Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

Contrast, archaeological site detection and the non-visual component of the electromagnetic spectrum

Creator: Author(s): Stakeholders:

Dr. Anthony Beck (School of Computing, Leeds University) Dr. Anthony Beck (School of Computing, Leeds University) N/A

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

Contrast, archaeological site detection and the non-visual component of the electromagnetic spectrum

Resource Reference: Resource Section: Suggested Prerequisites: Suggested Level: Keywords:

AARG_THEORY_CONTRAST_01_01.PPT THEORY None Secondary, Tertiary, CPD contrast, archaeology, remote sensing, aerial photography, satellite imagery, spectrum, formation, proxy, detection

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

Contrast, archaeological site detection and the non-visual component of the electromagnetic spectrum
In recent decades advances in sensor technology have led to a range of ground, airborne and spaceborne imaging instruments that can be applied to archaeological and heritage management problems. However, the development of the archaeological detection techniques associated with these technologies have evolved independently with variable understanding of the physical, chemical, biological and environmental processes that determine whether archaeological residue contrasts will be identified in one or any sensor. This presentation will explore some theoretical issues surrounding archaeological contrast identification.

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

(Re-)use statement
Insert here (Lyn: please advise) The slides do not have to be used in this order. Where there is not enough descriptive information in the slide itself further details can be found in the notes section.

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

Slide courtesy of Stefano Campana

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

EM spectrum and Aerial Photography (Log scale)

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

Aerial Photography and archaeology

Most successful archaeological detection technique Reliant on specific seasonal and environmental conditions
Increasingly extreme conditions are required for the detection of new sites

Low understanding of the physical processes at play outside the visual wavelengths Significant bias in its application
in the environmental areas where it is productive (for example clay environments tend not to be responsive) Surveys dont tend to be systematic Interpretation tends to be more art than science

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

Remote sensing and archaeology

New and different sensors/technologies can address some of these deficiencies
Multi/hyperspectral sensors (including thermal) LiDAR (ALS) - High resolution topographic recording Ground geophysics (magnetometry, resistivity) GIS/IP software improved processing (getting the best out of what we have)

Will require going back to first principles to model how archaeological anomalies occur in each domain
Starting from AP assumptions unlikely to be helpful

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

Why Non-Visual Remote Sensing?

Many archaeological contrasts are easier to identify in nonvisual wavelengths:
Crop stress and vigour Soil mineralogy Moisture Temperature

Use of non-visual wavelengths has a number of benefits:

Can extend the window of opportunity for archaeological identification May not require extreme environmental conditions May be applicable in non-responsive environments

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

First Principals - Archaeological Site Detection

Discovery requires the detection of one or more site constituents which are sufficient to suggest that a site might be present. The important points for archaeological site detection are that:
Archaeological sites are physical and chemical phenomena. There are different kinds of site constituents. The abundance and spatial distribution of different constituents vary both between sites and within individual sites. These attributes may be masked or accentuated by a variety of other phenomena.

Importantly from a remote sensing perspective archaeological site do not exhibit consistent spectral signatures

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

First Principals Archaeological Sites

Archaeological sites show up as:
Structures Shadow marks Soil marks Crop marks Thermal anomalies

Influenced by effects of:

Weather Season Soil type and soil moisture Crop type

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

First Principals Archaeological Site Examples

Micro-Topographic variations

Soil Marks variation in mineralogy and moisture properties Differential Crop Marks constraint on root depth and moisture availability changing crop stress/vigour Proxy Thaw Marks Exploitation of different thermal capacities of objects expressed in the visual component as thaw marks

Now you dont see me

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

First Principals 3 - Contrast Types

Direct -where a measurement, which exhibits a detectable contrast with its surroundings, is taken directly from an archaeological residue.
In most scenarios direct contrast measurements are preferable as these measurements will have less attenuation.

Proxy - where a measurement, which exhibits a detectable contrast with its surroundings, is taken indirectly from an archaeological residue (for example from a crop mark).
Proxy contrast measurements are extremely useful when the residue under study does not produce a directly discernable contrast or it exists in a regime where direct observation is impossible.

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

Contrast and Archaeological Detection

The nature of archaeological residues and their relationship with the immediate matrix determines how easily residues can be detected. Detection requires the following:
A physical, chemical or biological contrast between an archaeological residue at its immediate matrix A sensor that can detect this contrast Sensor utilised during favourable conditions
i.e. youre unlikely to detect thaw marks in summer using photography! Although you could detect the underlying thermal anomalies using a different sensor at this time. Here the underlying process remains the same (a thermal variation) and the detecting sensor is in part determined by the environmental conditions.

It is this contrast between an archaeological feature and its matrix that one is wanting to observe.

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

Detection and (De-)Formation Processes

Unfortunately archaeological sites do not produce distinct Spectral Signatures
Rather: produce localised disruptions to a matrix

The nature of these disruptions vary and include:

Changes to the soil structure Changes to moisture retention capacity Changes in geochemistry Changes in magnetic or acoustic properties Changes to topography

At least one of these disruptions will produce a contrast which is detectable

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

Environmental and ambient conditions

Local conditions structure how any contrast difference is exhibited:
Soil type Crop type Moisture type Diurnal temperature variations

Expressed contrast differences change over time

Seasonal variations impact on the above (crop, moisture, temperature in particular) Diurnal variations: sun angle (topographic features), temperature variations

Exacerbated by anthropogenic actions

Cropping Irrigation Harrowing

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

Example: Multi/Hyper-spectral remote sensing

Dimension and number of recordable wavelengths. There is NO archaeological spectral signature.

Allows one to select the portion of the spectrum where there is the most contrast. Hence, an improvement in archaeological detection.

Poorly understood outside the visual

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

Example: Multi/Hyper-spectral remote sensing

Dimension and number of recordable wavelengths. There is NO archaeological spectral signature.

Allows one to select the portion of the spectrum where there is the most contrast. Hence, an improvement in archaeological detection.

Poorly understood outside the visual

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

Example: Multi/Hyper-spectral remote sensing

Dimension and number of recordable wavelengths. There is NO archaeological spectral signature.

Allows one to select the portion of the spectrum where there is the most contrast. Hence, an improvement in archaeological detection.

Poorly understood outside the visual

Aerial Archaeology Research Group Teaching Resource

Summary
Non-visual remote sensing has huge potential for the detection of archaeological features
However, aerial photographic techniques are not a good starting point

Requires a thorough understanding of how archaeological contrast is produced so that the correct sensor can be applied at the correct time:
(De) Formation processes Local (contrasting) matrix Ambient conditions Sensor characteristics