GIS for Archaeology and CRM

The Bosnian Pyramid [site link, GE Link ] finally got a Google Earth model. I guess when visual suggestion is the only evidence in your favor; you use all the tools in the shed. (please pardon the cynicism)

If you are unfamiliar with the topic, the Bosnian Pyramid is the latest and greatest of Indiana Jones meets the Underwater World of Atlantis archaeological mysteries. Headed by Sam Semir Osmanagich, a Bosnian native Texas businessman, the government backed 5 year excavation seeks to prove that the 700 foot hill towering over the town of Visoko, Bosnia (43.98889, 18.17806), is indeed the world’s largest manmade pyramid.

According to Osmanagich, the truth is self evident and undeniable. According to the vast majority of archaeologists, in both Bosnia and elsewhere, the pyramids are a hoax of mammoth proportions. The evidence presented by Osmanagich and his team consists of the pyramid like shape of Visocica Hill and the “man made” blocks that have been found through relatively shallow excavations. He supports this claim with the backing of “leading” geologists and archaeologists. Against Osmanagich are geologic studies demonstrating that the shape of Visocica is defined by faulting and uplift; very common geologic processes. Furthermore, world archaeological history offers no evidence for such monumental architecture at this place and time, as well as, a lack of archaeological artifacts from the excavations. Osmanagich likes to compare his pyramid to those of Central and South America, but compare the typical artifact assemblage of a large pyramid on the Yucatan Peninsula to that of Visoko and it is entirely clear that these are not the same thing.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a hater of anything that goes against the grain. I am not discounting this because it is the cool thing to do. And I do support the nationalistic sense of hope that this is providing many Bosnians, but the evidence simply is not there. I have read the geologic reports that are provided by Osmanagich and they do not in any way provide any geologic evidence for the possibility of a non-natural structure. Saying that something looks “man made” is not geologic support.

Time will tell whether Osamagich’s excavations turn out to be a wild goose chase or the next wonder of the world. If it turns out to be the latter, I am all for it, but at this point, the evidence is nil. Until then, decide for yourself. Check out the Google Earth model of the pyramid and the other Google Earth overlays provided at the excavation’s site.

ArcGIS and Archaeology: Practical Tutorials for the Use of ArcGIS in Archaeology is a cool site I ran across last week. Born out of the need to use GIS for research and the want to help other archaeologists who may be put into the GIS chair, this site provides background info on both GIS and ESRI ArcGIS products. Further, this site has a small collection of tutorials for some more common GIS/Archaeology applications, such as, creating contour lines, terrain modeling, and viewsheds. A nice looking site with a cool idea; I hope the author continues to add to the tutorial collection.

As a side note, I found this site with going through the large number of links at: Archaeological Research Resources. This is, courtesy of Historic Archaeological Research, has a ton of links for many aspects of archaeology, both research and field.

At the end of last week, the Google Earth Blog wrote about a ver cool KML of the tomb of Tutankhamen. The underground tomb is designed with a very cool box model technique. Frank Taylor at the GEB has posted a good deal on the use of techniques such as this in Google Earth. Notably, Frank points to the work of Valery Hronusov from Russia’s Academy of Science in Perm. Valery has created a set of tools to integrate GIS data with Google Earth. From a look at the institute’s site and example projects, the software (KMLer) looks very powerful and quite affordable.

Back to Egypt… After reading the GEB post about the tomb of Tutankhamen model, created by ‘atf’ at the Google Earth Community, I went on a small hunt for other Egyptian archaeological KML examples.

There are a number of renditions of the Pyramids at Giza. Most that I have seen are pretty general and not at the proper elevation. Though, this model that only contains the Pyramid of Khfare is quite detailed and correctly placed.

Of course no Great Pyramid is complete without a Great Sphinx. This model is a low polygon rendering of the sphinx.

Also, here is a great model of the Lighthouse of Alexandria. This lighthouse is estimated as having stood nearly 450 feet tall. For many millennia, this was the tallest structure on earth. This world wonder was constructed on the island of Pharos just off the coast of Alexandria, Egypt. Underwater archaeology is still going on today to try and solve the mystery of where the lighthouse precisely stood and how it met its demise.

Keep and eye on the Google Earth Community for more Egyptian models as well as numerous place marks and imagery overlays of Egyptian sights both past and present.

A quick post from a current project. This is a SketchUp interpretation of a

historic structure from archaeological field data and historic records. Without going into too much detail, this is a quick image of a reconstructed 19th century paper mill that once stood in front of George Washington’s headquarters in Valley Forge, PA. While Washington was in tenure, the mill works included a Grist Mill and Saw Mill. In the 1840’s the Grist Mill burned and was rebuilt close to the original spot. Then in the 1860’s, the much larger paper mill was constructed, which encompassed the previous structures.The Model of Washington’s Headquarters is accurate to the modern standing reconstruction. Apparently, the building has been remodeled to its historic image at least three times.

Google Maps Link to Area

Google Earth Link to Area (sorry, no models)

From Space to Place

December 4-7, Rome Italy. The 2nd International Conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology deadline for abstracts is just around the corner (May 30th). Along with the entitled topic of Remote Sensing, the issues covered by this conference run the gamut of technology used in Archaeology. Landscape, environment, ecosystem, image processing, virtual reality, 3D visualization, conservation, geophysics, photogrammetry, open source and Web-GIS are all topics fit for this conference.

“Sense of place is also sense of time, difference between space and place, between ‘global’ and ‘local’. The world process of globalization is removing places and multiplying spaces, reducing the cultural differences. In particular the dissemination of not-places, stations, hypermarkets, hotels, etc. risks to make uniform our perception, reducing what we perceive of the world to a few mental maps. Therefore we want to highlight one the fundamental tasks of remote sensing archaeology, namely, the capacity to use spatial technologies for recovering and identifying places and the sense of place in collaboration with the local communities.”

As described in this text from the conference abstract, the organizers intend to demonstrate how various technologies can be used to bring a sense of place back to archaeological data and interpretation. In my humble opinion, this is a fantastic goal and something that all archaeological technologists should be thinking about.

Being that a snow ball has a better chance in Death Valley than I do of making it to this conference; I hope that the proceedings will be offered online, as is the case with the 3D Imaging and Modeling conference in the previous post.

Posted by Jeff Thurston at Vector One, here are the full-text [pdf] proceedings from the 2005, Italy-Canada workshop on 3D Digital Imaging and Modeling Applications of Heritage, Industry, Medicine and Land” held in Padova, Italy, May 17th and 18th.

Taking a quick look at the keywords and paper titles, there are no less than 10 references to Cultural Heritage and 5 each for Archaeology and Architecture. There are also a handful of papers discussing 3D techniques with Geomorphology.

Reading back a few posts to my coverage of the CAA conference, there were a few references to the presence of the 3D community at the conference. One observation that struck me is that the all of the companies (~6 to 8 ) in the exhibitor’s hall served some aspect of 3D data collection or visualization. Mostly, these companies focused on 3D laser scanning. Further, the conference CAA program had a symposium on 3D data acquisition. This symposium functioned as a kind of Q&A showcase for the 3D companies.

The strong presence of the commercial 3D laser camp got me thinking. Is there a huge demand from Cultural Heritage and Archaeology that draws in these companies? Companies that are more traditionally focused on mechanical, medial, and industrial applications; projects that generally have bigger budgets that an archaeology dig. Or, do the 3D companies see a fertile ground for broadening their application base? Perhaps the heavy 3D marketing in Cultural Heritage is just the 3D companies getting their foot in the door, something that is plenty common at other industries, but not as much so in Archaeology and Heritage Management.

This is a topic to keep an eye on. If the 3D acquisition technology continues to become more affordable, or CR project’s budgets make room for these technologies, it is certainly something of use. The industry behind it has a good history and is full of really smart and innovative people.

Coincidently, I am working on a project this week that involves 3D laser scanned data and archaeology. This is my first project that integrates 3D laser data, archaeological field data, traditional GIS data, and interpretative visualization. There have been some bumpy paths leading to the coherent integration of all these data sets. When finished I plan to share some of the results.

Point cloud image from: http://www.lupos3d.de/

“He [Burt Rutan] likened NASA’s efforts to archeology.”

- author Leonard Spitzer, Space.com

How exactly do you compare NASA to archaeology?

The context of this quote is Burt Rutan, head of California based, Scaled Composites, a privately funded space exploration design and construction firm, commenting on the current state of technology at NASA’s Crew Exploration Vehicle project. This project is the key to NASA’s moon and mars initiatives as outlined by President Bush’s “Vision for Space Exploration.” As stated by Rutan, the comparison to archaeology follows that:

“They [NASA] are forcing the program to be done with technology that we already know works. They are not creating an environment where it is possible to have a breakthrough … It doesn’t make sense,” Following this, Rutan argued that the NASA program needs to take risks in order to come upon a breakthrough.”

Now, unless Rutan is experienced in the world of Cultural Resource Management (CRM), the comparison is a bit foggy. Perhaps he is saying that NASA is using old stuff, archaeologists like old stuff, therefore NASA is like archaeologists. That interpretation seems a bit weak for a rocket scientist like Rutan.

I would like to think that the comparison is a good bit deeper and quite accurate from my perspective of working in the CRM industry. As with NASA, most of the work I do for a CRM company is funded, in one way or another, by a government agency. Also, as is the case with NASA, funding dictates the degree to which technology and innovation can be brought into a project. So as Rutan said, the perceived risk of loosing money to technology stifles new breakthroughs and in the end, costs more money.

Although I do get to work on some very cool and techy projects, in CRM in general, there is a lack of technological applications. Don’t get me wrong, technology is applied in some very cool ways and by very smart people, but the run of the mill phaseI/II investigation, which a huge portion of projects are, are relatively devoid of technology more recent than the trowel and shovel.

“So what” you say, the trowel and shovel work just fine and get the job done. I agree, but the point is, try and step out of the box and chances are you will be shot down. Whereas archaeology will always need the shovel and trowel, usually as a precursor to a bulldozer and grader, there is a host of technology that can work with the process to make the end product more accessible, accurate, and cheaper.

A creative environment is a hard thing to fund is CRM. The trickle down of process and methodology from the academy is a good, but implementing is in a quick and cost effective way, quickly and cost effectively, can be a challenge. I’m sure NASA faces many of the same hurdles. If this is what Rutan meant, then I whole heartedly agree.

Whereas Rutan said he would not want NASA Chief, Mike Griffin’s job of making President Bush’s space vision work give “only pennies to do it.” As an archaeologist in CRM, I truly enjoy the challenge.

The Story of the 1945 Escape Tunnel

On April 3rd, 1945, 12 men escaped from the Eastern State Pennitentary in Philadelphia. Among them, was the notorius bank robber, “Slick” Willie Sutton. Sutton, as well as the tunnels engineer, Clarence Klinedinst were caught very shortly after the escape. Within 2 days, all then men were back in the prison.

On April 1st, 2006, the tunnel was cleary seen again for the first time in 61 years.

Although, I am late to the game, since this story has been covered by ArchaeologyNews, the AP, NPR, and a slew of newspapers and blog, I figured I should tell my side of the story since it was my companies job to find it.

The story goes, prior to the escape, Clarence Klinedinst, being a mason, was tasked with replastering the walls of cell block 7 (SW arm in this live.com view). After completing this task, he bargained with the officials to give him his choice of cells, he chose cell #68. Incarcerated by him self, he began a project that would take him over a year to complete. Beginning with a specially placed thin plaster wall, which he created during his replastering duty, he began his dig to freedom.

Cell #68 is located at the distal end of cell block 7, with nothing but 100ft of courtyard, and a 30 foot wall between it and the outside. Clarence Klinedinst (aka Kliney), began to dig, at first by himself then later with a cell mate, into the wall and straight down to the sand sediment below. Once Kliney was into the wall and through the footer, there were no obstructions until he would encounter the 12 foot deep base of the prison wall.

Digging for close to a year and a half, Kliney and his cell mate alluded suspicion. Taking turns digging at night, one prisoner would sleep while the other dug. Paper Mache heads were constructed to fool the ever watchful guards. At first, the prisoners disposed of the rock and soil in the cell toilet and in the yard. After a number of feet was dug from the tunnel, a brick sewer pipe was encountered and used to discard the dirt.

The tunnel was well planned and equipped with an electrical lighting system and wooden bracing to help keep its integrity. Heading level across the yard, the tunnel was dug to the base of the outer wall and then dug down ~5 feet to get below the walls footing. At this point, the tunnel was excavated through the water table of an old stream that used to flow across the area, before it received 15 feet of fill to level the prison yard.

This stream was part of the escape undoing. On the morning of April 3rd, Kliney, his cell mate, Slick Willey, and 9 other opportunists made a mad dash through the tunnel and out the tiny exit hole on the corner of 22nd and Fairmount. With clothes wet and muddied from crawling though the water filled depression under the wall, the police had little difficulty following the tracks and capturing the crooks. All were hauled back to jail, and one of America’s greatest escape stories was born.

In the second part of this post, I’ll go over the technology and archaeology that were used to find the tunnel… stay tuned (see more photos at my Flickr page)

Photo Credit: http://www.bosnianpyramid.com/

What are the chances of the world’s tallest man-made pyramid being found in Visoko, Bosnia-Herzegovina? Well, according to the data and available studies on the BosnainPyramid site, at least somebody believes it. Although, the intention of this post is not to support or debunk the authenticity of this find, but instead, just to point out an example of a project (albeit off-beat) using Google Earth maps and links, as well as, a blog’ish publication scheme to produce data that can be accessed by many and, in this case, be swept up into a media whirlwind.

(This article from Archaeology Magazine will give the stance that many professionals take on this issue)

A little background on this site tells quite an interesting story. The 2,120 ft peak of Visocica, towering over the small town, has been noted for its four sided geometric shape long before the recent excavations. Stories going back the 14^th century describe a hidden subsurface structure that once housed the Bosnian king, Tvrtko of Kotromanic. Much more recent reports include the uncovering of engraved building blocks and other faced stones in the constructions of roads and a foundation.

In comes Semir “Sam” Osmanagic, a Texas businessman with an appetite for the weird and wonderful aspects of “archaeology”. Semir, of Bosnian descent, has believed for 15 years that Visocica is the location of the world’s largest man-made pyramid. Now, with a government supported 5 year excavation and a swell of nationalistic pride in his court, Mr. Osmanagic seeks to prove to the world that he has found what he promised. Brushing aside the pleas and claims to halt excavation, by well established archaeological professionals, Mr. Osmanagic presses on.

The website dedicated to the Bosnian Pyramid Archaeological Park, with a clean 3-column design, provides updated content, stories, relevant research aspects (geology, remote sensing, etc…), and a section of maps and KLM downloads ( Sun Pyramid). Fitting well with the Indiana Jones feel to this project, the Google Earth links quickly transport the viewer to the location of the alleged pyramid. Also, there are links to other “pyramids” and a rubbersheeted topo map that gives a decent indication of the topography. How long before someone places a Google SketchUp model on the spot?

Although the technology is nothing fancy and the presentation is simple, the 595 views of the pyramids GE placemark on the keyhole site is probably more looks, virtual or actual, than most archaeology sites will ever see. Certainly, it is the highly controversial and compelling story that created the media frenzy around this “find”, but the availability of data in the form of flying into and around GE placemarks and raster overlays helps get the point across.

Another enthralling day in Fargo, ND. There was an abundance of great papers today and plenty of thoughtful discussion to match.

With my chances for a free happy hour drink slipping away, I will just quickly cover some of the highlights.

Inductive vs. Deductive Predictive Models: Battle-Royal!!!
Will inductive models really send earth spiraling to hell in a handbasket? Or are deductive models the way to true enlightenment? Well, this ever present topic was brought up today in a great symposium on Archaeological Predictive Models.

After David Ebert, not to be confused with James Ebert, discussed the “7 deadly sins of inductive modeling”, two authors followed with papers, based on opposed theories, that produced very compatible results. Scott Madry of the University of North Carolina, presented a 7 county wide predictive model based on an inductive correlative model. Following this, Thomas Whitley, of Brockington and Associates, presented a deductive based behavioral model for a 2600 square mile (did I record the right?) study area in South Carolina. For my money, this battle of the Carolina’s was the pinnacle of the CAA so far. Okay, so no one was throwing chairs, but I sure did scribble some frantic notes.

Basically, the inductive model is criticized by distilling the vast diversity of the environment and archaeology to a series of correlations. Though, the end result is a quantitative, testable, and field verifiable model which fits very well with the requests of the Department of Transportation. Alternatively, the Deductive South Carolina model establishes both environmental and behavioral adaptations which are cross-correlated into a matrix of cost-benefit surfaces. These surfaces are composed into any number of formulas of settlement/subsistence & behavioral adaptations to make testable hypothesis to be modeled. The end result of this approach is a hypothesis testing framework of formulas. This is great for explanatory research, but not great of DOT review. In this case, Whitley combined all 46 testable formulas into a single surface which was encoded with a 1-10 rating of site “possibility”; I’m not really sure what the correct term for that metric would be.

All in all, it was a great demonstration of the application of both methodologies. I truly enjoyed both sides of the theoretical coin. Certainly in the future I will ramble on a bit more about the war waged between inductive and deductive models.

Okay… I would like to include a few words here about the papers on XML and DBs I saw today, but I happened to be out a little too late with a couple of good friends, so it will have to wait. Tomorrow (actually today!) will be the last full day of papers, so it should be exciting!