Maritime Archaeology in the 21st Century by James P. Delgado he art and science of archaeology is now more than a century old, and the practice of it underwater and in the maritime world spans about half that time, or some fifty-five years. While antiquarian interest in maritime finds dates to the nineteenth century, with discoveries of buried ships—either in land-filled harbors, or the famous disinterment of the Gokstad and Oseberg ship burials in what is now Norway— what lay under the seas awaited a new century. The 1900 discov- ery and recovery of a trove of ancient bronze statues from a first Tcentury BC shipwreck off the Greek Aegean island of Antiky- thera sparked interest in undersea exploration. The invention of SCUBA, along with a growth in the number of divers in the 1950s and 1960s, led to the birth of archaeology practiced under water as well as underwater archaeology. The first scientific excavation of a shipwreck in its entirety from the seabed took place in 1960 when George F. Bass and Peter Throckmorton, working with Honor Frost, Frédéric Dumas, Claude Duthuit and others raised the scattered remains of a Bronze Age wreck dating to around 1200 BC from the waters of Turkey’s Cape Gelidonya. institute of nautical archaeology institute of nautical In 1960, George Bass—often referred to as the Father of Underwa- ter Archaeology—and his colleague Peter Throckmorton led a team in a full archaeological excavation of a Bronze Age shipwreck off Cape Gelidonya in Turkey. (above) Bass and Throckmorton examine bronze ingots raised from the Gelidonya wreck site. institute of nautical archaeology institute of nautical In the decades that followed in the twentieth century, a virtual explosion of technology, interest, and opportunity—as well as controversy and conflict—brought shipwrecks and mari- time archaeology increasingly into focus for both the archaeo- logical profession and the public. The initial result was a spate of discoveries, some of famous ships, while others ultimately proved to be insignificant in terms of name recognition or historical fame; however, these wrecks yielded forgotten or lost information about ship forms, construction, or aspects of trade and life at sea. The big-name discoveries and recoveries included the Swed- ish warship Vasa, a 1628 loss in Stockholm harbor that, when raised intact, became an iconic poster child for the new discipline and yielded a trove of artifacts that documented not only the vessel, but also life (and lives lost) during its brief career. Viking ships excavated from a shallow grave at Roskilde, near Copen- museum vasa hagen, greatly expanded knowledge of various types of these Vasa broke the surface for the first time in 333 years when it was craft, hitherto limited to the Royal Dragon ships like Gokstad or raised intact from the seabed in Stockholm Harbor in 1961. 16 SEA HISTORY 153, WINTER 2015–16 vasa museum vasa trust/university of rhode island exploration noaa/ocean The Vasa Museum’s diorama depicts the recovery of the ship. The pro- (above) The image ofTitanic’ s bow caught the world’s attention cess took more than two years and included digging tunnels under- when it was discovered on the seafloor in 1985. neath the wreck in the seabed through which to run the slings. (below) Robert Ballard and a NOAA scientist monitor ROV dives to Titanic from the control room aboard the NOAA oceanographic Oseberg. The famous Civil War ironclad USS Monitor, discovered research ship Ronald H. Brown in 2004. in what were then deep waters of more than 200 feet in 1972, captured national attention and sparked the creation of America’s National Marine Sanctuary system. The 1985 discovery of Titanic captured global headlines and demonstrated the possibil- ity that anything—any ship—could be found with enough money and time, even at great depth. noaa/ocean exploration trust/university of rhode island exploration noaa/ocean s mate 1st class martin maddock, us navy 1st class martin s mate ’ (left) The revolving gun turret from the ironclad ship USSMonitor is lifted from the ocean floor and placed onto the derrick barge in August 2002. The shipwreck site was designated as the country’s first photographer National Marine Sanctuary in 1975. SEA HISTORY 153, WINTER 2015–16 17 But as much as big-name shipwrecks were making the news, compassing thousands of square miles and more than a thousand there was more to the rapidly developing field than discovery and shipwrecks. In the twenty-first century, in the United States, there recovery of ships. The first sea change was resolving the initial are now state underwater archaeological programs that incorpo- ideological struggle with mainstream, land-bound archaeologists rate research, diving, and resource management in Maryland, over the issue of whether “real” archaeology could be accomplished Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and in a submerged environment. The issue was resolved by the 1970s, Texas. At the federal level, underwater archaeology is a component thanks to years of exceptional projects done to exacting standards, of the programs of the National Park Service, NOAA’s Office of including the work of George Bass and his students and colleagues National Marine Sanctuaries, the US Navy, the Bureau of Ocean with the then newly-founded Institute of Nautical Archaeology, Energy Management, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmen- as well as work done by other pioneers such as Ole Crumlin- tal Enforcement. Internationally, a number of countries have Pedersen in Denmark, Graham Henderson in Australia, Robert programs, either governmental, non-governmental, or managed Grenier in Canada, Pilar Luna Erreguereña in Mexico, and Colin under academic auspices. Among these are Canada, Mexico, Martin in Scotland, to name a few. Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Cuba, the United Kingdom, There was also the development of a theory of maritime ar- Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Russia, Poland, chaeology, strongly brought into focus by the late Keith Muck- Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, elroy of the United Kingdom. Muckelroy advanced a detailed Israel, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, outline and arguments for the study of maritime culture, not just Sri Lanka, and India. shipwrecks, but also how ships and their wrecks functioned as While governmental programs grew, so too did citizen in- part of maritime economic, industrial and social systems, and volvement, especially in avocational organizations in a variety of how archaeological science could work to obtain maximum results countries, where non-archaeologists with a wide range of skills in from what pioneering shipwreck expert J. Richard Steffy keenly underwater photography, mapping, and underwater work, as well observed were at times “minimal remains.” Another key develop- as backgrounds in history, conservation, and advanced and tech- ment was the increased focus on the study of shipwrecks and nical diving represented a profound and important constituency. other maritime archaeological sites through the lens of anthropol- Long before “citizen science” became a buzzword, these groups ogy, the mother science of archaeology, with a ground-breaking and people were making a difference, often in areas where no (or perhaps more apropos, a sea-shaking) publication, Shipwreck government program existed, in the discovery, documentation Anthropology, edited by J. Richard Gould from papers presented and preservation of shipwrecks. One major force in this movement at a session chaired by the School of American Research and was and is the UK’s Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS), with organized by Gould and the National Park Service’s Daniel certification courses for active volunteers. Their work has had Lenihan and Larry Murphy. positive global implications. As the discipline evolved from wreck hunting and -raising The last decades have seen a variety of projects accomplished to research-focused, question-answering science, a strong tradition by a solid core of citizen scientists who bring not only sensitivity of salvage and treasure hunting posed a powerful counter-current, and a new understanding of archaeological technique, but also especially in the public mind. It was (and remains) as strong a their own life and professional skills. In the US and Canada, conflict as one finds with any ideological difference, with the groups like the Maritime Archaeology and History Society treasure hunters and salvagers arguing for free enterprise with no (MAHS), the National Association of Black Scuba Divers (NABS), regulation—some motivated by love of history and adventure, Diving with a Purpose (DWP), the Lighthouse Archaeological others by potential profit. The arguments that raged in court, in the halls of government, and in the press dominated the (battle) field well through the twentieth century and persist in the twen- ty-first. What has changed has been increased government over- sight, either regulatory or through the courts, in some cases for science or public benefit, more often in asserting the rights of owners—of lost vessels, or cargoes (including treasure)—as well as protecting wrecks seen as government military property, or as war graves. As part of that process, governments took an interest and developed not only regulations and laws (like the US Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987), but also programs to find, survey, and assess the significance of wrecks and sites. In some cases, these government programs managed the recovery; in other cases, they worked with salvagers and treasure hunters. In other areas, wrecks were seen as key elements of underwater portions of the national or state park systems, as well as wrecks in the National Marine dennis knepper/mahs by photo Sanctuary System, which grew from a single site, USS Monitor, MAHS volunteers document the mast step from an early-twentieth- in 1975, to what is today a national system of fourteen sites en- century iron shipwreck in the Florida Keys.