Anarchic archives: the potency and problems of maritime archaeological archives

Maritime archaeological archives have a particular cultural potency. Logistical complexities and economic costs make accessing many underwater and intertidal sites difficult for researchers and the public alike, endowing their archives with a specific sense of rarity. Whilst, the very-present threat...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ransley, Jesse (Author), Satchell, Julie (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: 2014-11.
Subjects:
Online Access:Get fulltext
LEADER 01707 am a22001333u 4500
001 370257
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Ransley, Jesse  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Satchell, Julie  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Anarchic archives: the potency and problems of maritime archaeological archives 
260 |c 2014-11. 
856 |z Get fulltext  |u https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370257/1/RansleySatchell_Anarchic%2520Archives_Nov2014.pdf 
520 |a Maritime archaeological archives have a particular cultural potency. Logistical complexities and economic costs make accessing many underwater and intertidal sites difficult for researchers and the public alike, endowing their archives with a specific sense of rarity. Whilst, the very-present threats of treasure-hunting and salvage as well as imbroglios of their production and curation make them peculiarly multivalent assemblages. Yet in England they remain neglected, largely un-curated, inaccessible, under-researched and sometimes sold. This article examines this apparently anomalous situation. Firstly, by drawing on the Securing a Future for Maritime Archaeological Archives project to characterize the present, acute crisis. Then, by relating three 'stories from the archives' to examine what archives have to say about the history of maritime archaeology in England and the contemporary legal, economic and cultural politics enmeshing their production. In doing so, this paper reframes these scattered, 'orphaned' archives as source and subject but also practice, and emphasizes their rich, research potential. Finally, it highlights key questions of 'ownership', the production of archaeological knowledge and, ultimately, how we conceive of the 'archaeological record'. 
655 7 |a Article