NRS 509: Final Paper: Underwater and Terrestrial Archaeology and GIS and Remote Sensing Technologies, Methodologies, and Practices

Transcription

1 1 Erik Anderson 12/12/17 NRS 509 Drs. August and Wang NRS 509: Final Paper: Underwater and Terrestrial Archaeology and GIS and Remote Sensing Technologies, Methodologies, and Practices The intersection of archaeology, especially underwater archaeology and global information systems and remote sensing technology is a fascinating one and one that is forever transforming the face of archaeology from a strictly humanitiesbased field into much more of an interdisciplinary field and one that is finally bridging the gap between the humanities and hard sciences. Underwater and terrestrial archaeology both have much to benefit from implementing GIS and RSbased technologies, methodologies, and practices in field projects and archaeological data analysis, aggregation, and interpretation. The past is a tricky subject to investigate and interpret; how can one ever truly know what happened in the past when one was not there? This question has both vexed and employed archaeologists and historians alike for hundreds of years, but as we all move together forward towards a new age, a digital age, it is high time that old fields like history and archaeology adopted tools from the toolboxes of new and emerging fields like GIS and RS in order to shed new light on a shared human past obscured by the darkness of ages gone past. In order to fully understand the intersection of underwater and terrestrial archaeology and remote sensing and global information systems technologies, it is important to discuss matters of diver safety, underwater and terrestrial archaeological pedagogy in the academy and how it has changed over time, and technical archaeological and remote sensing and global information system processes, technologies, and methods. Archaeologists were able to realize rather early on in the history of commercially available global information systems and remote sensing software and hardware that these tools would be exceedingly useful in conducting archaeological research, especially in a marine environment where simple biological constraints that are part and parcel to the human condition negated diving below approximately 70 meters and having to deal with residual nitrogen build up in the blood streams of divers pushing themselves to the absolute limits of safe minimum surface intervals all in the pursuit of underwater archaeological research (Gifford, 23-25). John A. Gifford, a pioneer in the fields of both underwater archaeology and remote-sensing aided archaeological survey wrote about the issues endemic to working in a marine environment and having to literally have a decompression chamber aboard their research vessel, a Turkish fishing vessel called the Kardesler, in order to combat the ever present danger of dealing with a decompression sickness diving accident while at sea off the coast of Southwestern Turkey surveying a literal treasure trove of pre-classical to late Byzantine wrecks (Gifford, 24). In essence, the early work in the field that Gifford did here is indicative of the fact that

2 2 substituting side-scan sonar and telemonitoring and video recording of the sea floor are vital to conducting underwater archaeological research as they are much more efficient that sending down multiple divers for scores of dives in the hopes of finding a shipwreck whilst simultaneously accounting for actual life-threatening accidents arising from doing the work itself using conventional scuba equipment. Along the same vein of safety and efficiency that John Gifford championed, Robert A. Church and Daniel J. Warren both offered a similar viewpoint and one that was made sharper and more focused by the necessity of conducting underwater archaeological research in deep water; water that is much too deep to ever dream of sending divers down (Church and Warren, ). At some point in the career of any underwater archaeologist, they are going to encounter a wreck that is simply too deep, too fragmented, too dangerous, or otherwise far too impractical to send divers down on it to conduct research, this is simply part of the job description of underwater archaeology. When this event inevitably happens, what is one to do? Is one simply to give up on the wreck and maybe mark its position in a GIS database and forget about it? Perhaps, that is certainly done by many, yet what if one could work on the wreck without ever having to set one finned and booted foot down on it? That is precisely where deep-water remote sensing technology comes into play. In essence, Church and Warren eloquently argued that through the use of side-scan sonar, subbottom profiler systems, multibeam sonar fathometers, and to a certain extent, magnetometers, one can work on shipwrecks that would otherwise have horrendous accessibility issues, such as the U-166 or the S.S. Robert E. Lee (Church and Warren, ). Building on the notions of diver safety and deep-water site accessibility, Ervan G. Garrison presented a seminal method of underwater photogrammetry that revolutionized how underwater archaeologists are able to record the sites that we work on (Garrison ). Unfortunately, there has long been as issue with the image perspective presented of a shipwreck after it has undergone underwater archaeological photographic survey, especially when the wreck is complex in structure or the visibility is generally poor due to tidal movements stirring up silt or the camera needs to be positioned close to the shipwreck in order to detail a minute detail, such as a compass heading on a binnacle immediately prior to the ship sinking. In order to combat this array of difficulties, and others too numerous to mention, Garrison argued for constructing an array of three cameras or moving one camera to three convergent field of view positions in order to more accurately present an image of what is really sitting on the seafloor as opposed to the previous technology of having two cameras taking pictures and operating stereoscopically (Garrison, ). When one offers three convergent camera angles on the same part of a shipwreck, then that part will be much more accurately represented as it truly is in real space as a result of enough data being generated from this method of photogrammetry to construct an individual contour map of the piece of the shipwreck in question that represent that part of the shipwreck, or indeed the entire shipwreck if one has enough time and money, in essentially a 2.5 dimensional representation of the part of the shipwreck or the entire shipwreck (Garrison, 102).

3 3 This representation would then of course need to be given to either an expert modeler or a 3-D printer to then create a truly accurate model of what is actually on the seafloor, with scale of course being factored in. So, where do diver safety constraints and the emergence of new and exciting remote sensing and global information systems technologies leave us as underwater archaeologists in the 21 st century? Dr. Robert A Gould, a seminal figure in the field of underwater archaeology and former professor at the famed Joukowski Institute of Archaeology at Brown University asked just such a question (Gould, 24-28). Dr. Gould argued for a much more complete pedagogy in the academy with relation to involving scholars from marine sciences, global information systems, and remote sensing in order to form a community of scholarship that is mutually beneficial to the research of not only underwater archaeologists, but also to scholars in the fields that we so graciously draw from while conducting our own work (Gould, 25). In essence, scuba diving will always be part and parcel to conducting underwater archaeological survey, excavation, and other general work, yet scuba diving does indeed have some noted issues and constraints that have to be confronted and we as underwater archaeologists must put aside our collective egos and embrace dynamic technological and methodological changes within our field even if they do not come from strictly within the field itself, but rather are drawn in by pioneers in underwater archaeology that recognize what the actual future of the discipline will look like. James R. Wiseman shared a similar view on the future of archaeological pedagogy and academic instruction to Dr. Gould (Wiseman, ). Archaeology as a field must adapt to the emerging intersectional technologies of remote sensing and global information systems if new and exciting work in the field is to continue (Wiseman, 439). Furthermore, Wiseman also eloquently highlights the needs of students in he field of archaeology to be presented with staff and faculty at their universities that support an interdisciplinary approach to intersectional archaeological instruction and research (Wiseman, ). Such an interdisciplinary pedagogical approach is now becoming the norm for many universities with archaeology programs, and is certainly to be found at the University of Rhode Island. There has been much discussion regarding underwater archaeology and the usefulness of global information systems and remote sensing technologies on marine archaeological fieldwork, yet that is not to say that only marine or underwater archaeology benefits from remote sensing and global information systems technologies, as the counterpart to underwater archaeology, terrestrial archaeology, also can and will benefit greatly from adopting new and exciting technologies and practices from global information systems and remote sensing technologies. Ethnohistory is unique and fascinating subset of historic and prehistoric archaeological and anthropological research, and Dr. Laurence Kruckman neatly illustrated how vital a role global information system and remote sensing technologies can play in conducting sound ethnohistorical research (Kruckman, ). When one is dealing with complex migration and hunting patterns of prehistoric Homo Sapiens, it is difficult to detect much of anything that they left behind

4 4 as a result of their nomadic lifestyle and early tool-use and tool-making skills; however, their hunting and migration patterns did leave visible imprints on the archeolandscape if one has the correct tools to detect these patterns, namely, powerful remote sensing sensors capable to detecting even the most minute disturbances in anyone of a myriad of infrared or near-infrared spectral bands (Kruckman, ). Furthermore, given that many of these photographs are archived in numerous databases, that means that practicing pre-historic ethnohistorians are able to call up images to support and guide their research within moments (Kruckman, ). As there are multiple types and sub-categories of land-based and terrestrial archaeology, just as there are many types and sub-categories of marine and underwater archaeology, that means that there are multiple tools in the toolbox of a savvy terrestrial archaeologist about to conduct a field project. Drs. Mark D. McCoy and Thegn N. Ladefoged published an extremely detailed and complete overview of global information systems and remote sensing technologies and their intersections with and usefulness in the field of terrestrial archaeology (McCoy and Ladefoged, ). Drs. McCoy and Ladefoged presented useful and complete situations and comparative technological analyses for everything from spatial analysis and data management to archaeological prospecting and site predictive modeling aided by global information systems and remote sensing technologies (McCoy and Ladefoged, ). Furthermore, as the nature of archaeology, both terrestrial and underwater, is that it is a field-based discipline, sometimes the field in which one finds oneself for the course of the work that one does to be rather inhospitable and dangerous, such as working in the Middle East. The Middle East holds a dichotomous post in the pantheon of archaeological regions of interest, it is both rich in cultural heritage and priceless knowledge-producing treasures, yet also mired in political, religious, ethnic, and economic strife that unfortunately make it one of the most dangerous places to conduct archaeological research, yet also one of the most rewarding if one can find a way to deal with the danger of being there. Dr. Sarah Parcak found just such a way to do this (Parcak, 65-81). The work that Dr. Parcak does is mainly in the Middle East and as a result of this, she has to contend with both a generally unstable field of interest and one where looting of archaeological and cultural heritage artifacts runs rampant, and is often done to finance terrorism through the illicit sale of looted artifacts. Dr. Parcak has proposed a novel idea to combat this issue, namely to use remote sensing sensors such as SPOT, Corona, Landsat, and Quickbird to remotely view and monitor sites of archaeological importance and check them for looting (Parcak, 67-76). Additionally, Dr. Parcak was also able to use remote sensing technology to locate other sites of archaeological significance and map them from the air (Parcak, 76-81). In essence, the disciplines of both underwater and terrestrial archaeology have much to learn and benefit from remote sensing and global information systems technologies. Archaeology has unique constraints placed on it as a discipline as a result of it being both a field-based discipline and one conducted by human beings. With that being said, it is vitally necessary to mitigate some of the dangers of

5 conducting archaeology in the field, be those dangers decompression sickness in divers that blow their safety decompression stops after staying too long on the bottom lost in the fervor of discovery only to find themselves 60 meters down with 100 psi left of air in their tank, or working in a part of the world that has historically been unstable and will only grow more unstable as time passes and foreign powers intervene. These dangers can indeed be mitigated by thrusting both terrestrial and underwater archaeology firmly into the 21 st century by adopting the most cuttingedge technology that our colleagues and fellow academic in global information systems and remote sensing most graciously have to offer. Furthermore, as archaeologists, our work grows stronger through visualizations of what is found either in situ underneath the waves of the sea or underneath layers of dirt (stratigraphy) on land and in order to most clearly and accurately visualize these objects, especially if they are in an inaccessible location, it becomes inherently prudent to utilize technologies that are not bound by difficulties that would be all but insurmountable to an archaeologist using traditional methods. Additionally, it is important to teach interdisciplinary archaeology in the academy in order to produce the most well rounded and intellectually complete archaeologists that will both operate in the field today and carry it forward to new and exciting places tomorrow. 5

6 6 NRS 509: Annotated Bibliography Church, R., & Warren, D. (2008). Sound Methods: The Necessity of High-resolution Geophysical Data for Planning Deepwater Archaeological Projects. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 12(2), Retrieved from This is an article that deals primarily with the emergence of new underwater imaging technologies and techniques and their relationship with the field of underwater archaeology. The main argument is that remote sensing technology can and will aid in underwater archaeological survey projects where the shipwreck or other object of interest is located deeper than conventional diving techniques using scuba gear can safely facilitate. Furthermore, an excellent point is made that underwater remote imaging technology can actually shape the way conventional underwater archaeological excavations should take place in the event that the shipwreck or other object of interest is within shallow enough water for divers to work on it. Additionally, this article also presents a highly useful and easy to digest overview of the various popular underwater remote sensing survey tools such as high-resolution geophysical acoustic systems, side-scan sonar, subbottom profiler systems, and multibeam sonar fathometer systems. Garrison, E. (1992). Recent Advances in Close Range Photogrammetry for Underwater Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology, 26(4), Retrieved from This paper is a fascinating look into then recently emerging technology in the field of underwater archaeology and photogrammetry. In essence, it is argued that convergent photogrammetry technology offers a much more fast, accurate, and efficient manner to actually photograph underwater archaeological sites in a manner that will offer the best data for interpretation by interested archaeologists. Furthermore, the paper also gets into the finer points of actually doing underwater photogrammetry, which is highly useful for anyone in the field of underwater archaeology that wishes to start using this technology in their own work. Lastly, Garrison also details procedures for merging photogrammetric data with CAD software in an effort to construct an even more true and accurate photographic representation of the shipwreck or object under consideration. Gifford, J. (1974). A Survey of Shipwreck Sites off the Southwestern Coast of Turkey. Journal of Field Archaeology, 1(1/2), doi: / This is a piece that was written at the dawn of the field intersections between remote sensing and underwater archaeology. Gifford used side-scan sonar to map sea bottom field irregularities off the coast of Southwestern Turkey. His search was fruitful and turned up approximately eight shipwrecks of note from early Hellenistic

7 7 time period to the Late Byzantine one. The work that Gifford did was instrumental in showing the larger underwater archaeological community that remote sensing could play a vital role in underwater archaeology, especially during the survey phase of a project as it allows one to survey vast swaths of the seafloor relatively quickly and efficiently without the constraints of having to deal with scuba-related issues such as air supply and minimum surface intervals for divers during a multidive, multi-day archaeological survey project. Additionally, as Gifford used side-scan sonar for this project, the shipwrecks that he found during his survey were able to be analyzed on board the survey boat (a Turkish fishing trawler) in an effort to identity approximately what kind of wreck they were and from what temporal period they came from and lastly, if they were able to be worked on by scuba divers using conventional diving gear. Wiseman, J. (1989). Archaeology Today: From the Classroom to the Field and Elsewhere. American Journal of Archaeology, 93(3), doi: / This is primarily a pedagogical piece that deals with then new and emerging standards of academic archaeology. Among the new criteria for conducting sound academic archaeological research is a call by Wiseman for familiarity with and ability to use, GIS and RS technologies to aid and enrich the research one does with traditional archaeology. This piece was included in an effort to demonstrate approximately when in the academic realm of both terrestrial and underwater archaeology, did practicing archaeologists begin to recognize the use of educating students in GIS and RS technological applications. Furthermore, this piece is also indicative of the new interdisciplinary school of thought of academic archaeology, which is vitally concerned with drawing from the STEM fields in an effort to make archaeology itself into not quite a hard science, but also not quite a soft humanitiesbased field, but rather to be an academic bridge between the two often disparate fields. Gould, R. (2000). Beyond Exploration: Underwater Archaeology after the Year Historical Archaeology, 34(4), Retrieved from This is a fascinating piece on the intersection of underwater archaeology and remote sensing technologies at the dawn of the 21 st century. Dr. Gould is a luminary in this field and a former professor of archaeology at the much-famed Joukowski Institute at Brown University. Dr. Gould posits that the storied age of underwater exploration is likely over, yet he also asks the vital questions of what exactly does that mean and where do we all go from there? In essence, Dr. Gould argued that the limitations of scuba divers and scuba diving technologies necessitated a shift in the fields of underwater exploration and underwater archaeology to a more remote sensing based practical survey and data analysis of the marine environment and any humanmade objects discovered there. Furthermore, Dr. Gould also advocated for the use of ROVs loaded with remote sensing technology such as side-scan sonar and GIS-based data processing software and GPS positioning systems to operate on

8 8 archaeologically significant and sensitive sites, especially in so-called blue water, or water that is simply too deep to allow divers to work safely or effectively. Kruckman, L. (1987). The Role of Remote Sensing in Ethnohistorical Research. Journal of Field Archaeology, 14(3), doi: / This is a seminal piece by Dr. Laurence Kruckman, a professor of history and archaeology at the University of Indiana. Dr. Kruckman neatly illustrates in this paper how remote sensing can shape and influence the field of ethnohistory, a subfield of both history and archaeology. In essence, Dr. Kruckman argued that there are some issues with studying the post and pre-contact histories of Native Americans that can be cleared up by studying their settlements with remote sensing technology, thus not upsetting the religious and cultural practices of modern-day Native American tribes that live in or near the same areas under potential archaeological study. This piece was included to better illustrate the broadspectrum appeal and usefulness of remote sensing technology in the field of archaeology and to show how remote sensing technologies and practices can easily facilitate sound archaeological surveys and data gathering projects in culturally sensitive areas of the world. McCoy, M., & Ladefoged, T. (2009). New Developments in the Use of Spatial Technology in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 17(3), Retrieved from This is an interesting look at how GIS and remote sensing technology are useful in the field of landscape archaeology, a subset field of terrestrial archaeology. Drs. Mark D. McCoy and Thegn N. Ladefoged present a master class in this paper of how to use GIS programs such as ESRI ArcGIS and Google Earth to conduct terrestrial archaeological surveys. Furthermore, Drs. McCoy and Ladefoged both argue for a digitizing process of raw landscape archaeology field data in order to conserve the data in perpetuity for future archaeology and GIS/RS scholars, thus leaving a legacy of scholarship and research in both fields. Additionally, Drs. McCoy and Ladefoged offer a very useful overview of how to conduct archaeological data and site prospecting surveys in order to locate, map, and analyze new terrestrial sites that as of yet have not been located. Parcak, S. (2007). Satellite Remote Sensing Methods for Monitoring Archaeological Tells in the Middle East. Journal of Field Archaeology, 32(1), Retrieved from This paper is an interesting look in how one should go about using remote sensing technology and sensors such as SPOT, Corona, Landsat, and Quickbird in order to locate and analyze archaeological tells, or sites that most likely have archaeological significance due to some key features being present in them under remote viewing, and to also monitor these sites for looting or intentional destruction. Dr. Sarah Parcak, a professor of history and archaeology at the

9 9 University of Alabama-Birmingham, a fantastic school down south with strong programs in history, archaeology, and anthropology wrote this paper and her work mainly centers on archaeology of the Near and Middle East. This is a contentious and dangerous area to work in and one that I have had firsthand experience working in under Dr. Bridget Buxton in Israel. The paper by Dr. Parcak illustrates how remote sensing can alleviate some of the difficulties and dangers of working in this part of the world by conducting remote sensing-aided surveys of sites of likely archaeological significance and then making the decision to investigate them further with archaeologists operating on the ground should the sites be deemed significant, accessible, and safe enough to work in and on. Perttula, T., Walker, C., & Schultz, T. (2008). A REVOLUTION IN CADDO ARCHAEOLOGY: THE REMOTE SENSING AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL VIEW FROM THE HILL FARM SITE (41BW169) IN BOWIE COUNTY, TEXAS. Southeastern Archaeology, 27(1), Retrieved from This paper is a unique and in-depth look at how one can use GIS and remote sensing technology to test the accuracy of historic maps and to then check those historic maps against the pre-historical archaeological records of the area. The Caddo region of Bowie County, Texas has been inhabited since pre-historic times by various Native American tribes, and they all left, to varying degrees, lasting impacts on the archeogeograhy and landscape archaeology of the area, and remote sensing is able to detect these temporal disturbances and map them accurately and in correct ascending temporal contexts in order to present a unified picture of this particular region over a few thousand years of human inhabitance. Furthermore, remote sensing is being used in this project to overlay different habitations in the same area over one another in order to gain insight into how dwelling construction and land use in this area changed over time. Additionally, as this site contains burial plots of Native Americans, remote sensing is vitally important here so as not to disturb their scared resting places and upset modern day descendants and disrespect their vibrant and beautiful cultural heritage and religious traditions. Singh, H., Adams, J., Mindell, D., & Foley, B. (2000). Imaging Underwater for Archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology, 27(3), doi: / This is a fascinating collaborative paper produced by a number of luminary scholars in the fields of underwater imaging, acoustics, and archaeology. In essence, this paper examines the varying degrees of effectiveness and usefulness of numerous underwater imaging technologies and juxtaposes the situations where one would probably do better to use an acoustic imaging sensor, such as side-scan sonar, or where one would be better suited to use an optically-based underwater remote sensor, such as creating a photomosaic model of an archaeological site underwater via the collection of pictures or videos or both of a site with multiple cameras and video cameras. Additionally, this paper also describes various image-based interpretation problems of underwater archaeological sites and offers novel

10 solutions to accurately interpret the images and correct them for later survey projects. Finally, there is also a fascinating discussion of the potential to create three-dimensional models of underwater archaeology sites in order to really present the best and most accurate view of what is actually resting on the seafloor. 10