The Development of Maritime Archaeology as a Discipline

and the Evolving Use of Theory by Maritime Archaeologists

Position Paper No. 2

Chuck Meide

Scientific archaeology developed largely in the nineteenth century, slowly emerging from the
unrestrained curiosity of antiquarians into a systematic, disciplined, and research-oriented study.
Maritime archaeology went through a similar evolution during the first three quarters of the
twentieth century, and it was some time before archaeologists working on sites underwater
regularly utilized theoretical frameworks to better interpret their work, as were their terrestrial
counterparts. As late as the 1970s, Keith Muckelroy (1978:10) noted that maritime archaeology
displayed “a remarkable lack of development or systematization,” constituting an “academic
immaturity,” when compared to other archaeological sub-disciplines. At that time maritime
archaeology was still a relatively nascent study, and was only just approaching a position where
its practitioners could make tentative movement towards defining the nature of the discipline and
developing a relevant paradigm. In the ensuing decades, the discipline has matured considerably,
though the perception of some persists that maritime archaeologists are more antiquarians than
archaeologists, with more interest in the particular (and often spectacular) material remains
recovered than the use of such material culture to meaningfully speculate on the societies that
left them behind. This is in spite of a significant and expanding body of literature published by
maritime archaeologists that is both theoretical and thought-provoking. This perception
otherwise may be explained by the fact that theoretical engagement in maritime archaeology, like
the field itself, is relatively new, and that for much of the history of underwater archaeology
effort was focused on methodological advances necessary to safely and efficiently work in a
hostile environment, by people who were not always trained archaeologists. Many of the early
advances in maritime archaeology were made by avocationals or professionals from other
disciplines, and to this day the field includes a number of individuals working outside
archaeological academia and its ongoing theoretical discourse. It is indisputable, however, that at
present theory is used in maritime archaeology, and as theoretical approaches continue to
develop, the potential for maritime archaeology to interpret past human experience, and to
influence broader debates within archaeology, is substantial (Flatman 2003). This paper attempts
to provide an overview of the development of theory in maritime archaeology, by evaluating key
events, people, and ideas that have contributed to the discipline as it has evolved from the early
twentieth century to the present day.

The earliest underwater archaeological endeavors in the twentieth century can be characterized
as antiquarian-oriented salvage operations, using traditional (pre-scuba) deep sea diving gear.
The divers involved invariably lacked any archaeological training or experience, and the focus
was typically on the recovery of objects of art. Probably the best-known example was the 1900-
1901 recovery of a spectacular assemblage of ancient Greek bronze and marble statuary from a
shipwreck site at Antikythera, a small island between Greece and Crete (Weinberg et al. 1965).
The site had been discovered by sponge divers and the salvage was organized by the Greek
government, using the sponge divers under the direction of the Director of Antiquities, Professor
George Byzantinos, from the diving vessel. A rare example of an underwater excursion from the

1
same era that was focused on research rather than collection of artifacts was conducted by a
priest named Odo Blundell, who in 1908 donned a diving helmet to investigate a crannog (lake
dwelling) in Scotland, to better understand its construction and history. Blundell produced
drawings of the submerged portion of the artificial island, and went on to dive other crannogs
and report his findings (Blundell 1909, 1910).

One of the earliest underwater excavations carried out in a systematic manner was that of the
1564 Swedish warship Elefanten, directed by the Swedish naval officer Carl Ekman between
1933 and 1939 (Ekman 1934; Cederlund 1983:46). While not an archaeologist, Ekman’s work
was thorough and comprehensive, and was carried out for research and heritage preservation
purposes (Adams 2003:3). Ekman appears to be the first to use an air lift to excavate a shipwreck
site, a tool commonly used by modern underwater archaeologists (Cederlund 1983:48).

Not all of the early work was carried out in Europe. Between 1904 and 1909, American diplomat
and avocational archaeologist Edward H. Thompson utilized Floridian sponge divers, and dived
himself, to explore a cenote at Chichén Itzá in Mexico, retrieving thousands of objects using a
dredge bucket. In Southwest Asia, advances were made by French missionary Antoine
Poidebard. In the 1920s and 30s he used aerial photography to locate submerged archaeological
remains along the Lebanese coast, and hired divers to investigate the ruins using underwater
cameras (Poidebard 1939). Poidebard eventually would supervise operations using a glass-
bottom bucket, and related in 1937 that the “sole object of our investigation was to establish a
method” (Blot 1996:42-43). A few years after Poidebard’s work, American archaeologist Robert
Braidwood with the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute also recorded another ancient
harbor structure, a jetty at the 9th century BC site of Tabbat el-Hamman on the Syrian coast
(Blot 1996:43).

What most of these early excavations had in common was the generally unsystematic nature of
recovery on the seafloor, the fact that the divers involved were not trained archaeologists, and
that the archaeologists supervising the operations (if there were any) did so from the surface, as
they were not divers. This physical separation between the archaeologist and the site could
sometimes have disappointing results, even when judged by the standards of the time. In 1950,
for example, the Italian government archaeologist Nino Lamboglia watched in dismay as salvage
divers using a dredge bucket committed what he later called a “massacre of amphora” on the
wreck of a first century BC Roman merchant vessel lost at Albenga off Genoa (Lamboglia 1965;
Blot 1996:45-46).

In 1946, a practical system of scuba (self-contained underwater breathing apparatus) developed

by Jacques-Yves Cousteau and Emile Gagnan become available to the public. Known as the
aqualung, the popularity of this untethered system, which allowed far greater freedom of
movement for the diver, lead to the discovery of many new shipwreck sites, particularly in the
Mediterranean. More and more ancient shipwreck sites were encountered that yielded vast
numbers of intact artifacts of the similar types, from narrowly dated assemblages, which lead to
more complete typologies and more accurate dating of classical sites in terrestrial contexts (Blot
1996:47-48; Muckelroy 1978:12). The potential of using data from shipwreck sites to inform
archaeologists working on land became increasingly apparent to classical archaeologists. At the
same time, it became obvious that the access to these sites afforded by scuba lead to a dramatic

2
increase in looting, resulting in a tragic loss of heritage as well as early laws protecting
submerged cultural resources (Dumas 1972:72-73; Muckelroy 1978:14; Blot 1996:32-33;
Tuddenham 2010:6).

The first shipwreck site to be subjected to a major excavation by untethered divers using scuba
took place in the early 1950s at the island of Grand Congloué near Marseilles (Costeau 1954;
Benoît 1961). This expedition was led by Cousteau himself, with a non-diving team of
archaeologists headed by Fernand Benoît advising on board the diving vessel Calypso. With
almost ten thousand specimens of amphora, dishes, lamps, and other ceramics recovered, the
operation was a logistical success, but the project was subsequently criticized for inadequate
archaeological standards, even for the time. No site plan was produced, two disparate shipwrecks
were mistakenly interpreted as one, and Cousteau’s (1954:13) own words made even
contemporary archaeologists cringe: “when an amphora neck jammed in the [airlift] pipe mouth,
another diver with a hammer pulverized the obstacle.” The project did feature some important
technical innovations, including an underwater video camera with a live feed so that
archaeologists on the boat could witness the diving activities. But this was still essentially
armchair archaeology, as American archaeologist John Goggin (1960:350) noted, “comparable to
the archaeology of some years ago when the archaeologist ‘Bwana’ sat in the shade and
examined the antiquities his foreman brought in from the dig.” Benoît himself would remark at
the second International Congress in Underwater Archaeology at Albenga in 1958 that “we
know, from experience on Calypso, how difficult it is precisely to establish and chart the
distances and the position of wrecks and isolated objects” and that “the excavation of an
underwater site is not about fishing for amphora” (Blot 1996:50). One of Cousteau’s divers at
Grand Congloué, Philippe Tailliez, would shortly thereafter lead his own excavation of a first
century BC Roman wreck at Titan Reef off France’s Provence coast. Tailliez, who was the chief
of France’s naval diving school but is today considered by his countrymen to be the true pioneer
of French underwater archaeology, did not shy away from self-criticism, writing “[w]e have tried
sincerely, to the best of our ability, but I know how many mistakes were made . . . If we had been
assisted in the beginning by an archaeologist, he would surely have noted with much greater
accuracy the position of each object; by personal inspection he would have drawn more
information from the slightest indications (Tailliez 1965:91). The methodological problems of
underwater archaeology were becoming apparent, and were being explicitly expressed by both
professional and avocational archaeologists.

The benefits of archaeologists participating directly in underwater surveys were demonstrated by

Honor Frost, a native Cypriot and diver who studied archaeology in London. Her first work on a
shipwreck was in 1959 with Frédéric Dumas, another of Cousteau’s divers at Grand Congloué,
along with the American journalist and avocational archaeologist Peter Throckmorton. She
participated in many projects in the Mediterranean, focusing more on survey and recording than
excavation (Frost 1963). One of her many accomplishments was to correct misinterpretations of
harbor features made by Poidebard due to erroneous descriptions provided him by his divers
(Frost 1972:97,107). Despite these successes, Frost believed that it was impossible for one to be
both a professional diver and a professional archaeologist, and thus felt that archaeologists would
have to work with professional salvage companies in order to conduct major excavations (Frost
1963:xi). This notion, which seems absurd by today’s standards, would be put to rest by
archaeologists from the United States.

3
In the U.S., the spread of the aqualung was also having an impact on maritime cultural resources
and a few pioneering archaeologists. Florida, like the Mediterranean a popular region for
recreational divers, became an early focal point for underwater archaeology, and it continues to
be so through the present (Fischer 1999; Smith 2002). In the initial decades, underwater
archaeological investigations in Florida tended to be multidisciplinary in nature and, like those of
Frost in the Mediterranean, were survey- and documentation-oriented rather than large scale
shipwreck excavation efforts. Indeed, virtually all of this work focused not on shipwrecks but
other types of maritime sites. Early investigations of submerged prehistoric sites featuring
megafaunal remains were carried out starting in 1947 by Stanley Olsen, originally of the Florida
Geological Service and later with the Florida State University (FSU) Department of
Anthropology (Olsen 1958, 1959, 1961). In the late 1950s, FSU archaeologist and Anthropology
Department Chair Dr. Hale G. Smith became interested in the potential of underwater
archaeology, learned to dive, and began informal investigations in local bodies of water. Along
with fellow FSU professor Charles Fairbanks and various students, Smith oversaw numerous
surveys of rivers and sinkholes through the 1960s, resulting in the documentation of a number of
submerged historical sites, many of which were refuse or wharf sites related to adjacent forts or
shore facilities (Fairbanks 1964; Fischer 1999:80).

At the same time, University of Florida archaeologist John Goggin was conducting underwater
surveys of similar scope, including a refuse dump associated with a Spanish mission at Fig
Springs in the Ichetucknee River. Goggin (1960) published what is one of the earliest theoretical
discussions of underwater archaeology, though in retrospect his paper focused less on developing
a theoretical framework and more on the basic definitions of and methodological standards for
this specialized sub-discipline of archaeology. “Underwater Archaeology: Its Nature and
Limitations” appeared in American Antiquity, and for most anthropological archaeologists in the
U.S. was the first formal introduction to the concept of conducting archaeology underwater.
Goggin (1960:349) criticized the lack of fieldwork standards and reporting—both “unacceptable
to professional archaeologists”— in projects such as the Smithsonian’s work under Mendel
Peterson on the 1744 wreck of HMS Loo (Peterson 1955), and Cousteau’s work at Grand
Congloué. Dismissing these efforts as salvage rather than archaeology, Goggin (1960:350)
defined underwater archaeology “as the recovery and interpretation of human remains and
cultural materials of the past from underwater by archaeologists” and appears to have preceded
George Bass in stating “[i]t is far easier to teach diving to an archaeologist than archaeology to a
diver!” Goggin went on to discuss the unique preservation prevalent on underwater sites, the
nature of submerged stratigraphic contexts, and definition of four basic types of sites found
underwater (refuse sites, submerged sites of former human habitation, shrines or places of
offering, and shipwrecks).

Despite Florida’s role as an early leader in maritime archaeology, in no small part due to
Goggin’s work, it ironically also became the capital of treasure hunting in the U.S. Looting in
Florida waters, like those of the Mediterranean, became a significant problem with the advent of
scuba, particularly because Florida’s coastline laid along the traditional Spanish treasure fleet
routes (Burgess and Clausen 1976). Spectacular finds of gold and riches (cf. Wagner 1965)
entrenched the idea of professional treasure hunting in the state, both by law and in the mind of
the general public, before enough archaeologists were engaged with underwater research to

4
create an effective lobbying force regarding legislation. The difference between treasure salvage
and archaeology, purposely blurred by those in the former camp, has continued to confuse the
public to this day, despite the obvious differences between scientific study and commercial
exploitation, or the ever-increasing sophistication of maritime archaeological methods, theory,
and analysis. Over the ensuing decades many archaeologists became increasingly critical of the
destructive nature of profit-motivated shipwreck salvage, culminating in the U.S. with the
imperfect yet still beneficial Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (Cockrell 1980; Gould 1983;
Giesecke 1985; Fenwick 1987; Meide 1991).

The rise of legalized treasure hunting in the U.S. was in part due to the fact that no archaeologist
before the 1970s undertook a major, comprehensive, research-oriented excavation of a shipwreck
in American waters. The first such systematic, professionally directed excavation of a shipwreck
would be carried out by an American archaeologist, but in the Mediterranean. George Bass, often
referred to as the “Father of Underwater Archaeology,” would conduct such an excavation on the
1200 BC Bronze Age wreck at Cape Gelidonya, Turkey, in 1960, the same year Goggin’s
seminal paper was published (Bass 1966, 1967). Bass’ widely renowned work would meet any
professional standard to this day and, as Muckelroy (1978:15) noted, “allowed few if any
concessions to the fact of being underwater . . .” His team was recruited on the basis of
archaeological rather than simply diving skills and experience, echoing Goggin in his belief that
it is easier to teach someone with professional skills to dive than it is the other way around
(indeed, this mantra would become associated with Bass). No longer would underwater
excavations display a separation between divers working on the bottom and archaeologists
supervising or observing from the surface, though avocationals continue to play an important
role in the discipline when working in conjunction with archaeologists, often with training
provided by such groups at the Nautical Archaeology Society in the UK and the Institute of
Maritime History in the U.S.

Bass’ work at Cape Gelidonya heralded a series of major excavations in Turkish and Cyprian
waters, including full scale excavations of the fourth and seventh century AD wrecks at Yassi
Ada (Bass and Van Doorninck 1971, 1982) and the fourth century BC Kyrenia wreck, whose
hull was completely recovered, conserved, and reassembled for study and display (Katzev 1974).
These impressive projects also led to the foundation of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology and
the Nautical Archaeology Program at Texas A&M University, one of the leading academic
institutions in the field.

The 1960s were an exciting and formative period in the development of the discipline, and not
only in the Mediterranean. Momentum had been building particularly across Europe and a series
of important discoveries and major investigations took place in a relatively brief period. In
Switzerland, Ulrich Ruoff (1972) conducted systematic excavations at a number of prehistoric
sites submerged in lakes. In Denmark, the discovery of five partially intact Viking ships at
Roskilde in 1957 led to a meticulous excavation and recovery, at first conducted underwater but
after 1962, through the use of a cofferdam, in a semi-wet setting (Olsen and Crumlin-Pedersen
1967).

Perhaps the most spectacular nautical archaeology project ever undertaken was the raising of the
1628 warship Vasa intact from the depths of Stockholm Harbor in Sweden in 1961 (Franzén

5
1961). A team of eleven archaeologists led by Per Lundström was assembled to excavate the
interior of the recovered vessel, and to conduct excavations on the seafloor to recover associated
remains. These and subsequent generations of Vasa Museum researchers have made significant
strides in the interpretation and conservation of this massive and complex ship (Hafors 1985;
Cederlund and Hocker 2006). The year after Vasa was raised another important find was made in
Germany, where a ca. 1380 medieval vessel known as a cog was discovered in the River Weser
at Bremen, and completely recovered over the following three years.

In Australia, the wrecks of the Dutch East Indiamen Batavia (1629) and Vergulde Draeck (1656)
were discovered in 1963. A period of heavy looting led to preservation legislation and the
formation of the Maritime Archaeology Department at the Western Australia Maritime Museum,
which sponsored excavations of both shipwrecks. Batavia’s hull was disassembled on the
seafloor, recovered, conserved, and reassembled for display (Green 1977, 1989). In 1968-1969 in
the U.S., National Park Service archaeologist George Fischer supervised the excavation of the
steamboat Bertrand, lost in 1865 (Fischer 1993:5). Virtually the entire vessel and its cargo of
foodstuff, medicines, clothing, tools, supplies, and personal possessions were completely
preserved, buried in a cornfield as the Missouri River had shifted from its original course. While
the hull was recorded and left in situ, over two million artifacts were recovered, in what was the
most extensive project of its kind in the country up to that time.

In Ireland, a number of individuals in the late 1960s set out to find wrecks from the 1588 Spanish
Armada (Martin 1975). In 1967 Robert Sténuit discovered the galleass Girona off County
Antrim in Northern Ireland, excavating it over the following two years (Sténuit 1973; Flanagan
1988). In 1968, Sydney Wignall searched for and found Santa Maria de la Rosa in Blasket
Sound (Martin 1973). La Trinidad Valencera was discovered in Kinnagoe Bay, County Donegal
by a group of sport divers in 1971, and subsequently excavated by Colin Martin through 1984
(Martin 1975, 1979). Another Armada wreck, El Gran Grifon, was discovered north of Scotland
in 1970, and excavated by Martin in 1977 (Martin 1972, 1975). In England, a most extraordinary
discovery was made in 1967, that of King Henry VIII’s 1545 well-preserved warship Mary Rose
off Portsmouth. Almost six hundred archaeologists and avocationals working under Margaret
Rule staged a complete excavation of the vessel through the 1970s, conducting 30,000 dives to
recover over 22,000 registered finds, culminating with the raising of the mostly intact hull in
1982 (Rule 1982; Marsden 2003; Marsden and McElvogue 2009; Hildred and Fontana 2011).

In the wake of these sensational discoveries, there was an increased effort between professionals
from various countries to coordinate efforts, share information, and solidify lines of
communication. In the U.S., a group of archaeologists, historians, and avocational divers formed
the Council on Underwater Archaeology, and sponsored its first meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota
in 1963 (Fischer 1993:2). Among the presenters were not only American researchers but
archaeologists involved in the ongoing projects at Yassi Ada, Roskilde, and the Vasa. The
Council has survived in the form of the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology (ACUA),
now a committee of the Society for Historical Archaeology, whose 2013 conference will
commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of that original meeting. In 1972 the International Journal
of Nautical Archaeology was first published, which remained the primary (English language)
professional journal in the field until the advent of the Journal of Maritime Archaeology in 2006.

6
By the 1970s, underwater archaeology had captured the public imagination, and maritime
archaeologists across the world were an energized community with a distinct identity and a
strong belief that their work had the potential to make meaningful contributions to archaeology
as a whole. At the same time, however, there was often a sense of exclusion from the greater
archaeological community. Some of this segregation, to a certain degree understandable given
drastic differences in methods and working environments, was perhaps made worse by the
formation of specialized journals and societies. Underwater archaeologists rarely attended
mainstream archaeological conferences, and vice versa, and even when the ACUA in 1970
incorporated its meetings with the Society for Historical Archaeology, underwater participants
tended to stick to their own sessions within the conference (this practice to some degree
continues to this day, despite explicit efforts by conference organizers to integrate the two
groups). “The result was that to much of the European and American academic community,
‘underwater archaeology’ was variously seen as synonymous with treasure hunting, the lunatic
fringe or at best, a somewhat esoteric pursuit of little interest to central archaeological research
agendas” (Adams 2003:8). Even George Bass (1983:91,93) faced these prejudices:

As a nautical archaeologist I have been on the defensive for more than twenty years. . . .
Was I simply being paranoid? Not when a leading classical archaeologist spoke to me
about this “silly business you do under water.” Not when anonymous anthropologists
reviewing my grant proposals wrote that it “sounds like fun but has nothing to do with
anthropology.” . . . [Not when a professor said] that we were good at tagging and
mapping amphoras and other artifacts on the seabed, but that our interests seemed to lie
mainly with techniques of excavation and with the artifacts simply as artifacts.

As recently as 1990 Gibbins (1990:383) noted “the relative scarcity in this field of scholars who
are strongly conversant with prevailing archaeological method and theory.” Such theory-minded
underwater archaeologists were even scarcer in the 1970s, and many were probably not even
aware of the aggressive, ongoing debate between traditional archaeologists and processualists as
“New Archaeology” spread across American campuses (Caldwell 1959; Binford 1962, 1964,
1965; Bayard 1969; Watson 1972; South 1977). There are several plausible explanations for
maritime archaeologists’ apparent lack of theoretical engagement at this time. One is that the
early demographics of the field were dissimilar to those of mainstream archaeology. Many of the
established practitioners in the 1970s had their origins as avocationals or had joined the field
from other, non-archaeological disciplines. Of the twenty-one authors in the 1972 edited volume
Archaeology Underwater: A Nascent Discipline, more than three quarters were not
archaeologists by training (UNESCO 1972). Historians, geologists, paleontologists, engineers,
and other scientists made up the ranks. While the multidisciplinary nature of early underwater
archaeology was a strength rather than a weakness, it did result in a community less conversant
with or even totally unaware of current anthropological debates. Compounding this situation was
the fact that many of those without archaeological training modeled their research on their
colleagues who were trained, who more often than not were classicists or medievalists. Neither
group was particularly engaged with anthropological discourse at the time, with the latter
described by Johnson (1996:xii) as “pre-processual” even as late as the early 1980s. With these
influences, and the simple fact that maritime archaeology had only just come on the scene a
decade or so before, discussion among maritime archaeologists tended to focus on methods, new
technologies, historic ship construction, and artifact typologies (Adams 2003:7). Techniques and

7
technology are of obvious importance for a new area of study entailing work in an alien
environment with life-support equipment, and, as Bass (1983:97-98) pointed out, data collection
and classification to build a sizable body of knowledge is a prerequisite for any useful theorizing.

Jonathan Adam’s (2003:6) evaluation of the state of maritime archaeology at this point in its
evolution is of interest:

In this environment it is not surprising that there was a lack of any coherent body of
theory and practice. By the late 1970s, if there was any identifiable paradigm, in Kuhn’s
sense of an “entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by the
members of a given community” (Kuhn 1970:10), it concerned methodology. The
assumption being that there was a link between field techniques—designed to ensure
the successful collection of data—and subsequent analysis and interpretation. In other
words the only basis on which the new “sub-discipline” could successfully contribute to
archaeology as a whole, breaking free of association with antiquarianism and outright
treasure salvage, was to firstly develop an appropriate methodology. This was not
confined to the art of digging neat holes in the seabed, but embraced every aspect of
excavation strategy and procedure including excavation and recording, to post-
excavation analysis and conservation of recovered material. This was the prevailing
ethos on the Mary Rose project in the late 1970s. In a very real sense many of those
who were involved in this and other excavations at that time were conscious of the need
to “catch up” with land archaeology and demonstrate credibility through controlled
excavation and recording, and the acquisition of high quality data. This, it was assumed,
was a key, the passport to academic acceptance of archaeology under waer as valid
research, rather than “lunatic fringe.” This “method-centered” approach was a positive
side of what was otherwise a somewhat rudderless progress and it can be argued that
this was an inevitable and even necessary stage in terms of the subject’s general
development. Gosden (1999:33-61) has made a similar point with reference to the
development of archaeology itself, citing the work of Pitt-Rivers, and of anthropology
through the fieldwork of Malinowski.

The white knight who would emerge from the ranks of underwater archaeology heralding new
ideas and alternate research approaches, and who would provide a link between maritime and
processual archaeology, was Keith Muckelroy (Harpster 2009). The impact of his thinking and
seminal publications (Muckelroy 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980) on the field of maritime
archaeology, both past and present, is remarkable, especially when considering that his tragic
death at age 29 due to a diving accident in 1980 came only six years after his graduation from the
Department of Archaeology at Cambridge, and only nine years after he learned to dive (McGrail
1980). Instead of the traditional particularist or historiographic approach, Muckelroy’s ideas
were new to the field, influenced by the prehistoric and analytical archaeology he learned under
Grahame Clark and David Clarke at Cambridge, the tenets of New Archaeology gaining traction
in the U.S., and his own experiences on shipwreck sites in British waters, notably the 1664 Dutch
East Indiaman Kennemerland (Adams 2001:5; Harpster 2009). It is probably because of
Muckelroy’s influence, through the title he chose for his most substantial work and the
discussion within regarding a more holistic definition for the discipline, that the term “maritime
archaeology” has largely replaced others that were once more commonly used, such as nautical

8
archaeology, underwater archaeology, or marine archaeology (Muckelroy 1978:6; McGrail
1980).

One of his notable contributions was towards the more systematic understanding of underwater
site formation processes, a concept that was certainly shaped by his work on scattered and
discontinuous wreck sites such as the Kennemerland, Trinidad Valencera, and Dartmouth. He
introduced the terms “extracting filters” and “scrambling devices” into the lexicon, and used
statistical models to clarify large bodies of data in order to discern patterns in the wrecking
process, ideas that had never been proposed before (Muckelroy 1975, 1976, 1978:157-214).
These concepts coincided nicely with New Archaeology’s call for a more scientific, analytic
methodology. Muckelroy’s other prominent contribution was a three-part interpretive framework
for better understanding the ship in its original social context. The three aspects he proposed
were 1. The ship as a machine designed for harnessing a source of power in order to serve as a
means of transport; 2. The ship as an element in a military or economic system, providing its
basic raison d’être; and 3. The ship as a closed community, with its own hierarchy, customs, and
conventions (Muckelroy 1978:216). This basic model has proven useful to many maritime
archaeologists seeking to explore the role of ships as part of a greater cultural system (Murphy
1983:83-89; Gawronski 1991:83; Fischer 1993:5-6; Adams 2003:25,31-33; Flatman 2003:149).

By the 1980s there were an increasing number of maritime archaeologists in the U.S. who
enthusiastically embraced processualism. Generally the products of anthropology departments in
universities where New Archaeology had matured, these scholars were also undoubtedly
influenced by Muckelroy. It is not surprising that among these researchers were students of
George Fischer at Florida State University, which from the 1970s through the late 1990s was the
only traditional four-field anthropology department with a full-scale program in underwater
archaeology. In 1983, Fischer led the systematic test excavation of the 1748 British warship
HMS Fowey in Biscayne Bay National Park, using a grid system and stratified sampling strategy
to identify artifact patterning, much as Muckelroy (1978:196-214) had done on the
Kennemerland (Skowronek 1984b; Skowronek and Fischer 2009:81-123). Fischer’s students
would go on apply other aspects of processual theory in their study of shipwreck sites, including
statistical analyses pioneered by Stanley South (1977) to seek quantitative patterning in
comparative shipwreck artifact assemblages (Johnson and Skowronek 1984; Skowronek 1984a;
Meide 2001).

Another well-known proponent of anthropologically-oriented shipwreck archaeology is Richard

Gould of Brown University (Gould 1983, 1997, 2000:12-20). In May 1981 he organized a
seminar titled “Shipwreck Anthropology,” which produced an influential book by the same name
(Gould 1983). Muckelroy had been scheduled to present but was prevented by his untimely
death. The majority of the participants were avowed processualists, advocating anthropological,
nomothetic research agendas, or approaches that sought to discern general laws of human
behavior applicable cross-culturally. Attendees included National Park Service underwater
archaeologists Daniel Lenihan and Larry Murphy (both former students of George Fischer at
FSU) as well as some prominent terrestrial archaeologists such as Mark Leone and Patty Jo
Watson. A vigorous critique was leveled at the particularist or historiographic qualities of
maritime archaeological research up to that time, and at the discipline’s lack of explicit,
hypothetico-deductive research designs (Watson 1983:27,35; Lenihan 1983:43-44; Murphy

9
1983:70,84,88-89; Stickel 1983:219-222). The lone dissenting voice was that of George Bass,
whose paper was an overt “plea for historical particularism” (Bass 1983). He questioned some of
the basic tenets of processual archaeology, such as the use of formal research designs and
quantitative sampling, and stressed the need for highly detailed, particularistic study, even if it
meant “almost blind and thoughtless cataloguing of types of artifacts frequently encountered on
New World shipwrecks” (1983:98).

Bass’ criticisms would foreshadow the next great paradigm shift in archaeological thought. In
1982 Ian Hodder published two important papers, “Symbols in Action” and “Symbolic and
Structural Archaeology” (Hodder 1982a, 1982b). Ironically appearing the year before Gould
published Shipwreck Anthropology, these papers marked the opening salvo in a concerted
challenge to the rigid nomothetic approach of processualism, and heralded in a heterogeneous
movement which would come to be known as post-processualism. This term is a broad one that
unifies a variety of different perspectives, such as the role of material culture as a “text,” the
existence of multiple valid “readings” or interpretations given cultural subjectivity, the
acknowledgment of different levels of hidden meaning in material remains, the impact of
symbolic and ideational forces, the use of engendered critique and Marxist perspectives, and the
acceptance of the need for self-reflexive behavior among archaeologists (Leone 1984; Wylie
1985; Leone et al. 1987; Shanks and Tilley 1988, 1992; Baker and Thomas 1990; Patterson
1990; Bintliff 1991; Hodder 1991a, 1991b, 1997; Johnsen and Olsen 1992; Knapp 1992;
McGuire 1992; Johnson 1996). The idea that social factors or cognitive aspects of past societies
can be inferred from their material culture went beyond the limits of what processualists felt
archaeology could accomplish, as expressed by Muckelroy (1978:216) when he wrote “[o]f
course, archaeological evidence possesses its own inherit weakness, notably in being unable to
shed light on people’s motives or ideas . . .” What was once an impossibility was now a
legitimate challenge.

It was ironic when Gould (1997:110) wrote “it remains to be seen whether or to what extent
maritime archaeologists will embrace the post-processual approach,” as maritime archaeologists
in Europe were already exploring aspects of this new rationale (Flatman 2003:156), along with at
least a few voices in the U.S. (Spencer-Wood 1990). These new ideas would lead to a period of
intense stimulation regarding the use of theory in maritime archaeology, which continues to this
day (Gibbins 1995; Blackman 2000; Gibbins and Adams 2001; Adams 2003:14, 2006; Flatman
2003). This is not to say that processualist or even historical particularist approaches were
abandoned by maritime archaeologists; indeed, Australian archaeologist Mark Staniforth
(2003:18) has suggested that Shipwreck Anthropology may have been the single most important
work to appear in the preceding 20 years (see also McCarthy 2001:14-15). As with any social
science, useful ideas persisted and were adapted to new problems, while less worthwhile ideas
were rejected. Despite the positivist convictions expressed at Gould’s seminar, few if any major
shipwreck excavations have been explicitly driven by hypothesis testing along the rigid models
demonstrated by Stickel (1983) or Babits (1998). Processualism ultimately has had limited
influence on the entirety of shipwreck investigations, though some notable studies stand out
(Souza 1998), and as a step in the evolution of theory, it has been as important to maritime
archaeology as it has been to archaeology in general (Gibbins and Adams 2001: 285). The most
enduring aspects of processualism in maritime archaeology have been the site formation ideas of
Muckelroy, the use of experimental archaeology with quantifiable testing (cf. McGrail 1977,

10
1998; Sauer 2011), scientific tools such as statistical analysis, and the use of stratified sampling
or limited excavation. It must also be said that shipwreck scholars today commonly develop their
research within a broad socioeconomic or cultural perspective, akin to the generalist approach
advocated in Shipwreck Anthropology. That being said, the historiographic or particularist
approach pioneered by Bass, in its ultimate expression focusing on the total excavation and
meticulous analysis of a single, well-preserved shipwreck and entire artifact assemblage,
including the recovery and reconstruction of the hull (Steffy 1994), will likely—to some degree
at least—always remain a part of maritime archaeology, given the potential of some shipwreck
sites to produce momentous bodies of new information (cf. Bass and Van Doorninck 1982; Pulak
1998; Marsden 2003; Bruseth and Turner 2005; Cederlund and Hocker 2006; Grenier et al.
2007). This type of project, while not usually financially feasible, has produced revolutionary
new understandings of the past, making shipwreck archaeology relevant to a wider scholarship,
and providing the rich contextual information to make broad, meaningful socioeconomic and
historical enquiries, a result which should please processual generalists like Patty Jo Watson
(1983:28-29). Archaeologists working on less grandiose projects than the complete excavation of
a shipwreck have also been able to effectively occupy the “middle ground” by using
particularism while also accommodating more recent developments in archaeological thinking
(cf. Martin 2001).

Since the 1980s maritime archaeologists have become increasingly receptive to the symbolic,
contextual, and critical archaeologies associated with post-processualism:

It was almost as though having gone underwater in bewilderment at the New

Archaeology, we surfaced in the mid 1980s and found that a concern with the historical
and the specific event were legitimate after all. Not only that, but as many had always
felt, successful archaeological interpretation needed to consider both the specific and
the general. A re-assertion of the role of the individual in the past and of archaeology’s
links with history was greeted with sighs of relief. The proposed “symbolic” or
“contextual” archaeology, at least its more up-front, bullish clarion calls resonated
much more with the general profile of underwater research. The assertion that material
culture was not simply functional, a passive reflection of the past, or ‘fossilized action’
(Hodder 1982b:4) but was ‘meaningfully constituted,’ active and possessed of more
than one meaning depending on context (echoes of Hasslöf), fitted very well with the
contextually rich assemblages so often found in shipwrecks . . . (Adams 2003:14)

By the 1990s maritime researchers were adapting these ideas to develop approaches focused on
the unique characteristics of maritime archaeological data. Many of these advances were
associated with scholars of Northwest Europe and Scandinavia exploring symbolic meanings in
ship design and structure, or the multivariate expressions of the ship-as-symbol (Cederlund 1994,
1995; Crumlin-Pedersen and Munch Thye 1995; Wedde 1996, 2000; Adams 2001, 2003).
Jonathan Adams, who is influencing a new generation of students at Southampton University,
and who was instrumental in establishing the more theoretically-oriented Journal of Maritime
Archaeology in 2006, may have produced the most developed of these studies (Adams 2003). He
is concerned with boats and ships as material culture and expressions of the societies that built
them, and with wrecks as archaeological source material. He argues that watercraft are conceived
and designed in accordance with various mental templates and ideologies, then built, used, and

11
discarded within a complicated and interrelated set of social, economic, environmental, and
technological constraints (Adams 2003:25-30). Because of these factors, Adams believes that the
material culture of water transport provides one of the best ways to study innovation and change
in past societies. His dissertation research focused on a series of late medieval and post-medieval
shipwrecks from Northwest Europe and the Baltic, not as technological phenomena per se but by
examining them in the contexts of their production, to reveal causal factors, explanatory
relationships, and new perspectives into European societies over several centuries of
technological change.

What has proven to be perhaps the most popular area of theory in maritime archaeology, also
spearheaded by scholars from Scandinavia and Northwest Europe, is the concept of the maritime
cultural landscape (Myhre 1985; Westerdahl 1986, 1992, 1994; 1995, 2008; Jasinski 1993, 1999;
Hunter 1994; Cederlund 1995; Crumlin-Pedersen and Munch Thye 1995; Firth 1995; Maarleveld
1995; McErlean et al. 2002; Tuddenham 2010; Ford 2011). This term, which has become a
dominant theme of modern maritime archaeology, was coined by Christer Westerdahl, who had
been developing his ideas as early as the late 1970s, though it was 1992 before he published in
English and they became accessible to a wider scholarship (Westerdahl 1986, 1992, 1994, 1995,
2008). The concept of the maritime cultural landscape originated as a reaction to particularism in
underwater archaeology, with its intense focus on shipwrecks (Westerdahl 1986:11). Even when
Muckelroy (1978:4-6) proposed a broader definition of what he preferred to call maritime
archaeology to include “the scientific study of the material remains of man and his activities on
the sea” he explicitly ruled out “related objects on the shore” and “coastal communities.” It was
not long before others began to see this focus on ships and shipboard communities as still too
narrow, as it excluded cultural remains on shore and in lakes and rivers that might also contribute
to the study of maritime lifeways. Westerdahl (1986, 1992) proposed the maritime cultural
landscape as the model to achieve a more holistic understanding of the subject.

Westerdahl’s (2008:212) most recent definition of the maritime cultural landscape is “the whole
network of sailing routes, with ports, havens, and harbours along the coast, and its related
constructions and other remains of human activity, underwater as well as terrestrial.” It therefore
“signifies human utilization (economy) of maritime space by boat: settlement, fishing, hunting,
shipping and its attendant sub-cultures, such as pilotage, lighthouse and seamark maintenance”
(Westerdahl 1992:5). He also points out that in addition to the physical remains more easily
recognizable to archaeologists, cognitive aspects of the landscape, including the so-called
“mental map” and place names, are also necessary to understand a maritime culture and its
relation to the physical landscape (Westerdahl 2008:213)

Not since Muckelroy has a single archaeologist’s ideas made such a profound impact on
maritime archaeology. With this framework the discipline has moved noticeably toward a more
holistic understanding of the relationship between humans, land, and sea (Jasninski 1999:9;
Tuddenham 2010:7-8). Over the last twenty years the term has proliferated across academic
institutions and conferences. Some have used Westerdahl’s ideas to accommodate other
theoretical approaches, including structuration, actor-network theory, and metaphysics (Firth
1995; Tuddenham 2010), while to date few if any have rejected or criticized them (though see
Horrell 2005:13-18 and Dellino-Musgrave 2006:53-54). A maritime cultural landscape approach
lends itself to regional surveys, which have become considerably more common than major

12
excavations of individual sites. Ben Ford’s (2011) The Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes
demonstrates that recent maritime cultural landscape studies have promulgated well outside
Europe, throughout the U.S., Canada, Central America, and Australia. The approach has become
especially popular in Ireland, where many features of the landscape are readily apparent. In
addition to the exemplary monograph on Strangford Lough (McErlean et al. 2002), there are
many other examples of regional maritime landscape studies, including a great body of work out
of University of Ulster’s Centre for Maritime Archaeology (cf. O’Hara 1997; Kelleher 1998;
Bannerman and Jones 1999; McNeary 2000; Pollard 2000; Breen 2001; Conran 2001;
O’Sullivan 2001; Corscadden 2002; O’Raw 2003; O’Sullivan and Breen 2007).

In 1995, Anthony Firth published online a paper which had been presented at a session titled
“Theoretical Advances in Maritime Archaeology” at the Theoretical Archaeology Group
conference in Durham two years before. In it he evaluated the concepts and research potential of
society, landscape, and critique in maritime archaeology. The first of his proposed “critical
directions” was

a critique of modernity, addressing the origins, dynamics, and global spread of western
industrial capitalism and its associated institutions . . . [which] can be pursued by
examining the concept of maritime cultural landscape in the early modern period, i.e.,
from the late medieval period to the industrial revolution. The processes through which
modernity developed—such as industrialisation, globalisation, colonialism, capitalism,
nation-building and the consolidation of the territorially defined state—each have a
maritime component which may be susceptible to a landscape approach (Firth 1995:4).

Firth was one of the first to call on maritime archaeologists to critically address issues such as
colonialism, consumerism, capitalism, and modernity, a focus of increasing importance to
historical archaeology (Leone 1984; Leone et al. 1987; Johnson 1996; Orser 1996; Delle 1998,
1999; Leone and Potter 1999; Hall 2000; Hicks 2007). Even though it seems intuitive that
maritime archaeology and the study of capitalism should be closely aligned—ships were, after
all, the primary vehicles for exchange of material goods, and one of the essential tools that
allowed Europeans to colonize and exert hegemony over much of the rest of the world—it was a
theme that at that time had been rarely explored from a maritime perspective (Leone 1983 being
a notably early exception).

That fact was brought abruptly to the attention of the maritime archaeological community with a
memorable paper published online by Fred McGhee in 1998 titled “Towards a Postcolonial
Nautical Archaeology.” McGhee leveled a withering criticism at nautical archaeology: “[it] has
not sufficiently problematised the concept of empire; it has not critically engaged European
colonialism, its own colonial legacy, nor situated itself, in terms of power, in relation to the
human subjects it studies” (McGhee 1998:1). He went on to accuse the discipline of being
“scientistic” and “practising a limp, lifeless historicity that for various reasons is the by-product
of a colonial mindset” (McGhee 1998:1). It is appropriate that McGhee chose the term nautical
archaeology, as opposed to that of maritime archaeology with its broader implications, as his
criticism was focused on shipwreck archaeologists, specifically those focusing on colonial period
vessels in the tradition of Bass’ particularistic legacy, exemplified by but by no means limited to
those working through Texas A&M University’s Institute of Nautical Archaeology (INA). Some

13
of his criticisms were of course not new: he accused the field of focusing almost exclusively on
the particularism of shipbuilding technology at the expense of broader cultural, political, and
historical analysis, though he was the first critic to suggest this was due to the “pervasive
influence” of corporate funding sources (McGhee 1998:4) or to a Eurocentric mentality, moral
failing, or political cowardice among archaeologists.

McGhee’s paper was overtly politicized and deliberately provocative: he declared the discipline
of being “as white as a freshly pressed set of bed sheets” and comfortable engaging in
pseudoscientific “hodgepodgery” in homage of ships symbolizing genocide, and he accused Fred
Hocker (at the time the past INA President and professor at Texas A&M) of neo-corporatism
(McGhee 1998:4,5,8). Some of his charges were exaggerated or simply incorrect (for example,
he suggested that the reason nautical archaeologists had not focused on slave ship investigations
was due to a lack of interest, “moral amnesia,” or the controversial nature of the subject matter,
when, in fact, there were many who were keenly interested in pursuing the subject, and it is
simply very difficult to actually find a shipwreck associated with the slave trade1).
Notwithstanding, Flatman (2003:150) was correct when he noted that McGhee “forces maritime
archaeology to take a hard look at its core values and perceptions, especially as regards some of
the ‘dirty secrets’ of European global expansion, colonialism and domination.” McGhee (1998:5)
was entirely justified when he pointed out that ships “are primarily cultural and political entities
and ought to be thought of and investigated as such. As the mechanism by which European
empire was initiated and consolidated, these machines should be looked at within a much larger
context, not simply as ends in themselves.”

Since that time, there have been more examples of reflexive research and studies focusing on
topics like colonialism, capitalism, ideology, gender, and social and economic relations
(Staniforth 1999, 2000, 2003; Firth 2002; Flatman 2003; Horrell 2005; Ransley 2005, 2007;
Dellino-Musgrave 2006; Farr 2006; Burke 2010; Harris 2010). Two of these stand out, and not
only because both originate from the Southern Hemisphere. The first is Staniforth’s (2003)
monograph Material Culture and Consumer Society: Dependent Colonies in Colonial Australia.
Staniforth has reduced Orser’s (1996:22,57-88)“four haunts” to the three historical processes he
considers most relevant: capitalism, colonialism, and consumerism, and he analyzes the cargo
assemblages from four colonial Australian shipwrecks in that context. For Staniforth, the
material goods bound for colonists carried symbolic attributes of status, wealth, and cultural
coherence, especially in a nascent and isolated colonial setting, and cargos of such material
culture lost by shipwreck therefore hold great potential for study. Informed by the Annales
School (Braudel 1981; Bintliff 1991; Knapp 1992) and World Systems Theory (Wallerstein
1974, 1980, 1989; Champion 1989; Sanderson 1995) he proposes a scheme for analyzing
shipwrecks as “the archaeology of the event,” so that the specificity of an event can be used to
interpret larger scale cultural processes, in this case British colonialism, the modern capitalist
system, and consumer behavior in a peripheral setting.

                                                            
1
In fact, the one exception McGhee (1998:8) noted of a project at that time underway investigating a wreck believed
to represent a slave ship resulted in, to the disappointment of the principal investigators, the identification of the
vessel as a French warship, not an English slaver (Johnson and Meide 1998). McGhee mistakenly wrote that the
project in question was sponsored by the Institute of Nautical Archaeology when it was in fact a joint effort of the
Institute of Maritime History and Florida State University’s Program in Underwater Archaeology.

14
The other study is titled Maritime Archaeology and Social Relations: British Action in the
Southern Hemisphere by Virginia Dellino-Musgrave (2006). Dellino-Musgrave used
assemblages from two Royal Navy shipwrecks in isolated locales, HMS Swift off Patagonia and
HMS Sirius off Norfolk Island, Australia, to explore British social relations through the
processes of colonialism, capitalism, and consumption. She draws on a wide range of material
culture studies and social theories addressing time, space, place, landscape, and praxis (Braudel
1982; Giddens 1984; Shanks and Tilley 1988, 1992; Bourdieu 1990; Heidegger 1992; Gosden
1994; Tilley 1994; Hirsch 1995), while also acknowledging the influence of Staniforth (2000,
2003) and his ideas of the archaeology of the event. Her primary analysis is based on the ceramic
assemblages from the two shipwrecks. With the understanding that ceramics reflect the praxis or
practical action of those who created, bought, used, and discarded them, she identifies social
differentiation both within the ship’s hierarchy and between the ship’s British compliment and
other peoples through production and consumption patterns. She argues that ceramics were used
by the British to reproduce memory of the homeland while abroad, thereby increasing a sense of
security and the continuity of British values. This security is further reinforced through habit
(habitus), routine, authority, and discipline, all of which are expressed in the form, patterns,
distributions, variability, and repetition of material culture. Dellino-Musgrave finally expands the
focus to examine British activities on a global scale through landscape use such as trade routes
and settlement patterns. Her study is successful at accommodating a diverse body of social
theory in a meaningful way, at viewing shipwrecks on multiple levels of scale from local to
global, and at evaluating 18th century British social relations as expressed through material
culture, and as such her work represents some of the best of what theory can do for maritime
archaeological research.

Maritime archaeology has come a long way in the last century, from the first deep sea divers
groping at amphora to deep discussions of praxis to better grapple with modernity. Maritime
archaeology’s transition from antiquarianism to meaningful scientific endeavor happened much
as it had in the parent discipline of archaeology itself, albeit in a much compressed time span.
Practitioners went from divers who learned archaeology on the job, to archaeologists who
learned diving for the job, to scholars who learned from the very start a specialized sub-
discipline of archaeology with its own methodology and ideas. All the while there was a fight for
legitimacy, in the eyes of colleagues who didn’t take diving seriously, in the eyes of the public
who couldn’t easily differentiate between archaeology and treasure hunting, or in the eyes of
purists who saw the field as more artifact- than theory-oriented. But as the methodologies and
technologies required for safely and efficiently collecting data underwater were refined, so
would the ideas behind the archaeology, whether borrowed directly from general paradigm shifts
in archaeological and anthropological theory, or developed to fit the idiosyncrasies and unique
opportunities of shipwreck sites or maritime landscapes. Today maritime archaeology is enjoying
a period of unprecedented success. Many of the monumental projects of the past are coming to
fruition with equally monumental final publications, including the Tudor warship Mary Rose
(Marsden 2003; Marsden and McElvogue 2009; Hildred and Fontana 2011), the Swedish galleon
Vasa (Cederlund and Hocker 2006), the Byzantine Serçe Limanı wreck (Bass et al. 2004; Bass et
al. 2009; Van Doorninck in press), and the 1565 Basque whaling galleon wrecked at Red Bay,
Labrador (Grenier et al. 2007). As cultural resource management legislation changes and
academic interest waxes, there are more maritime archaeologists employed, conducting research,
and teaching than ever before. Hundreds of archaeology and anthropology students graduate

15
each year with at least one maritime class under their belts, and dozens more with advanced
degrees, from an increasing number of universities with maritime course offerings. It has now
been ten years since Flatman (2003:144) called on maritime archaeologists for a greater
emphasis towards the adoption of self-consciously theoretical perspectives. The call has been
answered; there are more and more maritime scholars who have developed the skills to move
seamlessly from the particular to the general in their analyses, and more theoretical discussions
than ever before. In the face of this change, the perception that maritime archaeologists are more
interested in ships than people should finally be put to rest, and the idea that maritime material
culture, when considered with broad and intellectual perspectives, can offer one of the richest
sources of evidence regarding the human experience can be more fully explored.

References Cited

Adams, Jonathan
2001 Ships and Boats as Archaeological Source Material. World Archaeology 32(3):292-310.

2003 Ships, Innovation and Social Change: Aspects of Carvel Shipbuilding in Northern Europe
1450-1850. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology No. 24. Stockholm Marine Archaeology
Reports No. 3. University of Stockholm, Stockholm.

2006 From the Water Margins to the Centre Ground? Journal of Maritime Archaeology 1(1):1-
8.

Babits, Lawrence Edward

1998 The Berth 52 Vessel (09CH691) The Interim Report (1982). In Maritime Archaeology: A
Reader of Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, edited by Lawrence Edward Babits
and Hans Van Tilburg, pp. xx, 590. The Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology.
Plenum Press, New York.

Babits, Lawrence Edward and Hans Van Tilburg (editors)

1998 Maritime Archaeology: A Reader of Substantive and Theoretical Contributions. Plenum
Press, New York.

Baker, Frederick and Julian Thomas (editors)

1990 Writing the Past in the Present. St. David's University College, Lampeter, England.

Bannerman, Nigel and Cecil Jones

1999 Fish-trap Types: A Component of the Maritime Cultural Landscape. International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 28(1):70-84.

Bass, George Fletcher

1966 Archaeology Under Water. Thames & Hudson, London.

16
 1967 Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society No. 57(8). American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.

Bass, George Fletcher, Robert H. Brill, Berta Lledó and Sheila D. Matthews
2009 Serçe Limanı, Volume 2. The Glass of an Eleventh-Century Shipwreck. 1st ed. Texas
A&M University Press, College Station, TX.

Bass, George Fletcher, Sheila D. Matthews, J. Richard Steffy and Frederick H. Van Doorninck
2004 Serçe Limanı: an Eleventh-Century Shipwreck, Volume 1. The Ship and its Anchorage,
Crew, and Passengers. 1st ed. The Nautical Archaeology Series. Texas A&M University
Press, College Station, TX.

2004 Serçe Limanı: an Eleventh-Century Shipwreck, Volume 1. The Ship and its Anchorage,
Crew, and Passengers. 1st ed. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, TX.

Bass, George Fletcher and Frederick H. Van Doorninck

1971 A Fourth-Century Shipwreck at Yassi Ada. American Journal of Archaeology 75:27-37.

1982 Yassı Ada. 1st ed. The Nautical Archaeology Series. dInstitute of Nautical Archaeology
and Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Bayard, Donn T.
1969 Science, Theory, and Reality in the 'New Archaeology'. American Antiquity 34:376-384.

Benoît, Fernand
1961 L'épave du Grand Congloué á Marseilles. XIVe supplément á Gallia, Paris.

Binford, Lewis R.
1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217-225.

1964 A Consideration of the Archaeological Research Design. American Antiquity 29(4):425-

441.

1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiquity
30(2):203-210.

Blot, Jean-Yves
1996 Underwater Archaeology: Exploring the World Beneath the Sea. Harry N. Abrams, Inc.,
New York.

Blundell, Odo
1909 The Crannog of Eilean Muireach. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland
43:159-164.

1910 Further Examination of Artificial Islands. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of

Scotland 44:12-33.

17
Bourdieu, Pierre
1990 The Logic of Practice. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Braudel, Fernand
1982 Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th century. 3 vols. Harper & Row, New York.

Breen, Colin
2001 The Maritime Cultural Landscape in Medieval Gaelic Ireland. In Gaelic Ireland c. 1250-
c.1650: Land, Lordship, and Settlement, edited by Patrick J. Duffy, David Edwards and
Elizabeth FitzPatrick, pp. 418-435. The Group for the Study of Irish Historic Settlement,
Four Courts Press, Dublin.

Bruseth, James E. and Toni S. Turner

2005 From a Watery Grave: the Discovery and Excavation of La Salle's Shipwreck, La Belle.
1st ed. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Burgess, Robert Forrest and Carl J. Clausen

1976 Gold, Galleons, and Archaeology: a History of the 1715 Spanish Plate Fleet and the True
Story of the Great Florida Treasure Find. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.

Burke, P. Brendan
2010 From Manor to Mean: Documenting the Demise of a British Plantation and the Rise of a
Minorcan Farmstead. In ACUA Underwater Archaeology Proceedings 2010, edited by
Christopher Horrell and Melanie Damour, pp. 35-44, Amelia Island, Florida.

Caldwell, Joseph R.
1959 The New American Archaeology. Science 129:303-307.

Cederland, Carl
1983 The Old Wrecks of the Baltic Sea. BAR International Series No. 186. BAR, Oxford, UK.

1994 The Regal Ships and Divine Kingdom. Current Swedish Archaeology 2:47-85.

1995 Marine Archaeology in Society and Science. International Journal of Nautical

Archaeology 24(1):9-13.

Cederlund, Carl Olof and Frederick Hocker

2006 Vasa I : The Archaeology of a Swedish Warship of 1628. National Maritime Museums of
Sweden, Stockholm.

Champion, T. C.
1995 Centre and Periphery : Comparative Studies in Archaeology. One World Archaeology
Series No. 11. Routledge, London.

18
Cockrell, Wilburn A.
1980 The Trouble with Treasure--A Preservationalist View of the Controversey. American
Antiquity 45(2):333-339.

Conran, Sheelagh
2001 Medieval Churches on a Coastal Landscape, The Iveragh Peninsula in South Kerry.
Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Ulster Coleraine, Coleraine.

Corscadden, Anne
2002 The Later Historical Maritime Cultural Landscape of Dundrum Inner Bay. Unpublished
MSc thesis, University of Ulster Coleraine, Coleraine.

Cousteau, Jacques-Yves
1954 Fish Men Discover a 2200-year old Greek Ship. National Geographic 105(1):1-36.

Crumlin-Pedersen, Ole and Birgitte Munch Thye (editors)

1995 The Ship as Symbol in Prehistoric and Medieval Scandinavia: Papers from an
International Research Seminar at the Danish National Museum, Copenhagen, 5th-7th
May 1994. Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen.

Delle, James A.
1998 An Archaeology of Social Space: Analyzing Coffee Plantations in Jamaica's Blue
Mountains. Contributions to Global Historical Archaeology. Plenum Press, New York.

1999 Extending Europe's Grasp: An Archaeological Comparison of Colonial Spatial Processes

in Ireland and Jamaica. In Old and New Worlds: Historical/Post Medieval Archaeology
Papers from the Societies' Joint Conferences at Williamsburg and London 1997 to Mark
Thirty Years of Work and Achievement, edited by Geoff Egan and R.L. Michael, pp. 106-
116. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Dumas, Frédéric
1972 30 Centuries Under the Sea. Crown Publishers, New York.

Ekman, Carl
1934 Sjöhistoriska undersökningar vid Björkenäs. Sancte Christophers gilles chroenica 8:21-
35.

Fairbanks, Charles
1964 Underwater Historic Sites on St. Marks River. Florida Anthropologist 17:44-49.

Farr, Helen
2006 Seafaring as Social Action. Journal of Maritime Archaeology 1(1):85-99.

Fenwick, Valerie
1987 Crisis in Nautical Archaeology. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 16(1):1.

19
Firth, Antony
1995 Three Facets of Maritime Archaeology: Society, Landscape, and Critique. Department of
Archaeology, University of Southampton. http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/files/splash-
import/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Firth-1995-Three-Facets-of-Maritime-Archaeology-
140410.pdf.

2002 Managing Archaeology Underwater: A Theoretical, Historical, and Comparitive

Perspective on Society and its Submerged Past. BAR International Series No. 1055.
British Archaeological Reports, Archaeopress, Oxford.

Fischer, George
1993 The Conference on Underwater Archaeology and The Advisory Council on Underwater
Archaeology: A Brief History. In Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the Society
for Historical Archaeology Conference, edited by Shelli O. Smith, pp. 2-6. Society for
Historical Archaeology, Kansas City, Missouri.

1999 The History of Underwater Archaeology at Florida State University: a Retrospective of

the Past and a Look to the Future. In Underwater Archaeology Proceedings from the
Society for Historical Archaeology Conference, edited by Adriane Askins Neidinger and
Matthew A. Russell, pp. 80-84. Society for Historical Archaeology, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Flanagan, Laurence
1988 Ireland's Armada Legacy. Gill and Macmillan, Dublin.

Flatman, Joe
2003 Cultural Biographies, Cognitive Landscapes and Dirty Old Bits of Boat: “Theory” in
Maritime Archaeology. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 32(2):143-157.

Ford, Ben (editor)

2011 The Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes. Springer, New York.

Franzén, Anders
1961 The Warship Vasa: Deep Diving and Marine Archaeology in Stockholm. 2d ed. Norstedt
and Bonnier, Stockholm.

Frost, Honor
1963 Under the Mediterranean. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

1972 Ancient Harbours and Anchorages in the Eastern Mediterranean. In Underwater

Archaeology: A Nascent Discipline, edited by UNESCO, pp. 95-114. UNESCO, Paris.

Gawronski, Jerzy
1991 The Archaeological and Historical Research of the Dutch East Indiaman Amsterdam
(1749). In Carvel Construction Technique: Fifth International Symposium on Boat and

20
 Ship Archaeology, Amsterdam 1988, edited by Reinder Reinders, Sean McGrail and Kees
Paul, pp. 81-84. Oxbow Monograph No. 12. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Gibbins, David
1990 Analytical Approaches in Maritime Archaeology: A Mediterranean Perspective. Antiquity
64:376-389.

1995 What Shipwrecks Can Tell Us. Antiquity 70:234-236.

Gibbins, David and Jonathan Adams

2001 Shipwrecks and Maritime Archaeology. World Archaeology 32(3):279-291.

Giddens, Anthony
1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press,
Cambridge.

1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press,
Cambridge.

Giesecke, Anne G.
1985 Management of Historic Shipwrecks in the 1980s. Journal of Field Archaeology 12:108-
116.

Goggin, John M.
1960 Underwater Archaeology: Its Nature and Limitations. American Antiquity 25(3):348-353.

Gosden, Chris
1994 Social Being and Time. Social Archaeology. Blackwell, Oxford.

1999 Anthropology and Archaeology: A Changing Relationship. Routledge, London.

Gould, Richard A. (editor)

1983 Shipwreck Anthropology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

2000 Archaeology and the Social History of Ships. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Green, Jeremy
1977 The Loss of the Verenigde Oostindische Vergulde Draeck, Western Australia 1656. BAR
Supplementary Series 36. 2 vols. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

1989 The Loss of the VOC Retourschip Batavia, Western Australia 1629. An Excavation
Report and Catalogue of Artefacts. BAR International Series 489, Oxford.

Grenier, Robert, Marc Andre Bernier and Willis Stevens (editors)

21
 2007 The Underwater Archaeology of Red Bay : Basque Shipbuilding and Whaling in the 16th
Century. 5 vols. Parks Canada, Ottawa.

Hafors, Birgitta
1985 The Preservation of the Wasa. In Postmedieval Boat and Ship Archaeology: Papers
Based on those Presented to an International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology
in Stockholm in 1982, edited by Carl Olaf Cederlund, pp. 15-18. vol. 256. British
Archaeological Reports Series, London.

Hall, Martin
2000 Archaeology and the Modern World: Colonial Transcripts in South Africa and the
Chesapeake. Routledge, London ; New York.

Harpster, Matthew
2009 Keith Muckelroy: Methods, Ideas and Maritime Archaeology Journal of Maritime
Archaeology 4(1):67-82.

Harris, Lynn
2010 South Carolina Shipyards: Labour, Logistics, Lumber, and Ladies. Journal of Maritime
Archaeology 5(1):17-35.

Heidegger, Martin
1992 The Concept of Time. B. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Hicks, Dan
2007 The Garden of the World: An Historical Archaeology of Sugar Landscapes in the Eastern
Caribbean. BAR International Series. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Hildred, Alexzandra and Dominic Fontana

2011 Weapons of Warre: the Armaments of the Mary Rose. Archaeology of the Mary Rose. 2
vols. Mary Rose Trust, Portsmouth.

Hirsch, Eric
1995 Landscape: Between Place and Space. In The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives
on Place and Space, edited by Eric Hirsch and Michael O'Hanlon, pp. 1-30. Oxford
Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hodder, Ian
1982a Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. New Studies in
Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Cambridgeshire ; New York.

1982b Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Cambridgeshire ; New York, N.Y.

22
 1991a Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. 2nd ed.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge England ; New York.

1991b The Need for an Interpretive Archaeology. Scottish Archaeological Review 8:8-13.

1997 Towards a Reflexive Excavation Methodology. Antiquity 71:691-700.

Horrell, Christopher
2005 Plying the Waters of Time: Maritime Archaeology and History on the Florida Gulf Coast.
Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University.

Hunter, J.R.
1994 'Maritime Culture': Notes from the Land. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology
23(4):261-264.

Jasinski, Marek
1993 The Maritime Cultural Landscape: An Archaeological Perspective. Archaeologia Polski
38:7–21.

1999 Maritime Archaeology and Underwater Cultural Heritage into the 21st Century. In
Proceedings of the Fourth World Archaeology Congress. University of Cape Town,
South Africa.

Johnsen, Harald and Bjørnar Olsen

1992 Hermeneutics and Archaeology. American Antiquity 57(3):419-436.

Johnson, David A. and Chuck Meide

1998 In Soufrerie's Shadow: An Introduction to an Historic Shipwreck in Kingstown Harbour,
St. Vincent and the Grenadines. In Underwater Archaeology, edited by Lawrence E.
Babits, Catherine Fach and Ryan Harris, pp. 79-87. Proceedings from the 1998
Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Society for Historical
Archaeology, Atlanta, Georgia.

Johnson, Matthew
1996 An Archaeology of Capitalism. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Johnson, Richard E. and Russell K. Skowronek

1986 A Quantitative Analysis of Patterning Potential in Shipwreck Artifact Assemblages. In
Underwater Archaeology: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Underwater
Archaeology, edited by Calvin R. Cummings, pp. 85-91. Fathom Eight Special
Publication No. 7. Fathom Eight, San Marino, California.

Katzev, Michael
1974 Last Harbor for the Oldest Ship. National Geographic 146:618-625.

Kelleher, Connie E.

23
 1998 The Maritime Archaeological Landscape of Baltimore, Co. Cork. Unpublished MA
thesis, University College Cork, Cork.

Knapp, Arthur Bernard (editor)

1992 Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kuhn, Thomas S.
1970 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago University Press, Chicago.

Lamboglia, Nino
1965 Albenga. In Marine Archaeology: Developments During Sixty Years in the
Mediterranean, edited by Joan du Plat Taylor, pp. 53-65. World Confederation of
Underwater Activities. Hutchinson, London.

Lenihan, Daniel
1983 Rethinking Shipwreck Archaeology: A History of Ideas and Considerations for New
Directions. In Shipwreck Anthropology, edited by Richard A. Gould, pp. 37-64.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Leone, Mark P.
1983 Land and Water, Urban Life, and Boats: Underwater Reconnaissance in Chesapeake Bay.
In Shipwreck Anthropology, edited by Richard A. Gould, pp. 173-188. University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1984 Interpreting Ideology in Historical Archaeology: Using the Rules of Perspective in the
William Paca Garden in Annapolis, Maryland. In Ideology, Representation, and Power in
Prehistory, edited by Christopher Tilley and Daniel Miller, pp. 25-35. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Leone, Mark P. and Parker B. Potter (editors)

1999 Historical Archaeologies of Capitalism. Kluwer Academic : Plenum Press, New York.

Leone, Mark P., Parker B. Potter and Paul A. Shackel

1987 Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology 28(3):283-302.

Maarleveld, Thijs
1995 Type or Technique: Some Thoughts on Boat and Ship Finds as Indicative of Cultural
Traditions. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24(1):3-7.

Marsden, Peter
2003 Sealed by Time: The Loss and Recovery of the Mary Rose. The Archaeology of the Mary
Rose Volume 1. The Mary Rose Trust, Portsmouth, England.

Marsden, Peter and Douglas McElvogue

2009 Mary Rose: Your Noblest Shippe: Anatomy of a Tudor Warship. Mary Rose Trust,
Portsmouth, England.

24
Martin, Colin J. M.
1972 El Gran Grifon: an Armada Wreck on Fair Isle. International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology 1:59-71.

1973 The Spanish Armada Expedition, 1968-70. In Marine Archaeology: Proceedings of the
Twenty-third Symposium of the Colston Research Society Held in the University of
Bristol, April 4th to 8th, 1971, edited by David J. Blackman, pp. 439-461. Colston
Papers, Volume 23. Colston Research Society and Butterworths, London.

1975 Full Fathom Five: Wrecks of the Spanish Armada. Viking Press, Inc., New York.

1979 La Trinidad Valencera: an Armada Invasion Transport Lost off Donegal. Interim Site
Report, 1971-1976. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 8(1):13-38.

2001 De-Particularising the Particular: Approaches to the Investigation of Well-Documented

Post-Medieval Shipwrecks. World Archaeology 32(3):383-399.

McCarthy, Michael
2001 Australian Maritime Archaeology: Changes, their Antecedents and the Path Ahead. In
Maritime Archaeology in Australia: A Reader, edited by Mark Staniforth and Michael
Hyde, pp. 14-21. Southern Archaeology, Blackwood, South Australia.

McErlean, Thomas, Rosemary McConkey and Wes Forsythe

2002 Strangford Lough: An Archaeological Survey of the Maritime Cultural Landscape.
Northern Ireland Archaeological Monographs No. 6. Northern Ireland Environment and
Heritage Service and Blackstaff Press, Belfast.

McGhee, Fred L.
1998 Towards a Postcolonial Nautical Archaeology. Assemblage 3
http://www.shef.ac.uk/~assem/3/3mcghee.htm.

McGrail, Seán
1977 Aspects of Experimental Boat Archaeology. In Sources and Techniques in Boat
Archaeology: Papers Based on Those Presented to a Symposium at Greenwich in
September 1976, edited by Seán McGrail, pp. 23-45. BAR Supplementary Series No. 29.
British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

1980 Obituary: Keith Muckelroy. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 9(4):276.

1998 Ancient Boats in North-West Europe: The Archaeology of Water Transport to AD 1500.
Longman Archaeology Series, London.

McGuire, Randall H.
1992 A Marxist Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego.

25
McNeary, Rory William Adamson
2000 Aspects of the Maritime Cultural Landscape of South West Donegal. Unpublished MSc
thesis, University of Ulster Coleraine, Coleraine.

Meide, Chuck
1991 The Development of Legislation Concerning Historic Shipwreck Preservation.
Department of Anthropology, Florida State University.

2001 The Archaeology of Economic Transition: the Excavation of the San Marcos Shipwreck,
a Mid-Nineteenth Century Merchant Sailing Ship Lost at St. Marks, Florida. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Muckelroy, Keith
1975 A Systematic Approach to the Investigation of Scattered Wreck Sites. International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 4(2):173-190.

1976 The Integration of Historical and Archaeological Data Concerning an Historic Wreck
Site: the Kennemerland. World Archaeology 7(3):280-290.

1977 Historic Wreck Sites in Britain and Their Environs. International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology 6(1):47-57.

1978 Maritime Archaeology. New Studies in Archaeology Series. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.

1980 Archeology Under Water: An Atlas of the World's Submerged Sites. McGraw-Hill, New
York.

Murphy, Larry
1983 Shipwrecks as Data Base for Human Behavioral Studies. In Shipwreck Anthropology,
edited by Richard A. Gould, pp. 65-89. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Myhre, Bjørn
1985 Boathouses as Indicators of Political Organisation. Norwegian Archaeological Review
18(1):36–59.

O'Hara, Deirdre
1997 Tonn Rudhraighe: A Maritime Landscape Study of Dundrum Bay, Co. Down, Northern
Ireland. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton.

Olsen, Olaf and Ole Crumlin-Pedersen

1967 The Skuldelev Ships. Acta Archaeologica 38:73-174.

Olsen, Stanley J.
1958 The Wakulla Cave. Natural History 67(7):396-403.

26
 1959 The Wakulla Cave. In Captain Cousteau's Underwater Treasury, edited by Jacques-Yves
Cousteau and James Dugan, pp. 369-373. Harper & Row, New York.

1961 SCUBA as an Aid to Archaeologists and Paleontologists. Curator 4(4):371-378.

O'Raw, John B.
2003 The Salhanha Disaster in the Maritime Cultural Landscape of Lough Swilly. Unpublished
MSc thesis, University of Ulster Coleraine, Coleraine.

Orser, Charles E.
1996 A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World. Contributions to Global Historical
Archaeology. Plenum Press, New York.

O'Sullivan, Aidan
2001 Foragers, Farmers, and Fishers in a Coastal Landscape: An Intertidal Archaeological
Survey of the Shannon Estuary. Discovery Programme Monographs No. 5. Royal Irish
Academy, Dublin.

O'Sullivan, Aidan and Colin Breen

2007 Maritime Ireland: An Archaeology of Coastal Communities. Tempus, Stroud,
Gloucestershire.

Patterson, Thomas C.
1990 Some Theoretical Tensions Within and Between the Processual and Post-processual
Archaeologies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9(189-200).

Peterson, Mendel
1955 The Last Cruise of H.M.S. "Loo". Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Poidebard, Antoine
1939 Un grand port disparu, Tyr. Vol. 29. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique, Paris.

Pollard, Edward John David

2000 Archaeological Survey and Computer Modelling of the Skerries Maritime Landscape,
Co. Antrim. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Ulster Coleraine, Coleraine.

Pulak, Cemal
1998 The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology
27(3):188-224.

Ransley, Jesse
2005 Boats are for Boys: Queering Maritime Archaeology. World Archaeology 37(4):621-629.

27
 2007 Rigorous Reasoning, Reflexive Research, and the Space for 'Alternative Archaeologies.'
Questions for Maritime Archaeological Heritage Management. International Journal of
Nautical Archaeology 36(2):221-237.

Rule, Margaret
1982 The Mary Rose: the Excavation and Raising of Henry VIII's Flagship. Conway Maritime
Press, London.

Ruoff, Ulrich
1972 Palafittes and Underwater Archaeology. In Underwater Archaeology: A Nascent
Discipline, edited by UNESCO. UNESCO, Paris.

Sanderson, Stephen K. (editor)

1995 Civilizations and World Systems: Studying World-Historical Change. Altamira Press,
Walnut Creek, California.

Sauer, Albrecht
2011 Maritime Experimental Archaeology: Trying the Impossible. In ACUA Underwater
Archaeology Proceedings, edited by Felipe Vieira de Castro and Lindsey Thomas, pp.
49-53. Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology, Austin, Texas.

Shanks, Michael and Christopher Y. Tilley

1988 Social Theory and Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1992 Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. New studies in archaeology.
Routledge, London ; New York.

Skowronek, Russell K.
1984a Trade Patterns of Eighteenth Century Frontier New Spain: the 1733 Flota and St.
Augustine. Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University,
Tallahassee. Volumes in Historical Archaeology No. 1. South Carolina Institute of
Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.

1984b Archeological Testing and Evaluation of the Legare Anchorage Shipwreck Site, Biscayne
National Park, Summer 1983. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service,
Tallahassee, Florida.

Smith, Roger C.
2002 Florida Frontiers: From Ice Age to New Age. In International Handbook of Underwater
Archaeology, edited by Carol Ruppé and Jan Barstad, pp. 143-167. Plenum Series in
Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

South, Stanley A.
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archeology. Academic Press, New York.

Souza, Donna J.

28
 1998 The Persistence of Sail in the Age of Steam: Underwater Archaeological Evidence from
the Dry Tortugas. The Plenum series in underwater archaeology. Plenum Press, New
York.

Spencer-Wood, Suzanne
1990 Stretching the Envelope in Theory and Method. In Underwater Archaeology, edited by
Toni L. Carrell. Society for Historical Archaeology, Tucson.

Staniforth, Mark
1999 Immigrants and Convicts to Australia: The Voyage Experience. Proceedings of the World
Archaeological Congress 4. University of Cape Town, South Africa.

2000 The Archaeology of the Event - The Annales School and Maritime Archaeology. In
Maritime Archaeology in Australia: A Reader, pp. 42-45. Southern Archaeology,
Blackwood, South Australia.

2003 Material Culture and Consumer Society: Dependent Colonies in Colonial Australia. The
Plenum Series in Underwater Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New
York.

Sténuit, Robert
1973 Treasures of the Armada. E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc., New York.

Stickel, E. Gary
1983 The Mystery of the Prehistoric "Chinese Anchors": Toward Research Designs for
Underwater Archaeology. In Shipwreck Anthropology, edited by Richard A. Gould, pp.
219-244. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Taillez, Philippe
1965 Titan. In Marine Archaeology: Developments During Sixty Years in the Mediterranean,
edited by Joan du Plat Taylor, pp. 76-92. World Confederation of Underwater Activities.
Hutchinson, London.

Taylor, Joan du Plat

1965 Marine Archaeology: Developments During Sixty Years in the Mediterranean. World
Confederation of Underwater Activities. Hutchinson, London.

Tilley, Christopher Y.
1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments. Explorations in
Anthropology. Berg, Oxford, UK.

Tuddenham, David Berg

2010 Maritime Cultural Landscapes, Maritimity and Quasi Objects. Journal of Maritime
Archaeology 5(1):5-16.

UNESCO

29
 1972 Underwater Archaeology: A Nascent Discipline. UNESCO, Paris.

Van Doorninck, Frederick H.

in press Serçe Limanı, Volume 3. The Ceramics, Mercantile Equipment, and Historical Context
of an Eleventh-Century Shipwreck. 1st ed. Texas A&M University Press, College Station,
Texas.

Wagner, Kip
1965 Drowned Galleons Yield Spanish Gold. National Geographic 127(1):1-37.

Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice

1974 The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European
World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Studies in Social Discontinuity. Academic
Press, New York.

1980 The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European
World-Economy, 1600-1750. Studies in Social Discontinuity. Academic Press, New
York.

1989 The Modern World System III: The Second Era of Great Expansion of the Capitalist
World-Economy, 1730-1840s. Studies in Social Discontinuity. Academic Press, San
Diego.

Watson, Patty Jo
1983 Method and Theory in Shipwreck Archaeology. In Shipwreck Anthropology, edited by
Richard A. Gould, pp. 23-36. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Watson, Richard A.
1972 The 'New Archaeology' of the 1960s. Antiquity 46:210-215.

Wedde, Michael
1996 From Classification to Narrative. Mediterranean Historical Review 11:117-164.

2000 Towards a Hermeneutics of Aegean Bronze Age ship Imagery. Peleus : Studien zur
Archäologie und Geschichte Griechenlands und Zyperns. Bibliopolis, Mannheim.

Weinberg, G. D., V. R. Grace, G. R. Edwards, H. S. Robinson, P. Throckmorton and E. K. Ralph

1965 The Antikythera Shipwreck Reconsidered. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society 55(3).

Westerdahl, Christer
1986 Die maritime Kulturlandschaft. Schiffe, Schiffahrtswege, Häfen. Überlegungen zu einem
Forschungsansatz. Deutsches Schiffahrtsarchiv 9:7-58.

1992 The Maritime Cultural Landscape. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology

21(1):5-14.

30
 1994 Maritime Cultures and Ship Types: Brief Comments on the Significance of Maritime
Archaeology. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 23(4):265-270.

1995 Traditional Zones of Transport Geography in Relation to Ship-Types. In Shipshape:

Essays for Ole Crumlin-Pedersen on the Occasion of His 60th Anniversary February
24th 1995, edited by Olaf Olsen, Jan Skamby Madsen and Flemming Rieck, pp. 213-230.
Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde, Denmark.

2008 Fish and Ships: Towards A Theory of Maritime Culture. Deutsches Schiffahrtsarchiv 9
(2007):191-236.

Wyllie, Alison
1985 Critical Theory in Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4:133-147.

31