Analysing Maritime Archaeological Archives: Collections, Access and Management 9781407315669, 9781407323138

Citation preview

The Maritime Archaeology Trust Monograph Series No. 3

Analysing Maritime Archaeological Archives Collections, Access and Management

Julie Satchell with contributions by Jesse Ransley and Julian Whitewright

BAR British Series 628 2016

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 628 The Maritime Archaeology Trust Monograph Series No. 3 Analysing Maritime Archaeological Archives © The authors and Maritime Archaeology Trust 2016 Cover image Front: Artefacts on display at the Shipwreck Centre, Arreton Barns, Isle of Wight. Back: Artefacts from the Admiral Gardner site, on display at Charlestown Shipwreck and Heritage Centre. The Author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in  any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407315669 paperback ISBN 9781407323138 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407315669 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR titles are available from:

Email Phone Fa x

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, ox2 7bp, uk [email protected] +4 4 (0)1865 310431 +4 4 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Acknowledgements This volume is the culmina on of work undertaken on mari me archives which began in 2006, when the author and Jesse Ransley developed ini al awareness-raising ac vi es to highlight problems and issues faced by archaeological archives from the marine zone. Support from the Mari me Archaeology Trust has enabled a number of projects to be developed and delivered, research and data from these projects has been drawn on to produce this volume, including: Slipping through the Net: Mari me archaeological archives in policy and prac ce – this document was produced in support of work by the Chartered Ins tute for Archaeologists Mari me Affairs Group (CIfA MAG), which recognised that a lack of archive capacity and planning was affec ng the delivery of professional prac ce. The document is available to download from: h p://www.archaeologists.net/sites/default/files/groups_mari me_slipping.pdf Securing a Future for Mari me Archaeological Archives (SFMAA) – CIfA MAG linked with the Archaeological Archives Forum to progress work related to mari me archive capacity. This project undertook a detailed review of museum and repository collec on areas and policies, reviewed current archive holdings and their accessibility, and assessed current archive crea on in order to predict future requirements. Reports are available to download from the online digital archive held by the Archaeology Data Service at: h p://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/mari me_ archive_2009/index.cfm Mari me Archives and The Crown Estate (MATCE) – a project that extended research into issues related to marine archives which had been raised during the SFMAA project and were poten ally related to The Crown Estate management of the marine estate: h p://www.mari mearchaeologytrust.org/uploads/publica ons/MATCE%20Project%20Report_ FINAL_V2_LOW.pdf Mari me archaeological archives: crea on of backlog database for England – funded by English Heritage (EH) (now Historic England (HE)), this project has developed our understanding of the nature of the backlog and work required on various sites. This publica on is part of this funded work. The grey literature reports from each of the above projects include detailed acknowledgments of assistance and support for the work undertaken. Financial and administra ve support for the above projects was provided by English Heritage (now Historic England (HE)), Historic Scotland (HS) and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) (which are now combined within a single organisa on, Historic Environment Scotland (HSE)), the Society for Museum Archaeology (SMA), the Archaeology Data Service (ADS), the Chartered Ins tute for Archaeologists (CIfA) and The Crown Estate. Acknowledgements below relate to this publica on and the development of the mari me archive backlog database for England. The data-gathering work for the review of the archive backlog for England has been undertaken by Mari me Archaeology Trust staff Julian Whitewright and Peter Wilson, with analysis and project repor ng by Julian Whitewright and Julie Satchell. This project forms the basis for chapter four of this volume. Illustra ons have been produced by the Mari me Archaeology Trust unless otherwise stated. Copy edi ng has been undertaken by Sarah Harrison. Transla on of the volume summary in to Dutch has been undertaken by Sara Rich and Tania Fack, the transla ons into French and Spanish have been produced by Jose-Oscar Encuentra Bardina. Thanks for input and comment on this volume go to Jesse Ransley, Julian Whitewright and Duncan Brown (HE). Par cular thanks are extended to Historic England, who have supported the delivery of this project and publica on through the Na onal Heritage Protec on Commissions Programme. The author would also like to acknowledge the support of the Mari me Archaeology Trust (formerly the Hampshire and Wight Trust for Mari me Archaeology) (www.mari mearchaeologytrust.org).

iii

Contents

Figures and Tables

vi

Editorial

ix

Summary

x

1. Mari me Archaeological Archives: The Unrealised Research Resource

1

2. Public Museums and Mari me Archaeological Archives

17

3. Analysis of Archive Loca ons, Produc on, Character, Access and Security

35

4. England’s Mari me Archaeological Archive Backlog In-Depth

77

5. Development Control and Regulatory Frameworks: Impacts on Archaeological

103

Archive Deposi on 6. Current and Future Challenges

117

7. References

125

8. Appendices

131

Index

163

v

Figures and Tables (All images are copyright of the Mari me Archaeology Trust, unless stated otherwise) Chapter 1 Figure 1.1. Early diving equipment – a reconstructed diving ‘barrel’ and standard diving dress. Figure 1.2. Artefacts from the Admiral Gardner site on display at Charlestown Shipwreck and Heritage Centre.

Page 3 5

Chapter 2 Figure 2.1. Map showing museums that responded to the survey. Figure 2.2. Map showing the distribu on of museums with and without collec on policies that refer to mari me archives. Figure 2.3. Map showing museum collec on areas that do or do not include the coastal and marine zone. Figure 2.4. Map showing museums that have and have not been approached to accession mari me archives. Figure 2.5. Map showing museums that do and do not currently hold mari me archives. Figure 2.6. Map showing distribu on of museums that do and do not ac vely collect mari me archives. Figure 2.7. Map showing reasons why museums in the South West of England do not collect mari me archives, and whether they would collect if these issues were resolved. Figure 2.8. Map showing reasons why museums in the South East of England do not collect mari me archives, and whether they would collect if these issues were resolved. Figure 2.9. Map showing reasons why museums in Eastern England do not collect mari me archives, and whether they would collect if these issues were resolved. Figure 2.10. Map showing reasons why museums in the North East of England do not collect mari me archives, and whether they would collect if these issues were resolved. Figure 2.11. Map showing reasons why museums in the North West of England do not collect mari me archives, and whether they would collect if these issues were resolved. Figure 2.12. Map showing reasons why museums in Scotland do not collect mari me archives, and whether they would collect if these issues were resolved.

18 19 21 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Chapter 3 Figure 3.1. Loca on of all those taking part in the survey, whether through the detailed online response or summary response. Figure 3.2. Distribu on of archive holders within the South West of England based on survey results. Figure 3.3. Distribu on of RoW Amnesty reports in the South West of England. Figure 3.4. Distribu on of archive holders within the South East of England based on survey results. Figure 3.5. Distribu on of RoW Amnesty reports in the South East of England. Figure 3.6. Distribu on of archive holders within Greater London based on survey results. Figure 3.7. Distribu on of archive holders within the Eastern England based on survey results. Figure 3.8. Distribu on of RoW Amnesty reports in Eastern England. Figure 3.9. Distribu on of archive holders within East and West Midlands. Figure 3.10. Distribu on of archive holders within Yorkshire and the Humber based on survey results. Figure 3.11. Distribu on of RoW Amnesty reports in Yorkshire and the Humber. Figure 3.12. Distribu on of archive holders within the North East of England based on survey results. Figure 3.13. Distribu on of RoW Amnesty reports in the North East of England. Figure 3.14. Distribu on of archive holders within the North West of England based on survey results. Figure 3.15. Distribu on of RoW Amnesty reports in the North West of England. Figure 3.16. Distribu on of archive holders within the Sco sh regions based on survey results. Figure 3.17. Distribu on of RoW Amnesty reports in the Sco sh Regions. Figure 3.18. Distribu on of wrecked vessels during 1876–7 (reproduced by permission of the RNLI from the Lifeboat Journal 10:110). Figure 3.19. Distribu on of designated protected wreck sites (reproduced with permission of Historic England). Figure 3.20. Distribu on and density of public museums and archives responding to the survey. Figure 3.21. Distribu on of private collec ons, exhibi ons and non-public museums responding to the survey. Figure 3.22. Displays at the Isle of Wight Shipwreck Centre, Arreton Barn. Figure 3.23. A shipwreck-focused display at the Has ngs Shipwreck and Coastal Heritage Centre. Figure 3.24. Display of artefacts from steam liners in Charlestown Shipwreck and Heritage Centre, Cornwall. Figure 3.25. Michael White’s prehistoric flint collec on. Figure 3.26. Distribu on of archaeological contractors responding to the survey. Figure 3.27. Number of years over which archives held by archaeological contractors have been generated. Figure 3.28. Distribu on of research and socie es sector responding to the survey. Figure 3.29. Number of years over which archives held by the research and socie es sector have been generated. Figure 3.30. Distribu on of designated wreck site licensees and archaeologists responding to the survey.

vi

36 38 38 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 46 50 51 52 53 55 55 55 57 59 62 63 65 67

Figure 3.31. Number of years over which archives held by the designated wreck site licensees and archaeological advisor sector have been generated based on the detailed survey responses. Figure 3.32. HMS Colossus material on display at Charlestown Shipwreck and Heritage Centre. Figure 3.33. Invincible material on display at Chatham Historic Dockyard. Figure 3.34. Invincible material on display at Charlestown Shipwreck and Heritage Centre. Figure 3.35. Distribu on of reports received during the RoW Amnesty. Figure 3.36. Summary of mari me archive by type held by all sectors within the survey. Figure 3.37. Summary of period of me over which archives have been produced based on all detailed survey responses.

69

Table 3.1. Detail of archive held within the South West Region of England. Table 3.2. Detail of archive held within the South East Region of England. Table 3.3. Detail of RoW Amnesty reports from the East of England. Table 3.4. Detail of archive held within the Yorkshire and Humber Region of England. Table 3.5. Detail of archive held within the North East Region of England. Table 3.6. Detail of archive held within the North West Region of England. Table 3.7. Detail of archive held within special interest collec ons in England. Table 3.8. Detail of archive held within the Regions of Scotland. Table 3.9. Receiver of Wreck reports 2001–08.

37 39 39 39 47 47 47 48 72

70 70 70 71 76 76

Chapter 4 Figure 4.1. Overall geographical distribu on of sites represented within the archives backlog database. Figure 4.2. Graphical breakdown of site distribu on across all periods and detailed breakdown for post-medieval and modern periods. Figure 4.3. Illustra on of the breakdown of interven on types across all sites. Figure 4.4. Breakdown of site significance by defined period, illustra ng the varia on in period category with each significance category. Figure 4.5. Copper fastenings in situ, protruding from the wooden structure of the Alum Bay 1 wreck, part of HMS Pomone, wrecked in 1811 on the Needles (courtesy of Mike Pi s). Figure 4.6. Part of the engine of HMS Velox on the seabed off the Isle of Wight. Figure 4.7. Artefacts recovered from the wreck of the Mendi on display in the Isle of Wight Shipwreck Centre, Arreton, IoW. Figure 4.8. Distribu on of archives represented within the backlog database and the designated historic wrecks around the Isles of Scilly. Figure 4.9. Artefacts from the site of HMS Associa on on display at Charlestown Shipwreck and Heritage Centre. Figure 4.10. Distribu on of archives represented within the backlog database and the designated historic wrecks in and around Plymouth Sound. Figure 4.11. Sites within the Eastern Solent represented within the archive backlog database in addi on to the designated historic wreck sites. Figure 4.12. A diver records the extensive wooden hull remains of the Flower of Ugie, off Horse Tail Sand in the Eastern Solent. Figure 4.13. Distribu on of designated historic wrecks and sites represented within the backlog database around the Goodwin Sands. Figure 4.14. A leather hat recovered from the designated historic wreck site of the S rling Castle, now held in Ramsgate Mari me Museum. Table 4.1. Numerical distribu on of sites by region. Table 4.2. Distribu on of sites by type. Table 4.3. Distribu on of sites by general period. Table 4.4. Breakdown of post-medieval sites, period-by-period. Table 4.5. Breakdown of modern sites, period-by-period. Table 4.6. Distribu on of sites by size of interven on. Table 4.7. Distribu on of sites by period of interven on. Table 4.8. Distribu on of sites by type of interven on. Table 4.9. Breakdown of funding types. Table 4.10. Public access to archaeological archives resul ng from recorded interven ons. Table 4.11. Overall significance of projects as assessed during the data entry. Table 4.12. Overall dissemina on of work as assessed during the data entry. Table 4.13. Breakdown of iden fied poten al future work or dissemina on work across all sites.

78 79 80 83 85 87 88 89 91 92 95 96 98 100

77 79 79 81 81 81 81 81 81 82 82 84 84

Chapter 5 Figure 5.1. Second World War landing cra hulk recorded prior to removal from Chichester Harbour. Figure 5.2. First World War seaplane tender on the River Hamble.

vii

114 114

The Mari me Archaeological Trust The Mari me Archaeology Trust will promote interest, research and knowledge of mari me archaeology and heritage. In doing this our policy statement aims to:  Carry out mari me archaeological surveys, inves ga ons and research in accordance with professional and museum codes of conduct and prac ce, the Ins tute for Archaeologists and the UNESCO Conven on on the Protec on of Underwater Cultural Heritage.  Promote archaeological awareness and competence.  Promote public awareness, enjoyment, educa on and par cipa on in the mari me archaeological heritage.  Support the publica on of the results of mari me archaeological inves ga ons, surveys and research.  Liaise with other regional, na onal and interna onal organisa ons involved in mari me archaeology and related disciplines.  Provide mari me archaeological services to heritage agencies, local authori es and a wide range of marine operators.  Support regional, na onal and interna onal ini a ves for improvement to the legisla on regarding the preserva on and management of the mari me archaeological heritage.  Ensure that mari me archaeology plays an important role in coastal planning, management and policies.

viii

Editorial This third volume in the Mari me Archaeology Trust monograph series demonstrates why it has been appropriate for the former Hampshire and Wight Trust for Mari me Archaeology to move to its new name of the Mari me Archaeology Trust. The research detailed within this volume includes the results of a number of na onal and UKwide projects that have sought to increase understanding of the scale and character of the mari me archaeological archives held across the public and private sectors. The MAT has grown from a regional organisa on working primarily in the Solent and on the south coast to one that works more widely on the marine historic environment of the UK and interna onally. This has provided direct experience of the produc on of archaeological archives from marine inves ga ons through managing their deposi on within appropriate facili es (where available). From a personal perspec ve, work undertaken at the HWTMA/MAT has developed our knowledge of issues related to mari me archives through a range of projects both crea ng archives for a number of different types of mari me heritage asset and analysing ‘dormant’ archives produced from sites in the Solent region prior to the forma on of the HWTMA. Work has been undertaken through funding and/or within archive-crea ng sectors that span protected wreck sites and research-focused projects, through suppor ng avoca onal groups and through working within marine development control. Finding museum or repository homes for the resul ng archives has not always been straigh orward and has highlighted the various regulatory and management issues that impact long-term archiving. The recogni on of the serious consequences of the archives resul ng from work being undertaken on marine and mari me sites failing to reach long-term, secure and accessible facili es sparked the formula on of a number of ini a ves to raise the profile of these issues. The resul ng work, detailed within this volume, was undertaken between 2006 and 2014. During this period there have been a number of developments related to digital archiving and the establishment of a new marine management regime that are having a posi ve impact on some aspects of archive deposi on. However, there is s ll a range of issues that remains to be tackled in rela on to the backlog of archives held and work being undertaken outside of formal heritage curatorial management regimes. While the precarious posi on of many archives has been highlighted, a highly posi ve outcome has been the development of an understanding of the research poten al within the archives. In par cular, there is a wealth of shipwreck archives that remain undisseminated but that, through further analysis, will help a est to how evidence from ships and shipping can contribute significantly to our understanding of global developments; hitherto, they have o en been overlooked in terms of their importance for understanding human history. The development of marine and mari me research frameworks within the UK during the course of research on backlog archives has been vital in helping shine a spotlight on the many posi ve contribu ons made to date, par cularly in terms of the archives’ future poten al. The MAT are delighted to publish the results of this work within our monograph series. This volume follows two which concentrated on shipwrecks and their archives: the Flower of Ugie, a site at which discovery, inves ga on, analysis and publica on proceeded rela vely rapidly; and, in contrast, the Shipwrecks of Alum Bay, where discovery, prolonged inves ga on and analysis spanned more than two decades. These monographs revealed both the fascina ng stories of individual vessels and the wider impact of associated analysis work beyond single sites in terms of enhancing material studies such as those on the development of copper alloys. It is hoped that the work outlined within Mari me Archaeological Archives will inspire others to delve into this world of unrealised poten al. Future planned volumes will feature the following research projects:  The S rling Castle protected wreck site  Inter dal surveys and excava on of an early medieval logboat from Langstone Harbour, Hampshire  The Archaeology of a Mari me Landscape: The River Hamble, Hampshire. Julie Satchell Series Editor

ix

Summary

determining quan es of undeposited archive; however, the numbers represented do give a minimum baseline (objects: 48,864; paper: 172,168; photographs: 153,191; video: 1,420; sample: 4,358; digital: 191,145). Many of the archives from mari me archaeological inves ga ons lie within private collec ons, where their long-term fate is uncertain. The detail revealed by the survey has allowed an assessment of the scale of the problem to help plan for current and future capacity requirements.

The advent of SCUBA diving in the 1960s opened up the underwater world, including the vast resource of cultural heritage lying on the seabed. The archaeological inves ga ons that have been undertaken in subsequent decades by a range of organisa ons, groups and individuals have resulted in archives that have received highly varied treatment. The fate of the objects, paper records, photographs and digital files forming archaeological archives has been uncertain: only a small number reside in public repositories, while others are in private exhibi ons and personal collec ons. Mo vated by the need to develop professional prac ce in this area and to gain an understanding of the nature, scale and research poten al of mari me archives within the UK, a set of complementary projects was undertaken. The results have demonstrated the complex issues that are affec ng mari me archaeological archives from crea on through to deposi on and the long-term impact this is having on research and the development of the discipline.

A more detailed review of the mari me archives backlog within England gathered data on collec ons with incomplete or low levels of assessment, analysis and publica on. In total, 309 archives were iden fied and reviewed. Again, the large number of projects undertaken along the south coast was evident, with 85% of sites in the study lying within the South West or South East. Shipwrecks formed 84% of the total, with the majority of sites falling within the post-medieval (42%) and modern (39%) periods. Many inves ga ons represented were of a small (59%) or medium (32%) scale, while many of the sites represented were deemed of regional (33%) or na onal (34%) significance. Only 11% were deemed to have been fully disseminated. Examina on of the research poten al within the archives highlighted where synthe c studies could be undertaken within subject areas such as material culture, fixtures and fi ngs, vessel type and func on and mari me events. This process also iden fied poten al for regional studies where the geographical group value reveals the influence of the local seascapes and links to local archaeological and social histories.

A survey of public museums in coastal areas and those with specialist mari me collec ons in England and Scotland revealed that few collec on policies refer specifically to mari me archaeological archives and that collec on areas o en extend only to the low water mark, leaving large areas with no receiving museums for marine archaeological material. Although some of the museums do hold mari me archaeological archives many are not in a posi on to receive further material. This raises the ques on of where the many archives from marine inves ga ons currently reside, which was assessed through an extensive survey of archive producers and holders across a range of sectors.

Alongside the research on archive holdings and backlog, a review was undertaken of the development control and regulatory regimes impac ng on archaeological archive deposi on. Differences were iden fied between the various frameworks depending on factors such as formal protec on, required consents and development regimes, with some sites falling outside of any management process at all. Key issues iden fied were the lack of clarity over roles and responsibili es for establishing condi ons and the subsequent monitoring of compliance related to archaeological archives, and the lack of any mechanism for applying archaeological archiving best prac ce to many of the unprotected wreck sites lying in UK waters.

Archive-holding sectors were split into: public museums; private collec ons and exhibi ons; archaeological contractors; the research sector; designated wreck site licensees and archaeologists; and other individuals. Survey ques ons gathered informa on on the numbers of archives held, their composi on and issues of access, ownership and storage. The results were analysed by loca on and by sector. It was demonstrated that within the total archives represented the cons tuent parts were: paper (33%), digital (33%), photographic (26%) and objects (7%), with video and samples forming less than 1%. The densest concentra ons of archives are located in the South West and South East of England, with most being related to shipwrecks and some to submerged landscape and area surveys. There were differences across the sectors in terms of the types of inves ga ons represented, the me period over which they were accumulated, circumstances of archive storage and levels of accessibility to those wishing to study them. The levels of response to the survey varied, meaning that the results are not fully comprehensive in terms of

The systemic and prac cal issues currently faced by mari me archaeological archives provide challenges across museum, archaeological, heritage management and special interest groups involved in their crea on and management. Coordinated approaches are required to secure routes to deposi on and long-term cura on. However, the research poten al currently locked up within undisseminated archives is significant, and releasing this poten al can be achieved through enhanced facili es and consistent management approaches.

x

Síntesis

de empo en el que se acumularon, las circunstancias del almacenamiento de los archivos y los niveles de accesibilidad para aquellos que desean estudiarlos. Los niveles de respuesta al estudio fueron variados, lo que quiere decir que los resultados no son totalmente comprensibles en términos de determinar can dades de archivos no almacenados; sin embargo, las can dades representadas sí que proporcionan una línea de base mínima (objetos: 48.864; papel: 172.168; fotogra as: 153.191; video: 1.420; muestras: 4.358; documentos digitales: 191.145). Muchos de los archivos procedentes de inves gaciones arqueológicas marí mas, se encuentran en colecciones privadas, donde su des no a largo plazo es incierto. Los detalles revelados por el estudio, ha permi do una valoración de la magnitud del problema para ayudar a planificar los requisitos de capacidad actuales y futuros.

El advenimiento del Buceo con aparato autónomo en los años 60, puso al alcance el mundo submarino, incluyendo la gran can dad de restos del patrimonio cultural que reposan en los fondos marinos. Las inves gaciones arqueológicas que se han llevado a cabo en las décadas posteriores por diferentes organizaciones, grupos e individuos, han dado como fruto archivos que han recibido un trato muy variado. El des no de los objetos, registros en papel, fotogra as y archivos digitales que conforman los archivos arqueológicos ha sido incierto: solo un reducido número se encuentra en depósitos públicos, mientras que otros se hallan en exposiciones y colecciones privadas. Mo vado por la necesidad de desarrollar una prác ca profesional en este área y lograr entender la naturaleza, tamaño y potencial de inves gación de los archivos marí mos en el Reino Unido, se llevaron a cabo varios proyectos complementarios. Los resultados han demostrado la problemá ca compleja que está afectando los archivos de arqueología marí ma desde su creación hasta su depósito y el impacto a largo plazo que esto está teniendo en la inves gación y en el desarrollo de la disciplina.

Una revisión más detallada de los trabajos pendientes en los archivos marí mos en Inglaterra recogió datos de colecciones con incompletos o bajos niveles de evaluación, análisis y publicación. En total, se iden ficaron y revisaron 309 archivos. Nuevamente, la gran can dad de proyectos llevados a cabo a lo largo de la costa sur fue evidente, con el 85% de los emplazamientos del estudio situados en el Suroeste o el Sureste. Los pecios formaban el 84% del total con la mayoría de los yacimientos localizados en época Moderna (42%) y Contemporánea (39%). Muchas de las inves gaciones representadas fueron de pequeño (59%) o mediano (32%) tamaño, mientras que muchos de los emplazamientos representados eran considerados de importancia regional (33%) o nacional (34%). Solo el 11% se consideraba que habían sido totalmente difundidos. El análisis del potencial de inves gación de los archivos, destacó en dónde se podrían llevar a cabo estudios de síntesis en áreas tales como cultura material, elementos del mobiliario, pología y función de las embarcaciones y eventos marí mos. Este proceso también iden ficó el potencial de los estudios regionales donde el valor geográfico del grupo revela la influencia del paisaje marí mo y conexiones con historias arqueológicas y sociales locales.

Un estudio realizado sobre museos públicos en áreas costeras y aquellos con colecciones marí mas especializadas en Inglaterra y Escocia, reveló que muy pocas polí cas sobre colecciones hacen referencia específica a archivos sobre arqueología marí ma y que las áreas de las colecciones frecuentemente solo se ex enden a la línea de bajamar, dejando amplias zonas sin museos receptores de materiales arqueológicos marinos. Aunque alguno de los museos sí que poseen Archivos de arqueología marí ma, muchos son los que no se encuentran en disposición de poder recibir más materiales. Esto hace surgir la cues ón de dónde residen actualmente los Archivos de inves gaciones marinas; cues ón que fue evaluada mediante un extenso estudio sobre creadores de archivos y propietarios en muy diversos sectores. Los sectores propietarios de archivos estaban divididos en: museos públicos; colecciones y exposiciones privadas; contra stas de arqueología; el sector de la inves gación; poseedores de licencias de excavación de Pecios y arqueólogos; y otros individuos. Las preguntas del estudio recogieron información sobre el número de archivos, su composición, los problemas de acceso, propiedad y almacenamiento. Los resultados fueron analizados por ubicación y por sector. Se demostró que, del total de archivos representados, estos estaban formados por: Papel (33%), formato digital (33%), fotogra as (26%), y objetos (7%), video y muestras formaban menos del 1%. La concentración más alta de archivos están localizados en el Suroeste y el Sureste de Inglaterra, de los cuales, la mayoría, están relacionados con pecios y algunos con paisajes sumergidos y sondeos de área. Hubo diferencias entre los sectores en términos de los pos de inves gaciones representadas, el periodo

Paralelo a la inves gación sobre los propietarios de archivos y los trabajos pendientes, se llevó a cabo una revisión del control del desarrollo y los regímenes regulatorios que influyen en la deposición de archivos arqueológicos. Se iden ficaron diferencias entre los diversos marcos dependiendo de factores como la protección formal, permisos requeridos y régimen de desarrollo, con algunos emplazamientos que se encontraban totalmente fuera de cualquier proceso de ges ón. Los Elementos claves iden ficados fueron la falta de claridad respecto a los roles y responsabilidades respecto a las condiciones establecidas; la monitorización subsiguiente del cumplimiento, rela vo a los archivos arqueológicos; y la falta total de mecanismos para aplicar las buenas praxis del archivo arqueológico en la mayoría de los yacimientos de pecios no protegidos que reposan en las aguas del Reino Unido.

xi

Los problemas sistémicos y prác cos a los que se enfrentan en la actualidad los archivos arqueológicos marí mos, proporcionan retos a los museos, a la ges ón del patrimonio arqueológico y a los grupos de especial interés involucrados en su creación y ges ón. Se requieren enfoques coordinados para asegurar vías de

deposición y su conservación a largo plazo. Sin embargo, el potencial de inves gación actualmente encerrado en archivos no difundidos es significante, y liberar ese potencial puede ser logrado mediante instalaciones mejoradas y enfoques de ges ón consistentes.

Résumée

cons tuées par : Papier (33%), format numérique (33%), photographies (26%) et objets (7%), vidéo et échan llons représentaient moins du 1%. La plus haute concentra on d’archives se trouve au Sud-est et au Sud-ouest de l’Angleterre, dont la plus part ont un rapport avec des épaves et d’autres avec de paysages immergées et sondages de zone. Il y avait des différences entre secteurs par rapport aux types de rechercher représentées, la période où furent accumulées, les circonstances du dépôt des archives et les niveaux d’accessibilité pour ceux qui veulent les étudier. Les niveaux de réponse à l’enquête furent très variés, ce qui veut dire que le résultat n’est pas totalement compréhensible par rapport à fixer les quan tés d’archives qui ne sont pas stockés ; néanmoins, les quan tés représentées nous propor onnent un minimum de ligne de base : (objets: 48.864; papier: 172.168; photographies: 153.191; vidéo: 1.420; échan llons: 4.358; documents numériques: 191.145). La plus part des archives qui ont leur origine dans des recherches archéologiques mari mes, se trouvent dans des collec ons privées, où leur des n à long terme est incertain. Les détails dévoilés par l’étude, ont permis d’évaluer la magnitude du problème et ainsi aider à planifier les condi ons de capacité actuelles et futures.

L’arrivée de la plongée avec appareil autonome aux années 60, mit à la portée du publique le monde sousmarin, inclut la grande quan té de ves ges du patrimoine culturel qui se trouvent aux fonds marins. Les recherches archéologiques qui se sont déroulées aux décennies postérieures par des différentes organisa ons, groups et individus, ont abou à des archives qui ont reçu des traitements divers. La sort des objets, registres papier, photographies et archives numériques qui forment les archives archéologiques a été incertain: seulement une pe te par e se trouve dans des dépôts publiques, tandis que d’autres se trouvent dans des exposi ons et collec ons privées. Mo vé par le besoin de développer une pra que professionnelle dans ce domaine et abou r à comprendre la nature, taille et poten el de recherche des archives mari mes du Royaume Uni, se sont déroulés plusieurs projets complémentaires. Les résultats ont confirmé la probléma que complexe que touche les archives d’archéologie mari me depuis leur créa on jusqu’à leur dépôt et l’impacte à long terme de ceci sur la recherche et le développement de la discipline. Une étude des musées publics aux zones cô ères et des ceux avec collec ons mari mes spécialisés, en Angleterre et Écosse, dévoilait que très peu des poli ques à propos des collec ons font référence spécifique à des archives sur l’archéologie mari me et que les domaines des collec ons souvent seulement a eignent la ligne de marée basse, et laissent zones très larges sans musés récepteurs de matériaux archéologiques marins. Bien que quelques musées ont certainement des archives d’archéologie mari me, sont plusieurs ceux qui ne peuvent plus accueillir des matériaux. Ceci fait surgir la ques on d’où se trouvent actuellement les archives des recherches mari mes; ce e ques on fut évaluée moyennant un étude extensif sur des créateur d’archives et des propriétaires dans des secteurs très divers.

Une vérifica on plus détaillée des travaux à faire aux archives maritimes en Angleterre, a collecté des données de collections avec incomplets ou très faibles niveaux d’évaluation, analyse et publication. Au totale, ont été identifiés et vérifiés 309 archives. À nouveau, c’était évidant la grand quantité de projets qui se déroulent tout au long de la côte sud, avec le 85% des sites de l’étude situés au Sud-ouest et Sudest. Les épaves étaient le 84% du totale avec la plus part des sites appartenant à la période Moderne (42%) et Contemporaine (39%). La plus part des recherches représentées étaient de petite (59%) ou moyenne (32%) taille, pendant que la plus part des sites représentés étaient considères comme d’importance régional (33%) ou national (34%). Seulement le 11% avaient été totalement diffusés. L’analyse du potentiel de recherche des archives, souligna où étaient encore possibles des études de synthèse dans des domaines tels que culture matérielle, équipement, typologie et fonc on des navires et des événements mari mes. Ce procès a permis aussi d’iden fier le poten el des études régionaux où la valeur géographique du groupe démontre l’influence du paysage mari me et les connexions avec des histoires archéologiques et sociaux locaux.

Les secteurs propriétaires d’archives étaient partagées entre : mussées publiques ; collec ons et exposi ons privées; entrepreneurs en archéologie; le domaine de la recherche ; détenteurs de licences d’excavation d’épaves et archéologues ; et d’autres individus. Les questions de l’étude ont recueilli des informa ons sur la quan té d’archives, leur composi on, les problèmes d’accès, propriété et dépôt. Les résultats furent analysés par emplacement et par secteur. Il été démontré que, du totale des archives représentés, ceux ci étaient

xii

En même temps que la recherche sur les propriétaires d’archives et les travaux en a ente, s’est déroulé une révision du contrôle de développement y des régimes de contrôle qui ont une influence sur le dépôt des archives archéologiques. Des différences ont été iden fiées entre les différents cadres qui vont dépendre des composantes tels que la protec on formelle, les autorisa ons exigées et le régime de développement, avec l’iden fica on de quelques sites qui se trouvaient hors de toute procédure de ges on. Les facteurs clef iden fiés étaient le manque de transparence sur les rôles et responsabilités par rapport aux condi ons établies ; le contrôle postérieur de son exécu on, par rapport aux archives archéologiques ; et la manque totale de procédures pour l’applica on des bonnes pra ques de l’archive archéologique dans la plus

part des sites d’épaves nom protégés qui reposent dans les eaux du Royaume Uni. Les problèmes systémiques et pra ques auxquels doivent faire face les archives archéologiques mari mes, créent des défis aux musées, à la ges on du patrimoine archéologique et aux groupes de spécial intérêt qui sont impliqués dans sa créa on et ges on. Des approches coordonnées s’avèrent nécessaires pour assurer des voies de dépôt et leur conserva on à long terme. Néanmoins, le poten el de recherche qui, actuellement, se trouve contraint dans des archives non diffusés est assez significa f ; libérer ce poten el peut se a eindre moyennant équipements améliorés et approches de gestion consistants.

Overzicht

onderzoekscentra, aangewezende licen ehouders en andere belanghebbende par jen).

In de jaren 60 werd door de opkomst van het diepzeeduiken voor het eerst de onderwaterwereld toegankelijk, evenals de grote bron van het cultureel erfgoed die er op de bodem lag. De volgende decennia zagen organisa es, groepen en dergelijke zichzelf als deelnemers in onderwater archeologische onderzoeken. Het gevolg hiervan was dat er veel verschillende archieven ontstonden. De eindbestemming van deze objecten, documenten, digitale bestanden en foto’s waren echter niet verzekerd. Slechts een klein aantal bleven in publieke bewaarplaatsen terwijl de rest in privé tentoonstellingen en persoonlijke verzamelingen terecht kwamen. Er werden een reeks van complementaire projecten ondernomen om een professionele aanpak te ontwikkelen om een beter idee te vormen van de aard en omvang van het onderzoekspoten eel van de mari eme archieven in het VK. De resultaten demonstreren de complexiteit van deze archieven en de grote variëteit van processen – vanaf voortbrenging tot uitplaatsing – die invloed op archeologische archieven hebben. Vervolgens hee deze ook langetermijneffecten op de onderzoekscapaciteit en de ontwikkeling van deze academische discipline.

Leden van deze verschillende sectoren kregen een vragenlijst over het aantal archieven dat bij gehouden werd, betreffende hun vorm/structuur, methoden van toegang, eigendomsrechten en opslagruimte. De resultaten werden geanalyseerd door loca e en sector en gaven verslag van de aantal archieven als volgt: papier (33%), digitale bestanden (33%), foto’s (26%) en objecten (7%), met video en voorbeelden stellen minder dan 1%. De hoogste concentra e van archieven is gevonden langs de zuiderlijke kust, waar er veel onderzoeken naar scheepswrakken en ondergedompelde landschappen ondernomen zijn. Tussen de sectoren waren er ook verschillen, bijvoorbeeld het type onderzoek, de periode van opslag, omgevingen van opslagruimte en de toegankelijkheid. Daarenboven zijn er varia es in de kwaliteit van antwoorden dus zijn de resultaten niet volledig voor determina e van kwan teiten van archief maar zij geven wel een minimaal overzicht: objecten: 48,864; papier, 172,168; foto’s, 153,191; film, 1,420; monsters, 4,358; digitale bestanden, 191,145. Veel van de archieven van mari eme archeologische onderzoeken zi en in privé verzamelingen waarbij op langetermijn hun toekomst onzeker is. De resultaten van de vragenlijst tonen de schaal van het probleem van mari eme archieven en hoe belanghebbende par jen beter voor de capaciteitsvereisten van de toekomst kunnen voorbereid worden.

Een overzicht van publieke musea in kustgebieden met mari eme gespecialeerde verzamelingen in Engeland en Schotland hee getoond dat er weinig beleidsmaatregelen bestaan die specifiek voor mari eme archieven gelden. Bovendien gaan gebieden van verzamelingen alleen tot het laagste waterpeil waardoor grote gebieden van een hele onderwater zone culturele archieven creëert zonder rechthebbende musea. Uiteraard houden sommige musea mari eme archeologische materialen bij maar vaak kunnen zij geen materialen meer ontvangen. Dus moeten wij ons de vraag stellen: waar zijn alle archieven van de archeologische onderzoeken van de vorige decennia heen? Deze vraag is beantwoord door een extensief onderzoek naar de voortbrengers en houders van deze archieven (musea, prive verzamelingen, aannemers,

Een ander overzicht ging meer in detail over de achterstand van mari eme archieven binnen Engeland. Data werd opgeslaan van verzamelingen met onvoldoende of een laag niveau van beoordeling, analyse en publica e. 309 archieven werden geïden ficeerd en herzien. Opnieuw viel op dat een grote aantal projecten dat ondernomen werd langs de zuidelijke kust met 85% van de sites in dat gebied gevonden werd. Van deze sites maken scheepswrakken 84% deel uit met 42% van het periode sinds de middeleeuwen en 39% van de moderne

xiii

jden. Veel onderzoeksini a even waren van kleine (59%) of middelgrote (32%) schaal, hoewel veel van de sites van na onaal (34%) of regionaal (33%) belang zijn. Slechts 11% van de projecten zijn volledig verspreid door publica es, tentoonstellingen enz. Er is nog veel poten eel voor onderzoeksprojecten van deze archieven, bvb rond materialis sche cultuur, scheepsverbindingen, mari eme evenementen, scheepsvormen en func e, scheepsnagels en andere beves gingssystemen. Deze beschouwing van het overzicht hee ook het poten eel voor regiostudies over de invloed van zeeschappen op sociale geschiedenis blootgesteld.

Somige sites vielen buiten het kader van beheer. Andere problemen waren: verwarring over persoonlijke en ins tu onele verantwoordelijkheden, het gebrek aan systema sch controleren van het reglement en ook de afwezigheid van een mechanisme voor de toepassing van een archeologische werkmethode aan de archieven van onbeschermde scheepswrakken. De systema sche en prak sche moeilijkheden zorgen op dit moment voor uitdaging bij de uitplaatsing en gegevensconserva e van de Britse archieven van mari eme archeologische projecten. Musea en andere erfgoedbeheerders die archiveren, hebben duurzame oplossingen nodig voor de veiligstelling van hun verzamelingen. Het onderzoekspoten eel van deze archieven is zeer gewich g en de vrijwaring daarvan kan door verhoogde faciliteiten en consistente benaderingen gerealiseerd worden.

Bovendien was dit onderzoek naar verzamelingen en achterstanden een recensie van beleidsmaatregelen voor de uitplaatsing van archiefmaterialen ondernomen. Kaders verschilden tussen factoren zoals we elijke bescherming, nodige toela ngsbrieven en ontwikkelingsac viteiten.

xiv

1. Mari me Archaeological Archives: The Unrealised Research Resource

Within the waters of the UK lies a rich and diverse heritage resource that spans from prehistoric mes, when areas now underwater were the territory of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic communi es, through millennia of mari me trade, transport and defence. This resource is as much a part of the historic environment as are sites, monuments, buildings and their associated collec ons that are on land. Because they are located in the marine environment, however, these historic assets have in general not enjoyed the same intensity or dura on of inves ga on or investment of resources as have those in the drier terrestrial environment.

of the collected mari me archive resource, iden fy issues hampering the deposi on of past and current archaeological archives, and examine poten al future capacity requirements to provide a more certain fate for these important collec ons.

1.1 Background and Context Archaeological archives are a na onally important resource which are crucial to our understanding of the past. The artefacts, drawings, samples, photographs and digital data together form a vital connec on to the original archaeological site and offer a route to further research and publica on, and to the reinterpreta on and development of our shared knowledge of the past. Mari me archaeological archives include a wide range of material related to shipwrecks and associated artefacts, aircra remains, prehistoric landscapes, now-submerged terrestrial sites and other types of site or find lying below the high water mark.

Since the advent of Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) diving and its mass availability in the 1960s, a significant number of mari me archaeological sites have undergone research, excava on and salvage. The development of mari me archaeological prac ce has evolved during this period, and the archives from these inves ga ons (where available) reflect both the historic character of the sites and the history of the discipline. The inaccessible nature of fully submerged sites means that the recovered archives and assemblages from them can have enhanced significance, as they provide rare opportuni es for the public to engage directly with mari me heritage. The collected mari me archive resource is thus na onally important; however, owing to developments in archaeology, museums and repositories over the past 50 years only a small number of collec ons have been deposited in secure, long-term repositories.

It is impossible to understand the present situa on regarding mari me archaeological archives without a brief review of the developments in the prac ce of mari me archaeology in the UK since the 1960s. The development of diving and prospec on technology has improved our ability to locate and recover material from the seabed, while the prac ce of the applica on of archaeology underwater has evolved, with subsequent impacts on the archives being produced. As a result of the development of mari me archaeology in the UK many ‘archives’ do not fit within a contemporary defini on of an ‘archaeological archive’, with a range of ‘marine assemblages’, ‘site archives’ and ‘archaeological archives’ having been produced over the decades as a result of mul ple interven ons of different types on mari me sites.

With the increasing scale of marine development and the developments in mari me archaeological research it was recognised that there was a need to understand the scale and nature of the mari me archaeological archiving situa on. Since 2006 a programme of research has been undertaken to gather informa on on archive holdings, access and security, issues related to deposi on, the frameworks within which these archives are being produced and how these are regulated. This publica on brings together the results of this research, aiming to highlight the significance and research poten al

The archive material produced from inves ga ons has developed over recent decades, but typically can include original records on underwater dra ing film, field notes, reports, photographs, drawings, slides, objects (both artefactual and environmental samples) and digital

1

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives In 1895 the Merchant Shipping Act was passed to protect the rights of owners when ships wrecked. This law set in place the framework through which all recovered wreck material is reported to the Receiver of Wreck (RoW), whether from ships of the Bronze Age or vessels which may have wrecked yesterday. The Act, updated in 1995, is s ll in place today. In terms of archaeological archives the posi ve aspect is that all recovered wreck material is reported; however, the provision of salvage awards for the recovery of material provides a financial incen ve for bringing up high-value items from the seabed. There is li le regula on of the recovery of shipwreck material from the seabed (unless the site is designated under one of the relevant laws), which means that single items or whole assemblages of material can be reported through the RoW (further details of the RoW system are provided in sec on 1.4.1).

material. These may have been derived from various types of inves ga on, such as survey (direct and remote), evalua on, excava on and artefact recovery/salvage. The inves ga on of marine historic sites is undertaken by a variety of different archive-producing sectors, which each have different mo va ons. Allied to this is the range of frameworks within which marine archaeological inves ga ons take place: some are regulated through mechanisms such as the Protec on of Wrecks Act 1973 or through development control regulatory condi ons; however, many are undertaken outside of any curatorial management framework. Over me this has impacted on both the composi on of the archaeological archives created and their deposi on, or not, in appropriate archive repositories. An ongoing result of this situa on is a lack of clear responsibility for the various roles involved in the crea on, regula on, deposi on and long-term care of mari me archaeological archives.

1.2.1 The 1960s and 1970s SCUBA diving equipment became available in the 1950s, and an expansion of diving as a hobby took place in the 1960s and 1970s. This access to the seabed resulted in discoveries of numerous historic shipwrecks, with an inevitable prolifera on of recoveries of significant amounts of artefact material. A number of ‘treasure wrecks’ off the Isles of Scilly, par cularly the wrecks of the Associa on (Morris 1969), Hollandia and Colossus (Morris 1979), demonstrated the scale of objects preserved. These sites also demonstrated how marine assemblages could be sold off and split up. The Associa on material, for example, was sold through Sotheby’s auc on house.

There is no difference in the cultural value of mari me archaeological archives and other archaeological archives. Yet mari me archaeological archives have, for many decades, fallen through a gap in policy and prac ce and there is no coherent long-term strategy to address this problem. As increased mari me development and greater awareness of the marine historic environment lead to the discovery of more sites, this problem becomes more acute.

1.2 The Development of UK Mari me Archaeology and the Impact on Archives

In par cular, the salvage of the Associa on and the a empts to ‘excavate’ the Dutch East India vessel the Amsterdam on Has ngs Beach with a digger helped to prompt the development of legisla on designed to protect historic wreck sites. In 1973 the Protec on of Wreck Act (PWA) came into force with the power to prevent all unregulated ac vity on shipwreck sites. Although this legisla on was intended as a temporary measure, to provide protec on while more comprehensive underwater heritage protec on was developed, it remains the primary piece of legisla on under which historic wrecks are protected in 2015.

Inevitably the development of mari me archaeology as a discipline has had an impact on the resul ng archives and their accessibility. Since the 1960s, and the earliest applica ons of terrestrial archaeological techniques in the underwater zone, data, objects and samples have been recovered from a wide range of sites around the globe. Within the UK the key driving factors in the development of marine archaeology and the resul ng archives included the diving technology available, the numbers of archaeologists engaged in work underwater, heritage and salvage legisla on, and the evolving curatorial and management frameworks for the marine zone.

The first wreck to be designated under the PWA was the early sixteenth-century Ca ewater Wreck in Plymouth Sound, which had been discovered during dredging ac vity (Redknap 1984). There then followed a flurry of other designa ons, just a few examples being the Mary Rose, Grace Dieu, VOC Amsterdam, Royal Yacht Mary, the Needles, HMS Dartmouth and HMS Anne, all in 1974, and then Colossus in 19751. More sites con nued to be added to this list in the face of threats and in response to new discoveries, although these represented only a ny propor on of the historic wreck resource.

Before the advent of SCUBA diving the poten al for the recovery of historic material from the marine zone was well known. Standard diving dress had been used for marine salvage since the 1830s and, prior to that, an array of various crea ons, such as barrels, had been employed (Figure 1.1). The Portsmouth-based salvage divers the Deane Brothers first located the Mary Rose in the 1830s, in addi on to a number of other historic wrecks around Spithead. The historic nature of some of the material recovered at the me was recognised and a number of ar s c representa ons created to sa sfy public curiosity in the ‘treasures from the sea’.

1 h p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designa ons_under_the_Protec on_of_Wrecks_Act

2

The Unrealised Research Resource

Figure 1.1: Early diving equipment – a reconstructed diving ‘barrel’ and standard diving dress. mari me archaeological inves ga ons represented within IJNA ar cles included the Kennemerland (Forster and Higgs 1973), Hollandia (Cowan 1975), Dartmouth (Holman 1975) and Anne (Marsden and Lyon 1977), and the Bronze Age site of Moor Sand in Devon (Muckleroy and Baker 1979). These examples demonstrate the variety of types of site that were being worked on and the methodologies being employed. The development of the discipline was provided with addi onal impetus by the publica on of one of the most influen al books in the evolu on of mari me archaeology – Keith Muckleroy’s 1978 Mari me Archaeology. This book brought a more scien fic and analy cal approach, with par cular considera on of the processes influencing site forma on and preserva on.

The development of new legisla on in this field ran alongside that of the mari me archaeological discipline. The Council for Nau cal Archaeology (CNA) was formed in 1964 to promote mari me archaeology and share informa on on discoveries in this rapidly evolving field. One of the founding members of the CNA was the Na onal Mari me Museum (NMM), which took an ac ve interest in this expanding area of study. The NMM was involved in the inves ga on of a number of the early wreck finds, such as the Ca ewater Wreck, Grace Dieu (Friel 1993) and the Graveney Boat (Fenwick 1978), and promoted methodology by means, for example, of such publica ons as the proceedings of the symposium Sources and Techniques in Boat Archaeology, held in 1976 (McGrail 1977). During the 1970s the NMM developed a specialist centre for mari me archaeology and acquired various mari me archaeological archives and reference material.

The expansion of sport diving and the increase in numbers of avoca onal enthusiasts searching for shipwrecks resulted in new sites being located and reported. The forma on of the Bri sh Sub-Aqua Club in the mid-1950s established the format of dive clubs, and one of the earliest clubs to be formed, the Southsea Sub-Aqua Club, ini ated a project to search for the Mary Rose. The site was located in 1971, beginning the project that would span over a decade of excava on, involve hundreds of volunteers working alongside archaeologists and diving specialists, and result in the largest single shipwreck archive in the UK.

The CNA established the Nau cal Archaeology Trust (which would later become the Nau cal Archaeology Society) and published the first volume of the Interna onal Journal of Nau cal Archaeology in 1972. This increased the dissemina on of informa on on discoveries and techniques on a global scale. The first volume included ar cles on a selec on of UK-based inves ga ons, including the VOC Amsterdam (Marsden 1972), a mid-seventeenthcentury site at Mullion Cove (McBride et al. 1972), and the Mary Rose (Rule 1972). Later in the 1970s other early

3

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives The mari me archaeology of the 1960s and 1970s was a me of new discoveries, developing techniques, high levels of salvage ac vity, expanding numbers of sport divers and small numbers of professional mari me and nau cal archaeological specialists. The numbers of structured archaeological inves ga ons were rela vely low (although the Mary Rose project was excep onally large) and, as a consequence, few mari me archaeological archives were produced. Conversely, the poten al of the marine historic resource was being demonstrated through shipwreck salvage opera ons.

In the mid-1980s the Nau cal Archaeology Trust was renamed the ‘Nau cal Archaeology Society’ (NAS) to reflect its wider membership basis. This period saw the development of the NAS training scheme, drawing on the experience of the large-scale involvement of volunteer divers in the Mary Rose project. In 1986 the first NAS events were held, later evolving into the four-part training syllabus2. The training programme aimed to raise standards of archaeological recording and aid skill development, the impact of which would be to improve record keeping and the archives of data generated from historic sites.

1.2.2 The 1980s The Mary Rose project achieved huge interna onal prominence, par cularly with the li ing of the hull remains in 1982. The number of volunteer divers and archaeologists involved in the project had increased both a general interest in mari me archaeology and the numbers of experienced professionals. Within the shadow of the Mary Rose project, moreover, the numbers of sites being discovered and inves gated con nued to grow. New designa ons under the PWA included, in 1980, the recently iden fied Invincible site and the S rling Castle. These were followed by a steady stream of sites through the 1980s – Restora on, Northumberland, Schiedam, Brighton Marina, Yarmouth Roads, Studland Bay, Admiral Gardner and Hazardous, to name a few.

Despite the developments within mari me archaeology, the numbers of full- me professionals remained very small. The establishment of the Archaeological Diving Unit (ADU) in support of the PWA provided a core team of divers available to assess sites. Con nuing developments in professional prac ce were aided through the establishment of the Mari me Affairs Group (MAG) within the (then) Ins tute for Field Archaeologists (now the Chartered Ins tute for Archaeologists (CIfA)). With more mari me sites being both inves gated archaeologically and salvaged with li le recording, the inadequacy of the protec on of underwater cultural heritage moved into the spotlight. This led to the forma on in 1988 of the Joint Nau cal Archaeology Policy Commi ee (JNAPC), which aims to raise the profile of nau cal archaeology, par cularly within government, and promote enhanced protec on and management.

The newly designated sites demonstrated the wide variety of approaches s ll being undertaken even on sites protected by legisla on. The Studland Bay and Hazardous sites were both inves gated by avoca onal diving groups, the former in conjunc on with Poole Museum, which provided a secure home for the site archive, the la er with the site archive being held privately and cared for by the group. The Yarmouth Roads inves ga on was undertaken within an established archaeological framework involving professionals, trainees and volunteers, with the site archive being held by the Isle of Wight Museum Service. In contrast, the site assemblages from the Invincible and the Admiral Gardner were sold subsequent to the respec ve inves ga ons. The former site was recorded to produce a paper and photographic archaeological archive, which was kept together, but most objects were auc oned off. In the case of the Admiral Gardner site, the archaeological survey and recording received rela vely li le a en on as the focus was on the recovery of coins from the site for sale (Figure 1.2).

While the recording of seabed remains was increasing, the provision of long-term homes for the resul ng archaeological archives remained very much ad hoc, with agreements with museums or repositories being nego ated on a case-by-case basis. This situa on was not helped by the closure of the Na onal Mari me Museum’s Archaeological Research Centre in the 1980s, meaning the loss of this centre of specialism and poten al repository for mari me archaeological archives. 1.2.3 The 1990s During the 1980s there had been no designa ons under the PWA of sites off Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. However, the 1990s saw a change in this situa on, with Wrangles Palais, Smalls Reef wreck, Duart Point, Girona, Resurgam and Burn sland all being designated. Off England, the number of sites protected also grew, with Iona II, Gull Rock, Erme Estuary, Royal Anne Galley, Erme Ingot site, Dunwich Bank Wreck, Hanover, Seaton Carew, Salcombe Cannon, the A1 Submarine and Looe Bar.

A variety of sites not designated under the PWA were also being inves gated at this me; however, few reports from these found their way to publica on in the IJNA. Two excep ons are Cecil Jones’ 1983 paper, which highlighted fish trap remains off the Welsh coast, and a paper on the Saxon logboat found at Clapton (Marsden et al. 1989). Other examples of work on unprotected wrecks included the inves ga ons on the Earl of Abergavenny by the Weymouth Underwater Archaeology Group and work on the Catharina von Flensburg to salvage its cargo of leather (Garbe and Skelton 1987).

While salvage projects such as Admiral Gardner remained ongoing, there were also projects such as Salcombe and Duart Point, in which na onal museum involvement meant a more secure loca on for the resul ng site archives. Conversely, some new discoveries, such as the Hanover, off the Cornish coast, were s ll mo vated by salvage. 2 h p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nau cal_Archaeology_Society

4

The Unrealised Research Resource Figure 1.2: Artefacts from the Admiral Gardner site on display at Charlestown Shipwreck and Heritage Centre.

of large-scale volunteer and training projects, the first being the Sound of Mull Archaeological Project (SoMAP) in 1994 (Robertson 2007); this was followed by SUBMAP, based on the Resurgam Submarine, in 1997 (h p:// www.3hconsul ng.com/sites/SitesResurgam.html) and the Solent Mari me Archaeological Project (SolMAP) (Satchell and Whitewright 2014) in 1998.

Ini a ves by government and diving and heritage organisa ons to enhance diver awareness of historic sites and promote a ‘look but don’t touch’ approach were developed. Allied to this was a growth in mari me archaeological training both aimed at the sport diving community via the NAS and with the expansion of higher educa on opportuni es. In the early 1990s the University of Southampton joined St Andrews and Bangor Universi es in offering specialist teaching in mari me archaeology.

The expansion of intrusive ac vi es in the marine zone, allied with an enhanced awareness of the poten al impacts of this work, saw an increase in the funding of mari me archaeological assessments by developers. The EU Direc ve on Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) was first introduced in 1985, with further amendments in 1997, and the applica on of this process became increasingly standard prac ce through the 1990s,

In 1992 the NAS Handbook Underwater Archaeology: The NAS Guide to Principles and Prac ce (Dean et al.) was first published, providing an accessible and comprehensive reference text for those interested in mari me archaeology. Opportuni es to gain prac cal experience were provided through the development

5

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives resul ng in the crea on of archaeological archives related to various dredging, construc on and extrac on ac vi es.

archaeology over the following decade. This tax of £2 per tonne on primary aggregate sales was used to fund a range of developments in environmental approaches to minimise the impact of dredging. Off England, ALSFfunded projects assisted in understanding the heritage resource, the development of archaeological prospec on and inves ga on, the enhancement of mi ga on measures and the publica on of guidance documents (BMAPA 2003; BMAPA 2005). Recogni on of other areas of marine development also saw best prac ce documents developed for other marine sectors and more broadly for mari me archaeological prac ce (English Heritage 2006; Wessex Archaeology 2007; JNAPC 2006; CIfA 2008).

The 1990s saw the development of the detail of the UNESCO Conven on on the Protec on of Underwater Cultural Heritage, which engaged many with the ethics related to approaches to archaeology underwater (this was subsequently approved in 2001). The Annex to the Conven on has clauses rela ng specifically to archaeological archiving (see Appendix 8.3.2). The European Conven on on the Protec on of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised) was signed at Valle a in January 1992. Known as the Valle a Conven on, it was ra fied by the UK government in 2000 and came into force on 21 March 2001. This also contained elements related to archaeological archiving, which should have had an impact on the situa on for mari me material (see Appendix 8.3.1 for details), but it can be argued that elements of this Conven on are s ll not being applied to mari me archaeological archives.

Alongside the increase in development-based work and ALSF-funded ac vity there con nued to be a range of new wreck discoveries and subsequent designa on of these sites through the PWA. Designa ons in the 2000s off England included the Colossus stern, Bonhomme Richard, Swash Channel, Resolu on (Normans Bay), Rooswijk, Wheel Wreck and HMS London. Off Scotland the Mingary Castle, Kinlochbervie and HMS Campania sites were designated, while off Wales the Diamond received protec on. These sites demonstrate a range of discovery mechanisms, including sport diver finds, development control research and searches aimed at salvage for financial gain. The recovery work on the Rooswijk reignited debates over the auc oning of artefacts from historic wrecks (Dunkley 2008: 7), while the designa on of the Wheel Wreck, off the Isles of Scilly, which cited links with the Cornwall Mining World Heritage Site, demonstrated considera ons of a more holis c approach to heritage management (DCMS 2007a: 22).

Developments in archaeological prospec on and prac ce saw a growth in the amounts of digital data being gathered. The applica on of computer-based survey data analysis programs, the collec on of digital data from marine geophysical survey and the use of GIS-based applica ons were becoming standard. Rapidly developing hardware and so ware capabili es both demonstrated the power of compu ng applica ons and highlighted issues of the availability of archive repositories for these datasets in such a dynamic situa on. On the seabed the methods used were s ll predominantly manual – the use of dra ing film for recording with associated paper record sheets, and manual photography. Many site archives con nued to build up with organisa ons and be held by individuals, with few being deposited with museum or repositories.

English Heritage (now Historic England) commissioned significant numbers of undesignated site assessments through the PWA contractor during the 2000s, many of which are referred within the available open minutes of the Advisory Commi ee on Historic Wreck Sites (ACHWS) (the archive of the ACHWS has now been deposited at the Historic England Archive in Swindon). However, few of these assessments appear to have led to subsequent designa on, with only nine sites designated off England, a number of which were due to discoveries during marine development work.

1.2.4 The 2000s The 2000s saw a transforma on in mari me archaeology in the UK, par cularly off England, with changes to management responsibili es, increased research and understanding made possible by funding related to marine aggregate extrac on, significant port and wind farm development projects, unexpected discoveries, a growth in numbers of heritage professionals, and changes to guidance and wider marine management.

Alongside the ALSF- and developer-funded work there con nued a steady number of smaller-scale researchfocused projects undertaken by groups, socie es and universi es. Just a few examples include the NAS-organised ‘WreckMAP’ projects in Dorset in 2001 and Portland in 20033, work in Mounts Bay by the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Mari me Archaeology Society (CISMAS)4, a range of projects in the Solent with the Mari me Archaeology Trust5 and work by the Seadive Group off Kent6. Diver trails were established in 2001 on Warship Hazardous (Holland

In 2002 English Heritage (now Historic England) took on responsibility for the management of underwater cultural heritage with the passing of the Na onal Heritage Act. This helped increase focus on a number of managementrelated issues and promote archaeological best prac ce. Within the devolved na ons Historic Scotland (now Historic Environment Scotland), CADW and the Department of the Environment Northern Ireland heritage management teams had staff specialising in mari me sites and issues.

3 h p://www.nau calarchaeologysociety.org/projects/past-uk-projects 4 h p://www.cismas.org.uk/mbs-final.php 5 www.mari mearchaeologytrust.org 6 h p://seadive.co.uk/index.html

The Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) began in 2002 and had a significant impact on mari me

6

The Unrealised Research Resource et al. 2005) and in 2004 in Alum Bay (Satchell 2014), which aimed to emulate the success of the examples in Scotland in the Sound of Mull (Robertson 2007: 12).

With an increase in marine development control projects and growing levels of research-based ac vi es, the numbers of site archives backing up on the shelves and servers of contractors, organisa ons, and individuals had reached a point where ac on was required to enable professional archaeological prac ce to be followed and the archives deposited in a public repository. The CIfA’s Mari me Affairs Group (MAG) took up the issue of mari me archives as a key priority area for professional prac ce, producing the discussion paper Slipping through the Net: Mari me Archaeological Archives in Policy and Prac ce (Ransley and Satchell 2006) and hos ng a seminar to ini ate discussion of this issue across archaeological, museum, repository, development control and management sectors.

Repor ng aspects of the Merchant Shipping Act legisla on were brought to the fore in 2000, when the RoW held an amnesty whereby previously unreported recoveries could be no fied without fear of prosecu on (RoW 2001). Large numbers of objects, many of which were from historic shipwrecks, were reported. This highlighted both the poten al of the historic shipwreck resource within UK waters and the scale of material that had already been recovered. There was much debate during the 2000s over a proposal for new heritage legisla on in England in the form of the dra Heritage Protec on Bill, which would have brought greater parity between the approach on land and at sea. However, this legisla on never made it to the statute books and legisla ve changes became dominated by the development of the Marine Bill, which in 2009 would become the Marine and Coastal Access Act. This change established the Marine Management Organisa ons (MMOs) within the devolved na ons, which took on the regula on of marine ac vity advised by a number of agencies, including heritage. The powers of the various MMOs include the licensing of seabed excava on using powered equipment and the li ing of objects requiring bags, which should help to regulate ac vity in the marine zone. However, the applica on of this new framework to archaeological techniques on heritage sites is s ll not fully established.

Slipping Through the Net summarised the situa on related to mari me archaeological archives: There is no clear system for the prepara on, deposi on and cura on of mari me archaeological archives. There is a lack of clarity over the roles and responsibili es of the archaeologists, archivists, development control archaeologists, heritage managers and the various museum, archive and government bodies involved. Mari me archaeological archives are consequently in danger of dispersal as well as physical deteriora on; they remain in private hands, are split between a number of receiving bodies or are too o en sold. (Ransley and Satchell 2006: 4) Subsequent MAG involvement with the AAF helped to develop an ini al project, Securing a Future for Mari me Archaeological Archives (SFMAA), to quan fy the situa on more fully. This was ini ated in 2008, and its results, as well as those of follow-up projects, are outlined within this volume.

During the 2000s archaeological archiving saw a massive expansion in digital recording, from large-scale geophysical survey to small-scale archaeological site recording using photography and video. Alongside the digital site archives elements, the more tradi onal paper, drawing and object materials also con nued to grow, although, as before, few examples made it to deposi on within a recognised repository. In addi on, a wide range of sizes of site archive was being generated, with significant numbers of smallerscale examples demonstra ng what might more typically be expected from marine inves ga ons.

1.2.5 2010 and Beyond … Despite the development of professional prac ce, established guidelines for best prac ce and more general awareness-raising over ethical approaches to underwater sites, in the 2010s it remains a serious concern that the poten al fate of mari me archaeological archives is raising ques ons in parliament and that, once again, there are threats that archives will not be treated in line with established prac ce (e.g Hansard 10 December 2002, vol 396, C256W). However, the UK government has commi ed to applying the Annex of the UNESCO Conven on on the Protec on of Underwater Cultural Heritage, despite not yet signing up to the full conven on. Barbara Folle (Minister for Culture, Crea ve Industries & Tourism) stated on 24 November 2008 that the government’s mari me heritage policy recognises the 2001 UNESCO Conven on Annex as best prac ce for underwater archaeology and has advocated adherence to the principles of this Annex, which are compa ble with exis ng UK legisla on.

The discovery of the Newport Ship in Wales in 2002 and the Gresham Ship (Prince’s Channel Wreck) in the Thames in 2004 reignited the debates about finding longterm suitable repositories for mari me archaeological archives. Both sites faced uncertainty, having been discovered during development work; while the former generated a public outcry that ensured it was ‘saved’, the la er spawned a very ad hoc solu on, with material split between museums, repositories and ‘storage’ in a sport diving lake. Issues with archaeological archiving were not confined to the marine zone, however; there were also growing problems with available capacity for terrestrial archives and the Archaeological Archives Forum (AAF) was established in 2002 to review these issues and promote best prac ce.

7

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives On a more posi ve note, the publica on of People and the Sea: A Mari me Archaeological Research Agenda for England (Ransley and Sturt 2013 ) saw the culmina on of input from across the discipline in its development with the aim of helping to structure future research and inves ga on. This process was ini ated in Scotland slightly earlier than in England, and the Sco sh Archaeological Research Framework (ScARF 2009) considers mari me aspects alongside the wider historic environment.

as falling within the Research and Socie es sector – and this has been reflected within the analysis of their collec ons. 1.3.1 Public Museums and Archive Repositories The network of local, regional and na onal museums and archive repositories around the UK holds a vast collec on of materials, objects and data detailing aspects of the human past, keeping this ‘in trust’ for future genera ons. Those ins tu ons which receive government or local authority support are o en termed ‘public museums’, as the collec ons belong to the na on as a whole and, in general, are provided with a long-term secure home and are unlikely to be dispersed or removed from public access.

Despite a generally challenging economic climate, there con nues to be an expansion in marine development work, with offshore wind farm construc on, increasing capacity of wave and dal energy (Firth 2013) and new ac vi es, such as dredging spoil from historic mining works off the South West coast of England7. A pilot project for the repor ng of archaeological discoveries during fishing ac vi es was set up in 2012 to begin to tackle this area of marine industry, which has generated so many discoveries since the earliest days of mari me archaeology8.

Mari me archaeological archives, which include the physical and documentary evidence related to archaeological projects, and marine assemblages are accessioned by some museums. Most of these museums tend to be located in coastal areas, so have a direct connec on to the marine zone, or are specialist museums with a par cular marine or mari me focus. These museums tend to hold archives and assemblages, but do not usually generate further archives themselves. Excep ons to this may occur when a par cular museum supports a project of direct relevance to their research or collec on policy.

There is an increased awareness of the archiving requirements for mari me data across the broad range of marine sectors. For heritage data this means archive planning is beginning to be acknowledged earlier within projects. Where archives are being recovered as part of structured inves ga ons – developer-funded work or research-focused recoveries – a larger propor on should be reaching publicly accessible repositories. However, outside this system there remain significant threats from commercial exploita on and unplanned recoveries.

1.3.2 Private Collec ons, Exhibi ons and Non-public Museums There are a large number of privately owned collec ons, exhibi ons and non-public museums within the UK. Archives and assemblages held within this sector are not owned or generally funded through public sources (e.g. local or na onal government), but are privately held and funded through grants, dona ons, personal investment, entrance fees and so on. As the collec ons are not publicly owned, the possibility always exists that they could be sold or dispersed, or have public access to them withdrawn.

The above review of some of the key developments in the prac ce, regula on and management of mari me archaeology in the UK has been rela vely brief, but aims to provide the wider context for some of the issues related to archives generated from marine archaeological inves ga ons.

1.3 Archive Owning and Producing Sectors

This sector includes, for example, registered museums, non-registered exhibi ons, charitable trusts, personal collec ons and company-owned collec ons. This is predominantly an archive and assemblage ‘holding’ sector, rather than an archive and assemblage ‘genera ng’ sector, although there are notable excep ons to this. Where private exhibi ons rely on tourist income to maintain them there can be higher levels of acquisi ons to keep interest in the collec ons.

A range of ins tu ons, organisa ons, businesses and individuals hold, own and/or produce elements of the collected mari me archive resource. These are a reflec on of the development of mari me archaeology and the rela onship between museums, repositories and specialist collec ons. The regulatory and legal frameworks within which inves ga ons have been undertaken have also influenced the various archiveand assemblage-producing sectors (see sec on 1.4). The key sectors that hold and produce marine archaeological archives and assemblages are outlined below, and were used to structure the research on which this volume is based. It is possible for groups or organisa ons to be represented in more than one category – for instance, they may be a Designated Wreck Site Licensee as well

Large numbers of mari me archaeological archives and marine assemblages are currently held within this sector. The existence of significant private exhibi ons in coastal loca ons demonstrates both the widespread interest in mari me heritage and the current importance of these exhibi ons for providing access to the collected mari me archive resource.

7 h p://www.marine-minerals.com/latestnews.html 8 h p://fipad.org

8

The Unrealised Research Resource 1.3.3 Archaeological Contractors The number of marine and mari me archaeological contractors within the UK s ll remains rela vely small. However, this sector has seen significant growth, in par cular over the past ten years. Much of the archive held and generated by this sector is related to developmentled projects or work won through compe ve tender. This sector tends to hold a lot of undeposited archaeological archive that includes large numbers of digital files, such as geophysical survey data sets, photographs, video, GIS files, databases and reports.

research; however, the combined RoW records provide the largest collec on of data on objects from the marine historic environment of the UK. These assemblages are formed of objects only and are generally privately owned, having been granted to the salvor in lieu of a salvage award for their recovery. They can be difficult to access directly. Informa on provided on recoveries is usually in the form of text-based descrip ons, o en with photographs of the objects concerned. The RoW does support data exchange with na onal and county historic environment databases, providing a type of indirect access to the data. The long-term fate of these marine assemblages is unknowable.

1.3.4 Research and Socie es Sector This sector includes universi es, chari es, socie es and ‘not for profit’ organisa ons that concentrate on the inves ga on of underwater cultural heritage and range from the very local to those with a na onal remit. Archaeological archive generated by this sector can include very large amounts of data related to long-term and intensive inves ga ons, in addi on to area-based and thema c studies. The expansion of university-based studies of the marine historic environment through geophysical survey and interpreta on (e.g. the University of Birmingham’s North Sea Palaeolandscape Project) has seen a significant increase in digital data acquisi on. Again, much of the archive from this sector is undeposited, although the Archaeological Data Service (ADS) is currently the most frequently used for the deposi on of digital data.

1.4 The Archive System: Roles and Responsibili es The brief review of developments in mari me archaeology and key legisla on and guidance in sec on 1.2 provided the broad context for changes to policy and prac ce that have shaped the produc on of mari me archaeological archives. This ‘archive system’ is rela vely complex, with a range of mechanisms regula ng (or failing to regulate) archive management and a diverse collec on of organisa ons, ins tu ons and groups with some remit for mari me archaeological archives. These factors all contribute to a framework within which roles and responsibili es can be difficult to determine, if, indeed, there is iden fiable responsibility. Understanding this situa on helps to illuminate some of the problems faced by mari me archaeological archives and is fundamental to a full analysis of the related issues.

1.3.5 Designated Wreck Site Licensees and Archaeological Advisors This sector represents the long history of voluntary involvement in mari me archaeology in the UK, in addi on to the impact of the Protec on of Wrecks Act 1973. It includes material that is held with individual licensees and nominated archaeologists or licensed groups from designated protected wreck sites. It also includes informa on on other site archives held by licensees and archaeologists who are o en ac ve across a number of non-designated sites.

1.4.1 Frameworks for Archive Crea on There is currently no typical path followed by a mari me site archive from seabed to museum or repository. Instead, there are a number of different frameworks within which archaeological archives are being produced. A brief review of the main mechanisms for project and site archive produc on are presented here, with a more detailed considera on of the applica on of the various regulatory frameworks and a discussion of specific impacts on archaeological archiving provided in chapter five.

Within this sector are a number of ac ve local and regional groups inves ga ng either a single site or a range of sites. The individuals involved o en have substan al personal archives and assemblages developed over many years. These archives tend to vary in the way in which they are structured; they may have larger numbers of objects and a smaller percentage of digital material overall compared to other archives. A large number of sites and inves ga ons are represented within this sector and many of the resul ng archives are undeposited.

Development Control and Associated Regula ons The growth in developer-funded archaeology is underpinned through the EIA process, which requires the poten al impact of marine works on heritage to be fully assessed and mi gated. Developers require consent for their ac vi es, which will not be granted un l heritage aspects have been considered in line with best prac ce and following s pula ons from development control archaeologists (heritage curators). Responsibility for imposing condi ons on developments lies with the Marine Management Organisa on (MMO) of each devolved na on, and is based on advice from the respec ve heritage curators – English Heritage (now Historic England), Historic Scotland (now Historic

1.3.6 Individual Divers, Salvors and Collectors This sector is represented by the RoW reports, which are a legal requirement under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The majority of recoveries are made by sport divers, although some larger planned marine salvage ac vi es are also included here. The marine assemblages held within this sector are not o en part of structured archaeological

9

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives Environment Scotland), CADW and the Department of the Environment Northern Ireland.

artefacts using li ing equipment and for excava on using powered tools, there was li le regula on of mari me archaeological works. While excava on may have required consent from The Crown Estate and/or Natural England, the surface recovery of artefacts was possible without prior permission. The only requirement for repor ng is through the RoW, if the material is from a shipwreck.

Archaeological work generated through the development process should follow established best prac ce and result in ordered archives deposited with relevant repositories. In prac ce this is achieved in some cases; however, there are many instances within England in which archives are generated but no receiving museum is available.

Planned marine archaeological research projects have been undertaken by groups, organisa ons and individuals across a number of different archive-genera ng sectors. However, the site archives resul ng from these inves ga ons have a very uncertain fate because of the lack of a structured framework for their management and deposi on.

In addi on to commissioned pieces of archaeological mi ga on assessment there are also a number of protocols in place in marine industries for repor ng unexpected discoveries. These include the Bri sh Marine Aggregate Producers Associa on (BMAPA) protocol for repor ng finds of archaeological interest encountered during dredging sand and gravel, the renewable energy repor ng protocol supported by The Crown Estate and a pilot project targe ng the fishing community. These protocols ensure that a record of discoveries is made and disseminated through the appropriate heritage databases. However, they focus on the repor ng of finds alone and there are s ll important issues rela ng to the long-term fate of artefacts recovered through these schemes.

Unplanned Discoveries The marine zone is s ll not well understood in terms of the poten al for archaeological discoveries. While large-scale regional geophysical surveys are increasing understanding, and work undertaken ahead of development projects seeks to minimise risk, many unexpected discoveries are s ll made. These can occur in a variety of circumstances, although some of the most common are trawling and work within ports and harbours on schemes not large enough to trigger a full EIA. Sites discovered in this manner, and the resul ng archaeological archives, are then treated in a very ad hoc way, with solu ons being sought on a caseby-case basis.

Protected Wreck Research The Protec on of Wrecks Act 1973 (PWA) places a number of parameters upon archaeological archives from designated historic shipwreck sites, although those currently apply to just 61 shipwrecks in UK waters. Any inves ga on of a designated shipwreck site requires the produc on of an archaeological project design that should include agreement over deposi on of the project archive in a publicly accessible long-term home. However, insis ng that these requirements are met has been a rela vely recent refinement of the PWA licensing system. In the past, a number of site archives have been allowed to accumulate over many years, with storage being at best ad hoc and with scarce ac ve cura on undertaken.

Divers and Salvage Hundreds of shipwreck artefacts con nue to be recovered from the seabed every year by divers and salvage companies and reported through the RoW. Many of these are small-scale recoveries by individual divers. The Merchant Shipping Act imposes some very clear obliga ons regarding this type of material, which is also applicable to objects recovered as part of structured archaeological inves ga ons. All recovered objects, defined as ‘wreck’ within the Act, must be reported to the RoW. The legisla on allows a year for the Receiver to determine ownership of the ‘wreck’ and establish what will happen to the material concerned. The legisla on was developed from a commercial perspec ve and relates primarily to salvage tradi ons; nonetheless, it is a legal process through which the material from all mari me sites must go to determine ownership.

In theory, the inves ga on of these sites should be heavily regulated, which should guarantee the long-term security of the associated archaeological archives. No work is allowed on PWA sites without the appropriate licence, so intrusive ac vity is limited. Licence applicants have to demonstrate their competence in addi on to the existence of planned facili es for recoveries, and their applica ons are reviewed by the relevant heritage agencies. In prac ce, even in recent years, there have been examples in which best prac ce has not been followed in terms of the deposi on of site archives in museums.

The responsibility for repor ng material rests with the archaeologist/diver/developer who undertook its recovery, and in many cases the ‘wreck’ material will be given to the finder in lieu of a salvage award. This can make ownership ques ons related to these marine assemblages much less complex. However, it can also place parts of these assemblages in private hands and add to the pressure to disperse an archive. It is the policy of the Receiver to try to place items of historic or archaeological significance into a suitable museum.

Planned Research Inves ga on The majority of research-focused mari me archaeological inves ga ons are undertaken on sites which are not subject to any formal heritage protec on and outside of any framework for the regula on of ac vi es. Un l the rela vely recent establishment of the MMO licensing system, which requires permission for the recovery of

10

The Unrealised Research Resource A Dynamic System The Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA) of 2009 introduced a new framework for the planning and management of the marine resource of England and Wales, improving marine conserva on and extending public access to coastal areas. The objec ves are being delivered through the establishment of a Marine Management Organisa on (MMO). In conjunc on with the Marine (Scotland) Bill 2009, the MCAA also devolves a significant level of responsibility to the cons tuent countries of the UK to manage their own marine affairs.

 



The MCAA, through the regula on and licensing of offshore development, has implica ons for mari me archaeology. While provision for cultural heritage is not explicitly included in the act, archaeological ac vi es that involve using powered tools on the seabed or boatmounted li ing equipment now require licensing through the MMO, which is providing some measure of regula on of the removal of material from historic and archaeological sites. The long-term impact of this new system on the fate of archaeological archives is yet to be seen.



1.4.2 Roles in and Responsibili es for Mari me Archives There are a number of government, museum, heritage, archaeological and archival bodies with remits that either explicitly or implicitly include mari me archaeological archives. Because the disconnect between some of the organisa ons involved is instrumental in mari me archives ‘falling through the gaps’ in the system, it is useful to consider those with some role and responsibility in this area.





Government departments and government-sponsored bodies:  DCMS (Department of Culture, Media and Sport): responsible for government policy in the areas of Historic Environment, Cultural Property and Heritage, and Museums and Galleries. The secretary of state has responsibility for the designa on of wrecks under the Protec on of Wrecks Act (1973). Culture is considered a devolved area with corresponding responsibility res ng with the Sco sh government, Welsh government and Northern Ireland Execu ve.  (Former) MLA (Museums, Libraries and Archives): established in 2000 as the DCMS-sponsored strategy agency for museums, libraries and archives. The MLA’s role was to offer grants and funding and promote strategic programmes. The MLA was abolished in 2012 and its responsibili es transferred to the Na onal Archives and Arts Council England.  English Heritage (now Historic England): sponsored by DCMS. Among other roles, it is advisor to government on all aspects of heritage and the historic environment (in England, this includes the seabed up to the 12 nau cal mile limit).  Historic Scotland (now part of Historic Environment



Scotland): an agency of the Sco sh Execu ve which carries out the responsibili es of Sco sh ministers for the historic environment to the limit of Scotland’s territorial seas (12 nau cal miles). CADW: the historic environment service of the Welsh government. It addresses the same issues for Wales. DOENI (Department of Environment Northern Ireland): the department within which the same roles and responsibili es are carried out for Northern Ireland. Na onal Monuments Record (now the Historic England Archive): maintains accessible archives on the historic environment for England, including some mari me archaeological archives related to field inves ga ons (e.g. those related to the work of the ADU), in addi on to records of relevant commi ees such as the (now disbanded) Advisory Commi ee on Historic Wreck Sites. NRHE (Na onal Record of the Historic Environment): maintains a database for the historic environment of England, including a mari me record. This acts as a record of informa on rather than being an archaeological archive repository. RCAHMS (Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Scotland) (now part of Historic Environment Scotland): responsible for recording, interpre ng and collec ng informa on about buildings, sites and ancient monuments of archaeological, architectural and historical interest, including mari me sites and underwater construc ons, for Scotland. RCAHMW (Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales): responsible for surveying, recording, publishing and maintaining a database of ancient, historical and mari me sites, structures and landscapes in Wales. The Na onal Archives: formed in April 2003 by bringing together the Public Record Office and the Historical Manuscripts Commission. It is responsible for the records of central government and the courts of law (historical documenta on and records rather than archaeological archives).

Museum, archival and archaeological groups and organisa ons:  NMM (Na onal Mari me Museum): based at Greenwich and has extensive historical archives and mari me art collec ons; it also holds a small amount of archaeological archives.  Museums Associa on: established in 1889, this includes individual, ins tu onal and corporate members. It lobbies government and sets professional and ethical standards, offering, among other things, a professional development programme.  SMA (Society for Museum Archaeology): promotes archaeology within museums and offers training, advice and exper se to its members.

11

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives  AAF (Archaeological Archives Forum): formed in 2002 to address archaeological archives issues. The forum includes heritage agencies, museum groups, archaeologists and government agencies.  CIfA (Chartered Ins tute for Archaeologists): the professional organisa on for archaeologists in the United Kingdom. It promotes professional standards and ethics in the work of conserving, managing, understanding and promo ng the enjoyment of archaeology and our heritage.  ADS (Archaeology Data Service): preserves and makes freely available digital data from a wide range of archaeological inves ga ons. It promotes good prac ce and provides technical advice to the research community.

resource pressures discourage any public ins tu on from taking on addi onal obliga ons. Importantly, the treatment of mari me archaeology as a small part of the UK mari me collec ons, rather than as a growing part of the larger archaeological archive that requires ac ve management and cura on, typifies an overall lack of understanding about the nature and needs of mari me archives and the need for consulta on and communica on with archaeologists and archivists about these issues. It highlights its low status within the archaeological, heritage, museum and repository sectors and the pervasive assump on that responsibility must lie elsewhere. The labelling of marine-derived material simply as ‘mari me’ o en fails to acknowledge its full archaeological significance and value, and leaves marine prehistoric archaeological material in limbo: not suitable for mari me museums, and not expected at local or regional museums, since in general museum collec ons policies do not include ‘mari me’ archives. The arbitrary division of mari me archaeology from other archaeology within the museums sector as a whole is not only illogical but has been detrimental to the proper cura on of and access to mari me archaeological archives.

Research undertaken in support of the document Slipping Through the Net: Mari me Archaeological Archives in Policy and Prac ce (Ransley and Satchell 2006) iden fied a number of specialist mari me museum and curatorial organisa ons which, from available informa on, appeared to have roles which should impact on mari me archaeological archives.  UKMCS (UK Mari me Collec ons Strategy): was formed of 11 key na onal, non- na onal, regional and local authority museums to promote and ra onalise mari me museum collec ons within the UK.  ICMM (Interna onal Congress of Mari me Museums): with more than 300 member organisa ons, the Congress aims to nurture contacts and rela onships and offer expert advice. Among its stated aims is the provision of standards and guidance for ‘underwater archaeology’.  Mari me Curators’ Group: formed in 1991 as a response to ICMM contacts, the group is an informa on network for mari me curators that promotes mari me curatorial exper se and is involved in UKMCS.  MRT (Mary Rose Trust): based at Portsmouth and named ‘lead museum for mari me archaeology exper se’ within the UKCMS. In prac ce, these organisa ons are focused on current collec ons and do not regularly engage with archaeological archive-genera ng groups and organisa ons.

1.5 Iden fying the Issues As previously discussed, there are a number of different archive-producing sectors and a variety of frameworks for the regula on of mari me archaeological archive produc on, which has led to the fragmenta on of organisa ons with responsibility in this area. As a consequence, there is a complex web of issues impac ng on mari me archaeological archives. Iden fying the key issues within this ‘web’ is essen al for building solu ons to the situa on. 1.5.1 Established Archaeological Archive Best Prac ce Archaeological and archival best prac ce is now well established in ‘terrestrial’ contexts. It is useful to review the fundamentals of this best prac ce in order to tease out where issues related to its applica on to mari me archaeological archives lie. The principles of proper produc on and deposi on of an archive have long been part of the archaeological process, and the CIfA’s suite of Standards and Guidance (S&G) include reference to the importance of archive planning in all project development9.

There is a regre able lack of clarity concerning the roles and responsibili es associated with mari me archaeological archives. Ini al work undertaken by the CIfA MAG to request policy clarifica on from key organisa ons most commonly resulted in an acknowledgement that there is no public policy on mari me archaeological archives. There is an assump on that since, historically, there has not been an explicit remit for many of these organisa ons, responsibility must lie elsewhere. With so many groups, ins tu ons and organisa ons poten ally involved in mari me archaeological archives it is, perhaps, not surprising that responsibility has become fragmented. This is par cularly acute in the current situa on, in which

Detailed guidance developed by the AAF was published in 2007 as Archaeological Archives: crea on, prepara on, transfer and cura on (Brown 2007). This was used as the basis for a specific CIfA S&G for the crea on, compila on, transfer and deposi on of archaeological archives (CIfA 2009). The AAF guidance was designed as an updateable ‘manual’ for all archaeological contractors, consultants, researchers and academics, as well as for archivists and 9 h p://www.archaeologists.net/codes/ifa

12

The Unrealised Research Resource museum curators. As such, it defines the approach very carefully, addressing each element of an archive, from drawings to environmental samples, from crea on to cura on. It is underpinned by five fundamental principles:

archive; because mari me archaeology was driven by research and avoca onal projects it was possible to recover large collec ons, including wooden ship hulls, and then subsequently fundraise to deal with museum and repository considera ons. This is no longer a feasible approach, and it is impera ve to embed archival management agreements in the project planning stages of all mari me archaeology projects.

1. All archaeological projects must result in a stable, ordered, accessible archive. 2. All aspects of the archaeological process affect the quality of the resul ng archive. 3. Standards for the crea on, management and prepara on of the archive must be understood and agreed at the beginning of any project. 4. Ensuring the security and stability of the archive is a con nuous process and a universal responsibility. 5. A project has not been completed un l the archive has been transferred successfully and is fully accessible for consulta on (Brown 2007).

The legacy of mari me archaeological archives from past projects demonstrates how the crea on and maintenance of the documentary elements of an archive have been approached; for example, ques ons over the ownership of site plans and other documentary material have translated in some cases into a reluctance to deposit work in a publicly accessible repository. There are, of course, some exemplary examples of archive management and posi ve examples of innova ve ways of making an archive publicly accessible, which demonstrate that archive crea on and management is a training and educa onal issue that can be addressed by providing the right informa on and resources to those involved in projects.

Established archaeological archive guidance and the five fundamental principles outlined above are equally applicable to mari me archives. In some areas guidance and policy are being altered or developed to include mari me archives, and changes have been made in the condi ons of licences to recover artefacts from historic wreck sites and specific guidance produced on Caring for Our Shipwreck Heritage (English Heritage 2012a), targe ng the care of finds from Designated Wreck Sites. However, these changes are rela vely minor and there is s ll a range of issues which make the prac cal applica on of the AAF guidance to mari me archives difficult. Currently, even the small changes already made in policy and guidance are not being, and probably cannot under current circumstances be, realised in prac ce.

Prepara on: Conserva on, Selec on and Reten on Policies One of the most problema c aspects during the prepara on of a mari me archive for deposi on is the conserva on of the material archive. Panter’s review of the mari me archaeological conserva on sector in the UK highlights three issues that the profession must address in order to meet increasing demands upon it. These are: a need for more trained and experienced mari me conservators; increased laboratory capacity; and adequate financial resources (Panter 2007). In short, there is a deficit in the capacity of the mari me conserva on sector. Securing proper conserva on for all elements of a material archive prior to deposi on is not simple, and will become increasingly challenging as demand increases. As an appropriate mari me archives system is clarified and matures the underdevelopment of the mari me conserva on sector (in part itself a result of the lack of a previous structured system for mari me archives) needs to be addressed.

1.5.2 Applica on of Standards to Mari me Archives The AAF guidance document prescribes standards for all elements of archaeological archives at four key stages: crea on, prepara on, transfer and cura on. At each stage, mari me archives face par cular issues that hinder the proper applica on of archival standards. Some are systemic problems, some are resource issues and others relate to educa on and training. Crea on: Management and Standards The disconnect of mari me archaeological archives from the system that terrestrial material follows has produced a gap in understanding and prac ce in terms of the best approach to producing an ordered and stable mari me archive. The planning of, and agreement over, archive management at the incep on of projects is s ll rare, and, in general, deposi on and the prepara on of the archive for deposi on are addressed during the postfieldwork phase of a project. This lack of ongoing archive management is partly a reflec on of the development of the mari me archaeology sector in terms of problems in finding suitable receiving museums, in planning for conserva on of the material archive and in securing the appropriate resources. In the past, projects began without considera on and agreement over the associated

Another significant issue surrounding the conserva on of the material archive is the pervasive presump on that the whole material archive must be conserved, deposited, and curated. For example, the discourse surrounding the treatment of the remains of the Newport Ship is strikingly similar to that concerning the Gresham Ship in the Thames. It was perceived that the preserva on of the actual physical ship mbers, visible from the beginning of the ‘Save Our Ship’ campaign, was necessary, a percep on influenced by the Mary Rose and Sweden’s Vasa project, which have embedded the impera ve to conserve and display whole hulls as an essen al part of understanding shipwreck heritage, rather than allowing alterna ves to be considered (Ransley 2007). There is a lack of debate over excava on and recording standards,

13

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives material and documentary archives, interpreta on and publica on. Instead, an assump on is made that proper treatment of the material archive means conserving and deposi ng it all.

Cura on: Access, Security and Public Ownership Long-term security and ac ve cura on that enables access to archives are the chief curatorial concerns for mari me archaeological archives. There is very li le specialisa on, no expert support network or training in mari me archaeology among museum archaeologists or in the wider museums sector. There is also li le experience or exper se within the mari me museum sector of cura ng and enabling access to mari me archaeological archives. Very few substan al shipwreck archives currently reside within public repositories. There is certainly no mari me equivalent to types of archive such as the London Archaeological Archive & Research Centre (LAARC), which not only curates and provides access to London’s archaeological archives but also ac vely promotes research into the material.

Funding the conserva on of all pieces of ship structure within new mari me archaeological archives would be unsustainable; there is no prac cable way that museums and other receiving repositories could house, curate and display them. Proper recording of the ship structure, and perhaps conserva on and archiving of par cularly significant elements of it, negate the need to conserve everything. The prac ce of selec ng appropriate parts of the material assemblage for submission with the material archive is well established within best prac ce (and is ar culated within the AAF guidance document); not every ceramic sherd, roof le or wooden mber will be included in a ‘terrestrial’ archive. Reasoned debate and prac cal agreement over a selec on and reten on policy for mari me archaeological archives is therefore crucial. If accepted selec on and reten on standards are not implemented the biggest pressure on mari me conserva on capacity and exper se produced by a developed archival process will come from ship hulls and mbers.

One of the primary issues for the appropriate deposi on of mari me archaeological archives is the sourcing of a public receiving repository in order to secure the future of the archive. Lack of public ownership, and therefore longterm security, is a significant problem. Public ownership also results in public accountability, securing scru ny of standards of cura on and access to archives. Mari me archaeological archives are o en held by privately owned displays and heritage centres, including many items from some of the na onally important sites designated under the PWA in the UK. As these centres are privately owned, standards of cura on and access to the archives cannot be prescribed or ensured and there is nothing to prevent the sale or dispersal of those artefacts, of that crucial element of the site’s material archive. The ques on of public ownership and public access to mari me archaeological archives, both old and new, needs to be addressed.

Transfer: Ownership and Receiving Museums Issues over the ownership of artefacts within the material archive and ques ons of the transfer of tle to receiving bodies are o en perceived as a stumbling block for mari me archaeological archives. The role of the Receiver of Wreck under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and the en tlement in some cases of a salvage award to those who recover ‘wreck’ are seen as complex and a significant difficulty. However, it is comparable to the process on land in England, where landowners retain all rights of ownership to archaeological materials found on their land (with the excep on of items classified as Treasure). To address this, protocols concerning the copyright of documentary archives and the transfer of tle for material archives have been established. There is a need for such protocols to be produced for mari me archaeological archives as well.

Impact of Issues There is a fundamental failure to acknowledge that mari me archaeological archives should be addressed in the same manner as other archaeological archives and that they should adhere to the same standards in their produc on, organisa on, deposi on and cura on. This has le us with a culture of ad hoc solu ons in which nego a ons are made on a site-by-site and projectby-project basis. Archives are frequently split prior to interpreta on and publica on, and the ownership of material assemblages o en remains in private hands. There is li le common or accepted knowledge about policy, best prac ce or mari me archival standards. There is simply no coherent long-term strategy. Consequently, thus far, the vast majority of mari me archaeological archives have fallen through this policy gap and their cura on, division or sale is very much down to luck or the tenacity of individuals involved with the site or project.

It is hard to establish where within this process it is best to discuss the lack of museums and repositories willing or able to receive mari me archaeological archives, since it touches on so many stages. The process of iden fying a receiving museum or repository ought to be undertaken at the planning stages of a project, but this process is complicated by museum collec ons policies. There is o en pressure to disperse material archives between several receiving bodies in a ‘cherry-picking’ process. Such cases legi mise the no on that mari me archaeological archives are simply a collec on of artefacts – curiosi es from the sea – rather than a coherent whole that together have significant eviden al value and ought to be deposited and curated as such.

1.6 Quan fying the Issues The recogni on of the many and varied problems faced by mari me archaeological archives led to the development of a suite of research to quan fy the situa on in more

14

The Unrealised Research Resource  Records derived from historic ships which are s ll afloat; and  Archives from projects undertaken outside UK territorial waters.

detail. The results of this work form the basis for this publica on. The Securing a Future for Mari me Archaeological Archives (SFMAA) project aimed to develop understanding through:  Understanding how museum and repository collec on areas and collec on policies consider the marine zone (see chapter two);  Reviewing where mari me archaeological archives and marine assemblages are currently held and assessing their public accessibility (see chapter three); and  Analysing present mari me archive and assemblage crea on and assessing the scale and nature of future mari me archives (see chapter six).

Based on the results of the SFMAA project, further research was developed related to issues specifically connected to the roles and responsibili es of The Crown Estate through the project ‘Mari me Archaeological Archives and The Crown Estate’ (HWTMA 2012). Elements of this work are included within chapter five of this publica on. SFMAA had demonstrated that the situa on facing mari me archives within England was more acute than that within the other devolved na ons. To further quan fy the level of archive backlog within England more detailed research was undertaken by the MAT between 2011 and 2014, the results of which are detailed in chapter four.

This project included the following elements within its defini on of ‘mari me archaeological archive’:  Material rela ng to shipwrecks and associated artefacts (whether single finds or collec ons), aircra remains, prehistoric landscapes, nowsubmerged terrestrial sites and any other types of sites or finds lying below the high water mark;  Archive material that might be documentary, including field notes, reports, photographs, drawings and slides (including grey literature reports, site reports held by HERs and Na onal Monument Records (NMRs), object (both artefactual and environmental samples) or digital; and  Records of inves ga ons, or archaeological interven ons, which have produced any of the above types of archive, including deskbased assessments, survey (direct and remote), evalua on, excava on and artefact recovery/ salvage.

The rapidly developing marine planning situa on and associated issues with wider marine data access, par cularly the archiving of digital data, prompted a number of other projects with a bearing on mari me archaeological archives. The Marine Environmental Data Informa on Network (MEDIN) commissioned a number of projects to review the archiving of archaeological data, including a detailed review of example datasets to assess the poten al of exis ng Digital Archive Centres (DACs) (Wessex Archaeology 2011a), a review of mari me ‘event records’ within the key na onal mari me heritage databases to assess the availability of historic environment data to inform wider marine planning (Komar 2011) and a project which developed a scoping study for a DAC for the historic environment (Mari me Archaeology Ltd 2011). These projects further demonstrate par cular issues related to mari me archaeological archives and their results have been referenced within this publica on where relevant.

Types of archive which were not included within the project included:  Inventories or ‘records’ not focused on cultural heritage, such as those of the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO);  Documentary records of shipping losses and/or mari me related trades;

Having outlined the genesis of many of the issues related to mari me archaeological archives further considera on is now given to par cular elements within this tangled web to enable a structured analysis of the current situa on.

15

2. Public Museums and Mari me Archaeological Archives

In order to fully understand issues related to museums and the collec on of mari me archaeological archives a survey of public museums across England and Scotland was undertaken in 2009–10. The work sought to:  Map the collec ng areas of those museums and repositories that accept mari me archaeological archives;  Iden fy those museums and repositories that consider mari me archaeological archives within their policies but are unable to accept them at present; and  Demonstrate the issue of unresolved responsibility for mari me archaeological archives from the offshore/marine zone that do not fit easily into the model of local and regional collec on areas.

shows the distribu on of the responses, demonstra ng the large number of museums that do not specifically refer to mari me archaeological archives within their collec on policies. Those respondents answering ‘yes’ were asked to provide further informa on on how their policies included mari me archaeological archives. Owing to the small number of ‘yes’ responses, the results were compared by country rather than by region. Within England, the greatest number of museums answering ‘yes’ to this ques on were located within the South West and South East regions. A review of a small sample of detailed responses across England highlighted a range of approaches and issues. Some respondents provided simple statements such as ‘encompasses mari me archaeology and records from that’ (Southend Museums Service), while others, such as the Na onal Museums Liverpool, give extensive considera on to the types of mari me archive that are a priority for them and reference a range of principles for acquisi on. A full record of the detail provided by museums on their policies can be found in Appendix 8.2.2.

An online survey targeted 161 museums to gather informa on on their collec on policies, collec on areas, whether they had been offered mari me archaeological archives, whether they ac vely collected them, and, if they are unable to collect them, reasons why this might be the case. Details of the survey ques ons are included within Appendix 8.1.1. The survey achieved an 82 per cent response rate and provided a range of informa on related to museums and the collec on of mari me archaeological archives. Figure 2.1 provides detail of those museums that responded to the survey. Full details of the survey and individual responses can be found within the project report Securing a Future for Mari me Archaeological Archives: Mapping Mari me Collec on Areas1.

A number of museums that are proac ve in the inclusion of mari me archaeological archives within policies already hold archives related to specific wreck sites. Poole, Plymouth and the Isle of Wight all hold shipwreck archives, some of which are specifically referenced within their collec on policies, indica ng that having experience of mari me archaeological archives makes it more likely that this archive type will be included in museum collec on policies.

2.1 Collec on Policies To discover whether mari me archaeological archives were included within collec on policies the ini al survey ques on asked ‘Does your collec on policy specifically refer to mari me archaeological archives’? Of the respondents, 17 per cent (22) answered ‘yes’, with the majority, 83 per cent (111), answering ‘no’. Figure 2.2

Not all policies are prescrip ve in referencing shipwrecks; some are more broad, and include statements referring to evidence of trading links (Plymouth Museum) and ‘local history in any form’ (Thurrock Museum). The Isle of Wight is most all-encompassing in its policy, sta ng that it ‘will acquire archaeological material and associated evidence from the topographical area of the island of the Isle of Wight and its coastal waters, and record, preserve and interpret the culture and ac vi es of people on the Isle of

1 h p://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch947–1/dissemina on/pdf/Mari me_Archives_Element_One_Report_FINAL_April_09.pdf

17

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives Figure 2.1: Map showing museums that responded to the survey.

Plymouth Museum states that ‘Marine archaeology items will only be accepted subject to appropriate conserva on, storage and display facili es’ and Lancaster Museum outlines that ‘Due regard will also be given to the ability to conserve and store artefacts from underwater archaeology.’

Wight from prehistoric mes to the industrial revolu on’ (Appendix 8.2.2). This, the only reference within any collec on policies to the existence of submerged prehistoric material, is a reflec on of the developing nature of this area of research, as there are few archaeological inves ga ons of these sites yet undertaken. The recovery of prehistoric material by fishermen from the Southern North Sea has been common for many years (Gaffney et al. 2009: 153) but it would seem that this has not prompted the inclusion of this material within collec on policies.

Poten al conserva on and storage requirements for mari me archaeological archives are clearly a concern for museums. The Na onal Museums Liverpool go as far as to state that there is ‘Generally a presump on against acquiring excavated material and against direct involvement or sponsoring of excava ons, in favour of collec ng survey results and records’.

Some policies do not dis nguish between archaeological archives from the terrestrial zone and those from the marine zone. However, there are o en addi ons to the policy indica ng that decisions on acquisi on would consider whether the museum had the ability to store and conserve material from underwater contexts. For instance,

The only na onal archive responding to the survey was the (then) English Heritage Na onal Monuments Record

18

Museums & Mari me Archives (now the Na onal Record of the Historic Environment (NRHE)). They outlined that their collec on policy does not specifically include mari me archives (Appendix 8.2.2).

heritage of Scotland, the Na onal Monuments Record of Scotland (NMRS) will acquire, catalogue, research and conserve material within these subject areas, and make it available to members of the public’ (Appendix 8.2.2), while the Sco sh Fisheries Museum’s acquisi on and disposal policy states that: ‘The Museum will not acquire archaeological an qui es (including excavated ceramics) in any case where the governing body or responsible officer has any suspicion that the circumstances of their recovery involved a failure to follow the appropriate legal procedures, such as repor ng finds through the Treasure Trove procedure, or any other relevant body such as the Receiver of Wreck in the case of finds from within the UK territorial seas’ (Appendix 8.2.2).

Only a small propor on of museums around the English coastline specifically include mari me archaeological archives in their collec on policies. The situa on in Scotland is somewhat different because of the more structured approach to archives that pertains there. Generally, material archives are held by the Na onal Museums of Scotland, while the documentary elements of the archive are deposited with the RCAHMS (now part of HES). Sco sh museums and repositories with a na onal remit have mari me archives clearly represented within policy. The RCAHMS states that ‘As the na onal record of the archaeological, buildings and mari me

The survey response from the Na onal Mari me Museum, Greenwich, provides informa on on this UKwide ins tu on specialising in ‘mari me’. The response

Figure 2.2: Map showing the distribu on of museums with and without collec on policies that refer to mari me archives.

19

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives stated that ‘The NMM’s Archaeological Research Centre, which closed in the 1980s, obtained through loans and acquisi ons a reference collec on for early boat and ship technology, and assemblages from excava on. A er the return of the loans, this did not cons tute a coherent collec on. NMM’s policy since 1995 has been one of disposal, a emp ng to ensure that items are put to best use for display or research in other ins tu ons in the UK able to provide maximum public access and sympathe c interpreta on.’ This has resulted in the ac on of ‘no further acquisi on or loan-in of mari me archaeological material’. However, the NMM did state that it would collect par cular objects from archaeological contexts if they fi ed specific policies, as long as ‘due diligence in regard to the protec on of the underwater cultural heritage’ had been followed.

Many respondents and collec on policies seem to consider ‘mari me’ to refer to ships and shipping. This is partly a product of shipwrecks being by far the most common type of site inves gated in the marine zone, although the increased inves ga on of submerged prehistoric landscapes raises further ques ons of the remit of museums and repositories to collect and curate this material.

2.2 Collec on Areas To understand the geographical extent of museum collec on areas the survey asked ‘Does your collec on area include the coastal and/or marine zone?’ Of the respondents, 36 per cent (49) answered ‘no’, with 64 per cent (84) answering ‘yes’. Those answering ‘yes’ were asked to provide further detail on how their area was defined. These responses fell into one of three main categories: low water mark/local authority area, territorial waters (12 mile limit) or ‘undefined’. Figure 2.3 presents these results, with further detail provided in Appendix 8.2.3.

The only specific men on of mari me archaeology in the NMM’s Collec on Development Policy 2008–2012 comes in the ‘Commerce and Conflict’ subject area. It states: ‘Mari me archaeology: We have no dedicated curatorial exper se in this area and extremely limited holdings, which we are seeking to disperse or dispose of. We have no plans to collect mari me archaeology although if an object were to be relevant to this collec ng area we might pursue acquisi on’ (Appendix 8.2.2).

In England collec on areas o en include the coastal zone, although there is some significant regional varia on in coverage. The North East and South East are rela vely well covered, with collec on areas that go beyond just the coastal zone and include the marine zone. In the South West many museums collect to the low water mark, or have areas that are undefined, so in theory extend into the marine zone. The North West appears to have the least coverage of the coastal and marine zones.

At a na onal level there are clear differences in approach. Scotland is notably proac ve in including mari me archives, whereas in England there is a much less structured approach, with par cular ques ons arising over the roles and remits of local authority museums and na onal museums and repositories.

Quite a large number of museums can collect to the low water mark, which is o en the boundary of the local authority, although this can be contrasted within directly adjacent areas where ins tu ons are able to collect out to the 12 mile territorial waters limit.

It should be stated that a lack of specific references to mari me archaeological archives within policies does not mean that they are not collected, although it appears that the holding of mari me archaeological archives does appear to influence whether they receive explicit a en on in collec ons policies.

Within Scotland’s museums there is a rela vely high incidence of collec on areas which include the marine zone (Figure 2.3). There are some regional differences in terms of whether ‘marine zone’ here is defined by territorial waters or goes beyond this limit. On a na onal basis in Scotland the RCAHMS (now HES) has a remit which extends to 70 miles from the coastline, which forms a very substan al marine collec on area.

A number of survey recipients highlighted the different terminology available, with the terms ‘mari me’, ‘marine’ and ‘underwater’ all being used within different policies. There has long been a debate over the use of ‘mari me’ or ‘marine’ in rela on to the cultural heritage resource that lies below the low water mark (Dellino-Musgrave 2006: 22–3; Flatman and Staniforth 2006: 168–9). The strict defini on of ‘mari me’ is related to the study of ships, seafaring and trade and exchange u lising watercra , whereas ‘marine’ has a broader sense and encompasses any sites below the water, including prehistoric landscapes, crashed aircra and so on. However, in prac ce the use of both terms is commonplace when discussing underwater archaeology. This discourse on terminology, however, does permeate into issues of archives and how they are defined, referenced and collected, so should not be ignored in terms of collec on policies.

Of the responses from special interest museums within Scotland two responses demonstrated issues which can arise over collec on areas. The Museum of Sco sh Lighthouses stated that they collect only from areas close to lighthouses, but this could be from the marine zone. This could result in coverage for a very specific area which may generate a collec on with geographical focus, but could also include shipwreck material of an interna onal nature. The Sco sh Fisheries Museum defines its collec on area as within UK territorial waters, highligh ng the poten al overlap between regional and/or na onal collec on areas and that of special interest collec ons.

20

Museums & Mari me Archives Responses from UK-wide and special interest museums show that the Bri sh Museum has the most extensive possible collec on area, which is ‘the whole of the world’. The Fleet Air Arm and Royal Air Force museums indicated their collec on area does include the marine zone: the former concentrates more on records, while the la er does have some material from the sea, although it is excep onal within their collec ons.

waters (12 nau cal miles). This highlights how offshore industrial development and new marine spa al planning frameworks are forcing a considera on of responsibility for collec on areas. There is an inconsistency in collec on areas and their boundaries around the UK, and even in directly adjacent areas. While some museums can collect beyond the low water mark, there is s ll a large marine area with no collec on coverage. There appears to be some confusion over the remit of na onal and special interest museums in rela on to local and regional museums, with a presump on against responsibility for the marine area. This has resulted in a number of regional and na onal museums having one or two mari me archaeological archives, but there is no coordinated approach across the UK.

Although Wales was not specifically targeted as part of the survey on an individual museum basis, its collec on area situa on was reviewed to help provide broader coverage. The Na onal Monument Record Wales has a collec on area which extends into the marine zone to the median line with Ireland, which reflects responsibility for marine spa al planning areas, although their record enhancement efforts are focused within the territorial

Figure 2.3: Map showing museum collec on areas which do or do not include the coastal and marine zone.

21

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives Edwards’ (2007) study of terrestrial archaeological collec on areas of England noted that, ‘Although museum accredita on now requires the defini on of collec on policies in geographical terms, it is apparent that this has yet to reach all museums and all areas in England. Whilst this is undoubtedly improving the defini on of and agreement about archaeology collec ng areas, in some areas gaps or overlaps have survived undetected between mapped collec ng areas’ (Edwards 2007: 9). This situa on is certainly the case in the marine zone, where the longterm lack of considera on of mari me archaeological archives has resulted in large gaps in coverage – both in geographical terms, as demonstrated by this element of the survey, and in policy.

area of a par cular coastal museum does not mean that the ship itself had any specific relevance to that area. This generates two main issues: how to define museum collec on areas offshore where there are no obvious boundaries; and the interna onal nature of shipwrecks – one of the significant differences between terrestrial and mari me archaeological archives. In a few instances around the UK the wreck of an historic vessel from another na on has resulted in the necessity for coordinated approaches between the UK and other countries. The Dutch East India vessel Amsterdam, which lies just beyond the low water mark on a beach near Has ngs, is an example of this (Gawronski 1991). There may be issues over the ownership of material among several countries within a single vessel, which require cross-partner agreement on long-term cura on. To date, the number of sites at which this has been a par cular issue is rela vely low; however, with a growing awareness of responsibili es towards mari me cultural heritage (Dromgoole 2006a; 2006b) there is a need to have a coordinated approach.

Edwards’ study demonstrated that in the three years since an ini al survey by Bo (2003) there had already been changes in collec on areas and that their defini ons were not sta c. More recently, a further study of archaeological archives and museums in rela on to terrestrial archives (Edwards 2012: 17) has reviewed the previous work and iden fied a number of changes to terrestrial collec on areas due to issues such as local authority reorganisa ons, and policy, museum and staff changes. If there were increased focus on the roles and remits of museums in rela on to mari me archaeological archives it is possible that these boundaries might undergo further change in the future.

2.3 Demand for Mari me Archives Although not all museums specifically reference mari me archaeological archives in their collec on policies or collec on area, owing to their loca on adjacent to the coast the survey ques on ‘have you ever been approached to accession mari me archaeological archives’ sought to gauge whether there is demand on coastal museums. Of those responding, 29 per cent (38) said ‘yes’, while 71 per cent (95) said ‘no’ (Figure 2.4). Many of the museums that responded posi vely provided further informa on on the circumstances in which they had been offered mari me archaeological archives (see Appendix 8.2.4 for full details).

Comparing the number of museums that have collec on areas that cover the coastal and marine zone with the responses to ques on one, on collec on policy, suggests that there are significantly more museums whose collec on areas cover the marine zone than the number with policies that specifically reference mari me archaeological archives. While there are s ll areas lacking museums with collec on policies or areas that cover mari me archaeological archives, it appears that not having a reference to the marine zone within policy is not necessarily a barrier to collec on from this zone, although it should be remembered that a number of museums with policies that reference mari me archaeological archives have specifically presumed against the collec on of this material (see sec on 2.1).

The results demonstrated that museums in the South and East of England were more likely to have been offered mari me archaeological archives. This distribu on corresponds to areas where there are high levels of recrea onal diving as well as a range of marine developments and industry ac vity. Many of those ins tu ons that had been contacted in rela on to accessioning mari me archaeological archives were na onal museums and repositories and those with UK-wide and special interest collec ons, perhaps indica ng that there is a general percep on that mari me material does not naturally go to regional museums.

The division of mari me archaeological archives from terrestrial archaeological archives has been highlighted by the collec on area responses. A number of special interest museums may collect archives related to a certain mari me ac vity, such as ships, fishing, lighthouses or shipbuilding; the collec on areas of these museums are usually very broad and hence there is some confusion over where archives should be deposited.

Three main categories of archive and assemblage had been offered for accession: collec ons from archaeological inves ga ons; finds from shipwrecks, which are largely diver recoveries; and finds dredged/trawled up by fishermen.

Issues are also raised by the nature of mari me archaeological archives. Material from the marine zone, par cularly shipwreck, can be from a wide range of periods and, importantly, may have interna onal connec ons and significance. The wrecking of a vessel within the collec on

Museums holding collec ons from marine archaeological inves ga ons o en provided the most detail for this

22

Museums & Mari me Archives survey, sugges ng that they were most familiar with this type of material. The majority of these archives are from individual shipwrecks, with many museums holding the archive of a single vessel. A few, such as Ramsgate Mari me Museum, which has been a repository for artefacts recovered from some of the wrecks on the Goodwin Sands, hold mul ple mari me archives.

Items recovered by fishermen are among the mari me objects most commonly offered to museums. As fishermen are o en local to an area (as opposed to divers, who o en travel considerable distances to the coast) it is more likely that they would know where the local museum was located, and hence offer items they have trawled up to collec ons.

Of those shipwreck archives specifically men oned by museums within the responses there is an approximately 50/50 split between those that have been inves gated by amateur teams and those inves gated by professional teams. Many single shipwreck artefacts offered to museums are from divers, so, not surprisingly, there is a correla on between museums accessioning wreck artefacts and the most frequently dived areas around England and Scotland.

It appears that the majority of museums that have been offered marine material have agreed to take it, although some provided responses indica ng that they had to refer the offer to another museum as they did not have the appropriate facili es to house the item(s) concerned. As many of these archives and assemblages are from chance discoveries or amateur-led archaeological inves ga ons they would have lacked funding for box grants to accompany them and may have required conserva on.

Figure 2.4: Map showing museums which have and have not been approached to accession mari me archives.

23

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives A brief considera on of the numbers of mari me archaeological archives held is presented here in order to analyse the distribu on of holdings. Of the 54 museums with mari me archaeological archives, 29 provided quan ta ve data, which allows some regional and na onal varia ons to be examined.

2.4 Current Mari me Archaeological Archive Collec ons The survey ques on ‘do you currently hold any mari me archaeological archives?’ sought to iden fy museums familiar with mari me archives and inves gate the nature and extent of collec ons. A total of 54 museums (41 per cent) responded that they have mari me archaeological archives, while 78 (59 per cent) do not; the distribu on of these responses is presented in Figure 2.5. Considering that only 29 per cent of the respondents answered ‘yes’ to the previous ques on, on whether they had been approached to take archives, the number of museums already holding mari me material is rela vely large. Many of the museums provided further details on the various archive holdings, the results of which are considered in detail in chapter three.

The South East of England, specifically the Solent region, demonstrated the greatest regional concentra on of mari me archaeological archives, with Portsmouth City Museum holding 21 and the Isle of Wight Museums service holding nine. This reflects the wealth of archaeological sites in the region, the number of mari me archaeological organisa ons based there and the higher levels of public awareness of the mari me heritage these have generated. Also within the South East region is Ramsgate Mari me Museum, which, although it holds only two mari me

Figure 2.5: Map showing museums that do and do not currently hold mari me archives.

24

Museums & Mari me Archives archives, is the repository for much of the material from the Goodwin Sands, one of the most renowned ‘shipwreck graveyards’ in UK waters. This area includes a number of designated historic wreck sites.

England Archive and for Scotland at the RCAHMS (now part of HES). This situa on demonstrates the fragmentary approach to mari me archaeological archives, even for the most important historic wreck sites, when there is o en an ad hoc approach to deposi ng material and site archives are frequently split between different museums and repositories.

All the other regions of England had a number of museums which answered ‘yes’ to holding mari me archaeological archives. Of those that provided quan es of archive, the North West and South West were well represented, although most of the ins tu ons concerned held only one archive. The excep on is the Na onal Museums Liverpool, which holds 11.

2.5 Approaches to Mari me Archaeological Archive Collec on To gather more qualita ve informa on on museum approaches and a tudes to mari me archaeological archives the survey asked ‘Do you ac vely collect mari me archaeological archives?’ Of the respondents, 29 (22 per cent) answered ‘yes’ and 104 (78 per cent) ‘no’ (see Appendix 8.2.1 for detail of responses). A high percentage of museums do not ac vely collect mari me archives, which is not surprising considering the responses to previous survey ques ons. Many of those that do are located in the South East and South West of England (Figure 2.6 shows this distribu on).

It should be noted that some of the museums responding to the survey indicated that they hold only one mari me archaeological archive even when it is understood that they actually hold material from a range of different sites. It may be the case that some museums have classed all material from the marine zone under one ‘mari me archive’, which means that the results do not necessarily reflect accurately the specific number of sites represented within holdings. So, for example, the NMR for England (now the Historic England Archive) indicated that it holds one mari me archive; however, as this is the archive from the ADU (the former government contracted inspec on and repor ng team for designated historic wreck sites), this actually includes items from a large number of individual sites around England.

Museums that do not collect mari me archaeological archives were asked why, and were given a number of op ons, from which they could select all those that applied. The responses were: lack of financial resources (11.5 per cent), lack of facili es (14.4 per cent), lack of exper se (10.5 per cent), lack of remit (20 per cent) and never been asked (27 per cent). These respondents were then asked whether, if these issues were resolved, they would collect mari me archives; only 18 per cent said ‘yes’ to this.

Within Scotland fewer regional museums answered ‘yes’ to holding mari me archaeological archives, and among these the numbers held are generally low. Na onally the RCAHMS (now part of HES) currently hold in excess of 50 archives, including those from the Sound of Mull Archaeological Project (SoMAP) and the ADU archives for Sco sh sites.

Detailed informa on on why mari me archaeological archives are not collected was provided by 51 of the 104 museums that said ‘no’ to the ini al ques on. Some respondents selected all of the available op ons in explaining why they do not collect mari me archives, while others chose only a few. The results of the responses are represented in Figures 2.7–2.12, which provide detail on a regional scale.

On a UK-wide basis the Na onal Mari me Museum holds 18 mari me archaeological archives. These date to the 1980s, when the NMM had an ac ve archaeological unit and collec on policy; this policy has now changed and some of these archives are being passed to regional museums. The Bri sh Museum holds five mari me archaeological archives, although it also indicated that it holds around 300 finds from the mari me environment. The five archives refer to specific site inves ga ons and hence include both object and documentary archive elements.

The responses to the ques on on whether museums ac vely collect mari me archaeological archives e in with those to the survey ques on on collec on areas. It appears that many local authority museums have collec on boundaries that mirror their council’s area of jurisdic on. This presents a serious issue for mari me archaeological archives: there appear to be no regionally based repositories for some areas, and if no museum can be iden fied it is difficult to follow archaeological best prac ce.

A comparison of the distribu on of museums holding mari me archaeological archives with that of the 62 Designated Historic Wreck sites around the UK (see Figure 3.19 for map of protected wreck sites) shows some correla on between the Protected Sites and the museums that currently hold mari me archives. However, the survey results indicate that few of these protected wrecks are represented within regional museums. At a na onal level, the ADU archive (which is largely documentaryand image-based) is held for England at the Historic

Around 15 per cent of respondents indicated that they do not have the facili es to collect mari me archaeological archives. While some material from the marine zone does have special requirements for controlled condi ons, these are facili es also commonly required for materials from

25

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives terrestrial collec ons. There is o en a percep on that mari me archaeological archives include large pieces of wooden structure from ship hulls, when in prac ce this is infrequently the case. It is not possible to determine from this brief summary whether the lack of facili es is related specifically to space, conserva on or storage. However, capacity is clearly an issue.

par cularly commercially driven projects and those with grant aid support, should be resul ng in ordered, stable archives. However, there is a legacy of past work and work being undertaken outside of any development control or regulatory system that has created and is crea ng archives that may not be stable and would not be supported by any form of box grant. There is also an issue of artefacts that are raised and reported through the Receiver of Wreck system. While historic material is o en offered to museums, in prac ce it is usually in an unconserved state and the museum may have to pay the individual or organisa on who recovered it a salvage award in addi on to funding conserva on (issues related to diver recoveries are considered further in sec on 3.2.6).

Only 11 per cent of respondents indicated that a lack of financial resources is hampering the collec on of mari me archaeological archives. These responses may be based on the expecta on that an archive from an archaeological inves ga on would be deposited in a conserved, stable and ordered state and may be accompanied by a box grant. While this procedure is rela vely well established for terrestrial excava ons, it is less so for mari me projects. Recent archaeological work in the marine zone,

The low propor on of respondents indica ng that they do not have the exper se to collect mari me archaeological

Figure 2.6: Map showing distribu on of museums which do and do not ac vely collect mari me archives.

26

Museums & Mari me Archives Figure 2.7: Map showing reasons why museums in the South West of England do not collect mari me archives, and whether they would collect if these issues were resolved.

2.6. Outcomes and Future Work

archives (10 per cent) appears to be an encouraging sta s c, although when comparing this result with other studies of the archaeological conserva on profession (Panter 2007) there appears to be some discrepancy.

The responses to the survey provided baseline informa on to quan fy the situa on in rela on to the collec on of mari me archaeological archives by coastal museums. While it had been recognised by those working within mari me archaeology and marine heritage management that archiving was an issue, there had not been any factual basis on which to fully assess the situa on prior to this work.

The final survey ques on asked the museums which responded ‘no’ to ac vely collec ng mari me archaeological archives whether, if issues which are a barrier to collec on were resolved, they would collect mari me archives. Of the 104 ‘no’ responses only 19 (18 per cent) indicated that they would collect if the issues were resolved. This is a very low percentage and is a concern in terms of improving the current situa on facing mari me archaeological archives. With the museums sector under con nued pressure because of a lack of available resources, it appears that there is li le chance of significantly increasing the number of museums which collect mari me archaeological archives within the current framework.

With a response rate of 82 per cent of museums contacted, the results provide a good representa on of the situa on in rela on to the collec on of mari me archaeological archives. It has been clearly shown that there are dis nct differences in the coverage of mari me collec on policies and areas throughout the UK, with England having the poorest coverage of the marine zone.

27

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives Figure 2.8: Map showing reasons why museums in the South East of England do not collect mari me archives, and whether they would collect if these issues were resolved.

There are a number of key outcomes from the survey that are relevant in terms of both policy and prac ce. This baseline informa on can be used to help in increasing archive capacity and clarifying roles, responsibili es and the process by which mari me archaeological archives should reach museums.

responses related to the inclusion of mari me archives in policy and the extent of museum collec on areas. Of the 17 per cent of museum collec on policies that referred to mari me archives, a number of these did so to indicate non-collec on and others included caveats rela ng to the need for resources and/or facili es. While the results showing 64 per cent of museums to have collec on areas covering the coastal and/or marine zone ini ally appeared rela vely posi ve, on closer inspec on many of these areas included the coastal zone down to the low water mark only, leaving the majority of the marine zone without receiving repositories.

2.6.1 Current Situa on: In Policy Key Facts:  17 per cent of museum collec on policies refer to mari me archaeological archives.  64 per cent of museum collec on areas include the coastal and/or marine zone (although a large number of these are the coastal zone to the low water mark rather than the marine zone).

The lack of clarity within policy and the long-term lack of guidance in rela on to mari me archaeological archives have resulted in no clear policy or understanding of boundaries and in overlaps, both geographically and in remit. There is some poten al overlap between those

Evidence of the lack of clarity over roles and responsibili es within the marine zone was demonstrated through

28

Museums & Mari me Archives local and regional museums that do collect mari me archaeological archives and the remit of na onal and special interest museums.

fragmentary approach to their inclusion and considera on within policy. Although there are a few notable excep ons – for instance, Sco sh na onal policy is inclusive of an extensive area of the marine zone – this is generally an issue across the board, from UK-wide policy to local museum policy.

Survey responses indicated that there was some lack of understanding over what cons tutes a mari me archaeological archive. There were also some queries over terminology (‘mari me’, ‘marine’ or ‘underwater’). Some responses considered all material from the marine zone, whether single finds or more extensive collec ons, together as a single ‘mari me archive’. This indicates that the archives included within the survey responses may actually represent a much larger number of sites and/or finds.

2.6.2 Current Situa on: In Prac ce Key Facts:  29 per cent of museums have been approached to accession mari me archaeological archives.  41 per cent of museums currently hold mari me archaeological archive(s).  22 per cent of museums ac vely collect mari me archaeological archives.  Lack of resources, facili es, exper se and remit are all significant reasons why museums do not collect mari me archaeological archives.

As mari me archaeological archives have fallen outside of the remit and responsibility of any par cular organisa on, agency or ins tu on the result has been a highly

Figure 2.9: Map showing reasons why museums in Eastern England do not collect mari me archives, and whether they would collect if these issues were resolved.

29

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives  Only 19 museums (18 per cent) indicated that they would collect mari me archaeological archives if issues over why they do not collect were resolved.

single ins tu on holds any form of reference collec on or type-series for mari me material. When considering future approaches to policy and the enhancing of capacity for the deposi on of mari me archives the crea on of reference collec ons must be included. This is vital for the long-term development of the study of the human past in rela on to the cultural resource found within the marine zone, whether this relates to early human colonisa on of Britain from submerged prehistoric landscapes or the long history of mari me trade, transport, warfare and connec ons that have helped shaped Britain today.

The lack of clarity in policy has inevitably had an effect on how archaeological archives have been treated in prac ce, resul ng in a complete absence of receiving museums for large areas of the marine zone. This has a ‘knock-on’ impact, with few sources of advice on the care of mari me material and the development of archives in a format suitable for deposi on available on a local or regional scale.

Detailed responses to the survey indicated that having experience of larger mari me site archives generated from archaeological inves ga ons made it more likely that other mari me archives would be included within policy and/or ac vely collected. This situa on reflects a wider

Of the 41 per cent of museums holding mari me archaeological archives, many of these hold only a single archive, with a very small number indica ng that they hold more than two. It has also become clear that no

Figure 2.10: Map showing reasons why museums in the North East of England do not collect mari me archives,and whether they would collect if these issues were resolved.

30

Museums & Mari me Archives Figure 2.11: Map showing reasons why museums in the North West of England do not collect mari me archives,and whether they would collect if these issues were resolved.

lack of understanding of the nature and requirements of material from the marine zone on the part of those unfamiliar with its handling and cura on.

collec ons. This raises both the issue of how mari me archaeological archives are being incorporated within condi ons of development consents and the need to embed the archiving process within condi ons to ensure best prac ce is followed and maintained (these issues are further explored in chapter five).

A total of 29 per cent of museums indicated that they had been approached to accession mari me archaeological archives, most of which tended to be items recovered by fishermen or divers rather than from structured archaeological inves ga ons. It is concerning that much of the recent work that has been undertaken through commercially driven projects and/or research-based inves ga ons does not appear to have been offered to museums; a large number of projects are being undertaken in the offshore and near-shore areas in rela on to, for example, aggregate extrac on, renewable energy developments, ports and marinas, and few of the archives thereby generated are featuring within museum

These results highlight the need for training and awareness-raising for museums, development control archaeologists, archaeological curators and archaeologists in rela on to mari me archaeological archives and best prac ce. As increased guidance in this area is likely to result in larger numbers of mari me archives being offered for deposi on, the provision of facili es and the capacity to accept this material must be developed in tandem with awareness-raising.

31

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives As demonstrated by the survey results, there is currently no clear route for archives from mari me inves ga ons to reach secure long-term cura on. This raises ques ons of where archives are currently being held (this is explored further in chapter three of this publica on) and how to develop policy and prac ce to secure their future. With few museums willing or able to accession mari me archaeological archives and limited numbers likely to consider changing this posi on even if resources were made available to them, it may be necessary to develop short-term responses to the archive ‘backlog’ situa on while longer-term solu ons are formulated.

of comprehensive data relating to museums and the collection of maritime archaeological archives, which forms a baseline for developing responses. The issues raised need to be addressed through both the development of coherent policy and advice and increasing capacity for the deposition of maritime archaeological archives. In terms of developing policy, guidance and best prac ce, a fundamental requirement is to ensure the greater recogni on of mari me cultural heritage within formal frameworks. The present situa on is hampering a empts to fulfil archaeological best prac ce in terms of the deposi on of archives: professional prac ce, such as that outlined within the CIfA S&G, is difficult to achieve if no repositories are available.

2.6.3 Current Situa on: Finding Solu ons A range of issues related to the treatment of maritime archaeological archives has been articulated through the survey. The results provide the first set

Figure 2.12: Map showing reasons why museums in Scotland do not collect mari me archives, and whether they would collect if these issues were resolved.

32

Museums & Mari me Archives While many organisa ons and individuals are in agreement that the dire situa on facing mari me archaeological archives requires ac on, this must be translated into effec ve responses. This urgency is further highlighted by Barbara Folle ’s (Minister for Culture, Crea ve Industries & Tourism) statement on 24 November 2008 that the government’s mari me heritage policy recognises the 2001 UNESCO Conven on Annex as best prac ce for underwater archaeology and has advocated adherence to the principles of this Annex that are compa ble with exis ng UK legisla on. In order to adhere to the Annex of the UNESCO Conven on2 in rela on to mari me archives there is a need to develop policy and prac ce to ensure that rules 32, 33 and 34, which relate to the cura on of project archives, are applied (see Appendix 8.3.2).

museums, subject to further resources being provided for at least 19 ins tu ons. This lack of willingness to collect mari me archaeological archives is perhaps not surprising when many museums are facing excep onal resource pressures (Edwards 2007 and 2012) and, indeed, projects have been undertaken to look at possible long-term solu ons for the storage of terrestrial archaeological archives in newly created regional resource centres (Brown 2007). This highlights poten al problems associated with a emp ng to develop the capacity of local and regional coastal museums to collect mari me archaeological archives. A na onal approach could be a viable alterna ve to a local or regional one, par cularly within England, where vast areas of submerged territory and cultural heritage currently have no receiving museums. Following such a ‘special interest’ route would involve se ng up a new facility (or expanding a current one) which would be able to take a coordinated approach to mari me archaeological material: for example, possible solu ons might be found in the establishment of a na onal mari me archaeological archive or the enlargement of an exis ng mari me-focused collec on to become a centre for mari me archives and a home for much-needed reference collec ons.

It must be an immediate priority to clearly establish roles and remits for mari me archaeological archives, par cularly in England, where the situa on is most acute. This is likely to include considera on by, and consulta on with, a number of organisa ons, agencies and ins tu ons who are involved with museums, repositories, mari me museums, archaeology and development control advice. Poten al differences of remits between local authority boundaries, which are o en the low water mark, the nearshore zone and the offshore zone should be debated and defined.

While there are a number of possible approaches to developing capacity for mari me archaeological archives, the most appropriate solu on must be based on further evidence of the numbers and size of archives that are currently awai ng deposi on. However, it is vital that the debate over possible solu ons begins.

To make an effec ve change, the resolu on of roles in and responsibili es for mari me archaeological archives must be closely followed by the development of guidance notes to demonstrate a clear route for archives from project to museum or repository. The development of guidance and increased capacity for mari me archaeological archives will inevitably require the investment of resources. This investment is long overdue, as previous losses of collec ons have had the long-term effect of holding back research. It should be noted that since the survey was undertaken in 2009 there have been some developments related to mari me archaeological archives, par cularly within digital archiving; however, queries remain over the treatment of larger archives that include objects. There is a need to develop capacity for archives in both the short term, to ensure that collec ons at risk are not lost, and in the longer term, to underpin the development of mari me archaeological understanding and research. Some museums (19 out of 104) that do not currently collect mari me archives did indicate in their responses that they would be willing to collect such material if resource issues were addressed. Combined with the 29 museums which do currently collect mari me archives, that gives a poten al total of 48 out of the 133 museums that took part in the survey. This represents only very limited poten al coverage of the coast by exis ng 2 h p://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13520&URL_DO=DO_ TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

33

3. Analysis of Archive Loca ons, Produc on, Character, Access and Security

Developing a more detailed understanding of the nature and scale of mari me archaeological archives was required in order to iden fy where archives are held, to gain an idea of their size and volume, to know whether they are accessible, and to review their long-term security. While the SFMAA survey ques ons directed at public museums had iden fied issues related to collec on policy and prac ce, further survey ques ons gathered detailed informa on on the levels of mari me archive holdings, whether held by museums, archives, research organisa ons, contractors, private collec ons, exhibits or individuals. The survey targeted England and Scotland in detail, with further contact made with heritage professionals in Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands to help understand the broader situa on within the UK and adjacent territories. Further research using publica ons and online resources assisted the gathering of data on the quan ty, content, storage and access situa ons related to mari me archaeological archives and marine assemblages. The results provide informa on on the situa on as of 2009, when the SFMAA survey was undertaken.

city areas. These areas were based on those used for the survey of Public Museum Collec on Areas (see chapter two). Those in England were based on the areas used in the English Museums and the Collec ng of Archaeological Archives (Bo 2003) which mapped terrestrial collec on areas and the subsequent follow-up project Archaeology Collec ng Areas Survey 2006 (Edwards 2007). For Scotland the areas u lised by Museums Galleries Scotland1 have been used. The survey ques ons asked were: 1. Do you hold any mari me archaeological archives or parts of archives? If yes, which sites do you hold archives for and what are their approximate loca ons? Respondents were also asked to provide the year that work started on the site and the date of the most recent work. 2. What is the archive composed of? Tick box op ons were provided for: object, paper records, photographs, video, samples and digital files. The approximate number of each type of archive was also requested. 3. Access, ownership and storage 3.1 Do you own the archives that you hold? If no, please provide details of ownership. 3.2 Is the archive accessible to the public? If yes, ck box op ons were provided for: open access, open access by appointment, ad hoc in response to specific requests, currently unavailable (this op on had further sub-op ons of: work on archive in progress, archive not indexed and difficult to use, no facili es for visi ng researchers, or unwilling to make available). 3.3 How is the archive stored? Please give details. Op ons were provided to indicate the site, archive component, where stored/deposited, how stored, stable condi ons (yes/no), ac vely curated (yes/no). For full detail of the survey ques ons see Appendix 8.1.1.

Six key sectors of mari me archive holders were iden fied for inclusion within the survey:  Public museums and repositories;  Private collec ons, exhibi ons and non-public ‘museums’;  Archaeological contractors;  Research sector organisa ons;  Designated Wreck Site licensees and archaeologists; and  Other individuals (e.g. those repor ng recovery through the Receiver of Wreck). The response rate for the online survey varied, resul ng in more comprehensive coverage of some sectors. Figure 3.1 shows the number of organisa ons responding to the survey by county.

The total number of respondents was 298, broken down by sector as outlined below. However, as a small number

In addi on to analysing the results by sector, they have also been analysed by region. Where sufficient data was available it was split down into county, district and/or

1 h p://www.museumsgalleriesscotland.org.uk/scotlands-museums/ results?all

35

Analysing Mari me Archaeological Archives of organisa ons work across sectors their responses, similarly, fell into two of these categories.  Public museums and archives: 106 museums and 36 HERs  Private museums and collec ons: 110  Contractors: 11  Research sector (including universi es and socie es): 23  Licensees and archaeological advisors: 19

response’ or a ‘summary response’ during analysis. The detailed sta s cs give a snapshot of the true scale and nature of different types of mari me archaeological archive, while the summary responses provide further informa on on the poten al full number of archives and/ or archive holders. Further qualita ve data on the size and composi on of archives was gathered through mee ngs or extended interviews with individuals who typified each of the sectors. Addi onal research included published sources such as books, catalogues, project reports, online informa on and databases. To gain an indica on of poten al future archive crea on, email contact was made with survey respondents to ask whether they expected their mari me archaeological archive levels to increase, stay the same or decrease. The database used to hold responses has

Some of the respondents indicated that they do not hold any mari me archaeological archives. Of those who do, the levels of informa on provided varied considerably, with some respondents giving extensive detail for mul ple site archives while others created a single entry which considered a number of site archives together. This variability led to data being considered either as a ‘detailed

Figure 3.1: Loca on of all those taking part in the survey, whether through the detailed on-line response or summary response. 36

Analysis of Archives Detailed responses

been analysed and Appendices 8.4.1 and 8.4.2 include the informa on provided from respondents who held archive at the me of the survey (those responding that they did not hold archive have not been included).

3.1 Archives by Loca on The results of the survey were analysed by loca on in order to review the scale and nature of archives across England and Scotland. Addi onal informa on was gained through contact with relevant bodies the other devolved na ons and adjacent territories.

Archive type

Number

%

Object

12,973

16

Paper/documentary

25,835

32

Image (photo/slide)

32,113

40

Digital

8,672

11

Sample

83