Archaeology, Remote Sensing

Dr. Stefano Campana

Lecturer in Landscape Archaeology
Department of Archaeology and History of Arts
University of Siena (Italy)
E-mail: campana@unisi.it
Tel: 0039-3280423331
Fax: 0039-0577234601

Synonyms
Non-destructive Archaeology

Definition
Remote Sensing or Télédétection (French), Fernerkundung (German), Perception Remota (Spanish), 㐭ឤ
(Chinese) can be defined as the science of identifying, observing, interpreting and measuring objects or
surfaces without coming into direct contact with them.
In the archaeological process, the scientific community has taken at least two different approaches to the
definition of Remote Sensing. Some archaeologists define it as the technique of obtaining information
about objects through the analysis of data collected by sensors (cameras, scanners, imaging radar
systems etc) that are not in physical contact with the objects under investigation, using spaceborne and
airborne instruments. From this point of view, Remote Sensing differs from ground-based sensing, in
which the instruments physically touch the ground surface. A common example of a ground-based
instrument is ground penetrating radar (Doneus, et al, 2011).
Other archaeologists prefer to include within Remote Sensing any non-destructive approach to viewing
the buried and nominally invisible evidence of past activity. These approaches include spaceborne and
airborne sensors (traditional or digital air-photographic sensors or technology-based multi-spectral or
hyper-spectral scanners etc) but also ground-based geophysical instruments (see Geophysics,
Magnetometry, Ground Penetrating Radar). Under-sea remote sensing can also fall into this category, as
can non-invasive techniques such as surface collection or field-walking survey, in the eyes of some
archaeologists at least (see Field Survey). Within this interpretation any method that enables observation
of the buried evidence without impacting the surviving stratigraphy is included within Remote Sensing
(Powlesland, 2010).

Introduction
For a long time Remote Sensing in archaeological studies consisted almost entirely of aerial photography,
along with mapping and interpretation of the resulting images. The first application was related to the
documentation of archaeological excavations and similar contexts. The earliest episode of air-
photographic recording, by F. Stolze and F.C. Andreas, took place in 1874 at Persepolis, Iran (Stolze, 1882).
In Europe, Italy and Italians played a prominent role in the early history of aerial archaeology, starting
with the famous images of the Forum in Rome, taken by Giacomo Boni in 1899 (Fig.1). These pioneering
efforts were followed by others some years later along the Tiber near Rome in 1902-3 and 1908, and then
in and around Venice, Ostia and Pompeii (Boni, 1900; Piccarreta, Ceraudo, 2000). Similar initiatives also
took place in other European countries, and in particular in Britain. In 1906, in the course of experiments
in photography from an un-tethered military balloon, Lieutenant P. H. Sharpe took the first aerial
photographs of an archaeological site in the UK, the great megalithic monument of Stonehenge (Bewley,
2002). At this time the only platform available for aerial photography was the hot-air or gas-filled balloon.
In this early phase aerial photography represented a tool that offered a new perspective in the recording
of already-known surface features, the purely documentary objective being to obtain a faithful
representation of the site or features concerned. Balloons were later used in the 1930s for pioneering
photography of the famous excavations at Biskupin, in Poland (Rączkowski, 2005). Both balloons and a
wide variety of kite-based systems remain in use to the present day for site-related or locally-focused
aerial photography.

Fig.1 - Tethered air balloon used to record the archaeological excavations of Giacomo Boni in the Foro
Romano (by courtesy of Guaitoli, 2003)

The Great War of 1914-1918 gave a huge impetus to the development of a completely new type of
platform, the powered aircraft, along with related advances in cameras and films, the new context being
their use in photo intelligence by all of the combatants. If the number of aerial photographs taken prior
to 1914 could be counted in the dozens, by the end of the war the UK’s Royal Air Force alone had
collected about half a million images (Rączkowski, 2001). The war had also introduced a number of pilots
and observers to the archaeological potential of aerial photography. In Britain one of these was O. G. S.
Crawford while another. Another, in the rather different context in the Middle East, was the expatriate
Frenchman Antoine Poidebard. These two are considered worldwide as the fathers of aerial archaeology
and its application to landscape studies. In 1928 Crawford published (with Alexander Keiller) Wessex from
the Air, which demonstrated the vast potential of aerial photography and established the main principles
of the technique (Crawford, Keiller, 1928; see also Deuel, 1969 and Barber, 2011 for accounts of the early
days and later development of archaeological air photography).
The Second World War of 1939-1945 brought about enormous methodological and technical
developments in both aerial platforms (aircraft) and cameras. New remote sensing techniques such as
radar also made their first appearance on the scene, though not yet in archaeological contexts. Perhaps
the link between the pre-war ‘pioneering’ phase and the beginnings of the post-war ‘interpretative’
phase could be identified most clearly with John Bradford, who in the months immediately following the
cessation of hostilities became involved in aerial photography and archaeological mapping on the
Tavoliere Plain around Foggia in southern Italy. There, he and a fellow army officer, Peter Williams-Hunt,
discovered extraordinary evidence of previously unrecognised landscapes, consisting of hundreds of
Neolithic enclosures along with Roman remains, villas, farmsteads and centuriation, as well as a ‘lost’
town, medieval field systems, mounds, roads, trackways and various kinds of settlements. However it was
the significance of Bradford’s subsequent book, Ancient Landscapes (1957), which stands as his greatest
achievement, because of the message it conveys about the potential of aerial evidence in archaeological
and landscape studies, not just in Italy but also across large swathes of Europe.
In the 1950s new platforms became available through the use of satellites and high-altitude aircraft, and
new sensors were introduced in the form of near-, medium- and thermal-infrared imaging systems, along
with instruments for the collection of microwave and multispectral data. To take account of the widened
perspectives introduced by these new sensors and the early satellites, Evelyn L. Pruitt, a geographer
formerly with the Office of Naval Research in the USA coined a new term: Remote Sensing. In doing so he
added another important phrase to the technical lexicon. The new term, promoted in a series of
symposia at the Willow Run Laboratories of the University of Michigan, gained immediate and
widespread acceptance.
Although the term itself has a relatively recent origin, the technique has nevertheless been used by
humans since the dawn of history. Every time we sense our surroundings with our eye-brain system we
are determining the size, shape and colour of objects from a distance by collecting and analysing
reflected visible light, and without coming into direct contact with the objects that we are observing. In a
similar manner certain poisonous snakes use special heat sensors to perceive impressions of their
surrounding environment. Bats use sound-echoes to navigate and to detect prey.
Notwithstanding the great improvement of Remote Sensing during and after the Second World War, for
at least the next three decades the archaeological community continued to rely almost entirely on aerial
photography and interpretation of the resulting images. The technologies involved in the newer forms of
Remote Sensing were considered to be ‘leading edge’ and it was unusual for archaeologists to make use
of them. Eventually, however, Remote Sensing began to become more widely used in the field of
archaeology, starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This period saw occasional examples of the
application of innovative techniques, including the analysis of satellite imagery, the acquisition through
airborne sensors of multi-spectral, hyper-spectral and radar data, and the use of ground-based
geophysical methods such as magnetometry, electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and ground-
penetrating radar (GPR).
Experience in the following decades, along with technological progress and an increasing understanding
of the extraordinary complexity of archaeological contexts, has led to the inescapable conclusion that
only through the integration of Remote Sensing techniques with archaeometry (see Archaeometry) and of
traditional methods such as excavation and ground-based field survey could we possibly achieve the
quantum leap in quality that everybody hoped for and expected. One factor in particular played a central
role in the maturing of archaeological Remote Sensing during this period. This is synonymous with the
integration and management of the wide range of information resulting from the subject’s inherent
complexity: Geographical Information Systems or GIS (see GIS).
While engineers, physicists and computer scientists improved the quality or effectiveness of individual
systems, sensors and techniques, or designed entirely new ones, archaeologists through the application
of GIS started thinking beyond the individual image or data-set so as to produce and map broader
integrations, and therefore interpretations, bringing together a wide variety of data. The stratification and
overlaying of the information within the single ‘container’ of GIS provided an essential tool in the search
for and development of a new and more integrated approach to the representation and interpretation of
evidence from the past.
Currently, the use of Remote Sensing in archaeology is growing increasingly at universities, some of
which have created highly specialized departments and institutions with undergraduate, graduate and
post-doctoral schools and specific research programmes. This tendency applies also to institutions aimed
at the protection and conservation of the archaeological heritage, as for instance in the nation-wide
mapping of air-photographic evidence in England (see below). A significant role in the dissemination of
these methods and techniques has also been played by international associations such as the Aerial
Archaeology Research Group (AARG) (http://www.univie.ac.at/aarg) and the International Society for
Archaeological Prospection (http://www.brad.ac.uk/archsci/archprospection/).

Principles of Remote Sensing

Remote Sensing may reveal archaeological features directly, where they are still extant (albeit perhaps
heavily eroded) in the form of topographical variations. Alternatively, when they no longer exist above
the ground surface, they may be revealed indirectly in the form of variations in the colouring and height
of the vegetation or as visible discontinuities in bare soil exposed by agriculture or erosion or other
surface indications or “intermediary” as micro-morphological discontinuity where the features are buried
(Wilson, 2000). When sites are still extant Remote Sensing can play a special role in documenting their
general form and constituent parts from a high viewpoint, allowing rapid mapping with the aid of
purpose-designed computer programs (Remondino, 2011). Many sites, of course, could alternatively be
mapped from the ground but the use of remote sensing data can be extremely valuable for mapping
sites and features which for one reason or another are not readily accessible for ground-based survey.
The indirect identification of archaeological evidence is particularly valuable in the discovery of previously
unrecognised sites and features. The main principle in this context is the capacity of techniques such as
aerial photography, LiDAR, radar or thermal infrared imaging to recognize evidence which provides
indirect indications of discontinuities in the natural soil as a result of from past human activity. Several
different methodologies have been developed to identify relative (though never absolute)
environmental variations for this purpose. The recognition of archaeological features represented by
indirect evidence exploits a number of interlinked ‘phenomena’ (Musson, 1994):
1. Variations in the colouring, height or density of arable crops or other vegetation. These have
variously been described as vegetation marks or (more commonly nowadays) cropmarks. They
represent one of the most striking tools for the discovery of previously unrecorded sites.
Cropmarks appear as differences of height and/or colour in crops which are under stress, usually
through lack of water or some other nutrient. This is more likely to occur in light and well-drained
soils, above soft and permeable rocks or gravels; as a result, the distribution across countries,
regions and local areas is irregular. Cropmarks appear most frequently in ripening grain,
especially when the weather has been dry at critical stages of growth or maturing. In these
conditions cropmarks can be seen over a period of from two to eight weeks during the late stages
of ripening or for shorter period in the early stages of growth (Fig.2). During damper years the
crop may never come under enough stress to produce cropmarks, even where they have been
regularly seen in the past. Cropmarks occasionally appear at other times of year in a wide variety
of vegetation: cereals, grass, root-crops, green fodder crops, weeds and various flowering plants.

Fig.2 - The formation of cropmarks: crops grow taller and ripen later over the deeper, more nutritious and
damper soil of a buried ditch or large pit. Growth is stunted and the and the ripening of the crop earlier in
shallower soil above buried walls or other impervious deposits. Ditches and pits create green marks in the
yellowing crop. Walls and the like give yellow marks in the green crop. Both can persist as “yellow-on-
yellow” marks in the ripened crop. (by courtesy of Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical
Monuments of Wales).
 2. Differences in bare soil exposed by agricultural activity or erosion. These are usually known as
soilmarks. They appear as changes of colour, texture or dampness in the surface of the soil,
reflecting sub-surface features such as ditches or wall foundations. The marks often appear for
only short periods as the soil dries or reflects the sun in particular ways. The main difficulty in
detecting them therefore lies in recording them at the right moment, especially when the soil is
damp and fresh from the plough or harrow.
3. The effect of light and shade, producing what have sometimes been described as shadow-marks.
In this case shadow and highlight are used to emphasize physical features which still exist but
which may be almost invisible on the ground, such as the barely detectable earthworks of
prehistoric field-banks or heavily eroded burial mounds. Archaeological air photographers
therefore take advantage of low sunshine in the winter or of early-morning or late-evening light
at other times of year. This ‘low-light’ or ‘shadow’ technique is particularly effective in uplands
area, where there has been less erosion by modern ploughing. It can also be productive,
however, in lowland zones, throwing very slight patterns of topographicakl variations into relief
by the play of light and shade and thereby making their overall form more intelligible.
4. Special condition created by frost, ice and flood. These situations can offer good opportunities for
archaeological air-photography. A thin covering of snow, for instance, suppresses distracting
colour and provides excellent conditions for low-light photography. The differential melting of
frost by sun or wind, or the persistence of ice or snow above buried ditches at the end of a cold
spell, may also reveal otherwise unsuspected sub-surface features. Flooding may show up old
river courses and explain the location of roads or farmsteads in a way that could otherwise be
achieved only by painstaking survey on the ground. Prolonged drought can produce cropmarks
in otherwise unresponsive grassland, revealing evidence that is rarely if ever available at other
times.
Important parameters in Remote Sensing - The success of Remote Sensing in archaeological
applications depends not only on the date of data capture but also on the quality of the collected
evidence. At least four parameters are involved here: spatial, spectral, radiometric and temporal
resolutions (Lillesand, Kiefer, 1994).
Spatial resolution - This relates to the level of detail that is visible in the image; it is dependant on the
resolving power of the sensor and the distance between platform and object. In a raster image, spatial
resolution depends on the area of ground surface that is represented by each recorded pixel. Typically
pixels may correspond to surface areas ranging from 30 m square to 1 m square or even as little as 5 cm
square. Spatial resolution represents one of the most important parameter for archaeological Remote
Sensing, in that it is critical in determining the size of archaeological features that can be identified in the
resulting data.
Spectral resolution - This refers to the range-width and number of specific dimensional units to which a
sensor is sensitive. The limited spectral interval of the electromagnetic spectrum visible to the human eye
(wavelengths from about 390 to 750 nm) is greatly extended by the use of photoelectric sensing devices.
This increase in the capability to record different regions of the electromagnetic spectrum introduces the
need to fully exploit their potential, separating information on different layers (bands) to produce multi-
spectral images (2-10 spectral bands) or hyper-spectral images (10-200 spectral bands). This quality may
play an important role in the detection of archaeological features.
Radiometric resolution - This refers to the number of different intensities of radiation that the sensor is
able to distinguish. Typically, in each band this ranges from 8 to 14 bits, corresponding to 256 levels of
the grey scale and up to 16,384 intensities or ‘shades’ of colour.
Temporal resolution - This relates to the frequency of over-flights by the satellite, aircraft or any other
recording platform. It is extremely relevant in archaeological studies, making it possible in some instances
to monitor landscape or site transformations over time (measured in days, years or even decades).
‘Historic’ data from Remote Sensing, such as early aerial photographs or the data from the early
generations of satellites, can be very valuable in providing the only available source of information about
long-term landscape transformations over time.
Image examination and archaeological interpretation - Remotely sensed images contain a detailed
record of features on the ground at the time of exposure, relating both from the modern landscape and
that of the past. In the process of interpretation the archaeologist examines the images systematically
and often draws on other relevant material such as maps and reports of field observation. The
interpretation derived from this study aims to ‘read’ and make sense of the phenomena and features
appearing in both the modern and the ‘ancient’ landscape, and to distinguish between them. The basis
for sound interpretation is a secure understanding of the peculiarities of the modern landscape in the
area concerned. The identification of the present pattern, and its constituent parts, can throw
emphasis onto ‘non-conforming’ elements which might therefore form part of earlier features, sites
or landscape patterns.
In carrying out the systematic initial examination attention is needed to a variety of basic
characteristics, or variations of them, such as shape, size, pattern, tone, texture, shadow,
topographical position and association (Lillesand & Kiefer 1994).

Aims and peculiarities of archaeological Remote Sensing

Archaeology, and Remote Sensing in archaeology, have often been compared with medicine and
medical diagnostic procedures. The development of the clinical picture, as well the archaeological
process, comes through understanding of the personal and family history, and through the
developmental story of archaeology itself. Semiotics, representing the analysis of phenomena and signs
visible from outside, finds a close parallel with field-walking survey and surface collection. The last stage
of medical diagnosis involves instrumental analysis (evidence-based medicine) through the use of
laboratory tests that find parallels with archaeometry. Special equipment or tools, such as ultrasound and
radiology are used and these are in a real sense similar to the Remote Sensing tools used in archaeology.
The main aims of Remote Sensing in archaeology can be identified as follows.
• The documentation of archaeological contexts in great and objective detail.
• The acquisition of information on buried deposits sometimes completely invisible at ground
level, describing in some detail the metrical, geometrical and physical-chemical properties of the
sub-surface features.
• The well-balanced and representative recording of both positive and negative kinds of
archaeological evidence.
• The monitoring, from very large-scale to small-scale, of landscape transformations, allowing the
development of conservation and planning policies.
• The mapping of archaeological data, interpretations and reconstructions through the use of GIS
technology that can cope with the inherent complexity of past landscapes and archaeological
sites.

Main weaknesses
Remote Sensing in archaeology is subject to a number of limitations. In the case of optical sensors
operating in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum the higher limit can be summarized by the
concept of serendipity. Serendipity is the discovery of something unsought and unexpected, but not by
chance alone. The positive result must be the outcome of planned experiments, taking place in the
framework of systematic scientific research. In the case of Remote Sensing in archaeology, the
serendipitous recovery of information is influenced by a large number of parameters: pedology, climate,
cultivation patterns, the plants or crops being grown, the historical development of the landscape etc.
Archaeologists understood from the theoretical point of view the scientific principles that make
underground archaeological features visible at the ground surface (Jones, Evans, 1975). They cannot,
however, control the environmental and anthropological factors that affect the way subsurface features
modify the appearance of bare soil or vegetation to reveal the underlying archaeological features. As a
result the distribution of archaeological features in the remote Sensing evidence is as much a reflection of
these influencing factors as it is of the real presence or absence of archaeological sites (Fig.3).
To a certain extent, also, techniques which rely on portions outside the visible part of the electromagnetic
spectrum, such near-, middle- and thermal infrared), radar, lidar and geophysical prospection can also be
affected by serendipity though generally the influence on these techniques is less substantial.
 Fig.3 - Above left, oblique aerial photograph showing a large grain cultivation field where are clearly visible
cropmarks (detail above at the right side) that is possible to interpret as features of a roman villa. The
photographs have been collected in 2005 during the ripening season when cropmarks are at their best
visibility for archaeological prospection. Bottom left and right, oblique aerial photographs showing exactly
the same area collected few years later (2007). The aerial survey has been carried out during the cropmarks
season but this time serendipity did not work. As result no features are visible in the aerial photography.
This is a paradigmatic example showing how distribution of archaeological features is as much an echo of
serendipity effects as it is of the real presence or absence of archaeological sites.

Systems and Methods

Remote Sensing systems and related methods of data analysis are numerous and have traditionally been
divided according to the platform used (satellite, aerial, terrestrial etc) and the type of sensor employed
(optical, thermal, LiDAR, radar, magnetic etc).
Satellite Imagery - In 1957 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) put the first satellite, Sputnik 1,
into orbit and the era of satellite Remote Sensing began. The first systematic satellite observation of the
Earth was undertaken by the meteorological satellite TIROS-1 in 1960. The era of satellite
photogrammetry started in 1960 with the CORONA military reconnaissance programme. The use of
satellite images for more general mapping and measurement studies began in 1962 with the design and
launch of the CORONA KH-4 satellite (Galiatsatos, 2012). Civilian satellites started with the advent of
Landsat-1 in 1972. Later, several satellite sensor systems similar to Landsat were launched, such as the
French SPOT HRV and the Indian Liss. In this period applications to archaeology were constrained by the
poor geometric resolution (about 20 m per pixel), work being restricted to high-end scientific research
laboratories. In archaeological as well as other contexts the satellite imagery available at this time was
mainly used to study or characterise the environmental background and current agricultural patterns or
to generate cartography in areas where maps were not available, as for instance in parts of Central Asia,
the Near East, Africa and Central America (Moussa, 1977; Khawaga, 1979).
Other highlights in the history of satellite Remote Sensing include the launch of radar systems into space,
the proliferation of weather satellites, a series of specialised devices dealing with environmental
monitoring or with thermal and passive microwave sensors, and the more recent hyper-spectral sensors.
For instance, radar imagery attracted global media attention following the discovery of such things as the
lost city of Ubar in southern Oman (Bloom, 1992) and so-called ‘radar rivers’ (Fig.4), former river beds still
extant beneath the sands of the Sahara (McCauley, et al, 1982). However, from around the turn of the
millennium the archaeological use of satellite data has become both more widespread and more
common. Despite long-lasting and important work by a small number of scientists and archaeologists
from the 1970s onwards the main change that has influenced the development of satellite archaeology
has been a radical improvement in the geometric resolution of the images.

Fig.4 - Above - Shuttle Imaging Radar-A flew on 2nd flight of

Space Shuttle Columbia in 1981. The images show SIR-A radar
over Landsat Multispectral Scanner-Southwestern Egypt. L
band (23 cm) radar image images thru 2+ meters of dry sand,
shows integrated drainage systems. Thin sand cover (0-few
meters) obscures underlying, older fluvial landscape (by
courtesy of R.G. Bloom, JPL-NASA)

Bottom - Neolithic artifacts abundant near “radar rivers”,

evidence for significant human presence (by courtesy of R.G.
Bloom, JPL-NASA)

The development of very High Resolution Satellite Imagery (HRSI) began with the appearance of the first
commercial satellites (Parcak, 2009; Saponara, Masini, 2012). The first successfully launched commercial
satellite was IKONOS-2, in 1999. This was followed by Quickbird in 2001, OrbView-3 in 2003 and by
Kompsat-2, EROS-B1, Resource-DK-1 in 2006. Over the fifteen years since the late 1990s the resolution of
available satellite images has improved from 20 m per pixel (SPOT) to 0.40 m per pixel (GeoEye1,
launched in September 2008), representing a 2500-times increase in the capacity to detect small objects
(Fig.5).
The opportunities for archaeological applications have therefore vastly increased, though there are still
some significant limitations.
• Scheduling: there are still difficulties (and costs) in scheduling image capture to coincide the
archaeologically advantageous conditions or time of year. Archaeologists need more flexibility to
plan image capture in the right time windows, for instance during the cropmark season at the
locality concerned.
• HRSI Spectral resolution: is mainly characterized by the use of only three bands in the visible part
of the spectrum and a fourth in the near infrared.
• Geometric resolution: in contrast to these limitations Geoeye-2 due for launch from 2013
onwards and the ‘next generation’ commercial satellites, will have a spatial resolution of 25 cm.
Many archaeologists, however, feel that they need something closer to the 10-5 cm resolution
provided by traditional aerial photography.
As last observation, it should be pointed out that a casual observer wandering through a library,
particularly in the United States, might be forgiven for believing that satellite Remote Sensing is the
prime technique for archaeological research. This is not in fact the case: “for every ‘site’ identified from
space thousands have been identified through air-photography” (Powlesland, 2010). In Europe aerial
photography has been used to observe and document archaeological landscapes for more than a
century and this method remains by far the most significant contributor to the ever expanding
archaeological record. For instance, from the papers presented at the annual meetings of the Aerial
Archaeology Research Group, it is possible to see the tremendous impact that aerial survey and
photography are having in European countries where flight restrictions until the political changes of the
early 1990s made photography from light aircraft virtually impossible.

Fig.5 - Comparison of satellite sensors with different spatial and temporal resolution: Corona 1969; Ikonos
2002; Landsat 1999. (by courtesy of Beck, A., 2011)

The outcome, in the practice of archaeological research, is the use of satellite imagery in the absence of
data of a higher standard available from less costly and more effective Remote Sensing techniques such
as aerial photography, geophysical prospection, airborne laser scanning and multi-spectral or hyper-
spectral data capture. That said, it is important to recognise that a highly original but often under-
emphasized contribution of satellite imagery is its worldwide coverage and therefore the size of the
geographical area and the scale of detail that can be encompassed within ‘landscape’ studies. The
combination of satellite imagery and ‘virtual globe’ geographical information systems such as Google
Earth makes possible the observation of very broad areas of the planet at a high level of detail – an
unimaginable concept only a few years ago.
Airborne remote sensing - Leaving aside photography from light aircraft for the moment, airborne
Remote Sensing at its more sophisticated and commercial levels uses downward- or sideward-pointing
sensors mounted on specialist aircraft so as to obtain vertical or oblique images of the earth's surface. An
advantage, compared to satellite Remote Sensing, is the capacity to achieve very high spatial resolutions,
between 20 cm and 5 cm per pixel. The disadvantages are lower area-coverage and higher cost per unit
of ground surface. This kind of remote sensing is not cost-effective for mapping very large areas, such as
whole continents, though it has been used (cumulatively) for some considerable time to map whole
countries and regions. Airborne remote sensing missions are usually carried out as one-off (but
occasionally repeated) operations, whereas earth observation satellites offer the possibility of truly
continuous monitoring of the earth’s surface. Both analog and digital photography are commonly used
in airborne Remote Sensing. Multi-spectral and hyper-spectral imaging, synthetic aperture radar and
LiDAR scanning are also carried out from airborne platforms.
Air photography - Archaeologists use two types of air photography: ‘oblique’ or perspective views and
‘vertical’ photography, pointing straight downward at the earth’s surface. Vertical photography
(originally analog but now more frequently digital) is taken with sophisticated cameras from specially
equipped aircraft, mainly for survey and mapping purposes. It is relatively expensive and archaeologists
can rarely afford to commission it for their own purposes (Musson, 1994). For most purposes they
therefore draw on the vast collections of air photographs already available in existing archives (Figg.6
and 7). During the Second World War the fighting powers took between them approximately 50 million
aerial photographs (Going, 2002). In Europe public services collect perhaps millions more frames each
year.
Fig.6 - Vertical historical aerial photography
collected in 1955 in Foggia countryside
(southern Italy). The photography show
clear features of Neolithic enclosures,
medieval mound and field systems (by
courtesy of Guaitoli, M., 2003).

Fig.7 - Vertical historical photography collected over Cerveteri in 1930. In the photograph are
clearly visible a massive number white round features distributed nearly everywhere
corresponding with round barrows (by courtesy of Guaitoli, M., 2003).

Oblique photographs are generally taken by archaeologists themselves, from the open window of a two-
seater or four-seater light aircraft, hired from a local airfield (or occasionally owned by the archaeologists
themselves or by their employers). The cameras and films are quite simple and inexpensive. While vertical
photography records the whole of the landscape, oblique photography covers only what the
photographer sees and judges to be archaeologically significant (Fig.8).

Fig.8 - Oblique aerial photography collected in 2005 at Vulci (Italy). The photograph shows clearly a large
number of square and more generally geometrical features related to the settlement area of the Etruscan
and Roman city of Vulci.

What he fails to see, or understand, he inevitably fails to record. Vertical photography therefore has a
special value in the study of the whole landscape, or of settlements in their broader context. Oblique
photography, by contrast, is unrivalled in recording individual sites of historic interest, the more so
because the photographer can choose the time of day or year, and the kind of lighting, that will illustrate
or reveal archaeological features to best advantage (Fig.9).
Vertical photographs do, of course, contain archaeological information, but more by accident than
design, and for the most part at shadow-free times of the day or year that suit mapping rather than
specifically archaeological recording. Neverthelss there are examples of extraordinary results being
achieved through vertical photography carried out explicitly for archaeological proposes, at times, for
instance, when conditions for cropmark or soilmark recording are at their best.
Austria, Italy, and the UK can all present case histories confirming that if vertical coverage can be
arranged within the best time-window for the visibility of archaeological evidence the whole area, along
with all of the sites that are visible at the moment of photography, will be depicted in stereo pairs of
photographs that provide a 3D replica of the target landscape. This kind of documentation can lead to a
vast improvement in the analysis and understanding of past landscapes (Doneus, 2001; Guaitoli, 2003;
Palmer, 2007). The main difficulties in developing this practice are its relatively high cost and the short
time that is available in many cases to plan and execute vertical coverage on the limited number of
occasions when the conditions are ideal for cropmark or other kinds of recording.
In their professional work archaeologists use the two types of aerial photography more or less equally, as
in the comprehensive National Mapping Programme for England (NMP), begun in the late 1980s and still
in progress at English Heritage with 40% of England covered by April 2009. Teams of experienced
archaeological air-photo interpreters working on NMP to unlock the information held in millions of
vertical and oblique aerial photographs, mainly taken since 1945. NMP projects continue to provide
information and synthesis for archaeological sites and landscapes of all periods from the Neolithic to the
20th century, priority being given to those areas of the country that are under the greatest threat or are
poorly understood (Horne, 2011).

Fig.9 - Oblique aerial photography collected in

2003 in Foggia countryside (Italy). The
photograph shows stratified ancient
landscapes. It is possible to recognize at least
two main periods: prehistory and roman. Two
Neolithic circular enclosures (single and double
ditch enclosures), probably related to different
chronological phases, are clearly
distinguishable (bottom left and top right).
Over Neolithic features a large number of traces
related to centuriation pattern (road system
and cultivation system) in association with a
settlement (bottom left) are also plainly
observable.

Multi-spectral and hyper-spectral scanning (MSS and HSS) - The effectiveness of aerial photography is
limited by the differential visibility of cropmark, soilmark or earthwork evidence in response to the
conditioning factors mentioned above. It is widely recognized that multi- and hyper-spectral imagery
have the potential to address some of these problems because they are potentially more sensitive to
changes in vegetation status than the visible or panchromatic ranges (Donohue, 2001; Shell, 2002).
Indeed, multi-spectral or hyper-spectral sensors are able to look simultaneously at a wide range of
different wavelengths, many of which, in the near- and short-wave infrared, add important collateral
information to the visual wavelengths, thereby improving the ability to discriminate vegetation stress,
soil-moisture and temperature variations (Beck, 2011).
Pioneering studies have been undertaken in Arizona using airborne thermal imaging to define areas of
past agriculture more clearly than was possible with black-and-white photography (Schaber, Gumerman,
1969). Significant early studies were carried out in the United States to assess the efficacy of multi-
spectral data for recording areas of Pueblo Indian archaeology and their environmental setting at Chaco
Canyon in New Mexico and elsewhere (Lyons, Avery, 1977; Lyons, Mathien, 1980; Avery, Lyons, 1981).
In Europe, thanks to the development by national research agencies of multi- and/or hyper-spectral
systems, Britain and Italy are recognized as leaders in this field, having carried out a number of important
studies from the beginning of the 1990s. In Britain, airborne multi-spectral scanners have been used to
assess the archaeological potential of multi-spectral data at a number of sites. More specifically, in former
wetland environments such as the Fenlands of eastern England and the Vale of Pickering further north,
multi-spectral imagery has complemented vertical photography and revealed new information in the
infrared wavelengths (Fig.10; Powlesland, Donoghue, 1993). These studies showed that the red and
infrared images provide good definition of soilmarks and cropmarks, and that the near- and short-wave
infrared wavebands are particularly sensitive to plant health and therefore to the effective detection of
water stress in vegetation (Donoghue, Shennan, 1992). In Italy experiments have been carried out mainly
by geologists and earth scientists in the use of the Airborne Thematic Mapper (ATM) multi-spectral
scanner to detect palaeo-environmental patterns and geomorphological features such as ancient river
channels, areas of marshland and evidence of coastal change.

Fig.10 - Images from the Deadalus 12 band multispectral scanner flown by NERC covering a field in West
Heslerton, Vale of Pickering, North Yorkshire, UK. The principal features documented in the images include a
number of Iron Age Square Ditched Barrows and Prehistoric trackway (by courtesy of prof. D. Powlesland,
Landscape Research Centre).
The increasing availability of hyper-spectral imagery, as well as thermal imagery, presents a very
significant potential. In Britain the main data source of multi- and hyper-spectral data is the Airborne
Research & Survey Facility managed by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) while in Italy
the research has been conducted through the National Research Council (CNR). In both countries, from
the late 1990s, researchers have been applying multi- and hyper-spectral imagery in landscape analysis
(Shell, 2005; Aqdus, et al, 2008; Cavalli, et al, 2003; Traviglia, 2007). The general trend, emerging from a
substantial number of case studies in differing physical and cultural contexts over the past two decades,
has demonstrated that these kinds of sensors can represent a valuable resource, complementing
information obtained through other remote sensing techniques and adding specific support in the
identification of features in the non-visible domain (Donoghue, et al, 2006).
A major current disadvantage, however, is the poorer resolution of the multi-spectral and hyper-spectral
data, generally between 3 and 4 m per pixel depending on the characteristics of the sensor and the
altitude of the aircraft. Within archaeology this level of resolution is suitable only for the detection of
large-scale features.
Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) - Radar is an active microwave sensing system, sending directional
pulses of electromagnetic energy and detecting the presence and position of objects by analyzing the
portion of the energy reflected back to the transmitter (Lillesand, Kiefer, 1994). A key advantage is the
ability to penetrate through cloud, haze, light atmospheric precipitation and smoke, making this an ‘all
weather’ sensor. The system has a variety of applications in archaeology (Fig.11).
&ŝŐ͘ ϭϭ Ͳ &ůLJŝŶŐ >ĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌLJ  /Z^Z ŝŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚ ;ƉĂŶĞůƐ
ďĞŚŝŶĚ ǁŝŶŐͿ ŵŽƵŶƚĞĚ ĂďŽĂƌĚ Ă ŵŽĚŝĨŝĞĚ E^ Ͳϴ
ĂŝƌĐƌĂĨƚ͘  ƵƌŝŶŐ ĚĂƚĂ ĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶ͕ ƚŚĞ ƉůĂŶĞ ĨůŝĞƐ Ăƚ ϴ
ŬŝůŽŵĞƚƌĞƐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĂǀĞƌĂŐĞƚĞƌƌĂŝŶŚĞŝŐŚƚĂƚĂǀĞůŽĐŝƚLJŽĨ
ϮϭϱŵĞƚĞƌƐƉĞƌƐĞĐŽŶĚ͘/Z^ZͲ:W>͛ƐĞdžƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůŝƌďŽƌŶĞ
^LJŶƚŚĞƚŝĐ ƉĞƌƚƵƌĞ ZĂĚĂƌ ^LJƐƚĞŵ͘ WK>^ZͲϯ ǁĂǀĞůĞŶŐƚŚƐ
ĂŶĚĨƵůůWŽůĂƌŝnjĂƚŝŽŶĚŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJŚĞůƉƐĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝnjĞƚĂƌŐĞƚƐW͕
>͕ĂŶĚďĂŶĚĂƚ,,͕,s͕s,͕ssƉŽůĂƌŝnjĂƚŝŽŶƐϯŵŽĚĞƐϮϬ͕
ϰϬ͕ ĂŶĚ ϴϬ D,nj ďĂŶĚǁŝĚƚŚ͘  ZĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶ ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐ ǁŝƚŚ
ďĂŶĚǁŝĚƚŚǁŚŝůĞƐǁĂƚŚĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞƐϴϬD,nj>ďĂŶĚƌĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶ
ŝƐ ϭ͘ϳŵ͕ ϰϬ D,nj ŝƐ ϯ͘ϯŵ͕ ϮϬ D,nj ŝƐ ϲ͘ϳŵ͘ ^ǁĂƚŚ ǁŝĚƚŚ ŝƐ
ϱŬŵΛϴϬD,nj͕ ϭϬ<ŵΛϰϬD,nj ĂŶĚ ϭϱ<ŵΛϮϬD,nj͘
dKW^ZͲ'ĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐ,ŝZĞƐDƐĂƚƚǁŽǁĂǀĞůĞŶŐƚŚƐ͘ƌŽƐƐ
ƚƌĂĐŬŝŶƚĞƌĨĞƌŽŵĞƚƌLJ>ĂŶĚďĂŶĚŝŐŝƚĂůůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶDŽĚĞůƐ
;DƐͿƉŽƐƚŝŶŐƐĂƚϱŵ;ϰϬD,njͿ͕ϭͲϯŵŚĞŝŐŚƚĂĐĐƵƌĂĐLJ͘
ŶŐŬŽƌ tĂƚ ŝƐ Ă ŵĂũŽƌ ƌĞůŝŐŝŽƵƐͬƵƌďĂŶ ĐĞŶƚĞƌ ĂŶĚ ǁĂƚĞƌ
ƐLJƐƚĞŵ͕ΕϵƚŚͲϭϱƚŚĐĞŶƚƵƌŝĞƐ͘dŚĞƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶƉĞĂŬĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞ
ƉĞƌŚĂƉƐϭD͘ŶŐŬŽƌƌĞŐŝŽŶŝŵĂŐĞĚďLJ^/ZͲĂŶĚ/Z^Z͘
/Z^Z ĐĂŵƉĂŝŐŶ ĂůƐŽ ĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚ ŚŝŐŚ ƌĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶ dKW^Z
DƐ͘ ŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞ ǁŽƌŬ ĂĚǀĂŶĐĞƐ ŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂů
ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĂŶŬƐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ĚĞƚĞĐƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ  ƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůLJ
ƵŶŬŶŽǁŶ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ͘ ŶŐŬŽƌ ůĞƐƐŽŶƐ͗ ƌĐŚĂĞŽůŽŐŝĐĂů
ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐƐŽŵĞƚŝŵĞƐƐŚŽǁďŽƚŚŝŶƌĂĚĂƌŝŵĂŐĞƐĂŶĚD
ďƵƚŽĨƚĞŶƐŚŽǁŽŶůLJŝŶDƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐǁĂƚĞƌŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ
ŝŶƐŝŐŚƚ͘ &ƌŽŵ ůĞĨƚ ƚŽ ƌŝŐŚƚ͗ ŶŐŬŽƌ tĂƚ ƌĞůŝŐŝŽƵƐͬƵƌďĂŶ
ĐĞŶƚĞƌ ŐĞŶĞƌĂů ǀŝĞǁ͘ ŶŐŬŽƌ ƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞ ǀŝĞǁ͗ /Z^Z ŽŶ
dKW^ZD͘ŶŐŬŽƌtĂƚĂŶĚ<ĂƉŝůĂƉƵƌĂŵŽƵŶĚ͗ZZ
From the end of the 1970s radar has been used for ĚĂƚĂ ĂŶĚ ŝŐŝƚĂů ůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ DŽĚĞů͘ ^ŵĂŶ dĞŶŐ dĞŵƉůĞ͗
archaeological prospection in regional surveys to ZZ ĚĂƚĂ ĂŶĚ ŝŐŝƚĂů ůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ DŽĚĞů ;ďLJ ĐŽƵƌƚĞƐLJ ŽĨ
detect cultural, natural and anthropic features ZŽŶůŽŽŵ:W>ͲE^Ϳ͘
(Adams, 1980; Pope, Dahlin, 1989; Sever, 1998). It has also been used for palaeo-landscape analysis
(McHugh, et al, 1989) as well as in ecosystem studies and cultural heritage monitoring (Moore, et al,
2007). The most important work in this field has been carried out in the United States, particularly by the
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory at CalTech (JPL/NASA). In this context protocols have been developed for
using synthetic aperture radar in the recording of archaeological sites for cultural resource management,
so as to reduce the risk of costly delays during construction projects (Douglas, et al, 2007).
The application of radar imaging in archaeology is still fairly limited, especially in Europe, where
archaeologists and remote sensing scientists have focused more their attention on LiDAR, and multi-
spectral and hyper-spectral systems. Generally speaking the main limitation of radar systems is the
relatively high cost of commissioning it from a commercial contractor. The maximum penetration of the
signal into the soil can be as much as 3-5 m but this requires very dry ground conditions and fine-grained
soil. Specialised training is also essential in image processing and archaeological data interpretation
(Derrold, et al, 2007).
Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) - Airborne LiDAR measures the relative height of the ground
surface and other features (such as trees and buildings) across large areas of landscape with a resolution
and accuracy hitherto unattainable except through labour-intensive field survey or photogrametry. It
provides, for the first time, highly detailed and accurate digital 3D models of the land surface at metre
and sub-metre resolution. LiDAR operates by using a pulsed laser beam which is scanned from side to
side as the aircraft flies over the survey area, measuring by the length of the time that the signal takes to
return to the aircraft between 20,000 and 100,000 points per second to build an accurate, high-resolution
model of the ground and the features upon it.
Airborne LiDAR was conceived in the 1960s for submarine detection and early models were used
successfully in the early 1970s in the US, Canada and Australia. The possibility of using the technique for
archaeological recording was first recognised in the United States thanks to pioneering research in the
vicinity of the Arenal Volcano in Costa Rica under the leadership of Tom Sever. In an archaeological study
in 1984 Sever and his colleagues used LiDAR, TIMS (Thermal Infrared Materials), synthetic aperture radar,
colour infrared photography to detect pathways of prehistoric settlers, documenting trade routes and
movement between settlements (Sheets, Sever, 1991).
In Europe the potential of LiDAR applications in archaeology was first discussed at a workshop in Leszno,
Poland, in November 2000. This related to a survey covering the River Wharfe in Yorkshire which revealed
evidence for the earthwork survival of a Roman fort that had previously been thought to have been
completely levelled by ploughing (Holden, et al, 2002). A few years later at Gent University in Belgium
Robert Bewley, then Head of English Heritage’s Aerial Survey Unit, argued that “…the introduction of
LiDAR is probably the most significant development for archaeological remote sensing since the
invention of photography” (Bewley, 2005).
In the following years LiDAR applications have been developed widely around Europe and particularly in
the UK, Austria, France, Germany, Norway and Italy. Currently the principal advantage of LiDAR survey for
archaeologists is its capacity to provide a high-resolution digital elevation model (DEM) of the landscape
that can reveal micro-topography which is virtually indistinguishable at ground level because of erosion
by ploughing (Fig.12).
Techniques have been developed for the digital removal of ‘modern’ elements such as trees and
buildings so as to produce a digital terrain model (DTM) of the actual ground surface, complete with any
remaining traces of past human activity (Fig.13).
An extremely important characteristic of LiDAR is its ability to penetrate woodland or forest and so reveal
features that are not distinguishable through traditional prospection methods or that are difficult to
reach for ground-based survey (as, for instance, in work at Leitha Mountain, Austria, described in Doneus,
Briese, 2006). There have been other notable applications at Elverum in Norway (Risbøl, et al, 2006),
Rastatt in Germany (Sittler, Schellberg, 2006), in the Stonehenge landscape and at other locations in the
UK (Bewley, et al, 2005; Devereux, et al, 2005) and, returning to America, at Caracol in Belize (Weishampel,
et al, 2010). Currently the cutting edge of LiDAR applications in archaeology is represented by the use of
a helicopter as the imaging platform, allowing slower and lower flight paths, multiple return feature,
combined with ultra-high frequency enabling much higher ground resolution. Densities of up to 60
pts/m2 (about 10 cm resolution) can be obtained by these methods, allowing effective penetration of
even the most densely vegetated areas and permitting the recording of micro-topographic variations
even where the remains of archaeological features are severely degraded (Shaw, Corns, 2011).
 Fig.12 - It is worth emphasizing that interest in this technique is not limited to its potential for penetrating
woodland areas but also for its contribution to the study of open contexts such as pastureland and arable
areas. In these zones, as under woodland cover, the availability of extremely precise digital models of the
ground surface will make it possible to highlight every tiny variation in level, by using computer simulations
to change the direction or angle of the light and/or to exaggerate the value of the z coordinate. The picture
is showing the landscape below the Loughcrew passage tombs, County Meath, Ireland. Relief-shaded
image LiDAR image of enclosures and field boundaries in ”improved” pasture grassland subject to stone
removal and periodic ploughing. Note the better the better preservation of the earthworks in the legally-
protected un-ploughed area at lower left (by courtesy of Dr. Colin A. Shell - Department of Archaeology,
University of Cambridge-UK).

Nevertheless, a degree of caution is needed. The production of a DTM using LiDAR technology is a
complex process which involves several assumptions and decisions throughout the workflow of project
preparation, data acquisition and subsequent analysis. The archaeologist has to consider and understand
the meaning of meta-information about the original point density, the time of flight, the instrumentation
used, the type of aerial platform and the DTM-generation procedure etc (Doneus, Briese, 2011).
If properly applied, the LiDAR technique could prove revolutionary in its impact on the process of
archaeological mapping by making it possible to record the previously hidden archaeological resource
within woodland areas and (apparently) levelled landscapes. In favourable circumstances it may even be
possible to uncover whole ‘fossil’ landscapes. This could have a dramatic impact on opportunities for
archaeological and landscape conservation and management, as well as on scientific investigation of
settlement dynamics in various phases of our history.
Fig.13 - From top to bottom. 10a,
conventional aerial photograph of
Welshbury Hillfort (UK) showing the
dense tree canopy (Image courtesy
of the Forestry Commission – Source
Cambridge University Unit for
Landscape Modelling (ULM), March
2004)

The dense woodland is not

conducive to standard field survey
either so it was felt that any
technique that might aid the
recording of features in such
woodland must be worth
investigating further. The project
used data flown by ULM and
collected at a higher than average
resolution allowing the creation of a
0.25m grid. This was provided to
staff at English Heritage as gridded
files of both first and last pulse data
together with an image file of the
data once it had been processed
using the vegetation removal
algorithm. The following image
shows the first pulse data simply
recorded the canopy in much the
same way as the standard aerial
photograph, but the last pulse (last
image) effectively removed the bulk
of the tree cover revealing the
features beneath. First pulse data
relief shaded – what is recorded is
the top of the tree canopy. Lidar
courtesy of the Forestry Commission
– Source Cambridge University Unit
for Landscape Modelling (March
2004). Last pulse data to “remove”
the trees revealing the ground
surface. The remaining “trees”
probably represent areas of
particularly dense foliage or thick
tree trunks/stumps. Lidar courtesy
of the Forestry Commission – Source
Cambridge University Unit for
Landscape Modelling (March 2004).


Close-range aerial photography - From the end of 19th century, when Giacomo Boni used a balloon to
take aerial photographs of the Foro Romano, to the present day archaeologists have understood the
desirability of acquiring low-altitude aerial imagery for purposes of documentation, conservation and
cultural resource management – the discovery of previously unidentified features plays only a minor role
in this case. Various kinds of un-manned platform have been used in archaeology and other scientific
fields to lift the photographic camera so as to acquire large-scale imagery from relatively low heights
(Fig.14).

Fig.14 - From top to bottom and from left to

right. Ladder for documentation on
archaeological excavation; watch tower
aimed to the collection of photography,
laser scanner data, etc.; giraffe aimed to the
collection of vertical photography and
mosaic of small areas at very a high level of
detail; blimp of the University of Siena,
Centre of Geo-technologies, San Giovanni
Val d’Arno; kite; helikite; balloon; from high-
end UAV systems to very low-cost UAV
platforms. (by courtesy of University of Siena,
Laboratory of Landscape Archaeology and
Remote Sensing (LAP&T) and Centre of Geo-
technologies (CGT), H. Eisenbeiss and F.
Remondino).

Each of the methods noted below has its own distinct advantages and drawbacks (Verhoeven, et al,
2008):
1. Mats, poles, booms and towers. Although these platforms are cost effective, stable and very easy
to move they are limited by their moderate maximum operational height of no more than about
20 m.
2. Kites. The use of kites in low-level aerial photography has been common since the 1970s as these
highly inexpensive and portable platforms can accommodate several kilograms of payload.
Furthermore, the only thing that is needed for their effective operation is wind. This dependency,
 however, is also the method’s main drawback: irregular winds are not suitable for kite-based
photography and the size of the kite is dependent upon the wind speed.
3. Balloons and blimps. These devices contrast with and complement kite photography in that they
can be used in windless and very light wind conditions. Moreover balloon photography is
extremely flexible in its setup procedures, and operation is easy. However balloons and blimps
become difficult to position and to hold in windy conditions. Helium is also expensive and
difficult or sometimes impossible to find in many countries. The gas containers, too, are heavy
and unwieldy.
4. Helikite. This is a unique design, patented by Sandy Allsopp in 1993 and currently manufactured
by Allsopp Helikites® Ltd. It combines a (small) helium-filled balloon with kite wings, securing the
best properties of both platforms. The helium-filled balloon allows it to take off in windless
weather conditions, whereas the kite components become important when there is wind,
improving stability and providing the capacity to reach higher altitudes.
5. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or drones. This category, which includes remote-controlled
model aircraft and helicopters, generally involves high-end devices that allow very accurate
control of the platform so as to produce photographic ortho-mosaics and in the most advanced
cases photogrammetric stereo pairs (Eisenbeiss, 2009). The use of such devices is growing in
archaeology thanks to the improvement of photogrametric software capable of producing
accurate 3D models in a short time (Remondino, 2011). There is also the possibility of equipping
UAV platforms with a wide range of sensors, from thermal or infrared cameras to airborne LiDAR
systems and video camera etc.

Ground truthing
Information collected from remotely sensed systems loses much of its potential meaning without
detailed ground survey (see Field Survey). Effective ground truthing is often the key that unlocks the
information content of remotely sensed data. Fieldwork represents the step in the process that aims to
verify and enhance the results of a Remote Sensing study through comparison with independent
evidence.
It is essential in this context to stress that the word ‘truthing’ refers to the interpretation of remote sensing
data; it does not imply that the actual data may be false (Hargrave, 2006). If remote sensing analysis is
properly executed the probability that interpreted features have some cultural or palaeo-environmental
source is very high. The need for archaeologists to ground-check the features seen from the air has been
a fundamental concept from the very origins of Remote Sensing (Crawford, Keiller, 1928; Poidebard,
1927). This step in the process is essential to define the interpretation keys and hence to develop or to
advance the classification of anomalies into useful archaeological categories with differing level of detail
and interpretative precision, in a sequence such as:
1. Ditch, pit, wall, earthwork etc.
2. Burial mound, grave, enclosure, settlement etc.
3. Round barrow, long barrow, rectangular enclosure, Roman villa etc
The ground evaluation of anomalies can be done in a variety of ways. The conventional scheme uses a
series of increasingly invasive and expensive techniques, removing some parts of the anomalies at each
stage and consequently applying the more expansive and invasive techniques to a minority that have
survived earlier stages of the screening process. The techniques used depend upon the conditions
encountered at each site: land-use, vegetation, material culture, conservation policies etc. The basic
sequence of this multi-stage approach might be summarised as follows:
1. Visual inspection through field-walking survey. For this there is great value in the use of a mobile
GIS device provided with a satellite navigation system (GPS) and up-to-date maps of the selected
features for ground truthing. This guarantees the necessary accuracy to ensure the inspection of
each anomaly. Common features, possibly recognizable during fieldwork, are localized
depressions or ridges with regular shapes, differences in soil moisture, concentrations of gravel or
apparently non-native rock, and archaeological artefacts etc.
2. Core sampling. Ideally, cores should be taken from within the targeted anomaly as well as outside
its apparent limits. Evidence could include the presence of charcoal, burned soil, bone, fragments
 of pottery or other kind of artefacts. Often one will not be able to determine whether a feature is
present solely on the basis of such a soil core.
3. Test-pits or shovel-test. This is quite a common method, consisting of excavating small pits
(generally measuring 1 m by 1 m) to the surface of sterile soil or to a depth of 70-120 cm
(depending on the stability or instability of the sections). This makes it possible to note in the
field any presence or variation in the concentration of artefacts or other cultural material. As with
core sampling, the test pits should be excavated in pairs, one within and the other outside the
anomaly. The main advantages of core sampling and test pits are their low cost and minimal
invasiveness.
4. Minimalist stratigraphical excavation. Minimalist and well planned stratigraphical excavation can
be extremely efficient and reliable in verifying the presence of the features in a way which is
relatively non-invasive and cost effective. Unfortunately this technique (as well as core sampling
and test pitting) may not be possible in countries where social and political factors require
ground truthing to be largely or wholly non-invasive.
5. Mechanical excavation. Perhaps the most convincing type of ground truthing is removal of the
topsoil or plough-disturbed strata over large and contiguous areas. Subsurface features can then
be marked, mapped and wholly or partially excavated (Campana, 2011). This practice is mainly
applied to verify the results of archaeological impact assessments in the case of infrastructure
and other types of major construction work.

GIS data integration: mapping and interpretation

Lillesand and Kiefer, authors of one of the most authoritative manuals of remote sensing, maintain in the
section on the basic concepts and founding principles of remote sensing as follows: “…successful
application of remote sensing is premised on the integration of multiple, interrelated data sources and analysis
procedures. No single combination of sensor and interpretation procedures is appropriate to all resources
inventorying and environmental monitoring applications.” (Lillesand, Kiefer, 1994) This is absolutely true
for archaeological Remote Sensing.

Fig.15 - The combination of the

results of the many aerial
campaigns with the geophysical
data we can see that neither
approach gives the same returns,
confirming that if we are to reach
our target to identify the
archaeological capacity of the
landscape then we must employ
a multi sensor approach (by
courtesy of prof. D. Powlesland,
Landscape Research Centre).
A pre-requisite for data integration of remotely sensed imagery is knowledge about each measurement’s
position in relation to a known system of geographical coordinates. Failure to satisfy this condition results
in an inability to localise the acquired information. The entry of the data into an archaeological GIS is the
basis for any attempt at integration of the information so as to improve the development of an
historical/archaeological critical narration or conservation of the archaeological resource. Georeferencing
of the remotely-sensed data does not represent the end of the archaeological mapping process but only
an intermediate stage. On their own, satellite imagery, aerial photographs, LiDAR imagery and
geophysical imagery signify little.

Fig.16 - Integrating methodologies and data, mapping evidences and understanding landscapes. The
image shows a map at East Heslerton (Yorkshire, UK) drawn by prof. Dominic Powlesland. Whilst the
surviving earthworks of the later medieval village show up well in the English Heritage air photograph, the
geophysical surveys show much more detail of the medieval and later village, particularly in the areas
beyond the present village to the north and west. To the west of the present village a series of long
rectangular enclosures with the short side aligned on the present track coming down from the Wolds are
termed crofts and tofts, the toft being where the house was built surrounded by a small garden area, and
beyond it the croft, probably used for domestic food production, with the land beyond the village divided
up into ‘rig and furrow’, the strip field system that dominated the medieval landscape of much of lowland
England. The village was supplied with water from springs at the foot of the Wolds; to the south, the natural
stream channel was managed from an early date with the water used to drive a mill and fill the moat
associated with the Manor House. The site of the Manor is thought to have been largely destroyed when the
present church, commissioned by Sir Tatton Sykes of Sledmere and designed by the celebrated Victorian
architect G E Street, was built between 1873 and 1877. Street also designed the vicarage and had further
buildings constructed to house the building team. The remains of a number of houses were demolished
during the last century in the field immediately to the west of the village and to the south of the A64 trunk
 road, which cuts through the northern part of the medieval village. The evidence indicates that the village
that survives today is considerably smaller than it had been in medieval times and thus is termed a
shrunken village (by courtesy of prof. D. Powlesland, Landscape Research Centre)

It is the responsibility of the archaeologist (often in collaboration with signal specialists) to give
archaeological sense to the photographs or to the measurements of chemical and physical parameters in
the soil. In summary, the interpretation of the data is made real and communicable through cartographic
drawing of the elements perceived as anomalies (Palmer, 2000).
This is therefore the critical phase in landscape and archaeological research. In practice the process
advances through the drawing, digitally or by hand, of the anomalies and other elements deemed to be
of archaeological interest. The georeferenced graphical restitution of the information contained in
vertical or oblique aerial photographs, in high-resolution satellite imagery, in LiDAR data and in maps
derived from geophysical measurements makes it possible to overlay on topographical maps the results
of the various investigative methods, along with a mass of other data stratified layer upon layer over the
years (Fig.15). The result is a jigsaw puzzle, a complex representation in which it is possible to measure
and position each piece of information while at the same time perceiving the overall picture, whether
single-phase or spread across time, along with the overlapping and stratified fragments of whole systems
of ancient and medieval landscapes. Through archaeological mapping and the use of GIS these become
capable of study against other layers of archaeological and non-archaeological information in the writing
of history, in heritage protection through the planning process and through conservation or monitoring
of the shared cultural inheritance (Fig.16; Campana, 2009).

Bibliography
Adams, R., 1980. Swamps, Canals, and the Location of Ancient Maya Cities. Antiquity, LIV: 206-214
Aqdus, S.A., Drummond, J., Hanson, W.S., 2008. Discovering Archaeological Cropmarks: a Hyperspetral
Approach. The international Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information
Sciences, XXXVII B5: 361-365
Avery, T.E., Lyons, T.R., 1981. Remote Sensing: Aerial and Terrestrial Photography for Archaeologists.
Washington: National Park Service
Baber, M., 2011. A History of Aerial Photography and Archaeology: Mata Hari's glass eye and other stories.
Swindon: English Heritage
Banning, E.B., 2002. Archaeological Survey. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers
Beck, A., 2011. Archaeological applications of multi/hyper-spectral data – challenges and potential.
Cowley, D.C. (ed.), Remote Sensing for Archaeological Heritage management. Brussel: EAC occasional
PeperNo.5, pp.87-97.
Bewley, R.H., 2002. Aerial Survey: learning from a hundred years of experience? In Bewley, R.H.,
Rączkowski, W., (eds.) Aerial Archaeology. Developing Future Practice. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp.11-18
Bewley, R.H., 2005. Aerial Archaeology. The first century. In Bourgeois, J., Meganck, M. (eds.), Aerial
Photography and Archaeology 2003. A century of information, Ghent: Accedemia Press, pp.15-30
Bewley, R.H., Crutchley, S., Shell, C., 2005. New light on an ancient landscape: LiDAR survey in the
Stonehenge World Heritage Site. Antiquity, 79: 636-647
Boni, G., 1900. Fotografie e pianta altimetrica del Foro Romano. Accademia dei lincei. Roma.
Bloom, R.G., 1992. Space technology and the discovery of Ubar. Point of Beginning, August-September:
11-20
Bradford, J., 1957. Ancient Landscapes. Oxford.
Campana, S., 2009. Archaeological Site Detection and Mapping: some thoughts on differing scales of
detail and archaeological ‘non-visibility’. In Campana S., S.Piro (eds.), Seeing the unseen. Geophysics and
Landscape Archaeology. London: Taylor & Francis., pp. 5-26
Campana, S., 2011. Total Archaeology approach to overcome Rescue Archaeology: BREBEMI project
(Italy). Cowley, D.C. (ed.), Remote Sensing for Archaeological Heritage management. Brussel: EAC occasional
PeperNo.5, pp.33-41.
Campana, S., 2012. Archaeological Impact Assessment Vs. Rescue Archaeology: Brebemi Project (Italy).
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Archaeology.
Cavalli, R.M., Marino, C.M., Pignatti, S., 2003. Hyperspectral airborne remote sensing as an aid to a better
understanding and characterization of buried elements in different archaeological sites. In Forte, M.,
Williams, P.R., The Reconstruction of Archaeological Landscapes through Digital Technologies. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports, pp.29-32
Comer, D.C., Blom, G.R., 2007. Detection and Identification of Archaeological Sites and Features Using
Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) Data Collected from Airborne Platforms. In Wiseman, J., El-Baz, F., (eds.),
Remote Sensing in Archaeology. New York: Springer, pp.103-136.
Crawford, O.G.S., Keiller, A., 1928. Wessex from the air. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deuel, L., 1969. Flights into Yesterday. The Story of Aerial Archaeology. Bungay: The Chaucer Press.
Devereux, B.J., Amable, G.S., Crow, P., Cliff, A.D., 2005. The potential of airborne lidar for detection of
archaeological features under woodland canopies. Antiquity, 79-305: 648-660
Doneus, M., 2001. The impact of vertical photographs on analysis of archaeological landscapes. In
Proceedings 4th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection. International Society of
Archaeological Prospection, pp.94-96

Doneus, M., Neubauer, W., Verhoeven, G., Briese, C., 2011. Advancing archaeological airborne remote
sensing. In Proceedings 9th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection. International Society
for Archaeological Prospection, pp.12-15

Doneus, M., Briese, C., 2006. Full-waveform airborne laser scanning as a tool for archaeological
reconnaissance. In Campana S., Forte M. (eds.), From Space to Place. Oxford: BAR, pp.99-105.
Doneus, M., Briese, C., 2011. Airborne Laser Scanning in forested areas – Potential and limitations of an
archaeological prospection technique. In Cowley, D.C. (ed.), Remote Sensing for Archaeological Heritage
management. Brussel: EAC occasional PeperNo.5, pp.59-76
Donohue, D.N.M., 2001. Multispectral Remote Sensing for Archaeology. In Campana, S., Forte, M. (eds.),
Remote Sensing in Archaeology. Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio, pp.181-192
Donoghue, D.N.M., Beck, A., Galiatzatos, N., McManus, K., Philip, G., 2006. The use of remote sensing data
for visualising and interpreting archaeological landscapes. In Baltsvias, E., Gruen, A., Van Gool, L., Pateraki,
M. (eds.), Recording, Modeling and Visualization of Cultural Heritage. Leiden: Taylor&Francis, pp.317-326
Eisenbeiss, H., 2009. UAV photogrammetry. Zurich IGP Mitteilungen Nr.105. http://e-
collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:498/eth-498-02.pdf#search=%22(author:henri eisenbeiss)%22
Galiatsatos, N., 2012. Exploring Archaeological Landscapes with Satellite Imagery. In Campana, S.,
Remondino, F., 3D Modelling in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage. Oxford: BAR.
Going, J.,C., 2002. A neglected Asset. German Aerial Photography of the Second World War Period. In
Bewley R.H., Rączkowski W., (eds.) Aerial Archaeology. Developing Future Practice. Amsterdam: IOS Press,
pp.23-30
Guaitoli, M. (ed.), 2003. Lo sguardo di Icaro. Roma: Campisano editore.
Hargrave, M.L., 2006. Ground Truthing the Results of Geophysical Survey. In Johnson, J.K. (ed.), Remote
Sensing in Archaeology. An Explicitly North American Perspective, Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama
Press, pp.269-319
Holcomb, D.W., Shingiray, I.L., 2007. Imaging Radar in Archaeological Investigations: An Image Processing
Perspective. In Wiseman, J., El-Baz, F. . (eds.), Remote Sensing in Archaeology. New York: Springer, pp.11-45.
Holden, N., Horne, P., Bewley, R.H., 2002. High-Resolution Digital Airborne Mapping and Archaeology. In
Bewley, R.H., Rączkowski, W., (eds.) Aerial Archaeology. Developing Future Practice. Amsterdam: IOS Press,
pp.173-180
Horne, P., 2011. The English Heritage National Mapping Programme. In Cowley, D.C. (ed.), Remote Sensing
for Archaeological Heritage management. Brussel: EAC occasional PeperNo.5, pp.143-151
Khawaga, M., 1979. A contribution to fractal pattern of the Abu Tartar plateau, Western Desert, Egypt.
Annals of the geological survey of Egypt, 9: 163-171
Jones, R.J.A., Evans, R., 1975. Soil and crop marks in the recognition of archaeological sites by air
photography. in Wilson, D. (ed.), Aerial reconnaissance for archaeology. CBA 12, pp.1-11.
Lillesand, T.M., Kiefer, R.W., 1994. Remote sensing and image interpretation. 3rd edition, New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Lyons, T.R., Avery, T.E., 1977. Remote Sensing: A Handbook for Archaeologists and Cultural Resources
Managers. Washington: National Park Service
Lyons, T.R., Mathien, F.J., 1980. Cultural Resources Remote Sensing. Washington: National Park Service
McHhgh, W.P., Schaber, G.G., Breed, C.S., McCauley, J.F., 1989. Neolithic Adaptation and the Holocene
Functioning of the Tertiary Paleodrainages in Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan. Antiquity, 63: 320-336
Mccauley, J. F., Schaber, G. G., Breed, C. S., Grolier, M. J., Haynes, C. V., Issawi, B., Elachi, C., Blom, R., 1982.
Subsurface valleys and geoarcheology of the eastern Sahara revealed by shuttle radar. Science, 218, 4576:
1004-1020
Moore, E., Freeman, T., Hensley, S., 2007. Spaceborne and Airborne Radar at Angkor: Introducing New
Technology to the Ancient Site. In Wiseman, J., El-Baz, F. (eds.), Remote Sensing in Archaeology. New York:
Springer, pp.185-216.
Moussa, A., Dolphin, L., Mokhtar, G., 1977. Applications of Modern Sensing Techniques to Egyptology. Menlo
Park: SRI International.
Musson, C., 1994. Wales from the Air. Patterns of Past and Present.
Palmer, R., 2000. A view from above: can computers help aerial survey? In Lock, G., Smith, K. (eds.), On the
theory and practice of archaeological computing. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology,
Monograph 51, pp.107-131
Palmer, R., 2007. Seventy-five years v. ninety minutes: implications of the 1996 Bedfordshire vertical aerial
survey on our perceptions of clayland archaeology. In Mills, J., Palmer, R. (eds.), Populating Clay
Landscapes. Stroud: Tempus, pp.88-103
Parcak, S.H., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New York: Routledge.
Piccarreta, F., Ceraudo G., 2000. Manuale di Aerofotografia Archeologica. Metodologia, Tecniche e
Applicazioni. Bari: Edipuglia.
Poidebard, A., 1927. Les routes anciennes en Haute-Djézireh, Siria VIII: 55-65.
Pope, K.O., Dahlin, B.H., 1989. Ancient Maya Wetland Agriculture: New Insights from Ecological and
Remote Sensing Research. Journal of Field Archaeology 16: 87-106
Powlesland, D., 2006. Redefining past landscapes: 30 years of remote sensing in the Vale of Pickering. In
Campana, S., Forte, M. (eds.), From Space to Place. Oxford: BAR, pp.197-201
Powlesland, D., 2010. Identifying mapping and managing the unmanageable: the implication of long
term multi-sensor research into the archaeology of the Vale of Pickering. Yorkshire, England. In Campana,
S., Forte, M., Liuzza, C. (eds.), Space, Time, Place. Oxford: BAR, pp.9-16
Powlesland, D., Donoghue, D.N.M., 1993. A multi-sensory approach to mapping the prehistoric landscape.
In Proceedings of the 9th NERC Airborne Symposium. NERC, pp.88-96
Rączkowski, W., 2001. Science and/or art: aerial photographs in archaeological discourse, Archaeologia
Polona 39: 127–146.
Rączkowski, W., 2005. To Overcome Infirmity. Current Approaches to Aerial Archaeology in Poland. In
Bourgeois, J., Meganck, M. (eds.), Aerial Photography and Archaeology 2003. A century of information,
Ghent: Accedemia Press, pp.121-135
Remondino, F., 2011. 3d Recording for Cultural heritage. In Cowley, D.C. (ed.), Remote Sensing for
Archaeological Heritage management. Brussel: EAC occasional PeperNo.5, pp.107-115
Risbøl, O., Gjertsen, A.K., Skare, K., 2006. Airborne laser scanner of cultural remains in forest: some
preliminary results from Norwegian project. In Campana, S., Forte, M. (eds.), From Space to Place. Oxford:
BAR, pp.107-112
Saponara, R., Masini, N., 2012. Satellite Remote Sensing. A New Tool for Archaeology. New York: Springer.
Schaber, G.G., Gumerman, G.J., 1969. Infrared scanning images: an archaeological application. Science,
164/3880: 712-713
Sever, T.L., 1998. Validating Prehistoric and Current Social Phenomena upon the Landscape of the Peten,
Guatemala. In Liverman, D., Moran, E.F., Rindfuss, R.R., Stern, P.C. (eds.), People and Pixels. Washington:
National Academy Press, pp.145-163.
Shaw, R., Corns, A., 2011. High Resolution LiDAR specifically for Archaeology: are we fully exploiting this
valuable resource? In Cowley, D.C. (ed.), Remote Sensing for Archaeological Heritage management. Brussel:
EAC occasional PeperNo.5, pp.77-86
Shell, C., 2002. Airborne High-Resolution Digital, Visible, Infra-Red and Thermal Sensing for Archaeology.
In Bewley, R.H., Rączkowski, W. (eds.) Aerial Archaeology. Developing Future Practice. Amsterdam: IOS
Press, pp.181-195
Shell, C., 2005. Digital Airborne Remote Sensing. In Musson, C., Palmer, R., Campana, S. (eds.), In volo nel
Passato. Florence: all’Insegna del Giglio, pp.281-294
Sheets, P., Sever, T., 1991. Prehistoric Footpaths in Costa Rica: Transportation and Communication in a
Tropical Rainforest. In Trombold, C. (ed.), Ancient Road Networks and Settlement Hierarchies in the New
World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Shennan, I., Donoghue, D.N.M., 1992. Remote Sensing in Archaeological Research. In Pollard, A.M. (ed.),
New Development in Archaeological Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.223-232
Sittler, B., Schellberg, S., 2006. The potential of LIDAR in assessing elements of cultural heritage hidden
under forest or overgrown by vegetation: Possibilities and limits in detecting microrelief structures for
archaeological surveys. In Campana, S., Forte, M. (eds.), From Space to Place. Oxford: BAR, pp.117-122
Stolze, F., 1882. Die Achaemenidischen und, Sassanidischen Denkmaler und Inschriften von Persepolis.
Traviglia, A., 2007. MIVIS Hyper-spectral Sensor for Detection of Subsoil Archaeological Sites and
Interpretation Support GIS: An Italian Case Study. in Proceedings Computer Applications and Quantitative
Methods in Archaeology 2006. Archaeolingua: Budapest, pp. 287-299
Verhoeven, G.J.J., Loenders, J., Vermuelen, F., Docter, R., 2008. Helikite Aerial Photography – a Versatile
Means of Unmanned, Radio Controlled, Low-Altitude Aerial Archaeology. Archaeological prospection, 16
(2): 125-138
Weishampel, J.F., Chase, A.F., Chase, D.Z., Drake, J.B., Shrestha, R.L., Slatton, K.C., Awe, J.J., Hightower, J.,
Angelo, J., 2010. Remote sensing of ancient Maya land use features at Caracol, Belize related to tropical
rainforest structure. In Campana, S., Forte, M., Liuzza, C. (eds.), Space, Time, Place. Oxford: BAR, pp.45-52
Wilson, D.R., 2000. Air Photo Interpretation for Archaeologists, Stroud: Tempus.
Wiseman, J., El-Baz, F., 2007. Remote Sensing in Archaeology, New York: Springer.

WEB references
Aerial Archaeology Research Group
http://www.univie.ac.at/aarg
International Society for Archaeological Prospection
http://www.brad.ac.uk/archsci/archprospection/