Archaeology... it's the future!

[chiz]

can I just give an example of how applying technology worked on one site...
Ten years ago at Spitalfields in London a major monastic cemetery was due to be excavated by MoLAS. Estimate was for 2700 burials. With traditional permatrace planning or even rectified/target recording, the actual recording of the burials would have taken a long time, so the geomatics boffins came up with a way of using pencomputers linked to EDM's to 'capture' nodal points on the skeletons and graves and other related features in 3-D. These were then downloaded and a matrix could be built up using Auto-CAD to view the data top-down and side on. The context sheets were filled out by the excavators, the skeletons were 'checked' by the supervisors/surveyors (all very experienced archaeologists) before recording. The result was that c10,000 (the cem was a little bigger than we thought!) burials were excavated and recorded electronically.

To either side of the cem area the main monastic precincts and later post med sequence was recorded in a traditional single context manner. It was realised (after previous experimental sites) that the 'penmap' technology was no good for complex strat. Now this system was just digital planning, not an integrated paper-lite system, but the skellie sheets could easily have been done on a palmtop. Overall many excavators felt deskilled as they did not plan, but anyone could feel deskilled if all they did was excavate identical burials all day for 8 months, the context sheets generally declined in quality (again from repetition), and the matrix HAD to be done off-site as it was too complex for individual excavators to keep a handle on. Overall it worked well, but we still needed the sketches on the context sheets etc to make post ex interpretation possible.

We did use the penmap recording for other areas of the site where they were truncated and cut features only, our experience was that as long as you had a surveyor on site all the time it was quicker, but sketches had to be far better than normal, and most of the time if there was no surveyor it was more efficient to just lay out grid, plus the excavators then had a better spatial handle. Of course most of this was within an urban strat environment, where you are trying to get the excavators to really understand the processes and run their own area of the site, and it can all be a bit more complex than some old field system, but this to me is the crux, that any electronic system does not end up de-skilling excavators as that would lead to a loss in fine detail and quality, despite neater plans. When something is typed up it always looks more professional. Let's just hope it is....

[Weegie]

Hullo Hal,

One of my colleagues does know about Vera and Intrasis, so I'm hoping that he will join in and reply. I'm sure the Vera team members are perfectly capable of blowing their own trumpets.

On the names of software - you have a point, of course. Software people seem to be very fond of daft acronyms. This results in gibberish such as the 'FISH interoperability toolkit'.:face-huh:

As for Delilah - back in the old days, when rocks were soft and pterodactyls roamed the skies, the first EH monuments management software was called "SAM" (sites and monuments). Its successor was SAMSON, and when former colleagues were looking to name its partner, the choice was obvious.

Brian

Resistance is futile. Your project documentation will be MoRPHE-compliant.

[squeejay]

Hal,

The main differences that spring to mind first between the VERA and Intrasis projects are as follows:

• The database VERA is using (the IADB) is a fully web based application whereas the intrasis system is stand alone.
  
• Because we have Mike Rains and the IADB, VERA can probably have a lot more say about how the finished things looks and works than EH can have with intrasis.
  
• VERA is using a university research and training excavation to test things and has to deal with undergraduates, EH have proper excavations with real archaeologists and on more than one site.
  
• VERA aren't using any GIS things at all, all our plans are hand drawn on permatrace where I think intrasis have a really cool way of doing plans.
  
• We are bound to have a collaborative project with YAT, UCL and other departments at Reading, whereas EH are freer to make decisions themselves.
  

There are probably loads more, but I think that although both projects are usually put under the same digital archaeology umbrella this is just lazy talk, when are quite different things. I think that the vast majority of archaeology nowadays could be classed as digital - I'm sure that even the most die hard old school archaeologists use Word to write reports rather than a paper notebook!

I should probably add the obligatory bit about my personal views here not necessarily being those of the project, blah blah blah!

Emma (currently Archaeology research assistant for the VERA project)

[Hal Dalwood]

Squeejay, thanks for your comments, most useful and to the point. I'm booked on to the VERA event in Reading on 3rd December so no doubt I shall find out all about it then.

Hal Dalwood

Bad archaeologist, worse husband

[kevin wooldridge]

quote:Originally posted by Squeejay
[*]VERA aren't using any GIS things at all, all our plans are hand drawn on permatrace where I think intrasis have a really cool way of doing plans.

Hi Emma,

Was the decision not to digitally plan based on cost or were there other reasons. It seems an interesting decision....and not one that I would necessarily disagree with.

I should say that the Intrasis 'cool way of planning, is often criticised here in Scandinavia as lacking the fine detail that hand drawn and hand digitised plans can apply to the archaeologcal record.

[Weegie]

Kevin,

Fair point, which is why we're recording the outlines of contexts the Intrasis way, which will enable us to use the GIS at site archive completion, but also planning in the traditional manner, to give us the detail that we need to record adequately.

Brian

Resistance is futile. Your project documentation will be MoRPHE-compliant.

[mercenary]

Weegie wrote:

"which is why we're recording the outlines of contexts the Intrasis way, ..." " but also planning in the traditional manner, to give us the detail that we need to record adequately."



Nice to hear the Silbury 'belt & braces' approach continues. :face-approve:

[Unitof1]

The futures permatrace…sorry polyester draughting film.

[squeejay]

Hi Kevin,

The current silchester excavations began 12 years ago, and most of the strategies haven't changed, I don't think (but then i was still at school then!). Also, being a training excavation, we are obliged to give the basics of archaeology and arguably everyone should know how to plan traditionally. We can train the 100+ students with permatrace and frames because it is cheap as well - cost is of course an issue, university field schools not reknowned for having large sums of cash!

[Unitof1]

I salute you

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/10...2.doc.html