The Digital Workflow of the Cultural Heritage Response Unit (CHRU)

Pouria Marzban; Elvira Iacono; Bernhard Fritsch; Helena Brinckmann; Sibel Erhan; Benjamin Ducke; Tobias Busen; Katja Piesker

doi:10.5334/jcaa.233

Abstract

Natural disasters and intensive land use increasingly threaten archaeological and cultural heritage (ACH) sites. To address this, the German Archaeological Institute (DAI), with the Leibniz Centre for Archaeology (LEIZA) and the Federal Agency for Technical Relief (THW), launched in 2021 the project KulturGutRetter (KGR), establishing a rapid-deployment Cultural Heritage Response Unit (CHRU) with the focus on safeguarding worldwide cultural heritage at risk after disasters. While the CHRU has not officially declared operational readiness yet, it was able to gain valuable experience during a national full-scale exercise and by participating in an EU MODEX (Module Exercise) in the Venice Lagoon (both in autumn 2024; e.g. Papa et al., 2025), which it has incorporated into its further development. Part of this experience also relates to the digital infrastructure, which CHRU relies on for efficient and uniform data collection during operations.

Before, during and after missions, the CHRU employs fully open-source, standardised workflows for the documentation and assessment of affected cultural heritage, spanning the entire disaster-response chain. Before teams are dispatched, a remote-sensing and GIS (Geographic Information Systems) support group compiles the latest satellite imagery, augments it with the in-house “KGR Finder” archaeological tool, and produces layered risk and damage maps. These datasets, packed together with a standard data model, are loaded to handheld devices running mobile GIS software for immediate field use. On site, CHRU team members record damage through structured digital forms and, when conditions allow, they conduct UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) photogrammetry, laser scanning and other 3D survey methods. Moveable artefacts are registered on the spot: each object receives a QR-coded ID-card, enabling real-time assessment and tracking.

A portable IT stack underpins this workflow. A mobile server hosts a PostgreSQL/PostGIS database, network-attached storage and synchronisation services, all accessible via an ad-hoc Wi-Fi or local cellular network. This lets teams consolidate data from multiple instruments instantly, secure it redundantly and keep every device in sync even in disconnected environments. After a mission, all remotely sensed and field data that are free of third-party restrictions are transferred to the host nation’s antiquities authorities as a structured package, then archived on DAI servers for future research and publication upon agreement. The field records also provide essential ground truth for refining satellite-based assessments.

This paper outlines the open-source technologies, data standards and practical lessons that make CHRU deployments globally scalable, rapid and resilient, thus offering a blueprint for safeguarding ACH under growing disaster pressure.

Highlights

A general overview of all the digital components of the CHRU is given
We illustrate the workflow of different components and how the data is gathered or recorded and further analysed
Data management infrastructure is described, including both software and hardware perspectives
The aim is to make a clear workflow of handling different datasets from the beginning to the end of a mission

References

Argyrou, A and Agapiou, A. 2022. ‘A review of artificial intelligence and remote sensing for archaeological research’. Remote Sensing, 14(23): 6000. DOI: 10.3390/rs14236000
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Anderson, MA. 2020. ‘Structure from Motion and Archaeological Excavation: Experiences of the Via Consolare Project in Pompeii’. Studies in Digital Heritage, 4(2): 78–107. DOI: 10.14434/sdh.v4i2.27260
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Busen, T and Fritsch, B. 2021. ‘Digital Tools for the emergency response to disasters affecting cultural heritage’. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Cultural Heritage and New Technologies (Vol. 26, No. Preview). DOI: 10.11588/propylaeum.1449.c20766
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Domenech de Cellès, C and Rehberger, A. 5, July 2025. ‘Establishing operational readiness in a cross-sectoral team, PROCULTHER-NET Project’. Technical Bulletin N, 21–33. ISSN 2975-190X.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ducke, B. 2015. ‘Free and open source software in commercial and academic archaeology: sustainable investments and reproducible research’. Open Source Archaeology: Ethics and Practice. De Gruyter Open Access, pp. 92–110.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fritsch, B, Schönbuchner, T, Canalejo, J, Marzban, P and Iacono, E. 2024. Der KGR-Finder–ein QGIS-Plugin zur schnellen Identifizierung von kulturell bedeutsamen Orten. DOI: 10.34780/ft3pa984
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gupta, N, Blair, S and Nicholas, R. 2020. ‘What we see, what we don’t see: data governance, archaeological spatial databases and the rights of indigenous peoples in an age of big data’. Journal of Field Archaeology, 45(sup1): S39–S50. DOI: 10.1080/00934690.2020.1713969
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gupta, N, Nicholas, R and Blair, S. 2022. Postcolonial and indigenous perspectives in digital archaeology. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctv2mwg3mj.16
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Iacono, E and Fritsch, B. 2, June 2023. ‘Data acquisition and data management for the emergency rescue of cultural heritage, PROCULTHER-NET Project’. Technical Bulletin N, 35–39. ISSN 2975-190X.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kadhim, I and Abed, FM. 2023. ‘A critical review of remote sensing approaches and deep learning techniques in archaeology’. Sensors, 23(6): 2918. DOI: 10.3390/s23062918
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lambers, K, Verschoof-van der Vaart, WB and Bourgeois, QP. 2019. ‘Integrating remote sensing, machine learning, and citizen science in Dutch archaeological prospection’. Remote Sensing, 11(7): 794. DOI: 10.3390/rs11070794
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Marzban, P, Ducke, E, Iacono, E and Fritsch, B. 4, Dec 2024. ‘Remote sensing responses to hazard and damage assessment over archaeological and cultural heritage sites at risk, PROCULTHER-NET Project’. Technical Bulletin N, 72–77. ISSN 2975-190X.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Masini, N and Lasaponara, R. 2020. ‘Recent and past archaeological looting by satellite remote sensing: Approach and application in Syria’. In: Remote sensing for archaeology and cultural landscapes: best practices and perspectives across Europe and the Middle East. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 123–137. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-10979-0_8
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
McCoy, MD and Ladefoged, TN. 2009. ‘New developments in the use of spatial technology in archaeology’. Journal of Archaeological Research, 17: 263–295. DOI: 10.1007/s10814-009-9030-1
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Menéndez-Marsh, FV, Al-Rawi, MA, Fonte, J, Dias, R, Gonçalves, LJ, Seco, LG, et al. 2023. ‘Geographic Information Systems in Archaeology: A Systematic Review’. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology, 6(1): 40–50. DOI: 10.5334/jcaa.104
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Morgan, C and Wright, H. 2018. ‘Pencils and pixels: drawing and digital media in archaeological field recording’. Journal of Field Archaeology, 43(2): 136–151. DOI: 10.1080/00934690.2018.1428488
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Papa, S, Piacentini, V and Proietti, G. 5, July 2025. ‘Cultural heritage activities at EU MODEX Venice 2024, PROCULTHER-NET Project’. Technical Bulletin N, 10–20. ISSN 2975-190X.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rayne, L, Rouhani, B and Makovics, JL. 2023. ‘Remote sensing and Disaster Risk Management for Cultural Heritage’. In: Managing Disaster Risks to Cultural Heritage. Routledge. pp. 114–132. DOI: 10.4324/9781003263647-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Richards, JD, Niven, K and Jeffrey, S. 2013. ‘Preserving our digital heritage: Information systems for data management and preservation’. Visual heritage in the digital age, 311–326. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-5535-5_16
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Smith, C and Burke, H. 2021. Global Archaeology. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0260
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tapete, D and Cigna, F. 2018. ‘Appraisal of opportunities and perspectives for the systematic condition assessment of heritage sites with Copernicus Sentinel-2 high-resolution multispectral imagery’. Remote Sensing, 10(4): 561. DOI: 10.3390/rs10040561
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wilkinson, MD, Dumontier, M, Aalbersberg, IJ, Appleton, G, Axton, M, Baak, A, Blomberg, N, Boiten, JW, da Silva Santos, LB, Bourne, PE and Bouwman, J. 2016. ‘The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship’. Scientific data, 3(1): 1–9. DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

The Digital Workflow of the Cultural Heritage Response Unit (CHRU)

Abstract

Paradigm

My account