Page 374 - Green - Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook. 2nd ed

Chapter 13: Post-Excavation Research 353
well understood. The historical records for some periods, for example, the Greco-Roman ages, may give information only of a general nature such as the conditions of society at the time, giving almost no information about how boats were built and for what they were used. This is true in the Far East too, where even though writing was common, it was confined to religious and bureaucratic matters. Even though, for example, Chinese monks were regularly traveling from China to India they mainly com- mented on poetic matters and rarely on what the ships were like. It was left to Marco Polo to make the first substantial commentary on Chinese ships and how they were built. Alternatively, the historical record may be very detailed, giving information on how ships were built and for what they were used. In the post-medieval and modern times, the records may give a wealth of information, even identifying the vessel and giving the reason for its sinking. Steffy’s (1994) book on shipbuilding is an invaluable reference.
The integration of this written history with archaeology can thus be dif- ficult simply because it is often not clear how the two forms of information should be synthesized. Some writers have complained that almost every shipwreck excavation report is accompanied by an extensive historical background. It has been suggested that history and archaeology should be separated in publication, except where one bears directly upon the other, and that it is in the combination of these two disciplines in publication that archaeology has lost out. It is true that in some cases maritime archaeo- logical projects have suffered from poor methodology and, in order to com- pensate, there has been an emphasis by the authors toward the historical component. However, the historical component has an essential part to play in the interpretation of sites. Just as the archaeological methodology must be properly applied, the historical approach to the subject must be treated with equal rigor.
In the case where there is a large body of historical information, there has been considerable debate within the profession as to how this material should be treated with respect to the archaeology. Currently in historical maritime archaeology, there is a need for more thoughtful use of the mate- rial record and the historical documentation in published research. It is notable that there is a great deal of difference between the way an histo- rian uses the written record and the treatment by the archaeologist of documentary material. In general, an historian is looking at broad developments in history over a period of time. More often, a maritime archaeologist is addressing problems that belong to a particular point in time and, therefore, will use these records differently. Where maritime archaeology is involved with sites that have little or no written record, the