Content uploaded by Luca Bezzi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Luca Bezzi on Dec 18, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Archeorobotics.
Open Robotic Applications
in extreme archaeological
conditions
Luca Bezzi (Arc-Team)
mail: luca.bezzi@arc-team.com
cell: +39 3891046501
adr: Cles (TN), Via E. Chini 44, CAP 38023
Alessandro Bezzi (Arc-Team)
mail: alessandro.bezzi@arc-team.com
cell: +39 3891046502
adr: Cles (TN), Via F. Filzi 76/D, CAP 38023
Rupert Gietl (Arc-Team)
mail: ruppi@arc-team.com
cell: +39 3494235323
adr: Sesto/Sexten (BZ), Via Waldheim 28/A, CAP 39030
Giuseppe Naponiello
mail: beppenapo@arc-team.com
cell: +39 3476846599
adr: Cles (TN), Via C.A. Martini 28, CAP 38023
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to present an overview about the development and use of Open
Hardware devices in archaeology and their operative use in extreme conditions. The state of the art
will be analysed basing on the experience of the company Arc-Team, which, in 2006, started a new
branch of research, informally called "Archeorobotics", in order to study and build robotics
prototypes, optimized for archaeology. The research, initially focused on Open Hardware radio-
controlled UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle), reached an appropriate level of maturity just in 2008,
with the professional use, during aerial archaeology projects, of the first prototype of the
"ArcheoDrone", developed from the Open Source project UAVP (Universal Aerial Video Platform).
For Arc-Team’s research about archeorobotics, this goal represented a first milestone, from which a
door has been opened to wider horizons, considering the development of other typologies of robotic
devices, like ROVs (Remotely Operated underwater Vehicle) and USVs (Unmanned Surface
Vehicle), in order to support archaeologists during the most difficult operations in extreme
conditions (from aerial archaeology to underwater archaeology). During the years, beside the
development of drones for the operative use in archaeological excavations, surveys and
explorations, Arc-Team experienced also other Open Hardware robotic devices, in order to support
internal research activities in the laboratory, like CNC (Computer Numerical Control) machines.
Moreover single components deriving from the main prototypes, like gimbals of UAVs or optic
sensors of ROVs, have been used to improve standard archaeological equipment and optimize it for
specific tasks, especially in architectural 3D documentation and in speleoarcheology. Finally
another open device have been developed from scratch, without the need to use robotic hardware: it
is basically a mechanical gear tool developed to allow the use of a Pressler's gimlet for
dendrochronological sampling in underwater archaeology.
1. Archeorobotics
The term “archeorobotics” is a word informally used by the team members of Arc-Team to define a
research branch that the commercial archaeology company started in 2006, in order to study,
develop and produce Open Hardware robotic prototypes specifically designed to support field
operations during excavations, surveys and explorations.
The purpose of this paper is to present an overview about archeorobotics, basing on Arc-Team’s
experience. The article will start from a brief description of the research development through the
years, followed by the report of the main professional applications of different archeorobotic
prototypes, mainly drones, with a particular focus on the operations in extreme archaeological
conditions. Later a more specific description of every single device will be presented, trying to
underline the small differences about the level of maturity of each project, the development speed,
and the benefits, if presents, compared to closed source solutions. Another chapter will describe
particular open hardware tools, like single devices derived by more complex drones and adapted to
traditional equipment, or solutions that do not need the support of a robotic research, but rather a
mechanical development. Finally the article will end with some considerations about the results
achieved by archeorobotics and its possible future development.
1.1 Arc-Team's research
As mentioned before, Arc-Team’s research about archeorobotics started in 2006. That year the
company worked on the excavation of the Urartian site of Aramus (Armenia), an archaeological
mission directed by the Institute of Ancient History and Ancient Near Eastern Studies of the
University of Innsbruck (Austria) in cooperation with the University of Yerevan (Armenia;
HEINSCH et al. 2010). The primary task of Arc-Team was to support a complete software
migration from close solutions to Free/Libre and Open Source Software1 (BEZZI et al. 2007), an
operation which was performed with the installation of the free Operating System ArcheOS (BEZZI
et al. 2006). A secondary objective of the mission, as a field-school, was to introduce students to the
use and development of FLOSS (BEZZI et al., 2013a). Nevertheless, during this campaign, the
company also joined an aerial archaeology sub-project (BEZZI 2011), focused on the 3D
photogrammetric documentation of the Urartian site. The operations were directed by Ing. Klaus
Kerkow, with the help of Christine Hanisch, and supported by the Armenian Ministry of Defence
and and by the Armenian Air Force, which provided an helicopter (Fig. 1). This experience gave
Arc-Team’s members the opportunity to analyse the specific needs of a professional aerial
archaeology mission and, at the same time, oriented the company’s research in order to try to solve,
in the long-term, the problem of collecting archaeological remote sensing informations without an
expensive or difficult logistic support (derived by the use of helicopters or ultra-light aircraft). The
attempt to find alternative solutions for aerial archaeology took over two years, with an accurate
evaluation of the main Open Hardware projects for radio-controlled UAVs (Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle) available at the time. Soon the field was restricted to the development of a prototype of
quadcopter, avoiding to study other possibilities, like a model aircraft. Therefore the study took into
consideration just two main systems: the UAVP (Universal Aerial Video Platform) and the
Paparazzi Project, both released under the term of the GPL (General Public License). The final
choice fell on the UAVP device, specifically designed for a quadcopter, The first prototype, built in
2008 (later renamed ArcheoDrone), and its professional use in aerial archaeology (BEZZI et al.
2015) represented a first milestone for the company, which decided to improve the research in
archeorobotics, in order to solve specific problems during field missions (excavations, surveys and
explorations) or laboratory activities. As a matter of fact, since that year, Arc-Team developed other
1 FLOSS
robotic devices, most of them represented by the category of radio-controlled drones, like in 2016,
with a Remotely Operated underwater Vehicle (named ArcheoROV), or in 2017, with an Unmanned
Surface Vehicle (named ArcheoBoat). In 2013 the company experienced also the construction of
other Open Hardware robotic devices, in particular CNC (Computer Numerical Control) machines,
to solve specific problems in different fields, especially archaeology, anthropology and
museography, thanks to common solutions derived by 3D printing. Finally, during the last years,
another peculiar category of Open Hardware tools (ArcheoTools) has been developed by Arc-Team.
Technically speaking it is not possible to define these solutions as robotic machines, since they do
not represent complete systems, but rather single devices derived by more complex drones and
adapted to standard archaeological equipment. In other cases these tools are not even electronic
devices, but simple mechanical systems. Examples of ArcheoTools are the multi-axis electronic
gimbal of the ArcheoDrone, used to stabilize photography with a telescopic pole (2012), the real-
time 3D acquisition system projected for the ArcheoROV, used during exploration of caves in
speleoarchaeology (2016), and a mechanical speed reducer, designed to adapt the standard
Pressler's gimlet to an underwater drill, in order to support dendrochronological sampling also in
extreme conditions (2015).
1.2 Applications
Considering the resources (time and budget) needed to build or develop Open Hardware devices,
the main reason to engage such a challenge derives from the wider horizons that this kind of
equipment can grant in archaeological research. Indeed, despite some categories of drones and
machines can support also normal archaeological activities, most of the archeorobotic devices
demonstrated their potentialities in specific branches of the discipline, especially supporting
archaeologists in extreme conditions (extreme archaeology, Fig. 2), due to the fact that this kind of
equipment often grants a solution when traditional techniques fail, provides a better data acquisition
and, in some cases, allows real-time processing and feed-back. However this chapter will report the
main experiences of Arc-Team about a professional use of archeorobotic devices starting with a
brief analysis of the most common operations in archaeology from the field to the laboratory, with a
focus on the benefits regarding the peculiar context of missions abroad. Specific branches of the
discipline in extreme archaeology conditions will be analysed later in the text, in order to underline
the main potentiality of Open Hardware archeorobotic devices: the possibility to be partially
modified and adapted to specific situations deriving by different environments.
Basing on Arc-Team’s experience, the main support to most of the common archaeological
operations came from the development of a specific category of remote-controlled drone: the UAVs
(Fig. 3). The reason is that this kind of devices is extremely versatile and can support many field
activities, from survey and exploration, where a bird’s eye view can help in analysing wider
landscapes, to excavation, in which 2D and 3D photographic data acquisition can be sped up with
the use of a drone able to perform a stationary flight (hovering). Also specific 3D documentation,
for archaeological or architectural aims, are improved by the use of an UAV. For this reason Arc-
Team’s ArcheoDrone has been used, since 2008, not only for specific aerial archaeology missions,
but also to improve data acquisition in normal excavations, especially when the analysed evidences
were characterized by large dimensions like in the case of Roman roads (FRASSINE et al. 2013), or
to assist archaeologists during extensive surveys or explorations, in particular when the main
objective was the identification of wide infrastructures like World War 1 trenches (GIETL et al.
2017). Moreover archeorobotic UAVs have been used by Arc-Team during specific missions
abroad, like in 2012 to support the excavation of the Late Bronze and Iron Age site of Khovle Gora
(Georgia; HEINSCH et al. 2014), or in 2015 to perform the 3D documentation of the Sasanian
Palace of Ardashir in Firouzabad (Iran).
Specific problems deriving from particular conditions which characterize projects in foreign
countries can also be solved by the use other robotic devices, like CNC machines. Indeed, since
2013, Arc-Team equipped its laboratory with an Open Hardware 3D printer, used to materialise 3D
digital copies of remarkable archaeological finds discovered during missions abroad, in order to
perform specialistic morphological analyses or to accomplish particular tasks in archaeological
museography.
Nevertheless, as already mentioned, the main benefit of developing and using Open Hardware
archeorobotic equipment derives by the support that many devices can grant in extreme conditions,
a common context for field operations in several specialistic archaeological disciplines. Also in this
case the most performing devices are radio-controlled UAVs. In fact their use is nowadays
improving the field of aerial archaeology, from common remote sensing operations (BEZZI et al.
2013b) to more specific tasks (PISU et al. 2016). However their support in extreme conditions
during glacial archaeology or high mountain archaeology projects is maybe less evident, but often
essential to reach minimum archaeological standards during the missions. For instance, in the last
years, the ArcheoDrone supported the seasonal monitoring and documentation of the glacial sites
of Tisenjoch (where the copper age mummy of the Similaun Man was found) and Langrubenjoch
(bronze age; STEINER et al. 2016) in Alto-Adige/Südtirol (Italy). Moreover, in the same area, the
ArcheoDrone has been used also for several special operations to assist archaeologists during high
mountain missions related with modern conflict archaeology (World War 1), especially in the sites
of the Puster Valley District (GIETL et al. 2015). World War 1 archaeology, indeed, is a peculiar
branch of the discipline in which researchers have to deal with extreme conditions during data
acquisition and in particular along the Alpine Front, where field operations range from glaciers and
high mountains to dense forests, until underground or underwater environments (BEZZI et al.
2018b). For this reason different archaeorobotic devices have been widely used by Arc-Team in this
field for specific tasks, in order to perform speleoarchaeological 3d documentation of WW1 caves
and tunnels (BEZZI et al. 2018c) or to support underwater missions in alpine lakes (BEZZI et al.
2019a). Obviously specific drones (ROVs and USVs, Fig. 4) are also used during normal
underwater missions, to explore or document in 3D archaeological environments or evidences, like
for the study of the submerged forest of Lake Tovel (BEZZI et al. 2019b). This versatility of Arc-
Team’s archeorobitc devices derives, as already mentioned, by the fact that this equipment is based
on Open Hardware projects and, in most cases, homebuilt, so that drones and machines can be
easily modified to fulfil specific requirements deriving by several peculiar situations. Commercial
and closed source solutions often do not have the same potentiality, due to the difficulty in
performing minor modifications and optimizations following a fast and simple DIY (Do It Yourself)
approach in emergency situations.
2. Archeorobotic devices
Generally speaking any kind of robotic machine specifically designed for an archaeological use, or
partially modified in order to be optimized for archaeology, can be considered as an archeorobotic
device. This category can also include those few projects which achieved an high level of maturity
that grants a satisfying use in archaeology without any modification. Of course also simpler tools,
which do not reach the complexity of drones or other machines, but rather represent single parts of
an whole system, can be considered as a result of the archeorobotic research, even when they are
only made of mechanical components (since mechanics can be viewed as an integral part of
robotics). In this sense the accessibility to hardware designs (mechanical drawings, schematics,
etc…) is not a strict condition to define an archeorobotic device. However commercial solutions are
generally not developed for archaeological aims, so that most of archeorobotic tools are born thanks
to the open source culture and, being released under free/libre terms, they can be technically
considered Free and Open Source Hardware (FOSH). This chapter will briefly describe Arc-Team’s
archaeorobotic devices, dividing the hardware between drones, machines and simpler tools.
2.1 Drones
Among archeorobotics devices, the category of drones is the most representative, since this
hardware is extremely useful to support field operations, especially in extreme conditions.
Arc-Team’s research itself started with the development of a remote-controlled drone: an
optimization of the Open Hardware project UAVP, later renamed ArcheoDrone ( BEZZI et al.
2009). This first project was characterized by a fast development and reached through the years a
good level of maturity, with the construction of four main prototypes, based on different solutions
for the electronic components and the hardware design (Fig. 5). In fact the first prototype was an
optimization of the UAVP project, based on the Wolferl PCB (Print Circuit Board), with the
implementation of a remote sensing device oriented to aerial archaeology. This model of quadcopter
was based on a cross-shaped frame which revealed several weakness during data acquisition, due to
the fact that the frontal arm was often inside the digital camera FoV (Field of View). This problem
was solved with the development of the second prototype of quadcopter, based on a x-shaped frame
design. The new model was also equipped with different electronic devices like the new KK
(Kaptain Kuk) motherboard (released under Public Domain). In 2012 this implementation allowed
the integration of GPS receiver, for a better flight stability and for a new support in autopiloting.
The same year, several flight were performed also with closed source solution, evaluating an
integration of the ArcheoDrone prototype with the Naza DJI motherboard. Despite the positive
results achieved also with closed source hardware, the experimental research went on with open
solutions, testing the well known electronic prototyping platform Arduino and its derived UAV
projects like the ArduCopter. The main innovation of the fourth prototype, indeed, was not related
with the electronic component, but with the frame design, in order to solve a problem occurred in
the Georgian site of Khovle Gora. During the aerial archaeology mission of 2012, indeed, the team
experimented a crash due to the break of a propeller blade, whose causes have not been ascertained.
The small accident ended without consequences and the drone was repaired just with the
replacement of a damaged arm, but the episode revealed a safety weakness which has been easily
overcome by a new frame based on a multi-copter concept. For this reason the ArcheoDrone 4.0 is
an hesacopter, able to flight also with a damage propeller. This model represents actually the latest
development of the project, which in 2014 experienced a significant slowdown after the
introduction of the new regulation about UAVs and the consequent obligation to register any
hardware modification at the ENAC (the Italian national civil aviation authority), with a sensible
increase of the cost. Moreover commercial closed solution reached a good level of maturity, so that
they can be used also for professional aerial archaeology mission. Nevertheless Open Hardware
devices, like the ArcheoDrone, maintain the undeniable advantage of being modifiable and
adaptable to different contexts. This feature is not only essential in order to adapt robotic devices to
suit archaeological needs, but can represent the only solution in peculiar situations. For instance in
2015, during Arc-Team’s archaeological mission in Iran, the only way to respect the embargo
restrictions has been the downgrade of the ArcheoDrone with the removal of the GPS and FPV
(First Person View) integrations and the relative components. A similar solution would have been
almost impossible with a commercial drone.
After the experience gained with the development of the ArcheoDrone, Arc-Team focused its
research on a different kind of device, in order to support underwater archaeology, especially in
extreme contest like high mountain lakes or deep waters. Before to start the development stage, a
preparatory research was carried on in 2015, to understand which kind of drone would have been
more useful in underwater archaeology and to evaluate the available open solutions. The results of
this study oriented the research to the development of a ROV (Remotely Operated underwater
Vehicle), with some features derived by the AUV category (Autonomous Underwater Vehicle). At
the same time the evaluation of the available projects, like the OpenROV2, underlined some critical
issues (above all the negative buoyancy of the umbilical and the lack of a ventral camera) that could
have caused problems, especially in the particular field of inland waters research. Basing on this
and other considerations Arc-Team’s members decided to develop a completely new drone,
optimized for archaeology and equipped with a robotic operating system, in order to accomplish
some specific tasks, like real-time 3D documentation via SLAM algorithms (Simultaneous
Localization And Mapping). Given the difficulty of development, the project was conducted in
collaboration with WitLab, a FabLab specialized in robotic applications. This experience led to the
production, in 2016, of three different prototypes of underwater drones, named ArcheoROV (BEZZI
et al. 2019c). The first device was based on a three engine system (to control yaw and pitch)
equipped with the Open Hardware BeagleBone Black SBC (Single Board Computer), in order to
run the Open Source ROS (Robot Operating System) and its SLAM nodes. After some simulations
and test the prototype evolved into a new model, characterized by a different design of the
electronic components (from now on mounted on a removable structure integrated in the central
cannister of the frame) and by enhanced optical sensors composed by a frontal and a ventral, for an
optimization of the piloting and documenting system. The ArcheoROV 2.0 design was also
characterized by two additional cannisters to place extra battery packs, for an increased navigation
autonomy, while remote control was granted by a new GUI (Graphical User Interface) connected
2 https://www.openrov.com/
via tethering to the ROV. This prototype has been the first to be used during a professional
underwater archaeology mission in 2016, supporting the 3D documentation, with SfM techniques
(Structure from Motion; BEZZI et al. 2011), of a WW1 wreck laying on the bottom of Lake
Mandrone (Trentino, Italy) at almost 2400 meters above see level (BEZZI et al. 2019a). After this
mission, the prototype was subject to minor revisions and adjustments, with particular attention to
the reduction of the delay in video streaming. Further developments regarding a better lighting
systems, to operate in deep waters, and a Wi-Fi buoy, to free the control unit from the umbilical
cable of the vehicle and allow a remote piloting from the shore (with an extended operative range),
led to the third prototype (ArcheoROV 3.0), which was used, in 2016 and 2017, during
archaeological operations to document the submerged forest of Lake Tovel (Trentino, Italy; BEZZI
et al. 2019b). Despite the ArcheoROV reached a level of maturity which permitted its use in
professional archaeology missions, the project is still in progress and characterized by a fast
evolution to achieve a better design. Recently (2018) the WitLab team developed and tested a
completely new frame, based on seven engines, which grant a better control and manoeuvrability
(with great potential in archaeology).
If, from one side, the ArcheoROV represented a valuable support for underwater archaeology,
especially in extreme conditions, on the other side it demonstrated the limits of an approach based
on a single archeorobotic device with features derived by different categories like ROVs, AUVs and
ultimately USVs (after the development of the Wi-Fi buoy). For this reason Arc-Team current
research is oriented in dividing the tasks between different archeorobotic devices: the ArcheoROV,
for 3D documentation of targeted AOIs (Area Of Interest) and a new USV, named ArcheoBoat, for
exploration and survey (Fig. 6). The peculiarity of the project ArcheoBoat, still under heavy
development, is that can be considered as a fork of the main project ArcheoROV. In fact id derives
from the radio-controlled Wi-Fi buoy designed for the third prototype. The main idea is to build an
autonomous Vessel, with also autopilot capability, able to scan the underwater surface via several
sonar system. The prototype develped in 2017 is not yet been tested for a professional use, but some
of its equipment, like the low-cost sonar, was used in different missions with positive results,
allowing a real-time 3D documentation of the bathymetry for a better mission planning (BEZZI et
al. 2018a). Further test will be performed during 2019 to evaluate other scientific equipment for the
final model of ArcheoBoat.
2.2 Machines
If archeorobotic drones are very useful during field operations, other systems, like CNC machine,
can support several activities in the laboratory. This is the case of 3D printers which can reproduce
tangible copies of archaeological finds or contexts. As already mentioned, in 2013 Arc-Team had to
deal with some specific tasks related to archaeology, anthropology and museography. The common
point between the three disciplines was the need to materialize digital copies of archaeological finds
for different purposes: to perform specific morphometric analyses on remarkable finds (not directly
accessible); to study unique fossils of human evolution; to disclose scientific knowledge to a wider
public (Fig. 7). In order to fulfil these specific needs, Arc-Team started a preliminary research about
available open solutions of 3D printers, initially evaluating the well known project RepRep. The
final choice felt on the Open Hardware Fa)(a 3D, a CNC 3D printer whose main feature is the
magnetic levitation of the arm on x and y axes which causes less usury and, consequentially, implies
a simpler configuration without regular calibrations. The project, developed by Giacomo Falaschi at
the Contea Fab Lab, demonstrated an high level of maturity, allowing a direct use in archaeology,
without any modification. Thanks to this machine several archaeological researches were
accomplished through the years. One of the main project in which the Fa)(a 3D has been heavily
involved was the organization of the Open Source exhibition “Facce. I molti volti della storia
umana”, held in Padua between February and December 2015 (BEZZI et al. 2016). In fact, during
the preliminary studies, the 3D printer was used to materialize tangible copies of different finds not
otherwise accessible, like a foreign body (a small metal ring) discovered through x-ray Computer
Tomography in the Ptolemaic mummy of the first priest of Thoth preserved at the Anthropological
Museum of the University of Padua (CARRARA et al. 2018)or the five skulls of Homo georgicus,
3D digitally documented at the Georgian National Museum of Tbilisi.
3. Tools
The last category of archeorobotic devices developed by Arc-Team is represented by a series of
different tools adapted to an archaeological use. These “ArcheoTools” are basically composed by
single components of more complex devices, in general drones, reused for specific archaeological
tasks on the field in particular conditions. An example is the multi-axis gimbal of the ArcheoDrone
which can be mounted on a simple telescopic pole to stabilize the photography during intra-site or
in-door archaeological and architectural 3D documentation. This system has been used several
times by Arc-Team in those situations in which the use of a real UAV would be unjustified or even
risky (like for some critical operations near an urban center). Also in this case, working with Open
Hardware devices offers potentialities which are difficult to exploit with closed source solutions. An
example is the possibility to interchange the components between different equipment, an option
which can be very useful abroad. For instance, during the 2016 mission in Iran, the members of
Arc-Team used some components of the ArcheoDrone to repair the damaged gimbal of the
telescopic pole, in order to complete the acquisition of several Sassanian bas-reliefs (Fig. 8).
Another device which has been used externally the drone for which it was designed, as a stand-
alone tool, is the 3D real-time system of the ArcheoROV. In fact, installing ROS on portable
supports, like laptops, it is possible to activate its SLAM nodes and connect them with different
sensors, even more that the ones usable underwater (like RGB-D cameras). As a matter of fact such
device has been used in several speleoarcheological missions in order to 3D document small and
medium size WW1 tunnels or to penetrate dense forests, dividing the AOI in shorter parts, when
GPS support was not able to grant the archaeological tolerance (Fig. 9).
The last ArcheoTool developed for an external use is a mechanical speed reducer, designed to adapt
a common Pressler’s gimlet to an underwater drill, in order to perform dendrochronological
sampling on submerged trunks also in deep waters or in high altitude, where divers should not
perform physically strenuous operations. This simple solutions extended the range of
dendrochronological analysis to unexplored submerged environment, allowing archaeologists to
work safely also in extreme conditions (Fig. 10).
4. Conclusions
Since 2006 archeorobotic devices had a strong impact on Arc-Team activities. The initial purpose to
maintain a line of development oriented to the criteria of an Open Research (BEZZI et al. 2012) led
to the use of Open Hardware solutions, with several positive consequences and, above all, the
possibility to support professional archaeology with an homebuilt scientific equipment,
characterized by equivalent performances of other commercial products and, at the same time, by
significantly lower costs. Open Hardware also presented some typical benefits of Open Source
software development, like the possibility to reuse components in different devices (in a similar
way to software libraries) or to derive (fork) a project from another (a situation that happened with
the ArchoROV and the ArcheoBoat). Of course this kind of approach improves also the
development speed of single devices, with a mutual exchange of informations among the interested
scientific community, especially when similar projects are developed independently by different
teams, like the ArcheoROV and the Archaeonomous (BLOCK-BERLITZ et al. 2019). The
possibility to simply modify different archeorobotic devices in order to adapt them to peculiar
situations remains probably the most important potentiality of an Open Hardware approach. This
characteristic has already opened new horizons in archaeological studies, especially supporting
professionals in extreme conditions, both in high mountain and glacial contexts as well as in
underground or submerged environments, expanding the range of research to sites still partially
unexplored, like alpine lakes, caves and glaciers. In conclusion, if from one side some categories of
commercial robotic devices became, in recent years, less expensive and, consequentially, of
common use in archaeology, on the other side the experimental use of Open Hardware often
introduced and prepared the discipline to this new technology, underlining its weakness and, in
some cases, finding and adopting new solutions. Everything considered, an Open Hardware
approach is probably still the best solution to test and develop new robotic devices in order to fulfil
the peculiar needs of the archaeological research.
Bibliography
BEZZI L., BEZZI A., BOSCARO C., FEISTMANTL K., GIETL R., NAPONIELLO G., OTTATI
F., DE GUZMAN M. 2018a, Commercial Archaeology and 3D Web Technologies, in F.
GALEAZZI, H. RICHARDS-RISSETTO (eds), Web-based Infrastructure As a Collaborative
Framework Across Archaeological Fieldwork, Lab work, and Analysis, «Journal of Field
Archaeology» Vol. 43, Sup. 1, London, Taylor & Francis, 45-59.
BEZZI A., BEZZI L., CAMAGNA T. 2019a, Documentation and sampling strategies in
underwater archaeology. General criteria and specific solutions, in K. FISCHER-AUSSERER
(eds.), CHNT 2017. Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Cultural Heritage and New
Technologies (Wien, 2017), Wien, Magistrat d. Stadt Wien MA 7, Stadtarchäologie, in press.
BEZZI L., BEZZI A., CAMAGNA T., BERNABEI M., FORTI A. 2019b, Red Lake Project. Un
approccio open source alla ricerca in archeologia subacquea, in A. CORDA, A. MARRAS (eds.),
ARCHEOFOSS Free, Libre and Open Source Software e Open Format nei processi di ricerca
archeologica. Atti dell’XI Workshop (Cagliari 2016), Cagliari, in press.
BEZZI A., BEZZI L., DUCKE B. 2011, Computer Vision e Structure from Motion, nuove
metodologie per la documentazione archeologica tridimensionale: un approccio aperto, in G. DE
FELICE, M. G. SIBILANO (eds.), ARCHEOFOSS Free, Libre and Open Source Software e Open
Format nei processi di ricerca archeologica. Atti del V Workshop (Foggia 5-6 MAggio 2010),
«Insulae Diomedeae»Vol. 19, Santo Spirito, Edipuglia, 103-111.
BEZZI A., BEZZI L., FONDRIEST G., GIETL R., NAPONIELLO G., SEGATA M. 2015, Lo
scavo archeologico professionale, innovazioni e best practice mediante metodologie a perte e open
research, in M. Dapor (eds.), «Atti dell’Accademia Roveretana degli Agiati», Ser. IX, vol. V, B
(Classe di Scienze matematiche, fisiche e naturali), Rovereto, Edizioni Osiride, 5-20.
BEZZI A., BEZZI L., GIETL R. 2007, Aramus 2006: an international archaeological expedition
completely supported by Free and Open Source Software, in K. FISCHER-AUSSERER (eds.),
Archäologie und Computer 2006 - Workshop 11. Kulturelles Erbe und Neue Technologien, (Wien,
18-20 Oktober 2006), Wien, Magistrat d. Stadt Wien MA 7, Stadtarchäologie.
BEZZI A., BEZZI L., GIETL R. 2009, Open Source and Archaeology: The next level. Building and
developing hardware projects, in K. FISCHER-AUSSERER (eds.), Archäologie und Computer
2008 - Workshop 13. Kulturelles Erbe und Neue Technologien, (Wien, 3-5 ONovember 2008), Wien,
Magistrat d. Stadt Wien MA 7, Stadtarchäologie.
BEZZI A., BEZZI L., GIETL R., FRANCISCI D., 2006, ArcheOS 1.0 Akhenaton, the first
GNU/Linux live distribution for archaeologists, in K. FISCHER-AUSSERER (eds.), Archäologie
und Computer 2005 - Workshop 10. Kulturelles Erbe und Neue Technologien, (Wien, 7.-10
November 2005), Wien, Magistrat d. Stadt Wien MA 7, Stadtarchäologie.
BEZZI A:, BEZZI L., GIETL R:, HEINSCH S., KUNTNER W., NAPONIELLO G. 2013a, Aramus
Excavations and Field School. Experiences in Using, Developing, Teaching and Sharing
Free/Libre and Open Source Software, in F. CONTRERAS, M. FARJAS and F. JAVIER MELERO
(eds), Fusion of Cultures. CAA 2010. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in
Archaeology, Proceedings of the 38th Conference (Granada 2010), Oxford, BAR International
Series 2494, Archaeopress.
BEZZI A., BEZZI L., GIETL R., PISU N. 2013b, ArcheOS and UAVP, a Free and Open Source
Platform for Remote Sensing: the Case Study of Monte S. Martino ai Campi of Riva del Garda
(Italy), in G. EARL, T. SLY, A. CHRYSANTHI, P. MURRIETA-FLORES, C. PAPADOPOULOS,
I. ROMANOWSKA, D. WHEATLEY (eds.), Archaeology in the Digital Era. CAA 2012. Computer
Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Proceedings of the 40th Conference
(Southampton 2012), Amsetrdam, Amsterdam University Press, 792-799.
BEZZI L., BEZZI A., GIETL R., FEISTMANTL K., NAPONIELLO G. 2018b, Archeologia del
Conflitto. Dai principi generali della disciplina al contesto particolare della Valle di Non, in N.
SIMONCELLI, L. BARISON, M. NEBL (eds.), Val di Non. Sguardi sulla Grande Guerra. Arte,
storia, cinematografia, archeologia, propaganda e testimonianze a cento anni dalla fine della
Prima guerra mondiale, Cles, Comunità della Val di Non, 14-37.
BEZZI A., BEZZI L., MORAES C., CARRARA N., PIEVANI T., TIZIANI M. 2016, Facce. I molti
volti della storia umana. Una mostra Open Source, in A. CARAVALE, P BASSO, P. GROSSI (eds.),
ARCHEOFOSS. Free, Libre and Open Source Software e Open Format nei processi di ricerca
archeologica. Atti del IX Workshop (Verona, 19-20 giugno 2014), , «Archeologia e Calcolatori»
Supplemento 8, Firenze, All’Insegna del Giglio, 271-279.
BEZZI L., BEZZI A., NASCIVERA S., PAISSAN F., PERGHEM D., REYES A., ROCCO E.,
SAIANI A. 2019c, ArcheoROV. Un ROV open hardware sviluppato specificatamente per scopi
archeologici, in A. CORDA, A. MARRAS (eds.), ARCHEOFOSS Free, Libre and Open Source
Software e Open Format nei processi di ricerca archeologica. Atti dell’XI Workshop (Cagliari
2016), Cagliari, in press.
BEZZI L., FRANCISCI D., GROSSI P., LOTTO D. 2012, Introduzione in L. BEZZI, D.
FRANCISCI, GROSSI P., LOTTO D. (eds.), Open source, free software e open format nei processi
di ricerca archeologica. Atti del 3° Workshop (Padova, 8-9 maggio 2008), Roma, Edizioni Quasar,
5-7.
BEZZI L., GIETL R., BONFANTI F., BEZZI A., NAPONIELLO G., FEISTMANTL K. 2018c, La
Grande Guerra sul Garda Orientale. Un progetto di archeologia del conflitto, in BONFANTI F.,
FERRARI R. (eds.), La Grande Guerra sul Garda Orientale. Operazioni belliche e vicende militari
sul Lago e l’entroterra montano, Vicenza, Edibus, 173-207.
BLOCK-BERLITZ M., WITTCHEN D., GEHMLICH B., ZEISBERG S. 2019, Archaeonomous.
Towards semi-autonomous underwater documentations at “See am Mondsee”, in K. FISCHER-
AUSSERER (eds.), CHNT 2017. Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Cultural Heritage and New
Technologies (Wien, 2017), Wien, Magistrat d. Stadt Wien MA 7, Stadtarchäologie, in press.
CARRARA N., SCATTOLIN G. 2018, La mummia del primo sacerdote di Toth, in L. BEZZI, N.
CARRARA, M. NEBL (eds.), Imago Animi. Volti dal passato, Cles: Comune di Cles, 37-41.
FRASSINE M., FONTANA A., BEZZI A. 2013, Viabilità romana nel territorio di Morsano al
Tagliamento (PN): la direttrice Concordia-Norico dal telerilevamento allo scavo archeologico, in
G. UGGERI (eds), «Journalof Ancient Topography» Vol. XXIII, Lecce, Mario Congedo Editore,
107-128.
GIETL R., BEZZI L., BEZZI A., NAPONIELLO G:, ZAMBELLI D., 2017, Frontgebiete unter der
Lupe. Die Archäologie des Ersten Weltkrieges im Gebirge. Neue Ergebnisse der großflächigen
archäologischen Dokumentationskampagne am westlichen Karnischen Kamm, in A. JORDAN
(eds), „Die kahlen, kalten Berge ...“ Der Erste Weltkrieg im Alpenraum, die Deutsche
Gebirgstruppe und das Württembergische Gebirgsbataillon, Rastatt, Wehrgeschichtliches Museum
Rastatt GmbH, 7-22
GIETL R., TERZER C., STEINER H. 2015, Dokumentation der Hochgebirgsfront des I.
Weltkrieges im Pustertal, in «Der Schlern» Heft 7, Bolzano, Verlagsanstalt Athesia GmbH, 4-25.
HEINSCHS S., KUNTNER W. 2010, The Ostburg of Aramus, an urartian and achaemenid
fortress. The stratigraphical evidence, in P. MATTHIAE, F. PINNOCK, L. NIGROAND, N.
MARCHETTI, L. ROMANO (eds), International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near
East, Proceedingsof the 6th Conference (Roma 2008), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, 339-348.
HEINSCH S., KUNTNER W., LICHELI W. 2014, Some remarks on the first two Georgian-
Austrian Excavation Campaigns at Khovle Gora, Shida Kartli, 2011-2012, in P. BIELINSKI, M.
GAWLOKOWSKI, R. KOLINSKI, D. ŁAWECKA, A. SOLTYSIAK, Z. WYGNANSKA (eds),
International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Proceedingsof the 8th
Conference (Warsaw 2012), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, 15-30.
PISU N., BEZZI A., BEZZI L., MORAES C. 2016, Torre dei Sicconi: progetto di ricostruzione e
valorizzazione di un antico sito castellare trentino, in P. BASSO, A. CARAVALE, P. GROSSI (eds),
ARCHEOFOSS Free, Libre and Open Source Software e Open Format nei processi di ricerca
archeologica. Atti del IX Workshop (Verona 2014), «Archeologia e Calcolatori» Supplemento 8,
Firenze, All’Insegna del Giglio, 263-270.
STEINER H., GIETL R., BEZZI A., NAPONIELLO G., NICOLUSSI K., PILCHER T. 2016,
Gletscherfunde am Langgrubenjoch (Gde. Mals und Gde. Schnals) in Südtirol. Vorbericht, in J.
MÜLLER, D. MISCHKA (eds), «Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt» Jahrgang 46, Heft 2,
Mainz, Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum Mainz in Verbindung mit dem Präsidium der
Deutschen Verbände für Archäologie, 167-182.
Webography
BEZZI L. 2011, UAVP (Universal Aerial Video Platform), in ATOR (Arc-Team Open Research),
http://arc-team-open-research.blogspot.com/2011/07/uavp-universal-aerial-video-platform.html
Images
Fig. 1
The helicopter provided for the aerial mission of 2016 in the Urartian site of Aramus (A); an aerial
picture of the site (B); a view of the area surrounding Aramus hill (C).
Fig. 2
Glacial archaeology operations on the top of the Gran Zebrù / Königspitze, at 3851 meters asl (A);
High mountain archaeology at the Croda Rossa / Sextener Rotwand (B); speloarchaeological
operations in the WW1 site of Punta Linke (C); archaeological underwater exploration of Lake
Mandrone, at 2405 meters asl (C).
Fig. 3
The ArcheoDrone v. 4.0 in use during an excavation of an Irone Age site in Italy (A) and for the
documentation of a Sassanian bas-relief in Iran (B); some WW1 trenches in high mountain, viewed
from the ArcheoDrone 3.0 (C); a bird'eye picture of the excavations near the church of S.
Apollinare in Trento, from the ArcheoDrone 2.0 (D).
Fig. 4
A picture of the ArcheoROV 2.0 in action (A); the Wi-Fi buoy of the ArcheoROV 3.0, from which
derives the project ArcheoBoat (B); a WW1 shrapnel documented during the underwater mission at
Lake Monticello, where the sonar equipment of the ArcheoBoat has been tested (C); the 3D
documentation resulting from the fusion of LIDAR DTM data with the sonar bathymetry recorded
by the ArcheoBoat (D).
Fig. 5
The evolution of the project ArcheoDrone.
Fig. 6
The evolution of the projects ArcheoROV and ArcheoBoat.
Fig. 7
A prototype of the CNC machine Fa)(a 3D (A); the 3D printing of a skull of Homo georgicus,
optimized for exhibitions (B); the DICOM data of a small metal ring discovered in the Ptolemaic
mummy of the first priest of Thoth preserved in Padua (C); a tangible copy of the ring (D).
Fig. 8
A telescopic pole, equipped with the ArcheoDrone gimbal, during the documentation of a Sassanian
bas-relief in Iran.
Fig. 9
The use of the ROS based SLAM device derived by the ArcheoROV in order to perform a dense
forest penetration during 3D mapping operations (A and B); a WW1 cave documented in real-time
3D with SLAM.
Fig. 10
Dendrochronological manual sampling at Lake Mandrone (A); the mechanical speed reducer
developed for underwater drilling operations (B); automatic drilling operation on the bottom of
Lake Tovel, at -36 meters from the surface (C).
