Archaeological Prospection Archaeol. Prospect. 18, 113 (2011) Published online 3 February 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.

com/journal/arp) DOI: 10.1002/arp.398

Airborne Lidar Intensity and Geoarchaeological Prospection in River Valley Floors

KEITH CHALLIS1*, CHRIS CAREY1, MARK KINCEY1 AND ANDYJ. HOWARD2
IBM Visual and Spatial Technology Centre, Birmingham Archaeology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK 2 Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
1

ABSTRACT

Archaeological applications of airborne lidar topographic data are now well known and documented in the academic literature. Rather less well explored by archaeologists are the potential of lidar intensity data. In this paper we explore theapplicationoflidarintensity forgeoarchaeologicalprospectioninriver valley floors.Afterbrieflyconsideringthe context of archaeological remote sensing in river valleys, we examine some factors influencing the lidar intensity record andexplore processing stepsthat may berequired to effectivelyutilizeintensitydata, beforereviewing the utilityofintensity data for the geoarchaeological assessment of test sites in the Trent Valley of the English Midlands (UK). Results suggest that intensity imagery may assist greatly in the interpretation of airborne lidar topographic data and that its analysis contributes to a qualitative understanding of land cover and the burial environment of archaeological remains, either cultural orenvironmental; furthermore in some circumstances it is possible to identifyanthropogenic archaeological cropmarks in intensity imagery. It is concluded that the standard methodology employed in using airborne lidar for archaeological survey should as a matter of course include the collection and analysis of intensity data. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key words: floodplain; alluvium; geoarchaeology; palaeochannels; lidar intensity

Introduction
The archaeological applications of airborne lidar topographic data are now well known. As well as geoarchaeological mapping and prospection (Brunning and Far-Cox, 2005; Challis, 2005, 2006; Carey et al., 2006; Challis et al., 2006; Jones et al., 2007), published applications include over-arching landscape studies (Barnes, 2003; Bewley et al., 2005; Bonger et al., 2006; Shell and Roughley, 2004; Powlesland et al., 2006), investigation of the potential for lidar to detect upstanding archaeological remains beneath the vegetation canopy (Deveraux et al., 2005; Risbol et al., 2006; Sittler and Schellberg, 2006; Crow et al., 2007; Doneus et al., 2008) and studies of the uses of lidar to contribute to the compilation and renement of records of the

* Correspondence to: K. Challis, IBM Visual and Spatial Technology Centre, Birmingham Archaeology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. E-mail: K.Challis@bham.ac.uk

historic environment (Holden et al., 2002; Bewley, 2003; Crutchley, 2006; Challis et al., 2008). Rather less well explored by archaeologists are the potential applications of lidar intensity data, a secondary output of topographic measurements that records a laser image of the land surface derived from measurements of the amplitude of each reected laser pulse (Figure 1). Thus far applications using airborne lidar intensity have been restricted to a few specialist elds including characterizing forest canopies (eg. Donoghue et al., 2007), determination of the age of lava ows from active volcanoes (Spinetti et al., 2009) and classication of glacial surfaces (Lutz et al., 2003). A comprehensive summary of uses of airborne lidar intensity is given by Ho e and Pfeifer (2007). A number of studies (e.g. Song et al., 2002; Chust et al., 2008; Yoon et al., 2008) suggest that lidar intensity may be more generally useful for determination of land cover and could serve as a useful addition to lidar elevation data when interpreting lidar survey results.
Received 14 April 2010 Revised 10 December 2010

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

K. Challis et al. phology in alluvial landscapes, for example in extensive studies of the valleys of the Rivers Trent (Baker, 2003) and Thames (Lambrick, 1992). Studies combining aerial photography, airborne lidar and ground reconnaissance to produce detailed landform assemblage character maps of river valleys have set the benchmark standard for what may be achieved (e.g. Passmore and Waddington, 2006; Howard et al., 2008b). Mapping of uvial geomorphology provides a context for past cultural landscapes and assists in identifying topographical features of high archaeological potential (for example relict river channels), isolating areas of past river erosion and valley oor reworking where little in the way of archaeological material might be expected to survive and delineating areas of (stable) gravel terrace, which often form the focus of past human activity, and in general are higher and dryer than the surrounding oodplain (cf. Howard and Macklin, 1999). In general uvial features have a signicant topographic element that may be readily identied in lidar elevation data (cf. Brown (1997) for geomorphological descriptions and classication of typical features). In most valley oors the greatest potential for organic preservation is associated with palaeochannels, the position of which within the landscape may be determined from the analysis of aerial photography, historic maps (Large and Petts, 1996) and of course from lidar (Challis, 2006). The systematic reconnaissance, mapping and classication of valley oor landscapes has played a signicant role in the strategic management of the geoarchaeological resource and intimately associated archaeological remains in the face of growing impacts from aggregate extraction and other development pressures (Bishop, 2003), in addition to other issues such as future climate change (Howard et al., 2008a). However, one shortfall of the types of study noted above is that, while they provide maps of the broad distribution of geoarchaeological features within alluvial landscapes, they provide no indication of the state of preservation of that material. This is signicant since the presence of wet, organic-rich sediments may greatly increase the archaeological value of these valley oor deposits. As we discuss later, it is possible that examination of lidar intensity values alongside the elevation record may go some way towards assessing the preservation potential of sediments since (amongst other factors) intensity is effected by the physical properties (moisture content, organic content, etc.) of the reecting material as well as its topographic characteristics. While we recognized that other airborne remote sensing techniques (e.g. multispectral or thermal), may be equally

Figure 1. The lidar process showing intensity values are a reflection of the amplitude of each reflected pulse.

This paper explores the application of airborne lidar intensity for geoarchaeological prospection in river valley oors. Our premise is that consideration of routinely collected intensity data may assist in geoarchaeological interpretation of lidar elevation products. After rst exploring the context of archaeological remote sensing in river valleys we assess the quality of collected lidar data and explore the need for correction for instrument factors and then undertake visual interpretation of intensity data. We explore a range of geomorphological and archaeological features in uvial environments in several test sites in the Trent Valley of the English Midlands, UK (Figure 2), in order to discern to what extent intensity might assist in interpretation of lidar survey results. A number of conclusions are drawn about the utility of airborne lidar intensity data for geoarchaeological prospection and the contribution that inclusion of intensity data in lidar based archaeological studies of landscape might make.

Archaeological remote sensing of river valleys

Airborne remote sensing techniques have traditionally been employed to great effect in mapping the cultural archaeology and to a lesser extent the geomorphology of valley oor landscapes. Archaeologists have largely focused their attention on the comprehensive mapping of cropmarks and other features of the archaeological landscape revealed from aerial photographs (e.g. Whimster, 1989). Aerial photographs have also been employed in mapping geomorCopyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Archaeol. Prospect. 18, 113 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/arp

Airborne Lidar Intensity and Geoarchaeological Prospection

Figure 2. The studyarea showingtheTrent Valley withinthe UK, the extent oflidardata collectionandindividualstudy windows.Thisfigureisavailable in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/arp

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Archaeol. Prospect. 18, 113 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/arp

4 or more effective than lidar at detecting geoarchaeological and anthropogenic features and assessing preservation potential of sediments, we have chosen to focus on lidar intensity as a tool since vast quantities of such data are routinely collected during airborne lidar surveys by archaeologists and others, but is subsequently archived without examination since its value and potential to date has been unrealized.

K. Challis et al. path length by calculating survey aircraft altitude and laser scan angle. While it is relatively easy to correct for range based on survey aircraft altitude, correction for scan angle is more problematic. Coren and Sterzai (2006) report that in Optech instruments angles below ca. 158 from nadir have little effect on intensity values, although since Optech instruments may scan up to 258 off-nadir (Optech, 2003) some data can be affected by such instrument-induced variations. Signicantly, Yoon et al. (2008) found that there was little variation in intensity due to path length on variant reectors such as vegetation and concluded that this was due to the heterogeneous character of returns from such materials compared with invariant reectors such as man-made surfaces. Finally, Kaasalainen et al. (2009) have attempted radiometric calibration of intensity data against targets of known reectance in order to allow comparison and mathematical modelling of multiple survey ights. The impact of atmospheric attenuation on the transmission and reection of the laser pulse may also affect results, but is difcult to account for, requiring detailed observations of atmospheric conditions at the time of survey as well as complex computational modelling and so is not routinely corrected for. For the present study, since no atmospheric data were available and because the survey covered a relatively small area for which only a single data set is used, atmospheric effects have been assumed to be uniform and negligible.

Lidar intensity measurements

The physical principle underlying lidar intensity is summarized by Ho e and Pfeifer (2007). Lidar intensity measurements represent the reected energy from a highly focused beam of near infrared radiation (NIR), which provides a concentrated measurement of an objects reectivity. Since NIR reectance varies in response to a number of earth-surface characteristics, intensity data has the potential to provide a qualitative descriptor of earth surface materials. There are signicant variations in intensity measurements between different lidar systems largely due to differences in receiver properties and type and wavelength of laser used. The present paper considers only results from an Optech Airborne Laser Terrain Mapper, which has a near infrared laser operating between 1047 and 1068 nm (varying by system) and are in common use in the UK by commercial contractors and government agencies for lidar survey. Factors inuencing the intensity record may be divided broadly into: (i) system variables; (ii) target variables; and (iii) processing procedures. System variables include those such as the distance between the lidar system and the target (the range controlled largely by the altitude of the survey aircraft, but also inuenced by topographic variation and the scan angle of individual lidar pulses), the peak pulse power of the laser system, which may vary as a factor of pulse frequency, beam divergence, laser footprint size (a product of range and beam divergence) and angle of incidence. Target variables include the cross-sectional area of the target within the laser footprint, target reectivity, and surface roughness. Processing procedures include variables introduced to the intensity data by factors such as the interpolation technique applied to convert the point cloud into a regular grid. A number of studies have considered some or all of these factors and attempted to mitigate for them by post-survey processing of intensity data. Many system variables are not routinely possible to correct for. Luzum et al. (2004) have explored normalization of intensity measurements from regions of high relief for
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Assessing variation in intensity data

Lidar data for the study area were acquired by Infoterra Global Ltd on 26 July 2007 using an Optech ALTM 2033 Lidar ying at an average altitude of 914 m and recording two returns (rst and last) at a maximum scan angle of 20-. Data were supplied as a x,y,z,i point cloud in ASCII format for rst and last pulse returns processed to WGS84 datum with ellipsoidal elevation values. The point clouds were processed using Applied Imagerys Quick Terrain Modeller software to generate rst and last pulse digital surface models at 1 m spatial resolution and 8bit greyscale images derived from rst and last pulse intensity values. Aircraft recorded intensity values were histogram stretched to the full 8-bit dynamic range (values 0255) but were otherwise unaltered. The digital surface model (DSM) and intensity images were reprojected to British National Grid and ellipsoidal elevation values converted to Ordnance Datum using Erdas Imagine 9.1. In the analysis described herein image based visual analysis of intensity makes use of

Archaeol. Prospect. 18, 113 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/arp

Airborne Lidar Intensity and Geoarchaeological Prospection data reprojected to the British National Grid. Since reprojection alters original values through a process of interpolation, statistical analysis of intensity made use of data in the original WGS84 datum with no additional processing steps employed on the point cloud. The DSM and intensity data for the entire study area are shown in Figure 3. It is immediately apparent that while topographic variation effectively highlights geomorphological features of archaeological signicance (palaeochannels, terrace/oodplain boundary, etc.) these same variations are apparent to a differing degree in the corresponding intensity data. In some instances palaeochannels in particular are indicated by areas of low intensity returns (Figure 4) although this is not uniformly the case and examples are examined in more detail later. Our initial assessment of variation in intensity suggested that factors beyond elevation and surface material affect returned values. Sediment moisture content seems the most likely cause of these variations, since experimental work has demonstrated the susceptibility of intensity to the impact of target moisture (cf. Kaasalainen et al., 2009). Our own eld investigation to test this hypothesis is reported upon elsewhere (Challis et al., 2011).

Processing intensity data

Lidar intensity values are affected by the range between the laser and target, such that measured intensity declines by the second power of the range (Luzum et al., 2004). In areas of high relief this fall-off has a signicant effect on measured intensity values. The maximum relief variation in the present study is approximately 55 m, which is sufcient to cause some variation in intensity for targets of similar reectivity, although within individual study windows relief variation is rarely above 25 m. The range variation due to scan angle for an aircraft ying at 914 m is approximately 58 m; again this is likely to have some impact on measured intensity values. In this study we have examined only the effects of correcting for range effects due to relief, since corrections due to scan angle require information on the time lag for each returned pulse, which was not available. In order to examine the impact of topographic effects on intensity, data were normalized to range by applying a procedure adapted from Luzum et al. (2004). Intensity data were processed using the

Figure 3. The study area showing the lidar-derived last pulse digital surface model (DSM) and corresponding intensity data.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Archaeol. Prospect. 18, 113 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/arp

K. Challis et al.

Figure 4. Atypicalpalaeochannelfeature showinglidar topographyandintensitydata.The scatterplot showsa sample ofintensity valuesforatransect across the palaeochannel, within-channel values are highlighted and are consistently lower than for the surrounding area of similar land cover. The two profiles show elevation and intensity values along the transect. Note that the elevation variation across the palaeochannel is in the order of 0.5 m.This figure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/arp

following formula: mean elevation2 where Si is the sampled raw intensity, range is the distance between the instrument and the ground (calculated by subtracting elevation from the recorded average altitude of the survey aircraft) and mean elevation is the arithmetic mean of the lidar-derived elevation for the DSM window under study. The normalization routine was varied by substituting a standard range of 600 m (cf. Luzum et al., 2004) and using the per pixel elevation for each intensity return extracted from the DSM, as a substitute for mean
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Ni Si

range2

elevation in order to compare effectiveness of different methods.

Normalization methods
The results of normalization of intensity data using each method are shown in Figure 5 with a statistical summary in Table 1. Note that in each case data have been standardized to t an 8-bit range for visual display and so have a minimum value of 0 and a maximum of 255. Normalization using any of the methods tried introduces subtle changes to the data. In the data illustrated in Figure 5 the range variation is approximately 42 m for ground returns. Normaliza-

Archaeol. Prospect. 18, 113 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/arp

Airborne Lidar Intensity and Geoarchaeological Prospection

Figure 5. Comparisonofrangenormalizationmethods. (A) Normalizedtoaveragedigitalsurfacemodel (DSM) elevation. (B) Normalizedtostandard range of 600 m (C) Normalized toper pixelelevationextracted from DSM.In each case greyscaleimages ofpost-processedintensityandassociated histograms of image values are shown.

tion to DSM elevation values has the most signicant impact, in particular improving clarity and distinctiveness within areas of woodland cover (as noted by Donoghue et al., 2007) but elsewhere overcompensates for the elevation-derived range effect on intensity. There is little to choose between normalization using average DSM value and an arbitrary standard elevation, as one might expect, as they simply substitute different single standard values. Overall the impact of normalization is to skew normalized data towards the lower end of the range and increase the internal variation.

Impact of normalization
In Figure 6 and Table 2 we illustrate the impact of normalization to range on intensity data for a typical area of oodplain (top), a substantial archaeological earthwork (centre), and an area of archaeTable 1. Statisticsfor normalized and standardintensity valuesfor the three normalization methods shown in Figure 5. Mean Unscaled Normalized to digital surface model Normalized to average elevation Normalized to standard range 98.59 124.10 127.16 127.17 Standard deviation 32.19 53.23 60.93 60.95

ological cropmarks (bottom). In each case the gure shows from left to right the lidar elevation model, raw intensity, normalized intensity and a difference raster based on subtracting raw from normalized intensity. It is worth noting that the cropmarks, of a Romano-British villa complex at Cromwell, Nottinghamshire (SK 801625), are faintly evident in the intensity data, in spite of the fact that data were collected outside of the main cropmark season and in less than ideal conditions (July 2007 having been unseasonably wet), although there is no corresponding elevation component (i.e. no signicant variation in crop height). This suggests that routine examination of intensity data might be expected to add to the cropmark record and could provide a value added benet to archaeological lidar surveys. Detection of cropmarks in NIR intensity data is dependent on the same physical variation in crop colour that is recorded by conventional aerial photography, although cropmark detection is improved in the NIR (cf. Challis et al., 2009). One consequence of this is that it may be advantageous to schedule lidar surveys of cropmark-producing landscapes for the optimum point in the cropmark season. Results (Figure 6) suggest that there is little signicant visual improvement in the clarity of intensity data due to normalization for range in these study areas. In general normalization increases the variation in values within the data, but with no signicant visual improvement. Variation between pre- and post-normalized intensity data were

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Archaeol. Prospect. 18, 113 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/arp

K. Challis et al.

Figure 6. Comparisonofnormalizedandstandardintensitydata foratypicalsectionoffloodplaingeomorphology (top), a substantialarchaeological earthwork (centre) and an area of archaeological cropmarks (bottom). In each case the figure shows from left to right the lidar elevation model, rawintensity, normalizedintensityand a difference raster based on subtractingraw from normalizedintensity.Image bottomright showsthe archaeological cropmarks as plotted by English Heritage superimposed on the intensity data.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Archaeol. Prospect. 18, 113 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/arp

Airborne Lidar Intensity and Geoarchaeological Prospection

Table 2. Statisticsfornormalizedandstandardintensity valuesfor the earthwork study area shown in Figure 6. Mean Earthwork Cropmark Channel Standard Normalized Standard Normalized Standard Normalized 80.59 127.45 88.1 127.27 120.28 126.13 Standard deviation 39.44 63.56 44.54 62.68 60.93 63.73

9 Holme Pierrepont Sand and Gravel and which forms areas of upstanding river terrace (BGS Sheet 113, Ollerton). The terrace is bisected from south to north by a sinuous major palaeochannel of the River Trent. Mapping of supercial geology indicates that the channel is inlled with ne grained alluvium, however, close examination of the lidar elevation data shows that the channel is both more extensive and morphologically more complex than existing mapping suggest. Shallow, sinuous depressions within the terrace surface are also evident in the lidar elevation data, which might indicate areas where supercial colluvial/alluvial deposits might enhance preservation of buried archaeological material. Lidar intensity data for this area show some difference in crop colour and growth on the terrace to the east of the palaeochannels, suggesting variations in the composition of the underlying terrace; otherwise the intensity data contribute little to the qualitative understanding of the burial environment. Figure 7B shows an area of predominantly ne grained alluvium, deposited by overbank ooding, adjacent to the present channel of the River Trent between Kelham and Averham in Nottinghamshire (SK 778546). Lidar elevation data clearly distinguishes the lower lying areas of oodplain alluvium and marginally higher islands of terrace (composed of Holme Pierrepont Sand and Gravel). A number of sinuous depressions interpreted as palaeochannels are visible across the terrace surface and their dimensions suggest that they may represent former channels of the Trent, which in this area may have formed part of an anastomosing river system (Knight and Howard, 2004). The level of detail recorded by lidar elevation data is substantially greater than that present on the existing mapping of supercial geology (BGS Sheets 126, Nottingham and 127, Grantham) and represents an appropriate base map for geomorphological mapping and identication of areas of potential differential preservation preparatory for archaeological eld investigation. For example, areas of terrace might be identied as being of greater potential for settlement-related activates, terrace margins as areas of high preservation potential as alluvium deposited by overbank ooding may blanket cultural deposits, and palaeochannels as prime locations for recovery of organic sediments and environmental archaeological remains (cf. Howard and Macklin, 1999). The intensity data for this area adds considerably to qualitative understanding of the burial environment. Variations within intensity values on the oodplain indicate cropmarks mirroring several of the sinuous palaeochannels. To the east of the central terrace

examined by generating a difference raster produced by subtracting pre-normalized values from normalized. Difference images display the impact of normalization at a landscape scale; in particular they clearly visualize the effect of topography on intensity variation, the end result being a useful fusion of the three-dimensional topographic and intensityderived image aspects of lidar data and seem to slightly improve denition of variations in intensity by highlighting areas of maximum change.

Is normalization required in areas of low relief?

Our work suggests that normalization of intensity data for range variation has little impact on intensity values in areas of low relief where there is little consequent variation in range. This is undoubtedly due to the negligible range effect in areas of little elevation variation, the expected relationship between range and intensity being largely absent and probably further suppressed by the heterogeneous vegetation cover (cf. Yoon et al., 2008).

Lidar intensity and alluvial geoarchaeology

In this nal section last pulse ground lidar elevation and normalized intensity data for two locales (Figure 7), which are representative of the entire study area, are examined in order to assess the utility of these data to inform a series of empirical statements about the character of oodplain and terrace topography and sediments and their archaeological potential. Such generic information may be particularly valuable in providing a rst level assessment of the archaeological potential of valley oor landscapes and could provide a framework for the rapid assessment of large catchment areas. Figure 7A shows an area around South Muskham in Nottinghamshire (SK 788577), which has been mapped by the British Geological Survey (BGS) as
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Archaeol. Prospect. 18, 113 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/arp

10

K. Challis et al.

Figure 7. Representative areas of terrace (A) and floodplain (B). In each case lidar topography and range normalized intensity are shown. Figure annotations indicate the principle features discussed in the text.

island, itself indicated by an area of differential colour (showing as lower intensity return probably indicating parched crop), several areas of very low-intensity returns probably indicate highly saturated ground
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

and perhaps in several cases shallow standing water. These low-lying areas correspond to several very shallow topographic depressions indicated in elevation data and suggest channel features or perhaps

Archaeol. Prospect. 18, 113 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/arp

Airborne Lidar Intensity and Geoarchaeological Prospection simply depressions that may contain saturated sediments with superior preservation of organic remains. Other linear cropmarks, probably buried eld drains, are also apparent on the intensity data.

11 marks. For these reasons we propose that collection and systematic examination of lidar intensity data should routinely form part of the protocol of lidarbased aerial reconnaissance conducted by archaeologists, a practice that we believe to have demonstrated in this paper has the potential to dramatically increase both the quantity and quality of information provided by such surveys.

Conclusions
Examination of lidar intensity imagery from a variety of archaeological and geomorphological settings indicates that these data do contain information not present in the corresponding elevation data. Empirical interpretation, based on a common understanding of the character of soils, sediments and vegetation in the area under examination, allows the use of intensity images to add qualitative information to the interpretation of a landscape area. In effect the intensity image is subject to the same knowledge-based interpretation as might be used to extract information from a conventional aerial photograph. Since intensity data are (or can be) routinely collected during a lidar ight aimed primarily at gathering topographic data, it is suggested that the examination of these data are routinely incorporated in the archaeological interpretation of existing lidar data, and that their collection always forms part of the parameters of a an airborne lidar survey commissioned for archaeological purposes. We have found little evidence of variation in intensity values due to instrument factors in our data. Normalization of intensity values for range based on a variety of parameters made no signicant difference to the visual quality of data and we conclude that in areas of low relief variation where the survey aircraft has own at a uniform altitude, range normalization is of no benet for archaeological analysis of lidar intensity data. It is unfortunate that the largest provider of lidar data in Great Britain, The Environment Agency, do not routinely include intensity data as part of their product, and indeed in most cases such data are archived and accessed only at considerable additional effort and expense. While commercial survey contractors do provide intensity data as part of their product, there is no evidence from published accounts that such data are accessed or examined by archaeologists commissioning lidar surveys. In this paper, we have demonstrated that lidar is a signicant tool for geoarchaeological prospection and that examination of intensity data assists in the interpretation of elevation products, the qualitative assessment of landscape character and can, in appropriate circumstances, record anthropogenic archaeological cropCopyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Acknowledgements
Research was funded by DEFRA through the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund distributed by English Heritage (PN 4782). The authors gratefully acknowledge the English Heritage Project ofcers, Dr Ingrid Ward and Buzz Busby for their support and the Regional Science Advisor for the East Midlands Dr Jim Williams for his encouragement in the instigation of this research. We would also like to thank the farmers of the lower Trent Valley for generously providing access to their land.

References
Baker S. 2003. The palaeochannel record in the Trent Valley UK: contributions towards cultural heritage management. Internet Archaeology 20: http://intarch. ac.uk/journal/20/baker_toc.html. Barnes I. 2003. Aerial remote-sensing techniques used in the management of archaeological monuments on the British armys Salisbury Plain training area, Wiltshire, UK. Archaeological Prospection 10: 8390. Bewley R. 2003. Aerial survey for archaeology. The Photogrammetric Record 18(104): 273292. Bewley RH, Crutchley SP, Shell CA. 2005. New light on an ancient landscape: lidar survey in the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. Antiquity 79(305): 636647. Bishop M. 2003. s and agenda in archaeological research and management: a case study from the Trent Valley, UK. In Alluvial Archaeology in Europe, Howard AJ, Macklin MG, Passmore DG (eds). Balkema: Lisse; 123131. Bonger J, Kurz S, Schmidt S. 2006. Ancient Maps modern data sets: different investigative techniques in the landscapes of the Early Iron Age Princely Hill Fort Heuneburg, Baden-Wurttemberg. In From Space to Place, Campana S, Forte M. (eds). Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Remote Sensing in Archaeology, CNR, Rome, Italy, 4-7 December. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1568: 87 92. Brunning R, Farr-Cox F. 2005. The River Siger rediscovered: lidar survey and relict landscape on the Somerset Claylands. Archaeology and the Severn Estuary 16: 715. Brown AG. 1997. Alluvial Geoarchaeology: Floodplain Archaeology and Environmental Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Archaeol. Prospect. 18, 113 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/arp

12
Carey C, Brown AG, Challis K, Howard AJ, Cooper L. 2006. Predictive modelling of multi-period geoarchaeological resources at a river conuence: a case study from the Trent-Soar, UK. Archaeological Prospection 13(4): 241250. Challis K. 2005. Airborne LiDAR: a tool for geoarchaeological prospection in riverine landscapes. In Archaeological Heritage Management in Riverine Landscapes, Stoepker H (ed). Rapporten Archeologische Monumentenzorg 126: 1124. Challis K. 2006. Airborne laser altimetry in alluviated landscapes. Archaeological Prospection 13(2): 103127. Challis K, Howard AJ, Kincey M, Moscrop D, Carey CJ, Hill T, Smith DN, Gearey BR, Thompson A. 2006. Using Airborne Lidar Intensity to Predict the Organic Preservation of Waterlogged Deposits. In From Space to Place, Campana S, Forte M. (eds). Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Remote Sensing in Archaeology, CNR, Rome, Italy, 4-7 December. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1568: 93 98. Challis K, Kokalj Z, Kincey M, Moscrop D, Howard AJ. 2008. Airborne lidar and historic environment records. Antiquity 82(318): 10551064. Challis K, Kincey M, Howard AJ. 2009. Airborne geoarchaeological remote sensing of valley oors using Daedalus ATM and CASI. Archaeological Prospection 16(1): 1733. Challis K, Carey C, Kincey M, Howard AJ. 2011. Assessing the preservation potential of temperate lowland alluvial sediments using airborne lidar intensity. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 301313. Chust G, Galparsoro I, Borja A, Franco J, Uriarte A. 2008. Coastal and estuarine habitat mapping, using LIDAR height and intensity and multi-spectral imagery. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 78: 633643. Coren P, Sterzai P. 2006. Radiometric correction of laser scanning. International Journal of Remote Sensing 27: 30973104. Crow P, Benham S, Devereux BJ, Amable GS. 2007. Woodland vegetation and its implications for archaeological survey using Lidar. Forestry 80(3): 241252. Crutchley S. 2006. Light detection and ranging (lidar) in the Witham Valley, Lincolnshire: an assessment of new remote sensing techniques. Archaeological Prospection. 13(4): 251257. Devereux BJ, Amable GS, Crow P, Cliff AD. 2005. The potential of airborne lidar for detection of archaeological features under woodland canopies. Antiquity 79(305): 648660. Doneus M, Briese C, Fera M, Janner M. 2008. Archaeological prospection of forested areas using full-waveform airborne laser scanning. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 882893. Donoghue DNM, Watt PJ, Cox NJ, Wilson J. 2007. Remote sensing of species mixtures in conifer plantations using LiDAR height and intensity data. Remote Sensing of Environment 110: 509522. Holden N, Horne P, Bewley RH. 2002. High resolution digital airborne mapping and Archaeology. In Aerial Archaeology: Developing Future Practice, Bewley R, Raczkowski W (eds). NATO Series 1, Vol. 337, IOS Press: Amsterdam; 173180.

K. Challis et al.
Ho e B, Pfeifer N. 2007. Correction of laser scanning intensity data: Data and model-driven approaches. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 62: 415433. Howard AJ, Macklin MG. 1999. A generic geomorphological approach to archaeological interpretation and prospection in British river valleys: a guide for archaeologists investigating Holocene landscapes. Antiquity 73: 527541. Howard AJ, Challis KC, Holden J, Kincey M, Passmore DG. 2008a. The impact of climate change on archaeological resources in Britain: a catchment scale assessment. Climatic Change 91: 405422. Howard AJ, Brown AG, Carey CJ, Challis K, Cooper LP, Kincey M, Toms P. 2008b. Archaeological resource modelling in temperate river valleys: a case study from the Trent Valley, UK. Antiquity 82(318): 10401054. Jones AF, Brewer PA, Johnstone E, Macklin MG. 2007. High-resolution interpretative geomorphological mapping of river environments using airborne LiDAR data. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 31: 15741592. Kaasalainen S, Hyyppa H, Kukko A, Litkey P, Ahokas E, Hyyppa J, Lehner H, Jaakkola A, Suomalainen J, Akuja rvi A, Kaasalainen M, Pyysalo U. 2009. Radiometric calibration of LIDAR intensity with commercially available reference targets. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 47: 588. Knight D, Howard AJ. 2004. Trent Valley Landscapes. Heritage Marketing and Publications: Kings Lynn. Lambrick G. 1992. Alluvial archaeology of the Holocene in the Upper Thames basin 1971-1991 : a review. In Alluvial Archaeology in Britain, Needham S, Macklin MG (eds). London; The Society of Antiquaries: 209225. Large ARG, Petts GE. 1996. Historical channeloodplain dynamics along the River Trent: Implications for river rehabilitation. Applied Geography 16(3): 19120. Lutz E, Geist TH, Sto tter J. 2003. Investigations of airborne laser scanning signal intensity on glacial surfaces utilizing comprehensive laser geometry modelling and orthophoto surface modelling (a case study: Svartisheibreen, Norway). Proceedings of the ISPRS Workshop on 3-D reconstruction from airborne laserscanner and INSAR data, Dresden; 143148. Luzum B, Starek M, Slatton KC. 2004. Normalizing ALSM Intensities. GEM Center, Report No. Rep_2004-07-001: University of Florida. Optech. 2003. ALTM 2033 Airborne Laser Terrain Mapper. Optech: Toronto. Passmore D, Waddington C, Van Der Schriek T. 2006. Enhancing the evaluation and management of river valley archaeology; geoarchaeology in the TillTweed catchment, northern England. Archaeological Prospection 13(4): 269281. Powlesland D, Lyall J, Hopkinson G, Donoghue D, Beck M, Harte A, Stott D. 2006. Beneath the sand remote sensing, archaeology, aggregates and sustainability: a case study from Heslerton, the Vale of Pickering, North Yorkshire, UK. Archaeological Prospection 13(4): 291299. Risbol O, Kristian Gjertsen A, Skare K. 2006. Airborne laser scanning of cultural remains in forests: some preliminary results from a Norwegian project. In From Space to Place, Campana S, Forte M. (eds). Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Remote Sensing

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Archaeol. Prospect. 18, 113 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/arp

Airborne Lidar Intensity and Geoarchaeological Prospection

in Archaeology, CNR, Rome, Italy, 4-7 December. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1568: 107112. Shell CA, Roughley CF. 2004. Exploring the Loughcrew landscape: a new approach with airborne lidar. Archaeology Ireland 18(2 68): 2023. Sittler B, Schellberg S. 2006. The potential of lidar is assessing elements of cultural heritage hidden under forest canopies or overgrown vegetation: Possibilities and limits in detecting microrelief structures for archaeological surveys In From Space to Place, Campana S, Forte M. (eds). Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Remote Sensing in Archaeology, CNR, Rome, Italy, 4-7 December. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1568: 117122.

13
Song JH, Han SH, Yu K, Kim Y. 2002. Assessing the Possibility of Land-cover Classication Using Lidar Intensity Data, IAPRS, 9-13 September, Graz; 34, 4. Spinetti C, Mazzarini F, Casacchia R, Colini L, Neri M, Behncke B, Salvatori R, Buongiorno M, Pareschi M. 2009. Spectral properties of volcanic materials from hyperspectral eld and satellite data compared with LiDAR data at Mt. Etna. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 11(2): 142155. Whimster R. 1989. The Emerging Past. Air Photography and the Buried Landscape. Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England: London. Yoon J, Shin I, Lee KS. 2008. Land cover characteristics of airborne LiDAR intensity data: a case study. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 5: 801805.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Archaeol. Prospect. 18, 113 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/arp