ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE DETECTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTRAST

A. Beck

School of Computing, Leeds University, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK - arb@comp.leeds.ac.uk

This paper was presented at the 2007 Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Society conference in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. It has
been placed on Scribd because the on-line proceedings hosted at Newcastle University have been taken down. Please use the
following reference for this paper (note this is in Bibtex format):
@inbook{Beck_2007, title={Archaeological site detection: the importance of contrast},
url={http://whatevertheUrlOfTheScribdDocumentIs}, booktitle={Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Conference of the Remote
Sensing and Photogrammetry Society, Newcastle University}, year={2007}, pages={11–14}}
Or
Beck, A. R., Archaeological site detection: the importance of contrast. In Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Conference of the
Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Society, Newcastle University, Sept. 11-14, 2007. Retrieved from
http://whatevertheUrlOfTheScribdDocumentIs

KEY WORDS: archaeology, detection, contrast, multi-sensor, environment, framework

ABSTRACT:
In recent decades advances in sensor technology have led to a range of ground, airborne and spaceborne imaging instruments that
can be applied to archaeological and heritage management problems. However, the development of the techniques associated with
these technologies have evolved independently with variable understanding of the physical, chemical, biological and
environmental processes that determine whether archaeological residues will be identified in one or any sensor. The long-term
aim of this work is to update Crawford’s study of impacts on photographic return to take account of modern sensors and digital
image processing techniques. This paper is an initial attempt to bridge this gap and will consider archaeological residues as
perturbations to a surrounding matrix which must exhibit some contrast to that matrix in order to be detected.

1. INTRODUCTION management problems. However, the development of the

1.1 Background
In the UK the practice of using remote sensing techniques for
detecting archaeological sites and visualizing archaeological
landscapes has traditionally been based on low altitude aerial
photography using film sensitive at optical and sometimes
near infrared wavelengths. In the 1920s O. G. S. Crawford, the
archaeological officer of the British Ordnance Survey,
demonstrated that archaeological structures could be identified
from shadow, soil and crop markings on panchromatic aerial
photography (see Figure 1). Since that time, both oblique and
vertical aerial photography have been used extensively for
archaeological reconnaissance and mapping all over the world
(Donoghue, 1999). Early aerial photographers helped to refine
the instruments and establish methods that are still in use
today. Crawford in particular established methods of site
classification and wrote about the effects of weather, season,
soil moisture and crop type on photographic return (Crawford,
1923; Crawford, 1928; Crawford, 1929). Today, aerial
photography is accepted as a cost-effective, non-invasive
technique for the reconnaissance and survey of monuments.
Figure 1 Factors leading to the detection of crop,
shadow and soil marks
In recent decades advances in sensor technology have led to a
range of ground, airborne and spaceborne imaging instruments
that can be applied to archaeological and heritage
techniques associated with these technologies have evolved
independently with little understanding of the physical,
chemical, biological and environmental processes that
determine whether archaeological residues will be identified
in one or any sensor. Unfortunately, knowledge of which
techniques will detect which components of the archaeological
domain and under what conditions has not fully permeated the
archaeological canon.
The long-term aim of this work is to update Crawford’s study
on photographic return factors to take account of modern
sensors and digital image processing techniques. This paper is
an initial attempt to bridge this gap and will consider
archaeological residues as perturbations to a surrounding
matrix which must exhibit some contrast to that matrix in
order to be detected.
2. CONTRAST AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
DETECTION
The nature of archaeological residues and their relations with
the immediate matrix (or context) determine how easily they
can be identified. For example, it is relatively easy to visually
identify a feature which has been cut into chalk and then back-
filled with soil, whereas it can be much more difficult to
identify a feature which has been cut into soil and
immediately backfilled with the same soil. It is this very
contrast between an archaeological feature and its surrounding
matrix that one is hoping to identify when detecting the
presence or absence of an archaeological residue. This holds
at all levels of archaeological enquiry: when excavating a
context a field archaeologists will distinguish between
different formation layers using different sensing techniques:
touch, colour and even taste (certain waste deposits can leave
a salty residue).
The majority of the techniques used in archaeological
detection rely on visual interpretation, although a number of
algorithms can be used to enhance contrast. Spectral
signatures have been used to accurately identify different
vegetation and geology types with multispectral scanners.
Unfortunately archaeological sites do not exhibit spectral
signatures that can be used for generic detection purposes
(however, see Altaweel (2005) for use of spectral signatures in
a constrained environment). Rather, it is hypothesised that
archaeological residues produce localised contrasts in the
landscape matrix which can be detected using an appropriate
sensor under appropriate conditions. Although this statement
sounds self evident it requires an understanding of both the
nature of the residues and the landscape matrix within which
they exist.
For the purposes of this discussion there are two types of
contrast measurement:
1. Direct - where a measurement, which exhibits a
detectable contrast with its surroundings, is taken
directly from an archaeological residue.
2. Proxy - where a measurement, which exhibits a
detectable contrast with its surroundings, is taken
indirectly from an archaeological residue (for
example from a crop mark).
In most scenarios direct contrast measurements are preferable
as these measurements will have less attenuation. Proxy
contrast measurements are extremely useful when the residue
under study does not produce a directly discernable contrast or
it exists in a regime where direct observation is impossible
(for example the residue is buried or under semi-permanent
crop cover).
It is recognised that some of the contrasts discussed below
could fall into either category (for example ramparts can
provide a topographic effect as a direct measure but buried
and infilled enclosure ditches can still produce a topographic
anomaly but as an indirect crop mark measure) but the terms
will suffice for this paper.
Finally this contrast can be expressed through, for example,
variations in chemistry, magnetic field, resistance,
topography, thermal variations or spectral reflectance (Bewley
et al., 2005; Gaffney and Gater, 2003; Scollar, 1990; Scudder
et al., 1996).
2.1 Environmental and ambient conditions
Local conditions are a significant factor for site and feature
detection. There is no point in trying to detect crop marks
(proxy residue type) using a hyper-spectral sensor dedicated to
identifying crop stress (appropriate sensor) when there is no
crop on the ground (unfavourable environmental conditions).
A whole range of natural and anthropogenic factors play a part
in how much contrast an archaeological feature, or its proxy,
may exhibit (for example soil type, crop type, diurnal
temperature variations and soil moisture content).
Natural factors can be exacerbated by anthropogenic factors,
particularly local land management practices. For example,
irrigation may make crop features appear earlier; conversely
any increased soil water content may reduce the visibility of
soil marks. Agricultural intervention has been seen to cause a
significant disruption to magnetometry surveys (Maria Beck
pers comm.).
The challenge in this context is to garner an appropriate
understanding of the localised natural and anthropogenic
factors that may impact upon contrast detection for different
residues with different sensors.
2.2 Sensing devices
Sensors fall into two main categories: passive and active.
Passive sensors are the most common form of sensor, and
record naturally occurring radiation that is reflected or
emitted. Active sensors bathe the terrain in artificial energy
and then record the amount scattered back to the sensor.
The underlying premise of remote sensing is that interpreters
can extract information about objects and features by studying
the readings measured by a sensor system. However, every
sensor has limitations: most limitations are based on the
resolving characteristics, or resolution, of the sensor. Each
remote sensing system has four major axes of resolution:
1. Spatial resolution.
2. Aspect resolution 1.
3. Radiometric resolution.
4. Temporal resolution.
Spatial resolution is dependent upon the resolving power of
the sensor, the distance from the object and the size of the
object to be identified. Many systems now represent this
relationship as simply the ground dimension in metres for
each pixel.
Aspect or for the purposes of this paper, spectral resolution
(see Figure 2) refers to the dimensions and number of specific
dimension units for which a sensor is sensitive. Panchromatic
imagery is normally sensitive to a broad spectral range
normally in the visible and NIR wavelengths. In comparison,
the multispectral scanner of Landsat Thematic Mapper
contains 7 bands covering discrete wavelength ranges over
different parts of the spectrum. Hyperspectral scanners can
collect data in many very narrow band passes. For example,
the AVIRIS sensor can collect approximately 224 bands
between 0.4 and 2.5 μm at 10 nm intervals. Thus, spectral
resolution can be seen to increase from a ‘broad band’
panchromatic to the very narrow bands of hyperspectral.
Increasing spectral resolution at the appropriate areas of the
electromagnetic spectrum may help to improve image
interpretation and classification.
1
Aspect resolution is used as a generic term to cover the
dimension in which the sensor measures: the default
examples are given for the electromagnetic spectrum but
could easily be electric current (Ohm) or magnetic flux
density (nanotesla (nT))
Figure 2 Contrasting spectral resolutions of AVIRIS, the identification of appropriate sensors to detect contrast and
Landsat and Panchromatic imagery. Note how timeframes when this potential contrast is more likely to be
closely the bands in Landsat follow the AVIRIS detected. This knowledge will also allow the user to determine
bands. which aspects of the archaeological domain are unlikely to be
detected during a survey.
Radiometric resolution determines the sensitivity of the sensor
to differences in received signal strength. The data are 3. CONTRAST AND VISUAL ENHANCEMENT
normally quantised into bits (power of 2). Radiometric
The data in the archaeological domain can be visually
resolution can have a significant impact on the ability to
identified directly within the raw data or by employing
measure and discriminate objects. For example, in 8 bit (256
relatively simple histogram manipulations. However, although
values) imagery bright areas may be overexposed and dark
the feature has been detected it may be masked within the
areas in shadow whereas with 11 bit (2048 values) imagery it
structure of the image. In such instances digital processing
may be possible to distinguish objects within these bright and
techniques are required in order to express the, sometimes
dark areas. Sensors with high radiometric resolution require
subtle, differences or contrast. This is particularly true for
image manipulation to appreciate the increase in data quality.
data with a medium to high radiometric resolution.
This is because the human eye can only discriminate between
20 to 30 shades of grey under normal viewing situations.
When one has an understanding of the nature of the
Under the same conditions the eye can discriminate a much
archaeological residue, the impact of natural and
larger number of colours.
anthropogenic factors over time and the sensor characteristics
one can model how the archaeological feature will express
Temporal resolution refers to how often a sensor system
contrast against any background value. This information can
records a particular area. For all platforms except satellite this
be exploited to develop contrast enhancement algorithms to
value is likely to be infrequent. However, satellite imagery
improve recognition and identification.
tends to cover the same area at the same time of day whereas
all other sensor platforms can cover an area at different times
4. CASE STUDY: HOMS SYRIA
of day. This is particularly significant for some forms of
contrast which occur at different times of day (such as shadow The project Settlement and Landscape Development in the
marks or diurnal temperature variations) or under specific Homs Region, Syria (SHR) was designed to investigate long-
conditions. term human-landscape interaction in three adjacent but
contrasting environmental zones, located in the upper Orontes
2.2.1 Multi-sensor approaches Valley near the present-day city of Homs, Syria (Beck et al.,
2007; Philip et al., 2005; Philip et al., 2002a; Philip et al.,
In most cases only a small component of the image domain 2002b). Each zone is typical of a larger area, and initial study
from a sensor has archaeological significance (see Figure 3). suggested that they differed substantially in both their
Different sensing devices with different aspect resolutions settlement histories and in the nature of their archaeological
capture different elements of the archaeological domain. records.
Therefore, to gain a greater understanding different detection
techniques can be used. The utility of multi-sensor approaches
can not be stressed enough because combined sensor
responses offer much finer granularity than the sum of their
independent responses (although the problem of finding
boundaries between regions of interest and background is
exacerbated). Multi-sensor approaches are particularly
pertinent to those countries that have poorly developed
national archaeological inventories and intend to use remote
sensing techniques for rapid survey. In such situations a
thorough understanding of the natural and anthropogenic
factors that impact upon feature contrast is required for the
most comprehensive survey.

Figure 4 Comparison of Corona KH-4b photography

and Ikonos MS imagery (archaeological sites are
numbered)

The project has principally employed a combination of Corona

Figure 3 Conceptualised archaeological domain
2.3 Measuring archaeological contrast
The issue here is to devise a framework within which the
relationship between an archaeological residue and its
immediate matrix can be modelled. This framework will allow
and Ikonos satellite imagery for site detection (see Figure 4).
The Corona KH-4b missions used panchromatic film sensitive
to the spectral range 400-700nm – the visible and Near Infra-
Red (NIR). The Corona missions occurred between 1959 and
1972 and the photography archive is available online from
USGS (2003). All Corona KH-4b mission imagery
intersecting the study area were purchased prior to analysis. to gain an understanding of how any contrast could be
Once digitised and georeferenced this imagery had a nominal observed in sensors outside the visual wavelengths and the
ground resolution of approximately 2m. actual causation of any contrast.

Ikonos is a commercial satellite providing georeferenced
imagery in both panchromatic (1m resolution and spectral
range 400-900nm) and 4 band multispectral (4m resolution -
blue, green, red and NIR) modes. Bespoke Ikonos imagery
was purchased based upon our understanding of the physical,
chemical and biological properties of the study area as
discussed below.
The marl zone will be the focus for this case study. In this
zone the majority of the archaeological residues take the form
of tells and low relief soil mark sites. Tells are prominent
landscape features and, unless heavily eroded, are easy to
detect: the majority of tells have already been mapped and
recorded. On the other hand soil mark sites are very difficult
to spot on the ground and have traditionally been located
using intensive surface survey programmes. Prior to this study
only a small portion of soil sites had been mapped. In this
zone soil sites have a minimum size of c. 25m 2 hence the
spatial resolution of both Corona and Ikonos sensors is
appropriate for their detection.
Soil colour is almost entirely an indirect measure of other
more important characteristics or qualities that are not so
easily observed. Surface colour that differs from that of the
parent material is usually an indication of the processes
involved in soil formation and may also be indicative of
anthropogenic actions which have disturbed a localised soil
matrix. Myers (1983) and Horvath et al. (1984) state that the
most important factors influencing soil colour are mineralogy,
chemical constituents, soil moisture, soil structure, particle
size and organic matter content.
In order to determine the underlying cause of the soil colour
change a number of individual soil samples and soil sample
transects were taken (Beck, 2004; Wilkinson et al., 2006).
The following laboratory analyses were undertaken on those
samples (see Figure 5):
• Moist and dry spectro-radiometer readings
• Particle size measurement
• Magnetic susceptibility
• Geochemical analysis

4.1 Contrast and soil marks in the marl zone

After an initial field visit and analysis it became apparent that

sites could be detected in the historic Corona imagery (Philip
et al., 2002a). However, the project had the funding to
purchase bespoke Ikonos imagery and needed to determine the
most appropriate time frame and conditions for archaeological
detection.

In order to detect the archaeological residues we need to

understand not only how any contrast would be expressed but
also the physical causation of that contrast. It was postulated
that these sites represent the decayed and thoroughly ploughed
remains of abandoned settlements originally composed of
mudbrick structures (Beck, 2004; Wilkinson et al., 2006). If
this were the case then the soil associated with each
archaeological site could in theory be differentiated from the
localised soil by some difference in grain size, structure,
moisture content or chemical/biological composition due to
the degraded building material. This may give rise to different
soil and/or crop properties that can be detected using satellite
imagery.

Initially soil colour was recorded against a Munsell chart. Soil

colour is one of the most obvious and easily determined
attributes of soil, and is a primary element widely used by soil
scientists in the identification, field description,
characterisation and classification of soils (White, 1997).
It was established that, when dry, archaeological residues
were significantly lighter in colour (reflecting an increase in
chroma) than the surrounding off-site soils, but that the two
soils were indistinguishable by eye when wet. The inspection
of Corona imagery from different seasons revealed that the
colour differences between archaeological and non-
archaeological soils were most evident during peak aridity
(September to November), although sites were also readily
detectable during periods of drying-out following rainfall.
This presumably reflects differences in the capacity of
archaeological and non-archaeological soils to retain moisture.
This simple observation provided enough information to
determine that for optical satellite imagery the archaeological
residues in this environmental zone would exhibit the most
contrast during periods of peak aridity. However, we wanted
Figure 5 Site 339: How it varies under crop, the
location of soil sample points overlaying an Ikonos
MS (4,3,2 false colour composite) and comparison of
curve profiles for a number of attributes
Wilkinson et al. (2006) concluded that differences in spectral
reflectance at soil sites were due to variations in moisture,
grain size and soil structure between on and off-site soils.
This understanding of the physical nature of the
archaeological contrast allows one to rapidly simulate the
effectiveness of sensors with different sensing characteristics
and how direct and proxy contrasts might be exhibited in a
range of different environmental conditions.
It is assumed that crop marks will not be detected by satellite
imagery: although it is theoretically possible to detect crop
marks from satellite imagery the likelihood of programming a
scene that will intersect with crop mark formation is low. This
is exacerbated by the fact that crop marks form at different
times depending upon localised environmental conditions and
the type of crop. This is a limitation of the spectral and
temporal resolutions of the satellite sensors and not of the
underlying theory.
With these factors in mind Ikonos imagery was booked for
collection between October 2001 and January 2002. This
timeframe covers the driest months and the start of the winter
rains. There is limited or no crop cover at this time. Due to a
number of factors outside our control the imagery was finally
collected in February 2002. Although this time frame was not
ideal the heavier rains had not commenced. It could be argued
that the light rains improved image fidelity buy helping to
remove atmospheric dust.
4.2 Contrast enhancement algorithms
As has been postulated and then demonstrated (see Figure 5)
archaeological residues in the marl zone do not exhibit a
unique spectral curve. Anthropogenic action associated with
the use and destruction of a site alters the underlying soil
properties. This in turn produces the difference in reflectance
in the optical wavelengths which mean that this site can be
detected using optical satellite sensors. In this environment we
can generalise that archaeological soil mark sites share similar
spectral signatures to the local soil but have higher reflectance
characteristics. The difference in reflectance provides the
contrast which allows the sites to be detected.
Although from the small scale image it looks like this
technique provides no benefit: the image looks grey scale as
most off-site values are close to zero in all bands. The close
up of the cluster of sites displays how the processed imagery
aids visual detection: site 478 (a prehistoric site) is
significantly enhanced as is site 458 (an Islamic settlement in
the lee of tell site 256). At first glance the small scale image
of the standard deviation stretched imagery appears to display
more information. However, this stretch helps to identify the
broad categories across the global image (i.e. water and
different soil types). As a consequence the close up looks
saturated and washed out.
5. DISCUSSION
In this case study the re-incorporation of degraded mud-brick
building material gave rise to changes in the moisture content,
grain size and structure of the soil at the site. Having an
understanding of the physical nature of this archaeological de-
formation process allows one to determine what types of
sensing device, or other detection technique, and what
conditions are appropriate for identifying this contrast.

In many instances the visual contrast of the archaeological

residues could be enhanced by simple histogram
manipulations (i.e. density slicing, contrast stretching or using
false colour composites). These enhancement techniques tend
to be image based meaning that the global statistics for the
whole image determine the enhancement. This may mean that
histogram enhancements could mask subtleties as local
variations are lost to global image characteristics: since target
features only account for a very small percentage of the data
in an image, their signature characteristics can be masked by
the global statistics of the dataset.

A greater understanding of the underlying processes that

produce the contrast allows more effective visual
enhancement algorithms to be produced (Beck, 2004). One
technique that was developed treated archaeological residues
as localised background soil variations. As archaeological
sites display a measurably different reflectance value to the
local soils, subtracting an averaged background soil pixel will
theoretically produce a positive value. It was decided to apply
a moving average kernel to the Corona and Ikonos imagery in
order to evaluate whether residues were easier to locate in the
resultant statistical surface. In theory, after processing, areas
of unmodified soil should have an average approaching zero
(i.e. minimal bias). Features that significantly deviate from
these background values, such as archaeological residues,
roads, buildings, crops and water, should exhibit positive or
negative values. The only problem was determining the size of
the kernel. After empirical trial and error approaches to define
an appropriate radius for the averaging kernel, a compromise
of 200m was reached. This provides a large enough area that
extends beyond the outlines of most sites and can be
processed in a reasonable time frame.
The results of the averaging kernel on all the imagery were
excellent. Figure 6 compares a 3,2,1 false colour composite of
the 200m kernel average and unprocessed Ikonos MS imagery.
Figure 6 Image enhancement: moving average kernel
compared against a histogram stretch
In this instance the localised reflectance difference expressed
in the optical wavelengths was used. In order to achieve the
maximum contrast for the archaeological residues the local
condition required dry soils with limited crop cover. This
choice of conditions and contrast type was determined by the
sensor used to detect it – an optical sensor was employed so
contrast differences expressed in the optical region are
required. However, we could have employed sensors in the
Short Wave Infra Red (SWIR) which may be more sensitive to
variations in mineralogy and structure.
Finally, we can use this knowledge to enhance the
visualisation of the anomaly. Once it was understood that in
the optical wavelengths the sites did not produce a specific
spectral signature but rather a relative shift to the spectral
curve we could develop enhancement algorithms that worked
on the local rather than the global level.
6. CONCLUSION
Archaeological residues represent modifications of a pre-
existing landscape and are therefore strongly influenced by the
local matrix. If the idea of a spectral signature can be applied
at all, it will only work within a consistent background
environment and for a specific form of archaeological residue,
see for example Altaweel (2005).
An inductive approach was used that demonstrated the utility
of understanding the physical processes underpinning
archaeological contrast detection. This understanding has
allowed the collection of imagery at the most appropriate time
for detection and facilitated the creation of an enhancement
algorithm that has improved the detection of the residues.
The techniques presented in this paper will not allow
archaeologists to automatically identify all the features of
archaeological significance located within the structure of a
digital image; rather we argue that appropriate processing
methodologies can only be applied when one has a thorough
understanding of the nature of the archaeological residues,
their relationships with the immediate matrix, the
characteristics of the ‘observing’ sensor and the
environmental conditions at the time of image capture.
It would seem logical that a methodological framework, along
similar lines to O.G.S. Crawford’s site classification model, is
generated. This will aid archaeological feature detection by
suggesting different sensors to detect different archaeological
features in different environments under different conditions.
It is recommended that a deductive framework is devised
based upon field measurement and sampling over a range of
archaeological residues in contrasting environments at
different times of year. This type of information is essential
for regional and national cultural resource managers who need
to effectively deploy scarce resources.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges doctoral research support
provided by the Natural Environment Research Council
through Award Ref. GT0499TS53 and for the purchase of the
Ikonos imagery by their Earth Observation Data Centre.
Thanks are due to Drs Graham Philip and Danny Donoghue at
Durham University, Dr. Simon Hickinbotham at Leeds
University and Maria Beck, their comments have helped to
substantially improve the clarity of this paper. The Ikonos
imagery includes material © 2003, European Space Imaging
GmbH, all rights reserved. Corona data compiled by the U.S.
Geological Survey.
REFERENCES
Altaweel, M., 2005. The Use of ASTER Satellite Imagery in
Archaeological Contexts. Archaeological Prospection, 12:
151-166.
Beck, A., 2004. The evaluation of Corona and Ikonos satellite
imagery for archaeological applications in a semi-arid
environment, University of Durham, Durham.
Beck, A., Philip, G., Abdulkarim, M. and Donoghue, D.,
2007. Evaluation of Corona and Ikonos high resolution
satellite imagery for archaeological prospection in western
Syria. Antiquity, 81: 161-175.
Bewley, R.H., Crutchley, S.P. and Shell, C., 2005. New light
on an ancient landscape: lidar survey in the Stonehenge World
Heritage Site. Antiquity, 79: 636-647.
Crawford, O.G.S., 1923. Air survey and archaeology.
Geographical Jounral(May): 324-66.
Crawford, O.G.S., 1928. Air survey and archaeology,
Ordnance Survey, Southampton.
Crawford, O.G.S., 1929. Air photography for archaeologists,
Ordnance Survey, Southampton.
Donoghue, D.N.M., 1999. Multispectral Remote Sensing for
archaeology. In: S. Campana and M. Forte (Editors), Ciclo di
Lezioni sulla ricerca applicata in archeologia; Remote sensing
in archaeology. Edizioni All' Insegna del Giglio, Siena, Italy,
pp. 181-192.
Gaffney, C. and Gater, J., 2003. Revealing the Buried Past:
Geophysics for Archaeologists. Tempus Publishing, Stroud.
Horvath, E.H., Post, D.F. and Kelsey, J.B., 1984. Relationship
among Landsat digital data and the properties of Arizona
rangelands. Soil Science Society of America, 56: 865-872.
Myers, V., 1983. Remote sensing applications in agriculture.
In: R.N. Colwell, J.E. Estes and G.A. Thorley (Editors),
Manual of remote sensing. American Society of
Photogrammetry, Falls Church, Va.
Philip, G., Abdulkarim, M., Beck, A. and Newson, P.G., 2005.
Settlement and landscape development in the Homs region,
Syria: report on work undertaken 2001-2003. Levant, 37: 21-
42.
Philip, G., Donoghue, D.N.M., Beck, A.R. and Galiatsatos, N.,
2002a. CORONA satellite photography: an archaeological
application from the Middle East. Antiquity, 76(291): 109-
118.
Philip, G., Jabour, F., Beck, A.R., Bshesh, M., Grove, J., Kirk,
A. and Millard, A.R., 2002b. Settlement and Landscape
Development in the Homs Region, Syria: Research Questions,
Preliminary Results 1999-2000 and Future Potential. Levant,
34.
Scollar, I., 1990. Archaeological prospecting and remote
sensing. Topics in remote sensing ; 2. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Scudder, S.J., Foss, J.E. and Collins, M.E., 1996. Soil Science
and Archaeology. Advances in agronomy, 57: 1-76.
USGS, 2003. Declassified Satellite Imagery - 1. USGS.
White, R.E., 1997. Principles and practice of soil science: the
soil as a natural resource. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Wilkinson, K.N., Beck, A.R. and Philip, G., 2006. Satellite
imagery as a resource in the prospection for archaeological
sites in central Syria. Geoarchaeology, 21(7): pp. 735-750.