Underwater Excavation Records Using Underwater Acoustic Survey: A Case Study in South Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper describes the use of several acoustic geophysical survey (MGS) devices(SS, SiSS and MBES)  for underwater archeological site surveys. It demonstrate that scanning sonar (SS) is the best device for imaging the sea floor among the three tested approaches although it is yet to improve its the reliability of investigations of buried underwater remains and relics. Overall, the paper is well written and the their approach is scientifically correct. I recommendation the paper to be accepted for publication after the following comments/suggestions are addressed:

1) I expect that we can see the position calibration reflectors installed on the sea floor in the SS image of Figure 10. Why do we not see them? If not, how can we calibrate the SS image? How big will it be to see a relics lying on the sea floor?

2) You may include the following recent reference in the paper

Young-Jun Kim , Snons Cheong , Changyoon Lee , Michael Riedel , Chan-Su Kim , Nam-Hyung Koo , Jung-Ki Kim & Byoung-Yeop Kim (2021) Application of pseudo-3D Chirp sub-bottom profiler survey: a case study of ancient wooden shipwreck site, west coast of Korea, Exploration Geophysics, 52:1, 109-121, DOI: 10.1080/08123985.2020.1776104

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The Paper entitled "Underwater excavation records using underwater acoustic survey: A case study in South Korea" by Young-Hyun Lee et al. deals with a very innovative research topic linked to underwater archaeology and the technologies used to investigate ancient wrecks.

The paper has good content but it needs some improvements

Specifically, the authors discuss underwater investigations in a limited area. Probably there should also be references to the rest of the world, where the technique has also been used. For example, when they write (in the introduction) "Nevertheless, no ancient shipwrecks have been detected using MGS equipment", I think they must specify in the geographical context of reference. In fact, this statement is not always true, since these investigations have been conducted for example on European wrecks.

Line 39 Introduction – At this line, please specify the reference after the sentence “Further, Kim conducted”….

Paragraphs 2 and 3: The authors talk about 3 sites where the trials were conducted. However, there is no detailed information on the sites. The paragraph should be improved by adding more information about the investigated areas (es. location, materials present, brief description, type of finds, some images if possible, etc.).

The authors also speak of "The underwater monuments". What kind of monument?

Images should be provided in better quality, such as Figure 2 and Figure 5. While in Figures 3, 4 and 9 a reference metric scale should be added. Overall the work is well written, but especially in the introduction and conclusions, the authors should stress the importance of these investigations and survey. In fact, being a research work, funded in the field of cultural heritage in the marine environment, the authors should give more weight to this aspect. According to the most recent directives in the field of underwater archaeology, in fact, new technologies must encourage the study and conservation of marine assets by operating directly in situ (please see the 2001 UNESCO Convention directives). In this regard, it is suggested to increase the work by referring to the recent regulations on underwater Some research and normative to consider and add to improve the paper also in view of further study on the sites, not only based on the acoustic survey, but also on how to protect these important ruins found on the seabed: “Digital technologies for the sustainable development of the accessible underwater cultural heritage sites Journal of Marine Science and Engineering DOI: 10.3390/jmse8110955”; “The CoMAS project: New materials and tools for improving the in situ documentation, restoration, and conservation of underwater archaeological remains, DOI: 10.4031/MTSJ.50.4.2, Marine Technology Society Journal”; “The contribution of earth sciences to the preservation of underwater archaeological stone materials: An analytical approach, International Journal of Conservation Science, 6, Issue 3, 2015”; “(2010) Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Law, pp. 1-400. http://0-dx-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1017/CBO9781139020503”; “A sustainable approach for the management and valorization of underwater cultural heritage: New perspectives from the TECTONIC project DOI: 10.3390/su12125000”; “(2001) Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage;
UNESCO: Paris, France”; “Gregory, D., Matthiesen, H. Conservation and management of archaeological site. Preserving Archaeological Remains in Situ (2012) Proceedings of the 4th International Conference. National Meuseum of Copenhagen, 14, p. 489. ”The UNESCO international survey of underwater cultural heritage(1985) World Archaeology, 16 (3), pp. 373-376. 
doi: 10.1080/00438243.1985.9979941”; “Gregory, D.J., Manders, M. Best practices for locating, surveying, assessing, monitoring and preserving underwater archaeological sites(2015) SASMAP Guideline Manual 2; “Papatheodorou, G., Geraga, M., Georgiou, N., Christodoulou, D., Dimas, X., Fakiris, E., Ferentinos, G. Marine Geo-archaeological survey in the Straits of Salamina and in Ampelakia Bay(2020) Hellenic Maritime Museum.”

As for the methodology used, it is well explained. An improvement, however, could be made for example by considering these researches in the same field: (2019) Ocean Engineering, 190, art. no. 106487. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106487; Coordinated navigation of surface and underwater marine robotic vehicles for ocean sampling and environmental monitoring (2017) IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 22 (3),  doi: 10.1109/TMECH.2017.2684423

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx