Creating a 19th century virtual walkthrough of the Gothic Library, part 3: Out of the frying pan and into the fire (more modelling, textures and lighting)

Thanks to Gianna, Grant and Peter for help on this section!!

The last time we left the model, the walls had been constructed, the windows had been given some properties so the impending sunlight would react to it in a physically accurate manner, but the painters and plasterers have not yet been called in. Well, now it's time to break out the Dulux colour charts (or the munsell colour charts, if you're more used to those)!

However, it turns out that my previous creation was very complex to map (more on that below), and it left too many gaps between the areas where the walls meet (for all that AutoCAD and 3DS Max share a lot of features, they are still two very different creatures) so it had to be completely rebuilt! This involved creating a box, splitting it into multiple segments and then model each individual window pane based on this box. Additionally it also turns out that the boolean functions (adding and subtracting surfaces and solids from each other to create new shapes) doesn't work very well in 3DS, in contrast to AutoCAD. I wasted 2 days trying to think of a workaround to this!! on top of the the box was too space intensive so I ignored the thickness of the walls and worked on a plane instead. This meant that I had to create a single shape (i.e. the planes) and effectively have ready-made holes in the shape.
This was repetitive, tedious and dull but it can at least be copied around the building, because the glass is a reasonably uniform shape. The other advantage is that I could import images of the building in question to create the glass panes and iron bars accurately, along with the rest of the model.

The segments and window in perfect harmony.

In 3DS, applying textures is like adding a new layer of wallpaper to a wall. It doesn't matter what the property of the object is, be it bricks, plastic, etc. If it has a surface, you can put a texture to it (and sometimes multiple textures)! These are known as "maps" and in this blog post I will go through my thought process as I show you how I added some more colour to the gothic library. In trying to be historically accurate, some of the photos have been edited to look how they would have done in the early 1830's, when the library had just been built.

I took some photographs of the gothic library (with the kind permission of Chris Bailey and the team at the Sir George Staunton country Park) and proceeded to edit these in Photoshop. In many places the beautiful plaster work had fallen off, and even some of the bricks had fallen out of place! However, I hadn't come to rebuild the library in real life, I've come to model it to see how it would have looked like in the 19th century, so I used some guesswork and historical evidence (see below) to ensure that the plaster was restored in it's virtual environment.

You can clearly see where the plaster should fill around the windows, but it has fallen apart with time.

The most difficult part about applying the photographs to the walls was thinking about how to "wrap" or map the photos around the object. Confused? Think of maps like wrapping a present, except that your present is a wall, and all of the wrapping paper must connect up together. The easiest things to wrap in the real world are those without curves, so the gothic library, if we only focus on the wall and not the windows, is fairly straightforward, especially if we only focus on the interior (i.e. a 2-dimensional surface). See the image of a dice below to see what I mean! Therefore, I changed the boxes that represented the walls into single, 2-dimensional elements by breaking them and then grouping the resulting elements together. A similar texture was used for the roof, which was already in 2- dimensional pieces. The floor, on the other hand, would not require quite as much thought as it was created as just one object. However, to the inexperienced user of 3DS Max, it is a daunting task!

 

Each of these boxes represents a part of the property of the fabric of the building, be it the texture, the colour, glossiness, etc.

This dice is easy to apply to a surface in 3DS because it is geometrically quite straightforward.

As you can see this is one way of applying a photorealistic texture to the building. However, this doesn't cover all of the texturing! The different "maps" don't just cover what you can see on the surface; you can adjust transparency, bumpiness, shadow, photons, etc. Many of these maps are to do with how light reacts with the surface. Unfortunately, I ran out of time to play around with these different maps!

Creating a virtual 19th century walkthrough of the Gothic Library, part two: The creation of the model

The story so far:

I have been assigned the task of creating a virtual model for a TV show about Victorian architects. This will involve using 3DSMax to add textures and show how light entered the building. But first, I have to actually create the model!

One of the problems is that the model needs to be be accurate. Fortunately, I have a point cloud (from a laser scanning device) of the gothic library (see my other blog about how I came into possession of this data), which I can use to create the model. However, a point cloud is computationally very expensive, so it takes a long time to create the model, but more importantly, I can't import the point cloud into 3DSMax as it can't support point clouds (yet!). Therefore, my first problem is finding a software program that I can use to help creating an accurate model of the library. since the point cloud is incomplete as well as not being supported in 3DSMax, I will have to use the point cloud as a guide, and build polygons manually in a program like AutoCAD. AutoCAD, being made by Autodesk, who also make 3DSMax, there is a lot of compatibility between the two programs. For a start, they can both work in either 2-D or 3-D shapes, although the way they are constructed varies (AutoCAD is used more for designing buildings and complex mechanical parts, 3DSMax focuses more on smaller scale models for game engines etc.).

 

Shaded and wireframe views of the gothic library so far... the walls will be textured (given colour, physical properties) etc. when the model is finished.

However, the time spent in AutoCAD limited how much time could be spent in 3DS Max, which is a factor because 3DS Max is very time-consuming. Furthermore it was decided only to focus on the construction of the windows, and then the point cloud would be used to take images of the rest of the interior. These images will form the basis of the textures which will be rendered inside the library. This differed from the original plan of digitising every element inside the gothic library using autoCAD as this would be even more time consuming(!), as well as cutting down on the time spent digitising. Once the main model was built out of the point cloud, the rest of the model could be created in 3DS Max, using the edit poly feature from the modifier list to add elements and features which had not been included in the model. this additional editing in 3DS MAx took a little while longer than expected but with practice, the speed of modelling starts to improve.

Next time: texturing and lighting!

Creating a virtual 19th century walkthrough of the Gothic Library, Sir George Staunton Country Park, Havant, part one

N.B. this is a project that I am working on for my Southampton University course and the final results will not be used in real life unless otherwise mentioned. All similarities to the real world, except for anything relating to the Gothic Library, Lewis Vulliamy and all property relating to Autodesk (3DS Max, AutoCAD, etc.), are purely coincidental.

I have been assigned the task of creating a virtual "walkthrough" of the Gothic Library, Havant, for a new TV documentary, as part of a series looking at inspirational Victorian architects. Why the Gothic library? Because it was designed by Lewis Vulliamy, who designed a large number of ecclesiastical and secular buildings in innovative styles in the early Victorian era, and the library's appearance has changed dramatically over the last 150 years.  The Gothic started out life as a library, housing Chinese manuscripts and books of Sir George Staunton, but today very few of the Gothic elements of the library remain; indeed, it is often mistaken for a chapel than a library! This confusion arises from a lack of information about what it's original purpose was for, because it's external appearance (which is largely unchanged) is that of a Gothic revival from the early 19th century, similar to that of many churches across England. While the architect who designed it, Lewis Vulliamy, also designed churches in a similar style, the interior of the Gothic library showed off his flair and creative ability. There is historical  documentation to show what the Gothic library looked like, so part of the assignment will incorporate this.

So what do I mean by a "walkthrough"? The TV company want a video that shows how someone would move around the space of the library, back when it was in use. This would include the furnishings, such as the bookshelves, the original fireplace, etc. so this will take the form of an animation to look at some of the features that existed within the library, but have now been removed. Furthermore, these can be compared to the modern features which have replaced them, in particular the windows, which used to contain more stained glass.

Furthermore, a "walk through" would need to combine the archaeological and virtual elements together seamlessly so that it looks real. This is not as easy as it sounds! While the physical properties of light, bricks, books and so on can be recreated accurately within the software (in this case, 3DS Max (made by Autodesk), this doesn't necessarily mean that it will look realistic. So a balance must be struck between realism and physical accuracy. It is very easy to break the laws of physics in these bits of software.

Furthermore, it has been noted that the actual library may not have been a particularly good place to study, because of the windows letting in either too much or too little light, due to their position relative to the sun. This can be tested using 3DS Max and Mental Ray, which can calculate the position of the sun depending on your position on the earth and the time. This will allow us to see whether the windows impeded reading in the room, and whether it could actually be used as a library.

So I will use 3DS Max (and AutoCAD) to:

• Reconstruct the Gothic library, as it looked like in it's heyday of the 1830's-1860's, complete with windows, bookcases and possibly the roof, using the laser scan data as a basis for the model, and supplement it with other historical documents.
  
  The main laser scan data, which has been imported as a point cloud from a FARO X330 and processed in various pieces of software (see my other blog for more information)
• Analyse whether the light intensity would have been too great or too little for reading, or performing other related activities.

The original interior of the Gothic library, complete with the spectacular roof. I will try to recreate this as faithfully as possible!

The results of these will be animated using 3DS Max, and combined with a series of stills, will go into the TV documentary. Stay tuned for updates!

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