Imaging

Adventures in Digital Archaeology & Open Access Antiquarianism

Ashley M. Richter in front of one of the UCSD Calit2 visualization walls and my layered realities conceptual graphic for digital archaeological technology development and use.

Ashley M. Richter in front of one of the UCSD Calit2 visualization walls and my layered realities conceptual graphic for digital archaeological technology development and use.

It’s funny how quickly time passes while studying time.

Two years ago, this weekend was spent with a laser scanner at the beach.

I’d finagled a mini-grant from the National Science Foundation for a project I like to call Sandcastles for Science, but whose full un-pronouncable name identified it as a project to test out laser scanning capabilities for handling the imaging resolutions of stratigraphic sediment on archaeological sites (see– even that was a mouthful).

As a graduate student at the University of California, San Diego, the beach was the nearest easy access place to play in the dirt and provided a perfect venue to open up the experiment to local kids and un-suspecting beach-goers who accidentally volunteered themselves for mini-science bootcamp. Willing audiences who would build me data castles, while my research assistant and I exposed them to archaeology, beach physics, the history of castles, laser scanning, sea-shell collecting, and all the other educational topics we could cram into our construction schpeals and posterboards. I like archaeological education outreach, so sue me. It gets written into almost every one of my projects somehow.

Sandcastles for Science was ultimately prep-work for a two month field season in Jordan, laser scanning sites in Faynan (and yes, even scanning Petra for one glorious day), as well as for a lovely bit of software development on visualizing temporal sequences in point clouds with one of my fabulous computer science colleagues.

The Leica Scanstation looming over its sandcastle victim at the beach.

The Leica Scanstation looming over its sandcastle victim at the beach.

Last year, this weekend was spent in a frenzy of data digging and labwork

My team needed to pull together presentations for Italian officials to approve the Center of Interdisciplinary Science for Art, Architecture, and Archaeology’s upcoming field season at Palazzo Vecchio and the Baptistery of St. John in Florence, and a bevy of lovely sites in southern Italy with a team from the University of Calabria.

So it was a weekend slogging through back-data of point clouds from the Hall of the 500 in Palazzo Vecchio, emphasizing the layered multi-spectral imaging into the model, and how it definitely showed the cracks conservators needed to track to create preservation solutions, and how it maybe had a hidden Da Vinci lurking behind one of its walls. It was a weekend of lists for the upcoming season, of site logistics, and Italian language lessons (team lessons with an instructor +  DuoLingo = a surprising amount of success once we hit Italy for the two month madcap field season that was my fall of 2013).

And if you’d like to check out more pics and details of my wonderful and ridiculous work for a once-promising academic something, scope out my scrapbook blog Adventures in Digital Archaeology.

The CISA3 diagnostics team at Palazzo Vecchio after successful conservation imaging.

The CISA3 diagnostics team at Palazzo Vecchio after successful conservation imaging.

The Faro Focus and I about to image the exterior of the Baptistery. Note that I literally only seem capable of this one jaunty pose with a laser scanner. I desperately need to start doing something different in field propaganda photos.

The Faro Focus and I about to image the exterior of the Baptistery. Note that I literally only seem capable of this one jaunty pose with a laser scanner. I desperately need to start doing something different in field propaganda photos.

But this year, this year was spent online- in a flurry of creative archaeological energy

This summer, I find myself graduated and out on my own, free to pursue my own projects, safely away from the boundary lines of academia and the rather unhealthy environment I had found myself in for a big chunk of this year.

Pulling ourselves back together, my favorite research colleague Vid and I cooked up a delightful dish that brings together all the digital archaeology flavors we’d been prepping before, but as part of a much grander and more colorful feast.

And so this weekend was spent running down the final lists of photographs, video media, and writing that needed to coalesce together into the FIRST archaeological technology driven Kickstarter.

Mushing together the laser scanning, point clouds, 3D models, and 3D printing,our project, Open Access Antiquarianism, proposes the construction of art exhibit built from re-purposed cultural heritage data using the digital visualization pipelines my colleague and I have been building to handle archaeological data.

A blend of 3D printed archaeological artifacts, furniture upholstered in fabric printed with archaeological LiDAR (literal armchair archaeology), interactive point cloud visualizations and other such extravagant re-workings of scientific data from open archives, the Cabinet of Curiosities Open Access Antiquarianism proposes offers an excellent opportunity to continue streamlining the point cloud and 3D modelling methodologies we’d been playing with for so long, while reaching a much much larger audience.

Because the larger global community needs to be engaged in the increasingly complicated discussions regarding ethical implementations of digitization and open access of tangible and intangible cultural heritage. The public (and archaeologists themselves) need to understand the desperate desperate need for interdisciplinary and collaborative work and move away from the academic politics and needless power-plays that constantly bog such wonderful creative enterprises down. Archaeologists need to work more closely with technologists and engineers to develop useful and adaptable systems that preserve the past for the future (and often simultaneously end up building the surveying systems needed for the space-age future we all envision).

And the public needs to be aware of the wealth of data that is available to them in the increasingly larger and more wonderful online archives of museums and government institutions all over the world. The past has the potential to become increasingly and excitingly ubiquitous and something that plays a much stronger role in one’s everyday conception of time and space. It’s getting all wibbly wobbly timey wimey and the doctors of archaeology ought to be actively on the hunt for more and more Companions. Studying the past is no longer something that need be done by experts alone. In fact, we are drowning under such an avalanche of data, that it is imperative that more crowd-sourced archaeological ventures be launched to bear the brunt of analyzing everything that is already stacked up in the university basements of the world, let alone the incoming finds. Archaeologists can stay experts, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be able to talk to the public and engage them more actively in what we’re up to. Enthusiasm should count more than correct use of erudite jargon. Even to those hipster archaeologists out there.

In some small artistic way, the Open Access Antiquarianism project would like to address all of these things, while expanding the research and technological collaborative possibilities to continue refining the much needed digital pipeline that takes things from the field through processing, archiving, studying, and out to engagement.

My collaborative and interdisciplinary digital archaeology and outreach isn’t the traditional archaeology. But its my archaeology. And more than that, its an archaeological practice of hope. Hope that archaeology will fully embrace the increasingly digitized and interdisciplinary future. Hope that archaeology will not fall prey to over-specialization and tenure. Hope that archaeologists will continue to try to document and in some small way understand the past, so that we can help make vital statistically based decisions for the future. Archaeology has such potential to aid technology development and global ecological policy, if only us archaeologists would reach out and grasp it instead of assuming it will fall into our laps.

If you’re intrigued/dismayed/excited/furious/amused or any one of the wonderful and ridiculous emotions human beings are capable of, please check out Open Access Antiquarianism on kickstarter and on Facebook.  We’d love your support, and if you love our concepts about tech development, archaeology, and art as a research and outreach driver, perhaps your collaboration as well. Get in touch!

To the erudite young men and women a-sitting on a-tell: may your trowels be ever muddy and your point clouds free of shadows.

Acres and acres of happy wishes to all the archaeologists of the world,

Ashley M. Richter

One of the Open Access Antiquarianism Medaillions we've designed as part of the Kickstarter reward campaign.

One of the Open Access Antiquarianism Medaillions we’ve designed as part of the Kickstarter reward campaign.


Writing a press pack for the British Science Festival

I’ve spent most of today writing the press pack for the British Science Festival. Engagement with journalists is important. Journalists provide the opportunity for you to get your information out to a wider audience. The challenge is to take complex data and interpretations and find a way to present it to journalists in a way which is both accessible and allows them to weave a narrative which is interesting to their readers.

Here it is….  Apologies to those who do other archaeological prospection work: you may think it’s a bit biased towards aerial approaches. It is, but that’s the very issue for a press release.

This draft will be sent through to the University of Leeds press office prior to submission to the British Science Festival.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum. Re-used under a creative commons share-a-like licence from DART_Project.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum. Re-used under a creative commons share-a-like licence from DART_Project.

I’m sure I left it somewhere: discovering our heritage through scientific prospection

Anthony Beck – School of Computing, University of Leeds

A presentation for the British Science Festival in Session 56: Exploring new archaeological worlds, 12 September 2011.

Can you provide a brief introduction to the topic of your presentation?

Guidance: This should be more than an abstract or one-paragraph summary of your research. We would anticipate the summary of your presentation to be in the region of 1000 – 1500 words. Two to three sides is ideal. It is an opportunity to introduce the main findings of the work/research described in your presentation, as well as to include relevant background information and to fit your work within the wider context. It should contain specific information (e.g. data, number of people included in any studies, etc) that would enable a journalist to accurately write a story about your work, without them having to hunt around for details elsewhere. Due to time constraints journalists are rarely able to attend the talk itself, which is why press papers are so important – therefore the details you provide shouldn’t assume that the journalist will be attending your talk.

Summary/Abstract (174 words): Multi-spectral and hyper-spectral sensors offer immense potential as archaeological prospection tools. The sensors are sensitive to emitted or reflected radiation over different areas (wavelengths) of the electromagnetic spectrum. Their two major advantages are that they have the potential to detect archaeological sites and monuments (henceforth archaeological residues) that are undetectable in the visible wavelengths and that they may extend the window of opportunity for their detection. For example, localised crop stress and vigour variations, which underpin crop-mark formation, are sometimes better expressed in the near-infrared than in the visible. In addition, multi/hyper-spectral data collected from different platforms (aerial and satellite) under different conditions can be used to generate ancillary themes that aid interpretation (e.g. soil, geology and land-use layers). However, multi/hyper-spectral sensors are relatively expensive and require systematic surveys under ‘appropriate conditions’ in order to be successful. It is this latter point which is critical: there is a poor understanding of the spatial, environmental and seasonal contrast dynamics that determine an ‘appropriate condition’ and therefore whether features of archaeological interest can be detected.

Text (1423 words): Although there are many examples of upstanding architecture, the vast majority of archaeological residues are expressed on the ground surface or buried and essentially invisible to the human eye. However, traces can be identified via changes in chemical, physical and biological attributes (either directly or by proxy) through, for example, changes in phosphorous content, clusters of artefacts and cropmarks. In the UK, the practice of using remote sensing techniques for detecting archaeological sites and visualizing archaeological landscapes has traditionally been based on low altitude aerial photography using film emulsions sensitive at optical and sometimes near-infrared wavelengths. The underlying premise of remote sensing is that interpreters can extract information about objects and features by studying the measurements from a sensor system. Both oblique and vertical aerial photographs have been used extensively for archaeological reconnaissance and mapping all over the world. Early aerial photographers helped to refine the instruments and establish methods that are still in use today. O.G.S. Crawford in particular established methods of site classification and wrote about the effects of weather, season, soil moisture and crop type on photographic return. Today, these aerial approaches are accepted as a cost-effective, non-invasive technique for the reconnaissance and survey of monuments.

However, recording using traditional observer directed reconnaissance and aerial photography is not without its problems. The reliance on a small component of the electromagnetic spectrum raises a number of issues. The small spectral window can introduce a significant bias as only certain residues under specific conditions express contrasts in these wavelengths. The over-reliance on the visual component of the electromagnetic spectrum has had a significant impact on data capture. The collection technique and technology mitigate against using any other sensor (peripatetic surveys are directed by visual observation from a plane and collected using an optical system, a camera out of a window: this technique will never allow the detection of the multitude of archaeological residues whose contrast expression can not be seen by the human eye – i.e. is outside the optical).  This presentation will introduce multi and hyper-spectral remote sensing (including the important resolving characteristics of the sensors) and the nature of the archaeological problems to which they can be applied. This is followed with a brief description of the DART project: a UK research project designed to improve the understanding of the application and the factors underpinning archaeological detection.

The main advantage to multi and hyperspectral imaging is that more of the electromagnetic spectrum is sampled at potentially finer spectral granularity; hence, there is more information about the objects under study. The main disadvantages are cost and complexity.  Unfortunately the archaeological application of this technology is under-researched: there is little understanding of the physical, chemical, biological and environmental processes that determine whether archaeological residues will be identified in one or any sensor. Hence, knowledge of which techniques will detect which components of the archaeological domain and under what conditions is poorly understood. Most multi and hyperspectral analysts use spectral signatures to accurately identify different vegetation and geology types. Unfortunately archaeological sites do not exhibit spectral signatures that can be used for generic detection purposes. Archaeological sites and features are created by localised formation and deformation processes. For example, as a mud-brick built farmstead erodes, the silt, sand, clay, large clasts and organics in the mud-brick along with other anthropogenic debris are incorporated into the soil. This produces localised variations in soil particle size and structure. This impacts on drainage and changes localised crop stress and vigour responses, which in turn changes reflectance characteristics.

Multispectral sensors address some of these problems because they are able to ‘look’ simultaneously at a wide range of different wavelengths. Wavelengths in the near and short-wave infrared add important collateral information to the visual wavelengths and improve the ability to discriminate vegetation stress and soil, moisture and temperature variations than either the human eye or photographic film. Narrow band spectral imaging can often help to enhance or distinguish different features on the ground or provide information on their state of health or ambient conditions according to their particular absorption and reflectance properties or their spectral signature.

This increased sensitivity is crucial for contrast detection. For example, cropmarks are an instance of localised variations in vegetation stress or vigour correlated with subsurface archaeological features. Wavelengths outside the visible are also sensitive to changes in vegetation health. Theoretically, exploiting relevant areas of the electromagnetic spectrum at the appropriate degree of granularity will mean that crop stress or vigour relating to subsurface archaeological residues can be expressed  more clearly and also that it can be detected both earlier and later in the growing cycle. Therefore, the window of opportunity for detecting archaeological features can be dramatically extended by using wavelengths outside the visible. This increased sensitivity means that archaeological contrasts can also be detected in soils and crops that have been traditionally categorised as marginal or unresponsive to aerial archaeological prospection. This is a significant improvement over traditional techniques.

We can hypothesise that archaeological residues produce localised contrasts in the landscape matrix which can be detected using an appropriate sensor under appropriate conditions. However, little is known about how different archaeological residues contrast with their local environment, how these contrasts are expressed in the electromagnetic spectrum, or how environmental, and other localised factors such as soil or vegetation, impact on contrast magnitude (over space and time).   This requires an understanding of both the nature of the residues and the landscape matrix within which they exist.

The Detection of Archaeological residues using Remote Sensing Techniques (DART) project (www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/dart) will focus on analysing factors that influence archaeological residue contrast dynamics. DART aims to determine how different remote sensing technologies detect contrast caused by different underlying factors under dynamic environmental conditions. This understanding will allow the optimal deployment of the different sensors.  By combining the results from a battery of sensors, each optimally deployed when the archaeological residues have the greatest likelihood of being detected, the maximal knowledge of archaeological residues can be achieved.

DART will address the following research issues:

  • What are the factors that produce archaeological contrasts?
  • How do these contrast processes vary over space and time?
  • What causes these variations?
  • How can we best detect these contrasts (sensors and conditions)?

The key will be to understand how archaeological residues differ from, and dynamically interact with, the localised soils/sediments and vegetation/crop and how these differences can be detected. Archaeological residue interaction models will be developed and tested under a range of different environmental, seasonal and crop conditions. In-situ measurements will be taken using probes and sensors, and samples will be taken for laboratory analysis. Standard geotechnical tests will be conducted such as density, grain size distribution, organic content, magnetic susceptibility, dielectric permittivity, geochemistry, pH and conductivity. Permanent in-situ probes will measure temperature gradient, density and soil moisture variations through a soil profile. In addition, each site will be visited regularly for measuring earth resistance, soil colour, conductivity, dielectric permittivity, hand-held spectro-radiometry, GPR transects and ambient climatic data. Traditional aerial flyovers and bespoke hyperspectral surveys will be commissioned.

Remote sensing can provide an impressive picture of the archaeological landscape without the need for invasive or expensive survey methods. The true potential of multispectral remote sensing, including thermal imaging, is still not clear and needs to be evaluated to test responsiveness under a broad range of climatic and ground conditions. Further research is likely to produce sensors capable of resolving relatively small features such as post-holes and shallow pits. When used appropriately, remote sensing provides a basis for testing hypotheses of landscape evolution that may be further explored by ground survey, geophysical survey or excavation. Large-scale airborne and satellite surveys can provide the framework on which planning policy and excavation strategies can be established. In addition, computer enhancement and the increased spectral resolution of the digital data places less dependency on the time of year for revealing archaeological features.

Remote sensing is increasingly important to many areas of archaeological enquiry from prospection through to management. It is therefore essential that it is not applied inappropriately. The inappropriate application of a single sensor could produce minimal results or the dogmatic application of that sensor will have diminishing archaeological returns. The combination of different sensors with different characteristics can produce profound interpretative synergies. Multiple sensors should be evaluated on the basis of ‘fitness for purpose’. Fitness for purpose in this context refers to the cost/benefit returns of each sensor and should be based upon an understanding of the nature of the archaeological residues, the sensor characteristics and the environmental characteristics of the landscape

What is new and interesting about your work?

Guidance: This should clearly summarise the main conclusions of your work, the key findings. This helps journalists (and the British Science Association Press Office) quickly identify key outcomes and is an important section to fill out. I’d suggest 100-200 words for this section.

Text (338 words): Geophysical and Aerial survey have substantially increased our understanding of the nature and distribution of archaeology remains. However, there is variable understanding of the physical, chemical, biological and environmental factors which produce the archaeological contrasts that are detected by the sensor technologies. These factors vary geographically, seasonally and throughout the day, meaning that the ability to detect features changes over time and space. This is not yet well understood. The DART project is a three year AHRC/EPSRC funded project with 25 partners from a range of disciplines.

Detection techniques rely on the ability of a sensor to measure the contrast between an archaeological residue and its immediate surroundings or matrix. Detection is influenced by many factors – changes in precipitation, temperature, crop stress/type, soil type and structure, and land management techniques. DART will increase the foundational knowledge about the remote sensing of sub-surface archaeological remains. To determine contrast factors, samples and measurements are taken on and around different sub-surface archaeological features at different times of the day and year to ensure that a representative range of conditions is covered. Field measurements include geophysical and hyperspectral surveys, thermal profiling, soil moisture and spectral reflectance. Laboratory analysis of samples includes geochemistry and particle size. This will result in a comprehensive knowledgebase.

During analysis the key will be to understand the dynamic interaction between soils, vegetation and archaeological residues and how these affect detection with sensing devices. This requires understanding how the archaeology differs from, and dynamically interacts with, the localised soils and vegetation and how these differences can be detected.

DART is an Open Science project. Open science is the idea that scientific knowledge of all kinds should be openly shared as early as is practical in the discovery process. By scientific knowledge “of all kinds” we include journal articles, data, code, online software tools, questions, ideas, and speculations; anything which can be considered knowledge. The “as is practical” clause is included because very often there are other factors (legal, ethical, social, etc) that must be considered prior to opening access.

What is the key finding of the work/research described in your presentation?

Guidance: What is it that would make someone sit up and listen? One way to approach this question is to imagine that you are talking to a journalist about your work – what are the key pieces of information that you would want to convey? Please do fill this out. Even if there is no ‘new’ research in your presentation, what message do you wish to convey, or what new angle will you present? Remember that whilst the research may not be new to you, there is every possibility that the journalists won’t have heard it before. I’d suggest 100-200 words for this section.

Text (317 words): The DART project is producing foundational research which will ensure that heritage/archaeological curators and policy makers are prepared for the challenges of the 21st Century and beyond. Current landscape detection techniques can be either too small scale or biased. For example, traditional aerial survey is biased in that it is mainly responsive on well draining soils. This means that difficult environments, like clays and pasture, have not been targeted. It is also possible that after a century of flying, in different environmental conditions, a point of saturation has been reached: no previously unobserved features are being detected – this does not mean that there are no new archaeological residues to discover, rather that no more can be detected with that particular sensor configuration. The DART knowledgebase will allow more effective decision making and management.

This work is particularly timely given the advances made in precision agriculture remote sensing and the application of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Precision agriculture approaches are being used to increase yield by regulating crop growth to ameliorate extreme and non-ideal conditions (the very conditions under which ’never before seen’ archaeological features are observed). Advances in precision agriculture have the potential to significantly reduce the overall impact of traditional aerial archaeological approaches. An understanding of the underlying processes and dynamics in key crops and soils will help policy makers understand the potential impact of these developments and so determine curation and land-management policies more effectively. This will underpin the development of a framework for improving the detection of archaeological features through the more complete understanding of soil change, species phenology and the impact of different stress conditions on detection.

As an alternative: we have managed to exploit the new technology during the driest spring in Cambridgeshire since 1910. Whilst we are still analysing the results, the hyperspectral images have the opportunity to revolutionise our understanding of the buried landscape particularly in the clay areas.

What is the relevance of your work to a general audience?

Guidance: Think about in what way(s) the work is relevant to the general population, why it’s important. I’d suggest including around 100-200 words for this section.

Text (153 words):   The DART project is all about improving the underlying knowledge about process so that more archaeology can be detected. This will lead to better information and knowledge (for the public, for industry and for managers), which will lead to better decision making and policy formation.

In addition the DART Project is an Open Science initiative. Where practicable all science objects (data, algorithms, illustrations etc.) will be made openly available. An open license means that the outputs can be reused in a broadly unfettered way (be that for research, teaching and learning, personal edification etc.). Initiatives like Open Science in conjunction with the internet and social media are changing the research landscape. Research is become ever more open and collaborative. Consumers of research are participating in a conversation, not listening to a lecture. This more sophisticated form of engagement can increase impact and engagement dramatically. This will significantly change the way universities ‘do business’.

Day of Archaeology (Meetings)

Today is going to be spent pretty much inside, pretty much in Southampton, and pretty much in meetings, pretty much as usual. Still, the stuff is pretty interesting, at least as far as an archaeologist obsessed with computation and old things in sunny places thinks.

Today started with a couple of hours of editing. We have been working for a few years in the field of Reflectance Transformation Imaging. Last year the AHRC funded us to develop some new RTI systems and also to spread the word about the technology, particularly amongst archaeologists and experts in the study of ancient documents. This has been enormous fun. But I can start with a negative: the technology has its limitations – there is good experimental research demonstrating that other methods can be more accurate at the very fine level. But the considerable positives are – it is quick to do, can be very cheap, and definitely does the job if what you want to do is explore the subtle surface details of an object. If you want to measure to a micron, go elsewhere (and we have been – mostly to mu-Vis). But otherwise, grab a camera, a torch or flash gun, and a shiny ball (snooker balls work well) and get imaging. So, you’ll see from the RTISAD web page that we have been recording all sorts of objects with a load of interesting people. Whilst the project is winding down – I’m editing the report whilst writing this 🙂 – we are really keen to build new collaborations so please get in touch.

Next up I have a meeting with Les Carr in Electronics and Computer Science.  I am involved in a few projects with Les and lots of others here at Southampton to identify ways for us in the institution to manage our research data. Most recently we have built a couple of pilot systems in Sharepoint and EPrints and also trialled some tools to make deposit of data an easy process for researchers. The bottom line is that we need to make it even easier for researchers to look after their data, not only for fear of the disaster of losing it but also because it is our ethical and increasingly our legal responsibility. There are a lot of institutional and professional practice issues here, as well as more pragmatic stuff: its so much easier to keep your files in a bunch on the hard drive than beautifully ordered and attributed somewhere safe and central. So, for the last year funded by the JISC we have looked at research practice and policy within the institution, including talking to a lot of our archaeologists, and seeing how in the end we can join up data management here with the aspiration of also making deposit to the ADS easier and even more ingrained in researcher practice.

For lunch it is a supervision with Tom Frankland, a PhD student here working on the RCUK Digital Economy www.patina.ac.uk project. Tom has been busy on fieldwork in Italy and in the UK examining extant fieldwork practice and developing some interventions, particularly focussed on hierarchies and issues surrounding collaboration on site. There has been loads of work in the area of digital data capture on archaeological sites and we want to explore the impact of this on practice and the wider discipline, and also propose and consider the implications of some novel technologies. For a starting point on where we are coming from look at the cool work of Pattie Maes and Pranav Mistry at MIT on SixthSense.  

Afternoon in my calendar is free so at the moment that means more RTI report editing and a bit of work on Science and Heritage PARNASSUS. This project is looking at environmental effects and adaptation measures needed for the protection of cultural heritage from climate change impact. We have been involved in some interesting survey work and also research into archaeological indicators for adaptations to climate change. Open on my laptop though is the policy document for data exchange and documentation. The project has a lot of partners gathering complementary but quite different information in the next few months so as ever the issue is thinking about how best to look after it and how to let one end of the data talk to the other.

Last part of today is timetabled for reviewing this month’s progress on the www.portusproject.org . We have been working at the port of Imperial Rome for the last decade or so and recently got funding from the AHRC for three years of analysis, limited fieldwork and publication. This has a strong digital component including building a succession of structural and visual computer graphic models of the various buildings, using information from geophysics, laser scanning, photogrammetry and so on. Thanks also to L-P Archaeology and their ARK 🙂 So, with more fieldwork at Catalhoyuk in Turkey coming up really soon, the iPhone pinging, and a nagging doubt that the car still won’t be fixed tonight it is time to stop writing 🙂 Day of Archaeology = top idea. Weekend looking like Beach + Rain.

Working on the DART project: Hyperspectral remote sensing and archaeology

My name is David Stott and I am a PhD student at the University of Leeds. I’m working on the DART project, which is looking at improving our understanding of how archaeological deposits are detected using remote sensing techniques. This work is important, as remote sensing allows us to prospect for archaeological features and understand the nature of archaeological landscapes. This is crucial as better knowledge about the nature and location of significant cultural heritage sites enables us to protect them by mitigating human actions and environmental processes that place them at risk.

Shedding new light on the past

I’m finally getting down to writing my first post of the day! I am occupied with several tasks today which capture the essence of my past few weeks, basically doing museum and desk-based archaeology:

  1. Finishing up various loose ends for a 1-year research project at the University of Oxford I was working on until recently: “Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) System for Ancient Documentary Artefacts” (RTISAD);
  2. Submitting job applications (and trying not to get too depressed about the lack of jobs in my field of Egyptian Archaeology!);
  3. Taking advantage of the time I now have to address my publication backlog (important for the success of no. 2).

I’ll write a bit about about no. 1 now, and then must get back to drafting a chapter for a publication on the development of early Egyptian writing/art. RTISAD involves some super exciting developments in the digital imaging of cultural heritage. The RTISAD project is a collaborative endeavour funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council in 2010 via the Digital Equipment and Database Enhancement for Impact (DEDEFI) scheme. A press release about our project results can be found here and a more detailed explanation of RTI is found on our project partner’s (Cultural Heritage Imaging) website.  My task at Oxford was to test the RTI lighting dome on various inscribed material types. I had the fantastic opportunity of working with Ashmolean collections, imaging cuneiform inscribed clay tablets, early Egyptian and other objects (for a pic of the RTI dome and some results click here).

PTM of the Battlefield Palette

PTM detail of the Battlefield Palette, perhaps from Abydos, EgyptLate Predynastic period, c.3150 BCE, EA 20791, © The Trustees of the British Museum

I also spent a week at the British Museum where I imaged the so-called Battlefield Palette (or Lion Palette) and Hunters Palette, 1st Dynasty inscribed labels and more.

RTI has been brilliant for my research on early Egyptian graphical culture as technology process and material practice. For the chapter I now need to go work on I have been analysing surface marks on the palettes to understand how the production process such as evidence for tool types and the techniques the artisen(s) used to produce these incredible scenes. For now I will leave you with a close up of the Battlefield Palette (right) on wich I have found evidence for recarving.