Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5 (2016) 485–498

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep

Pixel versus object — A comparison of strategies for the semi-automated

mapping of archaeological features using airborne laser scanning data
Christopher Sevara a,c,⁎, Michael Pregesbauer b, Michael Doneus b,c, Geert Verhoeven b,d, Immo Trinks b
a
Initiative College for Archaeological Prospection, University of Vienna, Franz-Klein-Gasse 1/III, 1190, Vienna, Austria
b
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection and Virtual Archaeology, Hohe Warte 38, 1190, Vienna, Austria
c
Department of Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology, University of Vienna, Franz-Klein-Gasse 1/III, 1190, Vienna, Austria
d
Vienna Institute for Archaeological Science, University of Vienna, Franz-Klein-Gasse 1/III, 1909, Vienna, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Semi-automated approaches to archaeological feature detection can be invaluable aids to the investigation of
Received 20 October 2015 high resolution, large area archaeological prospection datasets. In order to obtain stable and reliable classification
Received in revised form 17 December 2015 results, however, the application of pre-processing steps to digital terrain data is needed. This study examines
Accepted 31 December 2015
semi-automated approaches to identification of archaeological features through a comparison of pixel-based
Available online 13 January 2016
and object-oriented data classification methods for archaeological feature detection in visualizations derived
Keywords:
from high-resolution airborne laser scanning data. In doing so, openness is presented as a suitable visualization
Classification for feature detection due to its illumination-invariant representation of convexity and concavity in terrain data.
Segmentation The methodology of both pixel-based and object-oriented data classification approaches is described and applied
OBIA to two datasets recorded over two archeological case study areas in Sweden and Austria. The diverse nature of the
ALS two datasets makes them ideal with regard to determining the robustness of the approaches discussed here. The
Birka obtained results are exported to a GIS environment and compared with manual visual interpretations and ana-
Kreuttal lyzed in terms of their accuracy. Therefore, this paper presents both a discussion regarding the merits of pixel-
Openness
and object-based semi-automated classification strategies with regard to archaeological prospection data as
well as practical examples of their implementation and results.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Lasaponara et al., 2011). However, the density of archaeologically rele-

Airborne laser scanning (ALS) is an established technology for dense
and highly accurate measurements of the Earth's surface and thereby
for the mapping of archaeological sites and landscapes (e.g.
Ackermann, 1999; Challis et al., 2008; Doneus and Briese, 2006, 2011;
Lasaponara et al., 2011; Sittler, 2004). For archaeological purposes, ALS
has so far been utilized to generate detailed digital terrain models
(DTMs) in order to depict subtle features of prehistoric and historic
structures in the topography, features that are sometimes hardly recog-
nizable for an observer located on the ground. ALS has considerable
methodological and economic advantages compared with traditional
terrestrial surveying for the time- and cost-efficient generation of
large-scale, high-resolution terrain models (see Opitz and Cowley,
2013 for recent examples). This is especially true for forested areas,
whereby making use of latest full-waveform (FWF) laser scanner tech-
nology it has even become possible to conduct archeological reconnais-
sance in areas that are covered with dense forest and low understory
(Doneus and Briese, 2006; Hesse, 2014; Lasaponara and Masini, 2009;
⁎ Corresponding author at: Initiative College for Archaeological Prospection, University
of Vienna, Franz-Klein-Gasse 1/III, 1190, Vienna, Austria.
E-mail address: christopher.sevara@univie.ac.at (C. Sevara).
vant information produced from ALS data capture also renders its man-
ual analysis and interpretation a time-consuming task. Computer driven
image analysis offers a way to rapidly extract archaeological informa-
tion from such very high resolution (VHR) datasets, and can even be
used to detect objects of interest that are not visible to the naked eye.
Thus, such processes can act as a compliment to archaeological data in-
terpretation, expediting and improving the image analysis workflow.
The wider archeological community is beginning to recognize the
potential benefit in employing computer-aided analysis techniques,
which can help in rapidly classifying large area, high-resolution archae-
ological prospection data (Bennett et al., 2014; Cowley, 2012). While
the merits and extent to which such approaches are applicable continue
to be debated (e.g. Casana, 2014), the reality is that we now have the ca-
pability to produce so much data of such high spatial, spectral and tem-
poral quality that it is becoming difficult to interpret it all manually.
Therefore, instead of rejecting the notion of computer-aided detection
of archaeological information, the goal should be to find ways in
which we can use these techniques to our advantage, as informed by ex-
pert knowledge about the archaeological record. In this paper, we do so
through the examination of two approaches to semi-automated extrac-
tion of information that are commonly used today in the field of image
analysis: (1) pixel-based classification and (2) object-oriented image

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.12.023
2352-409X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
486 C. Sevara et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5 (2016) 485–498
analysis (Baatz et al., 2008; Blaschke et al., 2000; Blaschke, 2010; Tso
and Mather, 2009). Pregesbauer (2013) demonstrated the applicability
of these approaches as applied to the semi-automated identification of
burial mounds on the island of Birka, Sweden. Sevara and Pregesbauer
(2014) developed an object-oriented model for the identification of ar-
chaeological features in ALS datasets in the Kreuttal region of Lower
Austria using a relational approach and linking feature detection to
landform classification.
This study will further investigate the potential of these methods for
the extraction of archaeological information contained in ALS-derived
DTMs and related visualizations. Therefore, the first part of this
study discusses openness-derived visualizations and their role in ar-
chaeological feature detection and compares the principles of both the
pixel-based classification and the object-oriented image analysis ap-
proach. In the second part, both methods are applied first to an ALS
dataset derived from the case study area Birka-Hovgården in Sweden,
a Viking Age settlement and Scandinavia's largest field of late Iron Age
burial mounds. Subsequently, each approach is applied to a second
ALS dataset covering the Kreuttal area in Lower Austria, an archaeolog-
ical case study area with a range of feature types present in relief. In this
way, the applicability of each approach can be evaluated in both a highly
homogenous and a highly heterogeneous archaeological landscape. Ex-
tracted features are then exported to a GIS environment for further
analysis and comparison with manual interpretation, which serves as
a reference in order to compare the capabilities of the automatic classi-
fication algorithm for archaeological purposes, and to estimate the
achieved accuracy of both classification approaches.
2. ALS data, visualization and semi-automated feature detection
2.1. ALS data and archeological topography
In order for archaeological structures to be visible in a DTM they
have to have survived in relief and the terrain model must be of suffi-
cient spatial resolution to represent the features. Preservation is often
best in constantly vegetated areas such as pastures and forests, where
the vegetation, to a certain degree, protects the surface from erosion.
Here, archaeological structures are often still visible as variations
in micro-topography. These areas can therefore be regarded as archae-
ological archives providing abundant information about present re-
mains of past land uses that had an impact on the ground surface
(Kenzler and Lambers, 2015:73). Depending on the site and size of the
surveyed area, thousands of features may be visible (Sittler, 2004;
Doneus and Briese, 2011; Bofinger and Hesse, 2011), which have to be
mapped during archaeological data interpretation (Doneus and
Kühtreiber, 2013).
Interpretative mapping of archaeological structures contained in ALS
data can be a time-consuming process, especially when thousands of
features have to be drawn manually. Consequently, approaches for
semi-automatic detection or interpretation are sought-after alternatives
that aim to expedite the identification and interpretation process. While
several corresponding tests have been conducted for satellite and aerial
imagery (e.g. Casana, 2014; De Laet et al., 2007a; De Laet et al., 2007b;
Figorito and Tarantino, 2014; Harrower et al., 2013; Jahjah and
Ulivieri, 2010; Lambers and Zingman, 2013; Lasaponara and Masini,
2006), examples for automated detection of archaeological features in
ALS-derived terrain models are still rare (Boer, 2005; Pregesbauer,
2013; Schneider et al., 2014; Sevara, 2013; Sevara and Pregesbauer,
2014; Trier and Pilø, 2012; Trier et al., 2015). A number of the ap-
proaches quoted above employ a technique in which geometrical tem-
plates are used for the identification of geometrically simple objects
(e.g. mounds and pits) in ALS-derived DTMs. Approaches such as tem-
plate mapping can be effective but may run into limitations when fea-
tures of interest in VHR datasets do not correspond to pre-defined
templates. Furthermore, when mining datasets for multiple feature
types whose parameters may be unknown, more flexible approaches
seem to be necessary. Here, a fundamental distinction can be made be-
tween the use of feature detection routines for the targeted investiga-
tion and analysis of specific feature classes and their application in the
detection of more diverse archaeological content in a dataset for
which potential feature types may be unknown.
Although the first results of the abovementioned ALS feature detec-
tion tests seem to be quite promising, an automated workflow for ar-
chaeological interpretation still appears to be quite far away (see also
Cowley, 2012). While a fully automatic approach is neither sought
after nor advocated by the authors, the recent work presented above
shows that advances in image analysis have advanced the field to a
point where semi-automated feature detection based on user-defined
variables can reduce the time it takes to interpret and classify complex
archaeological datasets.
2.2. Data visualization and openness
Spectral images with multiple bands are the common foundation for
image analysis. In contrast to multi-band spectral images, ALS-derived
data used in this study consist of only one layer, indicating height
values, which can be used for classification. In this case, the feature
space for detecting and classifying archaeological objects can be either
the filtered ALS point cloud, or the interpolated raster DTM created
from that cloud, where any classification approach applied has to
work with the relative spatial variance of the three dimensional points.
In addition to the height values of the DTM, a visualization method is
needed for the subsequent semi-automatic classification procedure.
This permits the clear, localized differentiation of relief features, regard-
less of the illumination source. There exists a broad range of possibilities
to derive models from the relative position of points in 3D space (Hengl
and Reuter, 2009), for example slope or local relief models (Hesse,
2010), the use of the sky-view factor (SVF) (Kokalj et al., 2011), positive
and negative openness (Yokoyama et al., 2002; Doneus, 2013) or a com-
bination of those methods. Using these models, micro-topography and
therefore archaeological structures contained therein can be enhanced,
thereby increasing the potential for a successful classification.
While there exists an abundant amount of literature on visualization
of archaeological DTMs (e.g. Bewley et al., 2005; Bennett et al., 2012;
Devereux et al., 2008; Doneus and Briese, 2006; Humme et al., 2006;
Hesse, 2010; Kokalj et al., 2011; Opitz and Cowley (2013)), almost all
studies have concentrated on the advantage of DTMs for archaeological
feature selection. Mapping and delineation of features have been of less
concern. In order for automated classification methods to be successful,
visualization techniques that help clearly indicate outline and geometry
of individual features are necessary. Recently, openness (Yokoyama
et al., 2002) has been advocated as a suitable technique for this task
(Doneus, 2013; Zakšek et al., 2011). The openness algorithm calculates
the mean value of the zenith angle for the determined horizons of a
minimum of eight directions (N, NW, W, SW, S, SE, E, NE) (Yokoyama
et al., 2002:258) for a specific location in the elevation model. If the ze-
nith angle is used, a positive openness value is calculated (Fig. 1, red
lines). Accordingly, using the nadir, negative openness is the result
(Fig. 1, white lines). The search radius is controlled by modifying its
size, a manually determined parameter that is linked to the spatial res-
olution of the base DTM.
As positive and negative openness can provide information on con-
vexity and concavity of archaeological features (Doneus, 2013:6436),
these geometric characteristics can be used as an aid to computer
aided classification of various feature types visible in relief. Though
openness is similar to SVF (Zakšek et al., 2011:404), it has two main dif-
ferences: (1) the process calculates an additional “negative” version
using nadir angles, and (2) while the maximum angle when using the
sky-view factor can be a nadir of 90°, openness also includes angle-
values that are larger (Doneus, 2013:6435; Zakšek et al., 2011:403). As
a result, openness does not consider slopes, i.e. a location in an openness
map will display the same value regardless of whether it was
 C. Sevara et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5 (2016) 485–498
Fig. 1. Positive openness (red lines) and negative openness (white lines). Numbers at angles indicate the azimuth of the angle.
After Yokoyama et al. (2002:259).
determined on an even slope or on a horizontal plane, while the sky-
view factors of these two locations would differ (because it is per defini-
tion limited to the celestial hemisphere). Openness is therefore a trend
removal tool, and as a consequence, openness values within the bound-
ary of individual features are more homogeneous, which is an advan-
tage for their classification. This differentiates openness from other
visualization calculations such as SVF that may, however, be more useful
for visual interpretation. For these reasons, openness has been sug-
gested as being particularly suitable for use in semi-automated feature
detection applications (Doneus, 2013:6439; Zakšek et al., 2011:404).
In this case study, both terrain data and the derived models of posi-
tive and negative openness are stacked together into a multi-layered
dataset, taking a certain data redundancy into account. In that way, a
multi-band dataset is approximated, functioning as a basis for the appli-
cation of feature detection and description algorithms. The resulting
stacked dataset has been used to evaluate the potential of a pixel-
based as well as of an object-oriented approach for the semi-
automatic classification of the archaeological resources in two case
study areas.
2.3. Semi-automatic classification approaches
Classification techniques are commonly used in remote sensing and
can consist of a set of measurements of different features in the so-
called ‘feature space’. The feature space can be regarded as a k-
dimensional vector space, where individual features or a combination
thereof are describing objects (e.g. a pixel as the most generic form, or
a polygon shape as a representation of a certain entity). Descriptors
can be spectral properties such as reflectance, radiance, or transmit-
tance, geometrical, and geographical (Alt, 1990). During the data classi-
fication, a relationship has to be established between these objects and
pre-defined class categories. A comparative study on the difference be-
tween pixel-based and object-oriented classification can be found in the
work of Kamagata et al. (2005).
2.3.1. Pixel-based classification approach
Pixel-based classification approaches use the smallest entity within
an image, the picture element (or pixel), in order to extract the feature
information in relation to one or more predefined classes. Each pixel can
be addressed by the x and y coordinates of the two dimensional image
space, and can be attributed with one or more values derived from the
z axis, which is formed by the multiple layers of the dataset. In all
cases the attributes of each pixel (in most cases, one or more spectral
values) function as the basis for the classification, in which an assembly
of pixels with similar attribute values form an arrangement describing,
for example, an archaeological feature to be classified. The attribute in-
formation can be any of the aforementioned model parameters (e.g.
487
height, positive openness, sky-view factor, slope and the like). Thus,
the aim of the pixel-based classification is to establish a per-pixel rela-
tionship with a certain class category based on the attribute information
of itself and its spatial neighbourhood (Alt, 1990). The classes have ei-
ther been predefined by the investigator in the form of a supervised
classification approach, or identified by the software in an unsupervised
approach based on grouping the spectral properties of the respective
bands of the entire dataset (Cheung, 2005).
When working with archaeological data, and especially when work-
ing with DTMs containing micro-topographic structures in varying
states of erosion, archaeological features generally express only a slight
per-pixel variation compared with their surroundings. Therefore, only
the supervised pixel-based approach seems to be successful for archae-
ological feature detection, whereby the investigator uses known sample
areas based on prior knowledge to “train” the classifier to recognize de-
cision boundaries in the feature space. Earlier attempts have shown that
unsupervised classification, in which the software-based classifier
“learns” from the input data, is only successful on very small datasets
containing a limited number of distinct features (Townshend et al.,
2000).
In the case of supervised classification, the quality of the training
data is the key factor for its success. Two factors seem to be most rele-
vant for many commonly applied classifiers: (1) the only objects that
can be automatically classified are ones represented in the training sam-
ples; (2) the data included within the training samples should be as ho-
mogeneous as possible (Townshend 1981). All of the supervised
statistical classifiers which have been developed over the years employ
three main steps in their process chain (Tso and Mather, 2009):
• Defining and selecting the desired target classes and collecting suffi-
cient training samples.
• Using the collected training samples to estimate the statistical param-
eters regarding the selected classification method.
• Applying an appropriate decision rule to assign the pixel to the corre-
sponding classes.
Datasets with a large number of attributes (i.e. data with high di-
mensionality) will need more training samples to generate satisfactory
results. According to the Hughes phenomenon (Hughes, 1968), any clas-
sifier becomes less effective above a certain data dimension. While the
Hughes phenomenon is an issue for complex multidimensional datasets
such as airborne imaging spectroscopy data, the issue of dimensionality
does not seem to be a problem for ALS data.
2.3.2. Object-oriented classification approach
In contrast to the pixel-based approach, which starts from the basic
entities of an image, an object-based analysis uses the entire image or
data set and breaks it down into meaningful segments. One essential
488 C. Sevara et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5 (2016) 485–498
factor that distinguishes object-based approaches from the more tradi-
tional pixel-oriented approaches is the integration of the image content
into the classification procedure (Kettig and Landgrebe, 1976). While
data segmentation techniques have been used for the identification of
objects since the 1970s, the last decade has seen rapid development of
more sophisticated techniques such as Object-based Image Analysis
(OBIA) (Blaschke, 2010; Blaschke et al., 2000), mainly due to an increase
in computing power as well as the complexity and resolution of datasets
(Platt and Rapoza, 2008). The subdiscipline of GEOBIA (GEographic
Object-based Image Analysis) has been established in order to differen-
tiate OBIA applications that have a geographic component, such as ar-
chaeological feature detection or land-use/land cover studies, from
applications such as automated detection of anomalies in medical imag-
ing (Hay and Castilla, 2008; Blaschke et al., 2014).
Whatever the application, OBIA starts from the complete area under
investigation and consequently segments the contents in a way that fi-
nally results in an image being divided into non-overlapping objects
(segments). In this way, the approach is opposite to that of a pixel-
based one, which works from the smallest component of the image.
The aim of this approach is to subdivide the image into homogeneous
segments that describe the target features (pit, burial mound, etc.) as
correctly as possible. Thus, (GE)OBIA approaches have the advantage
of producing image objects that more closely represent real-world ob-
jects than individual pixels do (cf. Fisher, 1997:682), provided that the
initial segmentation is appropriate (Platt and Rapoza, 2008:87). This is
achieved through the use of diverse segmentation methods, including
point-based, edge-based, region-based, or combinations of these
(Schiewe, 2002). In an ideal application the resulting segments would
correspond to real-world objects, i.e. the segmentation procedure
would be able to map a target feature as a single image object. However,
none of the currently available segmentation methods are able to
provide a perfect description of the features contained in an image.
Depending on the method applied, there will either be smaller or
larger resulting objects when compared with their counterparts in
reality.
In most cases, segments will be smaller than the objects they classify,
resulting in more than one segment describing a target feature
(over-segmentation), which is due to the relative complexity of
real-world features. Therefore, as a final step of OBIA, such segments
have to be assigned to a common class. When segments are larger
than the real-world objects, the classification process ends up with
mixed classes, where each segment describes more than one object
(under-segmentation) (Liu and Xia, 2010:189) (Fig. 2). This case
should be avoided, since it would result in objects consisting of
more than one class, to which the dominant class would be assigned,
thus hampering a useful classification.
Fig. 2. Segmentation example: unsatisfactory representation of a feature by under segmentation (left) in comparison with a feature appropriate segmentation (right).
Generally speaking, OBIA first uses a segmentation algorithm to di-
vide the image into “meaningful” objects that are non-overlapping.
Image segmentation methods can be categorized into three groups:
(1) an image-driven approach applying statistical analysis, (2) a
model driven approach, and (3) segmentation based on a homogeneity
measure using spectral, spatial, textural, geometrical, contextual, tem-
poral and prior knowledge as criteria (Dey et al., 2010). As stated
above, this step often results in an over-segmentation, in which finer
segmented entities are often created because of the inherent inhomoge-
neity of the objects. The segmentation results form the basis of the
subsequent classification. Here, classes are defined and each individual
segment is assigned to a single class based on the employed target
object's properties. Most commonly, spectral values, geometry,
neighbourhood relationships or semantic groupings are used. The selec-
tion of the segmentation approach depends highly on the quality re-
quired for the subsequent classification. The present case study uses
the homogeneity measure, where the homogeneity criteria are textural
(openness, slope) and geometrical (roundness).
3. Case study areas and data acquisition
Two case study areas under investigation by the Ludwig Boltzmann
Institute for Archaeological Prospection and Virtual Archaeology (LBI
ArchPro) were chosen in order to test the applicability of similar
pixel- and object-based approaches to archaeological feature classifica-
tion. Both study areas have been covered by high-resolution ALS flights
in periods suitable for maximum likelihood of ground returns, providing
highly detailed datasets. The site of Birka-Hovgården in Sweden (LBI,
2015a) and the Kreuttal case study area in Lower Austria (LBI, 2015b)
were chosen in order to demonstrate the applicability of each approach
using the same data types in very different archaeological environ-
ments. As can be seen below, Birka has a short occupation sequence
and relatively homogeneous feature types compared with the Kreuttal
area, which contains traces of human activity visible in relief from as
early as the Bronze Age up to the Modern Historic period. Thus, these
two highly contrasting case studies provide an opportunity to test
both the applicability as well as the robustness of the approaches de-
scribed in this study.
3.1. The Birka-Hovgården case study
The archaeological site of Birka-Hovgården, a UNESCO-designated
World Cultural Heritage Site located on the neighbouring islands of
Björkö and Adelsö in Lake Mälaren in Central Sweden, was an important
Viking Age settlement and trading place between the years of ca. 750 CE
and ca. 950 CE (Fig. 3). With a fortified hill-fort, an earthen town
 C. Sevara et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5 (2016) 485–498 489

rampart, several harbors and Hemlanden, Sweden's largest Iron Age as-
sembly of burial mounds, Birka is considered to have been one of
Scandinavia's most important Viking Age centers. Hemlanden measures
approximately 650 × 400 m NNW–SSE, and according to literature, it
consists of some 1600 ancient burials, including approximately 1500
burial mounds of 5 to 9 m diameter and a height of mostly 0.4 m to
1.0 m. Of those, circa 30 are surrounded by stone circles, circa 50 are lo-
cated within tri-cornered stone settings, 10 features are rectangular
stone settings and five can be interpreted as smaller ship settings
(RAÄ Adelsö 118:1; Hermodsson, 2004). Hemlanden is covered to a
large extent by a light forest consisting mainly of birch trees.
In 1888 and 1889, surveyor J.J. Nordstrand mapped the burial
mounds on Björkö in great detail (Arbman, 1940), in the first recorded
systematic modern investigation of the island. The first archaeological
prospections involving terrestrial laser scanning in 2005, high-
resolution magnetic and ground penetrating radar (GPR) prospection
in 2006 (Trinks et al., 2014) and first large-scale motorized GPR
prospection in 2008 have resulted in detailed images of buried Viking
Age buildings, fortifications, track ways and graves (Trinks et al.,
2010). While no traces of Viking settlement architecture are visible
above the ground, largely undisturbed Viking Age stratification can be
found immediately below the plough layer at approximately 30 cm
depth. Due to the distinct dark color of these rich archaeological layers,
the central settlement area of Birka is called the ‘Black Earth’ (Svarta
jorden).
3.2. The Kreuttal case study
The Kreuttal case study (LBI, 2015b), is a 56 km2 area located north
of Vienna, Austria and the subject of an integrated, landscape oriented
archaeological prospection project that combines geophysical
prospection, remote sensing, survey and excavation methodologies in
the search for evidence of past land use, building on decades of
archaeological research in the region (Fig. 4). The central topographic
feature of the case study is a large, heavily wooded hill area whose
ridge runs north–south along the center of the project area. Consisting
largely of a combination of evergreen and mixed deciduous vegetation,
the forested component of the case study area preserves a wealth of
earthwork traces from multiple time periods below its canopy. The
Kreuttal itself is a valley area that bisects this region and lies in a geolog-
ically distinct zone at the interface of the Bay of Korneuburg
(Korneuburger Becken) area to the Viennese Basin (Wiener Becken)
(Wessely, 1998). The Kreuttal case study thus straddles two geologically
distinct regions, with the Kreuttal valley acting as a corridor between
two geographic zones. Although these landscapes can be considered
distinct, the Kreuttal valley corridor forms a link that can be seen as a
unifying factor in the area and a central point of study. These two land-
scapes have been culturally connected since prehistoric times, with nu-
merous settlements, funerary monuments, fortified hill-forts, and other
evidence of occupation to be found in both the open and wooded areas
of the region.
Evidence suggests occupation in the region from at least the Early
Neolithic, with one of the largest known Early Neolithic enclosures
found at Grossrusbach-Weinsteig (Doneus et al., 2001; Löcker et al.,
2009:101), and a series of Middle Neolithic circular ring ditch systems
(Kreisgrabenanlage — KGA) identified in both the eastern and western
sections of the study area (Löcker et al., 2009:103 Neubauer,
2012:154; Neugebauer, 1995:55; Trnka, 1991). Large hill-forts domi-
nate the mountainous region in the center of the study area, such as
the presumed Bronze Age triple ditch hill-fort of Ochsenberg at the
north, and a possible Iron Age Oppidum in the center of the study area.
These locations provide both a defensive advantage as well as perfect
positions for control over the resources of the region. Numerous other
earthworks, particularly conflict remnants from World War II, dot the
region and are woven into the fabric of the landscape, superimposed
on relict land use from the Bronze Age to the medieval period. For the

Fig. 3. Filtered digital terrain model of the northern half of the island of Björkö in Lake Mälaren. Viking Age Birka was located in the flat fields between the hill-fort, which is visible as a rocky
outcrop in the W, surrounded by a rampart in the NW. The grave field Hemlanden, the subject of this study, is located in the north central section of the island. Visualization: semi-
transparent sky-view factor calculation over a multidirectional hillshade, calculated using RVT (RVT, 2015).
Inset location map source: ESRI.
490 C. Sevara et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5 (2016) 485–498

Fig. 4. Filtered DTM showing a central section of the Kreuttal case study area. A large prehistoric earthwork, provisionally dated to the Iron Age, can be seen in the center of the image. The
southern portion of the hillfort comprises the extent of the dataset used in this study. Visualization: semi-transparent sky-view factor calculation over a multidirectional hillshade,
calculated using RVT (RVT, 2015).
Inset location map source: ESRI.

purposes of this study, a 90 hectare segment of the case study area was Processing of the .las data was carried out by the LBI ArchPro (see
selected for analysis. Diverse archaeological features are located within Section 4.1).
this subsection, which is located in an afforested section of the case
study where preservation of objects in relief tends to be best (Fig. 4). 4. Data processing workflow and classification strategies

Classification strategies based on the principles outlined in

3.3. Data acquisition Section 2.3 were devised for each approach. The ALS point clouds
were first transformed into regularized raster DTMs from which open-
Full-waveform (FWF) ALS data were used in order to generate a ness visualizations were calculated, and then pixel- or object-based
high-resolution DTM of the entire island of Björkö, on which Birka is lo- image analysis steps were implemented in Trimble eCognition v8.7.1.
cated, as well as of the southern part of the neighbouring island of A workflow for each approach is outlined in Fig. 5. In both approaches,
Adelsö, where the rulers of Birka are believed to have resided at positive openness, negative openness and the DTM were stacked as de-
Hovgården (Nerman, 1918). Airborne Technologies (ABT), an Austrian scribed above. In the pixel-based approach, initial training classes of
partner of the LBI ArchPro and a commercial provider of ALS surveys,
conducted the survey on November 28th and 29th 2011, covering the Table 1
area in a matter of hours with a Riegl LMS-Q680i laser scanner Parameters of the ALS data acquisition at Birka-Hovgården and Kreuttal.
(Table 1). The time of survey was chosen in the off-leaf season, so that
Project Birka Kreuttal
the birch forest covering the NE part of Björkö would be largely
Purpose of scan Archaeology Land cover/environmental
defoliated, while the area was still free of snow. The operating altitude
Time of data 28th & 29th of November 11th of May 2012
was approximately 300 m above ground level, resulting in a mean acquisition 2011
point density on the ground of six points per square meter. Altogether, Point-density (pt/m2) 6 4–6
the entire project area was covered with 22 longitudinal strips with an Strip overlap 20% 20%
overlap of at least 20%, and two cross strips. The processing of the raw Scanner type Riegl LMS-Q680i Riegl LMS-Q680i
Full-Waveform Full-Waveform
data was carried out by ABT using Riegl's RiPROCESS software. Scan angle 45° 45°
For the Kreuttal case study area, FWF ALS data were acquired in LAS (whole FOV)
format from the government of Lower Austria, which had contracted Flying height above 300 m 350 m
data collection to a private supplier. A central part of the study area, in ground
Speed of aircraft (TAS) 105 knots 105 knots
a forested section containing previously identified prehistoric and his-
Laser pulse rate 400 000 Hz 400 000 Hz
toric earthworks, was identified as a suitable location. Flights took Scan rate 266 000 Hz 266 000 Hz
place on the 11th of May 2012, with the area being covered in 20 longi- Strip adjustment Yes Yes
tudinal strips, with an overlap of 20% (Table 1). The timing of this flight, Filtering Robust interpolation Robust interpolation
in early spring, also assured that vegetation would not be fully devel- (SCOP++) (SCOP++)
DTM resolution 0.5 m 0.5 m
oped, providing a high degree of penetration and ground point density.
 C. Sevara et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5 (2016) 485–498
Fig. 5. Data processing workflow for pixel- and object-based semi-automated feature detection strategies employed in this study.
roughly 250 pixels in size were defined in areas of high distinction, re-
fined and added to until there was no increase in the classification accu-
racy. In the object-based approach, the data stack was initially
segmented and classified using radiometric and geometric attributes
in order to describe distinct archaeological features and to separate
them from the background (non-archaeological features) using hard
value thresholds. The background can be seen as a mixed class contain-
ing non-distinct features. In a subsequent classification step, objects in
the remaining background are classified to split up the mixed classes
using fuzzy thresholds. The resulting classifications could then be
exported as either raster or vector objects for further use and accuracy
analysis in GIS applications. Although eCognition was used in this in-
stance, the relatively straightforward nature of both the pixel- and
object-based approaches presented here allows them to be implement-
ed in other image analysis software.
4.1. DTM & visualization generation
In order to be able to identify micro-topographic structures of poten-
tial archeological relevance, the ALS point clouds needed to be convert-
ed to raster DTMs, which could then be used as a basis for visualization
processing. In order to keep unwanted vegetation information from
appearing in the terrain model, point clouds were first classified into
terrain and off-terrain points (Doneus and Briese, 2006). This was car-
ried out using the hierarchical framework implemented in the software
package SCOP ++ for point cloud filtering (Briese et al., 2002; Kraus
and Otepka, 2005). The filtering strategy was adapted for archaeological
purposes in order to ensure that the archaeological objects were not re-
moved during the filter and interpolation process (Doneus and Briese,
2006, 2011; Doneus et al., 2008). These parameters can also be found
online in the filtering parameters library at the website of the LBI
ArchPro (LBI, 2015c). The resulting DTMs, visualized in Figs. 3 & 4,
have a ground sampling distance of 0.5 m. It should be noted that in
order to preserve relief features of archeological interest, the filtering
strategy employed here also preserves modern building footprints.
Thus, it does not produce a ‘true’ bare-earth model of the earth's surface,
491
as similar processes do for the production of DTMs that are intended for
morphometric or physiographic modelling.
Once the DTMs were processed, positive and negative openness vi-
sualizations were created using the Openness module in the OPALS soft-
ware package (Mandlburger et al., 2009). The ability to calculate
openness visualizations has also recently been implemented in the
open-source Relief Visualisation Toolbox (RVT), developed by Zakšek
et al. (RVT, 2015). When using openness calculations, the size of the ra-
dius should be adjusted for optimal feature delineation. This value is de-
pendent upon the resolution of a particular DEM and relative size of
features under investigation in a given study. For this study, openness
was calculated with a radius of 15 pixels (7.5 m), which was determined
to be the best value for simultaneous generalization of feature values
while preserving feature boundaries.
The use of the openness criterion turned out to be particularly infor-
mative in situations where archeological topographic features are very
close to each other and extending over a large area. This is the case in
Birka's Hemlanden grave field, where hundreds of burial mounds are al-
most touching each other, and some are actually overlapping. Here, pos-
itive openness highlights topographic convexities and emphasizes the
tops of the burial mounds (Fig. 6a). Negative openness emphasizes the
topographic concavities: the crests are highlighted by white lines and
show the boundaries of the barrows quite clearly (Fig. 6b). Although
the feature density in the Kreuttal is somewhat lower and more hetero-
geneous, openness has proven to be applicable in this environment as
well. Here, feature boundaries were also clearly delimited (Fig. 6 c, d).
4.2. Classification procedure
The resulting data stack of DTM, positive and negative openness pro-
vided the basis for the classification procedure, in which the raster im-
ages are converted into discrete series of attributed features based on
the values mentioned above. The classification procedure differs signif-
icantly for object and pixel-based approaches, with the pixel-based ap-
proach relying solely on information contained in the pixel and its
surrounding neighbourhood, and the object approach relying on a
492 C. Sevara et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5 (2016) 485–498

Fig. 6. Positive (a) and negative (b) openness calculated for a subset of the ALS area acquired over the grave field Hemlanden at Birka. A large number of burial mounds as well as a part of
the linear, NNW–SSE running town rampart can be seen in the image. Positive (c) and negative (d) openness calculated for a subset of the Kreuttal dataset. Multiple paths of varying depths
and alignment can be seen, as well as a section of the earthwork bank, ditch and gate which run through the center of the image from NW to SE. In figures (a) and (c), topographically
prominent areas and abrupt changes in slope are depicted as lighter in shade, while in figures (b) and (d) the deepest parts of features are displayed in a lighter shade.

combination of spatial and spectral values that are used to define the
boundaries and assign a class to objects of interest.
A wide variety of pixel-based approaches have been developed over
the past decades. For this study the fundamental technique, namely a
minimum distance classifier (Lillesand and Kiefer, 1999), has been
used to classify the archaeological features. In the pixel-based approach
applied here, openness is the main variable used for feature definition. In
our cases, the addition of DTM-derived calculations such as slope do not
significantly increase classification stability. Therefore, in this applica-
tion slope is not used, although in other pixel-based workflows this var-
iable may be applicable. In order to determine the pixel class label, the
minimum distance between the pixel and the class center is calculated
using either the Euclidean distance or the Mahalanobis distance
(Mahalanobis, 1936), which is a relative distance between data points
in a multidimensional vector space. A quantitative comparison between
both distance measures showed that the Mahalanobis distance per-
forms faster and the classification accuracy is slightly better (Fig. 7).
The main advantage is that the classifier is mathematically and compu-
tationally very efficient and therefore can be used on very large, high-
resolution datasets, as demonstrated by Benediksson et al. (1990).
As mentioned above, the object-oriented workflow typically starts
with data segmentation and is followed by a classification step. The

Fig. 7. Comparison between Mahalanobis distance (left) and minimum distance (right) classifiers. The classification results using the minimum distance classifier shows a greater number
of smaller topographic objects derived from terrain structures classified as archaeological features than the Mahalanobis distance classifier.
 C. Sevara et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5 (2016) 485–498
initial objects are altered constantly in an iterative manner, progressing
from the stage of object primitives toward “objects of interest” after
completion of the workflow. In the object domain, the archaeological
features have been characterized by the attributes openness, slope and
roundness. In the current procedure, openness is derived from the posi-
tive and negative values of the respective visualizations, slope is the rel-
ative change in angle of terrain as derived from the height values of the
terrain model, describing the orientation and steepness of an object, and
roundness is computed from the similarity of the image object to that of
an ellipsoid (Trimble, 2013:281). Each object is assigned to a class using
these parameters. Adjacent objects that meet the same class conditions
are grouped by an image-object fusion-procedure, where the fusion cri-
terion is the probability for belonging to the same object class (Trimble
2013:89)(Fig. 8). The use of fuzzy transition between classes (Benz
et al., 2004) enables us to deal with objects that would fail a classifica-
tion attempt using hard thresholds. By employing fuzzy logic the degree
of membership to a class can have any value between one (true) and
zero (false). Thus, the membership function of a class allows the defini-
tion of relationships between the class feature (e.g. openness) and the
degree of membership to a class on a sliding scale.
5. Results
5.1. Birka
At first glance, the results of both classification methods seem to re-
semble the manual visual interpretations (Fig. 8) for the Birka dataset.
The bank structure on the left part of the image is classified correctly,
as well as most of the burial mounds. However, both automatic classifi-
cation methods show both possible types of false classifications:
• Type 1: an existing burial mound is not classified.
• Type 2: an area classified as “mound” is actually not an archaeological
burial mound.
Both types of classification errors are indicative and reveal the bor-
derline between human interpretation and automatic classification.
The results of the case study displayed less errors of type 1. The black
arrow in Fig. 9 points at one of the type 1 errors, where a burial
mound was missed by the automated classification. The marked burial
mound is hard to recognize in the data because neither its height values
nor its openness differ significantly from the surrounding. Nevertheless,
in “manual” interpretation, an experienced archaeologist would not
hesitate to draw the outline of this feature and classify it as “mound”. Er-
rors of type 2 are mostly due to micro-topographic features such as
rocks, outcrops, or filter residues that incorrectly have been classified
as mounds. These features exhibit a contrast to the surrounding terrain,
but can easily be disregarded as a burial mound during subsequent visu-
al interpretation.
The differences between the two tested classification methods be-
come obvious in a more detailed analysis (Fig. 9). In this specific
Fig. 8. Comparison of the manual (left), object-based (middle) and pixel-based (right) classification of the central Hemlanden area at Birka, which contains numerous burial mounds.
493
example from Birka the difference between object-oriented and pixel-
based classification becomes evident when looking at the table of the
classification accuracy (Table 2). Here, four datasets were compared:
the map of burial mounds drawn by J.J. Nordstrand (Arbman, 1940),
the manual interpretation of the ALS-derived DTM, object-oriented clas-
sification, and pixel-based classification (Fig. 10).
Manual classification was regarded as the reference dataset, and the
other datasets were compared with this reference. To assess the accura-
cy of the automatically classified archaeological features, a distinction
had to be made between a proper recognition of a feature and its spatial
matching in comparison with the manual interpretation map. Spatial
matching was set to “true” when both classification results had a mini-
mum of 90% correspondence.
Table 2 shows that 91% of the features had been recognized with the
object-oriented method, whereas the pixel-based method was able to
correctly classify 78% of the manually interpreted features. The areal
concordance with the object-oriented method is 85% compared with
the pixel-oriented method with 72%. A further analysis of these values
showed that both methods had problems with small objects whose con-
trast to the surrounding environment is low. Overlapping objects have
been classified by both methods as one single object. This is a situation
where a template matching approach could have an advantage (e.g.
Trier et al., 2015).
Regarding the spatial matching criterion of at least 90%, the classifi-
cation results can be transformed into type 1 (not classified) and type 2
(misclassified) error allocations as shown in Table 3. While the number
of type 2 errors is quite similar for both approaches, the main difference
can be seen in the number of type 1 errors. Considerably fewer type 1
errors occur with the object-oriented classification approach than
with the pixel-based classification approach. This difference is mainly
due to the application of fuzzy logic for class membership in the case
of the object-oriented classification approach. The use of fuzzy logic
for the class assignment seems to be a major advantage of object-
oriented classification over the use of a pixel-oriented classifier.
5.2. Kreuttal
As discussed above, the archaeological context for the Kreuttal dif-
fers greatly from that of Birka in both feature density and scale. In the
section of the case study chosen to test the classification approaches,
feature types include long linear earthworks such as banks, ditches
and path networks, as well as small pits, platforms and irregularly
shaped mounds (Fig. 11). In the Kreuttal classification, both approaches
identify features, however even visual inspection shows that the suc-
cessful detection rates are relatively low and the misclassification
rates are high. The accuracy assessment method used in the Birka exam-
ple is not entirely applicable, due in no small part to the increased num-
ber of feature classes used in the Kreuttal interpretation. In the
definition of this scene, the same sort of logic does not exist as it does
in the Birka example. Even discounting modern structures or features
of no archaeological interest, the feature classes and types are of varying
scales and shapes, presenting an altogether more complex scene for
494 C. Sevara et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5 (2016) 485–498
Fig. 9. Detail of the classification results; manual (left), object-based (middle), pixel-based (right).
interpretation. Furthermore, the manual classification has been con-
ducted solely from the desktop and has yet to be verified in the field. Ad-
ditionally, many of the features in the Kreuttal dataset are indistinct and
show only a slight elevational and geometric variance to their surround-
ings. Again, both approaches had difficulty in these low contrast situa-
tions, as in the Birka example. Similarly, overlapping objects were also
classified as a single object. Nevertheless, using the manual classifica-
tion as a reference, an estimate of the success rate of the pixel- and
object-based methods in overall detection of archaeological objects
can be made for a subsection of the dataset (Table 4). The number of
corresponding features differs between the manual and semi-
automated approaches, as in a number of cases the semi-automated
classifications have identified numerous segments of a feature deemed
a single object during manual classification. Due to the relatively low ac-
curacy of feature detection already evidenced through visual inspection,
spatial matching has been disregarded in favor of simply estimating the
overall detection rate.
From the manual interpretation, it can be seen that (Fig. 11a) that
there are many more classes of object present in the dataset than at
Birka, and likely from a much broader temporal sequence. Therefore
using the same approach as on the Birka dataset produces insufficient
results with regard to corresponding identification of feature types.
However, in both the pixel- and object-based applications, large and
distinct linear features such as banks, ditches and main paths are
delimited to some extent (Fig. 11b, c). The pixel-based approach is
even less successful here, due to the difficulty in discriminating homo-
geneous areas of interest in the dataset, leading to a difficulty in defining
adequate training classes. Although some deep linear objects (paths)
are marginally better defined than in the object-based approach, only
the top of banks are defined. Limited as it is, the GEOBIA approach al-
ready appears more successful in this context (Fig. 11c), indicating
that openness, slope, and roundness exhibit potential as useful variables
in detecting objects of interest here as well.
For the Kreuttal dataset, the result clearly shows that a workflow
designed to identify and spatially define a specific range of targets (i.e.
burial mounds and banks) does not produce a similar quantitative result
in a highly heterogeneous environment in terms of percentage of
features detected when compared with human interpretation. The au-
tomation logic employed in the workflow developed in this paper is es-
sentially binary (mound/not mound, or more generally feature/not
feature), which works well for a limited scalar and spatial range of fea-
tures. It is also unable to establish temporal boundaries of objects. Fur-
thermore, there is a classificatory ambiguity present, in that the image
Table 2
Accuracy assessment of automatic classified object versus manual classification within the area under consideration at Birka.
Manual classification (reference) Nordstrand's map
Classified objects 1856 1731
Correctly classified objects – –
Spatial matching N90% – –
analysis routines have difficulty in separating objects such as ‘paths’
from ‘ditches’. In reality, the features themselves may serve dual
functions, however this is often a matter of interpretation of function
and semantics. The workflow does, however, identify sections of
prominent features, making it potentially useful as a tool for merely
identifying the presence of possible features of interest. Though the
workflow designed for Birka could be further modified to improve re-
sults for specific feature classes, a more suitable answer would be to de-
sign a different approach, which takes into account the multiplicity of
feature sizes and classes that are present in the Kreuttal dataset. In
order to improve detection rates for such a variety of features, enhance-
ments need to be made to the segmentation process and a hierarchical
logic needs to be implemented within the classification structure. This
was not necessary in the Birka example due to the relative homogeneity
of feature types. In order to maintain the same internal logic in the
classification scheme for both case studies, a hierarchical approach
was not implemented here. However, the main issues here are that ar-
chaeological features present in the datasets vary greatly in terms of
scale, shape and prominence.
5.3. Data export
In order to perform the assessments described above, classified ob-
jects were exported from eCognition as vector-based shapefiles, which
could subsequently be opened in a GIS application for inspection and
analysis. This process was included as an automatic, final step carried
out after classification. Though a proprietary file format, shapefiles are
by now a de facto standard for spatial data transfer. In doing so, all object
attributes, including classification and georeferencing information,
were preserved and exported along with the object shapes. Options
also exist to export classification results directly to a spatial database
format, or as continuous raster surfaces. Thus, the classification results
from both methods can be easily integrated into a geospatially based
analysis and review workflow. Additionally, classification results can
be attributed with values from the source datasets, allowing spatial
data to be attributed with values from the layers in the source data
stack.
6. Discussion: present limits and future possibilities
The results presented above represent a positive step forward for
semi-automated identification of archaeological features present in
ALS datasets. However, in archaeological terms, the examples presented
Object-based classification Pixel-based classification
1801 1572
1694 1458
1581 1353
 C. Sevara et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5 (2016) 485–498
Fig. 10. Verification of manual classification results (left) and the object-based classification results (right) with the underlying map of J.J. Nordstrand. Mismatches are partly due to the
difficulties of rectification of the historic map.
here demonstrated that the use of an automated classification algorithm
as a substitute for manual human interpretation would result in a num-
ber of missed or incorrectly classified features. This outcome is even
more critical considering that in the Birka example the archaeological
objects to be classified here belonged just to one class with a rather sim-
ple shape. Here, object-oriented classification has the advantage of a sig-
nificantly smaller drop-out rate than a pixel-based approach; in the
object-oriented approach fewer archaeological features remain unclas-
sified. This lack of correspondence demonstrates that a fully automatic
approach to archaeological feature detection is not advisable, and in-
deed such an approach should not be seen as a substitute for, or an at-
tempt to replace, expert human knowledge when it comes to the
interpretation of archaeological prospection data. However, the results
also indicate that a large number of archaeological objects were detect-
ed correctly. In the comparatively heterogeneous archaeological envi-
ronment of the Kreuttal case study the situation becomes even more
complex, as diversity of scale (target object size), feature type, and
environmental conditions provide more variables, which greatly reduce
successful classification rates for the workflows used in this study.
Based on this evaluation, the application of semi-automated ap-
proaches to archaeological feature detection can be divided into two
broad categories: targeted detection and classification of individual,
known feature classes with set parameters, and general detection of di-
verse archaeological features as a preliminary step in interpretation.
As the presented approaches were designed with targeted detection
in mind, they clearly perform better in such environments. This is not
to say that semi-automated approaches to archaeological feature detec-
tion are not applicable in environments such as the Kreuttal, rather that
different strategies are needed for an altogether different application,
and one which may ultimately be more robust in nature. Furthermore,
difficulties in classifying archaeological features in such a context can
be viewed in part as a manifestation of the semantic gap (Smeulders
et al., 2000:1353) in which there exists a disconnect between informa-
tion extracted from target data and expert interpretation. Therefore, a
prime task of future developments in GEOBIA-based feature detection
for archaeological applications such as this should focus on the bridging
of that gap through the connection of semantic information as informed
by expert knowledge to the classification scheme. As OBIA approaches
rely on combinations of spatial, spectral and geometric characteristics
and as such are context based, semantic data can be a viable component
Table 3
Accuracy assessment categorized in type 1 and type 2 errors within the area of consider-
ation at Birka.
Type 1 error objects Type 2 error objects
(not classified) (misclassified)
Object-oriented classification 162 [8.7%] 107 [5.7%]
Pixel-based classification 398[21.4%] 114 [6.1%]
495
of the image analysis process (Belgiu and Lampoltshammer, 2013). One
likely avenue for such a successful application could be through an on-
tological framework, such as the one developed by Belgiu et al. (2014)
for identification of diverse building structures in ALS data. Such an ap-
proach could help improve feature detection rates for both case studies
presented in this paper. Here, establishing a temporal sequence for ob-
jects could also be helpful, and it may be possible to take advantage of
the high resolution of ALS datasets similar to those used in this study,
in order to identify feature superpositioning through automated
identification of feature cuts and abutments. Together with basic im-
provements in segmentation and classification rates, subsequent devel-
opment of such approaches and their reapplication to both datasets will
be the subject of future work.
So, how far do computer-aided archaeological feature detection rou-
tines need to go in order to be considered a useful application in the ar-
chaeological interpretation toolkit? Overall, these approaches should
provide a functional benefit in the interpretation workflow. This can
be in the form of a time-saving perspective, where accurate detection
and delimitation of archaeological features can both yield new discover-
ies and reduce the necessity to manually digitize features. In the case of
targeted detection of specific feature classes, this is a goal that already
seems to be proving useful in a number of contexts. In these instances,
development generally focuses on improvement of spatial accuracy
and quantity of ‘correctly’ detected features. On the other hand, such ap-
proaches can also play an important role as tools in the general detec-
tion of potential archaeological features of interest. In these cases,
accurate delimitation of all spatial characteristics of a given object may
not be a necessary outcome. Rather, rapid detection of potential objects
of interest can act as an aid to more detailed, subsequent interpretation.
Developing feature detection routines within this framework would
also mean that a general structure for archeological feature detection
could be subsequently modified in order to be applicable in a particular
context, without having to be completely rewritten. This may prove
especially useful as applied to datasets with a relatively low dimension-
ality. It is also worth noting that image analysis approaches have further
potential in the detection of features of interest that exist in spectra
invisible to the human eye. It is in these roles that semi-automated
approaches to archaeological feature detection may have yet to be
explored to their fullest potential. Thus, while semi-automated ap-
proaches have identified features in both case studies, it is clear that
a more complex, expert knowledge-driven classification schema
needs to be developed in order to deal with the diverse nature of
the archaeological information present in the Kreuttal example
(Sevara and Pregesbauer, 2014). This sort of logic could also be
more effective in the attempt to identify ‘unknown’ types of archae-
ological features, i.e. features and feature types that we do not al-
ready know of or are searching for. Therefore, the authors do see
the potential for GEOBIA-based approaches as aids to archaeological
interpretation for increasing the efficiency of identification, mapping,
496 C. Sevara et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5 (2016) 485–498

Fig. 11. Comparison of the manual (a), object-based (b), and pixel-based (c) classification of the Kreuttal dataset. Images (b) and (c) are at a larger scale in order to better depict
classification results.

and classification of archaeological geocontent in both targeted and
general capacities. However, in the latter case the framework for feature
detection requires further development.
7. Conclusion and outlook
This paper has outlined two strategies for the semi-automated ex-
traction of archaeological features from ALS data, comparing the results
of pixel- and object-based approaches to feature extraction in diverse
archaeological environments. While the logic of the feature detection
routines created for the detection of burial mounds was determined to
be unsuitable for broad application in highly diverse archaeological en-
vironments, it nevertheless proved effective for targeted feature detec-
tion and mapping. Furthermore, this study has illustrated the
applicability of the openness visualization for relief-based archaeologi-
cal feature detection. Both approaches outlined here also have the abil-
ity to export results in vector-based, GIS compatible formats, allowing
for further refinement, analysis and integration of results with other
data. Though automated image classification techniques cannot and
should not take the place of an expert interpreter, it has been shown
that they can nevertheless increase the efficiency of an interpretation
when a large number of similar, discrete features have to be mapped
or a statistical analysis has to be performed.
Both pixel- and object-based methods offer the potential to apply
more sophisticated algorithms in order to increase the accuracy and
the reliability of the results. However, the aim of this study was to
apply similar algorithms in diverse archeological environments in
order to examine their applicability in different environments and at
different scales. In both studies, the object-based approach fared better
than the pixel-based, largely due to the combination of parameters
available during image segmentation and classification. For the Viking
Age burial mounds of Hemlanden at Birka, the classification algorithms
compared here demonstrated that the developed methods are capable
of detecting typologically similar archeological features from a high-
resolution ALS dataset and derived visualizations. In the case of the
Kreuttal dataset, although both approaches failed to detect a number
of feature types, the object-based approach still has the potential to
achieve more successful results for similar reasons. Additionally, the
difficulty involved in creating adequate training samples in an environ-
ment like that of the Kreuttal all but eliminates a pixel-based approach
such as the one used here from future consideration. Overall, this illus-
trates that feature detection routines designed for a limited, specific task
should not be expected to function as a ‘magic bullet’ for archaeological

Table 4
General assessment of automated versus manual feature detection in the Kreuttal case study example.

Manual classification (reference) Object-based classification Pixel-based classification

Classified objects of interest 69 245 884

Correctly classified objects – 182 132
 C. Sevara et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5 (2016) 485–498
feature detection. While these examples do show that both demonstrat-
ed approaches are capable of achieving classification results, a more
complex classification approach is needed in environments with highly
heterogeneous feature types that manifest at different scales. This also
demonstrates the fundamental difference between the use of semi-
automated approaches to detect objects which have potential as archae-
ological features with known parameters (such as burial mounds) and
using these approaches to search for heterogeneous feature types with
unknown parameters.
Nevertheless, as a tool for general identification of diverse archaeo-
logical features, the object-based approach shows particular promise
and future research will focus on developing more complex hierarchical
schemes for feature classification in order to evaluate the applicability of
object-oriented approaches for these purposes. These include the han-
dling of overlapping features on both spatial and temporal levels, the in-
clusion of non-archaeological feature classes to cope with large
landscapes and non-contiguous features sets as well as the incorpora-
tion of basic object semantics for an initial pre-interpretation of the clas-
sified data (Sevara and Pregesbauer, 2014:140). As the proper
segmentation of a dataset is a necessary precursor to a successful classi-
fication, a multi-scale approach to image segmentation (Drăguţ et al.,
2014) may be a helpful initial step when dealing with data in which ar-
chaeological features at widely varying scales may be present. Further-
more, a comparative study of the techniques presented here with a
template matching approach, such as outlined in Schneider et al.
(2014) and Trier et al. (2015), would also be extremely useful in order
to evaluate these approaches in situations where targeted feature detec-
tion may be the desired application for image analysis. Data stacking
using multiple data types, such as inclusion of aerial imagery in various
spectra, may help increase detection rates. It will also be necessary to in-
vestigate morphometric variables, such as connecting classification re-
sults of landform elements (Drăguţ and Blaschke, 2006; Sevara, 2013;
Verhagen and Drăguţ, 2012:699) with small scale archaeological fea-
tures as described in this article, in order to gain a coherent picture of
a landscape for subsequent archaeological interpretation. Though
there is much yet to be considered, the approaches presented here can
thus be considered as a useful contribution in the effort toward the for-
malization of semi-automated approaches to archaeological feature de-
tection in ALS data.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Government of Lower Austria
GIS Services Division for providing airborne laser scanning data of the
Kreuttal area, and Matthias Kucera, case study leader for the LBI ArchPro
Kreuttal case study. Many thanks to the two anonymous reviewers,
whose comments and suggestions greatly improved the content of
this paper. Additional data and support were provided by the Ludwig
Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection and Virtual Archae-
ology (http://archpro.lbg.ac.at), which is based on an international co-
operation of the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft (A), the University of
Vienna (A), the Vienna University of Technology (A), the Austrian
Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamic (A), the office of
the provincial government of Lower Austria (A), 7Reasons (A), Airborne
Technologies GmbH (A), the Austrian Academy of Sciences (A), the
Austrian Archaeological Institute (A), RGZM-Romano-Germanic Central
Museum in Mainz (D), RAÄ-Swedish National Heritage Board (S), IBM
VISTA-University of Birmingham (GB), NIKU-Norwegian Institute for
Cultural Heritage Research (N), and Vestfold County Council (N).
References
Ackermann, F., 1999. Airborne laser scannng: present status and future expectations.
ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 54, 64–67.
Alt, M., 1990. Exploring Hyperspace — A Non-mathematical Explanation of Multivariate
Analysis. McGraw-Hill, London.
497
Arbman, H., 1940. Birka — Die Gräber I, Tafeln. KVHAA, Stockholm.
Baatz, M., Hoffmann, C., Willhauck, G., 2008. Progressing From Object-based to Object-
oriented Image Analysis. Springer, Heidenberg.
Belgiu, M., Lampoltshammer, T., 2013. Ontology based interpretation of very high resolution
imageries — grounding ontologies on visual interpretation keys. Proc. Agile, p. 2013.
Belgiu, M., Tomljenovic, I., Lampoltshammer, T.J., Blaschke, T., Höfle, B., 2014. Ontology-
based classification of building types detected from airborne laser scanning data. Re-
mote Sens. 6 (2), 1347–1366. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs6021347.
Benediksson, A.I., Swain, P.H., Esroy, O.K., 1990. Neural network approaches versus statis-
tical methods in classification of multisource remote sensing data. IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens. 28, 540–552.
Bennett, R., Cowley, D., De Laet, V., 2014. The data explosion: tackling the taboo of auto-
matic feature recognition in airborne survey data. Antiquity 88, 896–905.
Bennett, R., Welham, K., Hill, R.A., Ford, A.L.J., 2012. A comparison of visualization tech-
niques for models created from airborne laser scanned data. Archaeol. Prospect. 19
(1), 41–48.
Benz, U.C., Hofmann, P., Willhauck, G., Lingenfselder, M., 2004. Multi-resolution, object-
oriented fuzzy analysis of remote sensing data for GIS-ready information. ISPRS
J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 58, 239–258.
Bewley, R.H., Crutchley, S., Shell, C., 2005. New light on an ancient landscape: LiDAR sur-
vey in the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. Antiquity 79, 636–647.
Blaschke, T., 2010. Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS J. Photogramm.
Remote Sens. 65 (1), 2–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2009.06.004.
Blaschke, T., Hay, G.J., Kelly, M., Lang, S., Hofmann, P., Addink, E., Queiroz Feitosa, R., van
der Meer, F., van der Werff, H., van Coillie, F., Tiede, D., 2014. Geographic object-
based image analysis — towards a new paradigm. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote
Sens. 87 (100), 180–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.09.014.
Blaschke, T., Lang, S., Lorup, E., Strobl, J., Zeil, P., 2000. Object-oriented image processing in
an integrated GIS/remote sensing environment and perspectives for environmental
applications. In: Cremers, A., Greve, K. (Eds.), Environmental Information for Plan-
ning, Politics and the Public. Metropolis Verlag, Marburg, pp. 555–570.
Boer, A.G.d., 2005. Using pattern recognition to search LiDAR data for archeological sites.
In: Figueiredo, A., Leite Velho, G. (Eds.), The World is in Your Eyes, Proc. of the XXXIII
CAA2005 Conference. CAA2007: Tomar: Portugal, Tomar, pp. 245–254.
Bofinger, J., Hesse, R., 2011. As far as the laser can reach … laminar analysis of LiDAR de-
tected structures as a powerful instrument for archaeological heritage management
in Baden-Württemberg, Germany. In: Cowley, D. (Ed.), Remote Sensing for Archaeo-
logical Heritage Management. Proceedings of the 11th EAC Heritage Management
Symposium. Reykjavik, Iceland, 25–27 March 2010. 161–171. Archaeolingua; EAC
(Occasional Publication of the Aerial Archaeology Research Group, 3), Budapest.
Briese, C., Pfeifer, N., Dorninger, P., 2002. Applications of the robust interpolation for DTM
determination. In: Kalliany, R., Leberl, F., Fraundorfer, F. (Eds.), Photogrammetric
Computer Vision, International Archives of Photogrammetry. XXXIV, pp. 55–61 Graz.
Casana, J., 2014. Regional-scale archaeological remote sensing in the age of big data: au-
tomated site discovery vs. brute force methods. Adv. Archaeol. Pract. 222–233 (Au-
gust 2014).
Challis, K., Kokalj, Z., Kincey, M., Moscrop, D., Howard, A.J., 2008. Airborne LiDAR and his-
toric environment records. Antiquity 82, 1055–1064.
Cheung, Y.-M., 2005. On rival penalization controlled competitive learning for clustering
with automatic cluster number selection. Knowl. Data Eng. IEEE Trans. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2005.184.
Cowley, D.C., 26–27 September 2012. In with the new, out with the old? Auto-extraction
for remote sensing archaeology. In: Bostater, C., Mertikas, S., Neyt, X., Nichol, C.,
Cowley, D., Bruyant, J.P. (Eds.), Remote Sensing of the Ocean, Sea Ice, Coastal Waters,
and Large Water Regions 2012. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE (8532), Edinburgh, United
Kingdom 853206/1–853206/9 S.
De Laet, V., Paulissen, E., Waelkens, M., 2007b. Methods for the extraction of archaeolog-
ical features from very high-resolution Ikonos-2 remote sensing imagery, Hisar
(southwest Turkey). JAS 34 (5), 830–841.
De Laet, V., Paulissen, E., Meuleman, K., Waelkens, M., 2007a. The effect of pixel resolution
and spectral characteristics on the extraction of archaeological features from very
high-resolution remote sensing imagery: Sagalassos, Southwest Turkey. Remote
Sensing for Environmental Monitoring, GIS Applications, and Geology VII, Florence,
Italy. 17 September 2007, p. 67490A.
Devereux, B.J., Amable, G.S., Crow, P., 2008. Visualisation of LiDAR terrain models for ar-
chaeological feature detection. Antiquity 82, 470–479.
Dey, V., Zhang, Y., Zhong, M., 2010. A review on image segmentation techniques with re-
mote sensing perspective. In: Wagner, W. (Ed.), ISPRS TC VII Symposium – 100 Years
ISPRS. XXXVIII, pp. 31–42 Vienna.
Doneus, M., 2013. Openness as visualization technique for interpretative mapping of air-
borne LiDAR derived digital terrain models. Remote Sens. 5 (12), 6427–6442. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs5126427.
Doneus, M., Briese, C., 2006. Full-waveform airborne laser scanning as a tool for archaeo-
logical reconnaissance. In: Forte, M. (Ed.), From Space to Place, 2. International Con-
ference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology. Archaeopress, Oxford, Rome, pp. 99–106.
Doneus, M., Briese, C., 2011. Airborne laser scanning in forested areas — potential and lim-
itations of an archaeological prospection technique. In: Cowley, D. (Ed.), Remote
Sensing for Archaeological Heritage Management. Proceedings of the 11th EAC Heri-
tage Management Symposium, Reykjavik, Iceland, 25–27 March 2010.
Archaeolingua; EAC (Occasional Publication of the Aerial Archaeology Research
Group, 3), Budapest, pp. 53–76.
Doneus, M., Kühtreiber, T., 2013. Airborne laser scanning and archaeological interpreta-
tion — bringing back the people. In: Opitz, R., Cowley, D. (Eds.), Interpreting Archae-
ological Topography. Airborne Laser Scanning, 3D Data and Ground Observation.
Oxbow Books (Occasional Publication of the Aerial Archaeology Research Group, 5),
Oxford, pp. 32–50.
498 C. Sevara et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5 (2016) 485–498
Doneus, M., Briese, C., Fera, M., Janner, M., 2008. Archaeological prospection of forested
areas using full-waveform airborne laser scanning. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35 (4), 882–893.
Doneus, M., Neubauer, W., Trnka, G., 2001. Die jüngerlinearbandkeramische
Grabenanlage von Großrußbach-Weinsteig in Niederösterreich — das größte
Erdwerk der Linearbandkeramik. Preistoria Alpina 37, 145–159.
Drăguţ, L., Blaschke, T., 2006. Automated classification of landform elements using object-
based image analysis. Geomorphology 81 (3–4), 330–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.geomorph.2006.04.013.
Drăguţ, L., Csillik, O., Eisank, C., Tiede, D., 2014. Automated parameterisation for multi-
scale image segmentation on multiple layers. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens.
88, 119–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.11.018.
Figorito, B., Tarantino, E., 2014. Semi-automatic detection of linear archaeological traces
from orthorectified aerial images. Int. J. Appl. Earth Observ. Geoinf. 26, 458–463.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2013.04.005.
Fisher, P., 1997. The pixel: a snare and a delusion. Int. J. Remote Sens. 18 (3), 679–685.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014311697219015.
Harrower, M.J., Schuetter, J., McCorriston, J., Goel, P.K., Senn, M.J., 2013. Survey, automated
detection, and spatial distribution analysis of Cairn Tombs in Ancient Southern Ara-
bia. In: Comer, D.C., Harrower, M.J. (Eds.), Mapping Archaeological Landscapes
From Space. Springer, New York, pp. 259–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978–1-
4614-6074-9_22.
Hay, G.J., Castilla, G., 2008. Geographic object-based image analysis (GEOBIA): a new
name for a new discipline. In: Blaschke, T., Lang, S., Hay, G.G. (Eds.), Object-based
Image Analysis: Spatial Concepts for Knowledge-driven Remote Sensing Applications.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 75–89.
Hengl, T., Reuter, H.I., 2009. Geomorphometry. Concepts, software, applications. Elsevier
(Developments in soil science, 33), Amsterdam.
Hermodsson, Ö., 2004. Anmälan om specialinventering på Björkö och Hovgården 1997,
RAÄ (RAÄ dnr 326–2743-2004. http://www.fmis.raa.se/(accessed 2013–04-10).
Hesse, R., 2010. LiDAR-derived local relief models — a new tool for archaeological
prospection. Archaeol. Prospect. 17 (2), 67–72.
Hesse, R., 2014. Geomorphological traces of conflict in high-resolution elevation models.
Appl. Geogr. 46, 11–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.10.004.
Hughes, G., 1968. On the mean accuracy of statistical pattern recognizers. IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory 14 (1), 55–63.
Humme, A., Lindenbergh, R., Sueur, C., 2006. Revealing Celtic fields from LiDAR data using
Kriging based filtering. In: Maas, H.G., Schneider, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ISPRS
Commission V Symposium ‘Image Engineering and Vision Metrology’, Dresden.
Jahjah, M., Ulivieri, C., 2010. Automatic archaeological feature extraction from satellite
VHR images. Acta Astronaut. 66 (9–10), 1302–1310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
actaastro.2009.10.028.
Kamagata, N., Akamatsu, Y., Mori, M., Li, Y.Q., 2005. Comparison of pixel-based and object-
based classifications of high resolution satellite data in urban fringe areas. Asian Con-
ference on Remote Sensing (ACRS). AARS, Hanoi.
Kenzler, H., Lambers, K., 2015. Challenges and perspectives of woodland archaeology
across Europe. In: Giligny, F., Djindjian, F., Costa, L., Moscati, P., Robert, S. (Eds.),
CAA 2014: 21st Century Archaeology, Concepts, Methods and Tools. Proceedings of
the 42nd Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods
in Archaeology. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 73–80.
Kettig, R., Landgrebe, D., 1976. Classification of multispectral image data by extraction and
classification of homogeneous objects. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Electron. 14 (1), 19–26.
Kokalj, Ž., Zakšek, K., Oštir, K., 2011. Application of sky-view factor for the visualisation of
historic landscape features in LiDAR-derived relief models. Antiquity 85, 263–273.
Kraus, K., Otepka, J., 2005. DTM modelling and visualization — the SCOP. Photogrammet-
ric Week. Wichmann, Heidelberg, pp. 241–252.
Lambers, K., Zingman, I., 2013. Towards detection of archaeological objects in high-
resolution remotely sensed images: the Silvaretta case study. In: Earl, G., Sly, T.,
Chrysanthi, A., Murrietta-Flores, P., Papadopolous, C., Romanowska, I., Wheatley, D.
(Eds.), Archaeology in the Digital Era: Proceedings of the 40th Conference in Comput-
er Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Southampton, United
Kingdom, 26–30 March 2012. Amsterdam University Press, pp. 781–791.
Lasaponara, R., Masini, N., 2006. On the potential of QuickBird data for archaeological
prospection. Int. J. Remote Sens. 27, 3607–3614.
Lasaponara, R., Masini, N., 2009. Full-waveform airborne laser scanning for the detection
of medieval archaeological microtopographic relief. J. Cult. Herit. 10, 78–82. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2009.10.004.
Lasaponara, R., Coluzzi, R., Masini, N., 2011. Flights into the past: full-waveform airborne
laser scanning data for archaeological investigation. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38 (9),
2061–2070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.10.003.
Lillesand, T., Kiefer, R.W., 1999. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation. fourth ed. J.
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Liu, D., Xia, F., 2010. Assessing object-based classification: advantages and limitations. Re-
mote Sens. Lett. 1 (4), 187–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431161003743173.
Löcker, K., Nau, E., Hinterleitner, A., Neubauer, W., 2009. Magnetic surveys of Early and
Middle Neolithic settlements in Austria. ArchéoSciences 33 (suppl.), 101–104.
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection and Virtual Archaeology (LBI),
2015a. Archaeological prospection case study Birka-Hovgården. Retrieved May 2015
from: http://lbi-archpro.org/cs/birka/index.html.
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection and Virtual Archaeology (LBI),
2015a. Archaeological prospection case study Kreuttal. Retrieved May 2015 from:
http://lbi-archpro.org/cs/kreuttal/.
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection and Virtual Archaeology (LBI),
2015a. ALS filtering — filtering parameters library. Retrieved May 2015 from: http://
lbi-archpro.org/als-filtering/filtering-parameters-library.
Mahalanobis, P.C., 1936. On the generalised distance in statistics. Proc. Natl. Inst. Sci. India
2 (1), 49–55.
Mandlburger, G., Otepka, J., Karel, W., Wagner, W., Pfeifer, N., 2009. Orientation and pro-
cessing of airborne laser scanning data (OPALS)—concept and first results of a com-
prehensive ALS software. ISPRS Workshop Laser Scanning.
Nerman, B., 1918. Kungshögarna på Adelsö och Sverigesäldsta konungalängder.
Fornvännen 13, 65–77.
Neubauer, W., 2012. Kreisgrabenanlagen — Middle Neolithic ritual enclosures in Austria.
In: Gibson, A. (Ed.), Enclosing the Neolithic: Recent Studies in Britain and Europe. BAR
International, Oxford, pp. 147–163.
Neugebauer, J.W., 1995. Archäologie in Niederösterreich. Poysdorf und das Weinviertel.
Niederösterreichische Pressehaus, St. Pölten.
Opitz, R., Cowley, D.C. (Eds.), 2013. Interpreting Archaeological Topography. Oxbow
Books, Oxford.
Platt, R.V., Rapoza, L., 2008. An evaluation of an object-oriented paradigm for land use/
land cover classification. Prof. Geogr. 60 (1), 87–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00330120701724152.
Pregesbauer, M., 2013. Object versus pixel — classification techniques for high-resolution air-
borne remote sensing data. In: Neubauer, W., Trinks, I., Sailsbury, R., Einwögerer, C.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection,
Vienna, 29 May–2 June 2013. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna, pp. 200–202.
Relief Visualisation Toolbox (RVT) 2015. http://iaps.zrc-sazu.si/node/67731#v accessed
May 2015.
Schiewe, J., 2002. Segmentation of high-resolution remotely sensed data — concepts, ap-
plications and problems. ISPRS Commission IV Symposium: Geospatial Theory, Pro-
cessing and Applications.
Schneider, A., Takla, M., Nicolay, A., Raab, A., Raab, T., 2014. A template-matching ap-
proach combining morphometric variables for automated mapping of charcoal kiln
sites. Archaeol. Prospect. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/arp.1497 (Online Access).
Sevara, C., 2013. Historic landscapes in relief: detection and interpretation of historic
landscape elements using gromorphometric and image analysis techniques. In:
Neubauer, W., Trinks, I., Salisbury, R.B., Einwögerer, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the
10th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Vienna, 29 May–2
June 2013. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna, pp. 153–155.
Sevara, C., Pregesbauer, M., 2014. Archaeological feature classification: an object oriented
approach. South East. Eur. J. Earth Observ. Geomatics 3 (2 s), 139–144.
Sittler, B., 2004. Revealing historical landscapes by using airborne laser scanning — a 3D
model of ridge and furrow in forests near Rastatt (Germany). Int. Arch. Photogramm.
Remote. Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 36 (8), 258–261.
Smeulders, A.W.M., Worring, M., Santini, S., Gupta, A., Jain, R., 2000. Content-based image
retrieval at the end of the early years. {IEEE}. Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 22
(12), 1349–1380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/34.895972.
Townshend, J.R., 1981. The spatial resolving power of earth resources satellites. Progress
in Physical Geography (5), 32–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030913338100500102.
Townshend, J.R., Huang, S.N.V., Kalluri, R.S., Defries, R.S., Liang, S., Yang, K., 2000. Beware
of per-pixel characteristics of land cover. Int. J. Remote Sens. 21, 839–843.
Trier, Ø.D., Pilø, L.H., 2012. Automatic detection of pit structures in airborne laser scanning
data. Archaeol. Prospect. 19 (2), 103–121.
Trier, Ø.D., Zortea, M., Tonning, C., 2015. Automatic detection of mound structures in air-
borne laser scanning data. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2, 69–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jasrep.2015.01.005.
Trimble Documentation (Trimble), 2013. eCognition v 8.7.1 Developer Reference Book.
Trimble Germany GmbH, Munich.
Trinks, I., Johansson, B., Gustafsson, J., Emilsson, J., Friborg, J., Gustafsson, C., Nissen, J.,
Hinterleitner, A., 2010. Efficient, large-scale archaeological prospection using a true
three-dimensional ground penetrating radar array system. Archaeol. Prospect. 17
(3), 175–186.
Trinks, I., Neubauer, W., Hinterleitner, A., 2014. First high-resolution GPR and magnetic
archaeological prospection at the Viking Age settlement of Birka in Sweden. Archaeol.
Prospect. 21 (3), 185–199.
Trnka, G., 1991. Neolithische Befestigungen in Ost-österreich. Mitt. Anthrop. Ges. Wein
121, 137–155.
Tso, B., Mather, P., 2009. Classification Methods for Remotely Sensed Data. CRC Press.
Verhagen, P., Drăguţ, L., 2012. Object-based landform delineation and classification from
DEMs for archaeological predictive mapping. J. Archaeol. Sci. 39 (3), 698–703.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.11.001.
Wessely, G., 1998. Geologie des Korneuburger Beckens. Beitr. Paläontol. 23, 9–23.
Yokoyama, R., Shirasawa, M., Pike, R.J., 2002. Visualizing topography by openness : a new
application of image processing to digital elevation models. Photogramm. Eng. Re-
mote Sens. 68 (3), 257–265.
Zakšek, K., Oštir, K., Kokalj, Ž., 2011. Sky-view factor as a relief visualization technique. Re-
mote Sens. Environ. 3 (2), 398–415.