Stefano Campana

Landscape ArchaeologyDept. Archaeology and History of

ArtsUniversity of Siena

ATS s.r.l. academic spin-off company

ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT VS. RESCUE ARCHAEOLOGY:

brebemi project (Italy)

39th Annual ConferenceComputer Applications and

Quantitative Methods in ArchaeologyRevive the Past

Beijing, China, April 12-16, 2011

Milan

BresciaBergamo

Archeological test excavation: TAV (high speed train) case study

By courtesy of ITALFER s.r.l. company

BREBEMI project

BREBEMI = new motorway in northern Italy BREscia, BErgamo, MIlano.

In the case of BREBEMI Superintendence forced the builders to excavate the 100% of the area interested by the motorway (I’m not saying archaeological excavation but caterpillar excavation!).

This approach was definitively unacceptable for the financial plan of the builders. It means to multiply costs approximately by 10 time.

BREBEMI company call me as consultant asking to design an alternative research project that could be accepted from Superintendence.

BREBEMI project: general view of the area

The motorway will be build in the typical landscape of the PO plain:morphology = extremely flatpedology = sands and gravelsvery high human impact = intensive agriculture and high density of industrial areas

Processing, mapping and interpretation

Ground thrutingTest excavation,open-area excavation and in the measure of 5% random test excavation

Major results1 - Highly detailed archaeological mapping

2 - Important cultural changing: from site to context or to landscapeFrom dot density map to relationship map

3 - Planning-oriented archaeological mapping

DG

P S a

nd P

DA/m

obil e

GIS

s ys t

ems

Collection and Analysis: archaeological literature, documentary sources, epigraphic sources, place names, iconography, technical, historical and thematic maps, geomorphology.

Combined interpretation of the data (GIS based)

Systematic, large, combined and contiguous magnetometry and geoelettrical (ERT) survey

Vertical aerial photographyAerial survey LiDAR

high res

BREBEMI project pipeline

Remote sensing:

Systematic Archaeological monitoring during motorway construction

Work TeamUniversity of SienaLAP&T laboratory and ATS spin-off company of the University of SienaProject leaderResearch activities• Aerial survey (in collaboratorion with C.Musson and K.Leidorf)• LiDAR (in collaboration with D.Powlesland)• Processing and interpretation of magnetic data (in collaboration with

D.Powlesland)• Geoelectical (ARP) data interpretation• GIS and topographical survey• Integrated archaeological data interpretation• Ground thruting and test excavation

ARP© and AMP© instruments and measurements quality control,

Prof. Dominc PowleslandGIS, geophysics and LiDAR

consulting

ARP© & AMP© field data collection, ARP © data

processing

Spin-off CNRS Paris

University of Bergamo

Prof. J. SchiaviniHistorical and

geomorphological analysis

LiDAR data, vertical and oblique aerial photographs

Team managementWe should coordinate a work team of about 25 researches spread between Tuscany, Northern Italy, France, Germany and UK.

Management of relationship with the general contractor (project designer), builder

Management of relationship with the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage

Essential summery of the pipeline: data capture processing interpretation data integration ground thruting reporting quality control of every phase

A huge work in a very short time = 4 months about 80 working days

Step 1: overview landscape analysis

Our research might be divided in two main steps:

The first one is aimed to collect and add into the BREBEMI project GIS all the available information about the context - defined from the spatial point of view as a buffer zone around the motorway path - from archaeological finds to geomorphologic peculiarity to aerial photographs and so on.

PLACE NAME INVENTORY, ANALYSIS AND BUFFER ZONE DESIGN (University of Bergamo – CST) HISTORICAL MAPS

1) Historical cadastral maps (University of Bergamo – CST) 2) Maps of the Geogrphic Military Institiute (University of Bergamo – CST)

ARCHAEOLOGY3) Archaeological map of Lombard Region and related update (University of Bergamo – CST)

4) Aerial reconnaissance of vertical historical and contemporany photographs (GAI 1954 and CGR 2007; LAP&T – Univeristy of Siena)5) Aerial survey (spring and summer 2009; ATS spin-off company of the University of Siena)6) Data capture, processing, interpretation of LiDAR (ATS spin-off company of the University of Siena)

GEOMORPHOLOGY7) Spring map (University of Bergamo – CST) 8) palaeo-river bed and fluvial ridge map (University of Bergamo – CST) 9) Fluvial terrace map (University of Bergamo – CST)

Historical maps and place name sources (CST)

• 3650 place name in a buffer zone of about 1 km per side along the motorway

• 1541 km field systems, 356 km in the sample area

Distribution map of archaeological evidences

Geomorphology (University of Bergamo - CST)

Vertical aerial photography and aerial survey

Aerial photography achieved good results detecting 76 evidences enriching substantially the landscape picture sometimes providing very detailed information as it happens for the site close to Bariano.

Equally important the contribution of aerial reconnaissance – as we could expect – to the reconstruction of the centuriation grid.

A good knowledge of the centuriation grid might be quite useful to better understand landscape and settlement pattern at least during the roman period.

Distribution map of archaeological evidences detected from the air

Bariano case study

Aerial survey: Bariano case study

Aerial survey: Bariano case study

Aerial survey: some details of Bariano case study

LiDAR surveyOur research project also involved the LiDAR data capture of the whole motorway area considering approximately 1 km buffer zone along both sides. We collected altogether approximately 150 sqkm with a ground resolution of 4 point per square meter.

As we said at the beginning of our presentation, the morphology of the area is typical of the Po plain: completely flat. The use of soil is mainly related with intensive cereal and mais production.

The collection of LiDAR data was essentially aimed to identify very low ridges and depressions.

LidarViewer interface Landscape Research Centre (prof. D. Powlesland)

3D visualization of feature related to a palaeo river

3D v

isua

lizati

on o

f fea

ture

rela

ted

to

ridge

s

3D v

isua

lizati

on o

f fea

ture

rela

ted

to

ridge

s

3D v

isua

lizati

on o

f fea

ture

rela

ted

to

ridge

s

Map distribution of LiDAR interpretation in a sample area

Automatic Magnetic Profiler (AMP-Geocarta) up to 20 ha/day

Automatic Resistivity Profiler (ARP-Geocarta) up to 4 ha/day quite often we used 2 ARP system at the same time

Step 2: Geophysical prospection

The commitment and Superintendence asked a very high level of geophysical prospection reliability. To do that we choose to involve Geocarta to collect systematically field by field ARP and AMP everywhere.

Nowadays we have collected, processed and interpreted 217 ha of magnetic measurement and 215 ha of ARP measurement.

Ground thruting of the first 150 hectares of prospection has been done about 200 test excavations to a linear extent of about 5220 mt and a total surface of about 2.6 hectares plus 5000 mt of random test excavation (7.5 hectares) Random test

excavtion at Covo

Geophysical prospection

Geophysical prospection: some general remarksShape of the surveyed area: logistical and interpretation problem

Geophysical prospection: Interpretation of dipoles clusters

Geophysical prospection: Interpretation of dipoles clusters

Geophysical prospection: AMP features

Geophysical prospection: AMP features

Geophysical prospection: ARP features

Geophysical prospection: AMP features

KilnStructure related to water management

Palaeoriver bedField boundaries

Centuriation

Geophysical prospection: AMP features

Geophysical prospection: AMP features

Geophysical prospection: AMP features

Geophysical prospection: ground truthing

Geophysical prospection: ARP features

Geophysical prospection: ARP features

Drainage channel part of roman centuriation grid

Palaeomorfology

Final remarks 1archaeological impact assessment vs. rescue archaeology

Rescue archaeology is affected from many limits:

1 – ‘excavation by surface stripping’ by caterpillar cannot be considered an archaeological method!

2 – however, in addition to this we clearly proved “excavation by surface stripping by caterpillar” to be selective and inefficient for the detection of certain types of evidence (especially negative evidence) supporting an anachronistic approach to archeology, site-based or better find-based that does not consider in any way the cultural context (cultivation pattern, field system, infrastructure, relationships) and environmental evidence (riverbeds, ridges and furrow, etc.);

3 – excavation by surface stripping by caterpillar has another important limit, is not repeatable that means also it’s impossible to verify how much archaeology has been lost!

4 – generation a continuous state of emergency and a nervous tension completely negative for the study, understanding and preservation of evidence.

In contrast the approach that we proposed:

1 – is coherent with the most advanced European experiences in the field of preventive archeology;

2 - has proved highly efficient, allowing us to record objectively man-made elements (positive and negative evidence) and natural evidence by providing precise information seamless continuity to a level of detail perfectly fitting with the archeological requirements.

3 – indeed, our work has provided systematic, continuous and integrated mapping of a broad range of evidences.

4 – Finally we wish to emphasize that unlike the approach based on "excavation by surface stripping“ our strategy is testable and repeatable, and then scientific and then improvable in contrast to the approach taken by the Superintendence which inevitably triggers a research short-circuit.

Final remarks 2archaeological impact assessment vs. rescue archaeology

Final concluding remarks

One final observation is perhaps in order. The greatest improvement in preventive archaeology will surely come not from technological development alone but from a cultural changing in the archaeological scientific community.

We need to move form dot density maps, site based ad find based approach to landscape or context based approach which means exploring eco-cultural-

diachronical system and related relationship.

Only then will it be possible to reduce the archaeological risk and maximize the archaeological returns from preventive archaeology and therefore, strongly

reducing rescue archaeology.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

acknowledgments

Dr. C.Felici Dr. L.Marasco Dr. F.Pericci Dr. M.Sordini

ATS spin-off company work team& Remote Sensing LAB - University of Siena

Dr. M. Dabas and the Geocarta research team C.Musson K.Leidorf Prof. D.Powlesland