Monday, December 13, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Part 2 - Territory Analysis, GIS and Transportation
Napa wine project that covers the process of defining and managing sales territories.
Recommended division is the manual method which follows road network relatively well.
Recommended division is the manual method which follows road network relatively well.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Challenge 6 - Case Study
Joe Rector
Holtzclaw
GIS4035
08 AUG 2010
Using Today’s Technology To Discovery Yesterday’s Past
Archeological Case Study Analysis
The 1930’s image of Boris Karloff as the Mummy is the image that comes to mind of most people when archeology and Egypt are mentioned. While the animated, slow-gated, gauze-wrapped fiend might not accurately depict the actual mummies of the Nile delta, the pick-wielding, pith helmet wearing adventurer and the surveyor eyeing through a transit at a distance rodman has been a fairly close representation of the way archeology had been done for centuries. That is, until now.
In an article published in Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer titled Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing in Archeology, Ayse Gulcin Kucukkaya writes about the use of photogrammetry and remote sensing technologies to survey remote archeological sites all over the world. Underground structures are able to be observed by way of remotely sensed aerial photography and satellite imagery from surfaced features detected by infrared film and digital multispectral, hyper-spectral, and synthetic aperture radar imagery. Before the advent of remote sensing technology, many discoveries were made by chance or in the commission of a major exploration.
The article focused on three specific regions, Rough Cilicia in southern, coastal Turkey, Peten, Guatemala and Angkor, the medieval capital of the Khmer Empire. Each of these areas has been explored for decades, but with the use of remote sensing, the perspectives on these sites have changed. A broader view of the sites enabled archeologist to learn about the greater environment that these civilization existed within. An example is that Angkor was believed to cover approximately 200-400 km2, with the help of remote sensing it has been discovered to cover an area of nearly 1000 km2. Similarly in Guatemala, the discovery of canals and reservoirs has answered questions scientists have asked about the abilities of the ancient Mayans to provide water to vast cities.
The use of remote sensing technology in conjunction with GIS can be used to record and analyze the data collected. With Spatial Analysis tools one can create a map of known locations in a geographical area, analyze the criteria of those sites and create overlays of other probable location to investigate which could lead to other undiscovered sites. This methodology could save archeologist years of traipsing through remote areas hoping to find a lost city. Furthermore GIS tools can create maps that tie together the network of sites to provide clues into the daily and seasonal routines of these ancient peoples.
In these cases studies, remote sensing is clearly the obvious choice for mapping archeological sites. The speed, accuracy and cost effectiveness is obvious. An expedition to map the remote region in Northern Iran, as discussed in the article, would be nearly impossible to accomplish in today’s political climate. Access to the challenge terrain of the southern coast of Turkey limits manned exploring. The jungle growth of the Guatemalan rain forest swallows uninhabited cities making them nearly invisible at ground level. Remote sensing is the only way some of these locations will be explored in our lifetimes.
So what is the downside to using remote sensing? It is us becoming over dependent on the technology. In many cases, on the ground reconnaissance is necessary to confirm what we “see” in photographs. Over two decades ago a stir in the world of science was created by the discovery of an artifact using remote sensing that sent shockwaves through the universe. A carving of a face was photograph by the Viking spacecraft in 1976. The photo was compelling, and was controversial. An ancient Egyptian looking face was clear to see in the image which was taken with the most modern equipment available at the time. A more recent image in an article, “Unmasking the Face on Mars”, published NASA News, revealed a different view. The 2001 flight of the Mars Global Surveyor sent back images that were 1.56 meters pixels, compared to 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo. The results were … enlightening.
Kucukkaya, Ayse Gulcin. “Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing in Archeology”. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer. 23 December 2003.
“Unmasking the Face on Mars”. NASA Science. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 24 May 2001.
Holtzclaw
GIS4035
08 AUG 2010
Using Today’s Technology To Discovery Yesterday’s Past
Archeological Case Study Analysis
The 1930’s image of Boris Karloff as the Mummy is the image that comes to mind of most people when archeology and Egypt are mentioned. While the animated, slow-gated, gauze-wrapped fiend might not accurately depict the actual mummies of the Nile delta, the pick-wielding, pith helmet wearing adventurer and the surveyor eyeing through a transit at a distance rodman has been a fairly close representation of the way archeology had been done for centuries. That is, until now.
In an article published in Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer titled Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing in Archeology, Ayse Gulcin Kucukkaya writes about the use of photogrammetry and remote sensing technologies to survey remote archeological sites all over the world. Underground structures are able to be observed by way of remotely sensed aerial photography and satellite imagery from surfaced features detected by infrared film and digital multispectral, hyper-spectral, and synthetic aperture radar imagery. Before the advent of remote sensing technology, many discoveries were made by chance or in the commission of a major exploration.
The article focused on three specific regions, Rough Cilicia in southern, coastal Turkey, Peten, Guatemala and Angkor, the medieval capital of the Khmer Empire. Each of these areas has been explored for decades, but with the use of remote sensing, the perspectives on these sites have changed. A broader view of the sites enabled archeologist to learn about the greater environment that these civilization existed within. An example is that Angkor was believed to cover approximately 200-400 km2, with the help of remote sensing it has been discovered to cover an area of nearly 1000 km2. Similarly in Guatemala, the discovery of canals and reservoirs has answered questions scientists have asked about the abilities of the ancient Mayans to provide water to vast cities.
The use of remote sensing technology in conjunction with GIS can be used to record and analyze the data collected. With Spatial Analysis tools one can create a map of known locations in a geographical area, analyze the criteria of those sites and create overlays of other probable location to investigate which could lead to other undiscovered sites. This methodology could save archeologist years of traipsing through remote areas hoping to find a lost city. Furthermore GIS tools can create maps that tie together the network of sites to provide clues into the daily and seasonal routines of these ancient peoples.
In these cases studies, remote sensing is clearly the obvious choice for mapping archeological sites. The speed, accuracy and cost effectiveness is obvious. An expedition to map the remote region in Northern Iran, as discussed in the article, would be nearly impossible to accomplish in today’s political climate. Access to the challenge terrain of the southern coast of Turkey limits manned exploring. The jungle growth of the Guatemalan rain forest swallows uninhabited cities making them nearly invisible at ground level. Remote sensing is the only way some of these locations will be explored in our lifetimes.
So what is the downside to using remote sensing? It is us becoming over dependent on the technology. In many cases, on the ground reconnaissance is necessary to confirm what we “see” in photographs. Over two decades ago a stir in the world of science was created by the discovery of an artifact using remote sensing that sent shockwaves through the universe. A carving of a face was photograph by the Viking spacecraft in 1976. The photo was compelling, and was controversial. An ancient Egyptian looking face was clear to see in the image which was taken with the most modern equipment available at the time. A more recent image in an article, “Unmasking the Face on Mars”, published NASA News, revealed a different view. The 2001 flight of the Mars Global Surveyor sent back images that were 1.56 meters pixels, compared to 43 meters per pixel in the best 1976 Viking photo. The results were … enlightening.
1976 Viking photo with 43 meters per pixel resolution
2001 Mars Global Surveyor photo with 1.56 meter per pixel resolution
Works Cited
Kucukkaya, Ayse Gulcin. “Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing in Archeology”. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer. 23 December 2003.
“Unmasking the Face on Mars”. NASA Science. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 24 May 2001.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)