J Mari Arch (2008) 3:125–126 DOI 10.1007/s11457-008-9038-6 COMMENT Education in Maritime Archaeology: An Opinion Antony Firth Published online: 23 October 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008 The Coastal and Marine section of Wessex Archaeology (WA) is probably the single largest employer of ‘maritime archaeologists’ in the UK. We have about 20 staff in our section (WA has about 180 permanent staff overall) and we have employed over 60 archaeologists in coastal and marine work over the last 12 years. Many of our staff have Masters degrees in maritime archaeology of one flavour or other; some have first degrees only; and some have doctorates. What kind of perspective does this give to the teaching of maritime archaeology? Wessex Archaeology is itself an educational institution—a not-for-profit company whose charitable objective is to advance the education of the public through the pursuit of archaeology. Our formal educational activities are directed at the general public and at schools, but we are also involved in the education of other archaeologists and of a wide range of other professionals amongst our clients and their consultants. Sometimes this educational activity is formal—through awareness-raising programmes and CPD teaching. However, the greatest educational effort is exercised through myriad meetings, telephone calls and emails, as we seek to communicate and explain coastal and marine archaeology in principle and in practice to many astute—and sometimes reluctant—individuals. The variety of people we deal with is surprisingly large, as is their range of previous knowledge. Their knowledge is very important, because the educational effort is clearly two-way. We learn from the people to whom we are simultaneously trying to teach maritime archaeology. Again, the variety and range of what we learn is considerable, from foundation engineering to planning law. This is not merely communication; we need to understand what we are being told so that we can incorporate it into our assessments and advice. This process of simultaneously teaching and learning is not, of course, directed only externally; it also characterises relations with colleagues internally. This is especially true in maritime archaeology where so much is as yet unknown or uncertain, and every day brings new results or new questions. Both our raw knowledge of the past and the methodologies we bring to bear have been developed as we have gone along; everyone can be A. Firth (&) Head of Coastal and Marine Projects, Wessex Archaeology, Wessex, UK e-mail: a.firth@wessexarch.co.uk 123 126 J Mari Arch (2008) 3:125–126 both novice and expert. Being part of a large terrestrially-oriented organisation means that there are many other colleagues with all sorts of archaeological knowledge and skills to draw upon also. So, what might our view be of the institutions who equip our prospective employees? Plainly, it is not necessarily the job of universities to provide us with employees. Most students of maritime archaeology will not work for WA; there are all sorts of different reasons for studying maritime archaeology, and all sorts of routes to take thereafter. And of all the students who would like to work for us, only a proportion will be successful in recruitment. A better question would be: ‘how should someone who wants to work for an organisation like WA seek to equip themselves?’ and then ‘what can universities do to enable and facilitate people developing their careers in this way, alongside all the other people studying maritime archaeology?’. The most important skills that universities can hone are those of learning itself. Anyone joining WA’s coastal and marine section, whatever their background, is going to face a very steep learning curve. Most of this learning will be ‘on the job’, drawing on the support of colleagues but, in largest part, dependent on the learning abilities of the individual themselves. Universities are great places for finding out how to learn, and to practise learning until you are good at it. It is also essential that people joining us are able to convey the results of their learning. The common thread through all our activities, irrespective of the technical skills used, is that our results are delivered primarily as written reports. Writing skills are, therefore, highly prized. Archaeology is a discipline, and university can provide a great environment for practising this discipline through writing. In pressing prospective employees for evidence of clear writing, we are also looking for clarity of thought; the considered judgement, expressed coherently and concisely, that our clients are seeking. As for the themes, periods and techniques of maritime archaeology, the range that we might want to draw upon is very wide and I am reluctant to provide a check list. In deciding what options to take (and what to offer) we would, naturally, encourage students and course co-ordinators to think realistically about the topics and skills most likely to be encountered in a working career, if this is their aim. The same is obviously true in choosing dissertation topics, and in responding to the various other opportunities that arise at university. If someone is seeking to work for us, we might reasonably expect them to not only have received ‘passively’ the course contents laid out in front of them, but to have sought out and made for themselves relevant experience upon which they can later draw. We also look for evidence of commitment to working in UK archaeology as a whole; marine archaeology should not be separated from land archaeology, and we will want to see that this lesson has been learned. Although from the point of view of an employer there are better choices and worse, there is no formula for education in maritime archaeology. Of all my colleagues, no two have been alike. I hope it stays that way. 123