tih paper powered parachute

8/6/2019 TIH Paper Powered Parachute

1/14

Archaeological ProspectionArchaeol. Prospect. 12, 6978 (2005)Published online 25 April 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/arp.247

The Powered Parachute

as an Archaeological AerialReconnaissanceVehicle

TOMMY IKEHAILEY*

CulturalResourceOffice, Schoolof SocialSciences, NorthwesternStateUniversity,

Natchitoches,Louisiana71497,USA

ABSTRACT The need for a cost-effective method of aerial archaeology that could combine the ability to acquire

large-scale, low-altitude photographs of archaeological sites with the capacity for surveying largegeographical areas led to an evaluation of the powered parachute (PPC), a type of ultralight aircraft,as an archaeological aerial reconnaissance vehicle. The suitable performance of the aircraft duringflight was the first consideration, and an assessment of drift, in-flight stability and altitude stability ofthe PPCproved satisfactory. Next, characteristics requiredof an aerialcamera platform, suchas slowspeed, low vibration, the ability to capture images at low altitudes, port ability, low cost, safety andothers were considered.The PPC easily fulfilled each of the requirements. Limitations on the use ofthe PPC include obscuring vegetation, inclement weather and government regulations. Despite thelimitations,the PPC servesas aninvaluableadditionto the choiceof optionsavailableforaerialarchae-ologists.The PPC has experienced successin acquiring digital stillimages, digital video and thermalimages at sites in Louisiana, Mississippi and North Dakota, and these promising results have led toan increased interest in thisapproach from archaeologists, landmanagers and othersworking in theUSAandin Europe.Copyright 2005 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd.

Keywords: USA; remotesensing; aerial archaeology; low-altitudephotography; ultralight aircraft

Introduction

Aerial photography has proven to be an invalu-able tool in the examination of archaeologicalsites from the pioneering work of O.G.S.Crawford in the 1920s to the present (e.g.Crawford, 1924; Schmidt, 1940; Harp, 1974;Avery and Lyons, 1981; Featherstone et al.,

1999; Fowler, 2002). The view from above,whether oblique or vertical in orientation, pro-vides a perspective that cannot be reproduced on

the ground, a perspective that has aided, andcontinues to aid, archaeologists in the investiga-tion of known sites and in the discovery of newsites. This has been recognized by Europeanarchaeologists for some time, but many archae-ologists in other parts of the world have yet todevelop a full appreciation of the value of thisapproach to archaeological investigation.

When archaeologists in the USA have usedaerial reconnaissance, they have done so mostfrequently in the investigation of known sites.The primary goal of this type of study has beenthe examination of site extent and layout, inrecognition that the size of a site, and the culturalsignificance of its layout at times can be fullyappreciated only from an aerial perspective(Neuman and Byrd, 1980; Creamer et al., 1997).

Copyright# 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received March 2004Accepted 9 December 2004

* Correspondence to: T. I. Hailey, Cultural Resource Office,School of Social Sciences, Northwestern State University,Natchitoches, Louisiana 71497, USA.E-mail: [email protected]


2/14

For example, Poverty Point, a Late Archaicmound complex in northeastern Louisiana, hadbeen studied by scholars for some 80 years beforearchaeologist James Ford discovered the geo-metric arrangement of the mounds and other

earthworks at the site by examining aerialphotographs produced by the U. S. GeologicalSurvey (Ford, 1954). Less often recognized is thepotential of aerial reconnaissance for surveyinglarge geographical areas in the search for pre-viously unknown sites, although it is practicedextensively in Europe (Bradford, 1980; Muir,1983; Palmer, 1995; Stanjek and Fabbinder,1995; Kuzma et al., 1996; Riley, 1996; Featherstoneet al., 1999). There may be several reasons behindthis apparent neglect on the part of the archae-ological community outside of Europe to exploit

aerial reconnaissance to its fullest extent, includ-ing the limitations of data acquisition methodsthat have been utilized in the past and theexpense involved in using aerial survey.

Prior solutions to aerial archaeology

Archaeologists have been successful in applyinga variety of methods to acquire aerial images,including bipods, tripods, tethered blimps orweather balloons, radio-controlled airplanes,

conventional fixed-wing aircraft, helicoptersand satellites (Lyons and Avery, 1977; Limp,1989; Myers and Myers, 1995; Walker and DeVore, 1995; Eddy et al., 1996; Poulter and Ker-slake, 1997; Fowler, 2002). Each of these has itsadvantages and limitations.

Bipods, tripods, tethered balloons or blimpsand radio-controlled aircraft can be used success-fully to capture detailed images of archaeologicalresources, but they are limited spatially by thelength of the bipod/tripod legs, the length of therope tethers on inflatable craft (up to 800 m in a

survey by Myers and Myers (1995)), or the rangeof the radio-control device (or, more accurately,the line of sight of the operator (Walker and DeVore, 1995)). Thus, these techniques allow onlythe gathering of data at relatively low altitudesand in a geographically restricted area. Theacquisition of images beyond the altitude limita-tions of these techniques is impossible, and sur-veying large areas in search of archaeological

sites utilizing one of these approaches would bedifficult at best, and, at the very least, implausi-ble in terms of the time and effort this type ofsurvey would require.

Conventional aircraft and satellites have the

benefit of practically unrestricted geographicalcoverage of large areas, but many of the aerialimages available are taken at high altitudes (heredefined as greater than 6 km) and may possessinsufficient detail for certain types of archaeolo-gical study. For example, Harrower et al. (2002)made use of satellite imagery with resolutionsfrom 30 to 120 m to produce 1:25 000 scale mapsfor the study of cultural landscapes and to guidearchaeological survey efforts in Yemen, andFowler (1996) demonstrated the value of Russiansatellite images with 2 m resolution in a regional

survey of the area surrounding Stonehenge. Asthese studies make clear, the value of satellite orother high-altitude images to archaeologists can-not be denied, but many features of archaeologi-cal interest may be smaller in size than theresolution of these images, and therefore wouldnot be detected. Aerial images of the Whittingtonsite, near Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana taken at6 km (Plate 1) and at 300 m (Plate 2) illustrate thispoint. The image taken at higher altitude wouldbe useful to examine the landscape surroundingthe site, including property lines, structures and

vegetation, but the second image, taken at alower altitude, is superior in site detail (for aneven lower altitude image of this site, also com-pare Plate 7).

Conventional fixed-wing aircraft are alsoinadequate for acquiring detailed images ofindividual sites at low altitudes (here definedas lower than 900 m) owing to the relativelyrapid forward movement of the aircraft. Weexperienced this in our first attempts at aerialarchaeology in 1999, when the NorthwesternState University of Louisiana Cultural Resource

Office (NSU CRO) began initial experimentsin capturing low-altitude digital still images,digital video and thermal images of sites inwest-central Louisiana from a Cessna 172. Pro-mising, but not completely satisfactory resultswere achieved, owing to the difficulty in acquir-ing clear images at altitudes lower than 300 mdue to the speed of the aircraft (in this case, about125 kph).

70 T. I. Hailey

Copyright# 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeol. Prospect. 12, 6978 (2005)


3/14

The expense of renting aircraft and payinga trained pilot or hiring professional aerialphotographers could be considered a limitingfactor in the use of aerial reconnaissance aswell. An internet survey of companies in various

parts of the USA that could provide an aircraftfor aerial photography was conducted in January2004, and rates for hiring a piloted conventionalfixed-wing aircraft, such as a Cessna 172, rangedfrom US $130 to US $150 per hour. Helicopterscan overcome the forward movement problem,but the rental rates are even higher than thosefor conventional aircraft. The internet surveyproduced an even wider range of rates for heli-copter rental, from US $225 to US $1150 per hour.If there is no firm that can provide these servicesnear the area the archaeologist wishes to survey,

an additional expense will be incurred in trans-porting the aircraft to the study area. Should thearchaeologist consider hiring a professional aerialsurvey company to acquire the images, the costscan climb even higher. For example, Creamer et al.(1997) spent US $2500 for a professional aerialsurvey of site of Pueblo Blanco in New Mexico.

For these reasons, there is a real need withinthe field of archaeology for a cost-effectivemethod of acquiring aerial images that will pro-vide for the acquisition of low-altitude, detailedimages while also permitting the survey of large

areas. In attempting to identify a technique thatwould meet these requirements, we first consid-ered the solutions previously used by archaeol-ogists. Bipods, tripods, tethered inflatables andradio-controlled airplanes were rejected owingto their altitude limitations and lack of geogra-phical mobility. Of the geographically mobileoptions, fixed-wing aircraft were deemed unsui-table owing to their forward velocity and cost,helicopters were considered too expensive, andsatellites could not produce images with suffi-cient detail. After finding the previous solutions

used by archaeologists to be lacking in one ormore respects, we continued our search and soonrecognized that one vehicle, not yet tested byarchaeologists, had the design and performancecapabilities to overcome the limitations of theother techniques and provide a cost-effective,variable-altitude, geographically mobile aerialreconnaissance vehicle for archaeologists: thepowered parachute.

The powered parachute (PPC)

In the summer of 2001, the NSU CRO received agrant from the National Center for PreservationTechnology and Training (NCPTT) to conduct

experimentation into the utility of the PPC as anaerial platform for the photographic documenta-tion of archaeological sites. There are a numberof companies that manufacture PPCs, and a widevariety of makes and models are available, butthe PPC chosen was the Destiny 2000, from theDestiny Aircraft Corporation of Three Rivers,Michigan (Plate 3). The Destiny 2000 consists ofan airframe constructed of steel and aircraft-grade aluminum, seating for the occupant(s), aspecially designed gasoline engine, and a largerectangular parachute. Different configurations

are available, but in order to afford ourselves thegreatest payload capacity for personnel and cam-era equipment, we opted for a 65 hp Rotax 582liquid-cooled, two-cycle engine and a 550 ft2

rectangular parachute, the most powerful engineand largest parachute offered by Destiny at thattime. Our PPC features seating for two persons,so that one person, as the pilot, can concentrateon flying the aircraft while a second, in the rearseat, can act as the camera operator. The simpli-city of flying the PPC also affords the option ofsingle-occupant operation, with one person act-

ing as pilot and camera operator, if necessary.We also had our machine equipped with anoptional roll cage for added safety and a cargopod for storing the bags for the parachute and thehelmets during flight operations. The Destiny2000 comes standard with a 10 gallon fuel tank,providing a flight time from about 1.5 to 2h,depending on the weight of the flight crew andequipment, and an electronic engine informationsystem which permits the pilot to monitor alti-tude, rate of climb or descent, rpm setting, flightduration, and engine operation conditions such

as exhaust gas temperatures and cylinder headtemperatures.

The PPC is very simple to operate. After layingout the parachute behind the aircraft and ensur-ing that all of the lines are free of tangles, thecrew members take their seats, fasten their seat- belts, and the engine is started. As the pilotincreases the throttle, the aircraft begins tomove forward, taking the slack out of the lines,

Archaeological Reconnaissance by Powered Parachute 71



4/14

and the parachute begins to fill. The pilot con-tinues to increase throttle, the parachute pops upover the aircraft and within a short distance thePPC is airborne, with the parachute serving asthe wing to provide lift (Plate 4).

Once airborne, the pilot and camera operatorare able to converse via a headset intercomsystem installed in their helmets. The intercomsystem is patched into a two-way radio to allowthe flight crew to communicate with field crewon the ground and with air traffic control towerswhen operating within controlled airspace nearan airport. For in-flight navigation, our PPC isequipped with two GPS receiversa GarminGPS II Plus for basic navigational information,such as bearing, ground speed, wind directionand altitude, while a Trimble ProXRS is used for

more precise recording of flight lines and pointsof interest noted during the course of aerialsurveys.

Flight characteristics of the PPC

The suitability of any aircraft as an archaeologi-cal aerial reconnaissance vehicle depends on theperformance of the aircraft in flight, as this has adirect bearing on its utility as a camera platform.In assessing the PPC, a number of factors that

affect the performance of any aircraft were takeninto consideration, including drift, in-flight sta-bility and altitude stability.

Drift is defined as the tendency of an aircraft todeviate from a straight flight path. Drift can becaused by the design characteristics of an aircraftor by weather conditions such as wind or turbu-lence. The ability of the aircraft to maintainstraight-line survey transects over the projectarea is essential for systematically recording aer-ial images. During our flights, any tendency todrift experienced by the PPC is monitored and

corrected visually by observing the ground-tracking of the aircraft and through the use ofthe two onboard GPS receivers.

In-flight stability is assessed by noting themovement of an aircraft around its vertical,lateral and longitudinal axes. Yaw (movementaround the vertical axis) is controlled by left andright rudder pedals, which allow the pilot to turnthe PPC. Pitch (movement around the lateral

axis) and roll (movement around the longitudi-nal axis) are, to a large degree, affected by thependulum effect of the PPC. The airframe, carry-ing the pilot and photographer, acts as theweight of the pendulum. When a gust of wind

strikes the PPC, the parachute initially will bepushed in the direction the wind is blowing,and the airframe will no longer be suspendedimmediately below the parachute. Owing to thependulum effect, however, the airframe subse-quently will swing back under the parachute,and the PPC will again be stable. All three ofthese factors can be controlled sufficiently topermit safe, stable flight for general usage ofthe PPC. Pitch, yaw and roll also can be affectedby convective turbulence, especially at low alti-tudes. Convective turbulence can be caused by

differences in temperatures of surface featuressuch as cleared fields, areas with vegetation,bodies of water and roads. Darker areas absorblarger amounts of ultraviolet radiation from thesun, resulting in warmer surface temperatures.Conversely, lighter areas are more reflective thandark areas and are cooler relative to dark areas.These differences in temperature affect the flowof air immediately above the different surfacefeatures. Air rises more rapidly over darkerareas, causing turbulence in the air above theinterface between darker and lighter areas

(Pagen, 1992). The effect of wind gusts and con-vective turbulence on data acquisition is a vitalconsideration. With excessive wind gusts and/orthermal turbulence, the quality of the acquiredimages, and especially video footage, may not besuitable for the purposes of project researchgoals. Thus, constant awareness of wind andweather patterns has proven essential for effec-tive data acquisition. Experience has shown thatthe optimal time for flights is early in the morn-ing, prior to the heating of Earths surface by thesun, and late in the afternoon, when winds

typically begin to die down.Altitude stability is the third performance con-

sideration. When the PPC is airborne, the pilotsfirst task upon achieving the desired altitude is todetermine the throttle setting necessary to main-tain level flight. The required throttle level isaffected by the weight of the aircraft, passengersand equipment, with heavier payloads necessi-tating a higher setting. In theory, once the

72 T. I. Hailey



5/14

Plate1. Color-infrared,1m resolution image takenat an altitudeof 6 km of the area surroundingthe Whittington site, NatchitochesParish,Louisiana. (Source: U.S.Geological Survey Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle (DOQQ.)

Plate 2. TheWhittington sitefroman altitudeof 300 m.

Copyright# 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeol. Prospect. 12, (2005)


6/14

Plate 3. The NSUCRO Destiny 2000 powered parachute.

Plate 4. The NSU CROpowered parachute in flight.



7/14

Plate 5. Approaching Double Ditch, North Dakota at analtitude of 525 m.

Plate 6. Detail of Double Ditch, North Dakota from an altitude of 330 m. A series of images taken at this altitude was used toproduce a photomosaic of the site by Kenneth Kvamme of the Universityof Arkansas.



8/14

Plate 7. Photograph taken at an altitude of 60 m of the archaeological field crew excavating at theWhittington site, NatchitochesParish,Louisiana.

Plate 8. Preparingto transport the poweredparachute.



9/14

optimum throttle setting is determined, the PPCwill maintain the same altitude as long as thethrottle stays in that position, but wind, turbu-lence and simply turning the aircraft can have aneffect on altitude stability, and altitude must be

monitored during flight using the altimeterincorporated into the electronic engine informa-tion system and the Garmin GPS receiver. Whenundesired changes in altitude are noted, thethrottle is adjusted accordingly to stabilize theaircraft.

The PPC as an aerial camera platform

The promise of the PPC as an aerial cameraplatform can best be explored by taking intoaccount several key factors identified by James

Walker and Steven De Vore as they developedtheir programme of low-altitude photographyfrom radio-controlled aircraft (Walker and DeVore, 1995). For an effective programme of low-altitude, large-scale archaeological aerial recon-naissance, several characteristics were consid-ered to be of crucial importance, including lowvelocity of the aircraft, low vibration, the abilityto fly at low altitudes, the capacity for large-scaleimage acquisition, small take-off and landingspace, portability, low cost, safety and lowimpact on archaeological resources. The PPCmeets all of these requirements:

Low velocity

The forward velocity of the powered parachute islimited by the principles of physics that governits design characteristics. With no wind, in levelflight, the PPC flies at about 50 kph. The throttlecannot be used to increase speedit serves onlyto increase or decrease altitude. If the aircraft isflown with the wind, the airspeed will increase inproportion to the wind speed, and conversely,

flying into a headwind will decrease the airspeeda proportional amount. For example, whenworking with Jay Johnson and Bryan Haley ofthe University of Mississippi at the site of Parch-man Place Mounds near Clarksdale, Mississippiin June 2002, we flew with the wind at 80 kph, butwhen we turned into the wind to photograph thesite, our speed was reduced to a much moresuitable 20 kph.

Low vibration

Excessive vibration of the image recordingequipment will have an adverse effect on thequality of the images. Low velocity reduces theeffects of vibration caused by the aircraft moving

forward through the air, but the source of thegreatest amount of vibration, the aircraft engine,must also be taken into account. The engine onour PPC, a Rotax 582, operates between 4800 and5400 rpm when the PPC is in level flight. Thelower end of this range is utilized with a singleoccupant, while adding a second occupantrequires a higher throttle setting. The relativelyhigh cyclic rate required for operating the aircraftwith either one occupant or two has the effect ofreducing engine vibration substantially duringdata acquisition and minimizing the effect of

vibration on the images.

Low altitude

For the acquisition of detailed images, the abilityto fly at low altitudes is of great benefit, both forincreasing the resolution of the image and fordecreasing atmospheric haze. The PPC can fly ataltitudes from 1 to 3000 m, providing ampleability for operation of the vehicle within Walkerand De Vores (1995) recommended range of 60

to 180 m, as well as affording the opportunity toacquire images at much higher altitudes, asneeded. For site documentation, we have flownas high as 525 m when working with Kennethand Jo Ann Kvamme of the University of Arkan-sas at the Double Ditch site, a Late Prehistoricfortified village north of Bismarck, North Dakota.Typically, we acquire data at altitudes between60 and 330 m, utilizing a number of differentaltitudes at each site to ensure thorough coverageat various scales, and recording both vertical andoblique perspectives (Plates 5 and 6).

Large-scale image acquisition

With the use of a 35 mm SLR camera, Walker andDe Vore (1995) achieved a resolution of less than2.5 cm using their radio-controlled aircraft. Withthe PPC and a digital still camera, we haveachieved approximately the same resolutionfrom an altitude of 60m, as evidenced by a




10/14

photograph taken at the NSU CRO/ UniversityCollege London excavations at the Whittingtonsite, an eighteenth century plantation nearNatchitoches, Louisiana (Plate 7).

Small takeoff and landing spaceThe PPC can take off and land in an extremelysmall area. A straight-line distance of about 50 to100 m is needed for takeoff, depending on theweight of the crew and equipment, and typicallyless space, about 30 to 60 m, is needed for land-ing. A prepared runway is not required, only arelatively flat area free of obstructions, makingthe PPC even more flexible in terms of geogra-phical areas in which it can be used. At DoubleDitch, North Dakota, we utilized a large grassy

area adjacent to the site as a project airfield.

Portability

The PPC is a relatively small, lightweight vehicle.The wing of the vehicle is the parachute, whichfolds compactly. The airframe of the Destiny2000 is 2.0m wide, 2.1m in height and 3.1mlong. The entire weight of the vehicle is 858 kg.The unit is easily transportable in a speciallydesigned enclosed trailer (Plate 8), which isequipped with a ramp rear door for easy loading

and unloading of the PPC. Within 15 to 20minutes, the pilot can unload the aircraft fromthe trailer, conduct preflight checks, warm up theengine, deploy the parachute and be airborne.Upon landing, the vehicle can be ready fortransport, following postflight checks and fold-ing the parachute, in about the same amount oftime. To date, we have taken advantage of thisextreme degree of portability to conduct surveysin Louisiana, Mississippi and North Dakota, withplans to continue our efforts in these areas and toexpand into others as additional research oppor-

tunities arise.

Low cost

After the relatively moderate initial expense ofequipment acquisition (US $15 000 for the NSUCRO PPC), the costs of operation and mainte-nance of the PPC are extremely low. Operationexpenses, including fuel, oil, air filters, fuel filters

and spark plugs are approximately US $5.75 perhour, based on an estimated 120 h of flight timeper year. Even considering the acquisition cost ofthe PPC, the long-term benefits become obviouswhen compared with the expense of contracting

with professional surveying companies for aerialsite survey from conventional aircraft, or tothe cost of renting a conventional aircraft or ahelicopter.

Safety

The PPC is an extremely safe mode of air travel,provided that the pilot performs careful preflightand postflight examinations of the equipment,ensures that the parachute is fully deployed priorto takeoff, flies only under optimum weatherconditions, and avoids flying too low over ortoo near flight hazards such as trees, towers andpower lines. Unlike fixed-wing ultralights, a PPCis virtually impossible to stall and if the engineshould stop during flight, the parachute willallow the vehicle and passengers to descendsafely.

Low impact

Walker and De Vore (1995) considered one of thegreatest advantages of aerial photography ofarchaeological sites to be the amount of data

acquired with no damage to the site. The PPCmeets this requirement fully, as the data acquisi-tion equipment (still and video cameras) and thecamera platform (the PPC) are flown above thestudy area, causing no impact to the archaeolo-gical resources.

To Walker and De Vores (1995) criteria shouldbe added the following advantages.

Ease of operation

As noted previously, the design of the PPC is

such that operation is effected by only a fewcontrols. If the pilot wishes to ascend, enginespeed is increased. To descend, the speed of theengine is decreased. The vehicle is turned bymeans of horizontal bars attached by cords tothe outside edges of the parachute. By pressingon this bar with the right or left foot, the corre-sponding edge of the parachute is pulled down-ward and a turn is effected.

74 T. I. Hailey



11/14


12/14

The occurrence of precipitation will also pre-clude the use of the PPC. The parachute is madeup of a number of cells that are open at thefront, or leading edge of the parachute, andclosed at the rear, or trailing edge. If the PPC

were to be operated in the presence of precipita-tion, water would accumulate in the cells andcould cause the collapse of the parachute, fol-lowed by the rapid and uncontrolled descent ofthe airframe, quite possibly leading to seriousinjury or death for the occupants. For this reason,operation of the PPC in the presence of precipita-tion, or when there is a likelihood that precipita-tion could occur, should be avoided.

Vegetation limitations

The presence of vegetation that obscures the sitewill prevent an archaeologist flying a PPC fromacquiring images that are as useful as thoseacquired at a site free of such obscurations.This limitation, of course, will affect any methodof aerial reconnaissance, and should not be con-sidered a shortcoming specific to the PPC. Pas-tures, agricultural fields, grasslands or otheropen areas obviously will provide a setting bettersuited to aerial image acquisition with the PPC,or any other aerial reconnaissance technique.

Federal Aviation Administration regulationsconcerning PPC operation

Aerial archaeology using a PPC is a techniquethat had not been applied systematically toarchaeological research prior to our project,although James Walker (1980, 1985; cited inWalker and De Vore, 1995) briefly experimentedwith photography of archaeological sites from afixed-wing ultralight aircraft in 1980 and 1984,and more recently, Palmer (2003a, b) and hiscolleagues have used a paramotor for aerial

archaeology in Armenia.Walker and DeVores early efforts were dis-

continued when Federal Aviation Regulation(FAR) 103 was issued, restricting ultralights torecreational and sport use in the USA. FederalAviation Regulation 103 was later modified byFAA Advisory Circular (AC) 103-7 to permit anultralight aircraft to be flown by a local, state orfederal government entity as a public aircraft

for official functions, but by the time this mod-ification took place, Walker had shifted hisemphasis to radio-controlled aircraft. It is underAC 103-7 that we are permitted to operate thePPC as a government aircraft for use in scientific

research. The FAA regulations do not permit theuse of the PPC for commercial enterprises in theUSA at this time.

As can be seen, some of the limitations dis-cussed above can affect any aircraft or method ofacquiring aerial imagery, whereas others arespecific to the PPC. Those that cause universalproblems for aerial archaeology cannot lead theresearcher to discount the PPC in favour of othermethods, whereas those that are directly relatedto the design characteristics of the PPC must beweighed against its obvious advantages.

Conclusion

The value of aerial reconnaissance to archaeolo-gists cannot be denied, but it has been over-looked for the most part as a research tooloutside of Europe, quite possibly due to thelimitations and/or the expense of some tradi-tional techniques. There has been a real need fora means of acquiring aerial images of archaeolo-gical interest that is effective, affordable and has

widespread application. Powered parachute aer-ial archaeology meets all of these requirements,and the impact on the archaeological communitycould be substantial. Any archaeologist involvedin fieldwork should seriously consider the PPCas a means of acquiring data for the investigationof known sites, for the survey of larger areas forunknown sites, and for studies of settlementpatterning and changing cultural landscapes. Inaddition, the PPC can be used by agenciesresponsible for the management of culturalresources for planning site development, mon-

itoring site threats and producing aerial imagesthat will appeal to the public. The relativelymodest acquisition cost of the PPC, especiallywhen long-term use is anticipated, and the extre-mely low cost of operation will enable research-ers to take advantage of this new technology invirtually any geographical area where aerialphotography and/or aerial survey is possibleand desirable.

76 T. I. Hailey



13/14

Although of obvious importance to thearchaeological community, the value of poweredparachute aerial archaeology transcends archae-ological applications, to include almost any areaof research that requires aerial reconnaissance.

Foresters, geomorphologists, geographers, cul-tural anthropologists, geologists, agriculturalscientists, and others have and do make use ofremote sensing data. All of these disciplinescould benefit from this technology, and anyscientist planning to incorporate remote sensinginto his or her research design should considerthe benefits of a programme of aerial reconnais-sance utilizing a powered parachute.

Acknowledgements

The NSU Powered Parachute Aerial Archaeol-ogy was funded by The National Center forPreservation Technology and Training, a Divi-sion of the National Park Service, US Departmentof Interior, and I thank Kirk Cordell, ExecutiveDirector of the NCPTT and Andy Ferrell, NCPTTResearch Associate, for constant encouragementand moral support, as well as the funding for theproject.

I also thank the administration at Northwes-tern State University, and especially our depart-

ment head, Kathleen Byrd, who supported theproject from the outset.

And finally, thanks to my colleagues who believed in this project enough to invite us totry the PPC at their sites, including Jay Johnsonand Bryan Haley of the University of Mississippi,Kenneth Kvamme and JoAnn Kvamme of theUniversity of Arkansas, Fern Swensen of theState Historical Society of North Dakota, andStan Ahler of the PaleoCultural Research Group,Flagstaff, Arizona.

References

Avery TE, Lyons TR. 1981. Remote sensing: aerialand terrestrial photography for archaeologists. InRemote Sensing: A Handbook for Archaeologists andCultural Resource Managers, Lyons TR (ed.). Sup-plement 7, National Park Service: Washington,DC.

Bradford J. 1980. Ancient Landscapes: Studies inField Archaeology. Greenwood Press: Westport,CT.

Crawford OGS. 1924. Archaeology from the Air.Nature 114: 580582.

Creamer W, Haas J, Mann T. 1997. Applyingphotogrammetric mapping: a case study fromnorthern New Mexico. American Antiquity 62(2):285299.

Eddy FW, Lightfoot DR, Welker EA, Wright LL,Torres DC. 1996. Air photographic mapping ofSan Marcos Pueblo. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:113.

Featherstone R, Horne P, MacLeod D, Bewley R.1999. Aerial reconnaissance over England in sum-mer 1996. Archaeological Prospection 6: 4762.

Ford JA. 1954. Additional notes on the PovertyPoint Site in Northern Louisiana. American Anti-quity 19: 282285.

Fowler MJF. 1996. High-resolution satellite imageryin archaeological application: a Russian Satellite

photograph of the Stonehenge region. Antiquity70: 667671.

Fowler MJF. 2002. Satellite remote sensing andarchaeology: a comparative study of satelliteimagery of the environs of Figsbury Ring,Wiltshire. Archaeological Prospection 9: 5569.

Harp E Jr. 1974. Threshold indicators in air photoarchaeology: a case study in the Arctic. In AerialPhotography in Anthropological Field Research, VogtEZ (ed.). Harvard University Press: Cambridge,MA; 1427.

Harrower M, McCorriston J, Oches EA. 2002.Mapping the roots of agriculture in southernArabia: the application of satellite remote

sensing, global positioning system and geo-graphic information system technologies. Archae-ological Prospection 9: 3542.

Kuzma I, Hanzelyova E, Rajtar J, Tirpak J. 1996.New results in aerial archaeology in Slovakia:experience with reconnaissance, geophysicalmeasurement and follow-up excavations. Archae-ological Prospection 3: 7179.

Limp WF. 1989. The Use of Multispectral Digital Imagery in Archaeological Applications. ResearchSeries Number 34, Arkansas ArchaeologicalSurvey: Fayetteville, AR.

Lyons TR, Avery TE. 1977. Remote Sensing: A Hand-book for Archaeologists and Cultural Resource Man-

agers. National Park Service: Washington, DC.Myers JW, Myers EE. 1995 Low-altitude photo-graphy. American Journal of Archaeology 99:8587.

Muir R. 1983. History from the Air. Michael Joseph:London.

Neuman RW, Byrd KM. 1980. Aerial imagery inlocating and managing archaeological resourcesalong the Louisiana coast. Louisiana Archaeology 7:101108.




14/14

Pagen D. 1992. Understanding the Sky: A Sport PilotsGuide to Flying Conditions. Sport Aviation Publi-cations: Spring Mills, PA.

Palmer R. 1995. Integration of air photo interpreta-tion and field survey projects. Archaeological Pro-spection 2: 167176.

Palmer R. 2003a. Armenia, SeptOctober 2002The birth of wings over Armenia. AARGnews 26:3739.

Palmer R. 2003b. Wings over Armenia: AprilMay2003 report and reflection.AARGnews 27: 3234.

Poulter AG, Kerslake I. 1997. Vertical photographicsite recording: the Holmes Boom. Journal of FieldArchaeology 24: 221232.

Riley DN. 1996. Aerial Archaeology in Britain, 2ndedn. Revised by RH Bewley. Shire Archaeology 22.

Schmidt EF. 1940. Flights over the Ancient Cities ofIran. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Stanjek H, Fabbinder JWE. 1995. Soil aspects affect-ing archaeological details in aerial photographs.Archaeological Prospection 2: 91101.

Walker JW. 1980. Improvements in low altitudeaerial reconnaissance using ultralight aircraft.Abstract, Proceedings of Utah Academy 47: 118119.

Walker JW. 1985. Ultra-light reconnaissance, an-other tool. Technical Papers, 51st Annual MeetingASP, 1: 371380.

Walker JW, De Vore SL. 1995. Low Altitude LargeScale Reconnaissance: A Method of Obtaining HighResolution Vertical Photographs for Small Areas,Revised Edition. Rocky Mountain Regional Office,National Park Service: Denver, CO.


78 T. I. Hailey

tih paper powered parachute

Documents