What Kind of Information Does Underwater Archaeology Provide that Traditional Excavation on Land Can't - Coursework Example

Sur Lecturer Archaeology Introduction Underwater archeology is a discipline in archeology that is practiced under water. It studies human interaction within the lakes, sea and rivers. It is a study associated with physical remains such as vessels, port related structures, shore side facilities, and human remains, cargoes, and submerged landscapes (Muckelroy 8). The Ulu Burun also addresses Egypto-Aegean trade and the fluctuation and chronology of the Late Bronze Age Aegean ceramic material in the Nile Valley New Kingdom on distribution of commodities. Ulu Burun talks about models for the exchange practices and relationships between the Aegean and Nile Valley. This paper however seeks to discuss the kind of information that underwater archaeology provides that traditional excavation on land cannot. The paper will also discuss what the Ulu Burun or Kaş shipwreck say about trade and the distribution of commodities in the Late Bronze Age. Information that underwater archaeology provides that traditional excavation on land cannot Underwater archeology provides much information that is not available in the traditional land excavation. Underwater archeology provides information on the remains on cargoes and ships, and even organic materials, which are better preserved under water or in the sediments at the bottom. Underwater archeology also provides information on shipwrecks which were initially beyond the reach of salvage and human intervention. For instance, Corinth established its territorial boundaries by making Perachora into Corinthian sanctuary, and denied this harbor to Megara, its neighbors. This shows than underwater archeology would help in getting information from this harbor which traditional excavation of land cannot (Whitley 150). This creates capsules. Underwater archeology, because of water, is a preservative protecting perishable items and wood. It also provides information on sunken boats or ships which are reached by very experienced divers. This protects such sites from random digging. Underwater archeology can provide information on a broad range of questions that are not available through terrestrial means, from constructions of ship to reactions to trade networks to environmental changes. Even in the ancient periods, water was the most cost effective means of transport for moving goods in bulk. This has resulted into the necessity to examine water transport, underwater archeology (Muckelroy 10). Typically, underwater archeology costs a great deal more than the traditional excavation on land. This is because of the ease of excavation and access of unique remains not available on land. Underwater archeology also has a scientific study base on past human life, cultures and behaviors, as well as their activities on, in, around and under estuaries, sea and rivers. This is usually affected by means of physical remains found around, in, or under fresh or salty water buried beneath sediments logged under water (Biers 200). Traditional excavation on land cannot provide information on submerged aircraft and submerged WWII sites that underwater archeology studies in form of underwater aviation archeology as a bona fide activity. In addition, a lot of information can be found on shipwrecks, local seismic events, changes in sea level, and earthquakes in underwater archeology, which cannot be provided by the traditional excavation on land. Underwater archeology also offers information on widespread climatic changes and some human occupation sites that were on dry land at some point and are now submerged. More information can also be accessed through underwater archeology on ice age, anthropological materials, and remains of animals like mammoths, which are recovered often by trawlers. Such information cannot be provided by the traditional excavation on land. Human societies previously made use of water and the remains of the structures that such human societies built under waters may be in existence up to date, and therefore underwater archeology is necessary to provide information on such structures as the harbors, bridges, and foundations of crannogs (Delgado 27). Traditional excavation on land is an archeology practiced on land. Therefore it cannot provide information on submerged sites or places where people once lived and have been subsequently covered, due to rising sea level, by water, cenotes, wells, wrecks. These are only covered by underwater archeology. Information on debris and refuse sites, remains of structures that are created in water like harbors, bridges, or crannogs, other port related structures and sites where people disposed off their garbage, waste and other items like aircraft, ships, machinery and munitions, by dumping in water, can only be provided by underwater archeology and not by traditional excavation on land. Complementary to archeological research of terrestrial sites is underwater archeology. The two are linked by various elements including social, geographic, economic, political and other considerations (Delgado 28). Archeological landscape studies involve an approach of multidiscipline that requires inclusion of many experts from different disciplines including historical archeology, prehistory, anthropology, and maritime anthropology. For example, underwater archeology has provided information on the following: wreck of VOC ship Zuytdorp that got lost back in 1711 in Western Australian coast. Information was provided on speculations that some crew had survived and established and intermixed themselves with indigenous tribe on the shores. More information has been provided by underwater archeology that archaeological signature at this site now extends into interaction between the European pastoralists and indigenous people who got into the area in the mid 19th century (Muckelroy 16). What the Ulu Burun say about trade and the distribution of commodities in the Late Bronze Age The Ulu Burun focused on the exchange of prestigious goods and the application of international shared symbols in trade during the Late Bronze Age. Ulu Burun tells us about the social organization of the period and the reinforcement mechanism of political and ideological control on the distribution of commodities in the Late Bronze Age. Ulu Burun tells us that the major powers (Hatti, Babylon, Egypt, and Mitanni) of the time had a very intense relationship that was marked by a frequent exchange of official letters, which were not only between the players that were considered as the primary participants, but also between their vassals and them. The Ulu Burun also tells us that the level of exchange was very visible especially in the archeological records, through a wide distribution and frequency of distribution of particular artifacts like pottery, as well as through objects that were prestigious such as gold, ivory and faience (Delagado 21). Alongside the large Empires, there were other states participating such as the Aegean, Cyprus, and the Levantine coasts’ city states. During this period of international exchange ideas, goods, and men, strategies that were considered concrete for exotic and foreign good acquisition were very essential and contributed to the initiated state’s status. During this period of the Late Bronze Age, prestige goods, apart from being part of diplomatic language, composed of major motivations for exchange internationally, and were elements that were unifying as attested by international style development within the trade region (Muckelroy 17). This period of the Late Bronze Age has been studied as an age of commodity distribution and trade of prestige goods and services, without making any consideration to the specificities of the constitutive regions. According to the Ulu Burun, such specificities should be considered as a step of the analysis of the trade and exchange mechanisms in the international frame in the Late Bronze Age. The period was characterized by forms of social uniformity among those involved in the trade and distribution of the commodities. It is important to note that the modern perception we hold on the society and the artifact interpretation may be homogenized and biased because the same type of objects could carry individually different meaning levels in accordance to their geographical and social distribution. This is what Ulu Burun tells us about trade and distribution of commodities in the Late Bronze Age (Muckelroy 18). Ulu Burun also tells us that beyond the prestigious association attributed to the precious goods exchanged internationally, a much more subtle reinforcement can be obtained for the whole period, depending on the context of the object of consumption and use. Efforts and attempts to distinguish how particular objects were viewed, used, and appreciated are possible especially for certain distributed artifacts, and needs a consideration of all data available from archeological objects and texts, as well as the question of whether the pattern of distribution and regional characteristics appear through having the object use and context reviewed, or even any symbol associated with it and the owners social status. Our awareness of symbolism importance has been heightened by post processual archeology in the past. This defines the kind of political implications interpretations made today (Renfrew and Bahn 178) In summary, Ulu Burun has detailed information on the events of trade and distribution of commodities in the Late Bronze Age. For example, Ulu Burun tells us that the Late Bronze Age Aegean ceramics that were exported to Nubia and Egypt show diplomatic relations and trade between the Nile Valley and Aegean. We also learn that mercantile interactions and diplomatic gift exchange were tempered by Egyptian economic, cultural, and political factors. Ulu Burun also tells us that a selection of certain commodities were driven by individual preference, that the ceramic shapes may have influenced and contained the forms of ceramic chosen for feasting or display. Some of the examples of mechanisms behind the acquisition of Egyptian Aegean ceramics that we learn from Ulu Burun include: gift exchange, royal trade, acquisition of tribute, and private exchange (Delgado 14). Conclusion In summary, underwater archeology is an archeology that is practiced under water. Human interactions are studied as they happen within the lakes, sea and rivers. Underwater archeology therefore provides more information that is not available in the traditional excavation of land. This is because it studies physical remains such as vessels, port related structures, shore side facilities, and human remains, cargoes, and submerged landscapes. The paper has addressed what the Ulu Burun tells us about about trade and the distribution of commodities in the Late Bronze Age. Through this, the paper has addressed Egypto-Aegean trade and the fluctuation and chronology of the Late Bronze Age Aegean ceramic material in the Nile Valley New Kingdom on distribution of commodities. Works Cited Biers, W.R., The Archaeology of Greece, London: Springer. 1996 Delgado, J. P., British Museum Encyclopedia of Underwater and Maritime Archaeology, London: British Museum Press, 1997. Muckelroy, K., Maritime archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Renfrew, C. and P. Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice, New York: Thames and Hudson, 1996 Whitley, J., The Archaeology of Greece, London: SAGE. 2001 Read More