CHAPTER 33

COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

BEN FORD

INTRODUCTION

MARLOW in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness understood the "delightful mystery"

of blank spaces on maps; even those partly filled offer the opportunity to find a
niche and make a contribution. For Marlow these spaces were Africa, South Amer-
ica, Australia, and the Arctic, but for archaeology many of the blanks occur along
our coasts, the strips of land and water between the well-defined domains of under-
water and terrestrial archaeologies (Erlandson and Fitzpatrick 2006: 23; Gawronski
2003: 133; Loveluck and Tys 2006: 161; Stilgoe 1994: ix). Just as Marlow's equatorial
Africa was partly filled with rivers, lakes, and place-names, the coast is not archae-
ologically blank. Several seminal studies in littoral archaeology serve as landmarks,
but the shore has been far less mapped and measured than other areas. How else
could recent shoreline surveys of such diverse places as Kilwa Kisiwani, Tanzania;
Kingston, Canada; and the north Kent Coast of England, all areas with strong tradi-
tions in coastal archaeology, well-known archaeological potential, large coastal
populations, and active diving, fishing, and shellfish-gathering communities, yield
such substantial and significant results (Moore 2008; Paddenberg and Hession
2008; Pollard 2008)?
Clearly, coastal archaeology is a growth field for maritime archaeology in
terms of the data that can be gathered, but "the living edge" between land and
water is also a fruitful realm for the development of archaeological theory (Walker
199o: 271). The coast is a difficult environment for archaeologists in terms of pres-
ervation, access, and methods. Similarly, past peoples recognized the coast as a
natural boundary, perhaps the most obvious boundary on the landscape, and, as a
result, imbued it with spiritual and cultural associations. Often these associations
focused on the sea's dangerous or cleansing nature (Cooney 2004: 326; Flatman
764 MARITIME CULTURE AND LIFE ASHORE

2011; Lindenlauf 2004; O'Sullivan and Breen 2007: 125). The liminal nature of the
coast was also important to many cultures; borders are often the domain of the
Trickster (e.g., Hermes, Loki, Satan, Coyote and Raven, Krishna, Eshu, Elegba, or
Anansi) and are special places demarcating the line between safety and danger or
known and unknown (Hyde 2008). However, people in the past did venture across
this boundary; if they had not, there would be no maritime cultures and conse-
quently no maritime archaeology.
Thus, the coast was as much a bridge between terrestrial and maritime lives as
a perceptual, physical, or cultural border. As such, the coast links terrestrial and
underwater archaeology into a unified maritime archaeology. Ships and their
cargoes were produced on land, as were most sailors; yet seaborne trade, transpor-
tation, recreation, and warfare formed the foundation of many ancient cultures.
Neither terrestrial nor underwater archaeology alone wholly tell the stories of these
maritime cultures, but combined, connected by coastal archaeology, these archaeol-
ogies allow for a fully developed maritime archaeology. What follows in this chapter
is a summary of the nature and development of coastal archaeology as well as a
discussion of how coastal archaeology interdigitates with maritime archaeology and
a synthesis of the major theoretical trends in littoral archaeology. Figure 33.1 depicts
the geographic distribution of the examples cited.

DEFINITION OF COASTS: CULTURAL AND

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES

The coast is generally defined as the area where marine processes such as erosion,
deposition, and storm surge influence terrestrial processes and vice versa (coastal
process zone). This zone can range from hundreds to thousands of meters in width
depending on the slope and substrate of the coastal margin; if climatic impacts are
added to the equation, then the coastal margin can be expanded to several hundred
kilometers. These impacts certainly affect cultures not normally classified as mari-
time, but the activity zone where human undertakings are influenced by the coast is
of more immediate concern to coastal archaeology. The coastal activity zone can
often be as limited as 5—io km on either side of the waterline, but it can extend much
farther inland when considering cultures that forage both along the coast and in the
uplands as part of their seasonal round (Fulford, Champion, and Long 1997: 22; West-
ley and Dix 2006: 13). The definition of coast should consequently be left open and
defined for each culture and region depending on the pertinent research questions.
Adding to the difficulty of defining "coast" and by extension "coastal archae-
ology" is the fact that the coast is a moving target (see chapters by Delgado and
Firth in this volume). The 500,000-year-old hominin site at Boxgrove, West Sussex,
UK, formed on a coastal mudflat but is now 46 m above the sea and ii km inland.
 ARCHAEOLOGY 765
COASTAL

Arkewe,..„

Number Reference
19 Staniforth and McGornole 2007
Bel end Remelt 2003 Number Reference
27
21 Frtrhuon and Phaneuf 2008 38 Westerdaht 1992.2006
Reference °Dothan 2001.2004, O'Sullivan 39 Kull 1997
Number 22
and Breen 2007 40 Reinder,
1 VaInstub and Murray 2006
Mobilean et al. 2003 41 Boyne or al. 2003: Robert 1989
2 Rowell 2005: Torben et el. 2001 23
24 Hale 2003 42 Kennett and Kennett 2000
3 Fedie et at 2000
26 NobM 2006 43 Peacock and Blue 2007
4 !Desoto and Glover 2008
26 Oxley 2000 McConkey end McEllean 2007;
5 Leshikar-Denton 1993 14
Bel and Neumann 1997; Goldberg Quinn et al. 2006
6 Murphy 1990 27
' and 60056002008; Parker 1999 45 Poland 2008
7 Reit 2004
28 Crawford 1927 48 Pankinoton 2006
8 F“oht 2004 Gaur at al. 2004.2005
29 Goldberg end klaconak 2006 47
9 Jordan-Greene 2007
30 Lovelock and TN 2006 40 Pardda 1999
10 Bedsit and Harris 2003
Milne 1985; Milne et al 1998; 49 Shimin e1 111.1991
11 Giessen 1982 31
Paddenbero and Hesston 2008 50 Motile. 2003
12 Ford 2007: Moser 2007
32 Punters et al 2008 51 Richards end Staniforth 2006
13 Emory 2000
33 Gewronekt 2003 52 Duncan 2006
14 Bernstein 2006
34 Fischer 2007 53 Ash 2005
15 Moore 2005.2008 Boilers 2005
35 Lemee 1997 54
16 Knoed 1994
36 Westerdehl 2003 S5 Fixes2009; Lauer and Osweni 2009
17 brans and Vender Steen 2003 Berner 2009
37 166nnby 2007; Watinden 1997 58
IS Ramer 2003

Figure 33.1 Sites and locations mentioned in the text. Illustration by the author.

Scandinavian coastal sites can be found as much as 100 km inland due to glacio-
isostatic rebound over the last 13,000 years (Goldberg and Macphail 2006: 151-152).
Similarly, wharves and coastal harbor structures of less antiquity are often found
buried far from the modern shoreline as a result of land filling and the seaward
press of harbor facilities (Heintzelman 1986; Stone et al. 2008). The majority of the
recent archaeological record, however, is submerged. We are currently experiencing
one of the highest sea levels of the past 120,000 years, surpassed only by the previous
interglacial period, when sea levels were approximately 6 m higher than they are
today. Thus, with the exception of high latitudes and regions subjected to tectonic
uplift, the littoral sites from approximately 120,000 to 5,000 years ago are sub-
merged (Ehlers and Gibbard 2004; Erlandson 2001: 300; Erlandson and Rick 2008: 4;
Faught 2004; Fedje and Josenhans 2000; Flemming 2004; Murphy 1990).
The relative inaccessibility of many sites along the world's ancient coastlines has
led to what Jon Erlandson (2001: 291) has termed the "coastal paradox:' wherein the

1
dearth of evidence for early coastal adaptations is compared to the complexity and
sedentism of groups that did adopt a coastal lifeway after 5,000 years ago. While
current work on submerged prehistoric sites is striving to address this paradox (see
Firth in this volume), changes in sea level are still a confounding factor in coastal
archaeology, and extreme care is necessary in interpreting the environmental set-
ting of coastal sites. Simply put, sites that are on the shoreline today may have been
inland sites with little maritime contact when they were occupied, and, conversely,
766 MARITIME CULTURE AND LIFE ASHORE

sites that are now far removed from the littoral may have been coastal when they
were inhabited (Bell and Renouf 2003; Fulford, Champion, and Long 1997: 112;
Goldberg and Macphail 2006: 155).
Changes in sea level also cause changes in the nature of the coast; due to varia-
tions in topography and bottom material, rising and falling waterlines are not par-
allel, and significantly different coastal environments can be created at different
levels of the coast. For example, shell-fish-productive rocky points formed in sev-
eral South African locations circa 3,000 years ago as sea levels changed. The crea-
tion of these environments led to shifts in habitation and subsistence patterns
among the local population to take advantage of the new resources (Parkington
2006: 76). In addition to natural changes in the littoral environment, anthropogenic
alterations must also be kept in mind. Activities such as quarrying, farming, and
filling can drastically change the quality of the shore, creating new embayments
while obliterating old ones (Pion 2008).
Acknowledging that many coastal sites are now submerged leads to the princi-
pal concern of coastal archaeology—erosion. Many submerged prehistoric sites
were doubtlessly destroyed by erosion as sea levels rose, while sites currently in lit-
toral areas are threatened by coastal erosion (Erlandson 2001: 291; Waters 1997: chap.
6). Sea-level rise is listed as a threat to World Heritage Archaeological Sites, and the
United Kingdom National Trust predicts that 500 archaeological sites and historic
structures will be lost to erosion over the next century (Colette 2007: 52; 2005). An
understanding of the formation processes and geoarchaeology of coasts is conse-
quently important to interpreting the archaeology of this environment, but that is
beyond the scope of this chapter. Goldberg and Macphail (2006), Waters (1997),
and Feibel (2001) provide good introductory discussions of coastal processes as re-
lated to archaeology. In addition to erosion caused by wave action, coastal sites are
susceptible to ice damage, the ravages of storms, and increased coastal develop-
ment. Approximately 6o% of the world population lives within ioo km of the coast,
and much of the current development is in areas with long histories of human ac-
tivity (Cooney 2004: 327; Erlandson and Rick 2008:1). Thus, coastal sites are threat-
ened by natural factors, human-influenced natural factors (e.g., climate change),
and cultural factors. These threats certainly contribute urgency to coastal archae-
ology but are not grounds to abandon all hope. Significant discoveries have been
made in submerged coastal sites.

HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF COASTAL

ARCHAEOLOGY

There is a protracted tradition of studying the coast, and coasts have long been
understood as an important cultural resource, although intensive study of the
littoral is a relatively recent development in maritime archaeology. For example,
COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 767

submerged forests were noted along the British coast as early as 117o, with more
systematic recording beginning in the eighteenth century (Goldberg and Macphail
2006: 163). Similarly, many of the significant early discoveries in nautical archae-
ology, such as the Ferriby boats, Amsterdam, and Grace Dieu, were made along
shorelines (Anderson 1934; Clarke et al. 1
993; Friel 1993; Gawronski 199o; Wright
1994). There were also early forays into coastal archaeology that utilized methods
remarkably similar to those employed today. For example, O. G. S. Crawford's 1927
exploration of Lyonesse off the Cornish coast made use of intertidal survey
methods, oral history, archival research, and aerial photography to investigate a
submerged prehistoric landscape. While Crawford believed that the land surface
had sunk rather than the sea level risen, his observations on the effects of erosion
on coastal sites match those of English Heritage seven decades later (Adams 2006;
Crawford 1927; Fulford, Champion, and Long 1997: 4o). Nicholas Flemming's
(1971) work on submerged terrestrial sites in the Mediterranean also predates
much of the modern emphasis on integrated maritime archaeology and coastal
studies.
Despite these early examples of a holistic approach to coastal sites, much of the
archaeological work in the littoral has been divided along the waterline (Cooney
2004: 323; Erlandson 2006: 299). In addition to being divided along methodological
and environmental boundaries, terrestrial and underwater archaeologists have
also traditionally given themselves over to studying specific site types along the
coast. Underwater archaeologists have tended to focus on ports and beached ship-
wrecks, while terrestrial archaeologists have given the majority of their attention to
shell middens, with a secondary interest, primarily European, in the coastal loca-
tion of barrows and tombs. While these foci are somewhat limiting in geographic
scope, often ignoring "off-site" cultural resources, they have proven to be produc-
tive approaches, providing a wealth of data about specific locations and the foun-
dation for many of the methods and theoretical perspectives applied to coastal
archaeology.
Ports have long been a focus of maritime archaeology, and they remain an
important aspect (see Oleson and Hohlfelder in this volume), but the emphasis on
them seems to have fluoresced during the 198os (Boyce et al. 2003; Flemming 1971;
Milne 1985; Parida 1999; Parker 1999; Pasquinucci and Weski 2004; Raban 1989,
1985, 1986, 1988; Rudolph 198o). During this period, even texts with titles that
implied a broader scope were dominated by port studies. For example, Archaeology
of Coastal Changes, edited by Avner Raban (1988), included 13 chapters, 9 of which
focused on ports. While they may have been overemphasized in the archaeological
literature, it must be said that ports provided a natural starting point for coastal
archaeology, a gateway between the elements, and, given their importance to the
formation of cities and the distribution of goods, a focus on them was not inappro-
priate (Naylor 2004; Walker 1990: 279). Port archaeology has also expanded in
recent years and benefited from multidisciplinary approaches allowing for well-
developed and methodologically deep studies, such as that conducted at Adulis on
the Red Sea (Peacock and Blue 2007).
768 MARITIME CULTURE AND LIFE ASHORE

Paralleling the level of effort and interdisciplinary approaches often dedicated

to ports by underwater and nautical archaeologists, shell middens have been a
tremendously productive subject of study for terrestrial archaeologists; middens
have been investigated on every continent except Antarctica (Milner, Craig, and
Bailey 2007; Parkington 2006: 120; Stein 1992). Recent work on shell middens uti-
lizing rigorous methods, including isotope analysis, has led to new insights on
human impacts on the marine food web (Erlandson and Rick zoo8; Reitz 2004).
Shell midden work has also provided intriguing data on cultural change and coloni-
zation. Cheryl Claasen's (1982) analysis of shell middens in coastal North Carolina,
for instance, found that the seasonal use of shellfish increased with the rise of hor-
ticulture, as compared to foragers, who collected shellfish year-round, and agricul-
turalists, who relied only lightly on shellfish. She also noted that in late prehistoric
shell middens there was a shift from early spring exploitation to summer exploita-
tion, possibly indicating a change in the local seasonal round to take advantage of
trading opportunities provided by European visits to the North Carolina coast
during the summer months.
Just as port studies have limitations in that they focus on only the major nodes
of coastal commerce, shell middens illuminate only limited facets of coastal subsis-
tence. Shell tends to preserve well, and, as a result, middens can lead to a biased
sample of what was likely an often opportunistic subsistence regime based on a wide
range of marine resources, including fish and shellfish, but also taking advantage of
such windfalls as red tides and beached whales (Parkington 2006: 14; Westley and
Dix 2006: 11). It is only when fish traps, habitation sites, isolated landings and
wharves, coastal monuments, beached vessels, and the myriad other sites and fea-
tures that form the coastal archaeological record are taken into account along with
middens and ports that a complete picture of human utilization of the coast can
begin to form.
Tentative steps were taken in the direction of an integrated coastal maritime
archaeology during the 198os, but the field burgeoned during the following decade.
Sean McGrail's (1983, 1985) articles on landing places and coastal structures laid the
foundation for later work by showing the value of informal littoral facilities that
bridged the waterline and by formulating a typology of basic coastal sites. Building
on this and other early work, many of the large-scale coastal surveys conducted
during the 199os that took into account resources above and below the mean high-
water mark give the sense that the surveyors are attempting something new, exciting,
and potentially very productive (Aberg and Lewis 2000; Bell and Neumann 1997;
O'Sullivan 1995, 2001). By the time of the 2003 Land and Sea: Integrative Archaeol-
ogies conference held at the University of Southampton, England, there was a strong
coast
association between the terrestrial and underwater archaeologies of the
(Adams 2006).
the
All of these examples are from Britain and Ireland, which has largely led
English-speaking archaeological community in the development of coastal archae-
British
ology through an active concern for the management of coastal sites. The
model for coastal archaeology generally relies on systematic pedestrian surveys of
COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 769

the foreshore at low tide combined with aerial photography and intensive recording
of identified sites to record the full range of sites within the coastal landscape. As a
result of this inclusive approach, reports on the coastal archaeology of Britain and
Ireland often span multiple periods and include multiple types of sites, both the
romantic and the mundane (Aberg and Lewis 2000;
Fulford, Champion, and. Long
1997; McErlean, McConkey, and Forsythe 2003). A recent survey of the Kent shore-
line, for example, recorded sites ranging from a submerged forest to a torpedo sta-
tion and from fish traps to a medieval saltern, as well as jetties, quays, and hulks
(Paddenberg and Hession 2008). An intertidal archaeological survey on the Shan-
non estuary, Ireland, investigated Neolithic occupation sites and forests preserved
in submerged landscapes, while also accounting for fishtraps abandoned in the
nineteenth century (O'Sullivan 2001). Based on the wide range of well-recorded
features along their coasts, British and Irish scholars have become thankfully
unafraid of interpreting the coastal archaeological record and have been among the
leaders in applying archaeological theory to the littoral. As will be discussed below,
much of this work deals with agency among maritime peoples and attempts to move
beyond how the coast was used to address how it was perceived and constructed by
its inhabitants and how it, in turn, constructed their perceptions (O'Sullivan 2004;
O'Sullivan and Breen 2007).
Scholars in Britain and Ireland, however, have not been alone in their develop-
ment of an integrated coastal maritime archaeology. Coastal archaeology in the
British Isles was and is heavily influenced by developments in northern Europe,
particularly the maritime cultural landscape approach (see Westerdahl in this vol-
ume). Northern European scholars have been perhaps even more aggressive in their
theorization of the coast and have provided the explicit underpinnings of much of
the current research in littoral archaeology (Fischer 2007; Krol 1997; Lemee 1997;
Pieters, Verhaeghe, and Gevaert 2006; ROnnby 2007; Westerdahl 1992).
Interesting shoreline projects are also taking place in Australia (see Staniforth
in this volume; Ash 2005; Bullers 2005; Duncan 2006; Lawrence and Staniforth
1998; Richards and Staniforth 2006), India (Gaur, Sundaresh, and Sila 2004; Gaur,
Sundaresh, and Vardhan 2005: 941-946; Gaur and Vora in this volume), Pakistan
(Belcher 2009), Israel (Breman 2003), China (Shimin, Genqi, and Green 1991), the
Mediterranean (Reinders 2001), Argentina (Elkin in this volume; Vainstub and
Murray 2006), Mexico (Rissolo and Glover 2008), Oceania (Flores 2009; Jones
2009; Lauer and ASwani 2009), and elsewhere. A particularly strong integrated
shoreline survey has been undertaken on Mombosa Island, Kenya. Building on the
well-established tradition of coastal, or "Swahili:' archaeology throughout eastern
Africa, this survey has integrated historical documents, oral history, surface archae-
ology, and marine remote sensing into an excellent synthesis of the maritime
heritage of the island (McConkey and McErlean 2007; Pollard 2008: 98; Quinn
et al. 2006).
A wide range of integrated coastal archaeological investigations have also been
undertaken in the United States, primarily as graduate theses and federal manage-
ment projects (Emory 2000; Ford 2007, 2009; Jordan-Greene 2007; Knoerl 1994;
 MARITIME CULTURE AND LIFE ASHORE
770

Leshikar-Denton 1993; Moser 2007; Russell 2005; Spirek and Harris 2003; Vrana
and Stoep 2003). Archaeologists working along the Canadian coasts and shores
have similarly embraced an integrated approach (Fitzhugh and Phaneuf 2008;
Moore 2008, 2005; O'Sullivan 1995; Ringer 2003; Staniforth and McGonigle 2007).
The majority of these studies differ from the British and northern European models
in that they do not adopt the broad landscape approach; rather, they focus on spe-
cific sites. Both approaches strive to dissolve the boundary between terrestrial and
underwater archaeology in an effort to create a seamless archaeology of the coast,
but the Canadians have largely opted to investigate specific sites with both exposed
and submerged components instead of treating the coast as a geographic unit to be
investigated en masse. For example, James Ringer's (2003) investigations at Canso,
Nova Scotia, focused on the submerged portion of a previously excavated fishing
station and united the terrestrial and submerged findings to address questions of
site function, seasonality, ethnic association, and the economic development of the
fisheries.

COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AS A FACET OF

MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY

The majority of the projects discussed above were tremendously productive,

yielding more sites, features, and data than archaeologists had initially hoped for
and further reinforcing the fact that the coast has been the location of intensive
occupation throughout human history (Walker 1990: 275). Furthermore, coastal
data sets tend to include sites of multiple periods, allowing for analyses that address
cultural change and continuity better than is generally possible with relatively finite
shipwreck investigations. Thus, the coast is a storehouse of data that bears on such
important issues as migration (Westley and Dix 2006), subsistence (Torben,
Erlandson, and Vellanoweth 2001), and early industry (McErlean et al. 2007). For
instance, Rick Torben and his colleagues' (2001) analysis of the faunal assemblage
and artifact collection from Daisy Cave, California, showed that early Americans
relied heavily on fish that were procured with a varied and complex toolkit that
included boat fishing. These findings challenged the previous assumption that fish
were a low-productivity food and showed the power of coastal archaeology to fun-
damentally change archaeological perceptions of past lifeways. An increased ap-
preciation of the data stored in the coast not only helps address archaeological
questions but also aids in the management of unidentified or underrecorded sites.
As coastal erosion and development increasingly become a concern, "coastal sur-
vey provides a more reliable and better-quantified basis for future strategic plan-
ning on the coast, and for more targeted scientific research" (Paddenberg and
Hession 2008: 150) where the submerged landscape is not "mis-represented as a
COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 771

sterile plain of beguiling blue ... [with] historic shipwrecks ... scattered like decoys
to allure the attention of our legislators away from the wider vision of submerged
national archaeological resources" (Tomalin 2000: 96).
The archaeology of the coast is clearly important in its own right, but it has the
added power of being an integrative force in maritime archaeology. It capitalizes
on the "weakness of the artificial seam" that separates terrestrial and underwater
archaeologies and permits for a more holistic maritime archaeology (Tomalin
2000: 85). Whether the linkage between terrestrial and underwater archaeologies
is methodological or theoretical, coastal archaeology serves to harmonize them
(Adams 2006: 2; O'Sullivan and Breen 2007: 62; Oxley 2000:31; Van der Noort and
O'Sullivan 2006: 147; Westerdahl 2006). Many historic peoples who lived in
proximity to a coast moved freely from terrestrial pursuits, such as agriculture,
to maritime occupations, including fishing and commerce (Lance 1987; O'Sullilan
and Breen 2007: 62; Westerdahl 2003). These farmers, fishermen, and sailors no
doubt recognized the different environments, threats, and opportunities associ-
ated with both land-based and maritime pursuits but seem to have transitioned
easily from one occupation to the other as the need arose. The coast formed a
figurative (and, in the case of quays and wharves, a literal) bridge between mul-
tiple aspects of their working lives. In a broader sense, the littoral also formed a
bridge between terrestrial transportation, production, and consumption systems,
and the water-based production and transportation systems that were so impor-
tant in the efficient movement of cargo from one point to another. With in-
creasing regularity beginning with the Age of Discovery, goods seldom reached
their point of consumption without being transported by ship or boat. As a
result, the coast connects well-established subfields of historical/postmedieval
archaeology, linking shipwreck studies with the investigations of settlements and
Industrial sites.
Beyond playing a functional role in maritime life, the coast figured prominently
in the spiritual lives of many coastal peoples. Boundaries are important in many
belief systems, and the coast is among the most naturally demarcated boundaries,
making it a fruitful realm for spiritual development (see Westerdahl in this vol-
ume). As described by Edward Pollard (2008), the Digo culture of Tanzania pro-
vides a good example of a religious use of the coast. The Digo host annual ceremonies
consisting of prayers and sacrifices of animal blood, sweets, and rice that begin at
sacred land sites (kaya) and progress to corresponding sites offshore (mzimu). Kaya
and mzimu are situated close to each other and to the coastline and are represented
on the landscape by anomalies such as large trees, caves, upwellings of cold spring
water, and portions of lagoon bottoms that are perpetually disturbed. Thus, each
sacred site is unique and easily identified by members of the culture but also serves
to link the two halves of the physical landscape together into a single spiritual land-
scape. From an archaeological perspective, Ian McNiven (2003) has noted culturally
distinct, but potentially functionally similar, sites among Australian Aboriginal
people.
772 MARITIME CULTURE AND LIFE ASHORE

THEORY AND METHOD IN COASTAL

ARCHAEOLOGY

Theory
Much of the early theoretical development of coastal archaeology was driven by
questions of environmental possibilism and economic or subsistence-derived
explanations of littoral use (Van der Noort and O'Sullivan 2006: 25, 146). While the
environment remains a primary research focus in coastal archaeology, which is ap-
propriate given that coasts are among the most dynamic ecosystems on the planet,
archaeological interpretations of the role that nature plays in human littoral occu-
pations have become far more nuanced. There is also a growing literature on topics
such as social identity, perception of the coast, and the role of coastal change in state
formation.

Social Identity
Attributing agency to littoral inhabitants is h recurring theme in much recent coastal
archaeology. These studies promote the social identity and actions of past peoples to
the forefront. While these studies still address economic practices and environmen-
tal changes, which are contingent on and drivers of social relations, more weight is
given to the actions of individuals and groups (Van der Noort and O'Sullivan
2006: 113). Much of this research is designed to investigate how people conceived of
the coast, what distinctions they made between water and land, what special knowl-
edge they maintained, how the natural rhythms of the coast structured their lives,
how they valued and interacted with littoral environments, and how they interacted
with other coastal peoples and inland peoples. The underlying argument is that the
coast is different from the uplands and has different spaces, resources, and rhythms
that arguably provide power to those who have the knowledge and skills to utilize
them (Ronnby 2007; Van der Noort and O'Sullivan 2006: 36, 43, 82; Vickers 1993).
The knowledge necessary to inhabit the coast, and the distinction of the coast from
the uplands, lead to unique types of perception that make coastal communities a
distinct subculture or potentially an identifiable culture.
A particularly clear example of this difference of perception is the case of sounds
or inlets. Sounds are safe havens for seafarers, locations to be aware of and run to in
case of a storm or to anchor in for the night. However, from the perspective of
landsmen, sounds and their associated streams are an obstacle requiring a ferry,
ford, or bridge. The opposite is true of portages. For a seafarer, the portage is an
interruption of their easy passage requiring additional effort to move the cargo, if
not the entire vessel, over the contrary ground, whereas for a terrestrial traveler the
portage permits uninterrupted travel between two potentially confounding bodies
of water (Westerdahl 2006: 77-78). In addition to shaping their worldviews around
the coastal environment, shore dwellers also modify their surroundings to influence
 coASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 773

how their communities and the surrounding landscape are perceived. For example,
the causeways on the coast surrounding Kilwa Kisiwani, Tanzania, had various
functional purposes, including navigation aids, water access, and breakwaters, but
they were also ceremonial sites and often associated with mosques. The mosques
and associated causeways increased each other's visibility and advertised the Islamic
allegiances of the port. These structures conveyed to the predominantly Muslim
traders plying the coast that Kilwa Kisiwani was a safe and wealthy port and, there-
., fore, a worthwhile place to do business (Pollard 2008).
The use of coastal structures to advertise local allegiances illustrates another
aspect of coastal social archaeology, the interconnectedness of coastal peoples
(Noble 2006). Travel by water was generally faster and far easier over long distances
than travel on land: it is possible to move four to five times faster by small boat or
canoe than on foot, and for much of the premodern era, a journey had to be only
long enough to outweigh the cost of loading the cargo aboard a vessel to make water
-transport more efficient than the comparable overland route (Hugill 2005: 108;
O'Sullivan and Breen 2007: 56). This ease of association among coastal peoples bor-
dering the same body of water, combined with the similar knowledge bases, argu-
ably similar perceptions of their environment, and the often-marginalized nature of
coastal peoples in relation to inland peoples in terrestrial cultures, often led coastal
peoples to develop a greater identification with geographically more distant coastal
communities than with more proximal land communities (Loveluck and Tys 2006;
Naylor 2004; Verhaeghe 2006: 215-219 for a counterexample). The relatively fric-
tionless nature of water travel led to a greater emphasis on social distance than
ott geographic distance. This general maritime group identity often manifests itself
archaeologically in the relative abundance of trade commodities in coastal zones
(Loveluck and Tys 2006; Naylor 2004).

Continuity and Dynamism

The social identity of coastal peoples was not static, of course; rather, it was con-
stantly being constructed and modified, like all other living cultures. Yet Fernand
Braudel's theory of the longue duree and his concern with continuity of social struc-
tures permeates much of the theoretical discussion of coastal archaeology. Many of
these studies argue, either explicitly or implicitly, that the sea engenders certain
social structures and that these structures are held in common among peoples
living on particular coasts for an extended period of time (Aberg and Lewis 2000;
Bernstein 2006; Jung 2007; O'Sullivan 2004; Ronnby 2007; Van der Noort and
O'Sullivan 2006); however, it is also possible that coastal culture transcends geo-
graphic regions, establishing continuity not only through time but also through
space (McErlean, McConkey, and Forsythe 2003: xix). This argument is very pow-
erful because it allows for the consideration of a coastal culture that, while not
monolithic, is distinct and warrants close study by coastal archaeologists. When
applied well, the longue duree can be a very fruitful means of studying the coast.
Aidan O'Sullivan (2004), for example, effectively argues that fish weirs are evidence
 MARITIME CULTURE AND LIFE ASHORE
774

of multigenerational continuity of traditions among coastal Irish and British peo-

ples, despite major upheavals, such as the Anglo-Norman invasion. Indeed, he sug-
gests that abandoned medieval fishtraps might have served hundreds of years later
as a mnemonic for local fishing communities as to where the best fishing grounds
might be located, giving archaeological sites in the maritime environment a cultural
role that is often suggested by archaeologists to apply to reused barrows or other
landward monuments. Similarly, David Bernstein (2006) posits that pre-Contact
Native American peoples in coastal southern New England retained relatively
constant subsistence, settlement, and technological patterns for millennia, while
inland groups cycled through various patterns in response to environmental fluctu-
ations. A somewhat different interpretation of similar evidence is provided by Lynn
Ceci (1990).
Cultural continuity is clearly a viable theoretical perspective for coastal arche-
ology but it is largely based on assumptions of stability in the coastal environment.
There is a substantial body of research, however, that proves the dynamism of the
littoral (Erlandson and Fitzpatrick 2006; Welinder 1997; Westley and Dix 2006).
Not only is the coastal environment not uniform from one geographic area to the
next; it is also subject to seasonal and long-term variations. Geographic and sea-
sonal variations can be adapted to by an individual culture and do not necessarily
interrupt the continuity of that culture's coastal adaptations. However, long-term
variations may lead to disruptions of the longue duree. Following the last glacial
maximum, the changes in sea level due to the addition of meltwater and isostatic
rebound would have been noticeable within individual lifetimes in some regions
and would have been pronounced enough to be preserved in the cultural memory
of other groups (Welinder 1997; Westley and Dix 2006). In addition to the rise or
fall of the waterline, the associated changes in the flora and fauna as well as the
climate of a landscape would have had a pronounced effect on local inhabitants. In
these situations the continuity of coastal culture was almost certainly disrupted. For
these cultures, the longue duree may not apply, or perhaps a more nuanced interpre-
tation that takes into account cultural momentum in the face of environment
change and addresses the adaptation of the old culture to the new environment
while keeping identifiable aspects of old culture is appropriate.

Rise and Transition of the State

Coastal archaeology also has the potential to interact with established realms of
archaeological theorization, such as the causes for the rise of the state. Douglas and
James Kennett (2006) argue that sea-level change and the associated climate change
were part of the multivariate process that led to early state formation in southern
Mesopotamia. To oversimplify their model, the Kennetts argue that rising sea levels
allowed for more irrigation and increased carrying capacity of lands in southern
Mesopotamia; however, as sea-level rise slowed, the demands on the environment
outstripped the ability of the population to support itself, resulting in the aggrega-
tion of groups and competition between groups. Thus, the human response to local
COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 775

sea-level change, in association with other more widely argued factors such as cir-
cumscription, population increase, warfare, trade, and irrigation, led to the forma-
tion of the early state.
The role of the coast also figures prominently in discussions of the transition
from maritime-oriented states to inland, territory-oriented states during the post-
medieval and modern periods (Hugill 2005; Mackinder 1942). Beginning circa 140o,
maritime-oriented states were able to dominate large areas through naval power
and commerce. Although wide-ranging, this power was relatively weak because
ultimate control over the land was only within the range of the naval guns and the
ability to blockade ports. However, prior to circa 1800, the vast majority of peoples
were not far removed from the sea, even if neither we nor they would classify them
as maritime or coastal peoples. With the advent of the nineteenth century, and new
technology such as the telegraph and locomotive, as well as improved bureaucratic
management, it became possible for populations and states to expand much farther
inland. These territory-based states, relying on strong control of massive expanses
of land, quickly overshadowed the maritime states during the nineteenth and twen-
tieth centuries, resulting in a burgeoning emphasis on inland communities. This
shift may, in part, be responsible for the relative neglect of coasts among twentieth-
century archaeologists and may explain why more maritime-oriented cultures, such
as the English and Irish, have been on the forefront of coastal archaeology.

Coastal Archaeology and the Environment

Perhaps the most commonly explored aspect of coastal archaeology is the relation-
ship between coastal archaeology and the littoral environment. The coastal environ-
ment is among the most fragile and dynamic environments on earth, making it
difficult to separate archaeology in this region from questions of the environment
and environmental change (Head woo; Walker 1990). Similarly, coastal archaeolo-
gists are often politically involved in environmental protection because of the very
real threat that environmental change poses to the resources that they study (Van
der Noort and O'Sullivan 2006: 31). Most of the archaeological focus on the coastal
environment, consequently, can be divided into two categories: a concern with
change in the coastal environment either through human or natural forces, and an
interest in adapting to or managing changes in the coastal environment and their
impacts on archaeological sites.
Humans affect every environment that they inhabit, and the coast, with its ten-
dency to aggregate both land- and water-based impacts, is widely, intensively, and
regularly impacted by humans, both intentionally and unintentionally (Bourne
2006; Halpern et al. 2008). Some of these alterations, such as land-making, sediment
collection around groins and piers, and stone quarrying, take place directly on the
coast, but other impacts, including increased sedimentation from plowed fields and
increased runoff from urban canyons, are generated well inland. While the intensity
of these human effects increased dramatically with the Industrial Revolution, there
is ample evidence of human coastal alterations from antiquity (Inman 1978; Steffen
776 MARITIME CULTURE AND LIFE ASHORE

et al. 2004; Walker 1990; Wood 2000). Further complicating the study of coastal
change, many of the human impacts on the landscape are at the level of soils and
nutrients (Goldberg and Macphail 2006: chap. 9) and, as demonstrated by sea-level
rise following the last glacial maximum, the natural environment is also capable of
drastic fluctuations without substantial human input.
The difficulty in parsing cultural and natural changes to the environment has
led to an ecological approach among coastal archaeologists and many other scien-
tists. In this approach, humans are considered within their environment, rather
than above or external to it, and the complicated relationships between human and
environmental actions and reactions are studied. The difficulty is that there is very
little good ecological data prior to the twentieth century, and most ecological studies
span little more than a few decades. Consequently, most data sets were established
well after humans had begun to drastically affect the environment, and much of the
data lacks a deep time dimension. Several archaeologists and historians have
stepped into this void. Much of the archaeological data is drawn from shell midden
sites and analyzes changes in animal size and species representation as a result of
human predation; however, the results of human changes to the physical environ-
ment are also considered (Erlandson and Fitzpatrick 2006: 18; Head 2000; McErlean
2007: 92.; Reitz 2004; Rick and Erlandson 2008). There is also a growing literature of
historical ecology that draws on archival research (Starkey, Holm, and Barnard
2008) and serves as a bridge between the archaeological data and the growing
corpus of research on coastal, marine, and global environmental change (Halpern
et al. 2008; Pauly et al. 1998; Steffen et al. 2004).
In light of these physical and biological changes to the coast, many archaeolo-
gists are concerned about the preservation of our coastal heritage. In addition to
erosion, human development is the primary threat to coastal archaeological sites,
and an unknown number of sites are irretrievably lost each year (Erlandson and
Fitzpatrick 2006: 20; Fulford, Champion, and Long 1997: 47). Unlike eroded sediments
that are redeposited down current or diminished species that may eventually repop-
ulate a degraded environment, lost archaeological sites cannot be regenerated.
While both natural and cultural resource preservation are faced with the maxim
that the coast will continue to change, the effects of this change are felt more griev-
ously by coastal heritage. It is impractical to preserve and protect all coastal sites,
but it is important to record all coastal sites. In this way, we will have a database of
what has been lost and what types of sites once populated the landscape. This data-
base will be useful not only as a research tool to study past coastal peoples, but also
as a means to manage the remaining coastal sites and make judgments about what
types of resources are worth protecting (O'Sullivan and Breen 2007: 243; Padden-
berg and Hession 2008: 151).

Method
Lastly, a few words on the methods used to record these resources are appropriate.
There are existing texts on recording intact and disarticulated hulls along the coasts
COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 777

as well as basic coastal archaeological survey (Fulford, Champion, and Long 1997;
McKewan, and Goodburn 1998; Russell 2005), and coastal archaeologists are
also encouraged to draw on the considerable amount of research conducted on the
natural environment of coastlines and estuaries in preparation for any littoral sur-
' vey (Hale 2000: 51): Similarly, the works cited in this chapter provide a sampling of
the wide range of techniques utilized and challenges overcome in conducting coastal
archaeology.
Coastal surveys should be conducted at low tide to take advantage of the great-
est amount of exposed shoreline. These surveys can be cautiously completed on
foot, and the greater the tidal variation, the more of the shore that can be accessed
and surveyed conveniently. The major coastal survey of Strangford Lough benefited
from a large tidal swing, exposing as much as one-third of the lough at low tide
(McErlean, McConkey, and Forsythe 2003: 1). The lack of tidal variation is one of the
-primary differences between conducting a coastal survey along an ocean and a
shoreline survey along a large lake or small sea. However, even in a lacustrine envi-
ronment or along coasts that have minimal tidal variation, both SCUBA diver surveys,
mirroring walking surveys on exposed land, and remote-sensing surveys can be
effectively employed (see chapters by Gearheart and Quinn in this volume). The
combination of a sub-bottom profiler/ground-penetrating radar assessment and
sediment cores taken on- and offshore would also benefit coastal surveys by permit-
ting the reconstruction of past shorelines and their associated environments.
Regardless of the tidal variation within a survey area, archaeologists should bear in
mind the height and timing of the tides, as they will influence the safety of the sur-
veyors and their ability to locate and potentially excavate sites (Fulford, Champion,
and Long 1997: 83-84). Conceptually, the coast should be viewed from the water at
both low and high tide. Many of the coastal inhabitants would have known and
accessed coastal sites from this direction rather from inland. Many questions of
settlement location and importance can be answered simply by viewing a site from
the water.
Finally, the archaeologist should weigh the integrity of the site against its long-
term preservation. Many valuable coastal sites have been identified in low-energy
environments, such as the human and cattle footprints preserved at Goldcliff along
the Severn River, England, and these are naturally rewarding areas to search for
coastal archaeological sites (Goldberg and Macphail 2006). However, it has also
been shown that vessels run aground or sunk in shallow, energetic waters may be
preserved beneath the seabed by a scour-related settling and covering process that
leaves the lower hull and artifacts buried beneath the level of initial wrecking
(McNinch, Wells, and Trembanis 2006). While this process does not apply to most
inundated terrestrial sites (for a counterexample, see Patel 2009), there is still a need
to investigate moderate and high-energy environments. Sites have been located in
these areas, and these are the sites at the greatest risk. A coastal site that retains
some integrity, has the potential to answer relevant research questions, and is threat-
ened by erosion, development, or another force should be preferentially excavated
before a nonthreatened site.
 MARITIME CULTURE AND LIFE ASHORE;
778

CONCLUSION

Through proper management, careful excavation, continued survey, and judicious

preservation, the coastal archaeological record is a tremendous storehouse of data
on maritime culture. As has been argued here, this data has the ability to answer a
variety of questions about past maritime peoples, ranging from cognitive studies to
questions of subsistence. What is more, coastal archaeology has the potential to
form a tangible and theoretical bridge between underwater and terrestrial archae-
ology, making it fundamental to the study of the maritime past.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dr. Aidan O'Sullivan and Jessi Halligan offered several useful suggestions on an earlier
draft of this chapter that have resulted in a substantially stronger final product. My fellow
editors are also to be commended for their hard work and attention to detail that made this
chapter readable.

REFERENCES

Aberg, Alan, and Carenza Lewis, eds. 2000. The rising tide: Archaeology and coastal
landscapes. Oxford: Oxbow.
Adams, Jonathan. 2006. Editorial article: From the water margins to the centre ground?
Journal of Maritime Archaeology 1: 1-8.
Anderson, R. C. 1934. The Bursledon Ship. Mariner's Mirror 20: 158-170.
Ash, Aidan. 2005. A nice place for a harbour or is it? Investigating a maritime cultural
landscape: Port Willunga, South Australia. Maritime Archaeology Monograph and
Report Series No. 4. Adelaide, South Australia: Flinders University.
Belcher, William R. 2009. Understanding ancient fishing and butchery strategies of the
Indus Valley civilization. SAA Archaeological Record 9 (5): 10-14.
Bell, Martin, and Heike Neumann. 1997. Prehistoric intertidal archaeology and
environments in the Severn Estuary, Wales. World Archaeology 29 (1): 95-113.
Bell, Trevor, and M. A. P. Renouf. 2003. Prehistoric cultures, reconstructed coasts:
Maritime Archaic Indian site distribution in Newfoundland. World Archaeology 35 (3):
350-37o.
Bernstein, David J. 2006. Long-term continuity in the archaeological record from the coast
of New York and southern New England, USA. Journal of Island and Coastal
Archaeology 1 (2): 271-284.
210 (1): 6o-87.
Bourne, Joel K., Jr. 2006. Loving our coasts to death. National Geographic
Boyce, J. I., E. G. Reinhardt, A. Raban, and M. R. Pozza. 2003. The utility of marine
magnetic surveying for mapping buried hydraulic concrete harbour structures: King
Herod's harbour, Caesarea Maritima, Israel. Marine Archaeology Paper 03-01.
Toronto: Marine Magnetics Corporation.
COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 779

Breman, Joseph. 2003. Marine archaeology goes underwater with GIS. Journal of GIS in
Archaeology 1: 25-32.
Bullers, Rick. 2005. Convict probation and the evolution of jetties at Cascades, the coal mines,
Impression Bay and Saltwater River, Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania: An historical
perspective. Maritime Archaeology Monograph and Reports Series No. 7. Adelaide,
South Australia: Flinders University.
Ceci, Lynn. 1990. Radiocarbon dating "village" sites in coastal New York: Settlement
pattern change in the middle to Lake Woodland. Man in the Northeast 39: 1-28.
Claassen, Cheryl Patricia. 1982. Shellfishing patterns: An analytical study of prehistoric
shell from North Carolina coastal middens. PhD diss., Harvard University
Clarke, Richard, Martin Dean, Gillian Hutchinson, Sean McGrail, and Jan Squirrel 1993.
Recent work on the R. Hamble wreck near Bursledon, Hampshire. International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 22 (1): 21-44.
Colette, Augustin. 2007. Case studies on climate change and world heritage. Paris: UNESCO
World Heritage Centre.
Cooney, Gabriel. 2004. Introduction: Seeing land from the sea. World Archaeology 35 (3):
323-328.
Crawford, 0. G. S. 1927. Lyonesse. Antiquity 1: 5-15.
Duncan, Brad. 2006. Maritime infrastructure heritage project stage one: Melbourne region.
Melbourne, Australia: Heritage Victoria.
Ehlers, J., and P. L. Gibbard, eds. 2004. Quaternary glaciations-extent and chronology. 3
vols. New York: Elsevier.
Emory, Scott A. 2000. The Vineyard Shipbuilding Company: From wood shavings to hot
sparks. MA thesis, East Carolina University.
Erlandson, Jon M. 2001. The archaeology of aquatic adaptations: Paradigms for a new
millennium. Journal of Archaeological Research 9 (4): 287-35o.
2006. Book review essay: Beneath the seven seas; Shipwrecks, seafaring, and
archaeology. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology i (2): 299-303.
Erlandson, Jon M., and Scott M. Fitzpatrick. 2006. Oceans, islands, and coasts: Current
perspectives on the role of the sea in human prehistory. Journal of Island and Coastal
Archaeology 1(1): 5-32.
Erlandson, Jon M., and Torben C. Rick. 2008. Archaeology, marine ecology, and human
impacts on the marine environment. In Human impacts on ancient marine ecosystems:
A global perspective, ed. T. C. Rick and J. M. Erlandson, 1-19. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Faught, Michael K. 2004. The underwater archaeology of paleolandscapes, Apalachee Bay,
Florida. American Antiquity 69 (2): 275-289.
Fedje, Daryl W, and Heiner Josenhans. 2000. Drowned forests and archaeology on the
continental shelf of British Columbia, Canada. Geology 28 (2): 99-102.
Feibel, Craig S. 2001. Archaeological sediments in lake margin environments. In Sediments
in archaeological context, ed. J. K. Stein and W. R. Farrand, 127-148. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press.
Fischer, Anders. 2007. Coastal fishing in Stone Age Denmark-evidence from below and
above the present sea level and from human bones. In Shell middens in Atlantic
Europe, ed. N. Milner, 0. E. Craig, and G. N. Bailey, 54-69. Hampshire, UK:
Oxbow.
Fitzhugh, William, and Erik Phaneuf. 2008. The Gateways Project 2007: Land and
underwater excavations at Hare Harbor, Mecatina. Washington, DC: Arctic Studies
Center, Smithsonian Institution.
780 MARITIME CULTURE AND LIFE ASHORE

Flatman, Joe. 2011. Places of special meaning: Westerdahl's Comet, "agency; and the
concept of the "maritime cultural landscape." In The Archaeology of maritime
landscapes, ed. B. Ford. New York: Springer.
Flemming, Nicholas C. 1971. Cities in the sea. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
ed. 2004. Submarine prehistoric archaeology of the North Sea. York, UK: English
Heritage/Council for British Archaeology.
Flores, Carola. 2009. Shell middens in a Pacific Island Village, Baraulu, Roviana Lagoon,
Western Salomon Islands. SAA Archaeological Record 9 (5): 19-21.
Ford, Ben. 2007. Down by the water's edge: Modeling shipyard locations in Maryland,
USA. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 36 (1):125-137.
. 2009. Lake Ontario maritime cultural landscape. PhD diss., Texas A&M University.
Friel, Ian. 1993. Henry V's Grace Dieu and the wreck in the R. Hamble near Bursledon,
Hampshire. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 22 (1): 3-19.
Fulford, Michael, Timothy Champion, and Antony Long, eds. 1997. England's coastal
heritage: A survey for English Heritage and the RCHME. Archaeological Report No.15.
London: English Heritage.
Gaur, A. S., Sundaresh, and Tripati Sila. 2004. Dwarka: An ancient harbour. Current
Science 86 (9): 1256-1260.
Gaur, A. S., Sundaresh, and P. Vardhan. 2005. Ancient shell industry at Bet Dwarka.
Current Science 89 (6): 941-946.
Gawronski, Jerzy. 1990. The Amsterdam Project. International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology 19 (2): 53-61.
2003. The Hogendijk Shipyard in Zaandam and the VOC Shipyard Oostenburg in
Amsterdam: Examples of recent archaeological slipway research in the Netherlands. In
Boats, ships and shipyards: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Boat
and Ship Archaeology, Venice 2000, ed. C. Beltrame, 132-143. Oxford: Oxbow.
Goldberg, Paul, and Richard Macphail. 2006. Practical and theoretical geoarchaeology.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hale, Alex. 2000. The archaeological potential of the Scottish intertidal zone: Some
examples and an assessment. In The rising tide: Archaeology and coastal landscapes, ed.
A. Aberg and C. Lewis, 51-60. Oxford: Oxbow.
Halpern, Benjamin, et al. 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems.
Science 319: 948-952.
Head, Lesley. 2000. Cultural landscapes and environmental change. London: Arnold.
Heintzelman, Andrea. 1986. Colonial wharf construction: Uncovering the untold past. Log
of Mystic Seaport 37 (4): 124-135.
Hugill, Peter J. 2005. Trading states, territorial states and technology. In Global geostrategy:
Halford Mackinder and the defence of the West, ed. B. W Blouet, 107-124. London:
Frank Cass.
Hyde, Lewis. 2008. Trickster makes this world. Edinburgh: Canongate Books.
Inman, Douglas. 1978. The impact of coastal structures on shorelines. Paper presented at
Proceedings of the Symposium on Technical, Environmental, Socioeconomic and
Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Management, 14-16 March, San Francisco, CA
Jones, Sharyn. 2009. Sailing at once in several seas, digging and I-Witnessing in Lau. SAA
Archaeological Record 9 (5): 15-18.
Jordan-Greene, Krista. 2007. A maritime landscape of Deadman's Island. MA thesis,
University of West Florida.
Julig, Patrick. 2007. A brief report on a Killatney Pukaskwa Pit (B1Hi-10). Ontario
Archaeological Society Arch Notes 12 (3): 9-10.
COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 781

Kennett, Douglas J., and James P. Kennett. 2006. Early state formation in Southern
Mesopotamia: Sea levels, shorelines, and climate change. Journal of Island and Coastal
Archaeology i (1): 67-99.
Knoerl, Thomas Kurt. 1994. Beneath Niagara: A methodological approach to an inundated
eighteenth-century site. MA thesis, East Carolina University.
Krell, D., ed. 1997. The built environment of coastal areas during the Stone Age. Gdansk,
Poland: Archaeological Museum in Gdansk.
Lance, Joyce Weese Barr. 1987. Follow the North Shore. Gouverneur, NY: MRS.
Lauer, Matthew, and Shankar Aswani. 2009. Indigenous ecological knowledge as situated
practices: Understanding fishers' knowledge in the Western Solomon Islands.
American Anthropologist 111(3): 317-329.
Lawrence, S., and Mark Staniforth, eds. 1998. The archaeology of whaling in Southern
Australia and New Zealand. Gundaroo, New South Wales: Australian Society for
Historical Archaeology and Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology.
Lemee, Christian. 1997. A ship-cemetery on the B&W site in Copenhagen. In Down the
river to the sea: Eighth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, ed.
J. Litwin, 235-240. Gdansk: Polish Maritime Museum.
Leshikar-Denton, Margaret. 1993. The 1794 wreck of the Ten Sail, Cayman Islands, British
West Indies: A historical study and archaeological survey. PhD diss., Texas A&M
University.
Lindenlauf, Astrid. 2004. The sea as a place of no return in ancient Greece. World
Archaeology 35 (3): 416-433.
Loveluck, Chris, and Dries Tys. 2006. Coastal societies, exchange and identity along the
Channel and southern North Sea shores of Europe, CE 600-1000. Journal of Maritime
Archaeology 1: 140-169.
Mackinder, Halford J. 1942. Democratic ideals and reality. New York: Henry Holt.
McConkey, Rosemary, and Thomas McErlean. 2007. Mombasa Island: A maritime
perspective. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 11 (2): 99-121.
McErlean, Thomas. 2007. Archaeology of the Strangford Lough kelp industry in the
eighteenth- and early-nineteenth centuries. Historical Archaeology 41 (3): 76-93.
McErlean, Thomas, Caroline Earwood, Dermot Moore, and Eileen Murphy. 2007. The
sequence of early Christian period horizontal tide mills at Nendrum Monastery: An
interim statement. Historical Archaeology 41 (3): 63-75.
McErlean, Thomas, Rosemary McConkey, and Wes Forsythe. 2003. Strangford Lough:
An archaeological survey of the maritime cultural landscape. Northern Ireland
Archaeological Monographs No. 6. Belfast, Northern Ireland: Blackstaff.
McGrail, Sean. 1983. The interpretation of archaeological evidence for maritime structures.
In Sea studies, ed. P. Annis, 33-46. Greenwich, UK: National Maritime Museum.
1985. Early landing places. In Conference on Waterfront Archaeology No. 2, ed.
A. E. Herteig, 12-18. Bergen, Norway: Historisk Museum Bergen.
McNinch, Jesse E., John T. Wells, and Arthur C. Trembanis. 2006. Predicting the fate of
artefacts in energetic, shallow marine environments: An approach to site management.
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 35 (2): 290-309.
McNiven, Ian J. 2003. Saltwater people: Spiritscapes, maritime rituals and the archaeology
of Australian indigenous seascapes. World Archaeology 35 (3): 329-349.
Milne, Gustay. 1985. The port of Roman London. London: B.T. Batsford.
Milne, Gustav, Colin McKewan, and Damian Goodburn. 1998. Nautical archaeology on the
foreshore: Hulk recording on the Medway. Swindon, UK: Royal Commission on the
Historical Monuments of England.
782 MARITIME CULTURE AND LIFE ASHO

Milner, Nicky, Oliver E. Craig, and Geoffrey N. Bailey, eds. 2007. Shell middens in Atlantic
Europe. Hampshire, UK: Oxbow.
Moore, Jonathan, ed. 2005. Rideau Canal National Historic Site of Canada: Submerged
Cultural Resource Inventory. Ottawa: Underwater Archaeology Service, Ontario
Service Centre, Parks Canada Agency.
. 2008. Fort Henry Historic Site of Canada: Submerged Cultural Resource Inventory;
2004,2006, and 2007 Surveys. Ottawa: Underwater Archaeology Service, Ontario
Service Centre, Parks Canada Agency.
Moser, Jason D. 2007. Lower Eastern Shore shipyard survey: Archaeological and historical
investigations. Crownsville, MD: Maryland Historical Trust.
Murphy, Larry. 1990. &SLIT Natural site formation processes of a multiple-component
underwater site in Florida. Southwest Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers
No. 39. Santa Fe: National Park Service.
National Trust. 2005. Shifting shores: Living with a changing coastline. London: National
Trust for Places of Historic Interest and Natural Beauty.
Naylor, John. 2004. Access to international trade in middle Saxon England: A case of urban
over-emphasis? In Close encounters: Sea- and riverborne trade, ports and hinterlands,
ship construction and navigation in antiquity, the Middle Ages and in modern time, ed.
M. Pasquinucci and T. Weski, 139-148. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Noble, Gordon. 2006. Harnessing the waves: Monuments and ceremonial complexes in
Orkney and beyond. Journal of Maritime Archaeology 1: 100-117.
O'Sullivan, Aidan. 1995. Intertidal archaeological surveys in the estuarine wetlands of
North Munster. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24 (1): 71-73.
. 2001. Foragers, farmers and fishers in a coastal landscape: An intertidal
archaeological survey of the Shannon estuary. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.
. 2004. Place, memory and identity among estuarine communities: Interpreting the
archaeology of early medieval fish weirs. World Archaeology 35 (3): 449-468.
O'Sullivan, Aidan, and Colin Breen. 2007. Maritime Ireland: An archaeology of coastal
communities. Stroud, UK: Tempus.
Oxley, Ian. 2000. Maritime Fife: An integrated study of the maritime archaeological and
historical resources of Fife. In The rising tide: Archaeology and coastal landscapes, ed.
A. Aberg and C. Lewis, 29-38. Oxford: Oxbow.
Paddenberg, Dietlind, and Brian Hession. 2008. Underwater archaeology on foot: A
systematic rapid foreshore survey on the North Kent coast, England. International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 37 (1):142-152.
Panda, A. N. 1999• Ancient ports on the eastern coast of India. In Maritime heritage of
India, ed. K. S. Behera. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.
Parker, A. J. 1999. A maritime cultural landscape: The port of Bristol in the Middle Ages.
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 28 (4): 323-342.
Parkington, John. 2006. Shorelines, strandlopers and shell middens. Cape Town: Creda
Communications.
Pasquinucci, Marinella, and Timm Weski, eds. 2004. Close encounters: Sea- and riverborne
trade, ports and hinterlands, ship construction and navigation in antiquity, the Middle
Ages and in modern time. BAR International Series 1283. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Patel, Samir S. 2009. Swept away: Rediscovering the ruins of a great medieval center
beneath the North Sea. Archaeology 62 (1): 43-45.
Pauly, Daniel, Villy Christensen, Johanne Dalsgaard, Rainer Froese, and Francisco Tones
Jr. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279 (5352): 86o-863.
 COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 783

peacock, David, and Lucy Blue, eds. 2007. The ancient Red Sea port of Adulis, Eritrea.
Oxford: Oxbow.
Pieters, Marnix, Frans Verhaeghe, and Glenn Gevaert, eds. 2006. Fishery, trade and piracy.
Brussels: Flemish Heritage Institute.
Pilon, Jean-Luc. 2008. Getting over the falls: The archaeological heritage of Rockcliffe Park.
Ontario Archaeological Society Arch Notes 13 (1): 7-16.
Pollard, Edward. 2008. Inter-tidal causeways and platforms of the 13th- to 16th-century
city-state of Kilwa Kisiwani, Tanzania. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 37
(1): 98-114.
Quinn, Rory, Wes Forsythe, Colin Breen, Donald Boland, Paul J. Lane, and Athman Lali
Omar. 2006. Process-based models for port evolution and wreck site formation at
Mombasa, Kenya. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 1449-1460.
Raban, Avner, ed. 1985. Harbour archaeology: Proceedings of the First International
Workshop on Ancient Mediterranean Harbours, Cesarea Maritima. BAR
International 257. Oxford: BAR.
-, ed. 1986. Cities on the sea-past and present: 1st International Symposium on
Harbours, Port Cities and Coastal Topography. Haifa: University of Haifa.
, ed. 1988. Archaeology of coastal changes. BAR International Series 404.
Oxford: BAR.
.1989. The harbours of Cesarea Maritima. BAR International Series 491. Oxford: BAR.
Reinders, Reinder. 2001. The coastal landscape between Thermopylai and Demetrias from
a maritime point of view. In Tropis VI, ed. H. Tzalas, 457-492. Athens: Hellenic
Institute for the Preservation of Nautical Tradition.
Reitz, Elizabeth J. 2004. "Fishing down the food web": A case study from St. Augustine,
Florida, USA. American Antiquity 69 (1): 63-83.
Richards, Nathan, and Mark Staniforth. 2006. The Abandoned Ships' Project: An overview
of the archaeology of deliberate watercraft discard in Australia. Historical Archaeology
40 (4): 84-103.
Rick, Torben C., and Jon M. Erlandson, eds. 2008. Human impacts on ancient marine
ecosystems: A global perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ringer, R. James. 2003. Underwater archaeology at Canso: Investigating the underwater
component of a 17th- to 19th-century Nova Scotia fishing community. In Mer et
monde: Questions d'archeologie maritime, ed. C. Roy, 188-211. Quebec City: Association
des archeologues du Quebec.
Rissolo, Dominique, and Jeffrey B. Glover. 2008. Maya maritime trade and interaction
along the Yucatan Coast: The view from Vista Alegre. Paper presented at 107th
American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, 19-23 November, San
Francisco, CA.
Rtinnby, Johan. 2007. Maritime durees: Long-term structure in a coastal landscape. Journal
of Maritime Archaeology 2: 65-82.
Rudolph, Wolfgang. 1980. Harbor and town: A maritime cultural history. Altenburg,
Germany: T. Lux Feininger.
Russell, Matthew A. 2005. Beached shipwreck archaeology: Case studies from Channel
Islands National Park. Submerged Resources Center Professional Reports No. 18. Santa
Fe: Submerged Resources Center, Intermountain Region, National Park Service.
Shimin, Lin, Du Genqi, and Jeremy Green. 1991. Waterfront excavations at Dongmenkou,
Ningbo, Zhe Jiang Province, PRC. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 20 (4):
200-311.
 MARITIME CULTURE AND LIFE ASHORE
784

Spirek, James, and Lynn Harris. 2003. Maritime heritage on display: Underwater examples
ed. J. A. Spirek and
from South Carolina. In Submerged cultural resource management,
D. A. Scott-Ireton, 165-176. New York: Plenum.
The Gaultois and Balaena shore-based
Staniforth, Mark, and Martin McGonigle. 2007.
whaling stations in Newfoundland, Canada.
Flinders University Maritime Archaeology
Monograph Series No. 6. South Australia: Shannon Research Press.
Starkey, David, Poul Holm, and Michaela Barnard, eds. 2008. Oceans past: Management
insights from the history of marine animal populations.
Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
Steffen, W., A. Sanderson, P. D. Tyson, J. Jager, P. A. Matson, and B. Moore III. 2004. Global
change and the face of the earth system: A planet under pressure.
Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer. New York: Academic Press.
Stein, Julie K., ed. 1992. Deciphering a shell midden.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Stilgoe, John R. 1994. Alongshore.
Stone, Linda, Diane Dallal, Meta Janowitz, and George L. Miller. 2008. A view of colonial
New York from the South Ferry Terminal excavations in New York City. NYSAA
Newsletter 3 (1): 3-6.
Tomalin, David. 2000. Stress at the seams: Assessing the terrestrial and submerged
In The rising tide:
archaeological landscape on the shore of the Magnus Portus.
ed. A. Aberg and C. Lewis, 85-98. Oxford: Oxbow,
Archaeology and coastal landscapes,
Torben, Rick, Jon M. Erlandson, and Rene Vellanoweth. 2001. Paleocoastal marine fishing
on the Pacific coast of the Americas: Perspectives from Daisy Cave, California.
American Antiquity 66 (4): 595-613.
Vainstub, D., and C. Murray. 2006. Proyecto Hoorn: Un naufragio holandes en la
Actas del XV Congreso Nacional de Arqueologia Argentina, Rio Cuarto,
Patagonia. In
Septiembre 2004,
397-404. Rio Cuarto: Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto.
Van der Noort, Robert, and Aidan O'Sullivan. 2006. Rethinking wetland archaeology.
London: Gerald Duckworth.
Verhaeghe, Frans. 2006. Living on the edge of the land: A few preliminary conclusions. In
Fishery, trade and piracy: Fishermen and fishermen's settlements in and around the
North Sea area in the Middle Ages and later, ed. M. Pieters, F. Verhaeghe, and
G. Gevaert, 215-219. Brussels: Flemish Heritage Institute.
5o (2): 418-424.
Vickers, Daniel. 1993. Beyond Jack Tar. William and Mary Quarterly
Vrana, Kenneth J., and Gail A. Vander Stoep. 2003. The maritime cultural landscape of the
Submerged
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve. In
cultural resource management,
ed. J. D. Spirek and D. A. Scott-Ireton, 17-28. New York:
Plenum.
Walker, H. Jesse. 1990. The coastal zone. In The Earth as transformed by human action:
ed. B. L. I. Turner,
Global and regional changes in the biosphere over the past 300 years,
W C. Clark, R. W Kates, J. F. Richards, J. T. Mathews, and W. B. Meyers, 271-294. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press,
Waters, Michael R. 1997. Principles of geoarchaeology.
Welinder, Stig. 1997. The Stone Age landscape of coastal southeast Sweden at the Neolithic
ed. D. Krol,
transition. In The built environment of coastal areas during the Stone Age,
87-97. Gdansk: Archaeological Museum in Gdansk.
International Journal of
Westerdahl, Christer. 1992. The maritime cultural landscape.
Nautical Archaeology 21(1): 5-14. ed. C. A. Brebbia
. 2003. Maritime culture in an inland lake? In Maritime heritage,
and T. Gambin, 17-26. Southampton, UK: WIT Press.
COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 785

2006. The relationship between land roads and sea routes in the past—some
reflections. Deutsches Schifffahrtsarchiv 29: 59-114.
Westley, Kieran, and Justin Dix. 2006. Coastal environments and their role in prehistoric
migrations. Journal of Maritime Archaeology 1: 9-28.
Wood, J. David. 2000. Making Ontario: Agricultural colonization and landscape re-creation
before the railway. Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Wright, Edward V. 1994. The North Ferriby Boats—a final report. In Crossroads in ancient
shipbuilding: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship
Archaeology, Roskilde 1991, ed. C. Westerdahl, 29-34. Oxford: Oxbow.