Underwater Archaeology E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 703

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

Underwater Archaeology: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice provides a comprehensive summary of the archaeological process as applied in an underwater context. * Long awaited second edition of what is popularly referred to as the NAS Handbook * Provides a practical guide to underwater archaeology: how to get involved, basic principles, essential techniques, project planning and execution, publishing and presenting * Fully illustrated with over 100 drawings and new colour graphics * New chapters on geophysics, historical research, photography and video, monitoring and maintenance and conservation

Leseprobe

Contents

List of Figures

List of Plates

Foreword

Acknowledgements

1 The NAS Handbook – Why It Was Written

2 Underwater Archaeology

WHAT IS ARCHAEOLOGY?

WHAT IS ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER WATER?

WHAT IS NOT ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER WATER?

CLOSELY RELATED AND COMPLEMENTARY APPROACHES (ETHNOGRAPHY AND EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY)

3 Getting Involved in Underwater and Foreshore Archaeology

4 Basic Principles – Making the Most of the Clues

THE IMPORTANCE OF UNDERWATER SITES

SITE TYPES

THE RANGE OF EVIDENCE ON AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE

LINKS BETWEEN CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE

USING THE EVIDENCE

DATING

ENVIRONMENT AND SITE-FORMATION PROCESSES

THE DETERIORATION OF WOOD

CULTURE AND SITE-FORMATION PROCESSES

5 Project Planning

THE PROJECT DESIGN

6 Safety on Archaeological Sites Under Water and on the Foreshore

RISK ASSESSMENTS

DIVING PROJECT PLAN

CODES OF PRACTICE

CONTROL OF DIVING OPERATIONS

WORKING UNDER WATER

POTENTIAL DIVING PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

SAFETY DURING EXCAVATION

INTER-TIDAL SITE SAFETY

7 International and National Laws Relating to Archaeology Under Water

JURISDICTION – WHERE DO THE LAWS APPLY?

THE REGIME IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS INTERNATIONAL SALVAGE LAW

UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE AND SALVAGE LAW

OWNERSHIP OF UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE

ABANDONMENT OF OWNERSHIP

NATIONAL LEGISLATION

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

CASE STUDIES

8 Archaeological Recording

THE NEED FOR RECORDING

RECORDING SYSTEMS

PLANNING THE RECORDING: WHAT TO RECORD

RECORDING INFORMATION ON SITE

RECORDING TIMBERS

RECORDING CONTEXTS

RECORDING STRATIGRAPHY

RECORDING ENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE

RECORDING SAMPLES

RECORDING SURVEY RESULTS

RECORDING PLANS AND SECTIONS

RECORDING PHOTOGRAPHIC RESULTS

CONSERVATION RECORDS

IDENTIFYING ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL

TAGS AND LABELLING

STORING THE INFORMATION

COMPUTING OPTIONS AND ISSUES

GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS

EXPLAINING, DOCUMENTING, AND SUPERVISING THE SYSTEM

9 Historical Research

TYPES OF EVIDENCE

LOCATING PRIMARY SOURCES

THE INTERNET

METHODS OF RESEARCH

10 Photography

PHOTOGRAPHIC THEORY

DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY

SURFACE PHOTOGRAPHY

PHOTOGRAPHING FINDS

UNDERWATER PHOTOGRAPHY

UNDERWATER PHOTOGRAPHIC TECHNIQUES

DIGITAL DARKROOM

MOSAICS – PHOTO OR VIDEO

VIDEO CAMERAS

VIDEO TECHNIQUE

VIDEO EDITING

11 Position-Fixing

GEOGRAPHICAL COORDINATES

ACCURACY

METHODS OF POSITION-FIXING

EQUIPMENT

12 Underwater Search Methods

POSITIONING

COVERAGE

SAFETY

DIVER SEARCH METHODS

13 Geophysical and Remote-Sensing Surveys

SEARCH PATTERNS, NAVIGATION AND POSITIONING

ACOUSTIC SYSTEMS

BATHYMéTRIE SURVEY

ECHO-SOUNDERS

MULTIBEAM SWATH SYSTEMS

BOTTOM-CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

SIDESCAN SONAR SUB-BOTTOM PROFILING

MAGNETOMETRY

INTEGRATED SURVEYS

SUBMERSIBLES: ROVS AND AUVS

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY

14 Underwater Survey

TYPES OF SURVEY

AN INITIAL SKETCH

PLANNING

SETTING UP A BASELINE/CONTROL POINTS

INSTALLING SURVEY POINTS

THE PRINCIPLES OF SURVEY

SURVEY USING TAPE-MEASURES, GRIDS AND DRAFTING FILM

VERTICAL CONTROL (HEIGHT/DEPTH)

DRAWING/PLANNING FRAMES

GRID-FRAMES

PROCESSING MEASUREMENTS AND DRAWING UP THE SITE-PLAN

THREE-DIMENSIONAL COMPUTER-BASED SURVEY

ACOUSTIC POSITIONING SYSTEMS

POSITIONING THE SITE IN THE REAL WORLD

15 Destructive Investigative Techniques

PROBING

SAMPLING

EXCAVATION

16 Archaeological Conservation and First-Aid for Finds

UNDERWATER BURIAL ENVIRONMENTS

MATERIALS DEGRADATION AND POST-EXCAVATION DETERIORATION

PRINCIPAL RISKS TO FINDS DURING AND AFTER RECOVERY

PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES FOR FIRST-AID FOR UNDERWATER FINDS

LIFTING, HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION

APPROACHES TO PACKING AND STORAGE

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

INITIAL CLEANING

HOLDING AND PRE-CONSERVATION TREATMENT SOLUTIONS

RECORD-KEEPING

X-RADIOGRAPHY AND FACILITIES

HEALTH AND SAFETY

INSURANCE

CHECKLISTS

17 Site Monitoring and Protection

MONITORING

PROTECTION

18 Archaeological Illustration

BASIC DRAWING EQUIPMENT

DRAWING ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL

RECORDING ‘BY EYE’

RECORDING DECORATION AND SURFACE DETAIL

RECORDING CONSTRUCTIONAL AND OTHER DETAIL

POST-FIELDWORK PHOTOGRAPHY AND LASER SCANNING

PRESENTING A RANGE OF COMPLEX INFORMATION

19 Post-Fieldwork Analysis and Archiving

HANDLING MATERIAL AND KEEPING RECORDS

POST-FIELDWORK TREATMENT OF SURVEY WORK

SPECIALIST ANALYSIS

INTERPRETATION AND GATHERING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FROM OTHER SOURCES

PRODUCING AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARCHIVE

20 Presenting, Publicizing and Publishing Archaeological Work

THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLICIZING (WHERE AND WHEN)

IDENTIFYING AND SATISFYING AN AUDIENCE

METHODS OF PRESENTATION

WRITING REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS

A SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT AND CONTRIBUTION

Appendix 1: Anchor Recording

STONE ANCHORS

STOCK ANCHORS

Appendix 2: Guns

THE IMPORTANCE OF SEA-BED RECORDING

IDENTIFICATION OF MATERIAL

CLASSIFICATION BY METHODS OF LOADING

CLASSIFICATION BY SHAPE

INSCRIPTIONS AND DECORATION

PROJECTILES, CHARGES AND TAMPIONS

RECORDING AND ILLUSTRATING GUNS

Appendix 3: NAS Training Programme

AN INTRODUCTION TO FORESHORE AND UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY

NAS PART I: CERTIFICATE IN FORESHORE AND UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY

NAS PART II: INTERMEDIATE CERTIFICATE IN FORESHORE AND UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY

NAS PART III: ADVANCED CERTIFICATE IN FORESHORE AND UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY

NAS PART IV: DIPLOMA IN FORESHORE AND UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGY

Glossary

References and Further Reading

Index

Underwater Archaeology

The Nautical Archaeology Society also publishes The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology with Blackwell Publishing, a new series of monograph reports and a members’ newsletter, Nautical Archaeology. It runs several public participation projects.

This edition first published 2009 © 2009 by Nautical Archaeological Society

Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell.

Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom

Editorial Offices350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UKThe Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

The right of the Nautical Archaeological Society to be identified as the author of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Nautical Archaeology Society.Underwater archaeology : the NAS guide to principles and practice / author, the Nautical Archaeology Society; editor, Amanda Bowens. - 2nd ed. p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-1-4051-7592-0 (hardcover : alk. paper)—ISBN 978-1-4051-7591-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Underwater archaeology. 2. Shipwrecks. 3. Underwater archaeology—Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Bowens, Amanda. II. Title.

CC77.U5N39 2009930.1’028’04—dc22

2007048319

List of Figures

2.1The Dover bronze-age boat2.2The fifteenth-century Newport ship2.3Experimental archaeology: building a replica log boat2.4Trials of the Loch Glashan replica log boat3.1Post-fieldwork activity4.1Archaeological sites as part of a settlement pattern4.2Survival of clues on underwater sites relative to dry sites4.3An RNLI wreck chart for 1876-74.4Site types: aerial photograph of a stone- built fish-trap at Airds Bay, Scotland4.5Tree-rings viewed through a microscope4.6Tree-ring sequence built up from trees in the same area4.7Typology: how it works4.8Stratigraphy from above: the sequence of events4.9Stratigraphy: what it can reveal4.10The importance of context and stratigraphy4.11Site-formation processes4.12Re-used ship’s timbers in an open barn on the Turks and Caicos Islands8.1In situ recording: a diver’s recording form completed during excavation of the Mary Rose in 19828.2Planning contexts8.3Harris matrix8.4Section through a gully on the wreck of El Gran Grifon (1588)8.5An archaeological database9.1An eighteenth-century gravestone near the River Tay in Perthshire showing a salmon fisherman’s square-sterned coble10.1A diver sketching a late ninetenth-century shipwreck in Dor, Israel10.2A simple set-up for photographing finds using a vertical stand10.3A vertically photographed wooden weavin heddle from the Armada wreck La Trinidad Valencera (1588)10.4Obliquely photographed wooden bellows from the Armada wreck La Trinidad Valencera (1588)10.5Important considerations for successful underwater photography10.6A 5 metre square photomosaic of ship remains on the Duart Point wreck10.7A photographic tower positioned on a rigid site grid10.8Photomosaics: formula to calculate lens focal length and camera height necessary to give the required coverage10.9Underwater use of a video camera11.1The earth, showing latitude, longitude and equator11.2The basis of the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection11.3A scatter of shots showing precision and accuracy11.4Taking horizontal sextant angles11.5How to use sextant angles (scribed on drafting film)11.6Sextant angles: plotted geometrically from baselines between charted features11.7A triangle of error, or ‘cocked hat’11.8The use of coastal features as transit marks to establish the position of a site11.9Accuracy of transits11.10Temporary transits formed by setting up paired ranging rods along a shore baseline11.11Surveying a submerged site in shallow watei using a shore-based EDM11.12Differential GPS system with satellites, shore-based reference stations and in-boat mobile receiver12.1Towed diver search12.2Swimline (freeline) search12.3The offset method in use (with metal detector)12.4Jackstay (corridor) search12.5Circular search13.1500 kHz sidescan sonar image of a v-shaped fish-trap from the River Barrow, County Wexford, Ireland13.2Sidescan sonar image of the SS Storaa (1943)13.3Chirp and Boomer image from Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland13.4A two-dimensional profile and interpolated timeslice of the Grace Dieu (1439) wreck, River Hamble, Hampshire, UK13.5Geophysics equipment: 1) magnetometer, 2) sidescan sonar, 3) sub-bottom profiler, 4) ROV14.1Excavation plan of part of the Spanish Armada wreck La Trinidad Valencera (1588)14.2Representing the sea-bed using symbols14.3Radial method of survey14.4Recording the profile of a wreck using vertical offsets from a horizontal datum14.5Offset method, including plotting results14.6Ties/trilateration: survey and drawing up results14.7The principle of levelling to establish relative heights/depths14.8Depth relative to a temporary benchmark14.9A simple clinometer14.10A double-strung planning frame14.11A diver taking DSM measurements14.12Braced quadrilateral (3-D survey)14.13Joining quads (3-D survey)14.14Measuring between quads (3-D survey)14.15Good control-point network shapes (3-D survey)14.16Secondary points (3-D survey)14.17Poor control-point network shapes (3-D survey)14.18Positioning detail points on features using control points (3-D survey)14.19Surveying a submerged site in shallow water using a shore-based ‘total station’15.1Excavation strategies: trench and test pits15.2Probing to record sediment depths and obstructions15.3Use of air or water probes15.4Optimum place for tree-ring sampling15.5Taking a spot sample15.6Column or monolith sampling from a section15.7Excavating a wooden weaving heddle on the Armada wreck La Trinidad Valencera (1588)15.8Excavation tools: the trowel and the paint brush15.9A conservator removing the surviving section of a gunpowder barrel, excavated from the Spanish Armada wreck La Trinidad Valencera (1588)15.10Excavation using airlift15.11Water-dredge operation16.1Teredo navalis (shipworm)16.2A concretion recovered from the Duart Point wreck (1653) site, Mull, Scotland16.3An X-ray of the concretion shown in figure 16.216.4The Duart Point sword hilt shown in figures 16.2 and 16.3 after conservation16.5Excavating a small fragile object - a leath water-bottle - from the Armada wreck La Trinidad Valencera (1588)16.6Raising a large organic object - a spoked wooden wheel - from the Armada wreck La Trinidad Valencera (1588)16.7The leather water-bottle shown in figure 16.5 is brought to the surface and handed to the waiting conservator16.8A pocket sundial with integrated compass found on the wreck of the Kennemerland (1664)17.1A covering of sandbags placed over a fragile area on the Duart Point (1653) wreck, Mull, Scotland18.1Archaeological illustration in practice18.2Recording shape: tracing round an object with a set-square and pencil18.3Recording shape by establishing a vertical datum and taking offset measurements18.4A radius template in use18.5A radius chart in use18.6Correct orientation of a pottery sherd when using a radius chart18.7A simple pottery drawing18.8Thickness-gauge callipers in use18.9Archaeological illustration of a jug complete with spout18.10Profile gauge in use18.11Depiction of complex decoration (‘rolled out’)18.12The drawing of a complex object - swivel gun from La Trinidad Valencera (1588), with views and details selected to convey the maximum amount of information18.13Illustration of two pairs of brass dividers from the Dartmouth (1690)18.14Drawing of a more complex pot18.15Drawing of a boatbuilder’s tar brush from western Scotland18.16A render of the 3-D laser-scan data of the figurehead from HMS Colossus (1798)18.17An orthographic view of the shaded 3-D laser-scan data of the Mary Rose (1545) hull19.1A plan chest for the storage of plans and drawings19.2An example of a site-location map19.3Interpreted and ‘naturalistic’ representations of the same section prepared for publication19.4Representing topography with hachures and contours19.5One of the Mary Rose Trust organic stores19.6The Mary Rose card file system20.1A public talk during a NAS project at Stourhead, Wiltshire, UK20.2A team member being interviewed for television during work on the Mary Rose (1545) site1.1Anchor terminology2.1Cast ordnance: terminology - a corresponding recording form is available on the NAS website2.2Wrought-iron breech-loading tube gun: terminology - a corresponding recording form is available on the NAS website2.3Breech-loading swivel-gun: terminology - a corresponding recording form is available on the NAS website2.4A small swivel-gun recovered from a Spanish Armada wreck off Streedagh Strand, Ireland2.5Plan and side view of a decorated cast- bronze gun from the Spanish Armada wreck La Trinidad Valencera (1588)2.6A Tudor rose heraldic emblem from one of the bronze guns from the Mary Rose (1545)2.7The weight number on the breeching ring reinforce on the Stirling Castle’s (1703) demi-cannon, as shown in figure 2.132.8Founder’s mark (Thomas Western), touch-hole and details of markings on the first reinforce on the Stirling Castle’s (1703) demi-cannon, as shown in figure 2.132.9Detail of the broad arrow on the Stirling Castle’s (1703) demi-cannon, as seen in figure 2.132.10Plain iron guns from the Armada wreck El Gran Grifon (1588)2.11A drawing properly set out for publication of a piece of ordnance - a cannon ferrier from a Spanish Armada Wreck off Streedagh Strand, Ireland2.12Rubbing taken from the top of the barrel of the swivel-gun shown in figure 2.42.13A demi-cannon from the wreck of the Stirling Castle (1703)

List of Plates

2.1Charles Deane diving on HMS Royal George (1782)2.2Ethnographic recording of a three-log kat in Edava, Kerala, India3.1NAS Training project near Bristol, UK3.2More archaeology on the foreshore in the UK with NAS Training4.1A diver examining a chest of longbows on the Mary Rose (1545)4.2Site types: reconstruction of a crannog on Loch Tay, Scotland4.3The Swedish man-of-war Vasa (1628)6.1Archaeological team on hookah preparing to dive6.2A commercial archaeological diving unit working to UK Health and Safety Executive protocols for surface-supplied diving8.1Recording timbers: 1:1 tracing of timber surfaces on polythene8.2Stratigraphy: an underwater excavation face showing several stratagraphic layers8.3Recording in situ: a slipware bowl during excavation on the Duart Point wreck (1653), Mull, Scotland8.4On-site finds processing10.1Free-standing photographic tower in use within a survey grid to record a photomosaic11.1A ‘total station’ ready for use12.1A dry run practice of a swimline (freeline) search13.1High-definition multibeam sonar point cloud image of the 203 m (660 ft) long wreck of HMS Royal Oak (1939) in Scapa Flow, Orkney13.2Surface rendered multibeam sonar image of rock gullies off Moor Sand, UK, containing bronze-age and seventeen-century material13.3Multibeam sonar image of the SS Storaa (1943)13.4Multibeam image of a prehistoric land surface at the base of the 8 m (26 ft) high underwater Bouldner Cliff in the Solent, UK. The wreck of the 44 m (143 ft) long dredger Margaret Smith (1978) is included for scale13.5High quality, diver-recorded site-plan of the Hazardous (1706) wreck-site13.6Multibeam sonar image of the Hazardous (1706) wreck-site for comparison with plate 13.513.7Multibeam image from a single pass in 2002 showing the sea-bed around the wreck of the Stirling Castle (1703)13.8Multibeam image from a single pass in 2005 showing the sea-bed around the wreck of the Stirling Castle 3 years after the pass shown in plate 13.713.9Multibeam image of a nineteenth-century wooden sailing ship on the Goodwin Sands13.10Ground discrimination data collected from a single-beam echo-sounder showing bathymetry, hardness and roughness of the wreck of the 178 m (580 ft) long Markgraff (1919) in Scapa Flow13.11Three-dimensional plot of magnetic data acquired from the La Surveillante (1797) wreck-site in Bantry Bay13.12Photograph showing a Geometrics G-881 caesium magnetometer, an EdgeTech 272-TD side-scan, a GeoAcoustics side-scan and an Imagenex 885 side-scan sonar14.1Using vertical offsets to record hull profile14.2Underwater survey: diver with drawing board14.3A clinometer in use14.4A double-strung drawing/planning frame in use14.5Drawing/planning frames being used vertically to record vessel remains on the foreshore14.6A screen-shot showing Site Recorder in use on the Mary Rose (1545) site15.1Underwater excavation with an airlift15.2Excavating with a water-dredge in less than 5 m (16 ft) of water in Dor, Israel15.3Underwater excavation with a water-dredge16.1The effects of uncontrolled drying of organic material - samples of oak from the Mary Rose (1545)16.2A gun carriage is lowered into a temporary polythene-lined tank pending dispatch Q to the conservation laboratory16.3The base of a wooden gun carriage being prepared for lifting16.4A batch of objects being prepared for transport to the laboratory17.1A current gauge on the Duart Point (1653) wreck, Mull, Scotland17.2Monitoring of the underwater environment on the Mary Rose (1545) wreck using an RBR data-logger17.3Oak blocks placed on the Mary Rose wreck-site to study the activity of marine wood-boring animals17.4A conservator attaches an aluminium anode to an iron gun on the Duart Point (1653) wreck, Mull, Scotland20.1Public outreach: children learning about underwater archaeology20.2Opportunities for publishing archaeological work, both electronically and in hard copy1.1A one-hole stone anchor found at Chapman’s Pool, Dorset, UK1.2A two-hole stone anchor found near Golden Cap, Dorset, UK3.1Divers practise underwater survey techniques during a NAS Part I course3.2Obtaining samples for dendrochronological dating during a NAS Part III course3.3Excavation and survey during a NAS Training project on the foreshore near Bristol, UK

Foreword

The Nautical Archaeological Society has for many years been a champion of best practice in archaeology under water through its internationally acclaimed training scheme, the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, and a wide range of practical outreach projects. The original edition of the NAS Handbook was another invaluable and much-appreciated part of how the Society has supported practical involvement in nautical archaeology. Ever since it went out of print some years ago, there have been continual enquiries about when a reprint or new edition would be available.

It is therefore with great pleasure that I introduce this new edition of an invaluable publication. The whole text and most of the illustrations have been comprehensively revised and updated, and, as explained in the introductory first chapter, there are several entirely new sections on vitally important aspects of the subject. In many respects, as the new title indicates, this is as much a new publication as a revision, and it will be all the more valuable as a result.

To users of the first NAS Handbook, this second edition may have seemed a long time coming, but it has involved a huge amount of work by a large number of contributors who have very generously provided their expertise on a voluntary basis. I am sure that every reader will wish to thank them all for sharing their wisdom and experience. Our Vice-President, Colin Martin, has been very generous in providing a very large number of the images and we are also very grateful to Graham Scott for the majority of the line illustrations, which have intentionally copied or been inspired by Ben Ferrari’s drawings in the original book. We are also grateful to all the other photographers and illustrators whose work is acknowledged.

This publication would not have come to fruition without the very patient and dedicated work of our editor, Amanda Bowens, who has shown great tact, persistence and skill in marshalling all this material. We are also grateful to Paula Martin for editorial assistance and compiling the index. Finally I would like to pay tribute to Lucy Blue and the rest of the NAS Publications Sub-committee for pushing the project ahead, and to Wiley-Blackwell, our very supportive publisher, who have been responsible for the design and production.

I am sure everyone who uses this book, whether in an academic, professional or a vocational context, will benefit from developing their interest and skills in nautical archaeology, thereby enhancing the quality of the work they do. If it is as successful as the original NAS Handbook, it may not be so many years before a further reprint or new edition is needed, so any comments and suggestions will always be gratefully received. In the meantime, may your explorations in nautical archaeology be a constructive and rewarding experience.

George LambrickChair NAS

Acknowledgements

Except where otherwise stated, the drawings in this second edition are by Graham Scott, copied or inspired by Ben Ferrari’s drawings in the first edition.

Contributors to the second edition

Jonathan Adams, BA DPhil FSA MIFA

Marc-André Bernier, BA MA

Lucy Blue, BA DPhil

Amanda Bowens, BA MA

Martin Dean, BSc MIFA (Hon) FSA

Justin Dix, BSc PhD

Joe Flatman, MA PhD PIFA

Craig Forrest, B.Comm LLB LLM PGCE PhD

Damian Goodburn, BA PhD AIFA

Alexzandra Hildred, BA MIFA FSA

Peter Holt

Kester Keighley, MSc Stuart Leather, MSc Gordon Le Pard, BSc

Colin Martin, PhD FRHistS FSA Scot MIFA MAAIS

Paula Martin, BA Dip Class Arch PhD FSA Scot MIFA

Douglas McElvogue, PhD MIFA FSA Scot

Sean McGrail, FSA MA PhD DSc MIFA Master Mariner

Gustav Milne, MPhil FSA

David Parham, BA MSc MIFA RPA

Leslie Perkins McKewan, MSc PIFA

Rory Quinn, PhD

Julie Satchell, BA MA MIFA

Graham Scott, AIFA

Amanda Sutherland, BSc ACR

Christopher Underwood, BEd MA

Steve Waring, BSc

Michael Williams, LLB

The editor is extremely grateful to the following for their help and support:

Mark Beattie-Edwards

Lucy Blue

Alan Bowens

Alistair Carty

Rebecca Causer

Alison Hamer

Mary Harvey

Stuart Heath

Jill Hooper

Kester Keighley

Colin Martin

Edward Martin

Paula Martin

Nick Rule

Julie Satchell

Contributors to the first edition

Jonathan Adams, Barrie Andrian, Adrian Barak, Martin Dean, Robin Denson, Chris Dobbs, Sarah Draper, Ben Ferrari, Robert Finegold, Antony Firth, Ian Friel, Debby Fox, Alison Gale, Cathy Giangrande, David Gibbins, Damian Goodburn, Alexzandra Hildred, Richard Larn, Thijs Maarleveld, Ian Oxley, Mark Redknap, Nick Rule, Paul Simpson, Kit Watson.

Note

Every effort has been made to trace copyright holders and to obtain their permission for the use of copyright material. The publisher apologises for any errors or omissions in the above list and would be grateful if notified of any corrections that should be incorporated in future reprints or editions of this book.

1

The NAS Handbook – Why It Was Written

The original Archaeology Underwater: The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice was first published in 1992. It was commissioned to help address a scarcity of information about ‘how to undertake archaeological work under water while maintaining acceptable standards’ (Dean et al., 1992:2).

As well as explaining fundamental archaeological principles, this book provides a general introduction to archaeology under water, detailing techniques and practices as they are applied in an underwater context. It provides the tools appropriate to tackle a variety of sites in different environments and emphasizes that archaeology is not just a set of techniques - it is shaped by fundamental principles and theoretical parameters. While this book is a comprehensive source of practical information, it is not a complete reference book and will not transform the reader into an underwater archaeologist. Its aim is to provide an awareness of the responsibilities that go with any form of fieldwork while outlining what is involved in achieving an acceptable standard of archaeological work in what can often be a challenging physical environment.

In the intervening years since the publication of the first edition, while the basic principles have remained the same, technological developments have resulted in new and improved archaeological techniques. Meanwhile, the World Wide Web and satellite television have helped take underwater archaeology into peoples’ homes, feeding what appears to be an insatiable public appetite for all things associated with the past. In addition, links between countries with different approaches to archaeological investigation have strengthened and, as a result, the toolbox of techniques for archaeological work under water has grown.

In the light of such developments, an update to the text and graphics of the original book seems timely. The result is this long-awaited second edition of what is popularly referred to as ‘The NAS Handbook’.

The body that eventually became the Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS) was originally incorporated and registered as a charity in 1972 under the name (The) Nautical Archaeology Trust Limited. The Trust was reconstituted in 1986 as the Nautical Archaeology Society, mainly to oversee the production of the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (IJNA), the first volume of which had been published in 1971, and more generally to further research. The Society is committed to the research, conservation and preservation of maritime cultural heritage. The NAS is based in the United Kingdom but has a significant international profile. Membership is made up of a wide range of people who wish to promote and be involved in the preservation of their coastal and underwater heritage, in its broadest sense.

This second edition of Underwater Archaeology includes several new chapters covering such topics as photography, legislation and conservation. Additional chapters reflect significant developments or new approaches, particularly with respect to project planning, safety on archaeological sites, historical research, monitoring and maintenance and geophysics.

Each individual component of this book was written by someone who is an expert in his/her field. The production of this second edition has been a long iterative process involving many people, most of them members of the Nautical Archaeology Society. Text from the original book has been modified, supplemented and, where appropriate, replaced. This book therefore owes its existence to everybody involved in the production of this and all previous versions (please see the list of contributors in the acknowledgements). The Nautical Archaeology Society would like to acknowledge all contributors with grateful thanks.

The Nautical Archaeology Society would also like to introduce the reader to the real underwater treasure - a rich cultural heritage that has helped shape the world in which we live today. By outlining the principles and practices of maritime archaeology, this book will enable people to make informed and responsible decisions about how to get the most from their involvement with maritime archaeology above or under water.

2

Underwater Archaeology

Contents

What is archaeology?

What is archaeology under water?

What is not archaeology under water?

Closely related and complementary approaches (ethnography and experimental archaeology)

This chapter provides a short definition of what constitutes archaeology and an archaeological approach. It will briefly summarize the development of underwater archaeology as a distinct sub-discipline and consider some significant relationships between archaeology and other approaches and activities.

WHAT IS ARCHAEOLOGY?

Archaeology is concerned with the identification and interpretation of physical traces left by past ways of life. Archaeology is not just description, however; its primary aim is explanation. The process of archaeological investigation is similar to the detective work of police and forensic scientists. All traces, however unexciting or irrelevant they may at first appear, have the potential for providing a vital clue to understanding what happened before the detective or archaeologist arrived.

Evidence for the past survives both on land and under water, but the demarcation of ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ sites is complicated by the fact that boundaries change. Some areas that used to be sea-bed are now land while some areas that were once land are now under water. Maritime finds can therefore be discovered in quite unexpected places (see figures 2.1 and 2.2). As the title suggests, this book is concerned with the study of archaeological evidence that is under water although, apart from the use of specialized equipment to deal with the environment, the archaeological techniques are essentially the same under water as on land.

Anyone can call him/herself an archaeologist. What is of concern is whether that person does archaeology well or badly. Even the best-trained and most-experienced archaeologists will have limits to their knowledge and range of skills. Good archaeologists will be aware of their own limitations. This applies equally to professionals and unpaid members of the community doing archaeology for fun. Trained professionals have a better chance of achieving acceptable standards in their work because of the education and experience they have accumulated. Hobby archaeologists, however, can achieve equally high archaeological standards if they accrue the appropriate skills and experience. Apart from archaeological skills, one of the attributes of a good archaeologist is the ability to recognize the limitations of available resources. An archaeologist may turn down a project that involves the destruction of evidence (e.g. excavation) if adequate resources and support are not available. As will become clear throughout this book, resources are necessary to recover, record, interpret and look after finds and other evidence. There is also an obligation to arrange for the long-term care of recovered material and records in a museum or other suitable repository. In addition, resources will be required for publication and dissemination so that evidence from the investigation is available to others (see chapter 20).

Archaeology, as it exists today, has its roots in a curiosity about old things – the stories and legends about past events passed down over the generations, whether fact or fiction, and surviving objects which were associated with past events. This curiosity is common to many cultures

Figure 2.1 The bronze-age boat discovered 6 m (20 ft) below ground in Dover, UK during the building of a major new road. (Photo courtesy of the Dover Museum and The Bronze Age Boat Gallery)

and such interest is not a recent phenomenon. Medieval peasants are known to have collected stone hand-axes thinking they were of supernatural origin. Gradually, some of those interested in ‘relics’ attempted to explain what they were collecting and began to see that some of the material might have relevance to wider issues. For example, some tried to prove that early man was barbaric, whilst others tried to bend the evidence in an attempt to prove that some races were innately superior to others.

Fortunately, others were more enlightened and attempted to be objective about what the material might suggest. This really marks the beginning of archaeology as a discipline, separate from the ‘gentlemanly pursuit’ of curio collection (antiquarianism) or the study of individual objects against a historical background (art history). Workers began to borrow techniques from other, longer established disciplines, such as geology, and to look beyond the objects to their surroundings for more evidence.

This was the beginning of the realization that archaeological contexts are important in interpreting the past. Indeed, beginning with analytical techniques borrowed directly from geology, a great deal of attention was focused on the study of contexts and archaeological sequences. This led to an awareness of the factors that differentiate archaeological from geological deposits and has thus allowed more refined study of the subject (Harris, 1989).

Initially, the focus of attention was on individual sites but, as the discipline developed, archaeological research began to address questions such as the migration of populations, the development of agriculture and the structure of past societies. Over the past 200 years the discipline has accumulated increasingly sophisticated methods and a more refined theoretical base; each generation improving on the amount of evidence that could be collected from the physical remains of societies and cultures no longer in existence. Following an initial concern with the classification and description of objects, archaeology developed into a discipline concerned with using material evidence to make inferences about people and behaviour.

The past 30 or so years have seen a great deal of attention focused on the theoretical side of the subject. This has meant that as the body of scientifically collected evidence grows, fundamental questions about the past can now be addressed more effectively, and conclusions tested more rigorously.

Figure 2.2 On the banks of the River Usk in central Newport, Wales, the well-preserved remains of a Tudor ship were discovered. (Photo: Hampshire and Wight Trust for Maritime Archaeology)

Work conducted in the early years of the discipline recovered far less evidence about the past than can be recovered today. This is because early archaeologists unwittingly destroyed information that could have been retrieved with modern techniques. While it is too late to do very much about that loss of evidence, it serves as an important reminder that archaeologists of the future may look back on the work of today’s archaeologists in the same way. Both professional and amateur archaeologists should feel a responsibility to hand on as much of the evidence as possible, so that future generations can make sense of the clues that cannot be understood today (plate 2.1).

Understanding the complexity and potential of archaeological sites (rather than just the objects) is a process that has taken a long time to develop, and it is not yet complete. A great deal of experience has been painfully accumulated over the centuries, and there is no excuse for someone curious about the past starting out today to make the same mistakes as those made 100 or 200 years ago. Sadly, this does still happen. Some practitioners of underwater and foreshore archaeology become involved through the accidental discovery of archaeological remains, and may begin with little or no archaeological experience. Underwater archaeology is a comparatively new area of study and still has to prove its value to some traditional archaeologists. However, as it matures and learns from the experience of archaeology in general, priorities and principles can be developed and the overall quality of archaeological work under water will improve.

Archaeologists treat a site like the scene of a crime and carefully collect all the available evidence. The murder weapon, evidence of the break-in, the position of the body, traces of poison, the ballistics report, the systematic search, fingerprints and the fibres matched to the criminal’s clothes, all have their parallels in archaeology. Indeed the methods and aims are so similar that the two disciplines borrow techniques from each other and sometimes work together.

If archaeology is the collection of evidence at the scene of a crime, its sister discipline, history (the study of documents), is the reviewing of witness statements. The two disciplines use different sources of information and different techniques but together they make up the evidence for the case. It is important to be aware of the potential of historical research and to use it where appropriate (see chapter 9). It is equally important not to be confused when the physical evidence appears to contradict the recorded views of witnesses. Each type of evidence has its own problems and limitations and the good detective will understand this and reach conclusions based on the merits of all the evidence.

An examination of our surroundings will soon reveal how little physical evidence of the past has survived. Activities such as building development, road construction and mineral extraction continue to eat away at the store of evidence that is left. In order to drive cars, have warm homes and new buildings, this is the price that has to be paid. With careful planning, however, the loss of information can be reduced. This can be achieved either by avoiding damage to the remains of the past where they exist or, if destruction is unavoidable, recording the sites archaeologically so that at least the evidence contained within them can be rescued and passed on to future generations.

Planned construction work is sometimes modified to avoid damage to archaeological material. If a site is to be destroyed by development then the rescue and recording of information may be done voluntarily by the developers, although occasionally a little encouragement from legislation is required. Although archaeological fieldwork on land is often related to anticipated site disturbance through development or changes in land-use, most sites are not recorded before they are destroyed in this way. The reason for this is that there is a lot of archaeological work to be done but little money to pay for it. In these circumstances every archaeologist must think hard before undertaking any excavation (itself a destructive process) that is not rescuing information ahead of inevitable destruction.

As stated earlier, future generations will be able to infer more from sites than present-day archaeologists. At some point in the future, for example, it may not be necessary to excavate at all as methods of ‘seeing’ into the ground are becoming more and more sophisticated (see chapter 13). Fieldwork has not always been shaped by such considerations, and excavations have taken place in the past which might be difficult to justify now. That does not imply criticism of past workers – it simply means that archaeologists have learnt to ensure that every penny spent on archaeology today is money well spent, and that it is part of a co-ordinated and directed effort to understand our heritage.

There is more than enough non-destructive archaeological work available now to keep all those interested in the past busy for years. One of the most pressing is searching for and recording new sites. Whichever strategy for the conservation and management of the remains of the past is applied, one thing is vital – forewarning of potential problems. Sea-bed users, legislators and archaeologists need to know what significant remains exist/are known of in any one area before commercial development, or any other potentially destructive process, begins.

One of the areas of expansion within archaeology over recent years has been the compilation of inventories of sites by both regional and national governments. In the UK, these inventories are called sites and monuments records (SMRs) or historic environment records (HERs) and the information held in them is essential for the proper management of historic and archaeological remains. It enables the effective identification of sites and the appropriate allocation of limited resources for their protection.

Systematic ‘stock-taking’ of underwater sites is slowly advancing but it has a long way to go, and this is where members of the public, archaeologists and non-archaeologists alike, can help. Millions of sport-dives are made annually around the world so clearly divers have a vital role to play in finding out just what is on the sea-bed.

Registers of sites serve two main functions:

1 They provide information in a form that is convenient for researchers to consult and easy to manipulate. For example, with a computerized database a researcher should be able to find basic information on all the known sites on a particular date in a specific area or, in a more refined use of the system, be able to obtain information on only those from that period which contained specific types of material. Such a register can be a powerful tool for research as well as for the management of archaeological resources.

2 They provide the background information which allows an assessment of whether particular sites are in immediate danger, or likely to be damaged by new developments. If a company wishes to take sand and gravel from an area of sea-bed, a comprehensive register of sites will allow a very rapid and informed judgement about whether the extraction should go ahead in the intended location.

Many important discoveries have been made accidentally by divers, whereas deliberate searches for specific sites by underwater archaeologists have resulted in relatively few new finds. This underlines just how important recreational divers are in developing knowledge of the nature and distribution of archaeological remains on the sea-bed. The amount of time divers spend on the sea-bed can never be equalled by professional archaeologists. Consequently, the amount of information divers collect is crucial to the development of a representative database, but it can become even more valuable if certain basic observations are made.

For site inventories to fulfil their potential, there is clearly a need for a minimum level of information about each site, this should include:

an accurate position (see chapter 11);an assessment of the age of the site;an assessment of the state of preservation of the site;factors that seem likely to threaten the site in the short or long term;any known historical associations or aspects of the site which make it particularly significant (but be wary of making a firm identification based on wishful thinking rather than hard evidence).

This information, together with any other relevant data, is obviously extremely useful. It is also often already known locally. Such knowledge held at a local level can be difficult to consult if it has not been passed to a historic environment record. This is particularly true in cases where information is not written down anywhere but held in divers’ heads.

Methods have been developed, and are in common use, which allow information on sites to be recorded and consulted while still respecting the local sense of ownership and preserving appropriate confidentiality.

WHAT IS ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER WATER?

The study of the past is an extensive subject. Archaeologists often specialize in one or more aspect, such as the study of cultures found in a geographic location, or a specific period. Some archaeologists develop expertise in a class of archaeological material such as pottery or even ships. Less often do they develop skills for working in a particular environment, such as under water, and those who do would normally have specialist skills in another aspect of archaeology. The archaeology of ships and boats is a natural area of expertise for the archaeologist who dives, but some diving archaeologists will be more interested in submerged settlement sites or some other area of study appropriate to the underwater environment.

Archaeologists who work under water should have the same attitude to the available evidence as those who work on land and should have a familiarity with other areas of archaeological research. Since archaeology under water is not fundamentally different from archaeology on land, the standards applied should be no less stringent.

WHAT IS NOT ARCHAEOLOGY UNDER WATER?

Salvage: (This is not to be confused with the term ‘salvage archaeology’, a North American term which equates to the British expression ‘rescue archaeology’.) Whereas archaeology is the collection of information, salvage is the collection of material for its monetary value. The salvor’s role of returning lost material to trade is a valid activity but it can conflict with archaeology when that material represents surviving clues about the past. Archaeological material is only occasionally of sufficient economic value for commercial operations, and the conflict of interests between archaeology and reputable commerce is less common than might be thought. Unfortunately, there have been occasions when sites have been damaged just to keep salvage crews busy during slack periods.

Treasure-hunting and souvenir-collecting: On the fringe of salvage is treasure-hunting. While financial gain is normally the ultimate motive, the allure of the romance and glory can also play a significant part. It is surprising how many people invest in promises of easy pickings of treasure-fleet bullion or can be persuaded to support ‘antique mining’ expeditions on the flimsiest of evidence (Throckmorton, 1990). Compared with legitimate salvage, the activities of treasure-hunters tend to be less well directed, less financially stable and less accountable, although there are occasional exceptions. This means that such activity is often much more threatening to archaeological remains than salvage. Frequently, such projects are accompanied by exaggerated claims to entice potential investors, who help to keep many treasure-hunting organizations afloat. Few treasure-hunts are financially self-sustaining and so need the help of investors; in this way treasure-hunters usually risk other people’s money in their schemes and not their own. The treasure-hunting community is always keen to promote its rare successes and play down the much larger number of failures so as to maintain potential investors’ interest in future projects. Although some ventures make an attempt to reach acceptable archaeological standards (or claim to do so) during the recovery of objects, the majority do not. The outcome of most treasure-hunting expeditions is damage or destruction of irreplaceable parts of the heritage. The costs of such expeditions are high and the returns low, but the treasure-hunters simply move on to spend other people’s money on the next project.

Another activity on the fringes of salvage is the collecting of artefacts as souvenirs. Many sites have been disturbed and partly or wholly destroyed simply because the finder has a ‘general interest’ in old things and wants a few souvenirs to display at home or in a small private ‘museum’. The motive is often undirected curiosity rather than any destructive intent, but the activity is inevitably unscientific and evidence is lost for ever. To make matters worse, these individuals sometimes disperse material by selling it to offset the cost of collecting.

Although it would be wrong to equate cynical commercial greed with what is often a genuine and deep interest in the past, from an archaeological point of view there are few significant differences in the end results of treasure-hunting and souvenir-collecting. Projects which set out to make a financial profit, those which concentrate on the collection of souvenirs or personal trophies and those which subsidise a basically recreational operation by selling material, destroy important archaeological evidence. To some people the notion of a commercial recovery operation conducted to ‘archaeological standards’ appears achievable. The two approaches are, however, largely irreconcilable for three basic reasons.

Firstly, the major difference between archaeological investigation and salvage or treasure-hunting is that the principal aim of archaeology is the acquisition of new information that can be used now and is available for the benefit of others in the future. Although an increasing number of commercial projects claim to be attempting to reach this goal, very few ever achieve it. Archaeological work on a site is directed to this end and the final result is a complete site archive and academic publication rather than just a saleroom catalogue. Any unnecessary activity (treasure-hunting/antique mining/curio-hunting/ incompetent archaeology) that results in the accidental or deliberate destruction of some of the few surviving clues about the past has to be viewed with profound dismay. Without preservation in the form of adequate, detailed records, that information about the past, which had survived for so long, is destroyed for ever.

Secondly, as will become clear later in this book, clues about the past can come from a wide variety of sources apart from recognizable objects. Archaeology involves far more than artefact retrieval. When a project is being funded by the sale of artefacts, attention is usually focused on the material perceived to have a commercial value. Other sources of evidence that archaeologists would consider vital to the study of the site, such as organic remains and even hull structure, are normally ignored and very often destroyed. Once the material reaches the surface, the commercial artefact-filter continues to operate. Conservation (see chapter 16) can be expensive and objects unlikely to reach a good price at auction are not worth the investment to the artefact-hunter. They are often discarded. The end result is a group of isolated objects selected on the basis of commercial value, rather than a carefully recorded sample of the contents of a site, which can be studied as an assemblage of interrelated clues.

Thirdly, the result of the archaeologists’ work, which is handed on to future generations (the site archive), is expected to include the finds as well as the records from the site (see chapter 19). Forensic science teams do not sell off the evidence from unsolved cases; rather, it is retained for reassessment. Something like Jack the Ripper’s knife could fetch a high price on eBay but, apart from ethical considerations, the implement could still provide fresh evidence as new forensic techniques are developed. Archaeological sites are enigmatic, and the files on them have to remain open. No one interpretation of a site can be considered definitive and new methods and ideas must be tested against a complete set of the original clues if fresh, valid conclusions are to be drawn (Bass, 1990).

Dispersal of material makes re-evaluation virtually impossible. Sites cannot be studied in isolation, but must be compared with and linked to others (see chapter 4), and when the archive of evidence is incomplete, the usefulness of the site for comparison with new ones as they are discovered is greatly reduced. The damage caused by the selling of finds goes further than compromising the record of a single site. The self-sustaining system of promotion that brings in the investment required to fuel most treasure-hunting operations has already been mentioned. The glossy sales catalogues and publicity surrounding the sale of artefacts distorts the notion that the past is valuable. It is valuable, not as cash, but as a source of knowledge about ‘what went before’, an understanding of which is fundamental to all human cultures.

The NAS has drawn up a Statement of Principles (see the NAS website) that it would wish its members and others to adhere to in an effort to help vulnerable underwater heritage receive the care it deserves. Many other concerned organizations, both independent and intergovernmental, have published documents with similar aims and aspirations.

As treasure-hunting continues, sometimes officially condoned, those interested in archaeology are faced with a difficult choice. They can choose not to get involved, and so allow sites to be destroyed, or they can try to improve the standards of the treasure-hunting project, and then risk being ‘sucked in’ and exploited. There is no easy answer. The treasure-hunter will want:

archaeological recording to a standard that will help convince officials to let their work continue and, in doing so, will provide a veneer of respectability that may help impress potential investors and others;validated historical background and provenance – to increase the monetary value of objects;the archaeologist to be a potential target of criticism about the project rather than themselves.

In return for this, the archaeologist will often receive a good salary and the opportunity to rescue information before it is destroyed during the recovery process. Many archaeologists do not feel that the working practices and imperatives of treasure-hunters can be modified sufficiently to make it possible to work alongside them. It cannot be denied that some treasure-hunting companies do attempt good field archaeological practice but they often restrict this to sites where there is external scrutiny and have lower standards on other sites. This suggests that the extra effort involved in disciplined archaeological work is not undertaken voluntarily but simply for expediency.

Any archaeologist considering working on a commercially motivated artefact-recovery project should consider the following points.

Does an archaeologist have to be recruited before the project is allowed to go ahead? The archaeological community may be able to save the site from destruction simply by refusing to become involved.The archaeologist will need to be well qualified and have sufficient experience to make informed judgements under pressure. S/he will also require a strong character to deal effectively with any forceful personalities encountered. Operators will often approach inexperienced, under-qualified or non- diving archaeologists who may be more easily persuaded or misled.The archaeologist should not work for any form of financial rewards based on the quantity or monetary value of materials or objects recovered from the site. The archaeologist should not work under the control of the manager of the recovery operation, and should have the ability to halt the whole operation if adequate standards are not maintained.The archaeologist should not describe the recovery operation as ‘archaeological’ unless it is entirely under his/her control and s/he is directly responsible for the standard of the investigation. Archaeologists should also retain the right to publish an objective and full report on the standards and results achieved and not contribute to the sanitizing of a treasure-hunting expedition by producing a glossy, popular volume masquerading as an academic publication.An archaeologist should not give up the right to campaign against treasure-hunting or actively oppose the dispersal of material.An archaeologist should always remember that while the funding for treasure-hunting usually comes from investors, the normal mechanism for topping up funds is for finds to be dispersed by sale. This is one of the key issues that separates proper archaeology from treasure-hunting and salvage.

Other archaeologists may find that as part of their work for government departments or heritage agencies they have to work alongside treasure-hunters and salvors. In such a situation honest and intelligent dialogue with all parties is advised.

Governments are often criticized for their relationship with treasure-hunters. Poorer countries have, on occasion, entered into financial agreements over potentially valuable wrecks in their waters. Sometimes it is because the country has no prospect of revenue from conventional sources and can see real short-term benefit in such deals. Unfortunately, sometimes it is simply because a senior government official is a diver and thinks it is a romantic notion. Even wealthy countries have entered into agreements with treasure-hunters, generally for pragmatic reasons rather than financial reward or romance. Rarely is a situation as straightforward or as simple as it might at first seem, so it is important for archaeologists to retain an open mind and engage in such debates calmly, taking care not to exaggerate claims or ignore evidence that does not support their case.

If the archaeologist faces a series of difficult choices in living with treasure-hunting, so must conscientious museum curators. They face a similar choice between saving a small part of the information for the general population, and so perhaps encouraging the treasure-hunter, or losing the little they could have saved in an attempt to reduce further destructive activity. By buying objects or even accepting them as gifts, the museum can give both respectability and, in the case of purchase, money, which will help the treasure-hunter to continue destroying sites.

Less well-informed or less scrupulous museums can sometimes become involved more directly. A narrow-minded view is to stock the walls and cabinets of an establishment without worrying about the effect on archaeological sites. Fortunately, this attitude has no place in a modern museum and many institutions and international organizations have worked hard to develop codes of conduct to govern the acquisition of new material.

Further information on some of these issues and links to further resources can be found in chapter 7.

CLOSELY RELATED AND COMPLEMENTARY APPROACHES (ETHNOGRAPHY AND EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY)

Maritime ethnography is the study of contemporary cultures, their tools, techniques and materials. Maritime archaeologists employ ethnographic techniques by studying the material remains of contemporary seafaring and other waterside communities that use similar tools, techniques and materials to those found in archaeological contexts.

Maritime ethnography has three main applications:

1 as a record of a culture, its materials and tools;

2 as an artefact that is part of society, that ultimately reflects on aspects of that society; and

3 as a means of increasing an archaeologist’s knowledge by visualizing past societies, their cultural practices and their use of materials and solutions to technological problems.

The applications of maritime ethnography cited above lead to a better understanding of the archaeological record. The study of contemporary fishing communities and boatbuilding traditions, for example, can provide a valuable insight into past practices and is particularly relevant as boatbuilding traditions are rapidly changing and wooden boats are increasingly replaced by metal and glass-reinforced plastic hulls fitted with engines. What McGrail expressed some years ago still holds true: ‘Ethnographic studies can make the archaeologist aware of a range of solutions to general problems... Using such ethnographic analogies, the archaeologist can propose hypothetical reconstructions of incomplete objects and structures, suggest possible functions of enigmatic structural elements and describe in some detail how an object or structure was made’ (McGrail, 1984:149–50).

Of course such an approach requires a certain degree of caution. The study of contemporary fishing communities does not necessarily directly determine the activities and use of materials in comparable archaeological contexts. People do not always use objects in similar ways and there may be numerous solutions to the same problem. The limitations and difficulties of using such evidence must be appreciated. However, in terms of investigating aspects of function and the manufacture of complex artefacts (such as boats and ships) the ethnographic record is invaluable. When applied cautiously it can provide a baseline or launch-pad for retrospective enquiry (plate 2.2). Ethnographic evidence can also be very closely linked to experimental archaeology.

Experimental archaeology: Material on archaeological sites under water, as on land, can be studied and understood at a number of levels: as a part of the site, as a part of a functional assemblage within the site and as an object in its own right, which can provide information about the technology used by the society that made it. However, archaeological evidence is rarely complete. Objects can be broken and distorted, and they may be found in association with other objects and materials that have no relevance to the way they were actually used (see chapter 4). The evidence for the technology used in the object’s construction may be hidden by other features or may simply be too complex to be understood through a visual inspection alone. It is necessary therefore to find ways of investigating these aspects of the evidence.

The phrase ‘experimental archaeology’ is often used in a very loose way to describe a wide variety of activities. Projects on land have ranged from cutting down trees using flint or bronze axes to the creation of earthworks that are surveyed and sectioned at regular intervals to examine erosion and site-formation processes. Projects beginning on land and ending up in the water have included the construction of water-craft varying in size from small one-person canoes (figures 2.3 and 2.4) to large sailing ships. The NAS regularly organizes experimental archaeology courses for members to learn how to cut out wooden frames for a ship or make things such as replica medieval arrows.

This field of study is not without significant problems, not least of which is the fact that it is possible to spend very large amounts of money building, for example, a replica ship, and actually gain very little useful information. Why is this so?

Figure 2.3 Experimental archaeology: building a replica of a logboat found in Loch Glashan, Argyll, Scotland. (Photo: Colin Martin)

Figure 2.4 Trials of the Loch Glashan replica logboat. (Photo: Colin Martin)