Down by the Water's Edge: Modelling Shipyard Locations in Maryland, USA

Abstract

Shipbuilding in the Chesapeake, while explored extensively in historical literature, has been largely absent from the reported archaeological record, the primary cause being the ephemeral nature of shipyard-sites. In an attempt partially to rectify this situation a study was undertaken to quantitatively identify the environmental and cultural factors which influenced the location of shipyards. Following the construction of a GIS predictive model, selected shipyard locations were investigated to assess the validity of the model. It is believed that the results of this study will help archaeologists to investigate these important industrial resources.

New Developments in the Use of Spatial Technology in Archaeology

“…Geographic information systems have gradually become the platform that archaeologists use to store geographically and numerically large sets of information on the artifact, feature, and site levels using its read-write capability. These changes have been especially important in cultural resource management and influence how archaeologists approach the study of the historic and prehistoric past (Berry 2003;Dyson-Bruce 2003;Ford 2007;Gregory and Ell 2006;Limp 2001;Ryavec 2001;Stichelbaut 2006). Universities, museums, and government agencies have joined forces at national and local levels to support databases with locational information.…”

Linking Land and Navy: archaeological investigations at the site of the Woolwich Royal Dockyard, south-eastern England

“…In Québec, Canada, the colonial port facilities and development have been studied (Rouleau, 2009: 229–44). In Maryland in the United States a predictive GIS model has been tested to assist in specifying the probability of locations with certain characteristics having been used for historic shipbuilding yards in the past (such as being located within 8 km of an urban centre, up a river channel wide and deep enough to launch a vessel, with a bank slope of between 3 and 11%, and within 0.7 miles of oak‐supporting soils) (Ford, 2007: 125–36).…”