Apple's iPad at Pompeii Dig

[Ludovicus]

For sure, this is an unabashed advertisement for Apple Computer's new iPad portable computer. Still, it amazes me all the places interest in Rome can be found--and used to make money.

 

http://www.apple.com/ipad/pompeii/

[Melvadius]

For sure, this is an unabashed advertisement for Apple Computer's new iPad portable computer. Still, it amazes me all the places interest in Rome can be found--and used to make money.

 

http://www.apple.com/ipad/pompeii/

 

Interesting use of the system although I am uncomfortable with the thought of how exactly, or even if, they are creating section drawings and plans of the site in a normal fashion. Ultimately it is the precise distances which are measured and then put down on 'paper' which show the precise locations of different contexts and objects which in confined trenches usually can only be created manually or with specialist surveying equipment using GPS.

 

Taking a photograph and sketching it in later to my mind would introduce a degree of uncertainty in positions and indeed risk of data loss which archaeologists generally wish to avoid.

 

I'm also not at all sure about a Harris Matrix with diagonal lines all over it - it is not something that Harris included in his original book.

 

Generally the intent of a Harris Matrix is to create a schematic representation showing precise relationships between different contexts, specifically which comes later or earlier in a sequence of deposition, so AFAIK usually uses only uses vertical or horizontal lines to depict those relationships.

[GhostOfClayton]

Naive, ameteur question, but doesn't iPad have "aGPS" on board? Wouldn't that help?

[JGolomb]

Naive, ameteur question, but doesn't iPad have "aGPS" on board? Wouldn't that help?

 

I have to be honest...this is a rockin' good use of technology.

 

And you're right...they should be pulling in GPS data as well.

 

J

[Melvadius]

Not having used the iPad I can't say how accurate its GPS is for archaeological surveying rather than finding out where you are in relation to where you want to be. However as far as arcaheological surveying is concerned it isn't just the GPS requiremnt it is also a matter of integrating very accurate angle and height information as well.

 

I would need to see the iPad results in direct comparison to results generated by traditional surveying methods before I would be convinced that it provides the same level of information.

[Ludovicus]

Not having used the iPad I can't say how accurate its GPS is for archaeological surveying rather than finding out where you are in relation to where you want to be. However as far as arcaheological surveying is concerned it isn't just the GPS requiremnt it is also a matter of integrating very accurate angle and height information as well.

 

I would need to see the iPad results in direct comparison to results generated by traditional surveying methods before I would be convinced that it provides the same level of information.

 

 

Very good point.

[GhostOfClayton]

Not having used the iPad I can't say how accurate its GPS is for archaeological surveying rather than finding out where you are in relation to where you want to be.

 

In theory, the iPad's aGPS should be capable of the same kind of accuracy as all but miltary GPS devices. In fact, in the Bay of Naples area, aGPS may just have the edge of your actual, bog standard, run-of-the-mill 'unassisted' GPS device (but only just). That said, it is very, very, very dependant on the software app that takes the data from the aGPS hardware, processes it, and shows it to you. Here, is where your skepticism would be well-founded indeed. It's barely 10 minutes since iPad was launched, and to develop a sufficiently sophisticated application in that time would be a lot to ask, especially for such a non-commercial, cash-strapped market as archeologists.

[Klingan]

This seems rather convenient, but does anyone know how fast you can write on an iPad? Can it really match handwriting, especially if you need really quick, not necessarily correctly spelled notes?

 

My point is that the instant digital data input isn't as good as it sounds if it doesn't save you time on the field itself - you can't really (at least in the Mediterranean) dig for more than 8 hours per day (which more or less all projects do) and the digitalization of the material is done on the trench masters/supervisors "spare time". This means that you would actually loose field time (which is the important part) unless it's faster when it comes to writing (and most project leaders won't care enough about how much of your evening you spend on digitalizing material).

 

And by the way, how detailed drawings can you do at an iPad?

 

 

Anyway, this became much more negative then I initially intended. I'd love to try one, but I very much doubt that it can replace pen and paper at this point.

[Melvadius]

The article seemed to indicate they took photographs then downloaded them twice a day onto a server where someone then converted the photographs using idraw into a digitised image which could be loaded back onto the ipads.

 

I agree with Klingan that it may be interesting to try this system out in the field BUT my concerns remain; stemming from experience that whenever I have had to draw a long section drawing I take regular measurements as I move along the section so I can capture every layer (context) and its relationship with the other layers. If I am uncertain about a relationship I can get closer or further from the area in question if necessary or even ask a second opinion before committing to paper.

 

I don't see how the same level of accuracy can be generated from what effectively seems to be based on a single photographic image, especially if you are working on a fast moving dig and/or within confined trenches where:

 

i ) you cannot get back far enough for a panoramic shot/ vierw and even if you can there will be some degree of distortion in the final image

ii ) there is a degree of risk that photographs will get corrupted/ lost during the transfer or notes on the layers garbled when they are compared with the downladed image - possibly long after work has continued on removing material from the section.

iii ) a different person will be drawing the plan hours or even days after the event when the original excavator may not be available to provide back ground information.

 

If something isn't recorded accurately then it doesn't exist in the archaeological record and its relationship/ context is lost for ever.

 

Now admitedly with pen and paper there is always some risk of images being smudged when written down/ drawn especially if it is raining heavily but you know at the point it has happened and generally if the weather is that bad everyone is going to down tools until it clears so usually you will have another 'bite' at getting the image down on paper.

 

Overall on the surface it may save time in some circumstances while making comparative material available to everyone connected to the system also potentiall has its advantages. However there seems to be a higher degree of risk for total data loss by separating out the stages when plans and section drawings are created than through traditional recording methods.

 

I remain to be convinced.

[Klingan]

I could see a use for this piece of technology however, as a communication central for middle bosses on larger excavations, to keep track of levels, strata number, find numbers etc. (if the iPads can communicate in real time).

[JGolomb]

K -

 

I think the biggest advantage of 'writing' directly into the ipad (or any computer) is that you're saved the step of having to retype it later.

 

Even if you review and edit, your entry time will be less, and the time it takes to manipulate it further will be reduced.

 

J

 

This seems rather convenient, but does anyone know how fast you can write on an iPad? Can it really match handwriting, especially if you need really quick, not necessarily correctly spelled notes?

 

My point is that the instant digital data input isn't as good as it sounds if it doesn't save you time on the field itself - you can't really (at least in the Mediterranean) dig for more than 8 hours per day (which more or less all projects do) and the digitalization of the material is done on the trench masters/supervisors "spare time". This means that you would actually loose field time (which is the important part) unless it's faster when it comes to writing (and most project leaders won't care enough about how much of your evening you spend on digitalizing material).

 

And by the way, how detailed drawings can you do at an iPad?

 

 

Anyway, this became much more negative then I initially intended. I'd love to try one, but I very much doubt that it can replace pen and paper at this point.

[Klingan]

K -

 

I think the biggest advantage of 'writing' directly into the ipad (or any computer) is that you're saved the step of having to retype it later.

 

Even if you review and edit, your entry time will be less, and the time it takes to manipulate it further will be reduced.

 

J

 

Yes, of course, but most field directors won't care about that because they want you to dig as much as possible, not to spend time typing in notes directly - digitalizing is normally to be done later in the day when you are "off duty" and they don't really care if you have to spend it rewriting stuff.

[GhostOfClayton]

I'm sure it's just a case of the iPad providing extra tools in the Archaeologist's toolbox. Some would sooner write and type up later, some would sooner type on the spot (I know I can type much, much faster than I can write, and it would only be a matter of time before I got up to speed on iPad's 'keyboard), and there's even the option to dictate voice notes.

 

Photos can be taken to compliment or replace hand drawings, and can be subsequently annotated whilst still in the trench. Different bonekickers (is that really a slang term for Archaeologist?) would use different methods/apps in different situations, and the iPad would increase their flexibility.

[Melvadius]

<SNIP>Photos can be taken to compliment or replace hand drawings, and can be subsequently annotated whilst still in the trench.

 

Photographs are already used to complement plans and section drawings but are not a replacement for these which are the primary record providing precise measurements for the relationships of the different 'contexts' found on a site.

 

Different bonekickers (is that really a slang term for Archaeologist?)

 

Probably not if you want to keep your teeth

 

would use different methods/apps in different situations, and the iPad would increase their flexibility.

 

As we have already said it may provide a useful adjunct to the primary archaeological recording tools but we need convincing that it is a viable replacement for all the necessary elements of the 'primary' record.

[ccoche]

I'm sure it's just a case of the iPad providing extra tools in the Archaeologist's toolbox. Some would sooner write and type up later, some would sooner type on the spot (I know I can type much, much faster than I can write, and it would only be a matter of time before I got up to speed on iPad's 'keyboard), and there's even the option to dictate voice notes.