What published archaeological or marine surveys have been conducted in the Gulf of Aqaba or Nuweiba and what did they find?
Executive summary
Published archaeological and marine surveys in the Gulf of Aqaba and at Nuweiba range from formal underwater excavations seeking the Islamic city of Ayla and terrestrial tell excavations near Aqaba to multinational bathymetric and deep‑sea geophysical research that has revealed brine pools, submarine landslides and active tectonics; contested amateur claims of chariot wheels and a submerged “land bridge” at Nuweiba exist but lack acceptance in mainstream, peer‑reviewed studies [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Underwater archaeological surveys around Ayla and Aqaba: targeted excavations and early results
Jordanian and partner teams have conducted the country’s first planned underwater archaeological fieldwork aimed at locating submerged remains of the medieval/Islamic city of Ayla and its harbour structures, with JREDS leading surveys and announcing finds such as submerged port features likely linked to early Islamic Ayla [1] [6] [2].
2. Longstanding terrestrial and coastal archaeological work that frames marine findings
Decades of terrestrial excavations and paleoenvironmental coring—excavations at Tall Hujayrat al‑Ghuzlan, Tall al‑Magass and Tell el‑Kheleifeh, plus Holocene coastal sediment studies—have established occupation from the Chalcolithic through Iron Age and Early Islamic periods and documented sea‑level change and earthquake damage that inform interpretations of submerged remains [7] [8] [9] [10].
3. Bathymetric and geophysical surveys: multinational mapping and the refutation of a continuous land bridge
Multinational bathymetric campaigns and poster summaries (including Marburg and Israeli/Gulf teams) have produced modern multibeam maps of the Gulf’s seafloor; these data underpin the consensus that there is no continuous shallow “land bridge” between Nuweiba and the Arabian shore and provide the baseline used to locate archaeological targets and geohazards [11] [4].
4. Deep‑sea discoveries: NEOM brine pools and submarine landslide evidence
A 2020 OceanXplorer cruise that produced peer‑reviewed work described a newly discovered complex of hypersaline brine pools at ~1,770 m—the first such pools reported in the Gulf of Aqaba—and noted that these brine environments preserve pristine sedimentary signals useful for paleoenvironmental reconstruction [3]; separate submersible observations documented an ancient underwater landslide and a chasm near the Tiran Straits with implications for reef stability and tsunami risk [12].
5. Marine biological and environmental surveys: ecosystem decline and monitoring programs
Long‑term ecological and water‑column monitoring in the northern Gulf has produced published records of severe declines (>90%) in key echinoid grazers with cascading reef impacts, depth‑dependent warming profiles, nutrient and trace‑metal time series, and ongoing coastal water quality assessments that together contextualize both conservation and archaeological preservation concerns [13] [14] [15] [16].
6. Nuweiba claims, amateur surveys, and mainstream rebuttals
A parallel stream of amateur and popular expeditions has promoted dramatic finds off Nuweiba—coral‑encrusted “chariot wheels,” granite pillars and a submerged crossing route—often led or publicized by non‑archaeologists; critical reviews and hydrographic/bathymetric data argue these claims are unproven or misidentified (coral formations, natural concretions) and emphasize that no documented, curated archaeological recovery confirms ancient chariot remains or a land bridge [17] [5] [18] [4].
7. What the published record says is still missing: gaps and next steps
Published, peer‑reviewed surveys have advanced bathymetry, deep‑sea geophysics and focused underwater archaeology at Ayla/Aqaba and have documented biological decline and geohazard potential, but gaps remain in systematically published, excavated finds from the deeper shelf off Nuweiba and in integrated multidisciplinary reports reconciling local popular claims with high‑resolution bathymetry and controlled archaeological recovery; where mainstream publications are silent, current reports cannot verify or reject sensational claims [11] [3] [5] [4].