Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
23rd February 2009, 09:14 PM
How do you think the role of technology is affecting Landscape Arch? We have far more ways to view the landscape these days with aerial surveys, geophysics, GIS, Internet etc. but HAS it really affected the way we view landscape?
Often it seems that the data gathed by PP15/16 digs just goes into a large cave guarded by the county archaeologist with lots of information about individual sites, but little headway made on the archaeology of the county/landscape.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
23rd February 2009, 10:49 PM
My only comment is that even though I use the latest technology, I still need the human expertise to interpret what I am gathering in the field, and to make sense of it post fieldwork.
?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
24th February 2009, 11:03 AM
"I still need the human expertise to interpret what I am gathering in the field, and to make sense of it post field work"
That's true enough-as, at the end of the day any new technological device is just a tool that can be used. But when I look at the LIDAR survey that was done of the Witham valley from Lincoln to Boston, I can't help but think WOW!the results are outstanding-can't wait for the new book to be published with it in,and how all the fen palaeochannels relate to the known archaeology :face-approve:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
24th February 2009, 02:47 PM
Yep. LiDAR is good. Sees through trees...
The
Forest of Dean stuff is spectacular. Other advances in landscape archaeology include surveying with increasingly accurate and portable GPS systems meaning that larger areas can be covered in greater detail much more quickly - and you can build up a picture as you go along.
[url]http://paulbelford.blogspot.com/"[/url]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
24th February 2009, 03:28 PM
Actually, lidar can't exactly see through trees.
You can remove the trees in post processing if you have suitable data. The first return bounces off the canopy, and the last return pulse can penetrate to the forest floor. You can take the last return data points and interpolate a digital terrain model. This only works if you fly the lidar at the right time of year, in winter. Otherwise, you get no pulses bouncing back off the forest floor, and the first and last return data look much the same. If I sound a bit narked, it is because this is what i'm looking at now, prehistoric field systems disappearing under tree cover....
Even with good high res data, some trees are more easily filtered out then others. Holly is a dense bugger, and usually leaves a mound in the data. However, this can be useful as a reference point, given that holly is not common in most woodland.
In answer to Plautus, the technology allows the large cave of data to be much more freely available then before. Lots of digs don't really add masses of useful data, but there are plenty of larger scale projects which can all contribute to the picture...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
24th February 2009, 03:39 PM
OK, I agree, it doesn't [u]actually</u> see through trees, but the effect of the post-processing is much the same to those of us who are looking at complex industrial landscapes (for example). In which secondary regrowth woodland holly is alas very common, it seems...
[url]http://paulbelford.blogspot.com/"[/url]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
24th February 2009, 04:28 PM
Absolutely, Paul. Glad to hear that you find it of use for post industrial landscapes. There's an interesting article here on the uses of lidar for enhancing historic Environment records.
http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/082/ant0821055.htm
The Witham Valley survey is particularly interesting because of all the preexisting data, particularly boreholes...
