This article traces the progressive incorporation of robots into archaeological practices, from early devices designed to explore tunnels or map sites to current solutions based on sensors, deep learning, and robotic manipulation. But before delving deeper, it is important to contextualize and define what we understand by a robot. According to the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE), it would be defined as: "An electronic machine or device that can manipulate objects and perform various operations," while the international standard ISO 8373:2021 defines a robot as: "A mechanism actuated, programmed, and with some degree of autonomy for locomotion, manipulation, or positioning" (ISO, 2021, p. 1, section 3.1). The latter introduces the key element: autonomy.
From Generalist ROVs to Robotic Archaeology
Although it may be complex and debatable to pinpoint the first robot that helped in archaeology, we believe one of the earliest and most representative was the Jason ROV, assisted by the relay vehicle MEDEA. Jason is, and still is in its newer versions, a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) capable of submerging and performing mapping and sampling tasks. It was connected to the ship that supplied it with electricity through a steel and optical fiber cable, via which the crew could see and control the device. MEDEA, on the other hand, was an extension of Jason itself that allowed for contextual imaging. Its first use in archaeology dates back to 1989, when it was deployed to document the late-Roman wreck ISIS on the Sherki Banks at a depth of between 800 and 900 meters, between Sicily and Tunisia. The exploration was led by Robert D. Ballard along with archaeologist Anna Marguerite McCann and primarily involved non-intrusive documentation, maintaining a height of about 1.5 to 3 meters above the wreck while taking photographs at a speed of 0.10 m/s, simultaneously conducting a side-scan sonar for microtopography (Ballard et al., 2000).
Despite presenting Jason ROV as the first robot applied in archaeology, there is an important nuance that we must highlight: Jason was not designed specifically for archaeological purposes. In fact, as indicated by its main use cases provided by the company that developed it, Jason has extensive experience in other applications such as approaching key points in submerged volcanic zones (https://ndsf.whoi.edu/ndsf-use-cases/#jason). Therefore, despite being one of the earliest robots applied, it was not designed expressly for archaeology. For that purpose, we would have to wait until 1992 when researchers were attempting to access the narrow and ascending passageways of the Queen's Chamber in the Great Pyramid of Khufu. It is at this point that the Upuaut robot, designed by engineer Rudolf Gantenbrink (Richardson et al., 2013), was created, although it would be its improved version Upuaut-2, a teleoperated and umbilical micro-robotic caterpillar that supported itself against the walls using a screw mechanism to generate sufficient holding force to advance along a duct measuring 210×210 mm. This design allowed it to progress through narrow sections but also carried the risk of marking the stone due to high lateral forces (Richardson et al., 2013). Its first campaign was in 1993, where Upuaut-2 reached about 19 meters into the northern duct until a 45° bend that it could not pass and, towards the south, where it surpassed a step of around 40 mm reaching a distance of 63.5 m to a blocking stone (Richardson et al., 2013). This block, named the "Gantenbrink door," made of finely worked limestone with two copper bolts on the polished face, marked the end of this advance and the starting point for subsequent campaigns (Haase, 2002).
From these lessons (marks in masonry and limitations of turning/obstacles), subsequent designs shifted towards non-destructive locomotion. This new approach combined several elements: an inchworm mechanism with a rack-and-pinion system, two carriages, free wheels to avoid dragging, low-force drilling tools, as well as a snake camera. All this responded explicitly to the prohibition of using tracks and screws due to their potential for damage, maintaining the archaeological discovery in perfect condition as the goal but making engineering the necessary condition to achieve it (Richardson et al., 2013).
That Upuaut-2 fulfilled its purpose not only by resolving what was at the end of that ventilation tunnel but also by initiating a branch of archaeology that continues to surprise us today, robotic archaeology. With this robot, certain problems derived from the mechanisms used began to be identified, which with their use could put archaeological heritage at risk, leading over time to greater sophistication.
But as we have mentioned, both Jason and Upuaut-2 are already part of robotics history, and to have a general view of the current state, we should review the cutting edge in three areas: aquatic, aerial, and terrestrial.
Aquatic Medium: Deep Exploration and Haptic Manipulation
If we focus on the aquatic medium, the robot that could be considered most advanced today is the OceanOneK. Its current design is an evolution of OceanOne, which was developed by Stanford University and the DRASSM (Department for Underwater and Submarine Archaeological Research). It would be defined as a humanoid underwater robot with stereo vision and haptic feedback technology, which simulates touch through vibrations and movements, allowing the operator to have a sense of "touch." Its first milestone came in 2016 when it successfully extracted an artifact from the 17th-century wreck La Lune (sunk by Louis XIV in 1664) at a depth of one hundred meters (Carey, 2016).
However, its greatest successes came with its evolution, OceanOneK, capable of diving to a depth of one thousand meters (Strickland, 2022; Khatib, 2022). Using a joystick, the pilot and professor Oussama Khatib has managed to recover artifacts as if his own hands were touching them—such as pieces from an aircraft P-38 at forty meters deep, Roman wreck remains at three hundred thirty-four meters, and even objects from the steamship Francesco Crispi at five hundred meters (Kubota, 2022).
Aerial Medium: Autonomous Microdrones and Precision Documentation
In the aerial domain, stands out Dronument, a swarm of autonomous microdrones. Its cooperative flight—some drones illuminate while others document—allows obtaining high-quality models in complex spaces like catacombs (Petráček, et al., 2020). To compensate for the lack of GPS signal, due to its low quality or total nullification in indoor spaces such as churches, each drone is equipped with cameras, inertial sensors, and LiDAR, which allows them to estimate their position. Additionally, to avoid possible collisions in narrow or frequently obstructed spaces, UAVs use simultaneous localization and mapping algorithms (Krátký et al., 2021).
Terrestrial Medium: Sensors, Mobility, and Access to Inaccessible Spaces
Completing this journey, the next category is terrestrial, where the robot Rovina, created in Europe, stands out. It would be described as an autonomous caterpillar robot, robust and equipped with sensors: LiDAR, stereo cameras, Kinect, IMU, etc. It is particularly designed to access areas inaccessible to humans due to their narrowness, fragility, or presence of gases, among other characteristics (Di Stefano et al., 2016, p. 946). Among its major contributions are the photorealistic three-dimensional reconstructions of Roman catacombs such as Priscila in Rome and San Genaro in Naples, combining laser clouds generated and thousands of images from cameras (Kyriakoulia et al., 2025, p. 4836).
Conclusions
Cases like these show how robotics has moved beyond being a sporadic support to become a medium capable of transforming the way we access and understand archaeological spaces. In this sense, the evolution of these systems shows that archaeology is no longer just about expanding its tools but reconfiguring its own perspective: robots act as sensory and cognitive extensions that allow exploring the inaccessible without damaging it, inaugurating a form of research where preservation and knowledge advance hand in hand.
Bibliography
Ballard, R. D., McCann, A. M., Yoerger, D., Whitcomb, L., Mindell, D., Oleson, J., Singh, H., Foley, B., Adams, J., Piechota, D., & Giangrande, C. (2000). The discovery of ancient history in the deep sea using advanced deep submergence technology. Deep-Sea Research Part I, 47, 1591–1620. http://web.mit.edu/deeparch/www/publications/papers/BallardEtAl2000.pdf
Carey, B. (2016). Stanford’s humanoid robotic diver recovers treasures from King Louis XIV’s wrecked flagship. Stanford Report. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2016/04/robotic-diver-recovers-treasures
Di Stefano, M., Salonia, P., & Ventura, C. (2016). Mapping and Digitizing Heritage Sites: ROVINA Project for Programmed Conservation. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 223, 944-951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.325
Haase, M. (2002). Brennpunkt Giza. Die Schachtsysteme der Cheops-Pyramide. Sokar – Die Welt der Pyramiden, 5(2), 3–13.
Petracek, P., Kratky, V., Petrlik, M., & Saska, M. (2023). Cooperative UAV Autonomy of Dronument: New Era in Cultural Heritage Preservation. In Proceedings of the IEEE IROS Workshop on Integrated Perception, Planning, and Control for Physically and Contextually-Aware Robot Autonomy. IEEE. https://ippc-iros23.github.io/papers/petracek.pdf
Strickland, A (2022) Humanoid robot lets operators travel virtually to ocean floor—And feel like they’re there. 7NEWS. https://7news.com.au/news/world/humanoid-diving-robot-explores-shipwrecks-on-the-ocean-floor-c-7713242
Kubota, T. (2022). Stanford’s OceanOneK connects human’s sight and touch to the deep sea. Stanford Report. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2022/07/oceanonek-connects-humans-sight-touch-deep-sea
ISO. (2021). ISO 8373:2021 — Robotics—Vocabulary (3rd ed., November 2021). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
Khatib, O. (2022). The Era of Human-Robot Collaboration: Deep-Sea Robotic Exploration : Plenary Talk. 2022 IEEE 10th Jubilee International Conference on Computational Cybernetics and Cyber-Medical Systems (ICCC), 000021-000022. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCC202255925.2022.9922836
Krátký, V., Petráček, P., Nascimento, T., Čadilová, M., Škobrtal, M., Stoudek, P., & Saska, M. (2021). Safe Documentation of Historical Monuments by an Autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(11), 738. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10110738
Kyriakoulia, P., Kazolias, A., Konidaris, D., & Kokkinos, P. (2025). Survey on the Application of Robotics in Archaeology. Sensors, 25(15), 4836. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25154836
Petráček, P., Krátký, V., & Saska, M. (2020). Dronument: System for reliable deployment of micro aerial vehicles in dark areas of large historical monuments. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2), 2078–2085. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2020.2969935
Richardson, R. C., Whitehead, S., Ng, T. C., Hawass, Z., Pickering, A., Rhodes, S., Grieve, R., Hildred, A., Nagendran, A., Liu, J., Mayfield, W., Tayoubi, M., & Breitner, R. (2013). The “Djedi” robot exploration of the southern shaft of the queen’s chamber in the Great Pyramid of Giza, Egypt. Journal of Field Robotics, 30(3), 323–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.21451
Comments