Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes and Underwater Site Discovery: Reevaluating the ‘Danish Model’ for International Practice

Home , Aerial archaeology, Doggerland, Ethnoarchaeology, Fur (island), Kongemose culture, Prehistoric archaeology

FORUM

Jonathan Benjamin School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK ABSTRACT

Paleoenvironmental studies of late Pleistocene climate change and postglacial sea-level rise have coincided with and inspired archaeological fieldwork in submarine environments. Underwater archaeological contributions have significantly enhanced the Mesolithic-Neolithic record in and around Europe; however, despite recent advancements, a clear approach to broadly investigate submerged prehistoric landscapes remains undefined. While a specific survey strategy has been tested in southern Scandinavia, these practices lack some considerations if they are to be productively applied on an international scale. Through a systematic identification of physical and cultural variables and a practical, common-sense approach, this paper re-evaluates the ‘Danish model’ for submerged prehistoric landscape archaeology and presents a framework for the identification of locations for underwater archaeological survey and site discovery. In addition to the methodological evaluation, specific research priorities are introduced.

Keywords underwater archaeology, Mesolithic, Neolithic, submerged prehistoric landscapes, archaeological prospection, sea-level rise

Received 13 May 2009; accepted 28 May 2010. Address correspondence to Jonathan Benjamin, School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Doorway 4, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, Scotland, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

253 Jonathan Benjamin

INTRODUCTION

Whileitmaybetemptingtotreat‘underwater archaeology’ as a single sub-discipline within archaeology, fieldwork conducted in submarine environments should not be considered homogeneous. Variations in scope and practice abound within archaeology underwater and the terminology used to define the sub- fields can be confusing since ‘Underwater Archaeology’ is often used synonymously with ‘Maritime Archaeology’ or ‘Nautical Archaeology’. In his seminal work, Muck- elroy (1978) diagramed the sub-disciplines of archaeology underwater and proposed the term for non-ship, non-maritime related archaeology conducted underwater to be simply “archaeology under water” (Figure 1). Despite this identified distinction, there ex- ists a preconceived notion about underwater archaeology both within popular culture as well as the archaeological community: “To most people maritime archaeology means wrecks, spectacular time capsules like the Mary Rose. Less appreciated are the extensive prehistoric landscapes...” (Miles 2004: xiii). Numerous summaries or methodologi- Figure 1. Fields of archaeology concerned with cal publications are devoted to the broader underwater methodology (redrawn topic of archaeology underwater (e.g., Bass after Muckelroy 1978). Nautical Ar- 1966; Blot 1996; Bowens 2009; Dean 1992; chaeology and Maritime Archaeol- Delgado 1997; Gianfrotta and Pomey 1981; ogy are not always underwater as Goggin1960;Green1990;RuppeandBarstad´ illustrated by areas A, B, and C. Sub- 2002; St. John Wilkes 1971; Volpe 1999), merged sites, which can be historic or prehistoric, and are not found within and focus mainly on maritime or nautical 1 the scope of Nautical or Maritime archaeology. Archaeology are indicated by area F. Recent paleoenvironmental studies of late Pleistocene climate change and postglacial sea-level rise (e.g., Christensen 1995; Dawson 1984; Fairbanks et al. 1989; Flem- 1983, 1995). The pioneering work of these ming 1968; Lambeck et al. 1998, 2001; archaeologists and ‘submerged prehistori- Pirazolli 1985, 1996; Shackelton et al. 1984; ans’ can be considered amongst the most Shennan and Horton 2002; van Andel 1989, technically remarkable fieldwork and have 1990) have coincided with innovative work lead to highly informative archaeological on submerged prehistoric coastal landscapes discoveries in Northern Europe, the Mediter- (e.g., Andersen 1980, 1985; Dunbar et al. ranean Basin, and North America.2 1992; Faught 1988, 2004; Fischer 1987, Despite the advancements in underwa- 1993, 1995; Flemming 1983; Galili et al. ter research, a systematic search strategy to 1993, 1997; Grøn and Skarrup 1991; Hartz broadly investigate submerged prehistoric and Lubke¨ 1995; Hudson 1979; Josenhans landscapesislacking.Thisismainlyduetothe et al. 1997; Larsson 1983; Lubke¨ 2001, 2003; scale of the problem (the sheer number and Masters 1983; Momber 2000, 2005; Raban combined area of archaeological landscapes 1965, 1983; Ruppe 1980, 1988; Skaarup now underwater), the expense of systematic

254 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 2 • 2010 Submerged Prehistoric Site Discovery

investigation underwater, and the fact that mouths, as well as available material for tool submarine environments vary dramatically production. Examples of these materials in- by location. The numerous considerations clude pebbles and river rocks, driftwood, and determining archaeological potential make a other organic materials used for structures; universal methodology virtually impossible. tools; and fuel. Furthermore, recent work in Still, there are fundamental aspects of any the archaeology of submerged cultural land- region that can be evaluated in order to scapes has lead researchers to suggest that consider its appropriateness for an in-depth geomorphological conditions for the preser- assessment for potential cultural resources vation of archaeological and palaeoenviron- on its continental shelf. These methods, mental material exist throughout the world discussed in detail below, can be applied and that new techniques are “providing the on a pan-European, or indeed international momentum for a rapidly expanding field of scale,throughacombinationofsophisticated investigation” (Bailey and Flemming 2008: analysis, common sense, and simple familiar- 2153). Indeed in their recent publication ity with individual landscapes and local re- Archaeology of the Continental Shelf: Ma- sources. Based on the necessary practicality rine Resources, Submerged Landscapes and and flexibility, this paper presents a frame- Underwater Archaeology, Bailey and Flem- work for identifying appropriate variables in ming neatly summarize previous work on order to evaluate coastal regions for potential this topic and, more importantly, broadly ad- prehistoric underwater archaeological site dress geological/geomorphological consid- discovery. erations and issues surrounding submerged site preservation and discovery. Since research in submerged cultural ‘STONE AGE’ ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE landscapes is relatively recent within the SUBMERGED COAST wider field of archaeology, methodology for investigating underwater prehistory is still in development. Furthermore it is often the The importance of the coast to prehistoric case that the initial discovery of material hunter-gatherer populations has been a topic takes place accidentally through commercial of significant research in recent decades (e.g. and/or amateur maritime activity (see Flem- Bailey 2004; Bailey and Parkington 1988; ming 2004; Masters and Flemming 1983). Bonsall 1996; Erlandson 2001; Erlandson and Buildingonmethodsandtechniquesfromthe Fitzpatrick 2006; Larsson 1995; Milner 2005; research of the past four decades, current and Pluciennik 2008; Rowley-Conwy 1983; van future generations of prehistorians working Andel 1989; Zvelebil 1998). Advantages of on land and underwater will continue to coastal living have been defined by Bailey develop the field. Erlandson and Fitzpatrick (2004) and can be simplified as follows: (2006: 14) rightly remind the scientific community that careful consideration and plan- 1. Transportation and communication; this ning for research in submerged terrestrial encompasses trade and social activities, landscapes is essential because “repeated and includes seaborne migrations and failures may threaten the availability of future exchange; funding.” Additionally, it is the responsibility 2. Access to food resources, specifically the of a professional archaeologist to employ the abundance and variety of marine and appropriate staff and equipment needed to terrestrial plants and animals; and carry out proper archaeological fieldwork 3. Access to other (non-food) resources. in submarine environment. The question remains: how can submerged prehistoric This includes fresh water in high water- coastal landscapes be addressed by archae- table environments and at coastal river- ologists?

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 255 Jonathan Benjamin

SOUTHERN SCANDINAVIA AND THE Fischer 1987, 1993, 1995, 1997; Grøn 1995; ‘PRESUPPOSITION MODEL’ FOR Grøn and Skarrup 1991; Larsson 1983, 1995; SUBMERGED PREHISTORIC SITE Malm 1995; Skaarup 1983; Sørensen 1996) DISCOVERY and the Baltic coast of northern Germany (Hartz and Lubke¨ 1995; Lubke¨ 2001, 2003). Prehistoric coastal settlements differ in size, Systematic underwater excavations of artifact quantity and quality, seasonal indica- prehistoric sites in the southwest Baltic were tors, and overall preservation compared with initiated in the 1970s by the Langeland Mu- inland sites (Fischer 1995). There is therefore seum in the South Funen Archipelago (Grøn little doubt that valuable and original infor- 1995;Skarrup1995).Bytheearly1990sabout mation has come from underwater archaeol- sixty sites were recorded in this area (Skaarup ogy in southern Scandinavia. Fischer (1995: 1995: fig. 1). In 1975, recreational divers 371) cites three primary reasons to study discovered what would become the famous submerged Stone Age sites: 1) preserved site of Tybrind Vig (Andersen 1980; Malm organic material; 2) new environmental data; 1995), although material had been found and 3)alternativeinformationcontributingtothe- collected in the locality in the late 1950s. This ories of adaptive strategy, demography, and would become the first full-scale excavation social organization. Some of the initial and of a submerged Mesolithic site in Denmark important discoveries, such as submerged (Malm 1995). In 1984 Mesolithic layers at forests and the skeleton of Korsør Nor, were Argus Bank were obtained at depths of 4–6 discovered in the middle twentieth century meters in the Sm˚aland Bight: the marine by the military, sport divers, and other non- area which forms a bay and separates the archaeologists (Fischer 1995). However, a islands of Falster, Zealand, and Lolland in number of the sites were not discovered southeastern Denmark (Fischer 1987, 1995). accidentally; they are the result of a specific This site was determined to be from the type of underwater survey, found using a middle-Mesolithic Kongemose culture, and model for the presupposition of submerged included a well-preserved hearth. Stone Age sites. By 1985 there were ten recorded sites in the Sm˚aland Bight. Interviews with a Mesolithic and Neolithic contributions numberofelderlylocalswhohadfishedinthe fromsouthernScandinaviacanbeconsidered early twentieth century established which highly informative within European prehis- species were caught, which were desired, tory. This is due in part to the fact that histor- and what methods were used: line, trap, ically there have been more archaeologists nets, etc. Additionally, specific fishing spots, and more archaeological material available in seasonality,anddetailsofthecatchhavesince Scandinavia than anywhere else in the world been discussed (Bennike et al. 2007; Fischer (Price 1991; Rowley-Conwy 1995). Since 1987, 1993). It became evident that there southern Scandinavia has an importance to were similarities in these sites and thus the the European Mesolithic “disproportionate ‘fishing site location model’ was established to its geographical extent” (Larsson 1990: by studying the nature of the topographic 257), it follows that the underwater sites location of fishing sites (Fischer 1993, 1995, from this period are significant to the Scan- 1997, 2007). These were common locations dinavian archaeological record and thus to wherefishandeelswam—excellentplacesto prehistoric European archaeology. “We must trap or net a fisherman’s catch. “Settlements remember that as much as two thirds of the were placed on the shore immediately beside former land area was submerged in the Early good sites for trap fishery. Such places were Mesolithic—a process which must have in- at the mouths of streams, at narrows in the fluenced the structure of coastal settlement” fjords, and on small islands and promontories (Larsson 1990: 278). Indeed archaeologists close to sloping bottoms in the fjords” (Fis- have been investigating submerged environ- cher 1993: 66, Figure 2 in this paper). While ments for four decades in southern Scan- the term ‘model’ could be objectionable for dinavia (e.g., Andersen 1980, 1985, 1987; the prediction of sites, as compared with the

256 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 2 • 2010 Submerged Prehistoric Site Discovery

Figure 2. Topographic locations of Mesolithic coastal settlements based on the southern Scandina- vian model (after Fischer 1995). A) Narrow inlets connecting large bodies of water. B) Between a small island and mainland. C and D) At the tip of a headland. E and F) At the mouth of a stream. parameterssetbyJochim(1976),thisseriesof In 1985, a two-day initial survey was assertions was employedsuccessfullyandthe conducted to test the hypothesis based on resulting discoveries speak for themselves. the topographic assumptions of the existing Furthermore, as a method of control, areas underwater sites in Denmark. Using Royal that were not considered promising for Danish administration of Navigation and Hy- marine resource exploitation were surveyed drographic charts, at a scale of 1:70,000 with negative results and it was concluded (see Fischer 1995: ﬁg. 7), locations were that Stone Age settlement sites and their determined and plotted, and divers were sent locations were not random (Fischer 1993, toinvestigatetheseareasofpotentialinterest. 1995). Results were overwhelmingly positive. In

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 257 Jonathan Benjamin

total the site location model proved >80% the southwest Baltic, there are important effective according to Fischer (1995). The elements of this method which are missing, number of Kongemose and Ertebølle sites have been taken for granted, or have been in southern Scandinavia, in particular, has deliberatelyexcluded.Ifthedescribedsurvey increased substantially since the adoption of strategy is to be applied internationally, as this survey strategy. A result of the successful proposed, the ‘presupposition model’ must survey in 1985, a further two weeks of field- be re-examined. Based on theoretical project work were carried out and by the following planning and practical field experience a year upwards of thirty new sites had been revised model for the international applica- discovered in the Sm˚aland Bight including tion of the ‘Danish Model’ for submerged Vigsø Skal and Malmgrunden (Fischer 1993). prehistoric site discovery is suggested as In addition to visual survey, in some cases follows: small test pits were dug by hand to investigate for the presence of archaeological material Phase I—Regional familiarization: archaeol- below the seabed. During the survey, in best ogy, geography, geology, geomorphol- conditions, it was possible to conduct three ogy, oceanography, and hydrology. short dives per day while air tanks were Phase II—Ethnographic component: cultural refilled aboard the boat en route to the next parallels, historical research, and mod- location (Fischer 1993). ern interviews. As defined by Fischer, the survey model Phase III—Map, chart and aerial imagery canbebrokenupintothreephases: analysis, and location plotting. Phase IV—Observation of potential survey Phase I—Map plotting; locations, physically and with sonar. Phase II—Localization and delimitation for Phase V—Marking of theoretical site with sites by echo-sounder; and GPS and diving to investigate. Phase III—Marking of the theoretical site Phase VI—Post-fieldwork analysis, interpre- with a marker buoy, and diving to inves- tation and dissemination. tigate. I) Regional Familiarization: Archaeology, Fischer (Fischer 1993: 57) continues: Geography, Geology, Geomorphology, “The model and working method described Oceanography and Hydrology can be applied to the recording and protection of undersea Stone Age settlements Any fieldwork, above or below sea level, in many other countries of the world.” requires an understanding and knowledge of This assertion shall be addressed. Drawing archaeological practices and material. How- on experience from North America, Ruppe ever, for the purposes of this model, it must (1988:57)haslisted“threemajorfactorstobe be stated: archaeologists should be, or must considered in a study of inundated terrestrial become, familiar with the specific regional sites: sea-level change, coastal geomorphol- material culture and prehistoric settlement ogy, and coastal settlement patterns.” This patterns prior to conducting fieldwork. The contribution, when reviewed alongside the familiarization process is especially impor- Danish example, provides significant insights tant when a local underwater archaeological into the preparation required to investigate communitydoesnotexistorwhenaninterna- submerged prehistoric landscapes for their tional team attempts to survey foreign territo- archaeological potential. ries.Furthermore,thelogisticsofunderwater archaeology confirms the need for surveyors to be able to effectively and independently REEVALUATING THE SURVEY STRATEGY identify archaeological material underwater FOR INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE (Muckelroy 1978) due to limited communication, time constraints, a finite air supply, While some practical survey methods have and the physiological limitations of breathing been established and proven functional in compressed gasses.

258 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 2 • 2010 Submerged Prehistoric Site Discovery

Regional variables must be clearly de- The identification of accessible cultural fined if these survey methods are to be landscapes includes evaluating issues of ero- successful at an international level. Famil- sion, sedimentation, and changes in topog- iarity with settlement distributions and the raphy (Grøn 1995). In cases of extreme economic practices of prehistoric groups, physical change, topographic models would such as exploitation of biologically produc- naturally become less reliable. Furthermore, tive areas (e.g., Perlman 1980) or specific material from inflowing agricultural systems raw materials (e.g., Dunbar et al. 1992), andindustrialactivitiescanhaveadevastating should assist in the successful prediction of impact on submerged landscapes and under- prehistoric site locations (Ruppe 1988). Fur- water sites. Grøn has advocated familiariza- thermore, cultural practices, independent of tion with regional geological surveys where, or complimentary to resource exploitation in the best cases, hundreds of borehole data patterns, should not be ignored. This can be are available to archaeologists, as was the achieved by studying areas that have not been case at the Strynø Basin project.3 It is thus submerged,orlocationswhichhavesinceun- suggested that the regional marine geological dergone isostatic uplift (Bailey and Flemming and geomorphological data be studied with a 2008; Benjamin 2007; Bonsall 1996; Fischer focus on Holocene sedimentation and coastal 1993). Fischer himself suggests that there erosion for their impact on archaeological were foregone considerations for choosing surveys. Consideration of geological and specific locations within the Sm˚aland Bight geographical variables should be carefully because “it is an area with abundant raw evaluated and can be done concurrently with materials and in all probability also abundant location plotting. remains of an extensive Stone Age occupa- It is important to note, though it may tion” (Fischer 1993: 61). More sophisticated seem counterintuitive, Holocene sedimenta- demographic and resource modeling (e.g., tion and ‘undesirable’ seabed composition Jochim 1976) may also be helpful if the data do not necessarily imply that archaeological and means are available. discovery is impossible. “Approximately 80% Researchers must also examine the ge- of the Danish sea bed is classified as mud ological, geomorphological, oceanographic, and sand, which to the inexperienced un- and hydrological components of a region derwater researcher may sound like a non- both for their potential impact on the pre- rewarding place to start surveying. Nearly historic habitat and its inhabitants, as well all the rest of the Danish sea floor may ap- as the possibility for site survival (see Bailey pear equally unpromising” (Fischer 2007: 3). and Flemming 2008; Benjamin 2007; Westley Furthermore, it is established that submerged and Dix 2006; Dunbar et al. 1992; Masters prehistoric material has been discovered in a and Flemming 1983; Ruppe 1988). In order variety of seabed compositions and coastal for modern archaeological investigation to environments (Flemming 1983) and that provide positive results, sites must have origi- eroding land surfaces can lead to the expo- nallyexistedinagivenlocationand,critically, sure of prehistoric material (e.g., Andersen they need to have survived. This is perhaps 1980; Momber 2000; Raban 1983). While the most important element omitted from Fis- a thorough geological assessment will be cher’sinitialmodel:asaresultofyearsofprac- useful, it should not be the sole consideration tical experience with coastal morphology when planning underwater survey; localized and archaeology, the problematic areas were areas may exist as exceptions to an otherwise automatically and deliberately omitted in unlikely region of study. Denmark (Fischer, personal communication, Sea-level models and curves should be 2004). Consideration of the physical environ- consulted if available and should be treated mental elements is extremely important, and as a general guideline for presenting depth to local variables such as coastal topography, age ratios and coastal environmental change. tidal activity, sea currents, surge, as well as However, one must remember that such geological composition and rates and type of models are only as precise as their underlying sedimentation must not be overlooked. data set. Sea-level models must themselves be

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 259 Jonathan Benjamin

evaluated; in a case where data are limited, investigating a region or specific location theresultingsea-levelcurveshouldbetreated for submerged archaeological potential, the as an approximation. A conservative window sportdiving,fishing,andothermaritimecom- of +/− several meters may be required in munities should be consulted and exhausted order to evaluate a specific region based on for their knowledge of geographical and ar- the available sea-level curve. This is especially chaeological features and material. A trained true since coastal landscape morphology can specialist can then investigate any promising vary greatly by individual location. locations suggested to be of interest by non- archaeological divers.

II) Ethnographic Component: Historical III) Map, Chart and Aerial Analysis and Research and Interviews Location Plotting

The ethnographic and historical re- Analyzing the physical environment of search component was, to an extent, prac- the modern coast and near-shore waters ticed in Denmark. However this element was using nautical charts and satellite imagery not included in the early guidelines suggested will greatly contribute to the evaluation of for international practice. Fischer describes paleoenvironments and their suitability for interviewing local fishermen in Denmark submerged site discovery. This review of (Fischer 1993, 1995), and this step is impor- regional topography, bathymetry, and aerial tant. Identification of local marine resources, imagery will establish factors likely to have exploited by prehistoric and modern peoples promoted preservation or destruction of alike, can help establish the types of fishing submerged sites and, in turn, act as a filter practiced in a region (i.e., active, passive, to establish the foundations for future in- or both) (Fischer 2007; Pedersen 1997). By vestigations of the submerged environment. reviewing the marine resource exploitation Factors to consider include exposure to patterns of prehistoric populations and com- coastal surge and waves, sediment type and paring them with traditional fishing practices quantity,thepresenceofcaves,andsheltered employed in that region, researchers can de- areas in submerged environments (Bailey and termine if prehistoric peoples exploited sim- Flemming 2008; Benjamin 2007, 2008). ilar species as modern fishermen practicing Maps and charts can vary greatly in accu- traditional (non-industrial, non-commercial) racy, and thus reliability. Since topographical methods of fishing. Ethnographic parallels positioning of sites relies on a well-founded should also be sought. Archives containing knowledge of the paleoenvironment, maps ethnohistoric accounts of regional maritime and charts should be up to date and rich practices should be thoroughly investigated in bathymetric detail. A finer scale may be and will help identify what kinds of marine re- requiredifthedataareinsufficient.Inthepast sources were used, as well as how and where two decades, nautical charts have become these practices took place. If stationary traps, available for general use in electronic format. nets, fences or other structures are used, then Thistechnologicaladvanceisusefultotheun- there is a strong likelihood that prehistoric derwater archaeologist who can now zoom populations will have lived nearby, in order in and out of entire oceans on a computer to protect their investment and fishing rights screen, a convenience that eliminates the (Fischer 2007; Pedersen 1997). need for a room full of bulky nautical charts. The sport (non-archaeological) diving While initial projects in Denmark relied on community is a valuable resource and any charts of 1:70,000 in scale (Fischer 1993), underwater field archaeologist has probably the author would suggest a ratio of 1:25,000 experienced this firsthand. Interviews with as a desirable minimum resolution, when experiencedlocaldiverscantellthearchaeol- available. If charts depicting appropriate res- ogist about dive sites, conditions, submarine olution / bathymetric data are not available, geology, and even lead to the sharing of un- more extensive seabed profiling may be published finds (e.g., Benjamin 2007). When necessary.

260 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 2 • 2010 Submerged Prehistoric Site Discovery

Aerial and satellite imagery have been icaldivers,andmaynotalwaysberequired.In used to describe and interpret archaeological some instances, as was the case in Denmark landscapes in coastal zones (e.g., Cox 1992; in the 1980s, nautical charts may provide Moseley et al. 1992), thus the notion and use a sufficient amount of information needed of the technology are not new. However, the to evaluate the submerged landscapes. By wide availability of this technology is a new reviewing aerial imagery in tandem with phenomenon. The accessibility of reason- bathymetry it may be possible to evaluate a ably high-resolution satellite imagery, with particular region without the need for costly the introduction of internet-based maps, sonar and mapping projects. has already begun to impact studies of Once a theoretical framework has been submerged cultural landscapes, assisting to established, archaeologists must investigate define palaeocoastlines, and identify survey the region physically. From the surface, if locations with potentially significant results the submerged area in question is adjacent to (Benjamin 2007). Additionally, modern con- modern land the researcher should conduct structions, such as harbors, levees, and other a geological and archaeological survey of the features, both close to and in the water, can onshore coastal environment. Confirming be identified from thousands of miles away. bathymetry in nearshore waters should also This is particularly useful in cases where such be conducted by comparing real-time data to human impact may not be indicated in detail the bathymetric charts used in the planning on nautical charts or regional maps. Further- phases. Using a consumer-grade sonar (or more, the quality and the geological compo- fish-finder) can be an inexpensive method to sition of a landscape can, at times, be seen confirm and record depth and contours (e.g., from above based on modern agriculture, Benjamin 2007; Fischer 1993). forests, and barren terrain. When compared to bathymetric data from available nautical chartsandtopographicmaps,satelliteimages V) Marking of Theoretical Site With GPS are a valuable tool for project planning. and Diving to Investigate

Although GPS was used in Danish field- IV) Observation of Potential Survey work (Fischer, personal communication, Locations, Physically and With Sonar 2004) this remained ill-defined in the guidelines for international application of the There appears to have evolved a two- survey model. From the dive boat, a sonar pronged approach, if not a methodological with integrated GPS can be used to both mark debate, on how to prioritize the study of sub- bathymetry and plot survey locations. This merged landscapes through archaeological will help to locate dive spots in the future as diving and remote sensing operations (John- well as to document and map areas surveyed. son and Stright 1992; Masters and Flemming Amateur divers have been successfully 1983). Gaffney et al. (2007) have mapped used for underwater archaeological projects 23,000 km2 of the North Sea Basin using seis- (i.e., Andersen 1980; Skarrup 1983). It is im- mic data collected for mineral exploration portant to note, however, that such individu- anditislikelythatstudiessimilartothis als should be directed by trained underwater important research will eventually produce archaeology specialists whenever possible. much greater bathymetric detail of the sub- Malm (1995: 388) asks: “Should one rely on merged environments around Europe. This volunteer divers and amateur archaeologists, will certainly serve to improve the precision whomightnothavesomucharchaeological in locating submarine sites and when the use routine, or on expensive marine archaeol- of advanced sonar (i.e., multibeam) is possi- ogists with the necessary competence and ble for high-resolution mapping of the sea- experience?” It should be pointed out that floor, this should be considered. However, the use of strictly amateur divers on an under- sonar and mapping techniques should not water site or survey, even when directed by replace underwater fieldwork by archaeolog- an archaeologist from shore or a boat, may be

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 261 Jonathan Benjamin

disadvantageous and could compromise the that there is no more to gain from new mate- research. This could, in turn, impact future rial at coastal Mesolithic sites; that everything funding of similar or follow-up projects. has already been discovered, recorded, and Malm continues, implying the observed need interpreted. This assertion has been proven in previous decades: “Experienced marine to be faulty since subsequent material dis- archaeologists do not—so far—hang from covered from the southwest Baltic, including trees.” those sites discovered through the use of pre- Whiletrainedunderwaterarchaeologists dictive models, have been both informative still do not grow on trees, the discipline of and important within European archaeology. underwater archaeology has grown signifi- The well-preserved Mesolithic blade from cantly since the first excavations at Tybrind Timmendorf-Nordmole, northern Germany, Vig in 1978. Archaeology departments and found complete with organic hafting (Lubke¨ postgraduate programs at academic institu- 2001), reminds the archaeological commu- tions worldwide now include training and nity of the potential for unique preservation education in underwater archaeology. Fur- and high-quality material from submerged thermore, work from the past four decades locations. Furthermore, predictive models has inspired a new generation of motivated applied to areas where the archaeological and qualified archeologists, trained and capa- record is particularly lacking can be seen as ble of carrying out professional archaeology a strategy for beginning the challenging task underwater. A properly managed project of locating prehistoric sites underwater. must include the necessary planning and budget to incorporate a trained underwater specialist to direct the work carried out RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND FUTURE underwater, supervise amateur divers and STUDIES preparethereport.AsdefinedbytheInstitute for Archaeologists: “A Nautical Archaeologi- Underwater archaeology has the potential to cal specialist is a recognized named person significantly add to our knowledge of pre- who has quantifiable (peer reviewed publi- historic people and material culture ranging cations, academic qualifications, MIfA) and from c. 6,000 years ago and as far back as the qualifiable experience (named projects at middle Paleolithic (see Flemming 2004: fig. MIfA level of responsibility) in researching, 2.5), and possibly older. However acknowl- excavating, recording, interpreting, recon- edging the archaeological necessity and spe- structing and publishing Nautical finds” (IFA 4 cificresearchprioritiesareimportantinorder 2008: 2). to justify the expense and energy required to properly investigate submerged prehistoric landscapes.5 Although the Mesolithic and early Neolithic are not the only periods that VI) Post-Fieldwork Analysis, Interpretation meritfurtherstudy,thisshortsectionismeant and Dissemination to introduce a significant archaeological research priority that can be greatly enhanced This is standard practice in archaeology through underwater archaeological practice. and is no exception here. The transition from hunter-gatherer to an agricultural subsistence economy is considered a major event in human prehistory A NOTE ON PREDICTIVE MODELS and took place across a variety of landscapes including coastal areas that are now sub- The use of predictive models has been sug- merged. As a result, underwater archaeology gested to be limiting; Price (1995: 424) states has the potential to transform the archaeolog- that “we do not learn from them...” imply- icalrecordandourideasaboutMesolithicand ing that the material from sites discovered Neolithiclife-ways.Currentresearchistaking through site-location models will supply replace throughout Europe and surrounding dundant information. However, this suggests environs and employs a variety of methods

262 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 2 • 2010 Submerged Prehistoric Site Discovery

including diving and remote sensing (see however, despite the discovery of archae- Bailey and Flemming 2008; Benjamin et al. ological material, no definitive evidence of 2011;Flemming2004).Usingthereevaluated submergedprehistoricsiteswererecordedin Danish model for submerged prehistoric situ. Nevertheless, important geological and site discovery through archaeological survey, geographical considerations were evaluated research priorities are introduced in the form and have lead to the renewed interest in the of two examples: one in continental Europe region; this time in central Dalmatia, Croatia. and another in the United Kingdom. The The eastern Adriatic is important for un- following descriptions should be interpreted derstanding the mechanisms of the spread of as preliminary considerations that reflect agriculture, specifically because it provides both geographical appropriateness for the waterborn access to central Europe from the described methodology, and the potential for southern Balkans and eastern Mediteranean. significant archaeological contributions to be However early Holocene coastal settlements made through underwater methods. Further- are relatively uncommon and the region is more,theycanbeseentorepresentexamples often overlooked for its greater significance of geographically central and marginal areas to the Neolithization of Europe (Forenbaher in Europe. and Miracle 2005). The lack of evidence for coastal occupation is likely a consequence of the innundation in the early and middle The Eastern Adriatic Holocene. Between 7000 BC and 5400 BC (the period of the Mesolithic-Neolithic tran- The Adriatic coast was a major route for sition) the Adriatic Sea rose 15 meters from the spread of agriculture into both south- approximately 20 m to 5 m below modern western and central Europe (Forenbaher sea levels (Lambeck et al. 2004);6 coastal sites and Miracle 2005). In 2004–2005, initial in- older than 5400 cal BC are likely to have been vestigations in the submarine environments submerged. of the northern Adriatic were conducted The central Dalmatian coastal region (Benjamin2007;BenjaminandBonsall2009); of Croatia (see Figure 3) has thus been

Figure 3. The northeast Adriatic region, from the Gulf of Trieste to the Zadar Archipelago. The Zadar Archipelago, in particular, contains a variety of sheltered locations, as well as numerous sea caves (Benjamin 2007). Oblique satellite image © Google Earth.

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 263 Jonathan Benjamin

selected as a focus for investigation because settlement information (i.e., dwellings and of its potential for site preservation and for burials) has led Lars Larsson to suggest that in significant archaeological discovery. Minimal Scotland “the most favourable landscapes to tidal activity, limited exposure to open sea investigate would be a lagoon or deep bay... storm surge, favorable sedimentation rates, preferably with a mixture of fresh, brackish and the abundance of protected geographic and salt water and an irregular shoreline features such as bays, coves, straits, and which provides the potential for headlands submerged limestone caves, increase the and islands to form as a consequence of likelihood for site survival and significant changing sea-level” (Larsson 2004: 389). It archaeological discovery (Benjamin 2007). is such geographical and environmental con- In addition to the Danish model, due to siderations that future research should aim to its karstic limestone geology, methods and explore and evaluate. techniques from previous work conducted A model for coastal survey, based on in Florida (e.g., Dunbar et al. 1992; Faught environmental and cultural variables, should 2004; Ruppe 1980) may also be applica- be sought in areas where there has been ble in the eastern Adriatic (Benjamin et al. limited or no isostatic uplift or where crustal 2011). subsidence occurred during the Holocene. A holistic approach would include the investigation of land, inter-tidal, and submarine Northwest Scotland zones, and would be the most comprehen- sive way to evaluate the paleolandscape The Mesolithic of Scotland has recently (especially given the tidal swings sometimes been summarized by Saville (2004) and west- greater than 5 m). Particularly interesting ern Scottish material, in particular, has been are the numerous bays and inlets on the presented for its contribution the Mesolithic- east coast of Outer Hebrides; the relatively Neolithic transition in northwest Europe low energy environments of these sheltered (e.g., Armit and Finlayson 1992; Bonsall locations are likely to have aided in the et al. 2002). Still, the Mesolithic record is preservation of prehistoric sites. Through dominated by lithic assemblages, bone and the described methods of archaeological, antler tools, and shellfish remains and the geographical and ethnographic analysis, rec- current lack of high-quality mortuary or ommendations can be made for future

Figure 4. An oblique satellite image of northwest Scotland and the Outer Hebrides islands. The east coasts of the Outer Hebrides offer a host of sheltered bays, inlets, and islets that should promote preservation of submerged and inter-tidal sites. Satellite imagery © Google Earth.

264 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 2 • 2010 Submerged Prehistoric Site Discovery

research of coastal and submerged prehistory topography that allowed for the preservation in northwest Scotland. of sites despite inundation and sometimes The geomorphological situation in Scot- numerous transgressions. These variables all land is more complex than in the eastern contribute to the success of underwater Adriatic, since it was partially covered by discovery in southern Scandinavia and it is an ice sheet in the late Pleistocene; the not the intention of this paper to suggest melting of the glacier caused substantial that identical features will exist elsewhere. land rebound during the early Holocene, However, the foundations of the Scandi- which was greatest in south-central Scotland, navian methods for the presupposition of and occurred much less to the north and submerged prehistoric sites can be produc- northwest (Ballantyne 2004). While there tive on an international scale if they are is some archaeological material from the considered alongside successful campaigns southwest Scottish coasts, mainly on raised from other distinct marine environments beaches (i.e., Ballantyne 2004: fig. 2.4), early (e.g., Galili et al. 1993; Ruppe 1988) and the Holocene coasts of the north and northwest necessary adaptations for regional variation of Scotland are now underwater. According are systematically evaluated prior to physical to the sea-level model produced by Shennan survey. Furthermore it is likely that some of and Horton (2002), the situation in the Outer the principles of the Danish model will be ap- Hebrides suggests that coastal Mesolithic plicable, with limited or no modifications. It sites existed in locations that are now inter- shouldcomeasnosurprisetofindthatcoastal tidal or submerged landscapes. Sites on or peoples exploited fish in narrow inlets and neartheshorepre-dating7000BPwouldhave straits where they are easily accessible. Given been transgressed and, given appropriate such likelihoods, the redefined survey model conditions, may now exist underwater. The- can be seen as an appropriate template, ready oretically, coastal sites contemporary with to be adapted and modified as required by the earliest archaeological evidence from region. the Outer Hebrides, c. 8000 BP (Gregory Although Price (1995: 424) states that et al. 2005), would now be below 5 m msl; “we should avoid predictive models; more however, it must be stated that this sea-level complete intensive systematic surveys are model is based on a single set of data (Ritchie essential to inform us about the range of vari- 1985) and that the sea-level curve itself is only ability that is present in the archaeological a prediction. Thus, it is clear that the margin record,” Bailey and Flemming (2008: 2159) of error is too large to determine a precise remind researchers that since “visibility un- age of inundation for the islands’ Mesolithic derwaterisrestrictedtoarangeoftheorderof shores. Coastal landscapes dating into the 1–20mandcarefulexaminationoftheseabed late Mesolithic, or even early Neolithic may is relatively rare, the probability of finding have been submerged, depending on local prehistoric materials and terrestrial environ- variation. More data are needed to clarify the mental indicators in situ by targeted survey is coastalgeomorphologicalandarchaeological inevitably low.” By expanding upon the ‘pre- landscapes of the early-middle Holocene in supposition model’ employed in Denmark, the Outer Hebrides (see Figure 4). however, prehistorians can improve the prospects of site discovery and investigate areas in a unified effort, adapting underwater CONCLUSION archaeological methods for regional appropriateness and improving the techniques in Specific conditions in the southern Baltic the process. Furthermore, projects should have allowed for thousands of prehistoric include the acquisition of paleoenvironmen- archaeological discoveries underwater (Fis- tal data, and archaeological survey should cher 2004): the archaeological landscape of result in the reporting of material, regard- prehistoric hunter-fishers, cold water, rela- less of age, from underwater, inter-tidal and tively low salinity, sediment and marine flora onshore fieldwork in a cooperative effort. that produced anaerobic conditions, and Through a system of careful consideration,

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 265 Jonathan Benjamin

parallels may be drawn, particularly regarding methodology, prehistoric lake sites are not of primary relevance to the discussion of submerged coastal landscapes of the late Pleistocene and early-middle Holocene. 2. See also Werz and Flemming (2001) for a representative example from South Africa. 3. Grønalsocitesexamplesoftopographicalareas generally more accessible, such as protected headlands, not subjected to such deposition. Møllegabet I and II, at Æro, Denmark are examples of such accessible locations (Grøn and Skaarup 1991). 4. For the purposes of submerged prehistoric landscape archaeology, the author suggests that the term ‘nautical’ in this passage be interpreted as synonymous with the term Figure 5. The author with a freshly discovered ‘underwater’—this should be seen as a legisla- Mesolithic flake axe, found offshore tive distinction and is not meant to contradict in western Funen, Denmark (photo earlier statements defining the various fields of by F. Feulner). archaeology conducted underwater. 5. There is also a need to consider human impact and the erosion of cultural material from seabed prioritization, and a defined strategy for the as a heritage management issue. This was study of submerged prehistoric landscapes, recently discussed by Anders Fischer in Stone Age Habitation on the European Continental archaeologists will hopefully begin to find Shelf —The Threatened Treasury. Paper pre- substantially more needles in a somewhat sented at the European Archaeologists Associa- less-daunting haystack. tion 15th annual meeting, Riva del Garda, Italy, September 17, 2009. 6. It should be noted that there remains a signif- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS icant gap in the data set used to produce the northernAdriaticsea-levelcurve,particularlyin I would like to thank Geoff Bailey, Clive theearly-middleHolocene.Althoughthemodel Bonsall, Robert Leighton, Catriona Pickard, does serve as a coarse guideline for the depth, age ratio, more research, and environmental Penny Spikins, and an anonymous re- sampling is required. viewer for their helpful input and suggestions. Special thanks go to Anders Fischer for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper and for his continued advice. I would REFERENCES like to acknowledge all of the pioneering archaeologists referenced in this text for Andersen, S. H. 1980. Tybrind Vig. Foreløbig doing what many considered to be impos- meddelese om en undersøisk stenalderboplads sible. Errors, oversights, and shortcomings ved Lillebælt. Antikvariske Studier 4:7–22. are entirely my own. Fredningsstyrelsen. København. Andersen, S. H. 1985. Tybrind Vig—A preliminary report on a submerged Ertebølle settlement END NOTES on the west coast of Fyn. Journal of Danish Archaeology 4:52–69. 1. It should be noted that prehistoric under- Andersen, S. H. 1987. Mesolithic dug-outs and water archaeology at inland lake sites has paddles from Tybrind Vig, Denmark. Acta Ar- been practiced for decades, particularly in the chaeologica 57:87–106. Alpine region of central Europe (e.g., Ruoff Armit, I., and B. Finlayson. 1992. Hunter-gatherers 1976; Schlichtherle and Wahlster 1986) and transformed: The transition to agriculture in at Crannog sites of Scotland and Ireland (e.g., northern and western Europe. Antiquity 66: Dixon 2004; Morrison 1985). Although some 664–676.

266 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 2 • 2010 Submerged Prehistoric Site Discovery

Bailey, G. 2004. The wider signiﬁcance of sub- land. In The Early Prehistory of Scotland merged archaeological sites and their relevance (T. Pollard and A. Morrison, eds.):183–197. to world prehistory. In Submarine Prehistoric Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Archaeology of the North Sea. Research Pri- Bonsall, C., E. Anderson, and G. Macklin. 2002. orities and Collaboration with Industry. CBA The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in western Research Report 141 (N. C. Flemming, ed.): Scotland and its European context. Documenta 3–10. York: Council for British Archaeology. Praehistorica 29:1–19. Bailey, G. and J. Parkington. 1988. The archaeol- Bowens, A., ed. 2009. Underwater Archaeology. ogy of prehistoric coastlines: An introduction. The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice In Archaeology of Prehistoric Coastlines (G. (2nd ed.) The Nautical Archaeological Society. Bailey and J. Parkington, eds.): 1–10. Cam- Portsmouth, UK: Blackwell Publishing. bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Christensen, C. (1995). The Littorina transgres- Bailey, G. N. and N. C. Flemming. 2008. Ar- sions in Denmark. In Man and Sea in the chaeology of the continental shelf: Marine re- Mesolithic (A. Fischer, ed.):15–21. Oxford: sources, submerged landscapes, and underwa- Oxbow. ter archaeology. Quaternary Science Reviews Cox,C.1992.Satelliteimagery,aerialphotography 27:2153–2165. and wetland archaeology: An interim report on Ballantyne, C. K. 2004. After the ice: Paraglacial an application of remote sensing to wetland ar- and postglacial evolution of the physical en- chaeology: The pilot study in Cumbria, England. vironment of Scotland, 20,000 to 5000 BP. World Archaeology 24:249–267. In Mesolithic Scotland and its Neighbours Dawson, A. 1984. Quaternary sea-level changes (A. Saville, ed.): 21–38. Edinburgh: Society of in Western Scotland. Quaternary Science Re- Antiquaries of Scotland. views 3:345–368. Bass, G. 1966. Archaeology Underwater. London: Dean, M. 1992. Archaeology Underwater: The Thames and Hudson. NAS Guide to Principles and Practice.The Benjamin, J. 2007. The Submerged Prehistory of Nautical Archaeology Society. Portsmouth, UK: Europe: A Methodological Approach to Under- Blackwell. water Site Discovery with Special Reference Delgado, J. P. 1997. The Encyclopedia of Un- to the Mesolithic and Neolithic of the Eastern derwater and Maritime Archaeology. London: Adriatic. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Edin- British Museum Press. burgh: University of Edinburgh. Dixon, T. N. 2004. The Crannogs of Scotland: Benjamin, J. 2008. Underwater archaeological An Underwater Archaeology. Stroud, UK: Tem- feasibility report for the Pre-Neolithic Aspros pus. site, Western Cyprus. In Island Dialogues: Dunbar, J. S., S. D. Webb, M. Faught. 1992. Proceedings of the POCA Conference, 2006 Inundated prehistoric sites in Apalachee Bay, (A. McCarthy, ed.): 4–14. Edinburgh: Uni- Florida, and the search for the Clovis shoreline. versity of Edinburgh Archaeology Occasional In Paleoshorelines and Prehistory: Papers 21. An Investigation of Method (L. L. Johnson and Benjamin, J. and C. Bonsall. 2009. An underwater M. Stright, eds.):177–146. Boca Raton, FL: CRC archaeological survey in the Northern Adriatic Press. Sea. International Journal of Nautical Archae- Erlandson, J. and S. Fitzpatrick. 2006. Oceans, ology 38(1):163–172. islands, and coasts: Current perspectives on the Benjamin, J., C. Bonsall, C. Pickard, and A. Fischer. role of the sea in human prehistory. The Jour- 2011. Underwater Archaeology and the Sub- nal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 1:5– merged Prehistory of Europe. Oxford: Oxbow. 32. In press. Erlandson, J. M. 2001. The archaeology of Bennike, P., A. Fischer, J. Heinemeier, L. aquatic adaptations: Paradigms for a new mil- Kubiak-Martens,J.Olsen,M.Richards,and lennium. Journal of Archaeological Research D. E. Robinson. 2007. The composition of 9:287–356. Mesolithic food, evidence from a submerged Fairbanks, R. G. 1989. A 17,000-year glacio- settlement. Acta Archaeologica 78:163– eustatic sea-level record: Inﬂuence of glacial 178. melting rates on the Younger Dryas event Blot, J. Y. 1996. Underwater archaeology: Explor- and deep-ocean circulation. Nature 324:637– ing the world beneath the sea. London: Thames 642. and Hudson. Faught, M. 2004. The underwater archaeology Bonsall, C. 1996. The ‘Obanian’ problem: Coastal of paleolandscapes, Apalachee Bay, Florida. adaptation in the Mesolithic of western Scot- American Antiquity 69:275–289.

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 267 Jonathan Benjamin

Faught, M. K. (1988). Inundated sites in the Gaffney, V., K. Thomson, and S. Fitch. 2007. Map- Apalachee Bay area of the eastern Gulf of ping Doggerland: The Mesolithic landscapes of Mexico. Florida Anthropologist 41:185–190. the southern North Sea. Oxford: Archaeopress. Flemming, N. C. 1968. Archaeological evidence Galili, E., D. J. Stanley, J. Sharvit, and M. Weinstein- for sea-level changes in the Mediterranean. Evron. 1997. Evidence for earliest olive-oil Underwater Association Report: 9–13. production in submerged settlements off the Flemming, N. C. 1983. Survival of Submerged Carmel Coast, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Lithic and Bronze Age Artifact Sites: A Review Science 24;1141–1150. of Case Histories. In Quaternary Coastlines Galili, E., M. Weinstein-Evron, I. Hershkkovitz, and Marine Archaeology (P. Masters and N. A. Gopher, M. Kislev, O. Lernau, L. Kolska- C. Flemming, eds.). Orlando, FL: Academic Horwitz, and H. Lernau. 1993. Atlit-Yam: A pre- Press. historic site on the sea floor off the Israeli coast. Flemming, N. C. 2004. The prehistory of the North Journal of Field Archaeology 20:133–157. Sea floor in the context of Continental Shelf Hartz, S. and H. Lubke.¨ 1995. Tauchprospek- archaeology from the Mediterranean to Nova tion in der Hohwachter Bucht—Zur Frage der Zemlya. In Submarine Prehistoric Archaeol- Erhaltung submariner steinzeitlicher Kusten-¨ ogy of the North Sea. Research Priorities and wohnplätze in der westlichen Ostsee. In Collaboration with Industry. CBA Research Archaologie¨ unter Wasser 1. Forschungen und Report 141 (N. C. Fleming, ed.): 11–19. York: Berichte zur Unterwasserarchaologie¨ zwis- Council for British Archaeology. chen Alpen-rand-Seen und Nordmeer (Landes- Fischer, A. 1987. Stenalderbopladsen p˚a Argus- denkmalamt Baden-Wurttemberg/Kommission¨ grunden [The Stone-Age Site on the Argus fur¨ Unterwasserarchäologie im Verband der Bank]. Fortidsminder og Kulturhistorie, Antik- Landesarchäologen in der Bundesrepublik variske Studier 8:11–58. Deutschland, eds.):116–124. Stuttgart: Archäol- Fischer, A. 1993. Stenalderbopladser pa˚ bunden ogische Informationen aus Baden-Wurttemberg¨ af Smalandsfarvandet.˚ En teori afprøvet ved 33. dykkerbesigtigelse [Stone Age settlements in Gianfrotta, P. A. and P. Pomey. 1981. Archeologia the Sm˚aland Bight. A theory tested by diving]. Subacquea. Storia, Tecniche, Scoperte e Relitti. Hørsholm: Skov- og Naturstyrelsen. Milano: A. Mondadori. Fischer, A. 1995. An entrance to the Mesolithic Goggin, J. 1960. Underwater archaeology: Its worldbelowtheocean.Statusoftenyears’work nature and limitations. American Antiquity on the Danish sea floor. In Man and Sea in the 25:348–354. Mesolithic (A. Fischer, ed.):371–384. Oxford: Green, J. 1990. Maritime Archaeology: A Techni- Oxbow. cal Handbook (2nd ed.). London: Elsevier. Fischer, A. 1997. People and the sea-settlement Gregory, R. A., E. M. Murphy, M. J. Church, and fishing along the Mesolithic coasts. In K. J. Edwards, K. B. Guttmann, and D. D. A. The Danish Storebælt Since the Ice Age- Simpson. 2005. Archaeological evidence for the Man, Sea and Forest (L. Pedersen, A. Fis- first Mesolithic occupation of the Western Isles cher, and B. Aaby, eds.):63–77. Oxford: of Scotland. The Holocene 15:944–950. Oxbow. Grøn, O. 1995. BAR International Series. Oxford: Fischer, A. 2004. Submerged Stone Age-Danish Tempus Reparatum. examples and North Sea potential. In Subma- Grøn, O. and J. Skaarup. 1991. Møllegabet II-A rine Prehistoric Archaeology of the North Sea. Submerged Mesolithic Site and a “Boat Burial” Research Priorities and Collaboration with from Æro. Journal of Danish Archaeology Industry. CBA Research Report 141 (N. C. 10:38–50. Flemming, ed.):23–36. York, UK: Council for Hudson, T. 1979. A charmstone from the sea British Archaeology. off Point Conception, California. Journal of Fischer, A. 2007. Coastal fishing in Stone Age California and Great Basin Anthropology Denmark—Evidence from below and above 1:363–367. the present sea-level and from the bones of IFA. 2008. Standards and Guidance for Nautical human beings. In Shell Middens and Coastal Archaeology Recording. Institute for Archae- Resources along the Atlantic Façade, Held in ologists, University of Reading. IFA Practice York September 2005 (N. Milner, O. E. Craig, adopted at the Annual General Meeting of the G. N. Bailey, eds.): 54–69. Oxford: Oxbow. Institute held on October 15, 2008. Forenbaher, S. and P. Miracle. 2005. The spread Jochim, M. 1976. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence of farming in the Eastern Adriatic. Antiquity and Settlement: A Predictive Model. New York: 79:514–528. Academic Press.

268 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 2 • 2010 Submerged Prehistoric Site Discovery

Johnson, L. and M. Stright, eds. 1992. Pale- Masters, P., 1983. Detection and assessment of oshorelines and Prehistory: An Investigation prehistoricartifactsitesoffthecoastofsouthern of Method. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. California. In Quaternary Coastlines and Ma- Josenhans, H., D. Fedje, R. Pienitz, and J. Southon. rine Archaeology (P. Masters and N. C. Flem- 1997. Early humans and rapidly changing ming, eds.):189–213. Orlando, FL: Academic Holocene sea-levels in the Queen Charlotte Press. Islands-Hecate Strait, British Columbia, Canada. Masters, P., and N. C. Flemming. 1983. Qua- Science 277:71–74. ternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology. Lambeck, K., F. Antonioli, A. Purcello, and S. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Silenzi. 2004. Sea-level change along the Ital- Miles, D. 2004. Preface by David Miles, Chief ian Coast for the past 10,000 yr. Quaternary Archaeologist, English Heritage. In Submarine Science Reviews 23:1567–1598. Prehistoric Archaeology of the North Sea. Lambeck, K., C. Smither, and P. Johnston. 1998. Research Priorities and Collaboration with Sea-level change, glacial rebound and man- Industry. CBA Research Report 141 (N. C. tle viscosity for northern Europe. Geophysics Fleming, ed.):xiii. York: Council for British 134:102–144. Archaeology. Lambeck, K., Y. Yokoyama, and T. Purcell. Milner, N., ed. 2005. Proceedings from the Con- 2002. Into and out of the Last Glacial Maxi- ference Shell Middens and Coastal Resources mum: Sea-level change during Oxygen Isotope along the Atlantic Façade, Held in York Stages 3 and 2. Quaternary Science Reviews September 2005. Oxford: Oxbow. 21:343–360. Momber, G. 2000. Drowned and deserted: A Larsson, L. 1983. Mesolithic settlement on the submerged prehistoric landscape in the Solent, sea floor in the Strait of Øresund. In Quater- England. International Journal of Nautical nary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology (P. Archaeology 29(1):86–99. Masters and N. C. Flemming, eds.): 283–301. Momber, G. 2005. Stone Age stove under the Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Solent. International Journal of Nautical Ar- Larsson, L. 1990. The Mesolithic of Southern chaeology 34(1):148–149. Scandinavia. Journal of World Prehistory Morrison, I. 1985. Landscape with Lake 4:257–309. Dwellings: The Crannogs of Scotland. Edin- Larsson, L. 1995. Man and sea in Southern Scan- burgh: Edinburgh University Press. dinavia during the Late Mesolithic. The role of Moseley, M. E., D. Wagner, and J. B. Richard- Cemeteries in the view of society. In Man and son. 1992. Space shuttle imagery of recent Sea in the Mesolithic (A. Fischer, ed.):95–104. catastrophic change along the arid Andean Oxford: Oxbow. coast. In Paleoshorelines and Prehistory: An Larsson, L. 2004. The Mesolithic Period in South- Investigation of Method (L.L.Johnsonand ern Scandinavia: With special reference to M. Stright, eds.):215–235. Boca Raton, FL: CRC burials and cemeteries. In Mesolithic Scotland Press. and its Neighbours (A. Saville, ed.): 371–392. Muckelroy, K. 1978. Maritime Archaeology. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Lubke,¨ H. 2001. Eine hohlendretuschierte Klinge Press. mit erhaltener Schäftung vom endmesolithis- Pedersen, L. 1997. They put fences in the sea. chen Fundplatz Timmendorf-Nordmole, Wis- In The Danish Storebælt since the Ice Age- marbucht, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. NAU Man, Sea and Forest (L. Pedersen, A. Fis- Nachrichtenblatt Arbeitskreis Unterwasser- cher, and B. Aaby, eds.):124–143. Oxford: archaolgie¨ 8:46–51. Oxbow. Lubke,¨ H. 2003. New investigations on submarine Perlman, S. M. 1980. An optimum diet model. Stone Age settlements in the Wismar Bay area. Coastal variability, and hunter-gatherer behav- In Mesolithic on the Move: Papers Presented ior. Advances in Archaeological Method and at the 6th International Conference on the Theory 3:257–310. Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000 (H. Pirazzoli, P. A. 1985. Sea-level change. Nature and Kindgren, K. Knutsson, L. Larsson, D. Loef- Resources 21(4):2–9. fler, and A. Åkerlund, eds.):633–642. Oxford: Pirazzoli, P. A. 1996. Sea-Level changes: The Last Oxbow. 20,000 Years. Chichester: Wiley. Malm, T. (1995). Excavating submerged Stone Age Pluciennik, M. 2008. The coastal Mesolithic of the sites in Denmark—The Tybrind Vig example. European Mediterranean. In Mesolithic Europe In Man and Sea in the Mesolithic (A. Fischer, (G. Bailey and P. Spikins, eds.):328–356. Cam- ed.):385–396. Oxford: Oxbow. bridge: Cambridge University Press.

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 269 Jonathan Benjamin

Price, T. D. 1991. The Mesolithic of North- Schlichtherle, H. and B. Wahlster. 1986. Archaolo-¨ ern Europe. Annual Review of Anthropology gie in Seen und Mooren. Den Pfahlbauten auf 20:211–233. der Spur. Stuttgart: Theiss. Price, T. D. 1995. Some perspectives on prehis- Shackleton, J. C., T. H. van Andel, and C. toric coastal adaptations and those who study Runnels. 1984. Coastal paleogeography of the them. In Man and sea in the Mesolithic (A. central and western Mediterranean during the Fischer, ed.):385–396. Oxford: Oxbow. last 125,000 years and its archaeological im- Raban,A.1965.TelHarez:ChalcolithicandPersian plications. Journal of Field Archaeology 11: remains in the Sea. Bematzuloth Yam 3(4):6–9. 307–314. Raban, A. 1983. Submerged prehistoric sites off Shennan, I. and B. Horton. 2002. Holocene the Mediterranean coast of Israel. In Quater- land-and-sea-level changes in Great Britain. nary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology (P. Journal of Quaternary Science 17:501– Masters and N. C. Flemming, eds.):189–214. 526. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Skaarup, J. 1983. Submarine stenalderbopladser I Ritchie, W. 1985. Inter-tidal and sub-tidal organic Det sydfynske øhav [Submarine Stone-Age Set- deposits and sea-level changes in the Uists, tlement Sites in the South Funen Archipelago]. Outer Hebrides. Scottish Journal of Geology Antikvariske Studier 6:137–162. 21:161–176. Skaarup, J. 1995. Hunting the hunters and fishers Rowley-Conwy, P. 1983. Sedentary hunters: The of the Mesolithic—Twenty years of research Ertebølle example. In Hunter-Gatherer Econ- on the sea floor south of Funen, Denmark. In omy in Prehistory (G. Bailey, ed.):111–126. Man and sea in the Mesolithic (A. Fischer, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ed.):397–402. Oxford: Oxbow. Rowley-Conwy, P. 1995. Making first farmers St. John Wilkes, B. 1971. Nautical Archaeology, younger:TheWestEuropeanevidence.Current A Handbook. Newton Abbot, UK: David and Anthropology 36:346–353. Charles Publishers. Ltd. Ruoff, U. 1976. Eight years of diver excavation Sørensen, S. 1996. Kongemosekulturen i Syd- in Switzerland. Underwater 75. Proceedings skandinavien.Færgeg˚arden: Egnsmuseet. of the Fourth World Congress of Underwater Werz, B. E. J. S., and N. C. Flemming. 2001. Activities: 149–154. Stockholm: Almquist & Discovery in Table Bay of the oldest hand axes Wiksell International. yet found underwater demonstrates preserva- Ruppe,´ C. and J. Barstad. 2002. International tion of hominid artefacts on the continental Handbook of Underwater Archaeology.New shelf. South African Journal of Science 97:183– York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum. 185. Ruppe, R. J. 1980. The archaeology of drowned Westley, K. and J. Dix. 2006. Coastal environments terrestrial sites: A preliminary report. In Coes and their role in prehistoric migrations. Journal Landing, Jackson County, Florida: A Fort of Maritime Archaeology 1:9–28. Walton Campsite on the Apalachi-Cola River van Andel, T. H. 1989. Late Quaternary sea- (Bulletin No. 6.; D. S. Brose, ed.):35–45. Tal- level changes and archaeology. H. 63:733– lahassee, FL: Bureau of Historic Sites and 745. Properties. van Andel, T. H. 1990. Addendum to ‘Late Qua- Ruppe, R. J. 1988. The location and assessment ternary sea-level changes and archaeology’. H. of underwater archaeological sites. In Wet site 64:151–152. archaeology (B. A. Purdy, ed.):55–68. Telford, Volpe, G. 1999. Archeologia Subacquea. Come PA: Telford Press. Opera L’archeologo Sott’Acqua Storie Dalle Saville, A. 2004. Introducing Mesolithic Scotland: Acque. Siena: Siena University. The background to a developing field of study. Zvelebil, M., ed. 1998. Harvesting the Sea, Farm- In Mesolithic Scotland and its Neighbours ing the Forest: The Emergence of Neolithic So- (A. Saville, ed.):3–24. Edinburgh: Society of cieties in the Baltic Region. Sheffield: Sheffield Antiquaries of Scotland. Academic Press.

270 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 2 • 2010 Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 5:271–273, 2010 Copyright © 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 online DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2010.506624

FORUM COMMENTS

The Danish Model Gets Us Going: Comment On Jonathan Benjamin’s ‘Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes and Underwater Site Discovery: Reevaluating the ‘Danish Model’ for International Practice’

Michael Faught Panamerican Consultants, Inc.; and Archaeological Research Cooperative (ARCOOP.org), Tallahassee, Florida, USA

Having initiated graduate research spe- commentary provides a useful list of projects, ciﬁc to submerged prehistoric sites in Florida researchers, principles, and potentials that way back in 1986, teaching the subject serve students and scholars interested in later at university (for both graduate and the subject, or in need of its methods and undergraduate students), and now being theories, or both. a private sector consultant with projects One thing that shows from Benjamin’s speciﬁc to the topic, I can say I was enthused compilation of projects, and from my own to read, and feel privileged to comment on experiences, is that the submerged prehis- Benjamin’s (2010) well rounded article. It is toric sites that are known so far, and those a great example that submerged prehistoric with most potential in the future, are mostly archaeology’s time has come to Europe, if middle Holocene in age. These kinds of sites not the Americas. Benjamin’s review and are found in paleolandscape settings that

Address correspondence to Michael Faught, 703 Truett Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32303, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

271 Michael Faught

are exposed and shallow buried, and, of reconstruction of paleolandscapes (Claesson course, in lower energy marine settings—as et al. 2010; Coleman and McBride 2008). On with the Danish Model. These sites can be the other hand there are fewer examples located by bathymetric analysis, evaluated of testing or excavating sites (although see by terrestrial analog modeling, and tested Evans 2010; Faught 2002–2004, 2004; Pear- with SCUBA divers hand fanning, or perhaps sonetal.1989);also,cooperationbetweenin- small dredge excavating (see also Gusick and dustry and researchers, as is more apparently Faught n.d.). I use the phrase “terrestrial true for Europe than America (Faught and analog modeling” in my work, and I include Flemming 2008). it here to mean the evaluation of local As technology advances I will bet that prehistory, local geology, and local apparent ROV and AUV technologies with various sea-level transgression conducted in order manipulatorswillapproachthosedepthsthat to identify likely–to–produce archaeological are problematic with SCUBA. Other loom- remains familiar to that particular region. ing issues are those buried and sometimes This aspect of how one goes about doing truncated situations where paleolandscape prehistoric archaeology underwater is very reconstruction is more complex and sam- different from shipwreck archaeology, by pling will necessarily be large-scale sediment the way, where targets are perceivable with exploration. Major portions of the eastern magnetometers and on or just in marine coast of North America come to mind as just sediments, and specialists can work in any this problem, interfering with evidence of setting without necessarily knowing the local Clovis origins (Faught 2008). geology or prehistory. The complexities and Hopefully, Benjamin’s contribution will difficulties of modeling, remote sensing, and nudge more American archaeologists to be- testing for submerged prehistoric sites may come interested in the offshore because be offset by the probability that prehistoric coastal states need to know how much sites are more frequent over large areas of prehistoric record is offshore, and critical submerged bottom than shipwrecks—and research questions of process and cultural some sites might be large and therefore more history linger. likely to be encountered. Another comment I would like to make, REFERENCES and emphasize, is that remote sensing devices like the subbottom profiler, side scan Adovasio, J. M. and A. Hemmings. 2009. Inner sonar, multibeam sonar, and fathometer, are Continental Shelf archaeology in the north- critical tools to map large areas, reconstruct east Gulf of Mexico. Paper presented at the paleolandscape settings, and identify high 74thAnnualMeetingoftheSocietyforAmerican probability locales for sites. These are the Archaeology, Atlanta, Georgia. Claesson,S.,J.Kelley,andD.F.Belknap. tools I use as a consultant that allow me to 2010. Preservation potential of submerged identify situations conducive to archaeologi- Prehistoric archaeological landscapes on the cal site location, and these are the tools that Maine Shelf. Paper Presented at the 43rd An- researchers are going to need to advance the nual Conference on Historical and Underwater discipline. Archaeology, Amelia Island. InNorthAmericathereisagrowinglistof Coleman, D. F., and K. McBride. 2008. Under- projects that I would like to add to Benjamin’s water prehistoric archaeological potential on that reconstruct paleolandscapes specifically the Southern New England continental shelf off to find prehistoric sites, and these have been Block Island 200. In Archaeological Oceanog- enabled by MMS and NOAA funding. Some raphy (R. Ballard, ed.):200–223. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. projects have been initiated because of theo- Evans,A.2010.Testing submerged landscapes for reticalquestionsthatneedanswers(Adovasio evidence of prehistoric archaeological sites: and Hemmings 2009; Gusick and Davis 2007; Preliminary results from the northwestern Josenhans et al. 1997), and perhaps most Gulf of Mexico. Paper presented at the 43rd An- importantly, projects benefit by advances in nual Conference on Historical and Underwater marine technology that allow for the digital Archaeology, Amelia Island.

272 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 2 • 2010 Comment

Faught, M. 2008. Archaeological roots of human Gusick, A. E. and M. K. Faught. n.d. Prehistoric diversity in the New World: A compilation of archaeology underwater: A nascent subdisci- accurate and precise radiocarbon ages from pline critical to understanding early coastal earliest sites. American Antiquity 73:670– occupations and migration routes. In Trekking 669. the Shore: Changing Coastlines and the An- Faught, M. K. 2002–2004. Submerged Paleoin- tiquity of Coastal Settlement (N.Bicho,J. dian and Archaic sites of the Big Bend, Haws, and L. G. Davis, eds.). New York: Florida. Journal of Field Archaeology 29:273– Springer. In press. 290. Josenhans, H., D. Fedje, R. Pienitz, and J. Southon. Faught, M. K. 2004. The underwater archaeology 1997. Early humans and rapidly changing of paleolandscapes, Apalachee Bay, Florida. Holocene sea levels in the Queen Charlotte American Antiquity 69:235–249. Islands-Hecate Strait, British Columbia, Canada. Faught, M. K. and N. Flemming. 2008. Sub- Science 277:71–74. merged prehistoric sites: ‘Needles in haystacks’ Pearson, C. E., R. A. Weinstein, and D. B. Kelley. for CRMs and industry. Sea Technology 1989. Evaluation of Prehistoric site preservation 49(10):37–38, 40–32. on the outer Continental Shelf: The Sabine Gusick, A. E. and L. G. Davis. 2007. Mal de mer no River area, offshore Texas and Louisiana. In mas: Searching for early underwater sites in Underwater Archaeology: Proceedings of the the Sea of Cortez. Paper presented at the 72nd Society for Historical Archaeology Conference Annual Meeting for the Society for American (J. Barton Arnold III, ed.):6–11. Baltimore, MD: Archaeology, Austin. Society for Historical Archaeology.

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 273 Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 5:274–276, 2010 Copyright © 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 online DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2010.506625

Comment on Jonathan Benjamin’s ‘Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes and Underwater Site Discovery: Reevaluating the ‘Danish Model’ for International Practice’

Nic Flemming National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK

Two ambitious questions are raised and discussed, this must be accepted. But we partially answered in this thoughtful paper. must check that no critical factors have been First, is it possible to develop a generalized omitted. logical model for the search for prehistoric I know both the author and Anders occupied site relicts offshore on the con- Fischer as personal friends. I hope that any tinental shelf by broadening the concepts comments that might seem critical are taken from successful Danish research? Second, in good spirit as they are intended to build how do we maximize the chances of finding on the good work described here, and to submerged prehistoric deposits and integrat- advance the subject in a constructive way. ing finds into a consistent picture of the I will not refer my comments textually to the submerged occupied landscape and the ad- original paper, since that would take up more jacent land? The response to both questions space. I hope the contexts can be seen to be confronts the problem that if too much is fair. expected from such searches, and if too little Before detailed comments I will quote is discovered, then the cost will deter funding two proverbs which have influenced my and the subject may stagnate. approach to this subject. The first is at- These are big issues, and inevitably al- tributed to Louis Pasteur but was also most every point alluded to could be in- used strongly by Alexander Fleming. It says vestigated much more thoroughly. Within simply—”Fortunefavorsthepreparedmind”. the justified and reasonable constraints of The second, which is anonymous as far a paper of this length, and the creditable as I know, is even shorter—”Hope clouds fact that so many key points are raised and judgement.”

Address correspondence to Nic Flemming, National Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton SO14 3Z4, UK. E-mail: n.ﬂ[email protected]

274 Comment

My points follow: rock crevice, cave concretion, peat layer, 1. The success of the Danish Model is or coral terrace, where something can so overwhelming, with thousands of survive. submerged sites found and masses of 4. Assuming a landscape approach, every supporting environmental data, that it anthropogenic signal, whether a burnt is tempting to see how this experience forest, a single stone tool, a wooden can be exported to other seabed envi- post, or a concentrated deposit of bones, ronments, where some, but rather few, shells, and charcoal in a midden, can prehistoric deposits have been located. be taken into account and plotted or This is feasible, but the governing factor archived in a routine way. There are is that the search criteria in the new petabytes of seabed data obtained for locations must be recalibrated to fit at economic and military purposes which every time and space scale with the new could be re-analysed to support prehis- cultural conditions and the new palaeo- toric research. Finding the big sites is oceanographic/climate conditions, and important, and will hit the academic with the new taphonomic and present- headlines, but the minor finds and the day oceanographic conditions. backgroundofthepalaeo-terrestrialland- 2. The role of chance must never be scape put everything into context. Then neglected, and we must not be too when the big find comes, it is even more proud to accept this. It is strategically significant. reasonable to construct detailed palaeo- 5. The Danish Model is based on a wet- environmental data sets describing some land, inundated, archipelago environ- ancient terrestrial areas now inundated, ment, and is constrained to roughly the on the assumption that one way or an- last 10,000 years. In these circumstances, othersiteswillturnup.Fishermen,sports since no settlement could geometrically divers, dredgers, pipe-layers are lifting be more than a few tens of km from the prehistoric and palaeontlogical materials shore, environmental forces influencing all the time, and artefacts or bones have, site location are strongly marine. Where in the past, usually been unnoticed. By continental shelves are much broader, preparing our minds, and liaising with and less indented, submerged sites of any offshore workers, chance discoveries be- age may be located many tens of km from come recognized, and academic groups the palaeo-shore. The ecological deter- can respond immediately, identifying minants for maximizing the presence of finds, plotting them in known palaeo- hominins are then similar to those on an landscape, and conducting follow-up re- inland site: proximity to a river or spring, search. This is an unpredictable process, shelter from rain or excessive sun, food, but maximizing the benefits of chance is security from predators, etc. quite cheap. 6. In the present stage of the subject we 3. The processes of primary deposition of hope to find archaeological deposits in anthropogenic materials on land, then deeper water than before, further off- burial on land, then the taphonomy shore, and in new environmental and of survival, the process of inundation, ecological contexts. Since there are now movement of seabed sediments, possible significant finds dating before the Last burial under marine sediments, rising Glacial Maximum, and a few in deep sea level, possible erosion and exposure, water towards the edge of the conti- and the forces of modern oceanographic nental shelf, it is reasonable, at least at conditions, need to be analysed in rad- the intellectual level, to consider the ically different environments. The cir- potential for the whole continental shelf, cumstances in the Baltic are ideal on and for the last million years. almost every count. Other environments are much less favorable, but in almost Concluding,Benjamindemonstratesthat every case one can see a micro-niche, the Danish Model, suitably extended to make

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 275 Nic Flemming

assumptions explicit, can be adapted to a interpreted within the context of the now wide range of environmental and ecological submerged terrestrial palaeo-landscape; and conditions, with the proviso that the system projects should be structured in such a way should include non-coastal sites, and Palaeo- that there is a “fail-safe” default component, lithic timescales. Research design must ac- plus a slightly risky “hopeful” component, cept the role of chance, and maximize the plus,iftheprojectisbigenough,asmall“blue- likelihood of rapid response, detection and skies wild guess” component. In this way, the action. All ﬁnds or “hot-spots” need to be risk of deterring funding can be reduced.

276 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 2 • 2010 Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 5:277–279, 2010 Copyright © 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 online DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2010.506626

A North American Perspective: Comment on Jonathan Benjamin’s ‘Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes and Underwater Site Discovery: Reevaluating the ‘Danish Model’ for International Practice’

Ben Ford1 and Jessi Halligan2 1Department of Anthropology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania, USA 2Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

From the outset, we would like to thank Benjamin clearly acknowledges that dif- Benjamin (2010) for a well-conceived and ferences in environment and sea-level rise executed paper. As interest in submerged will lead to differences in methods. We feel prehistoric landscapes increases, it is im- this deserves a bit more explication. In North portant to begin an international and inter- America, submerged shorelines can be many regional dialogue on methods and ﬁndings. kilometers offshore and more than 100 m Benjamin does an excellent job of describing beneath the surface or less than a kilometer the methods used to identify submerged offshore and only a meter or two deep landscapes in Northern Europe and provides (Balsillie and Donoghue 2004; Erlandson a framework for discussing these methods and Fitzpatrick 2006; Fedje and Christensen in an international context. While he does 1999). Surely there is a continuum of time, reference recent North American literature, depth, and human utilization from the mod- our comments are aimed at adding a southern ern shore out to these submerged shores. and eastern North American perspective to This means that “submerged” and “exposed” the described methods in order to expand his landscapes are representative of waterline discussion to the regions in which we work. positions at an instant in time and need to

Address correspondence to Ben Ford, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, McElhaney Hall G-1, Indiana, PA 15701, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

277 Ben Ford and Jessi Halligan

be considered in their temporal context. with sediment cores and advanced means With few exceptions, waterlines limit the of inspecting potential sites (submersibles, extent of habitation and often have some remotely operated vehicles, autonomous un- bearing on the level of marine utilization. derwater vehicles, and/or technically trained Given the general, although non-linear, rise diving archaeologists) (Ballard 2008; Faught of sea levels since the late Pleistocene in 2004). The logistics and planning for this type most of North America, the longer the rem- of survey are far different from that described nants of a culture have been beyond the for Northern European sites. The application waterline, the harder they will be to access of advanced technology and training, how- through the methods described by Benjamin ever, is not limited to deep-water surveys; it (Dixon 2001; Mandryk et al. 2001). In par- also has a place in shallow-water investiga- ticular, the usefulness of the ethnographic tions. Light detection and ranging (LIDAR) component (phase II) and near-shore sur- remote sensing technology, for example, has vey techniques (phases III–V) require some the ability to penetrate up to 25 m of water consideration. and, when combined with satellite and aerial During periods when the shoreline was imagery,canprovidevaluableinformationon far removed from its current location, the potential site locations. analogy of inland groups of the same period Benjamin points out that these methods may not be particularly informative. Nor are expensive and in some cases unnec- should coastal groups from more recent time essary, but sometimes it is impossible to periods be used to help define the parameters properly investigate submerged landscapes for older sites without extreme caution (Cas- without advanced technology, and, in others, sidy et al. 2004). One of the arguments for the outlay of money for technology may submerged prehistoric archaeology is that it pay dividends by allowing for a less time- has the potential to provide new information consuming search. One means to balance about previously ignored or inaccessible the demands and costs of proper survey aspectsofprehistoriclife.Relianceonmodels is to integrate Benjamin’s first five phases derived from former upland areas may lead into other forms of survey. Much of the archaeologists astray. Conversely, analogies submerged prehistoric archaeology in the to coastal communities of other periods United States is conducted in the context of may provide indications of landforms that culturalresourcemanagement(CRM),where were attractive to groups with settlement archaeology is one part of a larger effort strategies and technologies not necessarily to construct, extract, or manage another applicable in deep time. During periods of resource (e.g., oil wells and pipelines, wind rapid sea-level rise, it is very likely that marine turbines, or dredge materials). In these cases, and coastal species behavior would differ construction hazards, subsurface resources, significantly from that existing since sea- obstructions, shipwrecks, and landscapes level stabilization. Benjamin addresses this are all of interest, and it is possible for issue, but we feel this point could be more archaeologists to combine their efforts with explicit given the plethora of archaeological other scientists (Aubry and Stright 1999). literature discussing ethnographic analogy Through pre-planning and communication, (Mason 2000; Peregrine 1996; Simms 1992). archaeologists can have access to other- Analogy should be approached with cautious wise expensive data at little additional cost. optimism, and in deep-water areas, may be These mutually beneficial partnerships are secondary to geological considerations. not unique to the United States and have Deep-water environments, where some correlates in Europe, such as the relationship of the earliest sites in North America are likely between some English archaeologists and the situated, require variations on the techniques aggregate industry. described in phases III, IV, and V. To effec- Whether the first five phases are tively identify these sites it is necessary to conducted singularly or are incorporated combine detailed multi-beam sonar or side- within multidisciplinary research, Ben- scan sonar and sub-bottom profiler mapping jamin’s phases IV and V seem very likely

278 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 2 • 2010 Comment

to be intertwined in the field. Observation Balsillie, J. H. and J. F. Donoghue. 2004. High of survey areas is the way in which poten- Resolution Sea-Level History for the Gulf of tial sites would be located and is almost Mexico Since the Last Glacial Maximum. certainly concurrent with GPS marking of Florida Geological Survey. Tallahassee, FL: State these locations. Therefore, we would suggest of Florida, Department of Environmental Pro- a slight modification of phases IV and V, tection, Florida Geological Survey Report of Investigations 103. which we argue makes for a clearer division Cassidy, J., L. M. Raab, and N. A. Kononenko. between each phase. This modification is: 2004. Boats, bones, and biface bias: The Phase IV—Observation of potential survey Early Holocene mariners of Eel Point, San locations, physically and with sonar, marking Clemente Island, California. American Antiq- potential site locations with GPS; Phase V— uity 69:109–130. Observation of potential site locations (with Dixon, E. J. 2001. Human colonization of the divers when feasible), and site delineation Americas: Timing, technology and process. and evaluation (period, depth, areal extent Quaternary Science Reviews 20:277–299. of deposits, etc.) Erlandson, J. and S. M. Fitzpatrick. 2006. Oceans, Finally, and perhaps most importantly, islands, and coasts: Current perspectives on the role of the sea in human prehistory. Journal of we would add conservation to Benjamin’s Island and Coastal Archaeology 1:5–32. final phase. One of the major benefits of Faught, M. 2004. Submerged Paleoindian and submerged landscapes is that they have the Archaic sites of the Big Bend, Florida. Journal potential to contain organic artifacts seldom of Field Archaeology 29:273–290. found on land (Adovasio et al. 2001). Once Fedje, D. W. and T. Christensen. 1999. Modeling exposed to air, these finds will deteriorate paleoshorelines and locating Early Holocene without proper conservation. Consequently, coastal sites in Haida Gwaii. American Antiq- a conservation plan and budget should be uity 64:635–652. an integral part of any investigation that Mandryk,C.A.S.,H.Josenhans,D.W.Fedje, intends to recover artifacts from submerged and R. W. Mathewes. 2001. Late Quaternary paleoenvironments of Northwestern North landscapes. These minor modifications will America: Implications for inland versus coastal make Benjamin’s well-written suggestions migration routes. Quaternary Science Reviews more applicable to the areas in which we 20:301–314. work. Mason, R. J. 2000. Archaeology and native North REFERENCES American oral traditions. American Antiquity 65:239–266. Peregrine, P. N. 1996. Ethnology versus ethno- Adovasio, J. M., R. L. Andrews, D. C. Hyland, and J. graphic analogy: A common confusion in ar- S. Illingworth. 2001. Perishable industries from chaeological interpretation. Cross-Cultural Re- the Windover Bog: An unexpected window into search 30:316–329. the Florida Archaic. North American Archaeol- Simms, S. R. 1992. Ethnoarchaeology: Obnoxious ogist 22(1):1–90. Spectator, Trivial Pursuit, or Keys to a Time Aubry, M. C. and M. Stright. 1999. Beneath the Machine? In Quandaries and Quests: Visions waters of time: Interior’s submerged cultural of Archaeology’s Future (L. Windsnider, ed.): resource programs. CRM 4:54–56. 186–198. Occasional Paper 20. Carbondale, IL: Ballard, R. D., ed. 2008. Archaeological Oceanog- Southern Illinois University Press. raphy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 279 Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 5:280–281, 2010 Copyright © 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 online DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2010.506627

Comment on Jonathan Benjamin’s ‘Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes and Underwater Site Discovery: Re-Evaluating the ‘Danish Model’ for International Practice’

Alex Hale Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Benjamin’s (2010) paper is clear, per- regard to the potential submerged prehis- tinent, and attempts admirably to expand toric landscapes offshore from Scotland and upon a number of models of submerged specifically North West Scotland. One aspect archaeological landscape investigation meth- I am interested in this review is why did ods which have been developed over the past Benjamin choose the Western Isles (as they thirty years and in different locations across are known administratively, rather than the Europe. The crux of the paper depends on Outer Hebrides) of Scotland, rather than whether the ‘Danish’ model can be applied another part of the country—perhaps this to other parts of the world, or should practi- needs expanding upon? tioners in this difficult field build new models As we know, the areas out with major (i.e., re-invent the wheel to suit the local crustal compression by glacial ice (and hence conditions)? Benjamin has been sensible in less affected by eustatic rebound, although suggesting that it would be best to apply certainly affected by isostasy), are those the best of previous models (for examples areas around the Northern Isles (Orkney see Muckelroy 1978 and Fischer 1995) and and Shetland archipelagos) and the Western add to them methodological solutions, such Isles. Therefore, the potential for submerged as applying an ethnographic component and archaeological landscapes lie in all the areas undertaking a broader regional familiariza- out with crustal compression and ice cover- tion phase. age, which could include other areas of the My main area of interest in this paper northern North Sea, for example offshore in focuses on the specific approach taken with the Pentland Firth and Scotland’s northern

Address correspondence to Alex Hale, Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, John Sinclair House, 16 Bernard Terrace, Edinburgh EH8 9NX, Scotland, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

280 Comment

mainland coast from Gairloch in the west, m below MHWS Stornoway, Lewis, and by around the Sutherland coast to Caithness, in 6,000 BP were between −2mand−4m the north and as far south as Helmsdale on below MHWS Stornoway. This re-calibration the east coast. of the sea-level curve could enable Benjamin Benjamin focuses on the Western Isles, toreassesshisassertionthatsitesaround8000 and specifically on the east coast of the island BP would be below 5m msl. In addition, it archipelago. These locations, contra to his as- would then allow him to model the locations sertion regarding low energy environments, of offshore locations that would have been are subject to storm events, a tidal range of exposed land surfaces dependent on these 3.5 m and maximum tidal streams of up new sea levels. to 1 ms-1 (UKDMAP, 1998). Hansom states To conclude, I enjoyed Benjamin’s paper ‘along the east coast of the Western Isles, the and the overall assessment of the ‘Danish’ irregular coastline produces a highly variable model, with his approach to developing it for waveclimate.OffshoreofLochmaddy(onthe further research is estimable. Benjamin has a eastcoastofNorthUist),theoutercoastofthe valid case for his choice of location in North Minch experiences moderate wave energies, West Scotland; however, his demonstration particularly from the south and north-east, as to how he arrived at the location could be between Weaver’s Point and Leac Na Hoe expanded upon, which would strengthen his where the 20 m depth contour comes within choice of pilot areas for testing his developed 300 m of the shore. The inner parts of the model. Once tested, the model could be shoreline are very sheltered and are subject reviewed in order that the question as to only to small locally produced waves’ (May whether re-inventing the wheel for each spe- and Hansom, 2003). cific location is necessary, in the furtherance The other aspect of research that of submerged prehistoric research across Benjamin, rightly, includes is sea-level re- Europe and beyond. construction. Sea-level data for the Western Isles of Scotland has advanced since Shennan REFERENCES and Horton (2002) and Benjamin should reference one of the latest contributions that define the various proposed sea-level curves, Fischer, A. (ed.). 1995. Man and Sea in the and hence could be used in his identification Mesolithic. Oxford: Oxbow. Jordan, J., D. Smith, S. Dawson, and A. Dawson. of areas and specific tide levels with radiocar- 2010. Holocene relative sea-level changes in bon dated locations. This does not detract Harris, Outer Hebrides, Scotland, UK. Journal from his choice of location, and would of Quaternary Science 25:115–134. rather give it additional support. One partic- May, V. J., and J. D. Hansom. 2003. Coastal Ge- ular paper entitled ‘Holocene Relative Sea- omorphology of Great Britain. Peterborough, Level Changes in Harris, Outer Hebrides, UK:GeologicalConservationReviewSeries,No. Scotland, UK’ (Jordan et al. 2010) lends 28, Joint Nature Conservation Committee. weight to Benjamin’s approach. The Jordan Muckleroy, K. 1978. Maritime Archaeology.Cam- et al. (2010) paper is based on primary field bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. evidence and develops a sea-level curve for Shennan, I. and B. Horton. 2002. Holocene land- and sea level changes in Great Britain. Journal two locations on the west coast of the island of Quaternary Science 17:511–526. ofHarris.Thesea-levelcurveproposedshows UKDMAP. 1998. United Kingdom Digital Marine thatfortheperiodthatBenjaminisconcerned Atlas, 3rd ed. Liverpool, UK: British Oceano- with (8000–6000 BP), sea-level points at ca. graphic Data Centre, Proudman Oceanographic 8000 BP were between −1.5 m and −5.5 Laboratory.

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 281 Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 5:282–284, 2010 Copyright © 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 online DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2010.506628

Comment on Jonathan Benjamin’s ‘Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes and Underwater Site Discovery: Reevaluating the ‘Danish Model’ for International Practice’

Patricia Masters Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, San Diego, California, USA

Jonathan Benjamin (2010) offers a well- Each has its own potential for underwater reasoned and tested procedure to maximize archaeology, and I would like to expand the discovery of prehistoric underwater sites, Benjamin’s discussion to include the coast of building on the work of Fischer along the Southern California. coast of Denmark, and then extends the focus Having relatively few rivers, inlets, estu- to the northeast Adriatic and the lee of the aries, and nearshore islands, but significantly Outer Hebrides off northwest Scotland. higher wave energy (Inman 2005:597), the In addition to the regions discussed west coasts of the Americas would appear to by Benjamin, additional marginal sea coasts be unpromising regions for preservation of that lie in temperate and subtropical zones underwater sites. Yet high-energy collision with limited fetch and resultant low wave coasts such as the Pacific margins of the energy are attractive areas for prehistoric Americas do have potential for the discovery site exploration. These include the Gulf of of submerged prehistoric sites, particularly Mexico, Black Sea, Mediterranean, and the where topographic features can shelter sites seas bordering southeast Asia and China. All from wave energy. of these areas provide opportunities to apply Among the forty underwater prehistoric the approach proposed by Benjamin, and sites recorded along the San Diego County some already have confirmed sites. coast, three appear to be drowned terrestrial For a truly international “systematic sites. One lies at the head of the La Jolla Sub- search strategy,” however, other types of marineCanyonuponlayersofestuarineclay coasts—see Inman (2005) for a classification andpeat.Anotherisastream-sidemiddenthat of the world’s coasts—must be considered. is now partially submerged within San Diego

Address correspondence to Patricia Masters, Inman and Masters Consultants, 2604 Ellentown Road, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

282 Comment

Bay. The third consists of a cluster of artifacts Marine mammal hunting is another found in a pocket of a rocky reef off northern practice not documented in the ethno- San Diego County. graphic record. Stable isotope analyses Submarine canyons along collision on 6,000–9,000-year-old cemetery remains coasts should be of special interest to under- (Schoeninger et al. 2009) indicate a reliance water archaeologists. At lower sea level, the on marine mammal hunting that is not rep- canyon heads were inlets or estuaries that resented in the terrestrial-based diet, folk his- would have attracted prehistoric settlement. tory, or material culture of the people living Because deep water close to shore reduces here at the time of European contact. Migra- wave heights, the canyons aided in launching tions, resource depletion, and environmental small watercraft during prehistoric occupa- change can alter earlier coastal hunting and tion. Ready access to deep water near shore fishing strategies, which then must be redis- allowed fishing for midwater species without covered through archaeological research. the risks of open ocean conditions. Lower As a final note,Benjamin brieflymentions waves also contributed to site preservation the “heritage management issue”. Here in during transgression. In consequence, a num- Southern California, the typical location of ber of factors favor the heads of submarine underwater artifacts—exposed on the sea canyons for location and preservation of floor in kelp beds and shallow rocky reefs— underwater sites. leaves them vulnerable to collecting by sport Other submarine canyons in the South- divers. Too many of these artifacts have dis- ern California Bight have underwater site appeared during the last fifty years following potential, as do drowned stream val- the introduction of scuba gear. Such losses leys. Of particular interest, given the late emphasize the need for professional under- Pleistocene/early Holocene dates at Daisy water archaeologists to record and report sea Cave on San Miguel Island (Erlandson et al. floor sites and educate others in the diving 1996), is Santa Cruz Submarine Canyon that community. cutsintothesillbetweenSantaRosaandSanta Due to its risks and costs, there must Cruz Islands. be a compelling reason to undertake un- Returning to Benjamin’s recommenda- derwater archaeological projects. Preserving tions, the value of local ethnographic and a previously unrecognized cultural heritage historical records on fishing localities for may be another such reason. Thanks to the predicting sites is corroborated here on interest of new generations of underwater the Southern California coast, at least for archaeologists and efforts such as Benjamin’s the past 4000–5000 years. Other than the paper, important research and discovery of three drowned sites mentioned above, the submerged prehistoric sites will continue. remainder of the mapped underwater artifact sites off the San Diego coast are thought REFERENCES to represent fishing gear lost from watercraft during and after the middle Holocene Erlandson, J. M., D. J. Kennett, B. L. Ingram, D. A. (Masters 1983). The artifacts coincide with Guthrie, D. P. Morris, M. A. Tveskov, G. J. fishing localities in kelp beds and shallow West, and P. L. Walker. 1996. An archaeological rockyreefsthatarestillactivelyusedbysport and paleontological chronology for Daisy Cave fishers today. Furthermore, the presence of (CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California. similar types of ground stone artifacts on and Radiocarbon 38:355–373. just offshore the California Islands supports Inman, D. L. 2005. Littoral cells. In Encyclopedia the interpretation of their use in fishing activ- of Coastal Science (M. Schwartz, ed.):594–599. ities (Masters and Schneider 2000). Although Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. the function of these artifacts is not known Masters, P. 1983. Detection and assessment of prehistoric artifact sites off the coast of south- to Native Americans living in the San Diego ern California. In Quaternary Coastlines and region today, the underwater distribution of Marine Archaeology (P. Masters and N. C. the artifacts provides insight on the early Flemming, eds.):189–213. London: Academic fishing technology. Press.

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 283 Patricia Masters

Masters, P. M., and J. S. Schneider. 2000. Cob- Schoeninger, M. J., P. Masters, C. M. Kellner, ble mortars/bowls: Evidence of prehistoric J. Bada, J. Peck, and A. Crittenden. 2009. ﬁsheries in the Southern California Bight. In Subsistence strategies of the early inhabitants Proceedings of the Fifth Channel Islands Sym- of southernmost California. In Abstracts of the posium (D. R. Browne, K. L. Mitchell and H. W. 78th Annual Meeting, American Association Chaney, eds.):573–579. Camarillo, CA: Minerals of Physical Anthropologists, Chicago (L. Madri- Management Service, U.S. Department of the gal, ed.). Lawrence, KS: American Association Interior. of Physical Anthropologists.

284 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 2 • 2010 Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 5:285–287, 2010 Copyright © 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 online DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2010.506629

Comments on Submerged Prehistoric Site Discovery: A Response

Jonathan Benjamin School of History, Classics & Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

Many thanks to Scott Fitzpatrick and Jon sibly found near wrecks, or washed up on Erlandson for inviting me to take part in the shore). It is our responsibility to ask the right JICA forum. I would like to acknowledge all questions, educate the public, and protect a of the respondents who have contributed cultural heritage currently threatened with their expertise to this conversation, in which destruction. I am grateful to participate. I particularly ap- Masters (2010) emphasized a need to preciate the involvement of Patricia Masters further define and evaluate different physical and Nic Flemming, whose edited volume shorelines. This is absolutely true and should Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archae- be a part of looking deeper into any given ology (1983) has inspired so many students region or local area. It is a positive sign and researchers’ work, including my own. that Masters finds that (at least aspects of) The ideas presented in this manuscript the Danish model is applicable in California. were intended to provide a basis for identi- Indeed the Pacific Coast of North America fying variables and evaluating coastal regions provides its own set of challenges, especially for potential prehistoric underwater archae- given its often high-energy coastal environ- ological site discovery. Within the confines ments. However, as Masters (2010) points of a short response, I would like to reply to out, there has been success in California, the commentaries provided and touch on a and further investigations, particularly in few points I believe merit reinforcement and sheltered environments, and known areas of inclusion. Before I respond to each individual wetland occupation (e.g., Dietz et al. 1988; commentary, there is one point to be made Jones and Jones 1992) may provide clues or from the onset: awareness is critical.From locations for future research in intertidal and the archaeological community to the public, submerged environments. Areas that are cur- knowledge of the global phenomena of sub- rently eroding and have not been completely merged landscapes is extremely important. destroyed by modern development must also Within the greater marine and maritime be identified and prioritized (see Erlandson archaeology community, prehistory has just and Moss 1999). begun to be prioritized. Increasingly, atten- Flemming (2010) has rightly highlighted tion will be paid to site indicators, such as the enormity of the task of modern archae- worked lithics on or from the seabed (pos- ologists in researching and managing the

Address correspondence to Jonathan Benjamin, School of History, Classics & Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Doorway 4, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, Scotland, UK. E-mail: jonathan.benjamin@ ed.ac.uk

285 Jonathan Benjamin

submerged paleolandscapes on the continen- specifically for the identification of new tal shelf. He also points out the very prac- locations and archaeological discovery. tical matters at hand, particularly regarding Faught (2010) described “terrestrial ana- funding, awareness, and legislation. I take log modeling” which he has used in his Nic Flemming’s concerns to heart: optimism own work, and it seems that among under- alone is not enough. That said, I think we water archaeologists, comparable methods would both agree that we should retain have been developed, sometimes indepen- a healthy balance of both optimism and dent of one another. Now this is likely realism. On this note, I would like to raise to change, given the international interest a point regarding a desire to go deeper and and discussion of this topic. There will be look for earlier sites and landscapes: while more opportunities for researchers to come technology has enabled SCUBA diving to together, share methods, publish results, investigate early prehistoric sites underwa- and discuss management strategies for sub- ter, this investigation is limited to relatively merged prehistory. Faught comments on shallow waters. Diving to 100 m is not yet the differences between this subfield and possible for archaeological fieldwork, and shipwreck archaeology—an important point deeper investigations require submersibles, that is rightly emphasized. He also adds that ROVs, or other remote sensing. However, his own work has involved remote sensing there is currently an abundance of undis- devices. I believe that more information covered and potentially important shallow available about a submerged landscape is (<20 m) areas of the continental shelf that always positive, and any data provided by could answer critical questions relating to remote sensing methods will contribute to early human prehistory. This is a subject survey modeling. There will always remain that deserves greater discussion and debate, a compromise, however, in the effective use but there are topics (e.g., within Mesolithic of time, budget, and available equipment. In and Neolithic studies) that would benefit certain cases, the archaeological evaluation greatly from the funding of realistic projects is impossible without such technology de- in waters that are relatively accessible and scribed by Faught, while other environments cost-effective for research by underwater andsituationsmayallowforsuccessfulsurvey archaeologists. In my opinion we must not based on information from commercially spread ourselves too thin if the field is to have available charts and local knowledge. a lasting impact within prehistoric studies. Hale (2010) requested the expansion of Ford and Halligan (2010) made several my example from northwestern Scotland. My excellent points in their response. I appreci- chosen example of the Western Isles was ate the addition of their suggested modifica- based primarily on the isostatic situation, tion of the final phases of the program I have which is limited in the Outer Hebrides, as laid out: the inclusion of conservation. This compared with mainland Scotland. Although topic is incredibly important and worthy of the minch (the strait between mainland its own dedicated discussion. I will however, Scotland and the Western Isles) may con- reiterate my intention that management was tain high-energy coastlines along the eastern not my original theme for a manuscript that shores of the Western Isles, there also exist in- focused on discovery and identification of lets, bays, coves, and other sheltered features variables for archaeological evaluation. I will that could lead to the type of preservation also add that the use of new technologies conditions conducive to intertidal and sub- such as LIDAR, as Ford and Halligan have merged site protection. Nevertheless, sites pointed out, are being discussed within the that are not threatened by erosion (or other archaeological community for the study of forms of destruction) are probably not to be submerged prehistoric landscapes; this point considered a high priority apart from their was brought up in a discussion at the 2009 potential contribution to specific scientific Aerial Archaeology Research Group Meet- research questions. Second, Hale reminds ing. As technology increases and the field us of the importance of regionally specific expands, more data will emerge, designed and updated information on relative sea-level

286 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 2 • 2010 Comment

changes. The example cited (Jordan et al. REFERENCES 2010) was published after this manuscript was originally submitted to JICA (in May of Dietz, S., W. Hildebrandt, and T. Jones. 1988. 2009), but Hale’s point remains: data will Archaeological Investigations at Elkhorn continue to surface and become available Slough: CA-MNT-229, A Middle Period Site to archaeologists interested in submerged on the California Coast. Berkeley: Papers in environments and we beneﬁt from research Northern California Anthropology 3. by earth scientists related to coastal change Erlandson, J. M., and M. L. Moss. 1999. The system- and sea-level rise. atic use of radiocarbon dating in archaeological I conclude by adding that I have had surveys in coastal and other erosional environments. American Antiquity 64:431–443. the good fortune of being able to write part Faught, M. 2010. The Danish model gets us going: of this response while on board the Danish Comment on Jonathan Benjamin’s ‘Submerged vessel Mjølner (property of the Langelands prehistoric landscapes and underwater site Museum) for a training mission as part discovery: Reevaluating the ‘Danish model’ for of the SPLASHCOS project (funded by the international practice’. Journal of Island and European Cooperation in Science and Tech- Coastal Archaeology 5(2):271–273. nology [COST] and held by Prof. Geoff Bailey Flemming, N. 2010. Comment on Jonathan of the University of York). The training Benjamin’s ‘Submerged prehistoric landscapes mission allowed a group of international and underwater site discovery: Reevaluating researchers to come together, share ideas, the ‘Danish model’ for international practice’. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology and learn some of the basic methods used 5:274–276. in the Danish Baltic. We were able to survey Ford, B., and J. Halligan. 2010. A North American under conditions of the model that inspired perspective: Comment on Jonathan Benjamin’s this paper, and with positive results; local ‘Submerged prehistoric landscapes and under- knowledge and the topographical model water site discovery: reevaluating the ‘Danish both played a part in the survey’s success. It is model’ for international practice’. Journal of no surprise that the ‘Danish Model’ works in Island and Coastal Archaeology 5:277–279. Denmark, but the importance of input from Hale, A. 2010. Comment on Jonathan Benjamin’s the local community and public awareness ‘Submerged prehistoric landscapes and under- cannot be underestimated. water site discovery: Reevaluating the ‘Danish model’ for international practice’. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 5:280–281. Jones, T. and D. Jones. 1992. Elkhorn Slough revisited: Reassessing the chronology of CA- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS MNT-229. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 14:159–179. I wish to thank Otto Uldum and the Jordan, J., D. Smith, S. Dawson, and A. Dawson. crew of the Mjølner from the Langelands 2010. Holocene relative sea-level changes in museum, as well as Ehud Galili and Kieran Harris, Outer Hebrides, Scotland, UK. Journal Westley for their spirited conversation and of Quaternary Science 25:115–134. sharing of ideas during the SPLASHCOS Masters, P. 2010. Comment on Jonathan training mission in Denmark. For more Benjamin’s ‘Submerged prehistoric landscapes information on the Langelands Museum and underwater site discovery: Reevaluating the ‘Danish model’ for international practice’. see: http://www.langelandsmuseum.dk/. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology Thanks to the European COST for 5:282–284. its support; for more information Masters, P., and N. C. Flerning (eds.). 1983. Qua- about the SPLASHCOS project, see: ternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology. http://php.york.ac.uk/projects/splashcos/ London: Academic Press.

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 287