More Than Just a Sum of the Points: Re-Thinking the Value of Laser Scanning Data

  • Henry Chapman
  • Eamonn Baldwin
  • Helen Moulden
  • Michael Lobb
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC)

Abstract

High-definition laser scanning is becoming increasingly popular within the field of heritage, with applications ranging from the digital recording and analysis of landscapes to buildings and objects. In some ways the uptake of this technology reflects new ways of addressing old questions, but with the potential for greater accuracy and density of spatial information. Through the exploration of three case studies, this chapter highlights the additional value that laser scanning can bring to heritage applications, with each example showing how the re-tasking of the captured data can result in additional benefits that extend considerably beyond the initial intentions. It is argued that, unlike the results from more conventional survey methods, high-definition laser scan data can exist independently from the original intentions of the survey and that it holds considerable value for addressing previously unimagined possibilities.

Keywords

High-definition survey Laser scanning Re-tasking data Museums Conservation Presentation 

References

  1. Al-kheder, S., Al-shawabkey, Y., & Haala, N. (2009). Developing a documentation system for desert places in Jordan using 3D scanning and digital photogrammetry. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, D., Bedford, J., Blake, W., Bryant, P., Cromwell, T., & Lea, R. (2009). Measured and drawn techniques and practice for the metric survey of historic buildings (2nd ed.). Swindon: English Heritage.Google Scholar
  3. Bowden, M. (Ed.). (1999). Unravelling the landscape. An inquisitive approach to archaeology. Stroud: Tempus.Google Scholar
  4. Brunning, R. (1995). Waterlogged wood: Guidelines on the recording, sampling, conservation and curation of waterlogged wood. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
  5. Brunning, R., Hogan, D., Jones, J., Jones, M., Maltby, E., Robinson, M., et al. (2000). Saving the sweet track. The in situ preservation of a Neolithic wooden trackway, Somerset, UK. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 4, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapman, H. P., Gaffney, V. L., & Moulden, H. (2010). The eton myers collection virtual museum. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 4, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensson, A. (Ed.). (2004). Safeguarding Historical Waterfront Sites Bryggen in Bergen as a Case. Norway: Culture 2000.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, P. (Ed.). (2004). The Dover Bronze Age Boat. Swindon: English Heritage.Google Scholar
  9. Coles, J. M., & Coles, B. J. (1986). Sweet track to Glastonbury: the somerset levels in prehistory. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  10. Crutchley, S. (2006). Light detection and ranging (lidar) in the Witham valley, Lincolnshire: An assessment of new remote sensing techniques. Archaeological Prospection, 13, 251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deegan, M. J. (1990). Jane Addams and the men of the Chicago School, 1892–1918. Somerset: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Department of the Environment (1990). Archaeology and Planning. Department of the Environment Planning and Policy Guidance 16. London.Google Scholar
  13. Doneus, M., Briese, C., Fera, M., & Janner, M. (2008). Archaeological prospection of forested areas using full-waveform airborne laser scanning. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 882–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. English Heritage (2002). Environmental Archaeology: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Methods, from Sampling and Recovery to Post-excavation. Centre for Archaeology Guidelines 1, Portsmouth.Google Scholar
  15. Field, N., & Parker Pearson, M. (2003). Fiskerton, an iron age timber causeway with iron age and roman votive offerings: The 1981 excavations. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  16. Foster, H. (2002). Archives of modern art. October, MIT Press, 99, 81–95.Google Scholar
  17. Gaffney, V. (2008). In the Kingdom of the blind: visualisation and E-Science in archaeology. In M. Greengrass & L. Hughes (Eds.), The virtual representation of the past (pp. 125–135). Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  18. Gearey, B. R., & Chapman, H. P. (2006). In situ preservation, P.P.G.16 and wetland archaeology in the United Kingdom: some present concerns. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 7, 179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gregory, D., & Jensen, P. (2006). The importance of analysing waterlogged wooden artefacts and environmental conditions when considering their in situ preservation. Journal of Wetland Archaeology, 6, 65–81.Google Scholar
  20. Grattan, D., Bilz, M., Grant, T., & Logan, J. (2006). Outcome determines treatment: an approach to the treatment of waterlogged wood. Journal of Wetland Archaeology, 6, 49–63.Google Scholar
  21. Grosman, L., Smikt, O., & Smilansky, U. (2008). On the application of 3-D scanning technology for the documentation and typology of lithic artefacts. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 3101–3110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hatch, M. E. (2012). Project America: memoirs of faith and hope to win the future. Matteson, Illinois: Life to Legacy.Google Scholar
  23. Holden, J., West, L. J., Howard, A. J., Maxfield, E., Panter, I., & Oxley, J. (2006). Hydrological controls on in situ preservation of archaeological deposits. Earth Science Reviews, 78, 59–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jiachang, C., Donglang, C., Jingen, Z., Xia, H., & Shenglong, C. (2009). Shape recovery of collapsed archaeological wood ware with active alkali-urea treatment. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 434–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karasik, A., & Smilansky, U. (2008). 3D scanning technology as a standard archaeological tool for pottery analysis: Practice and theory. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 1148–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kenward, H., & Hall, A. (2000). Decay of delicate organic remains in shallow urban deposits: Are we at a watershed? Antiquity, 74, 519–525.Google Scholar
  27. Krawiec, K. (2008). A watching brief at shardlow quarry: An archaeological and palaeoenvironmental assessment. Birmingham: Birmingham Archaeology Report 1332.Google Scholar
  28. Lillie, M. C., & Ellis, S. (Eds.). (2007). Wetland archaeology and environments: Regional issues, global perspectives. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  29. Lillie, M. C., & Smith, R. (2007). The in situ preservation of archaeological remains: using lysimeters to assess the impacts of saturation and seasonality. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34, 1494–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lobb, M., Krawiec, K., Howard, A. J., Gearey, B. R., & Chapman, H. P. (2010). A new approach to recording and monitoring wet-preserved archaeological wood using three dimensional laser scanning. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 2995–2999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Modugno, F., Ribechini, E., Calderisi, M., Giachi, G., & Colombini, M. P. (2008). Analysis of lignin from archaeological wood by direct exposure mass spectrometry (DEMS) and PCA evaluation of mass spectral data. Microchemical Journal, 88, 186–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morris, C. A. (2000). Archaeology of York: Craft, Industry and Everyday Life: Wood and woodworking in Anglo-Scandinavian and Medieval York. York: Council for British Archaeology Report 17.Google Scholar
  33. Niven, L., Steele, T. E., Finke, H., Gernat, T., & Hublin, J–. J. (2009). Virtual skeletons: Using a structured light scanner to create a 3D faunal comparative collection. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 2018–2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Sullivan, A. (2005). Medieval fish traps on the Shannon Estuary, Ireland: Interpreting people, place and identity in estuarine landscapes. Journal of Wetland Archaeology, 5, 65–78.Google Scholar
  35. Pryor, F. (2002). Archaeology and environment of the flag Fen basin. Swindon: English Heritage.Google Scholar
  36. Reeves, N. (1999). Ancient Egypt in the Myers Museum. In S. Spur, N. Reeves and S. Quirke (Ed.), Egyptian art at the Eton College. Selections from the Myers Museum, 5. New York.Google Scholar
  37. Rüther, H., Chazan, M., Schroeder, R., Neeser, R., Held, C., Walker, S. J., et al. (2009). Laser scanning for conservation and research of African cultural heritage sites: the case study of Wanderwerk Cave, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 1847–1856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Salisbury, C. (1995). An eighth century Mercian bridge over the Trent at Cromwell, Nottinghamshire, England. Antiquity, 69, 1015–1018.Google Scholar
  39. Van de Noort, R., Chapman, H. P., & Cheetham, J. L. (2001). In situ preservation as a dynamic process: The example of Sutton common. Antiquity, 75, 94–100.Google Scholar
  40. Sands, R. (1997). Prehistoric woodworking: the analysis and interpretation of Bronze and Iron Age toolmarks. Archetype Press: University College London.Google Scholar
  41. Unger, A., Schniewind, A. P., & Unger, W. (2001). Conservation of wood artifacts: a handbook. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Van de Noort, R., Chapman, H. P.,& Collis J. R. (2007). Sutton common: The excavation of an iron age Marsh-fort. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 154, York.Google Scholar
  43. Van de Noort, R., Ellis, S., Taylor, M., & Weir, D. (1995). Preservation of archaeological sites. In R. Van de Noort & S. Ellis (Eds.), Wetland heritage of holderness: An archaeological survey (pp. 341–356). Hull: Humber Wetlands Project.Google Scholar
  44. Van Heeringen, R.M. & Theunissen E. M. (Eds.). (2002). Dessication of the Archaeological Landscape at Voorne-Putten. Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 25, Amersfoot.Google Scholar
  45. Watkinson, D., & Neal, V. (1998). First aid for finds (3rd ed.). London: UK Institute for Conservation.Google Scholar
  46. Willems, W. J. H. (1998). The future of European archaeology. Oxford Lecture Series 3. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
  47. Wright, E. V. (1990). The Ferriby boats. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry Chapman
    • 1
  • Eamonn Baldwin
    • 2
  • Helen Moulden
    • 2
  • Michael Lobb
    • 3
  1. 1.Digital Humanities Hub/IBM VISTA, Department of Classics, Ancient History and ArchaeologyUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  2. 2.IBM Visual and Spatial Technology CentreUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  3. 3.Geography and EnvironmentUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations