Archaeology... it's the future!

[Oxbeast]

"No not these I am talking about total stations that automatically detect features and survey them. Not launched yet but coming soon price unknown."

Interesting, I can't wait to see it in operation. It must have some really good algorithms to detect colour changes.

A digital archive needs to be stored in a server, not an endless series of CDs. 5 years is ancient for a CD which is still readable. You can then back this server up to a remote location, and print off the photographs and drawings when you archive.

Mercenary said "This means that if you use a film lens with a digital camera (as many places do), you may not necessarily get the image you expect." Perhaps, but at least you can see what you're doing. I've only ever seen a tiny percentage of the photos which I took on film. I get your point about assuming that everyone will be able to use a computer in the future, but I really think that they will. After all, we assume that everyone is literate. I have met archaeologists who were spectacularly resistant to change though. Even one who told me (seriously) that it was a mistake to change from the old money!

[gorilla]

Back to the 1980s again...

Who said I wanted to get back to the 1980's? 1880's more like! I recently bought a book on Gothic Architecture, produced in 1884, where each illustration is a work of art, not a digitally enhanced photograph made to look like a drawing. Each plate exhibits a time where people actually took pride in the work they do (some called it craftsmanship).

I'm not a technology basher. I used the damn stuff everyday, enjoy its benefits and would certainly condone it's use on site to make the diggers / supervisors (whoevers) job easier. I'm just a bit sceptical of putting all recording in one big sooper-dooper electronic basket.

Paper archives can be destroyed by fire, water or vermin. A digital record can be copied immediately and located in a different place.

True and fair enough. Can't argue (wouldn't want to) with that.

Quote "The resolution is not as good as a cheap film SLR." Maybe/Maybe not -digital photography wins hands down for ease of use and in particular for looking at detail.

Yes, but a decent digital SLR cost a lot more than a manual or even electronic SLR. Would you want Joe / Joanna blogs taking your rather expensive Nikon D200 (for want of an example) out into a muddy field? Can the office actually afford a D200? Would it want to? Why not get a cheap, second-hand D70 instead? Stick it on 'point and shoot mode, things will be great... doesn't matter if the person behind the camera doesn't know his/her arse from their Ansell Adams? The camera will do everything for them ("Wot's all these buttons do?"). As a recording tool, is the camera more important that the photographer? Nope, give the person a bit of training with a manual (ie teach them about apertures, F-stops and shutter speeds), then let 'em take out the FM2. The manual will work fine, most if not every time (even on freezing cold days).

Then again... if your digital RAW images or JPEG's still don't turn out right, a little bit of Photoshop will produce the correct (wanted) results. I've seen some post-excavation digital manipulation done on photographs... "can you take out that stray bit of wire / fence post / dirty archaeolgist?". Or... "can you enhance the colour of that feature, you know, darken it a bit?" Yes, digital cameras make it easier to take pictures, but how long will it be that they are used to enhance the story or just plain lie? Yes, film shots can, likewise, be altered... but it is so much easier with digital images.

Before you ask... I have two digital SLR's and three film SLR's. I use them all, but not for archaeology.

As for the notion that there is a single archaeologist out there who does not know how to use the net......

I didn't say that. Virtually everyone in archaeology (in the UK and Western World) knows about the internet (and how to use it). Quite a lot of people have learnt about archaeology through looking at the internet. But not everyone interested in archaeology knows how to use the net or has access to it.

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

I agree with you Gorilla, when it comes to site plans and sections you can't beat the pencil and permatrace approach. Too much reliance on technology erodes skills that are vital for the production of a proper site record.
As for archaeology in 5 to 10 years time-it will be interesting to see where it will be in 5 to 10 months time. Just heard today that there are more lay-offs in my area.
Technology is no use if there is no one working to use it.[xx(]

[Unitof1]

Isnt this the problem of standards

We start of trying to get our observations out, first we tried drawings then we moved into photographs, now digital, with each media we have then had standards –imposed- so we end up with three photos with each camera at different f stops and suddenly you are an archaeologists because you know that the standard is to take three photos. I think that we should remember that there is a big difference between a picture taken by an archaeologists trying to show and enhance some feature which helps the description and the record and a picture of an archaeological feature taken because it is in the brief that each section had to be taken.

I think bajr should hang its coat on the end of the requirement of wet chemistry photography in archaeology.

Sorry dd Christmas is not looking good for any of us

[mercenary]

quote:Mercenary said "This means that if you use a film lens with a digital camera (as many places do), you may not necessarily get the image you expect."

I think this is one of Gorillas not mine. Don't have much of an opinion on this subject (or really even understand it[:I])

[Windbag]

Is anyone aware of what the latest thinking/guidelines are regarding digital archiving? For example, I've been advised always to use TIF format for digital photographs, as jpgs degrade in quality. I'm sure archivists have given digital records a lot of thought. What rules/regs/advice have you gotten about archives?

[andy.bicket]

Windbag,

The ADS has a guide for depositors, thorough and compliant with open access archiving standards. TIFF is a compressionless format so doesn't degrade images by reducing dpi or colours.

http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/userinfo/deposit.cfm

[oldgirl]

quote:Originally posted by Unitof1

I think that we should remember that there is a big difference between a picture taken by an archaeologists trying to show and enhance some feature which helps the description and the record and a picture of an archaeological feature taken because it is in the brief that each section had to be taken.

I agree entirely. I've lost count of the number of times I've had the argument about using whatever is appropriate, rather than 'we have to do this exactly this way because it says so in the brief/WSI'. I know we have to have standards, but sometimes it would be nice to actually allow archaeologists to use their brains and common sense rather than assuming they'll take shortcuts if left to themselves.

[mercenary]

quote:but sometimes it would be nice to actually allow archaeologists to use their brains and common sense rather than assuming they'll take shortcuts if left to themselves.

Curators must be a different breed where you work. The ones I know don't delve that deeply into the methodology, presumably because thay trust us to record in an appropriate way. I may be wrong.
Then again if the archs are muppets they are likely to attract dogmatic monitoring. Funny how curators use their own common sense about the companies they are monitoring.

[shovelnomore]

I'm sure the curators who know enough would love to be able to trust archaeologists to get on with it...

but seriously, shouldn't the method statement/WSI set out appropriate methodologies in the first place. Or did I miss something?

I think that the long and short of it is that by and large archaeologists are willing to use new technologies to record stuff as soon as the kit becomes cheap/robust/easy to use enough. the main opposition come not (as Dr Pete suggested rather patronisingly) from the diggers whose jobs would be at risk, but from the PMs who have to fund the kit from already stretched budgets that don't cover any capital purchases, let alone the training and lead in befor it starts to become productive. Sometimes, new kit creates a new methodology (remote sensing/computer use of Bayesian stats), but you still need a person behind the machine to make sense (?) of it all.