Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Applications of Geospatial Technology in the Management of Cultural Heritage Sites – Potentials and Challenges for the Indian Region


Affiliations
1 School of Humanities, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bengaluru 560 012, India
 

Cultural heritage management can be defined as all the processes in understanding (through knowing and identifying), conserving and managing various expressions of cultural heritage. These expressions could be intangible like traditional skills, crafts, folklore, rituals, etc. or tangible like objects or places. Objects including artefacts, murals and sculptures are defined as movable cultural property, while structures, monuments, precincts, water bodies and canals are called sites and also termed as immovable cultural property. Emerging technologies and scientific developments are increasingly being used in the management of these different expressions of cultural heritage. For example, heritage object databases that link source, provenance and current location are proving useful in museum contexts, predictive technologies are being used to fill in partially missing sections of murals/ inscriptions or aid virtual reconstruction of object remains or even something as basic as mapping indigenous processional routes. However, the expression of cultural heritage as immovable cultural property or heritage sites appears to render itself most to analysis through various techniques available under the large umbrella of geospatial technology. This is because of the nature of such heritage – structures are necessarily built in particular geographical and cultural settings, presumably based on appropriate site selection in order to suitably locate them and their components, and the initially planned layout and subsequent additions would have a spatial spread – these factors combined with the locational permanence of the structures relative to movable property make built heritage well-disposed for geospatial analysis. This review article therefore explores the use and applicability of geospatial technology for the management of built cultural heritage, including its context and environment.

Keywords

Cultural Heritage Management, Geospatial Technology, Heritage Practice, Potentials and Challenges.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Ur Jason, A., CORONA satellite photography and ancient road networks: a northern Mesopotamian case study. Antiquity, 2003, 77(295), 102–115.

  • Ur Jason, A., CORONA satellite imagery and ancient near Eastern landscapes. In Mapping Archaeological Landscapes from Space (eds Comer, D. C. and Harrower, M. J.), Springer, New York, 2013, pp. 21–31.

  • Jesse, C. and Jackson, C., The CORONA atlas project: orthorectification of CORONA satellite imagery and regional-scale archaeological exploration in the near East. In Mapping Archaeological Landscapes from Space (eds Comer, D. C. and Harrower, M. J.), Springer, 2013, pp. 33–43.

  • Gillespie, T. W., Smith, M. L., Barron, S., Kalra, K. and Rovzar, C., Predictive modelling for archaeological sites: Ashokan edicts from the Indian subcontinent. Curr. Sci., 2016, 110(10), 1916–1921.

  • www.digitalhampi.in

  • The International Council on Monuments and Sites, paraphrased from various international Charters and Conventions; www.icomos.org/charterse/charters.pdf

  • India INTACH Charter or Charter for the Conservation of Unprotected Architectural Heritage and Sites in India; www.intach.org/charter-about.php

  • UNESCO World Heritage Centre: operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, various editions; www.unesco.org/document/137843

  • Wiseman, J. R. and El-Baz, F. (eds), Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Springer, New York, USA, 2007.

  • Parcak, S. H., Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology, Routledge, London, 2009.

  • Lasaponara, R. and Masini, N. (eds), Satellite Remote Sensing: A New Tool for Archaeology, Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 2012.

  • Johnson, J. K. (ed.), Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA, 2006.

  • Rajangam, K. and Modi, P., Heritage information management package (HIMP) – technology and experience driven approach towards efficiently managing India’s built heritage sites. In On-line proceedings – BH2013 (Built Heritage 2013: Monitoring Conservation Management), 2013; www.bh2013.polimi.it/sub_pub.htmand [www.himp.saythu.com]

  • Rajani, M. B., Bangalore from above: an archaeological review. Curr. Sci., 2007, 93(10), 1352–1353.

  • Rajani, M. B. and Settar, S., Application of multispectral remote sensing imagery in detection of ancient forts in South India. In Space, Time, Place – Third International Conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology (eds Campana, S., Forte, M. and Liuzza, C.), 2010, pp. 123–127.

  • Rajani, M. B. and Rajawat, A. S., Potential of satellite based sensors for studying distribution of archaeological site along palaeochannels: Harappan sites a case study. J. Archaeol. Sci., 2011, 38(9), 2010–2016.

  • Rajani, M. B., Bhattacharya, S. and Rajawat, A. S., Synergistic application of optical and radar data for archaeological exploration in the Talakadu region, Karnataka. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sensing, 2011, 39(4), 519–527.

  • Rajani, M. B., Patra, S. K. and Mamta, V., Space observation for generating 3D perspective views and its implication to the study of the archaeological site of Badami in India. J. Cult. Heritage, 2009, 10(Suppl. 1), e20–e26.

  • Rajani, M. B. and Kasturirangan, K., Sea-level changes and its impact on coastal archaeological monuments: seven Pagodas of Mahabalipuram. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sensing, 2012, 41(2), 461–468.

  • Nalini, N. S. and Rajani, M. B., Stone fortress of Chitledroog: visualizing old landscape of Chitradurga by integrating spatial information from multiple sources. Curr. Sci., 2012, 103(4), 381–387.

  • Rajani, M. B., The expanse of archaeological remains at Nalanda: a study using remote sensing and GIS. Arch. Asian Art, 2016, 66, 1.

  • Asher, S., Nalanda: situating the monastery. Marg, 2015, 66(3), 69.

  • Rajani, M. B. and Das, S., Archaeological remains at Nalanda: a spatial comparison of 19th century observations and the protected World Heritage site. In Records, Recoveries, Remnants and InterAsian Interconnections: Decoding Cultural Heritage (ed. Sharma, A.), ISEAS, Singapore, 2018, in press.

  • Rajani, M. B., Rajawat, A. S., Krishna Murthy, M. S., Kamini, J. and Rao, S., Demonstration of the synergy between multi-sensor satellite data, GIS and ground truth to explore the archaeological site in Talakadu region in South India. J. Geomatics, 2012, 6(1), 37–41.

  • Iyer, M., Nagendra, H. and Rajani, M. B., Using satellite imagery and historical maps to investigate the original contours of Lalbagh Botanical Garden. Curr. Sci., 2012, 102(3), 507–509.

  • Australia ICOMOS charter or Burra Charter, 2013; www.australia.icomos.org/publications

  • PastScape: information on England’s archaeology and architecture; https://www.pastscape.org.uk/

  • CyArk; www.cyark.org

  • Arches Project; www.archesproject.org

  • ASI; http://asi.nic.in/asi_monuments.asp

  • UNESCO World Heritage; www.whc.unesco.org

  • http://bhuvan.nrsc.gov.in/governance/culture_monuments

  • Jadhav, R. N., Encroachment in Sanjay Gandhi National Park. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sensing, 1995, 23, 87–88.


Abstract Views: 324

PDF Views: 218




  • Applications of Geospatial Technology in the Management of Cultural Heritage Sites – Potentials and Challenges for the Indian Region

Abstract Views: 324  |  PDF Views: 218

Authors

Krupa Rajangam
School of Humanities, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bengaluru 560 012, India
M. B. Rajani
School of Humanities, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bengaluru 560 012, India

Abstract


Cultural heritage management can be defined as all the processes in understanding (through knowing and identifying), conserving and managing various expressions of cultural heritage. These expressions could be intangible like traditional skills, crafts, folklore, rituals, etc. or tangible like objects or places. Objects including artefacts, murals and sculptures are defined as movable cultural property, while structures, monuments, precincts, water bodies and canals are called sites and also termed as immovable cultural property. Emerging technologies and scientific developments are increasingly being used in the management of these different expressions of cultural heritage. For example, heritage object databases that link source, provenance and current location are proving useful in museum contexts, predictive technologies are being used to fill in partially missing sections of murals/ inscriptions or aid virtual reconstruction of object remains or even something as basic as mapping indigenous processional routes. However, the expression of cultural heritage as immovable cultural property or heritage sites appears to render itself most to analysis through various techniques available under the large umbrella of geospatial technology. This is because of the nature of such heritage – structures are necessarily built in particular geographical and cultural settings, presumably based on appropriate site selection in order to suitably locate them and their components, and the initially planned layout and subsequent additions would have a spatial spread – these factors combined with the locational permanence of the structures relative to movable property make built heritage well-disposed for geospatial analysis. This review article therefore explores the use and applicability of geospatial technology for the management of built cultural heritage, including its context and environment.

Keywords


Cultural Heritage Management, Geospatial Technology, Heritage Practice, Potentials and Challenges.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv113%2Fi10%2F1948-1960