Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences Maurizio Forte Stefano Campana Editors Digital Methods and Remote Sensing in Archaeology Archaeology in the Age of Sensing Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences Series editors Thomas DeFanti Anthony Grafton Thomas E. Levy Lev Manovich Alyn Rockwood More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11748 Maurizio Forte Stefano Campana (cid:129) Editors Digital Methods and Remote Sensing in Archaeology Archaeology in the Age of Sensing 123 Editors Maurizio Forte StefanoCampana Department ofClassical Studies, Art, Art AncientTopography,Head ofLAP&T Lab, History andVisual Studies Departmentof History andCultural Duke University Heritage Durham, NC University of Siena USA Siena Italy ISSN 2199-0956 ISSN 2199-0964 (electronic) Quantitative Methods in theHumanities andSocial Sciences ISBN978-3-319-40656-5 ISBN978-3-319-40658-9 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-40658-9 LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016948800 ©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2016 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor foranyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade. Printedonacid-freepaper ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerInternationalPublishingAG Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland Preface The 1990s will probably be remembered in the history archaeology as the age of GIS. At that time, theintroduction ofdigital technology inarchaeological research was in its infancy. Software and hardware had only a limited capacity to integrate therangeandcomplexityofinformationinvolvedinthearchaeologicalprocess.In the following decade, however, the archaeological community became gradually aware of the need for a consistency of approach across the whole framework of archaeology, while rapid advances in software and hardware made it possible to envisage a significant renewal of the whole or large parts of the archaeological process. This was the age of the Digital Revolution. Atthesametime,remotesensinggainedanincreasingrelevanceandapplication within archaeology and throughout the scientific community. Up to this stage, the definition of remote sensing had focused on the analysis of data collected by sensorsthatwerenotinphysicalcontactwiththeobjectsunderinvestigation,using cameras, scanners, radar systems, etc., operating from spaceborne or airborne platforms. Now, a wider characterization began to take hold, treating remote sensing as any nondestructive approach to viewing the buried and nominally invisible evidence of past activity. Spaceborne and airborne sensors (now supple- mentedbylaserscanning)becamejoinedbyground-basedgeophysicalinstruments andundersearemotesensing,aswellas—forsomearchaeologistsatleast—byother noninvasive techniques such as surface collection or field-walking survey. Within thisbroaderinterpretation,anymethodthatenablesobservationoftheevidenceon orbeneaththesurfaceoftheearth,withoutimpactingonthesurvivingstratigraphy, can legitimately be included within the ambit of remote sensing. This and other impulses have also resulted in a rapid growth in multidisciplinary working within and around archaeology and related cultural studies. Fromthemethodologicalpointofview,themostimportantchangeoverthepast fewyearshasbeentheburgeoningcapacityofarchaeologistsandculturalhistorians to collect—relatively easily and quickly—massive 3D datasets at the landscape, local, site, and object scale. Initially, archaeologists did not know exactly how to managethisvastarrayof3Dinformation.Theyreadilygraspedtheideaofitshuge potential but did not see how to exploit it. The all pervading presence of the third v vi Preface dimension prompted the need for new perceptions of archaeological features and processesatanintellectuallevel,intermsof“3Dthinking”—orbetter4Dthinking considered that as archaeologists, we cannot avoid dealing with the chronological dimension—and at a procedural level, challenging long-established approaches to archaeologicaldocumentationandthereforetotheinterpretationprocessasawhole. Now, in the early years of the present decade, we feel that we are ready—or at least nearly ready—to embrace these new methods of recording, interpreting, conceptualizing, and communicating archaeological data and relationships across the passage of time. Technological, cultural, and epistemological advances are enticing us to encompass new and completely different perspectives based on immersive, interactive 3D and 4D environments for managing archaeological data at both the scientific and interpretative levels. Everybody,inthenextfewyears,willhavetheopportunitytoblendthephysical world with a sensory-rich “virtual” world where archaeologists can naturally and intuitively manipulate, navigate, and remotely share interpretations and case stud- ies. Our understanding of archaeology will be taken to a new level, enhancing our capacity to develop interpretations and to present them to fellow specialists and to the general public as simulated scenarios in 4D. Rapid developments in ICT, includinghardwareandsoftwareforimmersiveenvironments,willevenallowusto communicate and interact with one another through further cultural experiences such as sound, smell, and tactile interfaces. The transformation of the traditional remote sensing in “something else” defines new borders for this research field and suggests a new methodological approach. “Polysensing” rather than “remote sensing” can better define this revolutionary approach. It is quite interesting to notice that archaeology plays as primary actor in this revolution because of its multidisciplinary character and mission. Welcome in the Age of Sensing! Durham, NC, USA Maurizio Forte Siena, Italy Stefano Campana Acknowledgements Thisbookisnotaproceedingoftheconference“TheAgeofSensing,”butwithout the conference, we could not have this book. The Age of Sensing has been an extraordinary event and an inspirational opportunity for scholars and students for discussing cutting-edge research projects and applications. Aswithmostcollaborativeprojects,therearemanycharactersandgroupswhose assistance has proven crucial to the production of this volume. Firstofall,wearesincerelygratefultoagoodmanyfriendsandcolleagueswho made a long journey to join the meeting at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and who made the publication that developed from it possible. ParticularthanksareofferedofcoursetotheUniversityofSiena,theDepartment ofHistoryandCulturalHeritageandtheLaboratoryofLandscapeArchaeologyand RemoteSensingforthesupportprovidedfortheorganizationoftheconferenceand the Summer School in Siena and Vulci. Alsoofgreatimportancetotheorganizationoftheconferencehasbeentherole played from Melissa Huber, Ph.D. candidate at that time at Duke University who managed greatly the general secretariat making our work much easier before, during, and after the conference. In this respect, we are also particularly appre- ciative to the assistance of a number of Duke students, throughout the symposium to its sooth running. The conference was supported by the Trinity College of Art & Science, the Department of Classical Studies, the Department of Art, Art History and Visual Studies, the Trent Foundation grant, Institutional sponsors were ICIP-ICOMOS, NASA JPL and UNESCO (Cultural Sector). AspecialthankstoVandaGianpaoliandRobertoRabittifortheirverygenerous and outstanding contribution to the social activity of the conference “The Age of Sensing” Durham, NC, USA Maurizio Forte Cambridge, UK; Siena, Italy Stefano Campana vii Contents Part I Data Collection and Technology Terrestrial Laser Scanning in the Age of Sensing . .... .... ..... .... 3 Nicola Lercari Airborne Laserscanning in Archaeology: Maturing Methods and Democratizing Applications ... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 35 Rachel Opitz Part II Image and Digital Processing TerrestrialLidarandGPRInvestigationsintotheThirdLineofBattle at Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, Guilford County, North Carolina .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 53 Stacy Curry, Roy Stine, Linda Stine, Jerry Nave, Richard Burt and Jacob Turner Applying UAS Photogrammetry to Analyze Spatial Patterns of Indigenous Settlement Sites in the Northern Dominican Republic ...... 71 Till F. Sonnemann, Eduardo Herrera Malatesta and Corinne L. Hofman Part III Landscape Representation and Scales Towards a Holistic Archaeological Survey Approach for Ancient Cityscapes .. .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 91 Frank Vermeulen Sensing Ruralscapes. Third-Wave Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 113 Stefano Campana What Do the Patterns Mean? Archaeological Distributions and Bias in Survey Data. .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 147 David C. Cowley ix x Contents 3D Tool Evaluation and Workflow for an Ecological Approach to Visualizing Ancient Socio-environmental Landscapes .... ..... .... 171 Heather Richards-Rissetto, Shona Sanford-Long and Jack Kirby-Miller Visualizing Medieval Iberia’s Contested Space Through Multiple Scales of Visibility Analysis.... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 199 Edward Triplett Pre- and Proto-Historic Anthropogenic Landscape Modifications in Siem Reap Province (Cambodia) as Seen Through Satellite Imagery... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 229 Kasper Hanus and Emilia Smagur The Ambivalence of Maps: A Historical Perspective on Sensing and Representing Space in Mesoamerica .... .... .... .... ..... .... 247 John K. Millhauser and Christopher T. Morehart Part IV Simulation, Visualization and Computing Cyber Archaeology: 3D Sensing and Digital Embodiment... ..... .... 271 Maurizio Forte Emergent Relationality System/The Insight Engine .... .... ..... .... 291 Bill Seaman Using 3D GIS Platforms to Analyse and Interpret the Past.. ..... .... 305 Nicoló Dell’Unto Archaeology in the Age of Supercomputing .. .... .... .... ..... .... 323 Devin A. White Part V Interpretation and Discussion Measuring the Face of the Past and Facing the Measurement .... .... 349 William Fred Limp An Integrated Archaeological Prospection and Excavation Approach at a Middle Neolithic Circular Ditch Enclosure in Austria .. ..... .... 371 Jakob Kainz Creating a Chronological Model for Historical Roads and Paths Extracted from Airborne Laser Scanning Data .. ..... .... 405 Willem F. Vletter and Sandra R. Schloen