Figure 1: Plan of the PARP:PS excavation site with locations of trenches. Figure 3: A fairly typical daily entry from the Isthmia excavation notebooks; here we learn that a context was closed because it contained so many artifacts, while another context is identified by a “significant change” because it contained three pieces of glass (Pages 52-53 of Isthmia Notebook 1972-MM-BB-I). Figure 2: Portions of field notebooks written in Apple’s Pages. Figure 3: Example of a photo annotated with TouchDraw: original photo (top); annotated photo (bottom). Figure 5: Measured section drawing created in TouchDraw. Figure 6: Image label pop-up. Figure 8: The original and revised screens for environmental sam- ples (left) and small finds (right), with label information highlighted. Figure 7: The original screens for environmental samples (left) and small finds (right), with arrows showing where information needed to go on the physical labels. Figure 9: Examples of labeling workflows for an environmental sample (top row) and small find (bottom row): left) An excavator creates a record on an iPad; center) The excavator labels the object right) Specialists view new items. Figure 10: Examples of revised user interface, home screen: original (left); Revised (right). Figure 11: Examples of revised user interface, context screen: original (left); revised (right). Figure 13: Interface map of the Sangro Valley Project database. Figure 14: Interface map of the Say Kah Archaeological Project database. Figure 16: Checklist of syncing procedures. Figure 19: Object and sample handling workflows. Figure 2: Map of Cyprus showing the location of the Malloura Valley in rectangle. Map by D. Massey. Figure 4: Site plan of Malloura showing excavation units (EUs). Drawing by Remko Breuker; updated by Kevin Garstki. Figure 6: AAP assistant director Jody Gordon testing an iPad in the field. Figure 7: AAP trench supervisor Kevin Garstki using a Bluetooth keyboard to write in the “digital notebook.” Following lunch, it was decided by MKT to begin a new arbitrary SU (SU 5602). This will be a single ~15cm pass down across the 3x2meter area of EU 56 we are currently digging (E6781 N6155). This SU will match with the SU 5203 closing from the EU 52 to the south. AE, CE, and NR began SU 5602 by taking 15cm pass across the EU from the south baulk. This was decided because large areas of the SU are pits; at least 4 different pits and perhaps as many as 6 (see image below). By removing this level we hope to make the pitting more clear and begin to remove each on its own, leaving only the stratified deposits. SU 5602 was removed approximately 15cm to the north of the south baulk with crock picks and trowels. The soil in the Figure 10: An iPad photo with annotations produced in iDraw. Figure 9: A queried SU form as it appears in the AAP’s Web-based FileMaker database. Figure 11: Using iDraw: annotated digital photo created to document the reuse of statuary in the sanctuary wall in 2011 (left); assistant director Jody Gordon documenting wall stones in 2015 (right). Figure 13: AAP trench supervisor Kevin Garstki (left), director Michael Toumazou (center), and associate director Derek Counts (right), examine an image on an iPad. Figure 1: Map of northern Peru indicating the location of Hualcayan. Map by Rebecca E. Bria. Figure 2: Kathryn DeTore uses the PIARA mobile database to discuss and record excavated features with a field school student at Hualcayan, Peru. Figure 5: Screenshot showing the primary, or “General,” tab of the “Context” form, where excavators enter the basic information for each context. Areas to enter and view additional details about the context are accessible by clicking on the following tabs: “Soil,” Ma- trix,” “Excavators,” and so on. Figure 7: Screenshot of the “Daily Log” form, which serves as a diary of each day’s activities. The list of contexts available for selection at the bottom left of the form are populated as new contexts are added to the database. Figure 8: Screenshot of the Context “Checklist” tab. Figure 9: Screenshot of the “Matrix” tab of the “Contexts” form, which provides a space for adding and describing the contexts that are abutting and immediately earlier and later to the context being described. Multiple earlier and later contexts can be entered. This flexibility is particularly useful when it is not yet clear how different abutting contexts are related in the matrix. The brief description of each abutting context is immediately pulled from those context records and displayed to the right of the context numbers. The rela- tionships between all contexts listed on the form can be described in the text box to the right, and can include a description of any unclear associations that need to be followed up. Figure 10: Screenshots of the “Special Artifacts” form in two views. The top image shows the default form view, which is a scrollable and sortable table of all Special Artifact entries in the excavation unit. The bottom image shows the detailed form view, which is accessed from the green button at the top right of the default view, named “Enter or View a Special Artifact.” This second form view provides a space for more detailed data entry and viewing of photographs. The example here shows Special Artifact number 214, which was recov- ered from Context 210. Figure 12: An example ofa simple “scaled sketch” produced with (Draw. While total station points and georeferenced photographs were taken to record the precise extent of each context, scaled sketches provided a more immediate way to visualize spatial relation- ships in the field—without having to measure the features a second time via tape measures. To produce scaled sketches, context outlines were drawn over a pre-made layer of the unit’s 1 x 1m suboperation srid. The size, shape, and overall position of each context was esti- mated and drawn based on its placement within the unit’s grid, using the suboperation corners, marked by nails in the ground, as visual puides. Figure 14: Annotated images produced to document the relative position of commingled or clustered materials before and during their excavation. Images A and B, which were created in the applica- tion iDraw, show the position of in situ smashed ceramic bowls and guinea pig remains before they were excavated (A), and after the first layer of remains were removed (B). Image C, created in the appli- cation Photogene, shows the numbers assigned to individual bone elements of commingled human remains before they were collected. Image D, created in iDraw, shows how excavators often represented artifacts and contexts in a single photo to highlight their relation- ships. All of these annotated photographs took relatively little time to produce yet provide ample details of the depositional sequences of small remains. Figure 16: Screenshot of a section of the ceramic analysis form, showing several attribute fields and the visual guides to aid in their analysis. Figure 18: 3D photogrammetric model of excavated architecture at Hualcayan, shown in perspective. Model produced by Rebecca E. Bria. Figure 3: Dr. John Rick and local expert José Luis Cruzado Coronel working on the digital archeoacoustics project. Figure 1: Plan Géométral de l’Etat actuel de la fouille du Quartier des Soldats 4 Pompeii. Reproduced from de Saint-Non 1781-1786, vol. 2, pl 84. Figure 2: Vue Perspective de la Colonnade du Quartier des Soldats a Pompeii. Reproduced from de Saint-Non 1781-1786, vol. 2, pl. 86. Figure 3: Detail of a gladiator's helmet in a fresco depicting arma- ments from the Quadriporticus. (MANN n. 9702). Photo by Bettina Bergmann. Figure 4: Insulae VIII 7, 1-15 and I.1: plan of trenches, 2005-2012. Pompeii Archaeological Research Project: Porta Stabia. Map courtesy of Steven Ellis. Figure 5: Watercolor of fountain and interior of the Quadriporticus. WJ. Hiiber, lithograph by L. T. Miiller, 1818-1819. Columns of tholos are circled in light blue. Reproduced from Pagano and Prisciandaro 2006: 176; copyright by N. Longobardi. Figure 6: Ground-penetrating radar image of the Quadriporticus, slice 4 (depth ca. 66-92 cm). Figure 7: Vue prise au dessus de l’Odéon de du Téatre tragique. Drawing by A. Gudeson, reproduced from Etiennez 1849-1852, pl. 15. Figure 8: Photogrammetrical models of (from left to right) Room 35, Column 59, and Room 61 from the Quadriporticus. Figure 9: View inside the Altstadt sewer, facing north toward the Large Theater and farther to Stabian Baths. Figure 1: The PKapp mobile app. Figure 3: Exporting the data. Figure 1: Image of a secondary apse from a Late Roman basilica at Polis-Chrysochous, Cyprus, depicting the five stages of creating a 3D model using an image-based modeling technique: A) Capturing strategy with automatic photo alignment; B) Aligning photographs and generating a sparse point cloud; C) Generation ofa dense point cloud; D) Building a monochromatic 3D model; and E) Texturing the 3D model. Figure 4: Tambo Colorado: overview of the area mapped by UAV, showing areas of prior mapping efforts. Figure 3: Overview of the Pisco-Vilcashuaman tramo (thick, dark red). Figure 6: Tambo Colorado: DEM generated from UAV imagery. Figure 5: Tambo Colorado: UAV orthoimage detail: north palace. Figure 7: Tambo Colorado: site core vector mapping. Figure 8: Inkawasi de Huaytara: overview of the area mapped by UAV. Figure 9: Inkawasi: UAV orthoimage detail: site core. Figure 10: Inkawasi: DEM generated from UAV imagery. Figure 11: Mawchu Llacta: overview of the area mapped by meteoro- logical balloon. Figure 13: GIS architectural map: Mawchu Llacta: overview (top); detail of site core (bottom). Figure 1: The Pladypos ASV at Caesarea Maritima, Israel, in 2014. Figure 2: The Pladypos following a preprogrammed survey pattern in the intermediate Herodian harbor at Caesarea in 2014; the vehi- cle’s ability to stay on course is not significantly affected by the 0.5 m swell. Figure 4: Caesarea shore operations base in 2014 (top) and 2015 (bottom). Figure 6: Launching the Pladypos from Sdot Yam beach, south of Caesarea, in 2014. Figure 5: The Pladypos surveying the intermediate Herodian harbor in 2015. Figure 7: LABUST engineer Nikola Stilinovi¢ with the Pladypos in the intermediate harbor, Caesarea (2015). Figure 8b: Sample draft photomosaic produced from the survey area delineated in FIG. 8a. Figure 8a: Google Earth image of Caesarea’s intermediate harbor with superimposed survey transects (2014) Figure 8c: Bathymetric data collected from the survey area delineated in FIG. 8a. Figure 8d: 2.5D visualization of ancient tower foundations from the survey area delineated in FIG. 8a. Figure 9: Pladypos photomosaic of ruins from Caesarea’s intermediate harbor created with Microsoft ICE freeware (2014). Figure 10a: Pladypos photomosaic of architectural debris in Herod's intermediate harbor, Caesarea (2015). Figure 10b: Point cloud of the architectural debris from FIG 10a Figure 11: Another example of merged Pladypos photomosaic and point cloud images of submerged architectural debris from Caesarea (2015). Figure 10c: Map of architectural debris in Figure 10a from merged video and georeferenced bathymetric data. Figure 15: Medieval coins recovered from the Caesarea Fatimid gold hoard site, July 2015. Figure 14: After the top layer of rocks was removed from the Fatimid shipwreck site in July 2015, a second pocket of gold coins was located using a JW Fisher Pulse 8x metal detector. Figure 16: The Pladypos provides real-time diver localization to a GIS on an underwater tablet and relays the diver's typed messages to shore operations (underwater archaeologist Krunoslav Zubci¢ testing the system on a submerged Roman villa site at Colentum in Croatia). Figure 17: Diver using the underwater tablets (image supplied cour- tesy of LABUST). Figure 1: Map of the Iberian Peninsula with increasing level of detail showing the location of Castulo. Figure 2: Orthophoto of the area covered by the archaeological site, representing more than 3,230 ha within the territories of three city councils: Linares, Torreblascopedro, and Lupion. To the northeast (just right of center in this image), next to the river, is the oppidum, or fortified settlement. Figure 3: Castulo oppidum, with the areas of Forvm MMX’s major archaeological interventions marked with numbers. Figure 4: Technology used in the field with Imilké recorder system: digital smartpen, paper form, and smartphone. Figure 6: Oculus Rift experience displayed during the International Feria of Tourism, Madrid, 2015. Figure 5: The application of augmented reality to display an artifact: a 3D view of the paten from Castulo created using a smartphone app, as demonstrated at the 20th Congress of the International Associa- tion for the History of Glass. 2015, Switzerland. Figure 7: Detail of the “Mosaico de los Amores” from the sec- ond-century A.D. public building discovered in 2012. Figure 1: The “Context” tab in the Boncuklu excavation module in 1.3 and 2.0 version of FAIMS on Nexus 7 and Nexus 9, respectively, showing improvements in interface design. Figure 2: The “Deposit” tab in the Boncuklu excavation module in 1.3 and 2.0 version of FAIMS on Nexus 7 and Nexus 9 respectively, showing differences in the rendering of picture dictionaries, annota- tion and certainty icons, module path and indicator bar. Figure 1: Paper illustration of ARK’s EAV data structure, using Post-It Notes to represent individual data fragments. Figure 3: A screenshot of a basic context record from an early implementation of ARK at the Villa Magna Project, 2006-2010. Figure 6: Map of some of the sites featuring key research projects contributing to the ARK codebase. Figure 1: Map of typical site density (does not depict actual site locations). Figure 3: QR code for artifact and sample tracking. Publishing research data on the Web Figure 3: Map of Sites in the Digital Index of North American Ar- chaeology (DINAA) that cross-reference with tDAR and other online collections. Figure 4: Example DINAA site-record cross-referencing tDAR and displaying tDAR archived reports via an API request.
