NextEngine 3D Scanner scans an Acheulean Handaxe from South Africa. Courtesy of the Virtual Curation Laboratory.

I began my involvement as an intern last summer, and very quickly began to appreciate the significance of the technology I was becoming familiar with.  VCL employs a NextEngine 3D Desktop Scanner, which uses laser technology to create three-dimensional models of objects.  The user can then process the model and finalize it in STL or OBJ formats, which can be shared via the internet or on a number of electronic devices such as smart phones and tablets.  We also have a MakerBot Replicator 3D Printer, which can print plastic copies of the models we have created.  There are countless ways that this technology could benefit archaeology, but as a student who was still fairly new to the field, I saw its greatest potential in education and public outreach.

My research last fall consisted of creating lesson plans that employed digital models and plastic replicas of artifacts to supplement the material that was being taught.  We then took those lessons to a local high school and presented them to a group of history students there, taking note of how well or poorly they responded to our use of the models.  We also presented a few different lessons to Dr. Means’ archaeological methods class at VCU, including one on basic lithic analysis using plastic replicas of projectile points that we have scanned.  What we found was that the high school students responded especially well to the plastic replicas, as they offered a visible and tangible connection to the topic they were learning about.  On the other hand, the VCU students unanimously agreed that they preferred the accuracy of the digital models.  Those who participated in the lithic analysis lesson, however, were able to correctly identify the types of each point they were given based on the plastic replicas they studied, lending some credibility to the printed models as research tools.  In March of this year I presented this research at my first conference, and it will soon be published in the upcoming issue of the Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology!

In addition to being a great tool for students who long for an interactive and readily available form of research material, we have found that 3D scanning and printing of archaeological materials is an incredibly effective tool in public archaeology.  Not only do three-dimensional models and plastic replicas of artifacts help us to promote a better appreciation for archaeology and the materials we recover, but they offer the public a unique and tangible connection with the past that they may otherwise never experience.  VCL does a great deal of public outreach through events and lectures, but my best examples of the value of these models are from this summer, when I was working as a field intern at Ferry Farm, George Washington’s Boyhood Home in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

I pass around plastic artifact replicas and discuss the archaeology being done at Ferry Farm with a group of children. Courtesy of the Virtual Curation Laboratory.

Public Archaeology is a top priority at Ferry Farm, and as such we spend a lot of time discussing the site and its history with the many visitors who travel there.  VCL has scanned and printed a great deal of artifacts from Ferry Farm’s collections, and a series of plastic replicas have been given to the archaeology staff to use for public program in the field.  As I spoke to visitors during my time there, I found it incredibly helpful to use those replicas as examples of the types of artifacts we find at the site, and the visitors (especially the young ones) appreciated the fact that they could touch, feel, hold, and examine the replicas, as they would not have that opportunity with the real object.

The great diversity of artifacts that VCL has in its digital collection makes our efforts in public outreach and education even more effective.  The Virtual Curation Laboratory staff has scanned lithic materials ranging from a one million year old Acheulean Handaxe from South Africa, to projectile points and other stone tools that have been loaned to us from collections across Virginia and Pennsylvania.  We have scanned small finds from the homes of our nation’s greatest historical figures, including George Washington’s Mount Vernon, Thomas Jefferson’s Poplar Forest, and James Madison’s Montpelier.  We have also been working on creating a database of faunal remains to help students, archaeologists, and other researchers identify and understand the skeletal framework of various animals.

VCU student and VCL intern Mariana Zechini discusses 3D printing with a group of VAST members. Courtesy of the Virtual Archaeology Scanning Team.

More and more students have gotten involved with the Virtual Curation Laboratory over the past couple of years, and as a result we have created a student organization at VCU that focuses on the use of 3D technology in archaeology, and allows a greater number of students to pursue research relating to our project.  The Virtual Archaeology Scanning Team (VAST) is now entering its second year as a student organization, and interest and participation have more than doubled since we began last August.

When I first became an intern in the lab last summer, few students – including myself – had any experience or knowledge about 3D technology, nor did we know if it would be an applicable skill in the future.  Now, students from all backgrounds are entering our organization with specific research goals in mind, excited to have the opportunity to learn about and utilize our 3D scanner and printer.  What has led to this sudden boom in interest, and how will this affect the next generation of archaeologists?  Is virtual curation the future of the past?

This past winter, members of the APTC started kicking around the idea of putting together a set of webinars to offer training and instructional opportunities for the SHA during the year between the conferences. These would supplement the annual conference workshops, which will remain unchanged.

Webinars (a portmanteau of “web” and “seminars”) are on-line sessions where attendees can interact (audio at least, also video if people have cameras in their computers) and, depending on the software involved, view the moderator’s desktop together. Webinars are increasingly common in business and other fields, and they allow  people scattered across the globe to meet to discuss business, undergo training, or just catch up, all at minimal cost.

The APTC would like to see members of the SHA interested in hosting or attending such web-based training sessions step forward with ideas for webinars. These could range from technical material like database management, curation techniques, or remote sensing applications to theoretical, topical, or regional topics. Professional development topics such as job hunting or transforming your dissertation into a book (thanks, Myriam Arcangeli [@Terrailles]) would also work. The field is very wide open.

Some Things to Consider

One of the benefits of this medium is the low cost. In its initial stages, we would run the webinars through systems such as Google Hangout (with up to 10 seats) or Blackboard Collaborate (for more). With no room to rent, no travel to subsidize, and only the host’s fees (if there are any) to defray, we envision these to be among the most cost-effective development tools available.

There are, of course, a few obstacles. Depending on your preferred method of content delivery (audio only, audio and video, chat), you place different data and computing demands on participants. If an attendee is on a dial-up connection, they may not be able to stream video. Also, some of the webinar delivery systems require downloaded content that, while not usually excessively resource-hungry, may require some lead time for users to get approved and installed (I’m looking at you, Department of Defense archaeologists).

Webinars and the Student Member

As webinars let people log in from wherever they can get internet coverage, they do not require the travel funding that can be a big impediment to attendance. This is particularly true for college students. We are particularly interested to get feedback from students about what kinds of webinars they would be interested in attending.

The scheduling flexibilities of webinars will allow us to focus on applying for graduate schools, preparing for conferences, and other topics that would be more useful earlier in the year than the conference allows. The APTC will be working with the Student Subcommittee of the APTC to develop student-oriented opportunities.

Getting the Ball Rolling

If you have an idea about a topic, you can e-mail me at cdrexler@uark.edu, tweet me (@cgdrexler), or stick an idea in the comments section.

If you’d like to host a webinar at some point in the future, send me a note and I’ll get you an invite to our first webinar on July 17, from 2-3 pm (Eastern). This inaugural webinar will focus on… webinars! We’ll focus on topic ideas, get some background on content development, and discuss the use of the technology. Drop me a line if you want to participate!

Acknowledgements

Amber Graft-Weiss and Terry Brock contributed to a lively Twitter discussion on this topic that helped develop and refine where we would like the webinars to focus. Shelley Keith, of Southern Arkansas University, advised on materials related to webinar content development.

The week begins with a piece by T. Kurt Knoerl on using the internet to make connections to the ‘global shipwreck.’ As the founder and Chairman of the Museum of Underwater Archaeology, the premier online exhibit space for underwater archaeological projects, Kurt knows what he’s talking about. He argues that the internet should be used to actively engage the public and other archaeologists in collaborative projects.

The second post is by Kimberly Faulk (Geoscience Earth and Marine Services) and Daniel Warren (C & C Technologies), two leaders in the field of deep-water archaeology. Their blog discusses the recent Okeanos Explorer cruise in the Gulf of Mexico. While the technology involved in exploring shipwrecks thousands of feet below the ocean’s surface is amazing, their contribution focuses on something more important: making archaeology real to anyone with an internet connection. Their post not only discusses how technology can create a world of citizen scientists but also how technology can enrich the archaeologist.

Tech Week’s third blogger, Peter Fix, is an archaeological conservator with the Center for Maritime Archaeology and Conservation  and is heading-up the conservation of the 17^th century ship La Belle. Peter’s contribution breaks from the internet driven approach of the first two pieces and discusses the technology behind conserving an entire shipwreck so that it can be viewed up-close and personal in a museum.

Finally, rounding out our week and continuing the theme of active public involvement through technology Annalies Corbin and Sheli O. Smith of the PAST Foundation echo the call for active public participation in archaeology. The PAST Foundation uses anthropology to teach science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), putting Annalies and Sheli on the frontline of public engagement. Their contribution, which looks to the future, is a fitting way to end this Tech Week.

It’s really only been less than ten years that underwater archaeology as a field has made wide use of the Internet.  Within that time period, however, numerous sites have popped up through university department homepages, museums, and nonprofit organizations.   There are online project journals, personal research blogs, exhibits, digital posters, videos, live broadcasts and ubiquitous Facebook pages.  One might wonder if we have reached the limits of what we can do on the web.  An Internet industry trend website estimated that as of August 2011 there were over one billion websites on the web.  It’s reasonable to wonder if throwing up yet another website is like adding a bucket of water to the cyber ocean. To which I would reply… maybe.  What is a digitally minded underwater archaeologist to do?   I say “maybe” because it depends on how we go about putting our materials online.   Going forward I believe we need to look to the past.

In November 2011 I had the good fortune to present a paper at the first ever Asia-Pacific  Underwater Cultural Heritage Conference in Manila, the Philippines.  Even as a Great Lakes colonial maritime historian and underwater archaeologist I felt I shared research interests with this incredible collection of cultural heritage mangagers from throughout the Asia-Pacific region.  Their homelands had developed the cultures that contributed to a landscape of maritime trade that reached all the way into the eighteenth century Great Lakes with shipments of porcelains, vermillion, teas and opiates. In my talk I noted that the wrecked ships that once participated in that world wide trade network travel again virtually over a digital network.  They still link cultures that live beyond the water’s edge at each end of the voyage.  The Chinese porcelain artisan who shipped his goods to the coast was connected to the British officer at Fort Niagara on Lake Ontario in North America even though they would never meet or travel to each other’s home.  Today students in Western Australia read about ships that wrecked off St. Augustine, Florida and Japanese museum staff email graduate students in eastern North Carolina to exchange information.  Because the vessels continue to draw people together albeit for educational rather than commercial reasons, every shipwreck becomes a global shipwreck.

By continuing to look at past trade networks we can find ways to overcome the isolation our websites might experience out in the cyber ocean. For instance, at times historic vessels participated in cooperative agreements and collaborative projects with other members of the merchant community. Some ship owners pooled their risk through marine insurance companies.  Underwater archaeologists working on different sites could consider leveraging the connections that exist between their projects online to increase visibility.  While collaborative agreements might sound like an obvious way to offset the high costs of online presentations, it is not an option that necessarily comes to mind for some archaeologists.  Indeed a small survey conducted by the Museum of Underwater Archaeology (MUA) showed that when asked what the best use of the Internet might be for the field, only thirteen percent of underwater archaeologists cited “collaboration” as opposed to the general public who mentioned it forty percent of the time. While many archaeologists are open to sharing their databases online, and that is a good first step, much more can be done to move from passive to active collaborative projects.  One example might be to create joint pages between multiple independent organizations that are topically linked.  For instance the MUA is working on a project wherein information on and images of birchbark canoes stored in numerous museums around the Great Lakes will be featured in an online exhibit.  It will draw attention to all of the participating institutions and show how they are all connected and possibly encourage the public to visit and support the actual sites themselves.

In the future the most cost effective way to increase visibility online and thus assist with public outreach efforts in underwater archaeology might not involve any “new” technology at all but rather explore new ways to use what already exists.  The key is to share as much information with the public and each other as possible using tools that are available today.  One of the earliest pioneers in digital humanities was the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media at George Mason University.  Founded in 1994 the Rosenzweig Center has not only gathered collections of archival material for researchers to view online but has also created tools for data presentation that are freely available.  The Asia-Pacific Underwater Cultural Heritage Conference, in partnership with the MUA, used the Omeka web presentation tool developed by the Rosenzweig Center to make every paper presented at the conference freely available online.  This was an important goal for the conference organizers as many of the attendees came from countries with limited resources.  If we want to differentiate what we do from treasure hunters in the public’s eye then, when we have the means, we need to develop presentation and outreach models that clearly set us apart as a field, make the most of limited resources, and reach the widest possible audience.

We are living in the midst of a data exchange revolution.  I take it as a good sign that the TV producers I mentioned earlier can find underwater archaeologists to talk to far easier than they probably could have in the past.  So many good projects are now available online, which is a great trend, but as we add our webpages to the cyber ocean we must not let them get lost at sea.   Technologies old and new can help us build collaborative connections that can teach everyone about the global shipwreck.

See all the posts for Tech Week, focusing on public archaeology and Underwater Archaeology!

Little Hercules hovering over rigging pile in the Gulf of Mexico. Image courtesty of NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program

The 2012 Gulf of Mexico cruise was unique even for the Okeanos Explorer program, since, for the first time, the cruise’s research objectives included a marine archaeology component.  The inclusion of marine archaeology in the project brought together a truly multidisciplinary team of marine archaeologists, biologists, geologists, and geophysicists to investigate each of the proposed archaeological sites.  It also brought the rare opportunity for Federal, private, and academic marine archaeologists to collaborate together on a project.   Marine archaeologists representing federal agencies including the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management  (http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Archaeology/Gulf-of-Mexico-Archaeological-Information.aspx), the Bureau of Safety and environmental Enforcement ( http://www.bsee.gov/), the Naval Heritage and History Command (http://www.history.navy.mil/ ), and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (http://www.noaa.gov/) joined marine archaeologists from private industry such as C & C Technologies (http://www.cctechnol.com/site66.php), Geoscience Earth and Marine Services (GEMS), a Forum Energy Technologies Company, (http://www.f-e-t.com/our_products_technologies/subsea-olutions/geoscience-earth-marine-services/), and Tesla Offshore (http://www.teslaexploration.com/), and marine archaeologists from the University of Rhode Island, to assess archaeological sites selected for investigation during the project.

The initial discussions to select sites for investigation during the Gulf of Mexico cruise provided the first opportunity for outreach among the marine archaeologists and for us to work as a team.   Each archaeologist brought their “favorite” site to the table for consideration.  The site discussions allowed each of us to give our perspective based on years of experience and familiarity with the region.  The team soon winnowed the options down to the five most promising sites for marine archaeology, biology, and geology based on our background knowledge and the data available.  Once chosen, the archaeology team forwarded the final archaeological investigation site recommendations to the NOAA lead scientist who once again challenged each site’s validity and its fit within the overall science mission.  Ultimately five archaeological sites were explored by the Okeanos Explorer’s team of scientists.

Framing and Machinery from an iron hull shipwreck in the Gulf of Mexico. Image courtesty of NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program

Although the technology needed to transmit the imagery to shore allowing us to direct the missions and discuss in real time what we were seeing was impressive, it was in the public outreach that we, as archaeologists, found our greatest satisfaction. Our ability to share these projects with our friends, coworkers, students, and most importantly our families gave us a special opportunity.  For brief moments, we were able to bring our friends and family into our world to share the excitement of discovery with us as it happened!   From the first dive on an archaeological site, a pile of wire rigging and rigging components from a sailing vessel, offices, classrooms, and homes streamed the live feeds of our dives, listening as the archaeological team threw out ideas about what the video was showing, guided the pilots to specific locations, and in general became the voices of sites  unseen for over a century.  If March Madness is a drain on office productivity in the U.S., the NOAA Okeanos Explorer cruise crashed office productivity across the globe.

Our colleagues at research companies, survey companies, oil and gas companies, accounting companies, energy companies, and universities watched our web stream to see what new discoveries waited thousands of feet below the Gulf of Mexico’s waters.  Social networking soon became part of the project as we posted the times for each dive, answered questions, and held open discussions on our Facebook pages.  Our spouses found themselves celebrities at work as their colleagues piled into their offices to watch the feed and ask questions.  Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) survey crews working offshore tuned into the feed to watch the video display shipwreck sites they had discovered a few scant months before.  Shipwreck mania took over the Offshore Technology Conference as Oil and Gas Companies wanted to know “whose site” was being looked at and when their location would be next.  Our phones rang, our bosses stopped through, our colleagues would sneak into our offices to watch each engaging moment of discovery and discourse.  We were the new greatest reality show our colleagues had ever seen.

Image showing the bow and bow anchor of a copper clad sailing vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. Image courtesty of NOAA Okeanos Explorer Program

At the close of each day’s dive we made our ways home to our spouses who would pepper us with questions about what they saw on the screen, who Paasch was, why was everyone so excited about Lophelia coral, or what was so impressive about a pile of wire rigging?  These were the moments that made the technology and the public outreach human.  There we sat drawing pictures, sharing stories, and engaging our spouses, in many cases for the first time, in our “daily” lives in a way that simply wasn’t possible at any other time.  Such a “Eureka” moment happened in our house after we looked at the second wreck site, which turned out to be an iron hulled sailing ship similar to Barque Elissa (http://www.galvestonhistory.org/1877_tall_ship_elissa.asp) where my spouse and I were married.  Imagine my husband’s shock when, sitting in his office at work, he realized “that looks just like ELISSA!”  Suddenly my work took on a whole new level of interest, intrigue, and possibilities.

The technology to get us to the sites, and the interactions it enabled made the 2012 Gulf of Mexico project one of a kind in the archaeological community, but the opportunities it offered in terms of outreach within our individual spheres of influence were magnified exponentially.  What just a few years ago would have been a project with limited exposure now became a global experience, shared through each individual person and then shared again through their families, children, spouses, colleagues, and clients.  Archaeologists, and scientists in general are just beginning to grasp the limitless opportunities for exploration and outreach those programs such as the Okeanos Explorer cruises can provide.  No longer is the question how to do it, but rather where will we go next and what discoveries await us?

 Read the other posts for Tech Week, all about public archaeology and underwater archaeology!

Although the location of wreck site was discovered in 1995, it was not until large pumps had drained the Matagorda Bay waters from a double-walled cofferdam in September of 1996 that the THC archaeologists could fathom the scope and breadth of the discovery.  All totaled, over the next eight months, more than a million artifacts of varying sizes, shapes, and composition emerged from the bog at the bottom of the cofferdam.  The largest artifact, comprising approximately 35% its original volume was the remains of Belle.  All of the finds, discovered after September 1996, were shipped to the Conservation Research Laboratory (CRL) at Texas A&M University.  The similar missions, but varying expertise of the two state agencies, formed an extraordinary partnership that bolstered the stabilization of both the “colonial-kit” of small material cultural finds, and the vessel herself.

During the course of the four month disassembly, twice weekly, a shipment of timbers made the 200 mile trip from Matagorda Bay to the CRL.  By the date that the final timbers were delivered in early May, 384 principal timbers weighing in excess of 23,000 pounds were in the lab’s storage vats awaiting stabilization.  CRL Director, Dr Donny L. Hamilton tasked his staff to develop a plan to stabilize the timber in toto instead of individually.  His concern was that the multi-degraded state of the waterlogged timber would inhibit alignment of plank to frames in a post stabilization reconstruction.  Since the final goal for the artifact was a elaborate museum display, an equally difficult challenge was to overcome the physics that impact the display of any watercraft structure, at sea level – air is 784 times less dense than water, the medium for which the structure was designed, and those forces can generate considerable stress and strain on already degraded elements.  Modern museum practice seldom employs rows of artifact cases with rigidly ordered object dichotomies, and few museums abide by the classical notions of kunstkammer, or “cabinet of curiosities”. The modern museum endeavors to educate and inspire its audience toward further discovery, all the while competing with alternative suppliers of entertainment for a limited amount of leisure revenue (Casey: 80). Cast against the backdrop of this theory, the display of Belle, or any archaeological ship remains represent somewhat of a paradox: a large, static, often seemingly lifeless object, but one possessing a certain vitality and characteristics and project of a sense-of-place that can easily pique visitor curiosity.

To bring hundreds of friable, fragmented, and waterlogged pieces into a well supported meaningful unit, pre-stabilization, while balancing representation of the artifact’s significance required an elaborate decision making process that could have only been achieved by drawing on aspects of “whole systems engineering”.  It was this “whole thinking” approach that lead to the creation of an endoskeleton of individually cast, carbon fiber laminates, the ability to modify that support structure to allow the hull to again be laid at 69 degrees, and ultimately a methodology to freeze-dry the timbers.  The initial timber and structural stabilization plan called for a “two-step” procedure to imbibe low and high molecular weights of Polyethylene glycol (PEG) into the timber before a controlled dehydration (Hoffman:1986).  Reconstruction of the timbers commenced in 2000 and the reconstruction and laminate casting had been completed by 2004.  In 2008, with the cost of PEG skyrocketing (a hydrocarbon based product its production cost mirrors fluctuations in crude oil prices) and having only completed 70% of the first aqueous bath with the low molecular weight PEG, our partners at the THC asked if there was a procedure that could be instituted to reduce costs.  Four alternative methods were proposed and subjected to peer review.  The unanimous consensus was to follow a protocol of freeze-drying the individual timbers in a chamber large enough that no individual element had to be intentionally broken or cut.  That way, less low molecular weight PEG would be needed, and once disassembled again, the timbers could be consolidated in vats that would reduce the quantity of required high molecular weight PEG by 85%.

Having first been considered a viable stabilization method for wet organic archaeological materials in the mid to late 1960s, freeze-drying is not a new stabilization procedure (Ambrose: 1971). Yet, application of the methodology has to date been generally limited to small or medium sized items, not large integrated structures with complex curves.  Several smaller craft have been successfully freeze-dried.  The reconstruction of a Sixteenth-Century Basque Chalupa (1998), freeze-dried by Parks Canada (Moore: 1998) and the Bronze-Age Dover Boat freeze dried by the Mary Rose Trust in Portsmouth, UK have both yielded satisfactory results.  The difficulty in freeze-drying larger ship timbers are the twists and compound curves of the hull and ceiling planks.  When both free and bound water is driven off, or desorbed, during the lyophilization process the physical properties of the wood shifts along the ductility scale from malleable to brittle.  In other words, the shape that the plank holds entering the process will be its final shape upon completion.  Timbers not placed on molds that accurately mimic the curves and twists of the hull shape may never again fit the hull shape.  If placed in the freeze-dryer flat any attempt to recreate, or force the curve after the process would most likely result in cracking or splitting of the timber.  Fortunately, three-dimensional recording technologies have made considerable advances in the last decade and following a reconstruction of Belle in the Lab’s 60’ x 20’ x 12’ vat it was digitally recorded in order to delineate the lines and loft molds that hold to the proper shape of the hull curvature.

On molds in the 40’ long and 8’ diameter product chamber the timbers, imbibed water and PEG are rapidly frozen to temperatures that exceed minus 40^o C.  Thermal couples placed on the surface and situated in the interior of the timber, monitor the temperature and sublimation of the ice.  Once completely frozen, a vacuum is applied to the product chamber and reduced to pressures as low as 150 millitorr.  The low temperature and pressure allow the ice in the wood to sublimate, or shift from a solid to a vapor, skipping the liquid phase.  Once all the timbers have completed the freeze-drying process the hull will be reconstructed once again, this time in the public-eye on the main floor of the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum in Austin, TX.  Scheduled starting date is November 2013.

Read the rest of the Tech Week posts, all about public archaeology and underwater archaeology!

References

• Ambrose, W.
  • 1971      “Freeze-drying of swamp degraded wood” in Conservation of Wooden Objects:  New York Conference on Conservation of Stone and Wooden Objects, preprints of the contributions, 7-13 June, 1970.  New. York: The International Institute for the Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, 53-58.
• Casey, Valarie.
  • 2005    “Staging Meaning; Performance in the Modern Museum”.  TDR 49 (3) 2005: 78-95.
• Clark, P.
  • 2004      The Dover Bronze Age boat in context: society and water transport in prehistoric Europe.  Oxford, UK: Oxbow.
• Hoffman, Per.
  • 1986      “On the Stabilization of Waterlogged Oakwood with PEG.  II Designing a Two-Step Treatment for Multi-Quality Timbers,” Studies in Conservation Vol. 31. N3 Aug: 103-113.
• Moore, C.
  • 1998      “Reassembly of a Sixteenth-Century Basque Chalupa” Material History Review 48 (Fall 1998) 38-44.

public outreach and engagement

Public outreach and engagement in archaeology should be holistic, meaningful and a primary component of our scientific research design—and this includes all projects, from the beginning.  Unfortunately, fully integrated public engagement in our collective archaeological work is a rarity.  When we do see purposeful engagement, it is often uni-directional, refusing to engage the public in an equal exchange of information. At best, the public is often an “add-on” instead of a meaningfully-planned, integral part of the process.

There are, of course, notable exceptions to learn from in our quest to meaningfully improve our public engagement.  One such example is the California Gold Rush shipwreck Frolic, lost along the rugged northern California coast in 1849.  Although known to wreck divers, the ship’s association with the history of the area was brought to the public’s attention when Chinese artifacts excavated in a Native American contact site in the coastal range led to the identification of the gold rush shipwreck on the coast.  This identification spurred local residents of Mendocino to explore the connection between the Frolic and the founding of their city.

This exploration originated from a diverse set of voices from throughout the community. A complex exhibit of the shipwreck spanned three museums, exploring many community voices and the rise of lumbering in the Redwoods.  Research on the ship’s manifest revealed a sizeable cargo of ale, leading a local microbrewery to replicate the drink.  Community interest in heritage led to a theater production about the shipwreck’s historical significance, as well as the return of many salvaged artifacts to local museums.  And all this in addition to a series of historical books by Thomas Layton, regarding the ship, the cargo, her history, the people, and the places associated with the ship’s career.  Years later, the collections and collected stories helped inform the underwater archaeologists who finally studied the submerged remains, and reconstructed the final moments of the fateful voyage.

The defining public engagement variable in this project was the community’s active participation at each stage from the start—from the research design phase all the way through public presentation, including interpretation and implementation of both the outreach and the archaeological investigation.  In other words, the “public” was not just an outreach activity. Instead, the public became an active member of the research team that impacted both design and outcomes.  The engagement was meaningful because there was a clear role for the public to be an active participant, not just an observer.

We live in an exciting age for archaeology. Technology is changing the very nature of our work, and increasing accessibility to large volumes of knowledge. More crucially, these changes allow us to actively engage the public with far less friction than ever before. It’s time to move beyond measuring public outreach and engagement only in terms of “site visits”: lectures, tours, school visits, streaming video and websites. It’s time to make meaningful engagement—in which the public is a fully contributing member of our research team—a standard for every stage of the process.

The good news is that this trend is changing – share with us your examples of the public as part of the science.

Read the other Tech Week posts, all about public archaeology and underwater archaeology!

LiDAR, light detection and ranging, is the constant transmittal of high-resolution laser light to the ground surface, with the time differential of each pulse recorded at the receiving station attached to a low-altitude aircraft (Fennell 2010:6-7).  The accuracy of the method varies dependent on location and how the data was gathered; essentially, a micro-topographic map of the bare surface of the site and surrounding lands can be produced for archaeological analysis.  LiDAR has been used in multiple case studies including both prehistoric and historic archaeological surveys with and without vegetation cover (Fennell 2010; Harmon et al. 2006; Petzold et al. 1999).

While the usage of LiDAR in archaeological contexts remains limited, the ways in which it is manipulated and more thoroughly realized continue to expand (Challis et al. 2008; Chase et al. 2011; Devereux et al. 2005; Devereux et al. 2008; Fennell 2010; Harmon et al. 2006; Rowlands and Sarris 2007).  The various techniques to extrapolate information include, among others, the application of hill-shading algorithms, the manipulation of illumination sources by direction and elevation, the alteration of contour intervals through arbitrary and relational settings, the creation of local relief models, the application of statistics in analysis to include nearest neighbor, quadrat, and chi-square, the variance of resolution between micro and macro glimpses of the landscape, and even the use of multiple color gradients (Challis et al. 2008; Chase et al. 2011; Devereux et al. 2005; Devereux et al. 2008; Fennell 2010; Harmon et al. 2006; Jaillet 2011; Rowlands and Sarris 2007).

Of course, where there is potential…there is also pitfall.  Some of the more common issues with LiDAR that deter it from a more widespread usage include the potential for data overload, inconsistency in its interpretive value, human error or unfamiliarity with LiDAR, present surface imagery’s inability to cope with temporal and/or cultural association, and resolution issues (Harmon et al. 2006; Jaillet 2011).  Another point worth noting is that while it is without doubt a useful tool in the archaeological toolbox, it continues to be a method that works best in conjunction with other archaeological methods to include other remote sensing techniques, historic documentation and field investigation (Fennell 2010; Harmon et al. 2006; Jaillet 2011; Kvamme et al. 2006).

At this point, we come to the crux of the matter: what are we doing with LiDAR?  In order to get at this question, we could go back to the algorithm.  The algorithm most commonly discussed in the literature of LiDAR deals with the language of computers and programming.  The meaning, in most instances, is in reference to the computer science behind its analysis and the GIS, geographic information systems, functions used to analyze it.  While a great deal has been learned and a great deal more will be learned using this standard definition, I would ask that we apply the most basic ideas behind mathematical induction and recursive relations to our methodological approach to LiDAR analysis.

One solution would be to apply a back-to-the-basics approach involving the basic recursive algorithm of Divide-and-Conquer.  Using the Divide and Conquer Algorithm, one would break the larger problem down into two more manageable questions.  What can we do with LiDAR, in addition to we have already done?  How do we go about doing it, in the most basic sense?  It is the second question that appears to be the one plaguing the archaeological community most, as we have excellent examples worldwide of what can be done with LiDAR and archaeologists are continuing to apply it in innovative ways.

We need to come to a consensus on the variables that we are trying to measure using the LiDAR dataset.  One way to go about this would be quantification of the variables using archaeological signatures that essentially typify features common to historic and prehistoric site types.

Essential to the idea of the Divide-and-Conquer algorithm is its parallelism, its ability to be used for multiple purposes, just as we know LiDAR can be.  The same set of variables can be combined in differing ways to represent the different archaeological signatures expected of different archaeological resources.  For example, a historic agricultural settlement might include linear features such as field lines, roadways, and waterways, as well as, polygon features such as structures and specific forms of vegetation.  A prehistoric quarry site might include polygon features such as borrow pits and distinctive topographic features advantageous to the process of quarrying for lithic resources.  The limits to the use of this technology are as of yet unmapped.

Essentially, what we need is a solution that is both mathematical and manual, a more efficient way to standardize LiDAR analysis.  One potential solution would be to compute a coding system to manage the variables and allow for the ability to analyze LiDAR datasets with reference to the individual and combined variables, which would, in turn, limit the number of possible outcomes to a manageable number that could be reviewed and manually analyzed by the archaeologist.

In closing, I ask the archaeological community to rethink the algorithm in LiDAR and continue to expand upon the ways in which we use this valuable tool.  Where to from here then… continue to push the bounds of this technology or begin to utilize what we have effectively?  Must we make this choice or can we begin to apply consistent methodological standards to our use of LiDAR, while pushing the bounds of possibility?

References Cited

• Challis, Keith and Ziga Kokalj, Mark Kincey, Derek Moscrop, Andy J. Howard
• 2008. “Airborne lidar and historic environment records.” In Antiquity. Vol. 82. 1055-1064.
• Chase, Arlen F. and Diane Z. Chase, John F. Weishampel, Jason B. Drake, Ramesh L. Shrestha, K. Clint Slatton, Jaime J. Awe, William E. Carter
• 2011. “Airborne LiDAR, archaeology and the ancient Maya landscape at Caracol, Belize.” In Journal of Archaeological Science. Vol. 38. 387-398.
• Devereux, B.J. and G.S. Amable, P. Crow
• 2008. “Visualisation of LiDAR terrain models for archaeological feature detection.”  In Antiquity. Vol. 82. 470-479.
• Devereux, B.J. and G.S. Amable, P. Crow, A.D. Cliff
• 2005. “The potential of airborne lidar for detection of archaeological features under woodland canopies.” In Antiquity. Vol. 79. 648-660.
• Fennell, Christopher
• 2010. “Archaeological Investigations and LiDAR Aerial Survey in Edgefield, South Carolina.” In African Diaspora Archaeology Network Newsletter.  December.
• Harmon, James and Mark Leone, Stephen Prince, Marcia Snyder.
• 2006. “LiDAR for Archaeological Landscape Analysis: A Case Study of Two Eighteenth-Century Maryland Plantation Sites.” In American Antiquity. Vol. 71(4).  649-670.
• Hunter, William A.
• 1960. Forts on the Pennsylvania Frontier (1753-1758).  Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission.
• Jaillet, Angela S.
• 2011. The People of Pandenarium: The Living Landscape of a Freed African American Settlement.”  Masters Thesis.  Indiana University of Pennsylvania.  Indiana, PA.
• Kvamme, Kenneth L. and Jay K. Johnson, Bryan S. Haley.
• 2006. Multiple Methods Surveys: Case Studies.  In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective.  Ed. by Jay K. Johnson.  251-268. University of Alabama Press.  Tuscaloosa, AL.
• Rowlands, Aled and Apostolos Sarris
• 2007. “Detection of exposed and subsurface archaeological remains using multi-sensor remote sensing.” In Journal of Archaeological Science. Vol. 34. 795-803.

Our project involves 3D scanning of archaeological objects using a NextEngine Desktop 3D scanner in order to test and demonstrate the capabilities of this technology for its potential employment in ensuring DoD compliance with historic preservation laws.  Archaeological collections from DoD installations in Virginia, Maryland, and other regional repositories are the subject of the study. The Virtual Curation Unit for Recording Archaeological Materials Systematically (V.C.U.-R.A.M.S) consists of faculty member Dr. Bernard K. Means and several undergraduate students enrolled at VCU.

Virtual artifact curation has the potential for addressing a number of issues important to archaeologists. One issue is access to collections. The virtual curation project will enable researchers to access digital data files that allow full 3D observation and manipulation of an image and accurate measurement without requiring scholars to travel to a repository. Digital scanning of objects can save time for both researchers and for staff at curation facilities, while maximizing scholars’ access to collections.  Objects and entire collections that are now physically dispersed in more than one repository can be united through 3D digital scanning into a single virtual repository.

Visitors watch as Clinton King scans an artifact in the field at the Huntsberry Farm Civil War site outside Winchester, Virginia.

The NextEngine Desktop 3D scanner is designed to be portable and, as part of the Virtual Artifact Curation project, the potentials and capabilities of the scanner have been tested at several non-lab locations. We can go to places that are culturally and historically important to our country, scan objects at these locations, and make them accessible to a wider audience. We have been fortunate to scan archaeological materials from Virginia institutions such as Colonial Williamsburg, Jamestown Rediscovery, George Washington’s Ferry Farm, and Flowerdew Hundred, and at The State Museum of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Archaeological materials from these significant locations are certainly too fragile to be passed around among scholars and in classroom settings, but can be shared digitally.

With 3D scanning technology, important cultural items that belong to and must be returned to private landowners could be recorded and made available to scholars through virtual curation.  While owners of archaeological collections in private hands may not be willing to donate the physical objects located on their properties—perhaps identified through a compliance investigation—they may agree to “donate” the information inherent in their collections and make their items virtually accessible to a wider audience of scholars and others who might be interested. Virtual curation may also prove useful for cultural objects that are designated for eventual repatriation, if descendent groups agree to the scans of these items.

Courtney Bowles holds a bone tambour hook prior to scanning at George Washington’s Ferry Farm, Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Virtual curation of artifacts will prove critical for fragile objects by minimizing handling and “preserving” them digitally, especially when conservation funding is limited. Repeated digital scanning sessions can help conservators ascertain whether conservation treatments are working as intended—through highly accurate digital models taken of the same object at set intervals. This will enable the conservator to closely monitor whether there is continuing degradation of an object.

While digital scanning is an important tool for documenting the potential degradation of an object, the initial stages should precede any conservation treatments when possible. If an object is scanned prior to conservation treatments, a pretreatment scan of the object may be the “truest” image of the object that we will ever have. Conservation does not always produce an object, however stable, that represents its original state.

Sharing of data is certainly one of the strong points of the movement toward digital archaeological media. The ability to manipulate and move objects in three dimensions benefits researchers more greatly than static images ever can. Public and scholarly interaction with digital models can certainly foster a more reflexive archaeology. This would allow diverse observers to move virtual objects or travel through virtual worlds, creating a dialectical relationship between past and present—and, open interpretation and reflection up to a wider audience.

The scanning team in the Virtual Curation Laboratory at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. Left to Right: Clinton King, Bernard K. Means, Victoria Valentine, and Courtney Bowles.

Where do we go from here? How will 3D digital images of objects and artifacts alter people’s perceptions of what is “real” and what is “virtual”? This is something we plan to explore in greater detail in the coming months. Our project team maintains our own blog that regularly details and updates our progress with the scanning project: http://vcuarchaeology3d.wordpress.com.  Here, you can find more information about our successes and challenges with the virtual curation of artifacts from historic and prehistoric sites. We welcome your comments as well.

The Technology Room, located in the Bibliotech (aka the Book Room), will feature archaeologists demonstrating and discussing their experiences with a variety of technologies. A series of brief presentations, listed below, are scheduled throughout the conference. The speakers will also be on-hand for the entire three-hour morning or afternoon slot in which their presentation is scheduled to give demonstrations, answer questions and talk more informally about their work.  You will also be to learn more about the SHA’s new social media initiatives, and we’ll even have table set up so that you can get connected on the spot to the new Facebook page and stay in touch year-round.

We are looking forward to seeing you there!

Tech Room Demos and Talks:

Thursday January 5, 2012 – 9:00‐12:00 Presentations

• 9:30 – Conservation in the MAC Lab with Nicole Doub, Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory
• 10:00 – GIS at Jamestowne with David Givens, Historic Jamestowne
• 10:30 – Naval History and Heritage Command Technologies with NHHC marine archaeologists
• 11:00 – Social Media & the SHA with Terry Brock, SHA Social Media Chair, PhD Candidate Michigan State

Thursday January 5, 2012 – 1:00 – 4:00 Presentations

• 1:30 – Conservation in the MAC Lab with Nicole Doub, Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory
• 2:00 – tDAR, the Digital Archaeological Record with Adam Brin & Frank McManamon, Digital Antiquity
• 2:30 – Integrating Data Sets: Results from the St. Augustine Seawall Phase I Archaeological Survey with JB Pelletier, URS
• 3:00 – Social Media & the SHA with Terry Brock, SHA Social Media Chair, PhD Candidate Michigan State

Friday January 6, 2012 – 9:00 ‐12:00 Presentations

• 9:30 – 3D Laser Scanning with Bernard Means, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virtual Curation Unit
• 10:00 – Integrating Data Sets: Results from the St. Augustine Seawall Phase I Archaeological Survey with Bradley Kruegger, URS
• 10:30 – New Media’s Role in Historical Archaeology and Social Justice with Ed Gonzalez‐Tennant, Monmouth University
• 11:00 – Trends in Emerging Media That Will Impact How Audiences Connect to Heritage with Jeffery Guin, Chemical Heritage Foundation

Friday January 6, 2012 – 1:00 – 4:00 Presentations

• 1:30 – tDAR, the Digital Archaeological Record with Adam Brin & Frank Mc Manamon, Digital Antiquity
• 2:00 – 3D Laser Scanning with Bernard Means, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virtual Curation Unit
• 2:30 – Naval History and Heritage Command Technologies with NHHC marine archaeologists
• 3:00 – The Value of A Good (Digital) Pen with Timothy Goddard, SHA Technology Committee, Michigan Technological University
• 3:30 – Trends in Emerging Media That Will Impact How Audiences Connect to Heritage with Jeffery Guin, Chemical Heritage Foundation

Saturday January 7, 2012 – 9:00 ‐ 12:00 Presentations

• 9:30 – Emerging Conservation Technologies with Emily Williams, The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, and Lisa Young
• 10:00 – Social Media in a Colonial Context with Lisa Fischer and Meredith Poole, The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, CAA, and SHA Technology Committee
• 10:30 – Naval History and Heritage Command Technologies with NHHC marine archaeologists
• 11:00 – Social Media & the SHA with Terry Brock, SHA Social Media Chair, PhD Candidate Michigan State