Theoretical Approaches

2.4 Conclusion

This chapter began by noting that Australian maritime archaeologists have engaged in innovative theory and practice, and the review of relevant studies from the last 15 years supports this contention. I have also aimed to show where some critiques of theory in Australian maritime archaeology have probably been somewhat polemical in nature. I conclude that it is only reasonable and timely that supervised and guided postgraduate studies of wreck sites, their assemblages and other underwater and port-related features should be located in tertiary institutions and that these will be the power-houses for theoretical innovation. Effective linkage of tertiary guided research into holding institutions (such as museum collections) has still to be achieved nationally.

What is unique to maritime archaeological practice (be it survey, excavation, mitigation or management) is the scale of the logistics and costs associated with these activities and outcomes. To not facilitate or expedite linkage between holding institutions, statutory heritage authorities and tertiary-based research is to potentially compromise a non-renewable resource. I have no doubt that the pace and quality of theoretical innovation will increase over the next decade, given maritime archaeology will be taught and studied in at least three Australian Universities. The remaining challenge is whether or not the “guardians” of the major maritime collections will develop a unified policy to release the “fuel” for such endeavour.