Performers

1. New Approaches to the Use and Integration of Multi-Sensor Remote Sensing for Historic Resource Identification and Evaluation Project Number CS1263 W. Fredrick Limp Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Brief To The Scientific Advisory Board March 2002

2. Dr. Michael J. Hargrave US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory Geophysical archeological site assessments, DoD DoE coordination Dr. Kenneth L. Kvamme ArcheoImaging Lab University of Arkansas Ground-based multi-sensor geophysical explorations of archeological sites, numerical fusion methods Dr. W. Fredrick Limp Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies University of Arkansas Multi-resolution object fusion methods, geospatial IT, project administration Dr.Thomas L. Sever NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Space-based, aircraft and terrestrial optical and thermal remote sensing Dr. Lewis E. Somers Geoscan Research Archeological geophysics engineering, and GPR analysis Mr. Richard Toliver SRI International Fusion software development, system development and testing Performers

3. Archeological methods for the identification and evaluation of most historic resources remain essentially unchanged since the early twentieth century. Surface survey and excavation, the traditional field methods for discovery of artifacts, architectural elements, and other features, predominate in spite of the fact that these techniques are extremely time consuming, expensive, and unreliable. Limitations of current methods to be addressed are: Unreliable site assessments resulting from sparse sampling. Inadvertent disturbance of human remains and other culturally sensitive deposits during construction or military training activities - results in costly and complex remediation to comply with the National American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. On-going curation cost of artifact collections unearthed during excavation. Adoption of a conservative preservationist approach, in response to constraints, leading to protection of many sites of unknown or marginal scientific importance. Problem Statement

4. Technical Objective • Exploration and assessments of the application of innovative fusion methods to a suite of ground, aerial and space-based sensor data • for the detection and identification of subsurface archeological features • utilizing large “data stacks” of remotely sensed data acquired from six ground based, two aerial and one satellite system • at six locations chosen to represent a wide range of DoD/DoE environments and site types

5. Technical Background Three classes of materials compose an archeological site. • Artifacts • Material objects modified by humans. • Portable, small items easily move, e.g. arrowheads, pots, knives. Not readily detected by remote sensing. • Non-portable artifacts, e.g. cut posts, building timbers, shaped stones and bricks used in architectural constructions. • Structural features and their remains • Human constructions, buildings, houses, shacks, storage facilities, public structures, exterior hearths, subterranean storage pits, wells, fortification ditches. The principal targets of archeological remote sensing. • Sediments and soils • Deposits in which artifacts and structural features lie. • Altered by burning, trash disposal, etc.

6. Magnetic Survey Sensitive to subtle soil changes human occupation mixing of top and sub-soils any type of soil firing, particularly past the Curie point (about 600o C), and ferrous metal artifacts Successful for: ubiquitous hearths frequently burned structures prior excavations that move topsoil storage pits, ditches, or house floor depressions Technical Background Menoken Village ND Ft. Clark Trading Post ND

7. Active methods that measure soil conductivity (where resistivity is the inverse of conductivity). Successful for: prehistoric house depressions ditches midden deposits trails building stone and brick. Extensive preprocessing for interpretable data Resistivity/Conductivity Technical Background Army City Ft Riley KS

8. Ground Penetrating Radar Originally developed for geo-technical applications with high contrast targets recent modification for archeology Continuous pulses of radar energy in the 300-500 MHz range vertically lower frequency permits greater depth penetration Successful for: stone walls burial and storage pits prepared structure floors Technical Background 3D GPR Data Stack Foundation Mt. Comfort AR

9. Earlier systems had insufficient spatial resolution e.g. 30 meter New systems IKONOS 1 meter PAN, 4 meter MSS QuickBird 0.6 meter PAN, 2.4 meter MSS Successful for: plazas trails room blocks Multispectral Satellite Technical Background IKONOS Maya Stelae Tikal Quatemala 1 m PAN DOQQ House rings ND 0.6 m QuickBird

10. Thermal Aircraft and terrestrial Sensitivities to 0.1 degree C New, low cost digital systems under $15K Thermal differencing Utilizing aerial lift Repeated measures High resolution 10 – 50 cm Successful for: middens foundations house floors Technical Background TIMS B 3 Chaco Canyon Palm IR 250 Barn NC

11. Co-registration High-dimensionality Lack of availability of COTS solutions Cross-measurement spatial lead-lag Pixel and not object based Lack of ability to use a priori knowledge base Technical Background Complexities in Previous Data Fusion

12. Aerial & Satellite Data Acquisition IKONOS or QuickBird Aerial Photography Technical Approach Assessment matrix Instrument/condition Instrument combo Modality worth Installation Coordination Analysis Assessment Installation report Fusion method assessment Joint Fieldwork at Ft. Bliss Archeological Field Testing Geophysical Data Acquisition Preliminary Analysis using Whistling Elk and Mt. Comfort Datasets Identify features Identify non-features Detect false positives and false negatives Limited additional geophysical acquisition Magnetic Susceptibility Magnetic Survey Electro-magnetic Conductivity Electrical Resistivity Ground Penetrating Radar Thermal Data Analysis/Fusion Identify/predict features Preprocess Data Register, Edge Match Despike, Filter, Resample, Orthorectify Design and Populate GIS Databases

13. Technical Approach Site Selection • Cultural Selection Factors • Relatively large, complex sites that are characterized by a • wide range of archeological feature types • Non-cultural Selection Factors • Characteristics of soil, bedrock, vegetation, topography, • moisture • Site condition. At military installations with active training • programs, the uppermost archeological deposits at many sites • have been disturbed by vehicular traffic • (Richardson and Hargrave 1998)

14. Fort Riley KS Army City Site Fort Bliss TX Escondido Pueblo Fort Benning GA, AL Yuchi Town Savannah River Site Silver Bluff Plantation Whistling Elk SD Existing datasets Mount Comfort AR Existing datasets Fort Drum NY backup 1 FDP 1093 Fort Hood TX backup 2 41CV1141 Technical Approach Installation Selection Selection has been based on full coordination w/ installations through USACE-CERL

15. Data Acquisition Matrix Technical Approach

16. Evaluate four alternative data fusion methods Two “traditional” - Multi-band Visualization - Pixel-based Multivariate Statistical Methods Principal components Supervised classifiers Maximum likelihood, minimum distance, logistic regression Unsupervised classifiers Accessible in COTS image processing These methods have been used (Kvamme 1999, 2001) but they have not been applied to this comprehensive suite of data sets and conditions Technical Approach Fusion Methods

17. Two new approaches Image segmentation and object classification Physical model rule-based fusion Involves application of a range of pattern/structure recognition approaches to the problem of content extraction from multi-source data Builds on recent advances in COTS Definiens Imaging SRI, ESRI and others Technical Approach Fusion Methods (2) Object segmentation of Whistling Elk mag. data

18. Year 1 Program Plan Task 1Installation coordination $ 1.6k Task 2 Acquireaerial & satellite data $ 10.2k Task 3 Geophysical fieldwork $ 135.8k Task 4 Preprocess data sets $ 35.3k Task 5 Establish GIS databases $ 30.8k Task 6 Initiate data analysis & fusion $ 100.8k Task 7 Conference attendance, report preparation $ 11.1k YEAR 1 TOTAL $ 326k

19. Program Plan Task Year 3 Year 1 Year 2 Installation coordination Acquire aerial & satellite data Geophysical fieldwork Preprocess data sets Establish GIS databases Data analysis & fusion Develop field testing program Archeology field testing / validation Project analysis, evaluation, reporting Conferences and reporting

20. Program Funding Year 1 SERDP ($K) Installation coordination 1.6 Acquireaerial & satellite data 10.2 Geophysical fieldwork 135.9 Preprocess data sets 35.3 Establish GIS databases 50.8 Initiate data analysis & fusion 80.9 Conference attendance, report preparation 11.5 Total 326 Year 2 Installation coordination 3.2 Geophysical fieldwork 30.7 Preprocessing of data sets 43.0 Data analysis & fusion 142.6 Conyers Consulting 4.3 Archeological fieldwork 136.4 Conference attendance, report preparation 11.5 Total 372 Year 3 Fusion analysis, modality worth, C/B, TR 124.1 Conference attendance, report preparation 18.0 Total 142

21. Deliverables • Comprehensive project documentation • Installation specific interpretation of all archeological work • - meeting NHPA of 1966 requirements • - including installation compatible data sets w/ metadata • Instrument/condition recommendation matrix and discussion • Instrument/feature recommendation matrix and discussion • Comprehensive modality worth assessment • COTS software extensions • Peer reviewed publications • .

22. Installation specialists through the USACE-CERL report series and individual efforts of Dr. Hargrave Traditional scholarly publication and meeting presentations North American Database of Archeological Geophysics (NADAG) http://www.cast.uark.edu/nadag/). On-line system supported by the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training Central source of surface remote sensing data in the U.S. Commercial partners Geoscan SRI Use of COTS Solutions Definiens Imaging ESRI Transition Plan

23. Magnetometer On ground .125-.25 m 1-1.5 m .1 nT Floating point .5-.8 ha Soil magnetism Electrical Resistivity On ground 0.5-1.0 m 2 m .01-1 ohm Floating point .4-.6 ha Soil conductivity EM Conductivity On ground 0.5-1.0 m 1.5 m .1 mS/m Floating point .5-.8 ha Soil conductivity GPR On ground 0.01-.5 m 3-4 m 1 nS 16 bit 1-.3 ha Soil dielectric changes Thermal IR Airborne terrestrial 0.1 – 0.5 m 0 m 0.1 C 8 bit 0.4 – 2 ha Reflected IR ATLAS Airborne 5 m 0 m 15 bands 0.42-12.4 m 8 bit / band Sq. km Reflected light (visible-mid infrared) & emitted thermal IKONOS Panchromatic Space 1 m 0 m 1 band 0.45-0.90 m 11 bit Sq. km Reflected visible light IKONOS Multispectral Space 4 m 0 m 4 bands 0.45-0.90 m 11 bit / band Sq. km Reflected light (visible-mid infrared) QuickBird Panchromatic Space 0.61 m 0 m 1 band 0.45-0.90 m 11 bit Sq. km Reflected visible light QuickBird Multispectral Space 2.5 m 0 m 4 bands 0.45-0.89 m 11 bit / band Sq. km Reflected light (visible-near infrared) Technical Backup Sensor Domain Resolution Depth Units Format Area Measure

24. Magnetometer Technical Backup

25. Technical Backup Large areas (0.5 – 1 ha + ) examined needed to realize the pattern and organization to a settlement’s layout high spatial sampling densities are required for the recognition of many classes of structural features. Conversion of all geophysical measurements to a gridded structure a raster data structure is imposed on all data collected terrestrial instrument grids are accurately positioned on the ground use of electronic distance measuring instruments (EDM) or GPS co-registration to sub-pixel correspondence. Satellite, aerial and lift-boom (oblique) instrument data ortho-corrected to same grid Soft-bench photogrammetry (PCI Geomatica) used with senor model and detailed DEM.

26. Technical Backup