The Interntrriotinl Jorrmnl of Nauticnl Archtreobgy ( I 995) 24.
I : 3--7
Type or technique. Some thoughts on boat and ship finds as
indicative of cultural traditions
Thijs J. Maarleveld
State Service for Archaeological Investigations in the Netherlands, Afdeling Archeologie Onder
water (AAO), Eikenlaan 239, 2404 BP Alplien aan den Rijn, The Netherlands
Paper presented at the I993 Theoretical Archaeology Group Conference held in Durham
Introduction
One of the criticisms which archaeologists
studying ship finds have repeatedly faced for
several decades is that their field is too technical
and too jargon-ridden; even that such a techni-
cal study can hardly be the ‘proper study of
mankind’ (Hawkes, 1968). This paper chal-
lenges that view, but is not intended simply to
justify boat and ship archaeology. The dis-
cussions at the T A G conference in Durham
revealed some inherent weaknesses in the
present state of our trade. In the maritime
archaeological community a lack of unity para-
doxically combines with a strong cohesion and
isolation. Regrettably part of this cohesion and
isolation is self-sought and of the self-pitying
kind. It applies to the whole group, although it
is probably most manifest in diving archaeolo-
gists. As Gillian Hutchinson put it in a review
of Archaeology Underwater. The N A S Guide to
Principles and Practice:
. . . underwater archaeologists are sufering from feel-
ings of isolation both from land archaeologists, who
share their aims, and from sport divers. who share their
environment’ (Hutchinson, 1992).
Together with the broad and thus very varied
aims of maritime archaeology this situation
creates stagnation and a long-lived identity
crisis which seems quite unnecessary. The crisis
is similar to (and shares in) the general crisis in
historical and medieval archaeology. It features
a hidden inferiority complex towards the less
sporting but more developed humanities and
results in apologia after apologia. Paradoxi-
cally such apologias hardly ever contribute to
greater acceptance. Instead they tend to stress
an uncomfortably subordinate position.
1057-2414/95/010003+05 $08.00/0
The obvious way out is to firmly set our own
archaeological agenda. Here again medieval
archaeology and its critical relationship
with other historical disciplines provides an
adequate parallel (Austin, 1990; Austin &
Thomas, 1990). Of course, there is n o need for
conceitedness, but maritime archaeology could
do with more self confidence. Evidently it is
dealing with a resource of tremendous possi-
bilities. It should explore these possibilities to
their limits. By doing so it will expose the
scientific strength of archaeologically obtained
data, rather than remaining spoon-fed by other
disciplines.
The field of maritime studies is very broad. In
setting the archaeological agenda there is, there-
fore, a wide variety of possible approaches, one
as valid as another. These approaches may be
related to specific disciplines, but should not be
subordinate to them. With that restriction in
mind, the view of the economic historian, ship
technologist or master mariner are as valid
as that of taphonomist, ordnance expert or
amphora-specialist. Diversification may well
prove to be maritime archaeology’s strength
rather than its weakness.
This paper touches upon these issues in
that it implicitly resists subordination to his-
torical and art-historical paradigmata. More
specifically it fights sloppy methodology. It is
confined to ships and boats as artefacts and as
technological echoes of their parent cultures.
The problem
Boats and ships are very complex artefacts.
Their production involves technical skill,
but more significantly it involves a level of
’C 1995 The Nautical Archaeology Society
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 24.1
conceptualization that probably exceeds that
necessary in building graves or other physically
identifiable structures. Boats and ships contain
in their construction one of the best clues to the
mind of homo fuber that an archaeologist can
ever expect to find. The study of technical detail
in shipbuilding is not at all parochial, but
provides us with an exceptional opportunity
to understand past thinking, concepts and de-
cisions. This opportunity should be exploited
more widely in archaeological reasoning, rather
than remain the preserve of specialists.
Discussion of the potential of ships and
boats as cultural indicators can be found in
the work of Hasslof and Prins (Hasslof, 1972;
Prins, 1986). The subject of discussion here is
some fundamental problems with the use of
the type-concept with respect to ships and
boats as artefacts. Two main points arise;
these are not the result of nautical archaeol-
ogy being viewed as parochial by others, but
are the product of flaws in judgement within
the parish, which have persisted for decades.
The first point is that although archaeo-
logical thinking since Childe has drastically
changed to include independent, parallel and
antithetic developments, in nautical archaeol-
ogy the idea of an unfailing evolution from raft
to ocean-liner has not stopped since Hornell
(1946). Evolution is an essentially neutral term,
meaning movement or change, but in modern
use we cannot avoid the Darwinian conno-
tation. The frequent use of such terms as ances-
try, or family, to explain observed similarities
and variability in boats or ships is very telling
in this respect. Examples of this can be found in
Greenhill (1988): ‘evolution’; Filgueiras (1987):
‘family’; de Weerd (1991): ‘kinship’; Wallinga
(1993): ‘ancestry’; Herbert (1992): ‘distant
cousin’. Like ‘evolution’ such terms have be-
come obsolete in relation to most other artefact
categories. Of course anyone using these terms
will promptly deny the suggestion that ships are
liable to produce offspring. Nevertheless the
frequent use of such terms both indicates and
instigates thinking about developments of
ship types as autonomous rather than being
the function of human decisions regarding
continuity or adaptations.
The second point concerns flaws in method-
ology in the use of type-definition or classifica-
tion. This too has some analogy with biological
4
evolutionary theory. The systematization of
archaeological material owes a lot to that
of biology. This is true both of the work of
Pitt-Rivers in the late 19th century (Thompson,
1977) and of the positivist statistics emanating
from numerical taxonomy in the 1960s and
1970s (Thomas, 1972; Sneath & Sokal, 1973).
In general, archaeology has not been a slave to
these influences. Type-concepts are so crucial to
material studies that there has been a substan-
tial body of solid theoretical work in this area,
for example Clarke, 1978; Whallon & Brown,
1982; Miller, 1985. In nautical archaeology,
however, the evolutionary concepts strongly
bias the literature. That apart, the literature on
ships, ship-types and shipbuilding traditions
can hardly be described as consistent where
classifications and classificatory criteria are
concerned.
Grouping and classification
There is no need for consistency between
separate groupings or classifications provided
that the following conditions are met:
groupings or classifications are not given a
status other than being a tool by which to
understand data from a particular point of
view;
criteria, groupings and classifications that
serve different purposes are not mixed up;
in any grouping or classification the criteria
should be explicitly presented.
None of these conditions seems controversial
and yet, with few positive exceptions, these
rules are frequently transgressed.
There seems to be a thorough confusion of
two fundamentally different ways of structuring
data: grouping and classifcation. Grouping is a
very useful and low-profile process in which
data are put in groups. In practice it is often the
physical artefacts containing the data which are
put in physical groups, although with boats and
ships this is evidently more problematic than
with flint or potsherds. The process of grouping
is just a tool to get to know, to manage, the
material. It always concerns a limited, finite
amount of material. Classification in its narrow
sense is less arbitrary. The basis here is not a
finite amount of data which requires structur-
ing, but a structure in its own right. It is related
to a particular research-question or approach
THIJS J. MAARLEVELD: TYPE OK TECNNIQUE
to which the data is submitted. A classification
should thus comply with theory, its cells
or classes being exclusive, the total being
comprehensive.
Both processes are rightly used side by side;
the one to get good grip on the data, the
other to direct research analytically. In theory
everything seems to run smoothly. In practice,
however, the two procedures, tools for quite
different purposes, seem to become ambigu-
ously intertwined. In one respect this is not
surprising. In both cases criteria should be
defined. In casual grouping this phase comes
late in the process; the need to define criteria
comes only after a useful arrangement for pre-
senting the data has been found. In classifi-
cation the criteria need to be established as
soon as a theoretically viable classification for a
specific research question is formulated.
In both processes the archaeologist refers to
the material and succumbs to a purely inductive
thought process. Voorrips ( 1 982) designated
this thought process as the ‘construction of
variables’. In grouping this thought process
entails the identification of the criteria that
have been used. In classijication it is in principle
only subsequently that specific source material
is identified as belonging to one or other of the
classes. In both grouping and classification, the
construction of variables is similar, so similar
that it is difficult to distinguish the two. How-
ever, the identification is different, both in
theory and in practice, as it is either ‘the criteria
as used to put a finite number of tangible
artefacts in groups’ that are identified, or it is
‘the tangible artefacts themselves’ that are
identified as falling into groups according to
predetermined criteria.
In the two processes the meaning of identifi-
cation is thus fundamentally different and dis-
tinguishable. Or is it? If one looks at what
happens with ship-finds the distinction is less
clear than might be anticipated.
Identification
The trouble with identification is twofold. O n
the one hand descriptive typologies on the basis
of stochastic groups which were derived by
grouping a finite number of phenomena, are
often allotted the status of classification sensu
strictu with the passage of time. If, at a later
stage, more tangible material can add to the
data, the new finds, or those that were not
included in the original sample, are automati-
cally submitted to the process of identification
according to that earlier typology.
On the other hand, where ship- or boat-finds
are concerned there seems to be a strong incli-
nation to avoid all procedures altogether and to
immediately identify the type. Type-groups are
apparently considered predetermined, either
as implicitly meaningful o r as unchangeable
entities. Their supposed character can only be
inferred from the meaning and implications
that are allotted to the process of identification.
In many studies of vernacular craft, groups
which share a common name are considered to
be predetermined. Their study entails the iden-
tification of the criteria which have resulted in
the division. However, such divisions are not
the result of any systematic arrangement but
of the whims and peculiarities of vernacular
nomenclature. Where ships still exist and
significant properties can be identified, this
approach can lead to a useful type-concept
(Szymanski, 1932; Neweklowsky, 1952-64;
Rudolph, 1966; Gillmer, 1972; Nielsen, 1982;
Petersen, 1986; Hin, 1988; Stammers, 1993).
The exercise is sensible and unassuming.
Where, however, no specimens remain in con-
text with such names, the process starts to be
more pretentious. What is identified are not the
criteria. The ship or ship-find itself is identified
as belonging to a specific class or type-group.
This might be a class or type-group previously
drawn up by another scholar, but, most import-
antly, the identification with a historical type-
name is given more o r less the same credence as
a classijication in the narrow sense.
One of the main advocates of this procedure
is Detlev Ellmers (1972: 14). He considers the
identification of ship-remains with historical
types to be one of the primary goals of ship-
archaeology. He explicitly puts this identifi-
cation in juxtaposition with the plodding
process of arranging ship-remains in type-
groups (Ellmers, 1979: 493): he juxtaposes
grouping with classification. The process might
be summarized as follows:
1. there is an inferred but undefined
classification;
2. a tangible find is identified as belonging to
one of the classes;
5
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 24.1
3. the class is thereby given contents;
4. on the basis of the contents, criteria can
be described and the class assumes
significance;
5. subsequent identifications are easier and
self explanatory.
Ellmers describes the process in detail. The
starting point is a Kontaktquelle, a pictographic
source showing what is described in a written
source and which can be associated with a
tangible find by visual comparison (Ellmers,
1979: 494). In itself this associative and specu-
lative process can be a most rewarding and
useful exercise. The issue is whether the envis-
aged identification has analytical consequence.
Can the historical type-concept be allotted any
significance in organizing archaeological data
and is it valid to use this terminology as classi-
fication? This is rarely the case, except where
historical names include specific technical
descriptions with well-defined criteria, such as
charters as used by Witsen (1671: 105).
Type or technique
Most historical types were never defined at all
and certainly not in an analytical way. They are
based on vernacular nomenclature. Such termi-
nology does not correspond with the sort of
data derived from ship archaeology. Develop-
ment of the meaning of a term, such as carrack,
cog, galleon, shullop or yacht is too easily inter-
preted as the autonomous development of a
type, whereas technological changes are not
autonomous at all. They are implemented as a
result of human decisions.
By studying the archaeological material in its
own right, structuring the data by grouping or
specific classifications it is possible to trace
variability at different levels: size, capacity,
general hull-form, propulsion, function,
building-sequence, raw material, conversion-
techniques, fastening-techniques and so on. It is
also possible to trace change at one or at
several levels. Data from other sources and the
References
Arnold. R., 1992. Batellerie gallo-romaine sur le lac de Neuchitel.
Austin, D., 1990, The ’proper study’ of medieval archaeology. In: Austin, D & Alcock, L. (Eds) F r i m rhr Bulric / o
t h i ~Bluck Sru. Studies in Meciicval Archaeology 9 4 2 .
Austin, D. & Alcock, L. (Eds), 1990, From thr Baltic / ( I the Black Sru. Stirdies in Mrtlirrul Archaeologv.
London.
way in which they reflect such changes might
then be considered, as well as mutual discrep-
ancies and convergencies. The identification,
however, of historical ship-types should not
be a primary goal of ship-archaeology. That
simply belittles the specific strength of archaeo-
logical data. It subordinates them to the
problems of historical nomenclature instead of
respecting the peculiarities of each kind of
information. Likewise, evolutionary models
which compare widely distributed by similar
boats and ships are misplaced. Similarities may
simply arise from similar solutions to similar
problems, similar functions, similar environ-
ments o r similar raw material. A good illustra-
tion of this is the very disconcerting position
allotted to the Laibach/Ljubljana boat in dis-
cussions of barges of the lower Rhine (Ellmers,
1983; de Weerd, 1988; 1991). Perhaps this is an
instance where ‘archaeologists have concen-
trated too much on similarities and too little on
differences’, a danger of which Van der Leeuw
and Hodder warn us (Hodder, 1986: 127).
Typology and classification are beneficial so
long as they remain tools rather than gospel.
Ships are differentially preserved and distrib-
uted, contain more varied information than any
other category or artefact but permit little
quantitative work since excavation is so awk-
ward and rare. With such complex artefacts
there should be n o attempt to structure all the
data at once. Typology alone will never suffice
and will not necessarily reveal important differ-
ences or changes in past concepts which can be
detected in more than one historical type, such
as the concepts involved in the adoption of
flush-planked shipbuilding in Northern Europe
in the 15th and 16th centuries (Maarleveld,
1992; 1994). Detailed technological studies and
inferences based thereon (Crumlin-Pedersen,
1986; Bonde, 1990; Rival, 1991; Arnold, 1992)
will contribute more to our understanding
of past thinking than attempts to marry the
deficient variety of ship-finds with the very
varied historical terminology.
12 & 13.
A r c h P ~ l ~ ~Nruchir/~k~i.sr,
gi~~
THIJS J. MAARLEVELD: TYPE OR TECHNIQUE

Austin, D. & Thomas, J., 1990, The ‘proper study’ of medieval archaeology: a case study. In: Austin, D & Alcock,
L. (Eds) From the Baltic to the Black Sea. Studies in Medieval Archaeology: 43-78.
Clarke, D. L., 1978, Analytical Archaeology. London.
Crumlin Pedersen, O., 1986, Aspects of Wood Technology in Medieval Shipbuilding. In: Crumlin Pedersen, 0. &
Vinner, M. (Eds) Sailing into the Past: 13848. Roskilde.
Ellmers, D., 1972. Friihmittelulterliche Handelsschij@hrt in Mirtel-und Nordeuropa. Neumunster.
Ellmers, D., 1979. Schiffsarchaologie. In: Jankuhn, H. & Wenskus, R. (Hrsg.), Geschichtswissenschaft und
Archaologie. Untersuchungen zur Siedlungs-, Wirtschafts- und Kirchengeschichte. Sigmaringen.
Ellmers, D., 1983, Vor- und friihgeschichtlicher Boots- und Schiffbau in Europe nordlich der Alpen. In: Jankuhn, H.
et al. (Hrsg.), Das Handwerk in vor- und friihgeschichtlicher Zeit. Teil II. Archaologische und philologische
Beitrage: 471-534. Gottingen.
Filgueiras, 0. L., 1987, Barco Rabelo. Um Retrato de Familia. Porto.
Gillmer, Th. C., 1972. Working Watercraft. A survey ofthe Surviving Local Boats of Europe and America. London.
Greenhill, B., 1988, The Evolution of the Wooden Ship. London.
Hasslof, 0. et al., 1972, Ships and Shipyards. Sailors and Fi.shermen. Introduction to Maritime Ethnology.
Copenhagen.
Hawkes, J., 1968, The proper study of Mankind. Antiquity, XLII: 255-262.
Herbert, J. M., 1992, Descriptions of the Shallop in Western Europe and the New World, 1587-1671. American
Neptune. 5 2 167-79.
Hin, F., 1988, Scheepstypologieen. Klippers. aken, tjulken. steile Stevens en Westlanders in beeld gebracht. Houten.
Hodder, I., 1986, Reading the Past. Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge.
Hornell, J.. 1946, Water transport. Origins and Early Evolution. Cambridge.
Hutchinson, G., 1992, Review of ‘Archaeology Underwater: the NAS Guide to Principles and Practice’. Post-
Medieval Archaeology, 26: 173-74.
Maarleveld, Th. J., 1992, Archaeology and early modern merchant ships. Building sequence and consequences. An
introductory review, In: Carmiggelt, A. (Ed.) Rotterdam Papers, VII: 155-73. Rotterdam.
Maarleveld, Th. J., 1994, Double Dutch Solutions in Flush-Planked Shipbuilding: Continuity and Adaptations at the
Start of Modern History. In: Westerdahl, C. (Ed.), Crossroads in Ancient Shipbuilding. Proceedings q/’ rhe Si.urh
International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology: 153-163. Oxford.
Miller, D., 1985. Artefacts as Categories. Cambridge.
Neweklowsky, E., 1952-64, Die Schifahrt und FloJerei in Raurne der oheren Donau. Linz.
Nielsen, Chr., 1982, Danske Bddtyper. Kronborg.
Petersen, H. C., 1986, Skinboats of Greenland. Roskilde.
Prins, A. H. J., 1986, A Handhook of Sewn Boats. The Ethnojiraph.v and Archaeology of Archaic Plank-Built Craft.
Greenwich.
Rival, M., 1991, La Charpenterie Navale Romaine. Paris.
Rudolph, W., 1966, Handbuch der volkstiimlichen Boote im iistlichen Niederdeutschlund. Berlin.
Sneath, P. & Sokal, R., 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco.
Stammers, M. K., 1993, Mersey Flats and Flatmen. Lavenham.
Szymanski, H. 1932 (1985), Der Ever der Niederelbe. Lubeck (Hamburg).
Thomas, D. H., 1972, The use and abuse of numerical taxonomy in archaeology. Archaeology and physical
anthropology in Oceania, VII: 3 1 4 9 .
Thompson, M. W., 1977, General Pitt-Rivers. Evolution and Archaeology in the Nineteenth Century. Bradford-on-
Avon.
Voorrips, A,, 1982, Mambrino’s Helmet: A Framework for Structuring Archaeological Data. In: Whallon, R. &
Brown, J. A. (Eds), Essays on Archaeological Typology: 93-1 26. Evanston.
Wallinga, H. T., 1993, Ships and Sea-power before the Great Persian War: the Ancestry of the Ancient Trireme.
Leiden.
Weerd, M. D. de, 1988, Schepen voor Zwammerdam. Amsterdam.
Weerd, M. D. de, 1991, Ljubljana-Zwammerdam-Utrecht-Flevoland: een vrdagstuk van verwantschapstermen In:
Reinders, R.(Ed.), Bouwtraditie en scheepstype: 5-16. Groningen.
Whallon, R. & J. A. Brown (Eds), 1982, Essays on Archaeological Typology. Evanston.
Witsen, N. C., I67 1 Aeloude en Hedendaegsche Scheepsbouw eri Bestier. Amsterdam.
~