The Role of Modern Techniques in Preservation of Archaeological Sites
Author:
Chabuk Mahmood1, Al-Amiri Shatha2
Affiliation:
1. 1 University of Babylon , Babylon , Iraq 2. 2 University of Baghdad , Baghdad , Iraq
Abstract
Abstract
Archaeological sites have always suffered from loss and degradation due to many human and natural hazards. In recent decades, interest in preserving archaeological sites has increased dramatically. Many modern techniques have emerged from the different disciplines that can be used in preservation works, and a large number of the techniques and their capability made it difficult for decision-makers and specialists to determine the appropriate technique that gives the best results in preserving the archaeological site. The research aims to identify the project needed to preserve the archaeological site and then choose the appropriate technique for it, based on the opinions of experts using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method, which helps decision-makers and specialists to choose the most appropriate technology. The archaeological site of Babylon was chosen as a case study. As a result of applying the AHP method, the priority weights of preservation stages for the archaeological site of Babylon were determined as follows: (diagnosis and monitoring 30.8 %), (intervention 21.2 %), and (tourism and media 16.6 %), while the appropriate technique was determined as follows: (infrared thermography 29.4 %), (maintenance 49.3 %), and (augmented reality 38.7 %).
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Subject
Nature and Landscape Conservation,Urban Studies,History,Architecture,Geography, Planning and Development,Conservation
Reference36 articles.
1. Febro, D. 3D documentation of cultural heritage sites using drone and photogrammetry: A case study of Philippine UNESCO-recognized Baroque churches. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies, vol. 11, no. 8, 2020, pp. 1‒14. 2. Henderson, J., Lingle, A. M. Preventive conservation in archaeological sites: Uk policy and practice. China Cultural Heritage, no. 2, 2020, pp. 25‒35. 3. Rebec, K. M., Deanovič, B., Oostwegel, L. Old buildings need new ideas: Holistic integration of conservation-restoration process data using heritage building information modelling. Journal of Cultural Heritage, vol. 55, 2022, pp. 30‒42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2022.02.005 4. Henderson, J., Lingle, A. M. Preventive conservation in archaeological sites. In López Varela, S. L. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Sciences, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2018, pp. 1‒4. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119188230.saseas0476 5. Haddad, N. A., Fakhoury, L. A., Sakr, Y. M. A critical anthology of international charters, conventions & principles on documentation of cultural heritage for conservation, monitoring & management. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, vol. 21, no. 1, 2021, pp. 291‒310.
|
|