HáťC TáťT TIáşžNG ANH 11 THEO CHĆŻĆ NG TRĂNH GLOBAL SUCCESS ÄĂP ĂN CHI TIáşžT - CẢ NÄ...
Â
Prospection, Prediction and Management of Archaeological Sites in Alluvial Environments
1. Prospection, Prediction and Management
of Archaeological Sites in Alluvial
Environments
Keith Challis, Mark Kincey and Andy J Howard,
IBM Vista, University of Birmingham
U B
3. Study Areas
Three, c.300km2
study areas
⢠MTV Derbyshire
⢠MTV Newark
⢠LTV Gainsborough
30k ha terrace
35k ha floodplain
144 SAM
11,222 HER records
2254 Aimee (NMR) records
10. Prospection
Airborne Lidar
⢠3D record of topography at
very high resolution
⢠Systematic survey by
Environment Agency
⢠Upstanding and buried sites
⢠Assessment of preservation
⢠Change detection (multi
temporal survey)
14. Assessing Preservation
Airborne Lidar Intensity
⢠NIR reflectance enhanced
detection of vegetation
and soil properties
⢠Not a robust indicator
⢠No systematic collection
⢠Much work to be done
17. Problem
⢠Information on heritage assets resides in
expert hands
⢠Issues of availability / confidentiality
⢠Discrete, not continuous record
⢠Articulated need for âred flagâ mapping
⢠How to achieve this without alienation of
some stakeholders
18. Goals
⢠To provide interpreted
information to non-expert
users
⢠Models rooted in
knowledge base
⢠Not to usurp the HER as
a source of data or to
undermine curatorial
prerogative
19. Approach: User-focused
⢠Understand what users
need, how they think and
work
⢠Model the knowledge-
based approach of expert
users âtopsightâ (Gelernter
1992)
⢠Presentation of results
structured to fit the real-
world and in a user friendly
medium
20. Approach: Simplify
⢠Inductive (data driven)
rather than deductive
(theory driven)
⢠Simplify and summarise
(the detail is in the HER)
⢠Validate through user
feedback (rather than test
and quantify)
21. Approach: Model Objectives
The completed models will provide per parcel scores for:
⢠The predicted archaeological potential of all land parcels.
⢠The aggregate bearing potential and value of all land parcels.
⢠The susceptibility of individual land parcels to field evaluation
techniques.
⢠The likely physical condition of buried cultural remains.
⢠The risk of encountering buried waterlogged organic remains.
⢠The level of impact that different forms of extraction may have on
the archaeological record
⢠The importance of archaeology in the light of regional priorities.
⢠The likely mitigation needs in the light of PPG 16 guidance
22. Method: Predictive Models
⢠Classic predictive
modelling
⢠Big, empty,
heterogeneous areas
(2500km2 /
21 sites)
⢠Assess and weigh
environmental factors
⢠Weights inform model
23. ⢠Such models are
inappropriate for the
TV
⢠c. 40% of land parcels
contain a record
⢠Eg. Newark, 1254
parcels out of 5012
Method: Predictive Models
24. Method: Our Data Model
⢠OS MasterMapŽ as a
spatial framework
⢠Raster based GIS
models
⢠50m grid (200k cells)
25. Method: Model Building
⢠Source data is rasterised
⢠Simplified scores are
applied or extracted
⢠Models are based on
weighted means of
scores
⢠Blank areas filled using
landscape classification
and spatial modelling
Terrace: Score = 3
26. Method: Per Parcel Results
⢠Calculations reclassified
to 5 level scale from low
risk to high
⢠Aggregated model scores
devolved to level of an
OS MasterMapÂŽ TOID
⢠Built up parcels, water
and parcels less than 1ha
in extent excluded
29. Critique
⢠âTopsightâ is not necessarily the same thing as predictive
modelling or risk mapping
⢠Modelling period based activity and intensity of activity is
problematic
⢠It would be possible model individual classes of
monument with clear geographic preferences (eg burnt
mounds)
⢠Perhaps general models are the most helpful
⢠The meaning of results is imprecise and open to
misinterpretation
30. Concluding Thoughts
Prospection
⢠Non-photographic techniques offer huge potential, but uptake issues
(availability, cost, education)
⢠In fact, in times of limited finances reliance on traditional techniques may
not be cost-effective
Predictive Management
⢠Need for strategic management of heritage assets is axiomatic
⢠System adoption requires clear joined-up thinking at high level
⢠Possible conflict with aggregate resource assessments in England
⢠Do we need another level of information?