Advertisement

A Window for the Hidden Past: Revealing Architectural Remains Based on Field Spectroscopy Data Analysis

  • Athos AgapiouEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Geotechnologies and the Environment book series (GEOTECH, volume 16)

Abstract

Field spectroscopy is the quantitative measurement of the radiance, irradiance, reflectance, or transmission in the field. It is principally used to understand the interaction of different materials based on electromagnetic radiation. Although field spectroscopy has been systematically exploited for the calibration of remote sensing sensors, nowadays spectroscopy is being used for a variety of remote sensing applications. This chapter aims to provide an overview of the potential use of field spectroscopy for supporting archaeological research. The overview is based on examples and applications from different archaeological environments in the eastern Mediterranean basin, specifically targeted for the detection of underground architectural remains. As is demonstrated in this chapter, field spectroscopy uses hyperspectral signatures to validate or calibrate the space-borne or airborne images, while at the same time spectroscopy may assist in better understanding of the interaction of the electromagnetic radiation with the different targets and therefore in developing new algorithms to support future archaeological applications.

Keywords

Ground spectroscopy Remote sensing archaeology Crop marks Buried archaeological remains 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The results presented here are in part from the Ph.D. thesis of the author as well from other research projects. Thanks are given to the Remote Sensing Laboratory of the Department of Civil Engineering & Geomatics at the Cyprus University of Technology for the support (http://www.cut.ac.cy/) as well to Prof. Diofantos Hadjimitsis for his continued support. Thanks also are given to my colleague Dr. Dimitrios Alexakis. Acknowledgments also are given to Dr. Apostolos Sarris and Dr. Nikos Papadopoulos from the Laboratory of Geophysical-Satellite Remote Sensing & Archaeo-environment, Institute for Mediterranean Studies, Foundation for Research & Technology, Hellas (F.O.R.T.H.). Sincere thanks to my colleague Dr. Vasiliki Lysandrou for her fruitful comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Agapiou A, Hadjimitsis DG, Alexakis D, Papadavid G (2012a) Examining the phenological cycle of barley (Hordeum vulgare) using satellite and in situ spectroradiometer measurements for the detection of buried archaeological remains. GISci Remote Sens 49(6):854–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agapiou A, Hadjimitsis DG, Sarris A, Georgopoulos A, Alexakis DD (2012b) Linear spectral unmixing for the detection of Neolithic settlements in the Thessalian Plain, central Greece. In: Perakis K, Moysiadis A (eds) Proceedings of the 32nd EARSeL symposium 2012, Advances in geosciences, pp 125–140Google Scholar
  3. Agapiou A, Alexakis DD, Sarris A, Hadjimitsis DG (2013a) Orthogonal re-projection of spectral bands using medium and high resolution satellite images for the detection of archaeological crop marks. Remote Sens 5(12):6560–6586. doi: 10.3390/rs5126560 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agapiou A, Hadjimitsis DG, Sarris A, Georgopoulos A, Alexakis DD (2013b) Optimum temporal and spectral window for monitoring crop marks over archaeological remains in the Mediterranean region. J Archaeol Sci 40(3):1479–1492. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2012.10.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Agapiou A, Alexakis D, Hadjimitsis DG (2014a) Evaluation of spectral sensitivity of ALOS, ASTER, IKONOS, LANDSAT and SPOT satellite sensors intended for the detection of archaeological crop marks. Digital Earth 7(5). doi: 10.1080/17538947.2012.674159
  6. Agapiou A, Alexakis DD, Sarris A, Hadjimitsis DG (2014b) Evaluating the potentials of Sentinel-2 for archaeological perspective. Remote Sens 2014(6):2176–2194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alexakis A, Sarris A, Astaras T, Albanakis K (2009) Detection of neolithic settlements in Thessaly (Greece) through multispectral and hyperspectral satellite imagery. Sensors 9:1167–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Alexakis A, Sarris A, Astaras T, Albanakis K (2011) Integrated GIS, remote sensing and geomorphologic approaches for the reconstruction of the landscape habitation of Thessaly during the neolithic period. J Archaeol Sci 38:89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Αltaweel M (2005) The use of ASTER satellite imagery in archaeological contexts. Archaeol Prospect 12:151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deroin J-P, Téreygeol F, Heckes J (2011) Evaluation of very high to medium resolution multispectral satellite imagery for geoarchaeology in arid regions – Case study from Jabali, Yemen. J Archaeol Sci 38(1):101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garrison GT, Houston DS, Golden C, Inomata T, Nelson Z, Munson J (2008) Evaluating the use of IKONOS satellite imagery in lowland Maya settlement archaeology. J Archaeol Sci 35(10):2770–2777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giacomo DG, Ditaranto I, Scardozzi G (2011) Cartography of the archaeological surveys taken from an Ikonos stereo-pair: a case study of the territory of Hierapolis in Phrygia (Turkey). J Archaeol Sci 38(9):2051–2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jonson KJ (2006) Remote sensing in archaeology. An explicitly North America perspective. The University of Alabama PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaimaris D, Patias P (2012) Best period for high spatial resolution satellite images for the detection of marks of buried structures. Egypt J Remote Sens Space Sci. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrs.2011.12.001 Google Scholar
  15. Lasaponara R, Masini N (2006) Identification of archaeological buried remains based on Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) from Quickbird satellite data. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 3(3):325–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lasaponara R, Masini N (2007) Detection of archaeological crop marks by using satellite QuickBird multispectral imagery. J Archaeol Sci 34:214–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lasaponara R, Leucci G, Masini N, Persico R (2014) Investigating archaeological looting using satellite images and GEORADAR: the experience in Lambayeque in North Peru. J Archaeol Sci 42:216–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Milton EJ, Schaepman ME, Anderson K, Kneubühler M, Fox N (2009) Progress in field spectroscopy. Remote Sens Environ 113:92e109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Milton EJ (1987) Principles of field spectroscopy. Remote Sens Environ 8(12):1807e1827Google Scholar
  20. Parcak SH (2009) Satellite remote sensing for archaeology. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group Press, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Sharpe L (2004) Geophysical, geochemical and arable crop responses to archaeological sites in the Upper Clyde Valley, Scotland, PhD thesis, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Physical Sciences, University of GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  22. Stanjek H, Fabinder JWE (1995) Soil aspects affecting archaeological details in aerial photographs. Archaeol Prospect 2(1):91–101Google Scholar
  23. Winton, H., Horne, P., (2010). National archives for national survey programmes: NMP and the English heritage aerial photograph collection. In: Landscapes through the lens. Aerial photographs and historic enviroment. Aerial Archaeology Research Group No. 2, pp 7–18Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering and Geomatics, Faculty of Engineering and TechnologyCyprus University of TechnologyLimassolCyprus

Personalised recommendations