The rate of
CRM projects related to development in Ontario is high. Sites are being
excavated rapidly and the textual and photographic records (print and digital)
are stored for safe keeping and potential future use. We know that excavation
records are only as useful as they are detailed and well-documented. In terms
of print records, handwriting can be difficult to read, field documents can get
lost, and the usefulness of the field records are at the mercy of those
recording the data. Handwritten records digitized after the fact are subject to
human error and interpretation of the documents. Records that are produced
digitally using a field computer and other technologies reduces the risk of
misreading the text and helps to keep records organized. The more automated a
process is, the less risk there is of human error and inconsistencies.
Digital
recording technologies like apps and cameras are useful but are still mediated
by their human users and the decisions they make. At the same time, the user is
limited by the technologies’ capabilities. As technologies become more advanced
and user friendly, they become more accessible to users and become useful for
the average archaeologist conducting survey and excavation. The example that
comes to mind is a handheld GPS mobile mapper. This
is more advanced than earlier models of the same, and the original compass and
map. As our society becomes more accustomed to using handheld devices and
applications that cater to the non-tech savvy folk, using technologies like a
mobile mapper or even a UAV to survey a landscape or site, will produce more
information accurately in a shorter amount of time than using less advanced or
non-digital method. If cost is not an issue, using data collecting technology is
arguably more efficient and effective allowing time and human resources to be
used elsewhere and data to be neatly stored to be used later.
If data
collection is becoming more efficient, would it not make sense to collect as
much information as possible in as many forms as possible to create a more thorough
record of a site? Field notes, photos, UAV imagery, and other digital photography
and mapping can add so much information to the site record to be used by future
archaeologists interested in a site that has been long excavated.
I see great
potential in the use of 3D landscape or site modelling throughout the
excavation process to capture more in-depth documentation of the stratigraphy, spatial
information, and other aspects of each stage of an excavation. If the 3D
modelling technology being used can produce models with enough precision and
detail, future archaeologists wanting to review a site excavation or who is wanting
to answer a new question not previously explored at an excavated site, they
would have more data to use which ideally would allow for better interpretation
of the site in retrospect. Furthermore, the more variety of media used, the
more likely it is that information missing in one part of the documentation will
be revealed through other media (e.g., video, photographs, or models can fill
in the gaps of vaguely or poorly written field notes.
Campana and
Remondino (2014) explain that there has been quite a bit of 3D modelling of
artifacts, unexcavated or fully excavated sites, and reconstructed material
culture, but that the lack of 3D modelling to assist with site interpretation
is a shame (40). They state that “3D [modelling] should constitute a bridge
between knowledge and communication” (40).
If the
excavation process is better documented, the interpretations of the site can be
questioned, reviewed, and supported or critiqued. This allows for better
engagement with other archaeologists and allows for a more transparent practice.
Moreover, the 3D data can be used to view the site from different angles, with
different lighting, and can be used to add more accurate spatial data to the
record. I see this method as being particularly useful for CRM sites in Ontario
that are quickly excavated but may be used for future studies.
Here is a short, but interesting example of this in
action:
Excavation at Akko - Documenting the Site in 2D and 3D
Do you see a future in archaeological excavation that
uses 3D modelling of a site excavation process as standard practice? What benefits
or obstacles do you see limiting the fruition of such a practice?
Reference:
Campana, Stefano and Fabio Remondino. 2008. Fast and
Detailed Digital Documentation of Archaeological Excavations and Heritage
Artifacts. Conference Paper presented at the CAAs 2007, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236903295_Fast_and_Detailed_Digital_Documentation_of_Archaeological_Excavations_and_Heritage_Artifacts
, Accesses on March 18,
2021,
1 comment:
Hi Ashley! I really enjoyed your post. I agree with you that if digital methods are available to us, we should use them. I feel like the more documentation we have, including more standard practices such as hand drawing but also 3D modelling, can only benefit us as archaeologists.
Some of my initial thoughts on the limitations of this is that while digital technologies are constantly being advanced, this also means that they are simultaneously reaching their (often times planned) obsolescence. This means that while 3D modelling might work easily right now, that data will probably require upkeep and maintenance as the years progress to ensure it doesn't become obsolete as technology advances. Realistically, I don't know if that can be ensured in a widespread capacity.
I think there's also questions of whether 3D spaces are ethical for some archaeological contexts and artifacts. This is an issue of CRM in general, where in Ontario at the very least we're only required in some circumstances to obtain Indigenous engagement. This means that CRM archaeologists could possibly make 3D models of artifacts or contexts that Indigenous people would not want. Hopefully, if archaeologists are seeking to use these technologies, they are taking into account such aspects while pursuing this.
Post a Comment