Museum Collections Management with Google Earth and GIS by John

Home , Calyptosuchus

Museum Collections Management with Google Earth and GIS

John-Henry Voss, B.A.

A Thesis

Museum Science

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

Dr. Sankar Chatterjee Chair of Committee

Dr. Hyojung Cho

Dr. Stance Hurst

Dr. Mark Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School

December, 2018

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Table of Contents

Abstract iv

List of Tables v

List of Figures vi

1. Introduction 1

Museum Collection Management 2

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 6

Satellite Remote Sensing 9

Research Question 11

Problem of Study 11

Need of Study 12

Goals and Objectives 12

Significance 12

Case Study: Mapping and Documenting Triassic Fossil Localities in Northwest, Texas 13

2. Methodology 17

3. Results 22

Borden County 23

Garza County 30

Crosby County 35

Mitchell County 37

Scurry County 38

4. Discussion 40

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

5. Conclusion 43

References 44

iii

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

ABSTRACT

Museums serve their public by educating them with objects from their collections.

Collections management is taken very seriously in this endeavor. Tools used to achieve proper collections management vary but databases serve as the most important tool for museums. Museum databases though are great for maintaining information. They lack the ability to support and use georeferenced data. This thesis will implement a database that can and use a goal and objectives to test its abilities. A case study is also being implemented with this thesis to exhibit the abilities of a geospatial database that can surpass modern museum databases. The case study will support the Paleontology division of the Museum of Texas Tech University in its efforts to find more Triassic river channels within the Dockum Group of West Texas. The results of the thesis with the case study will determine if a geospatial database can improve upon database practices for museums.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

List of Tables

Table 1: Table of all sites from Borden County denoting area in square meters and date of visit. 23

Table 2: Table of all sites from Garza County denoting area in square meters and date of visit. 31

Table 3: Table of all sites from Crosby County denoting area in square meters and date of visit. 36

Table 4: Table of all sites from Mitchell County denoting area in square meters and date of visit. 37

Table 5: Table of all sites from Scurry County denoting area in square meters and date of visit. 38

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

List of Figures

Figure 1: Research area overlaid on top of DEM. The colors of this map denote changes in elevation. Elevation changes from high (darker colors) to low (lighter colors). In this DEM each pixel is 90m2 and contains an average elevation over that area. 7

Figure 2: Satellite image by Google Earth. 9

Figure 3: GIS map that labels the Southern High Plains, the Dockum Group, and the counties of west Texas. 14

Figure 4: Generalized sequence of the Upper Triassic Dockum Group formations, separated by unconformities in eastern New Mexico (left) and West Texas (right) (after Lehman & Chatterjee, 2005 and Sarigul, 2014). 15

Figure 5: Greenish-white siltstone associated with the axis of ancient Triassic-age river channel at locality MOTT VPL 3869. 16

Figure 6: The 21 counties containing outcrops of the Dockum Group that were examined for the case study. 17

Figure 7: Google Earth image with red arrow expressing the lack of dense vegetation on the buried river channel. 19

Figure 8: Google Earth image with red arrows highlighting the discoloration of the river channel and flood bank deposits with the rest of the surrounding area. 20

Figure 9: Land ownership map. Midland Map Company, 2003. 21

Figure 10: Location of all 20 possible Triassic sites from Google Earth Survey. 22

Figure 11: Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3629 and 3632. The black rectangles outline the floodplains and the red lines trace the Triassic-age river channel. 25

Figure 12: Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3958. The black rectangles outline the floodplains and the red lines trace the Triassic-age river channel. 26

Figure 13: Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3965. The black rectangles outline the floodplains and the red lines trace the Triassic-age river channel. 27

Figure 14: Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3960. No Triassic-age river channel deposits were found. 28 vi

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 15: Map of the extent of Triassic-age river channel deposit and found localities (MOTT VPL 3958, 3629, 3965, 3632, and Borden 3) from Google Earth Survey. The black line depicts the location of the Triassic river channel. 29

Figure 16: Map of the extent of Triassic-age river channel deposit and found localities (Borden 1 and 2). The black line depicts the location of the Triassic river channel. Though Borden 2 seems to be in Garza County it is in fact in Borden County and is an error on the map. 30

Figure 17: Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3869. The black rectangles outline the floodplains and the red lines trace the Triassic-age river channel. 32

Figure 18: Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3874. The black rectangles outline the floodplains and the red lines trace the Triassic-age river channel. 33

Figure 19: Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3956. Triassic-age river channel sediments were not found at this locality. 34

Figure 20: Map of the extent of Triassic-age river channel deposit and found localities (MOTT VPL 3869 and Garza 1). The black line depicts the location of the Triassic river channel. 35

Figure 21: Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3957. Triassic-age river channel deposits were not found at this locality. 36

Figure 22: Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3959. The black rectangle outlines the Triassic-age floodplains. 39

vii

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Chapter 1

Introduction

A museum collection consists of objects and their associated documentation. A primary concern in the field of museum science is developing best practices and standards that maintain contextualized information between objects and their place of origin (Beaudoin, 2012). Museums today are faced with how to integrate evolving digital technologies to best manage their collections and maintain informational links between a variety of sources (IMLS, 2009). Museums as a field use this technology to not only stay relevant with the current trends but also to create meaningful practices and standards.

Museums strive to create and prepare documentation for managing their collections. This documentation is derived from many sources that provide contextualized information about objects within a collection (Beaudoin, 2012). A particularly important source of information is their spatial contexts. This context pertains to the environment in which an object was. Understanding these environments creates a broader picture about the object.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is software that allows users to visualize, analyze, interpret, and manage spatial information (Yeung & Hall, 2007). With advancements in computer processing power over the last 30 years, GIS has become the standard by which organizations manage their spatial data (Yeung & Hall, 2007). Spatial information is typically acquired via Global Positioning Systems (GPS) with users using devices in the field to acquire data. Remote sensing, the acquisition of data about objects and landscapes through indirect observation, is increasingly being used with advancements in satellite technology and software that is making this technology more

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

accessible to even the public (Yeung & Hall, 2007). The integration of GIS, GPS, and remote sensing allows organizations to gather, analyze, manage, and maintain spatial information.

This thesis will investigate how remote sensing and GIS is applicable for contextualizing and maintaining documentation from the field to storage within museum collections. This study will combine both forms of technology with a case study chosen to examine their use within a field and museum setting.

In this research GIS and remote sensing were used to survey and document fossil finds associated with Late Triassic-age (237-201 mya) sedimentary river beds within the

Dockum group of northwest Texas. The Dockum group contains world-renowned tetrapod assemblages (e.g., Lehman and Chatterjee 2005). Satellite imagery reviewed within Google Earth software was used to locate river channel sedimentary rock layers often associated with fossil finds within the Dockum Group (Mueller, 2016). The GIS capabilities of Google Earth in combination with QGIS GIS software was used to record and manage the spatial contexts of field research and maintain these contextual associations from the field to the museum.

Museum Collection Management

The three aspects of collection management delineated by the International

Council of Museums are: acquiring, conserving, and research of objects and their environment (ICOM, 2017). Museums collect to preserve aspects of humanity and to present these objects in exhibits to engage with communities (ICOM, 2017). Museums come in different varieties (e.g., natural history, art) and collect many types of objects

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

from art to fossils. Museums acquire objects through donors (gifts, bequests, field research), and from loans and purchases (Alexander & Alexander, 2008, ICOM, 2017).

Museums that acquire new objects are guided by their collections management policy and collection plan (Anderson, 2012). The collections management policy creates a document that develops the museum’s mission and purpose. It outlines how to manage the collections and assigns responsibilities to staff positions to properly care for the collections (e.g., AAM, 2012). The collections plan is a document that outlines the goals of collecting and fits within the museums' collection management policy. This document guides the museum staff in a coordinated way to enrich the collections through the acquisition of new objects (Anderson, 2012).

When objects enter the museum, they are accessioned. Accession records provide a provenance, a link between the object’s place of origin and how the object was acquired by the museum (Price & Burton, 2012). This record establishes the museum’s full legal right of ownership to the object and its authenticity. This information is vital to prove that the museum has done everything possible to assure the objects have not been misplaced or illegally obtained. Once accessioned into the museum the objects will be given accession and catalog numbers that provides a clear link between documentation records and the objects themselves (Boylan, 2004).

The condition of museum objects is monitored from acquisition and throughout their life within the museum. The condition of the object (i.e., state of conservation), its provenance, and location within the museum are documented with condition records. The condition record can include photo documentation to further establish the condition of the object, proof of ownership, and for research purposes (Boylan, 2004). 3

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Maintaining a collection is comprised of two parts: conservation and research of objects. Conservation is preserving the objects physical identity and preventing deterioration and damage. Types of harm that can impact the object’s integrity include physical (e.g., water, light, handling by people) and chemical (internal deterioration).

Conservation measures such as cold storage and the design of the facility are used to minimize light and water damage to avoid damage and slow down deterioration.

Once objects have been accessioned and conservation measures have been put in place objects can be available for research or exhibition. Research is an essential step for museums to understand their objects. Research can reveal new insights about an object’s history adding value to the museum, and for academic study (Mahmoud, 2004).

Research of objects can also lead to the development of exhibits. The exhibition of objects serves both the museum and its public. Museums with successful exhibition programs can fulfill the need to educate and garner the trust of its public and peers. The credibility created by a successful exhibits program can prepare a future of education and public trust for the museum (Dean, 2015).

Museum based field research is often a cornerstone for natural history museums in developing their collections (Hester et al., 2009; Nelson, 1965). Although the various fields of research (i.e., archaeology, biology, geology) have different methodologies and goals for field collection all documentation related to field research must be saved for perpetuity to provide contexts to recovered museum objects. Field research documentation records include methods and observations during collection, associated contexts, and location of discovery. For example, in the field of paleontology, researchers

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

typically document the methods used to recover fossils, the associated stratigraphic layer, other related fossils, and their place of recovery.

The technology of field note taking has not changed in the history of museums; however, the advent of GIS and GPS technologies have drastically changed how the place and location of recovered objects were recorded. Before GPS, researchers typically recorded the location of finds by looking at geological and topographical maps, allowing researchers to triangulate their positions for as accurate placement as possible (Anemone et al., 2011).

The development of GPS and GIS technologies in the 1980s has led to a revolution in the quality and reliability of provenance information recorded for objects.

GPS units now can document objects to within 1 cm. Technology now provides an array of equipment and approaches that enable researchers to record and document new finds more efficiently, and more reliably than previously possible (Woert, 2011).

Museums typically rely upon Collections Management Software (CMS) to collate all information related to the collection’s objects and their life within the museum (Sully,

2006). CMS are typically a form of a database of information. Museums commonly use two types of databases: flat and relational (Cole, 2016; Fishman-Armstrong, 2000; Sully,

2006).

Flat databases are basic databases more akin to a spreadsheet. Information in a flat database is stored in only one place with no redundant saved information elsewhere within the database. Museums use them as a basic cataloging system (Fishman-

Armstrong, 2000). Relational databases, unlike flat databases, are built through connecting data across multiple input tables. The advantage of relational databases is that 5

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

information can be entered in one location and will auto populate the same information across connected data tables throughout the database. The user can update large portions of data quickly. There are instances where much can go wrong if one is not careful about entering and deleting information within the database (Fishman-Armstrong, 2000).

Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

GIS is a framework in which data is gathered, managed, and analyzed. Based in geographic sciences, GIS can hold spatial information and organize layers of data for visualization through map creation and data manipulation. GIS provides the means to examine relationships between different sources of information, patterns and provides more profound insights (Sutton, Dassau, and Sutton, 2009).

Data is represented in GIS as continuous without boundaries and discontinuous with boundaries. Continuous data is typically used to represent the earth’s surface. In contrast, discontinuous geographic data delineate features or important places.

Continuous data referred to as rasters plot information as a grid. Each grid unit, a pixel, contains a numerical quantity and the combination of the individual pixels provides a continuous data layer. The combination of pixel information then combines to form a representation of a surface (e.g., Figure 1; Sutton, Dassau, and Sutton, 2009).

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 1. Research area overlaid on top of DEM. The colors of this map denote changes in elevation. Elevation changes from high (darker colors) to low (lighter colors). In this DEM each pixel is 90m2 and contains an average elevation over that area.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

In contrast to raster files which is a continuous source of information, vector files have discrete boundaries and are represented as points, lines, or polygons (area). Each point, line, or polygon is associated with a data table that provides a spatial location

(easting and northing) as well as any other information associated with that place on the landscape (Sutton, Dassau, and Sutton, 2009). In Figure 1, the research area is denoted by a polygon vector layer.

Both vector and raster datasets are georeferenced to a specific geographic coordinate system. The ability to accurately place vector or raster datasets derived from different sources is due to the coordinate reference system (CRS). An example of a CRS is the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). The coordinates originate from the equator off of a specific longitude. It is best policy to use data with the same CRS to minimize alignment and accuracy problems (Sutton, Dassau, and Sutton, 2009).

Integration of data for GIS consists of creating layers. Each layer appoints a different dataset for the project being created. Researchers can then visualize multiple sources of data together (ESRI, 2012). GIS can create a map of a research area, plot points of interest, and store spatial data in the form of vector and raster files. It can also create database links where information about the points can be cataloged for users to review (Yeung & Hall, 2007). Museums who are turning to GIS spatial databases are wanting something that the flat and relational databases cannot provide and that is georeferenced data for the collections (Cole, 2016).

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Satellite Remote Sensing

Remote sensing is defined as obtaining information about an object or surface from a distance. Typically, remote sensing data is acquired via satellite or aircraft attached sensors. Once recorded this information can be analyzed to distinguish physical features and chemical properties of an area or an object (Aggarwal, 2003).

Remote sensing can be passive or active. Passive remote sensing requires external illumination mainly from the sun to record the energy signatures being produced.

Active remote sensing relies on creating energy to record information. An example of passive remote sensing is satellite imagery and for active remote sensing radar

(Aggarwal, 2003). In this thesis, satellite imagery was used (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Satellite image by Google Earth.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

This thesis is examining the use of remote sensing and GIS in museums. As anything being introduced to collections management it must be determined if it represents best practices and standards. Can GIS and remote sensing be permanent and reversible? Does the incorporation of GIS and remote sensing improve the management of collections? The challenge, in this case, is determining if the digital data that GIS and remote sensing rely upon is permanent as is the concern with any digital data.

In using GIS and remote sensing data the results are creating digital files. These files must be maintained for perpetuity. Museums have a mandate to protect not only its physical objects but also their digital assets. It is understandable that museums take this topic seriously as most or all museum databases are digital (Yeung, 2004).

Since the early stages of the digital era museums have acknowledged the fact that technology in conjunction with digital medium changes at a reasonably consistent rate

(Hodges, 2000). A rate at which gives museums pause as they must upgrade digital information to maintain accessibility and preservation. As digital technology improves at a rapid rate and the means to store that data changes with it. This rapid rate also causes problems in that old technology is not able to store the new data causing it to be outdated and outmoded (CLIR, 2002).

A serious concern in preserving digital files is the right to either copy or modify the data being stored. Ownership of objects and data is paramount for museums. As it allows for the object to have many uses, but if the objects digital or otherwise are not fully or partly owned then their uses are limited by the museum. It is the permissions granted that create the necessary manipulation objects to preserve them (Besser, 2000).

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

The ability to combat the ever-changing medium is to instead focus on policy.

Being able to adapt and understand the changes that are occurring will better prepare museums for the future. When the future is accessible to the museum’s public it is a boon for the museum. As the museum is prepared to conserve future information (CLIR, 2002) better. To introduce policy, it must be understood how to write policy.

Berman (2008) suggests a 10-step process on how to assess data storage for the future. Most of the steps require creating plans and acquiring information about the best course of action. The last step requires more attention to detail as they involve understanding how to implement laws and regulations that pertain to different types of data (Berman, 2008). Francine Berman admits that these 10 guidelines are a great start to creating policy and procedures, but due diligence towards constant changes will empower the institution for the future.

Research Question Can GIS and Remote Sensing improve collections management of information and objects from the field to the museum?

Problem of Study

Drawbacks are an issue with any research topic. This topic is no different. The technology used within the thesis isn’t new or cutting edge. This means that acquiring and learning about the technology is not hard or demanding. There is however a learning curve to acquire the skills necessary to operate a GIS and remote sensing program.

Training is necessary to use both as they require knowledge in how to organize and manipulate the programs. Some setup is required for to operate correctly individually and together.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Another drawback to this topic is that possibly the case study will not provide the adequate amounts of information to make this topic viable. The success of this case study as it will demonstrate the capabilities of the geospatial database. If no sites are found, then what this research has provided is yet another way to use GIS and remote sensing.

Need of Study

Databases that are being used lack the ability to use geospatial data dynamically.

The meaning of this is that they can store GPS coordinates and even images of the sites, but the ability to see the locality using satellite imagery and store the information gathered from remote sensing in the database for future use they cannot. The need for a

GIS map made up of any detail you need, with satellite imagery from the most trusted companies and a database all in one is a luxury worth having.

Goals and Objectives

The goal of this thesis will be to determine whether remote sensing and GIS improves collection management from the field to the museum. Three objectives were developed to complete this goal.

Objective 1: Compare current museum database practices to the use of GIS.

Objective 2: Conduct a case study to determine the applicability of remote sensing and

GIS in museum collection management.

Objective 3: Ascertain whether remote sensing and GIS is a sustainable practice in the management of museum collections.

Significance

Geospatial database brings three different forms of technology together into one form. This creates a fast process to do many things at once. Technology is constantly 12

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

being updated. This new style of database is the next evolution of museums being able to manage their collections. It can be useful within the museum and outside of it. The capabilities of such a form are limitless.

Case Study: Mapping and Documenting Triassic Fossil Localities in Northwest, Texas

The Triassic Period marks one of the significant transitions in the history of life and a vast experiment in animal design. Significant changes in the Earth’s terrestrial vertebrate fauna occurred during the Late Triassic Period (~237 to 201 million years ago) when several major groups of vertebrates such as lissamphibians, lizards, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs, birds, and mammals appeared for the first time in the geologic record. The Late Triassic was a crucial period in the history of vertebrate evolution and radiation (Chatterjee & Hotton, 1992).

When the Triassic Period began (~251 million years ago) after the major mass extinction in the end-Permian, all the major continents of the world were joined into a single colossal supercontinent called Pangea, which was surrounded by one ancestral ocean, Panthalassa. One of the remarkable features of the Triassic was the widespread emergence of continents and subsequent recession of seas from the continents, as well as the extensive spread of nonmarine deposits, mainly composed of redbeds. These redbeds were deposited in a complex river-deltaic-lake system in many parts of the world. Today these redbeds are known from India, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, East Africa,

Morocco, Germany, Poland, Great Britain, Canada, and the American Southwest, and have produced a rich record of Triassic vertebrate fauna (Chatterjee & Hotton, 1992).

The Late Triassic continental strata of the American Southwest have traditionally been

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

divided into the Chinle Group on the Colorado Plateau and the Dockum Group of eastern

New Mexico and northwestern Texas. The case study is centered on the Dockum Group of Garza County, West Texas (Figure 3).

Figure 3. GIS map that labels the Southern High Plains, the Dockum Group, and the counties of west Texas.

Triassic redbeds exposed around the Southern High Plains of western Texas and eastern New Mexico constitute the major deposition of alluvial-lacustrine sequences in the Dockum basin (Figure 4). Currently, Dockum Group strata in Texas are assigned into four formations in ascending order: Santa Rosa, Tecovas, Trujillo, and Bull Canyon. The

Tecovas and Bull Canyon Formations consist primarily of red mudstones intercalated with lenticular bodies of sandstones, representing the floodplain deposits, whereas the 14

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Santa Rosa and Trujillo are dominantly cross-bedded sandstones deposited in the main channel of the ancient Dockum river. Both Tecovas and Bull Canyon formations have yielded rich record of vertebrate fossils because of low energy floodplain deposits, whereas Santa Rosa and Trujillo are somewhat sterile because of high energy channel deposits, where disintegration and degradation of carcasses are common, thus decreasing the chance of fossilization (Lehman and Chatterjee, 2005; Lehman, 1994).

Figure 4. Generalized sequence of the Upper Triassic Dockum Group formations, separated by unconformities in eastern New Mexico (left) and West Texas (right) (after Lehman & Chatterjee, 2005 and Sarigul, 2014).

Their red color defines the Triassic redbeds or mudstone layers due to the large iron content. There is also an associated greenish white siltstone layer within the redbeds that formed in areas where the sediment was aqueously remobilized oxidizing the iron in the sediment eliminating its red color (Martz, 2008). These mudstone and siltstone layers are contained within the Tecovas Formation and Bull Canyon Formation formed along the ancient river channel axis (Mueller, 2016; Figure 5). The location of these redbed sediment layers has higher concentrations of intact and well-preserved Triassic fossils

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

(Lehman and Chatterjee, 2005). Satellite imagery was used in this study to find these distinctive green layers, which would provide important new places for future Triassic fossil field research.

Figure 5. Greenish-white siltstone associated with the axis of ancient Triassic-age river channel at locality MOTT VPL 3869.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Chapter 2

Methodology

The Dockum redbeds occur as a north-to-south exposure in northwest Texas from the Canadian River to the Pecos River. Outcrops of the Dockum Group are best exposed along the Southern High Plains’ eastern escarpment (Figure 6). The area of research is made up of 21 counties totaling 20,312 square miles. The 21 counties include Borden,

Crosby, Dawson, Garza, Howard, Kent, Mitchell, Scurry, Dickens, Lubbock, Fisher,

Nolan, Sterling, Motley, Floyd, Briscoe, Armstrong, Randall, Potter, Oldham, and Deaf

Smith.

Figure 6. The 21 counties containing outcrops of the Dockum Group that were examined for the case study.

All the region’s geographic information was maintained in GIS as vector files.

These vector files include Texas County boundaries, Texas geology map, and study 17

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

locations. Data sources that did not have associated geographical information were georeferenced.

Georeferencing in GIS is the process of associating images that are not georeferenced through common points. For example, in this research project landowner maps were georeferenced and overlain against other data sources within GIS. All the GIS information used the CRS WGS 84 datum. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency oversees maintaining the accuracy of this CRS. The origin of WGS 84 resides at the earth’s center of mass with consideration of the oceans and atmosphere (NGIA, 2012).

The GIS spatial database and Google Earth were used to locate probable river channels containing fossil sites. In searching river channels through satellite imagery, the

Google Earth feature eye altitude (EA) was used. This feature is set on the bottom right of the screen next to the elevation. Eye altitude means that it measures from the ground to where the camera has zoomed out. It could be measured in feet to miles high above where the cursor is on the map. It is challenging to have a uniform eye altitude when surveying this amount of land due to varying elevation on the surface of the earth. So instead of having a registered standard eye altitude a range was used from 10,000 feet to

10 miles above earth’s surface. Once a site was found the most comfortable eye altitude was documented creating a standard EA for each site.

It was noticed that sparse vegetation was associated with buried sandstone channels. A distinct natural landmark was created that could be identified from the satellite imagery (Figure 7).

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 7. Google Earth image with red arrow expressing the lack of dense vegetation on the buried river channel.

Another method of surveying for river channels is to look for the whitish green discoloration of the soil that accompanies the channel (Figure 8). This discoloration is indicative of lacustrine and fluvial soils deposits meaning ancient aquatic areas. Finding this sign of discoloration further narrowed down the possibility of a river channel site.

Once a river channel site was found they were then validated by visiting the site if landowners were amenable to a site visit on their property.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 8. Google Earth image with red arrows highlighting the discoloration of the river channel and flood bank deposits with the rest of the surrounding area.

To find out who owns the land that the site is on, the use of land ownership maps

(Figure 9) compiled by the oil & gas industry, were required. Once the owner was found then further communication was made to obtain permission to investigating the river channel sites found on their property.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 9. Land ownership map. Midland Map Company, 2003.

Proving that the correct location has been found from computer to field is somewhat challenging. Seeing the location from space is much different and measures should be made to authenticate the site. The best measures to take when authenticating sites are to get the GPS coordinates of the site from Google Earth and to take printed images of the location from different eye altitudes to compare physical landmarks at the site. Using the images and coordinates the location of the river channels were located for field authentication.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Chapter 3

Results

The results of surveying imagery of all 21 counties with Google Earth were the discovery of 20 possible sites in five counties (Mitchell, Borden, Crosby, Scurry, and

Garza). Each county during survey was examined by scrolling from east to west and then another pass from north and south. A total of 60 minutes was needed to complete the survey for each county. For every possible locality of interest found an identifying georeferenced pin was placed and labeled. All pins were labeled with the county name and a number. If Triassic river channel sediments were confirmed the locality was placed on the probable site list. All other sites that did not have potential were discarded. The locations of the sites were recorded as a new vector point file in the GIS database (Figure

10).

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 10. Location of all 20 possible Triassic sites from Google Earth Survey.

Only 10 of the 20 possible sites were visited. Landowner permission was not given for the other 10 sites which prohibited a field visit. The other 10 sites were visited to determine if river channel Triassic-age deposits were present. Four of the 10 sites were already paleontological sites documented by MOTTU. The other six sites found in survey were unknown in previous MOTTU research. Most of the sites were found in Borden

County, followed by Garza, Crosby, Mitchell, and Scurry counties.

Borden County

A total of eight possible sites with Triassic-age river sediment were found in

Borden County (Table 1). Two (MOTT VPL 3629, 3632) of the eight sites were previously identified and studied by MOTTU staff. Out of the other six localities

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

landowners granted access to three of them (MOTT VPL 3958, 3960, 3965). The other three localities were not visited and were labelled as Borden 1, 2, and 3.

Table 1. Table of all sites from Borden County denoting area in square meters and date of visit.

Site Area (square meters) Date Visited

Borden 1 N\A Not visited

Borden 2 N\A Not visited

Borden 3 N\A Not visited

MOTT VPL 3960 5,467 August 6, 2016

MOTT VPL 3629 N\A Previously recorded

MOTT VPL 3632 N\A Previously recorded

MOTT VPL 3958 486,367 June 30, 2015

MOTT VPL 3965 118,390 August 6, 2016

A total of 248 fossils have been identified at MOTT VPL 3629 and 3632 previously research localities (Figure 11). A total of 239 fossils were collected at MOTT

VPL 3629. Some of the species found at this site were Gracilisuchus griffinorum, a new species of Otischalkia, “Calyptosuchus wellesi”, and two different species of clams. The clams at MOTT VPL 3629, however, were possibly identified as a new species and were found only in Australia and this site (B. Mueller, personal communication, November 4,

2016). No flora fossils were found.

Nine fossils were recorded at MOTT VPL 3632. This site is interesting in that it contains a large number of clams, but the majority of them were broken or crushed and not suitable for collecting. Finding specimens that were complete enough for research is rare.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 11. Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3629 and 3632. The black rectangles outline the floodplains and the red lines trace the Triassic-age river channel.

Three new localities MOTT VPL 3958, 3960, 3965 identified from satellite were visited to ascertain if Triassic-age river channel sediments were present. At MOTT VPL

3958 it was clear that the site stratigraphically sits at the convergence of the Trujillo and

Tecovas formations (Figure 12). The river channel was split into six sections. The sections were dominated by the light-colored sandstone layer that were common to exhumed sections of a river channel. From the floodplains the channel is some 20 feet above the ground with a large mudstone layer underneath it.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 12. Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3958. The black rectangles outline the floodplains and the red lines trace the Triassic-age river channel.

The next site visited was MOTT VPL 3965. This locality encompasses the

Tecovas Formation (Figure 13). The river is barley exhumed leaving only a small profile along the eastern side of the channel. The river channel construction shows both laminated and cross-laminated sections. This evidence shows the channel had periods of fast and slow activity in its lifetime.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 13. Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3965. The black rectangles outline the floodplains and the red lines trace the Triassic-age river channel.

The last site visited in Borden County was MOTT VPL 3960. The stratigraphy at this locality places it within the Tecovas formation (Figure 14). In surveying the site it was noticed the river channel related sandstone layers were absent. The site is dominated by the red colored mudstone which is indicative of floodplains, and not a former active river channel. Results of this site visit indicates this locality did not contain Triassic-age river sediments deposits as suggested by the satellite imagery.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 14. Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3960. No Triassic-age river channel deposits were found.

Based on the overall site distribution and site visits it appears this survey identified two Triassic-age river channels. The first river channel was in southeastern

Borden County and contains five localities (MOTT VPL 3958, 3629, 3965, 3632, and

Borden 3). This stretch of the exposed Triassic river channel sediment was 21 km (Figure

15). In addition, even though MOTT VPL 3960 did not contain river channel sediments it did contain floodplain deposits likely associated with this river channel. It would be interesting to visit Borden 3 in the future to determine if this locality contains Triassic river channel deposits or floodplain deposits as identified at MOTT VPL 3960.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 15. Map of the extent of Triassic-age river channel deposit and found localities (MOTT VPL 3958, 3629, 3965, 3632, and Borden 3) from Google Earth Survey. The black line depicts the location of the Triassic river channel.

The other possible river channel identified is associated with Borden 1 and 2

(Figure 16). These two localities were only 2 km apart, and it appears from satellite imagery that an exhumed channel connects these localities together. If possible, future work can hopefully examine these two new localities to verify if a river channel also exists at these localities.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 16. Map of the extent of Triassic-age river channel deposit and found localities (Borden 1 and 2). The black line depicts the location of the Triassic river channel. Though Borden 2 seems to be in Garza County it is in fact in Borden County and is an error on the map.

Garza County

A total of five possible sites with Triassic-age river sediment were found in Garza

County (Table 2). Two (MOTT VPL 3869, 3874) of the five sites were previously identified and studied by MOTTU staff. Out of the other three localities landowners granted access to one of them (MOTT VPL 3956). The other two localities were not visited and were labelled as Garza 1 and 2.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Table 2. Table of all sites from Garza County denoting area in square meters and date of visit.

Site Area (square meters) Date Visited

Garza 1 N\A N\A

Garza 2 N\A N\A

MOTT VPL 3956 12,487 June 20, 2015

MOTT VPL 3869 N\A Previously recorded

MOTT VPL 3874 N\A Previously recorded

A total of 1,942 specimens have been identified at MOTT VPL 3869 and 3874. A total of 1,910 were collected at MOTT VPL 3869 (Figure 17). Taxa found at the sites include both flora and fauna. Some of the species found at this site were Argodicynodon boreni, Shuvosaurus inexpectatus, Inertinite, Vitrinite, and carbonized wood. MOTT

VPL 3869 has become the most prolific fossil locality in the Dockum producing uncommon, rare, and new species regularly.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 17. Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3869. The black rectangles outline the floodplains and the red lines trace the Triassic-age river channel.

Thirty-two fossils were recorded at MOTT VPL 3874 from the Triassic-age Bull

Canyon Formation (Figure 18). The fossils from this site were dominated by Libognathus sheddi. Other animals identified at the site were phytosaurs, aetosaurs and a paracrocodylomoph.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 18. Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3874. The black rectangles outline the floodplains and the red lines trace the Triassic-age river channel.

One new locality MOTT VPL 3956 identified from satellite was visited to ascertain if Triassic-age river channel sediments were present (Figure 19). At MOTT

VPL 3956 it was found that the Boren sandstone layer, a part of the Triassic-age Tecovas

Formation, comprises this locality. Further investigation determined that this site was likely part of a Triassic flood plain and not active river channel sediments.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 19. Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3956. Triassic-age river channel sediments were not found at this locality.

Based on the overall site distribution and site visits it appears that this survey identified a Triassic-age river channel deposit. Localities MOTT VPL 3869 and Garza 1 were located two kilometers apart and a closer examination of the satellite imagery indicates they are part of the same Triassic-age river channel deposit (Figure 20). It would be interesting to visit Garza 1 in the future to verify if this locality contains

Triassic river channel sediment. The other localities found in this survey were isolated and not part of a same river channel deposit.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 20. Map of the extent of Triassic-age river channel deposit and found localities (MOTT VPL 3869 and Garza 1). The black line depicts the location of the Triassic river channel.

The other possible river channel locality identified in this survey was Garza 2. It was an isolated find. A field visit in the future may reveal a new Triassic river channel site at this locality.

Crosby County

A total of three possible sites with Triassic-age river sediment were found in

Crosby County (Table 3). Out of the three localities landowners granted access to one of them (MOTT VPL 3957). The other two localities were not visited and were labelled as

Crosby 1 and 2).

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Table 3. Table of all sites from Crosby County denoting area in square meters and date of visit.

Site Area (square meters) Date Visited

Crosby 1 N\A N\A

Crosby 2 N\A N\A

MOTT VPL 3957 14,912 June 27, 2015

Results of the MOTT VPL 3957 visit indicates Triassic-age sediments were not present (Figure 21). Instead it appears that Cenozoic-age sediments such as caliche were present and were misidentified as Triassic-age from the satellite imagery. Therefore, the age of this locality is inappropriate for finding Triassic-age fossils.

Figure 21. Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3957. Triassic-age river channel deposits were not found at this locality.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

The localities Crosby 1 and 2 were not visited, but a closer look at the satellite imagery indicates they were associated with river terrace deposits that is possibly exposing Triassic-age sediments. Future field visits are necessary to ascertain if Triassic- age sediments are present at these localities.

Mitchell County

A total of three possible sites with Triassic-age river sediment were found in

Mitchell County (Table 4). All three sites were not visited and were labelled as Mitchell

1, 2, and 3.

Table 4. Table of all sites from Mitchell County denoting area in square meters and date of visit.

Site Area (square meters) Date Visited

Mitchell 1 N\A N\A

Mitchell 2 N\A N\A

Mitchell 3 N\A N\A

Mitchell 1 and 2 were located 275 meters apart and could be part of the same river channel deposit. Mitchell 2 is situated along a terrace and Mitchell 1 is just southeast of the Mitchell 2 in the uplands. In contrast, Mitchell 3 was an isolated find. Field visits are needed to determine if these localities contain Triassic-age river channel deposits.

Scurry County

A total of one possible site (MOTT VPL 3959) with Triassic-age river sediment was found in Scurry County (Table 5). The site was in the southwest corner of Scurry

County on a small peninsula of Lake J B Thomas.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Table 5. Table of all sites from Scurry County denoting area in square meters and date of visit.

Site Area (square meters) Date Visited

MOTT VPL 3959 44,367 June 30, 2015

Results of the site visit at MOTT VPL 3959 indicates that it does contain the

Triassic-age Tecovas Formation (Figure 22). Due to vegetation, it was challenging to see the geologic features from satellite imagery. When surveying from the ground a small margin is uncovered, but this margin covers most of the surveyed area. This site is interesting in that it is missing the common markers of a river channel — the greenish lacustrine soils and a river-like flowing pattern. The sandstone layer is prevalent and exhumed confirming it to be the river channel bed. After surveying the site, the flood plains were not visible or non-existent due to erosion by the lake. With the lack of flood plains, no fossils were collected. The manmade lake at the site severely hampers the ability to survey and collect fossils.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Figure 22. Google Earth image of MOTT VPL 3959. The black rectangle outlines the Triassic-age floodplains.

Although this was the only locality identified in Scurry County it is close to

MOTT VPL 3960 and 3959 identified in Borden County. This locality is likely part of the same Triassic-age river channel deposit.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Chapter 4

Discussion

Museums strive to develop best standards and practices to care for and manage their collections. The research questions addressed in this work was to determine whether

GIS and remote sensing provided a better way to maintain links between museum objects and their place of discovery in the field. If this work was successful, then the results might suggest a better way forward for museums to enhance their management of information related to museum objects.

A case study was used to determine the applicability of GIS and remote sensing in their use within museums. A combination of remote sensing using Google Earth and GIS was used to find and document Triassic-age river channel deposits within the Dockum

Group of northwest Texas. Google Earth was used to scan satellite imagery to find discoloration of Triassic-age rock suggestive of river channel deposits. QGIS, an open source GIS software was then used to document the new finds.

A total of 20 counties in northwest Texas encompassed the Dockum Group. These were scanned over a period of a week, and a total of 20 possible sites located in five of the counties were found. Landowner permission was granted to visit 10 of these localities to ascertain if Triassic-age river channel deposits were present and if they included

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

fossils. Four of the 10 sites were already MOTTU research localities, therefore, only six previously unidentified localities were visited.

Results of these visit identified Triassic-age channel deposits at three of the six localities. Triassic-age floodplain deposits were found at two of the localities, and at one of the localities it was determined that Cenozoic sediments were misidentified as Triassic sediment. No new fossils were collected at the three newly found Triassic river channel localities (MOTT VPL 3958, 3959, and 3965), or at the two floodplain localities (MOTT

VPL 3960 and 3956).

The use of Google Earth to find new Triassic-age river channel sites was successful at least 50% of the time as verified by site visits. If finding new Triassic-age floodplain related sites is considered a success, then the results increase to 83%. Only one of the sites (MOTT VPL 3957) was misidentified as containing Triassic-age sediment.

A new insight was gained from using Google Earth in that at least two new

Triassic-age river channels were identified that extended over 2 km and 21 km in Borden

County. It would be interesting to further explore both areas to determine if other new localities exist containing fossils.

It is more difficult to judge the success of improving the management of collections using GIS since no new fossils were find at these localities to document their finds within GIS. GIS was used in this research to document the new localities, location

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

of new Triassic-age river channel deposits, and to correlate new localities with landowners. The true value of GIS is the ability to examine multiple sources of information in different ways to gain new insights. Future work should incorporate the use of GIS to document the location of new finds, and to also incorporate older datasets generated from past research. In this way, the fossils maintained within the MOTTU database then will have a more contextual connection to their place of discovery.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Chapter 5

Conclusion

In these final words it is correct to believe that both GIS and remote sensing can come together to create a spatial database that can be beneficial for collections management. Through the case study a total of 20 new sites were found using the database. It would have taken years to discover these sites. This database however found these sites within days. This database not only shows the ability to produce results it also controls all information gathered within the database.

The objectives set for this thesis have assured the success of the case study and the thesis. The first objective began the process of evaluating database types against a geospatial database. Creating the mindset that a geospatial database could be plausible.

The second objective created a case study to turn the plausible into reality. The third objective finalized the reality of the geospatial database. These objectives are all parts of a whole that round out this research that create a feasible way for museums to improve collections management.

This case study has not produced positive outcomes. Even though new localities have been found from satellite imagery, fossils were not collected. Success was garnered however in the ability to find these sites. A total of 20 were found within the research area. These sites were never even considered or found until this study. These sites make a first for the Dockum Group. As new sites have not been found for years. This is all due to using remote sensing and GIS to create a geospatial database.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

References

Aggarwal, S. (2003). Principles of Remote Sensing. In M.V.K. Sivakumar, P.S. Roy, K. Harmsen, & S.K. Shah, Satellite Remote Sensing and GIS Applications in Agricultural Meteorology (pp. 23-38). Geneva: World Meteorological Organization.

Alexander, E., & Alexander, M. (2008). Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Functions of Museums (2nd ed.). Plymouth: Altamira Press.

American Alliance of Museums. (2012). Developing a Collections Management Policy. Author. Retrieved from http://ww2.aam-us.org/docs/default- source/continuum/developing-a-cmp-final.pdf?sfvrsn=4

Anderson, G. (Ed.). (2012). Reinventing the Museum: The Evolving Conservation on the Paradigm Shift (2nd ed.). Plymouth: Altamira Press.

Anemone, R., Emerson, C., & Conroy, G. (2011). Finding Fossils in New Ways: An Artificial Neural Network Approach to Predicting the Location of Productive Fossil Localities. Evolutionary Anthropology, 20, 169-180. Retrieved from http://anthropology.uncg.edu/faculty-staff/anemone/.

Beaudoin, J. E. (2012, November/December). Context and Its Role in the Digital Preservation of Cultural Objects. D-Lib Magazine, 18(11/12). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november12/beaudoin/11beaudoin1.html

Berman, F. (2008, December). Got Data?: A guide to data preservation in the information age. Communications of the ACM, 51(12), 50-56.

Besser, H. (2000). Digital Longevity. In M. Sitts (Ed.), Handbook for Digital Projects: A Management Tool for Preservation and Access (pp. 155-166). Andover, MA: Northeast Document Conservation Center. Retrieved from https://www.nedcc.org/assets/media/documents/dman.pdf

Boylan, P. J. (Ed.). (2004). Running a Museum: A Practical Handbook. Paris: International Council of Museums. Retrieved from https://icom.museum/wp- content/uploads/2018/07/practical_handbook.pdf

Carmen, C., & José, G. M. (2008). The role of technological and organizational innovation in the relation between market orientation and performance in cultural organizations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(3), 413-434.

Chatterjee, S., & Hotton, N. (1992). New Concepts in Global Tectonics. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University Press.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Cole, D. G. (2016). Incorporating Museum Collections into GIS Research [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/fed16/papers/fed_126.pdf

Dean, D. (2015). Museum Exhibition: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

Eid, H. A. (2016). The Museum Innovation Model: A Museum Perspective on Open Innovation, Social Enterprise and Social Innovation (Doctoral dissertation). Southern University at New Orleans.

Collections Research for Museums. (2010) Elements of Successful Collections Management Part 6. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/John- Henry/Downloads/Summer2010.pdf

Esri. (2012). What is GIS? [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.esri.com/library/bestpractices/what-is-gis.pdf

Fishman-Armstrong, S. E. (2000). Incorporation of barcode capabilities to existing museum databases (Master's thesis).

Hester, T. R., Shafer, H. J., & Feder, K. L. (2009). Field methods in archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Hodges, G. M. (2000, January). Best Practices for Digital Archiving. D-Lib Magazine, 6(1). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january00/01hodge.html

Institute of Museum and Library Services. (2009). Museums, Libraries, and 21st Century Skills. Retrieved from https://www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/21stCenturySkills.pdf

International Council of Museums. (2017). ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums. Retrieved from https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ICOM-code-En-web.pdf

Johnson, J. S. (1994). Consolidation of Archaeological Bone: A Conservation Perspective. Journal of Field Archaeology, 21(2), 221-233.

Koob, S. (1984). The Consolidation of Archaeological Bone. Studies in Conservation,29(1), 98-102. https://doi.org/10.1179/sic.1984.29.Supplement-1.98

Lehman, T. M. and Chatterjee, S. (2005). The Depositional Setting and Vertebrate Biostratigraphy of the Triassic Dockum Group of Texas. Indian Journal of Earth System Science, 114(3), 325-351.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Lehman, T. M. (1994). The saga of the Dockum Group and the case of the Texas/New Mexico boundary fault. New Mexico Bureau Mines and Mineral Resources Bulletin, 150, 37–51.

Mahmoud, S. M. (2004). The value of a collections management policy for museums (Master's thesis). Texas Tech University.

Manning, W. A. (1999). Automated Systems in Museums: The Use of Bar Code Technology in Collections Management. Museum Management and Curatorship, 18(1), 3-18.

Marchetti, E., & Valente, A. (2012). Diachronic Perspective and Interaction: New Directions for Innovation in Historical Museums. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 8(6), 131-143.

Martz, J. W. (2008). Lithostratigraphy, Chemostratigraphy, and Vertebrate Biostratigraphy of the Dockum Group (Upper Triassic), of Southern Garza County, West Texas (Doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University.

McQuilkin, K. S. (1998). An articulated Phytosaur skeleton: Preparation techniques from field to exhibit (Master's thesis). Texas Tech University.

Mueller, B. (2016). Triassic Tetrapod Paleontology and Taphonomy of the Boren Quarry, Dockum Group, Garza County, Texas (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas Tech University

Nelson, S. J. (1965). Field methods in paleontology. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, 13(1), 1-138.

Pop, I. L., & Borza, A. (2016). Technological Innovations in Museums as a Source of Competitive Advantage. The 2nd International Scientific Conference SAMRO 2016. Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni- muenchen.de/76811/1/MPRA_paper_76811.pdf

Price, T. D., & Burton, J. H. (2012). An Introduction to Archaeological Chemistry. New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London: Springer.

Stone, T. N., Dickel, G. N., & Doran, G. H. (1990). The Preservation and Conservation of Waterlogged Bone from the Windover Site, Florida: A Comparison of Methods. Journal of Field Archaeology, 17(2), 177-186.

Sully, P. (2006). Inventory, Access, Interpretation: The Evolution of Museum Collection Management of Software (Master’s thesis). John F. Kennedy University.

Texas Tech University, John-Henry Voss, December 2018

Sutton, T., Dassau, O., & Sutton, M. (2009). A gentle introduction to GIS: Brought to you with Quantum GIS, a free and open source software GIS application for everyone. Eastern Cape, South Africa: Province of the Eastern Cape, Office of the Premier.

The state of digital preservation: An international perspective: Conference proceedings, Washington D.C., April 24-25, 2002. (2002). Washington, DC: CLIR. van Woert, A. (2011). GIS Use in the Reinterpretation of Archaeological Museum Collections: The Coombs Site, Boulder, Utah (Master's thesis). California State University, Chico.

Vicente, E., Camarero, C., & Garrido, M. J. (2012). Insights into Innovation in European Museums. Public Management Review, 14(5), 649-679.

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. (2012). World Geodetic System 1984. Retrieved from http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/icg/2012/template/WGS_84.pdf

Yeung, A., & Hall, G. B. (2007). Spatial Database Systems Design, Implementation and Project Management. Dordrecht: Springer.

Yeung, T. A. (2004). Digital Preservation: Best Practice for Museums. Retrieved form https://members.museumsontario.ca/sites/default/files/members/CHINDigitalPres ervationBestPractice.pdf