Maritime archaeology is often considered to be an expensive activity because of the resources and equipment that are necessary to operate underwater. However, the archaeological rewards are often enormous. Because UCH has until recent times not been accessible, the resource is extremely large. Once it was considered to be the study of things that were literally underwater, shipwrecks and submerged land sites such as harbors. Today, maritime archaeology also encompasses studies involving maritime activities, such as fishing, commerce, exploration, shore-based facilities that relate to maritime activities, and maritime landscapes. Therefore the maritime archaeologist of today is dealing with a highly diverse subject.
Shipwrecks have been the main focus of study, particularly in Europe and the Mediterranean. Here the discipline has concentrated on the development of ships and shipbuilding. In the Mediterranean, the Institute for Nautical Archaeology, in Turkey, starting with the Cape Geledonya shipwreck, has pioneered a series of excavations that have helped to understand the development of shipbuilding from the early Bronze Age through to the Byzantine Period. This work has been complemented by other important studies in France, Italy, Greece, Israel, and Egypt. This has led to an understanding of how and why these ships were built and the nature of the trade networks and maritime commerce that they were involved in. In some cases, replicas of the shipwrecks have been built to help understand their sailing capabilities.
In Northern Europe, parallel studies have been undertaken, looking at the evolution of shipbuilding from the Roman period through to the post-medieval. In particular, the ships of the Viking period have been extensively studied, starting with the early land finds of land-based ship burials in Norway and the UK. These finds were complemented by a number of ships from the Viking period discovered in Denmark at Roskilda. This work led to the development of an extensive program of replicating these vessels and studying their sailing characteristics. Following this, studies of merchant ships have been undertaken, especially of the cog and other similar vessels that operated in the Northern European waters.
In the early period, the lack of extensive written record made the study of shipwrecks less complex. With only tantalizing references to ships, their cargos, and the people who sailed in the vessels of, say, the Bronze Age, the archaeological finds provide unique evidence of the times. For example, the writings of Homer are one of the few sources of written evidence relating to ships in the Bronze Age, even though he probably wrote much later than the events to which he referred. Despite all Homer’s writings about the siege of Troy and the warfare, we still have little understanding of what their ships or everyday life was really like. In Homer’s Iliad, the besiegers of Troy appear to have lived on barbecued meat alone, with no reference to fishing. In the Odyssey, there are more references to sailing and the ships, but they are so tantalizing! In ‘Calypso’s island’, we hear of Odysseus being given a bronze double ax and adz to fell the trees. Poplar and firs were split and trimmed. The planks were bored and wedged and knocked home, locked with pegs and joints. The vessel was fenced with twigs and wicker bulwarks, stem to stern. This was written some 2700 years ago. Today we can compare some of these words with vessels that were built in those times. Archaeological excavation is likely to be the only way more can be discovered about these issues since it is unlikely that another Odyssey will be found in the archives.
As we progress forward in time, more and more written material becomes available to the maritime archaeologist. Beyond the medieval period, maritime archaeology becomes a more complex field of study. The maritime archaeologist is now faced with a growing source of alternative information to compliment the archaeological record. Records, letters, bills of lading, paintings, etchings, ship plans, and a whole range of complementary evidence becomes available (see Ships and Seafaring). As we progress further in time to the Industrial Revolution, this written record grows in volume until, by the nineteenth century, it is almost overwhelming. In these later time frames, which have only recently begun to be studied, we see a different form of maritime archaeology evolving, where the simple excavation of one particular site is not likely to illuminate the times in the same way that a Bronze Age or Classical Period shipwreck would. Questions have to be asked about the relevance of the site: was it a typical example of the times, how did it fit into the pattern of other similar or different vessels doing the same type of thing? Thus these types of studies become more integrated in historical and social issues.
This is, of course, not history, which itself tends to study the broad issues and certainly does not examine detailed material culture. If we take the example of the Dutch East India Company (VOC), historians and archivists have studied and tried to understand the broad questions of how the company operated between 1602 and 1797. However, it was not until the discovery and excavation of VOC shipwrecks, that the archaeologists started to ask detailed questions of the historians about the material that they were encountering. This can be illustrated by the following example. In the 1980s, contemporary thought was that Northern European ships were built in the conventional manner, with first the keel, then the ribs, and then the planking placed over the ribs as skin (this was known as ‘frames-first’). It was known that in the Classical and Roman period, ships were built differently by laying the keel, then building up the planking to form an outer shell, and then inserting the ribs last (‘shell-first’). When a seventeenth century VOC ship was excavated and found from the archaeological excavation to have been built shell-first, the report was initially greeted with incredulity. The archaeological evidence was, however, irrefutable and it was not till this point that examination of contemporary paintings and treatise of ship construction showed several examples of the shell-first construction which continued up until the late seventeenth century. That in itself began a new research theme for the historians, seeking to understand how and why this unusual technique persisted for such a long time.
So in this time frame, when there are some records and some archaeological sites, in a way the archaeological record and the historical record complement each other. In some cases, the historical record will be the only information indicating a particular thing, that does not exist, for whatever reason, in the archaeological record. In other cases, the reverse is true. So the maritime archaeologist has the additional problem of accessing historical records, often in a foreign language, in order to obtain a complete understanding of the study. Archival research is not a traditional part of an archaeologist’s work, nor are the historians used to dealing with the minutia that this level of archaeological work requires.
When we reach the nineteenth century, the problem for the maritime archaeologist becomes immense. The level of information, other than the archaeological record, is often huge. The approach here has been to take a much broader overview. Few archaeological excavations have been conducted on nineteenth century sites and where they have, the sites have had exceptional significance. The study of the nineteenth century has also had a more regional significance to countries that have had a relatively modern maritime tradition. Thus, the US (apart from states with connections with the Spanish Plate Fleets), Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, all with European colonial connections, have been in the forefront of this field of study. However, as recently pointed out by a number of writers, this field of study has largely failed to develop a sophisticated theoretical basis.
A new and interesting field of study deals with the iron and steam shipwrecks of the Industrial Revolution (see Industrial Archaeology). The study is particularly interesting because, initially, people thought that iron wrecks would ‘last for ever’. Corrosion studies have shown that contrary to this belief, iron shipwrecks are disintegrating at an alarming rate. This can be seen when examining the most recent pictures of the Titanic compared with pictures taken when the vessel was first found in 1985. The research concentrates on issues of how to conserve these rapidly disintegrating artifacts.
A number of complex projects have involved the excavation of complete ships and subsequent conservation and display. The first example was the raising of the seventeenth century Swedish warship Wasa in Stockholm Harbour in 1961. This was another landmark for maritime archaeology. For the first time, an almost complete ship was brought to the surface, not for salvage, but for archaeology. This immense project brought home the impact of the past - at that dramatic moment when the vessel first broke surface and floated into the dry-dock. The raising of the Mary Rose in 1982 was another example. However, strangely, neither of the projects has become a springboard for advancement in the field. Admittedly, both projects have excellent displays, but with the Wasa there have been no more than a handful of academic papers and the recent publications on the Mary Rose have been disappointing.
World History
