Sigillographic Representation of Archimorphs and Ideograms as Related to the BCCS (Biophysical Cross-Shore Classification System) Using Distributive Vexillology in Coastal Belt Cartographic Displays Free

Coastal mapping is an age-old activity that was initiated by seafarers who needed to know the location of safe harborages, deltas, shoals, skerries, and dangerous rocks associated with promontories and headlands. Marginal notes and illustrations of coastlines were used to impart navigational and coastal hazard information from the earliest of times. Early maps were rudimentary and not very sophisticated, but these premodern maps and charts of continental outlines served humanity via the seafarers very well and actually included more detailed depictions of coastal features than today's efforts.

Consideration of map and chart symbolization is a broad field of endeavor that brings insight to present coastal characterization studies. Relevant to this discussion of coastal symbolization, then, is a mandatory but cursory look at early attempts to characterize the nature of coastal belts for navigational purposes. Accurate depiction of coastlines in ancient times was often a matter of life and death, with shipwrecks having disastrous consequences, as documented by historical accounts and marine archaeological data. Lacking lifesaving devices such as life jackets or services such as a coast-guarding fleet, seafarers were largely dependent on their own wits and navigational skills as aided by coastal maps when they were available. Ancient map symbolization was mainly limited to marginal fanciful drawings of sea monsters and wind fields, but the focus of early coastal maps or charts was to produce accurate outlines of coastal configurations. Early maps dating back many hundreds of years, for example, were presented in various artistic and technical ways in the 12th century (e.g., Campbell and Barritt, 2020; Hancock, 2019; Hapgood, 2014). Marginal notes and drawings often accompanied the old maps of continental outlines for lakes, seas, and oceans, but because many sailors were illiterate, instructions were commonly handed down verbally. In some cases, graticules were provided for scale and orientation as well as headings (rhumb lines) to specified locations.

Perhaps the most well-known maps that can be used to illustrate these points are the so-called portolan charts (from Italian, meaning “related to ports and harbors”) that were characterized by unprecedented precision (for those times) and newly invented conventions that included an underlying mesh of direction lines, place names restricted to the coast, empty seas, and intentional generalizations of the coastline (e.g., Campbell, 1987, 2016, 2022). During the 15th century, navigation in European waters was normally practiced near the coast based on information of courses and distances between places registered in the pilots’ rutters. Although it was sometimes necessary to sail away from the coast to reach a distant island or to cross a larger body of water (e.g., Gaspar, 2013), these journeys seldom lasted more than a few days. Most extant nautical portolan charts from before the 16th century were drawn on vellum and provided realistic depictions of shores (e.g., Vernet, 1962). The earliest extant chart to incorporate astronomically observed latitudes is the Cantino planisphere, drawn by an anonymous Portuguese cartographer in 1502. Although no graphical scale of latitudes is explicitly shown, the depiction of the Equator, tropics, and Arctic Circle suggests that places are represented according to observed latitudes (Gaspar, 2013). These historically early sea charts focused on coasts and islands with place names written perpendicular to the coastline on the land side but with sparse information about the interior of landmasses. Coded markings for navigational dangers were prominent on these charts. These early attempts to accurately depict coastal configurations set the stage for modern mapping and charting procedures. Some brief examples, mentioned in the following paragraphs, recount developmental trends leading to the present status of computerized cartographic display of coasts.

The birth of portolan charts, based on circumstantial evidence, is placed in an unidentified west coast Italian port between the years of 1154 and 1204 (e.g., Campbell, 2016; Delano-Smith, 2018; Gaspar, 2013). The Dulcert Portolano of 1339 is an early version of the normal portolano, which was subsequently discovered to be a highly accurate map (nautical chart). This map or coastal chart did not evolve further because it was simply copied and recopied during the rest of the Middle Ages and Renaissance (e.g., Hancock, 2019; Hapgood, 2014). It was accurate for the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions and the coasts of Europe as far north as the Herbides; the Baltic, Persian Gulf, and Indian Ocean regions were not charted as accurately. The area covered by the oldest surviving marine chart, the Carte Pisane (ca. 1270), namely the Mediterranean, Black Sea, and sections of the Atlantic coasts, remained the norm for the next two centuries (Campbell, 2022). Inspection and reflection on the veracity and accuracy of these kinds of old sea charts (books of sailing directions) fosters a sense of amazement, astonishment, and awe over what was known about coastal configurations and sailing routes many hundreds of years ago. There is also the realization, of course, that most trade in ancient times was accomplished by shipping in coastal sea lanes rather than overland. So, it stands to reason that great care would have been exercised in the making of strategic coastal maps because of their commercial, economic, and societal importance. The tactical importance of ports and harbors can also hardly be underestimated, so they had to be accurately identified among coastal configurations. From the earliest copies, probably a little before 1300, the coastal outline given for the Mediterranean Sea was amazingly accurate. Portolans were most useful in close quarters' identification of landmarks along the coast. Additionally, their wealth of place names is a major historical resource, and their improvement over the Ptolemaic maps relating to the same area is quite apparent (Campbell, 1987).

An example of the astonishing expertise in map making is the Catalan Atlas, which is a Medieval world map, or mappa mundi, created in 1375. This map, which covered the Mediterranean, Red, and Black Seas as well as other areas (e.g., eastern Atlantic Ocean and North Sea and eastward to the coasts of India and China), was at the time a world map or nautical planisphere. It has been described as the most important map of the Middle Ages in the Catalan language (Roth, 1940) as it represents “the zenith of medieval map-work” (Drees, 2001). The western portion of this map is similar to contemporary portolan charts, but it contains the first compass rose known to have been used on such a chart (Drees, 2001). It was produced by the Majorcan cartographic school, possibly by Cresques Abraham, a book illuminator who was described by a contemporary as a master of mappae mundi as well as of compasses (Harwood, 2006).

Of all the early coastal maps, perhaps most noteworthy, geographically extensive, and of special interest here are the 1513 charts of the Turkish Admiral Pîrî Reis that showed the western shores of Africa and the eastern shores of North and South America and possibly including Antarctica and the Atlantic coast from France and the Caribbean (Hancock, 2019). The critical or astonishing point here is that he used older charts made during the time of Alexander the Great to compile his maps (Hapgood, 2014). Some of these ancient coastal (portolan) charts provided realistic depictions of shores foreshadowing modern aspects of coastal classification and cartography. The transition between the portolan chart of the Mediterranean and the latitude chart of the Atlantic, taking place in the second half of the 15th century subsequent to the introduction of astronomical navigation, is one of the most intriguing and less studied processes of the nautical cartography of the Renaissance (Gaspar, 2013). Although symbology was limited on these older charts and maps, coastal outlines were sufficient for most navigational activities and provided the cartographic basis for more modern charts that had the advantage of satellite positioning and computerized real-time depictions of ship movements as well as clearly delineated shipping lanes, as described by modern services that are briefly indicated in what follows.

Looking forward from early coastal mapping efforts in Medieval times, it is observed that marine cartography was well developed by the 18th century and was materially enhanced with the introduction in the 1990s of electronic charts that are so common today, viz. the Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) that is a development of the navigational chart system used in naval vessels and ships (e.g., Weintrit, 2009). Modern electronic navigational charts (ENC) are vector data sets that support all types of marine navigation. Common in the United States, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ENC complies with product specifications of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) based in Monaco. This intergovernmental consultative and technical organization was established in 1921 to support safety of navigation and the protection of the marine environment. The ENCs, which are produced around the world by many different countries, provide real-time ship positioning and collision and grounding avoidance. They also provide vector base maps for use in geographic information systems (GIS) that are used for coastal management and other purposes. NOAA's ENC Direct to GIS previously allowed users to display, query, and download base editions of electronic navigation charts in a variety of GIS/CAD formats, using web-mapping service technology. Unfortunately, this service is no longer generally available to the public.

Nautical chart features contained within modern electronic charts provide a detailed representation of the coastal and marine environment with emphasis on shorelines and coastal configuration. International mapping standards are maintained by the IHO, an intergovernmental organization representing hydrography comprising 97 member states (e.g., Wingrove, 2019). A principal aim of the IHO is to ensure that the world's seas, oceans, and navigable waters are properly surveyed and charted. The IHO accomplishes this purpose by setting international standards, by coordinating endeavors of the world's national hydrographic offices, and through its capacity building program. The IHO enjoys observer status at the United Nations, where it is the recognized competent authority on hydrographic surveying and nautical charting. When referring to hydrography and nautical charting in marine conventions and similar instruments, IHO standards and specifications are normally used. Nautical charts have been in use, in one form or another (cf. portolan charts), for many hundreds of years. For the past century, the IHO has worked toward achieving maximum standardization in the specifications, symbols, style, and formats used for nautical charts and related publications. Digital maps have the additional advantage, compared with paper copy, of being able to present a vector map of the limits of oceans and seas, i.e. shorelines, that potentially can be integrated into a GIS interface. An example of this map is based on the document S-23 titled “Limits of Oceans and Seas,” published by the IHO (Fourcy and Lorvelec, 2013).

Produced by NOAA and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), U.S. Chart No. 1 describes the symbols, abbreviations, and terms used on nautical charts (NOAA, 2019). The symbols for paper charts and their analogous digital products, such as raster navigational charts, are shown, as well as the symbols used to portray electronic navigational charts data in ECDIS. Chart No. 1: Nautical Chart Symbols, Abbreviations and Terms provides descriptions and depictions of the basic elements and symbols used on nautical charts (NOAA, 2019). This document also shows IHO symbols used in International Charts and Chart Specifications (IHO, 2021). The 2019 Chart No. 1 incorporates the symbols used by the IHO, while listing alongside them the currently preferred U.S. symbols. Also shown are IHO symbols used on foreign charts reproduced by NGA. Additional sections show the typical layout of National Ocean Survey (NOS) charts, as well as examples of charted tide levels and other tidal data (NOAA, 2019).

With the advent of modern maps and easily accessible satellite images of the world's coastline, for example via Google Earth, it was possible for coastal researchers to ontologically develop many kinds of specialized coastal maps that mainly focused on alongshore classifications (e.g., Fairbridge, 2004; Finkl, 2004). Relevant to these advances are cross-shore perspectives that are related to the Biophysical Cross-Shore Classification System (BCCS) introduced by Finkl and Makowski (2020a,b,c; 2022a,b,c), setting the stage for new coastal semiotics.

Coastal classification has advanced from early efforts of describing the nature of coastal belts to the point where coastal types are now well known the world over. Examples of shore classifications are legion as many different approaches have been developed for specific uses, resulting in specialized maps and charts that are essentially alongshore classifications (Fairbridge, 2004; Finkl, 2004) except in cases where large marine environments are the objects of study (e.g., Bailey, 1998; Dinerstein et al., 2017; Dolan et al., 1972; Hayden, Ray, and Dolan, 2009). With the availability of satellite imagery covering the world's shoreline, it is now possible to consider new approaches to description and understanding of not only immediate offshore and onshore areas but also definition of coastal belts that have inland extent. For most coastal environments, it appears that a classificatory swath on the order of 5–7 km is of sufficient width to provide cross-shore cognizance (e.g., Finkl and Makowski, 2022c), except in some specialized environments such as large deltas where wider swaths may be beneficial (e.g., Finkl and Makowski, 2022a).

The introduction of the BCCS (Biophysical Cross-Shore Classification System) (Finkl and Makowski, 2020a) offered new possibilities for coastal classification by using cross-shore transects that ranged from a few kilometers offshore with perpendicular penetration across the shore to variable inland extents. The BCCS alphanumeric codifications were overlaid on top of satellite images as an expedient means of communicating the presence of eco-geomorphological units. Transectal classification across the shore in a tomographic sense also allows expansion of the interpreted units in an alongshore direction so that coastal belts can be discretized into domains that are characterized by specified sequences of archetypes and subarchetypes. These cross-shore catenas have alongshore spreads that form domanial units (Finkl and Makowski, 2021a) and are identified by codes for various types of eco-geomorphological units (see Table 1). An example of this application might be the BCCS notation of 7Be_caDu_dsCl_se,vc10%U_de from Finkl and Makowski (2021d), which translates to straight tropical carbonate beaches and extensive dune sheets at the foot of mostly unvegetated (∼10% cover) limestone cliffs that are surmounted by desert uplands along the southern coast of the Island of Socotra (12°20′27″ N, 53°34′23″ E) on the Arabian Sea.

Experimental applications of the BCCS have been applied to coastal low, middle, and high latitude setups in an effort to assess the applicability and flexibility of the cross-shore classification system (e.g., Finkl and Makowski, 2020a,b,c; 2021d). Development of this novel system was keyed to a couple hundred test sites from the world's coastline to ascertain its veracity and fidelity (Finkl and Makowski, 2021d). This effort combined Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) with terrestrial Ecoregions (ER) to produce the Coastal Belt Linked Classification (CBLC), placing a coastal belt classification within environmental contexts. An example of this more complete CBLC system of cross-shore coastal classification is shown, for example, in this quatrasequent catena (archetype and subarchetype code sequence) (LME62)7DeBe_siBr_spW_mr(ER735) (Finkl and Makowski, 2021d). The longhand explanation or unraveling of this code sequence produces the following verbiage: Black Sea Large Marine Ecosystem linked to a straight middle latitude fluvial delta with silica beaches, beach ridge strandplains, and wetland marshes connected to the Pontic Steppe Ecoregion. Transectal alphanumeric codes can be used as efficient classifiers of coastal belt eco-geomorphological environments, whereas modes of cartographic display also allow for semiotic application where sigils or flags can be used to identify cross-shore sequences of archetypes and subarchetypes.

Application of the BCCS leads to multiple considerations of vexillographic displays, which may take shape in different cartographic forms. Shahaf et al. (2013), for example, explain how cartographic maps have been relied on for centuries to help users better understand the spatial realities of biophysical surroundings, as in the case of metro maps being devised to increase comprehension of the information landscape. In the case of coastal marine landscapes, Meidinger et al. (2013) indicate that GIS and diagnostic cartography have traditionally been useful to ecosystem-based management. Bionomic and diagnostic cartographic approaches support decision-making in the management of marine-protected areas as well as coastal belts in general, as in the application of the BCCS. Previous BCCS and CBLC applications have relied on cross-shore alphanumeric code sequences printed perpendicular to the shore without symbolization (e.g., Finkl and Makowski, 2020a,b,c,d; 2021a,b,c,d; 2022a,b,c,d; 2023).

A new possibility for cartographic displays in the form of sigils that are keyed to a cross-shore archetype color legend (Figure 1) and ideograms that are conceptual profile views of archimorphs (Figure 2) are described here. The development of a sigillography as an adjunct to coastal classification offers some possibilities depicting the nature of coastal belts in a glance via spatial cognition, as in the construction of specialized mental maps (e.g., Gould and White, 2002) in general. The proposed possibility of creating sigils or flags for display on coastal classification maps, based on satellite imagery, is elucidated in what follows.

First, a comment on semiotics (also called semiology or semiography) is worth cursorily reviewing to set the stage for application in coastal classification, as summarized in perspective by Yakin and Totu (2014). Originally defined by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1959) as the study of the life of signs within society, Charles Sanders Pierce subsequently described a sign as “something which stands to somebody for something.” He categorized signs into three main types: (1) an icon that resembles its referent, (2) an index that is associated with its referent, and (3) a symbol that is related to its referent only by convention. Signs never have a definite meaning because they must be continuously qualified by personal perceptions. Semiosis, according to the Peirce model, is defined by the idea that the basic structure is a triad of sign, object, and interpretant. Interpretation is an essential component of semiosis.

Barbieri (2009), operating from a biological point of view in biosemiotics, points out that different semiotic features exist in different taxa, leading to the distinction between zoosemiosis, phytosemiosis, mycosemiosis, bacterial semiosis, etc. As emphasized by Barbieri (2009), because the mind gives internal meanings to signs, it must integrate them with external meanings to allow the body to react to the incoming signals. Thus, the mind (or the brain) must per force use two types of meanings because if it could act directly on environmental signals, there would be no need for external meanings. But that is not what happens. The mind acts only on representations of the world, which is why it must use signs that have both internal and external meanings (i.e. sense and reference). That is, semiosis recognizes that codes are context-dependent, requiring interpretation to give meaning to signs or signals.

A semiotic system is made of signs, meanings, and coding rules, all produced by the same codemaker. Because a semiotic system is made of signs, meanings, code, and codemaker, it is thus possible to extend the concept of semiotics to coastal classification. Basic concepts of Peircean sign theory (e.g., Gottdiener, Boklund-Lagopoulou, and Lagopoulos, 2003) are thus applicable to development of signs that are referent to eco-geomorphological units in the form of archetypes and subarchetypes (Finkl and Makowski, 2023). Some examples of possible signs in the format of ideograms that are referent to archimorphs were posited by Finkl and Makowski (2023) and are shown in Figure 2. According to Peircean semiotic theory, most of the signs (ideograms based on archimorphs) fall into Class 1 in an attempt to show how the cursive line drawings represent an archetype in a side view (an archimorph) via a simple topographic trace. When simplistic line drawings of archimorphs are combined with a proposed color code for archetypes (Table 1), a sigil (flag) format results, as displayed in Figure 2.

The basic methodology of this classificatory approach concises or distills down to a sigillation process where sigils (e.g., flags, symbols, signs, emblems) are vexillographically developed with representational qualities that are referent to coastal archetypes. The vexillographic (flag design) process is divided into three salient parts comprised by (1) a color legend (Figure 1), (2) ideograms derived from archimorphs (Figure 2), and (3) examples of possible sigil formats (Figure 3) that are combinations of the color legend and the ideograms. This three-step process enables the depiction of dominant characteristics of coastal belts in the form of a sigil where ideograms are overlaid on archetype color swatches that provide a background field on the flag. Vexillography provides some scholarly guidance in the construction of sigils, but the emblematic coastal flags proposed here are based on simple procedures that attempt to reflect the overall character of specified coastal belts using different types of symbolization.

Coastal ideograms, which are conceptual profile views of archimorphs (Finkl and Makowski, 2023), were devised to show a simplistic topographic line trace that conceptually represents the side-view shape of an archimorph (Figure 1). All of the archimorphs are referenced to sea level, which is shown by a solitary, blue-colored line. In this way, portions of some archimorphs are shown above and below water or at tidal level. Names of the archimorphs (side view of an archetype) are keyed to the archetypes (observed in planview on satellite images) listed in Table 1. Construction of 18 ideograms that are grouped into one figure provides easy reference to the range of archimorphs that are covered. Selected profiles from around the world were constructed to show in a single illustration the principal components of cross-shore profiles that include information relating to (but not inclusive of) topographic shape, archimorphs based on elevation data, catenary archimorphic sequences (polymorphs), and ideograms based on idealized tomographs. Detailed examples of the construction method for archimorphs and ideograms are provided in Finkl and Makowski (2023).

The color legend for cross-shore archetypes (Figure 2) was designed with the intention of providing a color hue that is broadly associated with or indicative of an archetype that usually occurs in nature, at least as far as possible. For example, blue hues are associated with water archetypes such as channels, lagoons, and lakes. Yellowish or tan hues are referent to sandy beaches, barriers, beach ridges, or dunes. Wetland and coral reef archetypes are denoted by greenish colors, whereas the developed archetype (i.e. buildings, infrastructure) is associated with dark gray in reference to structural materials such as concrete, stone, and steel. Brownish hues are associated with tidal flats and uplands. A reddish hue is used for the mountain archetype to emphasize the striking presence of coastal mountainous terrain. Colors in the legend were selected for demonstrational purposes, but different color schemes can be applied as required. Many color codes are available as well as various color models, such as hexadecimal, RGB, HSL, HSV, etc.

Some possible sigil formats are shown in Figure 3, which is divided into two parts. The upper sigil formats are monothetic in that they show a single archimorph superimposed on a single archetype color that composes the field of the flag. The barrier island sigil, for example, is depicted with the barrier island ideogram superimposed on a yellowish colored field for a barrier archetype. The lower part of Figure 3, below the horizontal black-colored dividing line, contains representations of possible polythetic setups (presence of multiple eco-geomorphological units) where dimorphs or polymorphs may occur. This construction is used to illustrate kinds of typical situations that may occur in some coastal belts. The implicit procedure here is used to illustrate ranges of possibilities for construction of sigils that identify multifaceted coastal belts. The sigil for a barrier island polymorph, for example, includes the barrier island ideogram superimposed on archetypical colors for barrier (Ba), dune (Du), wetland (W), lagoon (L), and wetland (W) in the pentasequent catena BaDuWLW and a color sequence (from left to right) of yellow, tan, green, blue, and green. This mode of sigil construction offers a wide range of possibilities for demonstrating the character of a coastal belt.

The recognition of archimorphs and ideograms permitted the idealization of cross-shore topographic traces that could be combined with color schemes for archetypes that in turn could be assimilated in a vexillographic display. The resulting assiduity of this compositization was a sigil that could be used to flag eco-geomorphological characteristics of coastal belts. The figures resulting from the compilation methodology show possibilities for displaying a range of archimorphs in the form of ideograms (Figure 1). The end product of assigning colors to cross-shore archetypes resulted in a proposed color legend where certain colors were assigned to archetypes in a logical scheme (Figure 2). The result was the combining of archimorph shapes with colors for archetypes to produce potential sigil formats as shown in Figure 3. Mono-, di-, and polymorphic cross-shore sequences resulted in sigils that could be used to signal, based on the semiotics, the nature of coastal belts.

The resulting sigil formats are presented as exemplars of possibilities and are not meant to be definitive, rather they are suggestions. These graphic displays in the form of sigils are the results of encapsulation of diverse sets of data that are grouped into coherent but independent units that comprise mentated impressions of coastal properties. These results should be taken as an initiation of coastal classification in graphic form rather than an end point.

Depiction of coastal character in graphic form is not a new idea as sigils accompanied some older coastal maps, such as the portolan charts that included flags of land ownership or hegemony. Early coastal maps and charts showed coastal configurations via different cartographic means but sometimes also included marginal notes and warnings to mariners of potential hazards. Today, with a degree of apophenia and some common-sense use of satellite imagery that can be applied as a base map, it is possible to cartographically annotate that imagery in various ways.

Finkl and Makowski (2020a,b,c,d; 2021a,b,c,d; 2022a,b,c,d; 2023), for example, have demonstrated different approaches to coastal classification by using cross-shore annotations in the form of alphanumeric codes and specified polygons. With the amalgamation of alongshore and cross-shore classificatory notations as BCCS catenas, it is now possible to convert alphanumeric codes into graphic formats that convey broad-scale instantaneous views of coastal character in sigil format. Perhaps appearing as a decipient endeavor, this vexillographic approach, just like other rational classification efforts, has scalar limitations in depictions where the format size of a sigil can be too big (for large-scale areas) or too small (for small-scale areas) for practical use. That is, the size and format of a sigil must be applicable to the scale of the satellite image so that details of the ideogram on the archetype color field can be ascertained. Although the scale of the application of a sigil is limited, as are symbols on all maps and charts, there are possibilities for graphic display in the range of hectometric to kilometric scales; however, this depends somewhat on the spatial resolution of the image and the shoreline length of the coastal belt to be depicted. Visual inspection of the length of coast to be classified vs. the size of a sigil that can be used to represent that particular coastal stretch will determine the appropriate scale that can be achieved by zooming in or out.

As with any novel approach to a subject or problem, there will always be reticent divagation of researchers to willingly adopt a new approach to an old dilemma or conundrum. The use of sigils has a long history in other fields of endeavor but their occurrence in coastal classification is spectacularly lacking. There are many aporetic reasons for this oversight not the least of which are complications associated with questions of presentation that are related to scalar variations of mapping choices. The issues associated with paper copy are long and complicated, but with the advent of satellite coverages of the world's coastline, whole new approaches to coastal classification are opened up by free online access and zoom capabilities that provide an infinite number of scale variations. The selection process for presentation of coastal classification maps is thus simplified to what can be easily shown on a printed page size or what can be provided as a digital file for more in-depth inspection at larger scales. The ability to overlay alphanumeric codes of the BCCS or convert them to graphic displays in the form of sigils provides new opportunities for characterizing coastal belts.

Despite these advantages, the process is not without difficulties that, in some cases, can even be problematic. But, for most situations within the proper scalar range for graphic display of sigils in relation to coastal belts, the pros may outweigh the cons. Such graphic display of classification units such as coastal archetypes and subarchetypes may be a matter of personal choice or may fill a niche utilization where quick summaries of coastal characteristics are desirable or needed. In those specialized situations, there is scope for adventure in coastal classification where novelties may provide opportunities to consider new and different ways of depicting alongshore coastal configurations along with the presence of different cross-shore catenas that are enabled in the BCCS.

Because no method of classification is perfect, and methods are, at best, some kind of generalization of natural and amended (e.g., engineering structures) conditions, there may be opportunities to utilize the sigillation process in coastal classification. Semiotics points the way to study signs and symbols and their use or interpretation in the arena of coastal characterization, as proposed here. This new use or approach to graphic display of classificatory units is offered as a possibility for showing the nature of coastal belts. That is, rapid dissemination of crucial information can be achieved in graphic form using signals to convey information that is relevant to immediate or potential needs.

What is interesting about this proposed vexillation approach is that many serendipitous possibilities for making flags (sigils) that can be used in coastal classification exist. Many programs on the Internet, for example, can be used for this purpose, such as FlagMaker 2.0 (2022), which can simplify a seemingly daunting task. The approach used in this paper was to create in the first instance a range of coastal ideograms (Figure 1) that could be displayed on colored fields that compose the flag. The colors used for the field were related to cross-shore archetypes. Using a combinatorial approach, combining information contained in Figures 1and 2, possible sigils can be constructed, as suggested in Figure 3. The procedure can be accomplished in any graphics program of choice and thus has wide applicability for production of desired images. Though not perfect, the approach offers many possibilities, and coastal researchers with artistic skills may find solace in their construction of a newly adapted artform as an adjunct to coastal classification.

As presented, the concept of a sigillographic representation of archimorphs and ideograms is keyed to the BCCS. This adaptation is based on the recognition of cross-shore archetypes that can be interpreted in the form of archimorphs that can be represented as ideograms. The collation of ideograms and archetypical color schemes that signal coastal character is an additional or alternative means of displaying classificatory information. The other key point is that this approach explicitly requires the presentation of sigils on satellite imagery that provides the base map for the detection and interpretation of eco-geomorphological units that are used in the BCCS. Finally, the value added of the sigillation process pursues distributive dynamism in cartographic display. This dynamic approach to cartographic display is related to the ability to distribute sigils along the shore to show coastal characteristics. The cognitive basis of the BCCS is offered as an adjunct to machine classification of satellite imagery, although it quite obviously can be used independently as the sole method of interpretation.

The proposal of possibly preparing dynamic distributive cartographic displays was based on sigillographic representation of archimorphs and ideograms. The overprinting of BCCS codifications as layers on satellite images was nuanced by vexillographic methods to flag coastal characteristics via sigils that could be placed alongshore to represent coastal belt planform configurations and archetypical catenary (cross-shore) associations in graphic form. The formats of coastal sigils were based on a color legend for cross-shore archetypes, depictions of coastal ideograms that were derived from archimorphs, and their compound assimilation in information-driven flags. Their alongshore spatial distribution provides a dynamic aspect to annotations on satellite images as sigil content varies with scales of observation and presentation modes in journals or online. The concinnous compaction of large amounts of data in sigil displays is offered as a means of characterizing coastal belts the world over. The main advantage of this form of cartographic display accrues from rapid inspection of coastal character, as shown in satellite imagery, without undo concern for mastering recall of BCCS codes in alphanumeric formats in cross-shore catenas. It is proposed that sigils can be made to signal coastal properties using semiotics as a guide for innovative coastal classification endeavors. Signs and symbols have been used in various forms in coastal marine navigation since the Middle Ages, whereas the sigil designs proposed here offer an updated adjunct to symbolization methodologies implemented around the world.