Digital Methods and Remote Sensing in Archaeology: Archaeology in the Age of Sensing

499 Pages·2016·20.538 MB·English

by  Maurizio Forte, Stefano Campana (eds.)

Quantitative Methods in the Humanities
and Social Sciences
Maurizio Forte
Stefano Campana Editors
Digital Methods
and Remote
Sensing in
Archaeology
Archaeology in the Age of Sensing
Quantitative Methods in the Humanities
and Social Sciences
Series editors
Thomas DeFanti
Anthony Grafton
Thomas E. Levy
Lev Manovich
Alyn Rockwood
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11748
Maurizio Forte Stefano Campana
(cid:129)
Editors
Digital Methods and Remote
Sensing in Archaeology
Archaeology in the Age of Sensing
123
Editors
Maurizio Forte StefanoCampana
Department ofClassical Studies, Art, Art AncientTopography,Head ofLAP&T Lab,
History andVisual Studies Departmentof History andCultural
Duke University Heritage
Durham, NC University of Siena
USA Siena
Italy
ISSN 2199-0956 ISSN 2199-0964 (electronic)
Quantitative Methods in theHumanities andSocial Sciences
ISBN978-3-319-40656-5 ISBN978-3-319-40658-9 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-40658-9
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016948800
©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2016
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor
foranyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature
TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerInternationalPublishingAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Preface
The 1990s will probably be remembered in the history archaeology as the age of
GIS. At that time, theintroduction ofdigital technology inarchaeological research
was in its infancy. Software and hardware had only a limited capacity to integrate
therangeandcomplexityofinformationinvolvedinthearchaeologicalprocess.In
the following decade, however, the archaeological community became gradually
aware of the need for a consistency of approach across the whole framework of
archaeology, while rapid advances in software and hardware made it possible to
envisage a significant renewal of the whole or large parts of the archaeological
process. This was the age of the Digital Revolution.
Atthesametime,remotesensinggainedanincreasingrelevanceandapplication
within archaeology and throughout the scientific community. Up to this stage, the
definition of remote sensing had focused on the analysis of data collected by
sensorsthatwerenotinphysicalcontactwiththeobjectsunderinvestigation,using
cameras, scanners, radar systems, etc., operating from spaceborne or airborne
platforms. Now, a wider characterization began to take hold, treating remote
sensing as any nondestructive approach to viewing the buried and nominally
invisible evidence of past activity. Spaceborne and airborne sensors (now supple-
mentedbylaserscanning)becamejoinedbyground-basedgeophysicalinstruments
andundersearemotesensing,aswellas—forsomearchaeologistsatleast—byother
noninvasive techniques such as surface collection or field-walking survey. Within
thisbroaderinterpretation,anymethodthatenablesobservationoftheevidenceon
orbeneaththesurfaceoftheearth,withoutimpactingonthesurvivingstratigraphy,
can legitimately be included within the ambit of remote sensing. This and other
impulses have also resulted in a rapid growth in multidisciplinary working within
and around archaeology and related cultural studies.
Fromthemethodologicalpointofview,themostimportantchangeoverthepast
fewyearshasbeentheburgeoningcapacityofarchaeologistsandculturalhistorians
to collect—relatively easily and quickly—massive 3D datasets at the landscape,
local, site, and object scale. Initially, archaeologists did not know exactly how to
managethisvastarrayof3Dinformation.Theyreadilygraspedtheideaofitshuge
potential but did not see how to exploit it. The all pervading presence of the third
v
vi Preface
dimension prompted the need for new perceptions of archaeological features and
processesatanintellectuallevel,intermsof“3Dthinking”—orbetter4Dthinking
considered that as archaeologists, we cannot avoid dealing with the chronological
dimension—and at a procedural level, challenging long-established approaches to
archaeologicaldocumentationandthereforetotheinterpretationprocessasawhole.
Now, in the early years of the present decade, we feel that we are ready—or at
least nearly ready—to embrace these new methods of recording, interpreting,
conceptualizing, and communicating archaeological data and relationships across
the passage of time. Technological, cultural, and epistemological advances are
enticing us to encompass new and completely different perspectives based on
immersive, interactive 3D and 4D environments for managing archaeological data
at both the scientific and interpretative levels.
Everybody,inthenextfewyears,willhavetheopportunitytoblendthephysical
world with a sensory-rich “virtual” world where archaeologists can naturally and
intuitively manipulate, navigate, and remotely share interpretations and case stud-
ies. Our understanding of archaeology will be taken to a new level, enhancing our
capacity to develop interpretations and to present them to fellow specialists and to
the general public as simulated scenarios in 4D. Rapid developments in ICT,
includinghardwareandsoftwareforimmersiveenvironments,willevenallowusto
communicate and interact with one another through further cultural experiences
such as sound, smell, and tactile interfaces. The transformation of the traditional
remote sensing in “something else” defines new borders for this research field and
suggests a new methodological approach. “Polysensing” rather than “remote
sensing” can better define this revolutionary approach. It is quite interesting to
notice that archaeology plays as primary actor in this revolution because of its
multidisciplinary character and mission.
Welcome in the Age of Sensing!
Durham, NC, USA Maurizio Forte
Siena, Italy Stefano Campana
Acknowledgements
Thisbookisnotaproceedingoftheconference“TheAgeofSensing,”butwithout
the conference, we could not have this book. The Age of Sensing has been an
extraordinary event and an inspirational opportunity for scholars and students for
discussing cutting-edge research projects and applications.
Aswithmostcollaborativeprojects,therearemanycharactersandgroupswhose
assistance has proven crucial to the production of this volume.
Firstofall,wearesincerelygratefultoagoodmanyfriendsandcolleagueswho
made a long journey to join the meeting at Duke University, Durham, North
Carolina, and who made the publication that developed from it possible.
ParticularthanksareofferedofcoursetotheUniversityofSiena,theDepartment
ofHistoryandCulturalHeritageandtheLaboratoryofLandscapeArchaeologyand
RemoteSensingforthesupportprovidedfortheorganizationoftheconferenceand
the Summer School in Siena and Vulci.
Alsoofgreatimportancetotheorganizationoftheconferencehasbeentherole
played from Melissa Huber, Ph.D. candidate at that time at Duke University who
managed greatly the general secretariat making our work much easier before,
during, and after the conference. In this respect, we are also particularly appre-
ciative to the assistance of a number of Duke students, throughout the symposium
to its sooth running.
The conference was supported by the Trinity College of Art & Science, the
Department of Classical Studies, the Department of Art, Art History and Visual
Studies, the Trent Foundation grant, Institutional sponsors were ICIP-ICOMOS,
NASA JPL and UNESCO (Cultural Sector).
AspecialthankstoVandaGianpaoliandRobertoRabittifortheirverygenerous
and outstanding contribution to the social activity of the conference “The Age of
Sensing”
Durham, NC, USA Maurizio Forte
Cambridge, UK; Siena, Italy Stefano Campana
vii
Contents
Part I Data Collection and Technology
Terrestrial Laser Scanning in the Age of Sensing . .... .... ..... .... 3
Nicola Lercari
Airborne Laserscanning in Archaeology: Maturing Methods
and Democratizing Applications ... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 35
Rachel Opitz
Part II Image and Digital Processing
TerrestrialLidarandGPRInvestigationsintotheThirdLineofBattle
at Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, Guilford County,
North Carolina .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 53
Stacy Curry, Roy Stine, Linda Stine, Jerry Nave, Richard Burt
and Jacob Turner
Applying UAS Photogrammetry to Analyze Spatial Patterns
of Indigenous Settlement Sites in the Northern Dominican Republic ...... 71
Till F. Sonnemann, Eduardo Herrera Malatesta and Corinne L. Hofman
Part III Landscape Representation and Scales
Towards a Holistic Archaeological Survey Approach
for Ancient Cityscapes .. .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 91
Frank Vermeulen
Sensing Ruralscapes. Third-Wave Archaeological Survey
in the Mediterranean Area... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 113
Stefano Campana
What Do the Patterns Mean? Archaeological Distributions
and Bias in Survey Data. .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 147
David C. Cowley
ix
x Contents
3D Tool Evaluation and Workflow for an Ecological Approach
to Visualizing Ancient Socio-environmental Landscapes .... ..... .... 171
Heather Richards-Rissetto, Shona Sanford-Long and Jack Kirby-Miller
Visualizing Medieval Iberia’s Contested Space Through
Multiple Scales of Visibility Analysis.... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 199
Edward Triplett
Pre- and Proto-Historic Anthropogenic Landscape Modifications
in Siem Reap Province (Cambodia) as Seen Through
Satellite Imagery... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 229
Kasper Hanus and Emilia Smagur
The Ambivalence of Maps: A Historical Perspective on Sensing
and Representing Space in Mesoamerica .... .... .... .... ..... .... 247
John K. Millhauser and Christopher T. Morehart
Part IV Simulation, Visualization and Computing
Cyber Archaeology: 3D Sensing and Digital Embodiment... ..... .... 271
Maurizio Forte
Emergent Relationality System/The Insight Engine .... .... ..... .... 291
Bill Seaman
Using 3D GIS Platforms to Analyse and Interpret the Past.. ..... .... 305
Nicoló Dell’Unto
Archaeology in the Age of Supercomputing .. .... .... .... ..... .... 323
Devin A. White
Part V Interpretation and Discussion
Measuring the Face of the Past and Facing the Measurement .... .... 349
William Fred Limp
An Integrated Archaeological Prospection and Excavation Approach
at a Middle Neolithic Circular Ditch Enclosure in Austria .. ..... .... 371
Jakob Kainz
Creating a Chronological Model for Historical Roads
and Paths Extracted from Airborne Laser Scanning Data .. ..... .... 405
Willem F. Vletter and Sandra R. Schloen