Technology – Society for Historical Archaeology

Nicole Grinnan — Thu, 30 Mar 2023 13:43:34 +0000

By Lindsey Cochran, Assistant Professor, East Tennessee State University; Grant Snitker, Director of the Cultural Resource Sciences and Fire Lab, New Mexico Consortium

An urgent question for archaeologists as we race to react to the climate crisis is: what are we losing? The biased nature of the collective archaeological dataset presents an unequal assessment of heritage at risk. As we know, today’s cultural landscape boundaries are different than those in the past. The majority of known cultural heritage sites are driven by cultural resource management and compliance, meaning known sites are often located near roadways, pipelines, reservoirs, and military installations. We propose that in addition to assessing which cultural heritage sites are at risk, archaeologists should also work to understand how under-investigated landscapes contribute to how we evaluate landscapes most likely to change enough to threaten, damage, or destroy our ability to interpret the past for future generations.

Figure 1. An optimized hot spot analysis of the relative densities of known archaeological sites in Georgia, USA. This map shows statistically significant hot and cold spots of identified archaeological sites using the Getis-Ord Gi* statistic. The red hotspot is Fort Stewart Army Base where NHPA catalyzed a fuller survey of cultural resources. Cells with no value indicate an absence of documented archaeology sites. Cells represent density of known sites within that hexagon, not site locations.

Within those known sites, archaeologists most often only excavate a small fraction of an area where people may have left cultural materials behind. Of those, only a few certain materials persist over time and are available for recovery. So when we ask “which non-renewable cultural heritage resources are we losing�?because the climate emergency, the answer is that we’re not really sure. Rather than using only the things people left behind, we propose to leverage the bias inherent in archaeology: non-uniform excavation strategies within and between sites, and differential preservation of material culture, by using historical maps to supplement the places in-between excavations. Historical maps allow archaeologists to gain a greater understanding of how past people viewed and navigated the world around them. However, these documents were created by people and for a purpose, meaning that historical maps depicting the same place at the same time, but created by different people, can tell dramatically different stories. Despite an element of inherent bias, historical maps are a tether to, at minimum, a cultural understanding a landscape and the potential presence of previously undocumented archaeological resources.

Here, we propose to leverage our biases: What could be known that we haven’t thought to investigate (yet)? For example, on the coast of Georgia, USA, can we use historical maps to estimate the location of resources that have little or no documentation, specifically Irish landholdings, farmsteads, small plantations? What elements of the landscape influence the presence or absence of a resource that has not yet been archaeologically documented?

We propose that historical documents, specifically historical maps, can be used as input data to investigate where significant archaeological sites may be located, the landscapes they occupy, and what future risks form climate change they might experience. Then, machine learning algorithms can be used to identify places on the landscape where there may be very significant cultural heritage resources that we are unaware of. These locations can then be cross-referenced with NOAA models of climate change or an archaeological triage assessment of those models to identify which potentially significant areas should be first surveyed prior to probable destruction. Our case study is from a coastal t-sheet from Sapelo Island, Georgia, USA created by H.S. DuVal in 1857 and reported to his superintendent, A.W. Evans in the same year. Alone, these documents contain useful information about how the landscape has changed over the last 200+ years. One such example is a simple note: “A new channel developed leading into Sapelo sound, Ga., three-quarters of a mile southward, and better than the one in use, 1860�?(1863:78). The reconnaissance map maker is potentially indicating the new use of the Cabretta inlet, which is now undergoing rapid change. The report of DuVal to Evans also contains useful information about the cultural context of the survey—plantation owner Thomas Spalding hosted DuVal and encouraged him to place one of his five transect lines through the Gullah-Geechee Behavior Settlement.

Proof of Concept Methodological Steps

In this proof-of-concept study, we georectify and vectorize elements of the historical landscape that were noted by the reconnaissance surveyor that could have influenced the presence or absence of an historical site. Those elements are then used as testing and training samples to determine if there are relatively standard cultural and environmental landscape attributes that can be used to determine is likelihood of the presence or absence of a plantation site on the Georgia coast. We have established four basic steps to this machine-learning methods for identifying plantation sites using datasets derived from historical maps: 1. Georectify the historic map to place it into real space.

Figure 2. Location of Sapelo Island, Georgia with the DuVal (1857) reconnaissance map georectified to the modern landscape.

2. Digitize model inputs within the landscape using archaeological experiences like pedestrian surveys and Phase I/II surveys, historical sources, and expert inputs to create landscape variables. In this case, we used vector inputs within the computational extent of the project area, vegetated areas, potentially arable land, proximity to structures, proximity to roads, and proximity to other cultural features (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Binary and continuous variables for classification into the machine learning algorithm.

3. Create a training set for the random forest classifier. A random forest classifier is a supervised machine learning algorithm that essentially grows multiple uncorrelated decision trees (Figure 4). After training samples are run through the many decision trees, results are aggregated into a majority class. The benefits of a random forest classifier are that the estimates fit a number of decision trees and sub-samples of the data to improve accuracy of the model and reduce over-fitting the training samples (Figure 5).

Figure 4. Random forest classifier in machine learning. (Image from //www.tibco.com/reference-center/what-is-a-random-forest)

Figure 5. Testing versus training inputs, closeup of the Spalding Sugar Plantation, Sapelo Island, Georgia, USA

4. Classify the entire landscape based on the training results (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Results of the random forest classifier. Yellow indicates a high probability of the presence of an element of a plantation site, whereas blue indicates a high probability of the absence of a similar site.

Overall, the model performs well to identify already known and potential plantation sites and activity areas within our study landscape. The model processing and production took place in R, which means that the processing steps and code is freely available, shareable, adaptable, and replicable. Finally, we are working to automate the digitization and vectorization process. However, because the historical map-makers are human, each map contains elements that need to be interpreted by a human. A computer might interpret the ink blot highlighted in Figure 7 as a structure, rather than an accidental mark made by the mapmaker. While this process was time intensive and limited to what is observed in each map, the next steps of this project are to expand our case studies beyond Georgia’s barrier islands and to the more inland sites that have been the subject of fewer or no studies at all.

Figure 7. A red circle is around a selection of archaeologically verified slave cabin, whereas the blue squares are around ink-blots pretending to be archaeologically significant.

Conclusion

What makes archaeology so interesting to us is that the nature of archaeology prohibits a complete understanding of our data. The puzzle will always remain a puzzle, but ideally with fewer missing pieces as research projects continue. Despite the ever-incomplete nature of our discipline, historical archaeologists have a unique relationship with a dataset uncommonly used when researching heritage at risk sites. We propose the development of a carefully interpreted machine learning approach, such as the one presented here, for using existing datasets in a new way to address a developing crisis. A create reinterpretation of existing data may facilitate our disciplinary creation of endangered sites lists that include probabilities of an area to contain as-of-yet undocumented resources. We suggest that a part of our response to the climate emergency includes a conversation about prioritization: should we direct more resources to preserving sites that what we already know about or to identify what we could know but may never have the chance to know.

Citations: Bache, A.D. 1864 Report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey, Showing the Progress of the Survey during the Year 1863. Washington Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. Accessed 6 Feb 2023. DuVal, H. S.

1857 Topographical Reconnaissance of Sapelo Island, Georgia. United States Coastal Survey, A. D. Bache, Superintendent. Atlanta: Surveyor General Department, Office of the Georgia Secretary of State. //nosimagery.noaa.gov/images/shoreline_surveys/survey_scans

Evans, A.W. 1857 Letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, Communicating the Report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey, Showing the Progress of That Work During the Year Ending November 1, 1857. Appendix No. 39: 347-377. .

The post Using Machine Learning and Spatial Statistics to Measure the Geometric Structure of Archaeological Spaces appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

Technology – Society for Historical Archaeology

Nicole Grinnan — Wed, 01 Feb 2023 22:41:00 +0000

Nicole Grinnan, Research Associate, Florida Public Archaeology Network; PhD Candidate, University of St Andrews; with contributions from Jeffery Robinson, Master’s Student, University of West Florida

This blog post has been adapted from a presentation given at The Society for Historical Archaeology’s 2023 Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology in Lisbon, Portugal.

Though archaeology is sometimes accused of being a “dusty�?science – both figuratively and literally – the field is constantly evolving as new technologies are adapted from other applications. Tools like ground penetrating radar (GPR), sub-bottom profilers, LiDAR, and laser scanners have revolutionized how archaeologists can efficiently and accurately collect data without even putting a shovel in the ground (or a foot on the seafloor). Accessible, advanced computing power in tandem with exciting software developments has also provided archaeology with the ability to process, store, and work with larger data sets.

In recent years, the Florida Public Archaeology Network (FPAN) has sought to integrate new technologies into its efforts to monitor archaeological sites at risk from the impacts of anthropogenic climate change. Many of these sites are located along Florida’s most vulnerable areas: its coastlines. In addition to concerns about “slower�?climate impacts like sea level rise, the increase in devastating hurricanes striking the Florida coast have created urgency among many archaeologists in the state to get baseline records of these coastal sites before they are lost completely. In 2019, FPAN’s Northeast Region was awarded a Florida Division of Historical Resources Special Category Grant to monitor and record sites across the state through the Heritage Monitoring Scouts Florida (HMS Florida) community science program. While many of the sites visited during the duration of the grant (1,059 unique sites in total) were monitored using a standardized form, FPAN recorded 13 additional sites with its FARO Focus 350s Terrestrial Laser Scanner (Image 1). Outputs from these laser scans included point clouds, scaled 3D models and images of the sites, and Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). While only a small number of the overall sites monitored during the grant were able to be scanned, we now have a wealth of information on the status of those 13 sites at the time they were monitored.

Image 1. FPAN’s Nicole Grinnan and UWF graduate student Jeffery Robinson conduct initial set-up the TLS unit, which includes leveling the device prior to each scan. (Photo courtesy of Sandra Averhart, WUWF Public Media)

During our initial experiences with terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) in Northwest Florida, a question inevitably arose: is this a technology that can be easily applied to archaeological site monitoring across the board? While numerous talented and tech-savvy archaeologists have successfully used TLS in their work, it struck me while in the field that TLS may not be the beacon of hope for site recording that we had initially hoped it might be. Not only are TLS units expensive to purchase in the current market (often somewhere along the order of $15,000+), but they also require costly periodic recalibration and proprietary software to remove point cloud data captured in the field. These expenses may be prohibitive for research institutions and governmental agencies unless grant funds can be spent to purchase a unit. While I can’t deny the ease of pressing a button and waiting eight minutes behind a dune to capture 360 degrees of data, TLS does also require a large kit of equipment that can be extraordinarily cumbersome to get to remote sites on land (Image 2). Units are sensitive to atmospheric conditions like humidity and temperature, with almost no resistance to water (a constant fear while working in Florida’s sudden, rainy onslaughts).

Image 2. FPAN’s Mike Thomin and Jeffery Robinson haul just some of the TLS equipment across Gulf Islands National Seashore. No mean feat, we eventually purchased the fishing cart to help us haul gear to sites like these. (Photo and animation courtesy of Nicole Grinnan)

Originally designed for survey, construction, and architecture, TLS relies on the strong geometry of built environments – like right angles formed at the intersection of building walls or the high contrast between different construction materials �?to align multiple scans during computer processing. Since a majority of the coastal archaeological sites we monitored in Northwest Florida were shell middens or Civil War-era earthworks, we installed white target spheres on our sites so that the TLS unit would have points with which to later align the scans (Image 3). The spheres added much more equipment to our overall kit and were often difficult to place on more tenuous landscapes like eroding bluffs. While scanning more “natural�?sites like shell middens and Civil War-era earthworks was not an impossible task, it did provide for a more challenging day of scanning. In the case of sites completely covered in vegetation (as many sites are here in Florida), TLS was completely ineffective because it relies on “line-of-sight�?observations.

Image 3. Koppa target sphere helped us create geometry for TLS at sites along natural shorelines, especially in areas with significant vegetation. (Photo courtesy Nicole Grinnan)

Aware of our experiences with TLS and having worked with it during his own projects, FPAN Public Archaeology Assistant and UWF Anthropology graduate student Jeffery Robinson proposed a Master’s thesis that would compare TLS with another technology now being used in a variety of archaeology applications: photogrammetry. Like TLS, photogrammetry produces point clouds of data that can be used to create products like 3D models, DEMs, or ortho-images. Unlike TLS, photogrammetry does not require any special tool or instrument; a camera and a good photo-taking strategy is generally all that is needed to capture data. Photo scales and printed targets can be useful in areas with low geometry (like natural shorelines), but they are generally not significant in terms of cost or equipment load. Processing images to create photogrammetric products may require the purchase of certain software, though open-source and free options are available (with some limits on functionality). With the quick swap of a camera lens, photogrammetry can also capture either large scale sites and environments or small, macro-scale artifacts. For his research, Jeffery selected three at-risk sites in Northwest Florida to monitor over the course of two years with each technology: Butcherpen Mound (8SR00029) in the Gulf Islands National Seashore Naval Live Oaks Area, Middle Middens (8ES04128) on Santa Rosa Island, and the World War I-era Battery Cooper (8ES00089) also in the Gulf Islands National Seashore Fort Pickens Area. Overall, photogrammetric recording of these sites took more time than recording via TLS. The reduced equipment load for photogrammetry, however, more than made up for the time needed to set up and level the TLS unit, install spherical targets, and transport the TLS unit to and from the site (Image 4). As neither TLS nor photogrammetry can collect data on occluded site components, photogrammetry is also less useful in places with heavy vegetation.

Image 4. Mike Thomin photographs a site on Santa Rosa Island during a photogrammetric survey. Equipment for photogrammetry generally requires only a photographer, a camera, and photos scales or printed targets. (Photo courtesy Nicole Grinnan)

Jeffery’s analysis of site change over time based on the TLS and photogrammetric data he produced is still ongoing, but our experiences in working with him drove home some of my early musings about whether integrating certain technologies into our everyday work was actually seamless. While I certainly don’t aspire to “singularity,�?I felt that truly beneficial technology shouldn’t have myriad accessibility issues like cost, kit, and proprietary software. For that reason, recent efforts by FPAN to fully document sites in Northwest Florida have relied more on photogrammetry.

Though it may seem like this blog post is quick to dismiss the application of TLS in coastal sites monitoring based on our experiences, it is important to note that TLS can be extremely useful to record sites with high geometry (i.e., buildings and more built environments) that are accessible by road or paved path. One peripheral benefit of using our TLS unit in the field was that many passersby were extremely curious about what we were doing and how the technology worked. These impromptu outreach opportunities were excellent for discussing research with residents of and visitors to the area. Indeed, the use of TLS garnered so much attention that the local public radio station (WUWF 88.1) featured our efforts and Jeffery’s research in a three-part piece that won News Director Sandra Averhart first place in the 2021 Florida Association of Broadcast Journalist Awards in the Environmental Reporting Series category for radio (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3).

New technologies are incredible tools that archaeologists can harness to make their work easier and more efficient. As with many things, a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted prior to committing to one method. In the instance of utilizing Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) or photogrammetry to monitor archaeological sites at-risk of climate impact in coastal Florida, staff in FPAN’s Northwest Region vastly preferred to photogrammetry due to its far more accessible nature. Given that the final products of both methods were virtually the same, we know how we’ll be packing for site monitoring missions into the foreseeable future.

The post “Tech Appeal�?in Coastal Archaeological Site Monitoring: Experiences with Terrestrial Laser Scanning and Photogrammetry in Northwest Florida appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

Technology – Society for Historical Archaeology

Mason Miller — Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:56:57 +0000

Howdy folks!

I hope that you’re surviving the crazy holiday season and looking forward to the SHA’s annual conference. This year, the conference mozies on down to Fort Worth, Texas where there will certainly be a lot to talk about, to see, and to do. Over the next few weeks, I wanted to use this space to dig a little bit into the SHA Program and provide my thoughts on those items that piqued my interest. The preliminary program is available now for your own review, but here are some of the highlights that I saw in reviewing it. There are some neat topics, tours, and workshops there that get me looking forward to the meeting!

For today, I’m going to focus on some of the Workshops that struck a particular chord with me. There are several to choose from. My mentioning specific ones below should not discourage you from checking out all of them. As the preliminary agenda says, all of these will be held on Wednesday, January 4th with the exception of the GMAC Anti-Racism Training Workshops, which will be held on Saturday and Sunday, January 7th and 8th.

Being someone who has a keen interest in digital media and has dabbled (albeit ham-fistedly – I figured out how to make a somewhat convincing martini glass once!) in the world of 3D Graphics, the first workshop that jumped out at me was WKS-06: Digital Heritage for Historical Archaeology: A Practicum in 3-D Modeling. I have always wanted to find better ways to give non-archaeologists new avenues to understand an excavation and 2D drawings, though great, often come up short. I have seen 3D graphics as a great tool to make excavations and artifacts ‘come alive�?(as the saying probably way too often goes) but have not been able to figure out the software by teaching myself; the the programs are just too different, I suppose. This course, directed by Edward González-Tennant of Digital Heritage Interactive, LLC, could be just the ticket to getting someone like myself over that seemingly steep initial learning curve and into “smooth sailing�?territory. Then I could start viewing, analyzing, and presenting field data in a new way!

The company that I work for conducts surveys on occasion on military training areas and ordnance is always a concern. That’s where a course like WKS-01: Ordnance Identification and Threat Assessment (Instructor: Tom Gersbeck from Oklahoma State University) comes in. In some instances on field projects, training is pretty basic prior to going out to do a survey. Having a practical, beginner’s guide to identifying ordnance in the field taught by a person there in the room with you (versus on an online video) could be fantastic! The subject ties loosely with WKS-07: Battlefield Workshop for Contractors and Grant Applicants taught by Kristen McMasters of the National Park Service’s American Battlefield Protection Program, too. In this workshop, the NPS will provide some great guidance on American battlefield preservation initiatives and associated grant programs. Being honest, I wasn’t aware of the ABPP before I read this program. What a great job they are doing and I welcome them to Texas to inform others of how they can help us all out in our work on these historic sites.

The Underwater Cultural Awareness Workshop (WKS-04; taught by Amy Mitchell-Cook from the Advisory Council on Underwater Archaeology) would also be very handy in helping to better understand how to explain underwater cultural resources to non-underwater archaeologists. Though I have my master’s in nautical archaeology, I could see a lot of benefit in viewing these resources from a non-practitioner’s point of view to find ways to better convey findings. It’s also always good to have a brush-up on international legislation.

Also, most of us are at least familiar with GIS; maybe not in direct practice, but we’re pretty aware of its capabilities. GIS is THE TOOL for geographic data collection and interpretation and learning to use even the basics of it can be very helpful for the experienced veteran and the new student coming up. If you’re interested, consider enrolling in Kyle Walker’s (Texas Christian University) WKS-02: Geographic Information Systems. As an added bonus, this class being held offsite at TCU’s campus there in downtown Fort Worth (travel is included). It is a beautiful campus (and that’s saying a lot coming from this University of Texas Longhorn) so I encourage you to go check it out.

Needless to say, race and racism have been a bit of a theme of late on the national stage here in the United States. I have considered archaeology to be a profession and science in which that topic really doesn’t come up very often. That’s quite possibly the result of me simply being unaware, though. That certainly doesn’t mean that it isn’t there and it isn’t worth discussion. Shoot, the fact that there’s a Gender and Minority Affairs Committee (GMAC) suggests as much. Accordingly, I am more than a little curious about WKS-08: GMAC Introduction to Systemic Racism Workshop and WKS-09: GMAC Second-Steps Antiracist Workshop: Becoming an Antiracist Multicultural Institution, both hosted by Flordeliz T. Bugarin (Howard University), Michael S. Nassaney (Western Michigan University), and Crossroads Antiracism Organizing & Training. Split over two days, this course will provide attendees with an opportunity to speak about their own perspectives and see the viewpoints of others on this difficult topic. It will be particularly eye-opening to learn others�?findings on the racialization of our discipline.

In my 15+ years as a professional archaeologist, I haven’t worked with human remains very much until fairly recently. I don’t know if that makes me an anomaly or not, but a couple recent projects and all of a sudden WKS-05: Practical Aspects of Bioarchaeology and Human Skeletal Analysis (Chairs: Thomas Crist, Utica College, and Kimberly Morrell, AECOM) is speaking to me. In the few instances where I have worked with burials and human remains, I’m keenly aware of how much more there is for me to learn about the identification and analysis of burials and how best to effectively engage descendant groups and get the public interested in these sites. This seems like a fantastic place to start.

With the course being offered almost every year since (We’re Gonna Party Like It’s) 1999, it is clear that WKS-03: Archaeological Illustration (Instructor: Jack Scott from Jack Scott Creative) is a tried and true winner! Like the 3D course, this is one that I would bet an illustration novice could walk in saying to him/herself, “I’ll never be able to do something like that…�?and then walk out saying, “Hey! Look what I learned how to do!�?And if you aren’t much for traditional pen-and-ink illustration techniques, I bet you could pick up a wealth of guidance on common illustration conventions, printing concerns, and more for direct application in digital media as well. To commemorate its long run, I wonder if Mr. Scott will play “Believe�?by Cher (the top song from 1999 according to Billboard) for a little concentration music. Maybe some Smashmouth? Anyway…

There, I went and did it. I was only going to talk about the ones that really jumped out at me and I wound up talking about all of them. I guess that means I have a bit of a decision ahead of me, don’t I? While I mull this over, you check out the program and get yourself registered! Talk to you soon!

The post Workshops at the 2017 SHA Annual Conference – Fort Worth, Texas | January 4-7, 2017 appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

Technology – Society for Historical Archaeology

Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:30:03 +0000

Kevin Gidusko, Florida Public Archaeology Network

Image 1 The FPAN drone, Boas I, gets ready for flight. Photo credit: Kevin Gidusko At some point in the near future you or someone you know is going to want to get a drone and use it somehow, someway in whatever research or outreach you are conducting. Perhaps this thought has already crossed your mind. For the most part I think this is an amazing idea, but not without its own set of serious issues to consider first. Drones, more properly referred to as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are rapidly changing the ways in which we collect data at archaeological sites, and offer us fantastic new ways to visualize that data. Those visualizations, those flashy aerials and three-dimensional models that drones help us to produce, are what inevitably intrigues the public; not to mention the hint of science fiction futurism that still clings to drones. Those of us working in public outreach are keen to take advantage of these shifts in public interest and so it is inevitable that some of us will want to procure a drone to use in outreach efforts. However, drones have also been a hot-button issue these last several years. Issues of privacy and public safety intermittently make the global media circuit, often doing a better job of spreading how best not to use a drone rather than discussing how they are being put to use by a bevy of well-meaning enthusiasts and scientists. It is imperative we demonstrate best practices to the public so that we can assist in bolstering the positive public image of these powerful tools. The first, best thing you can do when using a drone is to stay informed about the topic! It should be noted that this post has a definite shelf-life. I give it a year tops. The drone industry and laws surrounding drone use in the U.S. and abroad are constantly changing as the technology advances and agencies charged with regulating their use play catch-up. Please be aware that any discussion below of applicable laws or rules to consider when using a drone are only good for the time being. These laws can, and probably will, change often in the next few years. This post is designed to lay out the bare-bones basic overview of purchasing a drone and using it safely around the public. I will cover a few key points, but this should not be considered an exhaustive discussion of utilizing drones in public outreach or research. The goal for this post is to create a quick, easy outline of important issues, resources, and best practices for drone use.

Who Governs the Skies?

One of the first things to consider before purchasing or using a drone is to find out who manages the airspace in your country. Many of these agencies are actively attempting to engage drone users, so finding them online should not be a problem. These are the best places to find out what kind of regulations are in place for drone use. In the U.S., the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) manages the nation’s airspace. For drone use in the U.S. some things to remember are to:

Register a drone with the FAA and mark it with the registration number.
Keep drones below 400 feet and within your line of site.
Have a basic knowledge of where drones can and cannot be used. For example, the National Park System airspace, airports, sporting events, and most airspace around military installations are no drone zones.

Every country has their own set of regulations, always be sure to find out what those may be before attempting to fly a drone. Always remember that in the U.S. drones should not be flown within 5 miles of an airport without first contacting the control tower. Many of the drones currently on the market are nearly impossible to spot by airplanes descending for a landing; it is the responsibility of the drone operator to ensure that no mishaps occur.

Image 2 Registration ID for the Boas I. Design Credit: Nicole Grinnan

What Kind of Drone?

The drone industry has an ever-increasing selection of multi-purpose or task-specific drones to choose from. How best to find the right one for you? For the most part two major considerations come into play when choosing a drone: Cost and purpose. Both of these should be carefully weighed before purchasing a drone and all of the assorted equipment inevitably needed to keep it running.

Cost: Drones range anywhere from a few hundred dollars to thousands of dollars. Naturally, cost may be the largest constraint you encounter; you only have so much to spend. More expensive drones tend to be larger, have better camera and video equipment, and can remain airborne longer. Remember also that the cost of the drone itself is only one aspect of the total cost. Extra batteries, carrying cases, replacement rotors, and standard repairs to the drone potentially add hundreds of dollars to the cost. Deciding how much to spend on a drone also has a great deal to do with its intended purpose.

Purpose: Generally speaking, more expensive drones allow for higher quality data collection and offer greater variation in use. Many less expensive drones still have great cameras, though they are not usually able to be switched out. If your goal is to use a drone to do demonstrations, take a few neat pics, and possibly collect data for 3D modeling, then one of the lower end drones on the market now (< $1000) should definitely meet your needs. If a primary purpose of the drone to be purchased is research, investing in better equipment pays off exponentially. This is especially true when you factor in the increased airtime these drones offer and the ability to, for example, switch out cameras, attach thermal imaging cameras, attach LiDAR sensors, etc.

There are several types of drones on the market that are increasingly being manufactured to suit specific needs. There is no point in purchasing a drone that is rigged for cinematography or large-scale mapping, for example, when what is needed is a small demonstration drone to be used intermittently. Think about how a drone will be used before purchasing it and decide if all the features you may want are really necessary.

How to Ensure Safety?

Drones, like many other tools we regularly use, can be dangerous. The rotors on drones spin fast and hard enough to cause serious wounds to a person. When using a drone around the public it is important to consider a few safety measures:

Never fly the drone at or directly above a person or group. Drones can, and have, fallen from the sky or have just flown off. While not an everyday occurrence, it is nevertheless important that when operating a drone you take every precaution to ensure the safety of those around you.
If the drone loses contact with the remote control and flies off then immediately alert nearby air traffic control towers.
Keep a log of each flight. Record airtime, conditions, purpose, location, and note if you had to request permission to fly the drone as well as who granted it. Note every issue that occurs with the drone.
Do not lose sight of the drone and consider flying with a spotter when using it around the public. The spotter’s job should be to make sure that the drone is within sight and not a danger to anything. This is especially helpful if the drone operator is busy speaking to a group and paying attention to live-streaming feeds from the drone.
Consider purchasing propeller guards. These help ensure the safety of others as well as the drone itself should it bump into an object.

Image 3 Teaching a volunteer how drones operate. The author is acting as the drone spotter. Photo credit: Kevin Gidusko

Get Creative!

The future of archaeology is sure to see the inclusion of the drone as a standard addition to the archaeologist’s toolkit. Their use in archaeology has already captured the imagination of the public; including drones in public outreach and better educating the public about their potential applications is an easy sell. Drones can be used in teaching about aerial survey techniques, 3D photogrammetry of sites or structures, making informational videos, or even just taking pictures that offer a unique perspective.

Image 4 There are plenty of software options available for use with drones. Here, a 3D model has been created with the use of Agisoft Photoscan, a 3D photogrammetry software package. Photo credit: Kevin Gidusko The sections above have covered, incredibly briefly, a few of the issues to consider before purchasing or using a drone for your public outreach or research. The most important things to remember are to stay informed about current regulations concerning drones and to always ensure the safety of others while flying a drone. The basic points in the sections above should help guide your initial foray into the world of drones. However, a quick search online will quickly convey the depth and breadth of this topic thus far. There is a massive amount of information to wade through and even more coming around the corner. We’ve only just begun.

The post Your First Drone: Basic Considerations and Best Practices for Drone Use in Public Outreach appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

Technology – Society for Historical Archaeology

Christopher Matthews — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:07:09 +0000

Technical Briefs in Historical Archaeology has recently published several exciting and useful articles. Three are artifact studies, including a discussion of the origins of French faience based on stylistic and compositional data (Métreau and Rosen), an analysis of bottle contents with some surprising results (von Wandruszka et al.), and a case study of utilized glass analysis (Porter). At a larger scale, Thomas and Volanski offer a geochemical method of for identifying laundry washing sites. Three additional authors discuss innovative photography applications. Rivera’s article provides a primer on applying forensic photography techniques to archaeology collections. A two part article by Whitely introduces the use of drones in archaeology and methods for collecting video footage for site mapping. Finally, an article by Selden presents the uses of photogrammetry in grave marker recording.

Please also consider submitting an article to Technical Briefs. Technical Briefs is a peer-reviewed publication devoted to the fast dissemination of shorter specialized technical papers in historical archaeology, maritime archaeology, material culture technology, and materials conservation. Technical Briefs articles reach and international audience through the SHA webpage and provide free, open access to your ideas. At 3,000 words and with an average of four months from submission to publication, Technical Briefs also offers a relatively painless way to publish. Submission guidelines are available on the Technical Briefs webpage and inquiries can be sent to Ben Ford.

Cover image is an aerial view of Waddington Roadhouse, oblique angle. (Photo by Thomas G. Whitley, 2015.)

The post New Articles from Technical Briefs in Historical Archaeology appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

Technology – Society for Historical Archaeology

Jonathan Libbon — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 15:34:08 +0000

Here is a riddle, what technology is used by an archaeologist working on a 19^thcentury farmstead, an archaeologist recording a wreck in the Mediterranean, and an archaeologist explaining a site to a group of fourth graders? The Answer �?Photography. This week the SHA Technology Committee is excited to present the fourth installment of Tech Week on the SHA blog. This tech week focuses on the many uses of photography in archaeology. All three bloggers discuss how they use photography to not only record the past, but how they use it to better understand it too.

The week begins with a post by Drew Fulton. Drew’s work as a conservation photographer and filmmaker took him to the Kızılburun wreck in the Aegean Sea. The logistics of photographing a wreck 150 feet below the surface of the ocean can be staggering, but Drew was able to capture the wreck in breathtaking 360 degree interactive panoramic images.

Following Drew’s post, Karen Price discusses the use of photography in preservation at Mount Vernon. Karen provides tips and tricks for both the amateur artifact photographer and the professional archaeologist, while making a call for all archaeologists to reconsider their approach to field and lab photography. She also provides some stunning examples of her work.

The final blogger for Tech week is Carrie Fulton. Carrie discusses her work on the ship that was discovered at the World Trade Center site in New York City. Typically, archaeologist painstakingly record each timber of a ship, but because of the nature of the site and the heavy push for construction, Carrie and the team of archaeologists working at the site, didn’t have time to record the ship in such detail. Utilizing a wide range of technology they created a detailed digital record that allowed them to create a 3d model of the ship that recorded the exact spatial layout of each timber.

Check out the #TechWeek Posts:

Going Interactive Underwater by Drew Fulton
Preservation Photography: Roles and Rules by Karen Price
Photographs into Models: Documenting the World Trade Center Ship by Carrie Fulton

The post Tech Week: Photography in Archaeology appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

Technology – Society for Historical Archaeology

Drew Fulton — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 15:32:03 +0000

By Drew Fulton

When you first tell people that you are going to spend a couple weeks during the summer diving on a 2,000 year old shipwreck in 150 feet of water in the Aegean Sea, people start asking a lot of questions. It is such a unique experience and the logistics of excavating underwater are so specialized that I wanted to take the opportunity share that experience with others. [pano file=”//www.drewfulton.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/panoramas/Dock_02/Dock_02.html” width=”95%” height=”400″] Now, let me put this out there before we get started. I am not an archaeologist or researcher. I am married to one. I work as a conservation photographer and filmmaker, but on occasion I get to tag along on my wife’s projects to help with the media side of things. That is how I ended up diving on the Kızılburun shipwreck about five years ago. As a photographer, I was using 360° interactive panoramic images to transport viewers to hard to access places. Most notably, I had been using this technology to immerse students in the forest canopy in the cloud forests of Costa Rica. So why not try to use the same technology to transport viewers to the sea floor to experience the excavation of the Kızılburun wreck? [pano file=”//www.drewfulton.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/panoramas/Morning_Meeting/Morning_Meeting.html” width=”95%” height=”400″] The Kızılburun wreck was a first-century BCE marble carrier that was probably headed to the temple at Claros, transporting a monumental marble column and several other unfinished pieces of marble. This column was nearly 2 meters in diameter and was broken up into 8 separate drums that were almost 1.5 meter tall each and a capital. Each of these marble drums weighed in excess of 8 tons. When the marble had reached Claros, the column would have been assembled by stacking all of the drums on top of each other with the capital on top, and then the flutes would have been cut into the column once it was assembled. [pano file=”//www.drewfulton.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/panoramas/Conservation/Conservation.html” width=”95%” height=”400″] By the time I came to the project, in the third and final major season of excavation, the drums had been moved from their location in the wreck and placed on a flat piece of bottom about 25 meters from the site. This gave researches access to the fragile remains of the wooden hull and other small artifacts. Throughout the field season, the archaeologists carefully removed the sand, exposing nails and wood that were evidence for the hull. [pano file=”//www.drewfulton.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/panoramas/Millawanda_Stern_PM/Millawanda_Stern_PM.html” width=”95%” height=”400″]

Prior to the field season I spent a lot of time researching the technical aspects of 360° panorama. At the time, the most common use for this technology was in the real estate business to showcase homes that were for sale. My previous project, Canopy in the Clouds, took this idea and used it to virtually immerse students in the canopy of Costa Rica’s clouds forests. So while I had created these images while hanging on a rope 100 feet high in a tree, capturing these images underwater was totally new for me. After some research I found there were very few underwater examples available and none that were captured at high resolutions. For the work I had done in the cloud forests, I had utilized a specialized tripod head that helped me to position the camera correctly with a very high precision, something necessary for stitching together the high resolution images. However, since it was an expensive piece of equipment, I had no interest in submerging it in the salt water of the Aegean. This meant I had to basically fabricate my own.

To create these panoramic images doesn’t require a specialized camera or lens, it just requires taking a bunch of images and stitching them together after the fact. I utilize a fisheye lens and take about 6-8 images while rotating the camera horizontally to capture the entire horizon and then take a few images to capture straight up and straight down. It sounds pretty easy but to make a seamless image, the camera has to rotate precisely—that’s where the specialized tripod head comes in to play. Since I didn’t have access to the underwater housing until I was on site and the site was very remote, I had to basically show up with a diverse range of options to fabricate a head on site. It took about three dives of testing and some help from the ship’s captain and his welder, but we fabricated something that resembled a tripod head and worked well enough to get the job done. [pano file=”//www.drewfulton.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/panoramas/Downslope_Working/Downslope_Working.html” width=”95%” height=”400″] Over the course of 2-3 dives over several days, I started photographing the site and the archaeologists at work. After my dives, I’d quickly download the images and start stitching them to be sure that everything had worked and I could move on to the next image. My goal was to shoot several panoramas to showcase the different areas of the site including the bow, stern, and drum garden. I also spent some time creating panoramas in camp to showcase the place and the work we were doing. [pano file=”//www.drewfulton.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/panoramas/Drum_Garden_03/Drum_Garden_03.html” width=”95%” height=”400″] Now, five years later, technology has come a long way and improved a lot. Today, you can purchase a simple 3D printed holder that will hold six GoPro cameras and not only create panoramas like this but do it in 360° video! This gives the viewer a chance to pan around as the camera moves through the environment! [pano file=”//www.drewfulton.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/panoramas/Empty_Site_01/Empty_Site_01.html” width=”95%” height=”400″] Overall, I really enjoyed my time working on the Kızılburun wreck and the challenge of transporting viewers to this unique site. Not being an archaeologist myself, I really enjoyed having an opportunity to experience an excavation and see how things worked. It was my hope that these images will give other viewers the same sneak peak. How have you tried to show others a window into your own work? Do you feel like it has brought attention to you research and opened doors to talking about the work you do? Acknowledgements: I’d like to thanks Dr. Deborah Carlson for including me on the excavation, Eric Kemp for the use of his camera and housing, Feyyaz Subay for his help welding the improvised tripod head, and my wife, Carrie Fulton, for letting me tag along on the excavation.

Check out the other #TechWeek Posts:

Tech Week: Photography in Archaeology by Jonathan Libbon
Preservation Photography: Roles and Rules by Karen Price
Photographs into Models: Documenting the World Trade Center Ship by Carrie Fulton

The post Going Interactive Underwater appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

Technology – Society for Historical Archaeology

Karen Price — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 15:31:50 +0000

By Karen Price

There’s something about a photograph. Humans are visual and I think pictures can sometimes reach broader audiences than can words. 21^st century technology has only helped our addiction to the visual with the advent of digital technology and social media platforms. Digital cameras have now made the photographic process quicker. Yet, their user-friendly, high-quality format as well as their instantaneous outcome has, on the downside, introduced a cult of point-and-shoot photography.

Figure 1: Nine grave shafts exposed during the Mount Vernon Slave Cemetery Survey. Karen. E. Price, Mount Vernon Archaeology.

This is where I was at until around three years ago when I came to Mount Vernon for an archaeology internship. After having a lecture on artifact photography and a project that involved a digital portfolio, I attempted through trial and error to become an artifact photographer for the Archaeological Collections Online project, a two-year endeavor to digitize important finds from the Washington households�?18^thcentury midden. This necessitated taking the camera off automatic, learning about aperture, ISO, shutter speeds and white balance in order to get the best possible shot for the database.

Figure 2: Caption: A standard record shot. Rim and body sherds of a burnished Colonoware vessel with scale, object 2669. Karen E. Price, Mount Vernon Archaeology.

I have now expanded my role from photography intern to Preservation Photographer. There are generally two types of photographs that I take both in the field and in the studio: record shots (figure 2) and creative or candid shots (figure 3). These are not mutually exclusive and all follow the same basic compositional guidelines. I always photograph in RAW format (as opposed to, say, JPG), constantly assess the light, and ask myself if the picture makes sense to the viewer.

Figure 3: A candid, creative shot. Volunteers hold lithics excavated from the Slave Cemetery Survey. Karen E. Price, Mount Vernon Archaeology.

At work my general tasks are to document our current excavations and pre/post/ongoing restoration projects around the Mount Vernon Estate. I also do a bit of landscape photography to aid in the preservation of Mount Vernon’s Viewshed looking east across the Potomac River and I’m starting to assist our Collections staff with in-house photography. My favorite, however, is artifact photography, which is where I feel most comfortable creatively. This not only involves standard record photographs, but dramatic detail shots (figure 4), 360 degree spinning GIFs, and thematic pictures (figure 5). I love how sometimes, with just the right lighting and depth of field, a picture can bring out qualities in an artifact that aren’t as visible with the naked eye (figure 6).

Figure 4: A detail shot. By using raking light coming in from only the left side I was able to bring out the C and sunburst design on this tobacco pipe heel. Object 2906. Karen E. Price, Mount Vernon Archaeology.

I’ve got a couple of projects (experiments) lined up for 2015 that will take me out of my comfort zone and hopefully enhance my photographic skills. For starters, a new photographic technique called Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) that synthesizes multiple photos of an object, each using a different angle of lighting, to bring out 3D details in a 2D format. I’m also going to try and create actual 3D files through digital images using Agisoft Photoscan.

Figure 5: A thematic shot. Buttons excavated from the South Grove Midden. Karen E. Price, Mount Vernon Archaeology.

My main goal in this job, however, is to create a standard protocol for field and artifact photography that anyone can follow. This ensures that archaeologists do not have to simply “point-and-shoot�? but can follow guidelines for setting up a shot. And really, taking a second to think about the composition of a shot will do wonders for the quality of our photographs. In the studio these include photographing in RAW format so that you can correctly adjust gray balance, orienting the object correctly (figure 7) and blocking reflective glare from ceramics. Forget RTI and 3D imaging- basic, high-quality archaeological photography can be done in-house, on a fairly low budget, and by non-photographers.

Figure 6: An hua on porcelain can be difficult to see. By limiting the amount of light the porcelain received I was able to bring out the design a bit more. Chinese Export Porcelain plate, object 2645. Karen E. Price, Mount Vernon Archaeology.

There are a few things you may want to invest in if you’d like to up your photographic game. I’m a big proponent of photographing in RAW format so you’ll need a digital camera capable of this, which will be your biggest investment. You’ll also need a computer software capable of opening RAW files (I use Adobe Photoshop but RawTherapee is a budget-friendly option). In the studio I recommend having an X-rite color checker (this will help correctly color balance your photo), two photographic strobe lights, a tripod, small scales, and a suitable background for your artifacts (black velvet works well with most objects). If I had to pick the bare necessities? The camera, the software, and a color checker.

Figure 7: It can be difficult to arrange multiple non-mending sherds for a photograph. I do my best to line up the decoration and mimic the original curvature of the artifact. Delftware plate, object 2589. Karen E. Price, Mount Vernon Archaeology.

I think that with the current technology we can, and should, expect a change in the discipline in regard to how it treats photographic documentation. I’m all for a great iPhone photo, but I’d love to see archaeologists taking the camera off automatic and experimenting with what today’s digital cameras can do. Our pictures may not speak a thousand words, maybe only a handful. But, if they open up dialog about archaeological research and material culture, or even just get the general public excited about our discipline, then I think they’re worth the effort. I’d love to hear your tips, thoughts, or questions on archaeological photography!

You can see some of Karen’s preservation photographs on the Mount Vernon Midden database, the Digital Archive of Comparative Slavery, COVA’s Culture Embossed, on Facebook, and on the cover of American Archaeology, fall 2013, volume 17, number 3.

Check out the other #TechWeek Posts:

Tech Week: Photography in Archaeology by Jonathan Libbon
Going Interactive Underwater by Drew Fulton
Photographs into Models: Documenting the World Trade Center Ship by Carrie Fulton

The post Preservation Photography: Roles and Rules appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

Technology – Society for Historical Archaeology

Carrie Fulton — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 15:30:53 +0000

By Carrie Fulton

If you attend any archaeology conference or glance through recent issues of journals, you will quickly see the extent to which photogrammetric documentation has become a part of an archaeologist’s toolkit. Take a few photos, import them to software, and hit go. Violà! You now have digital models of your site or object. Ok, so the steps are slightly more detailed, but with new technology, the interfaces and steps to producing accurate models are getting easier and less technical. The benefits of digital recording are massive: increased speed of recording, preservation of three-dimensional information, geo-referenced data, digital preservation of contexts that are destroyed through the process of excavation, and easy dissemination of information. How can this technology be used effectively? And are there drawbacks? If so, how can they be mitigated?

Let’s look at the excavation and documentation of the remains of a late 18th-century ship discovered during the construction at the World Trade Center site in July 2010.

Figure 1: Remains of the World Trade Center Ship looking from the stern towards the retention wall. (Photo: K. Galligan)

Since the ship was found in one section of an active construction site, we had to move quickly so the timbers could be removed and construction could continue. Approximately 32 feet of the ship’s stern (back end) remained. However, a modern retention wall bisected the ship and destroyed evidence for much of the forward half of the ship except for a very small section of the bow (forward end) of the ship that was uncovered in August 2011 when the other side of the wall was cleared. To capture the relationship between timbers we used laser scanning, photographs, videography, and sketches. This enabled us to give each timber a unique identification so that upon disassembly we could keep track of each piece and reconstruct the in situ relationship. Once removed from the site, we had more time to analyze the timbers, but the next step in the preservation of the ship hadn’t been determined. We were faced with the question: How do we record each timber accurately and quickly? We settled on an approach that combined traditional methods for documenting timbers with recent advances in photogrammetry to create three-dimensional digital recordings of the timbers.

Figure 2: Making a 1:1 tracing of a frame. (Photo: D. Fulton)

Traditionally, nautical archaeologists record the dimensions by tracing the timbers in 1:1 reproductions or making scaled drawings of each face (Figure 2). The advantage of this approach is the close examination and documentation of each face, noting patterns in fasteners, tool patterns, and any biological growth that might be indicative of post-depositional processes. However, this method is extremely time consuming, and there is the possibility for dimensions to be distorted in tracing (due to parallax) or in condensing information into a scaled drawing. For the best use of resources and time, we made 1:1 tracings of the two sides of the frames where the ceiling planking and the outer planking were attached. This allowed us to record the arrangement in nail patterns, which is crucial to answering questions about whether the ship timbers had been repaired. To document the curves of the frames that are difficult to render in two dimensions, we used photogrammetry to generate three-dimensional models. For all other timbers of the ship, we also used photogrammetry rather than tracings. Each timber still had its own data sheet with notations for tool marks, measurements, marine growth, and any other information that might aid in the reconstruction of the ship and its life history. However, the timber is now preserved in a digital record as a three-dimensional model. Creating a model involved a three-step procedure:

Figure 3: Drew Fulton photographs a frame which was imported into PhotoModeler Scanner.

STEP 1: Photograph the timber. For the version of PhotoModeler Scanner in 2010, stereo pairs of photographs were taken from each side of the object, with the photographer maintaining a 45-degree angle between the object and the camera. To aid in linking the photographs together, computer generated and coded dots were placed around the timber. We used push-pins to mark nails and other features so that they could be easily spotted in photographs. This allowed us to maintain the high degree of detail afforded by the tracing method while decreasing recording time.

Figure 4: 3D model of a timber created in PhotoModeler Scanner.

STEP 2: Generate 3D data. The photographs were then used to create a 3D model in PhotoModeler Scanner by first creating cloud data of the timber and then transforming the cloud data into a triangulated mesh. This mesh recorded the curves of the timbers and was exported into the NURBS modeling software Rhinoceros.

Figure 5: Reconstruction of the small deck.

STEP 3: Render into a model. Using Rhinoceros, a 3D image was created and nails were added following the locations of preserved nails. From this model, individual drawings can be produced to link the timber to information from field notes and examination in the lab. Additionally, these individual pieces were combined digitally in Rhinoceros to reconstruct the ship, using the aid of data from the laser scan.

Figure 6: Reconstruction of a frame in Rhinoceros.

The emphasis for us was integrating three-dimensional recording techniques with traditional measuring and documentation techniques to quickly and accurately record the ship and enable analysis when access to the actual timbers may not be possible. On the one hand, it is easy to see the benefits: it’s a fast process in the field, it preserves and records curves very well, it facilitates collaboration and dissemination of information with digital files that can be easily shared. On the other hand, we tend not to think about the costs associated with it: digital cameras with high resolution files requiring terabytes of storage, the possibility of having corrupt hard drives, and long hours and tedious manual work to render the digital data into final forms. Most significantly, while advances in digital technology enable better documentation, will these advances make our early attempts obsolete? For example, the version of PhotoModeler Scanner that we used has already been updated, no longer requiring stereo-photographs. Using the photographs from the World Trade Center Ship, I am eager to try rendering models using newer versions of software to see what these changes might mean for our data. However, what would happen if I could no longer open the software used to access the data?

The power of photogrammetric techniques lies in their integration with traditional techniques, using them alongside measurements and drawings to record the archaeological data. While it’s a helpful tool, we still need to future-proof our data. From the 3D models, we can still produce standard drawings and take measurements. By supplementing recordings in the field and tape measurements, this redundancy can help catch errors in recording while producing a complete visual record of the object.

While moving forward with new technologies and digital recording procedures, are we at risk of advancing too quickly? Is there a risk that we will no longer have the computer programs or software to open these files and thus render our documentation obsolete? Or, is this a way of ‘future-proofing�?our data? ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Archaeologists at AKRF, INC., Diane Dallal, Michael Pappalardo, Elizabeth Meade, and Molly McDonald, managed the excavation of the site for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC). The principle investigation of the ship was led by Warren Riess (University of Maine) and Carrie Fulton (Cornell University). Drawings were made by Kathleen Galligan. Drew Fulton (Drew Fulton Photography) photographed onsite panoramas and the timbers for photogrammetry. Timbers were initially stored at the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory and are now held in the Conservation Research Laboratory at Texas A&M University. The LMDC and the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey provided funding for this project.

Check out the other #TechWeek Posts:

Tech Week: Photography in Archaeology by Jonathan Libbon
Going Interactive Underwater by Drew Fulton
Preservation Photography: Roles and Rules by Karen Price

The post Photographs into Models: Documenting the World Trade Center Ship appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.

Technology – Society for Historical Archaeology

Tim.Goddard — Tue, 31 Dec 2013 15:09:23 +0000

A recent SHA Academic and Professional Training Student Sub-committee survey asked student members what technologies are necessary in archaeology and as professionals. In continuing support of the identification, discussion, and application of relevant technologies, student member, Tim Goddard, agreed to (re)introduce the concept behind the Technology Room �?a great space for students and professionals to engage in one-on-one conversations about current technologies in historical archaeology.

Thank you for the opportunity to blog about the Technology room from/for a student’s perspective. I gladly serve on the SHA’s Technology committee. I am also a Graduate student finalizing my PhD. Several years ago, when I first joined the committee, one of my first conversations with fellow members explored the challenges of presenting the use of technology to SHA members who were not already a part of the “technology crowd�? For many previous years, the same group of colleagues presented the latest technologies they were playing with and composed the small number of technology sessions at annual meetings. Despite the fun of this, rarely did we see new faces – especially people wanting to learn about technology. The Technology Committee was created to serve the SHA’s needs as they relate to technology. This can include almost anything, which has been the case thus far. Only the Website has remained outside the purview of the technology committee. We serve to advise the SHA board and any interested members on almost any technology-related application, either for the Society, or for use in the field of archaeology. As you can imagine, this is an extensive scope. The diverse technical needs of archaeologists require that the committee have a number of members from a wide variety of technological backgrounds. We cover topics including: social media, geophysics, remote sensing, data collection, data management, GIS, LIDAR, 3D, virtual worlds, network management, etc.

pXRF Technology Leicester 2013. PxRF technology allows us to identify the chemical composition of soils and/or artifacts. The committee regularly offers workshops at the SHA to learn how to use this technology. The following link is an example of one use by one of our committee members David Morgan (//ncptt.nps.gov/blog/pxrf-presentation-at-lasmaa/).

With some of my own work in WebGIS, I was frustrated that it was not possible to demonstrate my research in a virtual poster session allowing people to view and interact with my presentation via a computer terminal. To do so would have meant me renting a table space, electricity and Wi-Fi, in the exhibition room. Something that is not really feasible for most students! I also know firsthand from teaching that there are a large number of archaeologists that have technology phobias. This fear can be found in young students as well as established emeritus colleagues around the world. So I wanted to know how we could better serve those members at the conferences. We developed the idea of the Technology Room. Our first experiment with a dedicated technology demonstration space was at the 2011 meeting in Austin, Texas. We decided to focus on three to four key technologies that we felt every archaeologist should know about. We found a handful of our colleagues working with these technologies and invited them to bring the actual technology to our room and to sit down for a block of time to answer questions and provide demonstrations, and hands on experience were possible, for interested colleagues. We strove to recruit archaeologists using technologies in their research projects rather than sales representatives. The idea was great and we got positive feedback, but our execution that first year needed some help.

LIDAR technology Leicester 2013. LIDAR typically comes in aerial or terrestrial applications. This is a terrestrial style scanner being demonstrated in the Technology Room. A good link to see LIDAR uses in heritage is //archive.cyark.org/?gclid=CPX7m8a13boCFQLl7AodR0oAXw.

In the following years we continued to showcase various technologies by having practicing archaeologists demonstrate the technology in the exhibition room, which was always problematic and also made communicating difficult with all the noise. Last year, in Leicester, was the first year that we had our own dedicated room, making communicating much easier. We saw a drop in traffic indicating that we still need to get the word out there about the Technology Room. An undergraduate student who I supported at Leicester found the Room worth noting in a blog he posted about his first conference experience. There is something for everyone in the Technology Room.

UAV Technology Leicester 2013. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are popping up everywhere in archaeology. From a simpler Quadcopter to multiple thousand dollar units with multiple sensor platforms are finding many uses every year in archaeology.

What are the purposes of the Technology Room?

Present the latest and greatest technologies being used in archaeology.
Have a practicing archaeologist familiar with the technology to educate others about what did and didn’t work.
Learn what pitfalls to avoid.
The real costs involved.
Share technology driven research that can’t always be demonstrated in a traditional symposium.
Network with various technology minded colleagues

What is the benefit to Students? Students:

learn about technologies that you might not know about through your own institution;
are often our best presenters as they grew up in a technology age and can help others with technology phobias in a professional context;
can learn and see technology in a low pressure environment;
and can network to find projects using a technology they might be interested in working with.

So I challenge you: What Technology are you interested in? What role do you feel technology should play in archaeology? What are the problems we face with technology? How can we (SHA) or your institution better train you for technology-related applications?

Comment below as well as stop by the Technology Room this January.

Tim Goddard

The post What the Tech…?! appeared first on Society for Historical Archaeology.