Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
UNIVERSITY of SIENA
Department of History and Cultural Heritage
Ancient Topography
Head of the Landscape Archaeology &
Remote Sensing LAB
campana@unisi.it
https://unisi.academia.edu/StefanoCampana
who is who
3D modeling
who is who
National Research activity
AMP
Pieve di Pava (SI), S. Pietro ad Asso (SI), Poggio Cavolo (GR), S. Marta (GR)
2010-2017 - WEB GIS of Italian Cultural Heritage for the Ministry of Cultural Heritage
UAV
RADAR
2012 - atalhyk (Turkey) large scale GPR prospection (IDS STREAM Xsys) in
collaboration with Stanford University
General Management Board of HIST, the Governing Board of the International Centre on
LiDAR
Space Technologies for Natural and Cultural Heritage, under the auspices of UNESCO
and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Publications
Landscape archaeology
Methodology
http://unisi.academia.edu/StefanoCampana
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stefano_Campana/
Presentation of the
course
General structure
Part 1 Remote Sensing in Archaeology
Part 4 RS in practice
Table of contents
Part 1 Remote Sensing in Archaeology
1. Definition of Remote Sensing
2. Introduction
3. Principles, aims and peculiarities of Remote Sensing in
Archaeology
4. Why does archaeology need Remote Sensing?
5. Main weakness of Remote Sensing in Archaeology
6. Satellite
7. Airborne remote sensing
a) Vertical and oblique aerial photography
b) Airborne scanners: ATM MSS, RADAR, LiDAR, ISS
c) UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle)
8. Geophysical prospection
9. Ground verification
10. GIS data integration: mapping and interpretation
11. Bibliography and web references
Table of contents
Part 2 GIS in Archaeology
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Table of contents
Part 3 GIS in in practice
1. Introduction
2. Why QGIS?
3. Fundamentals
4. Lets begin by setting up a new project
5. Points, Lines and Polygons - Vector Data Basics
6. Importing polylines
7. Import point data
8. Import Polygon data
9. Working with Layers
10. The SPATIAL QUERY Manipulating Data
11. Working with OS Open Map Data
12. The Power of the Grid! Raster data Basics
13. What is a raster?
Table of contents
Part 3 GIS in in practice
14. Adding Aerial and satellite Imagery
15. Georeferencing
16. The Power of the Grid!
17. Get Data
18. Printing out datasets
19. Adding the map
20. Adding a scale bar
21. Add a Legend / Key
22. North Arrow and Title
23. Exercise: mapping/interpreting archaeology on GIS and then into the
field
24. Exercise: monitoring archaeology
25. Exercise: GPS navigation and mapping
Table of contents
Part 4 RS in practice
1. Principles of remote sensing data interpretation
2. Steps of archaeological data interpretation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Shape
Size
Associate features
Tone and colour
Shadow
Structure
Pattern
1.
2.
3.
4.
Settlement
Funerary sites
Productive sites
Connective tissue (field systems, road systems, etc.)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
STEFANO CAMPANA
UNIVERSITY of SIENA
Department of History and Cultural Heritage
Ancient Topography
Head of the Landscape Archaeology &
Remote Sensing LAB
https://unisi.academia.edu/StefanoCampana
Part 1
Remote Sensing
definitions
Definition
Remote Sensing or Tldtection (French),
Fernerkundung (German), Perception Remota
(Spanish), (Chinese),
(Arabic) can be defined as the science of
identifying, observing, interpreting and
measuring objects or surfaces without coming
into direct contact with them.
Definition
In the archaeological process, the scientific community has taken at least two
dierent approaches to the definition of Remote Sensing.
1. 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 diers 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).
Definition
2. 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 but
also ground-based geophysical instruments.
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.
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 airphotographic recording, by F.
Stolze and F.C. Andreas, took
place in 1874 at Persepolis, Iran
(Stolze, 1882).
Introduction
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.
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).
Introduction
Introduction
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
UKs Royal Air Force alone had
collected about half a million images.
Introduction
In Britain one of these was O. G. S.
Crawford.
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.
Introduction
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 became involved in
aerial photography and archaeological mapping
on the Tavoliere Plain around Foggia in southern
Italy.
Introduction
Bradford 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 Bradfords
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.
Introduction
In the 1950s new
platforms became
available through the
use of:
satellites
high-altitude
aircraft
new sensors
near-, medium- and
thermal-infrared
imaging systems
instruments for the
collection of
microwave
multispectral data
Introduction
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
Introduction
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.
Introduction
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
Introduction
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 geophysics such
as magnetometry, electrical
resistivity tomography (ERT) and
ground-penetrating radar
(GPR).
Introduction
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.
Introduction
This is synonymous with the integration and
management of the wide range of
information resulting from the subjects
inherent complexity: Geographical
Introduction
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.
Introduction
This tendency applies also to institutions aimed at the protection and
conservation of the archaeological heritage, as for instance in the nationwide 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:
Aerial Archaeology Research Group (AARG):
http://www.univie.ac.at/aarg
Rachel Opitz: ropitz@cast.uark.edu
International Society for Archaeological Prospection:
http://www.brad.ac.uk/archsci/archprospection/
Armin Schmidt: Armin.R.Schmidt@Gmail.com
Direct observation
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.
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, too large, etc.
Indirect observation
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 past human activity.
Several different methodologies have been developed to identify relative
(though never absolute) environmental variations for this purpose.
Qasr Bshir
Indirect observation
The recognition of archaeological features represented by indirect
evidence exploits a number of interlinked phenomena:
1. Variations in the colouring, height or density of arable crops or other
vegetation.
2. Differences in bare soil exposed by agricultural activity or erosion.
3. The effect of light and shade, producing what have sometimes been
described as shadow-marks.
4. Special condition created by frost, ice and flood.
Cropmarks
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.
Cropmarks
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
Soilmarks
In these condition features 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.
Soilmarks
Documentation of archaeological
contexts
Archaeological
excavations of
Giacomo Boni in the
Foro Romano (1899)
documented by a
tethered air balloon
Monitoring
The monitoring, from very large-scale to small-scale, of landscape
transformations, allowing the development of conservation and
planning policies.
2001
2004
2004
2004
2006
2005
2005
Restauring of Staggia Castle (Siena)
2005
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Mapping
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.
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.
unexpected
serendipity is
not an
accident
Serendipity
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.
Serendipity
Serendipity
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.
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.
Serendipity
Satellite
Aerial
Terrestrial
Etc
Optical
Thermal
LiDAR
Radar
Magnetic
Etc
Altitude range
600-800 km
3-100 m
Terrestrial images
0-2 m
Underwater images
- m asl
Satellite Imagery
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 .
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.
Satellite Imagery
In this period applications to archaeology were constrained by the poor
geometric resolution (about 20 m per pixel), work being restricted to highend 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 hyperspectral sensors.
Satellite Imagery
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, former river beds still extant
beneath the sands of the Sahara
(McCauley, et al, 1982).
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.
Thin sand cover obscures underlying, older
fluvial landscape.
Satellite Imagery
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Earth_observation_satellites
Spectral band
0.45 - 0.52
Blue-Green
30
0.52 - 0.60
Green
30
0.63 - 0.69
Red
30
0.76 - 0.90
1.55 - 1.75
10.40 - 12.50
2.08 - 2.35
Near infrared
Meadium infrared
Thermal infrared
Meadium infrared
Geometric
res (m)
30
30
120
30
Band 2
Band 5
Band 3
Band 4
Band 6
Band 7
https://landsat.usgs.gov/landsat-8-l8-data-users-handbook-section-2
Landsat 8 -
http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/88000/88666/iraq_oli_2016230_lrg.jpg
http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/88000/88666/iraq_oli_2016230_lrg.jpg
SPOT
SPOT (Systme Pour
lObservation de la Terre =
System for Earth Observation) is
a high-resolution, optical
imaging Earth observation
satellite system operating from
space.
The SPOT system includes a
series of satellites and ground
control resources for satellite
control and programming,
image production, and
distribution.
SPOT 6
Ortho 1.5 m naturalcolour products,
orthorectified as standard
On-line ordering of area
of interest plus fast
delivery
Daily global revisits
Ability to accept lastminute tasking requests
SPOT 6 (and SPOT 7)
products will be available
on line through a seamless
and intuitive map interface
on the Geostore web portal.
The tasking plan is revised
every 4 hours to be able to
accept urgent requests.
CORONA
Tell Hamoukar (Oriental Institute
excavations in Syria)
Declassified satellite
photography
The Corona program was a
series of American strategic
reconnaissance satellites
produced and operated by the
Central Intelligence Agency
Directorate of Science &
Technology with substantial
assistance from the U.S. Air
Force.
The Corona satellites were used
for photographic surveillance of
the Soviet Union (USSR), the
People's Republic of China, and
other areas beginning in June
1959 and ending in May 1972.
Declassified satellite
photography
The Corona satellites were designated KH-1,
KH-2, KH-3, KH-4, KH-4A and KH-4B. KH
stood for "Key Hole" or "Keyhole" (Code
number 1010), with the name being an
analogy to the act of spying into a person's
room by peering through their door's keyhole.
The incrementing number indicated changes
in the surveillance instrumentation, such as
the change from single-panoramic to doublepanoramic cameras.
The "KH" naming system was first used in
1962 with KH-4 and the earlier numbers were
retroactively applied.
There were 144 Corona satellites launched, of
which 102 returned usable photographs.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/A_Point_in_Time__The_CORONA_Story_-_NRO_document_about_Corona_project.ogv
The Corona program was ocially classified top secret until 1992. Then, on
February 22, 1995, the photos taken by the Corona satellites, and also by two
contemporary programs (Argon and KH-6 Lanyard) were declassified under an
Executive Order signed by President Bill Clinton.
The further review by photo experts of the "obsolete broad-area film-return
systems other than Corona" mandated by President Clinton's order led to the
declassification in 2002 of the photos from the KH-7 and the KH-9 lowresolution cameras.
The declassified imagery has since been used by teams of scientists from the
Australian National University, Harvard University, University of Durham (UK), etc.
clearly proving to be critical tool in landscape studies of the Near East and
elsewhere
http://corona.cast.uark.edu/atlas#zoom=5¢er=4700000,3600000
IKONOS-2
IKONOS is a commercial satellite,
and was the first to collect publicly
available high-res imagery at 1- and
4-meter res. It offers multispectral and
panchromatic imagery.
The IKONOS launch was called by
John E. Pike one of the most
significant developments in the
history of the space age.
IKONOS SPECIFICATIONS
Spatial Resolution
Spectral Range
526929 nm
445516 nm (blue)
506595 nm (green)
632698 nm (red)
757853 nm (near IR)
Swath Width
11.3 km
Off-Nadir Imaging
Up to 60 degrees
Dynamic Range
Revisit Time
Approximately 3 days
Orbital Altitude
681 km
Nodal Crossing
10:30 a.m.
Castel of Campiglia
Castel of Populonia
RGB composite
Paleoriver bed
RGB composite
NDVI
Generic feature
RGB composite 4-3-2
Se#lement
Se#lement
Quickbird-2
QuickBird is a high-resolution
commercial earth observation
satellite, owned by
DigitalGlobe and launched in
2001. Collects the fourth
highest resolution commercial
imagery of Earth.
QUICKBIRD SPECIFICATIONS
Orbit Altitude
450 Km
Orbit Inclination
97.2, sun-synchronous
Speed
Orbit Time
93.5 minutes
Revisit Time
Swath Width
Metric Accuracy
Digitization
11 bits
Resolution
Image Bands
Pan: 450-900 nm
Blue: 450-520 nm
Green: 520-600 nm
Red: 630-690 nm
Near IR: 760-900 nm
Quickbird-2 ms
Quickbird-2 pan
Quickbird-2 ms
Quickbird-2 pan
Quickbird-2 ms
QuickBird-2 multispettrale (2,7m)
QuickBird-2 pan
(0,70cm)
Geoeye-1
Geoeye-1 is a high-resolution
commercial earth observation
satellite launched in 2008.
Currently collects the highest
resolution commercial imagery
of Earth.
GEOEYE SPECIFICATIONS
Orbit Altitude
681 Km
Swath Width
Metric Accuracy
Digitization
11 bits
Resolution
Image Bands
Pan: 450-900 nm
Blue: 450-520 nm
Green: 520-600 nm
Red: 630-690 nm
Near IR: 760-900 nm
Geoeye-1
Geoeye-1
Pleiades 1A & 1B
Pleiades satellite is capable of providing orthorectified color data at 0.5meter resolution (roughly comparable to GeoEye-1) and revisiting any
point on Earth as it covers a total of 1 million square kilometers
(approximately 386,102 square miles) daily.
Pleiades-1A and 1B satellites are phased 180 apart in the same nearpolar sun-synchronous orbit at an altitude of 694 km, enabling daily
revisits to any location on the planet which makes it ideal for mapping
large scale areas including conflict zones and crisis/disasterareas
Pleiades 1A & 1B
In addition to their high precision, the Pleiades-1 satellites are also
notable for their remarkable agility, which enables tilted imaging from
nadir and operation in several acquisition modes (20 images over 1000 x
1000 km2, stereo, 3D, mosaic, corridor, etc.).
Pleiades 1A & 1B
In addition to their high
precision, the Pleiades-1
satellites are also notable
for their remarkable agility,
which enables tilted
694 Km
Swath Width
20 Km at nadir
Metric Accuracy
Digitization
11 bits
Resolution
Pan: 50 cm (nadir)
MS: 2 m (nadir)
Image Bands
Pan: 480-830 nm
Blue: 430-550 nm
Green: 490-610 nm
Red: 600-720 nm
Near IR: 750-950 nm
WorldView-3
The WorldView-3 satellite sensor was licensed by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to collect in addition to the
standard Panchromatic and Multispectral bands, eight-band shortwave infrared (SWIR) and 12 CAVIS imagery.
Successfully launched on August 13, 2014
WorldView-3
WorldView-3 SPECIFICATIONS
Orbit Altitude
617 Km
Digitization
Resolution
Image Bands
Panchromatic Nadir:
0.31 m
20 Off-Nadir:
0.34 m
Multispectral Nadir:
1.24 m
20 Off-Nadir:
1.38 m
SWIR Nadir:
3.70 m
20 Off-Nadir:
4.10 m
CAVIS Nadir:
30.00 m
Panchromatic:
450 - 800 nm
8 Multispectral:
Coastal:
Blue:
Green:
Yellow:
400 - 450 nm
450 - 510 nm
510 - 580 nm
585 - 625 nm
8 SWIR Bands:
SWIR-1:
SWIR-2:
SWIR-3:
SWIR-4:
1195 - 1225 nm
1550 - 1590 nm
1640 - 1680 nm
1710 - 1750 nm
12 CAVIS Bands:
Desert Clouds:
Aerosol-1:
Green:
Aerosol-2:
Water-1:
Water-2:
405 - 420 nm
459 - 509 nm
525 - 585 nm
620 - 670 nm
845 - 885 nm
897 - 927 nm
Red:
Red Edge:
Near-IR1:
Near-IR2:
SWIR-5:
SWIR-6:
SWIR-7:
SWIR-8:
Water-3:
NDVI-SWIR:
Cirrus:
Snow:
Aerosol-3:
Aerosol-3:
630 - 690 nm
705 - 745 n
770 - 895 nm
860 - 1040 nm
2145 - 2185 nm
2185 - 2225 nm
2235 - 2285 nm
2295 - 2365 nm
930 - 965 nm
1220 - 1252 nm
1350 - 1410 nm
1620 - 1680 nm
2105 - 2245 nm
2105 - 2245 nm
HR Satellite
Satellite
Over the past fifteen years, the resolution of the
satellites increased from 20 m/pixel (Spot) to 0,40
m/pixel (GeoEye1) which represents an increase
of about 2500 times (pixel is a surface)
The opportunities of application are therefore
greatly increased although there are still some
significant limitations including:
SCHEDULING
SPECTRAL RESOLUTION
GEOMETRIC RESOLUTION
Time scheduling
Scheduling consistent with the archaeological requirements.
Accurate time scheduling is currently possible but priority extra charge will
be be applied.
More flexibility is needed to plan scanning time in the best archaeological
time windows, for instance during the crop-mark season.
Spectral resolution
Notwithstanding spectral resolution of HRSI increased substantially in the last
decade it should be generally considered not enough.
Indeed, only 3 bands in the visible part of the spectrum and the fourth band in
the NIR can be associated with reasonable geometric resolution.
Mid and thermal infrared bands, when are available, have lower geometric
resolution (nowadays the best available imagery is WV3 - 3,70m)
Geometric resolution
Satellite
A casual observer wandering through a library, particularly in the United
States, might be forgiven for believing that satellite remote sensing is the
prime application for archaeological remote sensing.
This is of course not the case:
FOR EVERY SITE IDENTIFIED FROM SPACE THOUSANDS HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED THROUGH AIR-PHOTOGRAPHY
As we just see In Europe air 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; we can see for instance, from the
papers presented at the annual Aerial Archaeology Research Group
(AARG) conferences, the tremendous impact air photography is now
having in those European countries where flight restrictions had in the past
made air photography from light aircraft impossible.
Satellite
The outcome, in the practice of
archaeological research, is the use of
satellite imagery in absence of other
data availability that today should be
still often considered superior (QUALITY,
COSTS, RESULTS):
aerial photography
geophysical prospection
LiDAR
Airborne Multi Spectral Scanner
Airborne Iperspectral Scanner
Satellite
It should be recognized that a highly original contribution - OFTEN IGNORED of satellite imagery is the worldwide coverage and therefore the scale of
detail.
Satellite
Satellite
Stereoscopy
Stereoscopy (also called stereoscopics or
3D imaging) is a technique for creating or
enhancing the illusion of depth in an image
by means of stereopsis for binocular vision.
Most stereoscopic methods present two
offset images separately to the left and
right eye of the viewer.
P1
FOTO 1
P2
FOTO 2
Stereoscope
Holmes stereoscope
and Brewster
stereoscope
Stereoscope of the
Landscape Archaeology
and Remote Sensing
laboratory
Air photography
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.
Air photography
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).
Airborne scanner
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.
Airborne MSS
scanner
Indeed, multi-spectral or hyperspectral sensors are able to look
simultaneously at a wide range of
different wavelengths, many of
which, in the near- and shortwave infrared, add important
collateral information to the
visual wavelengths, thereby
improving the ability to
discriminate vegetation stress,
soil-moisture and temperature
variations.
Airborne MSS
scanner
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.
Airborne MSS
scanner
In Italy experiments have been
carried out mainly by
geologists and earth scientists
in the use of the Airborne
Thematic Mapper (ATM) multispectral scanner to detect
palaeo-environmental
patterns and
geomorphological features
such as ancient river channels,
areas of marshland and
evidence of coastal change.
LiDAR
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.
LiDAR
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.
LiDAR
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.
LiDAR
A few years later at Gent University in Belgium Robert Bewley, then Head of
English Heritages 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).
Currently, the archaeological application of Lidar technology is growing
quickly and the results are definitively exciting opening new perspective in
the field of detection (with particular regard to under canopy and leveled
landscapes) and monitoring archaeological evidence.
LiDAR
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 highresolution digital elevation model (DEM) of the
landscape that can reveal micro-topography which
is virtually indistinguishable at ground level because
of erosion by ploughing.
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.
DSM
DTM
LiDAR in Forests
Medievalpatternofagriculturalfield
scharacterizedbyridgeandfurrow,
widely knowninall of continental
Europe, and perfectly conserved in
wooded areas.
Savernake Forest - UK
Lidar imagery demonstrating
canopy penetration in open
woodland in Savernake Forest.
The left-hand image shows the
first return of the lidar pulse that
effectively shows the tops of the
trees similar to a traditional aerial
photograph
the right-hand image shows the
filtered data processed to remove
the vegetation and the presence
of an Iron Age enclosure.
LiDAR
Hill of Tara
Br na Binne
LiDAR
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 metainformation about the original point density,
the time of flight, the instrumentation used,
the type of aerial platform and the DTMgeneration procedure etc.
LiDAR
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.
LiDAR
Table of content
1.
2.
3.
4.
2.
3.
3D landscape mapping
4.
Aerial reconnaissance
5. Under-canopy archaeology
Final remarks
Background
2005 - started our interest on drones
thanks to a visit at University of DurhamUK (D.Donoghue).
2007 - started the collaboration with
Zenit srl, FBK Trento
2007/2012 - testing pipeline (UAV,
processing, know-how) on excavations,
historical buildings, monuments, etc.
2013 - started collaboration with Aibotix
(ongoing)
2013 - First International Summer School
(USiena, CNR, FBK, CNRS)
2014 - Aibotix drone
2015 - UAV Lidar
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
Altitude range
3-100 m
Terrestrial images
0-2 m
Underwater images
1. close-range AP
- m asl
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
Close-range AP
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
need of acquiring low-altitude aerial
imagery for purposes of
documentation, monitoring/
conservation and cultural resource
management.
The discovery of previously unknown
features plays only a minor role in this
case.
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
Close-range AP
Today various kinds of manned and
un-manned platform have been used
in archaeology to lift the
photographic camera.
The main aims of this kind of
systems is pointed to:
documentation of
archaeological excavation
(generally 2D), archaeological park
or monuments.
Much more rarely
the
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
Remarks
Each of the methods noted below has its own distinct
advantages and
3.
4.
Mats, poles, booms and towers - Although these platforms are cost eective, stable and very easy to move they are limited by
their moderate maximum operational height of no more than about 20 m.
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 eective
operation is wind. This dependency, however, is also the methods main drawback: irregular winds are not suitable for kite-based
photography and the size of the kite is dependent upon the wind speed.
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 dicult to position and to hold in windy conditions. Helium is also expensive and dicult or
sometimes impossible to find in many countries. The gas containers, too, are heavy and unwieldy.
Helikite - 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 o in windless weather conditions, whereas the kite components become important when there is wind,
improving stability and providing the capacity to reach higher altitudes. Dicult to control and manage.
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
UAV platforms
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
Definition
According to the unmanned vehicle system (UVS) international definition, an
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is a generic aircraft design to operate with
no human pilot onboard http://www.uvs-international.org/).
The simple term UAV is used commonly in the scientific community, but also
other terms: drone, remotely piloted vehicle (RPV), remotely operated aircraft and
remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), micro-aerial vehicles, unmanned combat air
vehicle, small UAV (SUAV), low altitude deep penetration UAV, low altitude long endurance UAV,
medium altitude long endurance UAV, remote-controlled helicopter, and model helicopter are often
used, according to their propulsion system, altitude/endurance, and the level of automation in the flight
execution.
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
UAV platforms
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
swinglet
Multirotor
Multirotor
Payload
++
Wind resistance
++
++
Landing space
+-
Camera
++
Additional sensors
-+
++
Portability
Vertical structures
++
Landscape
++
-+
Ready to use
++
++
Price range
1.000-20.000
1.000-50.000
50.000-200.000
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
Remark
Actually, the main
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
For example, in US, the safety is defined according to their use (public or civic),
in some European countries according to the weight, as this parameter
is directly connected to the damage they can produce when a crash occurs.
Other restrictions are defined in terms of minimum and maximum altitude,
maximum payload, area to be surveyed, GCSvehicle connection (i.e., visual or
radio), etc.
205
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
Regulations
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
in the lab
The desired image scale and used camera focal length are generally fixed in
order to derive the mission flying height.
The camera perspective centers (waypoints) are computed fixing the
longitudinal and transversal overlap of the strips (e.g., 8060 %).
All these parameters
Remondino, Nex 2013 UAV for 3D mapping applications: a review, Applied Geomatics
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
a GCS
On the opposite, remotely controlled systems are piloted by operator from the
ground station.
Most of the systems allow then image data acquisition following the
computed waypoints while low-cost systems acquire images with a
scheduled interval.
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
UAV in archaeology
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 1
4. final remarks
Archaeological excavation is
a destructive process in
which accurate and detailed
recording of a site is
imperative.
As a site is exposed,
documentation is
required in order to
recreate and understand the
site in context.
3D modeling pipeline is
required
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 1
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 1
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 1
4. final remarks
2007
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 1
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
D
C
3. UAV archaeology 1
4. final remarks
b
AchaeoDRONE
project S.Marta Italy-2013-ongoing
b
b
a
d
c
218
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 1
4. final remarks
219
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 1
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 1
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 1
4. final remarks
UAV in archaeology
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 2
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 2
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 2
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 2
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 2
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 2
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 2
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 2
4. final remarks
UAV in archaeology
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 3
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 3
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 3
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 3
4. final remarks
UAV in archaeology
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 4
4. final remarks
Aerial reconnaissance
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 4
4. final remarks
Aerial reconnaissance
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 4
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 4
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 4
4. final remarks
UAV in archaeology
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 5
4. final remarks
Under-canopy archaeology
A number of researchers - among others Fernand
Braudel - have pointed out that the low land have
dominated most analyses of Mediterranean
landscapes.
More recently Graeme Barker in his Biferno valley
pointed out in the introduction that also landscape
archaeology missed the point exploring highland.
Higher land, around the Med as elsewhere in
Europe, is mostly given over to pasture or
woodland, both of which are less responsive to
traditional landscape archaeology methods and
less studied by this (or any other) method.
This despite the fact that about 60% of the
European Mediterranean landmass falls into
these categories of present-day land use (FAO
2006).
Under-Canopy-Archaeology
A number of researchers - among others Fernand Braudel - have pointed out that the low
pasture or woodland, both of which are less responsive to traditional landscape archaeology
methods and therefore less studied by this (or any other) method.
This despite the fact that about 50% of the European Mediterranean
into these categories of present-day land use (FAO 2006).
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 5
landmass falls
4. final remarks
DSM
DTM
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 5
4. final remarks
LiDAR in Forests
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 5
4. final remarks
Under-Canopy-Archaeology
Velodyne
Puck
IBEO
LUX
SICK
LD-OEM1501
Hokuyo
UXM-30LXH
Riegl
VUX
YellowScan
Routescene
LidarPOD
Type
3D
3D
2D
2D
2D
2D
3D
Range @10%
reflectivity
40 m
50 m
55 m
30 m
300 m
150 m
150 m
Number of
echo
Accuracy
0.02 m
0.10 m
0.02 m
0.05 m
0.01 m
Scan angle
360
100
360
190
330
Angular
resolution
0.16
0.125
0.125
0.125
0.01
Scan
frequency
10 Hz x 16
25 Hz x 4
20 Hz
20 Hz
Weight
0.8 Kg
1.0 Kg
2.4 Kg
Power
7W
7W
Cost
7999$
NA
1. close-range AP
0.04 m
100
360
200 Hz
200 Hz
200 Hz
1.2 Kg
3.6 Kg
2.2 Kg
2.5 Kg
36 W
7W
60 W
20 W
56-28 W
NA
NA
100.000
70.000
90.000
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 5
4. final remarks
Under-Canopy-Archaeology
Integration between UAV system and light-weight LiDAR should not be
considered just as a technological innovation but it means much more!
Indeed, improvement come from the opportunity
Resolution
Time window
Flight height
Flight speed
substantial improvement
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 5
present
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 5
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 5
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 5
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV archaeology 5
4. final remarks
Hillshade
Final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
Final remarks
Flying and using a drone / UAVs is not a game, its a serious matter if you
want to do useful things and not only playing around
Drones are actually cool but If you need to collect just some nice images from
above, you dont need a drone/UAV
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
Final remarks
Speed up and eciency general improvement
Increasing available of information (quantity and quality, texture, 3D)
Standardization of documentation (at least first stage)
Mid scale enhancement and documentation
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
1. close-range AP
2. UAV platforms
3. UAV in archaeology
4. final remarks
Reference
campana@unisi.it
https://unisi.academia.edu/StefanoCampana
http://fbk.academia.edu/FabioRemondino
http://lbi.academia.edu/GeertVerhoeven
geophysical
prospection
Geophysics
In the past geophysical prospection has
been used to get information about
relatively small areas.
However a common trend is to
investigate ONLY ALREADY KNOWN
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS.
Archaeologist dont survey off-site.
Time has progressed changes in
archaeological geophysics and
archaeologists started exploring also
the off-site
Man-pulled tools (gradiometers,
resistivity meters and GPR) can achieve
in a day up to three hectares.
1ha/day
up to 4 ha/day
By courtesy of
prof. D.Powlesland
Multi-Spectral
Imagery
Large scale
geophysical survey
Aerial Photography
(vertical and oblique)
Digitised Vectors
Satellite Imagery
LiDAR - Digital
Elevation Model
279
THATS A
SCALE JUMP
FROM SITE-SCALE (micro) TO
LANDSCAPE-SCALE (local)
Ground truthing
Information collected from remotely sensed systems loses much of its
potential meaning without detailed ground 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.
Ground truthing
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.
Ground truthing
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:
Ground truthing
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.
Ground truthing
The basic sequence of this multi-stage approach might be summarised
as follows:
1. Visual inspection through field-walking survey.
2. Core sampling.
3. Test-pits or shovel-test.
4. Minimalist stratigraphical excavation.
5. Mechanical excavation.
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.
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.
Ground truthing
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
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.
History of RS
Basics of archaeological RS
RS at work
Satellite RS
Airborne RS
LiDAR RS
Aerial survey
International conferences RS
International RS Journal
WEB references
Aerial Archaeology Research Group
http://www.univie.ac.at/aarg
International Society for Archaeological Prospection
http://www.brad.ac.uk/archsci/archprospection/
Archeolandscapes Europe
http://www.archaeolandscapes.eu/
campana@lapetlab.it
campana@unisi.it
http://unisi.academia.edu/StefanoCampana