bs_bs_banner

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2017) 46.2: 330–345

doi: 10.1111/1095-9270.12240

Using Sector-Scan Sonar for the Survey and Management of

Submerged Archaeological Sites
Jon C. Henderson
Underwater Archaeology Research Centre, Department of Archaeology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7,
2RD, United Kingdom

Brian Abbott
Nautilus Marine Group International, 9785 Coleman Road, Haslett, MI, 48840–9327, USA

This article reports the results of using a sector-scan sonar to record diverse submerged archaeological sites in shallow and deep
water. The Kongsberg MS1000 sector-scan sonar was developed for commercial applications, typically underwater inspections
of bridges, dams, ports and harbours. The ability of the device to rapidly generate high-quality, geometrically accurate scans of
submerged features, coupled with its ease of use and deployment make it a potentially important, yet largely overlooked, tool
for survey and management of underwater archaeological sites. As one of several technologies available, the paper examines its
advantages and limitations, and considers, through case studies, under which conditions it is most effectively deployed.
© 2017 The Authors

Key words: sector-scan sonar, underwater heritage, archaeological survey.

A
ny strategy involving the protection of
underwater cultural heritage involves
quantifying, recording and, ideally, monitoring
the submerged resource. The ability to carry out
easily repeatable and accurate surveys of submerged
archaeological sites quickly and cost effectively remains
a fundamental challenge for the world heritage sector.
At present, sites are usually identified and located
using side-scan sonar. This approach often lacks the
resolution needed to assess levels of site preservation.
If a more detailed description and plan of a site are
needed, it is common practice to carry out multi-beam
surveys and/or deploy divers to record and photograph
the site by hand, but such approaches can be expensive
and time consuming. Collaborative work over the past
seven years between the Underwater Archaeology
Research Centre (University of Nottingham, UK)
and Nautilus Marine Group International (Michigan,
USA) has focused on assessing the utility of using
sector-scan sonar as an economical, fast and easy
to deploy tool to accurately locate, interrogate and
produce geometric plans of submerged archaeological
sites.
Side-scan sonar has been commercially available
since the early 1970s. Since the development of high-
frequency systems (500kHzࣙ) in the mid 1980s, they
have become firmly established tools used by maritime
archaeologists to locate submerged sites and map
areas of seabed (Green, 2004: 74–84; Ballard, 2007;
Bowens, 2009: 103–111; Plets et al., 2011). Depending
on their design, these devices emit low (LF) or high
frequency (HF)—and in some models, both LF and HF
simultaneously—sound waves into the water column
that reflect from different surfaces, and their echoed
returns generate a data set enabling the mapping of
features on the seabed. Specifications and models of
side-scan and multi-beam vary but all must either
be towed from, or mounted to, a vessel. To produce
interpretable data the survey vessel must be in constant
motion through the water, which can lead to distortions
and geometric inaccuracies in the resulting imagery;
the need to move the vessel also makes it difficult to
use side-scan and multi-beam in confined areas or in
shallow water of less than 3–4m depth or close to shore.
Sector-scan sonar operates in much the same way
as side-scan and multi-beam systems; by sending high-
frequency sound energy into the water column. In
contrast, it operates from a stationary position on the
seabed, which serves to enhance the accuracy of the
acoustic data recovered within scans (Fig. 1). The device
is well suited to the archaeological objective of mapping
smaller areas and features in detail from fixed positions.
Sector-scan sonars generally have scanning ranges of
5–100m and perform full 360° continuous scans,
creating highly detailed circular sonar images of the
area around the unit’s location. Sector-scan sonar has

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
J. HENDERSON & B. ABBOTT: SECTOR-SCAN SONAR FOR UNDERWATER SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT

Figure 1. a) The Kongsberg MS 1000 sector scanner as it is deployed underwater. The device is secured within a protective
tripod, which is lowered on to the seabed. Note the large circular pads on the legs of the tripod to ensure the seabed is not
penetrated or damaged during deployment (Photo: Andy Torbet); b) The sector scanner being deployed from a small boat over
the submerged Bronze Age town at Pavlopetri, Laconia, Greece (Photo: Jon Henderson).

been deployed to full ocean depth (10,800m) but,
significantly for archaeological work, this system can
also be used in extremely shallow water.
Sector-scanning sonar first appeared in 1983, but
although high-frequency models have been available
since 1999, it has not been widely used in underwater
archaeology. This article presents the results of work
on a range of underwater archaeological sites to
clarify the conditions and requirements under which
the deployment of sector-scan sonar is useful to the
archaeologist. It is the intention of the authors to set
out not only the advantages of sector scan but also
its limitations. No one survey system offers a complete
solution—each has their strengths and weaknesses.
Equally, as archaeologists are well aware, every site and
project is unique; the survey approach depends on the
aims of the work and limiting physical factors such as
visibility and depth, as well as practical considerations
such as time and money.
Sector-scan sonar
Sector-scan sonars, also referred to as radial or
mechanically scanning sonars, or scanning sonar,
are capable of full and continuous 360° coverage.
Instead of using a vessel to move the sonar, a
built-in motor turns the transducer. The angular
rotational change between two successive ‘pings’ is
determined by the gearing of the motor used to turn
the transducer and its gear ratio—called ‘step size’—
selected by the sonar operator. Different models offer
transducers with varying beam angles and frequencies.
For imaging applications as herein described, a ‘fan-
beam transducer’ with narrow horizontal and wide
vertical coverage is employed. The beam angles of
the transducer are determined by the height, width,
length, and frequency of the transducer. Typical beam
angles are 0.7˚–3.0˚ in the horizontal plane and
25˚–40˚ in the vertical. The wider the horizontal beam
angle, the quicker a 360o scan can be completed, but
there is a resulting trade-off in resolution. Generally,
using narrower horizontal beam angles, although
it takes longer to complete a full circular sweep,
produces more geometrically reliable images. As the
sonar scans in a circle, or any portion of a circle,
targets in the sonars ‘field of view’ are displayed
in real time on a computer display, making it a
useful prospection and identification tool during seabed
surveys. Originally designed as forward-looking sonars
for obstacle avoidance on ROVs, the resolution of
current sector-scan models (675kHz and higher) make
them ideal for conducting measured geometric surveys
of submerged features.
A range of models of sector-scanning systems are
manufactured by sonar companies including Tritech,
Furuno, Sonavision, JW Fishers, and Kongsberg
Maritime. The work reported in this article was
conducted using the Kongsberg Mesotech MS1000
High-Resolution Sector-scanning Sonar. This system
consists of a Kongsberg Mesotech high-resolution
sonar head connected to a power supply/telemetry
converter via a Kevlar R
strengthened electrical
umbilical (Fig. 1). A standard USB cable connects the
converter to the computer running MS1000 software.
For archaeological mapping applications, the sonar
head is most often tripod-deployed, typically from

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 331
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.2
a small boat, ship, platform, or directly from the
shore if the site to be surveyed is close enough and
there is enough umbilical reach. Operational depth is
a function of each system’s design—the Kongsberg
Mesotech high-resolution head has a depth rating of
3000m—and the umbilical length used, with 75–100m
as standard. Umbilicals measuring 200–250m are
regularly used by commercial survey companies in
the Gulf of Mexico, however. The only additional
requirement is to power the sonar and the laptop that
it connects to, which can be easily done from a vessel’s
AC voltage supply, from a battery-powered sine wave
inverter, or small portable generator, as 1000-watt
capacity is more than ample.
The method of deployment is simple and does not
usually require divers in the water; the tripod is simply
lowered via the umbilical to the bottom by hand, and
recovered the same way. On larger projects operating
at greater depths, a deck winch or crane can be used.
Once the tripod is positioned on the seabed, scanning
proceeds, and the sonar image is viewed in real time on
the surface as data is collected.
The MS1000 fan-beam imaging sonar head transmits
a very narrow horizontal acoustic beam that is swept
radially, so the returning echoes indicate the distance
and angle to the many target reflectors. The sonar
head used for the case studies below has a 675kHz
transducer with 0.9o horizontal and 30o vertical beam
angles. With each 675kHz ‘ping’, sound energy is
transmitted via the transducer into the water column.
This energy travels away from the sonar head until it
encounters discontinuity in the propagation medium—
an acoustically reflective surface—such as the seabed,
fish, man-made targets, and so on. Depending on the
target surface’s shape, size, and reflective properties, the
echoed signal returned to the transducer is typically
a miniscule percentage of the originally transmitted
pulse. The acoustic energy, which is actually a pressure
wave, is converted by the transducer into voltage,
with the voltage level being indicative of the pressure
intensity of the echo from its respective target. The
voltage is sampled in the time domain, processed,
and matched to a corresponding pixel within the
sonar’s computer display. The sonar’s selected range
and number of pixels assigned to plotting each ‘ping’
on the sonar display determines the spatial size of each
pixel. For example: with the MS1000 software, there are
typically 476 pixels assigned to each ping. At a 10m
range each pixel represents a theoretical distance of
0.021m (10m/476 samples) within the sonar’s display.
After each ping, the system resets, and the MS1000
program sends a command to the sonar head and
the motor steps the transducer in parts of a degree
to a new azimuth angle and the process is repeated.
This is done until the arc of selected coverage or a
full 360° circular sweep is completed and then the
process begins again. The scan radius is selected by the
operator and may range in distance from 5–100m for
the 675kHz frequency head. It normally takes between
332 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
30 seconds and two minutes to complete an individual
scan, depending on range, once the head is deployed on
the seabed. As is common with sonar imaging, when
range increases the resolution of the image decreases in
both the range and transverse dimensions.
When using a tripod-deployed sonar head, the
position is fixed. Scans collected have increased relative
target positional accuracy with each scan. Another
advantage of sonar scanning is that different ranges
may be generated from a single position. Since the
location is the same, scans of a variety of ranges can be
directly overlaid, without having to adjust for positional
changes, as is the case with side-scan sonar.
Case studies
Since 2009, the authors have deployed the MS 1000
scanning sonar at numerous archaeological sites in
a wide variety of water conditions and depths. This
evaluation work has included the full range of sites
an underwater archaeologist may reasonably expect to
encounter from shipwrecks and sunken settlements to
harbours and drowned archaeological landscapes in
both freshwater and marine environments.
It is possible to obtain measurable, geometrically
accurate images of archaeological features in a matter
of minutes from a single drop. Though, of course, the
number of scans needed depends on the size of the
feature being imaged and the level of detail required.
For example, the Tramp shipwreck, a tug built in
1926 that sank in 14m in Grand Traverse Bay, Lake
Michigan, USA in the 1970s, was imaged from one
drop in just less than ten minutes, accounting for two
minutes scanning time and eight minutes to deploy and
recover the unit (Fig. 2). The resulting 30m radius scan
reveals a full plan view of the semi-intact 16.7m tug
with some wreckage just to the south. Significantly, to
the east of the vessel, which sits in 14m of water, a
clear anchor drag mark can be seen in the lakebed.
This drag line (less than 0.10m in depth) is barely
visible to divers or an ROV camera and reveals the
level of detail that can be obtained using the sector
scanner. Such detailed information on the surrounding
environment of shipwrecks is vital in determining levels
of preservation and identifying possible threats.
As can be seen from the Tramp image, in much
the same way as a terrestrial laser-scanner cannot
see through solid objects, the sector scan produces
an acoustic ‘shadow’ behind upstanding features. To
overcome the problems of acoustic ‘shadow’, the sonar
head can be redeployed at additional locations around
structures to map the areas in ‘shadow’. A mosaic can
then be created of all the scans taken of a given area to
eliminate shadows and produce a highly detailed and
accurately scaled composite master image.
With shipwrecks, this normally consists of at least
four separate scan locations around the wreck to
eliminate areas of acoustic ‘shadow’. For example, a
J. HENDERSON & B. ABBOTT: SECTOR-SCAN SONAR FOR UNDERWATER SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT

Figure 2. 30m-radius scan of the Tramp shipwreck, Grand Traverse Bay, Lake Michigan, USA.

mosaic image of SS Milwaukee, a railroad car ferry that
sank in Lake Michigan, 22 October 1929, was created
from seven 40m-radius scans (Fig. 3). The vessel lies in
27–37m of water and has a length of 103m and beam of
17m. The scanning sonar was hand-deployed from the
support boat in a gimbaled tripod and positioned on the
lakebed roughly 5–10m from the wreck. Deployment
depths are marked on the umbilical and within 10m of
the bottom the sonar unit can be turned on to guide the
unit safely to the seabed. When scanning was completed
at a drop location, the tripod was lifted 10–15m above
the lakebed and repositioned. A total of seven drops
were needed to completely cover the vessel and the
surrounding lakebed. The amount of time to complete
the survey was two hours, or approximately 15 minutes
per drop, including scanning and the time needed to
move location.
As with the vast majority of sector-scan operations,
the Tramp and SS Milwaukee surveys did not require
divers in the water to position the unit on the lakebed.
Divers are generally not used to deploy and position the
tripod, unless there is a particular advantage in having
them do so, such as orienting the sonar head over an
exact point on the seabed, or placing the unit inside the
hull of a vessel to scan its internal features and shape.
In 2009 and 2010, the sector scanner was deployed at
the sunken Bronze Age town of Pavlopetri located off
the Pounta shore, opposite the island of Elaphonisos, in
southern Laconia, Greece (Harding et al., 1969). It was
used as part of the Pavlopetri Underwater Archaeology
Project, which is committed to recording the submerged
remains of the town in as much detail as possible. This
site has become a testing ground for new and innovative
scientific approaches to underwater survey. This meant

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 333
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.2
Figure 3. Seven 40m-radius scans of the SS Milwaukee, Lake Michigan, USA (Authors)
that the performance of the sector-scan sonar could
be tested against the various other techniques used
including high-resolution swath bathymetry, side-scan
sonar, sub-bottom profiling, optical robotic techniques
and shore-based total station survey (Henderson et al.,
2011; 2013).
The town appears as a series of large spreads of
stones among which a network of stone walls can be
traced (Fig. 4). The main upstanding remains cover
an area of approximately four hectares of seabed,
beginning almost immediately from the shore and
extending to a depth of 3.5m. The walls themselves
are made of uncut aeolianite, sandstone, and limestone
blocks and were built without mortar. They can survive
up to three stones in height, but the vast majority
survive only one course high or embedded into and
flush with the seabed.
Over the space of just ten days the whole site
was mapped using the sector scanner. Given the
shallow nature of the site, the position of the sector
scanner was surveyed using a shore-based total station.
All of the upstanding structural elements of the
site—buildings, streets, courtyards, walls, and graves—
were recorded alongside details of the topography of
the seabed. Typical scan radii used for the submerged
structures at Pavlopetri ranged from 100m scans of
building complexes, covering a total sea-floor area
of 31,000m2 , down to high-resolution 5m scans of
areas of importance such as cist graves (Figs 4 and
5). Image resolution was generally improved, enabling
334 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
individual features to be recognized, by moving the
sonar head closer to the feature being imaged. In terms
of recording individual buildings, scan radii between 15
and 30m were found to be most effective, producing
measured scans in which the individual stones used in
the construction of the walls were visible (Fig. 6). In
order to fully image individual buildings at Pavlopetri,
at least one scan from within each was needed, backed
up by at least four separate scan locations around its
perimeter of the walls to eliminate areas of acoustic
‘shadow’.
Compared to the other sonar techniques used on
the site, the sector scanner was able to achieve the
most coverage and the best geometric resolution due
to its ability to operate in shallow water. It functioned
best as a rapid-prospection tool to locate and record
new features and sections of the site. In addition to
recording the 30,000 square metres of buildings first
identified in 1968, more than 9000 square metres of new
structures, buildings, and cist graves were discovered
using the sector scanner. One of the most important
discoveries was the identification and recording of a
large trapezoidal structure, measuring c.34m in length
and 12–17m in width (Fig. 7). On the seabed, viewed
by a diver, it was difficult to visualize how the walls of
this structure related to each other due the large area
covered by the building. Scans revealed the structure
contained at least three separate rooms and was either
a fully roofed building or an open-walled courtyard
with buildings situated within. The scanner was also
J. HENDERSON & B. ABBOTT: SECTOR-SCAN SONAR FOR UNDERWATER SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT

Figure 4. a) 100m-radius sector scan of Pavlopetri. Scanner is located 10m to the south of Building IX in Area C; b) view of
a room in Building II at Pavlopetri. The diver is positioned over the entrance threshold stone to the room (Photo: Chris Doyal);
c) plan showing area covered in the scan (Authors).

effective in scanning the remains of rock-cut tombs
on a bedrock ridge in shallow water of less than
1m where multi-beam and side-scan was impossible
(Fig. 8). Covering the extents of the site with the sector
scanner allowed total station survey and more detailed
stereo-vision photogrammetric missions to be identified
and planned.
In 2012, scanning sonar was deployed in Loch na
h-Àirde on the Rubh’ anDùnain peninsula of Skye,
Scotland, to record the submerged remains of suspected
Viking harbour works (Martin, 2009; Martin and
Martin, 2017). The site presented a challenge in that
it is located in a shallow, silty loch with poor visibility
ranging from 1m to nil. The resulting sonar map of
the site (Fig. 9), made from a mosaic of three 50m-
radius scans, clearly shows a large stone-built linear
structure, interpreted as a quay, extending some 80m
in a SW/NE direction. The quay structure sits some
0.75m off the silty loch bed and features a gap providing
access for boats to an artificially cut channel to the
south leading to the sea. The work was completed
in just two hours. Acoustic scans were collected at
three locations: two in the loch itself at depths of 1.3
and 1.5m and one from the entrance of the artificial
channel cut into the loch in a water depth of less than
0.30m. The scanner performed well despite the poor
visibility and shallow depths. The scan of the channel
clearly demonstrates that as long as the sonar head
is submerged, scanning can generate highly detailed
imagery.
To contrast the shallow conditions encountered in
Skye, the sector scanner was used in 80–100m of water
off the coast of western Sicily, Italy, as part of the
2013 season of the Battle of the Egadi Islands Project.
The battle site of the Egadi Islands, a decisive naval
encounter between the Carthaginians and Romans that
effectively ended the First Punic War in 241 BC, is
the first ancient naval battle site to have been located
on the seabed. The general location of the battle was
identified in 2004 and since then more than 210km2
of the sea-floor has been mapped using multi-beam
sonar by a joint team from the Soprintendenza del Mare
della Regione Sicilia and RPM Nautical Foundation
(Royal and Tusa, 2012). As the resolution of the multi-
beam used—a 297–303kHz hull-mounted Kongsberg
EM3002D—was insufficient to identify the remains
of the battle site, a Panther XT SAAB ROV was
deployed from the research vessel to painstakingly
search the seabed. Using this search method, two main
concentrations of artefacts across 10km2 have been
identified consisting of bronze warship rams, of which
11 have so far been identified, helmets, amphoras,
ballast stones, ship fittings, and a possible stone anchor.
Finds located by the ROV were given GPS co-ordinates

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 335
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.2
Figure 5. a) Close-up 10m-radius scan of a cist grave; b) divers recording a cist grave (Photo: Jon Henderson).
using the transponder on the ROV and underwater
acoustic beacons.
The sector scanner was used to provide more detail
on the relative position and, crucially, orientation
of artefacts on the seabed—it was not possible to
determine orientation from GPS fixes and the multi-
beam was unable to resolve small objects such as
helmets and amphoras on the seabed (Fig. 10a-b).
As the discovery of a submerged ancient sea-battle
landscape is currently unique, there is an enhanced
responsibility to map the layout of the remains as
accurately as possible. The exact recording of the
positions of artefacts and ship remains on the site is
of paramount importance as only with this contextual
information can we begin to reconstruct how the battle
was fought and examine how the remains on the
seabed relate to the classical accounts of the battle.
In particular, the position of the bronze warship rams
and associated material may reveal something about the
naval tactics used during the battle. The sector scanner
was also useful as a prospection tool as it was capable
336 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
of identifying targets sitting just 0.10–0.20m proud of
the flat sandy seabed at Egadi. The location of a bronze
warship ram (Egadi 11) sitting on the seabed is instantly
recognizable through the distinctive acoustic shadow it
casts (Fig. 10c), while a further scan reveals details of
the ram itself with the cowl and shape of the fins clearly
visible (Fig. 10d). An advantage of working from a fixed
position is that the scanner can be used to track moving
objects. During the Egadi survey, as well as mapping,
the sonar was used to direct the ROV to particular
artefacts.
As awareness of the importance of submerged
landscapes in examining key questions in human
development grows, the need for quick and effective
means of imaging the often ephemeral features
of prehistoric submerged remains will increase.
Instruments such as scanning sonar will have an
important role in future prospection and recording
of submerged landscapes. In 2014 the sector scanner
was used to record the remains of a 9000-year-old
caribou-hunting structure 37m beneath the surface
J. HENDERSON & B. ABBOTT: SECTOR-SCAN SONAR FOR UNDERWATER SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT

Figure 6. Building IX at Pavlopetri: a) 15m-radius scan b) location; c) plan; d) photo (Authors).

of Lake Huron in the North American Great Lakes
(O’Shea et al., 2014). The 50m-radius acoustic scan
(Fig. 11b) revealed the structure through the non-
random arrangement of stones on the lake bottom.
From this scan it was possible to produce a topographic
plan of the cultural features of the hunting trap
(Fig. 11a) revealing the locations of hunting blinds,
cobbled surfaces, and bedrock. The resolution of the
scanner allowed the locations of individual worked
lithics to be recorded, which could later be recovered
by divers.
The archaeological survey of rivers has been largely
neglected, although they are likely to be rich in
archaeological remains, mainly as a result of the
difficulties involved in surveying in shallow water with
often poor visibility. In 2015 the sector scanner was
tested along parts of the Thames in water depths of
1.5m and less. Measured scans of the river channel
were easily obtained showing submerged remains and
features such as dredging marks, piers and weirs in
considerable detail (Fig. 12). At this level of resolution,
unknown submerged structures such as river crossings,
bridges, and historic watercraft can be easily identified
and mapped. Details of the character of river channels
and impact of activities such as dredging are likely
to be of considerable importance in terms of river
management and the impact of this on historic sites.
The ease of deployment and speed of the scanner
suggest it could be a valuable tool in tracking historic
changes in river channels over time.
Discussion
It is clear, from the examples quoted above, that when
used with a fan-beam imaging sonar head, the MS1000
system can capture real-time imagery of submerged
features to the level of detail required for effective
archaeological work. Being a sonar, image resolution
is dependent on range—as the distance of an object
from the scanning head increases, the quality of the
image decreases because the geometric beam spreads
as it travels through the water column. As a result, it
is important to define the minimum size of objects and
features to be resolved.
The MS 1000 scanning sonar has a three-
dimensional beam angle. From the face of the

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 337
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.2

Figure 7. Large trapezoidal structure, measuring c.34m in length and 12–17m in width, found with the sector scanner at
Pavlopetri in 2009: a) plan; b) and c) wall details; d)) sector scan (Authors).

transducer the beam projects vertically outward at 30°

and at 0.9° horizontally. Knowing the beam angles and
the target size to be identified, a simple mathematical
formula is used to determine the size of the target that
can be resolved. The formula is the acoustic ‘footprint’
X = 2D(tan [θ /2]) where X is the target size, D is
distance from the sonar head to target, and θ is the
beam angle. Using this equation for the MS1000, in
30.5m (100ft) of water and a 0.9 degree beam angle
we can resolve a target 0.50m (1.7ft) wide. In practice
you can detect smaller targets than this if their acoustic
response is higher than the surrounding background
reverberation, but you cannot measure these targets in
the transvers plane with reliable accuracy. To accurately
resolve smaller targets one must move the tripod closer
to the target and reduce range. The ability to move
closer to a target is an advantage the scanning sonar
has over other sonar-based systems as multi-beam is
fixed to a vessel’s hull thus distance to target is defined Figure 8. Two 20m-radius scan of two rock-cut tombs at
by depth, and side-scan has a minimum safety tow Pavlopetri combined to create a 40m-diameter scan; the
height above bottom. upstanding edges of the tombs are clearly defined (Authors).
Effective scan radii for archaeological purposes were
found to be in the 20–100m range, with scan ranges
below 50m more suited to obtaining accurate geometric depends on the size of the target being imaged and the
plans of archaeological sites and those above 50m archaeological objectives of the survey. For example,
useful for prospecting the seabed to locate potential during our work, large shipwrecks were best scanned in
targets. The trade-off between range versus resolution the 40–60m range while detailed stone-by-stone images

338 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
J. HENDERSON & B. ABBOTT: SECTOR-SCAN SONAR FOR UNDERWATER SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT

Figure 9. ‘Viking harbour’ feature in in Loch na h-Àirde, Skye, composed of three 50m-radius scans (Authors).

of the buildings at Pavlopetri were best achieved using
20–40m scan radii. Detailed scans of smaller objects
such as cist graves or bronze rams were done in the
5–15m range. Full 360° scans of areas normally took
between 30 and 90 seconds to generate once the sonar
was positioned on the seabed.
The sector-scan sonar can be deployed in depths
of up to 11,000m but, crucially for archaeological
application, it can also be used in extremely shallow
water: as long as the sonar head is immersed it will
function. It can thus operate in depths of water as
shallow as 0.30m and obtain accurate data. As we have
seen the scanner has been effectively used for shallow
coastal marine and river survey and given its ability to
work in very shallow water it could even be used in
wetland locations.
It is important to note that throughout our
evaluation of the scanning sonar at archaeological sites
in a variety of submerged environments, image quality
was not seen to be impacted by water current, poor
water visibility or other optical impediments. As the
scanner uses sound to image, the amount of sediment
in the water column does not adversely affect the image
quality until there is extreme sediment loading.
The MS1000 sonar operating software is user
friendly and it has built-in tools allowing the
real-time measurement of underwater target
dimensions and the spatial relationships of multiple

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 339
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.2

Figure 10. a) 30m-diameter scan of Egadi seabed, the centre triangle is the sector-scan unit, to the left of the unit the ROV can
clearly be seen, the other upstanding features are amphora targets on the seabed; b) amphora target on the seabed; c) 15m scan
with the clear profile and acoustic shadow of a bronze ram (Egadi 11) as located on the seabed; d) 5m-radius scan of the Egadi
11 ram showing cowl and fin detail; e) photograph of the Egadi 11 ram on the seabed (Photo: RPM Nautical Foundation).

underwater targets, which are of particular use to
archaeologists. As with side-scan and multi-beam
sonar systems, accuracy is ensured by entering in-water
sound speed to the MS1000, which it will calculate
when correct variables of temperature, salinity, and
pressure are known. Target distance and all sonar
measurements use a speed-of-sound constant as a
scaling factor. Using the wrong speed of sound leads
to measurement errors; having the ability to enter the
correct sound-speed value in real time or during data
playback with the MS1000 program is an important
feature.
Also, given a known GPS reference point and
the sonar heading, the software can instantaneously
calculate and display the GPS points of any viewed
sonar target. As the sonar head rotates it produces

340 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
J. HENDERSON & B. ABBOTT: SECTOR-SCAN SONAR FOR UNDERWATER SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT

Figure 11. A 9000-year-old caribou-hunting structure on the bottom of Lake Huron in the North American Great Lakes, USA;
a) plan based on the sector scan with black dots representing the location of placed stones (O’Shea et al., 2014); b) sector scan:
the light-coloured areas are stones that produce a strong acoustic signature; dark areas are acoustic shadows (Authors).

a constantly updating image of the seabed on the
computer screen. This allows the operator to assess and
monitor static features and moving targets. The data
stream is recordable and is stored digitally as individual
(.smb) files that can be replayed and examined in detail
at any time using the MS1000 software. Screen images
can be extracted from the .smb data as .bmp, .png or
geo-referenced .tiff files, which, for the latter, can then
be loaded into widely available GIS or digital image
applications for further work. For example, a mosaic
of .tiff images of an archaeological site taken from
different vantage points can provide highly detailed
composite images. In this regard, the sector-scan sonar
is similar to terrestrial-based, geo-referenced, photo-
mosaic systems that are repositioned around targets to
ensure that the survey captures all the visible features of
a site.
Obtaining accurate locations of the in-water sonar
unit on the seabed is the biggest challenge. Normal
practice is to deploy the sonar as close as possible to the
GPS receiver on the vessel, or alternately use a handheld
GPS receiver, and log the GPS co-ordinates once the
tripod is set on the bottom and the umbilical is still
vertically taut. In shallow water (<8m), this method
is effective, but in deeper water estimating a position
by using a taut umbilical limits accuracy to metres,
especially if the tripod is deployed in a current.
When collecting a number of scans to cover an area of
seabed, known target reference points and/or common
features are used to align successive scans. If known
geo-referenced positions are present and visible, these
are used to geo-reference scans either instantaneously
or during data playback. Typically scans are mosaicked
using a combination of common sonar features and
known target positions. The MS1000 software allows
target positions to be marked to establish bearings and
calibrate the sonar position. It is also worth noting
that the MS1000 is available with an optional internal
compass, which is essential for archaeological work.
Of course, the compass may be affected by proximity
to ferrous material, but with the MS 1000 software
common reference points between scans can be entered
to calculate the sonar position and true heading of the
sonar. Equally, of course, locations can be surveyed in
and established by divers, or positioned through the
use of acoustic underwater beacons or an underwater
acoustic positioning system; this obviously reduces the
speed and cost effectiveness of using scanning sonar.
Alongside the limitations with positioning, the
tripod and cable deployment method can create further
problems. The survey vessel needs to be able to hold
its position for the time it takes for the sonar unit
to complete a scan. This works well in calm seas but
in strong currents and/or winds the boat needs to be
positioned correctly to keep it from running over the
sonar umbilical. Using the anchor may seem the most
obvious solution but, in practice, this is rarely done
during mapping and prospection operations due to
the time involved in repeatedly placing and recovering
the anchor. More importantly, the potential damage
anchors can cause to archaeologically sensitive areas
must be considered. Instead, some leeway for moving

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 341
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.2

Figure 12. A mosaic of four 50m-radius scans provide a plan of the submerged structure of the historic Sunbury Weir in the
River Thames built in 1812. The edges and floor of the river channel are clearly defined and evidence of the remnants of dredging
can be seen in the upper northern part of the scan (Authors).

off location is provided by attaching surface floats to the
cable on the surface after the tripod has been positioned
on the bottom. Umbilical slack is given out as the vessel
moves away from the scanning location. Obviously
the effectiveness of this technique is dependent on
weather, current and sea conditions and in changeable
conditions there is a danger of snagging the cable on
the wreck or structure being mapped. The tripod is
designed to stay upright in 3 knots of current and
standing on up to 10˚ of slope. It can be knocked over
but generally is easily lifted a few metres and then
repositioned. On areas of sloping, uneven or cluttered
seabed, however, it may not be possible to deploy the
tripod at all.
In terms of wreck survey, as we have seen, the unit has
to be positioned around the wreck being imaged. Given
the sonar head is mounted close to the bottom when
tripod-deployed, sitting some 1.3m from the seabed, its
ability to image very upstanding features is dependent
on distance. Close in (c.20m or less) the unit struggles
to see the detail of structures taller than itself, meaning
that when mapping a tall wreck the outer sides can be
well recorded but not the top or any upper deck detail.
Of course, a multi-beam suffers from the opposite
problem where the upper parts of a structure can be
well mapped and the sides less so, as it is mounted or
towed looking downwards through the water column.
Moreover, a multi-beam cannot be positioned under or
inside a wreck.
No single technology provides a complete under-
water survey solution. In terms of scale, the scanning
sonar sits somewhere in the middle ground between
the use of multi-beam and side-scan for large area
sonar mapping and the use of localized diver-intensive
approaches such as 3D photogrammetry for detailed
recording. There are important differences in the types
of data produced. Multi-beam units generate 3D point
clouds whereas sector scanning and side-scan sonar
produce 2D acoustic backscatter imagery. Acoustic
shadows can be measured to determine the height
of objects and features but the resulting imagery
is essentially 2D. Once set up, multi-beam units,
fixed on the hull of vessels or towed behind them,
can collect geo-referenced data continuously, whereas
sector-scanning units have to be moved and positioned
between scans. Under most circumstances, therefore,
covering large areas of seabed can be most effectively
done using multi-beam or side-scan.

342 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
J. HENDERSON & B. ABBOTT: SECTOR-SCAN SONAR FOR UNDERWATER SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT

Figure 13. Different range scans can be overlaid in post processing to create the most detailed scans possible (after Atherton,
2011: 5.20).

That said, scanning sonar offers more flexibility in
improving the resolution of scan data in that a unit can
be moved closer to a target and can carry out different
range scans from the same fixed position. With multi-
beam, resolution is a function of depth, assuming a
fixed frequency system, as the transverse footprint of
the beams widen with range. This is also true of sector-
scan sonar, but it can be moved closer to a target to
improve resolution, whereas with a hull-mounted multi-
beam, the distance from the transducer to the target
area is determined by water depth. As sector-scan units
sit on the seabed, the operator can collect data using
different range scans (from 5–100m radius) irrespective
of water depth. The operator has the ability to change
range to carry out long-range scans with less resolution
and higher-resolution short-range scans from the same
position. When data processing, higher-resolution data
can then be layered over larger, lower resolution scans.
In other words scanning from one position can produce
highly detailed scans of archaeological features and
place them in their wider context (Fig. 13). As a result
the sector scanner has a particular use in producing

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 343
NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 46.2
detailed scans of submerged landscape features, seen
in the Lake Huron and Egadi Islands examples, as the
option to move the unit closer to smaller objects or
features on the seabed exists.
Typical multi-beam swath coverage is three times
the water depth. On shallow-water sites this becomes
a limiting factor. For example, at the sunken town of
Pavlopetri in Greece, which sits in 3.5m of water or less,
multi-beam was reduced to a 9m swath, whereas the
sector scanner could achieve detailed 360° scans with
a 40m radius and lower resolution scans up to 100m
(see Figs 4–8). With a dual-head multi-beam system
a wider coverage can be achieved but then equipment
cost can become an issue. Certainly in confined shallow
waters such as lakes and rivers, sector scan offers more
area coverage and the ability to gather data in very
shallow water. There is also the advantage that the
sector scanner does not require a vessel and can be
deployed from the shore, making it a good option when
surveying in inaccessible inland areas and along rocky
shorelines.
Multi-beam, side-scan and sector-scan sonars are
in many respects complementary tools: the selection
of when to use a sector scan depends very much on
the resources and, most importantly, the type of site
being surveyed and the aims of that survey. If needing
to quickly assess the state of preservation of a range
of wrecks in different places in a single day, a sector
scanner is a useful tool as it can be quickly deployed
and redeployed at a range of locations. If coverage
of a large continuous area is required, however, then
multi-beam or side-scan sonar is generally a better
option. Equally, if the detailed recording of one smaller
site is the objective, then diver-based photogrammetry
provides the best results. In practice, using a range
of sonar and optical techniques provides the most
complete coverage. At Pavlopetri, the sector scanner
was most useful as a prospection tool to locate new
features and walls running up to the shoreline. The
sector-scan data not only identified areas to be surveyed
in with the total station but also allowed for the
planning and prioritization of photogrammetric work
on the site in order to maximize results. All three data
sets at Pavlopetri—sonar, photogrammetry, and total
station—were combined, complementing each other to
achieve more extensive coverage than would be possible
using just a single technique.
Conclusion
The ability to visualize submerged archaeological
features and produce measured scans of them in a
matter of minutes has obvious advantages to the
practice of underwater archaeology. Use of the sector
scanner is particularly suited to the prospection and
rapid mapping of features in a range of inland and
shallow-water environments, as well as in conditions
where water visibility is poor.
344 © 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society.
Selection of the sector scanner as an effective
archaeological survey tool depends on the environment
of the site being recorded. In 2015 the sector scanner
was used by the authors to map more than 7 hectares of
the submerged 17th-century English port town of Port
Royal in Jamaica where multi-beam is hampered by
shallow depths of less than 2.5m and photogrammetric
approaches are extremely limited as a result of very low
visibility (less than 1m), and moving sea grass.
A significant advantage of sector-scanning sonar
over techniques operating from the surface is the
ability to move closer to features being scanned to
obtain higher-resolution images and the ability to
generate multiple scans of both the same and different
ranges from a fixed point. Operating from a fixed
position the sector scanner can effectively perform the
archaeological objective of planning sites in detail as
the location of areas being scanned can be tightly
controlled. While this is ideal for producing plans of
submerged features, the scans produced are limited
in that they are two-dimensional .tiffs and not three-
dimensional photogrammetric or multi-beam models.
It is possible to investigate and scan a range of sites
in a single day using the sector-scan sonar and the
fact that it produces instantaneous results in the field
could have an importance when decisions regarding
mitigating threats to sites need to be made on the
spot. Alongside recording submerged landscapes, the
potential role of the scanner in future site monitoring
and management strategies is perhaps one of its most
important aspects. Not only can it be positioned at a
remove from a feature while still acquiring a full survey,
it is relatively simple to deploy the scanner over known
points, to revisit and quickly rescan important areas,
and, as a result, build up a detailed record of a site over
time. In this way, changing levels of deterioration and
degradation on submerged sites are more quickly and
cost-effectively monitored than strategies involving the
deployment of divers or underwater robotic vehicles.
The sector-scan sonar offers a solution to one of the
constant challenges in underwater archaeology, namely
obtaining geometric surveys of underwater features
quickly, accurately, and cost effectively. Sector-scan
sonar systems are portable and suitable for use from
the shore or from vessels or platforms of all sizes,
from inflatable RIBs to ships; the key factor being
that a power source is present. Financial considerations
may be one of the most important in terms of
the low levels of funding generally experienced in
underwater archaeology. Certainly more technically
advanced systems exist but in terms of ease of use,
deployment, and overall financial cost of using the kit,
the sector-scan sonar is an attractive option for a poorly
resourced and underfunded discipline.
New technologies are constantly being developed but
the sector scanner is a tough and reliable system with a
proven record of use over many years in the commercial
sector, and as such has an established method of
operation in the field and is well supported by robust
J. HENDERSON & B. ABBOTT: SECTOR-SCAN SONAR FOR UNDERWATER SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT

software (Atherton, 2011). Other than the unit itself, it
requires no specialist equipment, no intensive training
course to operate, can be quickly deployed, and
produces high-resolution measured scans with little or
no need for further post processing of the data. It can
be used in almost any submerged environment, is not
dependent on calm water or good visibility, and can
operate in depths of 0.30–11,000m. It produces easy-to-
understand scans of underwater sites and as such has
the potential to allow not only archaeologists but also
the wider public to more easily visualize, interpret, and
understand marine cultural heritage.

Acknowledgements
Thank you to everyone who helped us in the field especially Angeliki Simosi, Elias Spondylis, the Ephorate of Underwater
Antiquities, the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports; Catherine Morgan, British School at Athens; Sebastiano Tusa,
Soprintendenza del Mare Regione Sicilia, Jeffrey Royal, George Robb, RPM Nautical Foundation; Colin, Edward and Paula
Martin, Historic Environment Scotland; John O’Shea, Mark Holley and Brian Minehane. We would like to thank the IJNA
reviewers for their extremely useful comments and suggestions. In particular we would like to thank Mark Atherton for
commenting on the paper in draft and significantly improving the quality of the final submission.

References
Atherton, M.W., 2011, Echoes and Images: The Encyclopedia of Side-Scan and Scanning Sonar Operations. OysterInk
Publications, Bellingham, WA, USA.
Ballard, R.D., 2007, Archaeological Oceanography, in M.A. Jochim, R.S. Dickens, J. Wiseman and F. El-Baz (eds), Remote
Sensing in Archaeology, 479–97. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, Springer, New York.
Bowens, A. (ed.), 2009, Underwater Archaeology. The NAS Guide to Principles and Practice (second edition). The Nautical
Archaeology Society, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
Green, J., 2004, Maritime Archaeology: A Technical Handbook (second edition). Elsevier Academic Press, Oxford.
Harding, A.F., Cadogan, G. and Howell, R., 1969, Pavlopetri, an underwater Bronze Age town in Laconia. Annual of the British
School at Athens 64, 112–142.
Henderson, J. C., Gallou, C., Flemming, N. and Spondylis, E., 2011, The Pavlopetri Underwater Archaeology Project:
investigating an ancient submerged town, in Benjamin, J., Bonsall, C., Pickard, C. and Fischer, A. (eds), Underwater
Archaeology and the Submerged Prehistory of Europe, 207–218. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Henderson, J., Pizarro, O., Johnson-Roberson, M. and Mahon, I., 2013, Mapping Submerged Archaeological Sites Using Stereo-
Vision Photogrammetry. IJNA 42.2, 243–256.
Martin, C., 2009, Rubh’ anDùnain, Bracadale, Skye Data Structure Report 2009. Unpublished report submitted to Historic
Scotland.
Martin, C. and Martin P., 2017, Rubh’ an Dùnain: a multi-period boat-landing and harbour site on the Isle of Skye, Inner
Hebrides, Scotland. IJNA, https://doi.org/10.1111/1095-9270.12267.
O’Shea, J., Lemke, A., Sonnenburg, E., Reynolds, R. and Abbott, B., 2014, A 9,000-year-old caribou hunting structure beneath
Lake Huron. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111.19, 6911–6915.
Plets, R., Quinn, R., Forsythe, W., Westley, K., Bell, T., Sara Benetti, S., Fergal McGrath, F. and Robinson, R., 2011, Using
Multibeam Echo-Sounder Data to Identify Shipwreck Sites: archaeological assessment of the Joint Irish Bathymetric Survey.
IJNA 40, 87–98.
Royal, J. and Tusa, S., 2012, The landscape of the naval battle of the Egadi Islands. Journal of Roman Archaeology 25, 7–48.

© 2017 The Authors. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology © 2017 The Nautical Archaeology Society. 345