Most recent
Danielle J. Riebe, Ashley K. Lemke, Jeffrey R. Ferguson, Alex J. Nyers, Elizabeth P. Sonnenburg, Brendan S. Nash, John M. O’Shea 2022, Chapter 2. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Role of Inter-Laboratory Collaborations in a Lake Huron Archaeological Discovery. In Obsidian Across the Americas. Compositional Studies Conducted in the Elemental Analysis Facility at the Field Museum of Natural History, Gary M. Feinman, Danielle J. Riebe (Eds.), Archeopress, Pre-Columbian Archaeology 17, pp 7-16, DOI 10.32028/9781803273600
“Archaeometric techniques are used in every facet of modern archaeology: from site discovery to laboratory analysis. The
increased incorporation and adaptation of various technologies and their scientific applications has resulted in new lines of
evidence for understanding past behavior. However, the rapid ascent of new techniques into archaeological science has also
resulted in a multitude of issues related to technique accessibility and/or applicability, measures of quality control, and use
and interpretation of resultant data. One way to mitigate these issues is through increased inter-laboratory collaborations.
Generally speaking, most inter-laboratory studies are conducted to illustrate the reproducibility and replicability of results
between instruments/facilities, while overlooking how these types of collaborations can bolster archaeological research and
refine results through multiple discrete analyses. After briefly discussing the history of science in archaeology, this paper will
present a case study featuring an inter-laboratory collaboration between three archaeological science facilities in the United
States to study obsidian recovered from a submerged early Holocene site in Lake Huron. This collaboration allowed for the
determination that the obsidian originated from a geologic source in Oregon located over 4,000km away. The results highlight both the need and the significance of collaborative archaeological science.” (Riebe et al. 2022:7)
Lemke and O’Shea 2022, Drowning the Pompeii Premise: Frozen Moments, Single Events, and the Character of Submerged Archaeological Sites. World Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2022.2077828
The archaeology of inundated cultural landscape sites is not new and is an important component of the global record, yet these sites are distinct from shipwrecks and other site types underwater. Just as on land, underwater sites are subject to a dynamic range of formation processes, which must be analytically controlled. However, there are lingering misconceptions about underwater sites, specifically how they are formed, how much has been preserved, and their contribution to the broader field of archaeology. This paper discusses issues of preservation, context, and formation processes using misunderstandings of the Pompeii premise in underwater research as a conceptual guide. Ultimately acknowledging that, just as on land, archaeological sites underwater are diverse and unique, with site-specific pre- and post-depositional transformations. Different sites supplement each other, and the unique preservation underwater makes them a particularly valuable complement to the terrestrial record and a vital part of world archaeology.
Lemke, A. 2022, Archaeology Underwater: How Submerged Landscapes are Changing the Future of the Field. Journal of Ocean Technology, 17(1), 108–109.
Lemke, A., Grinnan, N. B., & Haigler, J. V. 2022, Getting Your Feet Wet: Barriers to Inclusivity in Underwater Archaeology and How to Break Them. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2021.34
“There is a lack of broad representation in archaeology generally, and in a specialized field such as underwater archaeology, this issue is only exacerbated. Underwater archaeological sites are often “out of sight, out of mind,“” creating a general lack of awareness of underwater cultural heritage and career prospects in many communities. Coupled with a lack of education and the additional demands of working in a submerged environment (e.g., scuba diving), there is a striking lack of diversity in underwater archaeology. Overall, underwater archaeologists are a largely homogeneous group, particularly along the lines of race and wealth—categories that often overlap. In the context of asking broader questions such as “Why are there so few underwater archaeologists of color?” and “How can we do better?” this article outlines the barriers to inclusivity writ large in underwater archaeology and provides solutions for increasing diversity and accessibility in the field, including specific opportunities and resources for underrepresented groups to “get their feet wet.””
O’Shea 2021, Submerged prehistory in the Americas: Methods, approaches and results, The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, DOI:10.1080/15564894.2021.1879973
Archaeology underwater has experienced a renaissance in both popular and professional interest as witnessed in numerous movies, television specials, academic papers, conference symposia, and a spate of recent textbooks. For most archaeologists, as well as in the public imagination, underwater archaeology is the romantic discovery and study of shipwrecks. The best-known underwater discoveries to date have involved lost vessels and many of the techniques used for underwater exploration were designed initially for shipwreck hunting. Yet, there are fundamental differences between the study of shipwrecks and the investigation of ancient archaeological sites on now submerged landscapes. Shipwrecks pose, essentially, a historical problem. Whether we are searching for a known vessel that was lost, or attempting to identify a discovered wreck, the investigation is paradigmatically a historical one. The goal of the exercise is to link the material remains with a documentary record. Except for possibly identifying ancient shipping lanes or wreck traps, the location and character of the sea floor where the wreck is encountered is incidental.
Palazzolo, Lemke, Zhang, Saad, Reynolds, and O’Shea 2021, DeepDive: The Use of Virtual Worlds to Create an Ethnography of an Ancient Civilization, in HCI International 2021 – Late Breaking Papers: Cognition, Inclusion, Learning and Culture, Stephanidis, C. et al. (Eds.), Springer, pp. 615-629.
Lemke 2021, The Day the Armchair Broke: A Reply to White. PaleoAmerica, 7(4):305-308.
O’Shea, Lemke, Nash, Sonnenburg, Ferguson, Nyers, and Riebe 2021, Central Oregon Obsidian from a Submerged early Holocene Archaeological Site beneath Lake Huron. PLOS ONE 16(5): e0250840. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250840
Lemke 2021, Submerged Prehistory and Anthropological Archaeology: Do underwater studies contribute to theory? Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 16(1):5-26.
O’Shea 2020, Micro-regional approaches for submerged site archaeology, The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, DOI:10.1080/15564894.2020.1756995
O’Shea and Lemke 2020, A Layered Approach for the Discovery and Mapping of Prehistoric Sites beneath Lake Huron. Marine Technology Society Journal, 54(3):23-32
Lemke and O’Shea 2019, The End of an Era? Early Holocene Paleoindian Caribou Hunting in a Great Lakes Glacial Refugim, in People and Culture in Ice Age Americas: New Dimensions in Paleoamerican Archaeology, R. Suárez and C. F. Ardelean (Eds.), Utah University Press, pp. 156-171.
Lemke 2018, Underwater Archaeology and Archaeo-Ethnology of Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: Examining the role of ethnography in prehistoric forager research beneath the North American Great Lakes, in Foraging in the Past: Archaeological Studies of Hunter-Gatherer Diversity, A. Lemke (Ed.), University Press of Colorado, pp. 49-75.
Lemke and O’Shea 2017, The Seasonality of Prehistoric Caribou Hunting in Northeastern North America, PaleoAmerica, 3(4):374-382.
Lemke 2015, Lithic Artifacts from Submerged Archaeological Sites on the Alpena- Amberley Ridge, in Caribou Hunting in the Upper Great Lakes: Archaeological, Ethnographic, and Paleoenvironmental Perspectives, E. Sonnenburg, A. K. Lemke, and J. O’Shea (Eds.), University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology Memoirs, No. 57, pp. 139-146.
Lemke 2015, Great Lakes Rangifer and Paleoindians: Archaeological and Paleontological Caribou Remains from Michigan. PaleoAmerica, 1(3):276-283.
O’Shea et al. 2014, A 9,000-year-old caribou hunting structure beneath Lake Huron. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 111. 10.1073/pnas.1404404111.
O’Shea et al. 2013, “Nobody Knows the way of the Caribou”: Rangifer hunting at 45° North Latitude, Quaternary International, Volume 297, 2013, Pages 36-44, ISSN 1040-6182, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.01.010
O’Shea et al. 2013, Approaches to the Archaeology of Submerged Landscapes
O’Shea and Meadows 2009, Evidence for early hunters beneath the Great Lakes, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 106. 10120-3. 10.1073/pnas.0902785106.
O’Shea, J. M. 2004, The Identification of Shipwrecks sites: a Bayesian Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 31, Issue 11, 2004, Pages 1533-1552, ISSN 0305-4403, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2004.03.015.
O’Shea, J. M. 2002, The archaeology of scattered wreck-sites: formation processes and shallow water archaeology in western Lake Huron. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2002) 31.2: 211–227. doi:10.1006/ijna.2002.1044