Underwater Archaeology in Iceland: Past Work, Current Management and Future Possibilities in Community Engagement

ABSTRACT

The monitoring and management of underwater sites in Iceland is severely deficient, due to various factors. Globally, underwater cultural heritage managers are increasingly turning towards community engagement as a way of addressing the many challenges they face, and this article proposes the adoption of a similar strategy in Iceland. It could both improve management, and the awareness of underwater sites. The article outlines the national heritage laws in place, summarizes past underwater archaeological work within the country, and highlights the challenges which maritime archaeologists currently face. The impact of community underwater archaeology projects elsewhere is discussed, and an evaluation of the viability of such a project in Iceland is made. Results presented from a survey distributed to the sports diving community further reinforces this evaluation, by highlighting the skills the community could bring to the field, as well as their interest and willingness to participate in such a study.

RESUMEN

El monitoreo y gestión de sitios arqueológicos subacuáticos en Islandia es muy deficiente, por múltiples razones. Globalmente, los gestores del patrimonio cultural sumergido han comenzado a inclinarse por la participación comunitaria como forma de enfrentar los múltiples retos que encuentran. Este artículo propone la adopción de una estrategia similar en Islandia. Este enfoque podría mejorar simultáneamente la gestión y la concientización con relación a los sitios arqueológicos sumergidos. Se esbozan las leyes nacionales en vigor sobre patrimonio, resume el trabajo arqueológico previo en el país, y destaca los retos que enfrenta la arqueología subacuática en la actualidad. Se describe el impacto de proyectos comunitarios de arqueología subacuática y se evalúa la viabilidad de este tipo de proyectos en Islandia. La evaluación está reforzada por los resultados de una encuesta a la comunidad de buzos recreativos y se destacan las habilidades que la comunidad podría aportar al campo de estudio, así como su interés y voluntad de participar en estudios de este tipo.

摘要

基于各种因素冰岛对水下遗址的监测和管理严重不足。在全球范围内，水下文化遗产管理者越来越多地将社区参与作为解决他们所面临诸多挑战的一种方式，本文提出在冰岛采用类似策略的建议。它既可以改善管理水平，也可以提高对水下遗址的认知。文中简述了现行的国家遗产法，总结了国内以往水下考古工作，并强调了海洋考古学家目前面临的挑战。文章讨论了社区水下考古项目在其他地区的影响，并评估了类似项目在冰岛实施的可行性。在一项针对运动潜水社区的调查中，通过强调该社区为考古工作带来的技术支持以及他们对于此类研究的兴趣和意愿，其结果进一步增强了本评估的价值。

摘要

基於各種因素冰島對水下遺址的監測和管理嚴重不足。在全球範圍內，水下文化遺產管理者越來越多地將社區參與作為解決他們所面臨諸多挑戰的一種方式，本文提出在冰島采用類似策略的建議。它既可以改善管理水平，也可以提高對水下遺址的認知。文中簡述了現行的國家遺產法，總結了國內以往水下考古工作，並強調了海洋考古學家目前面臨的挑戰。文章討論了社區水下考古項目在其他地區的影響，並評估了類似項目在冰島實施的可行性。在一項針對運動潛水社區的調查中，通過強調該社區為考古工作帶來的技術支持以及他們對於此類研究的興趣和意願，其結果進一步增強了本評估的價值。

KEYWORDS:

• Maritime archaeology
• underwater archaeology
• heritage management
• community engagement
• Iceland

PALABRAS CLAVE:

• Arqueología marítima
• arqueología subacuática
• gestión del patrimonio
• participación comunitaria
• Islandia

关键词:

• 海洋考古学
• 水下考古
• 遗产管理
• 社区参与
• 冰岛

關鍵詞:

• 海洋考古學
• 水下考古
• 遺產管理
• 社區參與
• 冰島

المُستخلص:

• 

Introduction

The first settlers arrived in Iceland by boat in the 9th century, and since this time, the ocean has continued to be relied upon for survival and income. Up until the 20th century, boats were the only means of transportation for trade, importing goods such as iron, wood, and corn, and exporting fish (Þórarinsson, 1974). The settlement of the country developed mainly along the coast and in fertile valleys, as a large proportion of the interior of the island is uninhabitable. Survival in Iceland’s climate was partly reliant on marine resources, and therefore ‘require[d] a well-developed, fully maritime adaptation’ (Smith, 1995, p. 324). Isotopic research from grave sites dated to the early settlement of Iceland shows the high importance of marine foods, and even inland locations exhibits evidence of marine food in their diet (McGovern et al., 2007; Price & Gestsdóttir, 2006). In the present day, fishing is still one of Iceland’s key industries, and regarded as one of the corner stones of the Icelandic economy (Sigfusson et al., 2013).

Archaeology in Iceland has been practiced since the late 19th century, with the first laws enacted to protect cultural heritage sites also dating from this period (Friðriksson, 1994). However, archaeology has focussed primarily on terrestrial sites, with the first underwater site being surveyed in 1993 (Einarsson, 1993). Taking Iceland’s rich maritime history into account, it is perhaps surprising that the archaeological work completed on underwater heritage sites does not reflect this importance.

The country faces many challenges to improve heritage management of underwater sites, which are discussed later within this article. However, Iceland is far from the only country with issues in the management of underwater sites; other nations with similar problems have turned towards community engagement in underwater archaeology as a possible solution, for example: Australia (Viduka, 2020), New Zealand (Carter & Bennett, 2021), within the Mediterranean (Argyropoulos & Stratigea, 2019), Finland (Marila & Ilves, 2021), United States (Price, 2013; Vander Stoep, 2001), United Kingdom (Bowens, 2011; McCarthy & Benjamin, 2019; NAS, n.d.; The SHIPS Project, n.d.), and Canada (UASBC, 2014). This paper therefore suggests a methodology for the improved management and monitoring of Iceland’s underwater heritage through community involvement. It includes a literature review of past underwater research and outlines the current legislation in place for underwater heritage in Iceland. The impact of community underwater archaeology projects elsewhere is discussed, as well as an evaluation of the potential of such a project in Iceland. This evaluation includes the results of a survey distributed to the sports diving community in Iceland, aimed at assessing their level of willingness to participate in such a study. A pilot study is proposed based on outcomes of this survey, to test the suggested theory that engagement with the community can lead to increased monitoring, awareness, and therefore, management.

Maritime Archaeology in Iceland

Maritime archaeology is a sub-discipline of archaeology which focuses on human interaction with the sea, with underwater archaeology being another sub-division of sites specifically located below the water line (AIMA, n.d.). Westerdahl’s (1992) theory on maritime cultural landscapes worked towards breaking the artificial shoreline barrier between the land and sea, and has since led to research viewing culture connected to the sea as a whole seascape, regardless of its location (McKinnon et al., 2014). Maritime archaeology can therefore include ships and shipwrecks, maritime infrastructure, maritime identities, landscapes and seascapes, and can be both tangible and intangible heritage (McKinnon, 2014).

Underwater archaeology work in Iceland has increased within recent years, however, progress is slow, with very few professionals solely concentrating on underwater or maritime heritage. It has been suggested, for example, that Iceland is around 50 years behind other western countries in underwater heritage management and surveying (Edvardsson & Egilsson, 2011). Throughout history, Icelanders have had a strong connection to the sea, relying on maritime resources for survival. The low number of professionals within the field of maritime archaeology is therefore surprising. To put this into some context, from 1990 until 2019 in over 1,000 archaeological research license applications, only eight were for underwater sites (Minjastofnun, n.d.)

Past Research

The beginning of underwater archaeology in Iceland can be associated with the survey and excavation of the Dutch fluyt Melckmeyt, which sank off the small island of Flatey in 1659, with all its cargo and one crew member (Einarsson, 1993). The archaeological work was carried out in June 1993, by six divers, including two archaeologists. Major findings included over 30 kg of Danish pottery, which were recovered (Einarsson, 1993). The site has since been revisited for further excavation and 3D-mapping in 2016, to expand on the original survey area (McCarthy & Martin, 2019) (Figure 1, site 1).

Figure 1 . Map of locations of past research; 1-Melckmeyt, 2-Kolkuós, 3-Sample of whaling stations in the Westfjords, 4-Phønix, 5-Unidentified wreck in lake Þingvallavatn (Alexandra Tyas).

Following the Flatey work in 1993, an underwater archaeological excavation was based in Kolkuós, a medieval trading site in north Iceland. Work began in 2003, when it became clear the area was at imminent risk from coastal erosion. The work was part of a larger project in Hólar, a medieval bishopric in the north Iceland. In 2006 Danish archaeologists from the then-Marine Archaeology Institute in Roskilde joined the excavation, to carry out an underwater survey of the historic port area (Heiðarsson, 2013). The method for surveying was a side-scan sonar survey of the area, followed by underwater visual surveying by divers. The only artefact found was an anchor, assumed to be from the Viking Age or medieval period, which was recovered and preserved (Kolkuós fornleifar, n.d.) (Figure 1, site 2).

A survey of the current state of underwater archaeology sites in the Westfjords was carried out in 2009–2010. The aim of this project was firstly to gain a better understanding of submerged heritage around the Westfjords peninsula, and, secondly to locate sites with potential for further research (Edvardsson & Egilsson, 2011). This work was carried out alongside survey and excavation of 17th-century whaling stations within the region, expanded to include stations from other periods in 2015 and 2016 (Helgason et al., 2019), and is continuing to be expanded today. Sites were chosen based on the criterion that they were a land-based facility with a sea-based function, i.e. a whaling, trading, or fishing station. Findings indicated that further research needed to be completed within Iceland, due to the varying level of deterioration of sites depending on their location and environmental factors (Edvardsson & Egilsson, 2011) (Figure 1, site 3).

In 2009 the wreck of the Danish steamer Phønix, which foundered in 1881, was located and subsequently surveyed. The survey work was carried out by a team of divers from the University of Iceland in 2011–2013. The main aims were to develop survey methods; to increase knowledge of the preservation of underwater sites; and finally, to begin the work for future research and management of the Phønix wreck (Edvardsson & Egilsson, 2015). Methods from the UK were adopted for the survey due to the lack of underwater archaeological work previously completed in Iceland and were based on similarities in underwater conditions between the two countries (Edvardsson & Egilsson, 2015). The current state of this wreck, along with others discovered in Iceland, leads to the conclusion that further archaeological research is required, and as stated by Edvardsson and Egilsson (2015, p. 4), is likely to be ‘both feasible and rewarding’ (Figure 1, site 4).

In 2018 a boat estimated to be 500 years old, and therefore possibly Iceland’s oldest wreck, was found by a diver in lake Þingvallavatn. This was followed by a basic preliminary survey and photographs taken under the supervision of an archaeologist. A full archaeological report on the site has not yet been published, so information is only available via media articles (Elliott, 2018; mbl, 2018) (Figure 1, site 5).

The outlined surveys above represent the largest excavations, or bodies of underwater archaeological work which has been listed within survey applications to the Cultural Heritage Agency or widely spread in the media. It is important to state, however, that this list may not be inclusive of all work. Nevertheless, the possibility of being able to include most, if not all, work completed in Iceland on underwater archaeology within a single paper, should give an insight into the limited research undertaken.

Current Management and Laws

Within Iceland, heritage sites are covered by law within the Heritage Act, which has been revised in 1989 since its original writing to include all archaeological remains over 100 years old (Þjóðminjalög nr. 88/1989). The most recent update in 2012 for the first time included underwater heritage sites as a separate category (Lög um menningarminjar nr. 80/2012). Prior to this time, the law only mentions ‘shipwrecks and their parts’ and did not specifically include artefacts which may surround ships, or other underwater sites such as coastal trading stations (Þjóðminjalög nr. 88/1989; Þjóðminjalög nr. 107/2001). The updated law now explicitly states that all antiquities over 100 years old that have been used by man, or are man-made and found in the ground, glacier, water, or sea fall under this act. Ships built before 1950 are also considered to be artefacts within this act (Lög um menningarminjar nr. 80/2012). There are also three listed underwater heritage sites in Iceland: a Northrop N-3PB Torpedo Bomber, the French research vessel Pourquoi Pas?, and the wreck of Phønix (Minjastofnun, n.d.). Sites being listed means the highest level of protection, and therefore there is no access to the sites without special permission from the cultural heritage agency.

Iceland has not yet ratified the 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. There is an apparent clash with the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, regarding fishing which has been outlined (Dromgoole, 2013; González et al., 2009; Green, 2014; Rau, 2002). Whilst the details are still unclear on why Iceland has not ratified, or if it is a case of not being ratified yet, it has been suggested that it could be due to the possible clash between fishing rights and access (Magnús Sigurðsson, pers. com., 10/08/2021).

Challenges

With the continuing development of coastal areas to meet the rising tourism numbers, extended pressure is being exerted on Minjastfonun Íslands (the cultural heritage agency of Iceland) to complete underwater archaeological work as a requirement for construction companies. Up to this point, it has been possible to complete area surveys with remote sensing data available from the coast guard; however, as new road construction progresses towards areas where remote sensing has not yet been completed, further physical underwater surveys will need to be completed by divers, prior to work being able to begin. There are two archaeologists fully qualified to undertake these surveys, highlighting the difficulty the heritage agency will soon be under to survey sites before construction occurs (Magnús Sigurðsson, pers. com., 10/08/2021). There needs to be a movement away from the hurried surveying of sites due to construction, towards pro-active monitoring and management, prior to sites being put at risk. This can also be said for sites at increasing risk due to climate change; causing such impacts as increased coastal erosion and a northward migration of wood boring organisms, however, there are currently no studies on its specific effect on underwater heritage sites within Iceland.

The lack of maritime archaeologists in Iceland can perhaps be partly linked to the little opportunity of education in the subject. One university, the University of Iceland, offers archaeology at the Bachelors and Graduate level; however, there is no dedicated maritime archaeology component within these programmes, and to specialise in the subject a student would need to study outside of Iceland. Including courses on maritime archaeology would raise awareness of underwater archaeological sites and Iceland’s important maritime history, as well as give students the opportunity to explore the topic as a potential future career option. This could work towards minimising the current marginalisation of the topic compared with its terrestrial counterpart.

Management methods for cultural heritage sites often use an estimated value of the site, in order to make decisions on their status (De la Torre, 2013). Understandably, the value and significance of underwater heritage sites is not as simple as for those on land. Access to underwater sites is restricted to divers and snorkelers, which automatically reduces the number of people who can enjoy them. The awareness and enjoyment of a site are factors which increase its heritage value within communities (Klamer, 2014). Therefore, the value of underwater heritage sites to policy makers and the public is at a disadvantage compared to sites visible to a larger proportion of people. Iceland’s underwater heritage is generally unknown, and therefore lacks value within communities local to sites. It is therefore almost impossible to know if this has already affected sites, due to no baseline information being collected.

Of course, along with many other countries, funding is a challenge with all archaeology in Iceland, and this increases exponentially when sites are located underwater. Currently, there is somewhat of a reliance on archaeologists in Iceland choosing sites at risk to study due to their own research interest, as opposed to archaeologists being hired to survey a site because it is under threat (for example, surveys such as in Lárusdóttir, 2011; Pálsdóttir, 2013). The main motivation for the surveying of underwater sites currently is therefore surveys that are funded by developers as a requirement by law due to construction. However, these reports are often not made public, and should perhaps be considered a form of rescue archaeology rather than research.

The consequence of limited professionals, and limited funding, means that currently there are no monitoring surveys being undertaken within the country. This includes the three listed sites under the protection of the cultural heritage agency, and therefore their current state is unknown. There is only an estimated idea to how many wrecks may be surrounding the Icelandic coastline; based on locations of reported losses found throughout Icelandic literature, there is a possible 375–630 wrecks from the AD 1100–1920 (Edvardsson, 2022). However, this number is likely to be an underestimation due to it only representing wrecks reported within Icelandic sources and does not include those which may have wrecked offshore without the knowledge of Icelanders (Edvardsson, 2022).

Community Archaeology

Community archaeology is a subdiscipline within archaeology, whereby the local community is given control of various aspects of the heritage project (Marshall, 2002). The long-term aim of community archaeology is to engage the public, and to offer a method of understanding the past through community interaction and participation. Whilst the aspect of public outreach is aimed at educating and empowering local communities, another underlying issue is the management of the maritime archaeological heritage that aims to be solved through citizen science. In the case of archaeology, this is usually to increase protection, establish sustainable management, and prevent looting or damage of heritage sites. Article 6 on maintenance and conservation of archaeological heritage sites in the 1990 ICOMOS charter states ‘Local commitment and participation should be actively sought and encouraged as a means of promoting the maintenance of the archaeological heritage’ (ICOMOS, 1990, p. 4).

Numerous articles on the definition of public or community archaeology have been published, and it is a continuing theme throughout heritage studies literature today (e.g. Flatman et al., 2012; Grima, 2016; Merriman, 2004; Moshenska, 2017; Tully, 2005). A good explanation is put forward by Little (2012, p. 2), who suggests community archaeology can be split into three main categories: cultural resource management or heritage management; outreach and education; and archaeology which aims to help communities or individuals. Definitions in literature recognize that public archaeology is a broad topic, the main aim being to move away from only the presentation of research results or education, but towards discussion, collaboration, and conversation.

Evidence from previous studies has shown that effective heritage management has been developed in association with community engagement throughout the entirety of a project, thus, suggestions on its delivery method are widely available (e.g. Atalay, 2012; Humphris & Bradshaw, 2017; Moser et al., 2002; Scott-Ireton, 2007). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) encourages community engagement specifically due to successful outcomes in improving protection for underwater sites in its 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (see Articles 19–21; UNESCO, 2001).

A large majority of successful community underwater projects include those which use training provided by, or adapted from, the Nautical Archaeological Society (NAS), with registered training partners around the world (NAS, n.d.). Recognizing that underwater archaeology is both costly and time consuming, and in order to manage the numerous sites along a country’s coastline, accurate locations and status of the sites are needed. This led to the development by the NAS of an inexpensive and non-invasive, method of surveying that can be completed by sports divers with basic training. This work by the NAS, along with many other examples around the world, show the possibilities of community engagement within underwater archaeology, and prove that if successful, it is possible to adapt and improve the entire practice of underwater heritage management. Nevertheless, it is important to note that deciding if a project is successful varies based on the wanted outcomes of a project; if it is based on participation rates, opinions or happiness of community members, archaeological reports, or research outputs produced. Each individual project is likely to have their own evaluation of success; for example, the CITiZAN coastal community project in the UK based their evaluation of success on engagement levels and participant feedback (Gill, 2018).

Can Community Archaeology be a Solution in Iceland?

The main issue to deal with when suggesting increased monitoring and management, is gathering baseline data of the current state of sites. In order to start the proper monitoring of underwater heritage in Iceland, sites still need to be located, identified, surveyed, and have a basic threat or risk assessment completed. This task in itself is monumental in terms of the amount of data needed, and physically cannot be completed by only one active maritime archaeologist. Whilst community archaeology alone will not solve the countries challenges within heritage management, this research article suggests the community be equipped with the knowledge to assist in the collection of data, to begin building the much needed baseline information.

Within Iceland the public have been offered opportunities to join archaeologists on such things as field schools and excavations on terrestrial projects (Jóhannesdóttir & Ingason, 2009; Sigurðardóttir et al., 2019). The public involvement, however, has usually been primarily aimed to give information via such activities as displays of finds, information boards, and tours of a site. A good example of this form of engagement is the work by Pálsdóttir and Feeley (2017) at the site of a medieval fishing station at Gufuskálar. Engagement of the public through the entirety of a project is being echoed throughout the literature as an essential part of archaeological research and heritage preservation (Bell, 2019; Dawson et al., 2020; Faulkner, 2000; Little, 2012; Sabloff, 2016; Smith, 2014), thus, still more needs to be done in Iceland to improve community engagement throughout all aspects of archaeological projects.

Evaluation of Potential of Community Underwater Archaeology in Iceland

The broad concept of community archaeology will be divided here into two categories based on their approach. The first being the top-down approach outlined by Selkirk (1997), in which a pre-determined research plan is put forward by professional archaeologists and is submitted for consultation with the communities they intend to work with. This approach is the most common method of community archaeology worldwide (Simpson, 2009). The methodology guidelines set out by Moser et al., (2002, p. 229) is an example of this category; where a ‘strategy for collaborative practice’ is suggested and aimed at archaeologists undertaking community projects. Seven components are suggested as the basis of forming ideas for community archaeology; 1. Communication and collaboration; 2. Employment and training; 3. Public presentation; 4. Interviews and oral history; 5. Educational resources; 6. Photographic and video archive; and 7. Community controlled merchandising (Moser et al., 2002, p. 229) This top-down approach does not require the community to be involved throughout, and their involvement is decided by archaeologists and generally is limited to certain aspects. Simpson (2009, p. 41) suggests this method be re-defined as ‘community consultation archaeology’.

The second approach of community archaeology can be described as the bottom-up approach, as described by Faulkner (2000) and Marshall (2002), where all aspects of the project are controlled, at least in some way, by the community. In some cases, archaeologists are working for the communities, or all aspects are decided through consultation with the community. The methodology is therefore more flexible than that set out in the first approach by Moser et al. (2002). Whilst both approaches vary in planning, their aims both focus on good communication between all stakeholders (Moshenska, 2017).

This article aims to evaluate the impact of engagement via the education and training of community members in basic underwater survey in Iceland. Following this evaluation, it is proposed that a pilot study begins to test the theory that engagement can lead to increased management and awareness. As engagement within underwater archaeology has not been done before in Iceland, it requires an initial push by a professional to first equip the community with the knowledge to be able to complete basic surveys and monitoring of sites. Therefore, this pilot study is currently designed as a top-down approach, with surveys to be arranged by the author at a particular site. It is hoped as the research progresses into the future, it will transition to a more bottom-up approach, with community members suggesting sites for survey and monitoring. The ‘community’ in this research is currently being defined as those residing in Iceland with a diving qualification, or those with just a general interest to learn about underwater heritage sites, this also includes those with any past training or employment in archaeology.

Due to this choice of top-down approach, it was important to firstly assess the level of interest of the diving community in Iceland, if they indeed have the will or wish to contribute to such a project. Therefore, a survey was distributed via social media and word of mouth. The survey was aimed at an extremely small participant group of those in Iceland qualified to scuba dive and was advertised on social media pages aimed at divers, as social media is the most popular form of communication in the country. The total number of divers within Iceland is unknown; however, based on the social media presence in diving groups, it is estimated there could be between 600 and 1000 qualified divers, with around 150 who appear to be currently active (although this number could be an overestimation).

The total response rate of the survey was 93 participants, a number which was unexpected but welcomed, due to the survey being very specific in its target group and Iceland’s small population. All survey responses were utilized as they were filled in correctly; this is likely due to the answers being simple multiple choice, with additional optional boxes for further comments. The survey prompted responses in the following areas: 1) the value of archaeological sites to the participant; 2) previous involvement within archaeology; 3) current knowledge of underwater archaeological sites in Iceland; 4) level of interest in a community engagement project; and 5) demographic information on participants.

Survey Results

Demographic results of the survey showed participants were predominantly aged between 25 and 54, with the highest participant number being between 25 and 34 years old. The gender of participants was 61% male, and 36% female, which reflects worldwide data on gender within SCUBA diving (PADI, 2021). Most participants were educated to postgraduate level, at 39%, and two-thirds live in, or around, the capital of Iceland, Reykjavík.

In the first part of the survey, questions were asked about the participant’s interest in archaeology, and the value which archaeology holds for them personally and for Icelandic society. All participants stated they were interested in archaeology to some extent, with the highest number stating they were moderately or very interested, at 72% of responses. When asked how important the participants felt archaeology is to Icelandic society, 41% responded extremely important, and 49% stated somewhat important. When asked the same question about underwater archaeology, the response rate shifted to less importance, with 30% selecting extremely important, 47% selecting somewhat, 16% were neutral, and 5% stating not important. These generally positive values of interest and importance are also reflected in the participants’ interaction with archaeology-related activities, with 90% stating they have previously visited an archaeological site or museum or have participated in an archaeological excavation.

When asked about the participants’ knowledge of any underwater heritage sites in Iceland, only 34% responded that they are aware of a site, with 66% stating they did not know of any locations. Of the participants that were aware of a site, the majority commented on knowing of Melckmeyt in Flatey. This was likely due to the site being the location of a recent excavation and virtual reality modelling which received widespread media coverage and was shared widely on social media by the public (McCarthy & Martin, 2019).

Perhaps the most important question for this project was the interest of the participants in undergoing training in the basic surveying of sites, and for the possibility to ‘adopt’ a site to monitor (based on the ‘adopt a wreck’ schemes by the NAS and GIRT (NAS, n.d.; Viduka, 2020)). To this question, 64% stated yes, they would be interested; 28% stated maybe; and 8% responded no; overall, an extremely positive outcome. From these survey results, it is clear there is interest in underwater archaeology, as well as a willingness to participate.

Following the survey, a social media account and email list was set up to provide more information and updates on the future planned pilot study. This allowed some insight into who ‘the community’ are, and the potential of the group. There are many highly skilled divers, including technical deep divers, dive instructors, terrestrial archaeologists, those with experience of remote sensing and wreck surveying, as well as immigrants with a maritime archaeology education, and those primarily looking to dive with a purpose. The interest and contribution of this highly skilled group within underwater surveying in Iceland would be of extreme value, and only further proves the feasibility of a community archaeology project. Further evaluation will be needed to assess the willingness of other stakeholders involved in such a pilot study, this will consist of surveys intended for archaeologists and to the cultural heritage agency.

Summary

Iceland’s waters hold great potential for furthering our knowledge of the maritime history of the country. However, its potential is outweighed by the numerous challenges archaeologists face, such as lacking education in maritime archaeology and funding for projects, issues which are being faced worldwide. Elsewhere, studies have shown that effective monitoring programs have been developed in collaboration with the community, and that involving the community can lead to increased value and protection of a site due to increased awareness. Iceland could be a perfect opportunity to test this method, being a country with a small population, and currently lacking management of underwater heritage sites. Therefore, the proposal is put forward for a collaborative community project, a form of citizen science, to address the basic in-situ survey of sites and to establish a monitoring program. This project would require interest from the community, and appeal to members who are willing to participate and invest their own time. Hence, the above-mentioned survey was distributed within the sports diving community in Iceland. Survey analysis showed that there is indeed an interest, and a want, for divers to be involved in research in the country, and further interaction with the participants has highlighted the skill and knowledge they could bring to such a project. This article aimed to provide an overview of underwater work in Iceland, and a basis for further research into the possibilities of community engagement. The overwhelmingly positive results thus far lead the author to believe that engagement of the community may an additional tool to assist in the monitoring and management of Iceland’s underwater heritage, and further research will begin to test this hypothesis.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to my PhD committee, Dr Gavin Lucas, Dr Della Scott-Ireton, and Dr Katrín Anna Lund for their comments, suggestions, and on-going support. Thank you also to the editor and reviewers for their helpful comments and thoughts on the article.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Icelandic Centre for Research: [Grant Number 217990-051].