This BBC World Service podcast features an interview with Professor Jon Adams.

The post On the Black Sea: Diving Deep appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

During last week’s Tweetchat @agi_mv asked about the use of satellite technology in identifying submerged sites and shipwrecks. The discussion that followed ended up on the beaches of south India about 10 years ago, beaches which Julian had identified kattumaram boats on from GoogleEarth images and on which Lucy, Julian and I (along with Dr Colin Palmer, Dr Selvakumar and a handful of other fantastically patient Indian colleagues) spent some weeks recording and researching fishing boats.

@JesseRansley @rjulianw Of course. Where would romantic/adventurous cliches of maritime archaeology otherwise come from? Photo evidence? ;)

— Ági MV (@agi_mv) February 4, 2016

@agi_mv’s comment about the images that project conjured up and some of the romantic clichés of maritime archaeology got me thinking.[1]

We could probably all name a few of the clichés and visual tropes that surround maritime archaeology: the dives on intact shipwrecks in crystal blue seas; divers surfacing, breaking the waves with crucial artefacts in their hands; the technology pinging and effortlessly producing perfect surveys of exactly what is on and in the seabed.[2] Most of the time, however, it is largely about mud, mud and soggy wood if you are lucky, but definitely mud and laptops on desks in messy offices.

In maritime ethnography and ethnoarchaeology, which we’ll be discussing further in Week Four, the photographs we take are documentary. They form a core part of the project archive. They are also often a source of a different set of ‘romantic cliches’ and visual tropes: sandy beaches, rough-hewn boats, palm trees, local fishermen and boatmen, big skies… a timeless idyll or holiday paradise in which any researcher would want to work.

In the last few years, archaeologists have been increasingly interested in their project archives as an object of study in themselves. They’re no longer looked at simply as ‘neutral’ records of a project or site. We’re starting to recognise the people behind the archives – the choices that are made of what to record, what to include, what to disregard – and how those choices shape the apparently ‘neutral’ record. We’re looking for traces of the historical and social context in which they were made.[3]

Some of which might sound like a lot of navel-gazing – but it is very important to maritime ethnoarchaeology in particular. There is a lot to be found behind questions like: who is doing the recording? Who gets to choose what is important and should be photographed? How are these images used? And, who is viewing and commenting on them? And perhaps most importantly, are fishermen being recorded as ‘objects’ alongside their boats?

The assumptions we make as viewers of photographs are of particular importance. What do we see beyond boats on a beach? Do our ideas about ‘traditional fishermen’, Indian lives and culture shape what we see? What historical, social and cultural ideas do we unconsciously draw on to understand the image? Do the fishermen (or the researcher) have any say in how they are represented?

In postcolonial contexts, the power dynamics at play in idyllic images like the one above are striking. Ideas about the tensions between ‘modern’ and ‘ancient’, between urban and rural, about race, postcolonial dynamics and even economic and intellectual power, are swirling around these photos and in the ways in which we use and look at them.

This is a problem that ethnographers and maritime ethnoarchaeologists still grapple with. How can the people (researcher and fisherman alike) within the photographs be more than stereotypes? How can we make sure the people we study are able to represent themselves within our work? How can projects be collaborations, shaped by both the community and researcher?

These are complicated methodological and philosophical problems for researchers, particularly if they are interested in intangible heritage, like boat building and maritime traditions.

There’s an awful lot at stake within some of those ‘romantic’ images of maritime ethnoarchaeology.

So, in readiness for tonight’s Tweetchat (between 8-9pm tonight, #FLShipwrecks), I have a few questions for you:

• What do you think are the biggest clichés of maritime archaeology?
• Have you ever thought of any of them as destructive or dangerous?
• And, what image or photograph best sum-up maritime archaeology for you?

[1] In fact, there is a photo essay and research paper being formulated as we speak as a result – thank you @agi_mv.

[2] I’ve written about some of this from a different angle here.

[3] There was a very good ‘Archives Issue’ of the Archaeological Review from Cambridge in 2014. The introduction to the volume can be found here.

The post Photo Archives and Maritime Cliches appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

The ever-changing nature of the inter-tidal zone means that is presents its own unique set of challenges as a working environment. This is especially true in countries such as the UK where there is a very large tidal range. The extent of the inter-tidal zone is increased, but the time-window during which archaeological remains are accessible can be very limited. The nature of the inter-tidal zone around the UK is also very mixed, ranging from vast expanses of hard sand, to estuarine silts and mud. Working on sites in the latter is like working in a vat of treacle or thick syrup, but with a much worse taste and an enduring smell that clings to you long after you have left the site!

Accessing sites in these areas can be fraught with difficulty and real danger of literally becoming stuck in the mud in the face of a rapidly incoming tide. Knowledge of the local conditions is therefore of critical important, as is a pair of tight fitting wellies, or even a dry suit. Reaching a site might involve a significant walk, carrying all equipment, although options to make life easier include hovercraft or even arrival by boat on estuarine islands. Developing technology using drones for remote surveys and photographic recording is also making life much easier.

Finally, when the site is reached, its location within the tidal regime might dictate that work is limited to a very short window, perhaps 45 minutes if located near to the low water mark. I was lucky enough to work on a newly exposed site on the East Winner sandbank, Hampshire, which was a well preserved 19th century shipwreck, but where we could only access the site for one hour, every two weeks, not at all convenient. On other sites that are situated closer to the high tide line work can carry on for hours. The location of the site in the tide can also mean that access is only available every few weeks at the lowest tides, which can be a further impediment to regular work.

Given all of these problems, the question might be asked as to why we bother to work in such an area. The answer is simple – because the archaeological remains that are contained there are often fantastically preserved by mud, silt and sand. By extension, they are often remains that have never been recorded before (because of being covered) and so offer new information to add to our overall record. At a more visual level, such sites can be incredibly evocative as they emerge from the receding waters, and exist in our world for a limited period of time before they are reclaimed by the incoming tide. This constantly changing physical context offers the final reason for working in the intertidal zone – that many of the sites that are found, are under immediate threat when they appear, from sediment erosion or being swept away by the sea.

The importance of archaeological remains in the intertidal zone is being increasingly recognised within the UK. The nature of the sites means that it is often possible to visit them in person, or to volunteer to help with the survey and recording of them. Much of this work takes place in a very reactive way, because sites are often uncovered and exposed without warning, and so work cannot be planned in advance. So if you are interested in learning more about intertidal archaeology please visit the websites of the Maritime Archaeology Trust, or the CITiZAN Project.

You may also be interested in What are the environments that maritime archaeologists work in? which is a step in Week 1 of Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds: Maritime Archaeology.

The post Mud, glorious mud (and maybe some sand) appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

We are now just about ready to press go on the next run of the shipwrecks course.  This will be the third time we have run the programme, and it seems like an appropriate time to reflect on what we’ve learnt, what we hope to achieve in this next run and … to get feedback on what people think might be good to do next.

First, some numbers. With the next run of the course we will have reached over 19,000 people worldwide through the Shipwrecks course, a number that goes up each day with additional sign-ups still occurring.  This is a monumental achievement if we consider what might have been thought of as the slightly niche nature of maritime archaeology.

One of the joys of running the Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds course has been engaging with those 19,000 people, and realising not only the breadth of interest out there, but also the depth of knowledge.  The comments sections for each of the steps that people complete have become a wealth of information, broadening out on what we could provide through the short videos and articles.

We have also learnt what people would like more of.  People have really engaged with the steps on the course that include activities, from looking at changing sea-levels around the world, through to identifying wrecks in bathymetric data.  This something that we think we could perhaps do more of, providing an entry point for people to access and understand freely available data – making heritage resources more accessible.  This is particularly important for us when thinking about submerged sites.  These are locations that the vast majority of the population will never visit (either because diving isn’t an option for them, or because access is restricted).  We can now help people to engage with these sites remotely.  As such, if there is an interest, this is something we could develop further.

19,000 people is not a huge number when compared to those who sign up to free language courses, or even the number of people who might visit a local museum.  However, it is a substantial number of people in terms of broadening access to maritime archaeology.  In the past our means of engagement have been more limited in terms of numbers of people who can attend (conferences) or require a financial investment perhaps only suitable for those with a distinct focus on the subject.  Being free, and globally available, the course has enabled us to see the demand that lies out there and help people gain access to resources for them to build their knowledge of our shared maritime heritage.

Behind the scenes putting on the course takes quite a bit of effort from a whole team of people.  As such, we’re interested to know what you think of our efforts, and, how you think we might continue to develop and open up resources for maritime archaeology.   If you are doing the course for the first time we would love to have your comments, and, if you’re returning to dig a little deeper, please do let us know about what the course has done for you (and what you think it could do in the future).

The post Engaging people with maritime archaeology across the globe appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

The Shipwrecks Team would to raise awareness of our free course, ahead of its third run starting on Monday 1st February. Since you’ve liked us enough to visit our blog, we are inviting you to add your Facebook, Twitter or Tumblr support.

It couldn’t be easier to help us get the word out. We are using a platform called Thunderclap to share our message on Twitter and Facebook.

What is Thunderclap?

It’s a website that allows people to pledge a Tweet or Facebook message or Tumblr post that will be released at the same time on the same day. Think of it as a massive flash mob on social media. It’s completely safe and will automatically post just one message on your behalf.

How can I help?

It takes 5 seconds to join. Click on this link and choose either “Support with Twitter”, “Support with Facebook”, “Support with Tumblr” – or all three! Then, add your name to the Thunderclap, and that’s it!

On Monday January 27th at 5pm (GMT) everyone that has signed up will automatically have the same message posted on their Facebook and Twitter accounts. The message includes a link to the initial course page that gives people information about our course and also it is where they can sign up.

The post Support #FLShipwrecks with Thunderclap appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

Learners on our MOOC ‘Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds’ will already be familiar with our shipwrightery workshop at Buckler’s Hard in Hampshire (United Kingdom) through the steps on experimental archaeology and medieval seafaring in week 2. One of the main objectives of this workshop is for our students to use the tools of the trade and produce the tool marks they will be asked to interpret in their professional lives.

What occurred to us a couple of months ago was that there is no such thing as a ‘reference collection’ for tool-marks. When worked timber is found, a handful of expert are available with the expertise to interpret them. A reference collection of tool marks would allow students and professionals alike to compare the tool marks on the archaeological timbers they find with the ones recorded in the reference collection to make an educated assessment of which tool was used to produce those marks. The workshop at Buckler’s Hard provided an ideal opportunity to produce tool marks in a controlled environment with known tools and to start such a collection.

Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) was used to record the markings. This is a technique that produces images in which light and shadow can be manipulated on a computer and is an excellent way to accentuate low surface topographies on flat surfaces. This allows us to pick up on the minutest details. The way it works is relatively straightforward. A camera is mounted on a tripod in front of the surface and a mobile flash is used to take images from different lighting-angles. All of the pictures are subsequently fed into the RTI-software which builds a manipulable image.

The two images above are snapshots of RTI-images. The first one shows adzing marks, while the second shows axe marks produced by a replica Viking Age hatchet. Tool marks like these, in the first place, inform us about the tools that were used to produce ship timbers and the craftsmanship involved. Furthermore, we hope it will be possible to compare tool marks produced by ancient shipwrights to those of carpenters. Did they use similar tools and did they handle them in similar ways? Were carpenters one and the same or did they move around in different communities of practice? And how does this develop over time? These are just some of the questions we hope to answer in the long-term.

The reference collection is currently under construction and will go live this summer on the website maritimearchaeology.com.

If you are interested in exploring RTI further, the necessary software if available for free through Cultural Heritage Imaging.

The post Recording tool marks at Buckler’s Hard appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

Tom Sukanen and the Sontiainen

Tom Sukanen was born in Finland, where he trained as a shipwright before immigrating to Canada in 1911 to work as a farmer.  In the 1929, during the height of the great depression he travelled back to Finland for a brief visit.  It was after his return that he hatched a plan to sail back to Finland on vessel he built himself.   His plan was to build a hull that was 13.1 metres long and three metres high with a 2.7-metre beam. The keel was 9.1 metres long at the waterline and 2.7 metres deep.  He built the ship in several parts and intended to drag it to the South Saskatchewan River, there he intended not to sail the ship down the river but rather to put the deck cabins on a raft, mount his old car engine on the raft with a propeller, and pull the watertight keel and hull on their sides behind him.  Once he had reached Hudson Bay, he would bolt his ship together and sail away.

He began moving sections of the boat towards the river in 1938, but by 1939 his health had failed.  Regarded by many local people as mad, he had completely dismantled his home and barns for material to build his ship of dreams.  Sadly, he was removed from his ship and lived out the rest of his days in a mental institution in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.  The ship itself was vandalised shortly after his departure from it, and his tool, equipment and bit of the vessel itself were strewn across local fields for decades.

The vessel was eventually salvaged and reassembled at the Sukanen Ship Pioneer Village and Museum just south of Moose Jaw.  The story  continues to resonate with Western Canadians and Sukanen’s ship has become symbolic  of the strength, resilience, and, sometimes, madness it took to live in this landscape during the Great Depression.

The SS City of Medicine Hat

On June 7th, 1908, The SS City of Medicine Hat, a 130ft river steamer,  hit telegraph wires that had been submerged by spring runoff on the South Saskatchewan River.  The ship’s steering was disabled and it drifted into the column of the Victoria Bride in Saskatoon.   Thankfully, the passengers had already disembarked and the captain and crew climbed onto the bridge to escape.  The ship’s engineer jumped overboard and swam ashore.

At the time, it was considered the “greatest nautical disaster in Prairie history.”  The SS City of Medicine Hat was the last steamship ever to sail on the waters of the South Saskatchewan River.

In 2010, archaeologists re-discovered the remains of the SS City of Medicine Hat during construction work on the bridge.  1,000 artifacts including ceramics, metal parts, tableware and clothing were discovered.  There is some evidence that remains of the hull may have survived, submerged in the sandy bottom of the river…work for future maritime archaeologists of the prairies!

Further Reading/Watching:

Dreams in the Dust: The Story of Tom Sukanen

National Film Board of Canada: Shipbuilder

Mysteries of Canada

Globe and Mail: Shipwreck from 1908 found in South Saskatchewan

The post Between the Seas: Shipwrecks of Saskatchewan, Canada appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

This week several members of the course team met to answer some of the key questions that have come out of the course this week.

Some of the questions that educators tackle include:

• 1.9. Salim Al Hajri: How do these names vary through time and space? I mean from place to place (Europe to Middle East to China) and from the Romans to nowadays?
• Michael Smith: Maritime archaeology is the study of man-made objects, cultures, etc., in and around the sea. So an aircraft in the water falls under the purview of the maritime archaeologist, but if the same plane crashed in the jungle, it would be a job for simply an archaeologist. (Should that be “terrestrial archaeologist”? Are there any “aeronautical archaeologists”?
• 1.12 Hans van de Bunte: It seems communities in Southeast Asia and Borneo have not been “calibrated” (enough) to fit any timeline?
• 1.15 Debbie Wareham: I was wondering about the cognitive ability required to build a boat?
• 1.12 Jackie Hart: Can you advise if the system of floating reed islands inhabited by the Marsh Arabs have been around for any known period of time.
• 1.9 Susan Brett: The Roman ships, mentioned in the Portus MOOC were shell-first built. Presumably the interior could be fitted according to its use eg. carrying marble columns would need different space to carrying wine amphorae. Would this be more suitable for navigable rivers and the Mediterranean in summer? But the frame-first construction would give different lines to the ships and different sailing qualities. Could bigger ships be built? Would it be stronger eg. Atlantic use? Would it be more repairable – so if the outer planking was damaged the hole could be repaired without the ship collapsing? Could the frame anchor more spread of sails and therefore allow greater speed? Was there a change in technique in a particular period?
• Why did people start to explore other parts in the first place? Hunger? Curiosity?

May 2015 Q&A downloadable transcript

Transcript

FRASER: Hi! This is a new part of the MOOC for us, in that we realise this is only a four-week course and, as such, we won’t have answered all of your questions or interests within the material we can put online. As such, we’ve been looking through the comments and we’ll do this each week, and we’re going to try and answer some of the key questions that’ve been coming up. Now some of these are going to be quite tricky and we can’t predict what they’re going to be, but we’ll do our best. And in that light, I’m going to hand over to Julian for the first question.

JULIAN: OK, thanks, Fraser. So this is in relation to step 1.9 from Salim and I’m going to ask this to Thom, which is “How do the names of boats and the parts of boats vary through time and space and from place to place and maybe from Europe to the Middle East to China, from the Roman period to nowadays?” So, quite a big sweep of time and space.

THOMAS: I think the short answer to that, Julian, is that I simply don’t know… but I can talk a little bit about how the names changed from language to language nowadays, and I can say that, for example, the word for keel is the same as it is in English, as it is in Dutch, as it is in French, as it is in German. But there are also significant differences, so the word for ‘futtock’ in Dutch would be ‘oplange’, in German would be ‘auflange’, in French would be ‘allangee’ – it all means futtock in English. I don’t know what it would be in Spanish, for example?

RODRIGO: Corlena.

THOMAS: Corlena, yeah. So there are significant differences today. And in the northwest Europe in the medieval period people did speak some sort of common dialect amongst each other, so it is reasonable to assume that especially seafaring terms would have been commonly understandable, but beyond that I think it would be a very interesting research topic for a historian, to really expand that timescale and speciality of that question.

FRASER: And now it’s Thom with one for me, I think.

THOMAS: Yes…

FRASER: No! I’m wrong!

CRYSTAL: That’s for you to read to me!

FRASER: Ah – ok! So, ok, in which case, you can see we’re very organised! So, Maritime Archaeology – this is from Michael Smith – which is, “Maritime archaeology is the study of man-made objects, cultures, et cetera in and around the sea. So an aircraft in the water falls under the purview of the maritime archaeologist, but if the same plane crashed in the jungle, it would be a job for simply an archaeologist.” and Mike quite rightly asks “Should that just be a ‘terrestrial archaeologist’? Are there any ‘aeronautical archaeologists’?” Crystal, do you fancy having a go at that?

CRYSTAL: Yes, but I’m not going to answer about the aeronautical archaeologists, because I think I posted a link for Michael to see a page about it. But what I can say about mostly is in fact the environment where archaeologists work, so if you find an object on land, or in the sea, it entails that there are different archaeologists and different specialists who will be looking at that. But at the same time we have many maritime objects on land as well, so it’s not really about differentiating between terrestrial archaeologists and maritime archaeologists, but just considering all archaeology as one and starting from that seeing what specialists need to look at the actual artefacts, we can. Yeah?

FRASER: Fair enough, fair enough.

THOMAS: OK. I think now it’s my turn… So, Fraser, this question’s from Hans van de Bunte, from step 1.12 and he asks “It seems that communities in Southeast Asia, Borneo, have not been calibrated enough to fit any timeline?”

FRASER: And this is a very fair comment and a number of you may be interested that the first group of people to have been through the MOOC have shaped what’s on the timeline and this is something we would really like to address. So, absolutely there are gaps in our timelines, in terms of how different terminologies and what we might call ‘dated phases’ link up. So, for example, you’re absolutely right Southeast Asia is poorly represented on our timeline and this isn’t so much to do with lack of calibration. There is very good work going on there, although I would say in a lot of areas we do need more in the way of accurately dated sites to help us link things up and move beyond broad regions.

Similarly, in North America there is a really detailed archaeological record, which has had considerable study, including a variety of terminologies that we haven’t included on the MOOC, so far. Now our idea is that this is a live project which is going to keep on going and we’d like to see this build up and we’d like to use you, as a community of people involved in this to add in that extra data, because it’s quite a big task to do a history of the globe through all time, but it’s something we’d quite like to do over the lifetime of this MOOC, so you’re absolutely right in that we haven’t included it. There is data that could be included and we’d like people to help us add it in. OK.

RODRIGO: OK, so I’m going to ask Crystal another question. This is from Jackie Hart, step 1.12. So, “Can you advise if the system of floating reed islands, inhabited by Marsh Arabs, have been around for any known period of time?”

CRYSTAL: Well, it’s quite difficult really to link certain cultures, certain practices, back in time, but there are definitely similarities, so the Marsh Arabs and the floating reed islands sometimes are linked to the Ancient Sumerians, but this really requires a certain historical research and of course like the practices of floating, of people living on floating islands and so on, it goes back so much in time, but in order to really know the link between different phases of time that requires research and it’s definitely something for anyone who’s interested to take on.

FRASER: Absolutely, I’ll just say that floating islands are sort of a technological or adaptive capacity of humanity and something we see across the globe from South America, Lake Titicaca, through to the lochs of Scotland, we have different forms of floating islands, so this is a strategy that people have adopted at various points in time and so there is quite a complex story to tell about living on the water as well as moving over it.

CRYSTAL: I have a question, but I’m not sure for whom… [laughter] So, it’s by Debbie Wareham, she’s asking, “I was wondering about the cognitive ability required to built a boat?” So, Julian, I think… [Laughter]

JULIAN: It is a brilliant question and I think it’s one that we are struggling, not struggling with as a discipline, but it’s the thing we want to understand, isn’t it? The thought processes that go through people’s heads when they’re building, I don’t know, a dugout canoe or they’re building an enormous ship and how they design those vessels, create the parts that go between them. I think we’re quite good at understanding how the bits fit together, but maybe less good at understanding how people are coming up with the shapes and the rationales and things like that for designing them. Which is a longwinded way of saying, I don’t know the answer…

RODRIGO: Well, I’ll probably add to like getting to acquire all the materials as well takes a lot of effort to think about because you have to pick out a specific log, have a different type of wood, the type of tools you are using, so it’s a very complex process, not only about building it, but you’re thinking it’s for a reason and it has objectives. So you have to think of all the steps before thinking about a simple design.

JULIAN: And I don’t know how it fits in with our understanding of other varieties of modern humans…

FRASER: Exactly, that’s the really tricky part of this. And it is a really interesting question because of that in that, as you’ll know in the steps for this week, we’ve said that the earliest evidence for seafaring or sea-going certainly goes back around 800 000 years and we think it’s probably via raft so maybe even natural rafts are being used.

The question asks about a boat which is obviously about displacement rather than buoyancy and that may be a different cognitive capacity to work out that this is a means of floating and directing yourself over the water. A tricky part archaeologically is that the archaeological record for boats really begins in the Mesolithic in terms of physical remains of logboats largely from this period and we can hypothesise about the sorts of boats, which may exist, such as skin boats for earlier periods. The difficulty is extending that hypothesis beyond our own species effectively, beyond anatomically modern humans. We don’t know and it would be very hard to find evidence for, but it is interesting to consider if any of our precursors, any of our ancestors beyond that sort of lineage really have that capability. So, to those interested in the Palaeolithic that’s going to be a big thing because that’s a real cognitive shift.

THOMAS: But also in the late Middle Ages, where we have the transition from clinker to carvel, people have really hammered home the cognitive gap that had to be bridged between clinker and carvel. Well, this is something that more lately and, I think, especially within this department, people have started to question that the cognitive abilities for building clinker and the transition into carvel would have actually been much closer together, so we’re actually starting to bridge that gap now.

JULIAN: I think those themes that Thom mentioned build on the next question from Susan Brett about different types of construction for Roman ships and about frame-first ships and shell-first ships and whether some could have allowed bigger ships to be built and I think the work being done here is illustrating that the sequence that you build the ship in doesn’t necessarily limit the size of the vessel or the purpose of the vessel, I think we’d probably agree on that, wouldn’t we?

THOMAS: I think so, yeah.

JULIAN: But go back to that question in terms of the Roman ships and the Portus MOOC, we’re going to look at those a little bit more next week, there’s a couple of steps dedicated on Ancient Mediterranean ships and boats. And the question asked about the interior of these being fitted out for carrying marble columns or wine amphora and that’s absolutely right, I think things would have been fitted out according to their purpose. But also the shapes of boats are different depending on what they’re going to do, so a vessel to operate in a shallow river is going to have a big, flat bottom on it, maybe, something that’s being used for harbour dredging is going to look very different to something that’s carrying a big obelisk from Egypt to Rome. So it’s important not to confuse a building tradition with all the hull-shapes being exactly the same size and that’s something we see in the Medieval period as well, isn’t it?

THOMAS: Yeah, there’s some discussion as well as to the packaging and how that influences ships being built and ship performance ,for example, the transport of grain across the northern Baltic Sea. In the Middle Ages, would they have it in bulk or would they have it in sacks, which is if you’re having to transport it in bulk, then the grain, or salt for that matter, will start acting like a liquid within your ships. And once your ship starts heeling in the wind, your salt will shift and your ship will essentially heel over. So you would have to either stamp it down very hard so that it acts as a solid within your ship, or you would actually have to package it in sacks and people have now started looking at actual packaging materials in the Middle Ages and how that worked.

FRASER: Brilliant! And that brings us on to the final question which is in some ways a classic and a really difficult one as well, so we’re going to all think about this, which is why did people start to explore other parts of the world in the first place? Is it hunger? Is it curiosity? So, basically, why? So any thoughts on the why? And this is a big question in archaeology.

RODRIGO: Yeah, well, I definitely think that depends on the context and where, like what type of culture you’re studying and you have to look at the landscape as well so if people are running out resources they’ll have to look for other resources in different parts and then they’ll start exploring in a sense, but there’s also human curiosity which you can’t rule out just simply because people are very curious in general and they do very, very adventurous stuff. They think, okay let’s take a boat let’s see how far I can go and see if I come back.

JULIAN: Particularly if they can see things on the horizon. [Yeah]. I’m just going to go over there.

RODRIGO: People, they were very skilful as well so we have to think in different terms than what we would do nowadays, you know, because if you see, if you’re looking out at the sea and you say it looks dangerous, maybe somebody that would be living on the coast would say, well, it’s not really dangerous. I can really go out, and come back without any troubles, so it depends on the context.

THOMAS: Plus a voyage like that might build reputation and prestige of that might elevate him in the regards of the community that he lives in. I think in the Bronze Age there’s some discussion about that.

FRASER: Yeah, absolutely, and there’s a lot about knowledge and power which comes in with movement which we can’t see really being discussed from what we’d see as potentially the late Neolithic onwards really and that’s because that’s when we can begin to see these things happen in the archaeological record. And Rodrigo’s absolutely right, this means some really interesting things written about this in different periods with different drivers really, so if we look at the really early expansions into sort of what might be seen as almost pristine environments one of the big things people have picked out on is ecological homogeneity in that it’s a lot easier to know what you find in a coastal strip and to follow that strip along the coastline and move quite rapidly than it is to traverse inland where your ecologies change really quickly and you’d have to adapt your technologies and work out what you can eat and how to live and so in some ways that expansion may be sort of accelerated along coastal fringes and then slow down within interior spaces. So, the map of the world becomes quite different when you begin to think of it like that. There’s a very good book by James Steel called ‘The Colonisation of Unfamiliar Landscapes’, which takes on some of these ideas which is worth reading, if we’re allowed to say a single book, like that.

Okay, well, in which case we know this has been very informal and probably full of all sorts of errors, but we’re deliberately keeping this as a single take and light approach to answering these questions. And on that note we thought we should really highlight what has been the most commented on or used link that’s been provided and this is thanks to Felice Goldfinch who shared ‘The sound of theory’, which I hadn’t seen before by Shanks and Garfinkel, which is well worth looking at. If you want to look at this go to step 1.11, which is the theory step and you can then see it on there.

So we hope we’ve helped by answering some of your questions. Do feel free to pose them directly through the comments boards as we go through the additional weeks, and we’ll try and pick up on them and make sure that we answer them. So, thank you very much.

The post Answering your questions on Week 1 appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

The bow of the site has been scoured out, revealing the gun deck and various artefacts.

For more information about the site, please visit: http://www.maritimearchaeologytrust.org/invincible

The post HMS Invincible dive appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

We want to know about your views on maritime archaeology in your part of the world, whether that’s Britain or Bahrain, Europe or Uruguay.

One of the most exciting parts of the MOOC for the team at Southampton is the opportunity to hear more about people’s experience of and views about maritime archaeology and maritime heritage around the world.

Between us we work on quite a few continents, but we’re aware that overall our research – and our personal experience of maritime archaeology – tends to have a European focus. So we’re looking forward to discussions over the next four weeks with the 8000+ people around the world who are doing the course.

As a first step, we’ve put a short survey together. We’re hoping the results can help us tailor our blogposts and our discussions better over the course of the MOOC. We’ll also make sure we get some of the results from the survey back to you in Week Four.

There are 10 questions in the survey. Please feel free to fill in as much or as little of the survey as you wish – and to let us know exactly what you think!

To take survey simply follow this link:  https://www.isurvey.soton.ac.uk/13175

The post Your relationship with the Sea. appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.