Hi John
As a budding Maritime archaeologist in New Zealand I am very interested
in this kind of issue. Maritme training at graduate level (or at least
what I've seen of it) is focused on specialsed aspects of maritime
culture heritage (in a similar way to the training a paleoarchaeologist
might get). As most maritime archaeologists start out on land they can I
think understand land sites, but by no means be specalised in land based
work (this of course depends on the individual and their training).
However one very important aspect is health and safety, it is not easy
to work underwater and in most countries paid underwater work of any
kind can not be undertaken unless a comercial grade qualification is
held, for an archaeologist this means a limited comercial/scientific
ticket. As for land based maritime sites such as shipyards specalist
knolwedge is required to fully understand the site. But any good
archaeologist with a book on shipyards could figure out the improtance
of a site. So it does seem a little restrictive if they include above
water sites in this statement, you may need to clarify with them the
difference between maritime and underwater sites, because it looks like
they might only be refering to underwater sites.
I hope this helps.
James Moore
John R Hyett wrote:
>
>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
>
>
>
>
|