Document Outline

) argued that archaeology had lost its innocence.

With an optimistic tone he suggested that there was no longer a need to fight for disci-
plinary recognition, to agree upon core methodologies, or to stake out individual territories.
For Clark (

), archaeology had finally matured as an academic discipline, and could

look forward to a more productive and innovative future. I argue here that Maritime
Archaeology needs to demonstrate a similar confidence and commitment to the subject’s
academic growth. This requires us to not only reflect upon what and how we teach, but also
why, to what end and by whom.

In order to critically reflect in this manner we need to shift the focus away from teaching

and onto learning and pedagogy. No matter how good the curriculum design, the delivery
of the lecture, running of the practical or time spent in the field, an instructor’s desires for a

F. Sturt (

Centre for Maritime Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
e-mail: F.Sturt@soton.ac.uk

123

J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75–84
DOI 10.1007/s11457-008-9039-5

course and a student’s experience of it may differ substantially (Biggs

). As such, the

sections below include extracts from a survey of 48 past and present students from the MA/
MSc course at Southampton. This is recognised to be a limited sample from a restricted
population, however the answers they provide challenge assumptions currently being made
about what and how we should teach.

In particular this paper stresses the need to move away from a view of higher education

as a provider of products, and towards one of education as process. As Hamilakis (

)

and Parker (

2002

) have argued, this is an important step that promotes flexibility and

responsiveness in education, and resists the impacts of overt commodification. Central to
this shift is the adoption of a more optimistic view of maritime archaeology and those
involved in it. Instead of being seen as providers and consumers we need to move to a
model where all participants are seen to be valued as community members and
contributors.

Establishing the Community; Who ‘We’ are and What ‘We’ Do

In the call for papers for this issue of the journal, the key question asked was ‘‘what do we
mean and what are we seeking to do when we teach maritime archaeology?’’. Although
apparently straightforward, this simple question hides a series of nested dilemmas. First,
we need to define who ‘we’ are. Outwardly this might seem like an easy task, but it is one
that needs to be undertaken with care, for it affects all subsequent discussion and
argument.

As someone employed in higher education, it is tempting to answer that ‘we’ must be

people like myself; lecturers and professors within university departments. This would
make answering the question much easier, as within the UK we have clear guidelines laid
out by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education benchmarking statements
(QAA

2007

) as to what should be included in degree programmes. The problem with this

definition is that it would deny the role of other educators involved in maritime
archaeology; for example school teachers, the Nautical Archaeology Society (NAS), and
in the UK the Archaeology Training Forum (ATF). These groups have a clear education
and training remit, and thus must be included. If we do not include them it is to suggest
that they are unimportant and do not factor in how higher education functions. This would
be a peculiar view of the community, as it would suggest that all those teaching or
enrolling on degree and post-graduate degree programmes did not interact with other
interested parties.

However, with a bit more thought we can go even further, and include organisations

such as commercial archaeological units, English Heritage, television companies, and
regional archaeological societies. These groups all ‘teach’ or instruct maritime archaeology
to some degree. Recognition of these groups is particularly important when considering the
role and content of post-graduate courses. Many of those that enrol on such a degree will
have worked in commercial units, or taken an NAS course.

‘We’ then are a diverse group from a variety of different backgrounds, with overlapping

interests. Importantly, rather than being viewed as separate entities with different goals, we
can all be seen to be contributing specifically to the wider community of maritime
archaeology, and indeed archaeology more generally ‘We’ reach different audiences and
engage with the subject on a range of different levels, but all contribute to a sum that
should be greater than its constituent parts.

J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75–84

123

Pedagogy, Commodification and Content

Once ‘we’ have been identified it is possible to consider the other terms used in the key
question; ‘teach’ and ‘maritime archaeology’. It is then possible to consider how these may
relate differently to different members of the community. To teach is to inform and to
instruct. This is clearly an important part of any archaeological education process. No one
is born knowing how to dig a feature, how to plan a site, or what a mast step looks like.
These are all skills that to varying degrees can be taught and learnt. Indeed the NAS and
ATF specialise in this form of instruction, and higher education establishments recognise
their importance through maintaining (and in many situations requiring) their place in
curriculums. However, it is also important to recognise that learning how to do things and
understanding why things are done do not always go hand-in-hand, and can take time to
resolve. This is why we should look more broadly at pedagogies, for as Hamilakis (

)

and Giroux (

1991

) warn, if simply the process of teaching and learning (pedagogy) we fail

to understand the full impact that decisions of what and how to teach have upon academic
disciplines and society.

Sadly, rather than committing to an educational process which is ongoing and values

time, experience and understanding, archaeology (and with it maritime archaeology)
appears increasingly drawn to a cut down, commodified perspective of education, wherein
acquisition of quantifiable skills is paramount. It is important to note at this point that I
believe field based skills and experience are an essential part of any archaeological edu-
cation. Indeed, I would agree with those documented in Cobb’s (

) report on a recent

Theoretical Archaeology Group session run by the Higher Education Academy, that more
time spent in the field can only benefit students. However, a belief in the importance of
field-based skills does not equate to placing primacy upon it within higher education
establishments.

As noted above, maritime archaeology is not unique for having concerns over what is

taught, how it is delivered, and who this serves best. Over the past 20 years there has been
considerable debate in archaeology more generally; with a particular focus on the whether
the needs of the commercial sector are being met (or should be met) by academic insti-
tutions (Aitchison

; Austin

; Bradley

; Cobb

; Colley

; Dowson

; Hamilakis

). Austin (

) and Aitchison (

) both raise concerns that the

commercial sector needs to carry out additional training for graduates and post-graduates
to enable them to operate effectively as employees. The difficulty here is that the call for
more commercially au-fait graduates and post-graduates becomes the centre point around
which later discussions of curriculum revision are based. This creates an unhelpful prac-
tical/theoretical divide where one aspect of the discipline is seen to be valued more highly
than other, rather than both being seen as essential components of an archaeological
education. Furthermore, it also reflects a belief that it is the responsibility of one part of the
archaeological community to fulfil the needs of another, rather than consider how both may
work together to the benefit of all.

The above can thus be seen as a call for caution, stemming from a concern over timing.

University education is becoming increasingly commodified (Parker

), with greater

stress being placed on quantifiable aspects of courses, and the commercial value of the
products delivered. Whilst this is not without benefit in terms of the reintegration of
academia with industry, it also has the potential to erode the progress that has been made in
archaeology since Clark (

) looked to the future in such an optimistic manner. As a

community we need to value more highly the educational work done by groups such as the
NAS, ATF and commercial units as complimentary to that occurring higher education

J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75–84

123

establishments, rather than seek to locate all training within degree and post-graduate
degree programmes.

Clark (

, p. 6) observed that archaeology had followed a discernable trajectory. It

starts with the formation of a disciplinary consciousness, moves through self-consciousness
and then emerges into a new phase of critical self-consciousness. Within the period of
consciousness the discipline had had to fight for recognition, establishing its credibility
through proving theory and method. Following this a time of self-consciousness emerged
where teaching attempted to ‘‘condense experience within general principles and explicit
rules’’. In this phase Clark (

, p. 6) saw the emergence of rival academies and personal

differences. This divided the discipline and prevented meaningful growth and innovation.
It can be argued that we are in danger of moving backwards towards this stage in maritime
archaeology, unless we carefully evaluate the impact of educational commodification on
the discipline.

In the final stage of critical self-consciousness Clark (

) believed the community

paused to realise how little it really knew, and the need for a continued commitment to
question core methods, theories and the direction of archaeology itself. For Clark (

p. 7) university environments were essential to this stage as they were the spaces within
which these conversations could begin. In the commercial sector pressures exist which do
not allow so much room for this form of contemplation. As such, it is crucial that higher
education establishments continue to value academic discourse, as well as skills provision,
to maintain the health of the discipline.

Hamilakis (

, p. 289) has discussed this problem of a skills focused view of edu-

cation at length. He states that in the current climate

education is seen purely as an instrumentalist procedure, that is, something that
delivers knowledge, information and skills which have a distinctive, easily definable,
measurable and quantifiable character, which can be assessed in a direct way, and
more importantly, have a specific market value

Given Clark’s (

) argument, this is clearly problematic. Calls by commercial units

and industry analysts (Aitchison

) for students to emerge with more ‘ticks in boxes’

for easily definable skills plays into this view of education. This in turn now places a
pressure on universities to provide it.

As Parker (

) documents, the fact that students can now pay considerable amounts

of money to enrol in universities leads us to see them as consumers. Given this, it would
seem sensible that they would want to emerge with a greater market value than when they
entered a programme. It is here that universities begin to suffer from pressures operating in
two directions. Firstly, there is the direct call by commercial operators to produce a
‘product’ that more readily meets their needs. Second, all universities are keen to attract as
many students as possible to increase revenue. As such, a simple and effective marketing
tool is to comply to the demands of business and project this as a positive feature.

Technically, if we view students as consumers, this should please them as well, as it

increases their employability. However, as Parker (

) discusses, this potentially

de-values and patronises the student, and belittles the discipline. It presumes that what they
want most is not to contribute to the wider community, but to in-turn become a product
which can be consumed. This is not to play down the importance of employability, but to
question the need for educational goals and attitudes to be dictated by the prevalent
employment model.

There is a further problem with the view of education as a purely instrumentalist

procedure; that it focuses our effort on more easily definable and potentially deliverable

J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75–84

123

skills based instruction. If curriculums are re-designed to focus too heavily on the
practical, they risk becoming instructional rather than educational. Assessing skills
based performance can be carried out with check-lists and tick boxes; individual x has
proven that they can draw this section underwater, operate an airlift, set-up a grid etc.,
etc. While these are essential skills and justifiably belong in NAS courses and
undergraduate degree programmes, as a community we require more from our members
with post-graduate qualifications. As Clark (

, p. 7) suggests, education needs to be

about providing students with a range of skills and abilities, but most important is the
ability to understand what has occurred and question it, a distinctly less quantifiable
and more difficult to develop trait. Thus people emerging with masters level degree
need to understand the practice of archaeology, but also have the intellectual skills to
question those practices. It is then the responsibility of individuals and employers
to develop their practical and theoretical skills through continuing professional
development.

There is yet another, more complicated problem with the skills provision model for

education in maritime archaeology at university. Although the name ‘maritime archae-
ology’ sounds well defined, it is in fact a component of the discipline that includes a
variety of interests, deploying a range of skills. Thinking back to the breadth of the
maritime archaeological community, some of these subject areas and skills are relatively
easy to cover, people can in effect be instructed in them, and the entire community may
share their provision. However, when considering what may constitute a post-graduate
involvement with the subject the needs broaden and the requirements are more difficult to
fulfil from within the general population. As McGrail (

1997

) noted when attempting to lay

out what any post-graduate programme in Maritime Archaeology should include, the
breadth of the subject is such that we should not allow ourselves to be limited to focusing
on technical skills (be it diving or surveying), but on improved understanding of a range of
maritime issues, from navigation and ship construction, through to sea-level and climate
change.

It is interesting to note that awareness of these broader aspects are not often noted on job

descriptions. Nor do they feature in instrumentalist views of education, as they are hard to
delineate. Ironically however, they are (or should be) of critical importance to anyone
working within the commercial sector. The most frequent work carried out by maritime
archaeologists in the commercial sector is that of desk based and environmental impact
assessment. To adequately complete this task individuals need a developed understanding
of the archaeology of different periods, the key research questions relating to any material
present, and then construct an argument as to its significance. Such a task demands more
than the skills that comprise the tasks of data acquisition and display. This form of work
requires individuals who have an in-depth knowledge of maritime archaeology, its research
priorities and concerns. More importantly, they also need to be able to evaluate these
research priorities and question them.

As such, I would argue that the instrumentalist, commodified approach to higher edu-

cation in the discipline serves no one if adhered to too strongly. By focusing too closely on
the needs of employers, and potentially the stereotypes of the discipline (i.e. that it is all
about diving) in order to sell programmes, we chip away at the edges of disciplinary
progress. Thus, upon reflection, I would argue that as a community we should expect
people like me (educators at masters and PhD level) to both offer a degree of practical
instruction in a range of tasks to ensure competency, but also to enthuse students about the
subject and demand that they pick it up and move it forward themselves.

J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75–84

123

Opinions of Others

Mine is obviously a biased and privileged view as I am permanently employed in
researching and teaching maritime archaeology. As such, it seemed prudent to seek the
opinions of others, who do not occupy this role. To this end, the questions that comprised
the call for papers on this subject were circulated to past and present students of Maritime
Archaeology at the University of Southampton. The range of responses received are
interesting for what they show us about community interest and self awareness.

Question 1:

What do we mean and what are we seeking to do when we ‘teach maritime
archaeology’?

We are primarily seeking to enthuse students about the subject, prepare them for a
job in archaeology, whether as a digger, researcher or a commercial marine
archaeologist, and give them a broad understanding of marine archaeology as well as
an idea of where their own interests and strengths lie.

Respondent W1—ex-student currently employed in the commercial sector

When we teach maritime archaeology

… we are seeking to pass along the tools

and background needed to properly understand the issues surrounding the field of
maritime archaeology to a group of, hopefully, passionate students. The programs
ought not to teach what to think, but rather how to think about the issues of
preservation, management, research, dispersal of information, and ensure that their
graduates are properly prepared with the skills to not only think about the issues
but also do something about them in a future career involved in maritime
archaeology.

Respondent G1—ex-student

Responses to this question invariably included reference to awareness of the broader

subject and research skills. However, as respondent G1 exemplifies, there was also a clear
call for provision of practical skills. Thus, in line with the argument above, there appears to
be an appreciation from community members that higher education should be offering a
balance of practical training and critical subject knowledge development. There is thus
room for instrumentalist instruction within a broader educational programme. However,
the stress needs to be placed upon providing an introduction to skills, along with critical
reflection.

Question 2:

Do, and indeed should, graduate courses in maritime archaeology equip
students for jobs in contract maritime archaeology? Should courses serve
the students, maritime archaeological research or the profession?

My personal response to this question is that is unnecessarily divisive. Of course
graduate courses in maritime archaeology should equip students for jobs in contract
maritime archaeology. After all, they are graduating with a high level degree and thus
should be able to make an important contribution to the discipline. However, contracting
units also have to make a commitment to continuing professional development and agree
to place a value on the higher education skills of subject knowledge and critical ability,
not just the quantity of instrumental skills ticked off. If we accept the above, the final
part of the question is irrelevant as research and the profession all serve the wider
community.

J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75–84

123

It was gratifying but perhaps not entirely surprising (given that all respondents were

either current or past post-graduate students) to find responses to the questionnaire agreeing
with the views expressed above. This indicated that even those currently involved in the
programme did not see directly fulfilling the needs of contract archaeology as the primary
goal of masters education, there was a clear commitment to the discipline on a less selfish
level.

Graduate programs in liberal arts should focus on preparing students for further
research. Unfortunately there are very few undergraduate programs which prepare
students for contract jobs in maritime archaeology, thus the logical place to look for
such training is in further study at the graduate level. Although ideally programs like
the MA/MSc at Southampton should be focused on research, practically they often
need to take the place of undergraduate professional education.

Respondent G2—current student

My opinion is that courses should primarily serve the students, but by encouraging
them to pursue their strengths and develop their research skills, are we not serving
research and the profession in the long term by teaching them how to develop their
ideas?

Respondent W2

If possible, all of your categories. My preference should be the student first. If the
student is extended and taught how to think then those attributes can be used
positively in maritime research and the profession. Not all post-graduates want an
academic future, many will want field-based work, but the ability to think from a
solid theoretical and practical background has to be the best preparation for a
career that may evolve from fieldworker to unit manager, owner or a curatorial
role. If the focus is entirely on the profession it may mean that as the profession
evolves and adapts the students may not have the mental or philosophical resil-
ience to challenge the direction if they don’t like it, or understand why they do
like it.

Respondent A1—current student

Answers G2 and A1 (above) confirm Parker’s (

) assessment of the student as more

than simple consumer. People entering masters level educational programmes are well
aware of the nature of the higher education market. They can see that they are ‘sold’
courses and are directly targeted through marketing literature. This was also clearly
demonstrated in responses to the question of what pressures shape courses. Here every
single respondent clearly identified finance, student expectations, research and the com-
mercial sector as key.

Questions 3:

Should the acquisition of skills alone be the ultimate objective?

The difficulty with this question lay in interpretation of ‘skills’. Some, such as respondent
J1 believed that this was the ultimate goal of masters level education. However, they did
not elaborate on what they saw those skills as being. Interestingly respondent J1 believed
the goal of teaching maritime archaeology at post-graduate level to one of developing
research skills as well as practical skills.

More typical of the responses gained were those represented by W2, M1 and J2. Again

past and current students demonstrated a clear awareness of the need for a balance between

J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75–84

123

practical skills acquisition and higher-level critical analysis and subject specific
knowledge.

Yes, then once equipped with the skills individuals are free to make their own
decisions.

Respondent J1—current student

No—you need the theory behind the skills and also knowledge of the wider
archaeological issues if you are to effectively use those skills (e.g. what is needed in
particular circumstances, can particular skill sets be adapted, whether certain skills/
techniques are actually useful given the research questions being looked at)

Respondent W2—ex-student

If the acquisition of skills alone is the objective then a post-graduate course will be
pretty arid, and can be taught at a much lower level. Students need to be able to
evolve a philosophy: their thoughts about what archaeology is, what is important, is
what post-graduate study is about.

Respondent M1—current student

Of course not! The university is not a technical college. Students should acquire
more than skills. Grad courses should make students think about the discipline, but
also about the place of it in the academic sphere, and more generally in the modern
political, popular world etc.

Respondent J2—ex-student

The above responses are only presented here to give a glimpse of what others think.

Such qualitative responses are always difficult to present, as they appear almost anecdotal.
I would be the first to admit that this survey would benefit from being able to publish all the
responses, or the inclusion of some quantitative data, but this is sadly not possible. Indeed
it is hoped to carry out such further research to develop some of these points in a more
considered and better-supported manner. However, none of the answers given above are
any less valid than any other opinion expressed within this issue. Importantly they dem-
onstrate that those entering higher education are already informed, committed community
members who want more from their courses than instrumentalist knowledge alone, but
demand a higher-level engagement with the discipline. It is this high level knowledge that
needs to be valued by us as a community more readily than it is now.

Process Based Rather than Outcome Based Education

Clark (

) was first and foremost an archaeologist, whose work encompassed both

research and education. His optimism for the growth of the subject stemmed a belief that
archaeology had come of age and was now capable of moving beyond unhelpful disci-
plinary infighting. Maritime archaeology can only move forward in this fashion if we
acknowledge the different roles that can be played by different members of the wider
community. To this end I would argue that universities have to accept that practical
training in the specific skills of maritime archaeology are their concern. Fortunately, I
cannot think of any practicing university maritime archaeologist who would disagree with
this, or any programme that fails to provide some skills based learning.

J Mari Arch (2008) 3:75–84

123

However, commercial units must also acknowledge that the role of higher education is

also to develop critical skills and more esoteric subject knowledge, to ensure the vibrancy
and academic credibility of the discipline. The role of the university at any level is not
simply to provide a trained excavator, and nor do I think this is what commercial units or
students really want. Time at university is limited and we have to ensure that a range of
educational needs are met, needs which the responses above indicate students highly value.
Instead we should make sure that the training and experience gained through time in the
commercial sector has a real and equal value to the wider community. While universities
can introduce students to practical skills they must focus on doing it in the most time
efficient manner. To put it simply: years of practical experience can never be distilled and
replaced by a one- or two-year course.

At post-graduate level a further point is worth considering. At the beginning of this

paper I stated that we should move away from a discussion of teaching, and towards one of
learning. However, the process of learning is not limited to those enrolled on courses, but
equally applies to those that teach. This is particularly true at masters level. No 2 years’
intake has ever proven to be the same, and each year develops its own interests and quirks.
This ensures that the content that is delivered, discussed and dissected is never the same.
Similarly people’s practical experience varies greatly, from those who we teach almost
from scratch, to others who have years of on-site experience. As such, it is impossible to
generalise about what we should teach, as it does vary from student to student and intake to
intake. What we can insist upon is a series of standards and academic expectations; that
everyone involved understands the process of archaeology (practical and theoretical) and
that all are able to question and further it.

Communities of Knowledge: A Conclusion

Maritime archaeology is a vibrant and healthy discipline. This health is reflected in the
existence of this journal, and in particular this volume. Concerns over what and how we
teach reflect the critical self-awareness that Clark (