Comments on: LiDAR: Pushing the bounds of a technology or using what we have effectively? http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2012/02/lidar-pushing-the-bounds-of-a-technology-or-using-what-we-have-effectively/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lidar-pushing-the-bounds-of-a-technology-or-using-what-we-have-effectively Society for Historical Archaeology Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:12:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Mike McGeehin http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2012/02/lidar-pushing-the-bounds-of-a-technology-or-using-what-we-have-effectively/#comment-254 Mike McGeehin Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:07:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=838#comment-254 Excellent post.  I stumbled upon it a little late.  I'm a GIS Analyst working in eastern Pennsylvania and have tried hard to incorporate the PAMAP LiDAR data into our work at Natural Lands Trust.  It's great to see someone else taking advantage of the data.  I've developed some methods for calculating forest canopy and other forest metrics with the PAMAP data.  I just recenlty found the hillshade derived from the LiDAR effective in finding stone fences in forests.  I'm always interested in learning more about its use. Excellent post.  I stumbled upon it a little late.  I’m a GIS Analyst working in eastern Pennsylvania and have tried hard to incorporate the PAMAP LiDAR data into our work at Natural Lands Trust.  It’s great to see someone else taking advantage of the data.  I’ve developed some methods for calculating forest canopy and other forest metrics with the PAMAP data.  I just recenlty found the hillshade derived from the LiDAR effective in finding stone fences in forests.  I’m always interested in learning more about its use.

]]> By: Angela Jaillet-wentling http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2012/02/lidar-pushing-the-bounds-of-a-technology-or-using-what-we-have-effectively/#comment-42 Angela Jaillet-wentling Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:30:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=838#comment-42 Hi Benjamin - You're welcome and I hope that it does come in handy in your work.  I haven't come across any burial ground/cemetery investigations using LiDAR, but having set that - that does not mean it hasn't been done.  A lot of it would depend upon the quality/scale of your LiDAR data, Pennsylvania has free 2' contour interval available - which would not be much use if the depressions are slight.  Depending on what Missouri has available or what you can obtain, you might be able to do it.  It would be worth a try and cheaper than the alternative of Ground-Penetrating Radar if it works... especially if the site is only 40 acres.  Best of luck in your endeavors and I'd be really interested in hearing about your results! Hi Benjamin – You’re welcome and I hope that it does come in handy in your work.  I haven’t come across any burial ground/cemetery investigations using LiDAR, but having set that – that does not mean it hasn’t been done.  A lot of it would depend upon the quality/scale of your LiDAR data, Pennsylvania has free 2′ contour interval available – which would not be much use if the depressions are slight.  Depending on what Missouri has available or what you can obtain, you might be able to do it.  It would be worth a try and cheaper than the alternative of Ground-Penetrating Radar if it works… especially if the site is only 40 acres.  Best of luck in your endeavors and I’d be really interested in hearing about your results!

]]> By: Angela Jaillet-wentling http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2012/02/lidar-pushing-the-bounds-of-a-technology-or-using-what-we-have-effectively/#comment-41 Angela Jaillet-wentling Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:04:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=838#comment-41 Hi Jonathan - I want to thank you for your enthusiastic response to LiDAR!  The potential that LiDAR has for archaeological investigation is in many ways still untapped, yet we continue to under-utilize it.  As you mentioned, many states have LiDAR accessible and many more are making it accessible.  As far as quality and cost, let's hope that is something that will get better the more the data is used.  When USGS topographic maps were first digitized, we experienced similar difficulties and many of these issues have been corrected in recent years.  Maybe there's hope!   As for variables, yes.  Creating typologies, flexible ones dependent on research questions and potential archaeological resources, would translate into computer jargon's algorithms.  We basically need to define what we are looking for, what LiDAR is capable of looking for, and what we want to identify as anomalies or features.  Many Geographic Information Systems used to process LiDAR data deal with the information in the form of polygons or linear features.  So, if you're looking for an historic farmstead with a well - that's a polygon feature, whereas the farmlane leading into it would be a linear feature.  There's a wealth of data to process with LiDAR and the most effecient way I see to go about using it would be to determine an algorithm for cultural resources to input into the computer systems to identify "anomalies" or possible features.  That's where we would come back in to the equation - manually determining and field verifying possible features.  Here's to hoping that clarified things a bit... more questions - ask away! Hi Jonathan – I want to thank you for your enthusiastic response to LiDAR!  The potential that LiDAR has for archaeological investigation is in many ways still untapped, yet we continue to under-utilize it.  As you mentioned, many states have LiDAR accessible and many more are making it accessible.  As far as quality and cost, let’s hope that is something that will get better the more the data is used.  When USGS topographic maps were first digitized, we experienced similar difficulties and many of these issues have been corrected in recent years.  Maybe there’s hope!
Â
As for variables, yes.  Creating typologies, flexible ones dependent on research questions and potential archaeological resources, would translate into computer jargon’s algorithms.  We basically need to define what we are looking for, what LiDAR is capable of looking for, and what we want to identify as anomalies or features.  Many Geographic Information Systems used to process LiDAR data deal with the information in the form of polygons or linear features.  So, if you’re looking for an historic farmstead with a well – that’s a polygon feature, whereas the farmlane leading into it would be a linear feature.  There’s a wealth of data to process with LiDAR and the most effecient way I see to go about using it would be to determine an algorithm for cultural resources to input into the computer systems to identify “anomalies” or possible features.  That’s where we would come back in to the equation – manually determining and field verifying possible features.Â
Here’s to hoping that clarified things a bit… more questions – ask away!

]]> By: Angela Jaillet-wentling http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2012/02/lidar-pushing-the-bounds-of-a-technology-or-using-what-we-have-effectively/#comment-40 Angela Jaillet-wentling Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:52:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=838#comment-40 Hi Bob - You are absolutely right, research questions should be what is guiding our archaeological endeavors.  Jonathan hit it on the nose, as you are familiar with the standard methodology behind using aerial photography, I assume you can see the benefit to having a standardized methodology guiding our use of LiDAR.  I really love the link you posted above; I also think it calls attention to the fact that European archaeologists have been utilizing LiDAR for some time now.  In many ways, they've pioneered the use of it and push the boundaries of what we thought was capable for LiDAR.  Which leads back to the original question I posted... I don't think that this is a black-and-white matter.  It's not an either-or question by any means.  I do think that we need to be considering the nitty-gritty methodology; otherwise, how can we begin to compare findings?  Also, there are a lot of people out there still very much unsure as to how to use LiDAR at all or even appropriately.  Thanks for the comments and insight! Hi Bob – You are absolutely right, research questions should be what is guiding our archaeological endeavors.  Jonathan hit it on the nose, as you are familiar with the standard methodology behind using aerial photography, I assume you can see the benefit to having a standardized methodology guiding our use of LiDAR.  I really love the link you posted above; I also think it calls attention to the fact that European archaeologists have been utilizing LiDAR for some time now.  In many ways, they’ve pioneered the use of it and push the boundaries of what we thought was capable for LiDAR.  Which leads back to the original question I posted… I don’t think that this is a black-and-white matter.  It’s not an either-or question by any means.  I do think that we need to be considering the nitty-gritty methodology; otherwise, how can we begin to compare findings?  Also, there are a lot of people out there still very much unsure as to how to use LiDAR at all or even appropriately.  Thanks for the comments and insight!

]]> By: Jonathan Libbon http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2012/02/lidar-pushing-the-bounds-of-a-technology-or-using-what-we-have-effectively/#comment-39 Jonathan Libbon Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:18:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=838#comment-39 I saw this on the Subarch List server this morning, anyone else know of underwater/coastal applications of Lidar? http://www.hydro-international.com/news/id3302-Bathymetric_Survey_of_Bulgarian_Coastline.html  I saw this on the Subarch List server this morning, anyone else know of underwater/coastal applications of Lidar?

http://www.hydro-international.com/news/id3302-Bathymetric_Survey_of_Bulgarian_Coastline.html 

]]> By: Benjamin Pykles http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2012/02/lidar-pushing-the-bounds-of-a-technology-or-using-what-we-have-effectively/#comment-38 Benjamin Pykles Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:18:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=838#comment-38 Thank you, Angela, for this useful introduction and great references. Has anyone used LiDAR to search for plowed-over burial grounds/cemeteries? We are planning an investigation of a 40-acre plot in Missouri where we believe there is an historic cemetery, but I am not sure if slight depressions marking grave shafts would still exist after more than one hundred years of agricultural plowing. Any precedents that you are aware of? The area today is simply planted in grass. Thank you, Angela, for this useful introduction and great references. Has anyone used LiDAR to search for plowed-over burial grounds/cemeteries? We are planning an investigation of a 40-acre plot in Missouri where we believe there is an historic cemetery, but I am not sure if slight depressions marking grave shafts would still exist after more than one hundred years of agricultural plowing. Any precedents that you are aware of? The area today is simply planted in grass.

]]> By: Jonathan Libbon http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2012/02/lidar-pushing-the-bounds-of-a-technology-or-using-what-we-have-effectively/#comment-36 Jonathan Libbon Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:28:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=838#comment-36 I think that we are both in agreement Bob, that Lidar is a powerful tool for archaeologists.  Many states in the US have been scanned, some in amazing detail and often that data is available for online use or you can actually download it and manipulate it( http://www.pasda.psu.edu/  <---has the Lidar data for Pennsylvania).  In some states it is actually free, and really useful when planning out a survey.   I could be misunderstanding Angela, but I don't think she is arguing against using research questions, but developing a standardized methodology that could be applied to research questions.  When digging a site, you can't just grab a spade and go, you want to do it in a controlled manor.  In your experience with air photography, is there an agreed upon methodology for interpreting the data or is it more quantitative?  Jonathan  I think that we are both in agreement Bob, that Lidar is a powerful tool for archaeologists.  Many states in the US have been scanned, some in amazing detail and often that data is available for online use or you can actually download it and manipulate it(
http://www.pasda.psu.edu/  <—has the Lidar data for Pennsylvania).  In some states it is actually free, and really useful when planning out a survey.  

I could be misunderstanding Angela, but I don't think she is arguing against using research questions, but developing a standardized methodology that could be applied to research questions.  When digging a site, you can't just grab a spade and go, you want to do it in a controlled manor.  In your experience with air photography, is there an agreed upon methodology for interpreting the data or is it more quantitative? 

Jonathan 

]]> By: Jonathan Libbon http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2012/02/lidar-pushing-the-bounds-of-a-technology-or-using-what-we-have-effectively/#comment-35 Jonathan Libbon Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:15:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=838#comment-35 Hey Angie, I want to start of saying that I love Lidar, I think the potential for the use of Lidar in archaeology is absolutely amazing.  Sadly, working in North Carolina, not many counties have been scanned, and those that have, are usually not at a level of detail that would be advantageous to archaeologists. In response to your question, I think we need to discuss a methodology for the use of Lidar, and then build on it.  An agreed upon methodology will provide a starting point for researchers to improve. I’m not sure I understand your argument for variables Angie.  Are you essentially saying that foundations look a specific way when you use X (aka hillshade, statistics, etc. etc.), sort of creating a typology for archaeological resources in Lidar? I’ve always looked at Lidar analysis as qualitative, but are you arguing for a more quantitative approach? I think what you are doing is amazing and badly needed in the archaeological community as Lidar becomes more accessible to more researchers. I think that this space is PERFECT to really discuss a methodological approach to Lidar, with researchers coming together to talk about it.   Jonathan    Hey Angie,

I want to start of saying that I love Lidar, I think the
potential for the
use of Lidar in archaeology is absolutely amazing.  Sadly, working in
North Carolina, not many
counties have been scanned, and those that have, are usually not at a level of
detail that would be advantageous to archaeologists. In response to your
question, I think we need to discuss a methodology for the use of Lidar, and
then build on it.  An agreed upon methodology
will provide a starting point for researchers to improve.

I’m not sure I understand your argument for variables Angie.  Are
you essentially saying that foundations look a specific way when you use X (aka
hillshade, statistics, etc. etc.), sort of creating a typology for
archaeological resources in Lidar? I’ve always looked at Lidar analysis as
qualitative, but are you arguing for a more quantitative approach?

I think what you are doing is amazing and badly needed in the
archaeological community as Lidar becomes more accessible to more researchers. I
think that this space is PERFECT to really discuss a methodological approach to
Lidar, with researchers coming together to talk about it.

 

Jonathan   

]]> By: Bob Bewley http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2012/02/lidar-pushing-the-bounds-of-a-technology-or-using-what-we-have-effectively/#comment-34 Bob Bewley Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:10:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=838#comment-34 Having now read the whole article I am not sure I agree with the question posed. All good archaeological research should start with a question; a reseach question about a place, or time period or a site;  then good archaeologists or historians, having aksed the question, decide which are the appropriate techniques and "tools" available to them.  Lidar is relatively new - but now at least a decade of work is helping; it is not cheap and as with all 'remote;y sensed' data - requires interpretation. It is my contention, having worked in air photo interpretation for many years, that with the right questions and the right - human - interpretation lidar will help answer questions relating to past human land use. Bob Bewley Having now read the whole article I am not sure I agree with the question posed. All good archaeological research should start with a question; a reseach question about a place, or time period or a site;  then good archaeologists or historians, having aksed the question, decide which are the appropriate techniques and “tools” available to them.  Lidar is relatively new – but now at least a decade of work is helping; it is not cheap and as with all ‘remote;y sensed’ data – requires interpretation. It is my contention, having worked in air photo interpretation for many years, that with the right questions and the right – human – interpretation lidar will help answer questions relating to past human land use.

Bob Bewley

]]> By: Bob Bewley http://www.sha.org/blog/index.php/2012/02/lidar-pushing-the-bounds-of-a-technology-or-using-what-we-have-effectively/#comment-33 Bob Bewley Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:53:00 +0000 http://www.sha.org/blog/?p=838#comment-33 Two things: one can we agree  use Lidar as the term; just as we do radar.  Secondly it is worth alerting your readers to this very good guidance on lidar: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/light-fantastic/ Bob Bewley (archaeologist) Two things: one can we agree  use Lidar as the term; just as we do radar.  Secondly it is worth alerting your readers to this very good guidance on lidar: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/light-fantastic/

Bob Bewley (archaeologist)

]]>