Laser scanning Sir George Staunton Country Park

So the other day I was able to get hold of a FARO Focus X330 and use it to record some archaeology! The FARO Focus is a top-end machine; as the name suggests it can fire lasers over 330 metres away and still receive the returning beam, in a 360 degree arc. It can be used by one person, as it is quite light and is about the size of a small suitcase. It also doesn't take very long for it to capture millions of data points, which provide an accurate reflection of a building/artefact. These can be downloaded and "stitched" together to create a 3-dimensional model (for info on how to create 3-d models and some software to use them, see my previous blog).


So why was I surveying some buildings for archaeology? More precisely, I haven't told you what I was surveying! I surveyed the Gothic Library and the Beacon at the Sir George Staunton Country Park in Havant, near Portsmouth. To those who are not familiar with Sir George Staunton Country Park, it is named after Sir George Staunton, who built up the estate with land purchases over a number of years and created the "pleasure grounds" to house his exotic plants and later his memorials (read on below for more info). The buildings in question are two late Regency-period buildings (both constructed in the 1830's), and the Library was one of the first Regency buildings in Britain to exhibit gothic features. It is octagonal in shape, and has lovely pointy bits on the edges of the roof, plus one very tall chimney on one of these edges (possibly related to the old fireplace inside). It used to be connected to Sir George Staunton's mansion, who was an important British ambassador to China in this period, particularly given the Opium wars of the 1830's which made it even more difficult to acquire Chinese literature. It was illegal for Chinese officials to teach Chinese, or give Chinese writings to foreigners, so it becomes all the more impressive to know that Sir Staunton translated the first law books from Chinese into English, and was one of the founding members of the Royal Asiatic Society! The Library's walls alternate between mortar and brick faces, so I wanted to capture this in detail, to see how they might relate to the old mansion. However, you are also allowed inside the library, and so I wanted to capture any features that may give us evidence that this was used as a library, such as old beams for bookcases, etc. The floor plan of the mansion is very sketchy, and there might have been a second library inside the mansion that was never mentioned...

Wikipedia's image for the gothic library.

The gothic library as a raw scan. Note how some of the bottom is missing, that's because there are some hedges in the way!

This is a shot of the raw scan of the gothic library's interior, and compared to the photo below, it's fairly accurate, capturing all the detail on the walls (except for the windows, which look like a bullet has just gone through it)!

The Beacon, on the other hand, was constructed from the remains of a nearby mansion (Purbrook house), and is entirely coated in mortar, with a brick base. A circular veranda It was built by the same architect who designed the Gothic Library, Lewis Vuillamy and represents a very different side to the architect; the Library was a modern, ahead of it's time structure that preceded the gothic revival, while the Beacon harked back to Ancient Greece and Italy (where he had travelled previously). Because the Beacon is so isolated, it is almost preserved perfectly. But more about that in a second...

Can you tell the virtual laser scan model (bottom) apart from the real thing (top)? This is after the data has been "cleaned up" with Pointools, one of the more common (yet expensive) software programs for point cloud edits!

I only needed to take as many scans as I needed (i.e. as many as would cover the buildings, since the scans will overlap). The roofs were very difficult to capture because they are blocked, but can be seen clearly from Google Earth!. So I ended up with 25 scans for both buildings, taking about 15 minutes each. This took the whole day, but no other technique could capture the data so accurately and precisely! A photograph doesn't give you coordinates like a laser scan does.

So when the data downloaded, it turned out that:

1. The Gothic Library is structurally in good nick, but a lot of the exterior details didn't come out very well. This is because the hedges and trees got in the way, and there was nothing I could do about this! Only LIDAR penetrates trees and this can only be used on planes. Since you can't fly a plane this close to the ground, then this is the best result I could get in a day. 
2. But, I was able to analyse the wall thickness, and it turns out there may be some interesting mathematical patterns in the buttresses supporting the library.
3. The Beacon actually has one or two problems! The edge of the roof has been eroded by natural causes (birds and the weather), and a new hole has been found in the interior, which seems to have been caused by the natural building materials.

There are some other cool things you can do with the data, such as showing you the intensity of the point cloud (or where the laser scanner received the most information from). This can tell you things like how reflective a surface may be, especially if it's in an isolated place where you can't tell what material it's made out of, such as the roof of a cave deep underground.

At the end of the scanning and editing process, the scans can be taken into a different software package like Autodesk's ReCap or AutoCAD and digitised to have walls, windows and so on, adding more realism to the model.

One of the scans showing the intensity of laser points, showing where the laser scan picked up the most points off the walls (from multiple scan). Neat, eh? It looks more solid on one side and on the roof because 3 scans were taken of the gothic library, and these were unevenly distributed around the room.

So you'd be forgiven for thinking that laser scanning is a quick and expensive way of finding cracks in buildings! But it can also reveal new, previously unknown features about a building. The cost is coming down all the time, although at about £25,000, this isn't something that can be done on a whim! As always the right archaeological questions are required.

3D Modelling for Archaeologists

In this blog post, I will show archaeologists what 3D modelling packages are, how they can be used, which ones to use and what I recommend for you!

Disclaimer: these software programs may not be free indefinitely, even if they are free at the time of print. There are many trials of products, such as Photoshop (useful for editing photos, which can be used in modelling), but much of the free software is also constantly being updated/ is freeware, and so may contain bugs, so it may not work properly.

Introduction

3D modelling software does what it says on the tin; it allows you to create 3-dimensional models (if you know autoCAD, you can skip straight to the software section below

). The applications are obvious; building models that can bring a new level of interpretation to your work and allow a new medium to be exploited, so the public can be more informed and enjoy your work much more easily. Modelling software developed out of architecture and mechanical engineering, where the accurate visualization of components that are often not fully visible need to be seen. But in recent years the line ha blurred as to where 3D modelling software stops; it can be seen in many aspects of life, in particular video games. Because of it's flexibility in so many aspects of the modern world, archaeology and heritage-related specific software, or even software that is remotely relevant to us, is difficult to come by (unless you're in the right place at the right time).

Critcisms

A lot of worries and criticisms I have discussed with fellow archaeologists is that there is not enough time to incorporate modelling into many projects, because either the software will not be supported, or the software has to be learned, and this will take time away from the project and actual excavation. These are valid criticisms, but for a project that involves a large and/or  public audience that will find this information online, I argue that a model created using free software will not take very long to learn, the time and financial costs involved are very low, and most computers will be able to handle simple models. Compared to software that you have to pay for (such as AutoCAD), many of these software packages are not very advanced, nor do they provide some of the measuring tools necessary for a detailed reconstruction. But, at a time when the world has been undergoing a social and technological revolution since the creation of the internet, archaeology is being left behind in the technological front. but as a compensation, while we have always taken the hand me downs to begin with, such is the rate of development, in this situation the "hand me down" is free and I recommend it to archaeologists the world over, not least because a lot of these software packages are compatible with each other, especially when it comes to publishing! 

However, one thing that will have to be considered when you build a model is how you actually, well, build it. some complex lines and geometries need to be "thought through" before you start building it up (see fig.1). For example, to build an angular roof that fits a circular building, you will need to think about how to create the height of the roof, and how to model any inconsistencies in the roof. This also leads to the question of just how much detail you want to put into the model (down to the individual brick, for example, or just the walls), which details will be left to the textures (think of textures as coasts of paint for buildings, but can be applied to anything)?

Fig.1: Start thinking outside the box to construct more complex shapes. Made in Sketchup (author's own).

Theory?

Theoretically speaking, where is archaeological modelling? the truth is, I don't think we actually know. Yes, it's dangerous to take archaeological models at face value, but where does the theory come into modelling?  With apologies to David Clarke, we need to "lose our innocence" over modelling. In particular with reconstructing an artefact/building that has been destroyed, there is an element of variability/probability/interpretation that needs to be considered and explained. Is the data reliable enough to allow for multiple reconstructions? Part of this topic is  known as "procedural modelling", and none of the below modelling software can accomodate this. So how do you accomodate differing interpretations?  I think this debate will grow organically as it takes up more space in the archaeological literature.

The Software

So on to the software!

At the beginning of your project (or even the thing that makes you start your project), you see an artefact/object that you think would look nice as a virtual model. This is my personal set of questions/ checklist for what you can model:

• Can you photograph it from all angles freely (excluding the bottom, but would be nice if you could)?
• If this isn't possible, can you get hold of more advanced techniques, like laser scanning, instead of photography?
• Is it appropriate to create a virtual model of the object? If you're only going to use it for presentation, that fine, and these free applications are great, but you may not be asking the right archaeological questions if this is your primary focus. Ask the archaeological questions first, then think about how to model it.
• Are there more appropriate methods available for what you want to model?
• If this isn't possible, can you get some surveyed points of the object and hope to photogrammetrise it?
• Most importantly, can it form the basis of your research question?

Here are the ones I recommend from his list, which vary in usefulness depending on your project/artefact. this is not an exhaustive list by any means, but a full list of free software technologies are on this blog:

• SketchUp - very good for starting out on modelling in general, but doesn't contain many advanced functions in the free version. Because it is so simple, it is very easy to model large areas quickly, without using up much disk space. You can also add some textures, so a very convincing model can be built up quickly. It is better for modelling buildings, rather than smaller artefacts. It also doesn't allow you to import photos, but it can import snapshots of, and georeference to, Google Earth! as a results, it is very tempting to show excavations or known positions of buried features alongside standing features. Combined with it's own online depository, this means that it is very easy to find multiple models very easily. The greatest problem is when complex architecture (such as creating a finial, see fig 3 below) or smaller artefacts. There is also very in the way of photogrammetric functions. BUT, my main criticism is what Google will do with the data, particularly once it is on their depository (Google sold SketchUp in 2012 to Trimble, but Google still release a free version). Will your model put on Google Earth without your permission, for example? In this increasingly Big-Brother style world that Google is turning us into, are we unwittingly giving Google the very data it needs to accomplish such a task?

 fig.2: A work in progress of the gothick Library, Sir George Staunton Country Park, Havant. the simplicity of the model allows for rapid creation with limited data; this was the first time I used Sketchup, and it only took me an hour to make the building (author's own)!

Fig.3: Photo of the Beacon, Sir George Staunton Country Park, Havant. The finial is the metallic decoration on top, full of complex curves that could not be done through Sketchup, unless you were able to reach the top of the roof and measure all the survey points (author's own)!

The main modelling software packages I recommend are:

• FreeCAD- this requires more knowledge to work than Sketchup, because FreeCAD can implement advanced motion simulation capabilities, so you can do some fancy things, like make a moving water wheel. It is not as intuitve as Sketchup though.
• 123D catch and make- This is a suite of programs made by a large company (AutoDesk), they has an interface similar to autoCAD; i.e. they have a viewcube, the mechanics are reasponably intuitive too (although if you haven't used autoCAD, then SketchUp may feel more intuitive). It works mainly with dwg files made by autoCAD.

The main photogrammetric software packages that I recommend are:

• Cultural Heritage Imaging have been pioneering unique photogrammetric techniques in the USA, and their free software is called Reflectance Transformative Imaging (aka RTI). As it has been specifically designed with cultural heritage specialists and archaeologists in mind. However, if you have never used photogrammetric techniques before, then it is worth going over to their website and reading their manual, because it has two programmes that you can download. The methods employed are easy to understand, but the steps in the program (RTIviewer) tend to feel a bit dislocated from the process of actually stitching the photos! Don't worry, this happens, and if you follow the instructions in their manual, you will get a results. This is probably the best photogrammetric software; however, it is highly recommended to read their website first and then employ their methodology (instead of their capture kit, you can get similar results, using a shiny ball, string and  a tripod for most artefacts/ faces). So this software requires the most planning too, but the results are worth it. One example of RTI being practised in the UK is the Saving Your Cemetery or Church in York.
• 123D catch-autodesk's photogrammetric software. I haven't tried this, so I can't give my opinion!

Finally, to publish your model online for free, there are on or two ways of doing this. Some archaeologists are using sketchfab, which can upload over 25 file types of models (except for .dwg files from AutoCAD). This also exemplifies the multivocality of modelling; event though you have large Trans-National Corporations involved in this market, there are a huge number of very popular software packages, which are largely inter-compatible, allowing archaeologists to do what we want to do, particularly when it comes to publishing models!

So to summarise, if you think that you could model a building, the chances are that there will be a software package for you, that will be free, easy to learn, can be downloaded to your home PC. SketchUp is recommended if you don't mind sharing your models, but other freeware is available, that can do the job just as well.

The North South Divide: A case of perspectives?

While doing some research on the Lindisfarne Gospels for an essay last year, I came across this image, which got me thinking about it's wider implications for the north-south divide:

 

This image is titled "London and it's Environs- if Google Earth had a cultural bias setting". Disregarding the cultural bias setting (that in itself is another blog post!), this map rougly illustrates where the north-south divide is, in psychological terms, and that it is fairly obvious what is "south", and a vague bit is a "commuter belt" into the south (I assume this is the midlands, in this case a feeder state into the south), and the rest is The North. Note how Londoners prefer to be associated with NY and Paris! You probably have been involved in a debate about this, whether you like it or not. The BBC ran an article on it once, asking its audience whether the line even exists (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3852593.stm)! So, how does the north-south divide relate to archaeology, and is it all about a case of perspectives? I apologise that I confuse the north-south divide with the "London versus the rest of the country" divide, but I feel that there is a lot of overlap between the two issues. I will also state my biases; I come from a few miles from junction 17 of the M1; the "Watford Gap", often used as the psychological divider of the country, so I consider myself that most vague of British cultural phenomena, a "midlander"!

To begin with, how do you define the sides? The "Northerner", according to the Chambers Dictionary, is "a native of or resident in the north, especially of the Northern USA or the northern counties of England", while a "Southerner" only appears to apply to the US, not to England, although a "Midlander" is defined as "(a resident or local of the area) relating to or designating the central parts of England" (Chambers 2001)! Instantly this means that we have to define your identity not on a particular cultural phenomenon, e.g. all people of the north wear higher heeled shoes than the others, but by an arbitrary set of lines following the borders of counties, which are political units that were created mainly before or during the Norman conquest! Does this mean that William the Conqueror had a perception of the north-south divide?

The north-south divide has quite a history.  This has been blamed on everything from Anglo-Saxon emigration patterns, Benjamin Disreali's book Two Nations (or Sybil) https://sites.google.com/a/sheffield.ac.uk/all-about-linguistics/branches/varieties-of-english/the-north-south-divide. If Helen Jewell is to be believed then the north-south line has been in existence for at least 700 years in it's modern form, and even Iron Age communties of over 2,000 years ago may have had some idea of this divide as well (Jewell 1994:8)! However, the Iron Age idea comes from Sir Barrington "Barry" Cunliffe, former Emeritus Professor at Oxford University for European Archaeology. Here's the thing though; where did his perspective of come from? was it the visit to some ruins of his uncle's farm in Somerset when he was nine? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Cunliffe#cite_note-3)? Did this give him the idea that the Romans were such a powerful influence on the south of Britain, even before invasion, using trade, cultural ideals etc., that simply because some tribes that happened to be closer to the Roman Empire and it's allies, i.e. the southern ones, it made them more likely to become "romanised"? This, as you can see, is a very controversial, and exhaustive, topic, which can be quickly refuted; many recent archaeological examples show that instead of british tribes being simply receptive to "Roman" ideas in the Iron Age, they were actually trading their own unique goods and ideas not just across the country, but also to Europe. so in that sense, Iron Age tribes may not have been divided into "countries" or territories as we know it now, but they were not necessarily a homogenous mass of one culture either. let's not forget Helen Jewell either- she is a retired professor from Liverpool University, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LO3LpJmBuzAC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=helen+jewell+historian&source=bl&ots=_6hNuCT9Mv&sig=NswqWFCA1lHPWPV5rL53E1EFt10&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-k3sUaCwAorP0AW6jICQDg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=helen%20jewell%20historian&f=false. Unfortunately I could not get a personal biography of her, so her perspective can only really be gleaned from her work.

What about more contemporary academic studies? The image below is rather telling. It not only removes any notion of a "midlander", but also creates a more comprehensive and up to date dividing line http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/maps/nsdivide/ns_line_detail.html https://sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/maps/nsdivide/index.html. However, this map doesn't tell the whole story, as the study's authors admit: "" said ... . Is Leicester really southern?

But this is still missing out the one thing that has been missing from this debate so far; the midlands! The very political region that has been scruntinised in this article has not yet been given a voice. Do we, as midlanders, simply sit back and let a tug of war between the north and the south ensure?


So what's wrong with persepective? To begin with, if you can't reach a national concensus on what is the arbitrary line between north and south, then what is the point? Andrew Barr presents just two different ideas of what the north-south divide is in Britain; a true geographical one and the more famous "psychological" one, in addition to mentioning a study done by the University of Sheffield (see image below). In 1936, Cyril Fox, another archaeologist, made a similar conclusion to Barry Cunliffe and divided the country into lowland and upland archaeology, based purely on the surviving archaeological evidence! Even individual cities will claim their own north-south divides; a policeman told me once when people from the north of Coventry (e.g. Bablake) go into the south of Coventry (e.g. Earlsdon), they will sound to the Earlsdon folk like they've just come from Manchester; likewise, those from the south of Coventry going into the north of Coventry sound like they've lived in Oxford all their life*! If anything, I believe that this highlights a "melting pot" of the midlands culture; while sometimes we may yearn to be either northern or southern, we also like to creat a new identity out of this mixing of sides, which has been happening since when we started branding each other northerners and southerners.







So in conclusion, what have we learned about the north south divide? How much of it is perspective? how will future plans from Westminster affect this e.g. HS2? Will it bridge the divide, or will Westminster push the north away with a barge pole? If any MP's are reading this, then I would just like to confirm that the north-south divide almost certainly does exist; just go and walk through Coventry. Coventrians are proud of their accent and how it defines which part of Coventry they are from, and how this reflects on their "northerness" as a whole. Ignore the line at your peril.


P.S. Also, read this!
http://geologistinthedoctorwhoscarf.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/this-weeks-geology-related-news-that-i.html

References:
BBC, 1st July 2004, Is there a north south divide? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3852593.stm, last retrieved 22/07/2013

The Chambers Dictionary, 4th edition, 2001.

Jewell, H.M., 1994, The North-South Divide: The Origins of Northern Consciousness in England, Manchester University Press, Manchester

Wikipedia, last updated 24/05/2013, Barry Cunliffe,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Cunliffe#cite_note-3, last retireved 22/07/2013

Wikipedia, last updated 27/06/2013, Cyril Fox, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Fox, last retrieved 22/07/2013

Appendix:

Image 1: M@, last edited 21st March 2008, Touch Up London #83: How We Londoners View Our Neighbours,  http://londonist.com/2008/03/touch_up_london_86.php, last visited 17th July 2013.

Image 2: unknown, last visited 22/07/2013

Image 3: Barr, A.M., last edited unknown, Londoncentric, http://andrewrbarr.com/maps/londoncentric/, last visited 17th July 2013.

Terrible TV Review: Battlefield Britain

I normally don't do reviews, but this really got my blood boiling! "Battlefield Britain", hosted by father-son duo Peter and Dan Snow back in 2004, looked at the most famous battles in British history; Boudica v the Romans, the battle of Hastings, the Spanish Armarda, and so on, using a mixture of top-down and bottom-up explanations, with some reconstructions, using actors, physical scenarios and virtual reality. So this actually sounds very normal for a history program with some archaeology thrown in, trying to experiment with new technology and actively trying to reconstruct what it would have felt like to be in a battle, to make it more appealing to the public; currently it is being shown after midnight on BBC 4. But I'm going to explain why this is a terrible advertisment for both history and archaeology, and I fear that it has set a precedent for more TV shows that ignore the facts and just want ratings.


And this was meant to be high-tech stuff back in 2004! (image from wikipedia)

So to begin with I watched the first 2 epiodes and got so angry with the way that they treated the history and archaeology with such contempt that I point blank refuse to watch another episode. Why? Well, the main issue I had was their contempt for presenting a very narrow and very strict version of history that didn't use very much evidence at all. If this was a scientific experiment, they would be laughed out the lab. Seriously, I've seen children's history books with more factual content.

Take the first episode. Boudica was the queen of the Iceni, but on her husband's death, the Romans defied the will he made up and took the whole of her lands, rather than just half. That they got right. What they didn't get right was everything else! They presented a horrible view that the Romans simply conquered every tribe in Britain as soon as they touched down on our Isle. In fact, the Romans went about conquering Britain much more subtly, by negotiating treaties with various tribes, like the Dobunni, who in exchange for their continued security, would pay taxes and allow the Romans to trade with them in their towns, even helping to build these new towns for the tribes. This is information that was even back then not particularly difficult to come by; any archaeologist working on any roman site would be able to tell you what I've just said, and more! Furthermore, the only archaeology we saw was the remains of the temple in Colchester, which "withstood the fighting of the Iceni" by holding out for 2 days. Any look at a Time Team episode (admittedly biased) will show you that the Iron Age is full of archaeology, which can tell use so much more about their lives than the fighting we see on this program (also see my excavation on an Iron Age site here). This was relying purely on the evidence of Tacitus, and not on any site reports that are available, which is a crying shame because there are bound to be site reports for archaeological excavations on all the sites that were mentioned in the program.. Boudica, admittedly some new evidence concerning the location of her last battle, but they neglected to mention the other alternatives (except for Mancetter). New research that wasn't available to them at the time suggests that the battle took place near Church Stowe in Northamptonshire (John Pegg 2010).

Then we come to the second episode (the Battle of Hastings), which was probably written on the back of a coaster in a pub. They neglected to mention the following things (that are rather important to the Battle of Hastings and it's context): the Bayeux tapestry, Harald Hadrada as King of the Norwegian Vikings and his claim to the throne, the story of how Edward the Confessor promised his throne to William. In their defence, the presentation of the fights themselves was well done; fast paced, and somewhere there was a narrative. They did also mention other important facts, like the Italian mercenaries, how it was a battle for god and not just William, how the Vikings were defeated at Stamford Bridge; but a lot of this is mentioned in the tapestry at one point or another.Furthermore, there was no explanation for the Vikings attacking England, except for "pillaging". This is the same army sent by Harald Hadrada; no king with a claim to a throne would send troops to an enemy country with no instructions except to pillage, as was very much implied by the program.

 Yes, the reconstructions of being charge by a horse was a useful exercise in showing the power of mounted knights, but by this point in the program the context of the story had been so muddled up with a lack of information I felt at a loss. A battle without it's own story is just an exercise in meat-grinding.

You can argue against my critique that history is subject to changes in opinion, but we knew even back then, only 9 years ago, that the Romans were not so stupid as to charge head-first into an unknown and hostile land without first making some friends. Neglection of even mentioning the Tapestry is a major flaw in the argument of this episode, especially when they are in France for part of the show. Surely they could have got access to it? Seriously, Dan Snow is now the President of the Council for British Archaeology (although his background is history and not archaeology). He needs to button up and do some reading. Or some excavating. He is a historian first and it shows. Not a very good one, on this evidence. Not one excavtion was shown in these episodes, and I suspect this is the case for all the remainder. Having said that, I will agree with Dan that his dad does explain some rather complicated bits of history quite well, befitting of a man who has worked on the TV for so long.

The main selling point of the program is Peter Snow's "briefcase", which, when opened up, displays a battlefield from a particular time and place. Using virtual reconstructions of men, their weapons and the environment, it presents the fighting almost as it was. There is very little wrong with the reconstructions themselves, but I will come back to the problems of reconstructions in a moment. Meanwhile, they also use a mixture of "interviews" with actors being soldiers or civillians from the time period in questions, which again in itself is not a bad idea. Furthermore, they re-enact some aspects of warfare for themselves; I did like the use of the police as a makeshift "shield wall" and contrasting the two techniques, although the police-woman showed up the Snows in their knowledge of what a good shield wall should do, but then that is a new interpretation in itself, and that is actually good for public viewing, giving a new insight into the mind of those who are on the front line today. But not in the past, it should be said. But this is a minor qualm when you're broadcasting information to the public.

If this program was given any more screen time than it has already been given, I would be extremely concerned. This is a very lop-sided version of histroy that simply ignores unacceptably large amount of evidence. Yes, we've all heard about the Bayeux tapestry for the hundredth time, but there's a good reason why you've heard about it; it is one of the most important pieces of evidence we have surrounding the account of the battle of Hastings, and it provides more than one side of the story, even if it is written by the victor. A lop-sided and deliberately incomplete account of history is a far more dangerous thing than a simply lop-sided one. Many of the tyrants of history knew that eliminating the traces of your vanquished foes made your position all the more secure; to quote Hitler "Who remembers now the destruction of the Armenians?", a rhetoric reference to the Armenian Genocide, which was carried out during World War 1, and seemingly forgotten about during the inter-war period, possibly helping to justify Hitler's extermination of the Jews and other races during the Second Word War.

Now for the reconstructions. I could be here all day, but I will keep it short. You can reconstruct anything from the past, but if you do not explain how it was reconstructed, what sources you used, and what could be an alternative presentation of the facts, then you risk alienating experts, you risk presenting a falsified version of events, and then accidentally (or intentaionally) lying to the public. Given that we pay the licence fee, the BBC needs to think carefully over what it is spending it's money on. Those virtual reconstructions are based on some historical and archaeological evidence, but also ethnogrpahic evidence (the actors, reconstructing fighting techniques and so on), but there is no mention of where the environmental sources! If you look out over a bit of green space, how long ago do you think it was before it was cleared of trees and undergrowth? We don't know the answer to that question unless we count rings on trees and count pollen from coring samples. This links back to the "written on a coaster in a pub" statement above; it feels very rushed, without consulting all the evidence (again, becoming a bit of a theme here). My point here is that no reconstruction is ever going to be perfect, no matter how "realistic" it looks. It can be an accurate and precise reconstruction, but it can never be a "true" reconstruction, because of the nature of the evidence. You will note that this caveat is never mentioned in any program that features reconstructions, not even in Time Team!

On to the BBC itself. While the nature of historical programs has got better in using more recent historical and archaeological evidence, if they are replaying Battlefield Britain as a genuine alternative, then it contradicts the BBC's efforts to present a solid argument for presenting history and archaeology on the TV. But that can't be right; it is relegated to the midnight slot! But having said that, given that the BBC are re-running it, shows that the producers care little for the critical review of the content of the program, and simply the ratings that big names can pull.

If I was in charge of this program, I would make a lot more of the historical and archaeological evidence actually mentioned on the program, and I would have used more experts from various institutions as well, while cutting down on the actors, although not getting rid of them (they were overused a bit). If I was in charge of the BBC, I wouldn't have this program shown at all. Instead, I would recommision it, maybe with Dan and Peter Snow, because I am sure that they not entirely to blame, and we all learn from our mistakes. Besides, they are not the main fault of the program; if arcaheologists were on the program I would still slate it for the lack of factual accuracy. If archaeology is not on the TV being broadcast and reminding the public about it's importance to telling us about understanding the past, then we will lose it! 

Rant over, please leave any comments below!

References:

Bardakjian, Kevork, 1985, Hitler and the Armenian Genocide,  http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Education.31/current_category.118/resourceguide_detail.html, Cambrdige, Massachusetts, Zoryan Institute.

Pegg, J., 2010, Landscape Analysis and Appraisal: Church Stowe, Northamptonshire as a Candidate for the Battle of Watling Street, craft:pegg, London

Appendix:
Image one: Author unknown, last accessed 19/12/2013, Battlefield Britain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Britain, last updated 15th December 2013.

Link:

http://archserve.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/barby-hill-excavation-introduction-and.html

Archaeology in the Public Eye: Ooo shiny...

I noticed a while ago an article on the BBC about the "hairdo archaeologist" (see here). Why has this woman's fascination with hair led to a media sensation, and why don't other archaeological news stories across the world, which are more impressive and arguably more important (see here for dolphins discovering a 19th century torpedo in the USA!), get more attention? In a more recent set of articles from the same University, emphsising my point, a set of 18 skeletons were found next to Durham Cathedral (see here), while a relatively unoticed excavation in Asia by the same University will redate the birth of one of the world's most important religions (see here). Which of these stories did you hear about?

In my perfect world, everyone would be fascinated with the periods just before and after the Romans (particularly in Britain), or anywhere around the world that looks at the cultures that existed just before writing occurred, and then push back the boundaries of our knowledge further. Maybe I grew playing too many games in the Total War series, where grand armies could sail from Norway (or France in Rome: Total War) and conquer large parts of Britain to my (their?) hearts content, distorting my interests in historical periods. In one sense though, this is virtual archaeology- the games themselves provide a small, yet interesting amount of history (rarely archaeology though) as to how certain weapons were made, and how and why some buildings were built, and some historical battles. Of course in the grand scheme of things, this comes across as a minor point when you are beheading virtual foes with your mighty huscarl regiment. There is also the small issue of the Total War series not explicitly telling us where they got this information from!

My point is Archaeology is everywhere, usually you just don't recognise it! See that field over there outside your window? If it has small earth mounds that run across the length of the field in a linear fashion, chances are that it is medieval ridge and furrow. If you see a pond surrounded by trees, or respected by hedgerows, the chances are again that it has a longer history than you think, and may have provided fish for a local lord or monastery back in the day. If you live by the seaside, you will usually spot some pre/historic feature that indicates the area's function, no matter how small it may be. However, most of the time, because you aren't told about these things, then you won't recognise this "heritage".

Do some research into your local library; look at old tithe maps, parish maps, local landowners, and any previous historical or archaeological investigations, and prove me wrong. Shiny things, such as gold torcs or Roman coins, in contrast, provide a different side of the story, usually reflect elites, and other important individuals in society. Metal hoards may reflect multiple people, or the collective efforts of multiple people for one person. Objects in a hoard often belong to the same culture. Because they are often well made and haven't rusted too much, they often lend themselves to presentation in a display cabinet. It is also easier to illustrate the individual with this shiny object rather than with the landscape, like the field I mentioned above. "This coin was produced by the Romans during the rule of Emperor Severus" conjures a more vivid image than "This field would have produced crops in a 4-field system, an idea taken from Dutch farmers, that would have kept the local area well fed...", for example. The individual is easier to illustrate than an entire community.

This brings me to the hairdo archaeologist and the dolphins. While she has no shiny objects, her knowledge is like a shiny object- it glitters in the light of the media, and it provides a unique perspective on individuals back in the classical period. It can also be put in a display cabinet and be taken to various places. In contrast, the dolphins, while displaying a frankly astounding level of intelligence to find a 19th century torpedo, will probably not get the same coverage. Why? Does the BBC's North America editor have a hair fetish? Surely with military considerations on the top of the list at the moment with the unrest in Syria and terrorist attacks around the world, surely being able to use animals to find bombs is going to have more value in society? A simpler explanation is more likely to be the uniqueness of the woman's discovery. Even though it addresses individuals specifically, these hair styles were being used all across the Roman and Greek empires. 

The bomb in contrast is much more difficult to relate to an individual, despite it's relevance to modern day scenarios. Perhaps the US military has kept records of the suppliers of military hardware from the 19th century, but less work has gone into identifying individuals, nor are dolphins good at talking in English. With a relatable modern day person to relate the skills to as well, it can be argued that these skills can now be replicated, preserving this knowledge. I haven't even mentioned King Richard III, who has captivated the imagination of huge numbers of people, who have now visited his skeleton. I would like to contrast this with the very few people who visited the site of the Bosworth battlefield, where he died. Leicester University are missing a trick here! This landscape, as bloody as it is, represents an excellent opportunity to illustrate a landscape with famous individuals, especially since we know the story of Richard III; where he stayed the night before, where he died, where he was buried and so on. These could all be linked into a "heritage trail", and tied into the major exhibition that occurred a while back. 

Ultimately though, going back to my main theme, it is, or course, how the news articles get media attention that often dictate how much of the public see these archaeology stories. A lot of the news stories I see on my internet feeds are archaeology, because I signed up for groups, newsletters etc. about them. Alas, these are often specialist groups, and not to everyone's taste. But that's not all; news reporters are human; they too only have 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to get the news to write into their papers etc. Their biases will be distorted towards their personal likes, political agendas, and how good their sources are at following up major discoveries/events. So a number of things stop a good news story from getting into print. Also luck.

So the public like individuals. They also however like objects which display great organisation, such as Stonehenge, Hadrians Wall, or natural wonders like Ayers Rock, or, before 2001, the Bamiyan statues of Afghanistan (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/208). These often involve entire communities, usually multiple communities, and over time, multiple cultures, like today's landscape of the Baniyam valley, with a mixture of Buddha statues (now destroyed) and Muslim buildings. Who made these decisions to build these monuments? Would this tell us any more about the cultures? The contrast between the monuments I have just described and the ridge and furrow I have described above are huge, but mainly that it is likely that your local field is not protected by international law from development. What I am saying is that any landscape can provide a new perspective on your local, or in some cases, national history/heritage.

The Bamiyan statues destroyed by the Taliban in 2001 for representing a different religion. Considered to be one of the Asian wonders of the world for their sheer size and skill of the craftsmen (the holes are c.60 and 35m high respectively, which held massive statues!) The buildings are Islamic in origin.

I believe that the public can't take too much information in about the past, which limits the detail somewhat. Individuals are easier to remember than landscapes, but that doesn't mean archaeologists and heritage specialists should stop trying. Indeed, in the last 60 years or so, landscape studies in archaeology and history have become considerably more popular. Populating this landscape is one way to bring the archaeology to life. However, this article is far too short to cover all of the aspects of the "individual" against "the landscape", and in academia, we tend to make the distinction between sites (arbitrary areas of archaeological activity) and landscapes (vast sweeping areas with varying degrees of archaeological activity), which until recently, was uncritically accepted.

So my recommendations for the public? Embrace the landscape, but don't forget the individuals who lived there! As you can imagine, this is much easier to do for any period that contains writing, and this is the challenge I accept; to populate the landscape as far back as I can go. Knowledge can be your shiny object, illuminating the lives of those before and around you.

Please leave any comments below and I will endeavour to respond!

P.S. I admit that the sources I chose here are biased; the two more "obscure" ones come from specialist archaeology sources, and the other two come from a mainstream news site! But it still serves to prove my point.

Links:

BBC, last accessed 08/12/2013, "Hairdo Archaeologist" Solves Ancient Fashion Mystery, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22630813, Last updated 26/05/2013

Archaeological Institute of America, last accessed 08/12/2013,Dolphins Discover Ancient Armament, http:// last accessed 08/12/2013, www.archaeology.org/news/889-130521-california-dolphins-navy-howell-torpedo, last updated 21/05/2013

BBC, last accessed 08/12/2013, Remains of 18 People Found on Dig Medieval Dig in Durham, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-25166771, last updated 30/11/2013

Durham University, last accessed 08/12/2013, Archaeological discoveries confirm early date of Buddha’s life, https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=19400, last updated 5/11/2013

5 fun facts about Southampton University

Time for 5 more fun facts! This time I will focus on Southampton University; it's history and archaeology ~(mostly buildings based). Hopefully not as long as the last few articles I've done!

1.The University of Southampton was founded in 1862, with funds from the then-deceased Henry Robinson Hartley (hence why the University was originally called the "Hartley Institution")(Nash and Sherwood 2002). The son of a wealthy wine merchant, he actually disliked Southampton during his adult life, never actually living in the city itself! This was a time of great social and economic change in Southampton; the population roughly quadrupled in 40 years from 1815-1855, bringing the industrial revolution with it (ibid.). Nonetheless, he did enjoy Southampton as a child.
On his deathbed in 1850, he bequeathed his estate to the "Corporation of Southampton" (basically the city council), with the intention of creating "a small building...to serve as a repository for my household furniture, books, manuscripts, and other moveables"(ibid.). This comprised most of the Highfield Campus in Southampton. The Corporation then spent the next decade arguing whether the money should be spent on a "University College" or an Institute, the main difference being that the college would be quite similar to the ones founded in London (University College London) and Manchester (Owens College, by then the only other "colleges" in England, in the strictest sense of the word; Durham University was founded in 1836, but wasn't really a "University College" by this point, having multiple colleges like Oxford and Cambridge). Meanwhile the Institute had members, but not students, although it gave lectures. There was also a small legal matter involving Hartley's relatives, who won half of the money bequeathed by Hartley to the Corporation! In the end, the Institute won out even though it would originally be designed for a smaller section (i.e. richer) section of society.

2.  However, in 1883, the Institute became a College, after a series of corruption allegations bought about by lecturers on the Institute's Council, leading to the Magnus Report of the Corporation's Technical Instruction Committee of the 1890's, that changed the Institute into a College (ibid.). After a few years of wangling, it became a University College in 1902 (ibid), which meant that some students could take their exams at Southampton and be awarded a degree from the University of London! Ultimately the University of Southampton came into being in 1952, being given a royal charter by Queen Elizabeth II, in one of the first acts of her reign (ibid).

3.  Other campuses in the area include the National Oceanographic Centre and the Winchester School of Art. The National Oceanographic centre was part of the University of Southampton. It was constructed in the 1980's to promote Southampton's maritime research. In 2010 it merged with a similar facility in Liverpool and owned by the Natural Environment Research Council (National Oceanography Centre, 2013). The School of Art is based in Winchester, and has been around in various guises since 1860, making it older than the Hartley Institute (Nash and Sherwood 2002: p.120)! During the 1990's it acquired a huge number of new students through expansion, but then also became part of the University of Southampton, after about 15 years of discussions that had started in the 1980's.

4. Avenue Campus was developed out of Richard Taunton's College, which was purchased in 1993. Founded by this 18th century mayor of Southampton, this school had been around since the 18th century, providing free education, although it had only been on the Avenue Campus site since 1926. Today the Richard Taunton school continues on Hill Lane in Southampton (Old Tauntonian's Association 2013).

5. Many of the University buildings described above survive today; the original Hartley Institute building was the Hartley library (mostly redeveloped though), the modern library was built in the 1930's to honour Edward Turner Sims, the Avenue Campus was developed on the inside, but the exterior largely untouched (although a new archaeology department was added recently to Avenue Campus). 

Image 1: The Hartley library, originally called the Turner Sims library, because it was built in mmory of Edward Turner Sims (Southampton University)

While a number of other buildings are largely modern, these reflect Southampton's rapid rise as one of the country's leading Universities in the modern era, catering for all students across the UK; a contrast to the selective institute that the University was founded on! However, it hasn't all been plain sailing: see here for a recent fire in the computer science building! Fortunately no one was hurt.
  So Southampton's modenr history has shown how the rapid expansion of the University can still complement the history and archaeology of the past; mainly by preservation and consolodation of multiple schools. By losing it's London connection, Southampton University was able to focus on it's local area, and forge it's own destiny as a successful independent University.

Any comments are appreciated!

References:

Nash, S and Sherwood, M., 2002, The University of Southampton: An Illustrated History, James and James, London

National Oceanography Centre, last updated 2013, Our Organisation: About Us, http://noc.ac.uk/about-us/our-organisation, last accessed 16/11/2013,

Old Tauntonian's Association, last updated 2013, College History, http://www.ota-southampton.org.uk/history/earlyyears.html last accessed 16/11/2013

Appendix:

Image 1: Southampton University, last updated unknown, Hartley Library, http://www.southampton.ac.uk/alps/NewStudents/Your_Facilities.html, last accessed 16/11/2013

Links:

Link: last updated 31/10/2013, Southampton Uni Research Centre Blaze,
 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/31/south_research_fire/, last accessed 16/11/2013

Archaeological Techniques for the 21st century

There have been a huge range of developments in technology in the last few years; ipods, then iphones; free software that you can use on your laptop; cheap cameras and dvd players, etc. etc. This has some interesting side effects for commercial and academic archaeology (mostly because as you produce more of something, generally the cheaper it gets), but here are a few things you may not have heard of that are finding uses in archaeology (apologies, this is a long post!):

RTI (not to be confused with Real Time Information, a system of Pay as You Earn in the UK!)

Reflective (or reflectance) Transformative Imaging (RTI) is a relatively new technique that involves a camera (ideally high resolution), a few bits of kit and a PC with the right software installed. The idea is that 2-dimensional surfaces are deceitful; they are often made up of grooves, holes and other depressions which have been created either by nature or by man. You can tell the difference usually because the man made grooves look, well, man made. More often they are following a known human pattern (see image 1 below). Conventional camera-taking techniques don't capture these depressions on their own. But, you can take multiple images of one 2-dimensional surface from different angles, and with the help of processing software, you can see these depressions! It can't work without the software, because the software can work out the mathematical calculations involved in finding these depressions, creating a 3-dimensional image; this is not something that you can just do right now with your own camera (unless you buy/borrow the kit!). See here for more information on the technique. 

This is a particularly good technique, not just for the potential to reveal new information about a painting or a wall carving (i.e. the paint might have gone away but the traces can still be found by this technique), but also as a good way of digitally storing the information about these objects; by forcing the archaeologists to take more photos! This technique can be used on any surface, such as coins. If you can photograph it, you can RTI it!


Image 1: Normal image in bottom left, after RTI processing on the top right. Note how here the grooves tend to follow the painting (Cultural Heritage Imaging).


There are some drawbacks however. The kit itself is a little pricey (at $350) and there is only one manufacturer of the equipment (based in the USA). And currently it's main use has been limited to California in the USA. But, Southampton University and Oxford University have been pioneering its use in the UK, in one case in churches, in collaboration with local archaeological groups (). The software itself (called RTIbuilder) is now free to download.



Image 2: Above is the direction light normally travels when captured from one angle. The bottom image shows how multiple angles can "capture" the effect of the grooves etc., simply because the software knows where the light source is coming from, and where the picture is being taken from. Magic! (Cultural heritage Imaging) 

There are a number of blogs now dedicated to the advancement of RTI (mostly American); see here for an example of a discussion of which is the best camera to use in RTI.

Motion-Capture (with thanks to Jasmine Noble-Shelley for this one!)

The use of motion-capture technology in archaeology is rare, but not unheard of. It has been used in museums for a number of applications, such as in the Louvre, and the Roskilde museum in Denmark. In Britain, Jasmine Noble-Shelley pioneered the use of an Xbox Kinect to create a "virtual excavation" using nothing more than some cameras, a sandpit and some willing volunteers (Noble-Shelley 2013)! This allows the volunteers to engage much more with an actual site than they could normally, especially if the site in question is able to attract the public's imagination, such as Pompeii or Tutukhamun's tomb (Noble-Shelley 2013). Some of the software that was used in a particular geological project is openware (i.e. free to download) and can be found here.

Both of these sites are now under threat from the sheer weight of visitor numbers. So this could also be the way forward for allowing people to visit "real" sites by creating 3-dimensional ones that can be explored using motion-capture devices, without actualy visiting them!

Ipads (with thanks to Craig-Lee Holt for this one! Saw your facebook post about this topic a while back)

Going from Microsoft to Apple, who would have thought that Ipads would have a direct application in the field of archaeology? In Britain and the USA at least, they have found their way onto commercial excavations, saving time and money by allowing archaeologists to record the archaeology directly into a database, rather than using paper formats, then copying it out later into a database. Sounds simple, doesn't it? But imagine trying to lug a computer or even a laptop around a muddy excavation to do the same task as the Ipad! Also see here for an academic project in Palestine that is


Laser scanning techniques

Lasers have come a long way from being just fancy light displays! In addition to laser printers, now you can use lasers to create 3 dimensional images of monuments! In Britain, by far the most famous example of this technique is Stonehenge. But did you know that there are multiple ways of applying lasers to record archaeology?

• Triangulating 3-D scanners
• This technique simply uses the principle of triangulation (not dissimilar to RTI above), by placing a digital camera at a different angle to the laser, the 3-dimensional component of the image can be worked out. This leads to a very high resolution (quality) and accuracy of the surface (Laser Scanning Stonehenge/Archaeoptics 2003). This was the technique applied to Stonehenge a few years ago, and is better suited to a more abstract 3-dimensional surface.
• Time of Flight 3-D scanners
• This technique differs because it's principles are borrowed from Sonar: send out a laser and measure the time taken for the laser to return. So a laser scannign  device can be set up to move up and down to scan a surface. Hence, a 2-dimensional surface can be recorded quite easily with this technique, although it is not quite as high-resolution and high-quality as the triangulation method (Laser scanning Stonehenge/archaeoptics 2003).
• CT (computer tomography) scan
• A comparative newcomer to the game, coming from a medical background, which in itself is an unusual route. But it provides an excellent, high-quality scanning procedure that can capture the tiniest of details. The vast majority of CT scans have been used on mummies thus far (Hughes 2011), but it has also been used recently on the Hilton of Cadboll cross in Scotland, which stood about over 5m tall but is now in over 3,000 pieces(National Museums Scotland)! You can get involved in reconstructing the cross  here.
• LIDAR (Light detection and ranging)
• All of the above techniques are great for individual artefacts and monuments, but what if we want a (quite literal) bigger picture? LIDAR has come into it's own in recent years, although it was also being used in the 1960's for submarines. Usually taken from a plane, this technique involves the same principles as Time of Flight, but it can take 10,000's of points per second! It has been used to map areas of land from smalls fields right up to county level and beyond (English Heritage)!

GIS

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) have been around since the 60's, with the first archaeological application in the 1970's. It then fell out of favour during the 1980's, but has made quite a comeback since the 1990's (Wheatley and Gillings 2002), to such an extent that the chances are that any archaeological project today will make some use of it, even if it is just to create a map. GIS describes a software package that deals in geographical spatial information, mainly in map form. But, it also allows you to create spatial data, either in relation to other layers or on it's own, analyse the data, and even start to predict where sites can be found (amongst other things)! However, this requires a lot of computing power, even for a "basic" GIS, so make sure you have a powerful laptop if you are going to try these at home.

There is free software for GIS that you can simply put onto your laptop for free, such as GRASS (at the time of writing, the latest version was 6.4.3). An alternative that has been developed exclusively without archaeology in mind, but can still be used, is CorelDRAW. It is pretty old now, I'm not entirely sure if you can get it online for free, but it's worth a look to see similarities between other packages.

The major disadvantage (aside from computing power and storage) is top-down approach of most GIS programs; very few explicitly model the individual human's activities, whether they are in the past or the present. Therefore it is better to use GIS as a large map that is used for sweeping statements about the past landscape, than for trying to model one person's actions within a particular environment.

Graphics Software

Graphics software is becoming more and more accessible to all disciplines. Again, more free software is available from many places. In archaeology, it can be used on a variety of topics, from displaying unique symbols on a map to putting the finishing touches to a report.

Geophysics

Geophysics has become a mainstay of archaeological research these days; even 20 years ago it was a popular (albeit relatively more expensive) technique. There are 3 main kinds of geophysics (although there are some other types, see above for LIDAR, which is strictly speaking a geophysical technique):

• Magnetometry; generally the most popular of the techniques, it is the cheapest and the fastest. It relies on taking readings of the magnetic field of objects in the ground, but also the background magnetic field. By doing some clever math, it can try to work out how strong the magnetic field is from the archaeological objects in the ground! There are a small variety of different types of magnetometers, each essentially serving the same purpose However, it is an extremely sensitive object; you can't wear metallic objects, or pass under telegraph poles with magnetometers (don't even think of going near fences!), because the magnetic field is so strong, that the machine simply can't make out what's underneath the soil. Also not advised to use when there is a solar flare happening in space that is heading towards earth.
• Resistivity; Much slower than magnetometry, but no less useful, this machine puts electromagnetic probes into the surface, generates a small electric current, and two more static probes recieve the signal. It detects the electrical resistance of objects under the ground, although the effectiveness of the technique varies depending on the water content of the soil (needs a little to be good), and the distance between the two sets of probes. I found the foundations o a church once using tresistivity! The slowness of the technique means that magnetometry is often preferred when there is little time to survey a large area.
• Ground Penetrating Radar(GPR); the last technique relies on radar to create "time-slices", or layers, of what is underneath the ground. It is the slowest technique by far, and the most expensive, but the quality of the results often outweigh the negatives in a small area. nklike the other two methods, there are very few background conditions that have to be met.

Google Earth

Google Earth has found its way into a number of archaeological projects and reports, with it's total view of the earth, and now a new "time-depth" feature, which allows you to access aerial photographs from the past, particularly in Britain for just after World War 2 and into the early 20th century in some cases! With the height of the earth also computed, it allows you to make sweeping generalisations of the landscape very quickly, as well as seeing aerial photographs for free, when before you would have to visit certain institutions, like the Cambridge University Collection of Aerial Photography, and then pay to have copies of the photographs.

However, there are a number of issues with using Google Earth for Archaeology. We have no idea where Google Earth are getting these images from. Well, we know they are coming from declassified military information and civilian sources, but Google's not going to tell us which is which. Furthermore, Google Earth won't tell us the resolution of the images; if we don't know the resolution, then we can't compare it to other images that archaeologists have taken on higher (or lower) quality cameras. Finally, you will notice that the quality of the images across Google Earth is far from uniform, so some places will have some half-decent images, but other areas less so, which can affect a comparative study in archaeology. Also it is quite tricky to georeference a Google Earth image to a GIS software package. So use with caution, although it is still a free and powerful tool, which can be downloaded for free here! 


So that's my list of things that are becoming more and more popular in the 21st century, as well as things that have been introduced over the last 10 years or so. This situation will continue to develop, maybe some of these technologies will fall out of fashion, others will set the standard for future technologies to follow. This is not an exhaustive list by any means, if you have any suggestions about other new archaeological techniques please comment below!

References:

National Museums Scotland, last updated unknown, Pictish Puzzle, http://www.nms.ac.uk/collections__research/glenmorangie_research_project/pictish_puzzle.aspx, last accessed 31/10/2013

English Heritage, last updated 2010, LIDAR, http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/research/landscapes-and-areas/aerial-survey/archaeology/lidar/ last accessed 31/10/2013

Hughes, S., 2011, CT Scanning in Archaeology, in Computed Tomography - Special Applications, Dr. Luca Saba (Ed.),published by InTech, Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/computedtomography-special-applications/ct-scanning-in-archaeology

Laser scanning Stonehenge/Archaeoptics, last updated 2003, 3D laser scanning,  http://www.stonehengelaserscan.org/laser.html, last accessed 31/10/2013

Noble-Shelley, J., 2013, The Kinect: Potential and Application within Archaeological Education and Outreach, undergraduate dissertation, University of Southampton

Wheatley, D and Gillings, M., 2002, Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS, Taylor and Francis, London



Appendix:

Image one: Cultural Heritage Imaging, last updated unknown, Reflectance Transformative Imaging (RTI), http://culturalheritageimaging.org/Technologies/RTI/, The Sennedjem Lintel from the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley.
RTI representation showing color information (bottom portion) and “specular enhancement” mode showing surface shape and enhanced reflectance (top portion), last visited 10/11/2013

Image two: Cultural Heritage Imaging, last updated unknown, Reflectance Transformative Imaging (RTI), http://culturalheritageimaging.org/Technologies/RTI/, Figure 2, last visited 10/11/2013

Links:

Link 1:Cultural Heritage Imaging, last updated unknown, Reflectance Transformative Imaging (RTI), http://culturalheritageimaging.org/Technologies/RTI/,  last visited 10/11/2013

Link 2: Kreylos, O., last updated 2013, Augmented Reality Sandbox,  http://idav.ucdavis.edu/~okreylos/ResDev/SARndbox/, last visited 10/11/2013

Link 3: Filemaker, last updated unknown, Jericho Mafjar Project: Filemaker Go for Ipad Modernises Archaeology, http://www.filemaker.com/solutions/customers/stories/jericho-mafjar-project.html, last visited 10/11/2013

Link 4: National Museums Scotland, last update 2013, 3dei: Hilton of Cadboll Stone: A Pictish Puzzle, http://pictishpuzzle.co.uk/, last accessed 10/11/2013

link 5: Google, last updated unknown, Google Earth, http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/agree.html, last visited 10/11/2013