Trends and perspectives of space-borne SAR remote sensing for archaeological landscape and cultural heritage applications

Abstract

4This paper provides an overview of the opportunities that image analysts, archaeologists and conservation 5 scientists currently have of using space-borne Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery for prospection of 6 cultural landscapes and investigation of environmental, land surface and anthropogenic processes that can alter 7 the condition of heritage assets. The benefits of the recent developments in SAR satellite sensors towards higher 8 resolution (up to less than 1 metre) and shorter revisiting times (up to a few days) are discussed in relation to 9 established techniques using the two key SAR parameters -amplitude and phase. Selected case studies from 10 Middle East to South America illustrate how SAR can be effectively used to detect subtle archaeological 11 features in modern landscapes, monitor historic sites and assess damage in areas of conflict. These examples 12 form the basis to highlight the current trends in archaeological remote sensing based on space-borne SAR data 13 in the current era of the European Space Agency's Sentinel-1 constellation and on-demand high resolution space 14 missions. 15

Remote Sensing and Geosciences for Archaeology

“…Similar evidence has been found in review exercises of specific domains of archaeological remote sensing based on decades of published literature [1]. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that the Special Issue includes examples of international, collaborative efforts between teams of scholars, academics, and/or cultural institutions for remote sensing-based studies on archaeology and heritage of developing countries or crisis zones [12][13][14].…”

“…A quick search through the specialist literature proves that, already a decade ago, the remote sensing community had achieved a good understanding of the capabilities of SAR for archaeological prospection, either via implementation on real case studies or in laboratory experiments (see specific SAR papers in [6]). Furthermore, a recent review exercise clearly highlighted a ramp-up in indexed peer-review publications using SAR data in archaeology in the last 30 years [1]. Therefore, it cannot be stated that SAR is novel in archaeological remote sensing.…”

“…The abundant literature (also recently re-examined in review papers, e.g., [1,2]), the proliferation of special issues in international journals (e.g., [3,4]), and the publication of specialist books and manuals (e.g., [5][6][7]) are three clear indicators suggesting that remote sensing for archaeology is an established discipline, which attracts great interest across different scientific communities (e.g., image analysts, Earth observers, Geographic Information System (GIS) experts, archaeologists, heritage conservators) and has reached a level of maturity by which we are now in the position to assess its achievements and perspectives for future advances.…”

Study of the Variations of Archaeological Marks at Neolithic Site of Lucera, Italy Using High-Resolution Multispectral Datasets

“…Remote sensing space and ground data have been used in recent years for the identification of buried archaeological remains [1][2][3][4]. The technological improvements of satellite sensors, both in terms of spatial as well as spectral resolution, achieved within the last years, can provide archaeologists with further information regarding the landscape, assisting them to better understand and interpret large archaeological areas [5][6][7].…”

Structural health monitoring of engineered structures using a space-borne synthetic aperture radar multi-temporal approach: from cultural heritage sites to war zones

“…Several examples in literature show a SAR based structural health monitoring system successfully applied to cultural heritage areas and monuments [26][27][28][29]. These advancements in the techniques are increasingly used by archeologists [30] and have become of interest for structural engineers interested in surveying archeological sites and cultural heritage areas [31].…”