Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 312

STEFANO CAMPANA

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

Monitoring and Rescuing


Archaeological Landscapes:
from Remote Sensing to
Field Survey

Remote Sensing & GIS course


introduction

who is who

3D modeling

who is who
National Research activity

1995-on going - Archaeological mapping projects in central

1999-ongoing - development of new archaeological methods and tools mainly within

2001-ongoing - ICT implementation of mobile and ubiquitous computing systems

2004-ongoing - Archaeological excavations and implementation of Archaeological parks:

AMP

Remote Sensing domain

Pieve di Pava (SI), S. Pietro ad Asso (SI), Poggio Cavolo (GR), S. Marta (GR)

2006-ongoing - Urban and landscape planning projects.

2007-ongoing Development of 3D documentation pipeline applying UAV systems

2010-2017 - WEB GIS of Italian Cultural Heritage for the Ministry of Cultural Heritage

2010-2015 - CULTURE 2007 EU Project Archaeolandscapes Europe

2010-ongoing - Stratigraphic Analysis of the Nativity Church in Bethlehem and currently

UAV

RADAR

International Research activity

supervisor for archaeology of the restoring.

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.

2014-ongoing - Vulci3000 in collaboration with Duke University

2014-2016 - University of Cambridge (UK) EMPTYSCAPES project

Publications
Landscape archaeology

Methodology

http://unisi.academia.edu/StefanoCampana
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stefano_Campana/

Laboratory of Landscape Archaeology and Remote


Sensing (LAP&T) www.lapetlab.it
Established 2000
Physical characteristics of Tuscan landscape
and peculiarity of some kind of evidence
(material culture).
Introduced progressively research methods
renovating some key points of the pipeline of
the archaeological process and integrating the
results.
Interdisciplinary approach deep collaboration at
national and international level with several
research institutes: archaeology, computer
science, geophysics, geomatics,
bioarchaeology, geoarchaeology, antropology,
etc.

Spin-o company - http://www.atsenterprise.com/


ATS srl was borne in January 2009
2009 winner of the innovation award at the Scuola
Superiore SantAnna (PISA) - Tuscany
2009 Final of the national innovation award
2010 ATS s.r.l. selected from CNR with other four
spin-o companies to be promoted at international level
2014 Selected by Next La Repubblica among the
most innovative company the the context of cultural
heritage

who are you?

Who are you?


Name
Nick name
Your education and main subjects
Level of experience in archaeology (fieldwork, lab, conservation, etc)
Digital knowledge in everyday life
Digital knowledge in archaeology
What do you expect form this course?
. Any other business

Presentation of the
course

General structure
Part 1 Remote Sensing in Archaeology

Part 2 GIS in Archaeology

Part 3 GIS in in practice

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.

What is GIS? Definition(s) of GIS


Why is GIS unique?
GIS basics
Why does archaeology need GIS?
Archaeological application of GIS
Data georeferencing
GIS data integration: mapping and interpretation
Mobile GIS and field work
Bibliography

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.)

3. Identification of archaeological features

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Identification of non-archaeological features


Interpretation
Transcription and data retrieval
Principles of GIS based interpretation and mapping
Bibliography

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

Monitoring and Rescuing


Archaeological Landscapes:
from Remote Sensing to
Field Survey

Remote Sensing & GIS course


Part 1 Remote Sensing

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).

D. Powlesland keynote talk in Space,


Time, Place 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

Similar initiatives also took


place in other European
countries, and in particular in
Britain. In 1906, in the course of
experiments in photography
from an un-tethered military
balloon, Lieutenant P. H. Sharpe
took the first aerial photographs
of an archaeological site in the
UK, the great megalithic
monument of Stonehenge .

At this time the only platform


available for aerial
photography was the hot-air or
gas-filled balloon.

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

doing so he added another


important phrase to the technical
lexicon. The new term, promoted in
a series of symposia at the Willow
Run Laboratories of the University of
Michigan, gained immediate and
widespread acceptance.

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

and interpretation of the resulting images.


The technologies involved in the newer forms of
Remote Sensing were considered to be

leading edge and it was unusual for


archaeologists to make use of them. Eventually,
however, Remote Sensing began to become
more widely used in the field of archaeology,
starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

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

Information Systems or GIS.


While engineers, physicists and computer
scientists improved the quality or
effectiveness of individual systems, sensors
and techniques, or designed entirely new
ones, archaeologists through the
application of GIS started thinking beyond
the individual image or data-set so as to
produce and map broader integrations,
and therefore interpretations, bringing
together a wide variety of data.

only detected by aerial photography


only detected by multi-spectral imagery
only detected by fluxgate gradiometer
detected by more than one method

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

Principles, aims and peculiarities of


Remote Sensing in Archaeology
Remote Sensing may reveal archaeological features directly, where they
are still extant in the form of topographical variations.
Alternatively, when they no longer exist above the ground surface, they
may be revealed indirectly in the form of variations in the colouring and
height of the vegetation or as visible discontinuities in bare soil exposed
by agriculture or erosion or other surface indications or intermediary as
micro-morphological discontinuity where the features are buried.

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.

Colouring, height or density of arable


crops or other vegetation
These have variously been described as vegetation marks or (more
commonly nowadays) cropmarks.
They represent one of the most striking tools for the discovery of previously
unrecorded sites.
Cropmarks appear as differences of height and/or colour in crops which
are under stress, usually through lack of water or some other nutrient.

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 occasionally appear at other times of year in a wide variety


of vegetation: cereals,

grass, alfa alfa, root-crops,

green fodder crops, weeds and various


flowering plants.

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

Light and shade


The effect of light and shade, producing what have sometimes been
described as shadow-marks.
In this case shadow and highlight are used to emphasize physical features
which still exist but which may be almost invisible on the ground, such as
the barely detectable earthworks of prehistoric field-banks or heavily
eroded burial mounds.
Archaeological air photographers therefore take advantage of low
sunshine in the winter or of early-morning or late-evening light at other
times of year.

Light and shade


This low-light or shadow
technique is particularly effective in
uplands area, where there has been
less erosion by modern ploughing.
It can also be productive, however,
in lowland zones, throwing very slight
patterns of topographical variations
into relief by the play of light and
shade and thereby making their
overall form more intelligible.

Special condition created


by frost, ice and flood
These situations can offer good opportunities
for archaeological air-photography.
A thin covering of snow, for instance,
suppresses distracting colour and provides
excellent conditions for low-light photography.
The differential melting of frost by sun or wind,
or the persistence of ice or snow above buried
ditches at the end of a cold spell, may also
reveal otherwise unsuspected sub-surface
features.

Special condition created


by frost, ice and flood
Flooding may show up old river courses and
explain the location of roads or farmsteads in a
way that could otherwise be achieved only by
painstaking survey on the ground.
Prolonged drought can produce cropmarks in
otherwise unresponsive grassland, revealing
evidence that is rarely if ever available at
other times.

Important parameters in Remote


Sensing
The success of Remote Sensing in archaeological applications
depends not only on the date of data capture but also on the
quality of the collected evidence.
At least four parameters are involved here:
1. Spatial resolution
2. Spectral resolution
3. Radiometric resolution
4. temporal resolution

Important parameters in Remote


Sensing: Spatial resolution
This relates to the level of detail that is visible in the image; it is dependant
on the resolving power of the sensor and the distance between platform
and object.
In a raster image, spatial resolution depends on the area of ground
surface that is represented by each recorded pixel.

Important parameters in Remote


Sensing: Spatial resolution
Typically pixels may correspond to surface areas ranging from 30 m square
to 1 m square or even as little as 5 cm square.
Spatial resolution represents the most important parameter for
archaeological Remote Sensing, in that it is critical in determining the size of
archaeological features that can be identified in the resulting data.

Important parameters in Remote


Sensing: Spectral resolution
This refers to the range-width and number of specific dimensional units to
which a sensor is sensitive.
This increase in the capability to record different regions of the
electromagnetic spectrum introduces the need to fully exploit their
potential, separating information on different layers (bands) to produce
multi-spectral images (2-10 spectral bands) or hyper-spectral images.

Important parameters in Remote


Sensing: Radiometric resolution
This refers to the number of different intensities of radiation that the sensor is
able to distinguish.
Typically, in each band this ranges from 8 to 14 bits, corresponding to 256
levels of the grey scale and up to 16,384 intensities or shades of colour.

Important parameters in Remote


Sensing: Temporal resolution
This relates to the frequency of over-flights by the satellite, aircraft or any
other recording platform.
It is extremely relevant in archaeological studies, making it possible in some
instances to monitor landscape or site transformations over time (measured
in days, years or even decades).
Historic data from Remote Sensing, such as early aerial photographs or the
data from the early generations of satellites, can be very valuable in
providing the only available source of information about long-term
landscape transformations over time.

Image examination and


archaeological interpretation
Remotely sensed images contain a detailed record of features on the
ground at the time of exposure, relating both from the modern
landscape and that of the past.
In the process of interpretation the archaeologist examines the images
systematically and often draws on other relevant material such as
maps and reports of field observation.
The interpretation derived from this study aims to read and make
sense of the phenomena and features appearing in both the modern
and the ancient landscape, and to distinguish between them.

Image examination and archaeological


interpretation
The identification of the present pattern, and its constituent parts,
can throw emphasis onto non-conforming elements which might
therefore form part of earlier features, sites or landscape patterns.
In carrying out the systematic initial examination attention is needed
to a variety of basic characteristics, or variations of them, such as
shape, size, pattern, tone, texture, shadow, topographical position
and association.

Archaeological or geological features or agricoltural patterns or ?

Aims and peculiarities of


archaeological Remote Sensing
Archaeology, and Remote Sensing in archaeology, have often been
compared with medicine and medical diagnostic procedures.
The development of the clinical picture, as well the archaeological
process, comes through understanding of the personal and family
history, and through the developmental story of archaeology itself.
Semiotics, representing the analysis of phenomena and signs visible
from outside, finds a close parallel with field-walking survey and surface
collection.

Aims and peculiarities of


archaeological Remote
Sensing
The last stage of medical diagnosis involves
instrumental analysis (evidence-based
medicine) through the use of laboratory tests
that find parallels with archaeometry.
Special equipment or tools, such as ultrasound
and radiology are used and these are in a real
sense similar to the Remote Sensing tools used
in archaeology.

Why does archaeology need Remote


Sensing?
The main aims of Remote Sensing in archaeology can be identified as
follows.
1. The documentation of archaeological contexts
2. The acquisition of information on buried deposits
3. The well-balanced and representative recording of both positive
and negative kinds of archaeological evidence.
4. The monitoring, from very large-scale to small-scale, of
landscape transformations: looting, modern agriculture
damage, modern construction, natural erosion, conflict.
5. The mapping of archaeological data and interpretations

Why does archaeology need Remote Sensing?

The basic principle behind remote sensing in archaeology is very simple:


From a high vantage point you can get a more comprehensive and intelligible view of
the landscape below.

Documentation of archaeological
contexts
Archaeological
excavations of
Giacomo Boni in the
Foro Romano (1899)
documented by a
tethered air balloon

Acquisition of information on buried


deposits
The acquisition of information on buried deposits sometimes completely
invisible at ground level (artifact scatters), describing in some detail the
metrical, geometrical and physical-chemical properties of the sub-surface
features.

View from the ground level

Acquisition of information on buried


deposits

View from the air

The well-balanced and representative


recording of both PosEv and NegEv

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

Restauring of Staggia Castle (Siena) 2007

Monitoring

San Lorenzo in Carmignano, J.P.S. Bradford, RAF, 1943

Monitoring

San Lorenzo in Carmignano, Gai 1954

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.

Main weaknesses of archaeological


Remote Sensing
Remote Sensing in archaeology is subject to a number of limitations.
In the case of optical sensors operating in the visible part of the
electromagnetic spectrum the higher limit can be summarized by the
concept of serendipity.

Serendipity
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

Archaeologists understood from the theoretical point of view


the scientific principles that make underground archaeological
features visible at the ground surface (Jones, Evans, 1975).
They cannot, however, control the environmental and
anthropological factors that affect the way subsurface features
modify the appearance of bare soil or vegetation to reveal the
underlying archaeological features.

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

Systems and Methods


Remote Sensing systems and related methods of data analysis are
numerous and have traditionally been divided according to the platform
used:

Satellite

Aerial

Terrestrial

Etc

and the type of sensor employed:

Optical

Thermal

LiDAR

Radar

Magnetic

Etc

Remote Sensing platforms by range typology


Satellite (optical) images
Airborne images
Helicopter, balloon, kite, blimps,
helikite, mats, poles, booms and
towers and UAV

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.

List of Earth observation satellites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Earth_observation_satellites

Landsat TM: imagery caracteristics


Band

Wave length range (m)

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

Landsat TM: bands visualization


Band 1

Band 2

Band 5

Band 3

Band 4

Band 6

Band 7

Landsat TM: colour composite 4-3-2

Landsat TM: geometric resolution

Landsat 8 - OLI and TIRS Spectral Bands Compared to ETM+


Spectral Bands

https://landsat.usgs.gov/landsat-8-l8-data-users-handbook-section-2

Landsat 8 -

Northern Iraq. In recent years, periodic oil fires


have cast a dark pall over this arid landscape.

http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/88000/88666/iraq_oli_2016230_lrg.jpg

Landsat 8 - 50 kilometers (30 miles) south of Mosul

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 1: launched 22-02-1986 with 10 panchromatic


and 20 meter multispectral picture resolution
capability.
SPOT 2: launched January 22, 1990
SPOT 3: launched September 26, 1993
SPOT 4: launched March 24, 1998
SPOT 5: launched May 4, 2002 with 2.5 m, 5 m and 10
m capability
SPOT 6: launched September 9, 2012

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.

Declassified satellite photography


KVR-1000 GIZA

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.

Declassified satellite photography


Below is a list of Corona launches, as compiled by the United States Geological
Survey. This table lists government's designation of each type of satellite (C, Cprime, J-1, etc.), the resolution of the camera, and a description of the camera
system.

"A Point in Time: The CORONA Story


A document movie about the first in history project of spy satellites. Created by the
CIA and NRO in 1995 to commemorate declassification of CORONA project.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/A_Point_in_Time__The_CORONA_Story_-_NRO_document_about_Corona_project.ogv

Declassified satellite photography

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

CORONA and Middle East landscape changing

CORONA imagery and archaeology


Corona has proven to be an extraordinarily
powerful resource for archaeology and other
disciplines.
WHY? Because the imagery pre-dates the
dramatic land use changes that have come with
urban expansion, industrialization, and agricultural
intensification in recent decades, it preserves a
view of countless archaeological sites and other
landscape features that have been destroyed or
obscured by modern development.
Furthermore, because CORONA oers the only
source for global-scale, historic, high-resolution
imagery, it is a critical tool in studies of
environmental, land use, and urban
transformation.

CORONA Digital Atlas of the Middle East Project


Since 2009, The CORONA Atlas Project has worked to develop new methods for
correcting spatial distortions found in raw imagery, and to provide processed imagery
to researchers through a user-friendly online database.
With CORONA imagery currently available on the Atlas for most of the Middle East,
our ongoing NEH-funded eort is expanding the CORONA Atlas to other parts of the
world including eastern China, South and Central Asia, and Eastern Europe, as well
building an online, open-access tool for correction of imagery from other parts of the
world.
The CORONA Digital Atlas of the Middle East Project hosts a large number of KH-4B
imagery where users can view and download spatially corrected images.

http://corona.cast.uark.edu/atlas#zoom=5&center=4700000,3600000

CORONA Digital Atlas of the Middle East Project


The CORONA Digital Atlas of the Middle East Project hosts a large number of KH-4B
imagery where users can view and download spatially corrected images.

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

0.82 meter x 3.2 meters

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

11 bits per pixel

Mission Life Expected

> 8.3 years

Revisit Time

Approximately 3 days

Orbital Altitude

681 km

Nodal Crossing

10:30 a.m.

IKONOS-2: geometric resolution


San Cerbone necropolis

Castel of Campiglia

Ikonos ms imagery 4 m res

Ortho photo 1 m res.

Castel of Populonia

IKONOS-2: archaeological features


Se#lement

RGB composite

Paleoriver bed

RGB composite 4-3-2

Road system and ditch


Hillfort

RGB composite

NDVI

Generic feature
RGB composite 4-3-2

Se#lement

RGB composite BGW (TCT)

Se#lement

RGB composite 3-4-1

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

7.1 Km/sec (25,560 Km/hour)

Equator Crossing Time

10:30 AM (descending node)

Orbit Time

93.5 minutes

Revisit Time

1-3.5 days, depending on latitude (30


off-nadir)

Swath Width

16.5 Km x 16.5 Km at nadir

Metric Accuracy

23 meter horizontal (CE90%)

Digitization

11 bits

Resolution

Pan: 61 cm (nadir) to 72 cm (25 offnadir)


MS: 2.44 m (nadir) to 2.88 m (25 offnadir)

Image Bands

Pan: 450-900 nm
Blue: 450-520 nm
Green: 520-600 nm
Red: 630-690 nm
Near IR: 760-900 nm

Landsat TM: colour composite

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

15.2 Km x 15.2 Km at nadir

Metric Accuracy

23 meter horizontal (CE90%)

Digitization

11 bits

Resolution

Pan: 41 cm (nadir) to 72 cm (25 offnadir)


MS: 1.65 m (nadir) to 2.88 m (25 offnadir)

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

PLEIADES 1A & 1B SPECIFICATIONS


Orbit Altitude

694 Km

Swath Width

20 Km at nadir

Metric Accuracy

3 meter horizontal (CE90%)

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

imaging from nadir and


operation in several
acquisition modes (20
images over 1000 x 1000
km2, stereo, 3D, mosaic,
corridor, etc.).

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

11-bits per pixel Pan and MS


14-bits per pixel SWIR

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

Resolution restrictions have been relaxed


Geometric resolution it is not just a matter of technological R & D.
Indeed, during June 2014 DigitalGlobe received permission from the
US Department of Commerce to collect and sell imagery at the
best available resolutions.
Additionally, six months after WorldView-3 is operational
DigitalGlobe will be permitted to sell imagery at up to 25 cm
panchromatic and 1.0 m multispectral GSD.
We applaud the US Governments relaxation of satellite resolution
restrictions, as it benefits our customers, and the industry in general.

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

Airborne remote sensing


Leaving aside photography from light aircraft for the moment, airborne
Remote Sensing at its more sophisticated and commercial levels uses
downward- or sideward-pointing sensors mounted on specialist aircraft so as to
obtain vertical or oblique images of the earth's surface.
An advantage, compared to satellite Remote Sensing, is the capacity to
achieve very high spatial resolutions, between 20 cm and up to 5/2 cm/px.
The disadvantages are lower area-coverage and higher cost per unit of
ground surface.

Airborne remote sensing


This kind of remote sensing is not costeffective for mapping very large
areas, such as whole continents,
though it has been used
(cumulatively) for some considerable
time to map whole countries and
regions.
Airborne remote sensing missions are
usually carried out as one-off
operations (but occasionally
repeated), whereas earth observation
satellites offer the possibility of truly
continuous monitoring of the earths
surface.

Airborne remote sensing


Both analog and
digital photography
are commonly used
in airborne Remote
Sensing.
Multi-spectral and
hyper-spectral
imaging, synthetic
aperture radar and
LiDAR scanning are
also carried out
from airborne
platforms.

Air photography: vertical and oblique


Archaeologists use two types of air photography: oblique or perspective
views and vertical photography, pointing straight downward at the earths
surface.

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

These two-dimensional images


are then combined in the brain to
give the perception of 3D depth.

P2
FOTO 2

Stereoscope

Holmes stereoscope
and Brewster
stereoscope

Stereoscope of the
Landscape Archaeology
and Remote Sensing
laboratory

Vertical air photography


Vertical photography
(originally analog but
now more frequently
digital) is taken with
sophisticated cameras
from specially
equipped aircraft,
mainly for survey and
mapping purposes.
It is relatively expensive
and archaeologists can
rarely afford to
commission it for their
own purposes.

Vertical air photography


For most purposes they therefore
draw on the vast collections of air
photographs already available in
existing archives.
During the Second World War the
fighting powers took between them
approximately 50 million aerial
photographs.
In Europe public services collect
perhaps millions more frames each
year.

Vertical air photography


Vertical photography therefore has a special value in
the study of the whole landscape, or of settlements in
their broader context.
Vertical photographs do, of course, contain
archaeological information, but more by accident than
design, and for the most part at shadow-free times of
the day or year that suit mapping rather than
specifically archaeological recording.
Nevertheless there are examples of extraordinary
results being achieved through vertical photography
carried out explicitly for archaeological proposes, at
times, for instance, when conditions for cropmark or
soilmark recording are at their best.

Vertical air photography


Austria, Italy, and the UK can all
present case histories confirming that if
vertical coverage can be arranged
within the best time-window for the
visibility of archaeological evidence
the whole area, along with all of the
sites that are visible at the moment of
photography, will be depicted in
stereo pairs of photographs that
provide a 3D replica of the target
landscape.
This kind of documentation can lead to
a vast improvement in the analysis and
understanding of past landscapes.

Vertical air photography


The main difficulties in developing this practice are its relatively high cost
and the short time that is available in many cases to plan and execute
vertical coverage on the limited number of occasions when the conditions
are ideal for cropmark or other kinds of recording.

Vertical air photography

Study of the whole landscape, or of


settlements in their broader context;

Vertical photographs are suit for


mapping rather than specifically
archaeological recording;

Large archives correspond to high


temporal resolution;

Good results in forested areas;

Stereoscope (3D) analysis improve the


capabilities to interpret archaeology
and to produce very accurate maps.

Oblique air photography


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

Oblique air photography


What he fails to see, or understand, he inevitably fails to record. Vertical
photography therefore has a special value in the study of the whole
landscape, or of settlements in their broader context.
Oblique photography, by contrast, is unrivalled in recording individual sites
of historic interest, the more so because the photographer can choose the
time of day or year, and the kind of lighting, that will illustrate or reveal
archaeological features to best advantage.

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


In Europe, thanks to the development by national research agencies of
multi- and/or hyper-spectral systems, Britain and Italy are recognized as
leaders in this field, having carried out a number of important studies from
the beginning of the 1990s.
In Britain, airborne multi-spectral scanners have been used to assess the
archaeological potential of multi-spectral data at a number of sites.
More specifically, in former wetland environments such as the Fenlands of
eastern England and the Vale of Pickering further north, multi-spectral
imagery has complemented vertical photography and revealed new
information in the infrared wavelengths.

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.

Airborne MSS scanner


The increasing availability of hyper-spectral
imagery, as well as thermal imagery, presents
a very significant potential.
In Britain the main data source of multi- and
hyper-spectral data is the Airborne Research
& Survey Facility managed by the Natural
Environment Research Council (NERC) while
in Italy the research has been conducted
through the National Research Council
(CNR).
In both countries, from the late 1990s,
researchers have been applying multi- and
hyper-spectral imagery in landscape analysis.

Land cover maps


derived from Landsat
Multi-spectral Scanner
(June 1973 - June
1997), 60-meter
resolution.

Airborne MSS scanner


The general trend, emerging from a substantial number of case studies in
differing physical and cultural contexts over the past two decades, has
demonstrated that these kinds of sensors can represent a valuable
resource, complementing information obtained through other remote
sensing techniques and adding specific support in the identification of
features in the non-visible domain (Donoghue, et al, 2006).
A major current disadvantage, however, is the poorer resolution of the
multi-spectral and hyper-spectral data, generally between 3 and 4 m per
pixel depending on the characteristics of the sensor and the altitude of the
aircraft. Within archaeology this level of resolution is suitable only for the
detection of large-scale features.

Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)


Radar is an active microwave sensing system, sending directional
pulses of electromagnetic energy and detecting the presence and
position of objects by analyzing the portion of the energy reflected
back to the transmitter.
A key advantage is the ability to penetrate through cloud, haze, light
atmospheric precipitation and smoke, making this an all weather
sensor. The system has a variety of applications in archaeology.

Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)


From the end of the 1970s radar has
been used for archaeological
prospection in regional surveys to
detect cultural, natural and anthropic
features.
It has also been used for palaeolandscape analysis as well as in
ecosystem studies and cultural heritage
monitoring.
The most important work in this field has
been carried out in the United States,
particularly by the NASA Jet Propulsion
Laboratory at CalTech (JPL/NASA).

Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)


In this context protocols have been
developed for using synthetic aperture
radar in the recording of archaeological
sites for cultural resource management,
so as to reduce the risk of costly delays
during construction projects.
The application of radar imaging in
archaeology is still fairly limited,
especially in Europe, where
archaeologists and remote sensing
scientists have focused more their
attention on LiDAR, and multi-spectral
and hyper-spectral systems.

Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)


Generally speaking the main
limitation of radar systems is the
relatively high cost of
commissioning it from a commercial
contractor. The maximum
penetration of the signal into the soil
can be as much as 3-5 m but this
requires very dry ground conditions
and fine-grained soil.
Specialised training is also essential
in image processing and
archaeological data interpretation.

LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging)


Airborne LiDAR measures the relative
height of the ground surface and
other features (such as trees and
buildings) across large areas of
landscape with a resolution and
accuracy hitherto unattainable
except through labour-intensive field
survey or photogrametry.
It provides, for the first time, highly
detailed and accurate digital 3D
models of the land surface at metre
and sub-metre resolution.

LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging)


LiDAR operates by using a
pulsed laser beam which is
scanned from side to side as
the aircraft flies over the
survey area, measuring by the
length of the time that the
signal takes to return to the
aircraft between 20,000 and
100,000 points per second to
build an accurate, highresolution model of the ground
and the features upon it.

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.

Digital Terrain Model Digital Surface Model

DSM

DTM

LiDAR in Forests

By courtesy of M. Doneus, C. Briese, University of Wien - Austria

LiDAR and woodland areas


An extremely important characteristic of LiDAR is its ability to penetrate
woodland or forest and so reveal features that are not distinguishable
through traditional prospection methods or that are difficult to reach and
to survey for ground-based methods

LiDAR and woodland areas

LiDAR is absolutely revolutionary in its impact on the process of


archaeological mapping by making it possible to record, without physical
intervention, the previously hidden archaeological resource within
woodland areas.
In favorable circumstances it may even be possible to uncover whole
fossil landscapes.
This could have a dramatic impact on opportunities for archaeological
and landscape conservation, as well as on scientific investigation of
settlement dynamics in various phases of our history.

Rastatt Forets - University of Fribourg (Sittler)

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.

Welshbury Hillfort (Cambridge University)

LiDAR

It is worth emphasizing that interest in this technique is not limited to its


potential for penetrating woodland areas but also for its contribution to
the study of open contexts such as pastureland and arable areas.
In these zones, as under woodland cover, the availability of extremely
precise digital models of the ground surface will make it possible to
highlight every tiny variation in level, by using computer simulations to
change the direction or angle of the light and/or to exaggerate the value
of the z coordinate.

Stonehenge landscape (Shell)

Country Meath (Shell-Roughley)

Last frontier of LiDAR


Helicopter based LiDAR FLI-MAP 400
(slower speed and lower flying), multiple
return feature, combined with ultra high
frequency enables:
Much higher resolution up to 60 pts/m2
(about 10 cm resolution);
Effective penetration of even the most
densely vegetated areas;
Very high resolution enable to record
micro-topographic element even
where the remains of archaeological
sites are severely degraded.

Hill of Tara

Hill of Tara: details

Br na Binne

Last frontier of LiDAR

Cost is the major determining


factor BUT THE VALUE in terms
of research and heritage
management has been
recognized.
From our perspective the
only reservation would be the
limited area have been able
to cover by this technique
given the funding available.

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

Close-range aerial photography: UAV


From the end of 19th century, when Giacomo Boni used a balloon to take
aerial photographs of the Foro Romano, to the present day archaeologists
have understood the desirability of acquiring low-altitude aerial imagery for
purposes of documentation, conservation and cultural resource
management the discovery of previously unidentified features plays only a
minor role in this case.

Table of content
1.
2.
3.

4.

Close-range aerial photography


UAV platforms
UAV in archaeology
1.

Documentation of archaeological excavation

2.

Standing monument survey

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

Close-range aerial photography

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV in archaeology

4. final remarks

Close-range AP is a small part of RS


600-800 km

Altitude range

Satellite (optical) images


Airborne images
Helicopter, balloon, kite, blimps,
helikite, mats, poles, booms and
towers and UAV

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

diagnostic of specific areas.


1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV in archaeology

4. final remarks

Kite - By courtesy of Paolo Nannini

Balloon - By courtesy of Federico Nomi


1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV in archaeology

4. final remarks

Remarks
Each of the methods noted below has its own distinct

advantages and

drawbacks (Verhoeven et al 2008)


1.
2.

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.

lack or the diculty to


control very accurately of the platform and static nature.

A common problem related to all these systems is the

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.

The term unmanned aerial system comprehends the whole system


composed by the aerial vehicle/platform (UAV) + sensor/s + ground
control station (GCS)

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV in archaeology

4. final remarks

UAV platforms

A typical UAV platform for archaeological purposes can

cost from 1.000 up to

200.000 Euro, depending on the onboard instrumentation, payload, flight autonomy,


type of platform, and degree of automation needed for its specific applications.

Low-cost solutions in the last few years improved performing


autonomous flights, payload, reliability, endurance and flight capability less depending form
environmental condition.

More bigger and stable systems, generally based on an internal combustion


engine (ICE), have longer endurance with respect to electric engine UAVs and, thanks to
the higher payload, they allow medium format (reflex) camera or LiDAR or SAR instruments
onboard (Nagai et al. 2004; Vierling et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2009; Berni et al. 2009a;
Kohoutek and Eisenbeiss 2012; Grenzdoer et al. 2012).

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV in archaeology

4. final remarks

available UAV platforms

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV in archaeology

4. final remarks

pros and cons of dierent UAV typologies

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

dierence from the point of view of the


archaeological application between traditional close-range AP
platform (kite, balloon, etc) and UAVs should be recognized in the
opportunity to have:
1. Very accurate platform control
2. Landscape scale/dynamic nature (local scape)

If you need to collect

nice aerial pictures of your archaeological

excavation traditional close-range AP platforms - mats, poles, booms and


towers or kite, balloons, blimps and helikite - work perfectly
There is no need wasting time and money for buying drone

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV in archaeology

4. final remarks

Historical framework and regulations


The first experiences for civil and geomatics applications were carried out at
the end of the 70s (Przybilla and Wester-Ebbinghaus 1979) and their use
greatly increased in the last decades thanks to the fast improvement of
platforms, communication technologies, and software as well as the growing
number of possible applications.
Thus the use of such flying platforms in civil applications imposed to increase
the security of UAV flights in order to avoid dangers for human beings.
The international

community started to define the security criteria for UAV

some years ago.

In particular, NATO and EuroControl started their cooperation in 1999 in order to


prepare regulations for UAV platforms and flights. This work did not lead to a
common and international standard yet, especially for civil applications.
1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV in archaeology

4. final remarks

Historical framework and regulations


The great diusion and
commercialization of new UAV
systems has pushed several
national and international
associations to analyze the operational
safety of UAVs.
The elements of UAV regulations are
mainly keen to increase the reliability
of the platforms, underlining the need
for safety certifications for each
platform, and ensuring the public
safety.
1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV in archaeology

4. final remarks

Historical framework and regulations


UAVs have currently dierent
safety levels according to
their dimension, weight, and
on board technology.
For this reason, the rules
applicable to each UAV could

not be the same for all


the platforms and
categories.

A competitor was taken to hospital after an UAV, fell


from the sky hitting her on the head

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

Regulations: European Union


European community has announced the beginning of three dierent
Roadmaps in the field of R&D, complementary measures, and safety
regulations of the UAVs.

This work will define common


a full integration of UAVs in

rules at EU level with the aim of defining


the European Aviation system.

This process is collecting the contributions of many stakeholders from


several EU countries and consists of several steps and deliverables. The
UAV flights will be divided in dierent categories according to the flying
height and the strategy adopted to control the platform from the GCS (i.e.,
visual line-of-sight, radio lineof- sight, etc.) to define dierent regulations
and technical prescriptions.

The road maps, started in 2013, will be completed in 2028.


For more information:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/aerospace/uas/

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV in archaeology

4. final remarks

UAV data acquisition workflow


A typical aerial surveying with an UAV platform requires:

a flight or mission planning


ground control points (GCPs) measurement (if not already available)
for georeferencing purposes.
After the acquisitions, images can be used for stitching and mosaicking purposes, or
they can be the input of the photogrammetric process. In this case, camera calibration
and image triangulation are initially performed, in order to generate successively a DSM
or digital terrain model.

general workflow is shown, the input


parameters are in green, while the
single workflow steps are in yellow, and
they are discussed more in detail in the
following sections.

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV in archaeology

4. final remarks

Flight planning and image acquisition


The mission (flight and data acquisition) is normally planned
with dedicated software, starting from:
1. knowledge of the area of interest
2. required ground sample distance (GSD) or footprint
3. intrinsic parameters of the onboard digital camera

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

vary according to the goal of the flight

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

Flight piloting and image acquisition


The flight is normally done in manual, assisted, or autonomous mode,
according to the mission specifications, platform's type, and environmental
conditions.
The presence onboard of GNSS/INS navigation devices is usually
exploited for the autonomous flight (take-o, navigation, and landing)
and to guide the image acquisition.
The image

network quality is strongly influenced by the typology of the


performed flight (see a, b, c image)

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV in archaeology

4. final remarks

Flight piloting and image acquisition


During the flight, the autonomous platform is normally observed with
which shows real-time flight data such as position, speed, attitude and
distances, GNSS observations, battery or fuel status, rotor speed, etc.

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.

Documentation of archaeological excavation


Standing monument survey
3D landscape mapping
Aerial reconnaissance
Under-canopy archaeology

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 1

4. final remarks

Documentation of archaeological excavation

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

Archaeological excavation size matter!

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 1

4. final remarks

AchaeoDRONE Pava 2007-2012


From 2007

to 2012 we (USiena & ATS)

ran a project in collaboration with FBK and


Zenith s.r.l. to develop a semi-automatic

system to achieve stereo pairs


addressed produce fast, reliable and
detailed 3D documentation of archaeological
excavation.

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 1

4. final remarks

AchaeoDRONE project Pava Italy


2011

2007
1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 1

4. final remarks

AchaeoDRONE project S.Marta Italy-2013-ongoing


B
A

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

AchaeoDRONE project S.Marta data processing

219

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 1

4. final remarks

AchaeoDRONE project S.Marta data processing


Foto drone

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 1

4. final remarks

AchaeoDRONE project S.Marta data processing

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 1

4. final remarks

UAV in archaeology
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Documentation of archaeological excavation


Standing monument survey
3D landscape mapping
Aerial reconnaissance
Under-canopy archaeology

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 2

4. final remarks

Standing monument survey

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 2

4. final remarks

Standing monument survey San Galgano Italy-2013

By courtesy of Fabio Remondino (FBK Trento)

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 2

4. final remarks

Standing monument survey - Certosa Pontignano Italy-2013

By courtesy of Fabio Remondino (FBK Trento)

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 2

4. final remarks

Standing monument survey - Certosa Pontignano Italy-2013

By courtesy of Fabio Remondino (FBK Trento)

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 2

4. final remarks

Standing monument survey Paestum Italy-2013

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 2

4. final remarks

Standing monument survey Grande Progetto Pompei

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 2

4. final remarks

From standing monument to cityscape survey

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 2

4. final remarks

UAV in archaeology
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Documentation of archaeological excavation


Standing monument survey
3D landscape mapping
Aerial reconnaissance
Under-canopy archaeology

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 3

4. final remarks

3D landscape mapping Paestum Italy-2013


By courtesy of Fabio Remondino (FBK Trento)

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 3

4. final remarks

3D landscape mapping Paestum Italy 2013


By courtesy of Fabio Remondino (FBK Trento)

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 3

4. final remarks

3D landscape mapping S.Pietro Montalcino Italy 2010

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 3

4. final remarks

UAV in archaeology
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Documentation of archaeological excavation


Standing monument survey
3D landscape mapping
Aerial reconnaissance
Under-canopy archaeology

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

Aerial reconnaissance: beyond visible airborne scanners

By courtesy of Dominic Powlesland

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 4

4. final remarks

Aerial reconnaissance: beyond visible near-mid-thermal img

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 4

4. final remarks

UAV in archaeology
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Documentation of archaeological excavation


Standing monument survey
3D landscape mapping
Aerial reconnaissance
Under-canopy archaeology

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

land have dominated most analyses of Mediterranean landscapes.


Higher land, around the Mediterranean as elsewhere in Europe, is mostly given over to

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

Digital Terrain Model Digital Surface Model

DSM

DTM
1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 5

4. final remarks

By courtesy of M. Doneus, C. Briese, University of Wien - Austria

LiDAR in Forests

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 5

4. final remarks

LiDAR and woodland areas

LiDAR for under-canopy archaeology

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 Rusellae test-bed

Under-Canopy-Archaeology Rusellae test-bed

Rusellae test-bed Ground condition

Rusellae test-bed Riegl drone & Riegl LiDAR sensor

Rusellae test-bed raw data DSM

Rusellae test-bed raw data DTM

Rusellae test-bed area

Rusellae test-bed area

Rusellae test-bed area

Rusellae test-bed area

Rusellae test-bed area

Rusellae test-bed DSM detail

Rusellae test-bed DTM detail

Rusellae test-bed DSM detail

Rusellae test-bed DTM detail

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

for the archaeologist to


manage directly the platform and the sensor giving the occasion to apply
the system to archaeological purpose controlling a large variety of parameters:

Resolution
Time window
Flight height
Flight speed

Considered density and complexity of Mediterranean canopy and poor results


obtained up to now in the application of Lidar this approach may provide a

substantial improvement
1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 5

present

4. final remarks

Under-Canopy-Archaeology: Grancia (Italy)

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 5

4. final remarks

LiDAR - Ministry of Environment dataset 2007

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 5

4. final remarks

Under-Canopy-Archaeology: Grancia (Italy)

1. close-range AP

2. UAV platforms

3. UAV archaeology 5

4. final remarks

Under-Canopy-Archaeology: Grancia (Italy)

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

UAVs allow us to fill local scale gap within traditional archaeological


framework!
However experience is needed above all to develop case studies
on Lidar and multispectral which are almost new field of application
at least within the Mediterranean
1. close-range AP

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

Take home message


What really UAV has changed within RS archaeology?
UAV represent an outstanding opportunity for archaeology allowing us
managing directly the platform and therefore the sensor/s.
Direct management of the platform means development of applications lead
by archaeologist customizing it to their needs and research questions.
On this point I would stress that a standing point of the history of studies in
archaeology could be considered that every time archaeologists directly lead the
application of new technology (in collaboration with dierent kind of scientists)
real breakthrough happened.

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

Geophysics - case study 1


Probably the most important case study
should be recognized in the work carried
on by prof. Dominic Powlesland.
In the Vale of Pickering, North Yorkshire,
England The Landscape Research Centre
has been engaged in remote sensing
since the mid 1970s, focused upon a
single landscape.
Prof. Powlesland has employed
conventional air photography, airborne
multi-spectral and hyper-spectral
scanners, Lidar and ground based
geophysics and other ground based
surveys in addition to about 30Ha of open
area excavation.
By courtesy of prof. D.Powlesland

Geophysics - case study 1


The archaeological landscape
of Heslerton (Vale of Pickering)
recorded circa 1977.
It seems that we are in a very
poor archaeological landscape

By courtesy of
prof. D.Powlesland

Remote sensing in the Vale of Pickering


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

Geophysics - case study 1


By courtesy of prof. D.Powlesland

The combination of the results


of the many aerial campaigns
with the geophysical data we
can see that neither approach
gives the same returns,
confirming that if we are to
reach our target to identify the
archaeological capacity of the
landscape then we must
employ a multi sensor
approach.

only detected by aerial photography


only detected by multi-spectral imagery
only detected by fluxgate gradiometer
detected by more than one method

Geophysics - case study 1


During the last decade a series of very large
scale surveys funded by English Heritage,
both from Archaeology Commissions
programme and the Aggregates Levy
Sustainability Fund, have produced:

COMBINED SURVEY COVERING A


CONTIGUOUS AREA OF NEARLY
1200HA.

279

By courtesy of prof. D.Powlesland

Geophysics - case study 1

By courtesy of prof. D.Powlesland

The results reveal a landscape completely covered with archaeological


features from the Neolithic to Medieval periods, evidence which challenges
almost everything we thought we knew about the scale and density of past
activity, not only in the Vale of Pickering.

Thats a real innovation!


A real change in the practice and theory of archaeological process
perhaps we could define this approach as a revolution in archaeology
with consequence over at least:
CONSERVATION
increased awareness of the archaeological resource as a whole, so as to create
more eecFve and be#er adapted policies for landscape monitoring and
conservaFon.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL ISSUES
To recognize EMPTINESS (that is, evidence of absence) as important as
archaeological evidences should means (we hope) a new approach to the
development of complex cultural-eco-system pa#ern to landscape history.

THE FUTURE
The search for be#er visibility in OUR PRESENT EMPTINESS (that is, absence of
evidence) will hopefully produce new and perhaps dierent kinds of data, in turn
creaFng new kinds of feedback into the invesFgaFve and interpretaFve process.

How can we follow the approach developed


in the Vale of Pickering?

First of all been critical!


Understanding landscape starting from
looking for reasons of present emptiness and
looking for new strategies

NOW ITS POSSIBLE TO APPLY


GEOPHYSICAL PROSPECTION ON
VERY LARGE SCALE IN A VERY SHORT TIME

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.

O.G.S. Crawford first row, far left

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:

1. Ditch, pit, wall, earthwork etc.

2. Burial mound, grave, enclosure, settlement etc.

3. Round barrow, long barrow, rectangular enclosure, Roman villa, etc.

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.

Visual inspection through fieldwalking survey


For this there is great value in the use of a mobile GIS device provided
with a satellite navigation system (GPS) and up-to-date maps of the
selected features for ground truthing.

This guarantees the necessary accuracy to ensure the inspection of each


anomaly.

Common features, possibly recognizable during fieldwork, are localized


depressions or ridges with regular shapes, differences in soil moisture,
concentrations of gravel or apparently non-native rock, and
archaeological artefacts etc.

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.

GIS data integration: mapping and


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

A pre-requisite for data integration of remotely sensed imagery is


knowledge about each measurements position in relation to a known
system of geographical coordinates. Failure to satisfy this condition results
in an inability to localise the acquired information.

GIS data integration: mapping and


interpretation
The entry of the data into an archaeological GIS is the basis for any
attempt at integration of the information so as to improve the
development of an historical/archaeological critical narration or
conservation of the archaeological resource.

Georeferencing of the remotely-sensed data does not represent the end


of the archaeological mapping process but only an intermediate stage.

On their own, satellite imagery, aerial photographs, LiDAR imagery and


geophysical imagery signify little.

It is the responsibility of the archaeologist to give archaeological sense to


the photographs or to the measurements.

GIS data integration: mapping and


interpretation
In summary, the interpretation of the data is
made real and communicable through
cartographic drawing of the elements
perceived as anomalies.

This is therefore the critical phase in


landscape and archaeological research.

In practice the process advances through


the drawing, digitally or by hand, of the
anomalies and other elements deemed to
be of archaeological interest.

GIS data integration: mapping and


interpretation
The georeferenced graphical restitution of the information contained in
vertical or oblique aerial photographs, in high-resolution satellite imagery,
in LiDAR data and in maps derived from geophysical measurements
makes it possible to overlay on topographical maps the results of the
various investigative methods, along with a mass of other data stratified
layer upon layer over the years.

The result is a jigsaw puzzle, a complex representation in which it is


possible to measure and position each piece of information while at the
same time perceiving the overall picture, whether single-phase or spread
across time, along with the overlapping and stratified fragments of whole
systems of ancient and medieval landscapes.

GIS data integration: mapping and


interpretation
Through archaeological mapping and the use of GIS these become
capable of study against other layers of archaeological and nonarchaeological information in the writing of history, in heritage protection
through the planning process and through conservation or monitoring of
the shared cultural inheritance.

GIS data integration: mapping and


interpretation
The combination of the
results of the many
aerial campaigns with
the geophysical data
we can see that neither
approach gives the
same returns, confirming
that if we are to reach
our target to identify the
archaeological
capacity of the
landscape then we
must employ a multi
sensor approach

Selected book and WEB references

History of RS

Basics of archaeological RS

RS and Image Processing

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

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi