Detection of Archaeological Residues using remote sensing Techniques DART

1
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
2
Content
MindMap available at http//antarch.sytes.net/Bec
kWiki/index.php/DARToverview
3
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

4
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
• lt5 years since submission of PhD
• 4-6 Fellowships
• mine came in at 330k
• 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

5
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
• Criteria
• 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

6
(No Transcript)
7
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
• The strength of these contrasts changes over
  time.
• The nature of these contrasts changes over space.
• However, these contrasts are not well understood.
• DART argues that current detection strategies are
  not fulfilling their potential, leading to
  sub-optimal heritage management.
• DART will focus on analysing factors that
  influence contrast dynamics with the overall aim
  of improving detection.

8
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

9
DART Overview
10
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?

11
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)?

12
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?

13
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.

14
Issues become research problems
15
DART Research Questions

• What are the factors that produce archaeological
  contrasts?

16
DART Research Questions

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

17
DART Research Questions

• What causes these variations?

18
DART Research Questions

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

19
DART Research Methodology
20
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

21
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 Gloucester
• Include difficult soils
• Field and Lab Analysis techniques

22
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

23
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

24
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 at compaction levels
  and moisture contents and analysed with
• Multi-frequency Time Domain Reflectometry
• Vector analysers
• Spectroradiometry

25
WP3 DATA ANALYSIS

• Multi-temporal models will be developed
• Translate geotechnical parameters into
• spectral
• magnetic
• electrical measures
• Determine contrast parameters
• Identify environmental dynamics

26
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

27
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

28
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

29
DART The Consortium
30
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

31
Looking at the problems afresh
32
Avoiding the silo mentality
33
Removing conceptual barriers
34
Unlocking potential
35
The Consortium is KEY to DART
36
DART The Application Process
37
DART Process Ideas
38
DART Process Lack of clarity
39
DART Process Floundering
40
DART Process Pain
41
DART Process Reflection
42
DART Process Order
43
DART Process Enlightenment
44
DART All is well in the garden
45
Notification of outcome Late Feb 2010
MindMap available at http//antarch.sytes.net/Bec
kWiki/index.php/DARToverview