CAA'2010 Fusion of Cultures Francisco Contreras & Fco.

Javier Melero (Editors)

Management of Archaeological Walks and Emerging Technologies: Building Up a Framework

Chrysanthi, A.1 and Earl, G.P.2 PhD Candidate, Archaeological Computing Research Group, Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK ac14g09@soton.ac.uk Senior Lecturer, Archaeological Computing Research Group, Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK graeme.earl@soton.ac.uk Abstract Planning archaeological walks constitutes an important aspect of archaeological heritage management, particularly in the case of prehistoric sites which lack sufficient interpretation. This paper is part of an on-going research which attempts to introduce a hybrid model for managing movement around archaeological sites. Drawing upon the case of Minoan sites, the main issues concerning the implementation of such management projects will be addressed while considering new methodological approaches and the Information and Communication Technologies input. Keywords: Archaeological Heritage Management, Minoan Crete, Augmented Reality.

1. Introduction
The field of Archaeological Heritage Management (AHM) today, demonstrates an increasing interest in integrated approaches to visitor management, in relation to the sustainability of the sites and the enhancement of the visitors experience. The process of planning and implementing archaeological walks constitutes a critical part of the preventive conservation and enhancement of archaeological sites. This kind of intervention aims both to protect the site and the visitor. In combina- tion with other interpretative tools it constitutes the main vehicle through which an archaeological site is pre- sented to the visitor. The introduction of specific paths or walkways provides an essential management tool, particularly in the cases of prehistoric sites. The limited applicable interventions for the improvement of a prehistoric sites readability highlight the importance of planning archaeological walks for their interpretation. The nature of prehistoric remains, lacking visually impressive and comprehensive architecture, is challenging in terms of on-site presentation and offers a fertile ground for new interpretative approaches. (HODDER & DOUGHTY 2007). The advent of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) provided heritage professionals with a

great range of novel tools for communicating cultural heritage. Besides, a significant number of experimental and commercial ICT applications have been developed so far in order to enhance the presentation of culturally significant open-air sites. Leaving aside the variety of technologies available for serving the purposes of ICOMOS Charter for Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites, augmented reality (AR) is a promising and constantly maturing technology with substantial prospects in AHM. Applying some initial considerations concerning management of archaeological walks in Minoan sites and in the context of emerging technologies the formation of a basic framework will be attempted.

2. Current State and Theoretical Considerations

Architecture is perhaps one of the most important elements in the archaeology of Bronze Age Crete, since it reflects the social functions of this culture (PREZIOSI 1983, LETESSON & VANSTEENHUYSE 2006). Minoan architecture is a product of complex planning with unique rules of spatial organization. A main characteristic is the compound mobility systems which offer a sig1

Proceedings of the 38th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Granada, Spain, April 2010

Melero, F.J., Cano, P., Revelles, J. / Author Guidelines for CAA2010 Proceedings

nificant variety of alternative pathways. Prehistoric urban patterns, as these encountered in Minoan settlements, are not so obvious in contrary to Classical urban planning (BRANIGAN 2001). However, in the current state of preservation, such complicated and relatively poorly preserved archaeological sites are difficult to conceive process and understand. Although, some of these sites have already had several interventions such as conservation of the remaining structures, drainage systems, shelters, visitors facilities and explanatory panels, the readability of the sites remains an unsolved issue. Images of visitors incoherently crossing the site and stepping on the ancient walls in their attempt to find their way out are frequently witnessed. These phenomena occur when the site lacks sufficient spatial on-site interpretation and thus the spatial organization and former function of the monument is ignored by the visitor. Evidently, the perception of an archaeological site plays a crucial role in the interpretation of its structure and consequently in the movement process. Therefore, movement and spatial perception in this case cannot be examined separately. On the other hand, in some archaeological sites there have been attempts to control visitor movement by constructing specific paths. Such attempts are considered to be successful in achieving the dual goal of protecting the site and providing the visitor with a safe tour. Nevertheless, most of these are incompatible with the architecture of the monument and constrain movement around the site. In addition, the static nature of the available interpretative resources (e.g. time-scheduled group tours, descriptive panels) confines on-site interpretation. Also, rarely, is it taken into account, the sense of discovery that people have when entering such environments. In this context the visitor is handled as a passive receiver of the informative site and rarely has the chance to interact with the site and thus relate to it, notions placed high in the agenda of the interpreters (UZZEL 1998). The orientation of the monuments, the main axes, the ancient entrances and paths are often ignored during the planning process. However, since heritage management mainly concerns the interpretation of the present rather than the past, (HOWARD 2003) some could argue that these variables suppress the formation of a new vision for the sites presentation. What is more, the necessity of protecting ancient paths, which still preserve the original materials, leads planners to avoid the incorporation of ancient routes in the contemporary ones. Zakros on the other hand is an example that illustrates the losses in interpretation when these variables are not included. Today, the entrance to the archaeological site is different from the original one which is located at the east of the site, connecting it to the ancient harbour. This displacement has a certain impact on the spatial perception

of the monument and its relation to the surrounding environment, depriving the visitor from the excitement of making logical associations about the monuments configuration. These issues are opposed to another contemporary issue in AHM concerning the visitor perception (LEKAKIS 2009). Peoples experience on site is vital to the interpretation process. As David Uzzel notes If emotional and behavioral considerations are essential to attitude formation and change, then any interpretation which excludes these dimensions is less likely to be affective. People enter these sites with certain emotions, moods and carry with them certain cultural and cognitive baggage. All the above, along with the information that the site provides, form the visitor experience. This factor is usually left aside in interpretative planning and design as one that cannot be scientifically measured. Scholars have compared the typological layout of Minoan towns with contemporary Cretan villages. This observation automatically provides a powerful interpretative tool based on the recollection of somebodys memories and embodied experiences. But, when it comes to understanding and processing the visual impact of a site not many references of such kind can be made. It could be argued that archaeological sites today present a rather obscure image; architectural remains, contemporary structures and the works of time and nature compose these perplexed places. Consequently, when we are dealing with movement and perception particularly in Minoan sites, we should take into account: (1) The architectural remains structural complexity and palimpsests of ruins (2) The spatial human movement related to spatial stimuli and (3) Human behavior towards ruins or the aesthetics of a site. Having established the complexity involved in this aspect of AHM the potential of alternative methodologies will be discussed. The main objective of this study is to look deeper into the relation of architectural remains and contemporary movement and how the enhancement of the spatial perception and on-site interpretation can be achieved by the use of novel technologies, such as augmented reality.

3. Site Presentation: A Traditional and Novel Methodologies Interplay

The examination of the current methodologies employed so far in the discussed context is essential as it forms the framework under which the implementation of archaeological walks is being carried out.

Proceedings of the 38th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Granada, Spain, April 2010

Contreras, F., Melero, F.J. (eds.) / CAA'2010 Fusion of Cultures

Besides, the extent to which the spatial circulation patterns of the past can contribute to archaeological walk planning and to a more coherent perception of the built heritage needs to be examined. From traditional archaeological and/or architectural interpretations to computational approaches (space syntax, accessibility analysis etc.) the planner has a plethora of available resources which investigate the organic connection of the individual structures and the overall function of the site. Essentially, a management plan should balance the above resources with a current state accessibility assessment. Additionally, the documentation of visitors movement provides valuable information about the perception of an archaeological site and the synchronic processes that stimulate movement. In cases where visitors are channeled around the site through specific pathways, this approach can provide the planners with the strengths or the weaknesses of a sites configuration and a basis for the future planning process. A two-step process is suggested for this visitor centric approach; recording contemporary movement in archaeological sites and graphical simulation of movement. To record visitors movement wearable recording devices, questionnaires for the qualitative analysis and personal observation should be employed. Thousands of virtual cameras can be generated automatically in order to produce simulated views at different stages along the paths, matched to recording visitor movement and orientation. The repeatability of the captured data in combination with participant observation and ethnographic video-based analysis are perhaps most appropriate for studying the interaction of visitors with the sites (REEVES 2004).

Catalhyk in Turkey, Flag Fen in the U.K. and Lemba in Cyprus. Augmented reality applications used in the same context present interesting examples of increasing information access, performing mainly visual augmentations. Linking augmented reality with 3D-visualisation, mobile computing, interaction techniques and multiple interpretation displays offers interesting solutions to the synthetic demands of on-site interpretation (e.g. the TIMESCOPE kiosk at the archaeological site of Ename in Belgium, the Icinemas PROJECT PLACE-HAMPI, the ARCHEOGUIDE project) (BRIZARD ET AL. 2007, ). Certainly these applications are impressive but still underexploited in terms of site management. With the rapid developments both in spatial (BIMBER & RASKAR 2005) and mobile AR (HLLERER & FEINER 2004) it is now time to explore its potential in on-site presentation and its influences on the planning process per se. Used as a visualization tool, AR can enhance the perception of the site for planners. By making use of this technology planning decisions could be made on the site, giving access to spatially linked information: information from the physical environment related to the present state of the site (e.g. general topography, elevations, palimpsests of ruins, accessibility, contemporary structures etc.) and synthetic information (virtual reconstructions or annotations). The design of such ubiquitous augmented reality (UAR) interfaces is still an unsolved issue (SANDOR & KLINKER 2007) but since this is a highly interdisciplinary task, heritage professionals ought to contribute by building up and crystallising the criteria related to their specific needs. Choosing the suitable implementation format of AR displays according to the aims of the project is also very critical. The combination of spatial and mobile (head-attached or handheld) displays could serve a variety of objectives, some of which are briefly explored below. AR guides could facilitate the navigation of visitors and provide the sites with a certain level of selfprotection, since visitors will be aware of where they stand and how to move on. Also, creating alternative pathways in the periphery of the site in order to take the pressure from the main site is very critical. To motivate this, a series of augmented reality view stations could be included in the plan, providing the visiting experience with moments of rest and contemplation. The spatial configuration and placement of these view stations requires careful planning as well. The participation of visitors in the revitalization of a sites narrative is an innovative and desirable concept to be planned systematically. A flexible navigation system, based on augmented reality stimuli could revive the sites organic function. Initial stimuli are dictated by the

4. Augmented Reality as Management tool and Interpretative Resource

Since the establishment of archaeology as a discipline, people in pursuit of the past were always trying to find ways to reconstitute and consequently augment the archaeological remains. Typical example is Arthurs Evans reconstruction of Knossos in 1900s. His extensive reconstructions on the actual archaeological remains set off a constantly increasing public interest for the Minoan civilization, a fact which today places Knossos in the top cultural visiting attractions of the world. Despite his misleading reconstructions and although these kind of severe interventions are illegitimate today, the didactic results are widely appreciated. Another practice employed for augmenting the monuments visual perception and understanding is the physical reconstructions built near the archaeological sites such as the reconstructed prehistoric buildings at

Proceedings of the 38th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Granada, Spain, April 2010

Melero, F.J., Cano, P., Revelles, J. / Author Guidelines for CAA2010 Proceedings

augmented environment but the individuals can actually form their way through the monument, according to an as you go interpretation. The visitors guided, but not imposed circulation could place them in the position to collaboratively reshape the spatial interpretation of the site. Thus, choreography of the visitors via mobile devices could create differential sensations of calm and busy activity, noise and quiet, multi- and unidirectional motion and so on, mimicking interpreted patterns of ancient movement and activity at the sites. So far the 3D AR visualizations have been applied in Classical and Medieval monuments based on welldocumented virtual reconstructions. However, in the case of prehistoric sites the issue of accurate representations according to the archeological-architectural interpretation is far more problematic. Providing the visitor with multiple visual and text-based interpretations complies with the current ethical and methodological approaches of representing the past and constructing new knowledge. Ethical implications of applying augmented reality on the monuments must also be considered (SCARRE & SCARRE 2006). Are virtual on- site reconstructions justified when a mixed reality envi- ronment a priori implies a level of reality? How does this comply with the notion of preserving the value of monuments authenticity? What impact does it have on the monuments and what are the aesthetic alterations this brings upon the sites? Current interpretative structures which to some extent alter the aesthetics of an archaeological site form a strong argument in favor of the use of such technologies as interpretative resources.

BRIZARD, T., DERDE, W. & SILBERMAN, N. 2007. Basic Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Professionals in the Use of Information Technologies. How can ICT support cultural heritage?

CLEERE, H., 2000. Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern world. Routledge: London. HODDER, I., DOUGHTY,L. (eds.) 2007. Mediterranean Prehistoric Heritage: Training, Education and Management. McDonald Institute Monographs: Cambridge. HLLERER, T. & FEINER, S. 2004. Mobile augmented reality. In Karimi, H. & Hammad, A. (eds). Telegeoinformatics: Location-Based Computing and Services. Taylor and Francis Books Ltd: London. UK. HOWARD, P. 2003. Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity. Continuum Press: New York. LEKAKIS, S., 2009. Creating a Basic Schema for the Experiential Approach in Site Management; the Visitor Perception. In Thomas, J, Jorge, V. O. (eds) Archaeology and the Politics of Vision in a Post-Modern Context. 292-305. LETESSON, Q., VANSTEENHUYSE, Kl., 2006. Towards Archaeology of Perception: 'Looking' at the Minoan Palaces, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology. Vol. 19. No. 1. 91-119. PREZIOSI, D., 1983. Minoan Architectural Design: Formation and Signification, Berlin/New York: Mouton Publishers. SANDOR, C. & KLINKER, G. 2007. Lessons Learned in Designing Ubiquitous Augmented Reality Interfaces. In Haller, M., Billinghurst, M. and Thomas, B.(eds), Emerging Technologies of Augmented Reality: Interfaces and Design, Idea Group Publishing: London. 218235. SCARRE, C. & SCARRE, G. 2006. The ethics of archaeology philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. UZZEL, D. 1998. Interpreting our Heritage: a Theoretical Interpretation. In Uzell, D. and Bellantyne, R. (eds). Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental Management. The Stationary Office: London. 11-25.

5. Conclusions
The above are only some first considerations in an attempt to introduce a hybrid model for planning archaeological walks. It has become apparent that forming a basic framework in this context is essential to enable novel methodologies in providing a balance between public accessibility and protection of archaeological sites.

References
BIMBER, O., RASKAR, R. 2005. Spatial Augmented Reality: Merging Real and Virtual Worlds. Wellesley: A.K. Peters, Ltd. BRANIGAN, K. (ed) 2001. Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age. Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield.

Proceedings of the 38th Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Granada, Spain, April 2010