Satellite Remote Sensing and Archaeology: a …csiss.org/SPACE/workshops/2006/OU/reading/Fowler.pdfSatellite Remote Sensing and Archaeology 57 Figure 1. The Figsbury Ring study area

Archaeological ProspectionArchaeol. Prospect. 9, 55–69 (2002)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/arp.181

Satellite Remote Sensing andArchaeology: a Comparative Studyof Satellite Imagery of the Environsof Figsbury Ring, WiltshireMARTIN J. F. FOWLER*60 Harrow Down, Badger Farm, Winchester, Hampshire SO22 4LZ, UK

ABSTRACT The abilities of three satellite remote sensed image products (low spatial resolution LANDSATThematic Mapper (TM); medium resolution SPOT Panchromatic; high resolution KVR-1000) todetect archaeological features in the environs of the Iron Age hillfort at Figsbury Ring, Wiltshire,have been evaluated. Given prior knowledge of their locations, relatively large features togetherand those possessing a strong linear nature could be detected on the LANDSAT TM multispectraland SPOT Panchromatic image products. Near-infrared TM imagery showed promise for thedetection of smaller features as a result of differences in vegetation cover, but was constrainedby its low spatial resolution. High resolution Russian KVR-1000 imagery was found to be capableof detecting both upstanding and ploughed-out archaeological features without the need for priorknowledge of ground truth.

It is concluded that satellite imagery, although not a substitute for conventional aerial photog-raphy, represents a complementary source of information when prospecting for archaeologicalfeatures. In a regional context, low resolution multispectral imagery can be used for the prospec-tion for areas of high archaeological potential through the use of image processing and modellingtechniques and, together with medium resolution imagery can be used to prepare base mapsof regions for which up to date mapping is not available. High-resolution imagery, together withconventional aerial photographs, can be used subsequently to detect and map archaeologicalfeatures. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: satellite imagery; remote sensing; LANDSAT Thematic Mapper; SPOT Panchromatic;KVR-1000

Introduction

The past 20 years have seen significant advancesin both the availability and quality of publiclyaccessible satellite imagery of the Earth’s surface.Formerly exclusively in the domain of the mili-tary, high resolution satellite images of most partsof the globe can now be purchased at costs persquare kilometre that are becoming comparablewith conventional aerial photography. Further-more, this period also has seen an enormous

* Correspondence to: Dr. Martin J. F. Fowler, 60 HarrowDown, Badger Farm, Winchester, Hampshire SO22 4LZ, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

growth in desktop computing power. Whereasin the past, expensive, dedicated, image process-ing systems were required to analyse satelliteimagery, this can now be conducted using rel-atively low cost packages running on readilyaffordable personal computers.

Concurrent with these advances has been anincreasing interest in the exploitation of satel-lite remote sensed products for archaeologicalstudies (El Baz, 1997; Fowler, 2000a) as well asan increased use of mapped information derivedfrom the aerial perspective (Bewley, 2001; BritishAcademy, 2001). Particular interest in the use ofsatellite imagery has been shown in the USA,where products from the LANDSAT series of

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 4 June 2001Accepted 29 October 2001

56 M. J. F. Fowler

Table 1. Satellite imagery used in the study

Satellite Scene Date Spatialresolution

Band Wavelength

LANDSAT ThematicMapper

202/24 8 May 85 30 m Band 1 0.45–0.52 µm (visible blue)

Band 2 0.52–0.60 µm (green)Band 3 0.63–0.69 µm (visible red)Band 4 0.76–0.90 µm (near

infrared)Band 5 1.55–1.75 µm (near mid

infrared)Band 6 2.08–2.35 µm (mid

infrared)SPOT 029/246 8 May 87 10 m Panchromatic 0.51–0.73 µm (visible)KVR-1000 — Jun 93 1.5 m Panchromatic 0.51–0.76 µm (visible)

satellites have been used extensively (e.g. Ebertand Lyons, 1980; Custer et al., 1986; Farley et al.,1990; Showalter, 1993), albeit with mixed results.In contrast, limited use has so far been madeof satellite imagery in support of archaeolog-ical studies in Britain, with only a couple ofinvestigators exploiting the products. Cox (1992)used LANDSAT Thematic Mapper (TM) imagerytogether with conventional aerial photographs todefine and classify areas of peat in the wetlands ofCumbria in order to identify areas of archaeolog-ical potential. Likewise, Shennan and Donoghue(1992) used LANDSAT TM and SPOT Panchro-matic imagery to detect and map archaeologicalfeatures, such as a medieval field boundary andpart of a probable Romano-British water feature,in the Fenlands of eastern England. However, inanticipation of a wider utility of these products, a‘guide to good practice’ for the archiving of digitalaerial photographs and remote sensing imageryhas been formulated (Bewley et al., 1998).

In order to evaluate the usefulness of satelliteremote sensed imagery to archaeological study inBritain, the abilities of a variety of commerciallyavailable products to detect archaeological fea-tures in southern England have been addressedby the present author. To date, the study hasconcentrated on the interpretation of satelliteimagery of the chalklands of Wessex coveringthe environs of Danebury (Fowler, 1994), Stone-henge (Fowler, 1995; 1996; 2001) and Winchester(Fowler, 1999), as these areas are particularlywell documented and include a variety of stand-ing archaeological features as well as numerousploughed-out features that are now visible only ascropmarks and soilmarks on aerial photographs.

This paper describes a comparative study ofsatellite imagery of the environs of the Iron Agehillfort at Figsbury Ring, Wiltshire. Three satelliteimage products (LANDSAT Thematic Mapper(TM); SPOT Panchromatic; KVR-1000) (Table 1)are assessed for their ability to detect a range ofarchaeological features present in this area.

Study area

The study area (Figure 1) covers an area of some9 by 15 km and is approximately centred onFigsbury Ring (NGR SU 188338). The area is amixture of chalk grassland, farmland and wood-land and includes part of the city of Salisburyin the southwest corner and villages scatteredacross the region. The major archaeological fea-tures present in the study area comprise:

(i) the courses of four Roman roads that con-verge on the former Iron Age hillfort andlater medieval site at Old Sarum;

(ii) the hillfort at Figsbury Ring and enclosure atOgbury Ring;

(iii) the sites of neolithic long barrows and BronzeAge round barrows, enclosures, linear earth-works and ’Celtic’ field systems, many ofwhich have been ploughed away and whichare now visible only as cropmark and soil-mark features (Palmer, 1984).

Imagery and image processing

Digital LANDSAT TM imagery was purchasedfrom the National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC)

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeol. Prospect. 9, 55–69 (2002)

Satellite Remote Sensing and Archaeology 57

Figure 1. The Figsbury Ring study area. The locations of the three major features at Old Sarum, Figsbury Ring and OgburyRing are shown together with the courses of the former Roman Roads to Cirencester (RR44), Silchester (RR4b), Winchester(RR45) and Dorchester (RR4c). Negative areas, in the form of built-up areas, roads and woodland that preclude the detectionof archaeological features from the overhead perspective, are shown in dark grey. The extent of the chalk downland on PortonDown and Idmiston Down is shown in light grey.

Ltd, Farnborough, and was provided as 8-bit,256 grey scale, binary flat files covering anarea of some 20 km by 20 km centred approx-imately on Amesbury. Six image files wereprovided, corresponding to TM spectral bands1–5 and 7, and had been resampled to givea ground pixel size of 25 m. Imagery fromBand 6, covering the thermal infrared regionof the spectrum (10.5–12.5 µm), was not pur-chased owing to its inferior spatial resolutionof 120 m.

The SPOT Panchromatic imagery was pur-chased from NRSC Ltd in the form of a film-written photographic print at a scale of approx-imately 1 : 130 000. The print was scanned at aresolution of 600 dots per inch (dpi) to give adigital product with an equivalent ground pixelsizes of 6 m compared with 10 m for the originaldigital product.

Nigel Press Associates Ltd, Edenbridge, kindlyprovided an extract from a Russian KVR-1000image for the cost of writing the original digital

image to film. The image, covering approximately25% of the study area (Figure 1), was providedas a film-written print at a scale of 1 : 25 000. Thiswas scanned at a resolution of 300 dpi to givea digital product with a ground pixel size ofapproximately 2 m compared with 1.4 m for theoriginal digital product.

The LANDSAT TM images were displayedand manipulated using the TNTLite Version5.7 (MicroImages Inc.) image-processing package(Ostir and Stancic, 1997). This freeware versionof the full TNTMips package was found to bemore than adequate for the analysis of the TMimagery covering the study area but was unableto accommodate the SPOT Panchromatic andKVR-1000 images because of limitations on thesizes of images that can be used with the freewarepackage. As no manipulations other than contraststretching were to be undertaken, it was decidedto use the Corel PhotoPaint graphics package(Corel Corporation) to display and enhance theseimages.


58 M. J. F. Fowler

Evaluation of imagery

The satellite imagery under consideration havebeen graded into three levels of spatial resolution:

(i) low-resolution product with a spatial reso-lution >10 m (LANDSAT TM);

(ii) medium resolution product with a spatialresolution of 5–10 m (SPOT Panchromatic);

(iii) high-resolution product with a spatial reso-lution <5 m (KVR-1000).

For each of the satellite products, manual com-parisons were made with available large-scalemaps of the archaeological features knownto be present in the study area. These com-prised Palmer’s 1984 transcript of features vis-ible on aerial photographs and Ordnance Sur-vey 1 : 25 000 scale Explorer maps (Sheets 130and 131).

Low resolution imagery

LANDSAT TM—visible wavelengths

Bands 1–3 of the LANDSAT TM sensor coverthe visible blue, green and red regions of thespectrum with a spatial resolution of 30 m. Anatural colour composite of these three bands,created by displaying the three TM bands 1-2-3 as blue, red and green respectively isshown in monochrome in Figure 2. The lowspatial resolution of the TM product is appar-ent from this image with little detail beingdiscernable of the features at Old Sarum, Figs-bury Ring and Ogbury Ring. However, rela-tively small features such as paths and trackson the chalk downland of Porton Down andIdmiston Down to the northeast of Salisburyare apparent because of the strong contrastbetween the exposed chalk and the surroundingvegetation.

LANDSAT TM—infrared wavelengths

Bands 4, 5 and 7 of the LANDSAT TM sen-sor cover part of the reflected infrared regionof the spectrum. Of these three bands, band 4covering the near infrared (NIR) (0.76–0.90 µm)

appears to be the most useful for the detec-tion of archaeological features (Figure 3). Thisband is particularly sensitive to vegetationand water, with arable fields and grasslandsshowing as lighter tones and water, built-up areas, roads and trees showing as darkertones. Bands 5 and 7, covering the near mid-infrared and mid-infrared respectively, alsoreveal some of the archaeological features in thearea, albeit not as clearly as the NIR band 4image.

On the band 4 image, Old Sarum (Figure 3)can be seen as a prominent circular featureoutlined with a dark-toned perimeter from thetrees that surround the site. Within the ramparts,the presence of upstanding masonry can be madeout as dark features but are not fully discernible.Leading away from Old Sarum to the east, thecourse of the former Roman road to Winchesteris particularly prominent as a linear feature thathas become fossilized in the landscape in theform of field boundaries and modern roads.Similarly, the courses of the Portway and theroad to Cirencester can be traced leading awayfrom Old Sarum to the north; the former beingrepresented by the course of a modern road andthe railway line from Salisbury, the latter bythe course of a modern road. The course of theAckling Dyke, leading away from Old Sarum tothe south, cannot be traced easily as it is coveredby the northwest suburbs of the modern city ofSalisbury.

Some 500 m to the north of the Roman roadfrom Old Sarum to Winchester, the outline ofthe circular rampart and inner ditch of the IronAge hillfort at Figsbury Ring can be discernedon the image. Although the width of the innerditch is below the spatial resolution of theTM sensor, it appears to be visible on theimage as a result of the difference in the near-infrared reflectance of the vegetation in the ditchcompared with the grass of the berm. Similarexamples have been observed on band 4 imageryof the Stonehenge study area, where islands ofolder grass covering Bronze Age round barrowswere discerned within arable fields and morerecent grassland (Fowler, 1995).

Given the prior knowledge of its shape froma map, the outline of the polygonal Iron Ageenclosure at Ogbury Ring can be discerned to



Figure 2. LANDSAT Thematic Mapper Bands 1-2-3 composite image acquired on 8 May 1985 of the study area. Imagerysupplied by Infoterra 1985. Reproduced with permission. Maps reproduced by kind permission of Ordnance Survey. Crown copyright. All rights reserved. NC/01/390.


60 M. J. F. Fowler

Figure 3. LANDSAT Thematic Mapper Band 4 (near infrared) image of the study area. Imagery supplied by Infoterra 1985. Reproduced with permission. Maps reproduced by kind permission of Ordnance Survey. Crown copyright. All rightsreserved. NC/01/390.



the north of Old Sarum. The northern side ofthis feature is shrouded in trees and shows upas a dark-toned area on the image. No furtherdetail of the site could be discerned on theimage.

Within many of the fields covered by theimage, linear markings are apparent but cannotbe discerned fully because of the low spatialresolution of the TM sensor. Although many ofthese may be reflections of recent agriculturalpractices—such as former field boundaries—oraspects of the underlying geology of the area,others possibly may be the result of more ancienthuman activities.

False colour composite

A false colour composite of the Figsbury Ringstudy area, created by displaying the three TMbands 3 (visible red), 4 (near infrared) and 5(mid-infrared) as blue, red and green respec-tively, is shown in monochrome in Figure 4.On the colour original of this image, differ-ent types of land cover are apparent. Fieldsunder arable at the time of acquisition appearorange, red and pink, and woodland areasappear green and brown. In contrast, fieldsof low vegetation cover appear light blue andbuilt-up areas, such as the city of Salisbury,appear blue.

Although the sites of Old Sarum, Figsbury Ringand Ogbury Ring are apparent on the compositeimage, they are less clear than on the single band4 image. Similarly, the courses of the formerRoman roads can still be traced in the landscapebut no additional archaeological features can bedirectly discerned on this image. However, theareas of chalk downland at Idmiston Down andPorton Down can be readily discerned as tractsof green colour. Having been under militarycontrol for the past 75 years, they have avoidedthe ravages of modern agriculture and representareas of considerable archaeological and naturalhistory value and potential (Carter, 1992; 86–87).Although such areas of chalk downland are wellmapped for southern England, false colour TMimages could have some utility in monitoringtheir extent and ‘health’ in support of bothnatural history and archaeological conservationmanagement.

Medium resolution imagery

SPOT Panchromatic

The improved spatial resolution of the SPOTPanchromatic product (10 m) compared with theLANDSAT TM products can be seen in Figure 5.More detail of the structure at Old Sarum is hintedat, but once again it cannot be readily discerned.The courses of the former Roman roads that couldbe traced on the LANDSAT images can again bediscerned, but the hillfort at Figsbury Ring is lessapparent than on the band 4 TM product, withonly a faint trace being apparent of the innerditch. Although some degradation of the qualityof the SPOT Panchromatic product through theuse of a printed intermediate inevitably willhave occurred compared with the original digitalimagery, the inability to detect evidence ofthis latter feature indicates that in addition tohigh spatial resolution, a multispectral capabilityextending from the visible to the near infraredis beneficial for the detection of archaeologicalfeatures by satellite sensors.

High-resolution imagery

KVR-1000

The spatial resolution of Russian KVR-1000panchromatic satellite imagery is comparableto orthodox medium-scale aerial photographyand has been shown to be capable of detectingboth standing archaeological features as well ascropmarks and soilmarks without the need forprior recourse to ground truth (Fowler, 1996;Fowler, 1999).

A comparison of the features visible on the1.5 m resolution KVR-1000 image of part of thestudy area with those mapped by Palmer (1984)shows that only a subset of the features mappedfrom aerial photographs can be seen (Figure 6).This is not surprising given the transient natureof many of the archaeological features that canbe detected by aerial photography (Wilson, 2000).A number of features that were not included onPalmer’s (1984) map were observed on the KVR-1000, demonstrating the ability of high-resolutionsatellite imagery to detect ‘new’ archaeologicalfeatures.


62 M. J. F. Fowler

Figure 4. Thematic Mapper false colour composite of the study area. Imagery supplied by Infoterra 1985. Reproduced withpermission. Maps reproduced by kind permission of Ordnance Survey. Crown copyright. All rights reserved. NC/01/390.



Figure 5. SPOT Panchromatic image acquired on 8 May 1987 of the study area. Imagery supplied by Infoterra CNES1987. Reproduced with permission. Maps reproduced by kind permission of Ordnance Survey. Crown copyright. All rightsreserved. NC/01/390.


64 M. J. F. Fowler

Figure 6. Transcription of archaeological features visible on the KVR-1000 image (A) and aerial photographs (B) in the environsof Figsbury Ring. Aerial photographic transcription adapted from Palmer (1984).



Two extracts from the KVR-1000 image areshown in Figures 7 and 8. In Figure 7, theramparts and ditch of the hillfort at FigsburyRing can be seen vividly in relief. To the southof the hillfort, the raised agger of the Old Sarumto Winchester Roman road also can be seen as aslight highlight and shadow. Further south, theditches of the destroyed long barrow at Fussell’sLodge (Ashbee, 1984) can be seen as cropmarks.However, few of the additional banks, ditchesand barrows mapped by Palmer (cf Figure 6B)can be detected on this single image. By way ofcontrast, in Figure 8 an area of banks and ditchesthat were not mapped by Palmer can be seen assoilmarks to the south of the course of the Romanroad from Old Sarum to Winchester. To the northof the Roman road, the high spatial resolution ofthe KVR-1000 product is well illustrated by the

runway designation numbers at either end of thegrass runway of the airfield at Old Sarum beingreadily discernable.

Discussion

Despite the low spatial resolution of the LAND-SAT TM product, relatively large archaeologicalfeatures (such as the Figsbury Ring hillfort, thesite at Old Sarum and the Ogbury Ring enclo-sure) as well as those possessing a strong lin-ear component (such as the courses of formerRoman roads) can be detected on these imagesgiven some prior knowledge of their locationand form. Although NIR TM imagery showspromise for the detection of smaller features asa result of differences in vegetation cover, its

Figure 7. KVR-1000 image acquired in June 1993 of the hillfort at Figsbury Ring. Image supplied by Nigel Press AssociatesLtd, SOVINFORMSPUTNIK 1993. Reproduced with permission.


66 M. J. F. Fowler

Figure 8. KVR-1000 image acquired in June 1993 of ancient banks and ditches to the south of Old Sarum airfield. Imagesupplied by Nigel Press Associates Ltd, SOVINFORMSPUTNIK 1993. Reproduced with permission.

use is constrained by the low spatial resolutionof the product. Rather than being used in thedirect detection of archaeological features, lowresolution multispectral imagery is consideredto be better suited to the prospection for areasof high archaeological potential through the useof image processing and modelling techniques(e.g., Cox, 1992; Showalter, 1993; Clark et al., 1998;Church et al., 2000).

Medium resolution SPOT Panchromatic ima-gery represents an improvement in spatial resolu-tion over LANDSAT TM, but lacks the multispec-tral characteristics of the latter. Recently declassi-fied KH-4B CORONA photographic imagery hasa slightly higher spatial resolution than SPOTPanchromatic imagery (McDonald, 1995). Datingfrom the 1960s to early 1970s, the best of the third-generation photographic negative products dis-tributed by the United States Geological Survey

have spatial resolutions of the order of 5–10 m,somewhat less than the 2–3 m best resolution ofsome of the original first generation negatives.Although the limited coverage that is available ofsouthern England is severely constrained by thelack of cloud-free cover, a fortuitous break in thecloud cover on the KH-4B image near Andover,Hampshire, some 20 km to the northeast of Figs-bury Ring, revealed the circular outline of thetree-shrouded ramparts of the Iron Age hillfortat Bury Hill (Fowler, 1997a). Although none ofthe ploughed-out prehistoric ditches and banksin the vicinity of the hillfort that were mappedby Palmer (1984) could be discerned on theimage, the ability to readily recognise the hill-fort hints at the archaeological potential of thisproduct for those areas of Britain for whichcloud-free coverage is available. Such declassi-fied intelligence satellite photographs represent



an important, cost effective, resource for use inother countries where either conventional aerialphotography is prohibited or impractical (Fowler,1997b; Kennedy, 1998). Indeed, with more andmore archaeological surveys being undertaken inthe Near East (e.g. Kennedy and Bewley, 1998),where cloud-free conditions pertain and wherethere are a higher percentage of stone built andstill upstanding sites (Kennedy and Riley, 1990),the archaeological utility of this resource is poten-tially immense.

High resolution Russian KVR-1000 imagery iscomparable to conventional medium-scale verti-cal aerial photography and is capable of detect-ing relatively small standing and ploughed-outarchaeological features that are now visible onlyas cropmarks and soilmarks. Although inferior tothe spatial resolution of conventional aerial pho-tography acquired for archaeological purposes,the ability to collect imagery over a large areamakes this a cost effective tool for the prospectionfor medium-scale archaeological features fromthe aerial perspective.

The latest high-resolution satellite productsthat are available commercially are the panchro-matic and multispectral products from theIKONOS satellite operated by Space Imaging.Although the lack of available coverage of thestudy area precluded a formal evaluation ofthese products in this study, the 1-m-resolutionIKONOS panchromatic product appears capa-ble of detecting both upstanding and plough-levelled archaeological features (Fowler, 2000a,b).Furthermore, imagery from the 4-m-resolutionIKONOS multispectral sensor represents a sev-enfold increase in spatial resolution comparedwith the LANDSAT TM product and equatesto an approximately fiftyfold increase in infor-mation content of the area covered by a singleTM pixel. As the IKONOS multispectral productincludes coverage of the NIR equivalent to band4 LANDSAT TM, this product has the potentialof improved detection of archaeological featuresthrough differences in the NIR reflectance ofvegetation.

Notwithstanding the demonstrable ability ofhigh-resolution satellite products to detect arch-aeological features, some of the characteristics ofthe low Earth orbit perspective can restrict their

utility for archaeological purposes. Orbital con-straints currently limit satellites to the collectionof single pass images acquired at a specific timeof day and generally from a vertical perspec-tive. This is in contrast to conventional aerialphotographs that are taken for archaeologicaluse, which tend to be oblique and are takenfrom a range of directions in order to maximizethe appearance of features that can be criticallydependent on ambient lighting and viewing angle(Wilson, 2000). Furthermore, the constant poten-tial for cloud cover to obscure the area of interestduring the limited time available for imagerycollection on each orbital pass, can further limitthe utility of satellite imagery for archaeologicalpurposes. However the ’open skies’ nature of theoverhead perspective does allow images to be col-lected over areas that are otherwise prohibited orimpractical to conventional aerial photography(e.g. airspace restrictions, political restrictions,inhospitable areas) and also permits the regularmonitoring of areas without the need for humaninvolvement.

Conclusions

Satellite imagery should not be seen as a sub-stitute for orthodox oblique and vertical aerialphotographs; rather, it is a complementary sourceof information when prospecting for archaeo-logical features (Table 2). In a regional context,low resolution multispectral imagery can be usedin prospecting for areas of high archaeologicalpotential and, together with medium resolutionimagery, can be used to prepare base maps ofregions for which up to date mapping is notavailable. High-resolution imagery, together withconventional aerial photographs, can be usedsubsequently to detect and map archaeologicalfeatures.

With improved half-metre resolution panchro-matic and 2-m resolution multispectral imageryon the horizon (Anon., 2001), and the cost ofimagery reducing, over the next few years thearchaeological utility of satellite imagery can beexpected to continue to develop to the pointwhereby satellite remote sensed products taketheir place as a just another routine source ofimagery for use by the aerial archaeologist.


68 M. J. F. Fowler

Table 2. Archaeological utility of satellite imagery

Product Spatialresolution (m)

Prospection/modelling

Small-scalebase mapping

Medium-scalefeature mapping

Large-scalefeature mapping

LANDSAT Thematic Mapper 30p p

SPOT Multispectral 20p p

SPOT Panchromatic 10p

KH-4B CORONA 5–10p

IKONOS Multispectral 4 ? ?KVR-1000 1.5

pIKONOS Panchromatic 1

pAerial photographs <0.2

p p

Acknowledgements

This paper is dedicated to the memory of thelate Ernest Fowler (1920–1998). I would like tothank the National Remote Sensing Centre Ltdand Nigel Press Associates Ltd for permissionto reproduce the images included in this paper.Thanks also are due to my wife, Yvonne, forallowing me to complete this paper over Easter2001 when I should really have been preparingfor our wedding!

References

Anon. 2001. US declassifies super res satellite imagery.GEOEurope 10(3): 10.

Ashbee P. 1984. The Earthen Long Barrow in Britain, 2ndedn. Geo Books: Norwich.

Bewley RH. 2001. Understanding England’s historiclandscapes: an aerial perspective. Landscapes 2(1):74–84.

Bewley RH, Donoghue D, Gaffney V, van Leusen M,Wise A. 1998. Archiving Aerial Photography and RemoteSensing Data: a Guide to Good Practice. ArchaeologyData Service: York.

British Academy. 2001. Aerial Survey for Archaeology.Report of a British Academy Working Party 1999. TheBritish Academy: London.

Carter GB. 1992. Porton Down: 75 years of Chemical andBiological Research. HMSO: London.

Church T, Brandon RJ, Burgett GR. 2000. GISapplications in archaeology: method in searchof theory. In Practical Applications of GISfor Archaeologists: a Predictive Modelling Toolkit,Westcott KL, Brandon RJ (eds). Taylor and Francis:London; 135–155.

Clark CD, Garrod SM, Parker Pearson M. 1998.Landscape archaeology and remote sensing insouthern Madagascar. International Journal of RemoteSensing 19: 1461–1477.

Cox C. 1992. Satellite imagery, aerial photographyand wetland archaeology. World Archaeology 24:249–267.

Custer JF, Eveleigh T, Klemas V, Wells I. 1986.Application of LANDSAT data and synopticremote sensing to predictive models for prehistoricarchaeological sites: an example from theDelaware Coastal Plain. American Antiquity 51:572–588.

Ebert JI, Lyons TR. 1980. Remote sensing inarchaeology, cultural resources treatment andanthropology: the United States of America in 1979.Aerial Archaeology 5: 1–19.

El Baz F. 1997. Space age archaeology. ScientificAmerican 277(2): 40–45.

Farley JA, Limp WF, Lockhart J. 1990. The archaeolo-gist’s workbench: integrating GIS, remote sensing,EDA and database management. In InterpretingSpace: GIS and Archaeology, Allen KMS, Green SW,Zubrow EBW (eds). Taylor and Francis: London;141–164.

Fowler MJF. 1994. Danebury and its environs from 830kilometres. Hampshire Field Club and ArchaeologicalSociety Section Newsletters, New Series 21: 26–30.

Fowler MJF. 1995. Detection of archaeological featureson multispectral satellite imagery. AARGnews 10:7–14.

Fowler MJF. 1996. High resolution satellite imageryin archaeological application: a Russian satellitephotograph of the Stonehenge region. Antiquity 70:667–671.

Fowler MJF. 1997a. A Cold War spy satellite image ofBury Hill near Andover, Hampshire. Hampshire FieldClub and Archaeological Society Newsletter 27: 5–7.

Fowler MJF. 1997b. It may not be done well. . . but itcould be the best that is available. AARGnews 15:33–35.

Fowler MJF 1999. A very high resolution satelliteimage of archaeological features in the vicinity ofMount Down, Hampshire. Hampshire Field Club andArchaeological Society Newsletter 31: 4–5.

Fowler MJF. 2000a. In search of history. Imaging Notes15(6): 18–21.

Fowler MJF. 2000b. The Colosseum of Rome from 681kilometres. AARGnews 20: 47–50.

Fowler MJF. 2001. A high-resolution satellite image ofarchaeological features to the south of Stonehenge.International Journal of Remote Sensing 22:1167–1171.



Kennedy D. 1998. Declassified satellite photographsand archaeology in the Middle East: case studiesfrom Turkey. Antiquity 72: 553–561.

Kennedy D, Bewley R. 1998. Aerial archaeology inJordan 1998. AARGnews 17: 25–27.

Kennedy D, Riley D. 1990. Rome’s Desert Frontier fromthe Air. BT Batsford: London.

McDonald RA. 1995. Opening the Cold War sky to thepublic: declassifying satellite photoreconnaissanceimagery. Photogrammetric Engineering and RemoteSensing 61: 385–390.

Ostir K, Stancic Z. 1997. Small is beautiful—evaluationof two low-cost GISs. Archaeological ComputingNewsletter 48: 14–19.

Palmer R. 1984. Danebury, an Iron Age Hillfort inHampshire: an Aerial Photographic Interpretation of itsEnvirons. RCHM(E) Royal Commission on HistoricalMonuments (England): London.

Shennan I, Donoghue DNM. 1992. Remote sensing inarchaeological research. Proceedings of the BritishAcademy 77: 223–232.

Showalter PS. 1993. A Thematic Mapper analysis ofthe prehistoric Hohokam canal system, Phoenix,Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 77–90.

Wilson DR. 2000. Air Photo Interpretation forArchaeologists. Tempus: Stroud.


Documents

Satellite Remote Sensing and Archaeology: a …csiss.org/SPACE/workshops/2006/OU/reading/Fowler.pdfSatellite Remote Sensing and Archaeology 57 Figure 1. The Figsbury Ring study area