Marine, Maritime, or Submerged Prehistory? Contextualizing ... · topics of underwater archaeology...

Marine, Maritime, or SubmergedPrehistory? Contextualizing the PrehistoricUnderwater Archaeologies of Inland,Coastal, and Offshore Environments

JONATHAN BENJAMIN1,2 AND ALEX HALE3

1Wessex Archaeology, Coastal & Marine, UK2University of Edinburgh, UK3Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, UK

Studies in submerged prehistoric archaeology have gained momentum in recent years with particular focus onthe inundated landscapes of the European continental shelf. Although this renewed interest lies primarily inmodern coasts and seas, there are a variety of differences between the submerged prehistoric archaeologies ofinland and marine environments, ranging from questions of scientific research to heritage management topractical field methods. Some of these differences are the result of location, function, and period. Despite this,there exist similarities that, if ignored, risk increased marginalization of the archaeology of submerged land-scapes from the greater field of prehistoric archaeology. A holistic evaluation of prehistoric archaeologicallandscapes must include inland waters and coastal zones and their relationships. Aquatic environments,viewed both as individual locations as well as continuous and connecting waterways, are introduced for theirdifferences and similarities, and simplified examples of material and legislation are introduced in order tocontextualize submarine sites and practices within the greater fields of prehistory and underwater archaeology.

Keywords: underwater archaeology, coastal, lacustrine, riverine, estuarine, prehistory, Britain, Scotland

INTRODUCTION

It is clear that a holistic approach toprehistoric archaeology requires more thandata and information from terrestrialenvironments. A truly ‘seamless approach’to the study of the human past incorpor-ates sites from the intertidal to the marineenvironment (Fulford et al., 1997;Tomalin, 2000; Miles, 2004) as well assites from inland bodies of water. Thedifferences as well as the similarities ofcoastal and inland sites, relevant to thetopics of underwater archaeology andsubmerged prehistory, must be defined

and included in the discourse of research,heritage management, and legislation.The year 2009 was important for the

study of Submerged Prehistory: theEuropean Science Foundation, through theCooperation in Science and Technologyfunded a network for developing the fieldof Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes andArchaeology on Europe’s Continental Shelf(SPLASHCOS COST Action TD-0902)a 4-year programme to develop the emer-ging field. The same summer, a session atthe 15th Annual Meeting of the EuropeanAssociation of Archaeologists (EAA) (Rivadel Garda, Italy) titled Underwater

European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012, 237–256

© European Association of Archaeologists 2012 DOI 10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007Manuscript received 30 August 2010,accepted 13 January 2012, revised 20 September 2011

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 26 Sep 2020 at 06:11:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007

https://www.cambridge.org/core

archaeology and the future of submerged Euro-pean prehistory, was organized by membersof the archaeology department at the Uni-versity of Edinburgh. The sixteen papersand additional posters presented during thisfull-day session ranged geographically fromthe North Atlantic to the Black Sea,inspired hearty discussion and were wellattended by both underwater and terrestrialarchaeologists. Topics included new sitesand material, modelling of changing land-scapes, migrations of prehistoricpopulations, remote sensing techniques,survey and excavation methodology, newsite prospection, heritage management,research prioritization, legislation, as well asapplications of paleoenvironmental andanthropological perspectives. The paperspresented at the EAA meeting representeda substantial segment of the publishedvolume Submerged Prehistory (Benjaminet al., 2011), which includes further researchfrom around the world. The conference alsopresented an interesting question to theorganizers: whether to include materialfrom inland bodies of water, which weresubmitted for consideration. Although thefocus of the session was designed to be onthe European continental shelf, it was clearthat there was interest from prehistoriansworking inland, and therefore lacustrine andriverine sites were included in the confer-ence session (primarily as posters) andeventually, in the publication. This paper,without duplicating content, discusses therole of submerged prehistory within thegreater field of archaeology, and extendsthis theme by comparing prehistoric coastal,marginal, and inland sites and practices,using examples from partially andfully submerged prehistoric archaeologicalsites.What are the differences and similarities

between coastal, estuarine, riverine, andlacustrine environments as they relate tothe topic of submerged prehistoricarchaeology? It could be argued that these

differences are comparable with those ofthe terrestrial differences between upland,moorland, urban, continental, and islandarchaeologies. Furthermore, much liketheir terrestrial counterparts, the bordersof these distinct environments can beblurred. They may connect, overlap, and/or create a continuous waterway of culturalenvironments. Inland lakes may lead torivers, which flow into estuaries, and on tothe sea. Therefore, submerged archaeolo-gical evidence in these varied geographicallocations should be viewed symbiotically –as complementary to each other, to beexamined by similar investigatory method-ologies where applicable. Interpretationscan be derived in one location, based on aparticular set of circumstances and on arange of evidence, and, in some instances,may be appropriately applied to anotherlocation and set of archaeological remains.The results from this analysis andexamination, combined with that fromterrestrial sites, make up the record of agiven prehistoric archaeological landscape.The divergences, however, must be

specifically identified, as too often thetechnical means for accessing underwatersites have defined the field of ‘UnderwaterArchaeology’. We deliberately capitalizethe term ‘Underwater Archaeology’ here todescribe the field as a whole and recognizethat others may prefer either the use ofdifferent terms, among them ‘MarineArchaeology’, and some have evenincluded the study of submerged land-scapes under a ‘Maritime Archaeology’ asa blanket term. Regarding this point, werefer to the foundations of the field pro-posed by Muckelroy (1978, Fig 1.1) andrecognize the following definitions: (1)marine: of, in, near, concerned with, orbelonging to, the sea and (2) maritime:pertaining to the sea relating to sea-goingor sea-trade (Chambers, 2008).This issue of terminology has recently

been addressed by the Marine and

238 European Journal of Archaeology 15 (2) 2012



https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


Maritime panel for the Scottish Archaeo-logical Research Framework (ScARF),when the matter of boundaries (i.e. wherethe remit of the panel would begin andend) was discussed (Atkinson & Hale,2012). It was decided that the sea formeda continuum with inland estuaries, whichin turn could become riverine and poten-tially lacustrine. Hence, the panel adopteda ‘source to sea’ approach, which definedthe marine and maritime archaeologicalenvironment as ‘encapsulating the inter-relationship of all aspects of humanactivity that ultimately link archaeologicalsites to the maritime zone’.Historically, underwater archaeologists

were considered a group because of thetechnical means used to access the under-water environment, particularly throughSCUBA diving (cf. Lenihan, 1983). Thatparadigm, however, is potentially danger-ous because it can relegate the underwaterarchaeologist to the role of technician,rather than a qualified researcher or

specialist. This attitude is fortunately dis-appearing with the various technical andtheoretical approaches to underwaterresearch and management, including theadvancement and greater application ofmarine geophysics (cf. Dix, 2007) and theconceptual developments and acceptancefrom the broader archaeological commu-nity regarding submerged landscapes (cf.Fischer, 1995; Flemming, 2004; Benjaminet al., 2011). Approaching this topic withan awareness of the contrasting differencesbetween the archaeologies of marine andinland waters, we wish to explore thecomplementary elements of these differingresources and their associated fieldpractices, by introducing a few briefexamples from Britain and Ireland todemonstrate similarities and differencesand to highlight overlap as well as separ-ation in field practice, in order to promotethe described ‘seamless’ consideration forprehistoric archaeology under water. Thispaper also discusses some of the broader

Figure 1. UK-based archaeologist John McCarthy excavates a test trench at a late Mesolithic site inthe Danish Baltic.© J. Benjamin.

Benjamin and Hale – Marine, Maritime or Submerged Prehistory? 239



https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


issues to be considered when the conceptof a potentially vast area of submergedlandmass is introduced into the archaeolo-gical arena, as well as the importance ofengaging a community of interest and thewider public, who potentially include fish-ermen, sport divers, and people who havelocal knowledge and an understanding oftheir natural and historic environment.

UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGIES

As the greater prehistoric archaeologicalcommunity may have historically underesti-mated underwater environments as acultural resource, so too has the underwaterarchaeological community shown relativelylimited interest in prehistoric, particularly‘Stone Age’ archaeology (with some obviousexceptions: e.g. Masters & Flemming,1983; Fischer, 1995; Flemming, 2004;Benjamin et al., 2011). Apart from a fewexamples of Bronze and Iron Age sites inthe Mediterranean (cf. Bass, 1972;Muckelroy, 1980; McGrail, 2001), ship-wreck sites, which have dominated the fieldof Underwater Archaeology, are mainlyHistoric or Classical in age. Of the knownunderwater archaeological sites in theworld, the vast majority is not prehistoric(Muckelroy, 1978; Delgado, 1997), and thestudy of submerged prehistory has thusremained on the fringes of UnderwaterArchaeology (cf. Muckelroy, 1978, Fig 1.1).An obvious example is found in TheEncyclopedia of Underwater and MaritimeArchaeology (Delgado, 1997: 6), whichlisted only fourteen entries classified as‘prehistoric archaeological sites’. Theseinclude broad-scale themes such as ‘lithicartefacts’, ‘prehistoric archaeology’, ‘Qua-ternary coastlines and land bridges’, and‘shell middens’. Only three explicitlydefined examples of European prehistoryare represented: ‘crannogs’, ‘Lake Neuchâ-tel’, and ‘Lake Zürich’. This limited

prehistoric contribution stands in compari-son with over three hundred examples ofindividual shipwrecks listed in the samesection (Delgado, 1997: 6, 13). This pointdoes not disparage the contributions ofMaritime Archaeology (obviously an extre-mely important and relevant discipline in itsown right), but rather illustrates the histori-cal bias that has existed within UnderwaterArchaeology. Until recently, for many, thepractice of Underwater Archaeology hasbeen a technical component of maritime ornautical archaeology, with relatively littleacknowledgement of the incredible potentialof underwater research to significantlyimpact on our understanding of humanprehistory. Thus, while in the past tra-ditional archaeologists may have largelyignored underwater methodology, Under-water Archaeology has often dismissedsubmerged prehistory. It is encouraging thatthis has begun to permanently change.There is a fundamental need to under-

stand the types of sites that can beencountered by underwater archaeologists,and the potential methods for initial sitediscovery. Shipwrecks, maritime installa-tions, and other large features may beidentifiable by remote sensing techniquessuch as side scan sonar, multibeam bathy-metry, or magnetometry (in the case ofwrecks made of or containing metal).However, submerged prehistoric sites thatare of a smaller, more ephemeral nature areunlikely to be encountered using these tech-niques alone (Figure 1). Sub-bottomprofiler data may be interpreted to under-stand the physical setting and, in turn, yieldpalaeoenvironmental information. However,such survey methods are not likely to pickup individual, smaller-scale prehistoricdeposits. Rather, these methods are usefulin establishing potential, which would needto be tested by sampling, either by diversor other means (cf. Lübke et al., 2011;Westley et al., 2011). Along with mattersof site taphonomy and preservation, the




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


archaeological signature, identifiable byremote sensing, is a major factor that con-tributes to the dominance of shipwreckswithin Underwater Archaeology.Underwater sites can be divided chrono-

logically, but are probably more importantlydistinguished by site taphonomy. There arefour categories that have traditionallydefined how an archaeological site canbecome submerged; a topic discussed sinceat least the 1950s (Goggin, 1960).(Goggin’s description of site definition orig-inally included ‘discarded’ and ‘lost’ materialin a single category and ‘shipwrecks’ as itsown separate category.) The four are: (1)Deposition or loss: This includes the sinkingof a maritime vessel or the loss of an air-craft. (2) Submergence due to having beenbuilt on, in, or near water: This type of sitewould have been destroyed or deterioratedinto the water and may include sites such ascrannogs (artificial islands built in lochs inScotland and loughs in Ireland, and usedthroughout prehistoric and later periods).(3) Votive or sacrificial sites: this categoryrefers to sacrificial offerings, deliberatelyplaced in the water and includes the Neo-lithic daggers found in Denmark (Fischer,2004). They have also been referred to as‘shrine sites’ in North America (Goggin,1960). (4) Submerged terrestrial landsurfaces/landscapes: This includes sites built or occu-pied on dry land, which were laterinundated by rising water levels, tectonicsubsidence, or a combination of theseprocesses. A preserved archaeologicallandsurface represents a stratigraphic layercontaining evidence of cultural occupation,whereas a cultural landscape is a conceptualterm to refer to the occupation of a givenarea (cf. Bicket et al., 2012 for furtherdiscussion). Oxley (2007) includes theadditional categories of remains related tocoastal activities (such as munitions orrubbish, shot or dumped into the sea fromshore) and subtidal elements of onshorecoastal features as well as functional seabed

emplacements (e.g. communication cablesand pipelines that will become a part of thehistoric environment). These distinctionscan, for the most part, be placed into thebroad categories aforementioned. However,it is worth re-emphasizing Oxley’s coremessage: submerged sites are complex incharacter and diverse in both type and age.In describing the difference between

prehistoric sites, there is a need to differ-entiate those sites located in coastal/marine zones, specifically those inundatedby eustatic sea-level rise, and those foundin inland bodies of water. Althoughsimilar technological methods for surveyand excavation may be applied withinthese different environments, lakes andrivers present different conditions of sub-mergence and, therefore, thearchaeological implications are oftendifferent to those of coastal sites. Under-water sites (and the field practices by thearchaeologists who study them) may also bedistinguished, based on the type of aquaticbody in which it exists. River sites havebeen recently discussed for their own contri-butions and methodological challenges (e.g.Bonnamour, 2000; Szabó, 2000; Gaspari,2003). Lacustrine sites possess unique con-ditions both for preservation as well as forexcavation practice, and lake sites are his-torically significant for their contribution tounderwater archaeological methodology(referenced in detail below), heritage man-agement, and public awareness.

COMPARING INLAND AND COASTAL

UNDERWATER SITES – ACKNOWLEDGING

THE DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES

Broadly speaking, submerged coastal andinland sites offer different information onthe prehistoric populations we study (illus-trated by the examples below). Thehistories of science, existing research infra-structures, and public awareness are




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


different. Although prehistoric intertidalsites in Britain have been observed since atleast the 1830s (Boyd Dawkins, 1870) andthe notion of Britain’s prehistoric connec-tion to mainland Europe by the latenineteenth century, Tomalin et al. (2011:3) have noted the fact that Britain’s scienti-fic community acknowledged submergedlandscapes ‘indifferently’ until the discoveryof the Colinda point, which was trawledfrom the East Anglian coast, 25 miles fromshore, in 1931. This indifference continued,except in ‘pockets’ through the late twenti-eth century. The activity from the Solent, asrecently published by Momber et al.(2011), has shown the history of submergedprehistoric research in this particular regionof southern England. Although chancediscoveries (mainly by fishermen) wereknown since the 1960s, in situ site discoveryand evaluation did not take place until 1999(more on the Bouldnor Cliff sites below).To that end, archaeology on the continentalshelf can still be considered as an emergingfield within the greater archaeological com-munity of Britain and indeed much ofEurope. Compare this with prehistoric lakesites that have been acknowledged for nearlytwo centuries, and unlike their saltwatercounterparts, have been the source of con-tinuous research, discussion, and debatesince their initial discovery. This is demon-strated by the increase in books published oncrannogs over the past twenty years whichbuilds on the previous decades of continuousstudy, debate, and publication that sur-rounded these sites since the nineteenthcentury (cf. Mackinlay, 1859; Munro, 1882,1905; Wood-Martin, 1886; Lang, 1905;O’Neill Henken & Stelfox, 1942; Collins,1955; Dixon, 1982, 2004; Coles, 1984;Morrison, 1985; O’Sullivan, 1998; Crone,2000, 2007; Fredengren, 2002; Hale, 2004;Crone & Campbell, 2005).We should acknowledge some of the

differences between inland (freshwater)prehistoric sites and their (saltwater)

coastal counterparts. Site discovery is oftendifferent: methods of discovery of prehis-toric lacustrine and marine sites can bevastly different due to visibility, depth, andsite type. Underwater caves may prove tobe a huge archaeological resource aroundthe world and the prospection associatedwith such sites requires an entirely differ-ent approach than that of an underwatervillage in the Alpine Lakes (e.g.Arnold, 1990; Schlichtherle, 1997). Theymay address different research questions,particularly those of coastal resourceexploitation, long-distance maritimetransportation and early seafaring, andlarge-scale migrations (cf. Bailey, 2004;Erlandson & Fitzpatrick, 2006); terrestrialsites, now under water due to globalsea-level rise, present archaeologists withdifferent types of information to interpretregarding subsistence economy, transpor-tation, resource-exploitation, etc. (Wenote the potential for submerged prehis-toric sites offshore to contain materialthat relates to early hinterland occupationas well as coastal sites, and cite themajority of currently known submergedprehistoric material to be from shallow,nearshore waters that represented prehis-toric coastal occupation (with obviousexceptions; cf. Tizzard et al., 2011).) Sitetaphonomy, problems of erosion and sitedestruction vary, particularly when con-trasting the variety of inland water types(from small standing lakes to largeflowing rivers, etc.) or the different typesand formations of coastlines. Finally, thescale of the bodies of water (and ofpotential research areas) differs vastly.Here, we are mainly considering theenormous surface area on the world’scontinental shelves that was available forprehistoric human occupation. Given thevariety of site formation, preservation,and discovery processes, Oxley’s assertionregarding complexity in underwaterarchaeological sites is valid even when




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


excluding historical shipwrecks and otherhistoric maritime sites.Despite important conceptual and

archaeological differences, prehistoricinland lake and river sites can providecomplementary information to coastalarchaeology. Applied methodologies andunderwater archaeological fieldworktechniques may also overlap. At least sixsimilarities between submerged prehistoricmarine sites and underwater inland sitescan be identified. They often boast excel-lent preservation of organic material inlow-oxygen environments, which formany, is one of the greatest benefits ofUnderwater Archaeology. Archaeologistsmay require and employ similar techno-logical means of access such as SCUBAdiving, underwater documentation (pho-tography/videography), remote sensing andremotely operated vehicles, etc. Theyrequire material identification in a nonter-restrial environment by archaeologicaldivers, which is absolutely critical toconduct meaningful and efficient fieldworkunder water. They may overlap temporallyand provide archaeological data from con-temporary periods, thereby enabling afuller dataset and large-scale interpret-ations of the prehistoric culturallandscapes, waterways, and seascapes. Sitesmay provide complementary data onaquatic resource exploitation andwaterborne-transportation, including theuse of dugout boats and fishing methods;prehistoric fishing material from inlandsites may be used to suggest contemporarymethods of resource extraction (e.g.Koninger & Lübke, 2001) or transpor-tation (e.g. Fugazzola Delpino et al.,1993) in the coastal zone. Finally, legis-lation and heritage management mayapply similar to coastal and inland bodiesof water (cf. UNESCO, 2001).With respect to the initial discovery and

the archaeological signatures of the lakesites referenced herein (e.g. crannog

references listed above; and in AlpineEurope: e.g. Schlichtherle & Wahlster,1986; Arnold, 1990; Ruoff, 1997;Schlichtherle, 1997), a parallel can perhapsbe drawn regarding the discussion relatingto shipwrecks, primarily to do with the sizeof the identifiable feature. The prehistoriclacustrine sites refer mainly to largerfeatures, such as crannogs or large areaswhere numerous pile-dwellings made upentire prehistoric settlements. It should benoted that smaller ephemeral sites andfeatures, even thousands of years old, havebeen discovered in inland bodies of waterand interpreted by skilled archaeologists (cf.Gaspari, 2006; Leineweber et al., 2011).

LEGISLATION, HERITAGE MANAGEMENT,AND DIVING IN ARCHAEOLOGY

The point that legislation and heritagemanagement may pertain similar to coastaland inland bodies of water is apparent inthe UNESCO 2001 Convention on the Pro-tection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage.This includes both the participation ofland-locked nations, and the clause thatany nation may apply the rules of theconvention to their inland waters (inaddition to their marine territories).Furthermore, due to the skill, experience,and equipment necessary to conductunderwater archaeological research, it iscommon throughout Europe that the sameindividuals, agencies, or research groupsconduct fieldwork in both coastal andinland environments. The recent ScARFinitiative in Scotland enabled both chrono-logical and thematic, cross-cutting panelsto develop research frameworks for theirparticular areas (e.g. see Atkinson, Hale &Sanders, 2012). The Marine and Maritimepanel has noted that the recent advance inScottish law – the Marine (Scotland) Act,2010, which enables Scottish Ministers todesignate Historic Marine Protected Areas




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


(HMPA) – to facilitate futuremanagement-led research in this area.These and similar advances of legislationworldwide, promote best-practice and real-world solutions to improve our understand-ing and promote better management of theunderwater heritage.As management of coastal resources,

such as minerals, aggregates (sand andgravel), and energy (fossil fuel and renew-ables) grows to meet societal andeconomic demands, sustainable develop-ment requires a greater understanding ofthe historic environment through regionaland development-specific environmentalassessment (cf. Firth, 2000, 2004).Archaeologists work alongside marineindustry more than ever and the tools andmethods that are established have enabledunderwater archaeologists to progresstechnologically. This ever-growingrelationship between responsible develop-ment and marine archaeology will result inthe overall progression for survey andexcavation techniques in marine and freshwater environments alike. As remotesensing, recording methods, and prospec-tion techniques continue to develop, newsites will be recorded by archaeologicaldivers and managed appropriately. Recentemphasis on Managing the Marine Cul-tural Heritage (Satchell & Palma, 2007,which refers specifically to saltwaterenvironments) shows that there is scopefor the expansion of content to includeinland sites that are preserved under water.Acknowledging the similarities anddifferences will promote the transferabilityof these technical, conceptual, and practi-cal advances.It has become an adage that it is easier

to teach an archaeologist to dive than it isto teach a diver to become an archaeologist.However, it is worth considering thatdiving requires a specialized set of physicaland mental abilities and experience, andworking in the underwater environment

can be difficult, particularly regardingmaterial identification. Owing to differingconditions of preservation, such as artefactdiscoloration, decay, patination, etc., cul-tural material can be difficult to distinguishunder water. Furthermore, underwatersediments, natural deposits (e.g. flint innatural moraine deposits), accumulations ofshells, vegetation, or other naturally occur-ring aquatic life, may be difficult to identifyand may confuse the inexperienced terres-trial archaeologist learning to work underwater. Such variations of naturally occurringmaterial are present in both marine andfreshwater environments. A diver’s abilityto access, and effectively interpret, anunderwater site is crucial; just as anuntrained diver may not know how tointerpret archaeological material, anon-diving archaeologist may havedifficulty in filtering out the unfamiliar‘noise’ of the underwater environment, be itfreshwater, brackish, or marine.

DEMONSTRATING CONTEXT THROUGH

VARIATIONS

The following examples are introduced inorder to help provide a context for differ-ing types of (partially or fully) submergedsites and underwater archaeologies byidentifying similarities and differences.These short case studies are intended toquickly demonstrate key points and high-light some of the practical experience inthe field (but are not intended to be com-prehensive discussions or detailedhistoriographical descriptions of the sites).

Coastal

Bouldnor Cliff is, to date, the onlyconfirmed fully submerged prehistoric siteto be excavated and interpreted byarchaeological divers in the UnitedKingdom (Momber, 2000; Momber et al.,




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


2011). The Mesolithic site emergedfollowing years of local observations ofsubmerged palaeoenvironmental markers,and stone tools recovered from the seabedby fishermen. The site (or rather localitycontaining the multiple Bouldnor Cliffsites) began with assessments including‘underwater field-walking’ by divers(Tomalin et al., 2011). This informed andpartly defined a management strategy forsubmerged archaeology in the Solent andalong the south coast of England(Tomalin, 1991). The Bouldnor Cliff siteswere recently described in detail byMomber et al. (2011) and come from anexposed peat terrace submerged at a depthof 11 m (Momber et al., 2011, Fig 1.9).The submerged and eroding paleolandsur-face is laterally extensive, running to over 1km in length. Lithic scatters were foundamong the timber remains, which weredated to c. 6350–6570 cal BC (Tomalinet al., 2011).This work provides the following points

for its symbiotic nature to archaeology inits wider context. The initial questions ofpalaeoenvironmental development wereaddressed by the specialists of a broaderresearch group, who continued to research,in parallel with their archaeologicalcounterparts. Thus, relevant specialists pro-vided not only necessary datasets andenvironmental context for the developmentof Bouldnor Cliff itself, but placed itwithin its wider context of the developmentof the Solent river system (Long & Tooley,1995). The sites provided anthropogenicevidence for the occupation of a submergedland surface, which, given the presence ofassociated cultural material, must have beenexposed for some time and provides a sea-level index point for the Mesolithic period,for this part of southern Britain. Finally,the survival, condition, and recoverymethods of the remains discovered atBouldnor Cliff continue to help definesome of the taphonomic processes that

should be considered during investigationand interpretation. The excavators, TheHampshire and Wight Trust forMaritime Archaeology (HWTMA) havealso helped to establish practical fieldmethods for the recovery and analysis ofmaterial from a difficult working environ-ment, plagued by poor visibility and strongtidal currents (Momber et al., 2011).

Estuarine

The Rising Tide: Archaeology and CoastalLandscapes (Aberg & Lewis, 2000)demonstrates the Nautical ArchaeologySociety’s deliberate engagement withlandscape studies; there is a notablefocus on the theme of the maritime land-scapes and archaeology in transitionalzones (that includes prehistory). Theestuary is a very important componentof the ‘seamless approach’ and archaeologi-cal assessment for all periods (and we notethe decision to use a tidally influencedestuary by Aberg and Lewis for theirbook’s cover image). Estuaries areespecially important for prehistoricsettlement and marine resource exploita-tion and will continue to play animportant role in northern Europeanarchaeology; this refers to modern geogra-phy as well as palaeo-estuarineenvironments that are now submerged(cf. Fischer, 1995; Larsson, 2004 and thediscussion section of that volume).However, for the purposes of thisdiscussion, perhaps the more extensive andintensively researched example of estuarinearchaeology in the United Kingdomcomes from the Severn.Over the last 25 years, there has been

an extensive and intensive programme ofresearch focused on the Severn Estuary,which acts as a natural border betweenWales and southwest England (cf. Bell,1992; Bell et al., 2000). One area in




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


particular has been rich in Mesolithicarchaeology, situated in the intertidal zoneat Goldcliff East (Bell, 2007). The sitesrange from submerged forest remains,lithic scatters, peat deposits, otherpalaeoenvironmental deposits such asinsects, pollen and plant macrofossils, and,perhaps most striking, the prehistoric foot-prints of humans and animals. Dating thesubmerged forests and five of the archaeo-logical sites range between 6340 and 3790cal BC, placing them within the Mesolithicperiod for southwest Britain (Nayling &Manning, 2007).The following points should be recog-

nized when considering these sites for theircontextual contribution. The methodsapplied and developed over 25 years ofresearch provide current and futureresearchers with a handbook of techniquesto engage with intertidal archaeological andpaleaoenvironmental remains. Subsequentand concurrent researchers in Ireland andScotland have benefited from the techno-logical advances developed in the SevernEstuary (cf. O’Sullivan, 2001; Hale, 2004;Hale & Sands, 2005). Furthermore, thepresence of organic remains at the GoldcliffEast sites, despite aggressive estuarine,erosive conditions, informs both local andregional reconstructions of the contempor-ary palaeoenvironment, human occupation,and resource exploitation. Bell (2007) hasillustrated their major implications forinterpretations of the Mesolithic and EarlyNeolithic across Wales and the south westof England.

Riverine

Sites located in riverine environmentsprovide useful comparisons, of both simi-larities and differences to the (nowmarine) submerged prehistory of terrestriallandscapes. Although the archaeologicalrecord of Britain’s rivers lacks substantial

account of early prehistoric material, anexample of site type from the BritishBronze Age may provide an appropriateparallel and demonstrate a possible cross-temporal application for the interpretationof archaeological datasets.The study of metalwork deposition

from Northern Europe (cf. Bradley, 1979,1998) provides a suitable comparison forsome earlier submerged prehistoric discov-eries where finds were initially thought tobe accidental losses. On re-evaluation,however, these deposits were recognized asacts of various forms of particular deposi-tional rites. Deposited metalwork appears inthe archaeological record during a certainperiod and in a variety of terrestrial andwatery contexts. The distinct class ofdeposit found in rivers is demonstratedby the quantity of objects found acrossNorthern Europe (exemplified by the tensof tons of prehistoric metalwork found inthe River Thames, England; cf. Bradley,1998) and the good condition of many ofthe objects indicates a deliberate act, ratherthan mundane disposal.The theories behind the acts of depo-

sition have been rehearsed extensivelyelsewhere (Needham, 1988; Bradley, 1998;York, 2002). It is debatable whether thedepth and complexity of the interpretationof votive sites from later prehistory can beapplied to lithic caches in submerged pre-historic landscapes, given the currentpaucity of evidence. However, a jadeiteNeolithic axe found associated with theSomerset trackways is a glimpse of thepossibility of earlier votive finds fromBritain (Coles & Coles, 1988; see alsoCassen et al., 2011 for an example fromNorthern France). Fischer (2004) hasdemonstrated the range of types of sitesaround the coast of Denmark and identifiedthe differences between sacrificial sites andstray finds for Neolithic and later material.The locations of sacrificial sites aroundDenmark’s coast are closely aligned with




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


present shorelines in the fjords and narrowstraits, whereas stray finds occur across allof these environments. With the increasingnumber of finds from submerged landscapesacross Europe, relevant approaches for theinterpretation of some of these sites mayhave already been developed by researcherswho have focused on later prehistory.

Lacustrine

Examples of lacustrine archaeology areperhaps the best comparanda for the marineenvironment and submerged prehistoriclandscapes. Examples of crannogs fromScotland and Ireland provide large datasetsand a rich history of methods of investi-gation, survival of organic and inorganicremains, and the ability of their interpret-ations to be used in the wider field ofarchaeological discourse. Scottish crannogsrange in date from the Neolithic to theLate Medieval, although it has beenrecognized that there were both flourits andhiatuses of crannog building and occupationactivity (Henderson, 1998). Radiocarbondating of Scottish crannog sites hasdemonstrated two specific peaks, centredaround the later part of the first millenniumBC and the start of the first millennium AD,and the second period of activity betweenAD 500 and 800 (Crone, 1993).One earlier example, a Neolithic lacus-

trine site at Eilean Domhnuill, NorthUist, Outer Hebrides is dramaticallyearlier in date than most of the loch settle-ment sites in Scotland (Armit, 1992). Thesite was dated typologically, primarily bythe ceramic assemblage of some 20,000sherds, and by radiocarbon determination,which included a single grain of barleyfrom a hearth that yielded a date between3350 and 3550 cal BC. There are questionsof classification of this prehistoric lacus-trine site, but given the development ofdifferent models of crannog types (cf.

Barber et al., 2007 for further examples oflacustrine settlement), we should considerthat this site could indeed be classedwithin the ‘crannog’ spectrum. However,we take a cautious approach, appreciatingthe complexity and acknowledging thevarying loch levels and environmentalchange. It may have been originally builton a promontory, or the shore of the loch.Although crannog sites are typically

dated to the peak periods (the Iron Ageand Medieval), there are at least fiveknown lake sites in Scotland’s OuterHebrides that are either categorized asNeolithic or have yielded confirmedNeolithic material according to theWestern Isles Historic EnvironmentRecord (D. Anderson, personal communi-cation; Figure 2). This further raises thequestion of the type of lacustrine sites,their use, taphonomy, and location ofsettlements during the Neolithic (ascompared with later prehistory) andregionally, in the west of Scotland and theHebrides. Further investigation of theselacustrine sites may yield more definitiveanswers to their status as crannogs, andtheir original function (i.e. settlementversus ceremonial usage) as well as thelikelihood of reuse in later periods.It can be said that crannog studies, as

an established specialization, has perhapsmaintained an unhealthy distance fromthe broader archaeological discourse, poss-ibly leading to a type of ghettoization: asub-field ostracized from the mainstream –a phenomenon noted in the field ofwetland archaeology (Van de Noort & O’Sullivan, 2006). This leads to aninformation lag from the sub-disciplineinto the mainstream of archaeologicalpractice and theory. As a result, theinformation discovered in crannog studieshas not been appropriately integrated intothe wider archaeological discourse.Although crannog studies have produced alarge dataset (or datasets) of information,




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


most work has focused on individual sites,rather than the overall archaeologicallandscape.

DISCUSSION

Size matters

We can identify large-scale archaeologicalobjects within the intertidal zone, inshallow freshwater environments, throughobservation from shore, aerial photo-graphic survey (cf. Harding, 2007), andeven satellite imagery. In addition, modelshave been developed, so that prospectivesurvey for finding new sites can be tested(Hale, 2007). However, these approachesrely on the scale of the features or sites tobe readily identifiable such as a crannog,or, for the fortunate archaeologist, alogboat (cf. Mowat, 1996). But it is at thesmaller end of the scale of objects thatissues arise and this is perhaps where thesearch for clues towards the identification

of submerged and in situ palaeolandsur-faces or landscapes has come into play.This question of visibility, is one of theimportant factors why historically, interti-dal, and submerged forests (and peats)have been sought in order to identify earlyprehistoric deposits where cultural materialis likely to be discovered in situ.The issue of scale and archaeological

signature is one that refers to all periodsof Underwater Archaeology, and is notunique to the subset of prehistoric sites.Indeed, as discussed earlier, there is noclearer reason than the ability for positiveidentification that Underwater Archaeol-ogy and the record in marine historicenvironments worldwide have been dra-matically skewed towards large shipwrecks.In Scotland, this bias towards large, metalshipwrecks has been noted (HistoricScotland, 2009) and special attention hasbeen focused on identifying other cat-egories of maritime and submergedprehistoric sites. Hence, we see a corre-lation between the size of a site and the

Figure 2. In 2011, a local diver discovered submerged early Neolithic material in Loch Duna, Lewis,Scotland.© J. Benjamin.




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


types of techniques applied in order tolocate them. As management of theseabed becomes increasingly relevant onlocal, national, and international agendas(as is the current case for Scotland, theUnited Kingdom, and the EuropeanUnion), techniques in marine survey andUnderwater Archaeology will need tore-focus and fine-tune to ensure that thesmaller sites are considered and accountedfor appropriately in an attempt to movebeyond acknowledging purely theirpotential to exist in situ.

The importance of the ‘community’

The heritage sector is acutely aware thatknowledge transfer and engagement withpeople outwith the professional commu-nity is vital for furthering ourunderstanding of the past (cf. Thomas,2010). Recent shifts towards communityparticipation have taken hold across theheritage sector, which are designed toenable people to participate, share infor-mation, and learn skills from experts (cf.DCMS, 2010; RCAHMS, 2011). Thisenablement ethos includes the potentialfor sport divers and fishermen to reportand share information about archaeologicalfinds from freshwater, estuarine, andmarine environments. This approachbroadens the knowledge network signifi-cantly and is designed to help both thepublic and researchers to gather greaterinformation about our shared past.Additionally, it further validates the pro-fessional heritage sector, and its members,as an irreplaceable component. Part of theUK government’s ‘Big Society’ approach isdesigned to enable people to take part inparticular events, by giving their timeand skills. This approach, albeit not new,can be applied to the virtuous cycle ofknowledge transfer between experts, whocan raise awareness of the issues and

potential of the submerged prehistory (andwho share their skills freely), and partici-pants, who in this case have localknowledge of submerged findspots, thelocation of obstructions, understanding ofshoreline changes, and other vitalinformation.Engagement on a close, sustained level

enables people to share knowledge andexchange ideas; for example, if public par-ticipants see a real and lasting benefit forthem and their community they are morelikely to take part in or contribute to aproject (Geddes & Hale, 2010). If theproject timing is sustained it builds therelationships within the project group andthis can have lasting benefits for theknowledge-sharing cycle – in this caselocal divers and fishermen sharinginformation about submerged archaeology(Figure 3). However, divers and fishermenare not the only community groups whocontribute to the discovery of submergedarchaeological sites. The largest group ofinitial discoveries, during the 1980s – theheyday for submerged prehistoric site dis-covery in Denmark – was from the localcommunity of residents, beach-walkersand swimmers, etc., who found indicationsof sites washed up on shore, or in theshallow waters and intertidal zones (Smed,1987). Of the seven hundred sites cited bySmed, just under one-quarter werediscovered by divers and fishermen(combined), whereas nearly half of thesites were discovered by ‘local amateurs’.This figure may now need to be updatedgiven that, since this initial publication, thenumber of finds in Denmark has increasedconsiderably (Fischer, 2011). However, thedata and its analysis remain telling: itreflects the importance of the local commu-nity, particularly when investigating newlocations where the history of investigationmay be in its infancy (Benjamin, 2010).Education programmes are one way to

embed the knowledge cycle and this can take




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


place on a variety of scales, from national toregional and local. On a national scale, edu-cation is best serviced through primary,secondary, and tertiary education strategies forexample, using aspects of the National Curri-culum to introduce the notion of asubmerged past around the British Isles andEurope. On a local scale, infrastructure suchas heritage societies, local museums, and civictrusts can provide suitable programmes forlocal lectures, workshops, and informationsharing sessions.In terms of raising awareness, multimedia

approaches are necessary in today’s con-nected world (Weirich, 2007). This rangesfrom traditional print media strategies tosocial media websites being established and,importantly, maintained over the course ofa project and beyond. This issue of projectlegacy should be addressed early on, inproject planning, to enable project partici-pants to be involved so that their

expectations are understood and accountedfor, post-project.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In an effort to identify the differences,similarities, relationships, and significanceof prehistoric underwater archaeology (orarchaeolgies), we hope to have made a fewkey points that provide context for thestudy of prehistory in differing aquaticenvironments by highlighting practical andorganizational elements within the currentstate of the field. A symbiotic, albeit sim-plified, nature of different types ofsubmerged prehistory has been introducedand the examples demonstrate, contextua-lize, and compare inland, estuarine andintertidal sites with fully submerged sitesnow on the continental shelf. The impor-tance of inclusion of this sub-field to beintegrated into the broader archaeological

Figure 3. Public engagement and community outreach has led to the discovery of numerous underwaterprehistoric sites throughout Europe. Although shipwrecks may be the most intuitive and obviousexample that people associate with underwater archaeology, community engagement is important forunderstanding local environments, preservation potential and for sharing information about chancefinds (which can, in turn, lead to the discovery of in situ deposits).© J. Benjamin.




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


discourse has been noted and we emphasizethe need for greater camaraderie, awareness,and indeed symbiosis within archaeologiesunderwater (and those who practice them).Training in identification and managingprehistoric material within underwaterarchaeological communities, academic insti-tutions, and the general public is equallyimportant. Without a conscious effort tobroaden academic and public awareness,prehistoric cultural material may go unno-ticed by divers – even by marinearchaeologists unprepared for its potentialpresence. We anticipate that the current,developing, pan-European programmes ofresearch, and education (e.g. SPLASHCOS(COST Action TD-0902), the North SeaResearch Framework, ScARF, etc.) willtranslate directly into more significantunderwater archaeological discoveries; par-ticularly as submerged prehistory becomesmore established among underwater archae-ological circles, prehistorians, and –importantly – the general public.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the numer-ous underwater archaeologists, particularlythose field practitioners, whose work hasinspired thought, discussion, and debateand has brought to life the cultural resourceof their respective submerged environments.Thanks to Prof. Clive Bonsall and theunnamed reviewers for their very helpfulcomments on earlier drafts of this paper.Thanks are extended to Deborah Anderson,CNE Siar Regional Archaeologist, for herinformation relating to the Western IslesHistoric Environment Record.

REFERENCES

Aberg, A. & Lewis, C. eds. 2000. The RisingTide: Archaeology and Coastal Landscapes.Oxford: Oxbow.

Armit, I. 1992. The Hebridean Neolithic. In:N. Sharples & A. Sheridan, eds. Vessels forthe Ancestors. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press, pp. 307–21.

Arnold, B. 1990. Cortaillod-Est et les villagesdu lac de Neuchâtel au Bronze final.Structure de l’habitat et proto-urbanisme.Archaeologie Neuchâteloise 6.Saint-Blaise, Switzerland.

Atkinson, D. & Hale, A. eds. 2012 (in press).A Marine & Maritime ScottishArchaeological Research Framework.Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries ofScotland. Online Publication.

Atkinson, D., Hale, A. & Sanders, J. eds. 2012.From Source to Sea: A Marine & MaritimeScottish Archaeological Research Framework.Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries ofScotland, Online Publication.

Bailey, G. 2004. The Wider Significance ofSubmerged Archaeological Sites and theirRelevance to World Prehistory. In:N.C. Flemming, ed. Submarine PrehistoricArchaeology of the North Sea. ResearchPriorities and Collaboration with Industry.CBA Research Report 141. York: Councilfor British Archaeology, pp. 3–10.

Barber, J., Clarke, C., Crone, A., Hale, A.,Henderson, J., Housley, R., Sands, R. &Sheridan, A. eds. 2007. Archaeology fromthe Wetlands: Proceedings of the 11thWARP Conference, Edinburgh 2005.Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries ofScotland.

Bass, G. 1972. A History of Seafaring Based onUnderwater Archaeology. London: Thames& Hudson.

Bell, M. ed. 1992. Severn Estuary LevelsResearch Committee, Annual Report 1992.Aberystwyth: Severn Estuary LevelsResearch Committee.

Bell, M. 2007. Prehistoric Coastal Communities:The Mesolithic in Western Britain. CBAResearch Report 149. York: Council forBritish Archaeology.

Bell, M., Caseldine, A. & Neumann, H. 2000.Prehistoric Intertidal Archaeology in theWelsh Severn Estuary. CBA ResearchReport 120. York: Council for BritishArchaeology.

Benjamin, J. 2010. Submerged PrehistoricLandscapes and Underwater Site Discovery:Reevaluating the ‘Danish Model’ forInternational Practice. Journal of Island andCoastal Archaeology, 5(2): 253–73.




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


Benjamin, J., Bonsall, C., Pickard, C. &Fischer, A. eds. 2011. SubmergedPrehistory. Oxford: Oxbow.

Bicket, A., Tizzard, L., Firth, A. & Benjamin,J. 2012 (in press). Heritage Managementand Submerged Prehistory in the UnitedKingdom. In: J. Flatman, E. Evans & N.C. Flemming, eds. Submerged PrehistoricArchaeology: How Climate Change andTechnology are Rewriting History.New York: Springer.

Bonnamour, L. 2000. Archeologie des Fleuves etdes Rivières. Paris: Errance & Ville deChalon-sur-Saone.

Boyd Dawkins, W. 1870. On the Discovery ofFlint and Chert under a Submerged Forestin West Somerset. Journal of EthnologicalSociety of London, 2(2): 141–46.

Bradley, R. 1979. The Interpretation of LaterBronze Age Metalwork from BritishRivers. International Journal of NauticalArchaeology, 8: 3–6.

Bradley, R. 1998. The Passage of Arms:Archaeological Analysis of Prehistoric Hoardsand Votive Deposits. Oxford: Oxbow.

Cassen, S., Baltzer, A., Lorin, A., Fournie, J.& Sellier, D. 2011. Submarine NeolithicStone Rows Near Carnac (Morbihan),France: Preliminary Results from Acousticand Underwater Survey. In: J. Benjamin,C. Bonsall, C. Pickard & A. Fischer, eds.Submerged Prehistory. Oxford: Oxbow, pp.99–110.

Chambers. 2008. The Chambers Dictionary.Edinburgh: Chambers.

Coles, J. 1984. The Archaeology of Wetlands.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Coles, J. & Coles, B. 1988. Sweet Track toGlastonbury: Somerset Levels in Prehistory.London: Thames and Hudson.

Collins, A.E.P. 1955. Excavations in LoughFaughnan Crannog, Co. Down, 1951–1952.Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 18: 48–82.

Crone, B.A. 1993. Crannogs andChronologies. Proceedings of the Society ofAntiquaries of Scotland, 123: 245–54.

Crone, A. 2000. The History of a ScottishLowland Crannog: Excavations at Buiston,Ayrshire 1989–90. STAR Monograph 4.Edinburgh: Scottish Trust forArchaeological Research.

Crone, A. 2007. From Indirections FindDirections Out: Taphonomic Problemsat Loch Glashan Crannog, Argyll. In:J. Barber, C. Clark, M. Cressey,

A. Crone, A. Hale, J. Henderson,R. Housley, R. Sands & A. Sheridan, eds.Archaeology from the Wetlands: RecentPerspectives. Proceedings of the 11th WARPConference, Edinburgh 2005. WARPOccasional Paper 18. Edinburgh: Societyof Antiquaires of Scotland, pp. 223–30.

Crone, A. & Campbell, E. 2005. A Crannogof the 1st Millennium AD. Edinburgh:Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

DCMS. 2010. Taking Part – StatisticalRelease. Taking Part: The NationalSurvey of Culture, Leisure and Sport,Adult and Child Report 2009 [online].London: Department of Culture, Mediaand Sport [accessed 17 May 2011].Available at: <http://www.dcms.gov.uk/images/research/ Taking_Part_Y6_Q3_Jan-Dec10.pdf>

Delgado, J.P. 1997. The Encyclopedia ofUnderwater and Maritime Archaeology.London: British Museum Press.

Dix, J. 2007. Acoustic Characterisation ofArchaeological Materials in the MarineEnvironment: Developments and Challenges.In: J. Satchell & P. Palma, eds. Managing theMarine Cultural Heritage: Defining, Accessingand Managing the Resource. CBA ResearchReport 153. York: Council for BritishArchaeology, pp. 17–24.

Dixon, T.N. 1982. A Survey of Crannogs inLoch Tay. Proceedings of the Society ofAntiquaries of Scotland, 112: 17–38.

Dixon, T.N. 2004. The Crannogs of Scotland: AnUnderwater Archaeology. Stroud: Tempus.

Erlandson, J. & Fitzpatrick, S. 2006. Oceans,Islands, and Coasts: Current Perspectiveson the Role of the Sea in HumanPrehistory. Journal of Island and CoastalArchaeology, 1(1): 5–32.

Firth, A. 2000. Development-Led Archaeologyin Coastal Environments: Investigationsat Queenborough, Motney Hill andGravesend in Kent, UK. In: K. Pye &J. Allen, eds. Coastal and EstuarineEnvironments: Sedimentology, Geomorphologyand Geoarchaeology. Geological SocietySpecial Publications 175. London:Geological Society, pp. 403–17.

Firth, A. 2004. Prehistory in the North Sea:Questions from Development-LedArchaeology. In: N. Flemming, ed.Submarine Prehistory of the North Sea:Research Priority and Collaboration withIndustry. CBA Research Report 141.



http://www.dcms.gov.uk/images/research/Taking_Part_Y6_Q3_Jan-Dec10.pdf













https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


York: Council for British Archaeology, pp.89–94.

Fischer, A. 1995. An Entrance to theMesolithic World Below the Ocean.Status of Ten Years’ Work on the DanishSea Floor. In: A. Fischer, ed. Man and Seain the Mesolithic. Oxford: Oxbow,pp. 371–84.

Fischer, A. 2004. Submerged Stone Age:Danish Examples and North Sea Potential.In: N.C. Flemming, ed. SubmarinePrehistoric Archaeology of the North Sea:Research Priorities and Collaboration withIndustry. CBA Research Report 141. York:Council for British Archaeology, pp. 23–36.

Fischer, A. 2011. Stone Age on theContinental Shelf: An Eroding Resource.In: J. Benjamin, C. Pickard & A. Fischer,eds. 2011. Submerged Prehistory. Oxford:Oxbow, pp. 298–310.

Flemming, N.C. ed. 2004. SubmarinePrehistoric Archaeology of the North Sea.Research Priorities and Collaboration withIndustry. CBA Research Report 141.York: Council for British Archaeology.

Fredengren, C. 2002. Crannogs: A Study ofPeoples’ Interaction with Lakes, withParticular Reference to Lough Gara in theNorth-West of Ireland. Dublin: Wordwell.

Fugazzola Delpino, M.A., D’Eugenio, G. &Pessina, A. 1993. ‘La Marmotta’(Anguilara Sabazia, Roma). Scavi 1979. Unabitato perilcustre di età neolitica. Bullettinodi Paletnologia Italiana, 48: 181–342.

Fulford, M., Champion, T.C. & Long, A.1997. England’s Coastal Heritage: A Surveyfor English Heritage and the RCHME.English Heritage Archaeological Report15. London: English Heritage.

Gaspari, A. 2003. Archaeology of theLjubljanica River (Slovenia): EarlyUnderwater Investigations and SomeCurrent Issues. International Journal ofNautical Archaeology, 32(1): 42–52.

Gaspari, A. ed. 2006. Zalog near Verd. StoneAge Hunters’ Camp at the Western Edge ofthe Ljubljansko Barje. Ljubljana: Instituteof Archaeology.

Geddes, G. & Hale, A. 2010. The ArchaeologicalLandscape of Bute. Edinburgh: RoyalCommission on the Ancient and HistoricMonuments of Scotland.

Goggin, J. 1960. Underwater Archaeology:Its Nature and Limitations. AmericanAntiquity, 25(3): 348–54.

Hale, A. 2004. Scottish Marine Crannogs.British Archaeological Reports BritishSeries 369. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Hale, A. 2007. Crannogs in South EastScotland. In: J. Barber, C. Clark,M. Cressey, A. Crone, A. Hale,J. Henderson, R. Housley, R. Sands &A. Sheridan, eds. Archaeology from theWetlands: Recent Perspectives. Proceedingsof the 11th WARP Conference.Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries ofScotland, pp. 275–80.

Hale, A. & Sands, R. 2005. Controversy onthe Clyde Archaeologists, Fakes and Forgers:The Excavation of Dumbuck Crannog.Edinburgh: RCAHMS.

Harding, D.W. 2007. Crannogs and IslandDuns: An Aerial Perspective. In:J. Barber, C. Clark, M. Cressey,A. Crone, A. Hale, J. Henderson,R. Housley, R. Sands & A. Sheridan, eds.Archaeology from the Wetlands: RecentPerspectives. Proceedings of the 11th WARPConference. Edinburgh: Society ofAntiquaires of Scotland, pp. 267–75.

Henderson, J. 1998. Islets through Time: TheDefinition, Dating and Distribution ofScottish Crannogs. Oxford Journal ofArchaeology, 17(2): 227–44.

Historic Scotland. 2009. Towards a Strategy forScotland’s Marine Historic Environment:Discussion Paper in Association with theMarine Taskforce of the Built EnvironmentForum of Scotland (BEFS) [online].Edinburgh: Historic Scotland [accessed 1January 2010]. Available at: <http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/marine-strategy.pdf>

Koninger, J. & Lübke, C. 2001. Bemerkungenzur vorgeschichtlichen Fischeri imwestlichen Bodenseegebiet und inOberschawen. Nachrichtenblatt ArbeitskreisUntervasserarchäolgie, 8: 67–82.

Lang, A. 1905. The Clyde Mystery. Glasgow:MacLahose.

Larsson, L. 2004. The Mesolithic Period inSouthern Scandinavia: With SpecialReference to Burials and Cemeteries. In:A. Saville, ed. Mesolithic Scotland andIts Neighbours. Edinburgh: Society ofAntiquaries of Scotland, pp. 371–92.

Leineweber, R., Lübke, H., Hellmund, M.,Dohle, H.J. & Klooß, S. 2011. A LateNeolithic fishing fence in Lake Arendsee,Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany. In: J. Benjamin,C. Bonsall, C. Pickard & A. Fischer, eds.



http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/marine-strategy.pdf










https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


Submerged Prehistory. Oxford: Oxbow, pp.173–85.

Lenihan, D.J. 1983. Rethinking ShipwreckArchaeology: A History of Ideas andConsiderations for New Directions. In:R. Gould, ed. Shipwreck Anthropology.Albuquerque: New Mexico Press, pp. 37–64.

Long, A.J. & Tooley, M.J. 1995. HoloceneSea Level and Crustal Movements inHampshire and Southeast England.Journal of Coastal Research, 17: 299–310.

Lübke, H., Schmolcke, U. & Tauber, F. 2011.Mesolithic Hunter-Fishers in a ChangingWorld: A Case Study of Submerged Sites onthe Jäckelberg, Wismar Bay, NortheasternGermany. In: J. Benjamin, C. Bonsall,C. Pickard & A. Fischer, eds. SubmergedPrehistory. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 21–37.

Mackinlay, J. 1859. Notice of Two‘Crannoges’ or Pallisaded Islands, in Bute;with Plans. Proceedings of the Society ofAntiquaries of Scotland, 3: 43–46.

Masters, P. & Flemming, N.C. eds. 1983.Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology.Orlando & London: Academic Press.

McGrail, S. 2001. Boats of the World: FromStone Age to Medieval Times. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Miles, D. 2004. Preface. In: N.C. Flemming,ed. Submarine Prehistoric Archaeology of theNorth Sea. Research Priorities andCollaboration with Industry. CBAResearch Report 141. York: Council forBritish Archaeology, p. xiii.

Momber, G. 2000. Drowned and Deserted:A Submerged Prehistoric Landscape inthe Solent, England. International Journalof Nautical Archaeology, 29(1): 86–99.

Momber, G., Tomalin, D., Scaife, R.,Satchell, J. & Gillespie, J. eds. 2011.Mesolithic Occupation at Bouldnor Cliff andthe Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes of theSolent. CBA Research Report 164. York:Council for British Archaeology.

Morrison, I. 1985. Landscape with Lake Dwellings.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Mowat, R. 1996. The Logboats of Scotland.Oxbow Monograph 68. Oxford: Oxbow.

Muckelroy, K. 1978. Maritime Archaeology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Muckleroy, K. 1980. Archaeology Under Water:an Atlas of the World’s Submerged Sites.McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0070439516.

Munro, R. 1882. Ancient Scottish Lake Dwellingsor Crannogs. Edinburgh: David Douglas.

Munro, R. 1905. Archaeology and FalseAntiquities. London: Methuen.

Nayling, N. & Manning, S. 2007. Dating theSubmerged Forests: Dendrochronologyand Radiocarbon ‘Wiggle-Match’ Dating.In: M. Bell, ed. Prehistoric CoastalCommunities: The Archaeology of WesternBritain 6000–3000 cal BC. CBA ResearchReport 149. York: Council for BritishArchaeology, pp. 90–102.

Needham, S.P. 1988. Selective Depositionin the British Early Bronze Age. WorldArchaeology, 20(2): 229–48.

O’Neill Henken, H. & Stelfox, A.W. 1942.Ballinderry Crannog No. 2. Proceedings ofthe Royal Irish Academy, 47(C): 1–76.

O’Sullivan, A. 1998. The Archaeology of LakeSettlement in Ireland. DiscoveryProgramme Monograph 4. Dublin: TheRoyal Irish Academy.

O’Sullivan, A. 2001. Foragers, Farmers andFishers in a Coastal Landscape. DiscoveryProgramme Monograph 5. Dublin: TheRoyal Irish Academy.

Oxley, I. 2007. Making the SubmergedHistoric Environment Accessible –Beyond the National Heritage Act (2002).In: J. Satchell & P. Palma, eds. Managingthe Marine Cultural Heritage: Defining,Accessing and Managing the Resource. CBAResearch Report 153. York: Council forBritish Archaeology, pp. 87–96.

RCAHMS. 2011. Scotland’s Rural Past.Edinburgh: Royal Commission on theAncient and Historic Monuments ofScotland.

Ruoff, U. 1997. Unterwasserarchäologie imZürich- und Griefensee. In: H. Schlichtherle,ed. Pfahlbauten rund um die Alpen. Stuttgart:Theiss, pp. 42–49.

Satchell, J. & Palma, P. eds. 2007. Managingthe Marine Cultural Heritage: Defining,Accessing and Managing the Resource. CBAResearch Report 153. York: Council forBritish Archaeology.

Schlichtherle, H. 1997. Pfahlbauten rund umdie Alpen. Stuttgart: Theiss.

Schlichtherle, H. & Wahlster, B. 1986.Archäologie in Seen und Mooren. DenPfahlbauten auf der Spur. Stuttgart: Theiss.

Smed, P. 1987. Argus Grund – Feltundersøgelser1984. Fortidsminder og Kulturhistorie,Antikvariske Studier, 8: 125–33.

Szabó, G. 2000. Underwater ArchaeologicalResearch in the Carpathian Basin. In: H. von




https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


Schmettow, A.R. Koldeweij & J.R. terMolen, eds. Schutz des Kulturerbes unterWasser-Veränderungen europäischer Lebenskulturdurch Fluß-und Seehandel. Lübstorf:Archäologisches Landesmuseum, pp. 461–66.

Thomas, S. 2010. Community Archaeology inthe UK: Recent Findings [online]. York:Council for British Archaeology [accessed1 April 2011]. Available at: <http://www.britarch.ac.uk/research/community/>

Tizzard, L., Baggaley, P. & Firth, A. 2011.Seabed Prehistory: Investigating Palaeo-Landsurfaces Associated with aPalaeolithic Tool Find, North Sea. In:J. Benjamin, C. Bonsall, C. Pickard &A. Fischer, eds. Submerged Prehistory.Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 65–73.

Tomalin, D. 1991. Maritime Archaeologyas a Coastal Management Issue: a SolentCase Study from the SCOPAC Coast.Proceedings of the 1992 LittlehamptonMeeting of the Standing Conference onProblems Associated with the Coastline(SCOPAC). Newport: Isle of WightCounty Council, pp. 93–112.

Tomalin, D. 2000. Stress at the Seams:Assessing the Terrestrial and SubmergedArchaeological Landscape on the Shore ofthe Magnus Portus. In: A. Aberg &C. Lewis, eds. The Rising Tide:Archaeology and Coastal Landscapes.Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 85–98.

Tomalin, D., Momber, G. & Nayling, N. 2011.The Archaeological Potential of the SolentSubmerged Landscapes. In: G. Momber,D. Tomalin, R. Scaife, J. Satchell &J. Gillespie, eds. Mesolithic Occupation atBouldnor Cliff and the Submerged PrehistoricLandscapes of the Solent. CBA ResearchReport 164. York: Council for BritishArchaeology, pp. 3–14.

UNESCO. 2001. Convention on the Protection ofthe Underwater Cultural Heritage. UnitedNations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization. Volume 1. Records of the GeneralConference: 31st Session Paris, 15 October to 3November 2001. Paris: UNESCO.

Van de Noort, R. & O’Sullivan, A. 2006.Rethinking Wetland Archaeology. London& New York: Duckworth.

Weirich, J. 2007. Connecting with the Past:Using Online Tools, Techniques andPartnerships to Explore our MaritimeHeritage. In: J. Satchell & P. Palma, eds.Managing the Marine Cultural Heritage:

Defining, Accessing and Managing theResource. CBA Research Report 153. York:Council for British Archaeology, pp. 79–86.

Westley, K., Bell, K., Quinn, R. & Plets, R.2011. Investigating SubmergedArchaeological Landscapes: A ResearchStrategy Illustrated with Case Studies fromIreland and Newfoundland, Canada. In:J. Benjamin, C. Bonsall, C. Pickard &A. Fischer, eds. 2011. Submerged Prehistory.Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 65–73.

Wood Martin, W. 1886. The Lake Dwellingsof Ireland: Commonly Called Crannogs.Dublin: Hodges Figgis.

York, J. 2002. The Life Cycle of Bronze AgeMetalwork from the Thames. OxfordJournal of Archaeology, 21(1): 77–92.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Jonathan Benjamin leads the WA Coastal& Marine team in its Edinburgh office,where he directs development-led andarchaeological research projects. He is aFellow in History, Classics and Archaeol-ogy at the University of Edinburgh, wherehe contributes to undergraduate and post-graduate teaching on underwaterarchaeology, archaeology in practice, andEuropean prehistory. He was the principaleditor of Submerged Prehistory (OxbowBooks, 2011).

Address: Wessex Archaeology, Coastal &Marine, 7/9 North St David Street, Edin-burgh EH2 1AW, UK. [email: [email protected]] and Univer-sity of Edinburgh, School of History,Classics & Archaeology, Doorway 4 –Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK.[email: [email protected]]

Alex Hale is an expert on Scottish MarineCrannogs and has worked for theRCAHMS Survey & Recording team forover a decade. He is an experienced field



http://www.britarch.ac.uk/research/community/






mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:


https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


archaeologist and has conducted extensivework on community engagement, particu-larly in the west of Scotland. He is co-Chairfor the Scottish Archaeology Research Fra-mework’s Marine and Maritime Panel.

Address: Royal Commission on theAncient and Historical Monuments ofScotland, John Sinclair House, 16 BernardTerrace, Edinburgh EH8 9NX, UK.[email: [email protected]]

Prehistoire marine, maritime ou submergee? Contextualisation des archeologiesprehistoriques subaquatiques des environnements interieurs, côtiers et au large

Les recherches en archeologie prehistorique subaquatique ont gagne un nouvel elan ces dernières anneesavec un focus particulier sur les regions immergees du plateau continental. Tandis que cet interêt renou-vele se porte surtout sur les côtes et mers modernes, il existe toute une variete de differences entre lesarcheologies subaquatiques prehistoriques des environnements de terres fermes et des environnementsmarins allant de questions sur la recherche scientifique à la gestion du patrimoine et aux methodespratiques du terrain. Quelques-unes de ces differences resultent de l’endroit, de la fonction et de laperiode. Malgre ceci, il existe des similarites qui, si elles sont ignorees, risquent de provoquer une mar-ginalisation accrue de l’archeologie des regions submergees par rapport au domaine plus vaste del’archeologie prehistorique. Une evaluation holistique des regions archeologiques prehistoriques doitinclure les eaux interieures et les zones côtières ainsi que leurs relations. Les environnements aquatiques,consideres à la fois comme endroits individuels et comme voies d’eau continues et communicantes, sontpresentes pour leurs differences et leurs similarites, et des exemples simplifies de materiel et de legislationsont presentes afin de contextualiser les sites et pratiques sous-marins au sein du vaste domaine de laprehistoire et de l’archeologie subaquatique. Translation by Isabelle Gerges.

Mots cles: archeologie subaquatique, côtier, lacustre, fluvial, estuarien, prehistoire, Grande-Bretagne, Écosse

Marine, maritime oder versunkene Vorgeschichte? Zur Kontextualisierung dervorgeschichtlichen Unterwasserarchäologien von Inland-, Küsten- undküstennahen Milieus

Studien zur Prähistorischen Unterwasserarchäologie sind in den letzten Jahren mit einem besonderenFokus auf den versunkenen Landschaften des Festlandssockels intensiviert worden. Während sich dieseserneute Interesse vorwiegend auf den modernen Küsten und Seen richtet, gibt es eine MengeUnterschiede zwischen den Unterwasserarchäologien prähistorischer Inland- und mariner Milieus, dievon Fragen der wissenschaftlichen Erforschung über denkmalpflegerische Aspekte bis zu praktischenThemen der Feldforschung reichen. Einige dieser Unterschiede rühren aus dem Ort, von der Funktionoder der Periode her. Trotzdem gibt es auch Ähnlichkeiten, die, wenn sie vernachlässigt werden, eineerhohte Marginalisierung der Archäologie versunkener Landschaften im weiteren Bereich der Prähistor-ischen Archäologie zeitigen. Eine ganzheitliche Betrachtung vorgeschichtlicher archäologischerLandschaften muss auch Binnengewässer und Küstenzonen sowie deren Beziehungen einschließen.Gewässer, die sowohl als individuelle Orte wie auch als kontinuierliche und verbindende Wasserwegezu betrachten sind, werden hier mit ihren Unterschieden und Gemeinsamkeiten vorgestellt und eswerden anhand vereinfachter Beispiele von Material und Gesetzmäßigkeiten gezeigt, um Unterwasser-fundplätze und -praktiken im weiteren Feld der Vorgeschichte und der Unterwasserarchäologie zukontextualisieren. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg.

Stichworte: unterwasserarchäologie, küstengebiet, seegebiet, flussgebiet, mündungsgebiet, vor-geschichte, Großbritannien, Schottland



mailto:

mailto:

mailto:

mailto:


https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957112Y.0000000007


Marine, Maritime, or Submerged Prehistory? Contextualizing ... · topics of underwater archaeology...

Documents

Transcript of Marine, Maritime, or Submerged Prehistory? Contextualizing ... · topics of underwater archaeology...