Page 23 - Green - Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook. 2nd ed

2 Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook, Second Edition
archaeology with Wilkes (1971) being the only notable work. Soon after the publication of Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook, Dean (1992) published Archaeology Underwater: The NAS Guide to Principles and Prac- tice, an excellent guide to maritime archaeology, particularly as it related to the very important Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS) courses developed in the UK.
In the first sentence of the first edition, I asked the question: “What is maritime archaeology?” The answer is still the same. There have been a number of attempts to define a term to describe all aspects of the field. Terms such as marine, nautical, and underwater all have slightly different meanings, and there is no one word that is really adequate. In 1978 Muckelroy (1978) defined a meaning of the various terms, but generally it has been accepted that the most suitable adjective is “maritime” (McGrail, 1984, 1987), and that it is possibly irrelevant to attempt to determine if, for example, a shipwreck found on reclaimed land is nautical, maritime, or marine archaeology. It is clearly not under water. Recently, Werz (1999) revisited this question and quoting Bass (1983) “archaeology under water, of course, should be called simply archaeology.” This handbook deals with aspects of archaeology and the techniques that are used to conduct archae- ology in an underwater environment. Although shipwrecks are particularly featured here, the techniques described can be applied just as readily to submerged land structures and research associated with sea level changes. See, for example, Blackman (1982) and Flemming (1971, 1978). The overall archaeological process is in fact no different from the process that takes place on land. It is therefore essential to understand that archaeology which is done under water requires the same elements and the same procedures as any other form of archaeology.
Because maritime archaeology is a relatively new discipline it has in the past at times suffered, understandably, from a lack of proper methodology. This was partially due to the fact that the procedures were not clearly understood then; this is no longer the case. A series of major and pioneer- ing excavations demonstrated that even under the most difficult conditions, the highest archaeological standards can be maintained. Previously it was often difficult to determine what was proper archaeology. There was (and there still is) a lot of excavation work masquerading as maritime archaeol- ogy, when it was in reality simply treasure hunting carried out by individu- als claiming to be maritime archaeologists who were driven by a profit motive or simply souvenir hunting. These factors were detrimental to the proper development of maritime archaeology in the early phases and resulted in some people, including professional archaeologists, to argue that maritime archaeology was not a discipline but merely an extension of trea- sure hunting. This is no longer true and many of these prejudices are long