Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data
What can remote sensing contribute to archaeological surveying in subarctic and arctic landscapes? The pros and cons of remote sensing data vary as do areas of utilization and methodological approaches. We assessed the applicability of remote sensing for archaeological surveying of northern landscap...
Published in: | Sustainability |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Text |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
2021
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041917 |
id |
ftmdpi:oai:mdpi.com:/2071-1050/13/4/1917/ |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftmdpi:oai:mdpi.com:/2071-1050/13/4/1917/ 2023-08-20T04:04:19+02:00 Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data Alma Elizabeth Thuestad Ole Risbøl Jan Ingolf Kleppe Stine Barlindhaug Elin Rose Myrvoll agris 2021-02-10 application/pdf https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041917 EN eng Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Tourism, Culture, and Heritage https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13041917 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Sustainability; Volume 13; Issue 4; Pages: 1917 cultural heritage LiDAR satellite image aerial image High North Text 2021 ftmdpi https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041917 2023-08-01T01:03:14Z What can remote sensing contribute to archaeological surveying in subarctic and arctic landscapes? The pros and cons of remote sensing data vary as do areas of utilization and methodological approaches. We assessed the applicability of remote sensing for archaeological surveying of northern landscapes using airborne laser scanning (LiDAR) and satellite and aerial images to map archaeological features as a basis for (a) assessing the pros and cons of the different approaches and (b) assessing the potential detection rate of remote sensing. Interpretation of images and a LiDAR-based bare-earth digital terrain model (DTM) was based on visual analyses aided by processing and visualizing techniques. 368 features were identified in the aerial images, 437 in the satellite images and 1186 in the DTM. LiDAR yielded the better result, especially for hunting pits. Image data proved suitable for dwellings and settlement sites. Feature characteristics proved a key factor for detectability, both in LiDAR and image data. This study has shown that LiDAR and remote sensing image data are highly applicable for archaeological surveying in northern landscapes. It showed that a multi-sensor approach contributes to high detection rates. Our results have improved the inventory of archaeological sites in a non-destructive and minimally invasive manner. Text Arctic Subarctic MDPI Open Access Publishing Arctic Sustainability 13 4 1917 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
MDPI Open Access Publishing |
op_collection_id |
ftmdpi |
language |
English |
topic |
cultural heritage LiDAR satellite image aerial image High North |
spellingShingle |
cultural heritage LiDAR satellite image aerial image High North Alma Elizabeth Thuestad Ole Risbøl Jan Ingolf Kleppe Stine Barlindhaug Elin Rose Myrvoll Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data |
topic_facet |
cultural heritage LiDAR satellite image aerial image High North |
description |
What can remote sensing contribute to archaeological surveying in subarctic and arctic landscapes? The pros and cons of remote sensing data vary as do areas of utilization and methodological approaches. We assessed the applicability of remote sensing for archaeological surveying of northern landscapes using airborne laser scanning (LiDAR) and satellite and aerial images to map archaeological features as a basis for (a) assessing the pros and cons of the different approaches and (b) assessing the potential detection rate of remote sensing. Interpretation of images and a LiDAR-based bare-earth digital terrain model (DTM) was based on visual analyses aided by processing and visualizing techniques. 368 features were identified in the aerial images, 437 in the satellite images and 1186 in the DTM. LiDAR yielded the better result, especially for hunting pits. Image data proved suitable for dwellings and settlement sites. Feature characteristics proved a key factor for detectability, both in LiDAR and image data. This study has shown that LiDAR and remote sensing image data are highly applicable for archaeological surveying in northern landscapes. It showed that a multi-sensor approach contributes to high detection rates. Our results have improved the inventory of archaeological sites in a non-destructive and minimally invasive manner. |
format |
Text |
author |
Alma Elizabeth Thuestad Ole Risbøl Jan Ingolf Kleppe Stine Barlindhaug Elin Rose Myrvoll |
author_facet |
Alma Elizabeth Thuestad Ole Risbøl Jan Ingolf Kleppe Stine Barlindhaug Elin Rose Myrvoll |
author_sort |
Alma Elizabeth Thuestad |
title |
Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data |
title_short |
Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data |
title_full |
Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data |
title_fullStr |
Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data |
title_full_unstemmed |
Archaeological Surveying of Subarctic and Arctic Landscapes: Comparing the Performance of Airborne Laser Scanning and Remote Sensing Image Data |
title_sort |
archaeological surveying of subarctic and arctic landscapes: comparing the performance of airborne laser scanning and remote sensing image data |
publisher |
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute |
publishDate |
2021 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041917 |
op_coverage |
agris |
geographic |
Arctic |
geographic_facet |
Arctic |
genre |
Arctic Subarctic |
genre_facet |
Arctic Subarctic |
op_source |
Sustainability; Volume 13; Issue 4; Pages: 1917 |
op_relation |
Tourism, Culture, and Heritage https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13041917 |
op_rights |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041917 |
container_title |
Sustainability |
container_volume |
13 |
container_issue |
4 |
container_start_page |
1917 |
_version_ |
1774714711868178432 |