Next Article in Journal
Ground Stability Monitoring of Undermined and Landslide Prone Areas by Means of Sentinel-1 Multi-Temporal InSAR, Case Study from Slovakia
Next Article in Special Issue
Quantitative Examination of Piezoelectric/Seismoelectric Anomalies from Near-Surface Targets
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of the Combined Sensitivity of Nadir TIR Satellite Observations to Volcanic SO2 and Sulphate Aerosols after a Moderate Stratospheric Eruption
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparison Study to the Use of Geophysical Methods at Archaeological Sites Observed by Various Remote Sensing Techniques in the Czech Republic
Article Menu
Issue 3 (September) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle
Geosciences 2017, 7(3), 86; doi:10.3390/geosciences7030086

Are We There Yet? A Review and Assessment of Archaeological Passive Airborne Optical Imaging Approaches in the Light of Landscape Archaeology

Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection & Virtual Archaeology (LBI ArchPro), Franz-Klein-Gasse 1, A-1190 Vienna, Austria
Received: 18 August 2017 / Revised: 8 September 2017 / Accepted: 11 September 2017 / Published: 14 September 2017
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing and Geosciences for Archaeology)
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [4640 KB, uploaded 15 September 2017]   |  

Abstract

Archaeologists often rely on passive airborne optical remote sensing to deliver some of the core data for (European) landscape archaeology projects. Despite the many technological and theoretical evolutions that have characterised this field of archaeology, the dominant aerial photographic surveys, but also less common approaches to archaeological airborne reconnaissance, still suffer from many inherent biases imposed by sub-par sampling strategies, cost, instrument availability and post-processing issues. This paper starts with the concept of landscape (archaeology) and uses it to frame archaeological airborne remote sensing. After introducing the need for bias reduction when sampling an already distorted archaeological population and expanding on the ‘theory-neutral’ claim of aerial survey, the paper presents eight key characteristics that all have the potential to increase or decrease the subjectivity and bias when collecting airborne optical imagery with passive sensors. Within this setting, the paper then offers some technological-methodological reflection on the various passive airborne optical imaging solutions that landscape archaeology has come to rely upon in the past decades. In doing so, it calls into question the effectiveness and suitability of these highly subjective approaches for landscape archaeology. Finally, the paper proposes a new, more objective approach to aerial optical image acquisition with passive sensors. In the discussion, the text argues that the suggested exhaustive (or total) airborne sampling of the preserved archaeological record might transcend particular theoretical paradigms, while the data generated could span various interpretational perspectives and oppositional analytical approaches in landscape archaeology. View Full-Text
Keywords: aerial archaeology; aerial photography; aerial reconnaissance; airborne imaging spectroscopy; archaeological record; archaeological theory; bias; landscape archaeology; multispectral imaging; survey bias aerial archaeology; aerial photography; aerial reconnaissance; airborne imaging spectroscopy; archaeological record; archaeological theory; bias; landscape archaeology; multispectral imaging; survey bias
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Verhoeven, G.J. Are We There Yet? A Review and Assessment of Archaeological Passive Airborne Optical Imaging Approaches in the Light of Landscape Archaeology. Geosciences 2017, 7, 86.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Geosciences EISSN 2076-3263 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top