Advertisement

Survey Strategies and Techniques in Underwater Geoarchaeological Research: An Overview with Emphasis on Prehistoric Sites

  • Tine MissiaenEmail author
  • Dimitris Sakellariou
  • Nicholas C. Flemming
Chapter
Part of the Coastal Research Library book series (COASTALRL, volume 20)

Abstract

Underwater geoarchaeological studies typically involve case studies that vary widely in scale, environment and stage of application. As a result, the range of survey techniques and applied methods is very broad. This paper aims to present an overview of state-of-the-art techniques and survey strategies for submerged prehistoric site evaluation. We focus not only on conventional techniques but also on technologies that were designed and developed for other research applications but which can or could be effectively applied to submerged prehistoric studies. Different techniques discussed in this paper include remote sensing (acoustic seafloor and sub-seafloor imaging, Lidar, electric and (electro)magnetic techniques), direct investigations (coring, sampling and excavation), 2D and 3D photographic techniques, and the use of remotely operated vehicles. Notwithstanding the enormous technological progress that has been made in recent years, a large number of challenges remain not only regarding detection and excavation (especially in deeper water) but also with regard to the cost-effectiveness of submerged geoarchaeological surveys. The set-up of ‘best practice’ guidelines and close(r) collaboration with industry may provide some solutions.

Keywords

Technology Survey Methodology Submerged Prehistory Remote Sensing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This review study was carried out in the framework of COST Action TD0902 ‘Submerged Prehistoric Archaeology and Landscapes of the Continental Shelf (SPLASHCOS)’ and the Flemish IWT-SBO project ‘Archaeological Heritage in the North Sea (SeArch)’.

References

  1. Bates M, Dean M, Lawrence M, Robertson P et al. (2007) Innovative approaches to Rapid Archaeological Site Surveying and Evaluation (RASSE). Final Report. English Heritage, report nr. 3837. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/rasse/library/index.html
  2. Bates R, Lawrence M, Dean M, Robertson P (2011) Geophysical methods for wreck-site monitoring: the rapid archaeological site surveying and evaluation Programme. Naut Archaeol 40(2):404–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bingham B, Foley B, Singh H, Camilli R, Delaporta K, Eustice R, Mallios A, Mindell D, Roman C, Sakellariou D (2010) Robotic tools for deep water archaeology: surveying an ancient shipwreck with an autonomous underwater vehicle. J Field Robot 1–16. doi: 10.1002/rob.20350, Wiley Periodicals, Inc
  4. Boyce JI, Reinhardt EG (2004) Marine magnetic survey of a submerged roman harbor, Caesarea Maritima, Israel. Int J Naut Archaeol 33(1):122–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bull J, Gutowski M, Dix J, Henstock T, Hogarth P et al (2005) Design of a 3D chirp sub-bottom imaging system. Mar Geophys Res 2(4):157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Camidge K, Holt P, Johns C, Randall L, Schmidt A (2010) Developing magnetometer techniques to identify submerged archaeological sites. Theoretical Study Report. Cornwall Council Historic Environments Projects, report nr. 2010R012. http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archsearch/
  7. Delefortrie S, Saey T, Van De Vijver E, De Smedt P, Missiaen T, Demerre I, Van Meirvenne M (2013) Frequency domain electromagnetic induction survey in the intertidal zone: limitations of low-induction-number and depth of exploration. J Appl Geophys 100:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eustice R, Pizarro O, Singh H (2008) Visually augmented navigation for autonomous underwater vehicles. IEEE J Ocean Eng 33(2):103–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evangelinos D, Missiaen T (2012) Acoustic mapping of the intertidal area in Raversijde and comparison with electromagnetic data. Arch-Manche unpublished report, Renard Centre of Marine Geology, University of GhentGoogle Scholar
  10. Faught M (2014) Remote sensing, target identification and testing for submerged prehistoric sites in Florida: process and protocol in underwater CRM projects. In: Evans A, Flatman J, Flemming NC (eds) Prehistoric archaeology on the continental shelf: a global review. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitch S, Thomson K, Gaffney V (2005) Late Pleistocene and Holocene depositional systems and the palaeogeography of the Dogger Bank, North Sea. Quat Res 64:185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flemming NC, Cagatay MN, Chiocci FL, Galandiou N, Lericolais G, Joens H, Missiaen T, Moore F, Rosentau A, Sakellariou D, Skar B, Stevenson A, Weerts H (2014) Land beneath the waves: submerged landscapes and sea level change. A joint geoscience-humanities strategy for European continental shelf prehistoric research. In: Chu NC, McDonough N (eds) Position paper 21 of the European marine board. European Marine Board, OstendGoogle Scholar
  13. Gagliano SM, Pearson CE, Weinstein RA, Wiseman DE, McClendon CM (1982) Sedimentary studies of prehistoric archaeological sites: criteria for the identification of submerged archaeological sites of the northern Gulf of Mexico continental shelf. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service, Division of State Plans and Grants, Contract No. C35003(79)Google Scholar
  14. Gillham J (2011) Development of a field deployable underwater laser scanning system. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  15. Grøn O, Nørgård Jørgensen A, Hoffmann G (2007) Marine archaeological survey by high-resolution sub-bottom profilers. Norsk Sjøfartsmuseums Årbok. pp 115–144Google Scholar
  16. Gutowski M, Bull J, Dix J, Henstock T et al (2008) Three-dimensional high-resolution acoustic imaging of the sub-seabed. Appl Acoust 69:412–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henderson R, Day-Lewis F, Abarca E, Harvey C et al (2010) Marine electrical resistivity imaging of submarine groundwater discharge: sensitivity analysis and application in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts, USA. Hydrogeol J 18(1):173–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henderson J, Gallou C, Flemming NC, Spondylis E (2011) The Pavlopetri underwater archaeology project: investigating an ancient submerged town. In: Benjamin J, Bonsall C, Pickard C, Fischer A (eds) Submerged prehistory. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 207–218Google Scholar
  19. Henderson J, Pizarro O, Johnson-Roberson M, Mahon I (2013) Mapping submerged archaeological sites using stereo-vision photogrammetry. Int J Naut Archaeol 42(2):243–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hermand, JP, Grøn O, Asch, M, Ren QY (2011) Modelling flint acoustics for detection of submerged Stone Age sites. In: Proceedings of OCEANS 2011 IEEE conference, Santander, Spain. http://www.lamfa.u-picardie.fr/asch/f/p/ac/7816Ed01_final_opt.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2016
  21. Innomar (2014) SES-2000 Quattro parametric subbottom profiler. www.innomar.com
  22. Johnson-Roberson M, Pizarro O, Williams S, Mahon I (2010) Generation and visualization of large-scale three-dimensional reconstructions from underwater robotic surveys. J Field Robot 27(1):21–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klein G, Bohlen T, Forbriger T (2005) Acquisition and inversion of dispersive seismic waves in shallow marine environments. Mar Geophys Res 26:287–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kruiver P, Zurita-Hurtado O, Diafera G, Missiaen T (2013) Non-conventional techniques for marine archaeological investigations. SeArch report, Renard Centre of Marine Geology, University of Gent. http://www.sea-arch.be/nl/resultaten
  25. Kwasnitschka T, Hansteen TH, Devey CW, Kutterolf S (2013) Doing fieldwork on the seafloor: photogrammetric techniques to yield 3D visual models from ROV video. Comput Geosci 52:218–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lowag J (2010) Application of multi-transducer parametric sub-bottom profiler for three-dimensional archaeological investigations in shallow waters. www.innomar.com
  27. Mahon I, Pizarro O, Johnson-Roberson M, Friedman A, Williams SB, Henderson JC (2011) Reconstructing Pavlopetri: mapping the world’s oldest submerged town using stereo-vision. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 2315–2321. doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2011.5980536
  28. Mallios A (2014) Sonar scan matching for simultaneous localization and mapping in confined underwater environments. PhD thesis, University of GeronaGoogle Scholar
  29. McCarthy J, Benjamin J (2014) Multi-image photogrammetry for underwater archaeological site recording: an accessible, diver-based approach. J Marit Archaeol 9:95–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Missiaen T (2005) VHR marine 3D seismics for shallow water investigations: some practical guidelines. Mar Geophys Res 26:145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Missiaen T (2010) The potential of seismic imaging in marine archaeological site investigations. Relicta 6:219–236Google Scholar
  32. Missiaen T, Feller P (2009) Detection of chemical munition buried below the seabed using seismic and magnetic techniques. First Break 27:69–74Google Scholar
  33. Missiaen T, Murphy S, Loncke L, Henriet JP (2002) Very high resolution seismic mapping of shallow gas in the Belgian coastal zone. Cont Shelf Res 22(16):2291–2301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Missiaen T, Slob E, Donselaar ME (2008) Comparing different shallow geophysical methods in a tidal estuary, Verdronken land van Saeftinge, western Scheldt, the Netherlands. Neth J Geosci 87(2):151–164Google Scholar
  35. Müller H (2009) Characterization of marine near-surface sediments by electromagnetic profiling. PhD thesis, University of Bremen. http://elib.suub.uni-bremen.de/diss/docs/00011853.pdf
  36. Passaro S (2010) Marine electrical resistivity tomography for shipwreck detection in very shallow water: a case study from Agropoli (Salerno, southern Italy). J Archaeol Sci 37:1989–1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pastol Y (2011) Use of airborne LiDAR bathymetry for coastal hydrographic surveying: the French experience. J Coast Res 62:6–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pe’eri S, Morgan L, Philpot W, Armstrong A (2011) Land-water interface resolved from airborne LiDAR bathymetry (ALB) waveforms. J Coast Res 62:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pizarro O, Eustice RM, Singh H (2009) Large area 3-D reconstructions from underwater optical surveys. IEEE J Ocean Eng 34(2):150–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Plets R, Dix J, Bastos A, Best A (2007) Characterization of buried inundated peat on seismic (chirp) data, inferred from core information. Archaeol Prospect 14:261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Plets R, Dix J, Adams J, Bull J, Henstock T, Gutowski M, Best A (2009) The use of a high-resolution 3D chirp sub-bottom profiler for the reconstruction of the shallow water archaeological site of grace Dieu (1439), river Hamble, UK. J Archaeol Sci 36(2):408–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Puleo JA, Pearre N (2008) Coastal currents. Monitoring coastal Delaware – the SANDCam System. University of Delaware’s Center for Applied Coastal Research. www.deseagrant.org/products/coastal-currents-monitoring-coastal-delaware-sandcam-system. Accessed Nov 2015
  43. Ren QY, Grøn O, Hermand, JP (2011) On the in-situ detection of flint for underwater Stone Age archaeology. In: Proceedings of OCEANS 2011 IEEE conference, Santander, Spain. doi: 10.1109/Oceans-Spain.2011.6003529
  44. Rucker DF, Noonan GE, Greenwood WJ (2011) Electrical resistivity in support of geological mapping along the Panama Canal. Eng Geol 117:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sakellariou D, Rousakis G, Maroulakis S, Georgiou P et al. (2011) The submerged city of Pavlopetri. In: Poseidons Reich XVI, (DEGUWA 2011), Heidelberg, 18–20 Feb 2011Google Scholar
  46. SeArch (2015) Archaeological heritage in the North Sea. http://www.sea-arch.be/
  47. Tarits P, D'Eu JF, Balem K, Hautot S, Prevot J, Gaspari F. (2012). Mapping seismically masked seabed structures with a new DC resistivity streamer. In: 18th European meeting of environmental and engineering geophysics EAGE, Paris, France. doi: 10.3997/2214–4609.20143374
  48. Van Lancker V, Dufour I, Mathys M, Versteeg W, De Batist M (2009) Towards a high-resolution 3D–analysis of sand-bank architecture on the Belgian Continental Shelf. Final Report. Belgian Science Policy, Brussels. https://www.belspo.be/belspo/fedra/proj.asp?l=en&COD=AP/20
  49. Vardy M, Dix J, Henstock T, Bull J, Gutowski M (2008) Decimeter-resolution 3D seismic volume in shallow water: a case study in small-object detection. Geophysics 73(2):33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wunderlich J, Wendt G, Müller S (2005) High-resolution echo-sounding and detection of embedded archaeological objects with nonlinear sub-bottom profilers. Mar Geophys Res 2–4(2005):123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zurita Hurtado OJ, Missiaen T, De Clercq M, Versteeg W, Kruiver P, De Kleine M (2014) Comparative seismic source study for buried palaeolandscape investigations in the southern North Sea. In: Near surface geoscience conference abstracts, Mo Myce 06. http://lib.ugent.be/nl/catalog/pug01:5786258

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tine Missiaen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dimitris Sakellariou
    • 2
  • Nicholas C. Flemming
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Renard Centre of Marine Geology, Department of GeologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Institute of Oceanography, Hellenic Centre for Marine ResearchAthensGreece
  3. 3.National Oceanography Centre, European WaySouthamptonUK
  4. 4.Sheets HeathWokingUK

Personalised recommendations