Open AccessArticle

Identifying Anthropogenic Versus Natural Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes: Two Case Studies from the Sicilian Channel

Ehud Galili

^1,2,*,

Liora Kolska Horwitz

Ilaria Patania

⁴,

Amir Bar

⁵ and

Isaac Ogloblin Ramirez

^6,7

The Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel

Recanati Institute of Maritime Studies, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel

National Natural History Collections, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 9166100, Israel

⁴

Department of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA

⁵

Department of Marine Geosciences, Leon H. Charney School for Marine Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel

⁶

Laboratory for Environmental Micro-History, Department of Maritime Civilizations, School of Archaeology and Maritime Cultures, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel

⁷

Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12(11), 1981; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12111981

Submission received: 5 October 2024 / Revised: 27 October 2024 / Accepted: 28 October 2024 / Published: 2 November 2024

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Technologies for Maritime and Underwater Archaeology—2nd Edition)

Download

Browse Figures

Versions Notes

Abstract

In submerged landscapes, distinguishing anthropogenic features versus natural ones is often challenging. We have developed a set of criteria to validate the identification of submerged anthropogenic remains that include examining the geological context, sea-level considerations, associated archaeological finds (including coastal survey), and documenting the broader archaeological context. Furthermore, our experience demonstrates that, while progress has been made in applying remote-sensing technologies to detect anthropogenic features on the seabed, there is no substitute for direct, visual assessment by an underwater archaeologist for verification of their anthropogenic status. We have applied these criteria to examine two published case studies detailing suspected anthropogenic stone features on the seabed in the Sicilian Channel. Our examination has led us to conclude that both localities are not anthropogenic features. The Pantelleria Vecchia Bank features represent natural outcrops on a submerged paleo-landscape that were shaped by depositional and erosional processes during transgression and regression periods. The suspected Lampedusa cultic site comprises natural features that are located on a submerged neo-landscape formed due to erosion and retreat of the coastal cliff since the mid-Holocene, when the sea level reached its present level.

Keywords:

submerged prehistory; sea-level change; underwater archaeology; beach deposits; inundated settlements

1. Introduction

The post-glacial rise in sea level (ca. 20,000 to 5000 years BP) inundated large regions of previously dry coastal plains, resulting in submerged areas of the continental shelf [1,2]. These included areas that had been occupied by people since the Early Paleolithic period, e.g., [3,4,5,6]. As early as 1937, A.C. Blanc, who studied the west coast of Italy [7], hypothesized that prehistoric materials and terrestrial landscapes could be preserved on the submerged continental shelf, and indeed, in the past 80-plus years, thousands of prehistoric sites have been found underwater, representing a unique environmental and cultural record [8,9,10,11,12,13]. However, identification of submerged anthropogenic sites is often challenging since underwater features of natural origin can sometimes be misconstrued as human-made (i.e., pseudo-archaeological). Stone features, created by erosional or depositional processes, frequently exhibit symmetrical or repetitive forms whose origin can be misleading. Notable examples of suspected submerged anthropogenic sites are the localities of Yanuguni and Kerama, in southern Japan [14,15]: See the figure on page 595. These are two submerged rock formations identified as anthropogenic by amateur archaeologists but never confirmed as such by professional scholars. Conspicuously, neither site has yielded in situ diagnostic archaeological fingerprints (e.g., tool marks, tools or other archaeological remains), raising suspicions that they are just impressive natural structures.

Establishing a set of validation parameters based on archaeological considerations, in combination with studies of factors related to earth sciences, is crucial to ensuring the accurate and correct identification of submerged anthropogenic sites and features. Factors to be considered in the verification process include identifying distinct patterns of deliberate material selection (such as slabs or elongated stones) to exclude those that can occur naturally, determining the provenance of the stones (local or non-local), and analyzing the arrangement patterns of rocks and stones [10,16,17,18,19]. Critically, finds should never be studied in isolation. Characterization of the geological substrate establishes the age of the rock formations in the research area and their relation to the suspected anthropogenic remains, while observations of sea-level and tectonic activities that may have affected the area at the time of the proposed human occupation are also necessary in order to understand site formation processes. Additionally, geomorphological observations can reconstruct depositional and erosional processes and indicate signatures that are anthropogenic versus those that are natural. Natural agents (e.g., rivers, waves, tsunamis) or anthropogenic ones (e.g., ships) may have been responsible for transporting artifacts found on the seabed and depositing them in their find location, while sedimentation, erosion, and abrasion processes may generate anthropogenic-like features, or cover or destroy sites [12,13,19]. It should be noted that by themselves, none of these earth science datasets are enough to unambiguously establish the anthropogenic origin of a site. The presence of indicators clearly linked to human activity (e.g., artifacts made of stone, bone, or organic materials; flint tools; production waste; charcoal; or faunal and floral remains), is the key element needed to confirm an anthropogenic origin [10,16,17,18,19], as establishing that such finds are in situ.

In recent years, remote-sensing technologies have been commonly used to explore and map currently submerged paleo-landscapes in search of prehistoric sites. Remote-sensing techniques applied to submerged prehistory can be divided into devices scanning the surface/sea bottom (e.g., side scan sonar, multibeam sonar, remote-operated vehicle), devices scanning the sub-bottom (e.g., sub-bottom profiler), and devices scanning shallow water from the air (e.g., aerial photography, LIDAR). In the field of submerged prehistory, remote-sensing techniques are efficient when there is a need to scan wide areas of sea bottom that otherwise will require many days of scuba diving, and thus identify the most promising sectors on which research should focus. Moreover, such techniques are also useful when searching for submerged landscapes and sites covered with sediments [19]. Although these methods provide unique and useful information, as will be detailed below, they still face problems of precision and accuracy in discerning anthropogenic from natural features and identifying archaeological finds of material culture, such as those listed above. For example, based on geo-acoustic experiments of knapped flint using sub-bottom profiling, Gron and colleagues [20,21] have been able to identify human-altered lithics in some submerged contexts, but have demonstrated difficulty in distinguishing cultural layers from the surrounding natural geologic ones. Although such studies show promise, their findings need to be corroborated by direct observation, survey, and/or excavation of material on the sea bottom by underwater archaeologists. Thus, in submerged prehistory, remote-sensing techniques can serve as a valuable complement to archaeological studies, but is not a replacement.

In this study, we discuss two published examples that deal with stone features that are suspected to be anthropogenic in origin. Both are located on the seabed of the Sicilian Channel: (i) the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank stone ridges and monolith, and (ii) stone arrangements situated off Lampedusa Island (Figure 1). In each instance, the features were first studied (without the aid of professional archaeologists) by geologists and recreational divers using remote-sensing technologies and interpreted as anthropogenic in origin. In this study, we want to test the hypotheses proposed through the application of the archaeological and geoarchaeological validation methodologies outlined above.

In order to evaluate whether these submerged localities are natural or anthropogenic, we have analyzed the data presented by the discoverers, and complemented these data with underwater and coastal surveys at the suspected site off Lampedusa (carried out by two of the authors). Although the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank was not surveyed by us due to accessibility limitations, the published data are critically assessed here. We present our findings, which serve as an example of the inadequacy of relying only on remote-sensing technologies, and the need for complementary, hands-on examination of suspected anthropogenic sites by experienced underwater archaeologists.

1.1. Brief History of Submerged Prehistory

The field of submerged prehistory emerged following finds of faunal and lithic remains that were dredged up in trawler nets in the North Sea [22], while terrestrial forests were identified in various intertidal areas of the United Kingdom and France [23,24,25,26]. Additionally, sporadic finds by recreational divers helped to trigger interest in this research. For example, in the 1960s, the first reports of finds of Neolithic objects from the submerged locality of Tel Hreiz, situated off the Mediterranean coast of Israel [27,28], then led to the discovery of more than 16 concentrations of submerged Neolithic sites and the test excavation of the coastal sector of the submerged Pottery Neolithic site of Neve Yam [9,19,28,29,30]. These discoveries contributed to the development of pioneering excavation methods of submerged prehistoric Mediterranean settlements (e.g., Neolithic sites of Atlit-Yam and Kfar Samir) [19,31], complemented by multidisciplinary studies of the archaeological finds (e.g., sediments, flint, stone and bone tools, and pollen, floral, faunal, and human remains). The methods used were later consolidated as the Israeli Model for the detection, identification, and investigation of submerged prehistoric remains [19,32]. Parallel to this, similar processes were taking place in other parts of the world. One early example from the 1970s, was the use of a systematic methodology to study the sub-bottom and seabed in search of possible prehistoric remains, following extensive industrial work on the sea bottom of the Gulf of Mexico [33]. To do so, remote-sensing methods were applied to produce bathymetric and sub-bottom profiles. These data were corroborated by sediment samples, which helped to reconstruct the terrestrial paleoenvironment. Paleo-environment and identifiable land identifiable landforms were correlated with known archaeological features on land to generate predictive models. If a possible site was identified, further sediment samples, underwater documentation, and diver investigations were undertaken [33,34]. Another model, developed by Fisher [35,36,37], aimed at locating submerged prehistoric sites by identifying submerged landforms similar to terrestrial counterparts known to be rich in archaeological remains. The basic methodologies used in the Gulf of Mexico, have since benefitted from technological improvements. These include remote-sensing studies that are undertaken in deep water and sediment-covered areas, as well as intensive work in the field of underwater survey [25], with direct-contact diving surveys usually conducted in shallow areas, where snorkeling and scuba diving is possible. The need to investigate areas currently covered by thick layers of sediment, has guided researchers to look for anthropogenic signatures beyond the presence of human-made artifacts, often using sediment coring, to recover finds related to paleo-environmental proxies such as faunal remains, charcoal and pollen, some detected by using sedDNA analysis [26,38,39,40,41].

In sum, the accumulation of more than 40 years of experience since the first conference (1981) and publication of the first book relating to the topic of submerged prehistoric sites and landscapes [3], has resulted in general models and recommendations for the investigation of submerged landscapes and prehistoric sites, offering innovative and robust protocols for their detection/identification, investigation, and preservation, as detailed below.

1.2. Citizen Sources

Despite the extensive work that has been undertaken to produce efficient models and research strategies, most often submerged prehistoric remains are reported based on citizen observations—with the naked eye, or found by a fisherman’s net [19,35,36,42]. Thus, gathering data from citizen sources like industrial, military, and recreational divers, and fisherfolk, is essential. In this regard see also Archaeology, Wessex. “Protocol for Reporting finds of archaeological interest, Annual Report to BMAPA 2005–2006”. 2006.

1.3. Depth-Dependent Likelihood of Detecting Prehistoric Sites

The inundation and drying (terrestrial conditions) of a submerged landscape is generally conditioned by Pleistocene and Holocene sea levels. Analyzing the available global sea-level curves suggest that in a given region, areas situated at greater depths on the seabed experienced shorter periods of exposure during low sea-level phases. This statment is based on the simple logic that, if a point at a certain depth was situated on dry land, all points above it must be dry as well. Thus, the deeper a site is, the less time it was dry land. This has been explained in some detail in two previous publications [17,19]. Thus, statistically, the likelihood of encountering submerged prehistoric sites diminishes in currently deeper locations. Additionally, the last time the continental shelf was exposed beyond a depth of 50 m dates back to 13,000 years BP. These landscapes would have been inhabited by hunter–gatherer communities whose sites lacked substantial architecture and whose ephemeral activities are less likely to be preserved or found [17,19]. Consequently, the likelihood of discovering submerged prehistoric deposits and significant architecture increases in shallow waters, as these areas were exposed for longer periods of time and could have been occupied by Paleolithic hunter-gatherers, sedentary Neolithic and later communities. Regrettably, modern human activities (development, building, quarrying) and consequent marine erosion pose great threats to these areas, leading to their heightened destruction. Moreover, when excavating in extremely shallow water the intertidal and surf zones (0–5 m) present extremely difficult working conditions due to changing sea conditions, rapid erosion, and sedimentation of the excavated area [10,12,13,17,19,43].

1.4. Models for Detecting Sites

Generating models for prehistoric site detection mainly focuses on producing a comprehensive picture of the paleo-landscape by applying sea-level considerations and using remote-sensing technologies enabling high-resolution reconstruction of prehistoric landscapes. However, choosing the most appropriate method for detecting, surveying, and researching sites is crucial, and often the use of simple, low-tech methods is no less effective than costly and sophisticated remote-sensing technologies. Both methods, together with archaeological information from adjacent terrestrial areas (site distribution patterns, site layout, chrono-cultural entities, etc.) and geological data of the studied region (river outlets, raw material sources, detection of cultural or biological relics relating to ancient sea levels, etc.) will enable production of models to detect areas of potential interest [18,19,33,34,35,37,44,45,46,47,48]. Additionally, current research efforts have seen the development of methods that explore a broad range of anthropogenic signatures aside from the presence of items of material culture, and this includes investigation of finds related to paleo-environmental proxies such as charcoal, faunal remains, and pollen [26,38,39,40,41,49].

1.5. The Utilization of Paleosols and Rocky Coastal Areas by Prehistoric Populations

In the Mediterranean Basin, submerged remains of early agropastoral societies (Neolithic–Chalcolithic) are generally associated with paleosols that developed under terrestrial environments. Paleosols and other submerged landscapes may be affected by high sediment input that covers sites and makes them difficult to detect and access [10,12,13,19,49]. Rocky coastal areas were generally less sustainable for agro-pastoral human occupation due to the lack of arable land. However, such areas were frequently used for various economic and cultic purposes rather than agriculture (e.g., as demonstrated in Australia) [48]. Intense abrasion that affects submerged landscapes during inundation and periods of high-stand sea levels have probably destroyed much of the archaeological deposits [10,12,13,19].

1.6. The Importance of Archaeological Investigations to Corroborate the Anthropogenic Nature of a Site

Acquisition of submerged landscape data by remote-sensing and geophysical technologies has developed extraordinarily quickly. Using innovative and sophisticated technologies provides crucial physical and sedimentary details, and often helps to detect and document in great detail underwater features and reconstruct the paleo-landscape that is currently submerged [26]. However, these techniques do not provide information on a site’s archaeological setting and stratigraphy. Such archaeological data, in addition to finds of material culture (e.g., stone, bone and wood artifacts, flint tools, architecture elements, stone arrangements) and anthropogenic-associated finds (charcoal, dung, ash, human remains, faunal remains with butchery marks), can only be obtained by archaeological survey and excavation [17,18,19,50,51,52]. Such data are crucial for establishing whether a site is anthropogenic in origin or not.

2. Materials and Methods

The sites discussed and re-evaluated in this article were investigated by us using different research strategies. In assessing the Pantelleria Vecchia features, we could only use material available in publications, since field survey was not possible because access to the area where the site is located, is restricted. In contrast, we were able to access and survey for ourselves the submerged Lampedusa site (for survey methods, see below, in Section 3.2. The Lampedusa Site). In both sites, sea-level and tectonic considerations were assessed, deposits from the MIS5e isotopic stage were checked to gauge tectonic stability (at Lampedusa), and data regarding the dating of geological and archaeological features were considered. The published data from the petrography and thin sections from the Pantaleria Vecchia site were checked, and the availability of human-made finds and traces (charcoal, faunal and floral remains, as well as flint, bone, and stone artifacts) in the suspected anthropogenic sites were considered. In addition, we tested the hypothesis that the Lampedusa site is situated on a submerged paleo-landscape that potentially could have been occupied by humans in prehistoric times, versus a submerged neo-landscape that is relatively young, and thus could not have been occupied during prehistoric times.

3. Results

3.1. The Pantelleria Vecchia Bank

Archaeological setting:

The earliest signs of human habitation on the island of Pantelleria trace back to the Neolithic era around the eighth millennium BP. Archeological findings, such as a workshop for crafting obsidian located at Punta Fram near Pantelleria city’s modern cemetery, suggest early human activity [53]. Various artifacts like tools, ornaments, and weapons crafted from Pantelleria obsidian, discovered across Sicily, Malta, Tunisia, Southern France, and other Mediterranean regions, indicate a sustained human presence and a vast exchange network during the Neolithic period [54]. Concrete evidence of permanent settlement emerges during the Bronze Age, particularly from the late fifth to late-fourth millennium BP, notably with the Mursìa village and the Sesi necropolis [53]. Subsequently, Pantelleria’s history reflects influences from various cultures, including the Phoenicians and the Romans [54,55].

Geological setting:

The Pantelleria Vecchia Bank is situated on the Adventure Plateau, between western Sicily and Pantelleria island (Figure 1). It is a submerged landscape, currently at 35–40 m depth, which was connected to Sicily during the low sea stand of the glacial periods. During the Younger Dryas (ca. 11,500 years BP), when global sea level was ca. 55 m lower, the area was an archipelago of six dispersed islands located off the southwestern coast of Sicily, while at the end of the 1B Melt Water Pulses (ca. 11,200 years BP), the sea level was ca. 40 m lower than present SL and the islands were smaller [56]. Analyses of geomorphological markers, mainly MIS5e deposits [56,57], have shown that the northwestern Sicilian Channel has been tectonically stable at least since the Late Pleistocene (with an estimated vertical change of ±0.04 mm/y). This was confirmed by independent measurements derived from semi-permanent GPS stations [58], which do not reveal significant present-day tectonic activity in this region.

Past studies:

Two submerged enigmatic stone ridges and a stone monolith in the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank (NW Sicilian Channel) were studied by Lodolo and colleagues [59] and Lodolo and Ben Avraham [60]. In a third paper from 2024, Lodolo and colleagues describe a few ridges, in the form of a half-ring, on the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank (Figure 2D) [61]. The underwater features are located tens of kilometers offshore, between Pantelleria and Sicily, at a depth of ca. 35–40 m on the seabed (Figure 2 and Figure 3). In their studies, the researchers used a multibeam swath bathymetry and high-resolution seismic reflection data, radiocarbon dates, and petrographic thin sections of rock samples taken from the ridges and the monolith. Documentation, photography, and sampling were carried out by technical divers. Radiocarbon ages for four rock samples, analyzed in two different laboratories, all fell within MIS3, i.e., the Late Pleistocene (39,960 ± 500 years BP to 44,560 ± 1270 years BP) [60] and are close to the limit of radiocarbon [60] (p. 399) (Table S1). The ridges, in the form of a half-rings, were deposited during the Late Miocene (Tortonian) [61,62]. In the three articles, presumably based on chronology and patterns, the authors tentatively suggest that these features (Ridges 1 and 2, the monolith, and the half-ring ridges) could be anthropogenic in origin and propose that they are, respectively, Neolithic and Mesolithic in age [60,61].

Ridge 1 is an 820 m-long stone ridge whose lower part is covered with unconsolidated sediment (sand), while the upper part comprises what Lodolo et al. [59] describe as “horizontally arranged” stone blocks 0.5 m thick, some rectangular in shape, with the largest measuring ~3.4 m (Figure 2A and Figure 3). Based on thin-section petrography analysis of samples collected from the features, their lithology was classified as bioclastic sandstone (Table S1). Based on chronological and morphological patterns (e.g., the orthogonal geometry, the blocky structure, and its stepped slopes slopes on its seaward margins), the ridge was interpreted as having been initially embedded in coarse sand during a low sea-level stand some 40,000 years BP. Lodolo et al. [59] suggest that later, ~9000 years BP, the natural deposit was modified and stone blocks were intentionally erected by prehistoric inhabitants of the region to serve as a coastal defense against sea-level rise.

2.: Ridge 2 is an 82 m-long and 6–8 m-wide stone feature that lies perpendicular to and 100 m northeast of, the west end of Ridge 1 (Figure 2B and Figure 4). It too is characterized by rectangular stone blocks that rise 1 m above the surrounding seafloor. It was dated to an earlier Late Miocene (Tortonian) era, similar to the half-ring ridges (see below).

Based on thin-section petrographic analysis of samples collected from the stone features, their lithology was classified as bioclastic sandstone (Table S1). In their 2023 paper [59], Lodolo et al. suggested that “It seems unlikely that this concentration of peculiar and geometrically regular structures would develop by natural processes in this small (∼0.5 km) study area. … In view of the above, it seems possible that the two ridges are associated with human occupation”.

3.: The stone monolith is located at 35 m depth, some 300 m north of Ridge 1. It is described in a 2015 paper [60] as a ~12 m-long stone monolith that broke into three stone blocks that are now arranged in a line (Figure 2C and Figure 5). Based on thin-section petrography analysis of samples collected from the feature, its lithology was classified as bioclastic sandstone, similar to Ridge 1 described above (Table S1). In three different places on this rock, there are holes, one of which runs through the rock from side to side. Lodolo et al. suggest that the rock represents a broken human-made megalith, associated with a Mesolithic culture that occupied the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank during low sea level ~13,000 years BP, and was probably placed in an erect position. They therefore assume that people extracted the rock and transported it some 300 m from Ridge 1 and then erected it. The following features were offered by them to support the anthropogenic origin of the monolith: (1) It is made of the same rock and is the same age as Ridge 1, closing the submerged paleo-embayment; (2) it is of rather regular shape and has three regular holes of similar diameter at the top and on its sides; (3) there are no reasonable known natural processes that may have produced these elements; (4) the monolith is made of stones other than those that constitute the neighboring outcrops (this statement contradicts no. 1 above).
4.: The half-ring features are a sequence of block (up to 3 m long and 0.5 m thick) accumulations forming parallel, curved ridges stretching a few hundred meters to the north of Ridges 1 and 2. Based on thin-section petrographic analysis of samples collected from the half-ring features (see Table S1), their lithology was classified as bioclastic limestone dated to the Late Miocene (Tortonian) [61]. According to the observations of Lodolo and colleagues, the rock type of the half-ring ridges is identical to the surrounding rocks forming the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank (dated to the Late Miocene). Nevertheless, based on analyses of their data and examination of their geometry and structure, they excluded the possibility that the concentric half-rings were formed by natural processes and suggest that they were originally part of human-made structures functioning either as fortifications, anchorage, fishing installation, or used for ritual practices [61].

3.2. The Lampedusa Megalithic Site

Archaeological setting:

The initial occupation of the island of Lampedusa dates back to the Neolithic period, ca. 6000 years BP, with the earliest evidence of human presence from the site of Cala Pisana, excavated by the University of Pisa [62]. The island, which was investigated by Thomas Ashby in 1909 and by the Natural History Department of the University of Pisa in 1971, abounds in Late Prehistoric or Early Bronze Age architectural remains characterized by circular-shaped stone structures (See Figure S1). The period and purpose of these structures remain unclear, and they have been interpreted as agricultural installations or dwellings [63]. From 1000 BCE. until modern times, the island has been influenced by various cultures, including the Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, and World War II events [64].

In publications from 2014 and 2019, Diego Ratti tentatively proposed that he had found a possible submerged prehistoric place of worship off the northwest coast of the island of Lampedusa [65,66].

Geological setting:

The suspected megalithic installation was detected off the northwestern coast of Lampedusa at the foot of a cliff more than 100 m high (Figure 6 and Figure 7). Grasso and Pedley [67] conducted a detailed geological survey of the elongated east–west-oriented island. They reported on a northwest–southeast trending Late Miocene fault (a monoclinical flexture) that divides the island into two morphological units. To the west, all strata are horizontal, with vertical cliffs up to 100 m high on the coast. The southern and southeastern shores are ria-type, with well-developed, drowned river valleys and small bays. While rapid headward erosion has destroyed much of the original pre-Tyrrhenian coastline in the western promontory and northern coasts, no such destruction has occurred at the southern and southeastern sides of the island [67]. Unlike the ria-like eastern and southeastern sectors of the island, this region is characterized by active coastal erosion creating coastal cliffs and numerous landslides. Erosion of the bedrock reveals two main geological units on the section of the coastal cliff: white chalkstone at the bottom of the cliff and darker yellow limestone at its top.

Past and present studies:

The suspected megalithic site at Lampedusa was initially explored by recreational divers [65] using multibeam images and aerial and underwater photography. In 2019, two of the authors (E.G. and I.O.R.) investigated the site and associated features, with the purpose of inspecting the submerged landscape and the suspected anthropogenic features in the site [68]. The underwater surveys were carried out using a diving boat, standard scuba 12 and 15 L air tanks, and underwater cameras—a Sony 100 III in housing and a GoPro. Measurements were taken using a rolled metric tape, while underwater drawing was carried out using a pencil on A4 plastic sheets. Rocks were sampled using a chisel and hammer, and shallow trenching of sediments was performed using hand fanning to expose underlying features. A complementary coastal survey was also carried out by E.G. and I.O.R. with the aim of identifying possible parallel human-made structures on land, and archaeological and geological features that could be used as indicators of ancient sea levels and vertical tectonic changes.

In his publications, Diego Ratti described features made of stone boulders off the northwest coast of the island at an average depth of –11 m below sea level (Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10). His underwater surveys close to the foot of the cliff yielded two circular stone formations, bounded to the north by a bedrock plateau (Figure 10, no. 3). The size of the stones ranged from approximately 1.5 to 5 m. We carried out a 50 cm-deep probe into the carbonate sand within the circle installation (and tested it by hand fanning) with the aim of finding anthropogenic remains like stone tools, imported stones, charcoal, or bones, but it yielded no finds. Initially, Ratti had thought these structures were simply a random set of broken rocks that had rolled from the nearby cliff following natural coastal erosion. However, after various diving surveys and aerial photos, Ratti perceived that the rocks formed circular and elliptic enclosures, similar to those of a prehistoric place of worship with an area of rock-cut steps [65,66].

Additionally, a protruding rock on the seabed located ~30 m northwest of the boulder concentrations was suspected to be a zoomorphic sculpture (Figure 10, no. 4, Figure 11).

South of the site, Ratti identified pits in a submerged cliff that he suspected represented rock-cut tombs, while west of the site were rocks that are zoomorphic in shape (Figure 11).

In 2019, the data collected by Diego Ratti were complemented by underwater and coastal surveys led by two of the authors (E.G. and I.O.R.) together with Diego Ratti, Pietro Ratti, Fabio Giovanetti, Anna Sardone, and Giuseppe Sorrenti. Samples were taken from the boulders, the sea bottom, and the supposed zoomorphic rock, and were examined with the naked eye. During the underwater surveys in and around the suspected anthropogenic site, two main rock features were identified on the sea bottom at ~10–15 m depth:

Clusters of boulders of various sizes and shapes, which had collapsed from the coastal cliff. These are scattered in a random pattern on the shallow (1–12 m deep) sea bottom, close to the foot of the coastal escarpment, as usually can be found in colluvial deposits and landslides (Figure 7). Of the hundreds of boulders found there (Figure 9), some stone clusters may resemble human-made “stone arrangements”.
Rock features protruding from the original in situ rocky deposit on the sea bottom. These are the remains of rock sections that were probably more resistant, and thus underwent less erosion and remained in their original location. Some of these are isolated, vertical protrusions (Figure 10, no. 4), while others are large rock surfaces (up to 50 × 30 × 3 m) (Figure 10, no. 3). Galili and Ogloblin-Ramirez [68] summarized their research in an unpublished report, in which they noted that the boulder concentrations on the sea bottom are situated close (10 m or closer) to the foot of the coastal cliff, and that the numerous features identified on the sea bottom are typical products of a coastal escarpment under erosion (Figure 6).

In their observations, they note that one boulder concentration comprises mainly local limestone from the upper stratum of the cliff, while the second concentration is a mix of chalk and limestone originating from both strata of the cliff (Figure 12). The proposed zoomorphic rock feature is composed of an in situ deposit of chalk. The underwater surveys in and around the site revealed no clear human traces, neither artifacts nor tool marks. Galili and Ogloblin Ramirez [68] concluded that the stones that make up the suspected ritual structure actually represent natural boulders that fell from the cliff, as initially suggested by Ratti. In 2022, Ratti published a new version of his 2015 book “Lampedusa Preistorica” [69] (pp. 182–204), accepting the natural origin of the suspected megalithic site, as proposed by Galili and Ogloblin Ramirez [68].

4. Discussion

4.1. The Pantelleria Vecchia Bank Site

In 2015, Tusa et al. [70] published a detailed rebuttal (in Italian) of the Lodolo and Ben-Avraham [60] paper, presenting extensive geomorphological, contextual, and archaeological data to refute their claim of having found a large anthropogenic megalith. However, Lodolo and Ben-Avraham were apparently unconvinced and presented the same arguments in two additional articles [59,61]. To avoid a possible “illusory truth” effect, [71] we felt compelled to re-examine the issues raised by Lodolo and colleagues relating to the anthropogenic nature of their finds. Using a comparative approach and examples from several other Mediterranean coastal areas, we explain why, in our view (and as previously noted by Tusa et al.) [70], the rock formations they describe on the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank do not support their claim that they are human-made constructions, but rather confirm that they are natural features.

Geomorphological considerations:

Based on the thin sections shown in the publications of Lodolo and colleagues, they proposed that both Ridge 1 and Ridge 2 are composed of bioclastic rocks (either beachrock or consolidated beach deposits), and that the elongated Ridge 1 that blocks the submerged bay is probably a beachrock that was consolidated and embedded in the intertidal zone during a low sea stand some 45,000 to 50,000 years BP, as the 14C dates indicate. This interpretation is supported by the sea-level curves [72,73,74,75,76], suggesting that the sea bottom in the Sicilian Channel was dry land between ca. 75,000 to 10,000 years BP. It is emphasized here that the dates presented by them reflect the timing of beachrock/beach deposit consolidation and not that of suspected anthropogenic activities. It is also worth noting that this date falls at the end of the range of radiocarbon, and thus its reliability is limited.

Beachrock is a common formation in the Mediterranean Sea and often forms on sandy coasts. As noted by Tusa et al. [70], beachrocks (our translation from Italian follows) “often detach from the rocky basin of origin due to coastal erosion, depositing themselves in the Mediterranean Sea between +1 and –5 m with respect to the coastline (they are known and dated up to a depth of 60 m in Sardinia, Turkey, Sicily, Greece, Croatia, and Liguria)”; for examples, see [77,78]. Thus, various features and patterns resulting from coastal erosion of beachrock and beach deposits (e.g., chimneys, detached rectilinear blocks) are common in coastal environments.

Sea level and tectonic considerations:

Vertical earth crust changes due to tectonic activity, isostasy, or structural changes may have changed the relative sea level in the research area. However, given that the area is considered relatively stable [57], such changes, if they occurred during the Holocene, would have only resulted in a displacement of a few meters. Thus, the height of the reported finds relative to sea level, and the deposition and erosion processes of the beachrocks under coastal/shallow marine conditions, have not changed considerably due to vertical changes in the earth’s crust. Notably, according to the available sea-level curves for the last 80,000 years [72,73,74,75,76,77,78], the two stone ridges were exposed to coastal/intertidal/shallow marine conditions ca. 9000 years BP to 12,000 years BP and from 75,000 years BP to 85,000 years BP. We contend that during these events, the beachrock ridges most likely underwent significant erosion, resulting in the rectangular forms observed.

Ridge 1 is currently located in situ, at the site of its deposition. Thus, the most parsimonious explanation for the presence of the “horizontally arranged stone blocks” noted by Lodolo and colleagues is that these rectangular-shaped blocks are the result of post-depositional erosion of the stone, followed by the ridge cracking and settling on its southern sea side. The weathering and collapse of large sections of a beachrock ridge usually occur due to erosion and scoring of underlying sediments on its sea side, or due to a landslide (see Figures 1 and 11d in [79]). Such beachrock erosion is common in coastal environments and can be seen, for example, on the Israeli Mediterranean Sea coast at Ashkelon (on the seaward side of the beachrock outcrop—see Figure 3 in [79]) or at Akko on the landward side of the beachrock outcrop (Figure 13 and Figure 14) as well as in other localities, e.g., Southeast Afric (see plate 13 in [80]) (see Figure 15).

Lodolo and colleagues suggest that these “block” features may be the result of human modification, although they cite the publication of Shinn [81], who outlined in some detail the “simple mechanism that can produce beach-rock geometries” similar to those characteristics observed on the seaward side of Ridge 1, namely, “Exposure to sunlight and constant wetting and drying break the rock down into individual slabs, like to a concrete road. The size of the individual slabs is determined by the thickness of the rock. Uncemented sand under the rock also promotes cracking as the rock settles, much like ice on a frozen pond”. Shinn [81] gives an entirely plausible, natural explanation for the shape as well as the location of stone blocks similar to those observed on the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank.

Likewise, the possibility of modification of Ridge 2 by people some 9500 years BP, i.e., the building of a wall-like structure with stone blocks, as proposed by Lodolo and Ben Avraham [60], is not supported by any archaeological or geoarchaeological information presented by the authors. A more parsimonious explanation is that Ridge 2 was deposited at an earlier stage, under different environmental and sea conditions than those prevailing during the deposition of Ridge 1, creating a different paleo-coastline. Thus, Ridge 2 may represent a natural relic of one of the half-ring ridges, rather than being a human-made feature.

Regarding the so-called monolith, Lodolo and Ben-Avraham [60] state that “the monolith is made from stone other than those which constitute all the neighboring outcrops …”, but they also state that “the lithology and age of the rock that makes up the monolith are similar to those that make up the blocks of the rectilinear ridge closing the embayment”. Thus, the monolith probably originated from the neighboring eroded beachrock Ridge 1, which is located some 300 m to the south. It is feasible that when the bay was flooded some 9500–9200 years BP [60] (their Figure 8), a large, elongated piece of rock broke off Ridge 1 and was washed inland (northward) by a tsunami or by storm waves. During the Neolithic period, the Pantelleria Vecchia site (an isolated island at the time) must have been exposed to violent coastal/shallow marine processes that affected the Early Holocene coast. For example, tsunami waves are known to transfer large masses hundreds of meters inland [82,83,84,85]. Conceivably, the elongated rock deriving from Ridge 1 could have weakened during such processes and subsequently broken up into three separate blocks.

As to the possibility that the half-ring ridges are anthropogenic in origin, as in the case of the other features discussed above, this statement is not supported by any archaeological or geoarchaeological information presented by the authors. These features are most likely the product of natural Late Miocene depositional processes (long before human presence) or natural post-deposition, coastal erosion processes.

Holes and “chimney” features in an intertidal, rocky environment:

Lodolo and Ben-Avraham [60] state that “the monolith has three regular holes of similar diameter, one that crosses it completely on its top, and another two at two sides of the monolith”. We reiterate here the counterarguments first raised by Tusa et al. [70] concerning the holes in the rocks, since they appear to have gone unnoticed in the literature and by Lodolo and colleagues in their 2015 paper and subsequent papers. Tusa et al. rightly contended that they are typical products of coastal erosion of beachrock, either by plant or by water action when the rock was exposed in the highly energetic paleo-intertidal zone.

Careful observations of Figure 4 in the 2015 Lodolo and Ben-Avraham article [60] depicting the stones reveal that the statement made by Lodolo and Ben Avraham regarding the monolith (that it is of rather regular shape and has three regular holes of similar diameter at the top and on its sides) is to be reconsidered. It seems that although the monolith is an elongated feature, its regular shape is questionable and the holes differ from each other in size and form, and probably also the agent responsible for them. Indeed, one is a through perforation and two appear to be cavities. In the intertidal and supratidal zones, a variety of processes can cause the erosion of rock, such as physical or chemical erosion, bio-erosion, and algal induration [79,80,86]. Round holes, cavities, geyser chimneys (Figure 16), and craters are scoured and abraded by water under the influence of currents and waves, and are typical of high-energy, intertidal, rocky environments. In their rebuttal, Tusa et al. [70] also note that even perfectly cylindrical holes can be created by natural action. They further suggest that natural erosion, due to plant action, can create similar holes: “over 5 m long and with a section compatible with those shown in Lodolo and Ben-Avraham [60], and are found in large numbers along the coasts of the Black Sea, on lithologies similar to that of the “monolith” e.g., Erginal et al. [87]”.

Dating considerations:

The dates presented by Lodolo and colleagues for the monolith and the ridges (Table S1) are in fact taken from carbonate shells extracted from the samples. As such, they represent the period of deposition and consolidation of the bioclastic rocks, and so are not pertinent to the issue of whether these features are anthropogenic in origin or natural.

The proposed dating of the monolith, which is based purely on sea-level considerations and speculations, implies according to Lodolo and Ben-Avraham [60], an anthropogenic origin and the possible modification of the two beachrock/consolidated beach deposit ridges by humans [59]. The sea-level curves cited [72,73,75,76,88,89] suggest that some 9200–9500 years BP, the sea level in the Sicilian Channel was ca. 40 m lower than today and the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank was a small island between Pantelleria and the Sicilian coast. Thus, the ridges and monolith were under coastal/shallow marine conditions at the beginning of the Holocene. Lodolo and colleagues note that this paleo-coastal area would have been accessible to humans during certain prehistoric periods. However, this situation is also valid for thousands of other square kilometers of continental shelves around the globe, down to a depth of 40 m [90]. Consequently, basing human intervention on a speculative argument of possible accessibility to the area where the ridges and monolith were found cannot be considered scientific proof to support a Mesolithic anthropogenic origin for the monolith stone feature, as suggested by Lodolo and Ben-Avraham [60], nor for the modification of the ridges during the Early Neolithic, as proposed by Lodolo et al. [59,61].

Archaeological considerations:

In their discussion of the rock formations of Pantelleria, Tusa et al. [70] detail why, on archaeological grounds, the presence of a monolith that can be compared or traced to the central Mediterranean megalithic tradition in these locations is not feasible. In addition, they also refute the proposed dating suggested by Lodolo and colleagues for Pantelleria Vecchia Bank (see details in Tusa et al. [70] and references therein). It should be noted here that Lodolo and colleagues did not involve a professional archaeologist, who may have related to the existence or nonexistence of anthropogenic fingerprints and finds of material culture.

In general, the possibility of finding unique stone structures in archaeological sites cannot be ruled out. However, usually the manner in which they were built have parallels in other contemporaneous sites in the same region. In the case of the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank features, we do not know of any contemporaneous (i.e., Mesolithic) terrestrial parallels in Italy for structures that resemble the form of the submerged features documented by Lodolo and colleagues. It is also unlikely that such a monumental ancient structure would have been built on a remote offshore island, with no developed cultural center that could have supported such a project, leaving no anthropogenic fingerprints. Tusa et al. [70] refute the comparisons made by Lodolo and Ben Avraham [60] to the monolithic cultures of Malta and Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, which are both chronologically and culturally distant from Sicily. As Tusa et al. conclude, “…it is absolutely methodologically incorrect to compare distant and independent historical dynamics to justify the alleged presence of absolutely unjustifiable artifacts in their correct geographical reference context”.

The absence of human-made finds in the suspected anthropogenic site:

It is expected that a prehistoric culture capable of producing gigantic megaliths and mega-constructions would leave behind at least a few anthropogenic finds of distinctive material culture (e.g., flint implements, bones, wood, charcoal, ash, and pottery in the case of Pottery Neolithic, Chalcolithic, or later cultures). Admittedly, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, the absence of such finds in such a gigantic complex thought to be anthropogenic in nature is a strong argument against the anthropogenic nature of the ridges and monolith. For example, stone tools, faunal remains, and even a hearth feature were discovered adjacent to a Neolithic seawall made of large boulders off the Israeli coast, corroborating that this structure was definitely human-made [42]. In submerged prehistoric sites —both ephemeral and sedentary ones that were investigated off the Israeli coast—large quantities of both organic and non-organic items of material culture were recovered, clearly demonstrating the anthropogenic nature of these sites [9,19,31,42]. At the very least, flint artifacts that are highly resistant to erosion even in underwater conditions (as attested to at hundreds of submerged prehistoric sites discovered worldwide), e.g., [4,5,83], are expected to have been preserved and discovered in association with at least one of the features described at the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank. The feasibility of this is highlighted by the presence of human-made artifacts recovered underwater near Pantelleria Island [91]. This approach may be adopted by other research fields when access to suspected features is limited, e.g., sub-bottom remote-sensing research on land (for detecting buried architecture) or underwater (for detecting shipwrecks or buried human-made features). In the case of detecting a suspected buried feature, it should be treated as an “anomaly” that should be further investigated using direct-contact archaeological investigations (e.g., jet probes, cores, trenches, and excavations). However, the above approach may not be relevant for all fields of research, and there are cases in which an opposite approach has, and can be, adopted. For example, most of the suspected meteorites collected by amateur meteorite and mineral hunters are in fact items of anthropogenic origin. In this case, if an anthropogenic origin of a suspected meteorite is ruled out by a professional archaeologist, it can be considered to be natural.

4.2. The Lampedusa Site

Possible parallel archaeological features on Lampedusa, Malta, and Sicily:

Megalithic constructions were not uncommon in the European Bronze Age. In fact, such structures can be found in the central Mediterranean islands of Malta and Sicily, with some smaller ones reported also on the central and eastern parts of Lampedusa Island [63,69] (and see Figure S1 here). This cultural connection has deep roots, as the two groups of islands shared cultural traces after the Neolithic (~5500 BCE), when the first attested colonists from Sicily established themselves in Malta [92,93,94,95]. The two groups kept cultural ties alive for millennia, as shown by parallels in their pottery traditions; the flint, obsidian, and ocher trades; as well as cultural and religious practices (see [73,74,75]). While these early cultural trends seem to have originated on the main island of Sicily and were introduced to Malta, scholars propose that the opposite is true for the Early Bronze Age megalithic traditions [96,97,98]. Megalithic building seems to have started in Malta ~3500 BCE and was connected to new ritual practices, including group burials. Only later was it brought to Sicily (see [98]). Similar group burial practices are suggested in Sicily for the dolmen structures appearing in the third millennium in the Hyblean Plateau and in other scattered sites north and southwest of the main island of Sicily (see [98,99]). In his 2014 publication, Ratti ([65], p. 18) pointed out an oval stone structure located in Lampedusa on the top of the cliff above the suspected submerged cultic site, which has never been excavated or published: (our translation from Italian) “A stone structure of the same shape and dimensions of the underwater one can be seen on top of the cliff (110 m above sea level) exactly above the submerged one”. This structure is also depicted in his 2022 edition (see Figure 2.85 in [69]). During a field survey we conducted on top of the cliff, some stone arrangements and structures were identified. However, unlike the boulders found in the suspected submerged megalithic structure (the latter weighing up to a few tons each), the terrestrial structure is built of smaller stones arranged in patterns that differ markedly from the underwater feature. Thus, the yet unexcavated and undated stone structures on top of the cliff, and the other megalithic structures on the island, do not represent possible parallels to the submerged structures.

The MIS5e deposits and the archaeological sea-level markers used for testing tectonic stability and sea-level changes:

To estimate changes in the local relative sea-level and possible tectonic uplift of Lampedusa, two sets of sea-level indicators were investigated. Marine Isotope Stage 5e (MIS5e) beach deposits dated to the last interglacial high stand (124 ka) were identified based on fossil indicators (mollusk species: Strombus bubonius, and possibly Patella ferruginea and Arca noae, identified by geologist Giuseppe Sorrenti personal communication). The find elevations of these mollusks relative to the modern sea level was documented for the methodology and examples (see [57,100,101,102,103,104,105]). This parameter was of use to reconstruct the relative sea level during the Last Interglacial, when the global sea level was ca. 6 to 12 m higher than today. It also facilitated evaluation of the long-term vertical changes of the island since the deposition of these beach deposits. The heights of coastal installations (e.g., rock-cut bollards to which boats were tied) relative to the sea level today provided rough information about the sea level during historical periods. These Late Pleistocene and Late Holocene geological and archaeological indicators enable a rough evaluation of the relative sea-level height and tectonic stability of the region during prehistoric and historic times, respectively.

Previously, Segre [106] and Grasso and Pedley [67] located Tyrrhenian terraces and MIS5e deposits while producing the geological map of Lampedusa. East of the monocline, on the ria coastline (from Cala Greca to Cala Creta [see Figure 2)], Tyrrhenian features consisting of beach deposits containing the mollusk Strombus bubonius lie at ca. +2 m above present sea level (see [106] (p. 138)). West of the monocline, prehistoric caves were identified by Segre (see pp. 145–147, Figure 7d in [106]) at an elevation of ca. 35 m above sea level. Grasso and Pedley [67] suggested that these caves are related to the same Tyrrhenian episode identified on the east side of the island, and that the tectonic movement associated with the monoclinal flexure was completed by Late Pleistocene times.

Following these studies, we rechecked the deposits in some key sites on the island of Lampedusa. In Cala Ucello Bay, a clear MIS5e beach deposit with at least four individuals of the index fossil Strombus bubonius in a good state of preservation were identified (Figure 17). The maximum elevation (the so-called inner edge) of this deposit was 2.20 m asl (at 6:30 pm on 3 August 2019). In Cala Maluk, a probable MIS5e beach deposit formation was identified on the western side of the bay. In this case, fossils of Patella ferruginea and Arca noae mollusks were observed. The maximum elevation of the deposit was 1.60 m asl (at 7:00 pm). Another MIS5e deposit at a similar elevation containing Strombus bubonious was identified in Cala Pisana. Overall, all the MIS5e/Tyrrhenian deposits studied do not display evidence of dramatic tectonic changes in the region during the time period of the formation of the coastal escarpment. According to Lambeck et al. (see Figure 6 in [107]), the average rates of vertical movements in the Linosa/Pantaleria region during the Holocene, and for the last glacial cycle, was ±0.15 mm/y. Assuming that tectonic movement associated with the monoclinal flexure on the island was completed by Late Pleistocene time, as suggested by [67], tectonics would have had very little impact on the erosion of the cliff above the suspected cultic site. It is reasonable to assume that the most significant erosion and retreat of the coastal cliff took place after the Mid-Holocene, when the sea level reached its present elevation. However, the possibility of initial coastal cliff erosion during the Last Interglacial (MIS5e isotope stage) cannot be ruled out. Thus, the sea bottom opposite the coastal cliff of Lampedusa may be a partly submerged paleo-landscape, as well as a partly submerged neo-landscape, depending on the distance from the cliff.

Mid- to Late Holocene sea-level indicators:

These were identified in Cala Pisana Bay, where a modern beachrock formation composed of modern materials (e.g., glass, and metal) was located on the shoreline at an elevation associated with the present sea level. Important archaeological indicators identified were rock-cut bollards that are reported here for the first time (Figure 18). Of the 16 bollards located, two were in Cala Pisana Bay, and the rest were in the Porto Vecchio (Cala Palme) and Porto Nuovo (Cala Salina). Other rock-cut features such as carved channels and square installations were also identified in the harbor area, and a large quarry site a few meters above current sea level was observed in Cala Calandro. In general, rock-cut installations are not easy to date [108]. Although such rock-cut bollards are hard to date and some of them are still being used (e.g., in Brucoli Sicily, lat. 37.2817° N, lon. 15.1862° E), similar installations found in well-documented archaeological sites [109,110] suggest that they date to the Roman/Byzantine periods. Some of those rock-cut installations were affected by sea erosion and modern coastal constructions; however, their elevation above sea level enables proper functioning, suggesting that the relative sea level has not changed dramatically since they were cut in the stone.

Submerged paleo-landscape versus submerged neo-landscape:

In situ submerged prehistoric sites can be found on submerged landscapes inundated by post-glacial sea-level rise. However, some submerged landscapes are relatively new (post-prehistoric/post Mid-Holocene periods, hence the submerged neo-landscape). Examples for such submerged neo-landscapes may be at the foot of an active, retreating coastal escarpment (Figure 7 and Figure 19), or on the surface of a consolidated lava flow that entered the sea. In situ finds discovered on such landscapes may then logically be attributed to a period later than the formation of the landscape. Thus, the date of the deposition of the natural rock may be used as a terminus post quem for the site deposited on it.

The erosion rate of the cliff and the proximity to the cliff were major arguments to rule out the possibility of the suspected Lampedusa site being anthropogenic in origin. Similar rapid erosion and retreat was identified in coastal cliffs composed of poorly consolidated aeolianite (kurkar) in central Israel [111]. An important geological indicator in the Lampedusa study area was a sea stack, probably part of the island in the past that had been separated from the present shoreline (Figure 7 and Figure 19). The numerous fresh landslides on the coastal escarpment and its rapid active retreat suggest that the features in the studied site (the coastal cliff and caves and the adjacent sea bottom) are products of events that occurred during the second half of the Holocene sea-level rise.

Figure 19. Coastal erosion, recent active retreat of the coastal escarpment, and creation of a submerged neo-landscape at the foot of the cliff schematic drawing, modified after Figure 5 in [112]).

5. Conclusions

Innovative remote-sensing technologies have been commonly used to explore and map currently submerged paleo-landscapes in search of prehistoric sites, providing unique and useful information. However, their findings need to be corroborated by detailed archaeological research, as there is no substitute for the knowledge and direct examination by an underwater archaeologist.

5.1. The Submerged Features on Pantelleria Vecchia Bank

Given all the data outlined above, we find that the suggestions for the possible anthropogenic origin of the discussed stone features, including the ridges and the elongated pierced monolith, to be unfounded. We feel that it is apt to repeat Tusa et al.’s excellent summary [our translation from Italian]: “multiple considerations both of a purely geological order, both intrinsic to the morphological characteristics of the object, both inherent to the immediate context of its position, and in reference to the broader chronological and geographical context, lead us to the natural conclusion that it is not a question of a manufactured, but rather a natural product”. In addition, our study has shown the limitations of relying on high-tech remote-sensing techniques to identify anthropogenic sites, and confirms the need for complementary first-hand, professional archaeological documentation and research to provide a rigorous foundation for such determinations.

5.2. The Suspected Megalithic Feature in Northwestern Lampedusa

The shallow sea adjacent to (up to few tens of meters from the cliffs) western and northwestern Lampedusa can be considered a submerged neo-landscape (post-prehistoric times) formed during the second half of the Holocene i.e., after the sea level reached its present elevation. It is suggested that the discussed submerged megalithic structures are natural features and represent boulders that collapsed from the adjacent cliff, while the adjacent zoomorphic-like feature are erosional features that developed on these rocks.

5.3. In Case of Doubt, There Should Be No Doubt

Generally speaking, the submerged landscapes and features described above are extremely interesting, and the geological and geomorphological formation processes that created them are worthy of investigation. We suggest that the rationale underlying the interpretation of features identified on submerged landscapes as anthropic should not be symmetrical. In other words, if it is suspected that a submerged feature is human-made, further archaeological investigations should be undertaken, and until such a verification has been made, the feature should be considered of natural origin. Moreover, we suggest that the rational underlying the interpretation of features identified on submerged landscapes as anthropic should not be symmetrical. The reasoning behind this asymmetry is that, worldwide, there are only a small number of prehistoric megalithic stone features that are human-made. Statistically speaking, the probability for the existence of symmetrical and geometric rock features or stone arrangements on a submerged landscape that may be human-made (even if their formation processes are yet unclear) is slight. Most importantly, the presence of a symmetric or geometric feature in a given underwater site cannot by itself point to an anthropogenic origin. To determine the anthropogenic origin of such features, a detailed archaeological investigation yielding material finds that clearly connect the object to human manufacture should be presented. Thus, in cases where there is neither clear archaeological material evidence for an anthropogenic origin of a submerged site, e.g., artifacts, debris, charcoal, faunal remains, etc., nor use-marks, production marks, or signs of intentional shaping of the stone, the site should be considered of natural origin. In such unclear cases, instead of stating that “we cannot rule out the possibility of an anthropogenic origin,” it is strongly recommended to rule out such an origin until it is supported by solid archaeological evidence and to treat the site as an interesting natural feature that should be studied and preserved.

In the examples discussed in this paper, the application of remote-sensing techniques enabled the initial detection and mapping of submerged features, but the verification of their status as natural or anthropogenic relied upon their being surveyed and sampled firsthand, by an archaeologist who collected relevant data both underwater and on the adjacent coastal area. This study demonstrates that these two are complementary methods that can be successfully applied to identify submerged anthropogenic sites.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jmse12111981/s1, Table S1: Details of published rock samples from the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank discussed in the text; Figure S1: Round undated structure made of stones in Cala Calandra, on the north-eastern coast of Lampedusa, looking south.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.G., L.K.H., I.P., A.B. and I.O.R.; methodology, E.G., I.O.R.; investigation, E.G., L.K.H., I.P., A.B. and I.O.R.; writing—review and editing, E.G., L.K.H., I.P., A.B. and I.O.R.; visualization, E.G.; project administration, E.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

New data (mainly photos) resulting from the Lampedusa underwater and coastal surveys is held by E.G. and I.O.R., and will be provided upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Diego Ratti and Pietro Ratti for their kind hospitality, for founding the research on the Lampedusa Island, and for providing Figure 9 and Figure 10 and the permission to publish them. Thanks to Diego Ratti, Fabio Giovanetti, Anna Sardone, and Giuseppe Sorrenti for participating in the underwater and coastal research on Lampedusa Island; to geologist Giuseppe Sorrenti, who participated in the underwater and coastal research and identified the sediments, the beach deposits, and the index mollusk fossils; to Nino Taranto from the Lampedusa archive for providing photos and information regarding the history of Lampedusa Island; to Emmanuel Lodolo and Tzvi Ben Avraham for providing Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 and permission to publish them; to E.C.R. Luo, for the permission to publish Figure 19 depicting the formation of the beach profile; and to W.R. Miller, and T.R. Mason, for the permission to publish Figure 15 depicting the erosional features of the coastal beachrock and aeolianite outcrops in South Africa. We also wish to thank Sara Elettra Zaia for preparing the map of Figure 1 and the three anonymous reviewers for their useful remarks and suggestions, which considerably improved the article, including remarks concerning meteorites made by reviewer #2 which were incorporated in the article.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

Lambeck, K.; Purcell, A. Sea-level change in the Mediterranean Sea since the LGM: Model predictions for tectonically stable areas. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2005, 24, 1969–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lambeck, K.; Woodroffe, C.D.; Antonioli, F.; Anzidei, M.; Gehrels, W.R.; Laborel, J.; Wright, A.J. Paleoenvironmental records, geophysical modelling and reconstruction of sea level trends and variability on centennial and longer time scales. Underst. Sea Level Rise Var. 2010, 1, 61–121. [Google Scholar]
Master, P.M.; Flemming, N.C. Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Towards the Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves; Academic Press: London, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
Benjamin, J.; Fischer, A.; Pickard, C.; Bonsall, C. Submerged Prehistory; Oxbow Book: Oxford, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
Evans, A.M.; Flatman, J.C.; Flemming, N.C. Prehistoric Archaeology on the Continental Shelf: A Global Review; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Harff, J.; Bailey, G.N.; Lüth, F. Geology and archaeology: Submerged landscapes of the continental shelf: An introduction. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2016, 411, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Blanc, A.C. Low levels of the Mediterranean Sea during the Pleistocene glaciation. Geol. Soc. Lond. Q. J. 1937, 93, 621–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Raban, A.; Galili, E. Recent maritime archaeological research in Israel—A preliminary report. Int. J. Naut. Archaeol. 1985, 14, 321–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Galili, E.; Weinstein-Evron, M. Prehistory and paleoenvironments of submerged sites along the Carmel coast of Israel. Paléorient 1985, 11, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bailey, G.N.; Flemming, N.C. Archaeology of the continental shelf: Marine resources, submerged landscapes and underwater archaeology. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2008, 27, 2153–2165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Flatman, J.C.; Evans, A.M. Prehistoric archaeology on the continental shelf: The state of the science. In Prehistoric Archaeology on the Continental Shelf. A Global Review; Evans, A.M., Flatman, J.C., Flemming, N.C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
Flemming, N.C.; Harff, J.; Moura, D. Non-cultural processes of site formation, preservation and destruction. In Submerged Landscapes of the European Continental Shelf: Quaternary Paleoenvironments; Flemming, N.C., Harff, J., Moura, D., Burgess, A., Bailey, G.N., Eds.; Willey Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA; Sussex, UK, 2017; pp. 51–82. [Google Scholar]
Flemming, N.C.; Harff, J.; Moura, D.; Burgess, A.; Bailey, G.N. Introduction: Prehistoric remains on the continental shelf-Why do sites and landscapes survive inundation? In Submerged Landscapes of the European Continental Shelf Quaternary Paleoenvironments; Flemming, N.C., Harff, J., Moura, D., Burgess, A., Bailey, G.N., Eds.; Willey and Sons: London, UK, 2017; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
Kimura, M. Ancient megalithic construction beneath the sea off Ryukyu islands in Japan, submerged by post glacial sea-level change. In Proceedings of the Oceans’ 04 MTS/IEEE Techno-Ocean’04 (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37600), Kobe, Japan, 9–12 November 2004; Volume 2, pp. 947–953. [Google Scholar]
Hancock, G. Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization; Crown: Chichester, UK, 2009; pp. 595–625. [Google Scholar]
Benjamin, J.; Hale, A. Marine, maritime, or submerged prehistory? Contextualizing the prehistoric underwater archaeologies of inland, coastal, and offshore environments. Eur. J. Archaeol. 2012, 15, 237–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Galili, E. Prehistoric archaeology on the Continental Shelf: A global review. J. Isl. Coast. Archaeol. 2017, 12, 147–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Missiaent, T.; Sakellariou, D.; Flemming, N.C. Survey strategies and techniques in underwater geoarchaeology research: An overview with emphasis on prehistoric sites. In Under the Sea: Archaeology and Paleolandscapes of the Continental Shelf; Bailey, G.N., Harff, J., Sakellariou, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 21–37. [Google Scholar]
Galili, E.; Horwitz, L.K.; Rosen, B. The “Israeli Model” for the detection, excavation and research of submerged prehistory. TINA-Marit. Archaeol. Period. 2019, 10, 31–69. [Google Scholar]
Grøn, O.; Jørgensen, A.N.; Hoffmann, G. Marine Archaeological Survey by High-Resolution SBPs. Nor. Sjofar. Arbok 2007, 115–144. [Google Scholar]
Grøn, O.; Boldreel, L.O.; Boumda, R.T.; Blondel, P.; Madsen, B.; Nørmak, E.; Cvikel, D.; Galili, E.; Dell’Anno, A. Acoustic Detection and Mapping of Submerged Stone Age Sites with Knapped Flint. In The Handbook of Cultural Heritage Analysis; D’Amico, S., Venuti, V., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002; pp. 901–933. [Google Scholar]
Emery, K.O.; Edwards, R.L. Archaeological potential of the Atlantic continental shelf. Am. Antiq. 1966, 31 Pt 1, 733–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Oakley, K.P. Note on the Late Post-Glacial Submergence of the Solent Margins. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1943; Volume 9, pp. 56–59. [Google Scholar]
Steers, J.A. The Coastline of England and Wales; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1948. [Google Scholar]
Flemming, N.C. Survival of submerged Lithic and Bronze Age artifact sites: A review of case histories. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology; Master, P.M., Flemming, N.C., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1983; pp. 135–173. [Google Scholar]
Flemming, N.C. Preface. In Prehistoric Archaeology on the Continental Shelf. A Global Review; Evans, A.M., Flatman, J.C., Flemming, N.C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. I–IV. [Google Scholar]
Ronen, A.; Raban, A. Underwater State-Wide Survey. Bimtzulot Yam 1965, 5, 3–4. (In Hebrew) [Google Scholar]
Raban, A. Submerged prehistoric sites on the Mediterranean coast of Israel. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology; Masters, P.M., Flemming, N.C., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1983; pp. 215–232. [Google Scholar]
Wreschner, E.E. Newe Yam–A submerged late-Neolithic settlement near Mount Carmel. Eretz-Israel 1977, 13, 260–271. [Google Scholar]
Wreschner, E.E. The submerged Neolithic village Neve Yam on the Israeli Mediterranean coast. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Archaeology; Master, P.M., Flemming, N.C., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1983; pp. 325–333. [Google Scholar]
Galili, E.; Weinstein-Evron, M.; Hershkovitz, I.; Gopher, A.; Kislev, M.; Lernau, O.; Lernaut, H. Atlit-Yam: A prehistoric site on the sea floor off the Israeli coast. J. Field Archaeol. 1993, 20, 133–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Galili, E.; Horwitz, L.K. Submerged prehistory in Israel: A relatively new discipline. Strat. J. Anglo-Isr. Archaeol. Soc. in press.
Faught, M.K.; Donoghue, J.F. Marine inundated archaeological sites and paleofluvial systems: Examples from a karst-controlled continental shelf setting in Apalachee Bay, northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Geoarchaeology 1997, 12, 417–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pearson, C.E.; Weinstein, R.A.; Sherwood, M.G.; Kelley, D.B. Prehistoric Site Discover on the Outer Continental Shelf, Golf of Mexico, United States of America. In Prehistoric Archaeology on the Continental Shelf. A Global Review; Evans, A.M., Flatman, J.C., Flemming, N.C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 53–72. [Google Scholar]
Fisher, A. (Ed.) An entrance to the Mesolithic world below the ocean. Status of ten years’ work on the Danish Sea floor. In Man and Sea in the Mesolithic; Oxbow Press: London, UK, 1995; pp. 371–384. [Google Scholar]
Fischer, A. Man and the Sea in the Mesolithic: Coastal Settlement Above and Beyond Present Sea Level, Oxbow Monographs in Archaeology; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
Fischer, A. Drowned forests from the Stone Age. In The Danish Storebaelt Since the Ice Age: Man, Sea and Forest; Pedersen., L., Fischer, A., Aaby, B., Eds.; Danish National Museum: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1997. [Google Scholar]
Gagliano, S.M.; Pearson, C.E.; Wiseman, D.E.; McClendo, C.M. Sedimentary Studies of Prehistoric Archaeological Sites: Criteria for the Identification of Submerged Archaeological Sites of the North Gulf of Mexico, Continental Shelf; Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior; National Park Service, Division of the State Plans and Grants: Washington, DC, USA, 1982; Volume 3500379.
Murphy, E.L. 8SL17: Natural Site-Formation Processes of a Multiple-Component Underwater Site in Florida—Submerged Cultural Resources; Special Report; National Park Service: Santa Fe, NM, USA, 1990; pp. 29–36. [Google Scholar]
Smith, O.; Momber, G.; Bates, R.; Garwood, P.; Fitch, S.; Pallen, M.; Gaffney, V.; Allaby, R.G. Sedimentary DNA from a submerged site reveals wheat in the British Isles 8000 years ago. Science 2015, 347, 998–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Skriver, C.; Borup, P.; Astrup, P.M. Hjarnø Sund: an eroding Mesolithic site and the tale of two paddles. In Under the Sea: Archaeology and Paleolandscapes of the Continental Shelf; Bailey, G.N., Harff, J., Sakellariou, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 131–143. [Google Scholar]
Galili, E.; Rosen, B.; Evron, M.W.; Hershkovitz, I.; Eshed, V.; Horwitz, L.K. Israel: Submerged prehistoric sites and settlements on the Mediterranean coastline—The current state of the art. In The Archaeology of Europe’s Drowned Landscapes; Bailey, G., Galanidou, N., Peeters, H., Jöhns, H., Mennenga, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 443–481. [Google Scholar]
Bav’on, M.C.; Politis, G.G. The intertidal zone site of La Olla: early middle Holocene human adaptation on the Pampean coast of Argentina. In Prehistoric Archaeology on the Continental Shelf. A Global Review; Evans, A.M., Flatman, J.C., Flemming, N.C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 115–130. [Google Scholar]
Marcus, L.F.; Newman, W.S. Hominid migrations and the eustatic sea level paradigm: A critique. In Quaternary Coastlines and Marine Towards the Prehistory of Land Bridges and Continental Shelves; Master, P.M., Flemming, N.C., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1983; pp. 63–85. [Google Scholar]
Faught, M.K. Remote sensing, target identification and testing for submerged prehistoric sites in Florida: Process and protocol in underwater CRM projects. In Prehistoric Archaeology on the Continental Shelf: A Global Review; Evans, A.M., Flatman, J.C., Flemming, N.C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 37–52. [Google Scholar]
Jöns, H.; Harff, J. Geoarchaeological research strategies in the Baltic Sea area: Environmental changes, shoreline-displacement and settlement strategies. In Prehistoric Archaeology on the Continental Shelf: A Global Review; Evans, A.M., Flatman, J.C., Flemming, N.C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 173–192. [Google Scholar]
Tizzard, L.; Bicket, A.R.; Benjamin, J.; DE Loecker, D. A Middle Palaeolithic site in the southern North Sea: investigating the archaeology and palaeogeography of Area 240. J. Quat. Sci. 2014, 29, 698–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Benjamin, J.; O’leary, M.; McDonald, J.; Wiseman, C.; McCarthy, J.; Beckett, E.; Morrison, P.; Stankiewicz, F.; Leach, J.; Hacker, J.; et al. Correction: Aboriginal artefacts on the continental shelf reveal ancient drowned cultural landscapes in northwest Australia. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0287490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ogloblin Ramirez, I.; Galili, E.; Shahack-Gross, R. Locating submerged prehistoric settlements: a new underwater survey method using water-jet coring and micro-geoarchaeological techniques. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2021, 135, 105480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fisher, A. Stone Age on the Continental Shelf: an eroding resource. In Submerged Prehistory; Benjamin, J., Bonsall, C., Pickard, C., Fisher, A., Eds.; Oxbow Book: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 298–310. [Google Scholar]
Flemming, N.C. Research infrastructure for systematic study of prehistoric archaeology of the European submerged continental shelf. In Submerged Prehistory; Benjamin, J., Bonsall, C., Pickar, C., Fisher, A., Eds.; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 287–297. [Google Scholar]
Gusick, A.E.; Faught, M.K. Prehistoric archaeology underwater: A nascent subdiscipline critical to understanding early coastal occupations and migration routes. In Trekking the Shore: Changing Coastlines and Antiquity of Coastal Settlements; Bicho, N.F., Haws, J.A., Davis, L.G., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 22–50. [Google Scholar]
Orsi, P. Pantelleria, Risultati di Una Missione Archeologica; Reprinted from Orsi, P. 1899, Pantelleria. Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei IX; Tipografia della R. Accademia dei Lincei: Palermo, Italy, 1991; pp. 449–540. [Google Scholar]
Tusa, S. Archeologia e storia di un’isola nel Mediterraneo. In Pantellerian Ware. Archeologia Subacquea e Ceramiche da Fuoco a Pantelleria, Santoro Bianchi; Santoro Bianchi, G., Tusa, S., Eds.; Flaccovio Editore: Palermo, Italy, 2003; pp. 15–24. [Google Scholar]
Mantellini, S. The implications of water storage for human settlement in Mediterranean waterless islands: The example of Pantelleria. Environ. Archaeol. 2015, 20, 406–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Civile, D.; Lodolo, E.; Zecchin, M.; Ben-Avraham, Z.; Baradello, L.; Accettella, D.; Cova, A.; Caffau, M. The lost Adventure Archipelago (Sicilian Channel, Mediterranean Sea): Morpho-bathymetry and Late Quaternary palaeogeographic evolution. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2015, 125, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ferranti, L.; Antonioli, F.; Mauz, B.; Amorosi, A.; Dai Pra, G.; Mastronuzzi, G.; Monaco, C.; Orrù, P.; Pappalardo, M.; Radtke, U.; et al. Markers of the last interglacial sea level highstand along the coast of Italy: tectonic implications. Quat. Int. 2006, 145, 30–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Serpelloni, E.; Anzidei, M.; Baldi, P.; Casula, G.; Galvani, A. Crustal velocity and strain-rate fields in Italy and surrounding regions: new results from the analysis of permanent and non-permanent GPS networks. Geophys. J. Int. 2005, 161, 861–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lodolo, E.; Nannini, P.; Baradello, L.; Ben-Avraham, Z. Two enigmatic ridges in the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank (NW Sicilian Channel). Heliyon 2023, 9, e14575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lodolo, E.; Ben-Avraham, Z. A submerged monolith in the Sicilian Channel (central Mediterranean Sea): Evidence for Mesolithic human activity. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 2015, 3, 398–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lodolo, E.; Baradello, L.; Ben-Avraham, Z. Exploring the nature of the concentric half-rings in the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank (Sicilian Channel). Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2024, 9, 100892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tusa, S. Il popolamento di Pantelleria e Lampedusa dalle prime frequentazioni neolitiche al villaggio di Mursia. Sci. Dell’antichità 2016, 22, 363–385. [Google Scholar]
Ratti, D. La Prehistoria di Lampedusa; Archivo Storico Lampedusa: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Surico, G. Lampedusa: Dall’Agricoltura, alla Pesca, al Turismo; Firenze University Press: Florence, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Ratti, D. Prehistoric village of Tabaccara coast. “Lampedusa: possible underwater prehistoric cult area”. Quad. Dell’associazione Cult. Arch. Stor. Lampedusa 2014, 5, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
Ratti, D. Associazione Culturale Archivio Storico Lampedusa—August 2016. Lampedusa: Possible Underwater Prehistoric Place of Worship. Available online: https://atlantipedia.ie/samples/tag/lampedusa/ (accessed on 4 October 2024).
Grasso, M.; Pedley, H.M. The Pelagian Islands: A new geological interpretation from sedimentological and tectonic studies and its bearing on the evolution of the Central Mediterranean Sea (Pelagian Block). Geol. Romana 1985, 24, 13–34. [Google Scholar]
Galili, E.; Ogloblin-Ramirez, I. Lampedusa Surveys. 2019; Unpublished work. [Google Scholar]
Ratti, D. Lampedusa Prehistorica. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/92709656/Lampedusa_preistorica?auto=download (accessed on 4 October 2024).
Tusa, S.; Antonioli, F.; Anzidei, M. Il Monolite Sommerso a Pantelleria? E’ Una Bufala. Ecco Perchè. 2015. Available online: https://www.tp24.it/2015/09/05/cultura/il-monolite-sommerso-a-pantelleria-e--una-bufala-ecco-perche/94020 (accessed on 4 October 2024).
Hassan, A.; Barber, S.J. The effects of repetition frequency on the illusory truth effect. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 2021, 6, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Siddall, M.; Rohling, E.J.; Thompson, W.G.; Waelbroeck, C. Marine isotope stage 3 sea level fluctuations: Data synthesis and new outlook. Rev. Geophys. 2008, 46, 2007RG000226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Waelbroeck, C.; Labeyrie, L.; Michel, E.; Duplessy, J.C.; McManus, J.F.; Lambeck, K.; Balbon, E.; Labracherie, M. Sea-level and deep water temperature changes derived from benthic foraminifera isotopic records. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2002, 21, 295–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lodolo, E.; Renzulli, A.; Cerrano, C.; Calcinai, B.; Civile, D.; Quarta, G.; Calcagnile, L. Unraveling past submarine eruptions by Dating Lapilli Tuff-Encrusting Coralligenous (Actea Volcano, NW Sicilian Channel). Front. Earth Sci. 2021, 9, 664591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Siddall, M.; Chappell, J.; Potter, E.K. Eustatic sea level during past interglacials. Dev. Quat. Sci. 2007, 7, 75–92. [Google Scholar]
Brooke, B.P.; Nichol, S.L.; Huang, Z.; Beaman, R.J. Palaeoshorelines on the Australian continental shelf: Morphology, sea-level relationship and applications to environmental management and archaeology. Cont. Shelf Res. 2017, 134, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Karkani, A.; Evelpidou, N.; Vacchi, M.; Morhange, C.; Tsukamoto, S.; Frechen, M.; Maroukian, H. Tracking shoreline evolution in central Cyclades (Greece) using beachrocks. Mar. Geol. 2017, 388, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Deiana, G.; Lecca, L.; Melis, R.T.; Soldati, M.; Demurtas, V.; Orrù, P.E. Submarine Geomorphology of the Southwestern Sardinian Continental Shelf (Mediterranean Sea): Insights into the Last Glacial Maximum Sea-Level Changes and Related Environments. Water 2021, 13, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bar, A.; Bookman, R.; Galili, E.; Zviely, D. Beachrock omrphology along the Mediterranean coast of Israel: Typological Classification of Erosion Features. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Miller, W.R.; Mason, T.R. Erosional features of coastal beachrock and aeolianite outcrops in Natal and Zululand, South Africa. J. Coast. Res. 1994, 10, 374–394. [Google Scholar]
Shinn, E.A. The mystique of beachrock. Int. Assoc. Sedimentol. Spec. Publ. 2009, 41, 19–28. [Google Scholar]
Shah-Hosseini, M.; Morhange, C.; Beni, A.N.; Marriner, N.; Lahijani, H.; Hamzeh, M.; Sabatier, F. Coastal boulders as evidence for high-energy waves on the Iranian coast of Makran. Mar. Geol. 2011, 290, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Morhange, C.; Salamon, A.; Bony, G.; Flaux, C.; Galili, E.; Goiran, J.-P.; Zviely, D. Geoarchaeology of tsunamis and the revival of neo-catastrophism in the Eastern Mediterranean. In Overcoming Catastrophes-Essays on Disastrous Agents Characterization and Resilience Strategies in Pre-Classical Southern Levant; Nigro, L., Ed.; La Sapienza: Rome, Italy, 2014; pp. 61–81. [Google Scholar]
Marriner, N.; Kaniewski, D.; Morhange, C.; Flaux, C.; Giaime, M.; Vacchi, M.; Goff, J. Tsunamis in the geological record: Making waves with a cautionary tale from the Mediterranean. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1700485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Corradino, M.; Faraci, C.; Monaco, C.; Pepe, F. Coastal boulder production controlled by columnar joints of ignimbrite and extreme waves: insights from the high-energy coast of Pantelleria Island (Sicily Channel, Mediterranean Sea). Nat. Hazards 2024, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Abbott, A.T.; Pottratz, S.W. Marine pothole erosion, Oahu, Hawaii. Pac Sci 1969, 23, 276–290. [Google Scholar]
Erginal, A.E.; Kiyak, N.G.; Ekinci, Y.L.; Demirci, A.; Ertek, A.; Canel, T. Age, composition and paleoenvironmental significance of a Late Pleistocene eolianite from the western Black Sea coast of Turkey. Quat. Int. 2013, 296, 168–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lambeck, K.; Antonioli, F.; Purcell, A.; Silenzi, S. Sea-level change along the Italian coast for the past 10,000yr. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2004, 23, 1567–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lodolo, E.; Galassi, G.; Spada, G.; Zecchin, M.; Civile, D.; Bressoux, M. Post-LGM coastline evolution of the NW Sicilian Channel: Comparing high-resolution geophysical data with Glacial Isostatic Adjustment modeling. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0228087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bailey, G.N.; Harff, J.; Sakellariou, D. Under the Sea: Archaeology and Palaeolandscapes of the Continental Shelf; Springer: Cham, Switzeland, 2017; Volume 20. [Google Scholar]
Abelli, L.; Agosto, M.V.; Casalbore, D.; Romagnoli, C.; Bosman, A.; Antonioli, F.; Chiocci, F.L. Marine geological and archaeological evidence of a possible pre-Neolithic site in Pantelleria Island, Central Mediterranean Sea. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2016, 411, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vella, C. Emerging aspects of interaction between prehistoric Sicily and Malta from the perspective of lithic tools. In Malta in the Hybleans, the Hybleans in Malta/Malta negli Iblei, gli Iblei a Malta; Bonanno, A., Militello, P., Eds.; Officina di Studi Medievali: Palermo, Italy, 2008; pp. 81–93, 321–326. [Google Scholar]
Evans, J.D. The Prehistoric Antiquities of the Maltese Islands: A Survey; The Athlone Press: University of London: London, UK, 1971. [Google Scholar]
Trump, D. Skorba: Excavations Carried out on Behalf of the National Museum of Malta; Society of Antiquaries of London: London, UK, 1966; pp. 1961–1963. [Google Scholar]
Trump, D.H.; Cilia, D. Malta, Prehistory and Temples; Midsea Books Ltd.: Santa Venera, Malta, 2002. [Google Scholar]
Bonanno, A. Insularity and isolation: Malta and Sicily in prehistory. In Malta in the Hybleans, the Hybleans in Malta/Malta negli Iblei, gli Iblei a Malta; Bonanno, A., Militello, P., Eds.; Officina di Studi Medievali: Palermo, Italy, 2008; pp. 27–37. [Google Scholar]
Procelli, E. Aspetti religiosi e apporti trasmarini nella cultura di Castelluccio. J. Mediterr. Stud. 1991, 1, 252–266. [Google Scholar]
Veca, C. Le tombe a camera dolmenica e la trasmissione di modelli funerari tra Malta e Sicilia durante il Bronzo. Riv. Sci. Preist. 2020, LXX (Suppl. S1), 531–537. [Google Scholar]
Piccolo, S. Ancient Stones: The Dolmen Culture in Prehistoric South-Eastern Sicily; Brazen Head Publishing: Thornham, UK, 2013; pp. 9–28. [Google Scholar]
Antonioli, F.; Ferranti, L.; Fontana, A.; Amorosi, A.; Bondesan, A.; Braitenberg, C.; Dutton, A.; Fontolan, G.; Furlani, S.; Lambeck, K.; et al. Holocene relative sea-level changes and vertical movements along the Italian and Istrian coastlines. Quat. Int. 2009, 206, 102–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Galili, E.; Zviely, D.; Ronen, A.; Mienis, H.K. Beach deposits of MIS 5e high sea stand as indicators for tectonic stability of the Carmel coastal plain, Israel. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2007, 26, 2544–2557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Galili, E.; Sevketoglu, M.; Salamon, A.; Zviely, D.; Mienis, H.K.; Rosen, B.; Moshkovitz, S. Late Quaternary morphology, beach deposits, sea-level changes and uplift along the coast of Cyprus and its possible implications on the early colonists. In Geology and Archaeology: Submerged Landscapes of the Continental Shelf; Harff, J., Bailey, G., Lüth, F., Eds.; Special Publications: London, UK, 2016; Volume 411. [Google Scholar]
Galili, E.; Ronen, A.; Mienis, H.K.; Horwitz, L.K. Beach deposits containing Middle Paleolithic archaeological remains from northern Israel. Quat. Int. 2018, 464, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dabrio, C.; Zazo, C.; Cabero, A.; Goy, J.; Bardají, T.; Hillaire-Marcel, C.; González-Delgado, J.; Lario, J.; Silva, P.; Borja, F.; et al. Millennial/submillennial-scale sea-level fluctuations in western Mediterranean during the second highstand of MIS 5e. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2011, 30, 335–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mauz, B.; Vacchi, M.; Green, A.; Hoffmann, G.; Cooper, A. Beachrock: A tool for reconstructing relative sea level in the far-field. Mar. Geol. 2015, 362, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Segre, A.G. Biogeografia delle Isole Pelagie. Geologia. Rend. Accad. Naz. Dei XL 1960, XI, 115–162. [Google Scholar]
Lambeck, K.; Antonioli, F.; Anzidei, M.; Ferranti, L.; Leoni, G.; Scicchitano, G.; Silenzi, S. Sea level change along the Italian coast during the Holocene and projections for the future. Quat. Int. 2011, 232, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Galili, E.; Sharvit, J. Ancient coastal installations and the tectonic stability of the Israeli coast in historical times. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 1999, 146, 147–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Galili, E.; Sharvit, J. Haifa, Tel Shiqmona–Underwater and Coastal Survey. Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excav. Surv. Isr. 2000, 112, 117. [Google Scholar]
Galili, E.; Sivan, D. Introduction, Shikmona site—Physical conditions and ancient maritime activity. Tel Shikmona, Gilboa, A., Ed.; 2024; in press. [Google Scholar]
Galili, E.; Zviely, D. Geo-archaeological markers reveal magnitude and rates of Israeli coastal cliff erosion and retreat. J. Coast. Conserv. 2018, 23, 747–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Luo, E.C.-R. Formation of Beach Profile with the Design Criteria of Seawalls. Civ. Eng. Arch. 2014, 2, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Figure 1. Location of the two studied sites depicted by red circles, water depth isobaths in m. (Map: Sara Elettra Zaia, Esri, CGIAR, Source. Esri, USGS.)

Figure 2. A multibeam image of the Pantelleria Vecchia Bank (modified after [60]).

Figure 3. Rock blocks on Ridge 1, modified after [60].

Figure 4. Rock blocks on Ridge 2, modified after [59].

Figure 5. The isolated monolith, modified after [60] (Figure 4: lateral view from the SW).

Figure 6. Lampedusa Island and the location of sites mentioned (map: modified after Sentinel-2 cloudless layer for 2023, with bright overlay layer by EOX—4326).

Figure 7. Photograph showing active cliff retreat in the studied locality creating caves, a sea stack and submerged neo-landscape, and the location of the suspected anthropogenic site (E. Galili).

Figure 8. Boulders on the sea bottom at the suspected cultic site off Lampedusa (for location, see below in Figure 10, nos. 1,2) (E. Galili).

Figure 9. Plan of the suspected cultic site (courtesy of Diego Ratti, modified after Figure 2.88 in [63]).

Figure 10. Above: multi-beam image of the site with the location of the main features: 1, 2—concentrations of boulders suspected to represent cultic circles, 3—flat surface of in situ eroded rock, 4—suspected zoomorphic feature or natural erosional feature (courtesy of Diego Ratti and CNR Centro Nazionale delle Ricerche). Below: aerial photo of the suspected site (courtesy of Diego Ratti).

Figure 11. Suspected zoomorphic feature or erosional feature at the Lampedusa site (for location, see Figure 10, no. 4) (E. Galili).

Figure 12. Typical landscape, fresh avalanches, and cliff retreat on the west and northwest coast of the Lampedusa site (E. Galili).

Figure 13. Blocks of beachrock outcrop under coastal, landward erosion north of Akko (Israeli coast), looking north (E. Galili).

Figure 14. Blocks of beachrock outcrop under coastal, landward erosion north of Akko (Israeli coast), looking southwest (E. Galili).

Figure 15. Lingoid ridge (Lr) developed on a Type 3 intertidal platform (C refers to transversal cracks in the beachrock plates; Ds refers to detached blocks of beachrock washed shoreward), modified after [81] (see plate 13 in [80]).

Figure 16. Water emerging from a geyser chimney (pipe/hole) on a rocky (aeolianite sandstone—kurkar) section of the Israeli coast, near Kibbutz Neve Yam (E. Galili).

Figure 17. Left: Cala Ocello Bay and location of the MIS5e deposit, center and right: close-ups of Strombus bubonius mollusks (E. Galili).

Figure 18. Top: ancient rock-cut bollard in the modern Lampedusa harbor, bottom: ancient rock-cut bollard in Cala Pisana Bay (E. Galili).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Galili, E.; Horwitz, L.K.; Patania, I.; Bar, A.; Ogloblin Ramirez, I. Identifying Anthropogenic Versus Natural Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes: Two Case Studies from the Sicilian Channel. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 1981. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12111981

AMA Style

Galili E, Horwitz LK, Patania I, Bar A, Ogloblin Ramirez I. Identifying Anthropogenic Versus Natural Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes: Two Case Studies from the Sicilian Channel. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2024; 12(11):1981. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12111981

Chicago/Turabian Style

Galili, Ehud, Liora Kolska Horwitz, Ilaria Patania, Amir Bar, and Isaac Ogloblin Ramirez. 2024. "Identifying Anthropogenic Versus Natural Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes: Two Case Studies from the Sicilian Channel" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 12, no. 11: 1981. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12111981

APA Style

Galili, E., Horwitz, L. K., Patania, I., Bar, A., & Ogloblin Ramirez, I. (2024). Identifying Anthropogenic Versus Natural Submerged Prehistoric Landscapes: Two Case Studies from the Sicilian Channel. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 12(11), 1981. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12111981

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu