Quaternary International 206 (2009) 134–146 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint Archaeological remains as sea level change markers: A review Rita Auriemma a, Emanuela Solinas b,* a Dipartimento Beni Culturali, Universita` degli Studi del Salento, Via D. Birago 64, 73100 Lecce, Italy b Civico Museo Archeologico Sa Domu Nosta, via Scaledda, 09040 Senorbı` – CA, Italy article info abstract Article history: The Mediterranean Sea constitutes a unique basin from an historical and archaeological point of view, as Available online 24 December 2008 it has been a privileged way of communication for thousands of years for the people that dwelled on its shores. Their passage has left many traces on the seabeds in the areas where the ancient commercial routes passed, and remains of structures where moorings, havens or dwellings existed. Some of these structures, nowadays submerged, offer interesting indications aiding the reconstruction of the ancient coastlines. This contribution aims to examine recent work in coastal geo-archaeology, targeting both (1) gathering and discussion of the data, particularly those pertaining to the Italian coasts; and (2) commentary on the methodological debate and verification of the possibility of a protocol that may contain unequivocal referring elements. To investigate the archaeological evidence currently underwater because of the relative sea level vari- ations (harbour infrastructures, fishponds, villae maritimae, caves – nymphaei, private or public buildings or town quarters, pre- and protohistorical villages, quarries, caves, etc.), a clear and more coherent methodological assumption may be needed. The archaeological interpretation must initially establish the maritime and/or harbour nature and vocation of the site, determine its typology and specific usage, analyze the elements of its building techniques (that reveal themselves as meaningful markers of height or depth at the time of building) and its ‘‘functional’’ elements (the measure of the emerged part with respect to the average sea level), and point out the time of construction, its chronological range of usage/ frequentation, the dynamics of its abandonment/destruction/obliteration. The evaluation of both the height and functional depth to the mean sea level depends on the typology of the archaeological evidence, its use and the local tide amplitudes. The surface of a pier surely has a functional elevation different from that of a haulage area or a platea or a pavement. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. 1. Introduction effective synthesis on the development of geo-archaeological studies. The Mediterranean Sea (Mare Nostrum) is a unique basin This work is intended as a contribution to the use of throughout the world from a historical–archaeological point of a measurement methodology, to the correction of data, and to view, since it was a privileged way of communication for the people a clear interpretation that can be applied to most archaeological living on its shores. This passage has left numerous evidence near markers (Lambeck et al., 2004b). The review includes general and the coasts, such as evidence of production structures, town struc- regional studies, as well as those of single sites, from a specifically tures, landing places, and ports. Some artefacts that are today archaeological aptitude, in the belief that only a close interaction submerged can provide interesting details to support the recon- between archaeologists, geomorphologists, and geophysicists can struction of the ancient coastlines (Antonioli et al., 2007). To this lead to persuasive results. The definition by Graeme Barker and day, no single text in the scientific literature clarifies the use of John Bintcliff of geo-archaeology is particularly significant: ‘‘The archaeological markers for studies of the variations regarding the only developed intellectual approach has to be a coherent sub- sea and the coast. A pre-eminent previous contribution is the discipline of human ecology, neither a form of natural science nor article by Antonioli and Leoni (1998, including references),an a form of archaeology, but an integrated way of understanding humans in dynamic landscapes’’ (Barker and Bintcliff, 1999). This is the same aptitude informing the new archaeological research, rightfully referable to landscape archaeology and global archaeology. * Corresponding author. via Milano , cagliari, Italy. This contribution aims to examine recent work in coastal geo- E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Solinas). archaeology, targeting both 1040-6182/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2008.11.012 R. Auriemma, E. Solinas / Quaternary International 206 (2009) 134–146 135 1. gathering and discussion of the data, particularly those per- the elements of building technique (which are important markers taining to the Italian coasts (Fig. 1): Northern Adriatic, Marche, of height or depth at the time of the building), as well as the Southern Puglia, Calabria, Campania, Lazio, Toscana, Sicilia, and ‘‘functional’’ elements (namely, the size of the emerged part Sardegna, but referring also to other significant works in other compared with the average sea level) (Fig. 2). Consequentially, it has areas of the Mediterranean; and to determine the period of construction, its chronological range 2. commenting on the methodological debate and verify the of usage/frequentation, and the dynamics of its abandonment/ possibility of a protocol that may contain unequivocal referring destruction/obliteration. This is possible only after a series of surveys elements concerning the interpretation/exegesis of the ranging from the prospecting of the area being studied to the archaeological data, the measurements of the archaeological sampling of the chronological indicators present (ceramic finds, etc.), markers, and the evaluation of errors. and to the detection and (partial) excavation of part of a structure (sample). The retrieval and the transmission of archaeological data are not always unequivocal (even if strict), since it is based upon 2. Methods the current knowledge and upon the interpretation of the data. Interdisciplinary work needs a tight link between archaeolo- The repertoire of the archaeological evidence currently under- gists, geomorphologists and geophysicists, and hence the formu- water due to the variations of sea level is quite large. This includes lation of a pattern that provides harbour infrastructure (dry dock foundations, quays, piers, break- water, equipped banks, haulage chutes, docks, dry docks, navy yards, - measurement of archaeological markers already interpreted, as etc.), fishponds, residential units – villae maritimae, caves – nymphaei, described above, repeated and conduced on the best preserved private and public buildings, or town quarters (foundations, floorings, parts of the monument; roads and pavements, etc.), thermal baths, plumbing installations - correction of the measurements for tide and atmospheric (wells, aqueducts, cisterns, sewers, drains, gullies), tombs, pre- and pressure values at the time of the surveys; protohistorical settlements, quarries, caves, beach rock,beached - evaluation of the height and functional depth to the average wrecks, and anchorages. sea level, which is different depending on the typology of In order to use this evidence, which has different degrees the evidence, its use and the local tide amplitudes (the surface of reliability concerning the rendering of the ancient coastal land- of a pier has a functional elevation different from that of scape, a more coherent and explicit methodological assumption a haulage or a platea (used surface) or a pavement; the depth of must be made: the archaeological interpretation/exegesis has to a fishpond is different from that of a cistern, etc.); ensure the nature and maritime or harbour vocation of the site, and - error bars both for temporal values (when the archaeological has to clarify the typology and its use. It moreover has to analyse study has not been able to determine the precise chronology Fig. 1. Map with the location of the contemplate sites. 136 R. Auriemma, E. Solinas / Quaternary International 206 (2009) 134–146 Fig. 2. Cross sections of some archaeological sites showing their functional height and relationship with the current and past sea level: (1) Stramare; (2) Punta Sottile; (3) San Bartolomeo; (4) San Simone; (5) Salvore; (6) Briunj (Antonioli et al., in press). of the monument) and for elevation (linked to the measure- connect the studied structure with the bathymetry, e.g. Punta ments, the corrections and the estimate of the functional Sottile N, Muggia – Trieste, Fig. 7), and direct measurements of the height); ‘‘negative’’ heights made with the INVAR bar in shallow waters. In - comparison, for the site studied, between the current case of depths superior to 3 m, measurements must be carried out theoretical model (Lambeck et al., 2004a,b) of the sea level with a float with a lead weight ferrule and a metric drawstring. variations and the values observed. Where curve and marker A similar protocol was used during a project directed by are the same, it is possible to hypothesize a stability of the area. INGV (Marco Anzidei), funded by the Italian National Research Observed values differing from those of the model indicate Council (CNR) in 2001–2003, by this group in the study of the tectonic subsidence. Tyrrhenian Sea fishponds and in the Interreg Project Italia – Slovenia