The online Museum of Underwater Archaeology (MUA) was founded in 2003 as an effort to support professional, student, and avocational underwater archaeologists. Its primary goal is to offer an outlet for the dissemination of their research results to their peers and the general public. Many archaeologists do not possess the time, money, or skills needed to create web based presentations of their work. The MUA helps fill this void by creating online museum style exhibits for display on its website at no cost to the archaeologist.

The MUA sought for additional ways to support underwater archaeologists beyond exhibit presentations. Museum displays while important occur after the research is completed. How could the MUA help prior to those investigations? The answer lies in creating a tool for researchers to use during the earliest phase of their projects. That tool, the subject of this proposal, will aid in tracking down information on what has already been examined by other underwater archaeologists. That information is contained in site reports from completed projects including reports on the following topics:

• Shipwrecks and hulks terrestrial and submerged
• Maritime related sites terrestrial and submerged
• Wharves
• Shipways
• Inundated ecofacts
• Inundated terrestrial sites

These documents typically follow a standard format that contains information on a site’s historical background, previous work done on the site if any, what their research goal was, what methodology was employed, what information was gathered, analysis of the data and their conclusions, and recommendations for future management of the site and additional research.

Libraries carry some published works along with student theses and dissertations but this represents only a fraction of the extant literature that is produced by government sponsored projects produced typically as part of mitigation surveys prior to construction activities such as river channel dredging or widening. Many states such as Maryland and South Carolina continually conduct surveys as part of their mission to protect state bottom lands and the material culture deposited there. They also work in cooperation with the US Navy and the National Park Service. In addition they occasionally offer guidance and set priorities for avocational groups seeking to catalog shipwreck sites throughout state waters as part of their altruistic goal of protecting historic sites for the public good. The resultant reports or “gray literature” often reside in state offices and are not easily accessible to the public or researchers. In many cases no electronic catalog exists which make accessing them much harder. While there is a benefit to protecting this information, namely guarding site location information so as to prevent looting, such inaccessibility can defeat the purpose of collecting the data in the first place.

Currently individuals wishing to view the reports must contact the proper state office and ask what reports exist. More than likely this would result in several telephone calls, faxes, or emails just to determine what is available. This process would have to be repeated for every state that might potentially have relevant data. I propose to gather bibliographic information on these site reports and make that data available online through a search tool for researchers to use. A coordinated effort with state underwater archaeologists will provide a safe compromise whereby the titles of research reports and other non sensitive metadata will be released online while leaving ultimate control of the reports in state hands. Once completed this project would allow any user to go to one page on the web and search the holdings of all participating states at one time.

Initially the database would be populated with titles from one or two states as a trial. Dr. Susan Langley, the State Underwater Archaeologist for Maryland has agreed to release their titles to the MUA for this project. Maryland has over 100 reports on hand. Six other states were contacted and have agreed to this project but their data will be included only after any initial bugs have been worked out of the system. Samples from each state however will be used to refine the table structure. After the initial data is appended to the tables, additional states will be contacted. This piece meal approach is designed to start with those willing to participate in an unproven system. Hopefully a more developed tool will encourage additional states that might initially have rejected working on an untested project. Looking further ahead one could envision incorporating US Army Corp of Engineer titles, MA and PhD dissertations, Museum sponsored projects, and avocational research reports.

How users search is a function of the database schema design. Due consideration was given to what type of data to store. A simple searchable listing of titles and publication information would be useful in and of itself. But because this must be created from scratch an opportunity exists to plan for greater flexibility and learning potential. Additional metadata will be built into the table structure that will allow for searches based on many factors. A search on time period for instance might return all shipwrecks excavated dating to the eighteenth-century. Limiting results to site type on the other hand could return all wharves or shipways if desired. Due to the need to protect against looting users would not receive information on exact site location; they could, however, search on a generalized location such as the Potomac River, or lower Chesapeake Bay. Such searches if added to a mapping component (discussed in the review portion of this proposal) could not only return relevant report titles but spatial relationships as well. A search on keywords or any field for that matter (see the Home section of this proposal) will provide unique data sets limited only by the search criteria the user can think of. Report abstracts will also be included whenever possible thus offer more data to mine. When data is queried and combined in this way something important happens. New information is created and revealed from what had been independent units of data separated by time, space, and technology. A simple query becomes an act of creation. While databases are not narratives on their own, search capabilities offer researchers a way to take previously disconnected sets of arbitrary data and move one step closer to creating their own narrative based on their own goals.3

Reasons for utilizing such a tool include historians who lack underwater archaeological training. They might want to look at regional sets of data or search for individual sites that relate to their archival research. For example maritime historians might be interested in seeing material culture data from all wharf sites investigated in the Chesapeake Bay from the eighteenth-century. Reports from those projects could shed light on how goods were transported across time and terrain. Other questions might reveal the spread of ship construction sites through the bay along with changes in technology or construction methods not described in the literature of the period. Archaeologists might use the database to confirm what areas of investigation have received too little attention or if greatly covered what new questions that data might be pointing to. Museum groups might wish to mine this data for potential exhibits. The general public too might be interested in what resources are roughly in their geographic areas. Avocational groups might use this to help set priorities for future surveys. Cultural resource management firms might utilize the data to prepare better reports by having a better awareness of previous work. The potential uses for this data is extensive.

Other components of this site would include an introductory essay on how archaeological data can be used by historians, introductory notes by state underwater archaeologists on their report collections, and a data submission form to be added at a later date that would all contributors to upload new information and or update their existing data sets.

A key component for maintaining the usefulness of such a database would be keeping it up to date and publicizing its existence. The two elements are inter-related. Gathering this data will be time consuming. While some states have seen its potential at the very beginning others may take some convincing. No one wants to build a tool that doesn't’t get used. Use will depend on how complete the database is. This seems like a potentially vicious circle. That is why the original states willing to take part must not be disappointed by the site’s performance and utilization. Once initially populated it will be incumbent upon the MUA to broadcast its existence to as wide an audience as possible. This can be accomplished by getting the project up on the web and announcing it to the world through press releases, notices to discussion boards, presentations at professional conferences, and through university involvement. The MUA noticed a surge in interest in its site when it involved a graduate student in the creation of a children’s exhibit. Graduate students have their own informal network that includes their professors. They share their experiences and thus quickly spread the word about their project. Another key to activity is keeping the site fresh. By continuing to add new data sets there are new reasons for additional public announcements. This encourages users to return to investigate the new records. And, because they know what states have been added they can quickly rerun previous searches specifically on the new data set to see if it is of interest to them. Robust activity then would help attract additional states and institutions to contribute their data sets thus perpetuating a cycle of growth.

_________________

[3] Lev Manovich, The Language of New Media (Cambridge, MA, 2001), p. 227.