Personal Research Interests
My work has tended to focus in the areas of maritime archaeological theory and method, with an emphasis on technological innovation and change from the late-eighteenth to late twentieth century. I am most interested in “processual” archaeological approaches and I particularly like the body of work defined as “Behavioral archaeology” (as most notably communicated by Dr. Michael Brian Schiffer, and his colleagues).
Due to the nature of administrative roles I have found myself in (e.g., as Program Head of the UNC-Coastal Studies Institute’s Maritime Heritage Program) which has required extensive community interaction (such as in the area of beach shipwreck finds), periodic contract work, field schools, and grant opportunities, my research has broadened over the years (in temporal span, approach, and purpose). This has seen my published research from culture historical descriptive studies (e.g., archaeological site, vessel type, and shipwreck histories, and resource inventories) to multi- and inter-disciplinary research collaborations (e.g., compliance surveys, corrosion research, and studies of artifact patterning in sediment) and other subjects such as technological change (e.g., naval ship development) and various types of landscape analysis (e.g., battlescapes, risk-taking behavior patterns).
My current interests have gravitated toward seeking digital solutions to research problems and experimenting with ways of presenting digital maritime heritage information to the public in innovative ways (see the MaHRI website). I’m particularly interested in using CAD-based modeling in order to show the construction, use, and modification of maritime heritage sites (especially watercraft), their integration into the archaeological record (often captured photogrammetrically), and the ongoing processes of their preservation or disintegration (especially in light of anthropogenic climate change).
Research Perspectives in Thesis Advising
In relation to research thesis advising, my belief is that graduate students should be given as much time as possible to find the topics and approaches that appeal to them the most, but also that thesis projects should apply archaeological theory, and always explicit about their approach. Because of my belief that good research is theory-explicit, I generally stay away from endorsing cultural historical approaches, but I otherwise endeavor to be flexible by remaining open to processual and post-processual perspectives. Over the years I have had graduate students adopt a diverse array of approaches, including but not limited to:
- Archaeological site formation – quantitative (corrosion analysis) and qualitative approaches (comparative modeling) – wooden, composite, iron, and steel wrecks
- Behavioral studies – risk taking behavior, memory, consumerism, identity formation, technological adaptation and diffusion, resource extraction (e.g. whaling, dolphin fishing)
- Modeling – site modeling, site discovery, geospatial visualization
- Landscapes (incl. maritime cultural landscapes, taskscapes, central places, weatherscapes, critical cartography, settlement abandonment)
- Harbors, ports, piers, wharves, industrial waterfronts, maritime entrepots, lighthouses
- Battlescapes (technology, strategy, tactics, reconstruction); Civil War, WW1 & WW2
- Ships and ship construction: Ferrous-hulled shipbuilding, recreational boat-building, spatial analysis/proxemics