ATOR (Arc-Team Open Research).
The blog spreads tests, problems and results of Arc-Team research in archaeology, following the guidelines of the OpArc (Open Archaeology) project.
as I promised yesterday, I uploaded an English version of our contribution to ArcheoFOSS 2018. The title is "Archeorobotics. Open Robotic Applications in extreme archaeological conditions" and this paper is more detailed, since it explains the development of our archeorobotic equipment and the reason of several modifications, underlining at the same time the main benefits of using this kind of devices during extreme archaeology missions. Here is a direct link to this contribution on ResearchGate.
The ArcheoROV (A) and the ArcheoBoat (B) prototype and some results of their use in professional archaeological missions.
I hope this paper will be somehow useful in improving the discussion about the Archeorobotics and the use of Open Hardware in Archaeology.
this short post is to notify you that are finally online the conference proceedings of ArcheoFOSS 2018. As you probably know this conference is the Italian annual meeting of archaeologists who use and develop FLOSS (Free/Libre and Open Source Software). The proceedings of edition 2018 are published on the journal "Archeologia e Calcolatori" (EN: "Archaeology and Computers") and can be accessed here.
Our contribution, related with our experiences in archeorobotics, can be downloaded here (on ResearchGate).
Some photos of Arc-Team's archeorobotic devices in action
I will try to upload ASAP, here on ATOR, a more detailed version of this paper in English.
as you see we are writing few post in ATOR in the summer season, due to different field projects which take us away from home. Today I try to start again to dedicate some time to our research blog.
The topic of this post regard a solution we are currently using to help us in the archaeological exploration of high alpine lakes: the documentation of the bathymetry through a low cost sonar.
As you maybe know, since a couple of year we are working on underwater archaeology projects in the alpine lakes of our region (here an example). This kind of exploratory mission are difficult, due to the altitude of the site we have to investigate (almost always over 2000 meters asl), so that our divers have to acclimate themselves for one whole day, before starting the working. Also for this reason we started again to study archeorobotics and develop, together with our friends of the WitLab, an open hardware ROV called ArcheoROV (in order to help divers in exploratory mission).
The ArcheoROV (photo by WitLab)
This year we focused or research in find a cheap solution to map the bathymetry of the lakes, while WitLab went on working on the Wi-Fi buoy which gives our ROV a long-range operability (respect the limitation of a simple control on shore). For this reason we tested a cheap sonar called Deeper, which normally is used as a fishfinder.
We started our test in the Lake Tovel, thanks to the hep of Prof. +Tiziano Camagna , who is leading the exploration project since many years. This lake is almost our playground to develop and test new solutions for underwater archaeology, since it is a difficult environment, but not extreme (like other high mountain lakes). We chose this location also because, on unlike other lakes, its bathimetry was documented by Edgardo Baldi in the 30s. We already digitized this map, processing a 3D model in GRASS GIS, so that we have some data to check our results with our small sonar (as you can see in the image below).
On the left the map drawn by Edgardo Baldi between 1937 and 1938; on the right the 3D derived map developed by Arc-Team in GRASS GIS
Some more details of the 3D map developed with GRASS GIS
To test the Deeper sonar, Porf. +Tiziano Camagna designed a small buoy which can be towed by a kayak. This solution stabilize the sonar (which remain always in the right position) and, at the same time, avoid its submersion (which causes the lost of the GPS signal).
First positive results (image below) encouraged us to use this solution on a real mission, at the Monticello lake (almost 2600 meters asl), at Paradiso Pass (near Tonale Pass, Trentino, Italy).
A comparison between the digitized map of E. Baldi (on the left) and the map (work in progress) obtained with the Deeper sonar (on the right)
The expedition was joined also by our friends of the Team Nauticamare (Massimiliano Canossa and Nicola Boninsegna) and gave us the opportunity to accomplish a first mapping of the Lake Monticello, during the first day of acclimatization. This helped us very much during the archaeological underwater mission of the second day. As a result we have now a good 3D map of the bathymetry of the lake, which we will use also in the next expedition (September 2017). Her below is a short video (done with +QGIS plugin qgis2threejs), which shows the 3D model of the lake.
PS
I recorded some videotutorial related with the processing of these data. I will try to upload them ASAP in our channel.
Dynamic 3D documentation is a technique we are using more and more in professional archaeology. It can be useful to map in a very fast way any kind of earth-moving work during negative archaeological controls (from wide open area to small trenches, like we did here) or to record in real-time archaeological evidences and layers during a normal excavation (like the video below).
Using this methodology during an ordinary project allows us to perform the segmentation of the 3D model directly on the field (within the software Cloud Compare), dividing each layer of palimpsestic documentation (we spoke about this problem during our presentation at the CHNT conference 2016). This solution avoid long post-processing operations, and it is ideal to spare time and money in low-budget archaeological investigations. For this reason we are evaluating the possibility to insert ROS (Robot Operating System) in ArcheOS Hypatia.
I hope to give you soon good news about the release of the next version of ArcheOS. In the meantime stay tuned to follow our research in testing new Open Source and Free Software. Like always, if you want to help in the development, just contact us in one of our channels: FaceBook, YouTube or Blogger.
It is a long time since we wrote something in this blog, but (like every year) the excavation season leaves us few time for research. For this reason, today I want to break our silence and show some results of our latest studies regarding archeorobotics (the use and development of robotic devices in archaeology).
If you are a regular reader of ATOR, you probably know that since 2012 we are working on optical sensor to achieve a real-time 3D documentation of archaeological evidences (or any kind of data we need to acquire during our projects). Since we started to work on different kind of drones (UAV, ROV, etc...), we discover the nice universe of ROS (Robot Operating System) and SLAM (Simultaneous Localization And Mapping) algorithms. In this post we summarized our research on this topic, focusing on the use of Kinect. Currently we already used this techniques on professional projects (like large scale surveys or excavations), adapting the system to work with RGB-D devices (in underground environment or during cloudy days) or stereocameras (with direct sun light conditions). For instance we helped our friend Cristian Boscaro of IUAV to test this technology in order to document the tunnels which connect the domes of the Abbay of S. Giustina in Padua. This evening I will post a video which shows a particular use of ROS and Kinect to solve a technical problem we had on the field today. We were working to assist the excavator in doing a trench for a pipeline near the Sanctuary of S. Romedio, in difficult logistic condition. Despite the absence of archaeological evidences, the Superintendence asked us to document the track of the trench, since often what is realize during the execution of this kind of work is different from what is planned in the map. Due to the fact that too few hours were left to accomplish a documentation with GPS and total station and that this strategy would have been pretty tricky (inside the gorge of the river S. Romedio) and not so accurate (for the scattering effect of the wood), we decided to use SLAM to get a real time 3D documentation of the track and later to georeference the result on the LIDAR data which the Autonomous Province of Trento releases freely. The video below shows the final result, which completely satisfies the (high) archaeological tolerance of this project.
The 21st Conference on Cultural Heritage and NEW Technologies (CHNT 21, 2016) took place in Vienna the first week of November 2016. In that occasion we gave a presentation entitled "Digitizing the excavation. Toward a real-time documentation and analysis of the archaeological record". Today I found the time to publish it in our blog, to share our research regarding this topic and in particular some interesting projects of "archeorobotics" we are working on.
Here below you can see the video of the presentation, done like always with the open source software impress.js and Strut...
... and here is a short description of each slide:
SLIDE 1
The title (strictly related with Digital Archaeology in general)
SLIDE 2
A short presentation of Arc-Team
SLIDE 3
All the work has been done thanks to Free/Libre and Open Source Software. In order to keep going on with our research regarding archaeological methodology we need the source code!
SLIDE 4
The fundamental schema of the archaeological cognitive process elaborated by G. Leonardi in 1982. The schema shows the progressive reduction of the informations regarding human actions before and during the archaeological excavation (Human activities --> Traces on the soil --> Natural and anthropological degradation of the record --> archaeological excavation --> archaeological documentation) until the interpretative knowledge starts recover information during the post-excavation stage (with analitical data interpretation and reconstructive hypothesis)
SLIDE 5
A practical example of the schema from the site of Torre dei Sicconi in Italy (a medieval castle):
1. Human activities (summarized in the building of the castle, the medieval battle and the destruction of the main structure and the controlled explosion during the Great War)
2. Traces on the soil (summarized in the evidences of the battle, of the controlled explosion and of recent agrarian activities, while just negative layers were found regarding the construction of the structure)
3. Natural and anthropological degradation (summarized in the battle, the explosion, the agrarian activities and the normal natural dynamics)
4. Archaeological excavation (the most destructive investigation: in Torre dei Sicconi all the layers concerning the tower and the main central building has been removed by this activity)
5. The importance of archaeological documentation comes from distructive analysis (excavation). Being a long term project, Torre dei Sicconi was documented both with traditional and digital methodology
6. Data analysis. During this stage our knowledge of the site started to grow again. In this case both archaeological and historical techniques have been used
7. Reconstructive hypotheses represent the maximum increase of our (interpretative) knowledge of the site. For Torre dei Sicconi this stage has been achieved just for the central part of the castle (tower and main building)
SLIDE 6
The archaeological excavation is the most critical (destructive) stage of our knowledge regarding a site.
SLIDE 7
Arc-Team's excavation strategies:
1. increasing the amount of information registered decreasing the time-consuming operation of archaeological documentation
2. on-site direct observation for a better interpretation, avoiding at the same time any kind of data selection
3. moving the lab into the field (chemical and physical analyses)
SLIDE 8
A milestone of our research: in 2006 the development of the "Metodo Aramus" gave us a better (more precise and accurate), faster and corect (equalized) 2D digital documentation with FLOSS.
SLIDE 9
Another milestone. Between 2008 and 2009 the migration from pure photogrammetric software to SfM and MVSR methods (through the development of a GUI for +Pierre Moulon's application Python Photogrammetry Suite) gave us better and faster 3D digital documentation
SLIDE 10
Even today we still use a combination of 2D and 3D techniques to meet different requirements of various archaeological projects
SLIDE 11
2D digital documentation through GIS is fast enough for on site interpretation during emergency excavation
SLIDE 12
A software like +QGIS allows a direct interpretation on the field without the necessity of long post-rpocessing
SLIDE 13
3D documentation gives better results, but needs longer processing time (even if it does not need long data acquisition on the field, which is always performed)
SLIDE 14
We achieved (a lower quality) 3D data acquisition which has the fundamental characteristic of being real-time, thanks to open hardware (archeorobotics)
SLIDE 15
Our experience in archeorobotics dates back to 2006 with our first prototype of UAV, which could be use professionally just in 2008.
SLIDE 16
Currently or archeorobotics research regards our last prototype of Archeodrone (a UAV specifically designed for aerial archaeology)...
SLIDE 17
... some CNC machines and, above all, the Fa)(a 3D, a 3D open hardware printer which without any kind of modifications was able to satisfy our archaeological needs (like 3D printing casts of unique finds or exctract and print DICOM data form x-ray CT scan)...
SLIDE 18
... and the ArcheoROV, the open hardware Remotely underwater Operated Vehicle which we developed with the +Witlab Fablab
SLIDE 19
Some pictures of the first test of the ArcheoROV
SLIDE 20
A first step into 3D real-time documentation through SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) techniques has been done with the open source ROS (Robot Operating System) and RTAB-Map via Kinect...
SLIDE 21
... and tested for 3D real-time documentation in wooden areas (where SfM and MVSR or laserscab would have been too slow), reaching in almost one hour of work a model (with real dimension) of 75000 points.
SLIDE 22
A benefit of archaeorobotic system like these (which are ROS capable) is the possibility to change the sensor in order to adapt the hardware to different situation, using monocular or stereo cameras (for odometry) as well as LIDAR or SONAR devices.
SLIDE 23
Another benefit is the wide range of possibilities offered by the different open source software (e.g. RTAB-Map, LSD-SLAM, REMODE, Cartographer, ecc...)
SLIDE 24
Currently the precision/accuracy level of a real-time 3D archaeological documentation cannot be compared with the results achieved with post-processing through traditional SfM - MVSR systems, but there are good prospects for improvement.
SLIDE 25
Nowadays, basing on our professional experience, the best use of such devices seems to be during extreme operations, such as high mountain archaeology, glacial archaeology, underwater archaeology or speleoarchaeology
SLIDE 26
Another important step to improve the reaction time of professional archaeology, in order to avoid errors during the critical stage of the excavation, is the possibility to perform some basic archaeometrical analyses (chemical and physical) directly on the field.
SLIDE 27
Considering the composition of any archaeological layer based on two different elements, the skeleton (macroscopic) and the fine earth (microscopic), it is obvious that different analyses can be performed in different work environment.
SLIDE 28
For instance, in the case of the skeleton, a fast petrografic (ontoscopic) analysis can be easily performed directly on the field (defining allogeneic elements), while further (more specific) investigations need an equipped laboratory.
SLIDE 29
Also in the case of fine earth, some raw descriptive analyses can be performed on the field, while laboratory investigation can reach very detailed results (e.g. with the Scanning Electron Microscope).
SLIDE 30
The field analysis of the fine earth is more problematic (compared with the skeleton) the most common test (e.g. the Soil texture by feel) are anametric and subjective
SLIDE 31
For this reason, archaeometric test are the better choice (e.g the sedimentation test)
SLIDE 32
The sedimentation test on the field can be improved with basic physical analysis (e.g. considering the Stoke's Law in order to define sand, silt and clay by the tme they need to sediment)
SLIDE 33
Another implementation on the field for the sedimentation test is the possibility to directly store the data into a PostreSQL/PostGIS database (through some specific fields of the archaeological recording sheet), using the open source application geTTexture.
SLIDE 34
An example of the use of geTTexture
SLIDE 35
Other archaeometric test which are simple to perform directly during the excavation are based on basic chemical analyses, and specifically with the quantification of compounds like phosphates or nitrates.
SLIDE 36
Moreover, with some simple workarounds, it is possible to turn anametric (boolean) analyses of carbonates or organic substances, into metric (quantitative) observations.
SLIDE 37
The Archaeological excavation is a destructive process, subject to fatal (not reversible) errors. Moreover the reduced time and budget in professional and emergency archaeology increase stress conditions during decision making stages.
Real-time 3D mapping can speed up data interpretation, avoiding data selection on the field, while on-site chemical and physical analyses (geoarchaeology and archaeometry) can define a better (data-driven) digging strategy.
I hope this presentation can be useful. Have a nice day!
ArcheoFOSS 2016 is concluded. I will soon post a report about my impressions regarding the conference, but today I start with the less funny work of uploading the presentations we gave during the event.
The first project we presented regarded the "ArcheoROV, an Open Hardware ROV specifically designed for archaeological aims" and describes the Remotely Operated underwater Vehicle we developed in partnership with the Witlab of Rovereto (TN - Italy).
Here below is the link to the original presentation, for the reader who wants to see it directly online:
ArcheoROV is designed to satisfy specific needs of underwater archaeology
SLIDE 5
Since 2006 Arc-Team works on "archeorobotics" in order to solve specific archaeological problems. The research branch was started after an aerial archaeological project in Armenia.
SLIDE 6
After two years of research, a first prototype of Open Hardware UAV (project UAVP) was ready to work.
SLIDE 7
The last prototype of Open Hardware UAV in action (documentin WW1 evidences and and iron age site.
SLIDE 8
The Open Hardware 3D printer Fa)(a3D in action (printing the cast of an Homo georgicus from Dmanisi and a metal ring digitally recovered from the body of a Ptolemaic mummy).
SLIDE 9
Testing the OpenLab spectrometer.
SLIDE 10
ArcheoROV's first target: exploration.
SLIDE 11
ArcheoROV's first target: safety.
SLIDE 12
ArcheoROV's first target: extreme missions.
SLIDE 13
ArcheoROV's development time-line.
SLIDE 14
From ArcheoROV 0.1 to ArcheoROV 0.5
SLIDE 15
ArcheoROV 0.5 3D model
SLIDE 16
Open Hardware used or fabricated for the project
SLIDE 17
Open Software used for the project
SLIDE 18
The main strenghts of the prototype
SLIDE 19
Future improvements via ROS and SLAM.
SLIDE 20
Credits
SLIDE 21
A gallery of the first Open Water and Deep Water test in Sardinia (Italy).
