Cultural Heritage Communities

Technologies and Challenges

Luigina Ciolfi, Areti Damala, Eva Hornecker, Monika Lechner, Laura Maye, Luigina Ciolfi, Areti Damala, Eva Hornecker, Monika Lechner, Laura Maye

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780367889647
• eBook ISBN: 9781315522418
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

Cultural heritage communities of interest have increasingly expanded from cultural heritage professionals to volunteers, special interest groups and independent citizen-led initiative groups. Digital technology has also increasingly impacted cultural heritage by affording novel experiences of it – it features in a number of activities for all the aforementioned groups, as well as acting as support for visitors to cultural heritage centres.

With different degrees of formality and training, these communities are increasingly defining and taking ownership of what is of value to them, thus reconfiguring the care, communication, interpretation and validation of heritage. Digital technology has played a crucial role in this transformative process.

In a fully international context, cultural heritage practitioners, community champions and academics from different fields of study have contributed to this book. Each chapter brings to the fore the multiple relationships between heritage, communities and technologies as a focus of study and reflection in an inclusive way. Contributions touch upon present and future opportunities for technology, as well as participatory design processes with different stakeholders.

This book brings together ideas from different disciplines, cultures, methods and goals, to inspire scholars and practitioners involved in community heritage projects.

1 Archaeological remote sensing

Some Community Engagement in Ireland

Kevin Barton and Daniel Curley

Introduction

The ArchaeoLandscapes Europe Project, now Arcland International (Arcland International 2016), has provided us with a network and support to explore and develop aspects of community engagement in archaeological remote sensing. One aim of the five-year European Commission-supported ArcLand project, which was completed in 2015, was to address imbalances in the knowledge and use of modern archaeological surveying and remote sensing techniques. This is particularly the case in the Republic of Ireland in some community-run museums, within community-based local archaeological and historical groups and in schools. This chapter will outline progress on a number of case studies at different stages in their project development. They all have the common theme of communities using archaeological remote sensing to explore and harness their cultural heritage, to the ultimate gain of the local area as a result. This work has been carried out against the background of academics and professional practitioners beginning to recognise, address and debate challenges in a growth of community archaeology in Ireland.

Archaeological remote sensing techniques

Remote sensing techniques provide a non-invasive, non-destructive means of investigating the topography of the ground surface and/or sub-surface features which may be interpreted to indicate hidden or buried archaeology. Techniques may be deployed on elevated platforms such as satellites, aircraft, drones, balloons and kites or on the ground or in water depending on specific archaeological questions, measurement type, terrain, scale and the spatial resolution required. These techniques do not replace conventional excavation which may be classified as invasive and non-destructive if sub-surface features are preserved in-situ, or invasive and destructive if the features are fully excavated and removed. Remote sensing techniques can minimise the area to be excavated by defining pre-excavation targets.

Multiple-technique remote sensing using different platforms to survey at different landscape scales is well-established internationally (Hadjimitsis et al. 2013). Large-scale projects often use remote sensing tools for reconnaissance using satellite-mounted sensors to capture high spatial resolution data. These data can be computer-processed to provide photographic images, derivative maps and indices showing contrasts, variations or anomalies in the area under investigation. These anomalies can be detected due to variation, for example in topography, near infra-red reflectance of crops, and thermal, radiometric and electrical properties of soils and rocks. Integration of a number of techniques using a Geographic Information System (GIS) can result in interpreted maps and images showing possible human activity such as settlement, industrial activity and monument building which has impacted the area under investigation.

Techniques using sensors mounted on aircraft or drones can be used to follow-up or better define anomalies or features identified using satellite reconnaissance data or can be used in an initial archaeological investigation. The main airborne techniques used at present for archaeological surveys are aerial photography and LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging).

Aerial photography is a remote sensing technique that has been in use since the nineteenth century and has developed rapidly in recent times using different types of high- and low-level platforms with digital sensors (Barber 2011). Hidden archaeology can be revealed in oblique or vertical daylight or near infra-red photographs taken annually in different seasons. Daylight photographs can show crop marks that are caused by differential crop growth/ripening over possible buried archaeological features. Buried features such as walls and ditches can respectively reduce or increase the moisture content of the soil and hence affect the growth or height of plants in the area of the features. Near infra-red photographs are largely influenced by the chlorophyll content of individual plants in a crop (Verhoeven 2012). A healthy green leaf producing chlorophyll will reflect near infra-red components of daylight which are captured by a sensor or a filter mounted on a camera. Crop marks similar to those seen in daylight photography can be produced and thus can be interpreted in terms of possible buried archaeological features.

LiDAR has revolutionised the study of archaeological landscapes and sites since it was recognised as a possible archaeological tool in 2000 (Crutchley and Crow 2010). It can be deployed on airborne, ground and waterborne platforms and provides a means of recording micro-topography by scanning the ground or structures using a dense swath of laser beams which are reflected back to a sensor or detector array mounted on the platform. The reflected signal can be analysed using software to isolate and visualise signal components which are reflected from built structures, the ground surface or from vegetation growing on it. Depending on the density and type of vegetation, coupled with the time of year the survey was carried out, a micro-topographic model or image of the ground surface can be produced. One type of visualisation is termed a “bare earth” or digital terrain model (DTM). A DTM can show topographic variation at a centimetre scale which, using further computer processing, can visualise low-topographic-profile archaeological sites and features. Depending on the type of processing and visualisation, LiDAR data can also be used to create 3D models of visible monuments such as built structures and mounds.

Ground-based remote sensing techniques, often referred to as geophysical techniques, provide a means to follow-up or better define anomalies or features identified using satellite reconnaissance, aircraft and drones or can be used in an initial archaeological investigation. Since the 1990s there has been much development in these techniques and in the software used to process, visualise and hence interpret and present the images produced (Hadjimitsis et al. 2013; Clark 1997; Gater and Gaffney 2003).

For most archaeological projects there is a basic suite of geophysical techniques available (Landscape and Geophysical Services 2016a). The choice of technique depends on the archaeological questions being addressed integrated with site-specific characteristics which include topography, geology, soils, vegetation cover and rural or urban location. Each technique measures or responds to contrasts that visible or buried archaeological features may have with the soil or sediments in which they lie. These contrasts can be in properties which include magnetism, electrical resistance and electrical conductivity. Surveys are carried out on high spatial resolution grids with measurement intervals typically at 0.25 metres along lines up to 1 metre apart. Depending on the technique used, the depth of investigation can be from 0.1 metres up to 10 metres. It is difficult to predict likely contrasts in advance of a survey and it is best practice to use a number of techniques in series or parallel in reconnaissance and detailed follow-up survey phases. The latter is termed multi-method geophysical survey with the data and an interpretation being presented or visualised in the form of maps and digital images.

For sites where topography may be an important influence on the results, and detailed topographic data are not available in digital form such as that provided by LiDAR, then a topographic survey using a differential Global Positioning System (dGPS) or a total station can be carried out. A reconnaissance topsoil magnetic susceptibility survey can be used to detect zones of susceptibility enhancement caused by burnt debris or midden material which may indicate the presence of a settlement and/or industrial site. The latter survey could be followed up with a magnetic gradiometer survey which can detect contrasts between the magnetic properties of archaeological features and their host soils. An earth resistance survey largely detects contrasts in the moisture content of soils and archaeological features that may be buried in them. Depending on their configuration, both the latter techniques are capable of detecting buried walls, floors, ditches and pits from 0.5 metres to 2 metres below the ground surface.

Where depth information up to 10 metres is required Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) (Landscape and Geophysical Services 2016a) can be used. These may be needed to investigate the internal structure of a site. ERT measurements can produce sub-surface depth models which show contrasts in electrical resistivity. These can be due to high-resistivity stone fill, stone walls or compacted material hosted by low-resistivity soils such as that found in buried foundations or stone chambers found in burial mounds. These techniques collect data along transects and produce depth-sections which can be visualised as vertical depth-sections or combined to create horizontal depth-slices that can be animated to produce a virtual excavation.

The increasing availability of open-source satellite data, aerial photographs, LiDAR data and the software to process, visualise, interpret and present the data is providing low-cost tools for communities to investigate their local landscape. Combined with the latter, certain types of ground-based geophysical instrumentation and software are beginning to become available at low cost, thus enabling communities to carry out low-cost surveys with minimal interaction with professional remote sensing specialists. An example of low-cost instrumentation is the TR/CIA Mkl earth resistance meter (Figure 1.2a) with integral digital data logger and processing software (Council for Independent Archaeology 2016) designed and produced by the Council for Independent Archaeology (CIA). The CIA provides a forum for and largely represents community heritage groups based in Britain. Issues concerning communities engaging in remote sensing and their relationship with academics and professional practitioners are reviewed in the discussion section.

Remote sensing and a community museum

Rathcroghan Visitor Centre (RVC) (Rathcroghan Visitor Centre 2016), Tulsk, County Roscommon, opened in 1999 as a community-run interpretive experience and resource hub for the Rathcroghan Archaeological Complex. Rathcroghan is one of a number of provincial royal sites in Ireland. It is traditionally seen as the symbolic capital of Connacht and the site of great communal gatherings or ainaige. It is also currently part of a serial nomination for inscription to the UNESCO World Heritage Site (WHS) list (UNESCO 2016).

To gain a full understanding of the Rathcroghan Complex involves interacting with two intertwined elements. On the one hand, Rathcroghan is the location of a vast array of visible and invisible archaeological monuments, ranging in date from the Neolithic to the late Medieval period, with the Iron Age (c. 500 BC to c. AD 400) serving as a period of particularly focused activity. Each period is represented in the archaeological record at Rathcroghan, and includes funerary monuments, settlement sites, ritual enclosures, ceremonial linear embankments and even a reputed entrance to the Irish “Otherworld”. On the other hand, there is the Rathcroghan that is attested in the manuscript tradition. Rathcroghan is often referred to as Cruachan Aí in the literary and historical sources, where it also serves as a central location for an extensive corpus of medieval Irish epic literature (e.g. Dooley and Roe 1999). Chief among these medieval tales, which in some cases may hold veiled ancestral truths on the use of many of these monuments in the prehistoric period, is the Táin Bó Cúailnge, or Cattle Raid of Cooley (Kinsella and Le Brocquy 2002). The epic literature provides Rathcroghan as the location and residence of the great warrior Queen Medb, and setting for a number of the stories that comprise what is known as the Ulster City of tales. The combination of these two elements served as the inspiration for a community project which came to fruition in 1999.

The Rathcroghan Complex consists of over 240 visible archaeological sites, 60 of which are recorded as National Monuments. These monuments are scattered over a landscape of approximately 6 square kilometres. The interpretation of the Complex presents a challenge for the RVC in Tulsk Village, which is located some 4 kilometres from the core area of the Complex.

When the Museum opened in 1999, the display relied heavily on the presentation of material from traditional archaeological and historical academic sources. These included work in the 1980s by Gormley (1989), Herity (1984, 1985, 1988, 1989) and Waddell (1983). The only archaeological excavation to have taken place at Rathcroghan to date was a test excavation undertaken by Waddell (1988) on a monument known as Dathí’s Mound.

The traditional source material presented in the display was supplemented by the results from the ArchaeoGeophysical Imaging Project (AGIP), the Republic of Ireland’s first large-scale, multi-method archaeological remote sensing survey that commenced in 1994. The project, undertaken by the National University of Ireland, Galway, with Heritage Council funding, carried out a programme of intensive topographical and geophysical survey at eleven monuments in the Rathcroghan area. The objective was to demonstrate the purpose and significance of these diverse monuments through non-invasive, non-destructive and cost-effective geophysical means that might also identify future targets for possible excavation or more refined remote sensing survey.

The main results are discussed and illustrated in a monograph published in 2009 (Waddell et al. 2009). However, AGIP also had a number of unexpected positive outcomes in the local community.

During the course of the AGIP remote sensing fieldwork, the landowners at Rathcroghan were happy to grant permission for land access to the research project. They enthusiastically offered their time in aiding survey data collection, as well as taking great interest and pride in considering the results recorded for the monuments on their land. One aspect of this was the use of remote sensing techniques which are non-invasive and non-destructive in terms of the landscape and any sub-surface archaeological features. The techniques did not impact the fields or crops grown as might be the case with excavation. The digital images and visualisations produced showed the farmers what lay beneath the soils of their fields.

The establishment of the Tulsk Action Group Ltd. (TAG) in 1996, as AGIP was drawing to its conclusion, was the coming together of a section of the local community in order to use the Rathcroghan narrative as an economic and touristic resource for the area. The objective was to use the archaeological landscape as a resource to develop a long-term revenue and employment enterprise in the village of Tulsk. This local interest in harnessing the area for cultural tourism built upon interest generated by the academic work in the 1980s and 1990s as well as the results from AGIP The community decided there was a need to present the Rathcroghan Complex in a museum context. After much endeavour, TAG obtained funding from the Irish Tourist Board, who saw the provision of a Museum as a flagship project in an area which had had little tourism development.

The first iteration of the Museum was called the Cruachan Ai Heritage Centre. The exhibition lar...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• List of contributors
• Introduction
• 1 Archaeological remote sensing: some community engagement in Ireland
• 2 Online maker communities: craft and new spaces of engagement with cultural heritage
• 3 The Limerick dance halls project: the charm of discreet technology
• 4 Towards user engagement models for citizen science: initiatives in the digital cultural heritage domain
• 5 Challenges in designing cultural heritage crowdsourcing: tools with indigenous communities
• 6 How to get small museums involved in digital innovation: a design-inclusive research approach
• 7 Emotional connections with the past: exploring engagement with historical images from an online museum collection
• 8 Artcasting, mobilities, and inventiveness: engaging with new approaches to arts evaluation
• 9 Challenging political agendas through indigenous media: Hawai’i and the promotion and protection of cultural heritage
• 10 War at your doorstep: supporting communities discovering their local history via interactive technology
• Index