Submerged Archaeological Resources: Sound, Software and Three Inch Pipes - A Recipe for Finding Submerged Prehistoric Archaeological Sites?

Garrison G Ervan
{"title":"Submerged Archaeological Resources: Sound, Software and Three Inch Pipes - A Recipe for Finding Submerged Prehistoric Archaeological Sites?","authors":"Garrison G Ervan","doi":"10.4043/29597-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n 1. Review the effectiveness of existing technology for identifying and characterizing submerged and buried prehistoric archaeological sites.2. Critique and suggest changes to existing technology to improve the effectiveness for the identification and characterization of submerged prehistoric archaeological sites.3. Examine the \"why\" this is important to offshore technology regulation and management.\n \n \n \n The process can easily be paraphrased as \"sound, software, and three inch pipes\" - the sound being the pulse from sonar or sub-bottom instruments, the software being the methods by which those pulses are processed and display, and the three-inch pipes, of course, denoting the coring tubes used to sample targets identified in using sound and software. In fairness to the methods discussed herein, their application has been, at best, uneven. The use of the first two technologies - sound/acoustic and post-processing software programs have been in regular use by geophysical contractors. The latter technology - sediment coring - has been utilized far less.\n \n \n \n How effective has this methodology proven to be over the past thirty years? That is open to some debate and this paper will examine some reasons why this is so and suggest some possible alternatives. The overarching goal of this paper is to push beyond this methodology to potentially more effective technologies or at least improved usage of the current technology.\n \n \n \n Submerged prehistoric archaeological sites are \"hard problems\" in terms of their discovery and characterization. Compared to submerged historic archaeological sites - primarily shipwrecks - those are \"easy.\" This comparison of the use and effectiveness of technology is novel and additive.\n","PeriodicalId":11149,"journal":{"name":"Day 1 Mon, May 06, 2019","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 1 Mon, May 06, 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4043/29597-MS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

1. Review the effectiveness of existing technology for identifying and characterizing submerged and buried prehistoric archaeological sites.2. Critique and suggest changes to existing technology to improve the effectiveness for the identification and characterization of submerged prehistoric archaeological sites.3. Examine the "why" this is important to offshore technology regulation and management. The process can easily be paraphrased as "sound, software, and three inch pipes" - the sound being the pulse from sonar or sub-bottom instruments, the software being the methods by which those pulses are processed and display, and the three-inch pipes, of course, denoting the coring tubes used to sample targets identified in using sound and software. In fairness to the methods discussed herein, their application has been, at best, uneven. The use of the first two technologies - sound/acoustic and post-processing software programs have been in regular use by geophysical contractors. The latter technology - sediment coring - has been utilized far less. How effective has this methodology proven to be over the past thirty years? That is open to some debate and this paper will examine some reasons why this is so and suggest some possible alternatives. The overarching goal of this paper is to push beyond this methodology to potentially more effective technologies or at least improved usage of the current technology. Submerged prehistoric archaeological sites are "hard problems" in terms of their discovery and characterization. Compared to submerged historic archaeological sites - primarily shipwrecks - those are "easy." This comparison of the use and effectiveness of technology is novel and additive.
水下考古资源:声音、软件和三英寸管道——寻找水下史前考古遗址的秘诀?
1. 回顾现有技术在识别和表征水下和埋藏史前考古遗址方面的有效性。对现有技术提出批评和建议,以提高对水下史前考古遗址的识别和表征的有效性。检查“为什么”这对离岸技术监管和管理很重要。这个过程可以很容易地解释为“声音、软件和三英寸管道”——声音是来自声纳或海底仪器的脉冲,软件是处理和显示这些脉冲的方法,当然,三英寸管道指的是用于通过声音和软件识别目标的取样管。公平地说,这里讨论的方法,它们的应用最多是不平衡的。使用前两种技术-声音/声学和后处理软件程序已被地球物理承包商经常使用。后一种技术——沉积物取心——的应用要少得多。在过去的三十年里,这种方法被证明是多么有效?这是开放的一些辩论,本文将研究一些原因,为什么会这样,并提出一些可能的替代方案。本文的首要目标是超越这种方法,使用潜在的更有效的技术,或者至少改进当前技术的使用。水下史前考古遗址的发现和特征都是“难题”。与被淹没的历史考古遗址(主要是沉船)相比,这些遗址“很容易”。这种对技术的使用和有效性的比较是新颖和有益的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信