Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes and Underwater Site Discovery: Reevaluating the ‘Danish Model’ for International Practice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 5:253–270, 2010 Copyright © 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 online DOI: 10.1080/15564894.2010.506623 FORUM Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes and Underwater Site Discovery: Reevaluating the ‘Danish Model’ for International Practice 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 archaeolog- ical fieldwork in submarine environments. Underwater archaeologi- cal 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 archae- ological survey and site discovery. In addition to the methodological evaluation, specific research priorities are introduced. Keywords underwater archaeology, Mesolithic, Neolithic, submerged prehistoric land- scapes, 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 subma- rine environments should not be considered homogeneous. Variations in scope and prac- tice 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 exten- sive 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 post- glacial 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 com- munity 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-