Video
In Situ Site Stabilization of HMS Fowey
Transcript
Speaker 1: Thanks, everybody, for hanging in with us. These are a series of very interesting talks about the Fowey. Josh is going to end this program with in situ site stabilization of HSM Fowey, which must be quite a challenge given the increasing impact of storms, as we've seen, as an effect of climate change and the frequency of looting of submerged archeological resources in the park. Josh, I hope that you have some good news for us.
Josh: Yes and no. This is actually going to be a little bit of a joint presentation. This symposium was originally four speakers long for SHA and the one speaker who couldn't be with us today was Jessica Keller of the Submerged Resources Center. She specifically talked about the actual in situ reburial of the site and I'm going to touch on hers but what I've done is I've incorporated it into the fourth and final talk in the SHA symposium which was more based on interpretations. So, we're kind of combining the two here.
In terms of good news and bad news, it's mixed. We'll delve into it and we'll see what we've got, as soon as the program decides it wants to work, so by now you guys could probably take a test on what Biscayne National Park is and how big it is and all that good stuff. We'll move forward. Apparently, our program is a little slow today. We've talked about the initial discovery but what I want to talk about here, specifically, in a different light other than what I've brought this slide up in the previous talk is, how to protect it.
The guy who originally found this, or at least the guy who was credited with finding this site, Gerald Klein found it in 1979 and immediately started to dredge up the site looking for what he thought was buried Spanish gold. You'd have to ask - his is not like an archeological site like Gettysburg where you can close a gate or block, physically restrict access. This site is located in a pretty dynamic marine environment in 30 feet of water. In terms of stabilization, in terms of protection of this site it's more difficult and it has the approach that well, we're still figuring out how to go about approaching this exactly.
What I'm here today to talk about is what we've done here in the park, so far. The initial attempts to stop looting at this site, because it was so prevalent, I've heard stories from both the '83 project and the early '90s project, that as researchers, archeologists, volunteer divers were out there working the site, that they would be mapping artifacts in situ on the sea floor and they would come back the next day to complete that documentation and the artifact was gone. People were literally coming out and taking artifacts right from underneath archeologists, literally.
The initial attempt to protect this site came through restriction and that was the establishment of the Legare Anchorage. Historically, Legare Anchorage has always been there as an actual anchorage but what the park did in the early 90s was that they basically instituted a no-go zone in that area. It was bounded. It's the triangle that is crossed off here in the middle of the park. What it was the shape and the size was delineated by the physical features on the landscape at that time, the two corners on the western edge were bounded by Hawk Channel waterway markers. The far one, ocean-side, was actually the Triumph Reef marker which is now no longer in existence.
That was pretty much how they delineated the boundaries for Legare which was helpful to have these physical markers on the landscape in the day prior to GPS and digital charting equipment. The Legare Anchorage - the rule, as stated on the NOAA charts, once it was put out - was basically no swimming, anchoring, snorkeling or diving within the triangular shaped area. They specifically delineate the area and the closure is, "Restricted for the use of any underwater viewing device including but not limited to face masks, glass bottomed vessels, glass bottomed buckets, and/or cameras of any kind."
It's pretty much you can't do anything in there. You can transit the area. You can drive through it. You can fish in the area. You can't stop. You can't look down. None of that. All of this was done in an attempt to try to protect the site because it was very blatantly visible from the surface. If you knew the general ball park, you could pretty much look down through the gin-clear waters of Biscayne National Park and you could spot it if you try hard enough.
The current enclosure encompasses about 2,000 acres but I could tell you with the most recent general management plan put out by Biscayne National Park in 2015 that that area is actually going to be reduced overall. Part of that is because of the stabilization attempts that we've been working on that I'm going to be describing here today. Again the most recent archeological investigation prior to our attempts was in 1993 during the submerged cultural resources documentation following Hurricane Andrew. Again, part of this was, more or less, how much is there? What's left? General condition assessment but it was also this project initiated the discussion of stabilization and talked about the damage sustained at the site.
It initiated a whole series of studies throughout the early 90s, the bulk of which are actually talked about in Russ Skowronek’s book. They range from anything from putting sand bags over the site to trying to install, and this was done in the 80s, fake seagrass to capture sediment to facilitate the reburial of the site. Just a number of options were discussed. There was even a symposium held at Biscayne National Park specifically to discuss these options. However, in typical bureaucratic fashion they were all killed through committee. Meeting after meeting after meeting but no action was ever taken.
There were a few test plots initiated during this time period where they would try stuff like synthetic seagrass but none of them seemed to hold up. In fact, the seagrass, actually, the fronds ended up getting algae on them and were too heavy to float in the water column to trap sediment and ended up littering the site. Even at the commencement of the project in 2012-1013, the remnants of many of these experiments still lay on the site. A lot of the rebar stakes, a lot of monitoring stakes. There was still burlap in portions. There was a lot of trash that was still present on the site from the previous 20 years of attempts to stabilize. There was never any full blown “ Let's try to do something about this,” never any decision made. Because of that, the site was continuously exposed to the environmental factors. In fact, then you add continuously exposed to looting and salvage attempts and continuously destroyed over time.
Just to give you an idea of how many meteorological events come through South Florida, since 1851 there's been 114 storms have made landfall in Florida, 37 of these are major. 41 of those have actually made landfall in Southeastern Florida. Of course the largest and probably most famous of that in Hurricane Andrew but then we have stuff like Wilma has passed through, Hurricane Sandy obviously was the most recent one. There was major destruction.
The destruction like I'd said originally in my original talk and David reiterated on was that the initial destruction of the protective seagrass beds that once protected much of the remains were damaged during that initial illicit looting attempt and because that grass is at the limit of it's ecological environment it could not, by itself, reproduce. Even attempts to replant grass in the area had all failed. Natural recolonization just, it never happened, and because of that the sea grass beds that protect the site have continuously eroded back, continuously exposing new previously in situ archeological material.
Again, we go back to our original plan. Now we've already talked a little bit about the documentation [of the] surviving hull structure, that documentation project in 2013, just kind of sought to determine the overall extent of the site, what's there, what's not. The other portions of the research done between 2013 and 2014, all pretty much throughout 2013 was to determine the environmental conditions on site and what we could do to preserve, if anything, what we should do. The method recommended was actually reburial and this was the site following stabilization 2014. There were a number of different ideas considered for this.
There was doing nothing, which obviously wouldn't really help the resource but in terms of funding that was probably the cheapest option, obviously. We had reburial with different material, we had the use of sand bags, we had the use of rock. We considered limestone armoring. All of these different materials, but this, the reburial in sandbags ended up being the most economically friendly and ecologically friendly alternative.
In late 2014 we actually supervised the placement of more than 13,000 individual sandbags on site. These sandbags were filled with local sediments that has been obtained from a local site, a quarry. They were hauled out, all on a very large barge and actually placed there, lowered onto the site or just off the site using what they call a bab which is a large sandbag. It can hold up to 15 or 20 of these individual sandbags and then hard-hat divers were contracted to individually place these on site. It wasn't like we just dumped all of this material out on site. They were very carefully placed as a protective covering.
Now, this is obviously not the most hardened solution. We had a lot of back and forth with the Army Corps and our biologist here at the park and a lot of the permitting regarding the type of fill material used and how to go about burying it. This is what was settled upon. I won't go too far into it just because it's not my expertise. This is the subject of Jessica Keller's paper and I would highly recommend if anybody's really interested to look that up. If you guys contact us I'm sure we can get a copy to you. This was our overall goal - is to attempt to preserve this site at least for the short term. Now we understand this was a short term solution to a more permanent problem but if we pretty much stood by and let the site degrade at the rate it was being destroyed at that in reality probably in the next 5 years there would be nothing left of it or at least nothing with any archeological integrity left.
This will probably remain in situ. We've been monitoring it actively throughout the past year since it's been put down. It is holding and we actually have some hope of ecological growth on it. We've actually have gone out there and started to see the growth of certain sea grasses that may be indicative that as long as there's not a major storm in the next year or two it might actually have a chance, the sea grass might be able to recolonize in this area. That's what we're hoping, but we do understand that this is not a long-term solution but rather just a kind of an attempt to save the site until something better, a better option or better solution is presented.
That being said how to you go about interpreting a site that is both closed and physically inaccessible to the public and this is where my research interest has come in a little bit more. There's difficulties in interpreting maritime cultural heritage, particularly submerged maritime cultural heritage. It's been a topic of numerous books. I recommended all three of these at SHA because all three of them are sold there and I bought all three of them. But it just seemed like a good opportunity - it was an opportunity to make a point that this is a very common topic within maritime archeology right now. It's a very current topic.
Just to go over some of the guiding principals that we thought of because a lot of people had come to us, especially here in the local community when they hear about this, right, they know the history, they know the tie to treasure hunting and how they kind of perceive the government is coming in and taking it away. The closure of this site and then the physical removal of access to this site all correlate. They say, "Oh well, the government came and took it from this guy. They made it where we can't go and then they made it where no one else could go." We want to try to take this opportunity and pretty much every opportunity that we have to interact with the public to let them know what our actual guiding principles are in some of this decision-making.
In that, the National Parks Service’s mission statement for those of you guys watching who are not with the National Park Service, is to promote the regular use ... the basic sentiment of it is to preserve both natural and historic resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. To go on top of that for those of you who are not archeologists, Principal 7 of the Society of Historical Archaeology Ethics Statement encourages education about archeology, strive to engage citizens in research process and publicly disseminate major findings of their research to the extent compatible with resource protection and legal obligations. In other words we want to try to incorporate as much as we can to involve the public, to the extent that we're not causing any more damage to a finite archeological resource.
These guiding principals are throughout most major codes of conduct. Here I've got a couple examples from the RPA - Registered Professional Archaeologists. Specifically, archeologists should be recognizing a commitment to represent archeology and it's research results for the public in a responsible manner, actively support conservation of the archeological research base and avoid and discourage exaggerating, misleading or unwarranted statements about archeological matters that might induce others to engage in unethical and illegal activity.
As you can imagine, these guiding principals are very difficult to successfully uphold in a place such as the Florida Keys which many are considered the birth of the treasure hunting culture, the treasure hunting capital of the world. We have Mel Fisher. We have Odyssey. We have all the 1733 Fleet. We have every component that you can think of that relates to treasure hunting and the destruction of cultural resources for the gain of a few, to the extent where you can't go to a gas station in the Florida Keys without that gas station having a cannon and an anchor and whatever else you can imagine that people have pried up off of the ocean floor. It's difficult and we have some of these difficulties.
These papers specifically, they kind of discuss how we have gone about approaching not necessarily the development of a public outreach program specifically for HMS Fowey but for all of our resources in this park. It just happens to be HMS Fowey is a good example of what we're trying to do. Obviously, one of the first things that we want to do as archeologists is to disseminate our research and our reports. Here we actually have a copy of Jessica Keller's report, the pre-stabilization report, and then a copy of the report which I have just discussed in the previous talk. Both of these are completed and are public record. Like I said, if anybody were to want to request these I'm sure we could get copies to you.
In the long run this is not really ... It leads itself to the argument of the town and gown and what I mean by that is a lot of people will say that archeologists do archeology for the sake of archeology. We're doing this for other academics. What does it mean to the people? There's a cognitive divide between the archeology that you do for other academics versus all of Miami, speaking of which, that's my view from work, a lot. Everybody on the web can be jealous. That is the actual site. That is Miami. It's a nice place to work.
What I'm getting at is that if we only do our publications, if we only do our technical reports then the only people that we're doing archeology for is other archeologists. It kind of leaves out a lot of the public in general, whereas, especially down here in Florida, we have a lot of potentially interested parties. We have local divers. We have other government agencies. We have people who are interested in history, Daughters of the American Revolution, I mean, just a ton of potentially interested people that we have to kind of cater to. We have to work to make sure that the work that we are doing here is relevant to these people, that it's important to them. We are government employees. We work for the American tax payer.
That's a challenge, is to first identify all of these potential stake holders. After a while, if you just work with the public in general but, for me, at least it tends to happen through the development of outreach programs, you start to get an idea of concerns within the local community. These at least for the South Florida area and even other areas, like I said earlier, I'm originally from North Carolina and a lot of these apply to the North Carolina coast particularity the Outer Banks as well but these are the concerns that we're getting within the local community, there's an overall lack of awareness.
They don't even know that Biscayne National Park is a national park. They think it's the water south of Miami. Then what we do here, whereas the only interaction they may have is with the law enforcement rangers telling them to turn their music down. They don't understand that we actually have a budding archeology program, that we work to preserve the resource. A secondary concern to that is a lack of product; they don't see what we do. A lot of them may think that we just hang out in our lab or work in our offices, produce government reports and do compliance. While that's probably 50 percent correct, we do try to get out.
Some more concerns is the ownership, particularly here in the Florida Keys. The ownership of any recovered artifacts, that is a big deal down here just because of the history with the development of treasure hunting and looting in the area. They also complain about lack of opportunities to participate which is often a very valid point. A lack of transparency and accountability within the government, these are all very common current themes.
Then a perception of underwater archeology programs, in general, whereas they may trust private entities, maybe not so much the federal government, the perception of which is often somewhere in between Indiana Jones and the Office Space, where I think it's pretty much Scuba Steve. I think it's pretty cool what we do, but perceptions reign supreme. The problem with a lot of these perceptions is they're not far off. This, obviously, is the famous shot from Indiana Jones of a large government warehouse full of artifacts. Unfortunately, the public often thinks that this is what we do with artifacts, we just go out and rip them up ourselves and then we keep them hidden away from the public view. Unfortunately if you were to approach this from the public perspective, this has actually happened and there's reason for this perception, within the general public.
Part of our job and it's a difficult part of our job, is to try to educate and often bring stuff back. Part of my job here is to work to bring artifacts out. We have a conservation lab here that we talked about a little bit earlier. We want to conserve artifacts but we don't want them necessarily to go to a government warehouse storage, SEAC, MWAC, wherever you might happen to store your artifacts. We want to make sure that we have a presentation to the public.
Part of what we've done here and this is a little bit dated just because this ones for SHA. We do have a very active public outreach program. These are the numbers for 2013-2014 but I can tell you that for 2014-2015 we actually increased our number of programs and the number of contacts. Pretty much, it's myself running that program but we probably have somewhere in the ballpark of 15 programs in which we make contact with over 1500 members of the public. This was done through a series of lectures, information booths, children's activities, stuff such as this, where it's more of a digital presence. I've done online lectures for universities across the nation. We're trying to keep up with getting the word out and talking to people and exposing them to archeology in the parks. I know for David and lot of the guys up at WASO it's a little different being in a regional office but down here we're very much exposed to the local community and the needs and the desires that they have, so we do our best to get out as much as possible.
We also have a Maritime Heritage Trail where we have six sites ranging from unidentified 19th century sailing vessel all the way up to a - the picture here is of the Mandalay which is our most recent wreck in the park, historical wreck at least, that went aground. It was a pleasure yacht that went aground New Year's Day 1966. We've been making recent additions to this trail, not necessarily in the sites even though we are considering one more addition. We maintain a series of mooring buoys so people don't actually have to drop anchor on these sites, they can go up and tie in. It makes it very easy to find. We have publications here at the park with numbers that basically give people a means to get out to the site.
Then, we've actually gone out and placed large stones. This is actually my boss, Charles Lawson, posing beside one of them with the bronze plaques detailing the history of the sites, very similar to what you can find in the publications. We're actively trying to make this stuff more accessible to the public and then, once the public is actually there, make it to where they can learn something so they know what they're diving on.
We also have a maritime conservation lab. This was actually established at the park headquarters building specifically designed to process archeological artifacts recovered from a marine environment. For those of you guys who are terrestrial archeologists, we just can't bring stuff up from a marine environment. Anything that's been submerged particularly in salt water for any amount of time has to undergo some sort of conservation treatment. This is a big deal in the Keys where people think they can go out and they find a cannon ball or they find whatever they may find off of a shipwreck. They bring it home because they think it's cool and they want to keep it and they want to tell their friends about it. Within a few months, it turns to dust because it wasn't properly conserved.
We actually will utilize this lab in tours. You can see the image. There's a mirror hanging up above these large conservation tanks. The story behind that is, I'm actually kind of short, so it helps me look, but this was actually placed here for children. We were running tours through the lab and we were taking middle and late elementary children through and I wanted them to be able to see what was in the tanks. So we rigged that mirror up so the kids could actually look up into the mirror and see what was down in the tanks. It does help me out a good bit. Another interesting fact is these tanks are the book shelves that were once on the wall. In a stroke of government ingenuity we have removed those from the wall, and rather than throwing them out we've ripped them down and made them water tight, so they are now conservation tanks. Just a good bit of government ingenuity at its finest.
We routinely do tours and public engagement within this lab, this is myself showing an artifact to a group of students and their parents. We will do a lot of these ad hoc as we have visitors and VIPs come into the park. If I'm working in the lab, I'll go ahead and give a tour. This particular group of tours is part of a Family Fun Fest which is a much larger community-based outreach program developed by our interpretation staff where we had more than 400 people actually pass through the lab. As myself being the only person there talking, I'd lost my voice by the end of the day, but I felt really good having been able to reach out to that many people.
In addition to our lab and the tours that we do there, we also have several museum-quality displays that are relatively new to the park. This is housed in our Dante Fascell Visitor Center and the collections that are on display here are maintained by the South Florida Collections Management Center. Primarily they're artifacts from the 1983 project just because that project is what had brought up the most. They're already conserved, well documented and all that. We're still in the process of documenting the artifacts that were recovered during the 2013 expedition, but our hope is that eventually we'll be able to swap these out over time.
We also have one of the cannons that was originally raised in 1983 on display, and this was a complaint that was specifically brought to me during a talk. I had attended a talk in Miami and I had an individual come to me and literally utilize the Indiana Jones parody where he said, "You know, you guys bring up all this stuff and I've never seen it," and I was able to point to this. This particular cannon was outside, it was outside on display for a long period of time when my boss Charles Lawson had come, maybe 2011, they pulled it off to have it re-conserved because the conservation treatment was failing. They had it re-conserved and then we built a custom-made, water-proof, environmentally controlled room to place this thing in to where it can be in the optimal conditions for what it is in South Florida. As of yesterday we have torn this room down because there were a number of deficiencies and we're actually rebuilding that to where it's up to as close to archival standards as possible.
You can also see that right beside it we have a wayside describing the sites on the Heritage Trail. This has since been replaced with ones specifically describing the work done on HMS Fowey, and the relation of the cannon to the site. Now, obviously like almost everyone in the world now, we also utilize social media, but I wanted to specifically talk about these four posts. I picked these very much on purpose. This is off of Facebook obviously, but the reason I picked this was for our project. The project was pretty much, the bulk of it was done in terms of excavation documentation and the vast majority of the work was done over the summer of 2013. What we did here was, the top left is a post from the Parks Services Submerged Resources Center describing some of the initial excavation units that were placed in. We were talking about the initial documentation project, basically just starting digging. If you go clock-wise around to the top right, again, this is the Submerged Resources Center, but this is the anchor that we found, so kind of a, "You know, we started digging on this site, we're documenting but look at what we have found."
Then the bottom left is a picture of us back-filling and as boring as back-filling may seem to some, it's always cooler under water because everything is always cooler under water. This is, literally, us back-filling the site after our work was done and then the final bottom right image is an image that I believe was in David's presentation documenting the final signing of the Memorandum of Understanding. The reason I wanted to put up these 4 up here was to exemplify that we're trying to be transparent in that we're showing every step of the process.
Every step of the project, every major milestone, even something as mundane as back-filing a hole is something that's interesting to somebody. We want to make sure that we promote that transparency and obviously you can't document every time you dig a shovel hole or a shovel test pit in your park, but the idea is there. Moving on, we also do other social media including Vimeo, this is a very popular video that was shot and put together by Brett Seymour, and the Submerged Resources Center but we utilize it as an opportunity to take people on a tour. Now again, I've said this site has been closed to the public since the early '90s and is now removed from physical access, buried, you can't access it,
I can't access it, but what we do here is we give the public an opportunity to take a tour with us, literally. This was shot in 2013 while we were documenting the site, prior to its reburial and we take the camera around to particular portions of the site and discuss features, archeological features, the significance of the site. We show the seagrass beds and how they're eroding, we show why we're doing this, what we're looking for, and some of the steps involved in basic underwater archeology.
It's another attempt to try to show people what we're doing and, obviously, we've done more with this. This paper was given at the Society of Historical Archeology but it's since been published in the Journal of Maritime Archeology so it's now in a peer reviewed journal, talking about our outreach efforts and the importance of archeological outreach. What we've been pushing throughout this entire endeavor is that we as archeologists have a responsibility to accurately interpret all the sites to all the interested parties and, particularly, in working with the government, transparency and accountability are paramount. Conservation efforts are going to be site and situation specific so, in our case with HMS Fowey it was a lot of the limitations that we had on our outreach we didn't necessarily want to take people out to the site just because of how sensitive it was, the presence of easily transportable artifacts, all of these things, but we wanted to cater it where we still had people interested in the site but still learning about our joint cultural heritage and they had that opportunity. Then we want to promote education and communal ownership of our cultural heritage because that, really, is the best way to ensure the development of a vested interest in the public and that's going to be the only way that we really go about saving these archeological sites, particularly those that have been subject to looting and damage and destruction throughout the Florida Keys and, really, throughout the world.
With that, I've placed up mine and my boss's contact information, feel free to complain to my boss. I'll take any questions.
Karen: Josh, thank you for that talk. There's a lot here for people to think about. Do we have any questions or comments for Josh? I have a question. Did you happen to catch the Maritime Cultural Landscape Conference?
Josh: I was there.
Karen: You were there!
Josh: I read a paper, but yes I was there and I participated.
Karen: I was not there. I listened to some of the papers live. I'm working my way through the recordings, I haven't gotten to yours yet. I was struck by how much your presentation today speaks to the challenges of interpreting what you can't see.
Josh: Absolutely. It's like I said, there's been books written on the subject. It's difficult, but it's something you can't teach in schools. I'm a recent graduate of East Carolina University's program in Maritime Studies, an absolutely astounding series of courses but this is something that, it just can't be taught. It really takes working in your local environment, working with your community to determine what it is that they want, what their concerns are as a community in terms of their cultural heritage and then also the ability to balance that with what has to happen with these resources. We have an ethical obligation to protect these resources for the betterment of future generations. That's not always necessarily in line with what the public wants done. It's a fine line, walking that balance.
Karen: I think Biscayne has extra challenges being close to an urban area and apparently a lot of people who don't agree with the way that you proposed to manage your resources, both natural and cultural resources, as I understand it.
Josh: Absolutely. The recent passing of our General Management Plan was the culmination of, I think, 15 years of work. A lot of that was trying to engage the public and trying to work on alternatives that were considered viable in the public mind. I think that we had a series of several dozen public meetings, we ... and this is not only just for cultural resources. We developed a fisheries management plan based off of this and a lot of other things, but I think there was something like several dozen meetings over the past several years, more than 40,000 unique comments, I mean they really did work to extend the hand to the public and try to gauge both their opinion and their concerns.
From a cultural resources standpoint, it is interesting, both being close to a major city in terms of how many people you have the potential to interact with, which I always think is a positive, but also the fact that Biscayne National Park was specifically established and set aside as a last frontier. Now, all the remainder of the Keys, for the most part, at least the Northern Keys are well developed. Like I said, I can see the skyline of Miami from my office. Biscayne National Park culminates in the last frontier out here. I like to think of it as a maritime frontier to where a lot of people think that just because they're a little outside of Miami, maybe stuff out here, maybe the laws don't apply because either you're under water or because you're not associated with Miami. It's another challenge - is having to deal with that in terms of trying to educate the public on what's appropriate and what's not - in terms of your archeological resources in a national park; educating the public that they're even in a national park is often a challenge out here. We have our plates full.
Karen: Yes, I can see that. Isn't there some sort of a Florida educational network?
Josh: Yes. The Florida Public Archeology Network, FPAN is a state organization. I'm not sure how it's technically associated, I don't think it's government, I think it's a educational outreach publication, but that's their main job is to educate the public. They do have underwater work and underwater components. With that I think they're kind of separated by regional districts throughout the state. Interestingly enough, we just had a - this PowerPoint's a little out of date - we've since done a series of training with local public and avocational archeology, I guess you could call it. FPAN was who it ran that for us, it was part of their SEAS Institute.
It was basically to teach the general public about underwater archeology and they got an opportunity to not only learn about how we do our jobs but then to go out in the park and test their skills on a historic shipwreck. That was yet another opportunity to extend the knowledge base out into the public, because like I said that is the best way to preserve our shared cultural heritage is to inform people and if they're going out and they're ripping copper bolts out of a shipwreck because they know that they can get $15 for the copper, you know that's not necessarily the best thing for the archeology, but if they understand the significance of both the archeological site and then the individual artifacts that make up that site, they might not do that. It's part of that attempt is to educate the public as much as possible and FPAN has been helpful in working with us and doing that.
Karen: I think that FPAN has also worked with BOEM and maybe NOAA on projects that they've done as well. If there are no other comments or questions. I am going to ... thank Josh once more for organizing all of this, it was a great series of talks and I want to remind people to join us on November 5th for a presentation by Jim Dixon on maritime colonization of the New World via Beringia and the Northwest Coast. I'll see you in two weeks. Goodbye everybody.
Description
Josh Marano, 10/22/2015, ArcheoThursday
Duration
37 minutes
Credit
NPS
Date Created
10/22/2015
Copyright and Usage Info