Egyptian pyramids found by infra-red satellite images
2 posters
Egyptian pyramids found by infra-red satellite images
The infrared image on the right reveals the ancient city streets of Tanis near modern-day San El Hagar
Seventeen lost pyramids are among the buildings identified in a new satellite survey of Egypt.
More than 1,000 tombs and 3,000 ancient settlements were also revealed by looking at infra-red images which show up underground buildings.
Initial excavations have already confirmed some of the findings, including two suspected pyramids.
The work has been pioneered at the University of Alabama at Birmingham by US Egyptologist Dr Sarah Parcak.
She says she was amazed at how much she and her team has found.
"We were very intensely doing this research for over a year. I could see the data as it was emerging, but for me the "Aha!" moment was when I could step back and look at everything that we'd found and I couldn't believe we could locate so many sites all over Egypt.
"To excavate a pyramid is the dream of every archaeologist," she said.
The team analysed images from satellites orbiting 700km above the earth, equipped with cameras so powerful they can pin-point objects less than 1m in diameter on the earth's surface.
Infra-red imaging was used to highlight different materials under the surface.
Test excavations
Ancient Egyptians built their houses and structures out of mud brick, which is much denser than the soil that surrounds it, so the shapes of houses, temples and tombs can be seen.
"It just shows us how easy it is to underestimate both the size and scale of past human settlements," says Dr Parcak.
And she believes there are more antiquities to be discovered:
"These are just the sites [close to] the surface. There are many thousands of additional sites that the Nile has covered over with silt. This is just the beginning of this kind of work."
BBC cameras followed Dr Parcak on her "nervous" journey when she travelled to Egypt to see if excavations could back up what her technology could see under the surface.
In the BBC documentary Egypt's Lost Cities, they visit an area of Saqqara (Sakkara) where the authorities were not initially interested in her findings.
But after being told by Dr Parcak that she had seen two potential pyramids, they made test excavations, and they now believe it is one of the most important archaeological sites in Egypt.
But Dr Parcak said the most exciting moment was visiting the excavations at Tanis.
"They'd excavated a 3,000-year-old house that the satellite imagery had shown and the outline of the structure matched the satellite imagery almost perfectly. That was real validation of the technology."
The Egyptian authorities plan to use the technology to help - among other things - protect the country's antiquities in the future.
During the recent revolution, looters accessed some well-known archaeological sites.
"We can tell from the imagery a tomb was looted from a particular period of time and we can alert Interpol to watch out for antiquities from that time that may be offered for sale."
She also hopes the new technology will help engage young people in science and will be a major help for archaeologists around the world.
"It allows us to be more focused and selective in the work we do. Faced with a massive site, you don't know where to start.
"It's an important tool to focus where we're excavating. It gives us a much bigger perspective on archaeological sites. We have to think bigger and that's what the satellites allow us to do."
"Indiana Jones is old school, we've moved on from Indy. Sorry, Harrison Ford."
Egypt's Lost Cities is on BBC One on Monday 30 May at 2030 BST. It will also be shown on the Discovery channel in the US.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13522957
Re: Egyptian pyramids found by infra-red satellite images
Wow!!! This is an extremely exciting breakthrough! I'm going to have to catch that show on Discovery!
dblboggie
Re: Egyptian pyramids found by infra-red satellite images
It is amazing what you can see from the air; while at uni I loved studying aerial photographs and regret not being able to do IT related modules such as GIS and digital mapping.
I can see a time when excavation is a last resort except for the most important sites.
I can see a time when excavation is a last resort except for the most important sites.
Re: Egyptian pyramids found by infra-red satellite images
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:It is amazing what you can see from the air; while at uni I loved studying aerial photographs and regret not being able to do IT related modules such as GIS and digital mapping.
I can see a time when excavation is a last resort except for the most important sites.
It really is amazing. But why would excavation be a last resort? Or am I misunderstanding you here? Do you mean the wild guess sort of excavating? Or excavating at all? Because I would think once on has found something as amazing as what is shown here, you'd want to dig that up.
dblboggie
Re: Egyptian pyramids found by infra-red satellite images
This would be one of those exceptional sites that would warrant excavation over the long term. It seems so large that this would take many many years to dig. That is if Zahi Hawass is gracious enough to let anybody near it.
What I meant was that I see a future where only exceptional sites are excavated. On one hand satellite and geophysics technology will become so good that we will be able to see the extent of an excavation without taking trowel to soil. And there may be a time when geophys is cheaper than a labour intensive dig. I've worked on sites where we've dug for five weeks and nothing has been found. That has then cost the developer or the council a lot of money to dig holes. On the other hand I have worked on sites where there is tonnes of stuff and we have been instructed to do the barest minimum to hurry things along. The former is expensive and frustrating for the developer, the latter should go against every reason an archaeologist enters into a career in excavating.
It also must be noted that every time you dig, you are destroying the site. Except in a very few instances, you will not be able to dig it again. Some see it as much better to preserve remains in situ and explore other methods of seeing what is there.
What I meant was that I see a future where only exceptional sites are excavated. On one hand satellite and geophysics technology will become so good that we will be able to see the extent of an excavation without taking trowel to soil. And there may be a time when geophys is cheaper than a labour intensive dig. I've worked on sites where we've dug for five weeks and nothing has been found. That has then cost the developer or the council a lot of money to dig holes. On the other hand I have worked on sites where there is tonnes of stuff and we have been instructed to do the barest minimum to hurry things along. The former is expensive and frustrating for the developer, the latter should go against every reason an archaeologist enters into a career in excavating.
It also must be noted that every time you dig, you are destroying the site. Except in a very few instances, you will not be able to dig it again. Some see it as much better to preserve remains in situ and explore other methods of seeing what is there.
Re: Egyptian pyramids found by infra-red satellite images
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:This would be one of those exceptional sites that would warrant excavation over the long term. It seems so large that this would take many many years to dig. That is if Zahi Hawass is gracious enough to let anybody near it.
I would agree. Let us hope that Hawass is that gracious.
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:What I meant was that I see a future where only exceptional sites are excavated. On one hand satellite and geophysics technology will become so good that we will be able to see the extent of an excavation without taking trowel to soil. And there may be a time when geophys is cheaper than a labour intensive dig.
Ah... of course. I can see that point. But for the exceptional sites, I don't believe there will be any non-invasive technology that will surpass good old, hand's on excavation and examination of finds. So much has been learned by a close physical examination of the remains of buildings, artifacts, and human, animal and plant remains found at such sites. A satellite will never be able to produce a King Tut exhibit and the amazing advancement of knowledge such a thing brings.
But it can certainly tell archeologists the best places to invest their resources.
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:I've worked on sites where we've dug for five weeks and nothing has been found. That has then cost the developer or the council a lot of money to dig holes. On the other hand I have worked on sites where there is tonnes of stuff and we have been instructed to do the barest minimum to hurry things along. The former is expensive and frustrating for the developer, the latter should go against every reason an archaeologist enters into a career in excavating.
I would expect and can understand this result given the competing interests between archeologists and developers. But it's still sad.
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:It also must be noted that every time you dig, you are destroying the site. Except in a very few instances, you will not be able to dig it again. Some see it as much better to preserve remains in situ and explore other methods of seeing what is there.
Yes... that's true. But I just don't see any substitute for a hands-on examination of the remains.
dblboggie
Re: Egyptian pyramids found by infra-red satellite images
I doubt he is. The guy is a raging egomaniac. That is one thing that all Egyptologists agree on.dblboggie wrote:The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:This would be one of those exceptional sites that would warrant excavation over the long term. It seems so large that this would take many many years to dig. That is if Zahi Hawass is gracious enough to let anybody near it.
I would agree. Let us hope that Hawass is that gracious.
You're right on that. Our eyes can pick out things that technology may not notice. A slight shift in soil colour for example may be undetectable (unless the contents is different) but we can see a difference.dblboggie wrote:Ah... of course. I can see that point. But for the exceptional sites, I don't believe there will be any non-invasive technology that will surpass good old, hand's on excavation and examination of finds.
No, but a satellite found a whole city. I know what you mean. I'm not saying that excavation will ever go away, nor would I wish it to, I just see a time when excavation is not as prevalent as it is today. It isn't even as prevalent as it was 40 years ago. And 40 years before that, there was only excavation; there were no "test trenches", no geophysics and not even any concept of aerial survey until after WWI. Modern research archaeologists would have a much more difficult job without aerial survey. I could spend weeks studying aerial photographs... erm, actually I did that already.dblboggie wrote:So much has been learned by a close physical examination of the remains of buildings, artifacts, and human, animal and plant remains found at such sites. A satellite will never be able to produce a King Tut exhibit and the amazing advancement of knowledge such a thing brings.
But it can certainly tell archeologists the best places to invest their resources.
It is. I'm hoping that when this recovery is in full swing, that there will be fundamental changes in the relationship between developers and archaeological units. We can't be so dependent on construction and we can't expect amateur groups to put more time in beyond their capability and resources with English Heritage picking up the slack. English Heritage do an absolutely fantastic job, I really couldn't praise their work highly enough. But their remit is in preservation and as an advisory body on heritage to local and national government, they should not be expected to plough their resources into keeping field archaeologists in work because there is no other outlet left since the construction industry went down the pan.dblboggie wrote:I would expect and can understand this result given the competing interests between archeologists and developers. But it's still sad.
No, but with a bit of luck we will have the best of both worlds in the end. Excellent geophysics (maybe with 3D modelling) that can tell us whether it is a good idea to dig something in the first place. It can tell us a lot, but at the moment, not enough.dblboggie wrote:Yes... that's true. But I just don't see any substitute for a hands-on examination of the remains.
Re: Egyptian pyramids found by infra-red satellite images
[quote="The_Amber_Spyglass"]
Ah... too bad. Perhaps he'll quit again, or better yet be dismissed.
Just so. And other details like tool marks, subtle details on bone fragments and so on would not likely be detectable either.
There's no question that technology has greatly advanced the science of archeology.
Interesting. So archeological digs are dependent on there being construction of buildings or infrastructure? Do developers foot the bill for the archeological exploration of sites they wish to build on? And do all such construction jobs require an archeological examination of the site to determine if anything of historical note is being disturbed or destroyed?
I can imagine that such might be the case as you couldn't toss a dead cat about anywhere on that island without hitting a site of some historic importance...
I think we will have the best of both worlds in the end. But in the end, the human eye will still be needed.
I doubt he is. The guy is a raging egomaniac. That is one thing that all Egyptologists agree on.dblboggie wrote:The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:This would be one of those exceptional sites that would warrant excavation over the long term. It seems so large that this would take many many years to dig. That is if Zahi Hawass is gracious enough to let anybody near it.
I would agree. Let us hope that Hawass is that gracious.
Ah... too bad. Perhaps he'll quit again, or better yet be dismissed.
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:You're right on that. Our eyes can pick out things that technology may not notice. A slight shift in soil colour for example may be undetectable (unless the contents is different) but we can see a difference.dblboggie wrote:Ah... of course. I can see that point. But for the exceptional sites, I don't believe there will be any non-invasive technology that will surpass good old, hand's on excavation and examination of finds.
Just so. And other details like tool marks, subtle details on bone fragments and so on would not likely be detectable either.
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:No, but a satellite found a whole city. I know what you mean. I'm not saying that excavation will ever go away, nor would I wish it to, I just see a time when excavation is not as prevalent as it is today. It isn't even as prevalent as it was 40 years ago. And 40 years before that, there was only excavation; there were no "test trenches", no geophysics and not even any concept of aerial survey until after WWI. Modern research archaeologists would have a much more difficult job without aerial survey. I could spend weeks studying aerial photographs... erm, actually I did that already.dblboggie wrote:So much has been learned by a close physical examination of the remains of buildings, artifacts, and human, animal and plant remains found at such sites. A satellite will never be able to produce a King Tut exhibit and the amazing advancement of knowledge such a thing brings.
But it can certainly tell archeologists the best places to invest their resources.
There's no question that technology has greatly advanced the science of archeology.
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:It is. I'm hoping that when this recovery is in full swing, that there will be fundamental changes in the relationship between developers and archaeological units. We can't be so dependent on construction and we can't expect amateur groups to put more time in beyond their capability and resources with English Heritage picking up the slack. English Heritage do an absolutely fantastic job, I really couldn't praise their work highly enough. But their remit is in preservation and as an advisory body on heritage to local and national government, they should not be expected to plough their resources into keeping field archaeologists in work because there is no other outlet left since the construction industry went down the pan.dblboggie wrote:I would expect and can understand this result given the competing interests between archeologists and developers. But it's still sad.
Interesting. So archeological digs are dependent on there being construction of buildings or infrastructure? Do developers foot the bill for the archeological exploration of sites they wish to build on? And do all such construction jobs require an archeological examination of the site to determine if anything of historical note is being disturbed or destroyed?
I can imagine that such might be the case as you couldn't toss a dead cat about anywhere on that island without hitting a site of some historic importance...
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:No, but with a bit of luck we will have the best of both worlds in the end. Excellent geophysics (maybe with 3D modelling) that can tell us whether it is a good idea to dig something in the first place. It can tell us a lot, but at the moment, not enough.dblboggie wrote:Yes... that's true. But I just don't see any substitute for a hands-on examination of the remains.
I think we will have the best of both worlds in the end. But in the end, the human eye will still be needed.
dblboggie
Re: Egyptian pyramids found by infra-red satellite images
Actually, often those things are not detectable to the human eye and requires a form of geophysics. But I understand your sentiment and agree with your general point.dblboggie wrote:Just so. And other details like tool marks, subtle details on bone fragments and so on would not likely be detectable either.
Yes. We have legislation that on public projects a basic archaeological survey is required. If a site is deemed that important, English Heritage can step in an advise the government (local usually, councils are nearly always the landowners in these instances) to stop work. If a site is really important it advises the level of protection necessary. The construction industry is largely happy to engage with them. This co-operation had a successful story in Exeter where the town centre was redeveloped and the main part of the redevelopment was over an area that contained what would have been the centre of the Roman fortress and later, a graveyard. Many bodies were recovered and obviously work had to slow down/stop to allow the bodies and features to be recorded and if necessary removed. There was a big consultation between the city council, the university and the developer about how what was left might be preserved. As I understand it, the plans were redrawn to include a floor of the new buildings that the stuff underneath would be protected until they are demolished and the archaeologists are ready to move in again. That makes sense. Seeing as the life of a lot of modern commercial buildings rarely surpasses 80 years, it is senseless to destroy something much older if you can preserve it.dblboggie wrote:Interesting. So archeological digs are dependent on there being construction of buildings or infrastructure?
This is a stark contrast to the 1960s and 1970s before we had statutory protection. Before I went to university I took nightclasses as an access course and the lecturer (who is an expert on Roman Britain) told us horror stories about the building of the M4 motorway. They had to rush ahead of the construction vehicles to record as much as they could before the bulldozers came in and flattened the lot. He was particularly sad about a Roman villa that was right under the course of the M4.
Yes and as such they get to contract out the work.dblboggie wrote:Do developers foot the bill for the archeological exploration of sites they wish to build on?
Only on public land. I'm not sure what the case is for privately owned land. I think owners are encouraged to ask local archaeologists to take a look but they are under no obligation. I would hope that most people would be excited at the prospect of having historically important sites on their land and would do as much as they were able not to damage it.dblboggie wrote:And do all such construction jobs require an archeological examination of the site to determine if anything of historical note is being disturbed or destroyed?
Mostly yes. However, I have worked on a couple of sites where we expected to find lots of important stuff and found nothing. A D-Day preparation base, the most important thing we found was a fork with "U.S. NAVY" imprinted on it. Another believed to be saturated with Roman remains from a known villa on the other side of the railway line turned up nothing in 5 weeks of digging over half a mile square.dblboggie wrote:I can imagine that such might be the case as you couldn't toss a dead cat about anywhere on that island without hitting a site of some historic importance...
Re: Egyptian pyramids found by infra-red satellite images
I've just finished watching this documentary. Very impressive; I'm looking forward to the potential discoveries that satellite imaging will bring to archaeology.
Re: Egyptian pyramids found by infra-red satellite images
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Actually, often those things are not detectable to the human eye and requires a form of geophysics. But I understand your sentiment and agree with your general point.dblboggie wrote:Just so. And other details like tool marks, subtle details on bone fragments and so on would not likely be detectable either.
Ah... well, you could write what I actually know about archeology on the head of a pin, but it is a subject that I am very interested in - probably because of its natural attachment to history which is a real passion of mine.
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Yes. We have legislation that on public projects a basic archaeological survey is required. If a site is deemed that important, English Heritage can step in an advise the government (local usually, councils are nearly always the landowners in these instances) to stop work. If a site is really important it advises the level of protection necessary. The construction industry is largely happy to engage with them. This co-operation had a successful story in Exeter where the town centre was redeveloped and the main part of the redevelopment was over an area that contained what would have been the centre of the Roman fortress and later, a graveyard. Many bodies were recovered and obviously work had to slow down/stop to allow the bodies and features to be recorded and if necessary removed. There was a big consultation between the city council, the university and the developer about how what was left might be preserved. As I understand it, the plans were redrawn to include a floor of the new buildings that the stuff underneath would be protected until they are demolished and the archaeologists are ready to move in again. That makes sense. Seeing as the life of a lot of modern commercial buildings rarely surpasses 80 years, it is senseless to destroy something much older if you can preserve it.dblboggie wrote:Interesting. So archeological digs are dependent on there being construction of buildings or infrastructure?
This makes perfect sense to me, but then I do have a bias toward the preservation of historic sites. Obviously it is going to make public projects cost more, and I would normally be against what might arguably be called unnecessary expenditures of taxpayer dollars, but when it comes to the preservation of one's history I think the expenditure is warranted.
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:This is a stark contrast to the 1960s and 1970s before we had statutory protection. Before I went to university I took nightclasses as an access course and the lecturer (who is an expert on Roman Britain) told us horror stories about the building of the M4 motorway. They had to rush ahead of the construction vehicles to record as much as they could before the bulldozers came in and flattened the lot. He was particularly sad about a Roman villa that was right under the course of the M4.
That is just heartbreaking.
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Yes and as such they get to contract out the work.dblboggie wrote:Do developers foot the bill for the archeological exploration of sites they wish to build on?
Do they usually contract this out to universities, or are there other institutions or even private concerns that are capable of archeological digs?
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Only on public land. I'm not sure what the case is for privately owned land. I think owners are encouraged to ask local archaeologists to take a look but they are under no obligation. I would hope that most people would be excited at the prospect of having historically important sites on their land and would do as much as they were able not to damage it.dblboggie wrote:And do all such construction jobs require an archeological examination of the site to determine if anything of historical note is being disturbed or destroyed?
But would this be an additional cost to private property owners, or would, say a university, offer to do the looking pro-bono?
The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Mostly yes. However, I have worked on a couple of sites where we expected to find lots of important stuff and found nothing. A D-Day preparation base, the most important thing we found was a fork with "U.S. NAVY" imprinted on it. Another believed to be saturated with Roman remains from a known villa on the other side of the railway line turned up nothing in 5 weeks of digging over half a mile square.dblboggie wrote:I can imagine that such might be the case as you couldn't toss a dead cat about anywhere on that island without hitting a site of some historic importance...
The very sort of hit-or-miss archeology this new technology may yet make a thing of the past.
Still, I have to imagine that it's extremely frustrating to put so much effort into a dig only to turn up a fork, or even worse, nothing at all.
dblboggie
Similar topics
» Egyptian Christians and Muslims united
» Goce satellite views Earth's gravity in high definition
» Occupy Oakland in Images: Anarchy, Vandalism, and Violence
» Judge blocks FDA rule requiring graphic images on cigarette packs of the dangers of smoking
» Goce satellite views Earth's gravity in high definition
» Occupy Oakland in Images: Anarchy, Vandalism, and Violence
» Judge blocks FDA rule requiring graphic images on cigarette packs of the dangers of smoking
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum