Author's personal copy

Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 3354e3360

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas

Visualization of lidar-derived relief models for detection of archaeological features

a, * !
!
Benjamin Stular
, Ziga Kokalj b, c, Kri!stof O!stir b, c, Laure Nuninger a
a

University of Franche-Comt, 32 rue Mgevand, F-25030 Besanon, France

Scientic Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Novi trg 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
c
Space-Si e Centre of Excellence for Space Sciences and Technologies, A!sker!ceva 12, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 30 June 2011
Received in revised form
21 March 2012
Accepted 29 May 2012

This paper presents visualisation techniques of high-resolution digital elevation models (DEMs) for visual
detection of archaeological features. The methods commonly used in archaeology are reviewed and
improvements are suggested. One straightforward technique that has so far not been used in archaeology e
the shift method e is presented. The main purpose of this article is to compare and evaluate different
visualisation methods. Two conclusions have been reached. Where a single method must be chosen e for
printing or producing digital images for non-professionals e the use of sky view factor or slope gradient is
endorsed, both presented in greyscale. Otherwise interpreters should choose different techniques on
different terrain types: shift on at terrain, sky view factor on mixed terrain, slope gradient on sloped terrain
and sky view factor (preferably as a composite image with slope gradient) on rugged terrain.
! 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Archaeology
Methodology
High-resolution DEM
Lidar
Visualisation

1. Research aims
This paper presents results of a project that investigated various
visualization techniques that can be applied to record archaeological features from lidar digital elevation models. The Kobarid region
in western Slovenia was scanned on a request of the Walks of Peace
in the So!ca Region Foundation for better understanding and
management of a vast complex of World War I entrenchments and
fortications. While one research aim of the project was to examine
performance of a dedicated lidar survey in an area with a high
number of previously known archaeological sites in a largely
wooded mountainous environment, the other aim of equal
importance was to carry out a theoretical and practical analysis of
a range of visualization methods. The comparison was necessary
because a number of techniques either fail to adequately reveal
archaeological features on rugged and diverse terrain, require too
much processing, or are difcult to interpret. In order to contrast
our ndings with experience of others, we have also conducted
a survey among 12 users with medium to high expertise level in
interpretation of lidar data.
2. Background and context
Lidar derived highly detailed digital elevation models
have proven to be a very useful tool for detection of various
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 386 1 4706 387; fax: 386 1 4257 757.
!
E-mail address: bstular@zrc-sazu.si (B. Stular).
0305-4403/$ e see front matter ! 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.029

archaeological features, ranging from houses, ramparts, trenches,

ditches, fossil elds and terraces, past land division (e.g. Roman
centuriation), abandoned quarries and mining areas, burial
mounds, ancient roads (Roman, medieval), and other elements of
archaeological landscape in environments where other surveying
techniques do not provide satisfactory results. Detection from
airborne lidar data has been successfully applied in at and
undulating agricultural regions (e.g. Challis et al., 2008 with earlier
references; Crutchley, 2009; Buteux and Chapman, 2009; Corns
and Shaw, 2009) as well as forested slopes on hilly or mountainous terrain (Sittler, 2004; Devereux et al., 2005; Doneus et al.,
!
2008; Stular,
2011) and even in a dense jungle (Chase et al.,
2011). Data is increasingly becoming available to archaeologists,
both from surveys conducted especially for archaeological or other
purposes (such as ood protection, forest management etc.), but
also from completed or current state-wide aerial laser scanning
projects (e.g. in Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the
Netherlands, Slovenia).
Archaeologists specializing in remote sensing are interpreting
spatial data with a combination of perception and comprehension
(Parcak, 2009). Similarly, a successful interpretation of lidarderived data must be based on a well-judged use of a suite of
techniques coupled with careful and well-informed interpretation
(Challis et al., 2011). The later, i.e. the user determined knowledgebased interpretation, includes complex pattern recognition and the
ability of the user to recognise, identify and classify complex
landforms based on experience and previous archaeological
knowledge (e.g. Crutchley, 2006).

Author's personal copy

B. !
Stular et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 3354e3360

Despite this, potential of lidar data is far from being fully

exploited. Most archaeological applications of lidar have been
based on visual interpretation of the relief model. In this case, the
visibility of potential archaeological features depends to a large
extent on the chosen visualization.
Most aerial lidar elevation data are published in the form of
analytically shaded relief. Since, on the one hand, vast majority of
modern scientic publications are limited to greyscale print and, on
the other hand, viewers perceive shaded relief as the most intuitive
and natural representation of topography (Imhof, 2007), this
seems perfectly acceptable. However, using shaded relief as
a primary tool for visual interpretation can have signicant drawbacks on the number of nds and quality of interpretation
(e.g. Challis et al., 2008; Devereux et al., 2008; Hesse, 2010; Kokalj
et al., 2011). Regardless of this, only a few visualization techniques
are routinely used by archaeologists.
The next chapters present a range of visualization techniques
that can aid the detection and interpretation process. They have
been selected based on experience and literature survey. Some
techniques are well already known to the archaeological audience,
others not so.
3. Materials and methods employed
3.1. The study area
Kobarid (Italian: Caporetto; German: Karfreit) region in the
upper So!
ca/Isonzo valley in western Slovenia has been chosen as
a study area because it has known archaeological sites in variable
state of preservation and exploration, and is set in a very diverse
landscape, ranging from low lying and relatively at valleys to the
surrounding mountains exceeding the height of 2000 m (Fig. 1).
The region is on the border between the Mediterranean and the
Alps. The valley oors are warmer and wetter than average Alpine
valleys due to the proximity of the Adriatic Sea. However, the
climate dramatically shifts to colder in the mountains. Because of
its natural position, the area has been strategically important
throughout history as a transportation route from northern Italy
across the Alps. Archaeological sites vary from burial mounds and
hilltop enclosures to a large extent of World War I trenches and
!
reinforcements (Stular,
2011).
3.2. Data acquisition and processing
Laser scanning of the 57 km2 area was commissioned, performed, and processed with a clear focus on archaeological

Fig. 1. Kobarid case study area.

3355

purposes (Table 1). The survey was conducted in early March, the
period of dormant vegetation when the trees was not yet in leaf,
crop heights were minimal, the fallen leaves from the autumn had
already compacted and the ground was without snow cover
e revealing the bare ground to the maximum degree. Filtering of
the lidar point cloud and generation of a digital elevation model
was performed with Repetitive Interpolation algorithm (REIN)
(Kobler et al., 2007). Algorithm settings were optimised to remove
only the vegetation cover but leave remains of past human activities as intact as possible. The lter therefore preserved buildings,
walls, dikes and trenches as well as retained some spruce trees,
especially young, where the laser beam did not reach the ground.
3.3. Lidar DEM visualization techniques
We have grouped the visualization methods into four groups
(Table 2; Fig. 2).
3.3.1. Relief shading and relief illumination methods
The relief shading method, sometimes referred to as hillshading, has a respectable tradition in cartographic representations of terrain (Imhof, 2007; Slocum et al., 2004). Computer
generated shaded relief maps emphasise structures that are
obliquely illuminated, but hide those that are illuminated along the
perpendicular axis. This issue has been addressed extensively and
some solutions have been proposed, e.g. enhancing shaded relief
with planimetric and prole curvature (Kennelly, 2008), multidirectional oblique-weighted (MDOW) shaded relief (Mark, 1992),
Lambertian reection shaded relief (Oren and Nayar, 1994), principal component analysis (PCA) of hill shadings from multiple
directions (Devereux et al., 2008) and sky view factor (Kokalj et al.,
2011).
However, because some of these techniques were developed to
emphasize high frequency information (changes of morphology)
on a medium resolution DEM, their application to high-resolution
DEMs is not straightforward. Applying the planimetric and prole
curvature modications to our dataset, for example, overemphasized noise and thus obscured archaeological features.
MDOW shaded relief has less contrast than a normal, singlesource illuminated hill shaded relief. This is because it is created
by a weighted combination of four shadings with evenly distributed
illumination sources that give detail in shades and overexposed
areas of normal hill shading.
Lambertian reectance is a relief rendering technique, widely
used in computer graphics. Relief surfaces are treated as a Lambertian reector that assumes an ideal surface reecting all the
light that strikes it. In this way the surface appears equally bright
from all viewing directions (Oren and Nayar, 1994; Slocum et al.,
2004).
Principal components analysis (PCA) summarizes the information
from several (e.g. 16) relief images, shaded with evenly distributed
illumination sources (Devereux et al., 2008). The PCA e especially
a combination of the rst and second principal components, or a false
colour composite image of the rst three e simplies interpretation
of multiple shading data, but it does not provide consistent results
with different datasets (Kokalj et al., 2011).
The shortcomings of relief shading are successfully addressed by
diffuse illumination relief shading models, such as a uniform sky
illumination (Kennelly and Stewart, 2006) and sky view factor
(SVF; Zak!sek et al., 2011). Both have been successfully applied in
!
archaeology (Stular,
2011; Kokalj et al., 2011), with the latter having
a signicant advantage because it is much faster to calculate and
accessible as a free tool (ZRC SAZU, 2010). Sky view factor is
a measure for the portion of the sky visible from a certain point. The
portion of the visible sky limited by the relief horizon corresponds

Author's personal copy

B. !Stular et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 3354e3360

3356

Table 1
Lidar scanning parameters of the Kobarid region (Slovenia).
Scanner type
Platform
Date
Swath width [m]
Flying height [m]
Pulse repetition rate [kHz]
Average last and only returns per m2 on a
combined dataset
GPS error [m]
Spatial resolution of the nal elevation model [m]

Riegl LMS-Q560
Helicopter
4th and 16th March 2007
60
450
100
11.2
0.05e0.08
0.5

to the relief illumination, e.g. a ridge is more illuminated than the

bottom of a steep valley. Openness (Yokoyama et al., 2002) is
a similar method e it estimates the mean horizon elevation angle
e but the results are more difcult to interpret.
3.3.2. Colour cast models
Use of colour cast schemes is a well-accepted visualisation
method in archaeology (e.g. van Zijverden and Laan, 2004; Coren
et al., 2005; Budja and Mleku!
z, 2010), but it comes as no surprise
that the examples cited are those of coastal or ood plains. On most
other terrain types height variations exhibited by archaeological
features pale in comparison to topographic height variations. This
problem can be addressed with the use of the bipolar differentiation technique, also known as relative height-coding, where
a colour cast scheme is repeated at the chosen interval, e.g. 1 m.
Therefore, anomalies within intervals can be visually assessed
(Podobnikar, 2009), especially with a correct colour casting scheme
(cf. Moreland, 2009). Although this technique does reveal small
differences on a at landscape and the bands can be interpreted as
contours on a steep and diverse terrain (Kokalj et al., 2011),
archaeological features are impossible to interpret on rugged
terrain.
3.3.3. DEM manipulation methods
Modern geographic information system (GIS) software packages
offer a rich variety of terrain and morphometric analyses. Most
have a long scholarly tradition and some have been around longer
than desktop GIS software. Not all of them represent the topography directly. Two methods that provide good results are presented below: slope gradient and trend removal.
Slope gradient is a rst derivative of the DEM and is aspect
independent. It has been successfully used, for example, for forest
road system identication (White et al., 2010) and its use in
archaeology has been reported by Doneus and Briese (2011, 67). By
applying the inverted greyscale scheme (steep slopes are darker)

the nal image retains relief representation. It is very straightforward to interpret and works especially well when combined with
hill shading.
Trend removal is a procedure that separates local small-scale
features from large-scale landscape forms. It is based on
a presumption that small-scale variations in relief, archaeological
features among them, are obscured in visualizations by variation of
terrain. The procedure rst calculates a trend DEM and then
subtracts it from the original DEM, producing a local relief model
(LRM). The trend can be assessed by generalizing a detailed DEM.
Because processing is straightforward, generalization is usually
done with a low pass convolution lter, such as average or median,
or by resampling a DEM to a lower resolution. A better option is
a Gaussian lter that produces a smoother transition between
features, but it is computationally more demanding (Reitberger
et al., 2008; Wagner et al., 2008).
The method suggested by Hesse (2010) improves the difculty
of abrupt transition from a steep slope to a at terrain, but it does
not eliminate it entirely. In such cases the algorithm still produces
an impression of a rampart (Fig. 3).
Another, much faster method of trend removal is to shift
(transpose) a DEM and subtract it from the original DEM. The grid
can be moved in several directions (e.g. four: east, north, north-east
and south-east), by one or more cells. Using 16 difference DEMs is
suggested for geomorphological applications (Jones et al., 2007).
This method can be optimised by:
- calculating height differences from shifts in north and east
directions, each for one and two cells,
- producing a single local relief model by calculating a principal
components analysis from the height difference DEMs.
However, we achieved better results without any perceived data
loss (see Section 4) in sample data with a single 2-cell shift in the
north direction.
3.3.4. Image processing lters
A number of image processing local lters can be applied to
a DEM in order to detect high frequency variation (e.g. Laplacian,
Sobels, Roberts lters, unsharpen mask). The simplest is the Laplacian lter, specically designed for local edge detection, i.e.
emphasizing the sharp anomalies. This lter produces a similar
pattern to the slope images since the Laplacian convolution is
a discrete approximation of the rst derivative (e.g. Wood, 1996;
Vyas, 2008). Slope curvature (e.g. Dragut and Blaschke, 2006)
produces similar results as far as visualization is concerned
(cf. Kennelly, 2008). The problem of applying Laplacian ltering to
lidar derived DEM for use in archaeology is in that it enhances both

Table 2
Software and settings used to generate the various visualisations.
Software

Settings

DTM
Relief shading
Relief shading (Lambertian)
Relief shading (MDOW)

Repetitive Interpolation (REIN)

ESRI ArcMap 9.3
Goldensoftware Surfer 9.0
ESRI ArcMap 9.3 and DEM Surface Tools

Relief shading (PCA 1st)

Relief shading (PCA 1st and 2nd)
Slope gradient
PCA of 4 shifts
Shift
Trend removal (Gaussian)
Sky View Factor
Laplacian lter

ESRI ArcMap 9.3

ESRI ArcMap 9.3
ESRI ArcMap 9.3
ESRI ArcMap 9.3
ESRI ArcMap 9.3
SAGA GIS
ZRC SAZU SVF Standalone
SAGA GIS

15 iterations on a 23% sample

315" Sun azimuth, 45" Sun elevation
315" Sun azimuth, 45" Sun elevation
315" Sun azimuth, 45" Sun elevation, Maximum Hilshade Levels 256,
Apply Hypsometric Shading - NO, Ramp over observed range of values - YES
PCA of 16 shadings with 45" Sun elevation.
PCA of 16 shadings with 45" Sun elevation
Slope gradient in degrees
PCA of Shift 2 cells nort, south, east, west
2 cell North
2 standard deviations, 2.5 m search radius
10 m search radius, 8 directions
Standard deviation (percent of radius) 50, radius 3, search mode square

Author's personal copy

B. !
Stular et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 3354e3360

3357

Fig. 2. Visualisation methods described in text on the rugged terrain with explanation of archaeological features presented on a relief shading image.

archaeological features and noise (Stal et al., 2010). Also, problems

similar to trend removal methods can be anticipated. The edge
sharpness and thus the type of the archaeological features
enhanced can be adjusted via standard deviation and radius, but no
single setting will address all features in the dataset equally.
4. Results and discussion
The discussion on the visualisation techniques of the lidar
derived data so far has mostly focused on the comprehension
rather than on perception; this is understandable since comprehension is arguably the more important part of the archaeological
interpretation. The conclusion of the recent review on the subject
has been, that any technique used succeeds or fails largely as
a result of the scale and form of the observed archaeological
features and that it is not likely, that a single technique will reveal
all archaeological detail in any landscape (Challis et al., 2011).
In order to shed additional light on the subject we focus on the
perception of the data, largely because we feel that this aspect has
been neglected in the past. The perception is highly inuenced by
the contrast between the adjacent cells that enables the recognition
of the repeating patterns. This is especially important when dealing
with the topographical features of low magnitude that are very

common in archaeology. These features will remain of low contrast

unless the scale of features is addressed using specic visualization
method.
We have focused on testing to what degree contrast is inuenced by the choice of the visualisation method. To compare
contrast between adjacent cells analytical methods have been used.
This method, we argue, offers an important step towards better
understanding and quantication of effectiveness of visualisation
methods on the perception of the lidar derived data in archaeology
(Table 3).
In accordance with similar studies our analysis revealed that no
single visualization method outperforms the rest in all types of
terrain. One important result is that all alterations of relief shading
result in the deterioration of contrast. The interpreters not willing
to give up the intuitive look afforded by relief shading will have to
use two or more images shaded from different directions.
The Laplacian lter exhibits the highest contrast on average but
also the highest noise and is not useful as a general visualization
technique. Trend removal exhibits second highest contrast overall
and an acceptable level of noise; however, it also exhibits introduced artefacts not accounted for by our data assessment method.
Slope gradient and SVF both exhibit good overall performance with
low level of noise. It is thus clear that while some DEM

Author's personal copy

B. !Stular et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 3354e3360

3358

Fig. 3. Results of the assessment for sloped, mixed and at terrain (rows). Explanation of archaeological features are presented on relief shading image followed by measured
prole, visualisation method with highest calculated contrast and visualisation method chosen subjectively (columns).

manipulations enhance the result in specic circumstances (Laplacian lter on a slope and on mixed terrain, shift and trend removal
on at terrain) the best overall performers are SVF and slope
gradient. These also retain some of the intuitive natural representation of the relief morphology (Fig. 3).
Because the issue at hand is visual interpretation by a human
interpreter, these quantitative results must be contrasted with
a subjective comparison. We asked 12 users with medium to high
expertise level e i.e. are involved in a project or have already
nished one or more lidar-related projects respectively e about
their preferred visualisation methods. The results revealed that

most of the users are currently using relief shading complemented

with colour cast, slope gradient or 3D visualization. Half of them
were willing to try the PCA transformation, trend removal or SVF.
Among the latter there was no particular preference (Fig. 4).
None of the users explicitly stated that the preference towards
relief shading is related to the fact, that the latter is a direct analogue
of the kind of sunlight illuminated landscape which most interpreters of archaeological aerial imagery are familiar with. However,
we believe that the results imply exactly this. The intuitive look of
the relief shading technique, therefore, substantially aids the
archaeological interpretation despite its obvious shortcomings.

Table 3
The comparison of the visualisation methods. The median value of ve different standard deviations is a proxy for contrast; higher values represent higher contrast. The
standard deviation of standard deviations represents introduced noise; higher values mean more noise has been introduced. The best results e highest contrast, but disregarding default relief shading and techniques with disproportionate high noise e are in marked in bold.
TERRAIN:

DTM (cm)
DTM
Relief shading (315" /45" )
Relief shading (Lambertian)
Relief shading (MDOW)
Relief shading (PCA 1st)
Relief shading (PCA 1st and 2nd)
Slope gradient
PCA of 4 shifts
Shift (2 cell North)
Trend removal (Gaussian)
Sky View Factor
Laplacian lter

Rugged

Sloped

Mixed

Flat

Contrast

Noise

Contrast

Noise

Contrast

Noise

Contrast

Noise

11.7
0.0
46.9
12.5
6.1
25.4
20.3
42.4
13.5
13.6
2.3
30.9
40.8

3.8
0.3
3.4
1.8
5.1
2.9
1.1
5.1
4.3
3.6
0.2
4.2
29.6

54.8
0.6
36.8
25.1
17.8
16.9
4.0
31.7
31.1
33.6
40.4
8.1
66.5

1.9
0.0
11.2
4.7
5.5
6.5
2.6
3.8
9.4
8.9
3.6
3.3
21.7

7.2
0.0
20.8
17.9
13.2
12.1
7.5
17.0
12.5
13.7
22.2
23.7
29.6

2.9
0.0
6.2
5.6
2.4
5.0
0.8
5.3
1.7
1.8
4.0
4.7
15.3

7.0
0.0
8.0
12.6
3.5
5.5
5.5
5.3
20.5
20.8
50.6
6.0
20.7

2.3
0.0
2.3
4.9
3.0
1.9
1.9
3.5
8.0
8.3
7.4
2.8
22.0

Author's personal copy

B. !
Stular et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 3354e3360

3359

\The main purpose of the article was to evaluate different

visualisation methods of a lidar derived DEM for archaeological
visual detection and interpretation. Where a single method has to
be chosen we endorse the use of SVF or, as a visually les pleasing
alternative, slope gradient, both presented in greyscale. Otherwise
interpreters should choose different techniques on different
terrain types. Based on the results presented here, the most
appropriate are:
- shift method or trend removal in combination with colour cast
on at terrain,
- SVF on mixed terrain,
- slope gradient or trend removal on sloped terrain,
- SVF (blended with slope gradient) on rugged terrain and
- trend removal for low magnitude features.

Fig. 4. Results of survey (n 12) on preferred visualisation methods amongst experienced users. The graph is organized so that the most commonly used methods are on
the left and the most desired for the future on the right.

In the authors experience the colour casted DEM, preferably

combined with some kind of trend removal is the best technique to
use on a at terrain, SVF followed by Gaussian trend removal on
a mixed terrain, slope gradient again followed by Gaussian trend
removal on a sloping terrain and nally, SVF and slope gradient on
a rugged terrain. If pressed to select a single visualisation method
e for example to produce printed maps or images for non-GISenabled analysis e the authors would opt for SVF.
Regardless of the terrain the topographical features of low
magnitude need special consideration. Features observed on mixed
and at terrain in the above case studies, for example, are 0.15 and
0.25 m high respectively. In view of the data characteristics these
features are approaching the minimum magnitude that can be
observed. The two techniques that consider the scale of features are
SVF and trend removal. The rst performs better on mixed terrain,
while the second is better to visualize features on at terrain. Trend
removal is also a close second on the mixed terrain and can thus be
viewed as the most suitable technique for the detection of low
magnitude features. This comes as a no surprise, since this technique has been designed specically to enhance such features
(Hesse, 2010).
5. Conclusion
The use of lidar derived data as an archaeological remote
sensing technique is methodologically maturing. The archaeologists are most often involved in the analysis after the point cloud
data have already been processed. Therefore this paper is focused
on DEM visualisation techniques, arguably the most important part
of the process typically performed by archaeologists.
We have reviewed the methods used in archaeology and
proposed improvements on trend removal. In addition, we have
presented a technique that has so far not been used in archaeology
e the shift method. We have also tested the use of Laplacian lter
for edge enhancement, useful on the data with little noise. Our
suggested improvements (Gaussian trend removal) are implemented in the open source software System for Automated Geoscientic Analyses (www.saga-gis.org), and SVF code is publicly
available (ZRC SAZU, 2010). For a growing body of archaeologists
that are able to obtain lidar derived DEMs but do not specialize in
GIS analysis this can be decisive in choosing the appropriate
methods.

The authors urge the interpreters to experiment with visualization techniques that best suit their needs. With some additional
training the need for the "natural" look and feel of the relief shading
can easily be overcome and the full potential of the lidar derived
data for the archaeological interpretation can be harnessed.
Acknowledgements
The research was supported by grants from the Walks of Peace
in the So!
ca Region Foundation, the Scientic Research Centre of the
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, the Slovenian Research
Agency, and University of Franche-Comt. The funding sources
inuenced the collection of data but had no involvement in study
design or in the analysis and interpretation of data.
The authors wish to thank the participants of the Visualization
workshop at the Training and Research in the Archaeological
Interpretation of Lidar (TRAIL) international workshop, for taking
part in survey. We are grateful to Rachel Opitz, University of
Arkansas, for discussion and for helping us with the revision of the
text. We also want to thank the anonymous reviewers for their
comments and suggestions.
References
Budja, M., Mleku!
z, D., 2010. Lake or oodplain? Mid-Holocene settlement patterns
and the landscape dynamic of the I!
zica oodplain (Ljubljana Marshes,
Slovenia). Holocene 20, 1269e1275.
Buteux, S., Chapman, H., 2009. Where rivers meet: the archaeology of Catholme and
the Trent-Tame conuence. In: CBA Research Report 161. Council for British
Archaeology, York, p. 200.
Challis, K., Kokalj, Z., Kincey, M., Moscrop, D., Howard, A.J., 2008. Airborne lidar and
historic environment records. Antiquity 82, 1055e1064.
Challis, K., Forlin, P., Kincey, M., 2011. A generic toolkit for the visualization of
archaeological features on airborne LiDAR elevation data. Archaeological Prospection 18 (4), 279e289.
Chase, A.F., Chase, D.Z., Weishampel, J.F., Drake, J.B., Shrestha, R.L., Slatton, K.C.,
Awe, J.J., Carter, W.E., 2011. Airborne LiDAR, archaeology, and the ancient Maya
landscape at Caracol, Belize. Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 387e398.
Coren, F., Visintini, D., Prearo, G., Sterzai, P., 2005. Integrating LiDAR Intensity
Measures and Hyperspectral Data for Extracting of Cultural Heritage. Workshop
Italy-Canada 2005, Padova 17e18 maggio 2005.
Corns, A., Shaw, R., 2009. High resolution 3-dimensional documentation of
archaeological monuments & landscapes using airborne LiDAR. Journal of
Cultural Heritage 10, 72e77.
Crutchley, S., 2006. Light detection and ranging (lidar) in the Witham valley, Lincolnshire: an assessment of new remote sensing techniques. Archaeological
Prospection 13, 251e257.
Crutchley, S., 2009. Ancient and modern: combining different remote sensing
techniques to interpret historic landscapes. Journal of Cultural Heritage 10S,
e65ee71.
Devereux, B.J., Amable, G.S., Crow, P., Cliff, A.D., 2005. The potential of airborne lidar
for the detection of archaeological features under woodland canopies. Antiquity
79, 648e660.
Devereux, B.J., Amable, G.S., Crow, P., 2008. Visualisation of LiDAR terrain models for
archaeological feature detection. Antiquity 82, 470e479.

Author's personal copy

3360

B. !Stular et al. / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 3354e3360

Doneus, M., Briese, C., 2011. Airborne Laser Scanning in forested areas e potential
and limitations of an archaeological prospection technique. In: Cowley, C.D.
(Ed.), Remote Sensing for Archaeological Heritage Management. Europae
Archaeologia Consilium, Brussel, pp. 59e76.
Doneus, M., Briese, C., Fera, M., Janner, M., 2008. Archaeological prospection of
forested areas using full-waveform airborne laser scanning. Journal of
Archaeological Science 35, 882e893.
Dragut, L., Blaschke, T., 2006. Automated classication of landform elements using
object-based image analysis. Geomorphology 81, 330e344.
Hesse, R., 2010. LiDAR-derived Local Relief Models e a new tool for archaeological
prospection. Archaeological Prospection 17, 67e72.
Imhof, E., 2007. Cartographic Relief Presentation. ESRI Press, Redlands.
Jones, A.F., Brewer, P.A., Johnstone, E., Macklin, M.G., 2007. High-resolution interpretative geomorphological mapping of river valley environments using
airborne LiDAR data. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32, 1574e1592.
Kennelly, P.J., Stewart, J.A., 2006. A uniform sky illumination model to enhance
shading of terrain and Urban areas. Cartography and Geographic Information
Science 33, 21e36.
Kennelly, P.J., 2008. Terrain maps displaying hill-shading with curvature. Geomorphology 102, 567e577.
Kobler, A., Pfeifer, N., Ogrinc, P., Todorovski, L., O!stir, K., D!
zeroski, S., 2007. Repetitive
interpolation: a robust algorithm for DTM generation from Aerial Laser Scanner
Data in forested terrain. Remote Sensing of Environment 108, 9e23.
Kokalj, Z., Zak!sek, K., Kri!stof, O., 2011. Application of sky-view factor for the visualization of historic landscape features in lidar-derived relief models. Antiquity
85, 263e273.
Mark, R., 1992. Multidirectional, Oblique-weighted, Shaded-relief Image of the
Island of Hawaii. U.S. Geological Survey.
Moreland, K., 2009. Diverging color maps for scientic visualization. In: Bebis, G.,
Boyle, R., Parvin, B., Koracin, D., Kuno, Y., Wang, J., Pajarola, R., Lindstrom, P.,
Hinkenjann, A., Encarnao, M., Silva, C., Coming, D. (Eds.), Advances in Visual
Computing. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 92e103.
Oren, M., Nayar, S.K., 1994. Generalization of Lamberts reectance model. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science 801, 269e280.
Parcak, S.H., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. Routledge, London,
New York.

Podobnikar, T., 2009. Methods for visual quality assessment of a digital terrain
model. SAPIENS 1, 1e10.
Reitberger, J., Krzystek, P., Stilla, U., 2008. Analysis of full waveform LIDAR data for
the classication of deciduous and coniferous trees. International Journal of
Remote Sensing 29, 1407e1431.
Sittler, B., 2004. Revealing historical landscapes by using airborne laser-scanning:
a 3D-Modell of ridge and furrow in forests near Rastatt (Germany). International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 36 (8), 258e261.
Slocum, T.A., McMaster, R.B., Kessler, F.C., Howard, H.H., 2004. Thematic
Cartography and Geographic Visualization. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River,
528 pp.
Stal, C., Bourgeois, J., De Maeyer, P., De Mulder, G., De Wulf, A., Goossens, R.,
Nuttens, T., Stichelbaut, B., 2010. Kemmelberg (Belgium) case study: comparison of DTM analysis methods for the detection of relicts from the First World
War. In: Reuter, R. (Ed.), 30th EARSeL Symposium: Remote Sensing for Science,
Education and Culture. EARSeL.
!
B., 2011. The use of lidar-derived relief models in archaeological topography
Stular,
e The Kobarid region (Slovenia) case study. Arheolo!ski vestnik 62, 393e432.
van Zijverden, W.K., Laan, W.N.H., 2004. In: Brner, W. (Ed.), Archaeologie und
computer Workshop 9. Forschunggesellschaft Wiener Stadtrchaologie.
Vyas, A. (Ed.), 2008. Remote Sensing and GIS: Reader. CEPT University, Ahmedabad.
Wagner, W., Hollaus, M., Briese, C., Ducic, V., 2008. 3D vegetation mapping using
small-footprint full-waveform airborne laser scanners. International Journal of
Remote Sensing 29, 1433e1452.
White, R.A., Dietterick, B.C., Mastin, T., Strohman, R., 2010. Forest roads mapped
using LiDAR in steep forested terrain. Remote Sensing 2, 1120e1141.
Wood, J.D., 1996. The Geomorphological Characterisation of Digital Elevation
Models. University of Leicester, Leicester.
Yokoyama, R., Shirasawa, M., Pike, R.J., 2002. Visualizing topography by openness:
a new application of image processing to digital elevation models. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 68, 257e266.
! 2011. Sky-view factor as a relief visualization techZak!sek, K., O!stir, K., Kokalj, Z.,
nique. Remote Sensing 3, 398e415.
ZRC SAZU, 2010. IAPS ZRC SAZU. Institute of Anthropological and Spatial Studies
ZRC SAZU. Available at: http://iaps.zrc-sazu.si/en/svf#v.