Cited by 2

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Conserving Context and Community: Reconnecting an Illegally Excavated, Precolonial Dugout Canoe to its Community

Porteous, Gyllian, Nelson-Delong, Nicholas, Hadjo, Se’Khu, Haire, Wenonah, McQueen-Starling, Lisa, Mitchum, Michelle, Nelson, Lamar, Sharp, Dexter, Sievers-Cail, Cheryl, Spell, Andrew, Cretté, Stéphanie·2022·Studies in Conservation

Abstract

The oldest canoe discovered in South Carolina was illegally recovered from the Cooper River near Charleston in 1997 and spent 23 years in state custody awaiting funding for conservation treatment. In 2020, it was transferred into the temporary custody of Clemson University’s Warren Lasch Conservation Center. Where once the conservation methodology would have begun and ended with an impregnation treatment and vacuum freeze-drying, the Cooper River Canoe Project instead began by consultation with the Native American communities of South Carolina. Through collaboration with Native American leaders, archaeologists, and conservators, the conservation of a 4000-year-old, waterlogged, fragmentary dugout canoe will be undertaken. Unprecedented in South Carolina, the Cooper River Canoe Project challenges established colonial practices in archaeology and conservation, and designs a new approach to the conservation of Native American cultural heritage. By recognizing Native American communities’ rights to the management and determination of their cultural heritage, project partners are creating a new model for the conservation of cultural heritage in South Carolina.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00393630.2022.2066272

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The option to return the canoe to the river was weighed only briefly before reaching the consensus to conform with 'industry standards' and plasticize the tree-canoe.

    “Yet the option to return the canoe to the river was weighed only briefly among other alternatives (freeze-drying, in-water retainment, sugar-alcohol impregnation [54,55]) before reaching the consensus to conform with 'industry standards' and plasticize the tree-canoe [45,47].”
  • The canoe remained in a tank of water outside the SCIAA office in Fort Johnson until 2020, when it was moved to Clemson University's Warren Lasch Conservation Center.

    “Without funds for conservation, the canoe remained in a tank of water outside the SCIAA office in Fort Johnson until 2020 when it was moved back to the Charleston area, where it currently resides at Clemson University's Warren Lasch Conservation Center (Figure 2) [45].”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. 10.1016/j.culher.2016.08.002 · DOI
  2. Brose, D. S. 1978. “Archaic Dugout Canoe Found in Northern Ohio.” The Explorer: Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History 20 (2): 13–17.
  3. Gallay, A. 2002. The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South 1670–1717. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  4. 10.1016/j.culher.2009.04.003 · DOI
  5. Jensen P. A. C. Helms and M. Christensen. 2010. “Evaluating Long-term Stability of Waterlogged Archaeological Wooden Objects through Determination of Moisture Sorption Isotherms and Conductance in Conserved objects and Impregnation Agents.” In Proceedings of the 11th ICOM Group on Wet Organic Archaeological Materials Conference Greenville edited by K. Straetkvern and E. Williams 83105.
  6. 10.15286/jps.126.4.469-494 · DOI
  7. 10.1179/2047058413Y.0000000109 · DOI
  8. Le Jau, F. 1956. The Carolina Chronicle of Dr. Francis Le Jau 1706–1717. Edited by F. J. Klingberg. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  9. 10.1016/j.culher.2018.08.002 · DOI
  10. 10.2307/j.ctv6wgjwp · DOI
  11. 10.1007/s10816-021-09532-8 · DOI
  12. 10.1080/15564894.2020.1774446 · DOI
  13. 10.1080/00393630.2016.1169364 · DOI
  14. Tran, Q. K., X. Hiron, and E. Damery. 1997. “Treatment of Neolithic Dugout Canoe from Paris-Bercy: Controlled Drying After PEG Impregnation and Attempt at Modelling of the Drying Process.” In Proceedings of the 6th ICOM Group on Wet Organic Archaeological Materials Conference, edited by P. Hoffmann, J. A. Spriggs, T. Grant, and T. W. Daley, 567–580. Bremerhaven: Schiff-fahrtsmuseum.
  15. United States. 1904. “Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835.” In Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2, edited by C. J. Kappler, 434–449. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
  16. Waddell, G. 1980. Indians of the South Carolina Lowcountry 1562–1751. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
  17. Wellman, H. 2001. “Mud, Sand and PEG: Cleaning Up a Treatment Gone Awry.” In Proceedings of the 8th ICOM Group on Wet Organic Archaeological Materials Conference, edited by P. Hoffmann, J. A. Spriggs, T. Grant, C. Cook, and A. Recht, 103–115. Bremerhaven: ICOM Committee for Conservation Working Group on Wet Organic Archaeological Materials.
  18. Wellman, H. 2006. “Don’t Rock the Boat: Reconstruction and Mounting of a Waterlogged Dugout Canoe.” In AIC Objects Specialty Group Postprints, edited by V. Greene, P. Griffin, and C. DeRe, 130–142. Washington DC: AIC.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Porteous, G., Nelson-Delong, N., Hadjo, S., Haire, W., McQueen-Starling, L., Mitchum, M., Nelson, L., Sharp, D., Sievers-Cail, C., Spell, A., & Cretté, S.
Affiliations
  • Clemson University
  • Yamassee Indian Nation
  • Catawba Indian Nation
  • Wassamasaw Indian Nation
  • Pine Hill Indian Tribe
  • Eastern Cherokee, Southern Iroquois, and United Tribes of South Carolina
  • Piedmont American Indian Association - Lower Eastern Cherokee Nation of South Carolina
  • Waccamaw Indian People
  • Edisto Natchez-Kusso Tribe
Venue
Studies in Conservation
Published
2022-05-24
Volume
67
Issue
sup1
Pages
228-234
ISSN
  • 0039-3630
  • 2047-0584
Cited by
2
References
0
Language
en
Update notices
addendum (2026-07-15)
Funders
  • Gaylord and Dorothy Donnelley Foundation
  • South Carolina Humanities
  • Garvey Family Trust Fund
  • Institute of Museum and Library Services (ST-251081-OMS-21)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review