GIS for Archaeology and CRM

As part of the UK Archaeology Map, the folks at Online Archaeology have made available their catalog of United Kingdom archaeology data in KML format. Each of the layers represented on their map application, from World War era gun placements to 3rd century Roman Villas. In total, there are 287 Military sites identified and 278 Roman Villas. Also available on the UK Map catalog page are RSS links to each layers, an option to view it on their mapping application, and a link to a list of selected sources for further reading.

Deserving of a post of its own, the UK Archaeology Map is a very cool project. Based off the Google Maps API, the UK Archaeology map is in continual development with tools for increased usability and added data. Check out the Online Archaeology Map blog to track it’s developments and pick up a few hints of how the creator solved some of his mapping tasks.

Further adding value to the Online Archaeology site is an RSS aggregator for a number of archaeology and technology/archaeology news feeds. The interface is pretty slick, but it seems to be missing one super important GIS/Archaeology blog Online Archaeology’s section on “IT Archaeology” offers a bit of information on GIS and there is tons of other info to be found with some wondering around.

I am not really sure who is behind Online Archaeology, but it is a great project. The UK Archaeology Map they have created is a fine use of the Google Maps API combined with some added features for usability. The data presented is interesting and quite extensive (as far as archaeological sites published on the web goes). Take a few minutes and check it out!

Share This

ArcheOS Akhenaton, an archaeologist tailored GNU/Linux operating system released a new version (1.1.6) today. You know you’ve made it when your field gets its own Linux Distro!

ArcheOS, billed as “The first GNU-Linux distribution for archaeology”, is a PCLinuxOS based released under the General Public License (GPL). Created by the Arc-Team, a 5 archaeologist/craftsman group from the Universities of Padua and Vienna, ArcheOS is a collection of opensource and freely licensed applications that fit well with what archaeologists need to do.

A table of the software follows: (red indicates new to version 1.1.6)

The provided software covers a wide breadth of functionality. Though probably not complete for some users, this distribution is a great starting point for someone wanting to cut the software budget and get down to work. I have only dabbled in the world of GNU/Linux distributions; I wish I had more opportunity. If I do get the chance to dust off an old laptop and mess with Linux, this will definitely be my first project.

Share This

“EarthWorks“, a travelling exhibit that opened on June 20th at the Cincinnati Museum Center, Ohio, is a multimedia spectacle with an amazing centerpiece consisting of an immersing 3D journey through reconstructions of Native American “mound builder” villages and earthworks.

Technology of “EarthWorks” Exhibit
Beginning in the late 1990’s, John Hancock, University of Cincinnati professor of architecture and team member in the Center for the Electronic Reconstruction of Historical and Archaeological Sites (CERHAS) at the university, began to build interactive user environments set within reconstructed heritage sites. Simulations such as this, although popular at the time, were too large and unstructured, lacking feedback for the user and usually had over complex controls.

Noting the lack of usability, Dr. Hancock and the CERHAS team developed and new form of interaction consisting of an exploratory virtual reality framework, mixed multi-media presentations, and defined documentary narratives. Together, the mixture of media and documentation within an exploratory context create a “chose your own adventure” like experience where you learn and interact along a virtual path. The narrative and media experience has such a great depth that it is highlyT unlikely that a user could duplicate their previous path.

The end result of this “EarthWorks“ project is a 500 square foot traveling exhibit focused on the virtual reconstructions, but also including a very large map of the Ohio Valley area, a cross-cultural comparative time line, 3-D models of a series of earth works, and additional photos and narratives.
links to archaeology

A bit about the ancient Ohio Valley earth works

From around 600 BC to 1200 AD, the areas around Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana and West Virginia were home to populations of Native Americans that archaeologists refer to as Adena, Hopewell, and Fort Ancient. These groups, beginning with the Adena, built increasingly complexity earth mounds that began as circles and cones, evolved to complex geometric shapes, and ended with great animal effigies. The arrangement of geometric shapes and animal effigies, some reaching 15 feet high and thousands of feet in length, constitute some of the earliest ancient observatories in the world.

Although many have been lost to time, some earth works have remained intact. One of the most striking examples in Serpent Mound in Adams County, Ohio. This mound is a 1,300 foot long, three feet high effigy of a snake. Another extant mound structure is the great Fort Ancient hill top enclosure in Fort Ancient, Ohio. Enclosing 100 acres, the hill top earthworks is formed by a 3 mile long wall enclosure that is as high as 23 feet in some sections. Both examples are central to the EarthWorks exhibit.

The fact that Dr. Hancock, who taught ancient architecture for 15 years, was unaware of the massive 2000 year old earthworks practically under his feet, underscores the point that most people do not know that natives of North America created large earthworks. Although the construction technology of these celestial observatories and religious sites is primitive, as compared to the Inca and Egyptians, the cultural structure and depth of knowledge that is needed to create them is just as advanced.

An EarthWorks project and resources CD Avaliable from CERHAS for $25.
The EarthWorks tour schedule includes the following date:

• Cincinnati Museum Center, with opening on June 20, 2006
• Ohio Historical Center, Columbus, where the exhibit will open Sept. 30, 2006
• Cleveland Museum of Natural History in 2007
• The Field Museum, Chicago, (as part of a permanent exhibit) in spring 2007
• Sunwatch Indian Village/Archaeological Park, Dayton, Ohio, set to open May 26, 2007

Share This

Mapz the GIS Librarian posted an great list of freely available GIS software.  Setting this list apart, is the classification of software into use categories and Mapz annotations.  Outlined is a pretty complete suite of applications that can be used to address many spatial problems.

Having read a survey a few years back regarding archaeologists use of GIS, one of the main issues with integration was cost.  As with many opensource and free licenses projects mentioned on this blog, Mapz list of applications offer a high quality work around for having a slim GIS budget.  Most of these programs are user friendly in both form and function.

Good stuff Mapz!  As mentioned in the post, you can also check out Freegis.org and the Very Spatial Free GIS list.

Share This

Directed by Marc Waelkens, of the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium, the dig at Sagalassos (wiki link) is a large-scale interdisciplinary excavation which began in 1990. Located in Southwest Turkey, Sagalassos is a very well preserved ancient city that has a history dating back to it’s growth before the conquest of Alexander the Great in 333 BC, to its transfer to king Amyntas in 25 BC, up to it’s final abandonment due to earthquakes and failing economy in the 7th century AD.

Featured as an “Interactive Dig” on Archaeology.org, the Sagalassos excavation is a fantastic example on using technology and well written text to bring archaeological digs, findings, and experiences to a wide audience. As part of the offerings at the Sagalassos, they have added a new KMZ network link to a Google Earth file documenting many aspects of the extensive excavation

KMZ of Sagalassos Archaeology
(link)

The Sagalassos KMZ file contains information about archaeological and architectural features, panoramic VR photo tours, overlain archaeology and geophysical maps, and links to field notes from throughout the project. In all, the Sagalassos KMZ contains a ton of interesting and informative media and links.

On first look, the KML displays an archaeological base map of the site and great custom “dig site” icons linked to multiple VR panoramas (which loads in a separate browser window), a photo, and often extensive field notes. Viewing the panoramas, from which you can zoom and pan, you get an incredible sense of what it looks like on site. Also, zoom out in Google Earth and tilt/pan with the terrain on. The landscape of the site, in the Taurus mountains, is very impressive.

In the Northeast area of the Sagalassos project, there is a georeferenced image of the composite geophysical survey findings. By turning off the top most map overlay and adjusting the transparency of the geophysical overlay, you can get a great appreciation for how complex the subsurface archaeology is at Sagalassos. As an armchair geophysicist, you can see detailed subsurface structures directly to the East of the Theater and about 30 meters to the West and Southwest. It looks like the dig team will have plenty more to work on in future seasons.

The links to the field notes bring you to the archaeology.org virtual dig page which includes field notes as well as pictures and some technical drawings of structures from that portion of the site. Heading back to the main page of the Sagalassos interactive dig, you can also find a journal of daily life around the dig site. These are interesting journal entries about the non-archaeological side of spending days in the field.

The archaeology.org interactive dig site gives the reader a load of great info about the site, the archaeology, and the team, but the inclusion of the Google Earth KMZ brings it all together. The place based presentation of the archaeology offer us a context to frame the data and experiences of the project. Further, users can now explore the site on their own via the map and panoramas and even find unexcavated archaeology by interpreting the geophysical results. Providing visual media such as this to a wide audience of specialists and non-specialists, and everyone in between, will certainly draw more attention to the importance of archaeology and allow viewers to share some of the same adventure and excitement as the archaeologists.

Share This

From Space Imagery, a provider of space and aerial remotely sensed images, comes a fun Flash map application which maps 13 of the world’s Ancient Observatories.

From Abu Simbel (wiki link) in Egypt to Uxmal (wiki link) in Mexico, the Ancient Observatories map application displays a zoomable/pannable high resolution images of a particular observatory accompanied by a text description of the sites history and significance. The images can be downloaded and are linked to their metadata source.
The logic of this application brings full circle some pretty interesting ideas about ancient and modern technology. Do you think we can learn more about ancient observatories from studying them from the celestial point of view. Perhaps my fascination is simply coming from the “Who’s watching the deceive” feeling of this application. Either way, it’s very cool and well worth a look.

Share This

Although my blog “GIS for Archaeology” was not mentioned in the new GIS Monitor article, “GIS in Archaeology” I will be the better person and post about it anyway.

Pointed out by SlashGeo, the current issue of the GIS Monitor has an article focusing on the use of GIS in Archaeology. Stating that Archaeology is a perfect fit for the use of GIS, the article points out that Archaeology is the only humanity field to embrace GIS to a large degree. The material for this article is derived from a talk with Dr. Caverlee S. Cary from the Geographic Information Science Center at the University of California at Berkley. Dr. Cary and the GIS center have worked with archaeologists in the past and offered comments on how they see archaeologists using GIS.

GIS and archaeology are a perfect match, according to Cary, because linking attribute information to locations on the Earth’s surface “is exactly what archaeologists need to do when they are documenting a site. The core of archaeology is that you know exactly where on or in the ground any given object that has been discovered came from.”

One application that the article focuses on is the use of remotely sensed images in archaeology. Describing how aerial and satellite imagery is used for finding new sites, mapping known sites, and evaluating environmental conditions, Dr. Cary states that this application is new to archaeology. Although she is correct in here assertion of uses, Remote Sensing in archaeology has been around for nearly as long as remote sensing itself. Aerial photos have been a main stay of archaeological data from the beginning, as well, Landsat and other remotely sensed data has been brought into our work flow for 20+ years. I do not dispute that Dr. Cary is fully aware of the history of RS in archaeology (She is co-author to a paper on this topic at Berkley this week), but I want to give my readers an impression of the depth to its use.

My 2 cents

As suggested in my post on the Integration of GIS in Archaeology, Archaeologists have used GIS technology and techniques for quite some time. A single example would be the Computer Application and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology conferences that have been held since 1973. GIS like methods appeared in this conference in the early years and by the Early 90’s, it had become a stand alone topic.

In my job, we use GIS for many tasks from the management of historic resources, to sensitivity analysis, landscape modeling, 3D visualization, general cartography, scenario testing, and many more. Archaeology is a spatial discipline. We are taught from day one that once something is pulled out of the ground, it better be recorded well enough that in 100 years, someone can find that point on earth within a centimeter. Spatial accuracy is a hallmark of archaeology and a big reason why we jumped on the wagon so early. This is aside from the fact that we are nerdy bunch!

If anyone is interested to know more about he we use GIS in archaeology, give me a yell.

Share This

The Theban Necropolis (wikipedia), collectively, is an area on the West bank of the Nile, near modern Luxor, which is composed of the the Royal Necropolis, which is the Valley of the Kings and Valley of the Queens, Mortuary Temples, and the Tombs of the Nobles.

The Theban Necropolis Online GIS is an ESRI ArcIMS served database which contains a well attributed dataset for the Tombs of the Nobles section of the Necropolis. Not as fancy as the Theban Mapping project, which I posted here, the Theban Necropolis Online GIS serves a more research based agenda. The database is searchable on all fields and there are a number of tools to help navigate the multitude of mapped and attributed tombs.

Also, the recent imagery upgrade for Google Earth now provides high resolution aerials for the Thebes area (Google Earth ), not that the panchromatic base layer used by the online GIS is shabby.

If your interested in learning a bit more about the less publicized areas of this highly visited Egyptian site, take a tour with the Theban Necropolis online GIS. Also, check out the Theban Necropolis DB for additional data.

Share This

As I mentioned last week, the current Spring 2006 issue of ESRI ArcNews, has a series of articles on the use of GIS in Archaeology and more specifically Cultural Resource Management. This post is a short synopsis of one particular article on the use of GIS for the creation of a state wide archaeological sessitiity model for Vermont.

Overview of VTASM (link to article)
The Vermont Archaeological Sensitivity Model (VTASM) is a joint project between the Vermont Division of Historic Preservation (DHP) and the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans), created with the guidance of the University of Maine at Farmington Archaeology Reaserch Center (UMFARC), the University of Vermont Consulting Archaeology Program (UVMCAP), and ESRI business partner, Earth Analytic Inc.

In general, this model is an inductive environmentally based model using ESRI ArcGIS ModelBuilder, Spatial Analyst, and 3D analyst to produce a state wide, 10 m resultion coverage, demonstrating archaeological sensitivity. The creation of a state wide sensitvitiy model, such as this, follows a trend set by other states, paticulary, Minnisota and North Carolina.

Used during a projects planning phase, a model such as the VTASM, allows archaeologist and transprtation planners the ability to query the archaeological impact of a project or variations of a particualr design. By gauging the possible extent of impact on archaeoligcal resources, the planning agency can create a much more efficient budget or stear clear of potential large archaeological investigations. While this is the underlying theory behind wide scale models, as the stakeholders of the VTASM has recognized, sensitivity models are only abostractions of recorded archaeoligcal knowledge mated with modern environmnetal conditions to create a “best guess” of where sites may be located. Even though the VTASM produces high scores for predicability, it is a guide and not a subsititute for archaeological field survey.

As mentioned, the VTASM is created through the weighted sum of correlative distance buffers of a selection of environmental features. Through years of survey and knowledge, archaeoligsts build up mental models of archaeological site location. These models often include, distance from water, slope angle, proximity to wetland. The VTASM, and similar models, quantify site location knowledge, through a rule base or correlation statistics, into raster layers which when overlain are summed to achieve the overall sensitivity for each cell.

In the VTASM, the environemtnal atributes are computed into 11 environmental compnent models (ECMs). Six of the ECMs are computed for water related features such as streams, confulences, and wetlands. The remaining five ECMs are realted to lakes, floodplains, soils, slope, and glacial features. Each ECM is a sesitivity raster which assigns a weighted value based on the proximity to one or more environemtal attributes. For example, through correlation or survey findings, the project team knows that archaeoligical sites are more likely within a range of 100m to 200m of a stream confluence. Using this, the ECM is weigthed higher in the 100m to 200m buffer distance.

The final VTASM model, which is computed on the fly for the area under investigation, is the weighted sum total of all overlapping ECMs. The weights assigned to each ECM are adjustable and can be fine tuned based on the environmental character of the region under investigation.

A Bit about Sesitivtiy Modeling

An archaeological sensitivity model, often referred to as predictive models, is simply an expression of a single or multiple attributes that demonstrates the sensitivity (probablitity or possibility) that a specifiic location on earth has been utilized by people in the past. “In the past” may refer to 100 years ago or 100,000 years ago. In Vermont and the Eastern US, models such as this generally related to ~12,000 to ~500 years ago.

Sesitivty models, s described above, are often cell based raster grids created through map algebra of one form or another. The unit of analysis for raster based sensitivity models can be of any size, but generally, in accordance with the use of USGS Digital Elevation Models (DEM), a 10 meter or 30 meter resolution is used. In the Vermont example, the overal model is at a 10m resolution, which uses a combination of 30m and 8m Lidar DEMs.

Although the general technological underpinnings of sesntivity models are often the same, the theoretical guidlines can be substantially different. The two main catagories that archaeoligical sensitivty models are put into consist of Inductive or Deductive. The claimed difference between the two is “explanitory power”. Abstractly, an Inductive model (aka emprical model, correlative model) correlates known site location to environmental features to create a “fingerprint” for where sites most often are found. This type of model does not attempt to exmplain why sites are located where they are. On the other hand, Deductive sensitivity models attempt to use what we know of past human behaviors to create a explantion of why sites may be found in certain places. Explination of archaeoligcal phenomina is the primary goal of the deductive model.

Here is a great PDF [1.25 megs] that explains various types of sesitivity models.

The inductive/deductive divsion, in my mind, is akin to a major politcal debate drawn down party lines where each side is arguing the same darn thing but spun in thier favor. For your sake, my thoughts on the difference between the two will be save for a seperate post, but what is important to mention is that within Cultural Resource Managment (CRM) in America, the inductive model is most frequently used. This model has a solid history of test and application. The technical methodology is documented, repeatable, and testable. And most inportantly, it is the most cost effective way to consult the client on where it will cost them lots of money to put a road.

I’m sure some of these reasons are why the Vermont DHR and VTrans decided to build the VTASM the way they did. The model they created is flexible and testable. As archaeoligsts learn more and continue to survey the landscape, the model can be added too and tweak to ablige. The use of VTASM as a common model helps foster communication and trust between the DHR and the Transportation Athourity leading to the likleyhood of better archaeoligcal resource protection. As with Minnesota, North Carolina, and now Vermont, more states are bound to follow this example.

Share This

As many of you many have read, in the past few days, Google has unleaded a number of improvements to their suite of tools. Google Earth is now redesigned in Beta 4 with the ability to display textures, Google Geo-Coding, Picasa has web albums, and KML upgraded to version 2.1. For in depth reviews of these changes, check out some of the links at the end of this post.

The purpose of this post is just to give a quick how-to on quickly displaying archaeological data and pictures by geotagging images in the new Picasa, creating a .kmz, and making it available to your colleagues or clients (new Google Earth EULA clearly state no commercial use). The process is quick simple, thanks to Google, and very quick.

Download the example .kmz here

To start with, I have a few photos of a dig site in South Eastern, Pennsylvania. I also have sketch-up models of the archaeological structural remains, and a model for the interpretation of the once standing structure. ( I have posted a little about making these models, but plan on a tutorial one day).

After downloading or upgrading to the new Picasa, your HD is scanned for photos, and you are ready to go. Find the photos you are interested in, select them, go to [Tools] -> [Geotag] -> [Geotage with Google Earth]. GE will open up and a large cross hair will be in the center of the screen. Navigate and zoom yourself to where your photo was taken (I had to click back to Picasa to see the little window which tells you the particular photo you are Geotagging).

Once located, click page to Picasa and “Geotag”. After a second, it will indicate that you are ready to geotag the next photo. Do this for all of your selected photos and click done. At this point, it will tell you that is is creating a .kmz of your photos. I was not sure where it saved this .kmz, so being lazy, I just right-clicked on the “temporary place” table of contents in GE and saved it as a .kmz in the folder I wanted it to. Now you have a .kmz file which uses your photos as the point icons, which are clickable for large images.
At this point, I brought in a model which represents the archaeological wall remains, extruded to show what is probably still underground. Combined with the photos, you can now see an archaeological interpretation complete with the photos of what it looked like in the filed. Better yet, it is georefferenced within its context. Zoom in, pan, tilt, to your heart is content. On top of this, I also included a model rendition of what the structure probably looked like. This model is based on archaeology, etchings, and maps. (by default it is turned off in the GE table of contents, go ahead and turn it on if you like).

This is a pretty quick example and even though it took me a few hours to make the Sketchup models, the Picasa Geotag part and .kmz creation took only minutes. I have not yet bothered to recreate the Sketchup models with textures, as GE Beta 4 now displays textures. Also, this process could have been faster, but running Flock Beta, GE 4 Beta, Picasa Beta, and Google Sketchup Beta all at the same time is quite a rough experience. A similar How-To for Picasa and GE can be found at ogleearth.com
I’m big into wanting people to see what I see as an archaeologist. It is a very secretive and data guarding profession. I want others to see a buried wall, and a 100 year old etching to make the same connections that I do. These new technologies make it easier by the day to share archaeological info and knowledge.

Check out these other blogs for current info on Googles redesigned products (Google 2.0? Has O’Reilly copyright that?):

OgleEarth

Google Earth Blog

Google Press Release

Google Maps Mania

Share This