Abstract
The cultural identity of Massachusetts is intrinsically linked to the sea. For hundreds of years, ship-borne trade, migration, whaling, and fishing have tied Massachusetts to a world system of maritime commerce and culture and brought the world back to it through the area that is now Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS). Established in 1992, SBNMS is an 842-square mile area in the mouth of Massachusetts Bay, located 25 miles east of Boston, 3 miles southeast of Cape Ann, and 3 miles north of Provincetown, Massachusetts. Named for Lt. Henry S. Stellwagen, a nineteenth-century Navy surveyor, the sanctuary protects a productive and diverse marine ecosystem which has been the subject of centuries of fishing activity. It is also estimated that 200 shipwrecks rest on the seafloor within the sanctuary’s boundaries, representing more than 400 years of maritime history, industry, and culture (Fig. 6.1).
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
6.1 Introduction
The cultural identity of Massachusetts is intrinsically linked to the sea. For hundreds of years, ship-borne trade, migration, whaling, and fishing have tied Massachusetts to a world system of maritime commerce and culture and brought the world back to it through the area that is now Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS). Established in 1992, SBNMS is an 842-square mile area in the mouth of Massachusetts Bay, located 25 miles east of Boston, 3 miles southeast of Cape Ann, and 3 miles north of Provincetown, Massachusetts. Named for Lt. Henry S. Stellwagen, a nineteenth-century Navy surveyor, the sanctuary protects a productive and diverse marine ecosystem which has been the subject of centuries of fishing activity. It is also estimated that 200 shipwrecks rest on the seafloor within the sanctuary’s boundaries, representing more than 400 years of maritime history, industry, and culture (Fig. 6.1).
6.2 The Problem
SBNMS is one of 15 United States marine protected areas (MPAs) under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) and 2 marine national monuments under the Antiquities Act within the National Marine Sanctuary System (NMSS) managed by the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), a part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Due to each MPA’s unique differences in settings, resources, and threats, each has a tailored management plan (Lawrence & Marx, 2011; Lawrence et al., 2015; Mires et al., 2020; Harrelson et al., 2022).
As envisioned by Congress in the NMSA, they are not ‘sanctuaries’ in the traditional sense of the word but are multiple-use areas with a mandate to facilitate public and private activities that are compatible with the primary objective of the MPA: resource protection. When SBNMS was designated by Congress, it carried the stipulation that recreational and commercial fishing would be allowed and continue to be controlled under existing fisheries management law. In no small part because fishing is a key component of the maritime history, identity, and economy in New England. There is strong public pressure to continue to allow these activities, and everywhere in SBNMS is currently open to fishing except for a small area (known as ‘the sliver’) that is closed under prior federal fishing law to commercial bottom-tending mobile and fixed gear and overlaps with a closed area in the Western Gulf of Maine. However, these activities have also proven to be destructive to Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH) throughout the sanctuary (Meyer-Kaiser et al., 2022b; Harrelson et al., 2022; Mires & Meyer-Kaiser, 2023). In fact, fishing gear impacts were identified as the greatest threat to archaeological resources in the sanctuary (ONMS, 2020; SBNMS, 2021). Figure 6.2 visualises the complexity of the problem, showing the high degree of overlap between the shipwrecks (black dots) with the intensity of commercial fishing activity (background colour range). Therefore, SBNMS managers are left in a difficult and ironic situation: charged to protect resources under the NMSA and the National Historic Preservation Act while also unable to regulate the very activity and equipment that puts them at risk. Finding a solution is the reality, and challenge, SBNMS managers face.
6.3 Underwater Cultural Heritage in SBNMS
Sanctuary historic resources, like UCH, refers to all traces of anthropogenic existence and activities with cultural, historical, or archaeological character that have been submerged for a period (UNESCO, 2001). Cultural heritage in general—and UCH specifically here—have an inherent multivocality, which means a single heritage resource in space, place, and landscapes, can be viewed simultaneously in a variety of ways (Graham et al., 2000). This multivocality is part of a dynamic, discursive process that is often filled with contention and dissonance since space, place, and landscape are constantly mutating concepts characterised by a complexity of imagery and symbolism (Pile & Keith, 1997; Osborne, 1998; Brundage, 2000; Graham et al., 2000; Seaton, 2001). Heritage is fundamental to constructs of identity because it allows an individual or group to associate itself with a particular interpretation of the past. Thus, heritage provides social benefits of value but can also underly a particular worldview (Lowenthal, 1996; Rosenzweig & Thelen, 1998; Graham et al., 2000).
Value, like heritage, involves multivocality as various agents (individual or groups) make behavioural choices based on their respective preferences and perspectives. When these preferences conflict, intense feelings arise between competing stakeholders (Graham et al., 2000) and may be heightened because of the dual nature of cultural and economic value. Cultural value is most often associated with ‘non-use’ values of preservation and intrinsic worth whereas economic value places a value on the use or exploitation of a resource.
Archaeology and heritage are strongly associated with each other. The contributions of archaeology to heritage are usually discussed in terms of providing cultural value, such as new information, authenticity, commemoration, symbolism, and continuity of cultural identity and sense of place. Archaeological sites encompass aspects of space, place, and landscape and have been used to reinforce or refute how heritage is perceived or valued (Trigger, 2009; Graham et al., 2000; Kristiansen, 2000; Lipe, 2002; McManamon, 2002; Jameson & Scott-Ireton, 2007).
In SBNMS, there are more than 200 hundred shipwrecks of which 50 have been located, 12 identified, and 7 of those are now listed on the National Register of Historic Places (see Table 6.1 for identified shipwrecks). They are often referred to as time capsules and while this is true, they are also rich databases that may be studied as artefacts themselves, carrier of artefacts, microcosms of maritime cultures and associated systems, sites of trauma and commemoration, or combinations of all the above (Gould, 1983; Murphy, 1983; Lawrence et al., 2015). Careful analysis of shipwrecks has great potential to alter our understanding of local, regional, national, and global communication and interactions, and provide new information about the expansion, trading patterns, and contributions from disenfranchised groups (Watson, 1983; Murphy, 1983; Flatman, 2003).
Shipwrecks are ultimately part of an environmental and ecological system that was never intended to exist. UCH attracts a range of biological organisms and serves as isolated, island-like habitats. UCH is first colonised by microorganisms, which may utilise the novel materials as substrates for metabolic reactions (Price et al., 2020; Hamdan et al., 2021). Invertebrates such as sponges and cnidarians capitalise on the hard-bottom habitats offered by UCH (Perkol-Finkel & Benayahu, 2007; Meyer-Kaiser et al., 2022a). It can take centuries for the community on UCH to match the species composition of the background community (Gravina et al., 2021), and in some cases, structural differences mean the communities never match (Perkol-Finkel et al., 2006). The net effect of UCH is usually an increase in local or regional biodiversity (Paxton et al., 2019).
The use of human-made structures as artificial reefs has been documented since the 1700s. Anthropogenic activities on and around UCH inevitably contribute to site formation over time. In SBNMS, UCH attracts anthropogenic activity primarily from the diving and fishing industries. Diving on shipwrecks ranges from simple visitation and photography to looting and salvage activities. Contact from divers, particularly unskilled individuals with poor buoyancy control, can damage UCH (Siciliano et al., 2016). The diving industry in SBNMS is not large but contains a few key players: locally-owned companies with a loyal base of skilled divers. Because SBNMS is an offshore sanctuary and relatively deep (i.e., 30 m or deeper), the market consists primarily of experienced divers who live locally rather than student divers or tourists. Experienced divers who are aware of sanctuary regulations present a low risk to the integrity of UCH.
Fishing near or on UCH in SBNMS includes trawling, scallop dredging, gillnets, recreational gear, and lobster pots (Harrelson et al., 2022). The history of fishing in SBNMS dates back centuries before the area was designated a sanctuary and is a key facet of heritage in the region. In fact, some families have been involved in the commercial fishing industry for generations. Fishing and livelihoods from the sea are interwoven with cultural identity in Massachusetts and across New England. Today, the lobster and scallop fisheries are major economic forces in the region. Commercial fishers are also organised in strong trade groups, which have a public voice. These include the Massachusetts Lobsterman’s Association, the Northeast Seafood Coalition, and the Cape Cod Commercial Fisherman’s Alliance.
Finally, SBNMS has an obligation under the US National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 to identify, assess, and mitigate any harmful actions and effects of undertakings on historic properties (such as UCH) eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This includes consideration of public views and opinions (Section 106). It assumes responsibility for the preservation of historic resources that fall under its jurisdiction and identify other historic properties eligible for listing on NRHP (Section 110).
Since its inception, SBNMS has used a policy of non-disclosure to try and balanced its dual mandate of protecting UCH and facilitating compatible uses of sanctuary resources. The locations of all known shipwrecks were kept confidential to prevent looting by divers and intentional targeting of shipwrecks for fishing. In 2017, however, it became clear that this policy of non-disclosure was ineffective after intensive scallop fishing occurred on the northwest corner of Stellwagen Bank. Side-scan surveys were conducted to assess the damage to various sites after the season closed. Figure 6.3 illustrates damage to North Star, a modern fishing vessel, which was scattered across the seafloor significantly losing site articulation, integrity, and an unknown number of artefacts. In 2019–2020, a cooperative agreement between ONMS and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution enabled research on three UCH sites in SBNMS (Mires et al., 2020). The project revealed severe fishing damage to multiple sites, including new entanglements of fishing nets that had not been observed during the previous survey in 2009. The primary risk to UCH is commercial fishing activity and gear impacts.
6.4 Impacts
The most obvious impact of fishing on UCH is the entanglement of ghost gear, which damages shipwreck structures. Repeatedly targeting the area exacerbates this problem and puts the UCH at higher risk for permanent loss (Brennan, 2016). For example, sometime between 2009 and 2019, fishing gear ripped almost 40-m2 of the fantail-stern from the passenger steamer, Portland, (Fig. 6.4) which sank with an estimated 200 people onboard, during the storm which bears its name, the Portland Gale of 1898. The fantail now lies on the seafloor with remnants of a gillnet draped across it (Mires & Meyer-Kaiser, 2023).
Figure 6.5 shows another example from the Portland Gale, the shipwreck presumed to be the coal schooner King Philip. The side-scan image on the left shows multiple dredge marks running northeast to southwest and on the right, the image clearly shows part of the starboard bow disarticulated from the wreck with dredge marks running over it. Further, lost gillnets or monofilament lines caught on shipwrecks can destroy and unintentionally entangle artefacts, snag, and break structures, and relocate artefacts.
Ghost gear continues to fish after abandonment in the ocean as fish can become entangled in ghost trawl nets (Ross et al., 2016), and two seals have drowned while caught in a ghost trawl net ensnared on the Patriot shipwreck in 2019 (V. Malkoski, MA DMA, pers. comm.). Fishing gear also impacts biological communities in less obvious ways. Repeated trawling along a shipwreck’s hull damages or scrapes off three-dimensional sessile invertebrates, including sponges and corals that are key foundation species in the community. Areas of shipwrecks with entangled ghost gear have lower species richness and lower evenness than unaffected areas and they tend to be dominated by opportunistic species (Meyer-Kaiser et al., 2022b; Fig. 6.6). Trawling damage to a shipwreck’s structure causes a change in the microhabitats available for colonisation and can lead to shifts in community composition (Mires & Meyer-Kaiser, 2023; Fig. 6.7).
It is not always clear from examination of UCH whether fishing activity was targeted on the site. Some ghost gear may represent nets that were lost off-site and accumulated on the wreck because of tidal currents. Despite the economic incentive to target dense fish populations, shipwrecks impact the safety of captains and their equipment as well as present a navigational hazard. Entanglement can damage fishing gear, lead to gear loss, or in extreme cases cause smaller fishing vessels to sink (Harrelson et al., 2022). To reduce both intentional and unintentional damage to UCH and increase the safety of captains operating in the area, SBNMS undertook a departure from the previous policy of non-disclosure in the Shipwreck Avoidance Pilot Program.
6.5 Shipwreck Avoidance Pilot Program (SAPP)
In 2018–2021, SBNMS collaborated with NOAA fisheries to implement SAPP. The program involved the disclosure of several shipwreck locations at the beginning of the fishing season along with guidelines for voluntary avoidance with a 110-m buffer zone (Fig. 6.8). In 2018, SBNMS disclosed the locations of 3 modern and 4 historic shipwrecks for the first time in the history of the sanctuary. In 2020, the program expanded to include 4 more shipwrecks and an increased avoidance buffer of 122 m.
Data collection for the SAPP included mapping vessel tracks, pre- and post-season side- scan surveys, and interviews with fishing captains. The Automatic Identification System (AIS) and Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) were used to track vessel locations; however, these methods did not provide adequate resolution and coverage to be useful due to technology constraints involving time stamps (VMS) and vessel size requirements (AIS).
Interviews were conducted with 78 scallop, groundfish, and lobster vessel captains to assess the effectiveness of SAPP. Many vessel captains were supportive of the disclosure of shipwreck sites, although most local fishers were already aware of the locations. Mobile gear captains reported that they usually stayed more than 110 m away to reduce gear loss risk. However, some captains, particularly gillnet fishers, admitted to targeting wrecks. Side-scan sonar surveys proved to be the most effective tool for evaluating compliance of the voluntary avoidance buffers. The side-scan showed that compliance was incomplete due to evidence of continual activities (Harrelson et al., 2022).
There was interest among vessel captains to learn more about the shipwreck sites, particularly the human stories associated with them. Some captains felt it was unclear why particular wrecks were being preserved and stated that more historical information could impact their willingness to comply with voluntary avoidance guidelines. Most captains (53%) viewed the sites as having broad historic value or memorial significance, while some (21%) also named the creation of habitat to support fish populations (Harrelson et al., 2022). Some captains had never considered shipwrecks as valuable and thought of them primarily as hazards. Nevertheless, they viewed education about UCH to be an important next step to create a transparent process and develop voluntary guidelines for shipwreck avoidance.
The SAPP illustrated the challenges of protecting UCH in a multi-use environment. Compliance with voluntary avoidance buffers was mixed, and outreach to the fishing industry was challenging. The current sanctuary regulations provide insufficient deterrence for captains to avoid shipwrecks. Some captains also remain unconvinced that shipwreck sites on Stellwagen Bank need protection, although there was broad support for the continued release of wreck locations to aid in vessel safety. Expanded background information that helps illustrate the importance of shipwrecks, both to the sanctuary mission and to captains’ values, could be a useful addition to future notices. Because formal sanctuary efforts to assess and protect important maritime heritage resources are still very much in development, there is a clear need for continued research to help guide best practices (Harrelson et al., 2022).
6.6 Integrating Maritime Heritage Ecology
The fishing captains’ attitudes towards the perceived benefits of preserving shipwrecks and their desire for more information are emblematic of the multi-use and multivocality challenge SBNMS faces with its UCH and current policies. More than twice as many captains recognised the historical value of UCH than the ecological and biodiversity value. The third most common response was ‘no benefit’ (13%), indicating that fishers perceive only two benefits of UCH. Furthermore, only 3 of 78 respondents (<5%) perceived any benefit to researching shipwrecks (Harrelson et al., 2022). However, UCH offers many opportunities to understand ocean processes, and its archaeological and ecological roles are intertwined.
Therefore, SBNMS has adopted Maritime Heritage Ecology (MHE) to help shape their management efforts. MHE is an ‘interdisciplinary research framework that aims to understand the interactive biological, natural, and anthropogenic factors that drive site formation processes and answer critical management questions for UCH’ (Meyer-Kaiser & Mires, 2022). This framework can help integrate the disparate UCH contexts discussed here and hopefully help balance the dual mandate in SBNMS.
For example, the interdisciplinary framework of MHE could help integrate sociological and ecological factors to understand fishing patterns and engage fishers in active protection of key habitats—not just compliance with policies and regulations. Educating them about the importance of UCH habitats for vulnerable species such as cusk (Bromse bromse) and the endangered wolf fish (Anarhichas lupus) could help motivate shipwreck avoidance. Understanding risk-taking behaviours among fishers could also help managers craft incentive programs and ensure policy compliance. Furthermore, sharing of information about UCH, which fishers themselves suggested, will help preserve fishing heritage. The North Star, damaged by scallop fishing in 2017, was a steel clam dredge vessel and one of 45 shipwrecks representing the fishing industry in SBNMS. Engaging fishers in the process of heritage and embracing its multivocality will create a more personal connection to UCH and willingness to preserve these non-renewable resources.
MHE also provides an opportunity to engage other disciplines and technologies for innovative cooperation. For instance, moorings placed on UCH could serve as visual and digital markers of prescribed buffer zones and provide data on real-time conditions at sea. Similar programs already exist within the NMS in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida. Moorings become a part of the ecosystem, attract further biodiversity, and provide an anchor point for diving and swimming (Harrelson et al., 2022). Additionally, Massachusetts has a highly active shark monitoring program along the Cape Cod National Seashore, but there is little tracking information in the sanctuary and northwards. UCH could be used to provide data stations for these apex predators to help protect wildlife.
Anthropogenic structures are integral to marine ecosystems. MHE stresses that to protect biodiversity and preserve UCH, a clear understanding of all natural, biological, and anthropogenic processes impacting UCH is necessary. By engaging the fishing community in all components of MHE, SBNMS could build personal connections to the multivocal heritage and ecology of UCH. Interdisciplinary collaboration is needed for healthy fisheries and heritage preservation alike.
6.7 Conclusion
SBNMS is a case study in the multiutility and multivocality of heritage. The use and non-use values of UCH are defined differently by researchers, managers, and stakeholders, creating dissonance in preservation and management (Graham et al., 2000). Education and research in MHE can help build a common foundation and engage the fishing community. Management policies affect the livelihoods of fishers, so it is essential to consider their perspectives. This chapter has focused on fishing because it is the major management challenge in SBNMS, but a comprehensive management plan will engage other user groups, including SCUBA divers and indigenous tribes.
It is clear based on recent research that entanglement of trawl nets, monofilament, and other fishing gear is a major threat to shipwrecks in SBNMS. Protecting archaeological sites and biodiversity alike will require a radius around highly vulnerable UCH free from fishing activity. However, fishing is an economically important industry that provides identity for the Bay State. SBNMS is forced to balance these two competing priorities.
While a moratorium on fishing may be appropriate for NOAA Fisheries authorities to consider, the sanctuary lacks the authority to implement one without going through the entire sanctuary designation process again. It is also important for the sanctuary to avoid becoming a ‘paper park’ that fails in its conservation goals (Relano & Pauly, 2023). Shipwreck protection practices that have been developed in Thunder Bay and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuaries provide a precedent for SBNMS. The SAPP made great strides in establishing communication with the fishing community and testing the feasibility of voluntary compliance. Expanding this program and exploring technological and infrastructure solutions for shipwreck avoidance will be key components of SBNMS management moving forward (SBNMS, 2023a).
Finally, expanding MHE research in SBNMS is critical to protecting resources. The newly implemented Sanctuary Mapping Initiative (SMI) enlists the help of fishers to conduct side-scan sonar surveys to locate and document shipwrecks and characterise seafloor habitats. Observational and experimental research on biological communities could provide new information on biodiversity hotspots and the role of UCH in supporting fisheries. Interviews and vessel monitoring will show how attitudes and behaviours of fishers affect site formation of UCH. The integrative, interdisciplinary approach of Maritime Heritage Ecology provides a foundation for SBNMS to balance the sanctuary’s dual mandate and become an effective multi-use sanctuary for generations to come.
References
Brennan, M. (2016). Quantifying impacts of trawling to shipwrecks. In M. E. Keith (Ed.), Site formation processes of submerged shipwrecks (pp. 157–179). University Press of Florida.
Brundage, W. F. (Ed.). (2000). Where these memories grow: History, memory, and southern identity. University of North Carolina Press.
Flatman, J. (2003). Cultural biographies, cognitive landscapes and dirty old bits of boat: ‘Theory’ in maritime archaeology. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 32(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2003.tb01441.x
Gould, R. (Ed.). (1983). Shipwreck anthropology. University of New Mexico Press.
Graham, B. J., Ashworth, G. J., & Tunbridge, J. E. (2000). A geography of heritage: Power, culture, and economy. Arnold/Oxford University Press.
Gravina, M. F., Casoli, E., Donnarumma, L., Giampaoletti, J., Antonelli, F., Sacco Perasso, C., & Ricci, S. (2021). First report on the benthic invertebrate community associated with a bronze naval ram from the first Punic war: A proxy of marine biodiversity. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 772499. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.772499
Hamdan, L. J., Hampel, J. J., Moseley, R. D., Mugge, R. L., Ray, A., Salerno, J. L., & Damour, M. (2021). Deep-sea shipwrecks represent Island-like ecosystems for marine microbiomes. The ISME Journal, 15(10), 2883–2891. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-00978-y
Harrelson, C., MacDonald, H., Dalton, T., & Haskell, B. (2022). Assessing efforts to mitigate fishing gear impacts on shipwreck sites in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (ONMS-22-01; National Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Science Series). Office of National Marine Sciences, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Jameson, J. H., & Scott-Ireton, D. A. (2007). Introduction: Imparting values/making connections. In J. H. Jameson & D. A. Scott-Ireton (Eds.), Out of the blue: Public interpretation of maritime cultural resources (pp. 1–6). Springer.
Kristiansen, K. (2000). Perspectives on archaeological heritage: History and future. In H. Cleere (Ed.), Archaeological heritage management in the modern world (pp. 23–29). Routledge.
Lawrence, M., & Marx, D. (2011). Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary: 2010 maritime heritage ROV characterization project report. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary.
Lawrence, M., Marx, D., & Galluzzo, J. (2015). Shipwrecks of Stellwagen Bank: Disaster in New England’s national marine sanctuary. The History Press.
Lipe, W. (2002). Public benefits of archaeological research. In B. Little (Ed.), Public benefits of archaeology (pp. 20–20). University of Florida Press.
Lowenthal, D. (1996). Possessed by the past: The heritage crusade and the spoils of history. Free Press.
McManamon, F. (2002). Heritage, history, and archaeological educators. In B. Little (Ed.), Public benefits of archaeology (pp. 31–45). University of Florida Press.
Meyer-Kaiser, K. S., & Mires, C. H. (2022). Underwater cultural heritage is integral to marine ecosystems. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 37(10), 815–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.06.014
Meyer-Kaiser, K. S., Mires, C. H., & Haskell, B. (2022a). Invertebrate communities on shipwrecks in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 685, 19–29. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13987
Meyer-Kaiser, K. S., Mires, C. H., Kovacs, M., Kovacs, E., & Haskell, B. (2022b). Structural factors driving benthic invertebrate community structure on historical shipwrecks in a large North Atlantic marine sanctuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 178, 113622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113622
Mires, C. H., & Meyer-Kaiser, K. S. (2023). A case study in maritime heritage ecology: Understanding how structural changes to the 1898 shipwreck Portland affect biological diversity and colonization. Journal of Maritime Archaeology, 18(2), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11457-023-09359-2
Mires, C., Kovacs, E., & Meyer-Kaiser, K. (2020). Return to Portland 2019: Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and Telepresence. In V. Mastone & C. Mires (Eds.), ACUA underwater archaeological proceedings 2020 (pp. 101–109). The PAST Foundation.
Murphy, L. (1983). Shipwrecks as a data base for human behavioural studies. In R. Gould (Ed.), Shipwreck anthropology. University of New Mexico Press.
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS). (2020). Condition report: Findings of status and trends for 2007–2018. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Osborne, B. (1998). Constructing landscapes of power: The George Etienne Cartier monument, Montreal. Journal of Historical Geography, 24, 431–458.
Paxton, A. B., Peterson, C. H., Taylor, J. C., Adler, A. M., Pickering, E. A., & Silliman, B. R. (2019). Artificial reefs facilitate tropical fish at their range edge. Communications Biology, 2(1), 168. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-019-0398-2
Perkol-Finkel, S., & Benayahu, Y. (2007). Differential recruitment of benthic communities on neighboring artificial and natural reefs. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 340(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2006.08.008
Perkol-Finkel, S., Shashar, N., & Benayahu, Y. (2006). Can artificial reefs mimic natural reef communities? The roles of structural features and age. Marine Environmental Research, 61(2), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2005.08.001
Pile, S., & Keith, M. (Eds.). (1997). Geographies of resistance. Routledge.
Price, K. A., Garrison, C. E., Richards, N., & Field, E. K. (2020). A shallow water ferrous-hulled shipwreck reveals a distinct microbial community. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, 1897. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01897
Relano, V., & Pauly, D. (2023). The ‘Paper Park Index’: Evaluating marine protected area effectiveness through a global study of stakeholder persceptions. Marine Policy, 151, 105571.
Rosenzweig, R., & Thelen, D. (1998). The presence of the past: Popular uses of history in American life. Columbia University Press.
Ross, S. W., Rhode, M., Viada, S. T., & Mather, R. (2016). Fish species associated with shipwreck and natural hard-bottom habitats from the middle to outer continental shelf of the Middle Atlantic Bight near Norfolk Canyon. Fishery Bulletin, 114(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.7755/FB.114.1.4
Seaton, A. (2001). Sources of slavery-destination of slavery: The silences and discourses of slavery heritage in the UK and US. In G. Dann & A. V. Seaton (Eds.), Slavery, contested heritage, and thanatourism (pp. 107–129). Haworth Hospitality Press.
Siciliano, A., Jimenez, C., & Petrou, A. (2016). Recreational diving and its effects on the macroalgal communities of the unintentional artificial reef Zenobia shipwreck (Cyprus). Journal of Oceanography and Marine Research, 04(02). https://doi.org/10.4172/2572-3103.1000151
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS). (2021). Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary draft management plan and environmental assessment. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS). (2023a). In Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Ed.), Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary draft management plan and environmental assessment.
Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS). (2023b). Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary shipwrecks. https://stellwagen.noaa.gov/maritime/shipwrecks.html
Trigger, B. G. (2009). A history of archaeological thought (2nd ed., repr). Cambridge University Press.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2001). Convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage. https://www.unesco.org/en/underwater-heritage. Accessed 4 April 2024.
Watson, P. J. (1983). Method and theory in shipwreck archaeology. In R. Gould (Ed.), Shipwreck anthropology (pp. 23–36). University of New Mexico Press.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all staff at Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, particularly Clea Harrelson and Hannah McDonald; Marine Imaging Technologies; and the Ocean Vision 2030 Fund and its generous donors through the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mires, C., Haskell, B., Meyer-Kaiser, K. (2024). Multi-use and Multi-vocal Challenges of Preserving Underwater Cultural Heritage in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. In: Jarvis, C. (eds) Threats to Our Ocean Heritage: Bottom Trawling. SpringerBriefs in Archaeology(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57953-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57953-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-57952-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-57953-0
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)