GIS for Archaeology and CRM

Dave at GisPilot.com emailed me a link to a cool use of the MapBender WMS to display the location of Pre-Columbian Mayan archaeological sites across Mesoamerica (wikipedia link for Mayan civilization). In order to load the numerous Mayan sites, a click of the zoom-in tool is needed. I was quite surprised by the number of sites documented in this project.

The Mapbender suite used in the creation of the Mayan archaeology site is a free, OGC compliant, Open Source Geospatial Foundation project that implements the management of spatial data services using PHP, Javascript, and XML. Though, even users with limited knowledge of these languages can produce mapping services relatively quickly. As expressed by the Mayan map creator:

“…mapping archaeological sites of the pre-Columbian Maya culture in Middle America was the work of only a few days by a not very experienced user. It demonstrates the benefits of such GIS applications to the public services and helps present day archaeologist to analyze their data under new points of view and new questions…” (German translation probably source of sentence errors)

Also discussed by the WMS applications author and elsewhere, the public mapping of archaeology sites is usually restricted to sites that have above ground components, such as pyramids, temples, or earthworks. In the field of archaeology there is a culture, both institutionalized and mandated by law, that archaeology site locations are to be kept secret. It is a general fear of looting, pot hunting, medal detectorists, and vandalism that keep this notion alive. In situations such as the Mayan site WMS, accuracy and findability of sites can be controlled by available base map resolution and introduced error. Although, with some Mayan sites, it’s not to hard to find the 200ft tall temple.

The introduction of error and low resolution may hamper some research agendas, but have an idea that combining an accurate environmental database with a slightly inaccurate map may be a way around this. Much of the site specific data that researchers would be interested in consists of elevation, slope, soil type, bedrock geology, as well as the types and dates of artifacts. The data served by the WMS application can have very accurate site specific environmental data, derived from the sites true location, while the map of the site is squwed to a certain extent. I know this spatial encryption is far from fool proof, but it might give enough uncertinaty to site location to both satisfy the state laws on displaying site location and dissuade a would be vandal.

Okay, now that we have figured it out, let the Archaeo-Mashups roll!!!

Background on Mayan Civilization

The Pre-Columbian Mayan civilization flourished in Mesoamerica (central Mexico south to Costa Rica) from ~1000 BC to just before the the arrival of the Spanish in 1519. Across this span of time, the pre-Columbian Mayan civilization grew from little known roots, flourished into an incredible complex society, and declined in prominence with wide spread warfare. The Mayan are known for monumental architecture, high style art work, writing, and math to name a few. After the colonization of their homeland by the Spanish in the 16th century, the remaining Mayan people integrated into society and continued with their customs. Today, there are still many Mayan people in the area that the pre-Columbian civilization once occupied.

Since the discovery of the first Neanderthal (wikipedia) remains in Düsseldorf, Germany, 1856, Homo neanderthalensis has been one of the most studied human species. From findings across Europe and Western Asia, dating from ~230,000 to ~29,000 years ago, a sizable and diverse collections of Neaderthal remains and artifacts have been collected.

It is the goal of The Neanderthal Tools (TNT), in collaboration with The Neanderthal Studies Professional Online Service (NESPOS), to complete “Europe’s singular cultural heritage” for Neandethal remains, fossils, and ecofacts in a web based repository. This repository will offers tools for the examination and exploration of a complete archaeological workflow from site topography down to the 3D models and documentation of individual fossil finds.

“The TNT applications take advantage of state-of-the-art technology to provide a virtual public collection of fossils and artefacts which is open to the scientific community. The Neanderthal Tools enable scientifically valid research on virtual primary sources for the first time.”

The three tools used by the TNT to achieve this goal are the wiki based collaborative platform of NESPOS, the Visual Simulation and Collaborative Rendering Engine (VISICORE) Suite of GIS, annotation, and visualization software, and the National Geographic ArchChannel (NatAC), a public oriented web portal sponsored by National Geographic.

VISICORE: 3D GIS Tools for Archaeology

The VISICORE suite looks like an amazing set of tools. Within the suite there is The Artefact Exploration and Collaboration Rendering Engine (ArteCore) and The Geofact Mapping and Rendering Engine (GeoCore).

ArteCore is an artifact visualization and analysis program that allows users to explore Neaderthal fossils and finds. As part of the project, the TNT team and collaborators have CT scanned, created 3D models (in stl format), and 6 sided images which can all be accessed with ArteCore. Using the tools of ArteCore, these finds can be measured and analysis (using volume, angles, distance, area, etc…) as if they were the original specimens. ArteCore also has the capabilities to bring in multiple models in stl or X3D format, as well as, do CT to STL polyginization.

Further the GeoCORE Suite extends the visualization and analysis to the site level. Built off 3D Geo’s LandXPlorer, GeoCore allows for the visualization and integration of 3D GeoData in a number of popular formats. GeoCore also allows for the implementation of video, audio, and 2D media. Thematic mapping, virtual rendering, TINs, Bockstein Cross Sections, and map overlays are some of the functions supported by GeoCore.

The VISICORE suite, in total, is a multi-scalar analysis and visualization package that fits the mold of a archaeology/paleoarchaeology specific 3D GIS package. These tools are created by the TNT team and only avaliable through the NESPOS service.

NESPOS is the portal from which the vast amount of Neanderthal related data and imagery is served. In order to access this store house, you must be a member of the society. A Student membership is 30 Euro ($38.37) and a Single membership is 100 euro ($127.90). A membership includes a years access to the repository, scientific paper, VISICORE suite, and CT scans and STL 3D models of fossil finds. (I am not a member, nor affiliated with NESPOS. This is only for your information)

As an archaeologist, I have only a passive fascination with Neanderthal paleoarchaeology, but I am definitely tempted to join NESPOS just to play with the VISICORE suite of 3D GIS tool. Having scouted around a bit, I get the sense that the NESPOS is considering a limited form of public access to the Neaderthal database. As far as I am aware of, this project is the most advanced media and software enabled colobrative site going. As described by the site, a membership in NESPOS includes your own non-public data store. I assume this enables the user to store queries, notes, and favorte models and sites. Perhaps tagging is also invloved in this data store. As a comparitive project, although not Neaderthal specific, check out my post on the collabrotive archaeology data project at Open Context.

*Images are property of TNT and NESPOS

In the current issue of ArcNews, ESRI is showcasing four articles on the use of GIS in archaeoloicial site managment. I have not yet had a chance to read these areticles, but plan to very shortly. Once read, I’ll through in my 2 cents with some comments. Until then, check them out for yourself.

GIS for Archaeological Database and Managment

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Administers Archaeological Sites with GIS

Modeling Archaeological Sensitivity in Vermont with GIS

Protecting Archaeological Resources During an Oil Spill in Washington State: Using GIS to Ensure Effective Communication and Protection

Prehistoric Sites on the Island of St. Kitts Studied Using GIS: Studying the Past to Understand Today’s Environment

Also, don’t miss the exclusive online article on Historic Preservation:

In New York State, the Olana Historic Site Viewshed Analysis Uses GIS: Preserving the Real-Life Landscapes of Frederick Church

The Theban Mapping Project, as seen last night on the Discovery Channel, is an amazing project dedicated to preservation, education, and the creation of a comprehensive archaeological database for the Valley of the Kings, Thebes (Luxor), Egypt. (Google Map).

The Valley of the Kings (Wikipedia), utilized primarily between 1539 BC - 1075 BC, is the resting place for the kings and Pharaohs of Egypt’s New Kingdom. Located on the West back of the Nile River, across from modern Luxor, this valley is the home of some of Egypt’s most famous figures, Tutankhamun (KV62), Amenhotep (KV39), and more recently The Sons of Ramessess (KV5), the Valley of the Kings has been attracting archaeologists, tourists, and grave robbers throughout antiquity. Due to this attention, much of the valley’s limited and invaluable resources have been plundered and destroyed.

In 1978, the Theban Mapping Project (TMP), began an ambitious program to document every aspect of the valley for future generations.

“The TMP believes that the first and most essential step in preserving this heritage is a detailed map and database of every archaeological, geological, and ethnographic feature in Thebes. Only when these are available can sensible plans be made for tourism, conservation, and further study.”

As seen by the “Atlas of the Valley of the Kings” on the TMP website and the Discovery Channel program last night, this project is producing astounding results. Viewing the TMP site, clicking on the “Atlas of the Valley of the Kings” opens a new window that explores the vast amount of spatial and archaeological information collected over the past 20 years. Once greeted with an overview map of the valley and its tombs, clicking on their plan will generate a short video or text description of its history. The atlas is searchable by KV number, if you have a favorite tomb, as well as a key word search. Another tab includes detailed information on each tomb including photos and video. While a final link is an interactive ortho plan of the valley’s tombs with has tools for zooming and measuring. Finally, clicking on the “3D Tomb” link on the bottom left of the atlas frame will launch a 3D experience which takes a narrated walk through of KV14 accompanied with photos of wall each chambers wall engravings and paintings. Similarly, the Atlas of the Theban Necropolis offers juicy visual media underlain by incredibly well documented archaeological data.

The TMP website and “Atlas” projects are an amazing product of archaeological information and visualization. Rarely do projects achieve such an in depth melding of data and visual context with deep rooted narration than anyone would find fascinating. If you have a few extra moments (and broadband to let the Atlas load), I highly recommend checking out the Theban Mapping Project website!

*panarama photo credit to Gilles Renault

Thanks to Kris Hirst, at archaeology.about.com, for pointing out a new blog (Digging Digitally Blog) sponsored by the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) Digital Data Interest Group (DDIG).

The Digital Data Interest Group (DDIG) is organized to promote the preservation and sharing of archaeological data that are maintained in digital form.”

The DDIG group objectives include encouraging information and data sharing between researchers interested in sharing and preserving digital archaeological data, providing a forum for discussion of archaeological data sharing, and disseminating these data and ideas to the whole of the archaeological community.

The DDIG blog is directed by Eric C. Kansa and Sarah Whitcher Kansa of the Alexandria Archive Institute, makers of the Open Context, an on-line system for securing and sharing primary field data. Here is a brief post on Open Context, XML, and Tagging I wrote at the CAA conference in April.

The DDIG blog is a resource where DDIG members can post information on projects, news, and all things about digital data sharing. The initial posts include a great statement on politics and public access to archaeology, as well as, the announcement of BoneCommons, an Internet based forum for those interested in archaeozoology.

I look forward to reading future posts at Digging Digitally. This is a great group with objectives that I believe in whole heatedly. You might also notice that the DDIG blog creater has great taste in blog templates! Check them out…

Here (Finally!) is the technical - archaeological second part to a two-part story about the 1945 escape tunnel at the Eastern States Penitentiary. Please read Part I to hear the background of how this tunnel came to be.

The Archaeology of the 1945 Escape Tunnel

60 after the inmates were captured attempting to escape, the archaeological story starts. The task was to find the entrance and exit of the tunnel and then find out if the tunnel is still intact or has collapsed with age. The first phase was the excavation of the tunnel’s ends. With the aid of escape day photographs, it was relatively easy for the archaeologists to find the exact spot from which the prisoners escaped. Excavations were carried out, the backfilled escape hole was found, and a number of artifacts were recovered the dated to the period of the escape. Only a few feet of the exit hole were excavated. On the inside of the prison, in cell #68, heavy handed techniques were used to reopen the location where Kliney began his work. After the escape, the prison filled this cavity with large blocks of schist and concrete. The archaeologist’s excavation could only dent this barrier. With the ends of the tunnel found, it was now time to find the tunnel itself.

The first step in this process was to employ a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) unit to non-invasively probe the sediment below to look for signs of collapsed strata or a telltale void. Stating close to cell #68, the initial results gave the impression of a “V” shaped infilled trench under the courtyard. Possibly this could be part of the brick sewer or it could be the collapsed tunnel. Moving further towards the prison wall, the “V” shaped trench gave way to a very indistinct refraction signal which only showed the faintest shimmer of a hollow cavity. Due to the nature of the iron rich, intermittent sandy/clayey sand sediment below, the feedback from the GPR was diffuse. The locations of possible tunnel sightings were flagged and the survey was concluded, inconclusively.

With a 12” concrete saw, two 2’x2’ blocks of concrete were removed to expose to top of the soil. Closer to the cell, the first of two auger holes (4” diameter) was excavated. From contemporary reports, it was known that the tunnel should be about 10-12’ below the surface. With an auger hole 15’ below the surface and a continuous profile of fill, the hole was abandoned. Either this hole missed the mark or the tunnel was collapsed in this area.

The second auger hole, 10’ closer to the prison wall, was noticeably different form the start. The sediment being augured was much cleaner and sandier than previously, worked progressed quickly. At 8.5’ below the surface, the auger was set back into position to take another 10” deep sample when all of a sudden, “Thump”, the auger dropped. Falling nearly to the handle, the auger had found its mark.

In order to verify, and hopefully inspect, the tunnel, special video equipment was needed. The first attempt at seeing in the tunnel was done through the use of an “Electric Eel” sewer camera. This piece of equipment consists of a LED lit camera head on the end of a semi-rigid cord hooked into a small close caption display and VCR. The initial results were low quality, but stunning none-the-less. After 60 years, the tunnel from which 11 men tried to gain their freedom was seen again. As the camera was pushed through the soft sediment, only glimpses of the tunnel environment were seen. After some exploration, the camera, sprung by the tension of its own cord, flashed from darkness to the view that everyone had been waiting for; a clear picture of the wooden braces used for shoring. This “artifact” was one of the two key pieces to telling the tunnels story. Aside form the once rumored wooden supports was a description of an electrical lighting system used by the inmates. No evidence of this could be seen in the sewer cameras images.

The second attempt, some months later, to get a clear picture of the tunnel utilized much more advanced video equipment. Thanks to the very accommodating team from EnviroSight, the second phase of tunnel video was an unqualified success. Using two pieces of equipment, a video camera wielding robotic crawler and a high resolution zoom camera on the end of a pole, the inside of the tunnel came to life with highly detailed and very clear pictures.

The robotic crawler, aka Rovver, was lowered into the tunnel and proceeded to drive across the lumpy floor

In a very similar fashion of the Google Earth “King Tut’s Tomb” model posted last week, Google Earth Commuity user “aft” has created a semi-transparent version of the Great Pyramid of Giza complete with tunnels and burial chambers. This model is constructed in the same ‘box-model’ style as King Tut’s Tomb in osrder to show the underground aspects of the pyramid without buring them under the terrain. Taking this a step further, aft adds transparency to the pyramid so that you can see the interworkings.

The techniques used by aft are great for showing hidden geometry and negative space. This technique is pretty well suited to archaeology but can certainly be used for a ton of other applications (test holes, geophysial data, etc…)

Use the different “views” provided with the model to get a good look at what the Great Pyramid of Giza has to offer.

Thanks to Google Earth Blog and OgleEarth for posting this earlier.

Here is a link to a well done tutorial for creating 3D models of buildings using historic plans. This tutorial utilizes Inkscape for the vector data and Blender for 3D modeling. Both programs are available freely, for multiple platforms, under open source licenses and have active development communities.
This tutorial is created by Sanna Tammisto & Ari Häyrinen at 3D-Bridge. 3D-Bridge, “Transferring of Cultural Heritage with New Technology”) is a pan-European group the is established to foster heritage preservation through the melding of opensource technology with a mulitperspective architectural practices. As stated in the 3D-Bridge site, there objectves are:

• The target of the 3D-Bridge project is to develop tools of new technology based on an open source policy for the research and preservation of cultural heritage.
• The 3D-Bridge project will highlight the common European contents of regional cultural heritage research based on different geographic, ecological and cultural starting points.
• The 3D-Bridge project will translate European cultural heritage into the language of future societies and media literate generationbels.

IF you are interested in this organizations like this, check out the recent post on IOSA.it, “Open Source Software and Open Standards in Archaeology”

*image property of 3D-Bridge

The Open Source Software and Open Standards in Archaeology (IOSA.com, IOSA.it) represents a group of various aged researchers ,from the archaeologically oriented Gruppo Ricerche, at the International Institute of From LiguriaStudies (I.I.S.L.), From IOSA.it:

“The aim of the web site and of IOSA research team is to promote the use of open source software and open standards in archaeological computing. Any help is welcome and users are encouraged to register and contribute through discussion forums. IOSA.it is open to all who are interested in archaeology and free software (free as in freedom).”

The English language website contains a news blog, forums, events, and section of links to various sites and opensource software. The forum does not appear to be too active, but the events and news are rather current. Also, the “software directory” link section is full of interesting sites and software links organized by various research interests and fields within technological archaeology.

The IOSA website represents only a part of a large project being undertaken by the Gruppo Ricerche. Headquartered in Genoa , Italy, the Gruppo Ricerche began pursuing the IOSA project goals in 2004. These goals include:

1. a greater and better use of computers in archaeological research, also through better knowledge and consciousness;
2. the spreading of open source not just as software, but as a philosophy too, which is similar to the scientific research model, and therefore is suitable to it;
3. the education to the use of open source software, both generic software and scientific software;
4. to promote open standards that are thought for being exchanged on the web, which represents a good way for sharing and publication of research results, at lower cost than traditional methods;
5. to give students the opportunity to compare between open source software and proprietary software they use everyday, on ready-to-use computers, with generic and scientific software installed;
6. to start archaeological research projects in which open source software and philosophy are part of the original design and not afterwards applied to it;
7. to collect archaeologists who are interested in the use of free/libre open source software, through a web site that should work as a portal and discussion forum.

The IOSA.it website allows the Gruppo Ricerche an outlet to discuss thier research and the research of others, host tutorials, and educate others about the benefits of opensource software. It appears that the latter topic is one which the Gruppo Ricerche is quite passionate about. Reading some of the comments on the IOSA.it blog and their “about” page, it is evident that rights free licensing means much more than cheap software. From IOSA.it:

“When we speak about freedom, it’s not an abstract concept in our minds: it is your freedom to have the best tools that fit your needs, and modify them to have them better and better, and redistribute so everybody can take advantage of your work, just like you can do with others’ ones.
We firmly believe that a lot of advantages can come to archaeology this way, resulting in a more scientific approach, better exchange with other disciplines that are already forward on the way, easier spreading of data and results.”

Although IOSA.it is not frequently updated, the mission and ideas of the IOSA warrant a check in every now and then. Reading through the blog posts, there are some interesting topics. The “Transferring of Cultural Heritage with New Technology: Modelling Buildings with Inkscape and Blender” is a very informative tutorial.

As seen on the CAA: Cartography Blog this morning, the World Wild Life Fund is partnering with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and the Center for Environmental Systems Research (CESR) of the University of Kassel, Germany to make available HydroSHEDS, a world wide watershed based hydrologic database.

As of now, only data for South America is available, but I would imagine this is the first time such data is made available in a consistent format for such a broad area. The data, served by the USGS, is downloadable in ESRI Shapefile format for vector data and ESRI GRID format for raster data.

“HydroSHEDS is a mapping product that provides hydrographic information for regional and global-scale applications in a consistent format. It offers a suite of geo-referenced data sets (vector and raster) at various scales, including river networks, watershed boundaries, drainage directions, and flow accumulations. HydroSHEDS is based on high-resolution elevation data obtained during a Space Shuttle flight for NASA’s Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM).”

Archaeologists, at least in the US, often use watershed boundaries as a base unit of analysis, especially in constructing settlement models. Interestingly, I was once told (please help me out if this is dead wrong) that in US archaeology, watershed studies focus on the river and the watershed is the boundary, whereas in European archaeology, the topographic divide is the focus and the rivers are the boundary. This thought opens up a number of avenues for discussion. Does this relate to the types of archaeology, ie. Roman outlooks vs. Late Woodland Villages, or the types of analysis. Chances are, it is a bit of both and everything in between.

Watersheds, as with environmental studies, offer the archaeologists a non-political boundary for which to contextualize there data. It can, and has, been argued that such thinking is just archaeological environmental determinism. Seen as, a way of stripping Native Americans of social creations and complexities that would extend their influence and accessibility beyond a topographic divide. And I agree, it does at times limit our analysis to say this watershed is one way and this one is another, but especially in the Eastern United States, most of the time this is all out data resolution will allow. The watershed of a major river is a large chunk of land, but the great thing about sheds is that they are conglomerations of smaller sheds and build into larger sheds. Although an imperfect unit of analysis for socially active agents of any time period, the natural fractal nature of watershed boundaries works well. This is not to mention the ethnographic data, both from contact America and elsewhere that show that watersheds boundaries were quite important.

Back to the topic at hand, this data set should be helpful not only to hydrologists, ecologists, and other environmental studies, but to archaeologists as well.