The use of remote sensing data for visualising and interpreting

archaeological landscapes
D. Donoghue, A. Beck, N. Galiatsatos & K. McManus
Department of Geography, University of Durham, Durham, UK

G. Philip
Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, Durham, UK

ABSTRACT: Remote sensing is a well established technique that has been employed in
archaeological research for nearly a century. Until recently the technique was limited to
site specific aerial photography focused solely in the visual and near infra-red components of the electromagnetic spectrum. Improvements in sensor technology mean that archaeologists can exploit remotely sensed imagery from different electromagnetic
wavelengths and platforms. This has the potential to increase the area of study and extend the window of opportunity when archaeological residues can be detected. This paper examines the fitness for purpose of modern remote sensing techniques for archaeological research from both aerial and satellite platforms. Examples are cited from
European and Middle Eastern contexts.

1 INTRODUCTION

The practice of using remote sensing techniques for visualising archaeological sites and
landscapes has traditionally been based on low altitude aerial photography using film
sensitive at optical and sometimes near infrared wavelengths. In the 1920s O.S.G.
Crawford, the archaeological officer of the British Ordnance Survey, demonstrated that
archaeological structures could be delineated from shadow, soil and crop markings on
panchromatic aerial photography (Crawford 1923, 1928, 1929, Crawford and Keiller
1928). Since that time, both oblique and vertical aerial photography have been used extensively for archaeological reconnaissance and mapping all over the world. Among the
very first practitioners of aerial archaeology were Crawford and Allen, who undertook
extensive surveys in Britain and the Middle East, and the Frenchman Antoine Poidebard
who surveyed a large part of Syria. These pioneers helped to refine the instruments and
establish methods that are still in use today. Crawford in particular established methods
of site classification and wrote about the effects of weather, season, soil moisture and
crop type on photographic return (Crawford 1923, 1928, 1929). Poidebard undertook
experiments to evaluate the influence of photographic scale, illumination effects and infrared film as he surveyed hundreds of miles of Syrian desert landscape (Poidebard
1929, 1934). Today, aerial photography is accepted as a cost-effective, non-invasive
technique for the reconnaissance and survey of monuments. Interpretation is guided by
classification schemes that distinguish between description and interpretation of observed features (Edis et al. 1989). However, remote sensing should not be seen just as

an image for visual interpretation. Advances in sensor technology have led, over the
past few decades, to a range of ground, airborne and spaceborne imaging instruments
that can be applied to archaeological and heritage management problems. Associated
advances in spatial and visualisation software, particularly Geographical Information
Systems (GIS) and image processing systems, allow the sophisticated manipulation of
remotely sensed imagery which can improve its interpretation. Significantly, these advances, coupled with global positioning technologies, mean that the majority of modern
imagery comes pre-rectified. This paper uses examples of landscape reconstruction
where remote sensing imagery has provided valuable information which would have
been difficult to obtain by other means.
2 AIRBORNE REMOTE SENSING

Archaeological structures such as buildings, walls and ditches can usually be seen on
conventional air photography at an appropriate scale and viewing angle. On the other
hand, crop and soil marks are more difficult to detect with certainty. The visibility of
crop marks often depends on vegetation type, soil conditions, sun-sensor geometry and
film sensitivity and so it is extremely difficult to obtain photographs under optimal conditions. Multispectral sensors address some of these problems because they are able to
look simultaneously at a wide range of different wavelengths, many of which are more
sensitive to vegetation and soil status than either the human eye or photographic film.
The limited spectral range of photographic film (350 - 1100 nm) is overcome by the use
of photoelectric sensing devices where image data is recorded in a digital form. These
devices are able to separate electromagnetic radiation into a number of discrete narrow
wavebands, hence the term multispectral. Narrow band spectral imaging can often help
to enhance or distinguish different features on the ground according to their particular
absorption and reflectance properties. Multispectral scanners (MSS) make it possible to
study wavelength bands that are particularly sensitive to vegetation growth, soil variations, moisture and temperature. Another major advantage of multispectral imaging is
that the data is produced in a digital form that can be modified using computer-based
image processing techniques. The effect of image enhancement is to allow the user to
experiment with different ways of adjusting the contrast, in an interactive way, in different parts of the image to assist interpretation.
In former wetland environments such as the Fenlands of eastern England and the Vale
of Pickering, multispectral imagery has complimented photography and revealed new
information at infrared wavelengths (Donoghue and Shennan 1988a, 1988b, Shennan
and Donoghue 1992, Powlesland and Donoghue 1993, Powlesland et al. 1997).
The first evaluation of multispectral data in Britain was conducted over the former wetland environment of Morton Fen in Lincolnshire (Shennan and Donoghue 1992). This
study concluded that MSS data offer considerable potential for landscape assessment
because: (i) crop marks were readily detected in the near infrared (760 - 900 nm), (ii)
soil marks were well defined at the wavelength range of red light (630 - 690 nm), and
(iii) the thermal infrared band (8000 - 12000 nm) was able to detect some features not
visible at any other wavelength. In addition, computer enhancement of the digital data
placed less dependency on the time of year for revealing archaeological features. This
study was undertaken on a flat landscape that consisted of marine and freshwater sediments traversed by ancient drainage channels, some of which were modified by humans
for agricultural and industrial purposes. These sediments produced particularly clear
crop and soil marks and the MSS data added detail and precision to traditional aerial

and ground based surveys, see figure 1. Morton Fen is a reclaimed wetland environment
where land drainage and deep ploughing are causing rapid destruction of the archaeological record. MSS data may provide a rapid and cost-effective tool for monitoring
change in such environments.

Figure 1. Daedalus Multispectral imagery from Morton Fen, UK showing crop marks in multispectral image data extending across the landscape through different crop types (Copyright NERC).

A more recently study in the Vale of Pickering in North Yorkshire, brought together a
multi-sensor data set that included oblique air photographs, large scale vertical colour
photography, digital MSS data and ground-based geophysics to help establish the value
of the MSS data (Powlesland et al. 1997). Vertical colour photography and Daedalus
1268 eleven band, 2 metre ground resolution, MSS imagery was acquired from an altitude of 800 m by NERC in June 1992. The MSS data were enhanced on a desktop computer using standard image processing routines such as contrast stretching, density slicing and colour composite production. The near and short wave infrared bands are particularly sensitive to plant health and can often detect water stress in vegetation before it
can be seen by the naked eye. The thermal infrared region detects emitted rather than reflected radiation and is measuring ground surface temperature. It is the only waveband
that is responding to the sub-surface properties of the ground and is sensitive to moisture within the soils and vegetation. Thermal images can help to locate and map geomorphological features such as relict fluvial channels, potential peat deposits which can
assist in identifying areas for palaeo-environmental research and gravel islands which
may have supported human habitation or ritual sites. In the Vale of Pickering a number
of isolated features were shown to be previously unidentified trackways across the valley, enclosure systems and extensive barrow cemeteries. Areas that had previously been
identified as small islands appeared to be more extensive, linear ridges running parallel
to the valley edge. For example, the imagery reveals that a cemetery of round and

square barrows on a gravel ridge is linked to the dry land by a ditched trackway, see figure 2.

Note: image will be supplied later. Formatting has been set accordingly

Figure 2. Vale of Pickering (Copyright NERC Airborne Remote Sensing Facility).

Thermal prospection techniques have many important applications in geology, archaeology and environmental monitoring. Tabbagh and Hesse pioneered the evaluation of
airborne thermography for archaeology and conducted a number of trial flights over different soil types in France (Hesse 1970, Perisset and Tabbagh 1981, Tabbagh 1976,
1979, Scollar et al. 1990). Both pre-dawn and daytime thermal imagery proved valuable
in detecting archaeology from surface soil patterns or from the thermal effect of a buried
structure. Although this instrument provided promising results for several soil types, the
relatively uniform temperature of the ground surface hides much of the information
content in thermal imagery. This is a particular problem for vegetated surfaces where
the plants regulate their own temperature through evapotranspiration which acts to create uniform canopy temperatures. However, archaeology is sometimes visible through
vegetation at thermal wavelengths and invisible at other wavelengths (Bellerby et al.
1990). This suggests that the sub-surface affects evapotranspiration or that the thermal
energy emitted by the soil is greater than the thermal blanket provided by the vegetation. This effect is still poorly understood but is important since crop marks are rarely
seen in permanent pasture land and a great deal of land is being set aside as permanent
pasture in Europe. Heat flow in soils is governed by time, depth, density, heat capacity
and thermal conductivity, all properties relevant to ground disturbance. Pre-dawn and
mid-day images can be combined to compute the diurnal heat capacity (otherwise
termed the thermal resistance to temperature change or apparent thermal inertia) of the
ground. Apparent thermal inertia (ATI) offers considerable potential for the detection of
buried archaeology. Figure 3 shows an example of a thermal image acquired by
NERCs airborne Daedalus scanner over the site of Bosworth battlefield in Leicestershire where an experiment is being conducted to quantify the value of ATI data.

Figure 3. Day and night time thermal imagery from Bosworth Battlefield, Leicestershire showing former
field boundaries and possible ditch structures in the vicinity of the heritage centre (Copyright NERC Airborne Remote Sensing Facility).

3 SATELLITE IMAGERY

Optical space photography dates back to the first manned space flights. However, regular coverage of the Earth is obtained from sensors on orbiting satellites that use conventional film or digital imaging devices. Until very recently, the optical satellite imagery
available to the public has been of low spatial resolution and of limited use for archaeological prospection and interpretation (Allan and Richards 1983). Although, there have
been several studies that have demonstrated the capability of satellite imagery to derive
important environmental information that is of considerable value in archaeological
landscape assessment (for example Cox 1992). However, the last decade has seen two
significant changes: the declassification of military satellite photography and the commercial availability of high resolution satellite imagery.
American Corona and Russian KVR military photographic archives were both declassified in the 1990s. The Corona programme ran between 1959 and 1972 and ultimately
reached a ground resolution of approximately 2m with stereo capabilities (Day et al.
1998; McDonald 1995). The KVR programme is ongoing and provides photography
with a ground resolution of 1m. Archaeologists rapidly identified the utility of these
photographs: not only were they cheap to purchase but also their historical component
meant that many of the archaeological residues were not masked by recent anthropogenic activity (Comfort, 1999; Fowler, 1996; Kennedy 1998; Philip et al. 2002a).
The commercial Ikonos and Quickbird satellites provide geo-referenced panchromatic
(pan) imagery (at 1 and 0.7m respectively) and 4 band multispectral imagery (at 4 and
2.44m respectively). Both these satellites have the ability to collect image scenes off

nadir thus offering stereoscopic data. Presumably due to the cost of their imagery these
sensors have not received as much archaeological attention (although see Campana and
Francovich 2003; Fowler 2001).
The Settlement and landscape development in the Homs Region, Syria (SHR) project
based around has been evaluating the Corona and Ikonos satellite sensors since 1999
(Donoghue et al. 2000; Philip et al. 2002a; Philip et al. 2002b; Beck et al. 2003; Beck
et al. in press; Philip et al. in press). The satellite imagery is an important component of
this archaeological survey project. It has framed the way the landscape has been interpreted and has been used to direct the ground survey. Hence, in a few seasons fieldwork the project team has garnered an understanding of the archaeological repertoire
and its broad scale settlement dynamic that would have taken many more seasons of
study if no remote sensing had been employed.
The Corona imagery is the earliest imagery and has recorded an effectively intact landscape with minimal destruction, disturbance or masking of archaeological residues by
modern agricultural or settlement expansion. However, this photographic archive is not
georeferenced and there is obviously no flexibility in determining when the photography was collected. The Ikonos imagery can be collected on demand within a collection window commonly covering 10 days. This imagery comes in a geo-referenced
format and is therefore ready to use in a digital environment.
This project encompasses two discontiguous application areas that totals over 650
square kilometres. The study area broadly consists of two different types of environmental zone: basalt and marl. The archaeological residues in each zone are markedly
different and have been subject to different formation and deformation processes. The
panchromatic and multispectral data were enhanced using standard image processing
routines such as contrast stretching, density slicing, colour composite production, bespoke contrast enhancement and pan sharpening techniques. The Ikonos imagery has a
dynamic range of 11bits and without image processing techniques much of the important information in the structure of the data would not have been recognised.
Archaeological residues in the basalt zone are recognised as a palimpsest of field
boundaries, structures and cairns with structures ranging in size from 0.5m to 8m. The
spatial resolution of the sensor is the most important aspect in this zone. The Corona
imagery at 2m is high enough for mapping purposes, however, the Ikonos panchromatic
imagery, at 1m, produces a more readily interpretable product, see figure 4. Finally, and
most importantly, the Corona imagery requires extensive geo-referencing. Even without
the Ikonos imagery as a geo-referencing base the Corona imagery would still have highlighted many residues but locating them on the ground would have been very difficult.
By contrast, residues in the marl zone are recognised as lighter areas in comparison to
the background soil colour. The majority of the archaeological residues are tells and
ploughed out settlements with a minimum diameter of approximately 20m. The increased dimension of residues in the marl zone increases the range of imagery which is
effective for prospection. The spectral resolution of the sensor is more important for interpretation in this zone, see figure 5. The Ikonos multispectral allows the creation of
colour composites that improve visual detection. However, modern modifications (i.e.
infrastructure building, settlement expansion and deeper ploughing) have increased image complexity in the Ikonos imagery.

Figure 4. Comparison of the resolving characteristics of the Corona and Ikonos imagery in the basalt
zone.

Figure 5. Comparison of the resolving characteristics of the Corona and Ikonos imagery in the marl zone.
Site numbers are labelled in the Corona imagery.

However, due to recent landscape modification the Ikonos imagery may not articulate as
much of the archaeological resource as the Corona. When the Ikonos and Corona imagery are used in conjunction with one another further benefits are realised as one data
source can be used to validate the other. From a CRM perspective the analysis of both
data sources provides an overview of the archaeological residues and the range of destructive modifications over the past thirty years. The Ikonos imagery provides a modern day snapshot of a landscape under destruction and can therefore be used to determine the level of threat to the landscape. The introduction of heavy earth moving equipment, particularly the bulldozer and the mechanical plough, has had a significant impact
on the landscape, see figure 6. This is also demonstrated in figure 5 where building and
deep ploughing have altered the structure of the landscape. The Ikonos imagery displays
a range of responses that one might interpret as archaeological: in fact they are artefacts
of anthropogenic practices over the last thirty years.

Figure 6. An example of the affects of bulldozing in the basalt zone.

4 ISSUES OF MULTI-SENSOR REMOTE SENSING

Remote sensing is increasingly important to many areas of archaeological enquiry from

prospection through to management. It is therefore essential that it is not applied inappropriately. The examples used in this paper have covered a number of different
sensors, in different geographical locales and under different environmental conditions.
Each sensor has demonstrated its own particular benefit. However, the inappropriate application of a single sensor could produce minimal results or the dogmatic application of
that sensor will have diminishing archaeological returns. The combination of different
sensors with different characteristics can produce profound interpretative synergies.
Multiple sensors should be evaluated on the basis of fitness for purpose. Fitness for
purpose in this context refers to the cost/benefit returns of each sensor and would be
based upon an understanding of the nature of the archaeological residues, the sensor
characteristics and the environmental characteristics of the landscape.
The nature of the archaeological residues and their relations with the immediate matrix
determine how easily the archaeological remains can be identified. For example, it is re-

latively easy to identify a grave feature which has been cut into chalk and the backfilled with soil whereas it can be much more difficult to identify a grave feature which
has been cut into soil and immediately backfilled with the same soil. It is this very contrast between an archaeological feature and its surrounding matrix that one is hoping to
identify with a remote sensing sensor.
The sensor characteristics are determined by the spatial, spectral, radiometric and temporal axes of resolution. Different combinations of sensor characteristics can be used to
identify different archaeological contrasts. In the example of the grave cut into soil and
backfilled with the same soil the application of visual remote sensing on bare soil may
prove to be unproductive. However, magnetometry or MSS over crop, at the appropriate
period of growth, could identify the contrast more easily.
The environmental characteristics are determined by a range of complex natural and
cultural variables that can change over time, sometimes quite rapidly. Cultural actions
such as bulldozing or ploughing can disrupt or destroy any contrast between the archaeological residues and their local matrix. Long term natural actions, such as soil formation, can also lead to a loss of archaeological contrast. Much more difficult to ascertain
are the periodic or seasonal contrast variations that can occur through such mechanisms
as changes in soil moisture or crop vigour. For example, in the marl environment of
Syria, discussed above, the archaeological residues are identified through differential
soil colour. This soil colour difference is due to variations in soil structure associated
with the residues. The different soil structures have different water retention properties
which result in different reflectance characterics. The contrast in soil colour is increased
at periods of peak aridity and lowered, or even negated, after periods of heavy rainfall.
The temporal aspects of the imagery can be particularly important for archaeological interpretation. A number of the most archaeologically threatening issues are related to
modern land management and development practices. Within this context archived aerial or satellite photography provides a unique tool to model past landscapes prior to destructive modification, see figure 6.
Multi-sensor approaches should provide the greatest cost/benefit return for any area of
archaeological enquiry. However, in order to capitalise on these benefits the new sensor
technologies need to be evaluated for the effects of weather, season, soil moisture, crop
type and illumination. This will reinvigorate the theoretical foundations of aerial photography developed by Crawford and Poidebard and move the discipline firmly into the
21st century. This will be particularly beneficial for the trans-national approaches to heritage management in the expanding European Union and to those areas of the world
where the archaeological resource is poorly understood or not inventoried.
5 CONCLUSIONS

Remote sensing can provide an impressive picture of the archaeological landscape

without the need for invasive or expensive survey methods. On the other hand, it can be
used inappropriately, it can be wrongly interpreted and it is not necessarily a substitute
for ground-based investigation. The true potential of multispectral remote sensing, including thermal imaging, is still not clear and it needs to be evaluated to test responsiveness under a broad range of climatic and ground conditions. Further research is likely to
produce sensors capable of resolving small features such as post-holes and shallow pits.
Advances in thermal imaging will hopefully help to distinguish sub-surface features associated with shallow ground disturbance such as graves, which are particularly difficult
to detect. When used appropriately, remote sensing provides a basis for testing hypo-

theses of landscape evolution that may be tested by ground survey, geophysical survey
or excavation. Large-scale airborne and satellite surveys can provide the framework on
which planning policy and excavation strategies can be established.
REFERENCES
Allan, J. A. and Richards T. S. 1983. Use of Satellite Imagery in Archaeological Surveys. Libyan Studies 14: 4-8.
Beck A. R., Philip G., Donoghue D. N. M. and Galiatsatos N. (2003). The archaeological evaluatio of integrated high and medium
scale satellite imagery in Syria. WAC, Washington.
Beck A. R., Philip G., Donoghue D. N. M. and Galliatsatos N. (in press). Geo-locating declassified CORONA satellite photography
for archaeological surveys and cultural resource management applications: an interim paper. Workshop on Aerial Archaeology
and Remote Sensing, Siena.
Bellerby TJ, Noel M and Branigan K 1990. A thermal method for archaeological prospection: preliminary investigations. Archaeometry 32:191-203.
Bewley RH, Donoghue DNM, Gaffney V, Van Leusen M and Wise A 1998. Air Photography and Remote Sensing: A Guide to
Good Practice. Archaeological Data Service: York (http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/public/guides/apandrs).
Bewley RH, Donoghue DNM, Gaffney V, Van Leusen M and Wise A 1999. Archiving Aerial Photography and Remote Sensing
Data: A Guide to Good Practice. Archaeological Data Service, Oxbow Books: Oxford.
Campana S. and Francovich R. 2003. Landscape Archaeology in Tuscany: Cultural resource management, remotely sensed techniques, GIS based data integration and interpretation.In The reconstruction of archaeological landscapes through digital technologies: proceedings of the 1st Italy-United States workshop, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, November 1-3, 2001. M. Forte and P.
R. Williams. Oxford: BAR: 15 - 29.
Cox, C. 1992. Satellite Imagery, aerial photography and wetland archaeology: the pilot study in Cumbria, England. World Archaeology 24:249-67.
Comfort, A. 1999. Remote sensing and archaeological survey on the Euphrates: 1998 Report: 19.
Crawford OGS 1923. Air survey and archaeology. Geographical Journal May:324-66.
Crawford OGS 1928. Air Survey and Archaeology. Professional Papers, New Series 7, Ordnance Survey: Southampton.
Crawford OGS 1929. Air Photography for Archaeologists. Professional Papers, New Series 12, Ordnance Survey: Southampton.
Crawford OGS and Keiller A 1928. Wessex from the Air. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Day, D., Logsdon A., J. and Latell B. 1998. Eye in the sky: the story of the CORONA spy satellites. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Donoghue DNM and Shennan I 1988a. The application of remote sensing to wetland archaeology. Geoarchaeology 3:275-85.
Donoghue DNM and Shennan I 1988b. The application of multispectral remote sensing techniques to wetland archaeology. In
Murphy P and French C (eds) The Exploitation of Wetlands. BAR British Series 186, British Archaeological Reports: Oxford,
47-59.
Donoghue D. N. M., Galiatsatos N., Philip G. and Beck A. R. 2000. Satellite Imagery for Archaeological Applications: A Case
Study from the Orontes Valley, Syria.In Aerial archaeology - developing future practice. R. H. Bewley and W. Raczkowski.
Leszno, Poland: IOS Press: 211-223.
Edis J, Macleod D and Bewley R 1989. An archaeologists guide to the classification of cropmarks and soilmarks. Antiquity 63:11216.
Fowler M 1996. High-resolution satellite imagery in archaeological application - a Russian satellite photograph of the Stonehenge
region. Antiquity 70:667-71.
Fowler M 2001. A high resolution satellite image of archaeological features to the south of Stonehenge. International Journal of
Remote Sensing 22(7): 1197-1171.
Hesse A 1970. La prospection geophysique en archaeologie, problemes, resultats et perspectives. Mis a Jours 5:369-90.
Kennedy D 1998. Declassified satellite photographs and archaeology in the Middle East: case studies from Turkey Antiquity
72:553-61.
McDonald RA 1995. CORONA: success for space reconnaissance. A look into the Cold War, and a revolution for intelligence.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 61:689-720.
Perisset MC and Tabbagh A 1981. Interpretation of thermal prospection on bare soils. Archaeometry 23:169-87.
Philip G., Beck A. R. and Donoghue D. N. M. (in press). The contribution of satellite imagery to archaeological survey: an example
from Western Syria. Workshop on Aerial Archaeology and Remote Sensing, Siena.
Philip G., Donoghue D. N. M., Beck A. R. and Galiatsatos N. 2002a. CORONA satellite photography: an archaeological application
from the Middle East. Antiquity 76(291): 109-118.
Philip G., Jabour F., Beck A. R., Bshesh M., Grove J., Kirk A. and Millard A. R. 2002b. Settlement and Landscape Development in
the Homs Region, Syria: Research Questions, Preliminary Results 1999-2000 and Future Potential. Levant 34.
Poidebard A 1929. Les revelations archaeologiques de la photographie aerienne - une nouvelle methode de recherches et dobservation en region de steppe L'Illustration 25 May: 660-2.
Poidebard A 1934. La trace de Rome dans le desert de Syrie. Le limes de Trajan a la conquete arabe. Recherche aeriennes (19251932). Paul Geuthner: Paris.
Powlesland D and Donoghue D 1993. A multi-sensor approach to mapping the prehistoric landscape. In Proceedings of the 9th
NERC Airborne Symposium. NERC: Swindon, 88-96.
Powlesland D, Lyall J and Donoghue DNM 1997. Enhancing the record through remote sensing. The application and integration of
multi-sensor, non-invasive remote sensing techniques for the enhancement of the Sites and Monuments Record. Heslerton Parish
Project, N. Yorkshire, England. Internet Archaeology 2 (http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue2/pld_toc.html)
Scollar I, Tabbagh A, Hesse A and Herzog I 1990. Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge.
Shennan I and Donoghue DNM 1992. Remote sensing in archaeological research. In Pollard AM (ed) New Developments in Archaeological Science. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 223-32.
Tabbagh A 1976. Les proprietes thermiques des sols. Archaeo-Physica 6:128-48.
Tabbagh A 1979. Prospection thermique aeroportee du site de Prepoux. Revue dArchaeometrie 7:11-25.