Thijs J. Maarleveld
Maritime Archaeology
Identifying Identity
ISBN 978-87-992214-0-0
Esbjerg 2007
Maritime Archaeology
Identifying Identity
Maritime Archaeology
Identifying Identity
Inaugural address
delivered on the accession
to the chair of
Maritime Archaeology
at the University of Southern Denmark
in Esbjerg
on Wednesday 18 April 2007
by
Thijs J. Maarleveld
Esbjerg 2007
Vice-chancellor, ladies and gentlemen, esteemed members of the University
of Southern Denmark community, colleagues at the Esbjerg Campus,
colleagues at the Centre for Maritime and Regional Studies, colleagues
at the ‘Blue’, most maritime, campus of Denmark, appreciated guests,
family and friends,
Published by the Maritime Archaeology Programme
University of Southern Denmark
Esbjerg, 2007
Design: H. Kildebæk Raun
Cover photo: © Patrick Baker
ISBN 978-87-992214-0-0
© SDU
It is a great honour for me to address you at the occasion of the start
of the Maritime Archaeology Programme at this university, Syddansk
Universitet and my appointment in the post of the programme’s
first professor. Planning of this new programme, of course, began
quite some time before substantiating and my appointment actually
brought me to Esbjerg more than a year ago. For various reasons,
however, we decided to wait with a formal kick-off until more than
a plan, an office, and a professor were in place. With Bo Ejstrud as
lector, with the cooperation of the Danish museums with a maritime
archaeological responsibility secured, with a newsletter started,
with a group of international master students consisting of Tomas
Hunnicke, Christine Husum, Aristea Korre, and Ntina Vafiadou
– all present here – presently engaged in a joint study of the Kongeå
river plain and marsh area some 15 kilometres South of Esbjerg as a
maritime zone in the Migration Period and early Middle Ages, with
associate researcher Bjørn Lovén running the Zea Harbour Project
that addresses the harbour layout, infrastructure and installations in
ancient Piraeus, from the Danish school at distant Athens and with
Jens Auer having joined us just this week as a teacher and as a key
director of underwater research in Northern waters, and last but not
7
least with Aoife Daly shortly defending her PhD thesis on timber,
trade and tree-rings, which addresses a key resource in historic shipbuilding, ….. we thought it was about time for this formal event.
Although several other meetings coincide, notably the annual
meeting of Kulturarvstyrelsen in Copenhagen (that many museum
people have to attend who would have liked to be here) and Philip
Verhagen’s doctoral defence in Leiden, 18 April is an appropriate
date. Not only for reasons quite well known in this region, connected
with the identity of Southern Denmark, but also because a few years
ago it was proclaimed as the international day of underwater cultural
heritage by UNESCO.
But why maritime archaeology? What is maritime archaeology?
In what way will the Esbjerg programme try to further the field?
What ambitions do we have? Is maritime archaeology a field with
a consistent identity? What identity do we want to establish for
ourselves, for the programme and for Esbjerg’s contribution? Today,
these are the questions we want to look into …. in your presence.
First – in a rather formal way, fitting the occasion and fitting the
tradition of rite the passage on the accession to a chair in a European
University – I will discuss these and related issues in a formal accession
address, written text, no pictures. After that – and with a tea-break
after the first – three dear colleagues, with whom I have collaborated
in the past, with whom I intend to collaborate in the future, will
present examples of three aspects of maritime archaeology that in
one way or another are defining the range and potential of maritime
archaeology in a way that – for me – makes them the obvious focus
for the coming years. It is those three fields to which I would like to
direct our future research, even though, evidently, the discipline of
maritime archaeology can be approached from quite other angles.
Is then maritime archaeology much wider? Is it a separate discipline at all? In many ways, of course, it isn’t. Separate either from
history, anthropology and cultural archaeology in the wider sense or
separate from geology, oceanography, geophysics and environmental
archaeology in the wider sense it cannot exist. In other words, it
firmly stands within the interdisciplinary tradition of archaeology as
8
such, with a specific maritime focus. Just as the Centre where we are
based, CMRS, and the Esbjerg campus have a maritime focus.
Moreover, maritime archaeology cannot do without the very
general, often ill-defined but sometimes very focused and partial
interest in ‘small things forgotten’ – many of them selectively not so
forgotten at all, and many of them not so small either – that we have
come to denote with the term ‘heritage’. I will come back to that, as
the concept of ‘heritage’ seems to be crucial to the identification of any
identity, but it is certainly of major importance for the development
and importance of maritime archaeology, as I see it.
Separate or not, a lot of effort has been spent to define both the
object of study of the ‘nascent discipline’, as maritime archaeology
was called in a 1972 UNESCO publication, and its limits, notably
in the 1970’s and 1980’s. These efforts have either been inclusive,
claiming ground that is likewise claimed by other disciplines, or
exclusive, setting the discipline completely apart from adjoining fields
of study. Such efforts, whether relatively well-considered such as in
Keith Muckelroy’s 1978 approach, or not, were very …. academic.
Now, .… I see, it is hardly a time and place to dismiss ‘academic
discussions’ when one accedes to a professorship, but some such
discussions are definitely more inspiring than others.
What I mean to say is not at all that it is irrelevant to define the
discipline, its limits and object of study. Indeed, how could I? Such
definitions and delimitations are practical and very relevant indeed
when one is setting up a curriculum. What I do mean, however, is
that these efforts to define – although compulsory reading for our
students – have serious limitations. They have mainly been guided
(or claimed to be guided) by research interests. Here again, you must
start wondering for what reason, other than research interest and the
desire to help others to develop research interests I might be standing
here, at a University, but that again is not what I mean. I will not
dismiss research interests in the relationship between man and sea,
After Deetz 1977.
UNESCO 1972; Muckelroy 1978, Martin 1981, McGrail 1984.
9
research interests in coastal and maritime societies, research interests
in coastal and maritime environments or research in maritime
technology such as they figure in the defining schemes, certainly not.
They are the mainstay of our maritime archaeological ship. What I
want to stress, however, is that the ‘academic discussion’ of the time
– three decades ago – pretended that it was researchers, academics,
that defined and should define what was interesting and what should
be of interest to the discipline, that it was researchers that defined its
identity. However much researchers would like to keep pretending
this, it is a position that can no longer be upheld in any of the
‘heritage’-related disciplines, let alone in maritime archaeology.
On the contrary, although academic researchers have influenced
the discipline’s direction since its inception, they have by no
means been the only ones. Other forces, such as national politics,
nationalistic sentiments, international relations, military security
zones, recreation, collection, competition between dive-industry or
recreational diving ego’s, pure contingencies, trade in antiquities,
and the all-powerful public eye in a society with more information
resources at its disposal than ever before, have all defined the
development of the discipline far more intensively than any academic
could ever dream of. Ray Sutcliffe, one time producer of a world
spanning BBC series on maritime heritage issues and research, has
probably had more influence on the identity of the discipline than
anyone else amongst us today.
For most of you, I would guess, maritime archaeology, adventure,
diving, finding exciting things, hardship and Discovery Channel and
nibbling crisps on the sofa are more or less synonymous …. with a
definite association with danger, sharks and animal aggression. Is
that the identity of maritime archaeology we want to introduce and
strengthen here in Esbjerg? Perhaps not. In fact, it will be our role
to perhaps emphasize a slightly different angle, but we definitely do
not want to deny such an identity either. We do want to understand
the mechanisms behind such images, and we will devote research to
understanding how maritime heritage is valued, to which uses it is
put, what benefits – shared or unshared – it produces.
10
But let us, for the moment, go back to the academic discussions in
which a few – academic – specialists tried to define ‘Maritime Archaeology’ in an effort to get academic recognition for the discipline. The late
Nineteen sixties and the seventies were a time when archaeology and
history, geology and oceanography were well-established disciplines,
and also a time when the way in which government catered for
remains from the past was admittedly different in different parts
of the world, but was consolidating its position rather than being
involved in a constant turmoil of negotiating its position against
other interests. Archaeologists negotiated with their bosses, not with
anybody else. At the same time, maritime archaeology emerged and
adopted a disciplinary identity, but one can hardly say that that was
maritime archaeologists’ doing; one can hardly say the discipline
emerged just because the established academic disciplines were in
want of additional data, were curious to widen their scope to include
archaeological information from the underwater environment or on
the maritime aspects of past society.
In this latter respect, perhaps Denmark, identifying with the maritime feats of the Vikings for which archaeology is such an important
information source, is a major exception, but it is telling that it was
a naval architect rather than a traditional archaeologist that led the
way to the potential in this country. O.k. ‘traditional archaeology’
let itself be convinced of the added value, but it begs the question
whether it would have done so without the persistent persuasion of
Ole Crumlin Pedersen. He made Denmark world leading in a specific
section of maritime archaeology.
There were other exceptions as well, of course. The odd oceanographer, seeing the prospect of dating sea-level change through
the study of submerged land, that once was inhabited and the
submerged interface between land and sea at submerged harbour
locations, and who – as a consequence – became fascinated both
Olsen et al. 1995.
See for instance the series Ships and Boats of the North, the Maritime Archaeology Newsletter from
Roskilde, 1-20, 1993-2003, and the maritime archaeology publications in the series Studies in
archaeology & history in the Publications from the National Museum.
11
by the submerged classical harbours in the Mediterranean and by
prehistoric, Pleistocene use of the continental shelves that have submerged as a consequence of global warming since the Ice Age; the
odd prehistorian, mad enough to don diving equipment, realizing
the potential of waterlogged sites and seeing that in some instances
underwater work would be profitable; just extending data capture to
the underwater environment, in some instances creating innovative,
rigidly productive new maritime archaeological technology and methodology and in some instances transposing outmoded sampling
techniques to a new environment where their application would be
even more unpractical; the odd anthropologist of course, starting
to include material remains of maritime exploitation in the past as
preserved both above and below water into the analysis of maritime
culture. The odd historian .… more often than not looking for the
remains of a specific event …. or – more commonly – put on its
track by underwater explorers seeking credit for their exploits.
Nevertheless, it was not just, …. it was hardly because the
established academic disciplines wanted to widen their scope that
maritime archaeology emerged. After all, it was not those academic
disciplines that defined the economic boom in post-war Europe,
that defined the marketing of SCUBA equipment, the development
of diving as a pastime and the random and targeted exploration
that ensued. In many ways this development continues, spreading
over ever larger portions of the globe, including areas previously
inaccessible due to political or military circumstances, including ever
deeper domains of the world’s seas and oceans.
In many ways – it is perhaps slightly disconcerting to realize
that – in many ways, maritime archaeology has developed as a
very contingent reaction to random or targeted activities by nonprofessionals and otherly-professional operators, either acting from
focused curiosity, from focused self-interest or accidentally stumbling
on underwater remains, seeing it as something to be catered for or
something to be exploited, …. by themselves, by government, by
industry or by academia.
In fact this latter option, to call in academic researchers, seems to
be very logical. However – and again it is slightly disconcerting – the
occasions on which this happened, the occasions on which explorers
have realized that perhaps before going any further it would be wise
to engage academic assistance, have been preciously few. Fewer still
have been the instances in which the assistance that was sought,
was not in background knowledge, geophysics, historical data or
the connoisseurship of ceramic specialists and was not in seeking
justification and legitimacy for their operations by academic backing
of any kind, but was honestly aimed at assistance in assessing an
archaeological site before touching it or at assistance in wrangling
information and knowledge out of complex archaeological deposits.
It is quite clear that such instances – however few – have been crucial
for the identity of the discipline. Several present and past practitioners
have learned to dive specifically for this academic purpose. In an
exceptional instance, an academic institute has subsequently been
established for the purpose of such academic research.10
Crucial as this may have been, crucial as this continues to be, crucial
as this will be for the discipline’s future development, it is certainly
not the single or even the main driving force that has qualified it so
far, whatever academia would like to pretend. In fact, the academic
influence has been surprisingly limited, both on its own account and
as a subsidiary to the initiatives of other parties.
Are we back to adventure then? To hardship, diving and finding
exciting things? In many ways we are. That is to say, there is no way
to deny that that is the most powerful image of maritime archaeology
that exists in people’s minds. It is that image that to a large extent
Flemming 1972; Masters & Flemming 1983; Flemming 2004.
Ruoff 1981; Bocquet 1979; Schlichtherle & Wahlster 1986; Dixon 1991; Bosch et al. 2000; Skaarup 1983; Andersen 1985; Fischer 1995.
Gould 1983; but also Prins 1965, Hasslöf 1972 and many others.
Lyon 1979; Earle 1979; Kist 1990.
12
Peter Throckmorton’s call after having dived the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck that led to the 1959
campaign is the classic example, but fortunately each and region of the world has such examples.
10 Bass 2005.
13
defines maritime archaeology’s identity. It is that image that guides
many of the activities with which government or governments have
been confronted in the decades past and continue to be confronted
with. This has not been unproblematic. Why? Basically, because in
that image we conceive of archaeology as a specific and more or less
private adventure, mr X finding Y and being a hero, whereas on the
other hand we expect government to take responsibility for adequate
protection of vulnerable and valuable archaeological remains. We
expect it to do so, on land, where archaeology has long been regulated
as a public responsibility and a public activity; we expect it to do so
in the maritime zones, where we are only gradually assessing what
to expect. Inherent tensions emerge, between operators interpreting
and monopolizing the resource and governments that hardly live
up to their promises of defending the public interest, between the
developers of offshore installations, windparks, pipelines, etc., that
are obliged to assess and mitigate impact on heritage and competent
authorities, not competent enough to provide basic guidance.
In other words: yes, we may be stuck with the image of adventure
and excitement as a defining factor of maritime archaeology’s
identity but, at the same time, society has very specific demands
on the discipline’s development. The discipline is to provide or to
contribute to historical narratives as any other historical discipline;
it is to follow the academic curiosities that have so far determined
academia’s contribution to its development but, at the same time, it
is to provide a better understanding of what archaeological deposits
are to be expected where in the maritime environment; what heritage
is preserved, what heritage may turn up. It is to provide basic
information for decisions that pretend to include consideration of
cultural values and it is to provide basic tools for future management.
The discipline is expected to provide such applied research, not
just for its own perpetuation, but mostly because society identifies
with heritage and has instructed government to make sure that
the archaeological record will be protected and used as a public
resource, through research and dissemination, producing shared
benefits, producing shared knowledge, producing shared history,
14
rather than status and benefits for the few, status and benefits for
mr X finding Y.
An additional complication is that heritage is a sensitive issue.
Identities are built on it, and any inter-group conflict refers to heritage
issues.11 Multicultural societies have to cope with multiple identities
and multiple claims to heritage. Local government may deny any far
reaching consequences and claim local heritage as of local importance,
basically a building block for local identity, whether justifiably or
not. With maritime remains, especially at sea, this will not work.
Government will still have its responsibilities but will have them
in an international rather than a local arena. It will find that most
shipwreck sites, for instance, have links to different areas of the world
and to different, widely spread groups that may differently identify
with it as significant heritage. The recent – world-wide – outcry over
the looting of the 18th century Dutch eastindiaman ‘Rooswijk’ in
British waters gives some evidence of this, although it was mostly
a classical example of appropriated rather than shared benefits.12 A
clearer case in point is the British outcry over a lack of respect for the
wrecks that issued from the Battle of Jutland in 1916.13 All of them
lie in the Danish Economic Zone and both the U.K. and Germany
consider them important heritage and war graves. Mutual respect for
mutual values, or supposed lack of it, it is something which constantly
qualifies intercultural relations and which constantly qualifies
intercultural and international archaeology. Maritime archaeology is
fraught with international issues, even more so than any other branch
of archaeology.
So, there we are: adventure and excitement, sensitive controversies,
easily leading to diplomatic tension and strict demands by society
– ­strict, but conflicting demands in effect by different stakeholders in
society – and no lack of interlopers, wise guys or profiteers adding to
the sensitivities or exploiting them, doing their own thing for their
11 Lowenthal 1996; Gathercole & Lowenthal 1990, Meskell 1998.
12 Duivenvoorde 2006.
13 Williams 2006.
15
own reasons while loudly criticizing others, most of them quoting
Indiana Jones’s famous dictum ‘but this is our heritage, this belongs
in a museum’ as a justification for any action they may want to take.
Is that what defines the identity of maritime archaeology? What of
academia? Is there any use for it? Can it have any influence?
Well, you may rest assured, that I wouldn’t be standing here,
if I wouldn’t think so. Academia may have had little influence on
the identity of maritime archaeology, it is nevertheless quite clear
that the discipline has a need for academic input. There are several
reasons for this. Some are absolutely intrinsic, others more practical
and applied.
Even the most intrinsic ones, however, directly relate to practical
needs. The underwater environment offers a rich and little explored
body of source material whose assessment and analysis has already
started to inherently influence scientific narratives on human
history. It derives its particular importance from the fact that it is
differently composed and differently filtered from those bodies of
source-material that traditionally have been the meat of historians
and archaeologists. The epistemological background is different. As
a consequence it produces different information that adds to and can
be used to debunk or falsify ill-based but lightly accepted narratives
and myths, perhaps the most important function of History in
modern society. A few, well researched Bronze Age finds can serve
as example: the wide trade network of the mid-second millennium
before our era that is reflected in the Ulu Burun shipwreck on
the southwest Anatolian coast, shedding light both on industrial
production and material procurement and on the intricate cultural
relationships in the Levant is one14; the elaborate technology and
the social organisation needed to produce it, that is revealed by the
‘Dover’ Bronze Age boat is another.15 Information on the introduction, manipulation and genetic improvement of all sorts of agricultural products and foodstuffs is most probably something that does
not immediately occur to you as an area in which maritime archaeological sources contribute, but samples from wreck-sites of all sorts
of periods have become of major importance for palaeobotanical and
palaeo-agricultural studies for the simple reason that samples from
settlement- or disposal sites are mostly composed of spoiled material
whereas shipments are fundamentally selected, provide for quantitative
analysis and very often are very well preserved. Olives, grapes, the
wide variety of grains, sweet chestnuts, introduced horticultural
products such as kidney and pigeon beans, oriental spices .... they
are just some of the examples, where the maritime archaeological
source material contributes to our understanding of domestication
and manipulation of our everyday agricultural needs.16
It is a specific academic assignment for our discipline to try and
understand the production of knowledge out of this new body
of source-material, even though .... other agents than academia
certainly contribute to this understanding as well and even though
.… it is to a large extent other agents that have practical use for
it. They need this background in their everyday engagement with
hands-on decisions and dilemma’s regarding the discovery, reporting,
assessment, protection or destruction of evidence that surfaces as
a result of random or targeted exploration, as a result of building
activities and of projects that have committed themselves to mitigate
negative impacts on cultural resources, as a result of fisheries or of
any other activity. More often than not, irreversible action needs to
be decided on even before it is clear whether the evidence may or may
not indicate finds with great information value, may or may not have
significant – or potentially explosive – heritage significance.
Obviously, I am here referring to government agencies that society
has charged with consideration of cultural values, but obviously also,
I am referring to other agents, developers and conservationists alike,
that play their different roles in present-day civil society and want to
do so in a critical and informed way rather than slavishly or reluctantly
keeping in step with any government guidance. For all of these a
14 Yalçin, Pulak & Slotta 2005.
15 Clark 2004a; Clark 2004b.
16
16 Magendans 1986; Manders 1993; Sassen & Stassen 1995; Kuijper & Manders 2003.
17
better understanding of what we are talking about in archaeology,
what we are talking about in heritage protection is essential.
Another intrinsic reason for academic input immediately relates
to that, although this may not be immediately apparent. It is the fact
that the maritime – and therefore international – aspects of society
and a maritime perspective on social relationships, distance, cultural
exchange or isolation have much to offer to archaeology and history
at large, as it produces narratives with a slightly different angle of
vision. In fact, I am not being completely fair if I say that such a
perspective has been completely underrepresented in archaeological
interpretations. Stone Age archaeology, notably the archaeology
of the Mesolithic or Jægerstenalderen traditionally has a strong
international orientation and an emphasis on the ‘Economic Base’
in marine resources and subsequently an open mind for maritime
interpretations and maritime technology.17
Later Prehistory, however, rooted as it is in settlement studies
and national discourses, rather than in international ones, is often
oblivious to the maritime perspective, even when dealing with
settlement in coastal zones. There are exceptions of course, and some
change is apparent, introducing maritime dimensions and linking
ranges of developments ‘Facing the Ocean’18 but, on the other
hand, it is not international but national discourses on heritage,
on cultural canons, national mechanisms for research funding and
national solutions for the management of preventive archaeology
that inform national and regional decision-makers. Consciously or
not, this seems to further the interpretation of archaeological data as
a notably (hervorragend?) national or regional endeavour.19
As a logical result, boats and maritime material culture are literally
marginal, as the focus is on homogenizing regional narratives and
regional sequences that contribute to national or regional identities.
This is a strange process, in which differences between areas are
17 Clark 1952, Andersen 1985, Louwe Kooijmans 1987.
overvalued and differences within areas are undervalued. Differences
between Jutland and Schleswig, between Holland and Flanders are
unconsciously overvalued, differences within these various areas are
unconsciously undervalued. Boats hardly fit. Their complexity is too
great, their number too few. With little basis, they are cited as regional
status goods or as indicators of ethnicity, an even stranger process, in
which source criticism seems to be completely absent, despite the
meticulous and excellent but also slightly isolated research tradition
on this material in northern Europe, notably in Denmark. In other
words, more often than not we are dealing with ‘Ancient Boats and
Modern Myths’, and it is the myths rather than the boats that inform
the assessment of new finds.20 That is why reinforcement, unravelling
or falsification of such myths will immediately impact future heritage
decisions. It is an assignment for academia to rock this boat.
For more recent, historical, periods the narratives are more open to
the maritime nature of exchange, of trade, of wealth accumulation. This
may result in more significance being attributed to its archaeological
fall-out, especially at the high end of high culture, Henry the Eighth’s
Mary Rose, Gustav Adolf ’s Vasa, Michiel de Ruyter’s Zeven Provinciën,
Christian the Fourth’ Tre Kroner or the great ships of the grand
colonial companies.
But yet again, it is an academic assignment to model and explain,
where and how the archaeological source-material is just a reminder
and an illustration and where it can significantly contribute to our
understanding of processes of acculturation and processes of transfer
of technology. These are areas where archaeological analysis is
potentially strong, not only in those cases where no documentation
exists, prehistory, but equally in historical periods. Understanding
the results of acculturation and integration has become ever more
important in a context of globalization and multicultural rather
than homogene societies. Understanding transfer of technology,
innovation, gradual adaptation and cultural entropy, resistance to
change is relevant for present industry as much as it is relevant as an
18 Cunliffe 2001.
19 After Kosinna 1911; Arnold 1990.
18
20 After Binford 1981.
19
explanatory narrative for a fundamentally industrial society.
Those buzzwords, understanding maritime innovation, bring me
back to Esbjerg, to Esbjerg ambitions and to everyday reality. I have
tried to explain, how much the discipline of maritime archaeology
is in need of academic anchoring. I have tried to explain, how much
maritime heritage management is in need of fundamental research. I
have not yet said, but it is equally evident, how much the discipline,
responsible authorities and recognized stakeholders are in need
of a new generation of well-equipped, well-trained, academically
educated practitioners. What are we, the maritime archaeology
program at SDU, going to do about that? What role do we see for
ourselves?
First of all, we are to train young professionals at the postgraduate level. We started that in September. We will give them,
try to give them, a sound theoretical background, not so much in
order to prepare them for endless academic discussions but as a basis
for hands-on research, for hands-on problem solving and hands-on
roles in the field, both literally in the field and in the management
field, roles that follow from the present state of the discipline and
hopefully roles that will follow from the innovation we and they will
most probably bring to it. Hands-on practical training and hands-on
tutorials therefore complement the more theoretical parts.21
Researchwise, we have clear-cut ambitions as well. Today, I have
approached the subject quite broadly, but of course research is only
useful, if it is focused. For our program, three strands of research
stand out. Where possible, we will combine and intertwine them.
They complement, I hope, the research interests of other institutions
in such a way that we can cooperate with them and develop our own
identity as a program.
The first strand I mentioned today, is to try and understand
how maritime heritage is valued, what function it has for different
groups, for science, for local divers, for national and international
stakeholders and others, who in one way or another identify with
it; to which uses it is put, in recreation, by the dive-touring industry,
by one (or more) issue pressure groups and interest groups; what
benefits – shared or unshared – it produces and finally how this all
and the related perceptions change over time or get codified in laws
and regulations that see or try to see to protection and/or sustainable
management.22 It is a strand of research in which the research school
for cultural heritage, Esbjerg based TIC and various networks and
programs addressing Law and Heritage are obvious partners. Today,
Carsten Lund’s presentation will illustrate some of the issues.
The second strand will look into the fundamental characteristics
and potential of maritime archaeological sites, in particular under
water, as producers of scientific information. What filters do apply,
what processes at the time of origin qualify what gets buried; what
processes during the time that elapsed since then, have produced
a second filtering preserving this rather than that; what filters and
biases make that one type of deposit gets discovered and recognized
whereas other types of information completely elude us. Where
selective perceptions of significance are involved this evidently
links in with the first strand. Unravelling the way in which older
finds are either neglected or mystified and mythologized falls in
with it as much as the analysis of the physical environment. Such
fundamental research in epistemological rules of correspondence
between what was and what we get to know about it has great
consequences and practical application for management. It helps to
define what archaeological deposits are to be expected where in the
maritime environment and it helps to anticipate in spatial planning.
‘Formation processes’ and ‘predictive modelling’ are technical terms
related to this strand. It can build on a solid research tradition, but
processes are different in the maritime environment and need to be
explored. Based at Esbjerg, we will particularly use the surroundings,
the information available for the Wadden Sea, the coastal zone and
the offshore area as our laboratory. This ties in well with my previous
research in the Netherlands, notably in the western Wadden Sea and
21 www.archaeology.sdu.dk
22 Maarleveld 2006a, Maarleveld 2006b; Maarleveld 2007.
20
21
around the westernmost ‘Frisian islands’.23 Today, Hauke Jöns of the
Niedersächsisches Institut für historische Küstenforschung will present
us with on-going approaches in the area that lies just in between. His
institute and the various agencies responsible for heritage decisions
in different parts of the Wadden Sea area are obvious partners for
future approaches.
The third strand, finally, fits in most evidently with one of the
strong traditions of maritime archaeology for which Denmark is
famous and which I mentioned before: the scrupulous analysis of ship
construction on the basis of archaeological finds. It is a diachronic
and transspatial theme, as relevant for prehistory, for medieval times
as for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as relevant for the
Baltic and Atlantic as for the Indian Ocean or the South China
Sea. Within this range, we will, of course, concentrate on specific
ship finds, intertwining the specific with the two other strands of
research. Analysis will focus on understanding cultural choices in
the adoption of available technology, highlighting tension between
innovation and cultural entropy and highlighting issues relating
to transfer of technology. At the same time it will try to interpret
the implications of the technological choices as we reveal them in
social terms. This may sound ambitious, but in the end it is such
overarching issues that make the meticulous study of the sourcematerial worthwhile in broader terms. It is there that the sourcematerial that is becoming available through the development of
maritime archaeology – defined by adventure, diving and hardship,
or not – can meet some of its epistemological promises. It fits in with
my previous research on early modern adaptations, it fits in with
Jens Auer’s work on the Prince’s Channel wreck, and it fits in with
much of the work that has been done by the Ship Laboratory and
the erstwhile Centre for Maritime Archaeology in Roskilde.24 Today,
Flemming Rieck will illustrate some of this with exciting new details
on ships of the Iron Age.
23 Maarleveld 1998; Deeben et al. 2002.
24 Maarleveld 2002; Lemée 2006; Auer & Firth forthcoming.
22
With our new program, with the three strands of research, we
hope to significantly contribute to maritime archaeology in a worldwide perspective. Also, we hope to continue and enhance the strong
tradition of maritime archaeology in Denmark, not by concentration
of all activities in one spot as before, but by providing it with an
academic anchoring and by establishing close cooperation with and
networks between as many contributors as possible. Assistance to, and
close cooperation with researchers working on Stone Age archaeology
is something I did not yet mention. It is well anchored at two other
universities and well anchored at many museums; we can help in
assessing parts of the underwater environment and the information
sources it contains and in so doing we are likely to provide building
blocks for their research, even though we will not, ourselves focus on
it, other than at the level of the first strand, assessing the potential of
the resource.
Ladies and gentlemen, concluding this inaugural address it is appropriate to thank SDU and the sponsors of CMRS and the maritime
archaeology programme for the trust they put in me. Moreover, I
would like to thank all those who have contributed to my ‘professional
identity’. It is appropriate first of all to mention my formal teachers, the
late professor Modderman and prof. Louwe Kooijmans and all those
who introduced me to archaeology, history, geology. [Dear professor,
beste Leendert, daar sta ik dan, misschien heb ik van jou nog wel het
meest geleerd om richting te houden en m’n eigen gang te gaan, vaak
wetend dat anderen daar niets in zien of op ramkoers liggen; Both your
intense guidance when I joined your Hazendonk project and soon (very
young still) started my professional career as your ‘gewetensbezwaarde’
assistant, and your sharp comments on the manuscripts that evolved
into my dissertation have been and are much appreciated].
Less formal, but not less intense was my exposure and training
in the various aspects of nautical business, sailing and shipbuilding.
For the practical skills I developed, I am most indebted to my father.
[Jaap and Manon, shipbuilding and sailing are asides in your creative
and independent lives in which you have no use for government and
23
civil servants and neither for science and scientists. As becomes a
revolting son I became both civil servant and scientist. The critical
attitude, you have installed in me, proved useful in both].
Equally important has been the influence – often dialectic – of
all sorts of interested parties, divers and stakeholders, informants
and amateur-archaeologists. For some reason many of these latter are
called Hans, whether it be Hans Dal, Hans Valster or Hans Eelman.
[Hans Eelman’s expression ‘wat daar ligt dat hoort daar niet’ (it may
lie there, under water, it doesn’t belong there) is fundamentally at
odds with the philosophy of in situ preservation and quite often
– though definitely not always – quite rightly so; we will address
that in our work]. Dialectic influences like state-treasurer Willem
Groothuis and salvage operator Rex Cowan may also be mentioned
in this context.
My seniors and colleagues in civil service in the Netherlands
have thoroughly trained and influenced me. And all the members
of the various archaeological, project or management teams I have
worked in deserve my thorough thanks. Many of the projects were
international or volunteer driven, but evidently I owe much to the
highly professional teammates with whom I worked for many years.
[Peter, Boudewijn, Jef, Andrea, as a proxy for the non-present others,
thank you].
I must thank the Faculty of Archaeology at Leiden and its students
for teaching me to teach. [Dear colleagues, dear family, dear parents,
thank you for having been there; thank you for being here]. Thank
you all for being here. I conclude by wishing, confidently wishing
that my team-mates in Esbjerg and the students will develop a high
standard of debate, in which theories and myths will be challenged
and Maritime Archaeology can develop a mature professionalism,
without losing itself in endless or senseless academic discussions.
I have said.
24
References
Andersen, S.H. 1985: Tybrind Vig, A preliminary Report on a
Submerged Ertebølle Settlement on the West Coast of Fyn. Journal
of Danish Archaeology 4, 52-69.
Arnold, B. l990: The past as propaganda: totalitarian archaeology in
Nazi Germany. Antiquity 64, 464 - 478.
Auer, J. & A. Firth forthcoming: The Gresham Ship: an interim report
on a sixteenth century wreck from Princes Channel, Thames
Estuary. Post-Medieval Archaeology 42.
Bass, G.F. (ed.) 2005: Beneath the Seven Seas. Adventures with the
Institute of Nautical Archaeology. London.
Binford, L. R. 1981: Bones, ancient men and modern myths. New
York.
Bocquet, A. 1979: Lake-Bottom Archaeology. Scientific American
Vol. 240/2, 48-56.
Bosch, A. et al. 2000: El poblat lacustre neolític de la Draga. Monografies
del CASC – 2. Girona.
Clark, J.G.D. 1952: Prehistoric Europe : the economic basis. London.
Clark, P. (ed.) 2004a: The Dover Bronze Age Boat. Swindon.
Clark, P. (ed.) 2004b: The Dover Bronze Age Boat in Context. Society
and water transport in prehistoric Europe. Oxford.
Cunliffe, B. 2001: Facing the Ocean : the Atlantic and its peoples 8000
BC - AD 1500. Oxford.
Deeben, J., D.P. Hallewas & Th.J. Maarleveld 2002: Predictive
modelling in Archaeological Heritage Management of the
Netherlands: the Indicative Map of Archaeological Values (2nd
Generation). Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig
Bodemonderzoek (Proceedings of the National Service for Archaeological
Heritage in the Netherlands) 45, 9-56.
Deetz, J. 1977: In small things forgotten : the archaeology of early
American life. New York.
Dixon, N. 1991: The history of crannog survey and excavation in
Scotland. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 20.1, 1-8.
Duivenvoorde, W. van 2006: ‘Dutch Ministry of Finance Violates
25
Agreement on Submerged Cultural Heritage’. The INA Quarterly
Vol. 33. 1, spring 2006.
Earle, P. 1979: The wreck of the Almiranta. London.
Fischer, A. (ed.) 1995: Man and sea in the Mesolithic : coastal settlement
above and below present sea level. Oxford.
Flemming, N.C. 1972: Cities in the Sea. London.
Flemming, N.C. (ed.) 2004: Submarine prehistoric archaeology of the
North Sea, CBA Research Report 141. York.
Gathercole, P. & D. Lowenthal (ed.)1990: The politics of the past.
London.
Gould R.A. (ed.) 1983: Shipwreck anthropology. Albuquerque.
Hasslöf, O., H. Henningsen & A.E. Christensen (eds.) 1972: Ships
and Shipyards, Sailors and fishermen. Introduction to maritime
ethnology. Copenhagen.
Kist, B. 1990: Integrating archaeological and historical records in
Dutch East India Company research, International Journal of
Nautical Archaeology 19 (1990), 49-51.
Kossinna, G. 1911: Die deutsche Vorgeschichte, eine hervorragend
nationale Wissenschaft. Leipzig.
Kuijper, W. & M. Manders 2003: South American palm seeds
(Orbignya sp.) in Dutch shipwrecks. Environmental Archaeology
8(2): 185-187.
Lemée, Chr.P.P. 2006: The Renaissance Shipwrecks from Christianshavn.
An archaeological and architectural study of large carvel vessels in
Danish waters, 1580 – 1640. Vol. 6 of the series Ships and Boats
of the North, Roskilde.
Louwe Kooijmans, L.P. 1987: Neolithic settlement and subsistence
in the wetlands of the Rhine/ Meuse delta of the Netherlands. In:
J.M. Coles & A.J. Lawson (eds.): European wetlands in prehistory,
227-251. Oxford.
Lowenthal, D. 1996: Possessed by the past. The heritage crusade and the
spoils of history. New York.
Lyon, E. 1979: The Search for the Atocha, New York.
Maarleveld, Th.J. 1998: Archaeological heritage management in Dutch
waters: exploratory studies, (diss.) Leiden.
26
Maarleveld, Th.J. 2002: Het Scheppen van Schepen aan het begin
van de Nieuwe Tijd. In: K.W.J.M. Bossaers et al. Dirck Gerritsz
Pomp alias Dirck China, 45-56. Enkhuizen.
Maarleveld, Th.J. 2006a: Chapter 8. In: S. Dromgoole (ed.) The
Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. National Perspectives
in Light of the UNESCO Convention 2001, 161-188. Leiden /
Boston.
Maarleveld, Th.J. 2006b: Instruments for the Future. The Development
of New Legal and Policy Frameworks for International Cooperation
in the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. Berichten van
de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek (Proceedings
of the National Service for Archaeological Heritage in the Netherlands)
46, 27-40.
Maarleveld, Th.J. 2007: Maritime management matters. In: J.
Satchell & P. Palma (eds.) Managing the Marine Cultural Heritage:
Defining, Accessing And Managing the Resource, CBA Research Report
153. York, pp. 49-58.
Magendans, J.F.C. 1986: The identification of vegetable material:
tobacco from the “Amsterdam”. In: Gawronski, J.H.G. (ed.)
Annual report of the VOC-ship “Amsterdam” foundation, 88-94.
Amsterdam.
Manders, M.R. 1993 Twee graanschepen. Een botanische studie van
de lading. In: H.R. Reinders & A.F.L. van Holk (red.) Scheepslading.
Inleidingen gehouden tijdens het zesde Glavimans symposion 1992,
19-31. Groningen.
Masters, P.M. & N.C. Flemming 1983: Quaternary Coastlines and
Marine Archaeology: towards the prehistory of land bridges and
continental shelves. London.
Martin, C. 1981: Archaeology in an underwater environment. In:
UNESCO Protection of the underwater heritage. Technical handbooks
for museums and monuments 4. Paris.
McGrail, S. (ed.) 1984: Aspects of maritime archaeology and ethnography.
London.
Meskell, L. (ed.)1998: Archaeology Under Fire. Nationalism, politics and
heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. London.
27
Muckelroy, K.W. 1978: Maritime Archaeology Cambridge.
Olsen, O., J. Skamby Madsen & F. Rieck (eds.), 1995: Shipshape.
Essays for Ole Crumlin-Pedersen. Roskilde
Prins, A.H.J. 1965: Sailing from Lamu. A Study of Maritime Culture
in Islamic East Africa. Assen.
Ruoff, U., 1981: Die Entwicklung der Unterwasserarchaologie im
Kanton Zurich. Helvetia Archaeologica 45/48, 62-70.
Sassen, M.M.A. & P. Stassen 1995: Rope from the Rutten Cog , a
13th Century Seagoing Vessel found in The Netherlands. Journal
of Archaeological Science 22, 551-559.
Schlichtherle, H. & B. Wahlster 1986: Archäologie in Seen und
Mooren. Den Pfalhlbauten auf der Spur. Stuttgart.
Skaarup, J. 1983: Submarine stenalderbopladser i det sydfynske
øhav. Antikvariske studier 6, 137-161.
UNESCO 1972: Underwater Archaeology; a nascent discipline. Paris.
Williams, M.V. 2006: UNESCO Convention on the Protection
of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. An Analysis of the United
Kingdom’s Standpoint. In: The Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy
Committee (ed.) The UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the
Underwater Cultural Heritage. Proceedings of the Burlington House
Seminar October 2005, 2-10. Portsmouth.
Wolfram, S. & U. Sommer (Hrsg.) l993: Macht der Vergangenheit
/ Wer macht Vergangenheit. Archäologie und Politik. WilkauHasslau.
Yalçin, Ü., C. Pulak & R. Slotta (Hrsg.) 2005: Das Schiff von
Uluburun. Welthandel vor 3000 Jahren. Bochum.
28
29
Thijs J. Maarleveld studied History and Prehistory at the universities
of Leiden and Amsterdam and learned to dive in 1973. After having
worked in prehistoric archaeology in the late seventies, he was attached
to the cultural policy department of the Netherlands Ministry of
Culture. In developing and negotiating cultural policies, his main
remit was to develop a consistent approach to the underwater cultural
heritage in the national and international arena. As part of this, he
developed and co-ordinated under water archaeological research
in Dutch waters. He was appointed Head of the newly formed
Department for Archaeology Under water (AAO), deputy director
of the Netherlands Institute for Ship and underwaterArchaeology
(NISA) and Head of the division of Maritime Heritage of the
National Service for Archaeological Heritage (ROB), into which
these units subsequently integrated.
In 1998, he took his doctoral degree at Leiden University. On a
part time basis, he taught nautical archaeology at Leiden University
since 1994. He is one of the founding members of the International
Committee on the Underwater Cultural Heritage (ICUCH) of
ICOMOS, the International Council on Monuments and Sites,
the non-governmental organisation advising UNESCO on heritage
issues.
After twenty-five years in heritage management in the Netherlands,
he was appointed professor of Maritime Archaeology at the University
of Southern Denmark on 1 January 2006.
This inaugural address marks the start of the Maritime Archaeology
Programme at SDU. The programme is possible through intense
collaboration with other institutions, notably all Danish museums
with maritime archaeological responsibilities or activities. Joint
approaches are discussed in the Danish maritime archaeology network
MariNet. Short presentations of research and developments are
published in the Maritime Archaeology Newsletter from Denmark,
which is a revitalization of the Maritime Archaeology Newsletter
from Roskilde Denmark, which was discontinued in 2003, when
the Centre for Maritime Archaeology ceased to exist. The newsletter
30
is now produced from Esbjerg under
Thijs Maarleveld’s editorship.
At Esbjerg, the Maritime Archaeology Programme functions as part of
the Centre for Maritime and Regional
Studies, CMRS, in which SDU
cooperates with the Fisheries and
Maritime Museum. Activities of the
Centre and the Maritime Archaeology
Programme are illustrated via a range
of websites:
http://www.cmrs.dk/
http://www.archaeology.sdu.dk/
http://www.zeaharbourproject.dk/
Prospective students are also
referred to:
http://www.sdu.dk/Uddannelse/
Uddannelsesoversigt/Kandidat/
Marinarkaeologi.aspx
The Maritime Archaeology Programme,
University of Southern Denmark
at the Centre for Maritime and Regional Studies
Niels Bohrs Vej 9 • DK-6700 Esbjerg
Tel. +45 6550 4177 • Fax +45 6550 1091
e-mail: [email protected]