THE VALUE OF MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE CULTURAL CAPITAL OF SHIPWRECKS IN THE GRAVEYARD OF THE ATLANTIC by Calvin H. Mires April 2014 Director of Dissertation: Dr. Nathan Richards Ph.D. Program in Coastal Resources Management Off the coast of North Carolina’s Outer Banks are the remains of ships spanning hundreds of years of history, architecture, technology, industry, and maritime culture. Potentially more than 2,000 ships have been lost in “The Graveyard of the Atlantic” due to a combination of natural and human factors. These shipwrecks are tangible artifacts to the past and constitute important archaeological resources. They also serve as dramatic links to North Carolina’s historic maritime heritage, helping to establish a sense of identity and place within American history. While those who work, live, or visit the Outer Banks and look out on the Graveyard of the Atlantic today have inherited a maritime heritage as rich and as historic as any in the United States, there is uncertainty regarding how they perceive and value the preservation of maritime heritage resources along the Outer Banks, specifically shipwrecks in the Graveyard of the Atlantic. This dissertation is an exploratory study that combines qualitative and quantitative methodologies from the fields of archaeology, economics, and sociology, by engaging different populations in a series of interviews and surveys. These activities are designed to understand and evaluate the public’s current perceptions and attitudes towards maritime archaeological heritage, to estimate its willingness to pay for preservation of shipwrecks in the Graveyard of the
THE VALUE OF MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE CULTURAL CAPITAL OF SHIPWRECKS IN THE GRAVEYARD OF THE ATLANTIC
Mar 27, 2023
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
THE VALUE OF MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE:
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE CULTURAL CAPITAL OF SHIPWRECKS IN THE
GRAVEYARD OF THE ATLANTIC
Director of Dissertation: Dr. Nathan Richards
Ph.D. Program in Coastal Resources Management
Off the coast of North Carolina’s Outer Banks are the remains of ships spanning
hundreds of years of history, architecture, technology, industry, and maritime culture.
Potentially more than 2,000 ships have been lost in “The Graveyard of the Atlantic” due to a
combination of natural and human factors. These shipwrecks are tangible artifacts to the past
and constitute important archaeological resources. They also serve as dramatic links to North
Carolina’s historic maritime heritage, helping to establish a sense of identity and place within
American history. While those who work, live, or visit the Outer Banks and look out on the
Graveyard of the Atlantic today have inherited a maritime heritage as rich and as historic as any
in the United States, there is uncertainty regarding how they perceive and value the preservation
of maritime heritage resources along the Outer Banks, specifically shipwrecks in the Graveyard
of the Atlantic.
This dissertation is an exploratory study that combines qualitative and quantitative
methodologies from the fields of archaeology, economics, and sociology, by engaging different
populations in a series of interviews and surveys. These activities are designed to understand
and evaluate the public’s current perceptions and attitudes towards maritime archaeological
heritage, to estimate its willingness to pay for preservation of shipwrecks in the Graveyard of the
Atlantic, and to provide baseline data for informing future preservation, public outreach, and
education efforts.
THE VALUE OF MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE:
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE CULTURAL CAPITAL OF SHIPWRECKS IN THE
GRAVEYARD OF THE ATLANTIC
Presented To the Faculty of Coastal Resources Management Ph.D. Program
East Carolina University
Doctor of Philosophy in Coastal Resources Management
by
THE VALUE OF MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE:
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE CULTURAL CAPITAL OF SHIPWRECKS IN THE
GRAVEYARD OF THE ATLANTIC
IN COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: ______________________________________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This has truly been an interdisciplinary endeavor, and there are many people to whom I
owe my gratitude. First, I want to thank my advisor, Dr. Nathan Richards, whose support,
guidance, and understanding allowed me to complete this process. I want to thank my
committee members, Dr. Derek Alderman; Dr. Craig Landry; Dr. David Mallinson, and Dr. Hans
Vogelsong –for being there to offer their expertise, suggestions, and advice when I need it.
I want to thank North Carolina Sea Grant College and the Ph.D. Program in Coastal
Resources Management for their generous support and funding of this project. I would like to
thank my colleagues in the Program in Maritime Studies, Lynn Harris, Jennifer McKinnon,
Nathan Richards, Brad Rodgers, Dave Stewart, and Karen Underwood, for their support and
encouragement. I want to thank Mandee Lancaster and Justin Raines from ECU’s Center for
Survey Research for all their help and efforts in creating and processing the final survey
instrument. I also want to thank John McCord and Nancy White at the University of North
Carolina Coastal Studies Institute, for their help and assistance.
I want to thank former and current students of the Program in Maritime Studies who
volunteered their time to help me: Jennifer Jones and Stephen Sanchagrin for their help with
GIS; John Bright for his thoughtful suggestions and input: Jeremy Borelli, Ryan Bradley, Kara
and Mike Fox, Chelsea Freeland, Sara Kerfoot, Allison Miller, Alyssa Reisner, Will Sassorossi,
Laurel Seaborn, Sonia Valencia, Jeneva and Kent Wright, and Caitlin Zant for spending a long
Saturday stuffing thousands of envelopes.
I want to thank my parents, Robert and Mary Lou Mires, whose support and
encouragement has always allowed me to pursue my goals. Finally, I want to thank my wife,
Carolyn, and my daughter, Sarah Baker Mires, who have been beyond patient, understanding,
encouraging and supportive during this journey. Thank you.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Summaries………………………………………………………………….. 9
Introduction………………………………………………..………………………… 13
Heritage……………………….……….…………………..………………………… 13
Public Outreach as Heritage Construction in Archaeology.………………………… 35
Conclusion…………………………….…………….……..………………………… 40
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. 42
Non-market Values and Cultural Economics………………………………………... 57
Theoretical Framework of Cultural Capital…………………………………………. 62
Stated Preference Techniques and Discrete Choice Modeling……………………... 64
Economics and Policy……………………………………………………………….. 70
CHAPTER 4: BACKGROUND TO THE GRAVEYARD OF THE ATLANTIC…………. 73
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. 73
Archaeology in the Graveyard of the Atlantic………………………………………. 93
Maritime Cultural Heritage along the Graveyard of the Atlantic…………………… 102
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………… 111
Phase 2: Interviews with Residents of the Outer Banks…………………….. 120
Phase 3: Review of Recreational Diving and Fishing Industry Comments…. 123
Qualitative Analysis of Phases 1, 2, and 3…………………………………... 123
Stage II: Survey Design……………………………………………………………… 124
Cover Page…………………………………………………………………... 127
Section 2: NC Maritime History and Heritage; and
Section 3: Shipwrecks in the Graveyard of the Atlantic………………..........
127
Section 4: Graveyard of the Atlantic Maritime Park (Choice Experiment)… 129
Section 5: Preservation and Management…………………………………… 142
Section 6: Demographics; Comments; and Back Page……………………… 143
Stage III: Implementation……………………………………………………………. 143
Stage IV: Analysis…………………………………………………………………… 147
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………… 150
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. 152
Summary of Results…………………………………………………………………. 155
CHAPTER 7: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF FINAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT……... 183
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. 183
Section 1: Response Rates, Demographics, and Travel and Recreational Behavior... 183
Response Rates………………………………………………………………. 184
Discussion…………………………………………………………………… 193
Section 2: Awareness, Perceptions, and Interests towards Maritime Heritage and
Education……………………………………………………………………………..
197
and Shipwrecks………………………………………………………………
Discussion…………………………………………………………………… 210
Oversight……………………………………………………………………………..
213
Discussion…………………………………………………………………… 230
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………… 232
Policy and Decision Making………………………………………………………… 236
Theoretical Framework of Cultural Capital…………………………………………. 239
Future Research and Recommendations…………………………………………….. 241
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………… 242
APPENDIX A: East Carolina University Institutional Review Board Forms……………… 279
APPENDIX B: Permission Forms…………………………………………………………... 281
APPENDIX C: Expert Panel Survey………………………………………………………... 290
APPENDIX D: Guiding Question for Resident Interviews………………………………… 293
APPENDIX E: Discussion of Questions and Rationale for Final Survey Instrument………. 294
APPENDIX F: Final Survey Instrument as Processed and Coded through TeleForm……... 316
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 4.1: North Carolina’s Capes and Associated Cape Shoals…………………………. 77
TABLE 5.1: Methodological Steps in a Choice Experiment Design and Implementation….. 116
TABLE 5.2: List of Questions and Their Purpose for Expert Panel Survey………………... 119
TABLE 5.3: Survey sections and questions…………………………………………………. 125
TABLE 5.4: Attribute and Attribute Levels…………………………………………………. 137
TABLE 5.5: Survey versions and coding procedures……………………………………….. 144
TABLE 6.1: Examples of Definitions of Maritime Heritage and the Role of Shipwrecks in
Maritime Heritage……………………………………………………………………………
156
TABLE 6.2: Expert panel’s Perceived Benefits of Preserving Maritime Heritage…………. 157
TABLE 6.3: Sample Quotes Regarding Public Outreach and Education…………………… 159
TABLE 6.4: Top 5 Threats by Respondent………………………………………………….. 159
TABLE 6.5: Sample Quotes from Expert panel Regarding In-Situ Preservation…………… 160
TABLE 6.6: Sample Quotes from Interviewed Residents about Maritime Heritage………... 161
TABLE 6.7: Selected Quotes Expressing Thoughts towards Preservation, Management,
and Outside Involvement…………………………………………………………………….
166
TABLE 6.8: Selected Comments from Members at Public Hearings on Loss of Identity
through Preservation of Maritime Heritage………………………………………………….
170
TABLE 6.9: Selected Comments about Themes of Jobs, Access and Distrust….…………. 171
TABLE 6.10: Selected Comments about Budgetary Costs of Preservation……………..….. 172
TABLE 7.1: Comparison of Response Rates of Groups A and B…………………………... 184
TABLE 7.2: Comparison of Response Rates by Mode……………………………………... 184
TABLE 7.3: Demographic Information…………………………………………………….. 185
TABLE 7.4: Visitation Behavior……………………………………………………………. 187
TABLE 7.5: Beaches Visited Within Past Three Years……………………………………... 187
TABLE 7.6: Frequency of Beaches Named and Most Visited Beaches Named……………. 188
TABLE 7.7: Motivations for Visiting NC Beaches…………………………………………. 189
TABLE 7.8: Frequency of Activities at the Beach………………………………………….. 190
TABLE 7.9: Boat Owners and Scuba Divers………………………………………………... 191
TABLE 7.10: Scuba Diving in NC (Divers) and Interest in Scuba Diving (Non-
divers)……...............................................................................................................................
192
TABLE 7.11: Motivations for Scuba Diving on a Shipwreck………………………………. 192
TABLE 7.12: Comparison of Selected Demographics……………………………………… 194
TABLE 7.13: Perceptions of Maritime Heritage on the Outer Banks………………………. 198
TABLE 7.14: Awareness of the Graveyard of the Atlantic………………………………… 200
TABLE 7. 15: Perceptions and Associations about the Graveyard of the Atlantic…………. 200
TABLE 7.16: Questions Regarding Background Knowledge of Shipwrecks………………. 202
TABLE 7.17: Frequency of Named Shipwrecks and Examples…………………………….. 203
TABLE 7.18: Contributions of Shipwrecks to Society……………………………………… 204
TABLE 7.19: Perceived Associations with Shipwrecks…………………………………….. 205
TABLE 7.20: Respondents’ Interest in Different Historical Periods………………………... 207
TABLE 7.21: Respondents’ Interests in Types of Shipwrecks……………………………… 207
TABLE 7.22: Respondents’ Interests to Learning about Aspects of the Shipwreck……….. 209
TABLE 7.23: Respondents’ Interests in Different Public Outreach Options……………….. 210
TABLE 7.24: Respondents’ Attitudes towards Shipwrecks and Marine Wildlife and
Fishing………………………………………………………………………………………..
214
TABLE 7.25: Respondents’ Perceptions of the Phrase “Preserve a Shipwreck”…………… 216
TABLE 7.26: Respondents’ Perceptions towards Threats to Shipwrecks’ Preservation……. 217
TABLE 7.27: Criteria of Significance………………………………………………………. 218
TABLE 7.28: Prohibiting Scuba Divers on Shipwrecks…………………………………….. 219
TABLE 7.29: Conditions Necessary to Prohibit Scuba Divers on Shipwrecks……………... 219
TABLE 7.30: Respondents’ Trust of Oversight by Agency………………………………… 220
TABLE 7.31: Conditional (fixed-effects) logistic regression……………………………….. 227
TABLE 7.32: Marginal Willingness to Pay (MWTP)………………………………………. 228
TABLE 7.33: Marginal Effects (MFX)……………………………………………………… 229
TABLE 7.34: Total Willingness to Pay (TWTP) for Preferred Bundle…………………….. 230
TABLE 8.1: Lower Bound Estimates for MWTP of Specific Attributes Aggregated over
Households with 5-percent Annuity………………………………………………………….
239
TABLE 8.2: The Theory of Cultural Capital’s Recommended Modes of Measurement…… 241
TABLE E.1: List of questions in Section 1 of survey……………………………………….. 294
TABLE E.2: Questions #3 and #4…………………………………………………………… 296
TABLE E.3: Question #5……………………………………………………………………. 296
TABLE E.4: Question #6……………………………………………………………………. 296
TABLE E.5: Question #8……………………………………………………………………. 296
TABLE E.6: Question #10…………………………………………………………………... 298
TABLE E.7: Question #11…………………………………………………………………... 298
TABLE E.8: List of questions and themes in Section 3 of survey…………………………... 298
TABLE E.9: Question #13…………………………………………………………………... 301
TABLE E.10: Question #18…………………………………………………………………. 303
TABLE E.11: Question #22…………………………………………………………………. 304
TABLE E.12: Question #23…………………………………………………………………. 305
TABLE E.13: Question #24…………………………………………………………………. 305
TABLE E.14: Question #25…………………………………………………………………. 306
TABLE E.15: List of questions and themes in Section 5 of survey…………………………. 311
TABLE E.16: Question #32…………………………………………………………………. 312
TABLE E.17: Question #33…………………………………………………………………. 312
TABLE E.18: Question #36..………………………………………………………………... 313
TABLE E.19: Question #37…………………………………………………………………. 314
TABLE E.20: Question #39…………………………………………………………………. 315
TABLE E.21: Question #40…………………………………………………………………. 315
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1. Coastline of North Carolina, also known as the “Graveyard of the
Atlantic....................................................................................................................................
2
FIGURE 2.1. Ships were vectors of cultures and could simultaneously represent all three
scales of heritage…………………………………………………………………………..
33
FIGURE 3.1. Consumer surplus is geometrically shown by the shaded area under the
demand curve (D) minus area under the price line (P*) representing costs of given
commodity……………………………………....…………………………………………
46
FIGURE 3.2. Producer surplus is geometrically shown by the shaded area under the price
line (P*) over the marginal cost curve (S)…………………………………………………
47
FIGURE 3.3. Market equilibrium is achieved when consumer and producer surpluses are
equal at intersection of P* and Q*………………………………………………………...
47
FIGURE 3.4. Diagram illustrating flow of illicit antiquities…………………………….. 50
FIGURE 3.5. Chart illustrating different types of economic values that comprise Total
Economic Value…………………………………………………………………………...
58
FIGURE 4.1: Northern Coastal Zone (yellow area) and Southern Coastal Zone (grey
area)………………………………………………………………………………………….
74
FIGURE 4.2: Sand transport through an inlet, creating flood-tide (FTD) and ebb-tide
(ETD)………………………………………………………………………………………..
76
FIGURE 4.3: The confluence of the Gulf Stream and the Labrador Current near Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina……………………………………………………………………
78
FIGURE 4.4: Panel A shows hurricane tracks between 1850 and 1999 within a 200-mile
radius of Cape Lookout, NC (gray circle). The colors for H5 through H1 represent
hurricane strength ranging from categories 5 through 1 respectively. Panel B illustrates
the frequency of hurricanes between 1850 and 1999 within the same radius……………….
80
FIGURE 4.5: The Corrola Schoolhouse reputedly partially constructed from timber of
salvaged shipwrecks……………………………………………………………………….
86
FIGURE 4.6: Shipwreck distribution along the North Carolina’s coasts…………………. 94
FIGURE 4.7: Archaeological reports conducted along the Outer Banks at various
locations……………………………………………………………………………………..
96
FIGURE 4.9: Archaeological site plan of U-85…………………………………………………. 100
FIGURE 4.10: Photomosaic of U-85………………………………………………………………. 101
FIGURE 4.11: Three different types of vernacular craft in North Carolina. A (top left):
19-ton sharpie, Iowa; B (bottom left): a shadboat from 1900; and C (right): a spritsail
skiff………………………………………………………………………………………….
101
FIGURE 4.12: Shipwrecks on the beaches of the Outer Banks…………………………….. 103
FIGURE 4.13: Visitation Levels to Fort Raleigh Historic Site between 1990 and 2011…... 106
FIGURE 4.14: Visitation levels (in millions) to Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CAHA)
between 1990 and 2011……………………………………………………………………...
106
FIGURE 4.15: Survey results of tourists “Motivation for Visiting the Outer Banks”……... 107
FIGURE 4.16: Map of shipwrecks in the Graveyard of the Atlantic……………………….. 110
FIGURE 5.1: Sample questions from resident interviews…………………………………. 122
FIGURE 5.2: Flow of survey sections survey from general to specific questions towards
the CE………………………………………………………………………………………..
126
FIGURE 5.3: Information blocks presented in order they appeared in final survey
instrument (top to bottom): North Carolina’s Maritime History; North Carolinas Maritime
Heritage; The Graveyard of the Atlantic; Shipwrecks; and Educational Programs about
Shipwrecks…………………………………………………………………………………..
130
FIGURE 5.4: Description of status quo in final survey instrument………………………… 132
FIGURE 5.5: Attributes and attribute levels as presented on final survey instrument……... 134
FIGURE 5.6: Map of Yellow Preservation Zone…………………………………………... 135
FIGURE 5.7: Map of Orange Preservation Zone…………………………………………... 135
FIGURE 5.8: Example of Dominant Option in a Choice Set……………………………… 140
FIGURE 5.9: Sample of choice sets and choice certainty questions presented to survey
participants…………………………………………………………………………………..
141
FIGURE 6.1: Themes identified through analysis of responses and comments from Stage
I……………………………………………………………………………………………...
154
FIGURE 7.2: Motivations for Scuba Diving on a Shipwreck……………………………… 193
FIGURE 7.3: Geographical Distribution and Frequency of Responses……………………. 195
FIGURE 7.4: Motivations for Visiting Beach……………………………………………… 196
FIGURE 7.5: Activities at the Beach……………………………………………………….. 196
FIGURE 7.6: Perceptions of Maritime Heritage on the Outer Banks……………………… 199
FIGURE 7.7: Perceptions and Associations about the Graveyard of the Atlantic………….. 200
FIGURE 7.8: Contributions of Shipwrecks to Society……………………………………... 204
FIGURE 7.9: Perceived Associations with Shipwrecks……………………………………. 205
FIGURE 7. 10: Respondents’ Interest in Different Historical Periods……………………... 207
FIGURE 7.11: Respondents’ Interest in Types of Shipwrecks…………………………….. 208
FIGURE 7.12: Respondents’ Interests to Learning about Aspects of the Shipwreck……… 209
FIGURE 7.13: Respondents’ Interests in Different Public Outreach Options…………….. 210
FIGURE 7.14: Respondents’ Perceptions of the Phrase “Preserve a Shipwreck”………….. 216
FIGURE 7.15: Respondents’ Perceptions towards Threats to Shipwrecks’ Preservation….. 217
FIGURE 7.16: Conditions Necessary to Prohibit Scuba Divers on Shipwrecks…………… 219
FIGURE 7.17: Respondents’ Trust of Oversight by Agency………………………………. 221
FIGURE E.1: Information block for North Carolina’s maritime history………………….. 297
FIGURE E.2: Information block for North Carolina’s maritime heritage…………………. 298
FIGURE E.3: Information block for the Graveyard fo the Atlantic………………………... 300
FIGURE E.4: Information block for Shipwrecks…………………………………………... 301
FIGURE E.5: Information block for Educational Programs about Shipwrecks……………. 304
FIGURE E.6: TBNMS’s Options for Sanctuary Expansion………………………………... 307
FIGURE E.7: Map of Red Zone as Presented in Final Survey Instrument………………… 308
FIGURE E.8: Map of Yellow Zone as Presented in Final Survey Instrument…………….. 308
FIGURE E.9: Map of Orange Zone as Presented in Final Survey Instrument…………….. 309
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ASA: Abandoned Shipwreck Act
CAHA: Cape Hatteras National Seashore
CAMA: Coastal Area Management Act
CE: Choice Experiment
CSI: University of North Carolina’s Coastal Studies Institute
CVM: Contingent Valuation Method
ETD: Ebb Tide Delta
FTD: Flood Tide Delta
GIS: Geographical Information Systems
ICOMOS: International Council on Monuments and Sites
MNMS: Monitor National Marine Sanctuary
MWTP: Marginal Willingness to Pay
NCZ: Northern Coastal Zone
NRHP: National Register of Historic Places
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
SCZ: Southern Coastal Zone
UAB: Underwater Archaeology Branch (North Carolina)
UCH: Underwater Cultural Heritage
UNCLOS III: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
USCB: United States Census Bureau
USCGOB: United States Coast Guard Office of Boating
USLSS: United States Life-Saving Service
WTP: Willingness to Pay
Introduction
On the night of 24 November 1877, gale force winds, heavy seas, fog, and human error
combined to wreck the steamship, USS Huron – one of the last American naval vessels built
solely from iron – off North Carolina’s coast. Although the beach was only 200 yards away
from the foundering ship and a lifesaving station was less than two miles away, 98 of the 132
people onboard perished as increasingly poor weather and poor decision making took their tolls.
The loss of the ship and life had both immediate and far-reaching impacts on North Carolina’s
maritime heritage. In the short term, it helped motivate the federal government to improve an
inefficient lifesaving system. In the long term, the shipwreck’s resting site became North
Carolina’s first and only “Historic Shipwreck Preserve.” Although tragic the story of USS
Huron was not unique, it was simply one of possibly more than 2,000 ships that wrecked along
North Carolina’s treacherous coastline – ominously known as the “Graveyard of the Atlantic”
(Stick 1952; Lawrence 2003).
Stretching over 175 miles from Virginia southwards to Cape Lookout, The Graveyard of
the Atlantic is defined by a series of low-lying barrier islands (Figure 1.1). It sits at the
confluence of two powerful ocean currents – the warm Gulf Stream from the south, and the cold
Labrador Current from the north – and seems designed to cause shipwrecks. First, these currents
carry or create powerful storms, unpredictable seas, heavy fogs, lasting winds, and hurricanes
when their waters collide. These natural factors shift and shape the islands, constantly
transforming inlets and shoals that entrap even the most seaworthy captains and crew. Second,
the currents create a super-highway for ships, making the waters off North Carolina one of the
2
Figure 1.1: Coastline of North Carolina, also known as the “Graveyard of the Atlantic”
busiest shipping conduits in the world. With such high vessel traffic, human causes have created
shipwrecks too. Some of these causes were nefarious – such as naval warfare, piracy, or
purposeful wrecking, while others – navigation errors, collisions, or ignorance – were
unintentional. Although destruction defined these natural and anthropogenic causes of so many
shipwrecks, they were constructive effects that helped shape and define the history and cultural
heritage of the Outer Banks (Farb 1985; Duffus 2007; Brooke 2008; Lawrence 2008; Mallinson
et al. 2008).
Towns and villages were founded from the salvage of shipwrecks’ cargo. Homes were
built from the timbers of shipwrecks. Services and industries like lifesaving services,
lighthouses, and salvage companies were created. Recreational activities took place on or in
shipwrecks. For example, children used the hulks of ships resting on the beaches as personal
playgrounds, while adults hosted parties and dances on them. Throughout most of North
Carolina’s maritime history, shipwrecks have played an important role in creating an identity for
the Outer Banks’s cultural heritage (Stick 1952; Duffus 2007).
While many of the possible 2,000 shipwrecks will never be found due to non-cultural and
cultural site formation processes that have obscured or destroyed them, those that still exist
comprise an impressive range of maritime archaeological resources. They represent more than
500 years of maritime history, architecture, technology, industry, and maritime culture. Some
are associated with famous historical events, historical figures, or both. Others provide evidence
of the day-to-day activities of North Carolinians through history, allowing researchers to learn
about those past cultures and societies traditionally not written in history books or often
marginalized in historical records.
4
These shipwrecks are tangible artifacts to the past and constitute important archaeological
resources. They also serve as dramatic links to North Carolina’s historic maritime heritage,
helping to establish a sense of place in American history both in time and space as well as
defining an identity for some. Today, those who work, live, or visit the Outer Banks and look
out on the Graveyard of the Atlantic have inherited a maritime heritage as rich and as historic as
any in the United States.
Problem Statement
The problem arises, however, that there is uncertainty about how people today perceive
and value their maritime heritage and its preservation. Further uncertainty exists regarding
whether the public is aware of this heritage or feels any connection to it. If efforts and policy
decisions were made to increase preservation of maritime archaeological resources in the
Graveyard of the Atlantic, it is unknown what type of support – either in terms of monetary or
good will – such efforts would receive from the public. Understanding these and similar
questions is essential for maritime archaeologists and coastal managers concerned with maritime
cultural resources to develop successful and intelligent policies that benefit both the resources
and the public. While there have been various research projects to document…
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE CULTURAL CAPITAL OF SHIPWRECKS IN THE
GRAVEYARD OF THE ATLANTIC
Director of Dissertation: Dr. Nathan Richards
Ph.D. Program in Coastal Resources Management
Off the coast of North Carolina’s Outer Banks are the remains of ships spanning
hundreds of years of history, architecture, technology, industry, and maritime culture.
Potentially more than 2,000 ships have been lost in “The Graveyard of the Atlantic” due to a
combination of natural and human factors. These shipwrecks are tangible artifacts to the past
and constitute important archaeological resources. They also serve as dramatic links to North
Carolina’s historic maritime heritage, helping to establish a sense of identity and place within
American history. While those who work, live, or visit the Outer Banks and look out on the
Graveyard of the Atlantic today have inherited a maritime heritage as rich and as historic as any
in the United States, there is uncertainty regarding how they perceive and value the preservation
of maritime heritage resources along the Outer Banks, specifically shipwrecks in the Graveyard
of the Atlantic.
This dissertation is an exploratory study that combines qualitative and quantitative
methodologies from the fields of archaeology, economics, and sociology, by engaging different
populations in a series of interviews and surveys. These activities are designed to understand
and evaluate the public’s current perceptions and attitudes towards maritime archaeological
heritage, to estimate its willingness to pay for preservation of shipwrecks in the Graveyard of the
Atlantic, and to provide baseline data for informing future preservation, public outreach, and
education efforts.
THE VALUE OF MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE:
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE CULTURAL CAPITAL OF SHIPWRECKS IN THE
GRAVEYARD OF THE ATLANTIC
Presented To the Faculty of Coastal Resources Management Ph.D. Program
East Carolina University
Doctor of Philosophy in Coastal Resources Management
by
THE VALUE OF MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE:
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE CULTURAL CAPITAL OF SHIPWRECKS IN THE
GRAVEYARD OF THE ATLANTIC
IN COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: ______________________________________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This has truly been an interdisciplinary endeavor, and there are many people to whom I
owe my gratitude. First, I want to thank my advisor, Dr. Nathan Richards, whose support,
guidance, and understanding allowed me to complete this process. I want to thank my
committee members, Dr. Derek Alderman; Dr. Craig Landry; Dr. David Mallinson, and Dr. Hans
Vogelsong –for being there to offer their expertise, suggestions, and advice when I need it.
I want to thank North Carolina Sea Grant College and the Ph.D. Program in Coastal
Resources Management for their generous support and funding of this project. I would like to
thank my colleagues in the Program in Maritime Studies, Lynn Harris, Jennifer McKinnon,
Nathan Richards, Brad Rodgers, Dave Stewart, and Karen Underwood, for their support and
encouragement. I want to thank Mandee Lancaster and Justin Raines from ECU’s Center for
Survey Research for all their help and efforts in creating and processing the final survey
instrument. I also want to thank John McCord and Nancy White at the University of North
Carolina Coastal Studies Institute, for their help and assistance.
I want to thank former and current students of the Program in Maritime Studies who
volunteered their time to help me: Jennifer Jones and Stephen Sanchagrin for their help with
GIS; John Bright for his thoughtful suggestions and input: Jeremy Borelli, Ryan Bradley, Kara
and Mike Fox, Chelsea Freeland, Sara Kerfoot, Allison Miller, Alyssa Reisner, Will Sassorossi,
Laurel Seaborn, Sonia Valencia, Jeneva and Kent Wright, and Caitlin Zant for spending a long
Saturday stuffing thousands of envelopes.
I want to thank my parents, Robert and Mary Lou Mires, whose support and
encouragement has always allowed me to pursue my goals. Finally, I want to thank my wife,
Carolyn, and my daughter, Sarah Baker Mires, who have been beyond patient, understanding,
encouraging and supportive during this journey. Thank you.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Summaries………………………………………………………………….. 9
Introduction………………………………………………..………………………… 13
Heritage……………………….……….…………………..………………………… 13
Public Outreach as Heritage Construction in Archaeology.………………………… 35
Conclusion…………………………….…………….……..………………………… 40
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. 42
Non-market Values and Cultural Economics………………………………………... 57
Theoretical Framework of Cultural Capital…………………………………………. 62
Stated Preference Techniques and Discrete Choice Modeling……………………... 64
Economics and Policy……………………………………………………………….. 70
CHAPTER 4: BACKGROUND TO THE GRAVEYARD OF THE ATLANTIC…………. 73
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. 73
Archaeology in the Graveyard of the Atlantic………………………………………. 93
Maritime Cultural Heritage along the Graveyard of the Atlantic…………………… 102
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………… 111
Phase 2: Interviews with Residents of the Outer Banks…………………….. 120
Phase 3: Review of Recreational Diving and Fishing Industry Comments…. 123
Qualitative Analysis of Phases 1, 2, and 3…………………………………... 123
Stage II: Survey Design……………………………………………………………… 124
Cover Page…………………………………………………………………... 127
Section 2: NC Maritime History and Heritage; and
Section 3: Shipwrecks in the Graveyard of the Atlantic………………..........
127
Section 4: Graveyard of the Atlantic Maritime Park (Choice Experiment)… 129
Section 5: Preservation and Management…………………………………… 142
Section 6: Demographics; Comments; and Back Page……………………… 143
Stage III: Implementation……………………………………………………………. 143
Stage IV: Analysis…………………………………………………………………… 147
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………… 150
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. 152
Summary of Results…………………………………………………………………. 155
CHAPTER 7: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF FINAL SURVEY INSTRUMENT……... 183
Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. 183
Section 1: Response Rates, Demographics, and Travel and Recreational Behavior... 183
Response Rates………………………………………………………………. 184
Discussion…………………………………………………………………… 193
Section 2: Awareness, Perceptions, and Interests towards Maritime Heritage and
Education……………………………………………………………………………..
197
and Shipwrecks………………………………………………………………
Discussion…………………………………………………………………… 210
Oversight……………………………………………………………………………..
213
Discussion…………………………………………………………………… 230
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………… 232
Policy and Decision Making………………………………………………………… 236
Theoretical Framework of Cultural Capital…………………………………………. 239
Future Research and Recommendations…………………………………………….. 241
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………… 242
APPENDIX A: East Carolina University Institutional Review Board Forms……………… 279
APPENDIX B: Permission Forms…………………………………………………………... 281
APPENDIX C: Expert Panel Survey………………………………………………………... 290
APPENDIX D: Guiding Question for Resident Interviews………………………………… 293
APPENDIX E: Discussion of Questions and Rationale for Final Survey Instrument………. 294
APPENDIX F: Final Survey Instrument as Processed and Coded through TeleForm……... 316
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 4.1: North Carolina’s Capes and Associated Cape Shoals…………………………. 77
TABLE 5.1: Methodological Steps in a Choice Experiment Design and Implementation….. 116
TABLE 5.2: List of Questions and Their Purpose for Expert Panel Survey………………... 119
TABLE 5.3: Survey sections and questions…………………………………………………. 125
TABLE 5.4: Attribute and Attribute Levels…………………………………………………. 137
TABLE 5.5: Survey versions and coding procedures……………………………………….. 144
TABLE 6.1: Examples of Definitions of Maritime Heritage and the Role of Shipwrecks in
Maritime Heritage……………………………………………………………………………
156
TABLE 6.2: Expert panel’s Perceived Benefits of Preserving Maritime Heritage…………. 157
TABLE 6.3: Sample Quotes Regarding Public Outreach and Education…………………… 159
TABLE 6.4: Top 5 Threats by Respondent………………………………………………….. 159
TABLE 6.5: Sample Quotes from Expert panel Regarding In-Situ Preservation…………… 160
TABLE 6.6: Sample Quotes from Interviewed Residents about Maritime Heritage………... 161
TABLE 6.7: Selected Quotes Expressing Thoughts towards Preservation, Management,
and Outside Involvement…………………………………………………………………….
166
TABLE 6.8: Selected Comments from Members at Public Hearings on Loss of Identity
through Preservation of Maritime Heritage………………………………………………….
170
TABLE 6.9: Selected Comments about Themes of Jobs, Access and Distrust….…………. 171
TABLE 6.10: Selected Comments about Budgetary Costs of Preservation……………..….. 172
TABLE 7.1: Comparison of Response Rates of Groups A and B…………………………... 184
TABLE 7.2: Comparison of Response Rates by Mode……………………………………... 184
TABLE 7.3: Demographic Information…………………………………………………….. 185
TABLE 7.4: Visitation Behavior……………………………………………………………. 187
TABLE 7.5: Beaches Visited Within Past Three Years……………………………………... 187
TABLE 7.6: Frequency of Beaches Named and Most Visited Beaches Named……………. 188
TABLE 7.7: Motivations for Visiting NC Beaches…………………………………………. 189
TABLE 7.8: Frequency of Activities at the Beach………………………………………….. 190
TABLE 7.9: Boat Owners and Scuba Divers………………………………………………... 191
TABLE 7.10: Scuba Diving in NC (Divers) and Interest in Scuba Diving (Non-
divers)……...............................................................................................................................
192
TABLE 7.11: Motivations for Scuba Diving on a Shipwreck………………………………. 192
TABLE 7.12: Comparison of Selected Demographics……………………………………… 194
TABLE 7.13: Perceptions of Maritime Heritage on the Outer Banks………………………. 198
TABLE 7.14: Awareness of the Graveyard of the Atlantic………………………………… 200
TABLE 7. 15: Perceptions and Associations about the Graveyard of the Atlantic…………. 200
TABLE 7.16: Questions Regarding Background Knowledge of Shipwrecks………………. 202
TABLE 7.17: Frequency of Named Shipwrecks and Examples…………………………….. 203
TABLE 7.18: Contributions of Shipwrecks to Society……………………………………… 204
TABLE 7.19: Perceived Associations with Shipwrecks…………………………………….. 205
TABLE 7.20: Respondents’ Interest in Different Historical Periods………………………... 207
TABLE 7.21: Respondents’ Interests in Types of Shipwrecks……………………………… 207
TABLE 7.22: Respondents’ Interests to Learning about Aspects of the Shipwreck……….. 209
TABLE 7.23: Respondents’ Interests in Different Public Outreach Options……………….. 210
TABLE 7.24: Respondents’ Attitudes towards Shipwrecks and Marine Wildlife and
Fishing………………………………………………………………………………………..
214
TABLE 7.25: Respondents’ Perceptions of the Phrase “Preserve a Shipwreck”…………… 216
TABLE 7.26: Respondents’ Perceptions towards Threats to Shipwrecks’ Preservation……. 217
TABLE 7.27: Criteria of Significance………………………………………………………. 218
TABLE 7.28: Prohibiting Scuba Divers on Shipwrecks…………………………………….. 219
TABLE 7.29: Conditions Necessary to Prohibit Scuba Divers on Shipwrecks……………... 219
TABLE 7.30: Respondents’ Trust of Oversight by Agency………………………………… 220
TABLE 7.31: Conditional (fixed-effects) logistic regression……………………………….. 227
TABLE 7.32: Marginal Willingness to Pay (MWTP)………………………………………. 228
TABLE 7.33: Marginal Effects (MFX)……………………………………………………… 229
TABLE 7.34: Total Willingness to Pay (TWTP) for Preferred Bundle…………………….. 230
TABLE 8.1: Lower Bound Estimates for MWTP of Specific Attributes Aggregated over
Households with 5-percent Annuity………………………………………………………….
239
TABLE 8.2: The Theory of Cultural Capital’s Recommended Modes of Measurement…… 241
TABLE E.1: List of questions in Section 1 of survey……………………………………….. 294
TABLE E.2: Questions #3 and #4…………………………………………………………… 296
TABLE E.3: Question #5……………………………………………………………………. 296
TABLE E.4: Question #6……………………………………………………………………. 296
TABLE E.5: Question #8……………………………………………………………………. 296
TABLE E.6: Question #10…………………………………………………………………... 298
TABLE E.7: Question #11…………………………………………………………………... 298
TABLE E.8: List of questions and themes in Section 3 of survey…………………………... 298
TABLE E.9: Question #13…………………………………………………………………... 301
TABLE E.10: Question #18…………………………………………………………………. 303
TABLE E.11: Question #22…………………………………………………………………. 304
TABLE E.12: Question #23…………………………………………………………………. 305
TABLE E.13: Question #24…………………………………………………………………. 305
TABLE E.14: Question #25…………………………………………………………………. 306
TABLE E.15: List of questions and themes in Section 5 of survey…………………………. 311
TABLE E.16: Question #32…………………………………………………………………. 312
TABLE E.17: Question #33…………………………………………………………………. 312
TABLE E.18: Question #36..………………………………………………………………... 313
TABLE E.19: Question #37…………………………………………………………………. 314
TABLE E.20: Question #39…………………………………………………………………. 315
TABLE E.21: Question #40…………………………………………………………………. 315
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1. Coastline of North Carolina, also known as the “Graveyard of the
Atlantic....................................................................................................................................
2
FIGURE 2.1. Ships were vectors of cultures and could simultaneously represent all three
scales of heritage…………………………………………………………………………..
33
FIGURE 3.1. Consumer surplus is geometrically shown by the shaded area under the
demand curve (D) minus area under the price line (P*) representing costs of given
commodity……………………………………....…………………………………………
46
FIGURE 3.2. Producer surplus is geometrically shown by the shaded area under the price
line (P*) over the marginal cost curve (S)…………………………………………………
47
FIGURE 3.3. Market equilibrium is achieved when consumer and producer surpluses are
equal at intersection of P* and Q*………………………………………………………...
47
FIGURE 3.4. Diagram illustrating flow of illicit antiquities…………………………….. 50
FIGURE 3.5. Chart illustrating different types of economic values that comprise Total
Economic Value…………………………………………………………………………...
58
FIGURE 4.1: Northern Coastal Zone (yellow area) and Southern Coastal Zone (grey
area)………………………………………………………………………………………….
74
FIGURE 4.2: Sand transport through an inlet, creating flood-tide (FTD) and ebb-tide
(ETD)………………………………………………………………………………………..
76
FIGURE 4.3: The confluence of the Gulf Stream and the Labrador Current near Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina……………………………………………………………………
78
FIGURE 4.4: Panel A shows hurricane tracks between 1850 and 1999 within a 200-mile
radius of Cape Lookout, NC (gray circle). The colors for H5 through H1 represent
hurricane strength ranging from categories 5 through 1 respectively. Panel B illustrates
the frequency of hurricanes between 1850 and 1999 within the same radius……………….
80
FIGURE 4.5: The Corrola Schoolhouse reputedly partially constructed from timber of
salvaged shipwrecks……………………………………………………………………….
86
FIGURE 4.6: Shipwreck distribution along the North Carolina’s coasts…………………. 94
FIGURE 4.7: Archaeological reports conducted along the Outer Banks at various
locations……………………………………………………………………………………..
96
FIGURE 4.9: Archaeological site plan of U-85…………………………………………………. 100
FIGURE 4.10: Photomosaic of U-85………………………………………………………………. 101
FIGURE 4.11: Three different types of vernacular craft in North Carolina. A (top left):
19-ton sharpie, Iowa; B (bottom left): a shadboat from 1900; and C (right): a spritsail
skiff………………………………………………………………………………………….
101
FIGURE 4.12: Shipwrecks on the beaches of the Outer Banks…………………………….. 103
FIGURE 4.13: Visitation Levels to Fort Raleigh Historic Site between 1990 and 2011…... 106
FIGURE 4.14: Visitation levels (in millions) to Cape Hatteras National Seashore (CAHA)
between 1990 and 2011……………………………………………………………………...
106
FIGURE 4.15: Survey results of tourists “Motivation for Visiting the Outer Banks”……... 107
FIGURE 4.16: Map of shipwrecks in the Graveyard of the Atlantic……………………….. 110
FIGURE 5.1: Sample questions from resident interviews…………………………………. 122
FIGURE 5.2: Flow of survey sections survey from general to specific questions towards
the CE………………………………………………………………………………………..
126
FIGURE 5.3: Information blocks presented in order they appeared in final survey
instrument (top to bottom): North Carolina’s Maritime History; North Carolinas Maritime
Heritage; The Graveyard of the Atlantic; Shipwrecks; and Educational Programs about
Shipwrecks…………………………………………………………………………………..
130
FIGURE 5.4: Description of status quo in final survey instrument………………………… 132
FIGURE 5.5: Attributes and attribute levels as presented on final survey instrument……... 134
FIGURE 5.6: Map of Yellow Preservation Zone…………………………………………... 135
FIGURE 5.7: Map of Orange Preservation Zone…………………………………………... 135
FIGURE 5.8: Example of Dominant Option in a Choice Set……………………………… 140
FIGURE 5.9: Sample of choice sets and choice certainty questions presented to survey
participants…………………………………………………………………………………..
141
FIGURE 6.1: Themes identified through analysis of responses and comments from Stage
I……………………………………………………………………………………………...
154
FIGURE 7.2: Motivations for Scuba Diving on a Shipwreck……………………………… 193
FIGURE 7.3: Geographical Distribution and Frequency of Responses……………………. 195
FIGURE 7.4: Motivations for Visiting Beach……………………………………………… 196
FIGURE 7.5: Activities at the Beach……………………………………………………….. 196
FIGURE 7.6: Perceptions of Maritime Heritage on the Outer Banks……………………… 199
FIGURE 7.7: Perceptions and Associations about the Graveyard of the Atlantic………….. 200
FIGURE 7.8: Contributions of Shipwrecks to Society……………………………………... 204
FIGURE 7.9: Perceived Associations with Shipwrecks……………………………………. 205
FIGURE 7. 10: Respondents’ Interest in Different Historical Periods……………………... 207
FIGURE 7.11: Respondents’ Interest in Types of Shipwrecks…………………………….. 208
FIGURE 7.12: Respondents’ Interests to Learning about Aspects of the Shipwreck……… 209
FIGURE 7.13: Respondents’ Interests in Different Public Outreach Options…………….. 210
FIGURE 7.14: Respondents’ Perceptions of the Phrase “Preserve a Shipwreck”………….. 216
FIGURE 7.15: Respondents’ Perceptions towards Threats to Shipwrecks’ Preservation….. 217
FIGURE 7.16: Conditions Necessary to Prohibit Scuba Divers on Shipwrecks…………… 219
FIGURE 7.17: Respondents’ Trust of Oversight by Agency………………………………. 221
FIGURE E.1: Information block for North Carolina’s maritime history………………….. 297
FIGURE E.2: Information block for North Carolina’s maritime heritage…………………. 298
FIGURE E.3: Information block for the Graveyard fo the Atlantic………………………... 300
FIGURE E.4: Information block for Shipwrecks…………………………………………... 301
FIGURE E.5: Information block for Educational Programs about Shipwrecks……………. 304
FIGURE E.6: TBNMS’s Options for Sanctuary Expansion………………………………... 307
FIGURE E.7: Map of Red Zone as Presented in Final Survey Instrument………………… 308
FIGURE E.8: Map of Yellow Zone as Presented in Final Survey Instrument…………….. 308
FIGURE E.9: Map of Orange Zone as Presented in Final Survey Instrument…………….. 309
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ASA: Abandoned Shipwreck Act
CAHA: Cape Hatteras National Seashore
CAMA: Coastal Area Management Act
CE: Choice Experiment
CSI: University of North Carolina’s Coastal Studies Institute
CVM: Contingent Valuation Method
ETD: Ebb Tide Delta
FTD: Flood Tide Delta
GIS: Geographical Information Systems
ICOMOS: International Council on Monuments and Sites
MNMS: Monitor National Marine Sanctuary
MWTP: Marginal Willingness to Pay
NCZ: Northern Coastal Zone
NRHP: National Register of Historic Places
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
SCZ: Southern Coastal Zone
UAB: Underwater Archaeology Branch (North Carolina)
UCH: Underwater Cultural Heritage
UNCLOS III: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
USCB: United States Census Bureau
USCGOB: United States Coast Guard Office of Boating
USLSS: United States Life-Saving Service
WTP: Willingness to Pay
Introduction
On the night of 24 November 1877, gale force winds, heavy seas, fog, and human error
combined to wreck the steamship, USS Huron – one of the last American naval vessels built
solely from iron – off North Carolina’s coast. Although the beach was only 200 yards away
from the foundering ship and a lifesaving station was less than two miles away, 98 of the 132
people onboard perished as increasingly poor weather and poor decision making took their tolls.
The loss of the ship and life had both immediate and far-reaching impacts on North Carolina’s
maritime heritage. In the short term, it helped motivate the federal government to improve an
inefficient lifesaving system. In the long term, the shipwreck’s resting site became North
Carolina’s first and only “Historic Shipwreck Preserve.” Although tragic the story of USS
Huron was not unique, it was simply one of possibly more than 2,000 ships that wrecked along
North Carolina’s treacherous coastline – ominously known as the “Graveyard of the Atlantic”
(Stick 1952; Lawrence 2003).
Stretching over 175 miles from Virginia southwards to Cape Lookout, The Graveyard of
the Atlantic is defined by a series of low-lying barrier islands (Figure 1.1). It sits at the
confluence of two powerful ocean currents – the warm Gulf Stream from the south, and the cold
Labrador Current from the north – and seems designed to cause shipwrecks. First, these currents
carry or create powerful storms, unpredictable seas, heavy fogs, lasting winds, and hurricanes
when their waters collide. These natural factors shift and shape the islands, constantly
transforming inlets and shoals that entrap even the most seaworthy captains and crew. Second,
the currents create a super-highway for ships, making the waters off North Carolina one of the
2
Figure 1.1: Coastline of North Carolina, also known as the “Graveyard of the Atlantic”
busiest shipping conduits in the world. With such high vessel traffic, human causes have created
shipwrecks too. Some of these causes were nefarious – such as naval warfare, piracy, or
purposeful wrecking, while others – navigation errors, collisions, or ignorance – were
unintentional. Although destruction defined these natural and anthropogenic causes of so many
shipwrecks, they were constructive effects that helped shape and define the history and cultural
heritage of the Outer Banks (Farb 1985; Duffus 2007; Brooke 2008; Lawrence 2008; Mallinson
et al. 2008).
Towns and villages were founded from the salvage of shipwrecks’ cargo. Homes were
built from the timbers of shipwrecks. Services and industries like lifesaving services,
lighthouses, and salvage companies were created. Recreational activities took place on or in
shipwrecks. For example, children used the hulks of ships resting on the beaches as personal
playgrounds, while adults hosted parties and dances on them. Throughout most of North
Carolina’s maritime history, shipwrecks have played an important role in creating an identity for
the Outer Banks’s cultural heritage (Stick 1952; Duffus 2007).
While many of the possible 2,000 shipwrecks will never be found due to non-cultural and
cultural site formation processes that have obscured or destroyed them, those that still exist
comprise an impressive range of maritime archaeological resources. They represent more than
500 years of maritime history, architecture, technology, industry, and maritime culture. Some
are associated with famous historical events, historical figures, or both. Others provide evidence
of the day-to-day activities of North Carolinians through history, allowing researchers to learn
about those past cultures and societies traditionally not written in history books or often
marginalized in historical records.
4
These shipwrecks are tangible artifacts to the past and constitute important archaeological
resources. They also serve as dramatic links to North Carolina’s historic maritime heritage,
helping to establish a sense of place in American history both in time and space as well as
defining an identity for some. Today, those who work, live, or visit the Outer Banks and look
out on the Graveyard of the Atlantic have inherited a maritime heritage as rich and as historic as
any in the United States.
Problem Statement
The problem arises, however, that there is uncertainty about how people today perceive
and value their maritime heritage and its preservation. Further uncertainty exists regarding
whether the public is aware of this heritage or feels any connection to it. If efforts and policy
decisions were made to increase preservation of maritime archaeological resources in the
Graveyard of the Atlantic, it is unknown what type of support – either in terms of monetary or
good will – such efforts would receive from the public. Understanding these and similar
questions is essential for maritime archaeologists and coastal managers concerned with maritime
cultural resources to develop successful and intelligent policies that benefit both the resources
and the public. While there have been various research projects to document…
Related Documents
