The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2006) 35.

1: 4–19
doi: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x

Cultural Site Formation Processes in Maritime Archaeology:

CULTURAL
M. Gibbs Publishing
Blackwell SITE FORMATION
Ltd PROCESSES IN MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY

Disaster Response, Salvage and Muckelroy 30 Years on

Martin Gibbs
Department of Archaeology, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry, University of Sydney 2006, New South
Wales, Australia

Thirty years after Muckelroy’s seminal 1976 paper on shipwreck site formation, research on the cultural processes which
contribute to the creation and modification of shipwrecks remains limited. It is proposed that by adopting a process-oriented
framework, we can integrate and synthesize the documentary, oral and archaeological evidence of human response to shipwreck
into a structure which parallels the physical progress of the disaster. Possible cultural responses to shipwreck are considered, from
pre-voyage planning through to post-impact salvage, including physical correlations potentially visible in the archaeological
record.
© 2006 The Author

Key words : salvage, site formation, cultural processes, shipwreck, disaster response, crisis.

I
t is 30 years since the publication of Keith
Muckelroy’s seminal paper ‘The integration
of historical and archaeological data concerning
an historic wreck site’ (1976). Generally considered
to be one of the first attempts to develop and
apply explicit middle-range theory for maritime
archaeology, the concepts proposed for modelling
shipwreck site-formation processes have been
widely embraced, as evident in the extensive citation
of Muckelroy’s 1976 paper and his more com-
prehensive 1978 volume (Gibbins and Adams, 2001).
However, despite Muckelroy having recognized
equally the roles of both cultural and natural
processes in site formation, most attention and
development of the schema has focused on the
environmental aspects over any human elements.
Three decades later, it is worth revisiting some
of the arguments raised by Muckelroy (1976)
regarding the role of cultural factors and possible
avenues for accessing information about them.
First, he emphasized the need to understand the
pre-wreck nature of a ship and its contents, as
well as behaviours during the wreck event and
subsequent salvage, both on- and off-site. He
suggested that in order to develop an understanding
of these for any wreck-site, the relationships
between the documentary, archaeological and oral
data-sets available to shipwreck archaeologists
had to be taken into account. In particular, critical
extraction and analysis of relevant information
would identify disparities or gaps in evidence
which could then provide the focus for further
attention, those discrepancies which later historical
archaeologists would refer to as ‘ambiguities’
(Deagan, 1982). Finally, the implication of the
1976 paper is that by exploring well-documented
and archaeologically-visible situations to examine
the processes of transformation from ship to wreck
and to wreck-site, generalized understandings
and frameworks could be developed to assist in
interpreting undocumented and/or archaeologically
less coherent sites.
The purpose of this paper is to expand upon
Muckelroy’s themes and to consider in greater
depth the range of cultural processes acting upon
shipwreck sites. Following a short review of
site-formation studies in maritime archaeology,
it proposes a structure for understanding the
behaviours involved in shipwreck events based on
the models used in disaster studies and emphasizing
the potential physical correlations and signatures
of each stage. It then examines the nature of different
forms and processes behind cultural removal of
material from shipwrecks, including the different
contexts of on-site and off-site ‘salvage’. In line
with Muckelroy’s original aims, it is suggested
that by employing a consistent framework in
examining shipwreck events, we can more effectively

© 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
 10959270, 2006, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
M. GIBBS: CULTURAL SITE FORMATION PROCESSES IN MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY

extract and synthesize information from the
different data-sets, compare and contrast between
sites, and consider the probable processes at less-
documented sites. In general, this paper presents
a case that the human behaviours before, during
and after a shipwreck, as well as the processes of
recovery of material and the long-term relationships
between people and wrecks, are worthy of attention
and study in their own right.
Site-formation studies in maritime
archaeology
Although the basic outlines of Muckelroy’s
systems-style shipwreck site-formation model are
well known (Fig. 1), it is still worth reviewing
both the overall structure of his approach and
later responses and developments (Muckelroy,
1976: 158). In Muckelroy’s schema, the wrecking
of a vessel constitutes a singular deposition
‘event’, with the assemblage (created from the
original ship’s structure and contents) transforming
through interaction with the environment from
an organized but dynamic state, to a disorganized
but stable form. The wreck event also equates to
the move from systemic to archaeological context
(Schiffer, 1987). Cultural and natural forces then
act upon the sites and assemblages, with the main
processes divisible into either ‘filters’ which extract
material from the assemblage, or ‘scrambling devices’
which rearrange patterns, including later deposition
of unrelated material on the site. What results is

Figure 1. ‘Flow Diagram to show the development of a wreck site’ (Muckelroy, 1976: 282).

© 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society 5
 10959270, 2006, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 35.1

Table 1. Categories of material comprising a ship

Category Materials

Cargo and Contents
Fixtures and Fittings
Minor Structural
Major Structural
Non-fixed items not associated with the mechanical operation of the ship and which were
meant to be removable, including the ship’s boats and life-rafts.
Minor fixed items, fittings, yards, chains, ropes, anchors and cannon, minor mechanical items
and equipment.
Items not normally removed, but whose removal would not compromise the integrity of the
hull, such as bulkheads, decks, masts, superstructure, major mechanical items and equipment.
Elements of the ship whose removal would affect the integrity of the vessel, including hull
planking, ribs and other structural items.

the wreck-site perceived by the archaeologist, who
then contributes to the process by his or her own
invasive activities.
As noted above, it has been the natural or
‘environmental’ transformations that have been
the focus for site-formation research (Muckelroy,
1978). The ‘disintegration of perishables’ and
‘sea-bed movement’ categories encapsulating the
physical, biological and chemical processes acting
upon specific shipwreck sites and their contents
have been extensively investigated (Murphy, 1997;
Stewart, 1999; Wheeler, 2002). This is perhaps
because these aspects are readily studied and
quantified using scientific analytical structures,
unlike the apparent vagaries of human behaviour.
In the last decade, several researchers have also
attempted to formulate generalized and universal
models of shipwreck disintegration that distinguish
processes from products and introduce a predictive
quality (McCarthy, 1998; Ward et al., 1998). Ward,
Larcombe and Veth (1999) have also identified the
value in retaining a process-orientated approach
that is applicable to both the wreck and its com-
ponents, and to this end produced their model to
reflect and integrate with Muckelroy’s original
flow-chart.
In contrast, the ‘process of wrecking’ and
‘salvage operations’ categories, which Muckelroy
(1976: 158, 166) identified as primary extracting
filters bearing on or negating any subsequent
natural site-formation processes, have only been
minimally examined. This is despite many of the
contributing authors in Gould’s influential Shipwreck
Anthropology (1983) reinforcing Muckelroy’s call
for intensive study of behaviours and cultural
transforming factors associated with ship-functioning,
shipwreck and its aftermath. Some researchers
responded to this, such as Keith and Simmons (1985)
in a study of the Molasses Reef wreck, which
extended the original Muckelroy model by actively
pursuing distinctions and impacts of ‘salvage in
antiquity’ versus ‘modern salvage’. Lenihan et al.
(1987) in their report on the Isle Royale National
Park wrecks took a different approach by con-
structing a life-history for each vessel, incorporating
‘construction’, ‘operational history’, ‘wreck event’
and ‘salvage’. The archaeological investigation of
each site considered both natural and cultural site-
formation processes, with consistent attention given
to the archaeological expressions of salvage. However,
neither group explored the implications of these
structures for wider comparative studies.
The late 1990s onwards has seen a renewed
interest in cultural factors affecting shipwrecks
and wreck assemblages. The most comprehensive
is Souza’s study of the Pulaski site in the Dry
Tortugas that identifies a range of influences
(1988). She considers ‘pre-depositional’ formation
processes (equated to Muckelroy’s ‘process of
wrecking’), incorporating factors such as risk-
minimization strategies and precautionary pre-
paration of vessels. Her ‘depositional’ and
‘post-depositional’ processes included discussions
of jettisoning, refloating of stranded vessels and
salvage prioritization by both contemporary
wreckers and modern divers (Souza, 1988: 43 – 8).
O’Shea’s (2002) analysis of wrecks in western
Lake Huron includes an evaluation of ‘pre-
depositional’, ‘depositional’ and ‘post-depositional’
processes. A recent publication by Auer (2004)
develops a life-history approach to the vessel
under study, as well as examining the context and
nature of the last voyage and the evidence of the
‘wrecking process’ during which salvage took place.
Several other recent published and unpublished
works have dealt with a variety of cultural
processes (for example McCarthy, 1996; McCarthy,
2001; Richards, 2002) and it is likely that this trend
will continue.
While both Souza’s (1988) and O’Shea’s (2002)
studies make significant advances in our under-
standing of cultural ‘scramblers’ and ‘extracting

6 © 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society

M. GIBBS: CULTURAL SITE FORMATION PROCESSES IN MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY
filters’, it could be argued that the ‘pre-depositional’,
‘depositional’, ‘post-depositional’ structure is
still primarily oriented towards explanation of
the archaeological deposition and distribution,
rather than the cultural processes behind them.
They are also very broad-fit approaches that,
while allowing the widest range of activities and
examples to be incorporated, do not really move
us towards a better understanding of shipwrecks
as cultural phenomena. O’Shea (2002: 214) in
particular raises a series of possible scenarios for
‘direct human intervention’, including salvage and
scavenging by the original crew versus that by
others including indigenous inhabitants, as well
as the temporal sequence of activities, but without
attempting to organize these further. I would suggest
that the alternative way of approaching shipwrecks
as cultural processes is to structure our under-
standing around the nature of the event and the
sequence and range of potential responses at each
stage.
Before proceeding, for the purposes of this
discussion it is useful to employ several devices to
simplify description. First is to recognize that
in broad terms there are (at least) two classes
of site commonly falling under the banner of
‘shipwreck’. Catastrophic shipwreck, which is the
focus of this paper, refers to an unintentional
vessel loss through collision, foundering, explosion,
structural defects, or any other process during
what can be considered a crisis event. Of course,
the extent of the crisis and ‘catastrophic’ aspect
might vary widely, from a vessel breaking apart
in a hurricane with loss of life, radical damage
and dispersion of structure and contents, through
to a slow but unintended running ashore or a
gentle settling in shallow waters from leaking seams.
However, the unintentional nature is perhaps the
defining characteristic.
In contrast, intentionally deposited (Stewart,
1999: 570) or abandoned (Richards, 2002) vessels
encompass a range of instances where the ship in
whole or part has been deliberately scuttled
or placed, has deteriorated in situ in a mooring,
beach, or storage context, or has been recycled
or transformed for other uses including memorial
or votive purposes (cf. Schiffer, 1987: 27–30).
The need for a distinction between catastrophic
wreck and abandonment is that it signifies several
potential differences in the range and order of
processes affecting the vessel and/or site. Although
the majority of the following discussion involves
catastrophic wrecking, it is important to acknowledge
that one class may transform into another, so that
© 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society
10959270, 2006, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
stages and processes may be shared. There are
also some grey areas, discussed below, in terms of
whether certain responses to catastrophe actually
constitute abandonment. The second device is to
simplify and characterize the components of a
ship’s physical nature into four basic divisions,
based on the relative ease with which items can
be removed and how they relate to the structural
integrity of the vessel (Table 1). These classes are
flexible and not strictly hierarchical, as a large or
heavy cargo item, or one situated in the lower
hold of the ship, might be substantially more
difficult to access and remove than lighter fittings
or structural elements situated elsewhere. However,
they allow us to view a vessel and its contents in
terms of the structures of salvage or other extractive
processes.
Disaster response and shipwreck site
formation
A possible structure for considering the cultural and
natural processes behind catastrophic shipwrecks,
as well as integrating the archaeological, docu-
mentary and oral data that records these events,
lies in the large and well-developed literature of
disaster studies. This body of research has shown
that regardless of the nature or specifics of disasters
(whether flood, fire, volcano, airplane crash or
indeed shipwreck), they can be viewed and
investigated within a process-oriented framework
of consistent stages that embraces both the physical
progress of the event and the behaviours that
take place in each phase. Since all disasters must
pass through these stages, albeit to a greater or
lesser extent, this framework also renders them
amenable to comparative analysis (Wallace, 1956:
2; Frederick, 1987: 76; Dynes and Tierney, 1994).
This is particularly critical for maritime archaeology,
as the lack of a comparative dimension remains by
far the most enduring failure of the sub-discipline.
Although there are several similar variations
on the disaster and response framework, for this
discussion we will follow Leach (1994), who has
proposed five major stages:
1. Pre-impact stage—the period before the disaster
event.
(a) Threat phase—when the possibility of disaster
is identified.
(b) Warning phase—when the disaster is
imminent.
2. Impact stage—during the disaster ‘event’ and
immediately afterwards.
7

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 35.1
3. Recoil stage—commencing when the immediate
threat to life has receded.
4. Rescue stage—when the person or group is
removed from danger.
5. Post-trauma stage—medium- to long-term
responses to the disaster.
The following sections expand on some of the
possible relationships of these phases to shipboard
activity, wreck formation and archaeological
signature (summarized in Table 2). While the
current paper outlines the model without reference
to specific examples, the reader is directed to three
case-studies where it has been successfully applied
to understanding specific wreck events; a 17th-
century Dutch East-Indiaman (Gibbs, 2002a;
Gibbs, 2003), a late-18th-century rum-trade vessel
(Nash, 2004), and a mid-19th-century immigrant
and cargo ship (Stanbury, 2003).
While the focus of the discussion is on how
cultural or behavioural aspects affect the material
nature of the site, it should also be borne in mind
that natural or environmental forces are operating
simultaneously, defining these stages, independently
acting upon the physical structure of the vessel
and its contents, and consequently influencing the
responses of the humans involved. An additional but
important note is that each stage also has a
psychological aspect underlying both individual
and group perceptions and response capabilities.
The psychology of individuals and groups in
identifying and responding to potential and real
risk, as well as during and after a crisis, has a major
influence on their abilities to make decisions and
act effectively or rationally. While basic elements of
the psychology of crisis response during shipwreck
are alluded to here, an extended discussion of how
these patterns might be discerned within historical
accounts of wrecks, and their possible impacts on
archaeological interpretation, is provided elsewhere
(Gibbs, 2002a).
Pre-impact
The potential for a wreck to occur, and the
cultural factors that influenced site formation,
could emerge long before the actual wreck event.
The pre-impact stage must therefore be scrutinized
for the first of the decisions and actions that will
ultimately generate or affect the archaeological
record. In Muckelroy’s 1976 paper it is quite clear
that he considered the pre-wreck nature of the
ship, sitting atop his flowchart and representing
the initial ‘input’ of the system, as very significant
(although one suspects that the little drawing of
8 © 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society
10959270, 2006, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
a ship has often been taken as a purely decorative
device). This concern was exhibited in his discussion
of the context of the 1664 voyage of the VOC
ship Kennemerland, its route, its equipage, and
the nature of the cargo and how it was loaded.
Most maritime archaeological reports represent
this stage to a greater or lesser extent in terms of
the known construction details and life-history of
a vessel, the general historical, social, economic
and technological contexts in which it operated,
and the specifics of the final voyage, its purpose,
its cargo and loading, including the composition
of the crew and passengers. While this sort of
discussion is usually employed to frame ambiguities
or other questions about the non-documented or
anomalous nature of the vessel structure and its
cargo, only rarely are these details placed into the
context of broader understandings of pre-wreck
cultural processes (see Gould, 2000: 2–6). In terms
of the progress of the wreck as a disaster it is
necessary to restructure this information into two
major phases within the pre-impact stage.
Pre-impact ‘Threat’ phase
The pre-impact ‘Threat’ phase has both a long-
and short-range aspect. The long-range aspect
was pre-voyage, starting with the collection,
organization and evaluation of information that
might ultimately contribute to the planning and
execution of a voyage. This amassing of knowledge
could potentially commence years in advance of
a specific departure, regardless of whether a round-
the-world exploration or a local fishing trip.
Response to known or potential conditions and
threats (or lack of understanding or response)
might have been expressed in numerous ways.
Most visibly, there was not only the design and
construction of a new vessel or the selection and
modification of an existing vessel, but also any
equipage and stowage, the selection of route, the
sailing strategy and potentially the season of
travel. Added to this was the choice of crew for
prior experience or particular skills, or efforts
to provide formal training prior to and during a
voyage. Officers, crew and passengers also engaged
in collection of their own information about the
voyage and destination, using both formal sources
and informal knowledge-structures such as seeking
out experienced persons, or gathering hearsay or
folklore. This could influence their decision to
join a voyage, the nature of their personal equipage,
or even decisions to obtain further training.
Whether a vessel was military, commercial or
passenger also influenced many of these elements.

M. GIBBS: CULTURAL SITE FORMATION PROCESSES IN MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY
Table 2. Responses during shipwreck crisis (after Leach, 1994)
Stages Examples of strategies, options and actions
Pre-impact Long-term
Threat phase Collection of information on
potential threats.
Decisions to take/avoid routes, develop sailing
instructions and seasonal restrictions
Design or modification of vessels and equipage
suitable to overcome potential threat
Selection or training of crew
Short-term
Changes to course, increased awareness
for lookouts, preparation or
stowage of equipment
Pre-impact Radical changes to course or attempts
Warning phase to slow, stop or turn, including
dropping anchor.
Jettisoning of some items.
Running ashore to avoid catastrophic impact.
Pre-impact abandonment possible but unlikely.
Possible intervention by external sources.
Impact Strategies and actions dependent
upon the nature of Impact
(catastrophic v. low-intensity).
Decision to remain aboard
Club-hauling (use of anchors) to pull off,
or driving over obstacle.
Jettisoning heavy items or cutting away masts in
order to re-float or save the structure.
Patching leaks until repairs can be made.
Decision to abandon a vessel
Lowering of the ship’s boats or lifeboats,
securing a line to shore, removal of people.
Rapid selection and removal of primarily
survival-oriented materials (‘Crisis Salvage’).
Initial post-disaster survivor landing site.
Recoil Establishment of survivor camp
Establishment of authority structure
and possible re-organization of population.
Organization of subsistence and rescue strategy.
Further selection and removal of materials
(‘Survivor Salvage’), assuming that a return to
the vessel is possible. Limited by available labour
and equipment.
Repair and re-floating.
Rescue and Complete abandonment of wreck and contents.
Post-Disaster Salvage depends upon accessibility of sites and
benefits versus cost, effort and time required.
Opportunistic salvage: short duration and intensity,
resulting in focus on particular types of material.
Legal rights to salvage unlikely.
Systematic salvage: over an extended period with
access to increased equipment and labour, including
recovery of all or part of the cargo, fixtures/fittings,
minor and major structure, or complete recovery.
Legal owner or agents of the wreck and materials.
© 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society
10959270, 2006, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Examples of physical and archaeological
signatures/consequences
Pre-depositional.
If strategies to avoid impact
are successful, this may result in there
being no archaeological evidence.
Where archaeological remains do exist,
these may exhibit evidence of Pre-impact
strategies to diminish or negate risk.
Pre-depositional.
Effective Pre-impact behaviours may
result in no arch evidence, or a debris
trail of jettisoned items, but no wreck.
Disposition of wreck and presence/absence
of materials may be indicative of pre-impact
awareness, preparedness and response.
Depositional
If Impact is negated, the vessel may be
recovered, resulting in no archaeological
remains or jettisoned materials only.
If unsuccessful, site may include ship’s
structure, cargo and human fatalities.’
Crisis Salvage’—absence of primarily
survival-oriented materials, including boats
from the wreck-site, or evidence of the same
at land sites (easily accessible contents and
cargo, fixtures and fittings).
Discard of human remains resulting
from post-impact mortality.
Post-depositional
Establishment of survivor camp.
Site structure reflecting survival strategies.
‘Survivor Salvage’ (cargo, fixtures, minor
structural) materials absent from wreck
site or located within land site.
Adaptation of materials and
foraging behaviour.
Evidence of human fatalities may
indicate unsuccessful strategies.
Possible removal of vessel.
Post-depositional
Establishment of salvage camp for
storage of salvaged materials and
habitation of salvage crew.
Evidence of removal or non-removal
of materials from wreck and land sites.
Removal of vessel.
Removal of cargo and fittings, through
to ‘Breaking’ and removal of minor
and major structural elements, leaving
only residual elements.
9

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 35.1
All of these factors and others inevitably contributed
to both the probability of a wreck event, responses
during it and the nature of the resultant assemblage.
Many of these elements can potentially be identified,
compared and contrasted, from either the historical
record, the location of the wreck, or the nature
and disposition of the archaeological deposits.
The short-term aspect of the Threat phase
occurred during the voyage, when it was understood
that a hazard or dangerous situation might be
close, but had not yet been fully realized as an
immediate danger. To take a popular analogy,
this equates to the shift from knowing that
icebergs might be possible and having broadly
equipped for this prior to a voyage, to receiving
notification or even seeing that icebergs are indeed
in the area. At this stage, participants were faced
with further decisions about whether and how
to respond in various behavioural and physical
ways. Alertness might be increased and other
on-board preparations made, depending on the
real or perceived nature of the threat. This could
range from simply maintaining a closer watch, to
changing speed or heading, altering sails, taking
frequent soundings, setting up anchors for rapid
deployment, securing cargo and materials, preparing
weapons, advising crew and passengers, or any of a
multitude of other actions (cf. Souza, 1988: 48).
Of course, it was also possible for an individual
or group to fail to recognize, misevaluate, or respond
inappropriately to threat, either through denial
of the threat or its nature, through feelings of
personal invulnerability, or even through other
calculations balancing risk against the potential
for financial or other gain. Several researchers
including Souza (1988) and Duncan (2000; 2004)
have discussed perceptions of risk by mariners,
and how this affects their decisions including
the use of known hazardous routes. Into this
category also fall testable situations such as
Murphy’s ‘one last voyage’ hypothesis, which
argues that ‘the more economically stressed a
ship-producing and -using group becomes, the
more extensive are the repairs performed on a
vessel, ultimately extending the ship’s use-life
beyond sensible retirement’ (Murphy, 1983: 75).
Souza (1988) also discusses decisions including
deliberate insurance fraud or ship-owners and
operators choosing to employ worn or unseaworthy
vessels, hedging the expense of the loss of cargo
against benefits from possible insurance claims.
Broader responses might also come from the wider
maritime community, such as removing, mitigating
or managing known threats, through regulating
10 © 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society
10959270, 2006, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
vessel design or equipage, marking hazards,
producing maps or sailing directions, or even
restricting voyages in certain seasons.
Pre-impact ‘Warning’ phase
To continue the analogy from above, the ‘Warning
phase’ could be considered to have commenced when
an iceberg was actually sighted immediately ahead.
It was quite possible for individuals to continue
to deny the existence of imminent disaster, such as
identifying surf directly ahead as moonshine on
the water (for example van Huystee, 1998: 1).
However, the warning phase can also see a shift
into over-activity, but often of a non-effective nature.
Prior training or experience could again make
the difference between effective response and
unproductive or even inappropriate behaviours.
Activity would be oriented towards avoiding
or mitigating the effects of the looming disaster.
Immediate responses might include radical
changes to course or attempts to slow or stop the
vessel, including dropping anchor(s). Some
jettisoning of heavy cargo or fittings including
anchors and cannon could even occur at this
stage in an attempt to lighten a vessel to avoid
impact or drive over an obstacle. If successful,
it was possible that jettisoned items might be
recovered soon afterwards (lagan), although
frequently they were left to enter independently
into the archaeological record. If in grave peril,
pre-impact abandonment of the vessel might even
occur. There might also be early intervention by
external agents, either official (such as pilots
or lifeboats), or unofficial (such as commercial
salvors, fishermen or other members of the
maritime community), although in many instances
this could mean placing themselves at significant
risk as well (for example Bathurst, 2005: 45). A
different form of pre-impact response may well
have been spiritual supplication. It has been
suggested that classical Greek texts even include
references to not just prayer, but human sacrifice
in order to avert imminent disaster. This took the
form of casting a member of the crew or a passenger
overboard, as an offering to Poseidon in surrogate
for the remainder (Rouse, 1901: 105).
In the broadest sense, the archaeological
signature of a successful pre-impact response is
the complete lack of a wreck. However, where a
wreck did result, evidence of long-range ‘Threat’
phase awareness might be evident in the structure
of the vessel, the manner in which it was
equipped (including the status, relevance or
currency of its technology), and other features,
 10959270, 2006, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
M. GIBBS: CULTURAL SITE FORMATION PROCESSES IN MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY

Table 3. Key definitions relative to wrecks and salvage (from De Kerchove, 1961)

Derelict 1. Goods or any other commodity abandoned or relinquished by its owner, specifically a vessel abandoned
at sea. A ship is derelict either by consent, compulsion or stress of weather.
2. Personal property abandoned or thrown away at sea by the owner in such a manner as to indicate that
he intends to make no further claim thereto. [To] constitute derelict in maritime law, in respect of salvage, it
is necessary that the thing is found deserted or abandoned upon the seas, whether it arose from accident or
necessity or crew desertion. The abandonment by the crew must be final without of recovery or intention to
return.
Flotsam When cargo is jettisoned, that which floats is called flotsam. Also a name for the goods which float upon
the sea when cast overboard for the safety of the ship or after the vessel has foundered.
Jetsam 1. Cargo which after being jettisoned remains under water. Goods which when cast out from a ship by way
of jettison sink.
2. Goods jettisoned for the preservation of the ship and cargo.
Jettison The act of throwing goods overboard to lighten a ship or improve stability in stress of weather or in any
other cases of necessity or emergency.
Lagan Any goods or other articles cast overboard from a sinking vessel and buoyed as to be subsequently
recovered. Also called ligan, logan.
Salvage The property which has been recovered from a wrecked vessel, or the recovery of the vessel herself. [679]
Stranding The destruction or loss of a vessel by its being sunk or broken up by the violence of the sea or by its striking
or stranding upon a rock, shoal or the like. The term stranding refers most particularly to the driving or
running aground of a vessel. It may be either accidental or voluntary. Voluntary stranding takes place where
the ship is run aground either to preserve her from a worse fate, or for some fraudulent purpose.
Wreckage Goods cast ashore after a wreck. Commonly jetsam, flotsam, lagan and derelict.
Wreck In its widest sense, anything without an apparent owner, afloat upon, sunk in, or cast ashore by the sea ...
includes jetsam, flotsam, lagan and derelict found on, or in, the shores of the sea or any tidal water
consisting of the hull, cargo or appurtenances of a vessel. ... The word wreck is also used in the meaning of
a ship cast ashore after being abandoned.

including the location of the wreck relative to
known or supposed sea routes. The disposition
of the wreck and its contents may be indicative
of the extent of pre-impact ‘Warning’ phase
awareness, preparedness and response. The angle
of a wreck relative to the reef or shore may be a
reflection of immediate pre-impact efforts to turn
or be hauled away, while jettisoning may explain
the presence of items at some distance away
from the main site, or in an unusual spatial
relationship. If the pre-impact behaviours were
completely successful, then they may result in
no wreck and no archaeological evidence, or a
debris trail of jettisoned items only. Pre-impact
abandonment of a vessel was also possible but
unlikely. Although ‘pre-impact’ also broadly equates
to the ‘pre-depositional formation processes’ of
Souza (1988) and O’Shea (2002), it embraces a
broader range of behavioural aspects, including
that some responses can lead to an absence of
wrecks or archaeological deposits. Conversely, it
should also be considered that in some cases there
was not a warning stage at all, with the first
indication of hazard being the actual impact.
Impact stage
The ‘Impact’ stage represented the phase when
life was in immediate danger. This could last
anywhere from seconds to hours, depending upon
the nature of the catastrophe and whether high
or low intensity (Leach, 1994: 25). The physical
impact itself could be either natural (such as wind
or swell) or the result of intentional cultural action
(such as illicit scuttling or sabotage, explosive
damage), or a complex combination of both.
Responses to Impact depended upon the specific
circumstances, as well as the extent of pre-impact
awareness and preparedness, and opportunities
to mitigate the effects of the disaster. Even with
a warning stage, during Impact the senses are
often overwhelmed and individuals may not be
able to process information effectively. Historical
accounts of wreck events commonly describe
or refer to the Impact in terms of a dominant
sensory experience, such as a loud sound, visual
distortions or a physical jolt. Even those individuals
trained or experienced in disaster response may
be temporarily overcome.
Disaster studies have shown consistent trends
within groups during the Impact stage, with only
a small proportion of people able to respond
immediately and effectively (usually less than
20%), while the majority (approximately 75%) are
bewildered, with their reasoning and thought
processes significantly impaired, resulting in
reflexive and mechanical behaviour. A small

© 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society 11

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 35.1
group (less than 10%) may behave irrationally or
inappropriately and even potentially increase the
confusion and danger, or be virtually paralysed
by anxiety and unable to respond physically
at all (Leach, 1994: 24). For the latter two
categories, both individual and group abilities to
respond ‘logically’ to an impending disaster and
its consequences are seriously impaired.
Such divisions within groups experiencing a
shipwreck are frequently visible in documentary
accounts, usually as commentary on the ineffectual
nature of individuals (especially the Master) or
sub-groups, or through reports of strangely
aberrant behaviour. For example, there are several
instances of crews aboard 17th- and 18th-century
VOC vessels responding to imminent destruction
by fatalistic attempts to rampage or drink themselves
into insensibility, rather than attempt to rescue
the vessel, the passengers or themselves (for example
van Huystee, 1998: 1; de Heer, nd). Sometimes
these actions may also be reinforced by informal
knowledge, beliefs or superstitions as to their
fate or likely chances of survival. The multiple
first-person documented accounts from Titanic
survivors provide an excellent resource for the
range of responses, especially the significant sense
of denial and the often curious mass reactions
during the progress of the disaster (for example
US Congress, 1912; Lord, 1956).
For those capable of rational consideration,
the range of strategies and responses during and
immediately after Impact represented a trade-
off between saving human life, saving cargo and
saving the vessel. Initial response could include an
evaluation of whether sinking or further physical
damage was imminent, as well as an assessment
of possible further responses, including the
decision to stay aboard or to abandon the ship.
Jettisoning heavy objects, such as cannons, anchors
or cargo in order to lighten a vessel were common
strategies in situations of dire jeopardy. Such
items might be thrown over unmarked (jetsam),
or marked with a buoy for later recovery ( lagan).
Although heavy items would sink directly, lighter
jettisoned items could float away immediately
(flotsam). The most serious jettisoning event was
cutting away the mainmast, which lightened
the ship and prevented it from acting as a pile-
driver which might smash the keel or bottom
(Muckelroy, 1976: 287), but effectively crippled
the ship. Quite clearly, jettison involved escalating
consequences and trade-offs surrounding the
economic viability of a voyage (ejecting cargo),
defensive capability (ejecting canon), the effectiveness
12 © 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society
10959270, 2006, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
of the vessel (ejecting fixtures and fittings and
structural elements such as the mast), and so on.
Further cultural actions during or immediately
after Impact might include attempting to patch
a hole until a proper repair could be effected,
running a leaking vessel ashore to prevent sinking,
or even running a sound vessel ashore in situations
where heavy seas made foundering extremely likely.
The decision to abandon a vessel, either
before or after the sorts of Impact stage actions
described above, would see a change in activity
including lowering of boats, flotation devices
or buoyant cargo, construction of a raft from
spars, or securing a line to shore (if possible).
Depending on circumstances, there might be a
rapid selection and removal of primarily survival-
oriented materials and personal items (‘crisis’
salvage), probably limited to the more accessible
cargo, contents, fixtures and fittings. However,
decisions might be tempered by individual per-
ceptions of value or include inappropriate items
at the expense of vital survival items, possibly
because of unstable mental processes resulting
from the stress of the crisis.
Recoil stage
In some instances of shipwreck, the Recoil stage
could follow very quickly after the physical
impact, especially in low-impact catastrophes
once it was realized that the vessel was unlikely
to sink immediately. Consequently, there was some
overlap in the actions that might occur within
the Impact and Recoil stages. In cases where the
vessel was abandoned during Impact, Recoil might
commence in the lifeboat, or when the survivor(s)
reached shore. Consequently, this stage might
also encompass the establishment of a survivor
camp if land was encountered. Leach (1994: 26)
suggests that the Recoil stage starts with confusion
and group fragmentation, followed by a slow
return to awareness, reasoning ability, recall and
emotional expression. For survivors in a lifeboat
or on an isolated island, this could be a period
where the original threat was removed or suspended,
but a new threat cycle potentially began.
If the ship remained accessible, that is, it was
ashore, on a reef or simply in shallow water,
survivors might initially consider the potential
for repair, re-floating on a high tide, driving over
the obstacle and back into deep water, or setting
anchors to attempt to haul the vessel off.
However, if re-floating or repair was not possible
because of damage or other circumstances, but
the wreck remained accessible (including not

M. GIBBS: CULTURAL SITE FORMATION PROCESSES IN MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY
Table 4. Themes for the study of survivor camps and factors
affecting salvage strategy
1. Re-establishment of authority, social structure and
camp organization
2. Relationship between wreck and camp locations
3. Subsistence strategies
4. Material culture, including adaptation of items
5. Shelters and structures
6. Health and mortality
7. Development of a rescue strategy:
a. Wait for rescue;
b. Walk away from the site;
c. Send a boat for help;
d. Construct a new vessel or repair original;
e. Establish a new settlement;
f. Integrate with indigenous community
8. Survivor camp as contact site—relationships with
indigenous groups
sunk too deeply), then it might be possible to
commence limited salvage (‘survivor salvage’).
However, all levels of salvage were restricted by
the human and technical capabilities of the survivor
group. In a previous paper I have suggested a
number of themes for the investigation of survivor
camps (Table 4), including the impacts of survivor
salvage upon a wreck, and the use, modification
and distribution of the materials recovered from
the vessel (Gibbs, 2003; Nash, 2004).
The Impact and Recoil stages are closest to
Muckelroy’s ‘process of wrecking’ phase, and are
equivalent to the ‘deposition’ phase of Souza
(1988). As for earlier stages, successful Impact
and Recoil responses might mean that the vessel
is recovered and no archaeological remains are
left. The re-floating of stranded vessels was
relatively common, in essence becoming
‘phantom’ shipwrecks. However, the sites of such
events might still be marked by jettisoned
material, or with anchors used to kedge or haul
the vessel, but which could not be recovered.
Unsuccessful strategies would result in an
archaeological site containing ship’s structure,
cargo and potentially human fatalities. Some
materials may have unusual dispositions relative
to the wreck site, such as being deposited away from
the main site, because of jettisoning or recovery
attempts. The absence of particular materials on
a wreck site for which there is no record of salvage
efforts might also indicate survivor salvage.
Rescue stage
The conclusion of the threat and disaster could
come as the survivors reached shore, boarded a
© 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society
10959270, 2006, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
rescue vessel or successfully repaired their own
vessel, marking a significant turning point in the
progression of events. As I have noted elsewhere,
for the survivors of a wreck who had potentially
experienced extraordinary circumstances or engaged
in extreme behaviours in the bid to survive, the
rescue event could involve a dramatic reversion
to familiar authority patterns, the need to justify
actions during the crisis, and the reality of impending
return to the normal social world (Gibbs, 2002a).
One of the significant aspects is that this is also
where many of the first documentary accounts of
the wreck event were generated, either written by
survivors themselves, or oral narratives recorded
by rescuers or others.
As suggested above, if a vessel remained
accessible during the Impact, Recoil and Rescue
Stages, the potential for survivors to conduct
salvage was limited by the human and physical
resources available on the ship. However, with the
arrival of rescuers, there would be extra resources
of equipment and labour to commence a far
more extensive and systematic retrieval of
material if required or desired. Indeed, the right
to conduct salvage formed one of the incentives
for another vessel to assist in rescue. Both rescue
and initial salvage could involve the use of a
variety of mechanisms, with potential for these
to remain on the site, especially if these efforts
proved unsuccessful. The broader patterns of
salvage are discussed below.
Post-disaster stage
The period after the conclusion of the disaster
event can once again be depicted in short,
medium and long-term phases. For the survivors
of the wreck, now removed from the site, the
post-trauma/post-disaster stage could be a
period of physical recovery and psychological
adjustment, with post-traumatic stress leading to
anxiety, depression and psychosomatic disorders
(Leach, 1994: 28). The relevance for our
understanding of shipwrecks and the data-sets
that inform on them is that this was also the
period when most of the primary documentary
accounts were produced, written by the survivors
or narrated by them to others, including official
agents, newspapers, friends or others (Gibbs,
2002a; Gibbs, 2002b). Shipwreck survivor tales
are in fact so common (sometimes linked to
longer pieces on other maritime or castaway
experiences) that they form a significant genre of
travel narrative in their own right. In addition to
serving as validation and justification of events,
13

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 35.1
including mitigating culpability or as a means
for generating income, fame or notoriety, it
might be suspected that for many the writing or
narrating process also served as an informal
mechanism for therapy or rehabilitation.
Bearing this in mind, it would suggest that many
documentary sources require careful and critical
consideration.
In the Post-disaster stage, the derelict of the
former vessel, including its structural elements,
cargo and contents, and even any mortal remains
of its crew, might be progressively dispersed
over a wide area. This could include a trail of
jettisoned items (jetsam), the main wreck-site, as
well as a wider dispersion of elements such as
the broken-up ship structure or other jettisoned
items that had floated away (flotsam) from the
main site. Flotsam could potentially travel hundreds
of kilometres, before sinking, washing ashore, or
becoming buried.
Post-disaster cultural impacts on shipwrecks
were many and varied, dependent on the accessibility
of the wreck-site, the time and effort required,
and the real and perceived benefits versus costs.
While Muckelroy (1976: 282) depicted a single
‘salvage operations’ category, Keith and Simmons
(1985) distinguished ‘salvage in antiquity’, which
includes what I have referred to above as crisis
salvage, survivor salvage and work by wreckers soon
after the wreck event, versus ‘modern salvage’ in
the recent past, often involving technologies
and priorities not available to earlier operators.
McCarthy (2001: 93) differentiated between
‘primary salvage’, being the recovery of materials
by their owners, operators or agents, and
‘secondary salvage’ which is the action of
professional salvors or sports divers in recent
times. These categories are problematic, as a
purely temporal distinction fails to allow for
continuing access to a wreck, whereas primary/
secondary places emphasis on legality and does
not encapsulate the range of possible access to
both the wreck proper and wreck products
off-site. However, they can be supplemented or
modified by the following distinctions:
Opportunistic salvage—Non-systematic removal
of vessel contents could commence very quickly
following the wreck event (in some circumstances
starting in the recoil stage). Frequency of
opportunistic salvage was dependent upon the
situation and accessibility of the wreck, as well as
on proximity to land and settlements. Since this
was likely to be undertaken by people who had
neither a direct link to the vessel (that is, they
14 © 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society
10959270, 2006, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
were not survivors), nor legal rights to remove
material (akin to McCarthy’s ‘secondary’ salvage),
opportunistic salvage can be characterized as
low-intensity and short duration, focusing on
accessible fixtures, fittings, and minor structural
elements but not major structural items. However,
this sort of impact on wrecks and wreck material
could occur sporadically and repeatedly over a
long period.
Systematic salvage—Following the conclusion of
the disaster event, rescuers or professional salvors
could approach a ship with time, workforce and
technology to undertake an intensive and sustained
effort to remove all or some of the cargo, fittings,
minor and major structural elements. Systematic
salvage was most likely carried out by the owners
of the vessel or their authorized agents (McCarthy’s
‘primary’ salvage). However, this was not be an
absolute condition since in some circumstances
contemporary salvors without ownership rights
could extensively strip a vessel or site, as could later
persons and groups (including archaeologists).
Opportunistic Salvage and Organized Salvage
could occur in several cycles and in either order,
extending from the immediate post-wreck period
(‘antiquity’) through to the present. Whether
salvage occurred, what type, and to what extent,
also depended upon changing perceptions of a
wreck’s economic, social and other values, as
well as changing technological capabilities for
accessing the site. As Muckelroy (1978: 166)
observed, there are some sites where salvage
was impossible because of remote location or
depth, at least until very recent times. Post-disaster
salvage could range from minor removal of
remaining cargo and contents or minor fixtures
and fittings, through to ‘breaking’ to remove
some or all of the material. Archaeologically, this
might be indicated by evidence of major and
minor structural elements being cut away, or
simply by an absence of some elements while
adjacent elements are intact and in place. There
could also be complete recovery through repair
and re-floating, removing the vessel and contents
elsewhere for further repair, to a storage context,
or for breaking in more secure or better-equipped
circumstances. There would also potentially be
decisions to abandon in situ either immediately
(that is, not to salvage) or abandon once the
remaining materials were no longer considered
economically viable. A decision could be made to
remove the remaining structure for intentional
deposition such as to a ‘ship’s graveyard’, or for
re-use such as for a breakwater or landfill,

M. GIBBS: CULTURAL SITE FORMATION PROCESSES IN MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY
overlapping the processes of abandonment and
intentional deposition (cf. Richards, 2002). The
mechanisms of unsuccessful salvage attempts,
particularly of submerged vessels, may also be
visible on the site, either in the form of introduced
artefacts, as modifications to the structure of the
wreck or changes to the immediate landscape
(to facilitate removal), or evidence of further
movement or alteration to the disposition of
the wreck (possibly contrasting to reports of the
wreck event). For instance, the wreck of the City
of Launceston includes evidence of Macquay
patent lifting devices, abandoned on the sunken
deck after an 1866 recovery attempt failed
(Strachan, 2000: 25).
Most archaeological commentary on wreck
salvage has focused on the core site containing
the remnant structural remains (the derelict).
However, similar distinctions between Systematic
and Opportunistic salvage can be applied to
off-site materials, especially since considerable
quantities of material could wash ashore from
near-shore wrecks. Collection of wreck products
from beaches could involve the legal owners,
their agents, or relevant government or legal
authorities, usually in the period shortly after the
wreck event. Alternatively, local communities
without legal claim might still conduct extensive
clandestine collections in the short term soon
after the wreck, but also forage for materials at
the wreck or from the beach over an extended
period. In the latter case this may have taken
on a seasonal aspect as winter storms or other
forces resulted in further disintegration of wreck
structure, or the freeing and movement of further
cargo or materials. Wreck material, systematically
salvaged from the derelict or from flotsam
collected from the beach, could also be gathered
ashore in salvage camps, especially where extended
operations or considerable quantities of material
required a shore base. Since these sites were
composed of wreck materials transferred ashore
(presumably those items left behind by salvors as
too difficult to move, of insufficient value, or
simply beyond the capacity of the salvage vessel),
they could superficially have an archaeological
signature similar to a survivor camp. In some
instances the salvage camp might even be developed
on the same site as a survivor camp, and in wreck-
prone areas such as near Tororu Island in the
Caribbean, multiple survivor and salvage camps
covering different wrecks over a century or
more can be located in close proximity
(Throckmorton, 1992).
© 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society
10959270, 2006, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Finally, legality or illegality could significantly
influence the methods and processes of salvage
of wrecks and materials, both in the water and
on land, because of the need to perform such
activities covertly. Further legal aspects of on-
and off-site salvage are discussed below.
Salvage processes
The above discussion has attempted to depict
the cultural or behavioural elements contributing
to a shipwreck as a series of stages, such that
not only the original nature of the ship and its
operation is considered, but that the different
stages and forms of removal (or ‘extraction’) of
material elements is also structured. While Table
2 provides detail of each stage, Figure 2 models
cultural processes in the same flowchart style as
Muckelroy (1976) and also parallels the more
recent work on natural formation processes of
Ward, Larcombe and Veth (1999). While simple
linear relationships rarely occur in reality, Crisis
Salvage and Survivor Salvage, and to a lesser
extent jettisoning, are bound in a fixed order to
the wreck event and the immediate post-wreck
period. As noted above, Opportunistic Salvage
and Organized Salvage could alternate and
occur repeatedly over an extended period.
However, a wreck may be subject to one or all of
these cultural processes, not experience certain
stages, or sustain repeated salvage efforts of various
kinds, depending upon historical, locational,
environmental and legal factors. These link
closely to Schiffer’s (1987) notions on the various
kinds of shifts from archaeological context
back to systematic context, such as ‘re-use’ or
‘recycling’, as well as ‘secondary use’ of materials.
However, the cultural processes are also concurrent
with dynamic natural formation processes
transforming the vessel’s structure, artefacts and
accessibility in general, all occurring at varying
rates, depending upon the wreck environment.
All of these factors would bear on what was
available to salvors at any given time, as would
their relative perceptions of ‘value’ and their
technological capabilities to undertake salvage.
While the purpose of this paper is to look at
generalised processes of behaviour related to
shipwreck and salvage rather than the cultural,
technological, and legal organization or capabilities
of specific groups or times, it is worth recognizing
that such structures did exist. Although certain
elements of behaviour associated with shipwreck
owe much to basic human response to crisis, there
15
 10959270, 2006, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 35.1

Figure 2. Cultural factors in shipwreck site formation.

were attempts to codify the range of acceptable
responses and responsibilities, such as through
naval or company regulations and directions.
Similarly, the ownership of the resulting wreck
materials and rights of salvage at sea and on
shore were potentially bound to both formal
legal frameworks and customary practices. For
instance, historical European salvage laws, as well
as much modern salvage law, can trace ancestry
to Roman maritime laws (such as the Lex Rhodia
de Jactu) and subsequent other laws, statutes and
precedents (Britannica, 1911).
Sixteenth- and 17th-century texts cite well-
developed historical and legal precedents, defining
the nature of wreck and resulting classes of
material, as well as processes and conventions
for assistance in distress, abandonment of vessels,
jettison and running ashore, legal claims to

16 © 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society

M. GIBBS: CULTURAL SITE FORMATION PROCESSES IN MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY
vessels and contents, rights to salvage or reward,
punishments for illegal acts, etc (for example
Molloy, 1677; Steel, 1796). The 1911 edition of
the Encyclopaedia Britannica (now available on-
line) also provides comprehensive descriptions
of these historical linkages under its ‘wreck’ and
‘salvage’ entries. The archaeological remains of
salvaged vessels therefore potentially encode the
frameworks of past legal salvage practices. Many
of the definitions that appear in early documents
on shipwreck and salvage are still relevant and
used in current legal forms, for instance, a
‘Wreck’ is defined as follows:
In its widest sense, anything without an apparent
owner, afloat upon, sunk in, or cast ashore by the
sea ... the term ‘wreck’ includes jetsam, flotsam,
lagan and derelict found on, or in, the shores of the
sea or any tidal water consisting of the hull, cargo
or appurtenances of a vessel. The word wreck is
also used in the meaning of a ship cast ashore after
being abandoned (De Kerchove, 1961: 925).
A selection of legal definitions relative to
wreck and salvage is included in Table 3. These
terms and their equivalents in other European
languages have clearly had relevance for some
centuries, as have the various legal structures and
strictures in which they have been employed, as
outlined in the sorts of manuals mentioned
above.
One of the glaring omissions in maritime
archaeological research is that, apart from site-
specific considerations of individual documented
salvage activities, there have been no attempts to
analyse either documentary or archaeological
evidence for the general priorities, processes and
mechanics of wreck salvage. In the discussion
above, the different forms of salvage activity have
been linked to broad priorities and capabilities,
such that ‘crisis salvage’ focused on easily removable
cargo and contents for survival purposes, ‘survivor’
and ‘opportunistic salvage’ might have included
cargo, contents, some fittings and minor structure,
while ‘systematic salvage’ accessed all levels.
However, critical review of the available evidence,
particularly the vast body of documentary
sources, is required to determine the actual range
of items and elements likely to be removed, in
what order and how, in different periods, cultures
and circumstances. This is particularly true for
systematic salvage, which was the most formal
and structured, potentially removing significant
quantities of materials and even the whole of the
vessel or its derelict. There would have been a
© 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society
10959270, 2006, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
range of established techniques, as well as attempts
to evolve new techniques. ‘In each instance, the
archaeologist must assess both the problems
which would have faced any contemporary salvors
and their ability to overcome them, and decide
which parts of his [sic] site are most likely to have
been interfered with’ (Muckelroy, 1978: 166).
Shipwreck salvage in whole or part represented
a weighing of costs, whether time, resources, or
threat to life, against the perceived or supposed
economic, social or strategic benefits of successful
recovery of material. There were clearly priorities
in what to take, and decisions on what to leave.
Failure to salvage, performing only limited salvage,
or abandoning a wreck completely, presumably
came when the remains fell below a marginal value.
Finally, there was also overlap into processes
of storage, re-use, intentional deposition and
abandonment, although these have been considered
elsewhere (Stewart, 1999; Richards, 2002). Although
beyond the scope of the current discussion,
psychological factors can also bear on long-
term relationships of survivors, descendants or
communities to disaster sites, especially where
there has been loss of human life and the wreck
takes on a memorial quality (Gibbs, 2005).
There are instances both past and present where
such recognition has prevented what might be
considered effective or total salvage (for example
Ballard, 1987: 210).
The nature of coastal communities is particularly
important when considering short- and long-
term cultural factors associated with shipwrecks.
The people who responded to distressed vessels,
manned pilot or lifeboats, undertook rescue, saved
lives, cared for survivors and buried the dead, were
also the people who would bargain ferociously
with masters for salvage agreements and conduct
the salvage on sea or land (both legal and illegal,
opportunistic and systematic) (for example
Benham, 1980; Bathurst, 2005). For some
individuals and groups in coastal communities,
and regardless of (or despite) formal legalities,
long-term relationships could be developed
with shipwrecks as economic and social resources
(Duncan, 2000; Duncan, 2004). Knowing where
wreck-sites and shoreline flotsam-traps are
located, as well as what these might contain and
the best seasons and processes for accessing this
material, could take on the aspect of ‘traditional’
knowledge and practice (cf. Knowles, 1997).
Added to this might be the mechanisms for the
use or disposal of salvaged material, especially
illicitly-collected items, all of which contribute to
17
 10959270, 2006, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 35.1

the trajectories of materials and artefacts away
from a shipwreck site, beyond the structures of
‘formal’ wreck salvage.
Conclusions
Although the focus of this essay has been a
reflection on Muckelroy’s 1976 paper, it is worth
recalling the consideration of the nature of
maritime archaeology that opened his 1978 book:
Above all, it should be noted that the primary
object of study is man [sic] ... and not the ships, cargoes,
fittings or instruments with which the researcher is
immediately confronted. Archaeology is not the
study of objects simply for themselves, but rather
for the insight they give into people who made or
used them ... maritime archaeology is concerned
with all aspects of maritime culture; not just technical
matters, but also social, economic, political, religious
and a host of other aspects. (Muckelroy, 1978: 4)
Given Muckelroy’s obvious concern with the
role of cultural agents in shipwreck site
formation, it is ironic that even while recognizing
the value of his work, maritime archaeology has
failed to develop the means for obtaining greater
insights into these processes. The disaster-
response model proposed here hopefully provides
an extended structure for understanding cultural
actions before, during and after the wreck event,
as well as allowing them to be integrated with
the natural processes. This framework means that
the sometimes fragmentary oral, documentary
and archaeological data-sets can be critically
evaluated and synthesized into a logical sequence,
while identifying ambiguities requiring further
attention. It also articulates some of the links
between shipwrecks and other maritime subcultures
on land and at sea, particularly through the
processes of rescue, formal salvage, as well as
informal movement of materials away from the
wreck site. Finally, it is hoped that the model
proposed here facilitates not only re-analysis of
existing sites, but comparison between wreck
and salvage events in order better to understand
and generalize about the cultural behaviours
surrounding shipwrecks.

References
Auer, J., 2004, Fregatten Mynden: a 17th-century Danish Frigate Found in Northern Germany, IJNA 33, 264–80.
Ballard, J., 1987, The Discovery of the Titanic. New York.
Bathurst, B., 2005, The Wreckers: A story of killing seas and plundered wrecks, from the 18th century to the present day. New York.
Benham, H., 1980, The Salvagers. Colchester.
Britannica 1911, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Cambridge. (available on-line at <http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/> accessed on
20/10/2004).
Deagan, K., 1982, Avenues of Inquiry in Historical Archaeology, in M. Schiffer (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory 5, 151–77. Sydney.
de Heer, C., nd, The Wreck of the East-Indiaman Zeewijk at the Abrolhos Islands in the year 1727: A translation of the ships
journal, with a short introduction and notes. MS on file, Western Australian Maritime Museum, Fremantle.
de Kerchove, R., 1961, International Maritime Dictionary. New York.
Duncan, B., 2000, Signposts in the Sea: An investigation of the shipwreck patterning and maritime cultural landscapes/seascapes
of the Gippsland Region, Victoria. Unpublished B.Soc.Sci. (Hons) thesis, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
Duncan, B., 2004, Risky Business: An Investigation of the Role of Risk in the Development of the Cultural Seascape of the
Gippsland Region of Victoria, Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology 28, 11–23.
Dynes, R. and Tierney, K., 1994, Disasters, Collective Behaviour, and Social Organization. Newark.
Frederick, C., 1987, Psychic trauma in victims of crime and terrorism, in G. VandenBos and B. Bryant (eds), Cataclysms,
Crises and Catastrophes: Psychology in Action, 59–108. Washington.
Gibbins, D. and Adams, J., 2001, Shipwrecks and maritime archaeology, World Archaeology 32.3, 279–91.
Gibbs, M., 2002a, Behavioural models of crisis response as a tool for archaeological interpretation—A case study of the 1629
wreck of the VOC Ship Batavia on the Houtman Abrolhos Islands, Western Australia, in J. Grattan and R. Torrence (eds)
Natural Disasters, Catastrophism and Cultural Change, 66–86. New York.
Gibbs, M., 2002b, The Enigma of William Jackman ‘The Australian Captive’—Fictional character or shipwreck survivor?
Great Circle—Journal of the Australian Society for Maritime History 24.2, 3–21.
Gibbs, M., 2003, The Archaeology of Crisis: Shipwreck Survivor Camps in Australasia. Historical Archaeology—Journal of
the American Society for Historical Archaeology 37.1, 128–45.
Gibbs, M., 2005, Watery Graves: When Ships become Places, in J. Lydon and T. Ireland (eds), Object Lessons, 50–70. Melbourne.
Gould, R. (ed.), 1983, Shipwreck Anthropology. Albuquerque.
Gould, R., 2000, Archaeology and the Social History of Ships. Cambridge.
Keith, D. H. and Simmons, J., 1985, Analysis of Hull Remains, Ballast and Artefact Distribution of a 16th-Century
Shipwreck, Molasses Reef, British West Indies, Journal of Field Archaeology 12.4, 411–24.
Knowles, J., 1997, Traditional Practices in the Tasmanian World Heritage Area: A study of five communities and their attach-
ment to place: Report for the Steering Committee of the Traditional Practices in the World Heritage Area Project. Hobart.

18 © 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society
 10959270, 2006, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00088.x by South African Medical Research, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
M. GIBBS: CULTURAL SITE FORMATION PROCESSES IN MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGY

Leach, J., 1994, Survival Psychology. Sydney.

Lenihan, D., Murphy, L., Labadie, C., Holden, T., and Livingston, J., 1987, Shipwrecks of the Isle Royale National Park: The
archaeological survey. Southwest Cultural Resources Center Professional Papers No. 8. New Mexico.
Lord, W., 1956, A Night to Remember. London.
McCarthy, M., 1996, SS Xantho: An Iron Steamship Wreck—Towards a New Perspective in Maritime Archaeology. Unpub-
lished PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld.
McCarthy, M., 1998, Australian Maritime Archaeology: Changes, Their Antecedents and the Path Ahead. Australian Archaeology
47, 33 – 8.
McCarthy, M., 2001, Iron and Steamship Archaeology: Success and Failure on the SS ‘Xantho’. New York.
Molloy, C., 1677, De Jure Maritimo et Navali, or, A treatise of affairs maritime and of commerce in three books. London.
Muckelroy, K., 1976, The Integration of historical and archaeological data concerning an historic wreck site: The ‘Kennemer-
land’, World Archaeology 7.3, 280–89.
Muckelroy, K., 1978, Maritime Archaeology. Cambridge.
Murphy, L., 1983, Shipwrecks as database for human behavioural studies, in R. Gould (ed.), Shipwreck Anthropology,
65 – 90. Albuquerque.
Murphy, L., 1997, ‘Site Formation Processes’ in J. Delgado (ed.) Encyclopedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology,
386–8. London.
Nash, M., 2004, Investigation of a Survivors Camp from the Sydney Cove Shipwreck. Maritime Archaeology Monograph and
Reports Series No. 2, Dept of Archaeology, Flinders University. Adelaide.
O’Shea, J., 2002, The archaeology of scattered wreck-site: formation processes and shallow water archaeology in western Lake
Huron, IJNA 31.2, 211–27.
Richards, N., 2002, Deep Structures: An Examination of Deliberate Watercraft Abandonment in Australia. Unpublished PhD
Thesis, Flinders University, South Australia.
Rouse, W. H. D., 1901, Sacrifice to avert shipwreck. Folklore 12.1, 105.
Schiffer, M., 1987, Formation Processes in the Archaeological Record. Tucson.
Souza, D., 1988, The Persistence of Sail in the age of Steam. New York.
Stanbury, M., 2003, The Barque Eglinton: Wrecked Western Australia 1852—The history of its loss, archaeological excavation,
artefact catalogue and interpretation, Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology Special Publication No.13. Fremantle.
Steel, D., 1796, The Ship-master’s assistant and owner’s manual: containing complete information, as well to merchants, masters
of ships, and persons employed in the merchant service … (7th edn). London.
Stewart, D., 1999, Formation Processes affecting submerged archaeological sites: An overview, Geoarchaeology: An Interna-
tional Journal 14.6, 565 – 87.
Strachan, S., 2000, Silts in the Sight Glass: Protectors and raiders of the SS City of Launceston 1863–1865. Melbourne.
Throckmorton, P., 1992, North Caribbean Research—Tororu Island. Reproduced on Anglo-Danish Maritime Archaeological
Team Website. 4/27/2005. www.admat.org.uk/tororu.htm. Accessed 10/5/2005.
US Congress, 1912, Hearings of a Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee Pursuant to S. Res. 283 directing the
Committee on Commerce to investigate the causes leading to the wreck of the White Star Liner ‘Titanic’, 62d Congress United
States, 2d Session, 1912.
van Huystee, M., 1998, The Batavia Journal of Francisco Pelsaert. Algemeen Rijksarchief [ARA], The Hague, Netherlands
Document 1630:1098 QQII, fol. 232 – 316. Trans. and ed. M. van Huystee, Department of Maritime Archaeology, Western
Australian Maritime Museum. Fremantle.
Wallace, A., 1956, An Explanatory Study of Individual and Community Behaviour in an Extreme Situation: Tornado in Worcester.
Disaster Study Number 3, Committee on Disaster Studies, Division of Anthropology & Psychology, University of
Pennsylvania.
Ward, I., Larcombe, P., and Veth, P., 1998, Towards new process-orientated models for describing wreck disintegration,
Bulletin of the Australian Institute of Maritime Archaeology 22: 109–14.
Ward, I., Larcombe, P., and Veth, P., 1999, A new process-based model for wreck site formation, Journal of Archaeological
Science 26, 561–70.
Wheeler, A., 2002, Environmental Controls on shipwreck preservation: The Irish context, Journal of Archaeological Science
29, 1149 – 59.

© 2006 The Author. Journal Compilation © 2006 The Nautical Archaeology Society 19