Remote Sensing Archaeology Springer

ENCYCLOPEDIA of
GEOARCHAEOLOGY
Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF GEOARCHAEOLOGY
Volume Editor
Allan S. Gilbert is Professor of Anthropology at Fordham University in the Bronx, New York. He holds a B.A. from Rutgers University, and his M.A., M.Phil., and
Ph.D. in anthropology were earned at Columbia University. His areas of research interest include the Near East (late prehistory and early historic periods) as well as
the Middle Atlantic region of the USA. (historical archaeology). His specializations are in archaeozoology of the Near East and geoarchaeology, especially
mineralogy and compositional analysis of pottery and building materials. Publications have covered a range of subjects, including ancient pastoralism, faunal
quantification, skeletal microanatomy, brick geochemistry, and two co-edited volumes on the marine geology and geoarchaeology of the Black Sea basin.
Associate Editors
Paul Goldberg
Department of Archaeology
Emeritus at Boston University
675 Commonwealth Ave
Boston, MA 02215, USA
paulberg@bu.edu
Vance T. Holliday
Departments of Anthropology and Geosciences
University of Arizona
210030 Tucson, AZ 85721-0030, USA
vthollid@email.arizona.edu
Rolfe D. Mandel
Department of Anthropology
University of Kansas
1415 Jayhawk Blvd
622 Fraser Hall
Lawrence, KS 66045, USA
mandel@kgs.ku.edu
Robert S. Sternberg
Department of Geosciences
Franklin and Marshall College
3003 Lancaster, PA 17604-3003, USA
Rob.Sternberg@fandm.edu
Advisory Editors
Zenobia Jacobs
School of Environmental and Earth Sciences
University of Wollongong
Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
R.E. Taylor, Emeritus,

University of California at Riverside, Riverside
CA, USA
Panagiotis Karkanas
Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of Southern Greece
Athens, Greece
Claudio Vita-Finzi
Natural History Museum
South Hill Park, London, UK
Joseph Schuldenrein
Geoarchaeology Research Associates
Yonkers, NY, USA
Jamie Woodward
Geography, School of Environment and Development
The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Sarah C. Sherwood
University of the South
Sewanee, TN, USA
Aims of the Series

The Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series provides comprehensive and authoritative coverage of all the main areas in the Earth Sciences. Each volume comprises a
focused and carefully chosen collection of contributions from leading names in the subject, with copious illustrations and reference lists. These books represent one of
the worlds leading resources for the Earth Sciences community. Previous volumes are being updated and new works published so that the volumes will continue to
be essential reading for all professional earth scientists, geologists, geophysicists, climatologists, and oceanographers as well as for teachers and students. Go to http://
link.springer.com to visit the Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series online.
About the Series Editor

Professor Charles W. Finkl has edited and/or contributed to more than eight volumes in the Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series. For the past 25 years he has been
the Executive Director of the Coastal Education and Research Foundation and Editor-in-Chief of the international Journal of Coastal Research. In addition to these
duties, he was Professor at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida, USA. He is a graduate of the University of Western Australia (Perth) and previously
worked for a wholly owned Australian subsidiary of the International Nickel Company of Canada (INCO). During his career, he acquired field experience in
Australia; the Caribbean; South America; SW Pacific islands; Southern Africa; Western Europe; and the Pacific Northwest, Midwest, and Southeast USA.
Founding Series Editor

Professor Rhodes W. Fairbridge (deceased) has edited more than 24 Encyclopedias in the Earth Sciences Series. During his career he has worked as a petroleum
geologist in the Middle East, been a WW II intelligence officer in the SW Pacific, and led expeditions to the Sahara, Arctic Canada, Arctic Scandinavia, Brazil, and
New Guinea. He was Emeritus Professor of Geology at Columbia University and was affiliated with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF EARTH SCIENCES SERIES
ENCYCLOPEDIA of
GEOARCHAEOLOGY
edited by
ALLAN S. GILBERT
Fordham University, Bronx, NY, USA
With Associate Editors
PAUL GOLDBERG
Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
VANCE T. HOLLIDAY
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
ROLFE D. MANDEL
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
ROBERT S. STERNBERG
Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA, USA
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016936270
ISBN: 978-94-007-4827-9
This publication is available also as:
Electronic publication under ISBN 978-1-4020-4409-0 and
Print and electronic bundle under ISBN 978-94-007-4828-6
Springer Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London
Printed on acid-free paper
Cover photo: Photograph of Structure 4 at the Ceren archaeological site, El Salvador, which functioned as the bodega
(storehouse) for Household 4 in an ancient Maya village. The village was buried by tephra from the nearby Loma
Caldera volcanic vent in about AD 650. The various layers of the phreatomagmatic eruption resulted in extraordinarily
good preservation of structures, including the thatch roofs, as well as the foods and artifacts stored within the buildings.
Image courtesy of Payson Sheets, University of Colorado.
Every effort has been made to contact the copyright holders of the figures and tables which have been reproduced from
other sources. Anyone who has not been properly credited is requested to contact the publishers, so that due
acknowledgement may be made in subsequent editions.
All rights reserved for the contributions: Arctic Geoarchaeology: Site Formation Processes; Ceramics;
Dendrochronology; Living Surfaces; Paleopathology; Paleodemography: Methods and Recent Advances;
Zhoukoudian
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material
is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,
reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to
be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express
or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Dedicated to Rhodes W. Fairbridge

(19142006)
with appreciation
Contents
Editorial Board
Contributors
xiii
xxvii
Acknowledgments
xxix
Ain Ghazal
Rolfe D. Mandel and Alan H. Simmons
Akrotiri Aetokremnos, Cyprus

Rolfe D. Mandel and Alan H. Simmons
Alluvial Settings
C. Reid Ferring
Analysis of Carbon, Nitrogen, pH, Phosphorus,

and Carbonates as Tools in Geoarchaeological
Research
Michael F. Kolb
46
Archaeoseismology
Tina M. Niemi
47
Arctic Geoarchaeology: Site Formation Processes

Kelly E. Graf
57
Artifact Conservation
Dennis Piechota
58
Atapuerca
Carolina Mallol
62
Beringia, Geoarchaeology
Joshua D. Reuther and Ben A. Potter
65
Big Eddy Site, Missouri

Edwin R. Hajic
74
Blombos Cave
Magnus M. Haaland and
Christopher S. Henshilwood
75
xv
Preface
Amino Acid Racemization

Kirsty Penkman
Archaeomineralogy
George Rip Rapp
14
15
Anthrosols
Vance T. Holliday
24
Boxgrove
Richard I. Macphail
76
40
Ar/39Ar and KAr Geochronology

Leah E. Morgan
27
Built Environment
Joseph Schuldenrein
77
Archaeological Stratigraphy
Julie K. Stein and Vance T. Holliday
33
Burned-Rock Features
Alston V. Thoms
89
Archaeomagnetic Dating
Stacey Lengyel
39
Cactus Hill, Virginia

Daniel P. Wagner
95
viii
CONTENTS
Canals and Aqueducts in the Ancient World

Charles R. Ortloff
96
Casper Site, Wyoming

Vance T. Holliday
105
atalhyk
Neil Roberts
105
Cave Settings
Panagiotis Karkanas and Paul Goldberg
108
Ceramics
Charles C. Kolb
118
Cern
Payson Sheets
128
Chemical Alteration
Panagiotis Karkanas
129
Chronostratigraphy
Daniel Richter
139
Climatostratigraphy
Philip L. Gibbard
141
Coastal Settings
Patrick D. Nunn
145
Colluvial Settings
Charles A. I. French
157
Cosmogenic Isotopic Dating

Ari Matmon
170
Data Visualization
Erich C. Fisher and Curtis W. Marean
173
Dendrochronology
Jonathan G. A. Lageard
180
Dmanisi
C. Reid Ferring
El Mirn Cave
Lawrence Guy Straus and
Manuel R. Gonzalez Morales
210
Electrical Resistivity and Electromagnetism

Alain Tabbagh
211
Electron Probe Microanalyzer

J. Victor Owen
219
Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) in

Archaeological Context
Mathieu Duval
224
Eolian Settings: Loess

Marcelo A. Zarate
233
Eolian Settings: Sand

Andrew S. Goudie
239
Ethnogeoarchaeology
Georgia Tsartsidou
245
Experimental Geoarchaeology
Richard I. Macphail
251
Field Geochemistry
Richard E. Terry
263
Field Survey
John Bintliff
271
Fission Track Dating

Barry Kohn
274
Fluorine Dating
Matthew R. Goodrum
275
Forensic Geoarchaeology
J. M. Adovasio
276
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)

Francesco Berna
285
197
Gas Chromatography
Ruth Ann Armitage
287
Doln Vstonice, Pavlov, Milovice

Ji Svoboda
198
Geoarchaeology, History
Christopher L. Hill
292
Dumps and Landfill

Joseph Schuldenrein
199
Geochemical Sourcing
Michael D. Glascock
303
Dust Cave, Alabama

Sarah C. Sherwood
205
Geographical Information Systems (GIS)

Kenneth L. Kvamme
309
Eastern Sahara: Combined Prehistoric Expedition

Christopher L. Hill
209
Geomorphology
Carlos E. Cordova
314
CONTENTS
ix
Geophysics
Apostolos Sarris
323
Java (Indonesia)
O. Frank Huffman
451
Gesher Benot Yaaqov

Nira Alperson-Afil
326
Kebara Cave
Paul Goldberg
453
Glacial Settings
Christopher L. Hill
327
Kennewick Man
Gary Huckleberry
455
Glass
J. Victor Owen
336
Kostenki, Russia
Vance T. Holliday and John F. Hoffecker
456
Grain Size Analysis

Gloria I. Lpez
341
Koster Site, Illinois

Edwin R. Hajic
457
Great Plains Geoarchaeology

Vance T. Holliday and Rolfe D. Mandel
348
La Micoque
Christopher E. Miller
459
Grimaldi Caves
Francesco G. Fedele
366
Lake Mungo and Willandra

Jim Bowler
460
Ground-Penetrating Radar
Lawrence B. Conyers
367
Landscape Archaeology
Tim Denham
464
Harappa
Joseph Schuldenrein
379
Lead Isotopes
A. Mark Pollard
469
Harbors and Ports, Ancient

Nick Marriner, Christophe Morhange,
Clement Flaux and Nicolas Carayon
382
Liang Bua
Kira E. Westaway
473
Harris Matrices and the Stratigraphic Record

Edward Cecil Harris
403
Lithics
M. Steven Shackley
476
Haua Fteah
Chris O. Hunt
410
Living Surfaces
Erin C. Dempsey and Rolfe D. Mandel
486
Hearths and Combustion Features

Susan M. Mentzer
411
Loessic Paleolithic, Tajikistan

Richard S. Davis and Vance T. Holliday
492
Hohle Fels
425
Luminescence Dating of Pottery and Bricks

Ian K. Bailiff
494
House Pits and Grubenhuser

Richard I. Macphail
425
Magnetometry for Archaeology

Jrg W. E. Fassbinder
499
433
Mass Movement
John F. Shroder and Brandon J. Weihs
515
Inundated Freshwater Settings

Jessi J. Halligan
441
Metals
Vincent Serneels
521
Isernia
Francesco G. Fedele
447
Microstratigraphy
Paul Goldberg and Richard I. Macphail
532
Isochron Dating
Jan D. Kramers
448
Minnesota Messenia Expedition (MME)

George Rip Rapp
537
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass

Spectrometry (ICP-MS)
Hector Neff
CONTENTS
Monte Circeo Caves

Francesco G. Fedele
538
Petrography
Ian K. Whitbread
660
Monte Verde
Tom D. Dillehay
538
Pigments
Ian Watts
664
Mount Carmel
Claudio Vita-Finzi
539
Pinnacle Point
Curtis W. Marean
672
Neutron Activation Analysis

Ronald L. Bishop
543
Pompeii and Herculaneum

Maria Rosaria Senatore
675
Niah Cave
Chris O. Hunt
547
Poverty Point Site, Louisiana

Anthony L. Ortmann
678
Olduvai
Gail M. Ashley
549
Pre-Clovis Geoarchaeology
Andrea Freeman
679
Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) Dating

Zenobia Jacobs
550
Privies and Latrines

Richard I. Macphail
682
Organic Residues
Michael W. Gregg
555
Radiocarbon Dating
R. E. Taylor
689
tzi, the Tyrolean Iceman

James H. Dickson
566
Raman
Francesco Berna
702
Oxygen Isotopes
Lori E. Wright
567
Remote Sensing in Archaeology

Stefano Campana
703
Paleodemography: Methods and Recent Advances

Maru Mormina
575
Rockshelter Settings
Susan M. Mentzer
725
Paleodiet
Judith Sealy
583
Santorini
Floyd W. McCoy
745
Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction
Rolfe D. Mandel and Vance T. Holliday
588
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

Ellery Frahm
755
Paleomagnetism
Josep M. Pares
601
Sedimentology
Katherine A. Adelsberger
764
Paleopathology
Charlotte A. Roberts
607
Shell Middens
Katherine Szab
772
Paleoshores (Lakes and Sea)

Christophe Morhange, Michel Magny and
Nick Marriner
613
Shipwreck Geoarchaeology
Rory Quinn
788
628
Site Formation Processes

Rolfe D. Mandel, Paul Goldberg and
Vance T. Holliday
797
Paludal Settings (Wetland Archaeology)

Kristin Ismail-Meyer and Philippe Rentzel
Pastoral Sites
Giovanni Boschian
644
Site Preservation
Henk Kars
817
Petroglyphs
Linea Sundstrom
652
Soil Geomorphology
821
CONTENTS
xi
Soil Micromorphology
Panagiotis Karkanas and Paul Goldberg
830
Tells
Wendy Matthews
951
Soil Stratigraphy
Vance T. Holliday, Rolfe D. Mandel and
Timothy Beach
841
Tephrochronology
Christine Lane and Jamie Woodward
972
Soil Survey
856
Tombs
Panagiotis Karkanas
978
Soils
Vance T. Holliday, Rolfe D. Mandel and
E. Arthur Bettis III
862
Trampling
981
982
Soils, Agricultural
Jonathan A. Sandor and Jeffrey A. Homburg
877
Troy
George Rip Rapp
883
Tsunamis
Beverly N. Goodman-Tchernov
984
Southwestern US Geoarchaeology
Gary Huckleberry
886
Ubeidiya
Carolina Mallol
989
Speleothems
Alfred G. Latham
896
U-Series Dating
Robyn Pickering
992
Spring Settings
Gail M. Ashley
Stable Carbon Isotopes in Soils
Lee C. Nordt and Vance T. Holliday
901
Volcanoes and People

Payson Sheets
1001
Sterkfontein/Swartkrans/Kromdraai
Dominic Stratford
907
Wells and Reservoirs

Vernon L. Scarborough and
Kenneth B. Tankersley
1007
Stonehenge
Mike Parker Pearson
909
X-ray Diffraction (XRD)

Gilberto Artioli
1019
Stratigraphy
Paul Goldberg, Vance T. Holliday and
Rolfe D. Mandel
913
Strontium Isotopes
James H. Burton
916
Submerged Continental Shelf Prehistory

Nic C. Flemming
919
Susceptibility
Rinita A. Dalan
939
Swanscombe
Tom S. White
944
X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) Spectrometry in

Geoarchaeology
M. Steven Shackley
1025
York
Maria-Raimonda Usai
1031
Zhoukoudian
Chen Shen
1033
Author Index
1035
Subject Index
1037
Editorial Board
Allan S. Gilbert
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Fordham University
441 East Fordham Road
Bronx, NY 10458
USA
gilbert@fordham.edu
Panagiotis Karkanas
Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology & Speleology of
Southern Greece
Ardittou 34b
11636 Athens
Greece
pkarkanas@hua.gr
Paul Goldberg
675 Commonwealth Ave
Boston, MA 02215
USA
paulberg@bu.edu
Rolfe D. Mandel
1415 Jayhawk Blvd
622 Fraser Hall
Lawrence, KS 66045
USA
mandel@kgs.ku.edu
Vance T. Holliday
210030 Tucson, AZ 85721-0030
USA
Joseph Schuldenrein
5912 Spencer Avenue
Yonkers, NY 10471
USA
joseph.schuldenrein@gra-geoarch.com
Zenobia Jacobs
Northfields Avenue
Wollongong, NSW 2522
Australia
zenobia@uow.edu.au
Sarah C. Sherwood
Environmental Studies
The University of the South
735 University Avenue
Sewanee, TN 37383
USA
sherwood@sewanee.edu
xiv
EDITORIAL BOARD
Robert S. Sternberg
Franklin and Marshall College
3003 Lancaster, PA 17604-3003
USA
Rob.Sternberg@fandm.edu
Claudio Vita-Finzi
22 South Hill Park
London, NW 32SB
UK
cvitafinzi@aol.com
R. E. Taylor
Emeritus, Department of Anthropology
University of California, Riverside
1334 Watkins Hall
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
USA
ervin.taylor@ucr.edu
Jamie Woodward
Geography, School of Environment and Development
The University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
UK
jamie.woodward@manchester.ac.uk
Contributors
Katherine A. Adelsberger
Douglas and Maria Bayer Chair in Earth Science
Knox College
2 East South St.
Galesburg, IL 61401
USA
kadelsbe@knox.edu
Gilberto Artioli
Dipartimento di Geoscienze
Universit degli Studi di Padova
Via Gradenigo 6
35131 Padova
Italy
gilberto.artioli@unipd.it
J. M. Adovasio
Research Programs/Services
Florida Atlantic UniversityHarbor Branch
5600 US-1
Fort Pierce, FL 34946
USA
jadovasio@fau.edu
Gail M. Ashley
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Rutgers University
Wright Geological Laboratory, Room 230
610 Taylor Road
Piscataway, NJ 08854
USA
gmashley@rci.rutgers.edu
Nira Alperson-Afil
The Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies
and Archaeology
Bar Ilan University
Ramat-Gan 5290002
Israel
nira.alperson-afil@biu.ac.il
Ian K. Bailiff
University of Durham
South Road
Durham DH1 3LE
UK
ian.bailiff@durham.ac.uk
Ruth Ann Armitage

Department of Chemistry
Eastern Michigan University
541 Science Complex
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
USA
rarmitage@emich.edu
Timothy Beach
Department of Geography and the Environment
The University of Texas at Austin
305 E. 23rd Street CLA building, main office- CLA 3.306
Austin, TX 78712
USA
beacht@austin.utexas.edu
xvi
CONTRIBUTORS
Francesco Berna
Simon Fraser University
Education Bulding 9635, 8888 University Dr.
Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6
Canada
francesco_berna@sfu.ca
James H. Burton
University of Wisconsin
5240 W. H. Sewell Social Science Building
1180 Observatory Dr
Madison, WI 53706
USA
jhburton@wisc.edu
E. Arthur Bettis III

Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
University of Iowa
Trowbridge Hall
Iowa City, IA 52242
USA
art-bettis@uiowa.edu
Stefano Campana
Faculty of Classics and McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research
University of Cambridge
Sidgwick Avenue
Cambridge CB3 9DA
UK
and
Laboratory of Landscape Archaeology and Remote
Sensing, Department of History and Cultural Heritage
University of Siena
Via Roma 56
53100 Siena
Italy
srlc3@cam.ac.uk
John Bintliff
School of Archaeology, Classics and History
Edinburgh University
4 Teviot Place
Edinburgh EH8 9AG
UK
johnlbintliff@gmail.com
j.l.bintliff@arch.leidenuniv.nl
Ronald L. Bishop
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
37012 20013-7012 Washington, DC
USA
bishopr@si.edu
Giovanni Boschian
Dipartimento di Biologia
Universit di Pisa
1, via Derna
56100 Pisa
Italy
giovanni.boschian@unipi.it
Jim Bowler
Earth Sciences
University of Melbourne
308 McCoy
Parkville Campus, VIC 3010
Australia
jbowler@unimelb.edu.au
Nicolas Carayon
Archologie des Socits Mditerranennes, UMR 5140
390 avenue de Prols
34970 Lattes
France
Lawrence B. Conyers
University of Denver
2000 E. Asbury St.
Denver, CO 80208
USA
lconyers@du.edu
Carlos E. Cordova
Department of Geography
Oklahoma State University
337 Murray Hall
Stillwater, OK 74078
USA
carlos.cordova@okstate.edu
Rinita A. Dalan
Department of Anthropology and Earth Science
Minnesota State University Moorhead
1104 7th Avenue South
Moorhead, MN 56563
USA
dalanri@mnstate.edu
CONTRIBUTORS
Richard S. Davis
Bryn Mawr College
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010-2899
USA
rdavis@brynmawr.edu
Erin C. Dempsey
National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center
100 Centennial Mall North, Room 474
Lincoln, NE
68508 USA
erin_dempsey@nps.gov
Tim Denham
Archaeological Science Programs
School of Archaeology and Anthropology
The Australian National University
Canberra, ACT 0200
Australia
Tim.Denham@anu.edu.au
James H. Dickson
Dickson Laboratory for Bioarchaeology, York
Archaeological Trust
Kelvin Campus, 2317 Maryhill Road
Glasgow G20 OSP
UK
prof.j.h.dickson@gmail.com
Tom D. Dillehay
Vanderbilt University
124 Garland Hall
Nashville, TN 37235
USA
tom.d.dillehay@vanderbilt.edu
Mathieu Duval
ESR Dating Laboratory, Geochronology
Centro Nacional de Investigacin sobre la Evolucin
Humana (CENIEH)
Paseo Sierra de Atapuerca, 3
09002 Burgos
Spain
mathieu.duval@cenieh.es
Jrg W. E. Fassbinder
LudwigMaximilians University of Munich
Theresienstrabe 4l
80333 Munich
Germany
and
Bayerisches Landesamt fr Denkmalpflege
Hofgraben 4
80539 Munich
Germany
fassbinder@geophysik.uni-muenchen.de
Francesco G. Fedele
Formerly University of Naples Federico II
Via Foligno 78/10
10149 Torino
Italy
fedele0@yahoo.it
C. Reid Ferring
University of North Texas
1155 Union Circle #305279
Denton, TX 76203
USA
ferring@unt.edu
Erich C. Fisher
School of Human Evolution and Social Change
Arizona State University
Coor Hall, 5534
Tempe, AZ 85287-2402
USA
erich.fisher@asu.edu
Clment Flaux
Aix-Marseille Universit, IUF, CEREGE UMR 6635
Europle de lArbois, BP 80
13545 Aix-en-Provence cedex 04
France
Nic C. Flemming
National Oceanography Centre
University of Southampton
Waterfront Campus, European Way
Southampton, Hampshire SO14 3ZH
UK
nflemming@sheetsheath.co.uk
Ellery Frahm
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
HHH #395, 301 19th Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55455
USA
frah0010@umn.edu
xvii
xviii
CONTRIBUTORS
Andrea Freeman
Department of Anthropology and Archaeology and
Earth Science Program
University of Calgary
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
Canada
freeman@ucalgary.ca
Matthew R. Goodrum
Department of Science and Technology in Society
Virginia Tech
133 Lane Hall
Blacksburg, VA 24061
USA
mgoodrum@vt.edu
Charles A. I. French
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology
1.3, West Building
Cambridge CB2 3DZ
UK
caif2@cam.ac.uk
Andrew S. Goudie
School of Geography and the Environment
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford OX1 3QY
UK
andrew.goudie@stx.ox.ac.uk
Philip L. Gibbard
Cambridge Quaternary, Department of Geography
Downing Street
Cambridge CB2 3EN
UK
plg1@cam.ac.uk
Kelly E. Graf
Texas A&M University
MS 4352
College Station, TX 77843-4352
USA
kgraf@tamu.edu
Michael D. Glascock
Archaeometry Laboratory, Research Reactor Center
University of Missouri
1513 Research Park Dr
Columbia, MO 65211
USA
glascockm@missouri.edu
Michael W. Gregg
St. Francis Xavier University
2320 Notre Dame Avenue
Antigonish, NS B2G2W5
Canada
greggmic@sas.upenn.edu
Paul Goldberg
675 Commonwealth Ave.
Boston, MA 02215
USA
paulberg@bu.edu
Magnus M. Haaland
History Cultural Studies and Religion, University of
Bergen
ysteinsgate 3, Postboks
7805 5020 Bergen
Norway
Magnus.Haaland@ahkr.uib.no
Manuel R. Gonzlez Morales

Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistricas
Universidad de Cantabria
Santander 39005
Spain
moralesm@unican.es
Beverly N. Goodman-Tchernov
Moshe Strauss Department of Marine Geosciences,
Leon Charney School of Marine Sciences
University of Haifa
Mt. Carmel
Haifa 31905
Israel
bgoodman@univ.haifa.ac.il
Edwin R. Hajic
GeoArc Research, Inc.
55 Camino Cabo
Santa Fe, NM 87508
USA
hajic@geoarc.net
Jessi J. Halligan
Florida State University
1847 West Tennessee St.
Tallahassee, FL 32308
USA
jessihalligan@tamu.edu
CONTRIBUTORS
Edward Cecil Harris

National Museum of Bermuda
1 The Keep, Sandys Parish
MA 133 MABX Sandys
Bermuda
scaurbda@me.com
Christopher S. Henshilwood
Department of Archaeology, History
Cultural Studies and Religion, University of Bergen
ysteinsgate 3, Postboks
7805 5020 Bergen
Norway
Christopher.Henshilwood@ahkr.uib.no
Christopher L. Hill
Graduate College
Boise State University
1910 University Drive
Boise, ID 83725-1950
USA
chill2@boisestate.edu
John F. Hoffecker
INSTAAR (Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research)
University of Colorado
1560 30th Street
Boulder, CO 80309-0450
USA
john.hoffecker@colorado.edu
Vance T. Holliday
1009 E. South Campus Drive
Tucson, AZ 85721-0030
USA
Jeffrey A. Homburg
Statistical Research, Inc
P.O. Box 31865 Tucson, AZ 85751
USA
jhomburg@sricrm.com
Gary Huckleberry
Gould-Simpson Building, #77, 1040 E. 4th Street
Tucson, AZ 85721
USA
ghuck@email.arizona.edu
xix
O. Frank Huffman
University of Texas at Austin
Box 548 Bastrop, TX 78602
USA
huffmanof@mail.utexas.edu
huffmanof@austin.utexas.edu
Chris O. Hunt
School of Natural Sciences and Psychology
Liverpool John Moores University
Byrom Street
Liverpool L3 3LH
UK
C.O.Hunt@ljmu.ac.uk
c.hunt@qub.ac.uk
Kristin Ismail-Meyer
Department of Environmental Sciences
Integrative Prehistory and Archaeological Science (IPAS)
University of Basel
Spalenring 145
4055 Basel
Switzerland
Kristin.Meyer@unibas.ch
Zenobia Jacobs
Northfields Avenue
Wollongong, NSW 2522
Australia
zenobia@uow.edu.au
Panagiotis Karkanas
Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology-Speleology of
Southern Greece
Ardittou 34b
11636 Athens
Greece
pkarkanas@hua.gr
Henk Kars
Geo- and Bioarchaeology
Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences
VU University
De Boelelaan 1085
1081 HV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
h.kars@vu.nl
xx
CONTRIBUTORS
Barry Kohn
School of Earth Sciences
McCoy Building
Melbourne, VIC 3010
Australia
b.kohn@unimelb.edu.au
Christine Lane
Geography, School of Environment
Education and Development
Manchester M13 9PL
UK
christine.lane@manchester.ac.uk
Charles C. Kolb
1005 Pruitt Court, SW
Vienna, VA 221806429
USA
and
National Endowment for the Humanities
Washington, DC 20506
USA
CCKolb.13@gmail.com
CKolb@neh.gov
Alfred G. Latham
Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology
Liverpool University
Liverpool L69 3GS
UK
aa09@liv.ac.uk
Michael F. Kolb
Strata Morph Geoexploration, Inc
1648 Calico Court
53590 Sun Prairie, WI
USA
mikekolb@charter.net
Jan D. Kramers
Department of Geology
University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park Kingsway
Campus
Auckland Park 2006 Johannesburg
South Africa
jkramers@uj.ac.za
Kenneth L. Kvamme
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
USA
kkvamme@uark.edu
Jonathan G. A. Lageard
Division of Geography and Environmental Management
School of Science and the Environment
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester M1 5GD
UK
j.a.lageard@mmu.ac.uk
Stacey Lengyel
Illinois State Museum
1011 E. Ash St.
Springfield, IL 62703
USA
slengyel@museum.state.il.us
Gloria I. Lpez
Luminescence Laboratory
Centro Nacional de Investigacin sobre la Evolucin
Humana CENIEH
Paseo Sierra Atapuerca, 3
Burgos 09002
Spain
and
Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies
University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel
Haifa 31905
Israel
lopezgi.phd@gmail.com
Richard I. Macphail
Institute of Archaeology
University College London
31-34 Gordon Square
London WC1H OPY
UK
r.macphail@ucl.ac.uk
Michel Magny
CNRS, UMR 6249
CNRS, Laboratoire Chrono-Environnement
Besanon
France
Michel.Magny@univ-fcomte.fr
CONTRIBUTORS
Carolina Mallol
Departamento de Geografa e Historia
Universidad de La Laguna
Campus de Guajara, La Laguna
38071 Tenerife
Spain
cmallol@ull.es
carolina.mallol@gmail.com
Floyd W. McCoy
Department of Natural Sciences
University of Hawaii Windward
45-720 Keaahala Road
Kaneohe, HI 96744
USA
fmccoy@hawaii.edu
Rolfe D. Mandel
1415 Jayhawk Blvd
622 Fraser Hall
Lawrence, KS 66045
USA
mandel@kgs.ku.edu
Susan M. Mentzer
Institute for Archaeological Sciences
University of Tbingen
Rmelinstr. 23
72070
Germany
and
School of Anthropology
Tucson, AZ, 72070
USA
susan.mentzer@ifu.uni-tuebingen.de
Curtis W. Marean
Institute of Human Origins
School of Human Evolution and Social Change
PO Box 872402, Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 852872402
USA
and
Centre for Coastal Palaeoscience
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape 6031
South Africa
Curtis.Marean@asu.edu
Nick Marriner
CNRS, Laboratoire Chrono-Environnement UMR 6249
Universit de Franche-Comt
UFR ST, 16 route de Gray
25030 Besanon
France
nick.marriner@univ-fcomte.fr
marriner@cerege.fr
xxi
Institute for Archaeological Sciences, Senckenberg Centre
for Human Evolution and Paleoenvironment
University of Tbingen
Rmelinstr. 23
72070 Tbingen
Germany
christopher.miller@uni-tuebingen.de
Leah E. Morgan
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre
G75 0QF East Kilbride
UK
leahetgmorgan@gmail.com
Ari Matmon
The Institute of Earth Sciences
The Hebrew University
Edmond J. Safra campus, Givat Ram
Jerusalem 91904
Israel
arimatmon@cc.huji.ac.il
Christophe Morhange
CNRS CEREGE, UMR 6635
Aix-Marseille University
Aix-en-Provence
France
morhange@cerege.fr
Wendy Matthews
Department of Archaeology, School of Archaeology
Geography and Environmental Science
University of Reading
Reading
UK
w.matthews@reading.ac.uk
Maru Mormina
Department of Applied Social Studies
University of Winchester
Sparkford Road
Winchester SO22 4NR
UK
Maru.Mormina@winchester.ac.uk
xxii
CONTRIBUTORS
Hector Neff
Department of Anthropology and IIRMES
California State University Long Beach
1250 Bellflower Blvd
Long Beach, CA 90840
USA
hector.neff@csulb.edu
Josep M. Pars
Geochronology Program
CENIEH
Paseo Sierra de Atapuerca 3
09902 Burgos
Spain
Josep.pares@cenieh.es
Tina M. Niemi
University of Missouri-Kansas City
Kansas City, MO 64110
USA
niemit@umkc.edu
Mike Parker Pearson

Institute of Archaeology
University College London
31-34 Gordon Square
London WC1H 0PY
UK
m.parker-pearson@ucl.ac.uk
Lee C. Nordt
Baylor University
Waco, TX 76798
USA
lee_nordt@baylor.edu
Kirsty Penkman
BioArCh, Department of Chemistry
University of York
York YO10 5DD
UK
kirsty.penkman@york.ac.uk
Patrick D. Nunn
Australian Centre for Pacific Islands Research
The University of the Sunshine Coast
Maroochydore, QLD 4558
Australia
pnunn@usc.edu.au
Robyn Pickering
School of Earth Sciences
McCoy Building
Parkville, Victoria 3010
Australia
r.pickering@unimelb.edu.au
Charles R. Ortloff
Research Associate
University of Chicago
CFD Consultants Intl, Ltd.
18310 Southview Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95033-8537
USA
ortloff5@aol.com
Dennis Piechota
Fiske Center for Archaeological Research
University of Massachusetts at Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd.
Boston, MA 02125
USA
dennis.piechota@umb.edu
Anthony L. Ortmann
Murray State University
Murray, KY 42071
USA
aortmann@murraystate.edu
A. Mark Pollard
Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of
Art, School of Archaeology
Dyson Perrins Building South Parks Road
Oxford
UK
mark.pollard@rlaha.ox.ac.uk
J. Victor Owen
Saint Marys University
B3H 3C3 Halifax, NS
Canada
victor.owen@smu.ca
Ben A. Potter
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, AK 99775
USA
bapotter@alaska.edu
CONTRIBUTORS
xxiii
Rory Quinn
Centre for Maritime Archaeology
School of Environmental Sciences
University of Ulster
BT52 1SA Coleraine
Northern Ireland, UK
RJ.Quinn@ulster.ac.uk
Neil Roberts
School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences
Faculty of Science and Environment
Plymouth University
PL4 8AA Plymouth, Devon
UK
C.N.Roberts@plymouth.ac.uk
George Rip Rapp

Department of Geological Sciences
University of Minnesota
Duluth and Minneapolis Campuses, University Drive
Duluth, MN 55812
USA
grapp@d.umn.edu
Jonathan A. Sandor
Agronomy Department
Iowa State University
P.O. Box 1994 Corrales, NM 87048
USA
jasandor@iastate.edu
Philippe Rentzel
Integrative Prehistory and Archaeological Science (IPAS)
University of Basel
Spalenring 145
4055 Basel
Switzerland
Philippe.Rentzel@unibas.ch
Apostolos Sarris
Laboratory of Geophysical-Satellite Remote Sensing and
Archaeo-environment
Foundation for Research and Technology, Hellas
(F.O.R.T.H.), Institute for Mediterranean Studies (I.M.S.)
Melissinou & Nik. Foka 130
PO. Box 119 Rethymnon 74100 Crete
Greece
asaris@ret.forthnet.gr
asaris@ims.forth.gr
Joshua D. Reuther
University of Alaska Museum of the North
Fairbanks, AK 99775
USA
and
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, AK 99775
USA
jreuther@alaska.edu
Daniel Richter
Geographisches Institut University of Bayreuth
Universittsstrasse 30
95447 Bayreuth
Germany
and
Department of Human Evolution
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Leipzig
Germany
drichter@eva.mpg.de
Charlotte A. Roberts
Durham University
South Road
Durham DH1 3LE
UK
c.a.roberts@durham.ac.uk
Vernon L. Scarborough
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0380
USA
vernon.scarborough@uc.edu
Joseph Schuldenrein
5912 Spencer Avenue
Bronx, NY 10471
USA
joseph.schuldenrein@gra-geoarch.com
Judith Sealy
University of Cape Town
Private Bag X3
7701 Rondebosch, Cape Town
South Africa
Judith.Sealy@uct.ac.za
Maria Rosaria Senatore
Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie
Universit degli Studi del Sannio
Via dei Mulini, 59/A
Benevento 82100
Italy
senatore@unisannio.it
xxiv
Vincent Serneels
Department Geosciences
University Fribourg
Chemin du Muse 6 Prolles
1700 Fribourg
Switzerland
Vincent.serneels@unifr.ch
M. Steven Shackley
Geoarchaeological XRF Laboratory
University of California
232 Kroeber Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-3710
USA
shackley@berkeley.edu
Payson Sheets
University of Colorado
80309-0233 Boulder, CO
USA
payson.sheets@colorado.edu
Chen Shen
Royal Ontario Museum
100 Queens Park
M5S 2C6 Toronto, ON
Canada
chens@rom.on.ca
chen.shen@utoronto.ca
Sarah C. Sherwood
The University of the South
735 University Ave
Sewanee, TN 37383
USA
sherwood@sewanee.edu
John F. Shroder
Department of Geography and Geology
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Omaha, NE 68182
USA
jshroder@mail.unomaha.edu
Alan H. Simmons
University of Nevada Las Vegas
4505 S. Maryland Parkway
POB 455003 Las Vegas, NV 89154
USA
alan.simmons@unlv.edu
simmonsa@unlv.nevada.edu
CONTRIBUTORS
Julie K. Stein
Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture
University of Washington
Box 35-3010 Seattle, WA 98195-3010
USA
jkstein@u.washington.edu
Dominic Stratford
School of Geography
Archaeology and Environmental Studies
University of the Witwatersrand
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
South Africa
and
Sterkfontein Caves Palaeoanthropological Site
Johannesburg
South Africa
Dominic.Stratford@wits.ac.za
Lawrence Guy Straus

University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 871310001
USA
and
Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones Prehistricas
Universidad de Cantabria
Santander 39005
Spain
lstraus@unm.edu
Linea Sundstrom
Principal, Day Star Research
1320 E Lake Bluff Blvd.
Shorewood, WI 53211
USA
linea.sundstrom@gmail.com
Ji Svoboda
Insitute of Archaeology
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
69129 Doln Vstonice
Czech Republic
and
Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Science
Masaryk University
Kotlsk 2
600 00 Brno
Czech Republic
jsvoboda@sci.muni.cz
CONTRIBUTORS
Katherine Szab
Centre for Archaeological Science
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences
Northfields Avenue
Wollongong 2522 NSW
Australia
kat@uow.edu.au
Maria-Raimonda Usai
Dipartimento di Architettura, Design e Urbanistica
Universit di Sassari
Piazza Duomo 6 (via Manno)
07041 Alghero (SS)
Italy
mariaraimonda.usai@gmail.com
Alain Tabbagh
Universit Pierre et Marie Curie
UMR 7619 Mtis, 4, place Jussieu
75252, cedex 05 Paris
France
alain.tabbagh@upmc.fr
Claudio Vita-Finzi
22 South Hill Park
London, NW 32SB
UK
cvitafinzi@aol.com
Kenneth B. Tankersley
Department of Anthropology and Department of Geology
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0380
USA
tankerkh@uc.edu
Daniel P. Wagner
Geo-Sci Consultants LLC
4410 Van Buren Street
20782 University Park, MD
USA
danwagner@juno.com
R. E. Taylor
Emeritus, Department of Anthropology
University of California, Riverside
1334 Watkins Hall
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
USA
ervin.taylor@ucr.edu
Ian Watts
20 Aristophanous
10554 Athens
Greece
ochrewatts@hotmail.com
Richard E. Terry
Plant and Wildlife Sciences Department
Brigham Young University
4105 Life Sciences Building
Provo, UT 84602
USA
richard_terry@byu.edu
Alston V. Thoms
USA
a-thoms@tamu.edu
Georgia Tsartsidou
Ephoreia of Palaeoanthropology-Speleology
Ardittou 34 B
116 36 Athens
Greece
gtsartsidou@ymail.com
Brandon J. Weihs
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS
USA
bweihs@k-state.edu
Kira E. Westaway
Macquarie University
E7A632, Eastern Avenue
North Ryde, NSW 2109
Australia
kira.westaway@mq.edu.au
Ian K. Whitbread
School of Archaeology and Ancient History
University of Leicester
University Road
Leicester LE1 7RH
UK
ikw3@le.ac.uk
xxv
xxvi
CONTRIBUTORS
Tom S. White
Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History
of Art
Hayes House, 75 George Street
Oxford OX1 2BQ
UK
tom.white@rlaha.ox.ac.uk
Jamie Woodward
Geography, School of Environment
Education and Development
Manchester M13 9PL
UK
jamie.woodward@manchester.ac.uk
Lori E. Wright
USA
lwright@tamu.edu
Marcelo A. Zrate
INCITAP (Institute of Earth and Environmental Sciences
of La Pampa)
CONICET/National University of La Pampa
Avenida Uruguay 151
6300 Santa Rosa, La Pampa
Argentina
mzarate@exactas.unlpam.edu.ar
marcelozarate55@yahoo.com.ar
Preface
Geoarchaeology is the archaeological subfield that uses

the methods of geological investigation to gather information and solve problems in the exploration of the human
past. Under the label of archaeological geology, it is also
the subfield of geology that explores geoscience aspects of
human antiquity. In its varied manifestations, then,
geoarchaeological research attempts to build collaborative
links between specialists in archaeology and the Earth sciences and, in so doing, produce new knowledge about past
human behavior by merging methods and concepts from
the geosciences with those commonly applied by
archaeologists.
Archaeological recovery and analysis are already
geoarchaeological in the most fundamental sense because
the buried remains left by former humans are contained
within, and removed from, an essentially geological context, and many of the finds are themselves composed of
earthen or rock materials. But geoarchaeology moves
beyond this simple relationship to pursue a broad range
of questions, many of which address the interactions and
influences between humans and the environments in
which they once lived. The proximate goals of
geoarchaeology might be described as elucidating the processes of site formation, reconstructing ancient environments and the influence of humans on them at the local
and regional levels, and learning which environmental
factors were significant in the evolutionary emergence of
humankind and the cultural changes undergone by the
worlds diverse societies over time. Tactically, the toolkit
of research techniques, conducted in both field and laboratory contexts, includes analyses of soils, sediments, rocks,
and landforms, and a wide range of geophysical, geochemical, and microscopic methods. At a finer scale of
resolution, for example, the study of archaeological
deposits to infer past human activities and behaviors
such as agriculture, pastoralism, and fire lies firmly
within the scope of geoarchaeology. There is an overlap
of geoarchaeological methods covered in this work with
techniques also considered to be part of archaeometry:

materials analysis, dating, methods of site location and
prospecting, and tracing raw and artifactual materials to
their sources. The ultimate goal, like many other subfields
of archaeology, is the recovery of new information that
would permit fresh and more detailed interpretations of
human antiquity.
Early studies of the natural world in Europe and America during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often
included a concern for humans and their place in nature.
Much initial prehistoric research in both hemispheres
was in fact conducted by geologists, who took an interest
in the remains of human activities (and the remains of
humans themselves) deposited along with geological
materials. In the 1950s and 1960s, a greater emphasis on
environmental factors in archaeology led eventually to a
contextual approach involving geoarchaeological
investigations proposed by Karl Butzer in the 1970s. The
subfield is therefore relatively young compared to archaeology and the geosciences in general. Yet, for archaeologists, the specialized preparation needed in order to
understand the geological complexities of their research
has made geoarchaeology relatively inaccessible to many.
Most geoarchaeologists working today have had some
interdisciplinary training in the Earth sciences, or their
degrees were earned wholly in the geosciences. Such credentials are necessary for those exploring prehistoric
periods, as they must acquire the expertise to obtain accurate dating of sites and finds, understand the depositional
history of a site and its contents over long intervals, and
reconstruct paleoenvironmental conditions to interpret
ancient lifeways in their original settings. Archaeometric
research holds a significant place in the archaeology of
historical periods, but with some exceptions, field
geoarchaeological practice and familiarity with its
methods and knowledge base tend to be lesser components of archaeological research conducted on recent cultures and sites. New World historical archaeology tends to
xxviii
PREFACE
place little emphasis on geoarchaeological matters, while

the archaeology of Roman and later periods in Europe is
more likely to use it in the analysis of sites.
The potential benefit of geoarchaeological applications
to all archaeological investigations has prompted the
present volume. While specialized treatises on
geoarchaeology began to appear in the 1960s and 1970s,
it was Rhodes Fairbridge, founding editor of the Earth
Science Encyclopedia Series (EEES), who proposed that
an encyclopedic work on geoarchaeology be added to
the list of published volumes. He enlisted a newly minted
Ph.D. in Anthropology at Columbia University, Allan Gilbert, to help with the project, and the first publication contract was signed in 1981. The geoarchaeological
landscape 35 years ago was distinctly incipient, with but
a limited number of active practitioners engaged in
research and publication, and a small body of basic knowledge that had already accumulated. Had that volume been
realized, it would have been restricted to only the few
geoarchaeological projects and subject areas that had been
explored at the time, and much of the rest would have
comprised entries on archaeological or geological topics.
Sadly, but perhaps luckily, the contract was cancelled in
the mid-1980s due to a change in publishers and a realignment of priorities at the new publishing house. The volume then began a lengthy search for a new agreement
elsewhere. It did not find solid grounding with a new publisher until Springer offered to contract the project in 2002.
Fairbridge passed away in 2006, and in the subsequent
years Gilbert enlisted the assistance of four established
geoarchaeologists (Paul Goldberg, Vance Holliday, Rolfe
Mandel, and Rob Sternberg) to serve as associate editors
and help assemble a new entry list that incorporated the
advances and discoveries made within the subfield over
the preceding two and a half decades. This volume is dedicated to the memory of Rhodes Fairbridge, whose appreciation for archaeologys contributions to Quaternary
geoscience prompted his insistence that a reference work
on geoarchaeology belonged within the stable of volumes
he guided into print over his 40 years of editing the EEES.
This encyclopedia, appearing so many years after its
initial conceptualization, contains data and discussion
from a far wider range of practicing geoarchaeologists

working within a far more mature discipline than would
have been the case at its inception. It defines terms, introduces problems, describes techniques, and discusses theory and strategy, all in a language designed to make
specialized details accessible to students and nonspecialists. It covers subjects in environmental archaeology, dating, prospection, materials analysis, soil and sediment
investigation, and landforms, among other matters, and
it includes a sampling of the most important sites known
for their geoarchaeological contributions. The volume
does not cover sites, civilizations, and ancient cultures
that are less germane to the geoarchaeological focus
and better described in other encyclopedias of world
archaeology.
As mature as geoarchaeology has become, it is still a
young and dynamic area of research. New applications
are constantly emerging as the results of novel investigative techniques fill the pages of professional journals
(notably Geoarchaeology, An International Journal;
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences; Journal
of Archaeological Science; and Archaeometry), and as
geoarchaeological approaches are aimed at different
archaeological problems in different parts of the world.
Original insights emanating from such developments will
inevitably require revisions of this volume to keep up with
progress, and coupled with the fact that lacunae remain in
this book and will always exist in any comprehensive
compilation, the Encyclopedia of Geoarchaeology will
doubtless grow in detail and inclusiveness once this first
edition appears. We look forward to constructive suggestions from readers about what is missing or in need of
updating, as no editorial supervision will ever control the
enormous diversity of innovation that will surely characterize the near future of geoarchaeology.
Allan S. Gilbert
Paul Goldberg
Vance T. Holliday
Rolfe D. Mandel
Robert S. Sternberg
Acknowledgments
The editors wish to thank all the contributors for dedicating time to participate in this project, especially those
who were prompt with their entry submission, then waited
patiently while the lengthy editorial process steadily took
its course.
Together with the support received from the advisory
board, we obtained additional help from various persons
in the course of volume preparation, and to these we
express gratitude: Bruce Bevan, Jim Burton, Jim Dickson,
Robert Folk, Charly French, Angelina Guarino, Gary
Huckleberry, Rich Macphail, Patrick McGovern, Laura
Murphy, Paul Renne, and Steven Shackley. Whether the
help was substantial or slight, we value the counsel and
effort that was given, and apologize to those we may have
inadvertently left off the list.
Appreciation is offered to Payson Sheets for kindly providing the cover photograph depicting volcanic sediments
covering the Mesoamerican site of Cern.
Editing assistance was provided by Suanna Selby

Crowley. Graphics contributions were made by Tony
Layzell and Mark Schoneweis.
Franklin & Marshall College provided two semesters of
sabbatical leave to Rob Sternberg enabling him to conduct
much of his editorial activities.
Finally, we extend thanks to our editors at Springer (Petra
van Steenbergen, Sylvia Blago, and Simone Giesler), as
well as the successive editors of the Earth Science Encyclopedia Series (Rhodes Fairbridge and Charlie Finkl), the first
who initiated plans for the present volume, and the second
who encouraged and followed the project to its completion.
Allan S. Gilbert
Paul Goldberg
Vance T. Holliday
Rolfe D. Mandel
Robert S. Sternberg
Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online

Chapter Title
Remote Sensing in Archaeology
Copyright Year
2015
Copyright Holder
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Corresponding Author
Family Name
Campana
Particle
Given Name
Stefano
Suffix
Division/Department
Faculty of Classics and McDonald

Institute for Archaeological Research
Organization/University
Street
Sidgwick Avenue
City
Cambridge
Postcode
CB3 9DA
Country
UK
Division/Department
Laboratory of Landscape Archaeology

and Remote Sensing, Department of
History and Cultural Heritage
Organization/University
University of Siena
Street
Via Roma 56
Postcode
53100
City
Siena
Country
Italy
Phone
++39-3280423331
Email
srlc3@cam.ac.uk
Comp. by: DMuthuKumar Stage: Galleys Chapter No.: 122

Date:16/11/15 Time:09:35:04 Page Number: 1
Title Name: EOG
REMOTE SENSING IN ARCHAEOLOGY
Stefano Campana
Faculty of Classics and McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, UK
Laboratory of Landscape Archaeology and Remote
Sensing, Department of History and Cultural Heritage,
University of Siena, Siena, Italy
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Synonyms
Nondestructive archaeology
Definition
Remote Sensing or Teledetection (French),
Fernerkundung
(German),
Percepcion
Remota
(Spanish), (Chinese) can be defined as the science
of identifying, observing, interpreting, and measuring
objects or surfaces without coming into direct contact
with them.
In the archaeological process, the scientific community
has taken at least two different approaches to the definition
of remote sensing. 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, mostly using
spaceborne and airborne instruments. From this point of
view, remote sensing differs 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).
Other archaeologists prefer to include within remote
sensing any nondestructive approach to viewing the
buried and nominally invisible evidence of past activity.
These approaches include spaceborne and airborne
sensors (traditional or digital air photographic sensors,

technology-based multispectral or hyperspectral scanners,
etc.) but also ground-based geophysical instruments (see
other entries on geophysics, magnetometry, groundpenetrating radar, and electrical resistivity). Undersea
remote sensing can also fall into this category, as can
noninvasive techniques such as surface collection or
field-walking survey, in the eyes of some archaeologists.
Within this interpretation, any method that enables observation of the buried evidence without impacting the
surviving stratigraphy is included within remote sensing
(Powlesland, 2010).
35
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 air photographic recording, by
F. Stolze and F. C. Andreas, took place in 1874 at Persepolis, Iran (Stolze, 1882). In Europe, the 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 (Figure 1). These
pioneering efforts were followed by others along the Tiber
near Rome in 19021903 and 1908 and then in and
around Venice, Ostia, and Pompeii (Boni, 1900; Piccarreta
and Ceraudo, 2000).
Similar initiatives also took place in other European
countries, particularly in Britain. In 1906, during experiments using an untethered military balloon, Lieutenant
P. H. Sharpe took the first aerial photographs of the great
megalithic monument of Stonehenge (Bewley, 2002).
At this time, the only platform available for aerial photography was the hot air or gas-filled balloon. In this early
phase, aerial photography offered a new perspective in
47
A.S. Gilbert (ed.), Encyclopedia of Geoarchaeology, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-4409-0,

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70

2
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
Title Name: EOG
the recording of already-known surface features, the

purely documentary objective being to obtain a faithful
representation of the site or features concerned. Balloons
were later used in the 1930s for pioneering photography
of the famous excavations at Biskupin in Poland
(Rczkowski, 2005). Both balloons and a variety of
kite-based systems remain in use to the present day for
site-related or locally focused aerial photography.
The Great War of 19141918 had a significant impact
on the development of a completely new type of platform,
the powered aircraft. Along with related advances in
cameras and films, aircraft-based aerial photography
was exploited as a novel source of intelligence by all
combatants. If the number of aerial photographs taken
prior to 1914 could be counted in the dozens, then by the
end of the war, the UKs Royal Air Force alone had collected about half a million images (Rczkowski, 2001).
The war had also introduced a number of pilots and
observers to the archaeological potential of aerial photography. In Britain, one of these was O. G. S. Crawford,
while another, in a rather different setting in the Middle
East, was the expatriate Frenchman Antoine Poidebard.
These two men are considered globally 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 Crawford and Keiller
(1928); see also Deuel (1969) and Barber (2011) for
accounts of the early days and later development of
archaeological air photography.
The Second World War of 19391945 brought about
methodological and technical developments in both aerial
platforms (aircraft) and cameras, and it witnessed the
development of new remote sensing techniques such as
radar technology, which was not yet used in archaeological contexts. Perhaps the link between the prewar
pioneering phase and the beginnings of the postwar
interpretative phase could be identified most clearly
with John S. P. Bradford, a former British RAF intelligence officer, who in the months immediately following
the cessation of hostilities became involved in aerial photography and archaeological mapping on the Tavoliere
Plain around Foggia in southern Italy. There, he and
a fellow RAF officer, Peter Williams-Hunt, discovered
extraordinary evidence of previously unrecognized 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.
In the 1950s, new platforms for Earth imaging became
available through the use of satellites and high-altitude
aircraft, and new sensors were introduced in the form of

near-, medium-, and thermal-infrared imaging systems,
along with instruments for the collection of microwave
and multispectral data. 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 the 1950s. In doing so, she 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.
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 color of objects from a distance by
collecting and analyzing reflected visible light. This is
all done cognitively without coming into direct contact
with the objects that we are observing. In a similar manner,
certain snakes use special heat sensors to perceive impressions of their surrounding environment; the snakes detect
natural heat signals passively in the same way satellite
infrared detectors image the Earths surface based on its
emitted heat. Bats use sound echoes to navigate and to
detect prey; similarly radar systems use transmitted radio
waves and their reflections to sense a variety of distant
objects and surfaces remotely.
Notwithstanding the great improvements in remote
sensing during and after the Second World War, the
archaeological community continued to rely almost
entirely on aerial photography and interpretation of the
resulting images for at least the next three decades. The
technologies involved in the newer forms of remote sensing were considered to be the leading edge, reserved for
military and other purposes, and it was unusual for archaeologists to make use of them. Eventually, however, remote
sensing became more widely used in the field of archaeology, starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This period
witnessed the application of innovative techniques,
including the analysis of satellite imagery; the acquisition
through airborne sensors of multispectral, hyperspectral,
and radar data; and the use of ground-based geophysical
methods, such as magnetometry, electrical resistivity
tomography (ERT), and ground-penetrating radar (GPR).
Experience in the following decades, along with technological progress and an increasing understanding of
the extraordinary complexity of archaeological contexts,
led to the inescapable conclusion that only through the
integration of remote sensing techniques with
archaeometry and traditional methods such as excavation
and ground-based field survey could archaeologists possibly achieve the quantum leap in quality that everyone
hoped for and expected. One factor played a central role
in the maturing of archaeological remote sensing during
this recent period, a factor that is synonymous with the
integration and management of the wide range of
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185

Title Name: EOG

186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
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 dataset
to produce and map broader integrations, and therefore
interpretations, and in this way they brought together
a wide variety of data. The stratification and overlaying
of 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 rapidly at universities, some of which have
created highly specialized departments and institutions
with undergraduate, graduate, postdoctoral schools, and
specific research programs. This trend is also seen at
institutions aimed at the protection and conservation of
archaeological heritage, as, for instance, in the nationwide
mapping of air photographic evidence in England
(see below). International associations, such as the Aerial
Archaeology Research Group (AARG) (http://www.
univie.ac.at/aarg) and the International Society for
Archaeological Prospection (http://www.brad.ac.uk/
archsci/archprospection/), have also played a significant
role in the dissemination of these methods and techniques.
Principles of remote sensing

Remote sensing may reveal archaeological features
directly, where they are still extant (albeit perhaps heavily
eroded) 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 coloring and height of the vegetation. These
may appear as visible discontinuities in bare soil exposed
by agriculture, erosion, or other surface indications or in
an intermediary form, as micromorphological discontinuities where the features are buried (Wilson, 2000).
When sites are extant, remote sensing can play a special
role in documenting their general form and constituent
parts from a high-level viewpoint, allowing rapid mapping
with the aid of purpose-designed computer programs
(Remondino, 2011). 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.
The indirect identification of archaeological evidence is
particularly valuable in the discovery of previously
unrecognized sites and features. The main principle in this
context is the capacity of techniques like aerial photography, LiDAR, radar, or thermal-infrared imaging to recognize evidence that provides indirect indications in the
natural soil of past human activity. Several methodologies
have been developed to identify relative (though never
absolute) environmental variations for this purpose.

The recognition of archaeological features represented
by indirect evidence exploits a number of interlinked
phenomena (Musson, 1994), including:
242
1. Variations in the coloring, height, or density of arable

crops or other vegetation. These have variously been
described as vegetation marks or (more commonly)
cropmarks. They represent one of the most striking
tools for the discovery of previously unrecorded sites.
Cropmarks appear as differences of height and/or color
in crops that are under stress, usually based on the lack
of water or some other nutrient. 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 28 weeks during the late stages of ripening or for shorter periods in
the early stages of growth (Figure 2). 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 the year in a wide variety of
vegetation: cereals, grass, root crops, green fodder
crops, weeds, and various flowering plants.
2. Differences in bare soil exposed by agricultural activity
or erosion. These are usually known as soil marks.
They appear as changes of color, texture, or dampness
in the surface of the soil and reflect subsurface features,
such as ditches or wall foundations. The marks may
appear for only short periods as the soil dries or reflects
the sun in particular ways. The main difficulty in
detecting them lies in recording them at the right
moment, especially when the soil is damp and fresh
from the plow or harrow.
3. 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 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/late-evening light at other times of
the year. This low-light or shadow technique is
particularly effective in upland areas where there has
been less erosion by modern plowing. It can also be
productive, however, in lowland zones, throwing very
slight patterns of topographical variation into relief by
the play of light and shade, thereby making the overall
form of the archaeological feature more intelligible.
4. Special conditions created by frost, ice, and floods create situations that can offer good opportunities for
archaeological air photography. A thin covering of
snow, for instance, suppresses distracting color and
246
243
244
245
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298

4
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
Title Name: EOG
provides excellent conditions for low-light photography. The differential melting of frost by sun or wind,
or the persistence of ice and snow above buried ditches
at the end of a cold spell, can also reveal otherwise
unsuspected subsurface features. Flooding may redefine 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.
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
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: spatial, spectral, radiometric, and temporal resolutions (Lillesand and Kiefer, 1994).
Spatial resolution relates to the level of detail that is visible in the image; it is dependent 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. 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 one of the
most important parameters for archaeological remote
sensing, in that it is critical to determining the size of
archaeological features that can be identified in the
resulting data.
Spectral resolution refers to the range width and
number of specific dimensional units to which a sensor
is sensitive. The limited spectral interval of the electromagnetic spectrum visible to the human eye
(wavelengths from about 390750 nm) is greatly
extended by the use of photoelectric sensing devices. This
increase in the capability of recording different regions of
the electromagnetic spectrum demonstrates a desire to
exploit their full potential, separating information on
different layers (bands) to produce multispectral images
(210 spectral bands) or hyperspectral images (10200
spectral bands). This quality may play an important role
in the detection of archaeological features.
Radiometric resolution refers to the number of different
intensities of radiation that the sensor is able to distinguish. Typically, this ranges from 8 to 14 bits in each band,
corresponding to 256 levels of the gray scale and up to
16,384 intensities or shades of color.
Temporal resolution relates to the frequency of overflights 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.
355
Image examination and archaeological

interpretation
Remotely sensed images contain a detailed record of
features on the ground at the time of exposure, relating
both 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. The basis for sound interpretation
is a secure understanding of the peculiarities of the modern
landscape in the area concerned. The identification of
the present pattern, and its constituent parts, can draw
attention to nonconforming elements, which might form
part of earlier features, sites, or landscape patterns. In carrying out the systematic initial examination, attention is
paid to a variety of basic characteristics or variations of
them, such as shape, size, pattern, tone, texture, shadow,
topographical position, and association (Lillesand and
Kiefer, 1994).
357
Aims and peculiarities of archaeological remote

sensing
Archaeology and its use of remote sensing 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. The last stage of medical
diagnosis involves instrumental analysis (evidence-based
medicine) through the use of laboratory tests, and this
phase finds 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.
The main aims of remote sensing in archaeology can be
identified as follows:
The documentation of archaeological contexts in great
and objective detail
The acquisition of information on buried deposits
sometimes completely invisible at ground level,
describing in some detail the metrical, geometrical,
and physical-chemical properties of the subsurface
features
The well-balanced and representative recording of both
positive and negative kinds of archaeological evidence
The monitoring, from very large scale to small scale, of
landscape transformations, allowing the development
of conservation and planning policies
379
356
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409

Title Name: EOG

410
The mapping of archaeological data, interpretations,
411
and reconstructions through the use of GIS technology

that can cope with the inherent complexity of past landscapes and archaeological sites
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
Main weaknesses
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 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. In the
case of archaeological remote sensing, the serendipitous
recovery of information is influenced by a number of
parameters: pedology, climate, cultivation patterns, the
plants or crops being grown, the historical development
of the landscape, etc. Archaeologists understand from
a theoretical point of view the scientific principles that
make underground archaeological features visible at the
ground surface (Jones and Evans, 1975). They cannot,
however, control the environmental and anthropological
factors that affect the way subsurface archaeological
features modify the appearance of bare soil or vegetation
to reveal their presence. As a result, the distribution of
archaeological features in remotely sensed evidence is as
much a reflection of these influencing factors as it is of
the real presence or absence of archaeological sites
(Figure 3).
To a certain extent, the techniques that rely on portions
outside the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum
such as 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.
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.).
Satellite imagery
In 1957, the Soviet Union (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 by the USA space program. The era of
satellite photogrammetry started in 1960 with the
CORONA military reconnaissance program, also an
American project. 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 (Galiatsatos, 2014).
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 systems. In this period, applications
to archaeology were constrained by the poor geometric
resolution (about 20 m per pixel) and use of the images
being restricted to high-end scientific research laboratories. In archaeological as well as other contexts, the
satellite imagery available at this time was mainly used
to study or characterize the environmental background
and current agricultural patterns or to generate cartography in areas where maps were not available, as in
parts of Central Asia, the Near East, Africa, and Central
America (Mus et al., 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 specialized devices dealing with environmental monitoring or
with thermal and passive microwave sensors, and the
more recent hyperspectral sensors. 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 the so-called radar rivers
(Figure 4), former riverbeds still extant beneath the sands
of the Sahara (McCauley et al., 1982). Since 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
onward, the main change that has influenced the development of satellite archaeology has been a radical improvement in the geometric resolution of the images.
The development of very high-resolution satellite
imagery (HRSI) began with the appearance of the first
commercial satellites (Parcak, 2009; Lasaponara and
Masini, 2012). The first successfully launched commercial satellite was IKONOS-2 in 1999. This was followed
by QuickBird in 2001, OrbView-3 in 2003, and later by
KOMPSAT-2, EROS-B1, and Resource-DK-1 in 2006.
In the last 15 years, the resolution of available satellite
images has improved from 20 m per pixel (SPOT) to
0.40 m per pixel (GeoEye-1, launched in September
2008), representing a 2,500 times increase in the capacity
to detect small objects (Figure 5).
The opportunities for archaeological applications have,
therefore, vastly increased, though there are still some significant limitations.
463
Scheduling: There are still difficulties (and costs) in
510
scheduling image capture to coincide with archaeologically advantageous conditions or time of year. Archaeologists need more flexibility to plan image capture
during the right time windows, e.g., during the
cropmark season at the locality concerned.
HRSI spectral resolution: This is mainly characterized
by the use of only three bands in the visible part of the
spectrum and a fourth in the near infrared.
511
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
512
513
514
515
516
517
518

Title Name: EOG
519
Geometric resolution: In contrast to these limitations,
520
the newest GeoEye-2 satellite (on July 31, 2014,

DigitalGlobe announced that the GeoEye-2 satellite
sensor will be renamed WorldView-4) due for launch
from 2013 onward and the next-generation commercial satellites planned for launch during 2016 will
have a spatial panchromatic resolution of 30 cm and
spatial multispectral resolution of 1.20 m. Many
archaeologists, however, feel that they need something
closer to the 5 cm or higher resolution provided by traditional aerial photography.
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
As a final observation, it should be pointed out that

a casual observer wandering through a library, particularly
in the USA, might be forgiven for believing that satellite
remote sensing is the prime technique for archaeological
research. This is not, in fact, the case. According to
Powlesland, for every site identified from space, thousands have been identified through air-photography
(2010, p. 9). In Europe, aerial 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. For instance, from the papers presented at
the annual meetings of the Aerial Archaeology Research
Group, it is possible to see the tremendous impact that
aerial survey and photography are having in European
countries where, until the political changes of the early
1990s, flight restrictions made photography from light aircraft virtually impossible.
There has been extensive use of satellite imagery, in the
absence of available data of a higher standard from less
costly and more effective remote sensing techniques such
as aerial photography, geophysical prospection, airborne
laser scanning, and multispectral or hyperspectral data
capture. It is important to recognize, however, that
a significant but often underemphasized contribution of
satellite imagery is its worldwide coverage and, therefore,
(1) the impact such imagery has on the analysis of large
geographical areas and (2) the scale that can be incorporated within landscape studies. The combination of satellite imagery and virtual globe geographical
information systems, such as Google Earth, makes possible the observation of very broad areas of the planet at
a high level of detail an unimaginable concept only
a few years ago.
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 sidewardpointing sensors mounted on specialist aircraft so as to
obtain vertical or oblique images of the Earths surface.
One advantage, compared to satellite remote sensing, is
the capacity to achieve very high spatial resolutions,
between 20 and 5 cm per pixel. The disadvantages are
lower areal coverage and higher cost per unit of ground
surface. This kind of remote sensing is not cost effective
for mapping very large areas, such as whole continents,

though it has been used (cumulatively and over considerable time) to map whole countries and regions. Airborne
remote sensing missions are usually carried out as single
(but occasionally repeated) operations, whereas Earth
observation satellites offer the possibility of truly continuous monitoring of the planets surface. Both analog and
digital photography are commonly used in airborne
remote sensing. Multispectral and hyperspectral imaging,
synthetic aperture radar (SAR), and LiDAR scanning are
also carried out from airborne platforms.
575
Air photography
Archaeologists use two types of air photography:
oblique, or perspective views, and vertical photography that point straight downward at the Earths surface.
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
research purposes (Musson, 1994). Therefore, archaeologists draw on vast collections of air photographs already
available in existing archives (Figures 6 and 7). During
the Second World War, approximately 50 million aerial
photographs were taken (Going, 2002). In modern
Europe, public services collect perhaps millions more
frames each year.
Oblique photographs are generally taken by archaeologists themselves, from the open window of a small aircraft
hired from a local airfield (or occasionally owned by the
archaeologists themselves or by their employers). The
cameras and film are quite simple and inexpensive. While
vertical photography records the whole of the landscape,
oblique photography is selective and covers only what
the photographer sees and judges to be archaeologically
significant (Figure 8). What he or she fails to see, or understand, inevitably fails to be recorded. 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 unrivaled 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 (Figure 9).
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, such
as when conditions for cropmark or soil mark recording
are at their best.
Austria, Italy, and the UK all document cases
confirming that if vertical coverage can be arranged within
the best timeframe for the visibility of archaeological
586
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630

Title Name: EOG

631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
evidence, then the whole area, along with all of the sites
that are visible at the moment of photography, can 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 (Doneus, 2001; Guaitoli,
2003; Palmer, 2007). The main difficulties with this practice are its relatively high cost and the short time that is
available to plan and execute vertical coverage on the limited number of occasions when the conditions are ideal for
recording.
In their professional work, archaeologists use the two
types of aerial photography, vertical and oblique, more
or less equally. For instance, the comprehensive National
Mapping Programme for England (NMP), begun in the
late 1980s and still in progress at English Heritage, had
covered approximately forty percent of England by April
2009. Teams of experienced archaeological air-photo
interpreters working on the NMP have unlocked 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 twentieth century, priority being given to those areas
of the country that are under the greatest threat or are
poorly documented (Horne, 2011).
Multispectral and hyperspectral scanning (MSS and

HSS)
The effectiveness of aerial photography is limited by the
differential visibility of cropmark, soil mark, or earthwork
evidence in response to conditioning factors, as mentioned
above. It is widely recognized that multi- and
hyperspectral imagery can address some of these contextual problems because they are potentially more sensitive
to changes in vegetation status than the visible or panchromatic ranges (Donoghue, 2001; Shell, 2002). Indeed, multispectral or hyperspectral sensors are able to look
simultaneously at a wide range of wavelengths, many of
which lie in the near- and shortwave infrared spectrum,
and add important collateral information to the visual
wavelengths. These factors thus improve the ability to discriminate vegetation stress, soil moisture, and temperature
variations (Beck, 2011).
Pioneering studies have been undertaken in the American Southwest using airborne thermal imaging to define
areas of past agriculture more clearly than was possible
with black-and-white photography (Schaber and
Gumerman, 1969). These early studies were carried out
to assess the efficacy of multispectral data for recording
areas of Pueblo Indian archaeology and their environmental settings at Chaco Canyon in New Mexico and elsewhere (Lyons and Avery, 1977; Lyons and Mathien,
1980; Avery and Lyons, 1981).
In Europe, thanks to the development by national
research agencies of multi- and/or hyperspectral systems,
Britain and Italy are recognized as leaders in the field,
having carried out a number of important studies from

the 1990s. In Britain, airborne multispectral scanners have
been used to assess the archaeological potential of multispectral data at a number of sites. This imagery has
complemented vertical photography and revealed new
information in the infrared wavelengths in places such as
the former wetland environments of the Fenlands in eastern England and the Vale of Pickering farther to the north
(Figure 10; Powlesland and Donoghue, 1993). These
studies showed that the red and infrared images provide
good definition for soil marks and cropmarks and that
the near- and shortwave infrared wavebands are particularly sensitive to plant health and, therefore, to the effective detection of water stress in vegetation (Shennan and
Donoghue, 1992). 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 paleoenvironmental patterns and geomorphological features, such as ancient river channels,
areas of marshland, and evidence of coastal change.
The increasing availability of hyperspectral imagery, as
well as thermal imagery, presents very significant possibilities. In Britain, the main data source of multi- and
hyperspectral data is the Airborne Research and Survey
Facility managed by the Natural Environment Research
Council (NERC), while in Italy this research has been
conducted through the National Research Council
(CNR). Since the late 1990s in both countries, researchers
have been applying multi- and hyperspectral imagery in
landscape analysis (Cavalli et al., 2003; Shell, 2005;
Traviglia, 2007; Aqdus et al., 2008). 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 sensor can
be 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).
Currently, a major disadvantage, however, is the poorer
resolution of the multispectral and hyperspectral 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.
687
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
(Lillesand and Kiefer, 1994). A key advantage is its 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
(Figure 11).
From the end of the 1970s, radar has been used for
archaeological prospection in regional surveys to detect
731
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742

8
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
Title Name: EOG
cultural, natural, and anthropic features (Adams, 1980;

Pope and Dahlin, 1989; Sever, 1998). It has also been used
for paleolandscape analysis (McHugh et al., 1989), as well
as in ecosystem studies and cultural heritage monitoring
(Moore et al., 2007). The most important work in this field
has been carried out in the USA (Wiseman and El-Baz,
2007), particularly by the NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory at Caltech (JPL/NASA). In this context, protocols
have been developed for using synthetic aperture radar,
or SAR, in the recording of archaeological sites for cultural resource management so as to reduce the risk of
costly delays during construction projects (Comer and
Blom, 2007).
The application of radar imaging in archaeology is still
fairly limited, especially in Europe, where archaeologists
and remote sensing scientists have focused more attention
on LiDAR, multispectral, and hyperspectral systems.
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 35 m, but this
requires very dry ground conditions and fine-grained soil.
Specialized training is also essential in image processing
and archaeological data interpretation (Holcomb and
Shingiray, 2007).
Light detection and ranging (LiDAR)

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 laborintensive field survey or photogrammetry (Remondino,
2014a). It provides, for the first time, highly detailed and
accurate digital 3D models of the land surface at meter
and submeter resolution. 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, high-resolution model of the ground
and the features upon it.
Airborne LiDAR was conceived in the 1960s for submarine detection, and early models were used successfully
in the early 1970s in the USA, Canada, and Australia. The
possibility of using the technique for archaeological
recording was first recognized in the USA 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 multispectral scanner), SAR, and color infrared photography to detect pathways of prehistoric settlers and document trade routes and
movement between settlements (Sheets and Sever, 1991).
In Europe, the potential of LiDAR applications in
archaeology was first discussed at a workshop in Leszno,
Poland, in November of 2000. This related to a survey
covering the River Wharfe in Yorkshire, which revealed
evidence for the survival of a Roman earthwork fort that

had previously been thought completely leveled by
plowing (Holden et al., 2002). A few years later at Ghent
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, p. 25).
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 high-resolution
digital elevation model (DEM) of the landscape that can
reveal micro-topography that is virtually indistinguishable
at ground level because of erosion by plowing (Figure 12).
An extremely important characteristic of LiDAR is its
ability to penetrate woodland and to reveal features that
are not distinguishable through traditional prospection
methods or that are difficult to reach for ground-based survey (as, for instance, in work at Leitha Mountain, Austria,
described in Doneus and Briese, 2006). There have been
other notable applications at Elverum in Norway (Risbl
et al., 2006), at Rastatt in Germany (Sittler and Schellberg,
2006), in the Stonehenge landscape and at other locations
in the UK (Bewley et al., 2005; Devereux et al., 2005),
and, returning to the Americas, at Caracol in Belize
(Weishampel et al., 2010). It is worth noting 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 and, by using computer simulations, to
change the direction or angle of the light and/or to exaggerate the value of the Z-coordinate (height).
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, complete with any remaining traces
of past human activity (Figure 13). Initial LiDAR pulses
reflect from tree canopies or denser branching just
beneath, but last pulses can reflect off the ground surface.
If these last pulses are used exclusively, the indicators of
covering vegetation can be largely eliminated. At present,
the cutting edge of LiDAR applications in archaeology is
represented by the use of helicopters as imaging platforms,
allowing slower and lower flight paths, a multiple return
feature (in which several reflections can be recorded from
the same impulse, indicating, for example, tree canopies
and ground as in Figure 13), combined with ultrahigh frequency, enabling much higher ground resolution. Densities of up to 60 pts/m2 (about 10 cm resolution) can be
obtained by these methods, allowing effective penetration
of even the most densely vegetated areas and permitting
the recording of micro-topographic variations even where
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855

Title Name: EOG

856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
the remains of archaeological features are severely

degraded (Shaw and Corns, 2011).
Nevertheless, a degree of caution is needed. The production of a DTM using LiDAR technology is
a complex process that 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, the DTM-generation procedure, etc. (Doneus and
Briese, 2011; Opitz and Cowley, 2013). If properly
applied, the LiDAR technique could prove revolutionary
in its impact on the process of archaeological mapping
by making it possible to record previously hidden archaeological resources within woodland areas and (apparently)
leveled landscapes. 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 and management, as well as on scientific investigation of settlement
dynamics in various phases of our history.
Close-range aerial photography

From the end of nineteenth 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. Various kinds of unmanned platforms have been
used in archaeology and other scientific fields to lift the
photographic camera so as to acquire large-scale imagery
from relatively low heights (Figure 14).
Each of the methods noted below has its own distinct
advantages and drawbacks (Verhoeven et al., 2009):
1. Mats, poles, booms, and towers. Although these
platforms are cost effective, stable, and very easy to
move, they are limited by their moderate maximum
operational height of no more than about 20 m.
2. 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 effective 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.
3. 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 difficult to position and to hold in
windy conditions. Helium is also expensive and
difficult or sometimes impossible to find in many

countries. The gas containers, too, are heavy and
unwieldy.
4. Helikite. This is a unique design, patented by Sandy
Allsopp in 1993, and currently manufactured by
Allsopp Helikites Ltd. It combines a (small) heliumfilled balloon with kite wings, securing the best properties of both platforms. The helium-filled balloon allows
it to take off in windless weather conditions, whereas
the kite components become important when there is
wind, improving stability and providing the capacity
to reach higher altitudes.
5. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones. This category, which includes remote-controlled model aircraft
and helicopters, generally involves high-end devices
that allow very accurate control of the platform so as
to produce photographic ortho-mosaics and, in the
most advanced cases, photogrammetric stereo pairs
(Eisenbeiss, 2009; Remondino and Campana, 2014).
The use of such devices is growing in archaeology
thanks to the improvement of photogrammetric software capable of producing accurate 3D models in
a short time (Remondino, 2014b). There is also the
possibility of equipping UAV platforms with a wide
range of sensors, from thermal or infrared cameras to
airborne LiDAR systems, video cameras, etc.
912
Ground truthing
Information collected from remotely sensed systems loses
much of its potential meaning without detailed field survey on the ground. 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
(Hargrave, 2006). If remote sensing analysis is properly
executed, the probability that interpreted features have
some cultural or paleoenvironmental 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 (Poidebard, 1927;
Crawford and Keiller, 1928). This step in the process is
essential in order to define the interpretation keys and,
hence, to develop or to advance the classification of anomalies into useful archaeological categories with differing
levels 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.
938
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965

10
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
Title Name: EOG
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. The basic sequence of this multistage approach might
be summarized as follows:
1. Visual inspection through field-walking survey. Here,

there is great value in the use of a mobile GIS device
979
provided with a satellite navigation system (GPS) and
980
up-to-date maps of the selected features for ground
981
truthing. This guarantees the necessary accuracy to
982
ensure the inspection of each anomaly. Common
983
features, possibly recognizable during fieldwork, are
984
localized depressions or ridges with regular shapes,
985
differences in soil moisture, concentrations of gravel
986
or apparently nonnative rock, archaeological
987
artifacts, etc.
988 2. Core sampling. Ideally, cores should be taken from
989
within the targeted anomaly as well as outside its
990
apparent limits. Evidence could include the presence
991
of charcoal, burned soil, bone, fragments of pottery,
992
or other kinds of artifact. Often, one will not be able
993
to determine whether a feature is present solely on the
994
basis of such a soil core.
995 3. Test pits or shovel test. This is a common method,
996
consisting of excavating small pits (generally measur997
ing 1 m by 1 m) to the surface of sterile soil or to a depth
998
of 70120 cm (depending on the stability or instability
999
of the sections). This makes it possible to note in the
1000
field any presence or variation in the concentration of
1001
artifacts or other cultural material. As with core
1002
sampling, the test pits should be excavated in pairs,
1003
one within and the other outside the anomaly. The main
1004
advantages of core sampling and test pits are their low
1005
cost and minimal invasiveness.
1006 4. Minimalist stratigraphic excavation. Minimalist and
1007
well-planned stratigraphic excavation can be
1008
extremely efficient and reliable in verifying the pres1009
ence of features in a way that is relatively noninvasive
1010
and cost effective. Unfortunately, this technique
1011
(as well as core sampling and test pitting) may not be
1012
possible in countries where social and political factors
1013
require ground truthing to be largely or wholly
1014
noninvasive.
1015 5. Mechanical excavation. Perhaps the most convincing
1016
type of ground truthing is removal of the topsoil or
1017
plow-disturbed strata over large and contiguous areas.
1018
Subsurface features can then be marked, mapped, and
1019
wholly or partially excavated (Campana, 2011). This
1020
practice is mainly applied to verify the results of
1021
archaeological impact assessments in the case of infra1022
structure and other types of major construction work.
977
978
GIS data integration: mapping and interpretation

Lillesand and Kiefer, authors of one of the most authoritative manuals of remote sensing, maintain in their 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 and Kiefer, 1994,
p. 35). This is absolutely true for archaeological remote
sensing (Powlesland, 2006).
A prerequisite 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
localize the acquired information. The entry of the data
into a GIS is the basis for any attempt at integration of
the information so as to develop a historical/archaeological narration or to ensure 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 (often in collaboration with specialists) to give archaeological sense to
the photographs or to the measurements of chemical and
physical parameters in the soil. In summary, the interpretation of the data is made real and communicable through
cartographic drawing of the elements perceived as anomalies (Palmer, 2000).
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. 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 topographic
maps the results of the various investigative methods,
along with a mass of other data that have been stratified
layer upon layer over the years (Figure 15). The result is
a jigsaw puzzle, a complex representation in which it is
possible to measure and position each piece of information. At the same time, it is often possible to perceive 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.
Through archaeological mapping and the use of GIS, it
becomes possible to study these fragments together with
other layers of archaeological and non-archaeological
information in the writing of history, in heritage protection
through the planning process, and through conservation or
monitoring of the shared cultural inheritance (Figure 16;
Campana, 2009).
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079

Title Name: EOG

1080
Bibliography
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
Adams, R. E. W., 1980. Swamps, canals, and the location of ancient

Maya cities. Antiquity, 54(212), 206214.
Aqdus, S. A., Drummond, J., and Hanson, W. S., 2008. Discovering
archaeological cropmarks: a hyperspectral approach. In Chen, J.,
Jiang, J., and Maas, H.-G. (eds.), XXIst Congress of the International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Technical Commission V, July 311, 2008, Beijing, China. The
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing
and Spatial Information Sciences, XXXVII B5, pp. 361365.
Avery, T. E., and Lyons, T. R., 1981. Remote Sensing: Aerial and
Terrestrial Photography for Archaeologists. Washington, DC:
Cultural Resources Management Division, National Park
Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior.
Barber, M., 2011. A History of Aerial Photography and Archaeology: Mata Haris Glass Eye and Other Stories. Swindon:
English Heritage.
Beck, A. R., 2011. Archaeological applications of multi/hyperspectral data challenges and potential. In Cowley, D. C.
(ed.), Remote Sensing for Archaeological Heritage Management: Proceedings of the 11th EAC Heritage Management
Symposium, Reykjavk, Iceland, 2527 March 2010. EAC Occasional Paper 5. Brussel: Europae Archaeologiae Consilium,
pp. 8797.
Bewley, R. H., 2002. Aerial survey: learning from a hundred years
of experience? In Bewley, R. H., and Rczkowski, W. (eds.),
Aerial Archaeology: Developing Future Practice. Amsterdam:
IOS Press. NATO Science Series I, Life and Behavioural
Sciences, Vol. 337, pp. 1118.
Bewley, R. H., 2005. Aerial archaeology. The first century. In Bourgeois, J., and Meganck, M. (eds.), Aerial Photography and
Archaeology 2003: A Century of Information. Ghent: Academia
Press. Archaeological Reports Ghent University, Vol.
4, pp. 1530.
Bewley, R. H., Crutchley, S. P., and Shell, C. A., 2005. New light on
an ancient landscape: LiDAR survey in the Stonehenge World
Heritage Site. Antiquity, 79(305), 636647.
Bloom, R. G., 1992. Space technology and the discovery of Ubar.
Point of Beginning, 17(2), 1120.
Boni, G., 1900. Fotografie e pianta altimetrica del Foro Romano.
Rome: Reale Accademia dei Lincei.
Bradford, J., 1957. Ancient Landscapes: Studies in Field Archaeology. London: Bell.
Campana, S., 2009. Archaeological site detection and mapping:
some thoughts on differing scales of detail and archaeological
non-visibility. In Campana, S., and Piro, S. (eds.), Seeing the
Unseen: Geophysics and Landscape Archaeology. London:
Taylor & Francis, pp. 526.
Campana, S., 2011. Total archaeology to reduce the need for rescue archaeology: the BREBEMI project (Italy). In Cowley,
D. C. (ed.), Remote Sensing for Archaeological Heritage Management: Proceedings of the 11th EAC Heritage Management
Symposium, Reykjavk, Iceland, 2527 March 2010. EAC Occasional Paper 5. Brussel: Europae Archaeologiae Consilium,
pp. 3341.
Cavalli, R. M., Marino, C. M., and Pignatti, S., 2003. Hyperspectral
airborne remote sensing as an aid to a better understanding and
characterization of buried elements in different archaeological
sites. In Forte, M., and Williams, P. R. (eds.), The Reconstruction
of Archaeological Landscapes through Digital Technologies:
Proceedings of the 1st Italy-United States Workshop, Boston,
Massachusetts, USA, November 13, 2001. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1151. Oxford: Archaeopress,
pp. 2932.
Comer, D. C., and Blom, G. R., 2007. Detection and identification
of archaeological sites and features using synthetic aperture
11
radar (SAR) data collected from airborne platforms. In Wiseman,

J., and El-Baz, F. (eds.), Remote Sensing in Archaeology. New
York: Springer, pp. 103136.
Crawford, O. G. S., and Keiller, A., 1928. Wessex from the Air.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Deuel, L., 1969. Flights into Yesterday. The Story of Aerial Archaeology. London: Macdonald.
Devereux, B. J., Amable, G. S., Crow, P., and Cliff, A. D., 2005. The
potential of airborne lidar for detection of archaeological features
under woodland canopies. Antiquity, 79(305), 648660.
Doneus, M., 2001. The impact of vertical photographs on analysis
of archaeological landscapes. In Doneus, M., Eder-Hinterleitner,
A., and Neubauer, N. (eds.), Archaeological Prospection: 4th
International Conference on Archaeological Prospection,
Vienna, 1923 September 2001. Vienna: Austrian Academy of
Sciences Press, pp. 9496.
Doneus, M., and Briese, C., 2006. Full-waveform airborne laser
scanning as a tool for archaeological reconnaissance. In
Campana S., and Forte, M. (eds.), From Space to Place. 2nd
International Conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology :
Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop, CNR, Rome,
Italy, December 47, 2006. British Archaeological Reports,
International Series 1568. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 99105.
Doneus, M., and Briese, C., 2011. Airborne laser scanning in forested areas Potential and limitations of an archaeological
prospection technique. In Cowley, D. C. (ed.), Remote Sensing
for Archaeological Heritage Management: Proceedings of the
11th EAC Heritage Management Symposium, Reykjavk, Iceland, 2527 March 2010. EAC Occasional Paper 5. Brussel:
Europae Archaeologiae Consilium, pp. 5976.
Doneus, M., Neubauer, W., Verhoeven, G., and Briese, C., 2011.
Advancing archaeological airborne remote sensing: core concepts of the LBI-ArchPro initiative. In Drahor, M. G., and Berge,
M. A. (eds.), Archaeological Prospection: 9th International
Conference on Archaeological Prospection, September 1924,
Izmir, Turkey. Istanbul: Archaeology and Art Publications,
pp. 1215.
Donoghue, D. N. M., 2001. Multispectral remote sensing for
archaeology. In Campana, S., and Forte, M. (eds.), Remote Sensing in Archaeology: XI Ciclo di lezioni sulla ricerca applicata in
archeologia, Certosa di Pontignano (Siena), 611 dicembre
1999. Florence: AllInsegna del Giglio, pp. 181192.
Donoghue, D. N. M., Beck, A., Galiatzatos, N., McManus, K., and
Philip, G., 2006. The use of remote sensing data for visualising
and interpreting archaeological landscapes. In Baltsavias, E.,
Gruen, A., Van Gool, L., and Pateraki, M. (eds.), Recording,
Modeling and Visualization of Cultural Heritage. Leiden: Taylor
and Francis, pp. 317326.
Eisenbeiss, H., 2009. UAV photogrammetry. D.Sc. dissertation, University of Zrich. Zrich IGP Mitteilungen Nr.105. http://
e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:498/eth-498-02.pdf#search
%22(author:henri eisenbeiss)%22.
Galiatsatos, N., 2014. Exploring archaeological landscapes with
satellite imagery. In Remondino, F., and Campana, S. (eds.),
3D Recording and Modelling in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Theory and Best Practices. Oxford: Archaeopress. British
Archaeological Reports, International Series, Vol. 2598,
pp. 89100.
Going, J. C., 2002. A neglected asset. German aerial photography of
the Second World War period. In Bewley, R. H., and
Rczkowski, W. (eds.), Aerial Archaeology: Developing Future
Practice. Amsterdam: IOS Press. NATO Science Series I, Life
and Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 337, pp. 2330.
Guaitoli, M. (ed.), 2003. Lo sguardo di Icaro: Le collezioni
dellAerofototeca nazionale per la conoscenza del territorio.
Roma: Campisano.
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211

12
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
Title Name: EOG
Hargrave, M. L., 2006. Ground truthing the results of geophysical

survey. In Johnson, J. K. (ed.), Remote Sensing in Archaeology:
An Explicitly North American Perspective. Tuscaloosa: The
University of Alabama Press, pp. 269304.
Holcomb, D. W., and Shingiray, I. L., 2007. Imaging radar in
archaeological investigations: an image processing perspective.
In Wiseman, J., and El-Baz, F. (eds.), Remote Sensing in Archaeology. New York: Springer, pp. 1145.
Holden, N., Horne, P., and Bewley, R. H., 2002. High-resolution
digital airborne mapping and archaeology. In Bewley, R. H.,
and Rczkowski, W. (eds.), Aerial Archaeology: Developing
Future Practice. Amsterdam: IOS Press. NATO Science
Series I, Life and Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 337, pp. 173180.
Horne, P., 2011. The english heritage national mapping programme.
In Cowley, D. C. (ed.), Remote Sensing for Archaeological
Heritage Management: Proceedings of the 11th EAC Heritage
Management Symposium, Reykjavk, Iceland, 2527 March
2010. EAC Occasional Paper 5. Brussel: Europae Archaeologiae
Consilium, pp. 143151.
Jones, R. J. A., and Evans, R., 1975. Soil and crop marks in the recognition of archaeological sites by air photography. In Wilson,
D. R. (ed.), Aerial Reconnaissance for Archaeology. London:
Council for British Archaeology. Research reports, Council for
British Archaeology, Vol. 12, pp. 111.
Khawaga, M., 1979. A contribution to fractal pattern of the Abu
Tartar plateau, Western Desert, Egypt. Annals of the Geological
Survey of Egypt, 9, 163171.
Lasaponara, R., and Masini, N., 2012. Satellite Remote Sensing.
A New Tool for Archaeology. Dordrecht: Springer. Remote Sensing and Digital Image Processing, Vol. 16.
Lillesand, T. M., and Kiefer, R. W., 1994. Remote Sensing and
Image Interpretation, 3rd edn. New York: Wiley.
Lyons, T. R., and Avery, T. E., 1977. Remote Sensing: A Handbook
for Archaeologists and Cultural Resources Managers. Washington, DC: Cultural Resources Management Division, National
Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Contribution of the
Chaco Center, Vol. 4.
Lyons, T. R., and Mathien, F. J., 1980. Cultural Resources Remote
Sensing. Washington, DC: Cultural Resources Management
Division, National Park Service.
McCauley, J. F., Schaber, G. G., Breed, C. S., Grolier, M. J.,
Haynes, C. V., Issawi, B., Elachi, C., and Blom, R., 1982. Subsurface valleys and geoarcheology of the eastern Sahara revealed
by shuttle radar. Science, 218(4576), 10041020.
McHugh, W. P., Schaber, G. G., Breed, C. S., and McCauley, J. F.,
1989. Neolithic adaptation and the Holocene functioning of the
Tertiary palaeodrainages in southern Egypt and northern Sudan.
Antiquity, 63(239), 320336.
Moore, E., Freeman, T., and Hensley, S., 2007. Spaceborne and airborne radar at Angkor: introducing new technology to the
ancient site. In Wiseman, J., and El-Baz, F. (eds.), Remote Sensing in Archaeology. New York: Springer, pp. 185216.
Mus, A. H., Dolphin, L. T., and Mukhtar, M. J., 1977. Applications
of Modern Sensing Techniques to Egyptology. Menlo Park, CA:
SRI International.
Musson, C., 1994. Wales from the Air: Patterns of Past and Present.
Aberystwyth: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical
Monuments of Wales.
Opitz, R. S., and Cowley, D. C., 2013. Interpreting Archaeological
Topography. Airborne Laser Scanning, 3D Data and Ground
Observation. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Palmer, R., 2000. A view from above: can computers help aerial survey? In Lock, G. R., and Brown, K. (eds.), On the Theory and
Practice of Archaeological Computing. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Oxford University Committee
for Archaeology, Monograph, Vol. 51, pp. 107131.
Palmer, R., 2007. Seventy-five years v. ninety minutes: implications

of the 1996 Bedfordshire vertical aerial survey on our perceptions of clayland archaeology. In Mills, J., and Palmer,
R. (eds.), Populating Clay Landscapes. Tempus: Stroud,
pp. 88103.
Parcak, S. H., 2009. Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology. New
York: Routledge.
Piccarreta, F., and Ceraudo, G., 2000. Manuale di aerofotografia
archeologica. Metodologia, tecniche e applicazioni. Bari:
Edipuglia.
Poidebard, A., 1927. Les routes anciennes en Haute-Djzireh. Syria,
8, 5565.
Pope, K. O., and Dahlin, B. H., 1989. Ancient Maya wetland agriculture: new insights from ecological and remote sensing
research. Journal of Field Archaeology, 16(1), 87106.
Powlesland, D., 2006. Redefining past landscapes: 30 years of
remote sensing in the Vale of Pickering. In Campana S., and
Forte, M. (eds.), From Space to Place. 2nd International Conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology : Proceedings of the 2nd
International Workshop, CNR, Rome, Italy, December 47,
2006. British Archaeological Reports, International Series
1568. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 197201.
Powlesland, D., 2010. Identifying mapping and managing the
unmanageable: the implication of long term multi-sensor
research into the archaeology of the Vale of Pickering. Yorkshire,
England. In Forte, M., Campana, S., and Liuzza, C. (eds.),
Space, Time, Place: Third International Conference on Remote
Sensing in Archaeology, 17th21st August 2009,
Tiruchirappalli, Tamil, Nadu, India. British Archaeological
Reports, International Series 2118. Oxford: Archaeopress,
pp. 916.
Powlesland, D., and Donoghue, D. N. M., 1993. A multi-sensory
approach to mapping the prehistoric landscape. In Proceedings
of the 9th Natural Environment Research Council Airborne Symposium. Swindon, UK: NERC, pp. 8896.
Rczkowski, W., 2001. Science and/or art: aerial photographs in
archaeological discourse. Archaeologia Polona, 39, 127146.
Rczkowski, W., 2005. To overcome infirmity. Current approaches
to aerial archaeology in Poland. In Bourgeois, J., and Meganck,
M. (eds.), Aerial Photography and Archaeology 2003:
A Century of Information. Ghent: Academia Press. Archaeological Reports Ghent University, Vol. 4, pp. 121135.
Remondino, F., 2011. 3D recording for cultural heritage. In Cowley,
D. C. (ed.), Remote Sensing for Archaeological Heritage Management. Proceedings of the 11th EAC Heritage Management
Symposium, Reykjavk, Iceland, 2527 March 2010. Europae
Archaeologia Consilium Occasional Paper No. 5. Brussels:
EAC, pp.107115.
Remondino, F., 2014a. Photogrammetry: theory. In Remondino, F.,
and Campana, S. (eds.), 3D Recording and Modelling in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Theory and Best Practices. Oxford:
Archaeopress. BAR International Series, Vol. 2598, pp. 6573.
Remondino, F., 2014b. UAV: Platforms, regulations, data acquisition and processing. In Remondino, F., and Campana, S. (eds.),
3D Recording and Modelling in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Theory and Best Practices. Oxford: BAR International
Series, Vol. 2598, pp. 7487.
Remondino, F., and Campana, S. (eds.), 2014. 3D Recording and
Modelling in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Theory and
Best Practices. Oxford: Archaeopress. British Archaeological
Reports, International Series, Vol. 2598.
Risbl, O., Gjertsen, A. K., and Skare, K., 2006. Airborne laser
scanner of cultural remains in forest: some preliminary results
from Norwegian project. In Campana S., and Forte, M. (eds.),
From Space to Place. 2nd International Conference on Remote
Sensing in Archaeology : Proceedings of the 2nd International
Workshop, CNR, Rome, Italy, December 47, 2006. British
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326 Au1
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344

Title Name: EOG

1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
Archaeological Reports, International Series 1568. Oxford:

Archaeopress, pp. 107112.
Schaber, G. G., and Gumerman, G. J., 1969. Infrared scanning
images: an archaeological application. Science, 164(3880),
712713.
Sever, T. L., 1998. Validating prehistoric and current social phenomena upon the landscape of the Peten, Guatemala. In
Liverman, D. M., Moran, E. F., Rindfuss, R. R., and Stern,
P. C. (eds.), People and Pixels: Linking Remote Sensing and
Social Science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
pp. 145163.
Shaw, R., and Corns, A., 2011. High resolution LiDAR specifically
for archaeology: are we fully exploiting this valuable resource?
In Cowley, D. C. (ed.), Remote Sensing for Archaeological
Heritage Management: Proceedings of the 11th EAC Heritage
Management Symposium, Reykjavk, Iceland, 2527 March
2010. EAC Occasional Paper 5. Brussel: Europae Archaeologiae
Consilium, pp. 7786.
Sheets, P., and Sever, T. L., 1991. Prehistoric footpaths in Costa
Rica: transportation and communication in a tropical rainforest.
In Trombold, C. D. (ed.), Ancient Road Networks and Settlement
Hierarchies in the New World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5365.
Shell, C. A., 2002. Airborne high-resolution digital, visible, infrared
and thermal sensing for archaeology. In Bewley, R. H., and
Rczkowski, W. (eds.), Aerial Archaeology: Developing Future
Practice. Amsterdam: IOS Press. NATO Science Series I, Life
and Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 337, pp. 181195.
Shell, C. A., 2005. Digital airborne remote sensing: high-resolution
digital airborne survey for archaeological research and cultural
landscape management. In Musson, C., Palmer, R., and
Campana, S. (eds.), Volo nel Passato: Aerofotografia
e cartografia archeologica. Florence: AllInsegna del Giglio,
pp. 271283.
Shennan, I., and Donoghue, D. N. M., 1992. Remote sensing in
archaeological research. In Pollard, A. M. (ed.), New Development in Archaeological Science: A Joint Symposium of the Royal
Society and the British Academy February 1991. Proceedings of
the British Academy 77. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 223232.
Sittler, B., and Schellberg, S., 2006. The potential of LIDAR in
assessing elements of cultural heritage hidden under forest or
overgrown by vegetation: possibilities and limits in detecting
microrelief structures for archaeological surveys. In Campana
S., and Forte, M. (eds.), From Space to Place. 2nd International
Conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology : Proceedings of
the 2nd International Workshop, CNR, Rome, Italy, December
13
47, 2006. British Archaeological Reports, International Series

Stolze, F., 1882. Persepolis; Die achaemenidischen und
sasanidischen Denkmler und Inschriften von Persepolis,
Istakhr, Pasargadae, Shkpr. Berlin: Ahser.
Traviglia, A., 2007. MIVIS hyperspectral sensors for the detection
and GIS supported interpretation of subsoil archaeological sites:
An Italian case study. In Clark, J. T., and Hagemeister, E. M.
(eds.), Digital Discovery: Exploring New Frontiers in Human
Heritage. CAA 2006. Computer Applications and Quantitative
Methods in Archaeology. Proceedings of the 34th Conference,
Fargo, United States, April 2006. Budapest: Archaeolingua,
pp. 287299.
Verhoeven, G. J. J., Loenders, J., Vermeulen, F., and Docter, R.,
2009. Helikite aerial photography a versatile means of
unmanned, radio controlled, low-altitude aerial archaeology.
Archaeological Prospection, 16(2), 125138.
Weishampel, J. F., Chase, A. F., Chase, D. Z., Drake, J. B., Shrestha,
R. L., Slatton, K. C., Awe, J. J., Hightower, J., and Angelo, J.,
2010. Remote sensing of ancient Maya land use features at
Caracol, Belize related to tropical rainforest structure. In Forte,
M., Campana, S., and Liuzza, C. (eds.), Space, Time, Place:
Third International Conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology, 17th21st August 2009, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil, Nadu,
India. British Archaeological Reports, International Series
Wilson, D. R., 2000. Air Photo Interpretation for Archaeologists,
2nd edn. Stroud: Tempus.
Wiseman, J., and El-Baz, F., 2007. Remote Sensing in Archaeology.
New York: Springer.
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
WEB References
1422
Aerial Archaeology Research Group. http://www.univie.ac.at/aarg.

International Society for Archaeological Prospection. http://www.
brad.ac.uk/archsci/archprospection/.
1423
1424
1425
Cross-references
1426
Electrical Resistivity
Field Survey
Geomorphology
Geophysics
GIS
Ground-penetrating Radar
Landscape Archaeology
Magnetometry
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434

14
Title Name: EOG
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 1 Tethered air balloon used to record the archaeological excavations of Giacomo Boni in
the Foro Romano. (Courtesy of Guaitoli (2003).)
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 2 The formation of

cropmarks: crops grow taller and ripen later over the deeper,
more nutritious, and damper soil of a buried ditch or large pit.
Growth is stunted, and the ripening of the crop occurs earlier in
shallower soil above buried walls or other impervious deposits.
Ditches and pits create green marks in the yellowing crop. Walls
and similar obstructive features cause yellow marks in the green
crop. Both can persist as yellow-on-yellow marks in the ripened
crop. (Courtesy of Royal Commission on the Ancient and
Historical Monuments of Wales.)

Title Name: EOG
15
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 3 Above left, oblique aerial photograph showing a large grain cultivation field where
cropmarks are clearly visible (details above on the right side); they are interpreted as features of a Roman villa. The photographs
were collected in 2005 during the ripening season when cropmarks are at their best visibility for archaeological prospection. Bottom
left and right, oblique aerial photographs showing exactly the same area photographed 2 years later (2007). The aerial survey was
carried out during the cropmark season, but this time serendipity did not work. As a result, no features are visible in the aerial
photography. This is a paradigmatic example showing how distribution of archaeological features is as much an echo of serendipity
as it is of the real presence or absence of archaeological sites.

16
Title Name: EOG
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 4 Above: Shuttle

Imaging Radar-A flew on the second flight of Space Shuttle
Columbia in 1981. The images show SIR-A radar over Landsat
Multispectral Scanner in southwestern Egypt where thin sand
cover (0 to a few meters) obscures an underlying, older fluvial
landscape. L band (23 cm) radar images through 2+ meters of
dry sand show buried integrated drainage systems (Courtesy of
R. G. Bloom, JPL-NASA); below: Neolithic stone artifacts
abundant near the radar rivers reveal evidence for significant
human presence. (Courtesy of R. G. Bloom, JPL-NASA.)

Title Name: EOG
17
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 5 Comparison of satellite sensors with different spatial and temporal resolution: CORONA
1969, IKONOS 2002, and Landsat 1999. (Courtesy of Beck, 2011.)

18
Title Name: EOG
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 6 Vertical historical aerial photography collected in 1955 in the countryside of Foggia
(southern Italy). The photography shows clear features of Neolithic enclosures, medieval mounds, and field systems. (Courtesy of
Guaitoli, 2003.)
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 7 Vertical historical photography collected over Cerveteri in 1930. Visible in the
photograph are a number of white round features distributed nearly everywhere and corresponding with round barrows. (Courtesy of
Guaitoli, 2003.)

Title Name: EOG
19
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 8 Oblique aerial photography collected in 2005 at Vulci (Italy). The photograph shows
clearly a substantial number of square and other geometrical features related to the settlement area of the Etruscan and Roman city
of Vulci.

20
Title Name: EOG
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 9 Oblique aerial

photography collected in 2003 in the countryside of Foggia
(Italy). The photograph shows stratified ancient landscapes. It is
possible to recognize at least two main periods: prehistoric and
Roman. Two Neolithic circular enclosures (single and double
ditch enclosures), probably related to different chronological
phases, are distinguishable (bottom and top). Over the Neolithic
features are a number of traces related to a centuriation pattern
(road and cultivation systems) in association with a settlement
(bottom left), which is also plainly observable.

Title Name: EOG
21
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 10 Images from the Daedalus 12 band multispectral scanner flown by the Natural
Environment Resource Council (NERC) covering a field in West Heslerton, Vale of Pickering, North Yorkshire, UK. The principal features
documented in the images include a number of Iron Age square ditched barrows and a prehistoric trackway. (Courtesy of
D. Powlesland, Landscape Research Centre.)

22
Title Name: EOG
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 11 (Continued)

Title Name: EOG
23
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 12 Photo shows the

landscape below the Loughcrew passage tombs, County Meath,
Ireland: relief-shaded LiDAR image of enclosures and field
boundaries in improved pasture grassland subject to stone
removal and periodic plowing. Note the better preservation of
the earthworks in the legally protected unplowed area at lower
left. (Courtesy of Dr. Colin A. Shell, Department of Archaeology,
University of Cambridge, UK.)
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 11 Top: Flying Laboratory AIRSAR instrument (panels behind wing) mounted aboard
a modified NASA DC-8 aircraft. During data collection, the plane flies at 8 km above the average terrain height at a velocity of 215 m
per second. Second row: AIRSAR-JPLs experimental Airborne Synthetic Aperture Radar System. POLSAR-3 wavelengths and full
polarization diversity help characterize targets P, L, and C band at HH, HV, VH, and VV polarizations 3 modes 20, 40, and 80 MHz
bandwidth. Resolution increases with bandwidth while swath decreases 80 MHz L, band resolution is 1.7 m, 40 MHz is 3.3 m, and
20 MHz is 6.7 m. Swath width is 5 km at 80 MHz, 10 km at 40 MHz, and 15 km at 20 MHz. TOPSAR generates Hi Res DEMs (digital
elevation models) at two wavelengths. Cross-track interferometry L and C band digital elevation models (DEMs) postings at 5 m
(40 MHz), 13 m height accuracy. Second and third rows: Angkor Wat is a major religious/urban center and has a sophisticated
associated water system, ninth to fifteenth centuries. The population peak estimate is perhaps one million. Angkor region imaged
by SIR-C and AIRSAR. The AIRSAR campaign also collected high-resolution TOPSAR DEMs. Collaborative work advances historical
understanding thanks to the detection of previously unknown structures. Angkor lessons: archaeological structures sometimes show
both in radar images and DEM but often show only in DEM providing water management insight. From left to right: Angkor Wat
religious/urban center general view. Angkor perspective view: AIRSAR on TOPSAR DEM. Angkor Wat and Kapilapura mound: RADAR
data and digital elevation model. Sman Teng Temple: RADAR data and digital elevation model. (Courtesy of R. G. Bloom, JPL-NASA.)

24
Title Name: EOG
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 13 Top: conventional

aerial photograph of Welshbury Hill Fort (UK) showing the dense
tree canopy. (Image courtesy of the Forestry Commission,
Source Cambridge University, Unit for Landscape Modelling
(ULM), March 2004.) The dense woodland is not conducive to
standard field survey, so it was felt that any technique that might
better enable the recording of features in such woodland must
be worth investigating further. The project used data flown by
ULM and collected at a higher than average resolution allowing
the creation of a 0.25 m grid. This was provided to staff at English
Heritage as gridded files of both first and last pulse data
together with an image file of the data once it had been
processed using the vegetation removal algorithm. Middle: this
image shows that the first pulse data simply recorded the
canopy in much the same way as the standard aerial
photograph: what is recorded is the top of the tree canopy.
Bottom: the last pulse effectively removed the bulk of the tree
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 13 (Continued) cover

revealing the features beneath. Last pulse data removes the
trees revealing the ground surface. The remaining trees
probably represent areas of particularly dense foliage or thick
tree trunks/stumps. (LiDAR courtesy of the Forestry Commission,
Source Cambridge University, Unit for Landscape Modelling
(March 2004).)

Title Name: EOG
25
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 14 From top to bottom and from left to right. Ladder for documentation on archaeological
excavation; watch tower aimed at the collection of photography, laser scanner data, etc.; giraffe photography uses a telescopic mast
to elevate a high-quality digital SLR camera to heights generally between 5 up to10 m. This platform is used for collection of vertical
photography and creation of a photomosaic of small areas at a very high level of detail; blimp of the University of Siena, Centre for
GeoTechnologies, San Giovanni Val dArno; kite; helikite; balloon; from high-end UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) systems to very
low-cost UAV platforms. (Photos courtesy of the University of Siena, Laboratory of Landscape Archaeology and Remote Sensing
(LAP&T) and Centre of GeoTechnologies (CGT), H. Eisenbeiss and F. Remondino.)

26
Title Name: EOG
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 15 Combining aerial campaigns with geophysical data shows that neither approach gives
the same returns, confirming that identifying the archaeological capacity of the landscape requires the use of a multi-sensor
approach; map of a site in West Heslerton (North Yorkshire, UK). (Courtesy of Dominic Powlesland, Landscape Research Centre.)

Title Name: EOG
27
Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Figure 16 A map of East Heslerton (North Yorkshire, UK) drawn by Dominic Powlesland
demonstrates the integration of methodologies and data in the process of mapping evidence and understanding landscapes. While
the surviving earthworks of the later medieval village show up well in English Heritage air photographs, geophysical surveys reveal
much more detail of the medieval and later village, particularly in the areas beyond the present village to the north and west. To the
west of the present village, the series of long rectangular enclosures with their short sides aligned to the present track coming down
from the Wolds are termed crofts and tofts. The toft is where the house was built surrounded by a small garden area, and beyond it
the croft was probably used for domestic food production. The land beyond the village was divided into rig and furrow, the strip
field system that dominated the medieval landscape of much of lowland England. The village was supplied with water from springs at
the foot of the Wolds. To the south, the natural stream channel was managed from an early date with the water used to drive a mill
and fill the moat associated with the Manor House. The site of the Manor is thought to have been largely destroyed when the present
church, commissioned by Sir Tatton Sykes of Sledmere and designed by the celebrated Victorian architect G. E. Street, was built
between 1873 and 1877. Street also designed the vicarage and had further buildings constructed to house the building team. The
remains of a number of houses were demolished during the last century in the field immediately to the west of the village and to the
south of the A64 trunk road, which cuts through the northern part of the medieval village. The evidence indicates that the village that
survives today is considerably smaller than it had been in medieval times and, thus, is termed a shrunken village. (Map provided
courtesy of D. Powlesland, Landscape Research Centre.)

Title Name: EOG
Author Query Form

Encyclopedia of Geoarchaeology
Chapter No: 122
_________________________________________________________________________________
Query Refs.
Details Required
AU1
Please check if inserted publiser name for Remondino

(2014a) is okay.
Authors response

Remote Sensing Archaeology Springer

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Remote Sensing Archaeology Springer

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ENCYCLOPEDIA of

Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series

R.E. Taylor, Emeritus,

Aims of the Series

About the Series Editor

Founding Series Editor

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF EARTH SCIENCES SERIES

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016936270

Springer Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London

Printed on acid-free paper

Dedicated to Rhodes W. Fairbridge

Akrotiri Aetokremnos, Cyprus

Analysis of Carbon, Nitrogen, pH, Phosphorus,

Arctic Geoarchaeology: Site Formation Processes

Big Eddy Site, Missouri

Amino Acid Racemization

Ar/39Ar and KAr Geochronology

Cactus Hill, Virginia

Canals and Aqueducts in the Ancient World

Casper Site, Wyoming

Cosmogenic Isotopic Dating

Electrical Resistivity and Electromagnetism

Electron Probe Microanalyzer

Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) in

Eolian Settings: Loess

Eolian Settings: Sand

Fission Track Dating

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR)

Doln Vstonice, Pavlov, Milovice

Dumps and Landfill

Dust Cave, Alabama

Geographical Information Systems (GIS)

Eastern Sahara: Combined Prehistoric Expedition

Gesher Benot Yaaqov

Grain Size Analysis

Koster Site, Illinois

Great Plains Geoarchaeology

Lake Mungo and Willandra

Harbors and Ports, Ancient

Harris Matrices and the Stratigraphic Record

Hearths and Combustion Features

Loessic Paleolithic, Tajikistan

Luminescence Dating of Pottery and Bricks

House Pits and Grubenhuser

Magnetometry for Archaeology

Inundated Freshwater Settings

Minnesota Messenia Expedition (MME)

Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass

Monte Circeo Caves

Neutron Activation Analysis

Pompeii and Herculaneum

Poverty Point Site, Louisiana

Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) Dating

Privies and Latrines

tzi, the Tyrolean Iceman

Remote Sensing in Archaeology

Paleodemography: Methods and Recent Advances

Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

Paleoshores (Lakes and Sea)

Site Formation Processes

Paludal Settings (Wetland Archaeology)

Volcanoes and People

Wells and Reservoirs

X-ray Diffraction (XRD)