Taking Mobile Computing to the Field

Forum

Trends, Tools, Techniques, and

Taking Mobile Computing to the Field Samuel B. Fee, Washington and Jefferson College David K. Pettegrew, Messiah College William R. Caraher, University of North Dakota As our plane began its descent to Larnaka, Cyprus, the familiar request came from the cockpit to put away all electronic devices. I turned my head and peered down the aisle of the plane to see nine undergraduate students shutting down the iPads loaned to them for their month-long archaeological sojourn to the island. I closed the cover to my own tablet but not before touching the “submit” button in the archaeology app that we would be using in the field later that week. The PylaKoutsopetria Archaeological Project (PKAP) was going paperless for its 2012 season of excavation at the Hellenistic site of Pyla-Vigla, and we were still working out the bugs in an experimental mobile application customized for data acquisition. Our decision to bring iPads to Cyprus marked an opportune moment. Samuel Fee was teaching a class on mobile applications at Washington and Jefferson College and looking for some real test-bed cases, while David Pettegrew was taking students to Cyprus for a month of fieldwork, bringing with him thirteen iPads loaned by Messiah College for pedagogical trials. Teaming up to develop an experimental mobile application for fieldwork, we dedicated an iPad to each student for completing course assignments and reserved four devices for each of the excavation units under investigation. Like other archaeologists adopting mobile technology for field work in the last several years, our paperless field season marked an experimental trial that greatly affected our experience of the archaeological process.

iPads and Archaeology The rise of mobile computing marks yet another stage in a half-century-long process of integrating computer technology into archaeological fieldwork. During this time, first personal computers and then laptops became staple features of archaeological projects, but short battery life, tendencies to overheating, and susceptibility to dust have made them better tools for work in the lab than in the field. Small hand-held devices with a battery life of eight to ten hours and a solid frame impenetrable

50 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 76:1 (2013)

to dust solve these inherent difficulties of applying computing devices for archaeological ends. The connectivity of these devices enables uploading and backup of data from the trench and allows for easy sharing of archaeological data. The significant potential of custom application development has created a myriad of new possibilities for collecting data. It is perhaps not surprising that Apple’s marketing of the iPad in early 2010 corresponded to their immediate adoption by archaeologists. When the University of Cincinnati went “paperless” in excavations at Pompeii in late spring of that year, they appeared on Apple’s website (2010) and made headlines (Ellis and Wallrodt 2011). The Pompeii Archaeological Research Project: Porta Stabia (PARP:PS) and the Pompeii Quadriporticus Project adopted off-the-shelf apps for data collection (FMTouch and later FileMaker Go, for interfacing with FileMaker Pro database), scaled drawing (iDraw), note taking (Pages), Harris Matrices (OmniGraffle), and even task management (Things). The project director, Steven Ellis, heralded the digital tablet as a revolutionary step in archaeological recording, providing a dynamic record of field work and creating immediate access to data; John Wallrodt, Senior Research Associate at UC and the main force behind paperless archaeology, described the devices as “practically custom built” for archaeological work (Apple 2010). The revolutionary effect of tablets on the archaeological process has been questioned (Caraher 2011; Hopkins 2010), but a new community of digital archaeologists blogging about iPads is highlighting fundamental shifts in the nature of fieldwork.1 Most commonly, tablet users have touted the improved workflow enabled by digital data collection and significant time saving in postprocessing data. They have called attention to the iPad’s ability to describe, illustrate, image, and store data on a single device—replacing, in turn, paper binders, supporting documentation (e.g., field manuals), clipboards, and notebooks. Mobile Internet access has enabled archaeologists to upload data to the cloud both to ensure the preservation of information and to provide in-field access to records. Tablets provide a comprehensive and secure recording tool. Since Cincinnati’s pioneering project two years ago, researchers have adopted the iPad in Poland (Gdańsk Excavations), Italy (Sangro Valley Project), Cyprus (Athienou Archaeological Project, Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeological Project), and the Palestinian territories (Jericho Mafjar Project), among others. Most of these projects have adopted off-the-shelf apps for their needs (for one archaeologist’s list, see Tan 2012), with the most common apps used for illustration, note taking, and data input. In our 2012 field season we used both commercial off-theshelf apps and developed our own application, customized to

Theories in Archaeology Today

Figure 1. PKapp—primary interaction buttons at top.

our research goals of recording stratigraphic excavations of a Hellenistic garrison site and to some extent independent from the powerful, yet expensive and proprietary iPad application ecosystem. It is the customization of mobile technology that we seek to highlight here.

The 2012 Excavations at Pyla-Vigla and the PKapp Mobile Application In 2012, the Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeological Project (PKAP) focused work at Pyla-Vigla, a fortified Hellenistic garrison site situated on a high ridge above the coast 10 km east of Larnaka (ancient Kition). Continuing the small-scale excavation of 2008 and 2009, we excavated four small trenches ranging in size from 4 to 21 m2, with crews of one supervisor and three to four students, specifically placed to clarify questions of the site’s chronology and function.2 In previous seasons our basic units of excavation were stratigraphic units (SUs) for each of our excavation units (EUs). The SU is the unique identifier for each discrete archaeological context on PKAP. We collected information on paper on a twopage SU form. The first page records standard information on the trench location, soil type, features, and excavation methods. Additional pages contain an unstructured space for description and interpretation; this fulfills the role of the traditional excavation notebook. Our goal with adopting iPads was to make the traditional

paper and pen approach to data collection an electronic process. In addition, we designed a recording system that would allow us to output our data without dependence on a particular piece of proprietary software. Our goal was largely the same as other projects adopting iPads: we sought to improve our efficiency in the field by collecting archaeological information in a digital format at the edge of the trench, eliminating the time-consuming task of keying handwritten field notes. The key to our innovation, however, was our app “PKapp,” designed by Samuel Fee as a custom electronic data collection form for recording the same information we usually collected on the traditional SU paper sheets. From a practical standpoint, our main concern was whether the app would be sufficiently reliable and robust to prevent any data loss, particularly in its first season of use. As a result, we decided to run a thorough beta-test of the PKapp during our 2012 field season. Trench supervisors continued using paper SU forms while a closely supervised student collected digital notes on the iPad.

Technical Design and Problems On the technical side, we had a number of parameters we wanted to address while developing the application: 1. It was imperative that we not lose data. 2. Entering data needed to be an easy process. 3. The app needed to provide data validation. 4. PKapp had to run locally on the device without Internet access (we recognized the limits of mobile connectivity around the world, and our iPads were Wi-Fi only). 5. The app had to export the data in a form suitable for import into most major databases and spreadsheet programs. 6. Updates to the app needed to be easy and quick. 7. We wanted the software to be platform agnostic. Designing the interface for PKapp was fairly easy, as we were essentially re-creating the paper form, yet we also recognized the opportunity to validate some of the data at point of entry by taking advantage of new features in HTML5 for implementing forms and validating data. In most places the user can only enter information appropriate for the field (figs. 1 and 2). The excavation unit, stratigraphic unit, and elevations fields, for example, are designed to limit digits to the number appropriate to the database field. For other types of content, such as the fields related to soil type, the entry options are limited by mak-

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 76:1 (2013) 51

ing a list of specific selectable options. Making the user select from a list helps us to produce a more normalized and accurate data set by requiring the user to choose one of several options. There are only four buttons that lie outside this basic form paradigm (figs. 1 and 3). The Load SU Data button allows the

Figure 2. PKapp—additional data entry area.

Figure 3. The Data Export area.

user to reload previously entered SU data stored locally on the tablet. This function allows users to compare SUs in the field just as they would by flipping through the full excavation notebook for the trench. The Clear Data/Begin New SU button wipes all data visible on the form, allowing the user to enter new data. The Record the Data button writes the data to the local SQL (Structured Query Language) database. It is essen-

52 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 76:1 (2013)

tially a glorified Save or Submit button that one would find on any web form, but we wrote specific scripts to have it perform additional functions. The last real interface element, Data Export, is for exporting the data (fig. 3). An area at the bottom of the app contains one button to export the data from the SQL database into CSV (comma-separated values) format. Once that action is completed, a second button for emailing the data shows up beneath the data window. Touching this button emails the data directly to a specific email address. The database administrator for the project can then verify the data and import them directly into the primary database for the project. We asked trench supervisors to back up their work daily and to send out these data in the evening at our lodging when an Internet connection was available. While developing PKapp, we ran into two technical challenges resulting from the immaturity of the toolset we were using. The first involved difficulties in writing the database. PKapp was created using HTML5, a collection of preexisting scripting languages (e.g., HTML, CSS, and JavaScript), along with more robust support for web forms. This was ideal for developing a web app that could be used on a range of devices, including traditional PCs and laptops, smart phones, iPads, and other tablets, and could be accessed anywhere in the world. The HTML5-based web application drew heavily upon the jQuery Mobile JavaScript libraries, which handled the look and feel of the app. In addition, we customized some of the form markup and added a number of attributes to help validate the data and eliminate a number of potential user errors via input of data. Designing the user interface was relatively simple compared to the challenge of constructing the database “back end” (fig. 4). For PKapp, we implemented a WebSQL database locally on the device. This required that we use the mobile Safari browser for the iPad, albeit without Internet connection. As for the database structure, we made the unique identifier the SU, so a new row is created in the database every time the user saves a new SU. While saving the data was no trouble, reading it, reimporting it (with the Load SU button), and exporting it to CSV format all required custom scripting as well as creating arrays in JavaScript. The other major difficulty in designing PKapp came with exporting the data. Because Apple has not implemented the

fileSystem API (application programming interface) for HTML, we were unable to write files with JavaScript. We circumvented this by exporting the data to the screen and then sending the data via email (fig. 5). While this may not appear to be an elegant solution, it had some unforeseen benefits. We exported and backed up our data in a two-step process: the Export These Data button converted the data into CSV format; then the Email the Data button sent a text file to a specified account, where it was backed up in a free, zero-maintenance, cloud environment and could be imported to any database or spreadsheet.

the maximum recommended operating temperatures of 95° F by simply removing them from direct sunlight when not in use. Keeping the tablets in dust jackets when not being used managed the persistent dust of the Cypriot summer without incident. Finally, while we were in the field on some days for ten

Digital Devices in the Field In the field, iPads generally proved to be effective multifunctional devices for data collection, photography, and note taking. Our staff and undergraduate students readily learned how to use the particular apps and devices (fig. 6). Learning how to record data and describe soils on the iPad was identical to our traditional note taking with pen and paper, so we did not encounter difficulties in our transition from paper to digital recording. Our only problems with in-field data loss occurred when excavators forgot to touch the Record the Data button upon leaving the field. Besides the PKapp application, we made use of several other off-the-shelf apps: Dropbox for circulating files and photos between staff, a PDF reader, and Files and FileApp Pro for storing PDFs and supporting documents related to our work. It was convenient to be able to access the digital version of the field manual rather than to wrestle with a twenty-page paper version in the gusty sea breezes. With the help of a portable Bluetooth keyboard, the directors used the iPad for general note taking and to keep a running log of the simultaneous work of all four trenches (fig. 7). While previously we recorded these general notes in a paper field notebook, we found that the simple Notes app worked well and later experimented with Evernote, which allowed us to record georeferenced audio and photographs in the field. Most of our practical concerns about using iPads proved unfounded. The glass screen could produce some glare particularly in the later afternoon, but the screen was always visible. We initially worried that the devices would overheat, but we found it easy enough to keep them within

Figure 4 (above). An SU with loaded data and Load SU Data selected.

Figure 5 (below). Data ready to email.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 76:1 (2013) 53

Figure 6. Excavator keying data. Note the glare on screen.

hours, we never exhausted a battery during our daily use because we closed the devices when not using them; a nightly charge provided more than enough power. The 5 megapixel camera on the iPad was insufficient for recording publicationquality images of fieldwork, but it was more than adequate for taking informal photographs (fig. 8). We instructed students to take photos of the bottom of every stratigraphic unit as a complementary archive to our publication-quality digital photos. We also used the iPad cameras for capturing images of individuals conducting fieldwork, which could be conveniently uploaded to social media sites when we had Internet connection again at the hotel.

Future Directions O u r u s e o f i Pa d s i n 2 0 1 2 h a r d l y scratched the surface of the potential of these devices for archaeological purposes. Numerous off-the-shelf application, such as Notes, Files, and Dropbox, provide useful tools for archaeological projects, and as

54 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 76:1 (2013)

Figure 7. General note-taking.

more and more archaeologists and students have iPads, tablets, or even smartphones, the mobile computing revolution is poised to impact field archaeology in a significant way. Our more innovative use of mobile technology was an application customized to the specific needs of our fieldwork. Collecting data via PKapp proved easy and worked remarkably well in creating a digital record of our stratigraphic units without data loss. Bringing devices with cellular capabilities would have allowed the daily backup of our data before leaving the field. As HTML5 matures and the FileSystem API get fully implemented, that will resolve the data export problem for us, but a Dropbox solution might be more quickly achieved. PKapp version 2.0 will also include photo capture, so we can attach images to each SU, possibly voice dictation as well, which will make large text entries less burdensome.

Our experience with iPads in the field required some up-front investment in developing the app, and this allowed us to use the devices in a sophisticated way to collect archaeological information in the field. We also found that the devices provided a robust and reliable way to record notes and take photos. What strikes us about mobile technology is its potential for exploring new models for documenting archaeological fieldwork. While the widespread adoption of off-the-shelf apps has encouraged archaeologists to consider how to collect data in new ways using applications developed for a broader marketplace, 3 archaeologists can also collaborate with software developers to produce applications capable of gathering information in innovative ways. We still have some way to go toward developing software tools that make this easy, but as the technology continues to mature, data collection apps should become increasingly accessible to any researcher.

Figure 8. Taking photographs with an iPad.

Acknowledgments

References

We wish to thank the staff and students who participated in this trial experience. For technical assistance, we thank Cory Thoma, a former W&J student who is now in the PhD program at the University of Pittsburgh. Our iPad trial would have been impossible without the support of Neil Weaver and Information Technology Services at Messiah College, who provided iPads as part of an Innovative Technology Project grant funded by the Messiah College Office of the President. Dr. Fee’s development work was funded in part through the Motorola Mobility Foundation. PKAP received substantial support from the University of North Dakota, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, INSTAP, and Messiah College.

Apple. 2010. Discovering Ancient Pompeii with iPad. http://classics. uc.edu/pompeii/images/stories/ipad/Apple%20-%20Discovering%20ancient%20Pompeii%20with%20iPad.pdf. Caraher, W. 2011. Some Quick Thoughts on Paperless Archaeology. The New Archaeology of the Mediterranean World (blog), January 12, 2011. http://mediterraneanworld.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/twoquick-thoughts-on-paperless-archaeology. Caraher, W., R. S. Moore, and D. K. Pettegrew. Forthcoming. PylaKoutsopetria Archaeological Project: Recent Work at the Site of Pyla-Vigla. Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus 2011. Ellis, S., and J. Wallrodt. 2010. iPads at Pompeii. http://classics.uc.edu/ pompeii/index.php/news/1-latest/142-ipads2010.html. Guin, J. 2011. Podcast: iPads Break Digital Ground in Pompeii Archaeological Research. http://www.voicesofthepast.org/2011/09/11/ ipads-break-digital-ground-in-pompeii-archaeological-research. Hopkins, C. 2010. iPad at Pompeii: Does Tech Really Revolutionize How We Seek the Past? [Update]. http://readwrite.com/2010/10/11/ ipad_at_pompeii_does_tech_really_revolutionize_how. Tan, N.H. 2012. Apps for Archaeologists #1—Fieldwork Tools. Archaeograph (blog), February 21, 2012. http://web.archive.org/ web/20120511191044/http://www.archaeograph.com/apps-forarchaeologists-1-fieldwork-tools/#more-194.

Notes 1. See substantial discussion at John Wallrodt’s Paperless Archaeology blog (http://paperlessarchaeology.com) and David Beard’s Archaeology and the iPad blog (http://arch-pad.blogspot.com). 2. A preliminary report on our excavations at this site are found in Caraher, Moore, and Pettegrew forthcoming. 3. It is also true that archaeologists have influenced the development of off-the-shelf products by direct correspondence with the application developers. See Ellis’s comments in Guin 2011.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 76:1 (2013) 55