Detection of Archaeological Residues using remote sensing

TechniquesDART

A roadmap for archaeological remote sensing in the 21st century?

Anthony Beck, Leeds University

DART Project Champion

Content

MindMap available at: http://antarch.sytes.net/BeckWiki/index.php/DARToverview

Science and Heritage Programme

• Funded by– AHRC– EPSRC

• Objectives– To strengthen the fragmented heritage science base– To engage with a broad spectrum of heritage

stakeholders– To address research challenges of significance

beyond narrow institutional interest– To build capacity through interdisciplinary research

projects and by training young researchers

Science and Heritage Programme

• Proposals– Awarded

• RESEARCH CLUSTER PROPOSALS• COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH STUDENTSHIPS IN SCIENCE

AND HERITAGE

– In Submission• POST-DOCTORAL FELLOWSHIPS

– up to 5 years post-doc– <5 years since submission of PhD– 4-6 Fellowships

• INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH GRANTS– 3 years max– 3 PhD students max– Full Economic Costing calculation– £800k max– 2 stage

» Stage 1: 172 applicants» Stage 2: 24 applicants

Science and Heritage Programme

• INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH GRANTS– Must involve collaboration with some of

• Higher education institutions • Practitioner Communities• Heritage Organisations• Museums, Galleries, Libraries and archives• Commerce and industry

– Timetable• Submission Date: 4pm 17th September 2009• PI Response Week: W/C 23rd November 2009• Notification of outcome: Late Feb 2010• Earliest Commencement: 1st April 2010

Science and Heritage Programme

• INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH GRANTS: CRITERA– Fit to Competition– Quality and importance

• Significance and importance of the project + the contribution to knowledge• Are the problems well defined?• Appropriateness of the research context and timeliness

– Has other current research been considered– Range of audiences targeted

• Are the research methods appropriate/effective/feasible– People– Management of the project– Value for money– Outputs, dissemination, impact

• Are the proposed dissemination methods appropriate and effective to reach the WIDEST audience

• The likelihood that the outputs and outcomes will be highly valued and exploited

– Research community– Wider contexts

• Are plans to increase impact appropriate and justified• Sufficient attention to whom the beneficiaries of the project might be

DART Overview

• DART argues that current detection strategies are not fulfilling their potential, leading to sub-optimal heritage management.

DART Overview

• There are physical, chemical and biological differences between residues and their local matrix which provide contrasts.– These contrasts can be detected.

• Directly • Proxy

• However, these contrasts are not well understood.– The strength of these contrasts changes over time. – The nature of these contrasts changes over space.

DART Overview

• DART will focus on analysing factors that influence contrast dynamics with the overall aim of improving detection.

DART Overview

• 3 year project• £800k FEC application• 40 months of researcher time• 3 PhD Studentships

– Soil dynamics and geophysical prospection– Knowledge-based approaches to archaeological remote sensing – Modelling sensor responses from physical measurements to enhance

electromagnetic archaeological detection • Consortium consists of 25 key academic, heritage and industry

organisations– Computer vision– Geophysics and remote sensing– Knowledge engineering – Policy– Practitioners– Researchers– Soil science

DART Overview

DART Consortium Issues

• What are the best ways to employ the different sensors (a multi-sensor approach) for the greatest heritage return (deploying techniques in a way that goes beyond replication and identifies complementary approaches)?– In particular how do we improve the use of different sensors in

regional/national prospection programmes?– What are the best conditions (e.g. environmental, seasonal,

weather, crop) for deployment?

DART Consortium Issues

• How do we improve the detection of residues on those areas which have proved difficult (e.g. the use of aerial photography on heavy soils and permanent pasture)?

DART Consortium Issues

• How do we evaluate if a new sensor has the potential to detect residues and under what conditions should it be deployed?

DART Consortium Issues

• What are the residue characteristics that determine when geophysical (earth resistance or GPR) and air photographic measurements will produce different/similar results.

Issues become research problems

DART Research Questions

• What are the factors that produce archaeological contrasts?

DART Research Questions

• How do these contrast processes vary over space and time?

DART Research Questions

• What causes these variations?

DART Research Questions

• How can we best detect these dynamic contrasts (sensors and conditions)?

DART Research Methodology

DART Research Methodology

• Collect data from and around residues at different times under different conditions

• Develop soil and physical models to determine:– under what environmental conditions contrast is strongest– where this contrast is expressed in the sensor spectrum– how to calibrate a sensor to improve residue detection

• Develop tools to:– detect currently undetectable residues (those in ‘difficult’ soils)– improve residue detection capacity in well-studied areas– improve the search options for archival resources

• Evaluate the results:– Using the decision tools to programme hyperspectral and

geophysical surveys

WP1 PROJECT INITIATION

• Consortium will determine– The sampling programme

• Different– Climate

– Crop and Land Use

– Seasons

– Soils

• 12-14 months field collection

– Sites• Occur in clusters of 3 or 4

– For logistical purposes

– One likely to be close to Gloucester

– Include ‘difficult’ soils

– Field and Lab Analysis techniques

WP2 DATA COLLECTION AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS

• Monthly field measurements (on and off features) include:– Hyperspectral survey: Eagle, Hawk and optical– Spectroradiometry– Geophysical transects

• Conductivity• Earth Resistance• GPR

– Dielectric permittivity – Soil colour– Climatic data– In-situ Probes

• Temperature gradients• Density• Soil moisture

WP2 DATA COLLECTION AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS

• Samples and laboratory analysis:– Samples taken on and off features

• Trench placed to access subsurface samples– Geo-archaeologist (Keith Wilkinson) determines sampling from

deposits:» Primary» Secondary» Tertiary

– Geotechnical analysis• Atterburg limits (clay)• Conductivity • Density• Dielectric permittivity • Geochemistry• Grain size distribution• Magnetic susceptibility• Organic content• pH

WP2 DATA COLLECTION AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS

• Lab-Based experimentation:– Why?

• Establish links between geotechnical data and geophysical properties

– Allows the use of BGS geotechnical data to gain understanding of geophysical environment

– More sensitive calibration of sensors

– Geotechnical analysis (determining electromagnetic signal attenuation/penetration for soils in different geotechnical states)

• Sub-samples remodelled with different compaction levels and moisture contents and analysed with:

– Multi-frequency Time Domain Reflectometry– Vector analysers – Spectroradiometry

WP3 DATA ANALYSIS

• Multi-temporal models will be developed

• Translate geotechnical parameters into– spectral– electrical measures

• Determine contrast parameters

• Identify environmental dynamics

WP4 DECISION SUPPORT TOOL

• Two proof of concept decision support tools will be developed:– Improve recognition of images with heritage

potential in archives:• soil data• historical environmental and vegetation records• image metadata

WP4 DECISION SUPPORT TOOL

• Two proof of concept decision support tools will be developed:– Prediction tool:

• What residue types can be detected• What sensors are appropriate for their detection• When is the most appropriate time to collect data

– Uses:• Cross domain mapping ontologies• Soil data• Live and near-live data (e.g. ESA):

– Environmental

– Vegetation

– SMD

WP5 EVALUATION

• Location of evaluation areas will be supplied by heritage partners

• Local soil samples will be analysed in order to evaluate geophysical callibration.

• Hyperspectral and geophysical surveys will be undertaken– under the conditions determined by the

decision support tool– under the conditions specified by heritage

professionals

• Interpretation and evaluation

DART The Consortium

DART consortium• Consortium

– Is key• 25 Members• Contains

– Academics• Different Domains

– Data consumers– Data creators – Development

control– Industry– Policy makers

• Academia– Archaeology

• AP/RS• Geophysics• Geoarchaeology

– Computing• Knowledge Engineering• Computer Vision

– Open Science– Soil Science

• BGS• Soil Engineeering

• Heritage– Bodies

• Institute for Archaeologists– National Organisations

• Historic Scotland• RCHMS• RCHMW

– Local Organisations• Perth and Kinross Heritage

Trust• Industry

– Heritage• Scott Wilson• Air Photo Services

– Instrument Developers• Geophysics

Looking at the problems afresh

Avoiding the silo mentality

Removing conceptual barriers

Unlocking potential

The Consortium is KEY to DART

DART The Application Process

DART Process: Ideas

DART Process: Lack of clarity

DART Process: Floundering

DART Process: Pain

DART Process: Reflection

DART Process: Order

DART Process: Enlightenment

DART: All is well in the garden

Notification of outcome: Late Feb 2010MindMap available at: http://antarch.sytes.net/BeckWiki/index.php/DARToverview

Images used under Creative Commons licence

Tweets by AntArch with hashtag #aarg