Australian Maritime Archaeology: Changes, Their Antecedents and the Path Ahead

Author(s): Michael McCarthy

Source: Australian Archaeology, No. 47 (Dec., 1998), pp. 33-38
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40287393
Accessed: 20-09-2018 23:39 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Australian Archaeology

This content downloaded from 187.241.222.142 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 23:39:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Australian maritime archaeology: Changes, their antecedents and the
path ahead

Michael McCarthy

In 1994 it was stated in the pages of this journal that: a philosophical watershed which occurred with the publica-
[M]aritime archaeology still has improvements to tion of Shipwreck Anthropology (Gould 1983). Such was
make. Its isolation from other branches of arch- the effect of Shipwreck Anthropology and its emphasis inter
aeology, lack of a strong theoretical approach, alia on the parsimonious use of the archaeological resource
inadequate representation in tertiary education, (e.g. Gould 1983:9-13), that the year 1983 saw the last of
the ad hoc attitude towards individual sites, lack the Museum's 'area excavations'. This work also proved to
of overall management strategies and the lack of be a catalyst for both the questioning of existing research
interdisciplinary exchange all need to be addressed. approaches and a call for a broader theoretical base to ship-
(Hosty and Stuart 1994:17) wreck studies.
These words were penned at a time when there many For those enrolled at the time in the second Western
unheralded changes occurring in Australian maritime arch- Australian Postgraduate Diploma Course in Maritime Arch-
aeology. As the effect of those changes is now becoming aeology, Shipwreck Anthropology also provided an alternative
apparent it is perhaps pertinent to examine the changes that philosophical base on which to build upon the traditional
have occurred, with an eye to both their antecedents and foundations of Australian maritime archaeology. Students
the path ahead. began to question established attitudes and to re-consider the
Though there were attempts to establish it earlier, mari- words of Keith Muckelroy, an emerging British maritime
time archaeology began in Australia with Jeremy Green's archaeological theorist, who had earlier stated that:
arrival at the Western Australian Museum in 1971 and his Above all it should be noted that the primary
development of a coordinated shipwreck program (Green object of study is man ... and not the ships, cargoes,
1977). Driven by an existing Museum policy to prevent the fittings or instruments with which the researcher
endemic looting of the State's early shipwrecks by excavation, is immediately confronted. (Muckelroy 1978:4)
conservation, exhibition and publication, there appeared little Muckelroy had intended to address die seminar on
reason to question the philosophical basis of the early pre-Shipwreck Anthropology, but he drowned before being able
emptive shipwreck excavations. Well known examples areto do so (Gould 1983:6). His untimely death proved to be a
Green's excavations of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) major setback in the facilitation of the theoretical debate
ships Batavia (1628-1629), the Vergulde Draeck (1653-1656) amongst Australian maritime archaeologists. Being the only
and their various academic and public products. traditional maritime archaeologist represented at the seminar,
While it is acknowledged that pre-emptive excavation of George Bass (1983:103) made what was acknowledged in
the kind that characterised the Museum's endeavours in the his presentation as an overstated 'plea for historical parti-
1970s and early 1980s was a justifiable management strategy cularism'. This indirectly reinforced the existing focus of
where artefactually-rich sites were judged to be at risk,Australian
a maritime archaeology for those who read the
trend towards total or 'area' excavation became generally- seminar papers; for apart from Green, few Australian practi-
evident in the Museum's post-colonial shipwreck program tioners had sufficient background to enable them to enter
under Green's colleague, Graeme Henderson. Examples are the debate. A few years later, for example, Henderson (1986:
the former slaver James Matthews (7-1841), the American3-8) stated in his overview entitled Maritime Archaeology
China Trader Rapid (1807-181 1) and the whaling schooner in Australia that 'a theory of maritime archaeology has yet
Star (1876-1880). to be developed'. Others, such as the influential American
These pre- and post-colonial shipwreck programs had an maritime archaeologist Peter Throckmorton, began to address
historical particularist focus and Green explained the reasonsthe issues, however. In setting one of the criterion for the
why this philosophical position was generally applied to acceptability of studies on that continent, he stated that:
Australian maritime archaeology in its formative years thus: Every well-planned shipwreck excavation ... has
Historical particularists are artefact oriented and provided not only an insight into the technical
are concerned with artefacts and their functions. reality of the ships themselves but, more impor-
This approach is particularly appropriate for the tantly, an understanding of the [people] in them
archaeology of shipwrecks, because, being a new and the societies from which they came. (Throck-
field of study, the material artefacts are often not morton 1987:13)
well understood. It is important, therefore, to Despite these developments overseas, an airing of philo-
build up a clear understanding of the material be- sophical issues did not become an accepted feature of the
fore constructing the deeper hypotheses. (Green Bulletin of the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology
1990:235) (AIMA). The fact that there was only one published excep-
This author joined Green and Henderson in the late tion (Effenberger 1987) until recent times, is partly a reflec-
1970s in time to participate in these programs and to witness tion of the fact that the field in Australia was so small and
so reliant on personal contact and friendship bonds. Though
not without its positive elements, this 'familial1 situation
Department of Maritime Archaeology, Western Australian Maritime produced the fundamental set of interconnected weaknesses^
Museum, Fremantle, WA 6160, Australia.

Australian Archaeology, Number 47, 1 998 33

This content downloaded from 187.241.222.142 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 23:39:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Australian maritime archaeology: Changes, their antecedents and the path ahead

that mitigated against debate within maritime archaeology in qualifications in archaeology or anthropology. It also offered
Australia. These in turn led to its not being easily accepted no grounding at all in archaeological theory. These defi-
as a sub-discipline of Australian mainstream archaeology and ciencies led many of its graduates (including this author) to
emerging historical archaeology in these formative years. feel unable to enunciate their philosophical concerns through-
Jeremy Green highlighted the extent of the problem in out the 1980s and this further exacerbated the once wide gulf
1990 when he stated that: between mainstream and underwater archaeology in Australia.
The situation which currently exists in maritime Again this phenomenon can be traced to the museum-based
archaeology inevitably leads to the conclusion that, roots and artefact-oriented focus of maritime archaeology
as a field of study, it is not well-established and in Australia.
suffers from a lack of respectability. The reasons The fundamental disenchantment terrestrial archaeologists
behind this are numerous and complex ... This is in Australia had with the particularist focus of their mari-
symptomatic of a lack of a proper qualification and time counterparts is contained in a statement delivered at
accreditation system in the field ... [Academics] an ICOMOS workshop on the underwater cultural heritage.
who are unclear as to the nature of maritime archae- Partly aimed at the audience, who were predominantly Aus-
ology, brand the subject as irrelevant or as having tralian maritime archaeologists and site managers, and at the
a questionable reputation. (Green 1990:263) historical particularist tradition in maritime and terrestrial
These words reflected terrestrial archaeology's percep- archaeology itself, the comment read:
tion of maritime archaeology in Australia at the time. The It is important to understand that archaeologists
negative attitudes held by the mainstream were also partly are not interested in things, in material remains,
due to the perception that maritime archaeology had an ab- artefacts, objects, ruins, buildings, as an end in
normal birth in Australia at the hands of artefact-oriented themselves ... As archaeologists, we are interested
museologists and not university-based or university-trained in the things we study because of the informa-
archaeologists. The blunt denial of the legitimacy of the tion which they convey to us about the people
world's museum-based maritime archaeology appearing in who made or used or discarded them ... as arch-
the following statement was clearly relevant to museum- aeologists ... our brief is to assess the significance
based maritime archaeology in Australia: of the resource as archaeologists, that is, in terms
The concern that marine historians have with his- of the information it contains for our understand-
toric shipwrecks is easily understood, as is the ing of the human society which produced it.
interest of maritime museologists ... Reputable (Bowdler 1992).
scholars in these fields have often taken part in or With respect to what was perceived as a failure to address
supervised excavations of shipwrecks, activities theoretical considerations in Australian maritime archae-
usually left to professional archaeologists when ology due to ignorance of the trends elsewhere, it is evident
terrestrial sites are being investigated ... It is in- that the situation in terrestrial archaeology in some parts of
teresting to note that all of these practitioners/ Britain (notwithstanding the work of Shanks and Tilley,
historians, museologists, treasure hunters, are com- Graham Clark etc.) is little different. For example, the
monly referred to as marine archaeologists when following comment was made in 1992:
they are engaging in shipwreck excavations even The fact that over 400 people attended TAG
if they have never had the slightest formal train- [The British Theoretical Archaeology Group] does
ing or experience in archaeology. (Lenihan 1983) not mean that theoretical archaeology is alive
These words indirectly reflect the fact that the opportu- and well ... There is no time, in archaeology as a
nity to forge the required academic links with university- whole, for any genuine debate, because the micro-
based archaeology in Australia had been lost in the 1970s scope and the spade always come first. A rever-
(cf. Tyler 1970). Attempts to build bridges in the ensuing ence for the artefact is still accompanied by a
decades also failed. The fact that few graduates of existing striking absence of theoretical sophistication in
terrestrial archaeology courses elected to take the places comparison to other disciplines, and indeed some
offered in the Postgraduate Diploma Course in maritime departments of archaeology still do not teach
archaeology from its inception in 1980 right through to the theory at all (Thomas and Tilley 1992:106-10).
mid-1990s reflected their initial lack of appreciation of the Thus Australian maritime archaeology was not an iso-
possibilities offered by underwater archaeology generally.lated outpost in its lack of attention to theoretical issues and
This in turn indirectly reflected the disinterest and/or dis-in its philosophical focus. There was, and still is, a substan-
dain that their tutors and lecturers had for the subject, espe- tial following for a particularist focus for, as always, there
cially in its most visible form - maritime archaeology. Thisare many sides to the philosophical debate (cf. Bass 1983;
phenomenon was also partly the result of a traditional bias Courbin 1988; Green 1990). In this context, it is not the
in Australian (especially Western Australian) terrestrial arch- philosophical path chosen that is at the root of the debate
aeology towards prehistory - i.e. the relevance of historicalwhether maritime archaeology is now a mature part of arch-
archaeology generally was quite late in being recognised in aeology as a whole, but the question whether the decision
the Australian state where maritime archaeology had its birth, (for Australian maritime archaeology to have followed its
further delaying its acceptance by the mainstream. particular philosophical path from 1971-1990 at least) has
Another reason for the understandable suspicion which been a conscious one.
Twenty-five years on, the philosophical focus of mari-
tainted the average terrestrial archaeologist's perception of mari-
time archaeology in Australia, was the fact that the Westerntime archaeology in Australia is broadening, but with the
Australian Postgraduate Diploma Course in Maritime Arch- exception of three cases, the two already noted (Effenber-
aeology (which begun in 1981) required no pre-requisiteger 1987; Hosty and Stuart 1994) and more recently (White

34 Australian Archaeology, Number 47, 1 998

This content downloaded from 187.241.222.142 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 23:39:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

1995), this phenomenon has been so long in manifesting
itself in the recognised literature that the reticence of main-
stream archaeologists to accept 'maritime archaeology' in
Australia and to dismiss it as purely artefact and data col-
lecting (albeit with considerable skill) can be seen to have
had some justification. Likewise, the references made in the
opening paragraph of this paper about isolation, inadequate
university representation, weak research and management
strategies, and lack of interdisciplinary exchange (Hosty and
Stuart 1994) were justified at the time, though it needs to
be acknowledged that there were both specific examples to
the contrary and a general undercurrent of change at the time
of writing.
In essence, all the 'mainstays' of a mature archaeological
program have not been evident in Australian maritime arch-
aeology until very recently. According to Gibbins (1992),
these 'mainstays' are:
1. University based programs.
2. Recognised site management work.
3. A tradition of scholarly publication.
4. A tradition of anthropological archaeology.
Australia is now seeing the development of a tradition
of university-based maritime archaeology on three distinct
fronts. These are the advent of more theoretically aware
intake of the 1996 Postgraduate Diploma Course in Mari-
time Archaeology at Curtin University (many of whom are
graduates of a terrestrial archaeology course), the develop-
ment of an undergraduate program at Flinders University in
South Australia under Mark Staniforth and the increasingly
broad (undergraduate and postgraduate) maritime archaeo-
logical offering in the Department of Archaeology and An-
thropology at James Cook University of North Queensland
under Associate Professor Peter Veth. These developments
have the potential to extend the theoretical base of Austra-
lian maritime archaeology beyond Curtin University's Post-
graduate Diploma Course in Maritime Archaeology. Thus
a 'critical mass' of diverse university courses, cultural re-
source management programs and a body of postgraduate
students with wide-ranging philosophies, interests and skills
is developing.
With respect to the second 'mainstay1, the 'Cultural Re-
source Management' (CRM) movement is a mature element
of Australian maritime archaeology with antecedents in the
'wreck access movement1 which dates back to the initiation
of 'wreck trail' program commenced at Rottnest Island in
1980 (McCarthy 1981). Based on the notion that a site of
potential educational/ recreational/ tourist value to the com-
munity is best protected if fully utilised, this program has
been copied and distilled by almost all maritime archaeo-
logical and site management units in Australia, especially
those in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia
(e.g. Nutley 1992). These programs not only serve to better
manage the sites, but also to make them of tangible value
and use to the community at large. When the Western Aus-
tralian wreck access program is completed, for example, it
will have underwater and above-water interpretive sites and
associated materials such as maps, pamphlets and water-
proof guides (for taking underwater) available at all port
cities and towns, allowing the concept to form the basis of
that State's maritime archaeological cultural-tourism offer-
ing (cf. Beahan 1998). Further, the recent burgeoning of
heritage management and cultural heritage studies in many
universities throughout Australia has ensured that a 'critical
Australian Archaeology, Number 47, 1998 35
This content downloaded from 187.241.222.142 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 23:39:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
McCarthy
mass' of diverse university programs relevant to manage-
ment in maritime archaeology is rapidly developing, if it
has not yet become a reality.
Further to this welcome trend, graduate students of his-
torical archaeology and heritage studies from across Aus-
tralia are now accessing the maritime heritage collections,
reports and databases of the Queensland, Northern Territory
and Western Australian Maritime Museums. In addition their
cultural resource management programs and those of the
South Australian, Tasmanian, Victorian and New South Wales
maritime archaeological units are proving of value to stu-
dents in archaeology, history and heritage studies. Cross-
fertilisation is occurring as students begin moving into what
is to them the relatively untapped interface between histori-
cal archaeology and maritime archaeology. In Western Aus-
tralia, for example, students have been examining, not only
terrestrial historical archaeology sites, maritime structures
such as lighthouses, whaling and pearling camps and mili-
tary encampments, but also VOC shipwreck survivors sites
(e.g. Hunneybun 1994; Gibbs 1995; Cooper 1997; McGann
in prep.). In receiving every assistance from those mari-
time archaeologists who have long been involved with these
terrestrial sites on a 'caretaker' basis as a corollary to their
in-water work (e.g. Stanbury 1985), strong interdisciplinary
links are also being formed and as a result cross fertilisation
and bridge-building is occurring apace. These various re-
searchers are also accessing the Department's literature, site
and artefact databases, most of which Green has developed
with the World- Wide- Web in mind (e.g. Kenderdine 1996).
The combined 1995 Australian Institute for Maritime
Archaeology and Australian Society for Historical Archae-
ology conference in Hobart, with its publicly-stated aim 'to
cross the boundaries of the two disciplines' and to facilitate
a 'critical reflection of maritime archaeology' represents an
important developmental stage in that respect (McGowan
pers. comm.). Since then there have been notable examples
of interdisciplinary cooperation, some transcending national
boundaries. One of these, a study of the archaeology of
whaling in southern Australia and New Zealand is a joint
program coordinated by Dr Susan Lawrence of La Trobe
University and Mark Staniforth of Flinders University.
Further, the facilitation of broader interdisciplinary links
has been a feature of some elements of shipwreck research in
Australia for many years. One instance is Curtin University's
Postgraduate Diploma Course in Maritime Archaeology. This
linked the Western Australian Museum's Department of
Maritime Archaeology with the University's Centre of Marine
Science and Technology under Associate Professor John
Penrose in 1981. Another is the facilitation by this author
of the joining of maritime archaeology, biological science,
prehistory and historical archaeology in conducting research
into the survivors and Aboriginal people possibly associated
with the Dutch East India Company wreck Zuytdorp (Morse
1988; Weaver 1994; Playford 1996; McCarthy 1998). The
excavation of the iron-hulled SS Xantho (1848-1872) which
began in 1983 is another example. This recently completed
program utilised a 'maximisation strategy' which catered for
the involvement of a wide range of specialists, including
archaeologists, conservators, corrosion specialists, steam engi-
neers and anthropologists in utilising the material remains
to address questions about the behaviour of the vessel's
owners and operators (McCarthy 1985; McCarthy 1986;
McCarthy 1996; Veth and McCarthy in prep.). A current
Australian maritime archaeology: Changes, their antecedents and the path ahead
example is the excavation of HMS Pandora (1782-1791) in
far north Queensland. Given the interdisciplinary nature of
its research program and the involvement of a wide range
of specialists, practitioners and university-based archaeo-
logical theorists, this project is expected to be a watershed
in Australian maritime archaeology. Clearly Gibbin's first
and second 'mainstays' of a mature archaeological program,
i.e. diverse university based programs and recognised site
management work are now well in place in Australian
maritime archaeology and will be firmly cemented by the
end of this century.
Maritime archaeology is no longer, as Green once de-
scribed it, 'a new field of study' and we are now past the
stage of purely developing our 'understanding of the material
before constructing deeper hypothesis' (Green 1990:235).
Inextricably linked to the third of Gibbin's mainstays, a
broadly-based tradition of scholarly publication, is the extent
to which maritime archaeologists in Australia will critically
(but carefully and productively) assess the products of their
peers though journals such as the AIMA Bulletin. It is
hoped that when the time comes for debate on these 'account-
ability' issues, we will 'take a leaf from the book of the
early 'British' tradition and steer clear of the 'vigorous' and
often counter-productive debates seen elsewhere in recent
years. I believe that it is precisely this form of ad hominem
debate which also helped preclude cross fertilisation be-
tween the mainstream and maritime archaeology in Australia
in years past.
It is worth noting at this juncture that a beginning has
been made in the process of peer assessment and account-
ability in Australian maritime archaeology, albeit on an in-
formal 'in-house' level. Evidence of these beginnings has
appeared with three studies from the Department of Maritime
Archaeology at the WA Maritime Museum. One, commis-
sioned by the Department, was aimed at the development
of a minimum presentation and content 'standard* on which
to base all future excavation reports (Millar 1994). Based
on an analysis of what constituted 'best practice' in existing
reports from Australia and overseas, the 'standard' has been
utilised in a number of reports, for example (Garratt et al.
1994; Cumming et al. 1995a, 1995b). The other two studies
involved an assessment of the publication status of all the
historic sites in Western Australian waters (McCarthy 1993)
and (much more importantly from an ethical perspective) of
those 23 sites excavated by five members (Green, Henderson,
Sledge, Ingleman-Sundberg and McCarthy) of the Depart-
ment of Maritime Archaeology since its inception in 1971
(Millar 1994). There is room for improvement; though,
ironically, I am aware that in some cases it is concern for
quality that has served to keep reports in the offices, or on
the shelves of Departmental offices as 'in-house* reports.
The problem clearly exists in parts of the mainstream
(e.g. Renfrew and Bahn 1991:480) and I suspect that the
failure to publish is endemic throughout archaeology gener-
ally. In the face of this sad fact, I argue that 'promulgation'
as a complement to 'publication' is one of the keys for the
future. What is somewhat condescendingly termed the 'grey
literature' (i.e. the unpublished 'in-house' working document
or 'departmental report') performs an essential function in
serving to promulgate the results of archaeological investiga-
tion within a reasonable length of time and in a reasonably
cost- and time-effective nature. On the other hand, given the
fact that such documents are often difficult to access, it is
36 Australian Archaeology, Number 47, 1998
This content downloaded from 187.241.222.142 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 23:39:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
also incumbent on the departments or individuals excavating
sites to quickly present and to regularly update and dissemi-
nate, their publication lists and to get the 'grey' material
into the libraries so that it can then be accessed by a wider
audience. The possibilities offered by the World-Wide-
Web could hasten the process even further and Green has
brought Australian maritime archaeology quickly to the stage
where it's 'in-house' reports can be made available to the
wider audience almost as soon as they are written, i.e.,
anyone can access the publication lists through the Web.
Equally important, under the Outreach Program, which is
coordinated by the author, all the 'in-house' reports produced
by the Department of Maritime Archaeology at the Western
Australian Maritime Museum since its inception are now
housed in the State library with a view to their being read-
ily accessed on inter-library loan. That is not to deny the
essential nature of 'refereed' publications and of the process
of peer review, rather it is to stress the importance and rele-
vance of 'in-house' material that is not considered suitable,
or is not yet ready, for refereed publication.
The promulgation of the 'grey literature' in maritime
archaeology in recent years has proved to be an important
development with respect to the links between maritime and
historical archaeology, for it is due to the failure to publish
relevant material in any but an 'in-house' milieu, compounded
by the lack of a comprehensive bibliographic database, that
the majority of early research by the maritime archaeologi-
cal fraternity in fields relevant to historical archaeology and
many other fields has been hitherto unrecognised. The
Adelaide-based Society for Underwater Historical Research's
examination of the Morgan Wharf in the Murray River and
its Holdfast Bay Jetty Project in 1978 are cases in point
(Marfleet 1978; Drew 1983). This author's excavation of
Fremantle's 'Long Jetty', in 1984 is another instance. In that
study quite some interest centred on indications of what
appeared to be excessive drinking habits on the part of Fre-
mantle residents (McCarthy 1987; Garratt et aL 1995). This
assemblage contrasted with that found at the Town Jetty in
Albany a decade later, posing obvious questions and fur-
ther pointing to the need for comparative studies by both
maritime and historical archaeologists (Garratt et al. 1995:
50-7).
Notwithstanding the developments noted above, one area
is still lagging in Australian maritime archaeology - the devel-
opment of maritime archaeological theory based on the tradi-
tions generally evident in the mainstream. It is hoped that
the current Pandora program (Gesner in prep.) and author's
recently completed SS Xantho excavation (McCarthy 1996)
will provide a tangible 'new direction' for Australian mari-
time archaeology in that regard. Unless the process becomes
more generally evident, however, this deficiency will con-
tinue to affect the last two of Gibbin's four 'mainstays' of a
mature (maritime) archaeological program, i.e., the tradition
of 'scholarly publication' and an understanding (or appreci-
ation) of the value of 'anthropological archaeology' for some
years to come.
Thus while we are 'there' in Australian maritime archae-
ology with our site management programs and 'there' with
our universities thanks to Green, Henderson, Penrose, Veth,
Staniforth and others, we are still lagging in some areas, and
these still affect one of the required 'mainstays' of a mature
archaeological program. This failing manifests itself in the
predominantly descriptive focus of the publications in
 McCarthy

maritime archaeology to date which in turn is allied to the Gould, R.A. (ed.) 1983 Shipwreck Anthropology. Albuquerque:
failure to establish a tradition of anthropological archaeology University of New Mexico Press.

on these shores. Simply put, it is Australian maritime arch- Green, J.N. (ed.) 1977 Papers from the First Southern Hemi-
sphere Conference on Maritime Archaeology. Melbourne:
aeology's continued failure to pay due attention to the 'people1
Ocean's Society.
who produced the material remains (cf. White 1995).
Green, J.N. 1990 Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Hand-
This paper draws attention to this deficiency as one step book. London: Academic Press.
towards redressing it. Henderson, G.J. 1986 Maritime Archaeology in Australia.
Nedlands: University of Western Australia Press.
References
Hosty, K. and Stuart, I. 1994 Maritime archaeology over the last
Bass, G. 1983 A plea for historical particularism in nautical arch- twenty years. Australian Archaeology 39:9-19.
aeology. In R.A. Gould (ed.) Shipwreck Anthropology, Hunneybun, B. 1994 Skullduggery at Beacon Island. MA thesis,
pp.9 1 - 1 04. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Department of Archaeology, University of Western Australia,
Beahan, J. 1998 A cultural tourism perspective. In J. Green, M. Nedlands.
Stanbury and F. Gaastra (eds) The ANCODS Colloquium: Kenderdine, S. 1996 Diving into shipwrecks: Aquanauts in cyber-
Papers presented at the Australia-Netherlands Colloquium space. Spectra, A Quarterly Publication of the Museum
on Maritime Archaeology and Maritime History, pp. 144-8. Computer Network. 24(l):32-42.
Fremantle, WA: Western Australian Maritime Museum. Aus- Lenihan, D.J. 1983 Rethinking shipwreck archaeology: A history
tralian National Centre of Excellence for Maritime Archae- of ideas and considerations for new directions. In R.A.
ology, Special Publication, No 3. Gould (cd.) Shipwreck Anthropology, pp.37-64. Albuquerque:
Bowdler, S. 1992 The ICOMOS approach to the archaeological University of New Mexico Press.
resource. In M. Askew (ed.) Historic Environment 9(3),
Marfleet, B. (ed.) 1978 Museum register of the society for Under-
pp.20-3. Melbourne: Australian ICOMOS and Council for water Historical Research Project: Morgan Wharf. Unpub-
the Historic Environment. lished report, Museum Extension Services, South Australian
Cooper, R. 1997 A Brief History on the Military Influences in Museum, North Adelaide.
Shark Bay, Western Australia. Fremantle, WA: Western McCarthy, M. 1981 The underwater display case. Bulletin of the
Australian Maritime Museum. Western Australian Mari- Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology 5(l):42-5.
McCarthy, M. 1985 Treasure from the scrapheap: Xantho engine
time Museum, Department of Maritime Archaeology Report,
No. 122. recovered after 113 years on the sea bed. Australian Sea
Courbin, P. 1988 What is Archaeology: An Essay on the Nature Heritage 7:22-5.
of Archaeological Research. Chicago: University of Chi- McCarthy, M. 1986 The excavation and raising of the SS Xantho
cago Press. engine and Australia's first practical and theoretical seminar
Cumming, D., Garratt, D., McCarthy, M. and Wolfe, A. 1995a on iron and steamship archaeology. The International
Port Related Structures on the Coast of Western Australia. Journal of Nautical Archaeology 15(2):73-6.
Fremantle, WA: Western Australian Maritime Museum. McCarthy, M. 1987 The Ocean Jetty: The colonial beergarden?
Western Australian Maritime Museum, Department of Mari- Australian Archaeology 24:32-5.
time Archaeology Report, No. 98. McCarthy, M. 1993 Western Australia's historic wreck publica-
Cumming, D., Glasson, M. and McCarthy, M. 1995b Light- tion list: A checklist of Western Australia's historic wrecks
houses on the Western Australian Coast and Off-shore Islands. indicating the work required and their excavation and publi-
Fremantle, WA: Western Australian Maritime Museum. cation status as at December 1993. Unpublished working
Western Australian Maritime Museum, Department of Mari- document, Department of Maritime Archaeology, Western
time Archaeology Report, No. 100. Australian Maritime Museum. Fremantle. WA.
Drew, T. (ed.) 1983 The Holdfast Bay Project, 1 974- 1978. McCarthy, M. 1996 SS Xantho: Towards a new perspective. An
North Adelaide: The Maritime Archaeology Association of integrated approach to the maritime archaeology and con-
South Australia and The Society for Underwater Historical servation of an iron steamship wreck. Unpublished Ph.D.
Research, Inc. thesis, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology,
Effenberger, S. 1987 Where land meets the sea: The merging of James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville.
Australian archaeologies. Bulletin of the Australian Insti- McCarthy, M. 1998 Investigations at the Zuytdorp sites 1971-
tute for Maritime Archaeology 1 1(1):1 1-13. 1994. In J. Green, M. Stanbury, and F. Gaastra (eds) The
Garratt, D., McCarthy, M., Boow, J., Carpenter, J. and Robinson, D. ANCODS Colloquium. Papers presented at the Australia-
1994 The Long Jetty Excavation Report, 1994. Fremantle, Netherlands Colloquium on Maritime Archaeology and Mari-
WA: Western Australian Maritime Museum. Western Aus- time History, pp.4 1-52. Fremantle, WA: Western Australian
tralian Maritime Museum, Department of Maritime Archae- Maritime Museum. Australian National Centre of Excellence
ology Report, No. 78. for Maritime Archaeoloçv Soecial Publication. No. 3.

McGann, S. in prep. WilyahMiah, place of the pearl. MA thesis,

Garratt, D., McCarthy, M., Richards, V. and Wolfe, A. 1995 The
Albany Town Jetty Excavation Report. Fremantle, WA: Department of Archaeology, University of Western Australia,
Western Australian Maritime Museum. Western Australian Nedlands.
Millar, K. 1994 Excavated Sites on the West Australian Coast -
Maritime Museum, Department of Maritime Archaeology
Report, No. 96. Status Report and Model for Publication. Fremantle, WA:
Gesner, P. in prep. The HMS Pandora Excavation. Brisbane: Western Australian Maritime Museum. Western Australian
Queensland Museum. Maritime Museum, Department of Maritime Archaeology
Gibbins, D. 1992 Reviewing the Underwater Archaeology Pro- Report No. 93.
Morse, K. 1988 The archaeological survey of midden sites near
ceedings from the 1990 Society for Historical Archaeology
Conference. The International Journal of Nautical Archae- the Zuytdorp wreck, Western Australia. Bulletin of the
ology 21(l):82-5. Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeolosv 12(0:37-40.
Gibbs, M. 1995 An Archaeological, Conservation and Manage- Muckelroy, K. 1978 Maritime Archaeology. Cambridge: Cam-
ment Study of 19th Century Shore-based Whaling Stations bridge University Press.
Nutley, D. 1992 Shipwreck Atlas of New South Wales. Sydney:
in Western Australia. Unpublished report of The National
Trust of Western Australia, for the Australian Heritage Heritage Office of New South Wales, Department of Urban
Commission, Perth. Affairs and Planning.

Australian Archaeology, Number 47, 1998 37

This content downloaded from 187.241.222.142 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 23:39:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Australian maritime archaeology: Changes, their antecedents and the path ahead

Playford, P.E. 1996 Carpet of Silver: The Wreck of the Zuytdorp. Veth, P. and McCarthy, M. in prep. Explanation in Australian
Nedlands: University of Western Australia Press. maritime archaeology: The case of the SS Xantho. Australian
Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 1991 Archaeology: Theories, Methods Archaeology.
and Practice. London: Thames and Hudson. Weaver, F. 1994 Report of the Excavations of Previously Disturbed
Stanbury, M. 1985 Norwegian Bay Whaling Station, An Arch- Landsites Associated with the VOC Ship Zuytdorp Wrecked
aeological Report. Perth: Western Australian Museum. 1712, Zuytdorp Cliffs, Western Australia. Fremantle, WA:
Thomas, J. and Tilley, C. 1992 TAG and 'post modernism': A Western Australian Maritime Museum. Western Australian
reply to John Bintliff. Antiquity 66:106-10. Maritime Museum, Department of Maritime Archaeology
Throckmorton, P. (ed.) 1987 The Sea Remembers: Shipwrecks Report, No. 90.
and Archaeology from Homer's Greece to the Rediscovery
White, C. 1995 Putting people back into ships: The use of arch-
of the Titanic. London: Artist's House. aeological evidence in the interpretation of preserved ships.
Tyler, P. 1970 The wreck of the Batavia: Insights into the relation- Bulletin of the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology
ship between the bureaucracy and government in Western
Australia. Westerly 2:52-60.

38 A ustralian Archaeology, Number 47, 1 998

This content downloaded from 187.241.222.142 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 23:39:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms