John, govenment bodies often assume that maritime archaeologists are 
more conversant with those areas of research than most "land-based" 
archaeologists.  In many cases they are.  None of the maritime 
archaeologists I know believe that their job begins at the water's 
edge.  All of them have considerable terrestrial experience as well.

Some jurisdictions in the US (or clients who have been told by 
jurisdictions what they need to do) require maritime archaeologists for 
consideration of wharves, and even interpretation of urban shoreline 
changes based on historic mapping.  Others are content to leave those 
areas to IA specialists or historians.

I would recommend using a maritime archaeologist as a subconsultant 
where it is required.  You retain control over the project, and can 
ensure yourself that "land-based" aspects of maritime sites are fully 
covered.

Lauren Cook, RPA
Senior Archaeologist
RGA, Inc.

----- Original Message -----
From: John R Hyett <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 6:46 am
Subject: Demarcation issues

> 
> Our firm recently received advise from the government department 
> that administers post-invasion (i.e. non-indigenous) archaeology 
> and heritage within the state in which we work. The advice is as 
> follows:
> Consultants proposing to tender for archaeological/heritage 
> consultancies that include a maritime archaeological component 
> must ensure that a qualified maritime archaeologist undertakes 
> this portion of the work. This is critical when assessments of a 
> site's archaeological values or potential must be made, as flawed 
> recommendations may have serious and detrimental impacts on the 
> outcome of site works. 
> 
> It should be noted that maritime sites, as defined, include not 
> only include shipwrecks but also jetties, wharves, aeroplane 
> wrecks and navigational structures. 
> 
> While no one disagrees with the statement that flawed 
> recommendations may have serious and detrimental impacts on the 
> outcome of site work as this applies to any archaeological work, 
> the advice raises some questions (and please note we are not 
> raising issues regarding the specialized techniques involved in 
> underwater archaeology or preservation of artifacts that have been 
> submersed under the sea, but with analysis and assessment of a 
> site's heritage and archaeological values):
> 
> Maritime archaeology, as with any historical archaeology, consists 
> of multiple components and themes. A shipwreck contains cargo, 
> destined for use on land, involving themes such as manufacture, 
> transport, trade and distribution. A jetty or wharf may contain 
> elements relating to entertainment (think Blackpool pier), land 
> based transport (truck and rail), issues regarding landscape; 
> construction materials come from shore based industries and there 
> are many other factors and themes that may be involved. One may 
> ask what is the component in the training of maritime 
> archaeologists that would allow them to make any assessment of the 
> values of such a site that is any more valid than an assessment 
> made by an historical archaeologist and is there a likelihood that 
> by specializing in maritime issues are they in danger of not 
> understanding the land based issues involved? 
> 
> I would appreciate any comments on this; also I would like to know 
> if such conditions on the assessment of maritime sites apply in 
> other jurisdictions around the world as we are drafting a reply to 
> the administrative body. . 
> 
> Thank you all in advance
> 
> John 
>