeological sites, for example by peat cutting. Organic archaeological remains and deposits tend to be very fragile and vulnerable, and further research is necessary to understand the prospects for the long term preservation and protection of different sites. Whilst there are examples of efforts to protect threatened sites and landscapes, significant challenges remain in terms of ensuring that wetland management, policies and conservation strategies take account of the particular value as well as the specific threats to the archaeological resource in different wetland environments the world over.

Keywords

Archaeology Palaeoecology Ecosystem services Heritage management 

References

  1. Brunning R. Monitoring waterlogged sites in peatlands: where, how, why and what next? In: Barber J, Clark C, Cressey M, Crone A, Hale A, Henderson J, Housley R, Sands R, Sheridan A, editors. Archaeology from the wetlands: recent perspectives. Edinburgh: Proceedings of the 11th WARP Conference Society of Antiquaries, Society of Antiquaries Scotland; 2007. p. 191–8.Google Scholar
  2. Brunning R. Somerset’s peatland archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  3. Chambers F, Booth RK, De Vleeshouwer F, Lamentowicz M, Le Roux G, Mauquoy D, Nichols JE, van Geel B. Development and refinement of proxy-climate indicators from peats. Quat Int. 2011;268:21–33. doi:10.1016/j.quant.2011.04.039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gearey BR, Bermingham N, Chapman H, Fletcher W, Fyfe R, Quartermaine J, Van de Noort R. Peatlands and the historic environment. Edinburgh: International Union for the Conservation of Nature; 2010.Google Scholar
  5. Gearey BR, Fyfe R. Peatlands as knowledge archives: intellectual services. In Bonn A, Allott T, Evans M, Joosten H, Stoneman R, editors. Investing in peatlands: delivering multiple benefits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; In press.Google Scholar
  6. Olivier A. International and national wetland management policies. In: Menotti F, O’Sullivan A, editors. The Oxford handbook of wetland archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 687–703.Google Scholar
  7. Ramseyer D. Preservation against erosion: protecting lake shores and coastal environments. In: Menotti F, O’Sullivan A, editors. The Oxford handbook of wetland archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 651–63.Google Scholar
  8. Van de Noort R. Climate change archaeology: building resilience from research in the worlds wetlands. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Van de Noort R, Fletcher W, Thomas G, Carstairs I, Patrick D. Monuments at risk in England’s wetlands. Exeter: Univesity of Exeter Report to English Heritage; 2001.Google Scholar
  10. Vorenhout M. In situ preservation and monitoring with particular application to Star Carr, Yorkshire, UK. J Wetl Archaeol. 2012;11:56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchaeologyUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations