[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
SAGINAW BAY ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT
PILOT TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT


BY:

WILLIAM A. LOVIS, PH.D.
MARGARET B. HOLMAN, PH.D.
MARK W. HOLLEY
KENNETH J. VRANA


WITH A CONTRIBUTION BY:

RUSSELL K. SKOWRONEK, PH.D.


SUBMITTED TO:

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
(Contract No. 95D-0.07)


SUBMITTED BY:

WILLIAM A. LOVIS, PH.D.
MARGARET B. HOLMAN, PH.D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN
(ORD No. 64371)



MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
MUSE1JM

SAGINAW BAY ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT
PILOT TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT


BY:

WILLIAM A. LOVIS, PH.D.
MARGARET B. HOLMAN, PH.D.
MARK W. HOLLEY
KENNETH J. VRANA


WITH A CONTRIBUTION BY:

RUSSELL K. SKOWRONEK, PH.D.


SUBMITTED TO:

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
(Contract No. 95D-0.07)


SUBMITTED BY:

WILLIAM A. LOVIS, PH.D.
MARGARET B. HOLMAN, PH.D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MUSEUM
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN
(ORD No. 64371)



MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
MJSEIUIA

Table of Contents
Table of Contents                                                           i

List of Figuresii

List of Tablesii

Introduction1
Precedence for Prehistoric Underwater Archaeology
by Russell K. Skowronek	2
Post Glacial Lake Level History	5

Research Problems and Design	1 1
Alternative Hypotheses	1 1
The Environment	13
The Archaeological Record	14

Research Methods	18
Site Data	18
Site Evaluation	19

Bathymetric Reconstruction of Saginaw Bay	22
Introduction	22
Background Research	22
Methods	23
Results	24
Summary	25

Conclusions	26
Bottomland Features	29
Archaeological Site Locations	31
Sedimentation Rates and Regimes	32
Implications for Future Research	39
Conclusions	41

References Cited	43

Appendix	51
Assessment of Underwater Technologies
by Kenneth J. Vrana

List of Figures

Facing Page
Figure 1 - Map of Saginaw Bay Study area with selected lake stages
and submerged drainage systems                                                 7

Figure 2 - Digitized 1857 Bathymetric Map of Outer Saginaw Bay
Study Area displaying known archaeological site locations                     27

Figure 3 - Digitized 1 987 Bathymetric Map of Outer Saginaw Bay
Study Area displaying known archaeological site locations                     28

Figure 4 - Lookout Point subarea displaying areas of sedimentation
and submerged archaeological site potential                                   34

Figure 5 - Charity Island subarea displaying areas of sedimentation
and submerged archaeological site potential                                   36

Figure 6 - Oak Point subarea displaying areas of sedimentation
and submerged archaeological site potential                                   38


List of Tables

Page

Table I - Late Wisconsinan and Holocene Lake Levels in the Huron Basin        10
iii

INTRODUCTION

In November, 1995, a contract was finalized between Michigan State

University and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to assess the

technologies potentially available for discovering and recovering information about

submerged prehistoric sites located on the bottomlands of Saginaw Bay. Dr. William

A. Lovis and Dr. Margaret B. Holman were named principal investigators and

responsible parties under terms of this contract.

In addition to the principal investigators, participants included Mr. Mark W.

Holley, a graduate student specializing in underwater archaeology at the University

of Edinburgh, created two GIS data bases, one from an 1857 map and one from a

1987 map. These data were used to obtain a precise reconstruction of bottomland

paleolandscapes. Mr. Kenneth Vrana of the MSU Center for Maritime and

Underwater Resource Management provided consultation on the technology

component of this project. Dr. Russell K. Skowronek of Santa Clara University

supplied background material on underwater archaeology resulting from his earlier

participation in this research (Lovis et al. 1994).

This first phase of a multi-phase project was to develop the information

needed for planning subsequent field phases of the research. This information

included: 1) reconstructing bottomland paleolandscapes with greater precision in

order to isolate high potential areas for future field study, 2) reconstructing

sedimentation rates and regimes for selected areas of the Saginaw Bay bottomlands

to assess the nature of preservation of submerged prehistoric sites and the types of
I

technology appropriate for recovering such sites. Information on paleolandscapes and
sedimentation was then used: to develop evaluative criteria for exploring, identifying
and managing submerged prehistoric sites in Saginaw Bay, and for assessing

technologies available to site rectonnaissance and recovery. Finally, manufacturers
and vendors were consulted to determine the most appropriate currently available

technologies for field tests and applications.
Precedence for Prehistoric Underwater ArchaeoloLv   by Russell K. Skowronek

Thirty years ago, in the nascent days of,the "New Archaeology," it was
hypothesized that"'submerged sites of former occupation" could potentially be
revealed through underwater archaeology (Goggin 1960:351-352). In this earliest
pronouncement it was assumed that neither Classical/Historical cities nor prehistoric
open ocean-front sites would be found because, in the former case, of the lack of
elapsed time and, in the latter, because of wave action, thus limiting site potential
to protected lakes and. seas.   However, Goggin was  incorrect.   Submerged

Classical/Historic era towns and ports have been identified and excavated in the
Black, Caribbean and Mediterranean Seas (e.g., Blawatsky 1972:115-122; Flemming

1980:162-1 77; Frost 1972:95-114; Hamilton 1986:73-77; Marx 1972:1 39-146,

1980:146-147; Raban 1985:59-65, 1988) while a growing number of open-water

prehistoric sites are being discovered and investigated.

As early as 1966, after the discovery of submerged forests and peat deposits,
researchers began to realize the archaeological potential of the continental shelf and
other open water situations (Emery and Edwards 1966:733-737). Old World
2

submerged prehistoric (Mousterian [100,000-40,000 b.p.] through early Iron Age)

sites have been discovered in lakes in Switzerland, Ireland and Scotland (e.g.,

Bocquet 1979:56-64; Morrison 1980:156-161; Ruoff 1972:123-1 38, 1 980:148-155),

as well as, in the Mediterranean Sea and the waters off of Northwest Europe

(Flemming  1985:21-23).    In both fresh and salt water situations underwater

archaeologists have identified and successfully excavated intact, stratified habitation

sites that contained stone, metal and ceramic artifacts, in addition to faunal and floral

remains. For example, the 8,000 year old Neolithic site of Atlit Yam, located in 30-

40 feet of water off the north coast of Israel has yielded not only the foundations of

buildings and a variety of artifacts but also human burials, faunal remains, hearths

with dateable charcoal and intact seeds (Galiii et al. 1988:66-67).

In the New World research on submerged prehistoric sites has lagged behind

that of the Old World. This is, in part, due to a lack of trained professional

personnel. A larger reason, however, is the public fascination with shipwrecks. As

in terrestrial archaeology the vast majority of underwater sites are discovered by the

general public. For these sport divers the identification of a shipwreck is easier,

more romantic and potentially more exciting (due to the profit motive) than the

discovery of a drowned prehistoric site.

For these reasons, as well as the earlier development of the sport diving

industry in the faunally and floraly diverse (and sometimes warmer and clearer)

waters of Florida and California, there has been only a belated recognition of

inundated habitation sites outside of the southeastern and southwestern coasts of the
3

United States (e.g., Anuskiewicz 1988; Cockrell 1980:144-145; Dunbar 1988; Faught

1988; Serbousek 1988; Shiner 1986:138). The evidence from these areas, however,

suggests that the potential exists in other parts of the country for evidence of

submerged prehistoric human habitation sites. For example, in three meters of water

off southern California 4,000-6,000 year old archaeological deposits have been

located in high energy coastal settings (Masters 1985:27-34).

In the Southeast discoveries of inundated sites dating from Paleoindian (ca.

1 1,000 B.P.) to Woodland (ca. 2000 B.P.) times have been made on the Florida

Atlantic and Gulf coasts, as well as inland at such locations as Warm Mineral and

Little Salt Springs (Cockrell 1980:138-145, 1986:49-57; Dunbar 1988:1 77-181;

Flemming 1985:24-25). Work at these inland sites and such coastal locales as the

Venice Beach (Gulf of Mexico) and Douglas Beach (Atlantic Ocean) sites provides

proof that in situ artifacts and ecofacts have survived in varied New World

environments (Cockrell 1986:52; Ruppe 1980:33-45). In addition to these reports

of archaeological sites it is encouraging to note that paleoclimatologists and

palynologists have had success in identifying intact pollen profiles in both fresh and

salt water environments (Scott 1986; Wendland 1978).

As this brief survey should indicate there has been a growing awareness of the

potential of submerged land surfaces to produce evidence of early human occupation

of the continental shelf. Another area with acknowledged potential for these remains

(e.g., Mason  1981:132) which is as 'yet untested, is the Great Lakes.   Here,

researchers (Larsen 1985; Butterfield 1986) have calculated fluctuations in water
4

levels by examining exposed post-Pleistocene beach ridges and submerged
landforms. Their findings indicate that during parts of the Early and Middle Archaic
periods (8,000-5,000 B.P.) lake levels in the Michigan and Huron basins dropped and

so, opened presently innundated lands for occupation. Although no indications of
submerged archaeological sites dating from this period have as yet been found, the

recent discovery in Lake Michigan of a "forest," radiocarbon dated to 8,000 B.P.

(Diving Times 1 990:8), adds further credence to the hypothesis that people might

have lived on the current bottomlands. Given the discoveries of submerged
prehistoric sites made in other parts of the world, it is reasonable to assume that
similar in situ deposits should exist in the Great Lakes. The current pilot project is
the first systematic attempt to assess the potential for locating prehistoric submerged
sites in the Great Lakes (Halsey 1990:1 0-1 1). Thus, the model developed here can
serve as a basis for future surveys and more refined management of the State's
bottomlands.
Post Glacial Lake Level Historv

The retreat of the Saginaw Lobe across the Saginaw Bay region was marked

by sequences of water-lain moraines and associated proglacial lakes, the last of which

was initiated by the advance of the ice front to the Port Huron Moraine (Bretz 1951;

Farrand and Eschman 1974; Leverett and Taylor 1915). As the Late Wisconsinan ice

front retreated northward and eastward from the Port Huron Moraine, it exposed

successively lower outlets for the water ponded in front of the ice (Farrand and
Eschman 1974; Hough 1958; Leverett and Taylor 1915). Levels and outlets of these
5

lakes are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1 (from Monaghan 1986). The beach

ridges associated with certain of these proglacial lakes are often prominent on the

margins of Saginaw Bay, as well as along some of the streams which empty into the

Bay. The Nipissing Stage terrace is perhaps the most prominent of these. It

maintains a northwest-southeast trend through the city of Saginaw. The Algoma

Stage ridge is also prevalent, trending northwest-southeast through Bay City

(Monaghan 1986).

Sediment deposition across the Saginaw region was largely controlled by

levels of Late Wisconsinan and early Holocene proglacial lakes within the Saginaw

and Huron basins. Following the retreat of the Saginaw Lobe from the Bay City/Port

Huron Moraine into the Lake Huron basin, a series of successively lower lake stages

occupied the Saginaw basin (Warren, Elkton, and Algonquin; see Table 1). Although

beach ridges associated with the latter two of these stages occur in the Saginaw Bay

region, they are generally associated with uplands and are absent in lower elevation

coastal contexts (Monaghan 1986).

Continued northward retreat of the ice front to the North Bay area of Ontario,

Canada at about 1 1,000 B.P. (9050 B.C..), exposed the lowest Holocene outlet for the

Great Lakes (Fullerton 1980; Karrow 1980; Lewis 1969, 1970;) and initiated the 48

m (1 58 ft) Stanley Stage (Hough 1958). This low-water stage lasted until about 5500

B.P. (3550 B.C.) (Table 3) when isostatic rebound in the outlet area at North Bay had

raised the lake level sufficiently to reinitiate drainage through the St. Clair River

outlet at Port Huron (Karrow 1980; Lewis 1969, 1970). The cessation of
6

Figure 1 -: Map of Saginaw Bay Study Area with selected lake stages and submerged

drainage systems (from Lovis et al 1994)
7

' Rivers        ,Central I	Lake
.,.--Pipeline 0    place	exten
.. Moderin	s hore	A Buried pipeline sites
*..:    r	a	e	0 Other important sites
t race

drainage through the North Bay outlet and the reoccupation of the St. Clair outlet

initiated the "two-outlet" Nipissing Stage (Lewis 1 969). Although Lewis (1969) has

suggested that Nipissing Stage water level had reached a maximum transgression of

at least 184 m (605 ft) by about 5500 B.P. (3550 B.C.), recent compilations of

radiocarbon dates from archaeological sites in the Saginaw Bay region (Monaghan

et al. 1 986) indicate that the lake level could not have reached an altitude of greater

than 181 m (595 ft) before about 4700 B.P. (2750 B.C.) (Table 3). If correct, this

suggests that the Nipissing Stage maximum transgression was of much shorter

duration than previously believed. Beach ridges associated with the Nipissing Stage

occur near the city of Saginaw but are absent within eight to ten miles of Bay City.

The Nipissing stage water level was maintained at between 183 and 184 m

(600 to 605 ft) until at least 3700 B.P. (1 750 B.C.) (Karrow 1 980; Lewis 1 969, 1 970;

Monaghan et al. 1986) when further downcutting of the St. Clair River outlet lowered

the lake to the 181 m (595 ft) Algoma stage. Except for the time represented by the

Lake Stanley low water stage, large parts of the Saginaw basin were under water until

attainment of Algoma Stage water level. During the Algoma Stage, a prominent,

generally northwest trending beach ridge was built within the Bay City area. That

the Saginaw River was active during the Algoma Stage is suggested by an abandoned,

northward trending distributary channel (presently occupied by Salzburg Drain) just

west of the present course of the river in Bay City. This abandoned channel is

graded to and cuts through the Algoma beach ridge but cannot be traced beyond the

ridge.
8

Previous summaries of lake level history within the Huron basin (Lewis 1969)

have suggested that the Algoma Stage water level was maintained until about 2500

B.P. (550 B.C.). Radiocarbon dates from archaeological sites excavated at the Liberty

B ridge in Bay City, as well as those from nearby sites within the Saginaw Bay Region,

however, indicate that Algoma stage levels began to fall by about 3000 B.P. (1050

B.C.), and the modern Lake Huron water level of 177 m (580 ft) was reached by

about 2500 B.P. (550 B.C.) (Speth 1972).

Of critical concern to this research in Saginaw Bay is the time period

associated with the Chippewa-Stanley low water stage between I11,000 and 5,000

B.P., recently addressed in detail by Butterfield (1986). Due to the lowered lake

levels of this period archaeological sites from the Early Archaic and early Middle

Archaic periods are poorly represented, and are presumed to lie under the waters of

Lake Huron at various depths. Butterfield argues convincingly that during both

recessional and transgressive events the area between the Charity Islands and Bay

City would have been a large shallow water impoundment which he terms the 3rd

Embayment. Specifically, this embayment would have been present at elevations

between 560 and 570 feet (I173 and 170 in.), within 20 feet of current lake elevations

(Figure 1). The outlet of the Saginaw River system during this period would have

been between Point Lookout and the Charity Islands. This location, due to its

position near the outlet of a major river system into the Huron Basin, and the

proximity of chert resources on the nearby Charity Islands, should have been an

optimal location for prehistoric settlement.
9

TABLE 1
LATE WISCONSINAN AND HOLOCENE LAKE LEVELS
IN THE HURON BASIN*
STAGE
ELEVATION
AGE
OUTLET
Algoma
181 m (595 ft)
3700-2500 B.P. [1]
(1750-550 B.C.)
3700-3000 B.P. [2]
(1750-1050 B.C.)
St. Clair River
Nipissing
Saginaw Bay
("Classic")
183-184 m
(600-605 ft)
4700-3700 B.P. [3]
(2750-1750 B.C.)
St. Clair River, and Chicago River
North Bay
(Two-outlet
Phase)

(Three-outlet
Phase)
183 m (600 ft)


184 m (605 ft)
4700-3700 B.P. [1]
(2750-1750 B.C.)

5500-4700 B.P. [1]
(3550-2750 B.C.)
St. Clair River, and Chicago River


North Bay Channel, St. Clair River
and Chicago River
Stanley [5]	48 m (158 ft)


Algonquin	184 m (605 ft)


Elkton	189 m (620 ft)
11,000-5500 B.P. [4]
(9050-3550 B.C.)

12,300-11,000 B.P.[4]
(10,350-9050 B.C.)

12,500-12,300 B.P.[4]
(10,550-10,350 B.C.)
North Bay Channel


St. Clair River, and Chicago River


St. Clair River, and Chicago River
Warren III
206-202 m
(675-665 ft)
Glacial Grand River
12,700-12,500 B.P.[4]
(10,750-10,550 B.C.)
NOTES:
1 From Lewis (1970)
2 This report
3 From Monaghan et al. (1986)
4 From Fullerton (1980)
5 Includes all post-Algonquin low-water stages

* Table 1 from Monaghan 1986
10

RESEARCH PROBLEMS AND DESIGN
Alternative Hvyotheses

There is a gap in the archaeological record of Michigan between about 9000

and 5000 B.P. with only a few known sites and isolated artifact finds from the Late
Paleoindian (ca. 10,000 B.P.), EarlyArchaic(10,000-8,000 B.P.), and MiddleArchaic

(8,000-6,000 B.P.) periods. This hiatus in prehistoric remains coincides with a

significant drop in lake levels that occurred when the postglacial Great Lakes drained

through a low outlet in Ontario. At the maximum low water stage, Lake Huron was

about 350' (158 m) below its present level. The entire process of retrogression and

subsequent transgression took place at varying rates over about 5,000 years

(Butterfield 1986). Thus, there was a considerable amount of land available for

human occupation that is now underwater.

Explanations for either the relative absence of, or absence of evidence for,

humans in Michigan between about 10,000 and 6000 B.P., in comparison to the

preceding Paleoindian period and the subsequent Late Archaic, often take lowered

lake levels into account along with other relevant environmental variables. In

particular, James E. Fitting (1975:57) observes that during the late Paleoindian/Early
Archaic periods, the environment was changing from a productive low latitude

tundra/spruce parkland to a less productive boreal forest. He suggests that people

would have found a greater variety of foods and a more abundant supply along the

lake shores, so that most of their "sites are far out from the present-day shores and

under many feet of water" (Fitting 1975:57). In support of his hypothesis that late
11

Paleoindians were adapted to a forested lakeshore environment, Fitting (1975:57)

notes that late Paleoindian sites to the north are scattered through forests that were

not inundated because isostatic rebound maintained their elevation above current

water levels.

It is Fifting's (1975:65) view that Early and Middle Archaic peoples were

adapted to deciduous forest and riverine settings. After the glaciers retreated, these

environments became established earlier in regions to the south of Michigan.

Because many areas of Michigan were forested first with boreal species and later

with pine, Early and Middle Archaic peoples would have been in Michigan only on

an occasional basis. Thus, the area that is now Michigan saw a real drop in

population with people returning in the Late Archaic when modern environmental

conditions were reached. If Fitting is correct, there is no reason to expect that Early

or Middle Archaic sites are currently under water.

Recent research however, leads us to believe that Early/Middle Archaic people

were not only residents of Michigan, but that evidence of their presence exists in

Saginaw Bay, and that their archaeological record can be recovered (e.g., Arnold

1977; Peebles and Krakker 1977). Archaeological studies coupled with current

environmental reconstructions based on lake level variations (Larsen 1985; Butterfield

1986), pollen profiles (Holman et al. 1986; Kapp et l. 1990), and faunal evidence

(Holman 1990; Smith and Egan 1990) during the period of low water, suggest that

parts of Michigan may not have been so barren as Fitting (1 975) and others (e.g.

Mason 1981:126-139) believed (Lovis n.d.). For example, not all Paleoindian and
1
2

Early Archaic sites are confined to lakeshores and the exposed land of the Saginaw

basin was probably not a uniform pine forest during early portions of the Archaic.

The Environment

Pine was the dominant forest type in the Saginaw area during the retrogression

from the main Lake Algonquin water levels of ca. 184 m (605 ft) to the Lake Stanley

low water level of 48 m (158 ft), i.e., from sometime about 11,000 B.P. to 9000 B.P.

(Butterfield 1986; Kapp et al. 1990:19). Even then however, vegetation was not

uniform. Hardwoods such as birch, ironwood/blue beech and elm became

established during the pine period. At 10,000 B.P., the upland forests of southern

Michigan were quite diverse with oak and aspen in addition to the pine and other
hardwoods (Shott and Welch 1984:25,26).

The pine period ended in southern Michigan by 9000 B.P. and in central

Michigan by 8000 B.P. when the long warm period known as the hypsithermal

began. At the same time, American beech and then hemlock appeared in central
Michigan followed by an increase in oak, elm and ironwood. Mixed hardwood

forests were established by the time the hypsithermal reached its climax about 6500

B.P. during the transgression to Lake Nipissing levels of 183-184 m (600-605 ft)

(Butterfield 1986; Holman et al. 1986). Temperate deciduous forest cover was

present at the Harper locality in Shiawassee County at 5840 +/- 100 B.P. (Beta-

11881) (Holman et al. 1986:438) and people were exploiting acorns and walnuts at

the Weber I site (20SA581) in Saginaw County about 6200-4500 B.P. (Smith and

Egan 1990). A variety of berries were also available near the site. Animal bone from
13

the Harper locality (Holman 1990) and the Weber I site (Smith and Egan 1990)

shows that these forests were inhabited by elk and deer, and by smaller mammals

such as beaver, muskrat and raccoon. Aquatic animals including goose, turtles and

fish were also present.

The warming trend culminating in the hypsithermnal resulted in deciduous

forests (and probably open grasslands) in upland settings during the Middle Archaic

period. During the rise in lake levels these forests su'pported game anirmals.

Certainly wetlands were present as well. As Butterfield (1 986:126) notes, during the

5000 year period of drastic changes in lake levels, there was always an embayment

marked by a constriction or narrows emptying into the main Huron basin. Surely

there were also always marshes and wetlands associated with these embayments.

During the Hypsithermal these habitats would have provided substantial

opportunities for intensive seasonal hunting, trapping, fishing and collecting.

The Archaeoloizical Record

The archaeological record to the landward of Saginaw Bay, i.e. the Saginaw

Valley, the western side of the "Thumb", and the northwest side of the Bay has great

potential for allowing the design of a high probability strategy for surveying the

bottomlands of Saginaw Bay. Not only does the Saginaw Valley have the largest

number of reported sites, but recent studies of the Valley and its margins have added

new dimensions to our understanding of late Middle Archaic and Late Archaic

adaptations. Since Fitting's (1 975) The Archaeologv of Michiigan was written, there

have been studies of mobility patterns during various seasons of the year (Robertson
14


1987), reconstructions of environment and subsistence at Archaic sites (Keene 1981;

Smith and Egan 1990), examinations of the role of wetlands in prehistoric subsistence

(Lovis 1989, 1990b, and Lovis et al. 1989), plus realizations that prehistoric

inhabitants of the Valley buffered cyclical and periodic variability in highly

productive lacustrine and wetland resources by also exploiting more stable Valley

margins and uplands (Lovis 1986). This new information provides an understanding

of Archaic site location that enhances our ability to predict where sites wVill be found.

Thus, we not only believe that prehistoric sites are present in Saginaw Bay, but using

our knowledge of the principles of site location derived from the late Middle Archaic

and Late Archaic, we have the ability to locate them.

Given that the 3rd embayment (Butterfield 1986) during the Stanley low water

stage was environmentally analogous to later high water stage environments, we can

make assumptions about life in the unknown Middle Archaic period on the basis of

our knowledge of the Late Archaic. We know that during the Late Archaic there was

an abundant supply of a variety of foods in the Saginaw Valley (Keene 1981; Lovis

1986). Because of the Valley's position in the transition zone between the Canadian

and Carolinian Biotic Provinces, there were northern and southern species of plants

and animals present (Robertson 1987:29,30). Further, the configuration of the Valley

with a shallow embayment and wetlands surrounded by the higher Valley margins

and uplands made available a variety of food and other resources found in these

varying habitats. This abundance however, was not uniform over the landscape nor

was it necessarily predictable (Lovis 1986:101). Late Archaic peoples of the Saginaw
15

Valley lived in a diverse and productive environment, but the plants and animals that
supplied their food were not always concentrated in one place (Lovis et al 1 989).
Further, the Saginaw Valley itself, which was environmentally the richest area, was

subject to long and short term oscillations in water levels that made this abundance

of resources unstable. Late Archaic peoples made use of their highly productive

environment by exploiting the variety of forest and wetland resources in the Saginaw

Valley, but they also insured against failure of these food supplies by regularly

moving to the less productive margins of the valley where the same resources were

present in patchier, less homogenous spatial configurations and in lower quantities

(Lovis 1 986:1 11).
Seasonal movements to various portions of the valley, its margins, and the
adjacent uplands were structured so that people could obtain information about
where food was likely to be found, so that they could schedule regularly performed
tasks, and so that they could prepare for the next season (Robertson 1 987:207-209).
Late Archaic peoples, like Historic period peoples, used the transportation network
of the Saginaw Valley river system to accomplish these goals. As a result, Saginaw
Valley Late Archaic sites are not only located along rivers and streams, but they are

more abundant in those locales where the "avenues" of transportation converge, i.e.,

in the Valley center during the Nipissing stage and at Bay City during the Algoma

stage (ca. 3200 to 2500 B.P.). Sites are larger and more abundant in these locations
for both logistic and social reasons; people had to pass there to reach other parts of
the Valley and these were places to meet with other people to obtain information
16

before proceeding to another destination.
It is likely that Middle Archaic peoples developed an adaptation that was
similar to that of the Late Archaic. Wetland and upland resources were present in
their environment that were similarly situated with respect to one another. Further,
water levels were subject to similar periodicity. The Middle Archaic occupation
zone at the Weber I site (Lovis 1 990a) shows that like their Late Archaic successors,

Middle Archaic peoples used forest resources such as nuts, elk abd deer in the fall.

This short-term occupation with its local chert does not reflect use by a group of

immigrants from the south. Rather, these people were residents of the Saginaw

Valley with an established seasonal round. Isolated Middle Archaic projectile point

finds do not represent occasional trips to Michigan by southern hunters. They
represent the upland portion of a seasonal round which included residence around
an embayment during parts of the year.
Given a similar settlement system under similar environmental conditions, the
missing portions of the Middle Archaic seasonal round are under the waters of

Saginaw Bay. It is likely that a "central place" comparable to the Schultz site
(200SA2) at Green Point, and the Kantzier (20BY30) and 20BY79 sites at Bay City,

where people passed on their travels exists at the submerged narrows of the Saginaw

River between the Charity Islands and Point Lookout. Other submerged nodes in the

transportation system may exist at former stream confluences. Sites around formerly

exploited wetlands may be present as well.
Finally, while it is most likely that Middle Archaic sites from the period of the
1 7

3rd embayment will be found, Early Archaic sites may also be located. Though we

cannot examine the deeply submerged Lake Stanley coastline and associated early

embayments which may have been the focus of the Early Archaic settlement system,
we may find some segment of the Early Archaic seasonal round. This is especially
true where the Saginaw River passed between the Charity Islands and Point Lookout
as this area was a source of chert at the narrows of a major stream.



RESEARCH METHODS
Site Data
The Office of the State Archaeologist at the Michigan Historical Center in

Lansing records all reported site locations in Michigan on USGS range maps

(1:24000). We first obtained site numbers from these maps of all sites between the

current shore of Saginaw Bay and 605 ft amsl in Huron, Arenac and Tuscola

counties. The 605 ft elevation was chosen because it would have been the shore of

both post-glacial Lake Algonquin (ca. 10,500 B.P.) and Lake Nipissing (ca. 5000
B.P.). This elevation of 605 ft. represents the highest water levels in the Huron Basin

during the period of human occupation of the region. Sites below this 605 ft limit
may be on landforms that continue into the present Saginaw Bay, or may be in
settings analogous to those used for sites during low water stages.
Copies of the state site files at the Consortium for Archaeological Research at
MSU were then used to obtain information about each site in the list derived from
the Michigan Historical Center quad sheets. This information included the age of the
18

site, whether a site was a findspot, lithic scatter, or camp, documentation about the
site, and any other recorded relevant observations.
Data about the 192 sites in the list were evaluated to see which sites would

be most useful for achieving the research goals of the Saginaw Bay Archaeological
Project. First, it was decided to concentrate on sites around outer Saginaw Bay, i.e.,

those locations between Sand Point and Little Oak Point on the southeast side of the

Bay, those locales between Point Au Gres and Point Lookout on the northwest side

of the Bay, and those on the Charity Islands. Outer Saginaw Bay was considered to

be the most appropriate for our purposes because there is good site location data

there as well as the kinds of submerged landforms that have a high potential for
prehistoric human occupation, i.e., submerged strandlines and stream confluences.

Additionally, sedimentation rates are lower in the outer portions of Saginaw Bay and
the water clarity is greater in comparison to inner Saginaw Bay.
Historic sites around the outer Bay were eliminated from further consideration
but the locations of most prehistoric sites in this area were plotted on the Caseville,
Rush Lake, Au Gres and Point Lookout quadrangles. Some burial mounds, poorly
documented sites, or stream-oriented sites were not plotted. The latitude and
longitude of each of the resulting 25 prehistoric sites, including those on the Charity

Islands, were then entered into the database.

Site Evaluation

Evaluation of plotted site locations around outer Saginaw Bay takes three

factors into account; spatial continuity, temporal continuity and settlement system
1
9

continuity. First, we are interested in sites on landforms that continue out into the

current bay because it is likely that sites dating to low water stages wili be found on

submerged portions of the same landform. Experience in various parts of. the Great

Lakes shows that sites of different time periods may be found at different elevations
of a landform. Late Archaic sites, for example, may be at high elevations that were

exposed during this period of occupation. Later Woodland sites on the same

landform may be on low elevations which were exposed when water levels dropped

from Nipissing or Algoma highs to current levels after the Late Archaic. In Saginaw

Bay there are submerged portions of Point Lookout, Point Au Gres, Oak Point and

Sand Point and each of these points is the location of at least one prehistoric site.

Additionally, there are submerged areas around the Charity Islands which like the

current islands may have prehistoric sites.

Temporal continuity at plotted sites around Saginaw Bay is relevant here

because if one site was occupied through long periods of time, it clearly was a

desirable location for many generations of people. If we can ascertain why a location

was attractive throughout prehistory, perhaps we can find similar settings submerged

in Saginaw Bay. We know the general age of only 10 of the 25 piotted prehistoric

sites and this age is often based on the occurrence of one or two diagnostic artifacts.

Many sites yielded only undatable lithic debris when they were surveyed. Since stone

tools were made and used throughout the prehistoric period, there is no way to

know with precision when a particular site with only lithic waste material (debitage)

was occupied. Similarly, a site with one or two artifacts indicative of only one time
20

period may have been occupied in other periods as well, but in the absence of

abundant diagnostic material this is not known. Clearly, our temporal control with
regard to sites around Saginaw Bay is quite limited. There are only two sites known

to be multicomponent. The Botwright site, 20HU20, has Middle Archaic, Late
Archaic, Early Woodland, Late Woodland and Mississippian materials. 20HU20, with
its Middle Archaic component, is the only site we know of that may have been used
during the low water stages of Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay. Depending upon

exactly when during the Middle Archaic it was occupied, the waters could have been
rising toward Nipissing levels at the time of the Middle Archaic occupation rather
than having stabilized at that elevation. The other mulIticomponent site, 20AC45, was
occupied during both the Late Archaic and the Late Woodland Periods. Single

component sites include two LateArchaic locales (20HU149, 20ACI 20), one Middle

Woodland site (20AC18), two Late Woodland sites (20HU164, 20AC2), and three

unassigned Woodland locales (20HU129, 20HU134, 20HU135).

Finally, we are postulating an Early/Middle Archaic settlement system that was

spatially analogous to the Late Archaic settlement system in the same region. The

Late Archaic system included seasonal movement through a radial network of rivers

and streams, and nodes where people had to pass as they moved through the
network (Robertson 1977). Additionally, people placed an emphasis on procuring
various forest and wetland resources (Lovis 1986) Thus, we want to find locations,
such as stream confluences on the bottomlands of Saginaw Bay that would have been
nodes in a mobility network, and we are interested in finding locations in Saginaw
21

Bay that were in proximity to wetlands during low water stages. The Charity Island

sites surely represent central nodes because people moving through the region would

have passed nearby and because they are a source for chert with which to make

stone tools.



BATHYMETRIC RECONSTRUCTION OF SAGINAW BAY

Introduction

The primary objective of this study was to produce a data set which could be

used to reconstruct the bathymetry of the mouth of Saginaw Bay. This data needed

to be compatible with both CAD and G IS software so that detailed bathymetric charts

could be produced and analyzed. The purpose of these charts was to identify the

submerged landscapes of Saginaw Bay and determine how they have changed over

the course of the last 100 years in order to locate Archaic age archaeological sites.

Backaround Research

An extensive search of Federal, State and local records revealed that only two

bathymetric surveys of Saginaw Bay have been produced in the last one huhdred fifty

years. The first of these surveys was commissioned by the Bureau of Topographical

Engineers of the War Department of the United States in 1856. This survey was

carried out under the direction of Captain J.N. Macomb and Captain G.G. Meade

between 1856 and 1858. A series of maps based on this data were produced and

published in 1860. The map which concerns the present study is entitled Saginaw

Bav and Part of Lake Huron and is currently held in the rare maps collection in the
22

State of Michigan Library. This map portrays spot depths at an average density of

one reading every half mile. In shallower regions of the bay depths are recorded in

feet, while areas over 20 feet in depth are recorded in fathoms. The scale of the mnap

is 1:120,000.

The second bathymetric survey of Saginaw Bay was carried out in 1987 under

the direction of Mr. Frank Horvath of the State of Michigan Department of Natural

Resources. Although the numerical data of this survey is not available, a map based

on the data was provided by Mr. Gary Taylor, also of the DNR. This map, entitled

Saainaw Bav Bathvmetrv. portrays the bathymetric contours of Saginaw Bay at a

resolution of 1 contour for every 1 foot of change in water depth.

Method

For the purposes of this study both the 1860 and the 1 987 map needed to be

digitized. This was accomplished by drawing a grid over each mnap and then

assigning an x, y coordinate position to each of the relevant points on the map. The

grid used measured 31 cm east/west and 20 cm north/south and was divided into I

cm subunits. This grid size was chosen because it adequately covered the study

area. The 1860 and 1987 maps were both roughly the same scale so the same sized

grid was used for each.

The 1860 map needed to have contours produced from the spot depths

represented on it. A standard contouring method was used to accomplish this. All

units reported on the map were first converted into their equivalents in feet.

Contours were then plotted in ;intervals of 5 feet of depth, starting from the shore.
23

Points of the contours were deter'mined by their numerical ratio to the distance

between spot depths. For example, suppose there are two spot depths, one of 30

feet and one of 40 feet. A 35 foot contour would be generated half way between

them. A 37 feet contour would be generated 711 0 of the distance between them,

and so on. All of the contours of the 1860 map were generated in this fashion.

The digitization of each map was a relatively straightforward process.

contours for each 5 feet of depth, starting at the shore and ending at 50 feet were

identified. Each contour was then individually digitized. This involved assigning an

x, y coordinate value for between 300 and 500 points on each contour. The density

of points was chosen in response to the nature of the contour; on sharp curves the

point density was 1 point/mm, on straight lines point density was I point/cm. This

point density allowed both maps to be accurately reproduced.

The x, y point data for each contour was recorded in small macro files which

can be accessed by an standard word processing software. This format should allow

the data to be ;used in a wide variety of CAD and GIS software.

The CAD software chosen to generate the charts for the present study is called

AutoSketch(R) for Windows(TM), Release 1.0, and is produced by Autodesk, Inc.

This software was chosen because it is easy to use, compatible with other CAD

formats, and has features which allow for the generatio'n and reproduction of precise

maps.

Results

Two maps were produced for the purposes of this study. The first is a nearly
24

identical replica of the 1987 bathymetry. The second map is a somewhat more

subjective representation of the 1860 bathymetry. The limits of precision of these
two maps are discussed below.
The 1987 bathymetry produced by this study is deemed to be an accurate
reproduction of the map provided by Mr. Taylor. However, the accuracy of the
original map and the density of the point data used to produce it is unknown. It has
been assumed, for purposes of this study, that this map is an accurate representation
of both the spatial and the bathymetric data peculiar to Saginaw Bay in 1 987.
The 1860 bathymetry map of Saginaw Bay has several inaccuracies which

warrant caution in its use.   The entirety of the longitude measurement  are

represented between 02' and 02.5' too far to the east. The range in this error

produces an effect which may either compress or expand individual longitudes. This

makes if difficult to directly compare the 1860 bathymetry to the 1987 bathymetry

because longitudinal positions can be off by up to 0.5 mile even when the correct
longitudes are placed on the map. Another problem which would be encountered

if the 1860 map were stretched to fit the 1987 map is that there are no points of
reference common to both maps. Reference points such as shorelines, or Big Charity
Island cannot be used because theoretically they should have changed position
slightly due to shoreline erosion and/or coastal buildup. With no fixed points of
reference the true position of any point can only be guessed at, increasing the error
factor to well over a mile for most points out in the bay.
A third factor which limits the accuracy of the 1860 bathymetry is the scale
25

of spot depths displayed on the map. Spot depth densities range between one and

four readings per square mile. Any bathymetr produced from such a sparse density

of readings can only represent a broad overview of the bay. Small scale comparisons

are impossible to make as areas up to under 0.5 mile square are not adequately

represented. This means that the bathymetric contours plotted on this map may be

off by up to on mile in true position. With such a large possible error the map

should be viewed with caution.

Summary

The main goals of this phase of'the study have been accomplished. Two

maps have been produced which depict both the historical bathymetrics of Saginaw

Bay and the locations of known archaeological sites (Figures 2 and 3). Both maps

are now in digital form, which allows them to be used by a variety of GIS and CAD

software packages. Additional archaeological sites and smaller scale bathymetrics

may be added to both maps with relatively little effort. Each map should contribute

significantly to the identification of submerged, Archaic age archeological sites in

Saginaw Bay.



CONCLUSIONS

The preceding components of this report have focused on three primary

evaluative criteria;

1) an assessment of evident bottomland features present on the 1857 and

1987 bathymetric maps of Saginaw Bay as they may relate to prior lake levels at
26

Figure 2 - Digitized 1857 Bathymetric Map of Outer Saginaw Bay Study Area

displaying known archaeological site locations
27

m m - o m-m mm - mm
Saginaw Bay Ba thymetry - 1857

44-08'
Depth in Feet
2 4 4-4-07'  Shoreline
I! IN                           ~~~~~0  2 4  6
/ii                     N--- _____________44-06'                                   I
"N                                        _~~~~~~~~~~~~4-5	6-10
~~CC3,~ ~                              Miles	44,O5	_	0-50

K:          N~F~ I,I-~fi	44-'04'	~	11-15


N-J /   1  It  ----__-	44-03'
N' / ~~~~~~~  - ~~~~~\                      "'--	2~~~~~~~21-25
/) -~/)i  ic             `i\i  i               44-~O2' ~i~i~	26-30

44-01'
-~~&~  (34   ~~-~~----~~  J               31-35
7   41'         K	/1       fl,\i        ,-. '.--	44-0'


//                  /	-            ,	43-59'	41-45
C    I   --	43-58'	46-50
~~~~~~ i - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~W145
iRlna K3-57' \   \Archaeological
~~'-~~~   7  '~~~~7~~~             Site
?,i                                                                    6 43-56'


43-55'
o	Co       an	co	co	co	co	Co	co	co	co	00	co	o	co	co	Co       03	Co	CD      o      CO     co	co	co     CO      co	co	(M
o	co	Co 0	co	co	CD	co	C12	o	Co	o	Co	Co	C	CQ	w	W	co	w-	.	co	CZ
	0	0
w CO	w co	u	w	w	N	N	m	N	w	to	N .                                                                                                      - C	0	. Co
1~19    P IiN	I:	Iq 0	9-1	R	N                     c   9                  R ~ 9                 C   1~~tR	1~

Figure 3 - Digitized 1987 Bathymetric Map of Outer Saginaw Bay Study Area

displaying known archaeological site locations
28


Saginaw  Bay Bathymetry - 1987


4
4
-
0
8
'
D
e
p
t
h

i
n

F
e
e
t
4
4
-
0
7
'

S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e

/\  /ul
44-06'
0
-
1
5

4
4
-
0
5
'

6
-
1
0


4
4
-
0
4
'
t~~~~~U.VY	IS                     3                      C                     ï¿½r~~~~~~~~~~~~-N	16-20


/	(	-i  i'                                         I___ I,  ~~                                       44-02'	36-40



 
N
	4~~~~~~~~~~1-35
~
~
H
U
T
3

~

i
4
0
0
I
'
,

3
6
4
0

4
-
/.*    /( I ,1   i                  fN~   4	41-45

2'  / /  -	,,,   /  4        43-58'             46-50

Ii  -                                  .. - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                       *~4-7
Archaeological
/             .                                                                                                         Site
/                                    i     ..2
4
3
-
5
6
,


M
i
l
e
s
-
4
3
-
5
5
'

i
t







Go    (M co    co	co	co  co	Co	o	Co	03	03 co	CD	co	co	co    co	co    co    CD    CD  Co    co  03	03	00 co
Co~~~~ ~~	~~~ Co	Co	o	Co Co	Co	C	Ca  CZ	Co	CD	Co	co	co	Co	-0	w-	u .  w
OCQ  1	co	Co	1   0	C1 - -.1                                                            - C3~	~	Co	Co	i-	0
w	w   w	w	w	~~~~~~~~o  -11	P-	WWW                  W e
)~~~~~~~~~~I            !,    ~1            ~-  .        i1

known points in time,
2) an assessment of the locational characteristics of recorded archaeological
sites as they relate to both exposed and submerged topographic and drainage

features, and
3) an assessment of sedimentation rates and regimes in terms of their ability
to isolate high potential areas for the preservation of precontact archaeological sites
on the bottomlands within the study area.
Each of these criteria will be treated in turn, and applied to the question of the
types of discovery strategies and appropriate technologies necessary to explore for

such sites on the Saginaw Bay bottomlands.

Bottomland Features

Assessment of submerged bottomland feature preservation and identification

is central to this modeling exercise. If one takes a west to east transect across the

study area several prominent submerged topographic features are evident at varying
depths below the current water plane of about 580'. These include:
1) Lookout Point. Present day Lookout Point is a substantial bottomland
feature displaying topographic integrity to at least 35 feet depth. Contour intervals
reveal sharp relief to the east of the point, where the submerged channel of the
Saginaw River departs the inner Saginaw Bay in its drainage to the Huron Basin
proper, and shallow gradients to the south of the point. These relief differences are
most likely a consequence of higher energy nearshore environments on the outer
bay, and lower energy environments on the inner bay. Modern Lookout Point also
29

contains wetlands, although it is not currently possible to determine whether these
are present on the bottomlands.
2) The Charitv Islands and Vicinitv. Crossing the submerged channel of the

Saginaw River in the narrows between Lookout Point and the Charity Islands is a
broad, relatively flat point or ridge extending approximately two miles north of Big

Charity Island. The western margins of this ridge display sharp relief at a depth of

approximately 25 feet, and the northern margins at a depth of 35 to 40 feet. Such

depths for these features suggest an age of approximately 7000 B.P. based on
estimated transgression rates. These zones of sharp relief appear to reflect river

terracing from the Saginaw River on the west, and a submerged lake terrace on the
north. Gradients to the east of Charity Island reflect a shallow and low relief
submerged bay, evident at depths ranging from 6 feet to the south of Charity Island
and near Sand Point, to depth in excess of 40 feet north of Oak Point. This bay is,
in fact, the outlet of the submerged channel of the Quanicassee River, which

parallels the southeast margin of Saginaw Bay for its entire length. The shallow
gradients suggest a relatively low energy environment in the vicinity of the bay, and

it should be noted that elevated beach terraces above the modern water plane also

reflect the same contour configurations.

3) The Oak Point Vicinitv. Oak Point defines the eastern margin of the
submerged bay and outlet of the Quanicassee River. Oak Point is well defined on
the bottomland contours of Saginaw Bay, with strong relief at depths which range
from approximately 10 to 20 feet, but displaying a rather regular gradient overall.
30

Again, this is consistent with exposed contours above the modern water plane, which

are also distinguished by upraised lake terraces.
Archaeoloizical Site Locations
Archaeological site locations in the study area cluster in three primary
locations, these include:
1) A group of three sites on Lookout Point, two on the south side, and one
on the northi side. Lookout Point is not unique in this regard across southern or
northern Michigan. Such features are often associated with one or more precontact
sites. In this instance the larger sites are located on the south side of the point,
which would be considered the inner Bay, in the vicinity of the shallower

bottomland gradients presumably reflecting lower energy environments. The location

of Lookout Point on the western side of the submerged Saginaw River channel places

it in a context also suggestive of high location potential; the outlet of a major stream

into the lake basin.

2) The cluster of recorded sites on Big Charity Island, and a single known site

on Little Charity Island, appear to be resource specific extractive locales. Exposures
of limestone bedrock in both locations are associated with outcroppings of Bayport
Chert, a primary raw material for stone tool manufacture in the region. These
exposures are currently at the modern water plane for the Lake Huron basin, and can
be traced offshore to varying shallow depths. The presence of bottomland contours
at depths of approximately 20 feet suggest that submerged shoreline environments,
in particular terraces, are present offshore of these modern site locations.
31

3) The Oak Point vicinity contains the largest cluster of archaeological sites

in the study area. Two observations are noteworthy about this cluster. First, they

occur at several locations around Oak Point; to the south, on the point proper, and

to the east. This configuration would suggest that it is the larger locale of Oak Point

that is being selected rather than a point specific location. Secondly, many of the

sites present in the Oak Point cluster are present on interior beach ridges, often,with

intervening wetlands in the swales, reflective of periodically higher water elevations.

The elevational "stacking" of archaeological sites on the west margin of the

submerged bay and outlet of the Quanicassee River channel suggests that

bottomlands offshore of known locations, particularly in high density areas such as

43 deg 59' N, 83 deg 1 1' W, should have high potential for submerged sites. This

may be true of the bottomlands directly offshore of Oak Point proper as well.

Sedimentation Rates and Rep-imes

In large part our expectations for site preservation are premised on

observations of stratigraphy on terrestrial archaeological sites. While Middle Archaic

sites such as the Weber I site (Lovis 1 989) demonstrate the potential for deeply

buried deposits of Middle Holocene age to be present in the Saginaw Basin, an

important observation that derives from this and other sites is the nature of the

aquatic regimes which create such deposits. The Weber I deposits contain buried

paleosols of several different ages, sealed by sterile sediments of two types;

impounded backwater sediments of the wetlands in the Shiawassee Flats associated

with higher-than-present base levels of the Huron basin, and alluvial deposits of the
32

Cass River grading to higher base levels of the basin. B3oth sediment regimes resulted
in minimal disruption of the cultural deposits on the paieosols, and demonstrate that
specific types of larger scale transgressive events can result in sealed archaeological
site preservation. A third type of regime is evident at the Ebenhoff site on the

Shiawassee Flats, where the pulsating effects of Nipissing stage transgression and

ultimately submersion of Middle Holocene deposits created a sealed and stratified
sequence of peats and lacustrine sands with included cultural materials (Beaverson

and Mooers 1993), revealing that lower energy environments on shallow gradient
lake or wetland edges also have goocd potential for site preservation. This is precisely
the type of sediment regime that can be expected on protected areas of the Saginaw
Bay bottomiands. It is such analogs that contribute to the expectation that sites can

be preserved in bottomland sediments of Saginaw Bay at specific locations.
To our knowledge this pilot study is the first research to employ the 1857
baseline bathymetrics from the initial surveys of Saginaw Bay in a comparative
framework with modern bottomland data. Use of comparative baseline data was

essential to initial modeling of sedimentation  rates.   Despite some  evident
inaccuracies in the 19th century survey data, articulated earlier in this report, it is

possible to make some generalizations about the rates of sedimentation in those parts

of the study area considered to have high site potentials.
1. Lookout Point (Figure 4) The Lookout Point vicinity reveals clear infilling
of the submerged Saginaw River channel to the east of the point proper. In some
instances deeper contours, those associated with depths greater than 35 feet, shift
33

Figure 4 - Looko ut Point subarea displaying areas of sedimentation and submerged
archaeological site potential
34



(1)

--4

0
0

C.)
(a)9
a1)    -4

0
d    1






C12













83-~29'


83-30'


83-31'


83-~32'


83--33'


83-~'34




83-~35 5
U-o	C )	to Co	o'	-
LO0	--	I	I	I	I	.1	I	I	II
I	I	--I	W	--I	c	--4	cc	-f	t.o
"-I   m       <_   C_)           :_   _\i   n       _6    _s
I 4_) A

m    914
I
I C) v                             i    _i
i_
4 :;
Icz
Z
0--
C
D

0
(t
to
C

0~
C)
0Q
C
I*P

-km




I
Q)
I cf)
83-36'

northward a full minute of latitude revealing sedimentation accumulation of greater

than 1 0 feet on the bottomlands in the past 1 30 years. The northeast side of the point

reveals that bottomland contours do not change position markedly. The bottomlands

in this area have apparently sustained rather regular bottom depths since the 19th
century survey, perhaps as a consequence of similar offshore current, prevailing

wind, and wave regimes.
South of Lookout Point, however, a different set of circumstances is present.
In particular, the 21 '-25' depth contour shifts southward a full 0.5 minutes of latitude.
This is suggestive of higher depositional rates in this vicinity, perhaps with

accumulations of 5 feet or more in the past 130 years. It is possible that this area
may preserve sites in sealed sediments.
2. The Charitv Island Vicinitv (Figure 5) Addressing first the sedimentation

rates north of Big Charity Island, it is evident that substantial deposition has taken

place within the past 130 years. In 1857 contours in the 5' to 10' depth range were

positioned closely adjacent to the north side of the island, whereas in 1 987 these

contours had moved north a full minute of latitude, or more than one half mile. This
is true of deeper contours as well, with the 1857 21'-25' depth contour about 1.5
minutes north of the island, and the same contour in 1987 positioned 2.6 minutes
north of the island. This reveals between 5 and 10 feet of sedimentation north of
Charity island in the past 130 years.
The same phenomenon holds for areas to the west of the Charity Island
vicinity as well, where the 21'-25' foot contour lies about 3 minutes west in 1857,
35

Figure 5 - Charity Island subarea displaying areas of sedimentation and submerged
archaeological site potential
36

w
4-)
.,-4
U)

1-4
C16
0
.,4
t*
0
r-I
0
a)
d
4
C)
F-4
-1        e--)

7-  C    )

0-q
0	0
0~~

1
0k) -M  n C
LO


T--i	I
1	-.4
~D	--
0	10	01LO	0   LO	c
CN2	cli	Cn	n	-1~	10 L
i	I	I	I	I	I	f
~o	--4	~D	--4	~D	c~~	o
V-4	C1	2 CQ	n	,:
I
Oll
i
i
i. .
I ;
iI

0 C
(tq-~
~~c	LO
0	0
(~

c              0
(I4-,~
0~
0	LO
-K	co
C?9%J-~






Is~
>








IY
Dt
83-18'

83-19'

83-20'

83-~21

83-.22'

83-~23'

83-24'

83-25'

83-26'

83-27'

83-28'

83-29'




















I ..I.....
~~~~~~~.,......

~~~~~~~.........,..
~~~~~~~~........x ............

and 3.7 minutes west in 1987, suggesting similar sedimentation rates. To the east,

there is not much spatial movement of the bottomland contours revealing similar

elevations overall, and an inability to determine whether aggradation or degradation

has occurred.

3. The Oak Point Vicinitv (Figure 6) There are, in fact, three components of

the Oak Point vicinity site distribution that warrant comment here. The area directly

north of Oak Point proper, for example, does not experience significant variation in

bottomland contours to suggest sediment accumulation on a magnitude that would

warrant further inspection. The large cluster of sites to the east of Oak Point,

however, bears further scrutiny. The bottomland contours in this vicinity mnove

northward in excess of 0.25 miles, revealing

greater sediment accumulation here than further to the west. This phenomenon is

also true offshore of the pair of sites south of Oak Point where, in particular, the 11'-

15' foot depth contour shifts westward almost a full minute of longitude.

The sediment regimes for the Saginaw Bay are not easily reconstructed due

to a general lack of deep cores. Most "coring" strategies have, in fact, been shallow

grab samples of surficial bottom sediments. However, inspection of a series of cores

from both the inner and outer Bay was made possible by Dr. Grahame Larson of the

Department of Geological Sciences at Michigan State University from work he

performed with Dr. David Long of MSU. This core series was drawn in 1995, and

represents the best deep core sample and most recent data available on sediment

regimes. Several observations made on these cores are pertinent to the present
37

Figure 6 - Oak Point subarea displaying areas of sedimentation and submerged

archaeological site potential
38

Q)


~~	IC)~~~C
I   I   I	I      0
~~~~~~~~~ 0
cV--    (10  V-q  I O
coco-I..4
L
C)F-


0-'
0




0)
IC)	0)	IC	0
CD-4	C\	\	Cy:)
LO)	--	1	I	I	I
I	I	--	D	"ic
0	co	_q	T-	C\2   C'Q
I
I
;,I    En	~Q   --A                             c	27~	~o	oC)
C	c	ICD (=	O	oV)	0C   LO)
(It          (Id	(~            -K               -1(	(	m	m	(                (
Zfi	-1:14	-il	-1~~1	-	11	-1 1
	-tl )1C"
83-08'

83--09'

83-10'

83-141'

83-12'

83-13'

83-14'

83-15'

83-46,

83-17'
jp
_
%
m
I
ct
9
ff_4
i t_t
ct


el
83-18'

project, as are the comments of Dr. Larson.

First, preserved, intact surfaces are apparently present and recoverable from

the bottomlands of Saginaw Bay. At least one of the cores, from inner Saginaw Bay,

displayed stratigraphy interpretable as a pre-Nipissing stable soil surface, overlain by

wetland formations such as peat and wood, which in turn was overlain by Nipissing

age sediments. This suggests that under the proper conditions intact soil surfaces are

still present and are recoverable. Secondly, there is a major sedimentological

difference between the inner Saginaw Bay, inside of the Charity Islands, Lookout

Point, and Oak Point, and the outer Saginaw Bay. The inner Saginaw Bay sediment

regime is composed primarily of finer grained sediments such as silts and clays.

These sediments are readily recoverable from cores and present relatively intact core

profiles. The outer Saginaw Bay presents a sequence dominated by coarser grained

sediments such as sands. Great difficulty was encountered by the Michigan State

University Department of Geological Sciences team in successfully drawing intact

cores from this sediment regime, suggesting that a somewhat different

sampling/coring approach might be necessary on the outer margins of the Bay.

Notably, some of the areas of high likelihood for preserved surfaces are in the outer

Bay, and it will be necessary to accomodate this problem in future work.

lmDlications for Future Research

From this pilot research it is clear that there are preserved identifiable

topographic features that predate the Middle Holocene age Lake Nipissing Stage

inundation of the study area, and that there is potential for the preservation of intact
39

occupiable surfaces in three parts of the study area; north of Big Charity Island,

south of Lookout Point, and off the south margin of Oak Point. Additionally, such

surfaces are recoverable, at least on the inner Bay, through systematic coring, while

on the outer Bay i.e. north of Big Charity Island, non-standard coring techniques

might be necessary. Datable materials in the form of both peat and wood are likely

to be present, thereby providing chronological control on the age of such surfaces.

Significantly, all of the data collected reveal that surface inspection techniques such

as remote operating vehicles (ROV's) equipped with videocameras will not be

appropriate to the work that is necessary if employed alone. Rather, it is essential that

both remote and physical sub-bottom sampling be performed.

Conclusions

Based upon the survey of technology vendors presented in the Appendix, it
becomes clear that it will be essential to employ both remote and physical sub-

bottom sampling. The recommendations derived from the vendor survey reveal that

systems such as Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Side Scan Sonar, and Sector

Scanning Sonar applied in conjunction with an video equipped ROV are the most

informationally useful approaches given the conditions of the Saginaw Bay study

area. The primary question about use of such systems is data quality. It is possible

that GPR in particular may result in poor quality or difficult to interpret graphic and

numerical information. Vrana is of the opinion that if that is the case then CHIRP

systems may be more appropriate.

The implications of the foregoing discussion are severai, and suggest that any
40

future work might best be conducted in at least two and possibly more stages. The
first of these would involve some form of sub-bottom profiling across high potential

areas to reveal bottom stratigraphy. The first choice for such work would be Ground
Penetrating Radar, with sonars a second choice, and lastly a CHIRP system. In part
this will be an assessment stage to determine which of these systems works best in

the local conditions of Saginaw Bay. It is recommended that these be employed in

conjunction with a video equipped ROV primarily as a means of assessing bottom
topography, not as a means of searching for submerged sites. The primary goal of
this stage would be to further refine data related to the presence and spatial
distribution of both topographic and stratigraphic features, and would serve to focus
the next phase of the project.
The second maj.or stage should consist of systematic coring in a series of
discrete sampling areas defined on the basis of sub-bottom data collected using GPR,
sonar, or CHIRP systems. The primary goal of this stage would be the recovery of
stratigraphic data from high potential areas. It appears that the technology most

appropriate to this task is some form of vessel-based vibracore apparatus, spatially

deployed using global positioning systems. An ancillary but clearly desirable goal

of this stage would be the attempted recovery of culturally identifiable materials from
these high potential areas, including but not limited to lithic detritus, and faunal and
floral remains. The success of this stage is wholly dependent upon the specific
nature of bottom sediments, i.e. their consolidation, and the density of cultural
materials that might be present in any given sample location. The statistical success
41

of such discovery strategies are easily modeled using variables such as core interval,

core diameter, and suspected artifact density.
In sum, it is clear that preserved landforms with high potential for preserved
stratigraphy, and consequently the potential for preserved archaeological sites, are
present across the mouth of Saginaw Bay. Sampling for the discovery and recovery
of submerged archaeological sites in Saginaw Bay will not be a straightforward
process, but will of necessity have to rely on refined bottom sampling technologies.
42

REFERENCES CITED
Anuskiewicz, Richard J.
1988 Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at Ray Hole Spring in the
Eastern Gulf Of Mexico. The Florida Anthrooologist 41(1):181-185.

Arnold, Jeanne E.
1977  Early Archaic  Subsistence  and  Settlement  in the  River Raisin
Watershed, Michigan. Appendix II in The River Raisin Archaeological
Survey Season 2. 1976: A Preliminary Report by Christopher S. Peebles
and James J. Krakker. A report to the Michigan History Division,
Michigan Department of State from Division of the Great Lakes,
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Beaverson, S.K. and H.D. Mooers
1993  Reconstruction of the Late Glacial and Holocene Paleoenvironmental
Setting at 20SA596, Saginaw Valley, Michigan. Reports of
Investigations No. 210. Institute for Minnesota Archaeology,
Minneapolis. Submitted to Braun Intertec Environmental, Inc. and
Great Lakes Gas Transmission, Ltd.

Blawatsky, Vladimir D.
1972 Submerged Sectors of Towns on the Black Sea Coast. Underwater
Archaeologv:A Nascent DisciDline. UNESCO, Paris, pp.115-122.

Bocquet, Aime
1979 Lake-Bottom Archaeolgy. Scientific American 240(2):56-64.

Bretz, J. H.
1951 Causes of the Glacial Lake Stages in the Saginaw Basin, Michigan.
lournal of Geolop-v 59:244-258.

Butterfield, Ira W.
1986 Water Configurations in the Human Environment from the Main
Algonquin to the Nipissing I Stages of the Great Lakes in the Saginaw
Valley, Michigan. The Michigan Archaeologist. 32(3):101-137.

Cockrell, Wilburn A.
1980 Drowned Sites in North America. Archaeologv Under Water An Atlas
of the World's Submeraed Sites. k. Mucelroy, ed., McGraw-Hill Book
Co., New York, pp. 138-145.
43

1986  Inundated Terrestrial Sites in North America. Underwater Archaeologv:
The Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Underwater Archaeoloyv,
C.R. Cummings, ed., Fathom Eight, San Marino, CA., pp. 49-57.

Diving Times
1990 Illinois Underwater "Forest" Discovered. The lournal of Great Lakes
Sport Diving, p. 8.

Dunbar, James S.
1988 Archaeological Sites in the Drowned Tertiary Karst Region of the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico. The Florida Anthroooloaist 41(1):1 77-181.
Emery, K.O.
1966
and R. L. Edwards
Archaeological Potential of the Atlantic Continental Shelf.American
Antiquity 31(5):733-737.
Farrand, W. F. and D. Eschman
1974 Glaciation of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan: a Review.
Michi,an Academician 7:31-56.

Faught, Michael
1988  Inundated Sites in the Apalachee Bay Area of the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico. The Florida Anthropologist 41(1):185-190.

Fitting, James E.
1 975 The Archaeoloav of Michigan. Second Edition. Cranbrook Institute of
Science, Bloomfield Hills.

Flemming, Nicholas C.
1980 Cities Under the Mediterranean. Archaeologv Under Water An Atlas
of the World's Submerged Sites. K. Muckelroy, ed., McGraw-Hill Book
Co., New York, pp. 162-177.

1985 Ice Ages and Human Occupation of the Continental Shelf. Oceanus
28(1):18-25.
Frost, Honor
1972



Fullerton, D.
1980
Ancient Harbours and Anchorages in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Underwater Archaeoloev: A Nascent Discipline. UNESCO,  Paris,
pp.95-114.

S.
Preliminary Correlation of Post-Erie Interstate Events (16,000 10,000
radiocarbon years before present), Central and Eastern Great Lakes
44

Region, and Hudson, Champlain, and St. Lawrence lowlands, United
States and Canada. U.S. Geolop,ical Survey. Professional Paner 1089.

Galili, Ehrud, D. Kaufman and M. Weinstein-Evron
1988 8,000 Years Under the Sea. Archaeology 41(1):66-67.

Goggin, John M.
1960  Underwater Archaeology: Its Nature and Limitations.   American
Antiquity 25(3):348-354.

Halsey, John R.
1990 Beneath the Inland Seas Michigan"s Underwater Archaeological
Heritage. Bureau of History, Michigan Department of State, Lansing.

Hamilton, D. L.
1986  Port Royal Revisited. Underwater Archaeoloav: The Proceedings of the
14th Conference on Underwater Archaeolovy. C.R. Cummings, ed.,
Fathom Eight, San Marino, CA., pp. 73-77.

Holman, J. Alan
1990 Vertebrates from the Harper Site and Rapid Climatic Warming in Mid-
Holocene Michigan. Michigan Academician XXII(3):205-217.

Holman, J. Alan, D.C. Fisher, and R.O. Kapp
1986 Recent Discoveries of Fossil Vertebrates in the Lower Peninsula of
Michigan. Michigan Academician 18:431-463.

Horvath, Frank J.
1987  Sap-inaw Bay Bathvmetrv. Great Lakes Information System Division of
Land Resource Programs, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Lansing.

Hough, J. L.
1958  Geologv of the Great Lakes.  University of Illinois Press, Urbana,
Illinois.

Karrow, P. F.
1980 The Nipissing Transgression Round Southern Lake Huron. Canadian
lournal of Earth Sciences 19:1271-1275.

Kapp, R. O., S. G. Beld and J. A. Holman
1990 Paleontological Resources of Michigan: An Overview. In R.W. Stoffle
(Editor), Cultural and Paleontological Effects of Siting a Low-Level
Radioactive Storage Faciltiy in Michigan. Institute for Social Research,
45

University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Keene, Arthur S.
1 981 Prehistoric Foraaina in a TermDeratte Forest: A Linear Prop-raminp-
Model. Academic Press, New York.

Larsen, Curtis E.
1985 GeoarchaeologicallInterpretation ofGreat Lakes Coastal Environments.
Archaeoloaical Sediments in Context. J.K. Stein and W.R. Farrand eds.,
Center for the Study of Early Man, Institute for Quaternary Studies,
University of Maine at Orono, pp. 91-1 10.

Leverett, F., and F. B. Taylor
1 915 The Pleistocene of Indiana and Michigan and the History of the Great
Lakes. U.S. Geolop-ical Survev. Monop-raDh 53.

Lewis, C. F. M.
1969  Late Quaternary History of Lake Levels in the Huron and Erie  Basins.
Proceedings: 12th Conference. Great Lakes Research. pp. 250-270.
International Association for Great Lakes Research.

1970  Recent uplift of Manitoulin Island, Ontario. Canadian lournal of Earth
ScZiences 7:665-675.

Lovis, William A.
1986  Environmental Periodicity, Buffering, and the Archaic Adaptations of
the Saginaw Valley of Michigan. In Foraging, Collecting and
Harvesting, Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the Eastern
Woodlands, edited by S. Neusius. Southern Illinois Universitv at
Carbondale. Center for Archaeological lnvestiigations. Occasional
Paper. No. 6, pp. 99-116.

1989  Variations in Late Archaic Resources Availability as a Consequence of
Lake level Periodicity in the Huron Basin. Paper presented at the 54th
Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. On file at
the Michigan State University Museum, East Lansing.

1989  Archaeological Investigations at the Weber I and Weber II Sites,
Frankenmuth Township, Saginaw County, Michigan. Michigan Cultural
Resource Investigation Series. Vol. 1. State of Michigan, Lansing.

1990 The Potential Impacts of Environmental Period icity on Late Archaic
Lacustrine Adaptations in the Saginaw Valley of Michigan. Paper
presented for symposium entitled Hunter/Gatherer Lacustrine
46

Adapatations at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology. On file at the Michigan State University Museum, East
Lansing.

n.d.  The Early and Middle Archaic. Contribution to Retrievinp Our Buried
Past: The Archaeolomv of Michigan. John R. Halsey, editor. In press.


Lovis, W.A. and K.C. Egan, W.G. Monaghan, B.A. Smith, E.J. Prahl
1989 Environment and Subsistence at the Marquette Viaduct Locale of the
Fletcher Site. Research report submitted to the National Geographic
Society. On file at the Michigan State University Museum, East
Lansing.

Lovis, W.A. and M.B. Holman, W.G. Monaghan, R.K. Skowronek
1994  Archaeological, Geological, and Paleoecological Perspectives on
Regional Research Design in the Saginaw Bay Region of Michigan. In
Great Lakes Archaeologv and Paleocologv: ExoIorina Interdisciolinarv
Initiatives for the Nineties. Proceedings of a Symposium presented by
the Quaternary Sciences Institute, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, September 21-22, 1991 Robert I. MacDonald, ed. Quaternary
Sciences Institute, Waterloo.

Macomb, J.N. and G.G. Meade
1860 Saizinaw Bav and Part of Lake Huron. Bureau of Topographical
Engineers of the War Department of the United States. 1:120,000. Rare
maps collection, State of Michigan Library, Lansing.

Marx, Robert F.
1972 The Submerged Remains of Port Royal, Jamaica. Underwater
Archaeoloav: A Nascent DisciDline. UNESCO, Paris, pp. 139-145.

1980 The Sunken City of Port Royal. Archaeologv Under Water An Atlas of
the World's SubmerRed Sites K. Muckelroy, ed., McGraw-Hill Book
Co., New York, pp.146-147.

Mason, Ronald J.
1981 Great Lakes Archaeoloav. Academic Press, New York.

Masters, Patricia M.
1985 California Coastal Evolution and the La Jollans. Oceanus 28(1):27-42.
47

Monaghan, G. W.
1986 Geology of the Third Street Bridge Right of Way. In Archaeological
Investigations at Sites 20BY77, 20BY78, and 20BY79, at the Third
Street Bridge Replacement, Bay City, Michigan (edited by W. Lovis),
pp. 45-52). Report submitted to the Michigan Departments of State
and Transportation. Michigan State University. East Lansing.

Monaghan, G. W., L. Fay and W. Lovis
1986  Nipissing transgression in the Saginaw Bay region, Michigan.
Canadian lournal of Earth Sciences. 23(11): 1851-1854. Ottawa.


Morrison, Ian A.
1980 Man-made Islands in Scottish Lochs. Archaeoloizv Under Water. An
Atlas of the World's Submeraed Sites. K. Muckelroy, ed., McGraw-Hill
Book Co., New York, pp. 156-161.

Peebles, Christopher S. and James J. Krakker
1 977 The River Raisin Archaeological Survev Season 2. 1 976: A Preliminarv
Report by Christopher S. Peebles and James J. Krakker. A report to the
Michigan History Division, Michigan Department of State from
Division of the Great Lakes, Museum of Anthropology, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Raban, Avner
1985 Marine Archaeology in Israel. Oceanus 28(l):59-65.

Raban, Avner, editor
1 988 Archaeology of Coastal Changes. Proceeding of the First International
Symposium "Cities on the Sea-Past and Present." B.A.R. International
Serie_s #404, Oxford, England.

Robbins, John A.
1986 Sediments of Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron: Elemental Composition and
Accumulation Rates. Special Report No. 102 of the Great Lakes
Research Division, Great Lakes and Marine Waters Center, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Robertson, James A.
1987 Inter-assemblaae Variabilitv and Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Svstems:
A PersDective from the Saizinaw Vallev of Michiigan. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Anthropolgoy, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
48

Ruoff, Ulrich
1972  Palafittes and Underwater Archaeology. Underwater Archaeologv: A
Nascent Discipline, UNESCO, Paris, pp. 123-127.

1980 Alpine Villages on Stilts. Archaeolo2v Under Water. An Atlas of the
World's Submerged Sites. K. Muckelroy, ed., McGraw-Hall Book Co.,
New York, pp.148-155.

Ruppe, Reynold J.
1980 The Archaeology of Drowned Terrestrial Sites: A Preliminary
Report.Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Bulletin No. 6, Division
of Archives, History and Records Management, Florida Department of
State, Tallahassee, pp.23-45.


Scott, Linda J.
1986 Pollen in Underwater Sediments:Sea-Level Change and Environmental
Transition. Underwater Archaeoloev:The Proceedings of the 14th
Conference on Underwater Archaeoloav. Calvin R. Cummings, editor,
Fathom Eight Spcial Publication #7, San Marino, CA..

Serbousek, Don
1988  An Example of an Offshore Sinkhole in the Gulf of Mexico with Good
Archaeological Potential. The Florida AnthroDolo2ist 41(1):190-191.

Shiner, Hoel L.
1986  Prehistory Underwater. Underwater Archaeoloav: The Proceedinas of
the 14th Conference on UnderwaterArchaeologv, C.R. Cummings, ed.,
Fathom Eight, San Marino, Ca., p. 138.

Shott, Michael J. and Paul D. Welch
1984 Archaeological Resources of the Thumb Area of Michigan. The
Michip.an Archaeologist 30(1):1-80.

Smith, Beverley A. and Kathryn C. Egan
1990 Middle and Late Archaic Faunal and Floral Exploitation at theWeber I
(20SA581) Site, Michigan. Ontario Archaeologv. 50:39-54.

Speth, John D.
1972 Geology of the Schultz site. In The Schultz site at Green Point: A
Stratified Occupation Area in the Saginaw Valley of Michigan, edited
by James E. Fitting. Museum of Anthroooloav. University of Michigan.
Memoir 4:53-75.
49

Wendland, Wayne M.
1978 Holocene Man in North America: The Ecological Setting and Climatic
Background. Plains Anthroooloist 23-82(Pt. 1):273-287.2
50

APPENDIX
ASSESSMENT OF UNDERWATER TECHNOLOGIES

KENNETH J. VRANA
CENTER FOR MARITIME AND UNDERWATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
51

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (I1986:72)

concluded that "underwater archaeology is highly dependent on advanced

technology, and that a research design is extremely important in determining the

appropriate technology to apply to the study of underwater cultural resources."

These conclusions affirmn the need for more scientific approaches to the assessment

and use of technology.

Three goals were defined for phase one of the Saginaw Bay Archaeological

Project. This section of the report provides an assessment of underwater technologies

as defined by the.third goal of phase one. The assessment is based on evaluative

criteria that include the predicted archaeological site locations, operational

conditions, and functional requirements.

Specific components of the goal to assess underwater technologies include:

I1.    the development of evaluative criteria to assist in the exploration,

identification, and management of submerged terrestrial sites on the

bottomiands;

2.    assessment of the technologies available for site reconnaissance and

discovery based upon the foregoing data; and

3.    consultation with manufacturers and vendors of such equipment to
determine the most appropriate currently available technologies for

field tests and applications.

The assessment of underwater technologies and identification of most
52

appropriate technologies should be "a logic'al process of activities which transforms
a set of requirements arising from a specific mission objective into a full description
of a system which fulfills the objectives in an optimum way" (Skytte 1994). Based

on this definition and project goals, the technology assessment process should
involve the following steps:

1 .	definition of remote-sensing objectives and operational conditions;
2.	determination of functional requirements for technology systems;
3.	definition of technical specifications based on those requirements;
4.	identification and assessment of appropriate currently available technologies;

and
5.     recommendation of a technology system.
The definition of technical specifications for appropriate technologies is best
completed through close consultation among principle investigators and the

representatives and technicians of undersea development and service corporations.

Because of a general lack of information on sub-bottom characterization of cultural

materials in the Great Lakes, many technical specifications will remain undefined
until the next phase, or will be stated in general terms rather than specific
mathernatical values.

REMOTE-SENSING OBJECTIVES
The primary purposes of remote-sensing operations in the Saginaw Bay
Archeological Project are reconnaissance of submerged lands and site discovery as
predicted. The process of reconnaissance in this case includes assessment of sub-
53

bottom stratigraphy and submerged topography for the potential presence of

prehistoric cultural materials.
The objectives of these remote-sensing operations can be defined as follows:

1.    locate surfaces of ancient landforms (e.g., beach terraces, coastal
shorelands);

2.    locate archaeological site features on (or within) the surfaces of the

ancient landforms; and
3.    remove and analyze core samples from the lake bottomlands.
Operations will include the use of boats outfitted with remote-sensing
technologies and systems.  It may involve also direct physical techniques of
observation and measurement using scuba (self-contained underwater breathing
apparatus) and deployment of technologies through ice if appropriate.
The meaning of remote-sensing varies by discipline but can be defined simply
as "the observation and measurement of an object without touching it" (Curran
1985:1).   Engineer.s and  geophysicists  consider  remote  sensing  to be  the

"texamination of earth features from a distant platform situated above the target area"

(Heimmer 1992:3). It is commonly associated with the use of electromagnetic

radiation sensors and aerial platforms to produce images of environmental features

that are interpreted for purposes in scientific research and resource management. A

distinction can be made between remote-sensing and the use of geophysical methods
that measure subsurface physical contrasts. Geophysical surveys normally require
contact or near contact between the sensor and the earth's surface (Heimmer 1992).
54

For the purposes of this assessment, the term remote-sensing will  include geophysical

methods.
In underwater or undersea applications, remote-sensing is commonly
associated with the use of acoustic waves (e.g., fathometers, echosounders, side-scan
sonars, sub-bottom profilers) and force fields (e.g., magnetometers) to characterize
and assess submerged lands (OTA 1986). Fathormeters, echosounders, and side-scan
sonars can produce images of environmental or cultural features within the water

column and on the surface of submerged lands. Sub-bottom profilers can produce
images of environmental or cultural features buried within submerged lands.

Magnetometers can detect certain materials buried within submerged lands.

Laser technology is now being applied effectively to produce high resolution

characterization of surface features on submerged lands. Laser systems provide

optical imaging to survey large areas of submerged lands. Ground penetrating radar

(GPR), an electromagnetic technology, has been applied relatively recently in
archaeology and within freshwater environments to produce sub-bottom profiles with
some success (Heimmer 1992). Unfortunately, there is a lack of scientific studies in
maritime archaeology and resource management that have used GPR as a remote-

sensing technology. Heimmer (1992:48) believes that "the penetration capabilities
of radar in the freshwater environment offers the archaeologist an excelient
exploratory method for investigating submerged sites."
Many of these technologies are designed for deployment from small boats.
Sonar technologies are sometimes deployed also from remotely-operated vehicles
55

(ROVs).
EVALUATIVE CRITERIA

Predicted Site Locations

Prehistoric terrestrial sites from 5000 - 9000 B.P. are believed to be located in

Saginaw Bay near Point Lookout, Little Oak Point, and North Charity Island. These

predictions are based on the bathymetry of the upper region of Saginaw Bay (I1857

and 1987) and the location of present-day coastal archaeological sites. Sedimentation

rates and regimes indicate that these sites will be under 10 feet or more of

sediments.

These sites are probably associated with ancient landforms. The landforms

may be distinguishable as changes in sediment density (probably increased density)

and graphic indications of buried soil horizons, or large point features (i.e., tree

stumps, rocks). Sediment stratigraphy may include peat and other organic soils.

Archaeological site features could include placed stone, fish bones, pits or

depressions, and surface hearths with burned materials. Pits or depressions may

measure 3 - 4 feet wide and 2 - 3 feet deep.

Ouerational Conditions

Saginaw Bay is a large, shallow bay extending southwest from the southern

Lake Huron basin. Some predicted site locations are protected from winds out of the

northwest; other locations are protected from winds out of the southeast. All sites

are exposed to the prevailing southwest winds of May - September. Nearby harbors

include Port Austin, Caseville, East Tawas, and Au Gres, Michigan.
56

The operational conditions expected at the predicted site locations include the

following:
*	The maxirmum depth of freshwater to bottom sediments is 30 feet.

*	Water visibility is estimated at 5 - 1 0 feet; visibility is lower with storm
surge and other disturbances of bottomland sediments. Water visibility
improves generally during winter months with decreases in primary
productivity (i.e. phytoplankton populations) (Dolan et aL. 1986).
*     The average time of freeze-up at Point Lookout for 1965 - 79 was the

last week in December. The average time of maximum ice thickness

(46 cm average maximum) was the third week in February. The

average time of ice breakup was the last week in March (Bolsenga et

al. 1988).
*     Approximately 10 feet or more of sediments need to be cored.

Bottomland sediments may range from soft, unconsolidated materials
to well-consolidated materials.
Functional Reauirements
Important functional requirements to consider in determination of appropriate
technologies are based on the project purposes, objectives for remote-sensing
operations, predicted site locations, and operational conditions. These functional
requirements and some general technical specifications include:

1 .	Platform Technologies
*	small boat(s) that can operate in depths from 5 - 30 feet of freshwater
57

*  sufficient enclosed cabin space to adequately protect electronic
equipment ancl comfortably accommodate I - 2 system operators and
1 - 2 researchers
*  power  supplies  that allow  long  periods  of continuous  survey
operations, especially to take advantage of good weather and sea

conditions
0     navigation system(s) that provide precise positioning of the boat and

rapid updates of position (near real-time) for close adherence to survey
transects. The system should provide a graphic output for the boat
operator to easily make course corrections, and for the researcher to
Verify adherence to survey transects.
2.	Remote-Sensing Technologies
0	self-contained and capable of easy deployment so that different boats

of opportunity can be used for survey
*	durable and waterproof to withstand boat operations
*	robust imaging capabilities that allow characterization of a variety of

surface and sub-bottom features
ï¿½     2-dimensional image field and target resolution; 3-D is optional, but is

probably beneficial for interpretation of surface features
*  adequate resolution to easily interpret surface features on submerged
lands that are associated with ancient landforms
*  adequate resolution to interpret sub-bottom features, discontinuities, or
58

anomalies associated with cultural materials
*	precision to measure surface features in meters
*	precision to measure sub-bottom features in centimeters

ï¿½	capability for efficient visual inspection and electronic post processing

of data

*      compatibility to easily convert data to spacial information systems and

electronic databases

3.     Underwater Coring Technologies
d deplIo ya blIe  f r om  s m all  b oat s
0     capability for retrieving cores from unconsolidated and

consolidated sediments
IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGIES
Literature Review
Appropriate technologies discussed by the OTA (1986:57-58, 69-70) and
Heimmer (1992:8-16, 37-43, 47-48) for underwater archaeology and resource

management include magnetometers, side-scan sonars, precision fathometers, sub-

bottom profilers, ground penetrating radars, and electronic positioners. Information

for selected technologies is excerpted, summarized, and updated below. These

include both passive and active, non-destructive technologies and associated

methods. Passive methods involve "measurements of naturally occurring local or
planetary fields created by earth related processes.... Active methods involve the
transmission of arn electrical, electromagnetic, or acoustic signal into the water or
59

subsurface" (Heimmer 1992:5-6). Generally, the longer the wavelength that is

transmitted, the greater is its ability to penetrate the subsurface.  But, longer

wavelengths generally result in less image resolution.

*     Magnetometers passively sense the magnetic field anomalies created
by ferrous m-aterials and other discontinuities on submerged lands or

buried in shallow sediments. Its major shortcoming is that the sensors

must be deployed relatively close to their targets because the targets'

magnetic fields attenuate rapidly. Other limitations include magnetic

noise from recent cultural materials, certain geologic conditions, and

solar activity. Magnetometers can be deployed by boats or planes.

ï¿½     Side-scan sonars transmit acoustic pulses from an instrument (i.e.,

towfish) usually deployed behind a survey boat. A receiver on the

towfish or boat detects the reflected signal and creates a graphic image

of submerged lands and features located on its surface. Images are
based on the return time and direction of each reflected signal. These

systems are readily available and enable the quick and accurate

characterization of submerged lands.

ï¿½     Laser scanning is an active, optical method that does not have the
capability of subsurface penetration. It can be viewed as a water

equivalent to aerial photography.   This system  is designed for

deployment from boats to produce high resolution panoramic surveys

at rapid area coverage rates, real time data monitoring, and storage of
60

digital images for post processing and analysis (Mooradian et al. 1 993).

Aerial laser scanning systems can image submerged lands through

shallow, clear waters.
0  Sub-bottom pro filers are sonar instruments that generate acoustical

pulses downward. These pulses are reflectedi back from sediment

layers below the surface of submerged lands. Each sediment layer

produces a discrete echo that is received and printed on strip charts or

other media. They are limited to surveying only the area directly

beneath the survey boat.

Recent developments in acoustic sub-bottom profiling have

resulted in chirp systems. Chirp utilizes the transmission of calibrated,

swept FM waveforms, combined with matched filter sonar algorithms

to allow interpretation of sub-bottom layers and objects hundreds of

feet below submerged lands. An example of a chirp profile is found

in Attachment A.

* Ground penetrating radar is an active electromagnetic subsurface

method. It introduces an electromagnetic signal, generally in the 80-

1 000 megaHertz range, into the ground or through freshwater from a

transmitting antenna. This signal then travels back to a receiving

antenna. The signal time delay, -magnitude or amplitude, phase

(negative or positive), and frequency of the received signal provides

information and images of the subsurface materials. An example of a
61

GPR profile is found in Attachment B.

0     Remotely-operated vehicles (ROVs) are robotic platforms tethered,
powered, and controlled from the survey boat. They can be equipped

with specialized work packages (e.g., manipulator arms, water jet and

suction systems, sampling devices, navigation instruments, side-scan

and sector-scanning sonar). ROVs are available from a number of

vendors as standard models and for specialized purposes in a variety

of sizes. These vendors will often customize a standard model for

specialized applications.

0     Loran and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) are available for Saginaw

Bay and have accuracy and reliability to within approximately 30 - 1 00

feet. GPS appears to have better accuracy and reliability. For greater
precision, some portable positioning systems (e.g., Motorola Mini-

Ranger Falcon) can be installed on land, but are expensive to lease and

maintain.

Side-scan sonar systems and sub-bottom profilers can produce real-time survey

images on chart paper or color monitors, and provide digital outputs for computer

enhancement and interpretation of data. Magnetometers and ground penetrating

radar have more limited real-time formats (i.e., graphic strip chart plots) but GPS data

can be acquired on magnetic tape and input to a computer for enhancement and

display in other formats for interpretation. Other types of hydro-acoustic processors

are becoming available to discriminate among lake bottom materials and that output
62

the data acquired in a formnat ready for instant computer analysis (Murphy et al.

1995).

ExD)ert ODinion

Method:

About a dozen experts in sub-bottom or subsurface survey were identified and

contacted by phone. These experts included undersea engineers, product managers,

technology development specialists, and maritime archaeologists with experience in

sub-bottom survey. They were then faxed a two-page summary of project goals and

objectives,  predicted site locations,  and  operational conditions.   Based  on

information from the fax summary and phone conversations, these experts identified

and provided opinions about various technologies they believe are needed to

successfully meet project goals and objectives. Some of these individuals provided

also product and service information, reports, and technical articles about these

technologies. This written information and notes from phone conversations are

summarized in the following sections on results. Expert opinions focused on sub-

bottom characterization, but included also comments about technologies that may

be useful after site discovery.

Results:

1.    Sub-Bottom Profilers

The chirp system was recommended over conventional sub-bottom profilers.

Chirp has a digital format that allows more flexible control over data output. It can

transmit wide band FM signals in multiple frequencies that produce good quality
63

data. Conventional sub-bottom profilers produce alot of background noise in shallow

water, although electronic accessories are available to reduce this noise. Chirp works

effectively in shallow water because it can differentiate and reduce background noise.

Chirp retains resolution much deeper than conventional bottom-profilers. It can

penetrate to 1 00 + feet. The chirp sensor can be deployed by ROV, but not over ice

because the sensor needs to be immersed. Chirp can profile buried soil horizons,

and possibly large site features like fire pits.

Datasonics has recently developed a Chirp 1I system that promotes the

following features:

*	Lightweight and portable for small boats and small budgets

*	Frequency operation from 500 Hz to 23kHz (optional)

*	User-friendly Windows graphics interface for multi-tasking

and real-time sonar and sensor data processing and display

ï¿½	Continuous digital storage and display of all seismic data

*	Capability to predict bottom material types

*	High power output (4 KW each channel)

A major weakness identified by an expert having field experience with chirp

is that the system does not appear to have compatibility with other electronics

needed to post process recorded data. Nor can it adequately incorporate the data

into a spacial information system. In addition, the playback of profiles appears to be

hardware specific.

2.    Ground Penetrating Radar
64

GPIR has better resolution than sub-bottom,profilers (including chirp). It is
highly reliable and inexpensive to deploy. GPR can be deployed from a small boat
and will work in freshwater. The system may work through ice, but there is a lack

of studies to make a determination of its effectiveness. Different sensors (antenna
arrays) are available for different conditions. GPR should be able to distinguish

buried soil horizons, as well as many site features. It works well in identifying
charcoal, or features with high mineral content or high conductivity.
3.    Side-Scan Sonar and Laser Scanning
Side-scan sonar or laser scanning would be beneficial to deploy in conjunction

with a subsurface profiling system. These technologies can detect patterns in

submerged lands topography and surface sediments that may indicate a potential for

sub-bottom features.

4.    Core Samples

Vibra-coring and conventional core sampling should be effective in well-

consolidated sediments. Gravity, piston, and boomerang corers can obtain care
sa mples up to 15 meters long in varying conditions of water depth and sediment
type. A micro-camera can be inserted into the bore hole for inspection. Soft,
unconsolidated sediments will be more difficult. Vacuum bottle systems may work,
but it would involve testing and maybe some development.
5.    Positioning for ROV Operations
Targets can be set-up underwater to delineate an underwater grid. The targets
are then tied into topside GPS coordinates. An ROV can then navigate and be
65

positioned within the grid using an acoustic scanning system.

6.     Excavation
Trench box ancd VAT (vehicle assisted tools) may work well for excavation.

Systems include water jetting, multiple cameras, and manipulators. These are fairly

user friendly systems that archaeologists without prior experience should be able to

operate.
SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS
Technology systems recommended for the next phase of the Saginaw Bay
Archaeology Project are based on the literature review and expert opinion:
1.    Test a GPR deployed from a small boat. Tests should include the use

of arn ROV outfitted with a camera to gain a better understanding of
GPR data from the Saginaw Bay area and its interpretation. If the data

are of good quality, then conduct a GPR survey while running also
side scan and sector scanning sonar. The sonars would provide clues

from topographic features that may be valuable in interpreting sub-

bottom stratigraphy.
2.    If GPR data are of poor quality or difficult to interpret, the project

should conduct sub-bottom profiling with a chirp system.
3.     Continue discussions with experts in sub-bottom profiling to better
define technical specifications necessary for the project.
4.    Assess the cost effectiveness of various underwater technologies and
operational alternatives (e.g., quality of data vs. cost, purchase of
6,6

technology vs. lease, size of boat, deployment through water or ice).

Cost effectiveness should consider whether the informational benefits
realized from different alternatives justify additional costs.
TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANCE

Corporate Contacts

Benthos
49 Edgerton Drive
North Falmouth, MA 02556-2826
(508) 563-1000

Bottom coring equipment; ROV systems; underwater imaging systems

Datasonics, Inc.
P.O. Box 8
Cataumet, MA 02534
(508) 563-5511
Seafloor imaging systems; chirp sub-bottom pro filers

DWS International
802 North Carancahua Street, Suite 750
Corpus Christi, TX 78470
(512) 883-0961
Marine engineering and survey services; sub-bottom pro filers

Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 519
Austin, TX 78767-0519
(512) 329-8342
Underwater engineering and environmental consulting
(including archaeology)

Hibbard Marine
477 Gray Woods Lane
Lake Angelus, Ml 48326
(313) 335-5710
67

Underwater survey services; GPR systems; ROV systems
Klein Associates
1 1 Klein Drive
Salem, NH 03079
(603) 893-6131

Side scan sonar systems

Marine Sonic Technology, Ltd.
5508 George Washington Memorial Highway
White Marsh, VA 23183-0730
(804) 693-9602

Side scan sonar systems; SHARPS underwater positioning and ranging

Oceaneering International, Inc.
16001 Park Ten Place, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77084
(713) 578-8868

Engineering services and hardware for operating in harsh environments,
including deep ocean search and survey

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
Maritime Technology Group
10260 Campus Point Drive, MS A3
San Diego, CA 92121
(619) 458-2639

Underwater laser imaging systems

Government Contacts

Minerals Management Service
MMS - MS 4360
381 Elden St.
Herndon, VA 22070
(703) 787-1736

National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT)
NSU Box 5682
Natchitoches, LA 71497
(318) 357-6464
68

National Park Service
Submerged Cultural Resources Unit
Intermountain Cultural Resource Center
P.O. Box 728
Santa Fe, NM 87504
(505) 988-6750
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station
3939 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
(800) 522-6937
National Undersea Research Center
University of Connecticut
Avery Point Campus
1084 Shennecossett Road
Groton, CT 06340
(203) 445-4714
69

REFERENCES CITED
Bolsenga, S.J., G.M. Greene, and K.M. Hinkel.
1988. Nearshore Great Lakes Ice Statistics. NOAA Technical Memorandum
ERL GLERL-69. Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Curran, Paul J.
1985. Principles of Remote-Sensing. Longman, New York.

Dolan, David M., N. David Warry, Ronald Rossmann, and Trefor B. Reynoldson.
1986. Lake Huron 1980 Intensive Survey Summary Report. International
joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.

Heimnmer, Don H.
1992. Near-Surface, High Resolution Geophysical Methods for Cultural
Resource Management and Archaeological Investigations. Geo-Recovery
Systems, Inc., Golden, Colorado.

Mooradian, Greg, Jay Eggert, Ed Saade, and Drew Carey.
1993. High resolution, high search-rate underwater imaging using laser line
scanning. Paper presented at IRIS, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.

Murphy, Larry, Tim Leary, and Andrew Williamson.
1995. Standardizing seabed classification techniques. Sea Technology
36(7):1 5-21.

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).
1986. Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation. Report OTA-E-
319,- U.S. Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Skytte, Kurt.
1994. Engineering a small system. IEEE Spectrum 3:63-65.
70