6060 pd redacted high resolution satellite remote sensing of aggregate landscapes v1

8/2/2019 6060 PD Redacted High Resolution Satellite Remote Sensing of Aggregate Landscapes v1

1/58

MARCH 2012

ASSESSING THE UTILITY OF HIGH RESOLUTION SATELLITE REMOTESENSING FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROSPECTION AND MAPPING

Project Design

Prepared by

Keith Challis, IBM Vista, Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity,University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT

(0121 414 5563, [email protected])

Simon Crutchley, Aerial Survey and Investigation, English Heritage,N.M.R.C., Kemble Drive, Swindon SN2 2GZ

Dr Andy J Howard, Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity,

University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT(0121 414 5497, [email protected])

Lead body for funding purposes is the Institute of Archaeology and AntiquityUniversity of Birmingham

PNUM 6060


2/58

PN 6060: High Resolution Satellite Remote Sensing

2012 The University of Birmingham Pageii

ASSESSING THE UTILITY OF HIGH RESOLUTION SATELLITE REMOTESENSING FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROSPECTION AND MAPPING

Project Design

Prepared by

Keith Challis, IBM Vista, Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity,University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT

(0121 414 5563, [email protected])

Simon Crutchley, Aerial Survey and Investigation, English Heritage,N.M.R.C., Kemble Drive, Swindon SN2 2GZ

Dr Andy J Howard, Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity,University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT(0121 414 5497, [email protected])

Lead body for funding purposes is the Institute of Archaeology and AntiquityUniversity of Birmingham

PNUM 6060


3/58


2012 The University of Birmingham Pageiii

Title: Assessing the Utility of High Resolution Satellite Remote Sensing forArchaeological Prospection and Mapping

Authors(S) K. Challis, A.J. Howard, S. CrutchleyDerivationOriginationDate

March 2012

Reviser(S) K. ChallisDate Of LastRevision

12/-0/2012

Version 1/1Status Draft Submission for CommentSummary OfChangesCirculation EHRequiredAction

Comments please

FileName/Location

c:\users\challisk\desktop\work\0000_high_res_imagery\projectdesign\6060_pd_high_resolution_satellite_remote_sensing_of_aggregate_landscapes_v1.doc

Approval


4/58


2012 The University of Birmingham Pageiv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This project aims to investigate the utility of high resolution multispectral satelliteimagery for archaeological prospection. Satellites capture high quality image data at

a landscape scale, enabling investigation of large areas (tens of square kilometres)in a single image. Use of such imagery has shown considerable potential beyondthe UK, principally where conventional photography is in short supply, but has yet tobe systematically tested within the UK. The project aims to examine the utility of avariety of modern high resolution satellite imagery for prospection and mappingusing the English Heritage National Mapping Programme specification and workflow.Work will be undertaken as a collaboration between the English Heritage AerialSurvey & Investigation Team and the Vista Centre at Birmingham University. Theproposal recognises the essential need to increase sector skills in the use of newimagery sources and includes provision for reciprocal staff training between the twopartner organisations.


5/58


2012 The University of Birmingham Pagev

LIST OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................IV

LIST OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................................V

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................VI

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1

1.1 BUSINESS CASE ...................................................... ........................................................... ................. 21.2 STUDY AREAS ......................................................... ........................................................... ................. 31.3 INTERFACES................................................... ........................................................... ........................... 31.4 COMMUNICATIONS...................................................... ........................................................... ....... 3

2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES..............................................................................................................5

2.1 OBJECTIVE A: IMAGESELECTIONANDANALYSIS.................................................. ................. 62.2 OBJECTIVEB:DETERMINATIONOFWORKFLOW .......................................................... ....... 72.3 OBJECTIVEC:COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS.................................................... .................................... 82.4 OBJECTIVED:KNOWLEGDEEXCHANGE AND TRAINING ........................................................8 2.5 OBJECTIVEE:PUBLICATION AND DISSEMINATION......................................................... ................. 8

3 METHOD STATEMENT...............................................................................................................11

3.1 OBJECTIVE A: IMAGESELECTIONANDANALYSIS.................................................................11 3.1.1 A1 Determining the most suitable and available imagery sources for archaeologicalmapping in the UK.......................................................... ........................................................... ............... 113.1.2 A2 Comparative analysis of common image sources...................................................... ....... 33.1.3 A3 Collecting and collating imagery for a range of English landscape types....................33.1.4 A4 Determination of appropriate image processing methods and workflows forarchaeological analysis........................................................... ........................................................... ....... 43.1.5

A5 Determination of weather factors affecting cropmark formation..................................... 7

3.2 OBJECTIVEB:DETERMINATIONOFWORKFLOW .......................................................... ....... 83.2.1 B1 Develop trial workflow for incorporation of imagery within NMP working practice......83.2.2 B2 Mapping of archaeological detail apparent on imagery to NMP standards..................83.2.3 B3 Comparison of satellite mapped information to existing NMP data.............................. 11

3.3 OBJECTIVEC:COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS.................................................... .................................. 123.3.1 C1 Determine comparative effectiveness and overall financial burden of satelliteimagery and conventional flying on a per season basis...................................................... ............... 123.3.2 C2 Conduct a cost-benefit analysis for use of satellite imagery to supplement orreplace conventional flying if required....................................................... ............................................ 13

3.4 OBJECTIVED:KNOWLEGDEEXCHANGE AND TRAINING ......................................................14 3.4.1 D1 KE Vista staff placement with English Heritage......................................................... ..... 143.4.2 D2 KE English heritage staff placement with Vista.......................................................... ..... 14

3.4.3 D3 Vista postgraduate student placement with English Heritage and Vista....................143.5 OBJECTIVE E:DISSEMINATION,REPORTING AND ARCHIVE ......................................................... ..... 163.5.1 E1: Setup and maintain project Internet presence........................................................... ..... 163.5.2 E2: Project Report...................................................... ........................................................... ..... 163.5.3 E4 Trade journal article....................................................... ...................................................... 173.5.4 E5: Academic Journal Paper........................................................ ............................................ 173.5.5 E6: Create and Deposit Project Archive........................................................ ......................... 17

4 WORK PLAN AND TIME MANAGEMENT..................................................................................19

4.1 IDENTIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK ........................................................... ......................... 194.1.1 Availability of Data..................................................... ........................................................... ..... 194.1.2 Success of Imaging.................................................... ........................................................... ..... 194.1.3 Timely Completion of Research................................................... ............................................ 19

4.1.4 Transferable Outcome......................................................... ...................................................... 204.2 MILESTONES AND MONITORING ............................................................ ............................................ 204.3 THE PROJECT TEAM ........................................................... ........................................................... ..... 20


6/58


2012 The University of Birmingham Pagevi

4.4 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND EXTERNAL VALIDATION ...................................................... ............... 214.5 TASK LIST AND TIME ALLOCATIONS...................................................... ............................................ 214.6 GANTTCHART ....................................................... ........................................................... ............... 22

5 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................24

APPENDIX 1: CURRICULUM VITAE OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS ........................................26

APPENDIX 2: HEALTH AND SAFETY STATEMENT.........................................................................38

POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................ ........................................................... ..... 39RELEVANT UNIVERSITY HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICY DOCUMENTS .............................................................39

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Availability of QuickBird and selected Ikonos imagery for England. Bottomright, sample QuickBird true colour composite showing the Waveney Valley,

Suffolk at degraded resolution............................................................................. 2Figure 2. The principle behind the NDVI, which is based on the difference inreflection properties of green and parched vegetation in the red and nearinfrared portions of the spectrum......................................................................... 6

Figure 3. An example of the application of NDVI to multispectral imagery, nascentcropmarks not apparent in the visible spectrum image (top) are revealed in theNDVI (bottom). .................................................................................................... 6


7/58


2012 The University of Birmingham Pagevii

INTRODUCTION


8/58


2012 The University of Birmingham Page1

1 INTRODUCTION

The ability of multispectral imagery to detect archaeological features not apparent onconventional aerial imagery has been effectively demonstrated by recent English

Heritage funded research (PN5261; Challis 2009) and a small but significant body ofpublished work illustrates the potential of such imagery for archaeology. However,although useful in terms of its spectral resolution, airborne imagery is hampered byits relatively high cost of acquisition for the unit area surveyed, long mobilisationtimes for survey flights and small archive of existing available imagery.

By contrast, satellite mounted sensors capture images of substantial landscapeareas at a single point in time, have lower costs of acquisition per unit area thanaerial imagery, enjoy a considerable archive of past imagery and so offerconsiderable potential efficiency savings compared to airborne imagery collection(Challis and Howard 2006 and cf a recent special Issue of the Journal of

Archaeological Science(Lasaponara and Masini, 2011).

The spatial resolution of satellite imagery (typically in the order of tens of metres) hasbeen a limiting factor to its archaeological use until recently. However, a newgeneration of high-resolution satellite sensors, launched in the last decade, are ableto capture data at an archaeologically useful spatial scale (with a pixel size typicallybetween 0.5 and 1.5m: Table 1). These new high spatial resolution instruments offerthe potential to capture large areas of landscape in multispectral mode and at anarchaeologically useful spatial resolution. The potential for the prospection andmapping of archaeological landscapes is considerable, but largely unexplored withinthe UK.

Outside of the UK there is a growing body of research demonstrating thearchaeological utility of satellite imagery, ranging from declassified historicalintelligence imagery (Challis 2006; Challis et al2004 and see Fowler 1996, 2002 and2005 for examples within the UK) to modern high resolution sensors (Altaweel 2005;Lasaponara & Masini 2005; 2006; 2007; Rajan and Rajawat 2011; Grn et al 2011).The use of imagery in such cases is usually necessitated by the absence of otheraerial imagery and assisted by the presence of relatively cloud free skies, essentialfor imaging from space. However, recent work in Norway has hinted at the potentialof modern high resolution systems for prospection in temperate climates (Trier et al2009) and examination of the growing archive of UK imagery from the principalsuppliers demonstrates a useful body of image data with cloud free skies acquired atarchaeologically useful seasons (Figure 1).

English Heritage have identified a need to examine the potential of satellite imageryfor contribution to National Mapping Programme and Aerial Survey & Investigationobjectives (Horne 2009, 34) suggesting that such a project is timely. The proposedproject seeks to address this issue through assessment of the utility of highresolution satellite imagery for archaeological prospection and mapping across avariety of English landscape types within the English Heritage National MappingProgramme (NMP) framework.


9/58



1.1 BUSINESS CASE

The need for a project such as this is most clearly stated in the recent EnglishHeritage Research Department document A Strategy for the National Mapping

Programme(Horne 2009).

In addition, there is a strong case to be made for the assessment of high resolutionsatellite imagery for archaeological prospection and mapping from both the scientificand commercial perspectives, From the scientific perspective high resolution,multispectral imagery provides a new untested data source for English archaeology,the need to explore such new data and methods is implied in SHAPE objective14111.110 (Multi-Disciplinary Research Approaches To The HistoricEnvironment: Challenges And Benefits) and more explicitly stated in objective14171.210 (Bright Science: Technical And Technological Innovation). Mostrecently the proposed work scores a medium priority in the National HeritageProtection Plan, Draft Priorities for Action(English Heritage 2010) in the categoryRemote Sensing Of Unknown Archaeology.

The scientific imperative for investigating the utility of new techniques and resourcesis underpinned by the potential for financial benefits, for example the economies ofscale encompassed in acquiring imagery for an entire study region at a singleadvantageous point in time, compared to piecemeal conventional survey, and thepotential cost-saving shortcuts in process inherent in the use of satellite imageryfrom dimensionally stable sensor systems compared to the need to geolocate andrectify numerous conventional aerial photographs. Cost and process advantagesmay be anticipated but require the detailed cost-benefit analysis provided in thisproject to support any ensuing fundamental changes in working method.

It is anticipated that the project will provide benefits in two areas:

1. Methodological development2. Enhancement of sector skills

In term of methodology research will determine and document the imagery choices,processing steps and cost benefits most appropriate for the use of high resolutionsatellite imagery in UK archaeology, specifically within the English Heritage National

Mapping programme workflow, but with transferable benefits to other large areaprospection and mapping applications within archaeology (for example largeinfrastructure projects such as roads and railways).

In terms of sector skills the research will provide training and knowledge exchangeopportunities for University of Birmingham and English Heritage staff as each spendsome time embedded in the others organisation to acquire appropriate skills (for EHdigital image processing, for UoB the NMP workflow).

While some aspects of this work directly benefit the partner organisations it isanticipated that the overall outcome, to be disseminated by academic publication,

technical guidance documents and through conference presentation, will be of wide


10/58



benefit to the UK archaeological community and have the potential to haveconsiderable positive impact of working practice in the sector.1.2 STUDY AREAS

Work will focus on three contrasting study area providing example of a river valley,

upland and perimarine landscape. Final study areas will be chosen to providecoincidence of good, cloud free archive satellite imagery from archaeologicallyproductive seasons with comprehensive NMP archive data. Initial study areas aresuggested below but will be refined and finalised as part of project task A3 indiscussion between the project partners and with the EH project monitor.

Study area 1: The River Trent in Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire (Lowland alluvial).

Study area 2: The Yorkshire Wolds (Chalk upland).

Study area 3; The Lower Waveney Valley, Suffolk, or the Witham Valley Lincolnshire

(Peat dominated perimarine).

1.3 INTERFACES

Project work is likely to be of interest and relevance to a number of organisationsbeyond the partners and will benefit from free exchange of ideas and information.Links will be established with the Remote Sensing and Photogrammetric SocietyArchaeology Special Interest Group (KC is a committee member) with the AerialArchaeology Research Group (via EH) and with the AHRC funded DetectingArchaeological Residues through Remote Sensing (DART) research project (KC ison the academic advisory panel). Informal freeform communication will be exploredvia a dedicated project blog (DART provide a fine example of this) while more formalexchange of ideas will take the form of presentations at national and/or internationalconferences.

1.4 COMMUNICATIONS

Effective communication between project teams working for two differentorganisations in different locations will be vital. As well as an initial start up meetingwe will organise project briefings for team members at the completion of each projectstage. Day to day communication will be by email, telephone and if necessary videoconference via Skype. Members of the project team will be responsible forcontributing to and updating a dedicated project blog which will serve as adeveloping record of project work and a place in which to review and discuss ideasas well as a central focus for distributing digital content.

Data will bee shared by a dedicated cloud-based distribution service implementedusing Dropbox (www.dropbox.com) and a shared workspace for collaborative

working on documents will be made available through a dedicated WindowsSkyDrive account.


11/58



AIMS and OBJECTIVES


12/58



2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The project aims to assess a variety of the highest resolution satellite imagerysources for which a useful quantity of archive imagery data is available for the UK.Assessment of the imagery will combine determination of its base suitability for

detecting archaeological features, determination of a workflow for image processingand interpretation, incorporation of satellite imagery within the NMP workingframework and a blind comparison of mapping from satellite imagery with areaspreviously mapped by NMP. We recognise that in general digital multispectralimagery is most suited to detection and mapping of archaeological cropmarks,particularly where manipulation of spectral bands allows enhancement of nascentvegetation differences. Soilmarks and illumination dependent features are less wellevidenced on such imagery due to the less pronounced spectral variations in soilproperties and the fact that most imagery is timed to be captured in periods ofrelatively even illumination where shadow features are minimised. Thus this projectwill primarily focus on examination of the cropmark component of NMP data. Projectaims may be divided into five broad categories:

A Image Focused Determining the most suitable and available imagery sources for mapping in the

UK. Comparative analysis of common image sources (Quickbird, Worldview, Ikonos,

Geoeye) Collecting and collating imagery for a range of English landscape types (eg. river

valley, chalkland, etc). Determination of appropriate image processing methods and workflows for

archaeological analysis. Determination of weather factors affecting cropmark formation as evidenced onsatellite and conventional imagery in order to predict when image acquisitionmight be useful (for example for pre-emptive tasking of satellites).

B Process Focused Develop trial workflow for incorporation of imagery within NMP working practice. Mapping of archaeological detail apparent on imagery to NMP standards. Comparison of satellite mapped information to existing NMP data.

C Cost Benefit Analysis

Determine comparative effectiveness and overall financial burden of satelliteimagery and conventional flying on a per season basis. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis for use of satellite imagery to supplement

conventional flying if required (eg cost of tasking, image and processingcompared to conventional flying).

D Knowledge Exchange and Training Increase sector skills by reciprocal training of existing EH and Vista staff and

postgraduate student placement.

E Publication and Dissemination Disseminate results of research through conference presentations, trade and

academic journals and via the Internet.


13/58



2.1 OBJECTIVE A: IMAGE SELECTION AND ANALYSIS

This stage is concerned with the selection, processing and analysis of appropriatesatellite imagery. A variety of high resolution imagery sources are available andoffer UK coverage (Quickbird, Worldview, Ikonos, Geoeye) ranging from the

fragmentary, to near complete coverage at multiple epochs. Spatial and spectralresolution varies by sensor system (Table 1) and a particular aim of this stage ofresearch is to investigate the trade off between spatial, spectral and radiometricresolution of imagery to determine which sensor system in general offers the bestsolution for archaeological mapping. In addition to high spatial resolution sensors arange of lower spatial resolution sensors, often with increased spectral resolution,provide a considerable chronological depth of archive data.

Since the fundamental nature of past landscape and its remains and the character ofarchaeological evidence vary considerably across the English landscape we will aimto select imagery that gives coverage of a representative cross-section of landscape

types.

As well as selecting the most suitable imagery sources for archaeological mappingwork will seek to determine the appropriate image processing steps to be applied toimagery to maximise visibility of archaeological evidence.

As a final aim we will attempt to assess the impact of short term weather patterns oncropmark formation as evidenced on the selected imagery. It is envisaged that thisproject stage will be largely the responsibility of Vista staff.

The main aims of this stage are therefore:

Image selection Image processing and comparative analysis

It comprises the following tasks, method statements for which are provided in section3.1

A1 Determining the most suitable and available imagery sources for mapping inthe UK.

A2 Comparative analysis of common high spatial resolution image sources

(Quickbird, Worldview, Ikonos, Geoeye)A3 Collecting and collating imagery for a range of English landscape types (eg.river valley, chalkland, moorland).

A4 Determination of appropriate image processing methods and workflows forarchaeological analysis.

A5 Determination of weather factors affecting cropmark formation as evidencedon satellite and conventional imagery in order to predict when imageacquisition might be useful (for example for pre-emptive tasking of satellites).


14/58



2.2 OBJECTIVE B: DETERMINATION OF WORKFLOW

This stage is concerned with devising appropriate working methods to incorporatesatellite imagery within the NMP workflow. The principal aim of the project and itraison d'tre is to assess the usefulness of high resolution satellite imagery to the

NMP. Work here will focus on assessing how satellite imagery may be mosthelpfully deployed within the NMP, in particular examining the technical limitations onimagery usage imposed by the working practice and technology typically employedby NMP in house and when contracted out. The outcome is envisaged as a detailedwork-flow document outlining image sources, processing steps (from objective A)and technical processes within NMP to allow use of satellite imagery in this context.

A secondary aim is the blind mapping of archaeological evidence apparent onprocessed satellite imagery for comparison with existing NMP data collected viaconventional means to support objective C. It is envisaged that this project stage willbe largely the responsibility of English Heritage staff, supported where necessary by

Vista.


Assessment of good working practice with satellite imagery Archaeological analysis (mapping) of imagery

It comprises the following tasks, method statements for which are provided in section3.2.

B1 Develop trial workflow for incorporation of imagery within NMP workingpractice.B2 Mapping of archaeological detail apparent on imagery to NMP standards.B3 Comparison of satellite mapped information to existing NMP data.


15/58



2.3 OBJECTIVE C: COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

This stage is concerned with a detailed analysis of the financial and working practiceimplications and benefits of the use of satellite imagery within the NMP workflow.The aim is to attempt a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the use of satellite imagery

within archaeological prospection. We will examine two scenarios;

The use of satellite imagery as an alternative to conventional flying as ameans of general aerial prospection.

The use of satellite imagery as an alternative to and in addition toconventional imagery within the NMP workflow.

It is anticipated that work will be shared between the project partners. It comprisesthe following tasks, method statements for which are provided in section 3.3.

C1 Determine comparative effectiveness and overall financial burden of satelliteimagery and conventional flying on a per season basis.

C2 Conduct a cost-benefit analysis for use of satellite imagery to supplement orreplace conventional flying if required (eg cost of tasking, image andprocessing compared to conventional flying).

2.4 OBJECTIVE D: KNOWLEGDE EXCHANGE AND TRAINING

This stage is concerned with facilitating knowledge exchange between the project

partner organisations. The overall aims is to ensure that at the completion of theproject participating staff within both partner organisations are fully familiar with thework undertaken by the other. In addition we recognise the need to disseminate newskills, particularly those related to digital image processing and analysis, more widelywithin the archaeological community; to achieve this we propose to facilitate astudent placement from amongst Vista's postgraduate community to spend timeembedded with both partner organisations.

Work on this stage will be shared equally between project partners. It comprises thefollowing tasks, method statements for which are provided in section 3.4.

D1 KE Vista staff placement with English HeritageD2 KE English Heritage staff placement with VistaD3 Vista postgraduate student placement with English Heritage and Vista

2.5 OBJECTIVE E: PUBLICATION AND DISSEMINATION

This stage is concerned with the dissemination of research results to the widerarchaeological community. The results of our research will be communicated to aswide an audience as possible within the archaeological and allied communities.

Work will be publicised via the internet and through a written project report, producedon completion of the work and intended for immediate publication via the web. A


16/58



presentation of project work will be made at an appropriate national and/orinternational conference. Formal publications will be prepared for the practitionercommunity and for a learned journal. An archive of research results will be preparedfor deposition with the archaeological data service (ADS). .


Web based and published dissemination of project results. Engagement with the wider archaeological community through conference

attendance and presentation. Formal technical and academic publication of results. Creation of a digital archive of project results.

It comprises the following tasks, method statements for which are provided in section3.5.

E1 Setup and maintain project Internet presence.E2 Project Report.E3 Disseminate results of research through conference presentations.E4 Trade journal article.E5 Academic journal paper.E6 Create and deposit project archive.


17/58



METHOD STATEMENTS


18/58



3 METHOD STATEMENT

3.1 OBJECTIVE A: IMAGE SELECTION AND ANALYSIS

This stage is concerned with the selection, processing and analysis of appropriate

satellite imagery. It comprises the following tasks, method statements for which areprovided in section 3.1

Imagery is expensive and in recognition of this initial project stages seek to use onlyfreely available imagery, sample data or degraded resolution "quicklook" imagery intheir completion, and to aid selection of the best suite of imagery for purchase foruse in subsequent project stages.

3.1.1 A1 Determining the most suitable and available imagery sources forarchaeological mapping in the UK.

In this initial project stage the team will examine a wide variety of satellite imagery atdifferent spatial and spectral resolutions to broadly determine its suitability for arange of archaeological tasks, from landscape character assessment to detailedmapping.

We will compile an imagery index for the entire of England and acquire trial imageryfor a variety of landscape types, indeed for lower resolution imagery probably for theentire of England. We anticipate examining at least the following imagery sources:

Landsat TM Landsat ETM ASTER SPOT

Quickbird Worldview Ikonos Geoeye

We will construct an imagery geodatabase recording imagery availability andacquisition dates and comprising geolocated imagery, collated in a projectGeographical Information System (GIS) constructed using ERSI's ArcGIS 10 (Figure1).

Imagery will be subject to a visual and critical assessment to determine its suitability

for archaeological tasks including contribution to Landscape Character Assessments(such as Historic Landscape Characterisation), prospection for unknownarchaeological remains and detailed mapping of known remains.

In this project stage work will focus on using only freely available imagery and so wepropose, where possible, to examine free archive or sample imagery and where nofree imagery is available to restrict our examination to resolution degraded"quicklook" imagery.


19/58



ProductThe products of this project component will comprise:

GIS-based geodatabase of satellite imagery sources for England. Visual and critical assessment of the suitability of different imagery sources for

common archaeological assessment and mapping tasks.

Figure 1. Availability of QuickBird and selected Ikonos imagery for England. Bottom right, sampleQuickBird true colour composite showing the Waveney Valley, Suffolk at degraded resolution.


20/58



3.1.2 A2 Comparative analysis of common image sources

Following from stage A1 this project stage will compare spatial and spectralcharacteristic and availability of high resolution imagery only(ie imagery suitablefor NMP mapping) across England.

Imagery will be compared with existing NMP mapping to determine best coverageand appropriate acquisition date for archive imagery for subsequent purchase andanalysis.

Different imagery sources will be assessed to determine the extent to which theylend themselves to further analysis and processing steps to enhance archaeologicalvisibility.

Finally all available imagery from suitable seasons will be examined in quicklook tomake an initial assessment of their potential for archaeological mapping.

A cross comparison of these various factors will be made to allow selection ofimagery from appropriate seasons that combines the best of coverage and analyticalpotential with a suitable variety of landscape types. The final shortlist of selectedimagery and target sites will be discussed with the project monitors beforeproceeding to purchase imagery.


Comparison of distribution of archive high resolution imagery with availability ofNMP mapping across England to determine best imagery for acquisition.

Critical assessment of imagery characteristics and availability to produce shortlistof imagery for acquisition.

3.1.3 A3 Collecting and collating imagery for a range of English landscapetypes

Following the broad assessment of imagery types (A1) and detailed examination ofhigh resolution imagery (A2) this project stage concerns itself with the final selection,acquisition and collation of a subset of imagery for subsequent analysis within anappropriately formatted project GIS which also contains other appropriate data foranalysis (HER, NMP, Morphe, Amie, etc).

The selection of imagery for acquisition will be based on the correlation of availablehigh resolution imagery with appropriate acquisition date (principally this meansacquisition during the prime cropmark formation season, mid June to late July) overareas with a good record of cropmark and other aerial defined archaeologicalremains documented by an existing NMP project. We will seek to acquire imageryfrom the full range of modern high resolution sensors (Quickbird, Worldview, Ikonosand Geoeye) and for a variety of landscape types. Our initial selection of test


21/58



landscapes (The Trent Valley, Yorkshire Wolds and Lower Waveney or WithamValleys) is based on areas well known to the project team and with a welldocumented archive of archaeological evidence. We recognise that it may provenecessary to vary this selection either due to imagery availability or after discussionwith advisors.

Where possible we will acquire multiple imagery sources for each study area to allowmeaningful comparison of different sensors for the same landscape and suite ofevidence, but this possibility will be heavily influenced by imagery availability andfinancial considerations. As a baseline we will seek to acquire at least one imagefrom each of the four sensor systems listed. Image acquisition will include both highresolution panchromatic imagery and lower resolution simultaneously acquiredmultispectral imagery.

Product

The products of this project component will comprise:

A project GIS containing a selection of high resolution imagery for each studyarea together with other appropriate historic environment records, digital mapdata, etc.

3.1.4 A4 Determination of appropriate image processing methods andworkflows for archaeological analysis

Following selection imagery will be subject to a series of standard image processingand analysis protocols to determine those most useful for enhancing archaeologicalevidence.

Image processing is anticipated to comprise three main suites of techniques:

1. Enhancement of spatial resolution comprising image sharpening usingconvolution filters and so-called pan-sharpening of multispectral imagery (wherevalues for lower resolution multispectral bands are transferred to each pixel of ahigher resolution panchromatic image). Where suitable data is available we will

also attempt to pan-sharpen multispectral imagery using other high resolutionimagery such as lidar or conventional aerial photography.

2. Spectral enhancement, utilising the multiple bands of multi-spectral imagery andlargely comprising generation of Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)and associated indices, which rely on ratio comparisons of red to near infraredreflectance to enhance vegetation difference. These indices have been proven toassist in detecting archaeological evidence in multispectral imagery (Challis et al2009). Because of the limited spectral resolution of high spatial resolution satelliteimagery (usually restricted to visible red, green, blue and a single infrared band)other spectral enhancements such as the tasselled cap transform are not

possible.


22/58



3. Image classification, using both supervised and unsupervised classificationalgorithms to attempt to identify and extract archaeological evidence from suitableimagery. We admit scepticism as to the utility of these techniques forarchaeological applications due to the heterogeneous nature of the spectralcharacteristic of archaeological cropmarks and the very slight variation from

background values (Challis et al 2009). Nonetheless, recent work in Norway(Trier et al 2009) suggests that in suitable circumstances such techniques canwork and this demands verification using English imagery. This latter work will beundertaken using ERDAS Imagine 10.


Critical analysis and documentation of a comprehensive suite of spatialandspectral enhancements for all imagery.

Critical analysis of both supervised and unsupervised classification ofsuitable imagery to extract archaeological evidence.


23/58



Figure 2. The principle behind the NDVI, which is based on the difference in reflection properties ofgreen and parched vegetation in the red and near infrared portions of the spectrum.

Figure 3. An example of the application of NDVI to multispectral imagery, nascent cropmarks notapparent in the visible spectrum image (top) are revealed in the NDVI (bottom).


24/58



3.1.5 A5 Determination of weather factors affecting cropmark formation

Limited work undertaken as part of previous studied by the applicants (Challis 2009)has demonstrated that examination of archive metrological and soil moisture datacan contribute to an understanding of the environmental conditions prevailing at the

time of image acquisition and their potential influence on the visibility ofarchaeological evidence such as cropmarks.

In this project stage we will gather archive metrological data for each of the studyareas from the UK Met Office weather station archive and archive soils moisture dataalso from the Met Office, who provide monthly and weekly soil moisture data for 40km by 40 km squares in Britain, based on 120 meteorological stations. Data will becollected for the three months prior to acquisition of each satellite image.

We are also interested in the influence of weather (principally rainfall) and soilmoisture deficit on cropmark formation per seand so additional data will be gatheredfor comparison with a selection of the best conventional aerial photographicevidence for a subset of archaeological cropmarks within each study area. We willcompare cropmark evidence recorded used by the NMP and documented by theaimie and morphe databases with weather and soil moisture data in an attempt todetermine the prevailing conditions that are most favourable for cropmark formationin each locale. This will be compared to the conditions prevailing at the time ofacquisition of each satellite image to attempt to determine the extent to whichimagery was aquired in environmentally optimum conditions. We will also explorethe extent to which environmental observations might be used to predict cropmarkformation and so be used in planning and tasking future image acquisitions.


Collection and collation of comprehensive archive weather and soil moisturedata for the study areas for the period preceding satellite image acquisitionand for periods of optimum cropmark formation.

Critical examination of these data to determine factors most affectingcropmark formation.


25/58



3.2 OBJECTIVE B: DETERMINATION OF WORKFLOW

This stage is concerned with devising appropriate workflows to incorporate satelliteimagery within the NMP workflow. Work here will largely be undertaken by theEnglish Heritage aerial survey and investigations team.

3.2.1 B1 Develop trial workflow for incorporation of imagery within NMPworking practice

This project stage will determine the most appropriate method to incorporatemultispectral satellite imagery within the National Mapping Programme workflow andpractice. Since NMP work routinely uses software other than GIS such as ArcGISand NMP workers are not necessarily equipped with the knowledge or tools toeffectively manipulate multispectral imagery work will focus on determining the bestderived image products to incorporate within the NMP workflow.

We anticipate that this will include incorporation of a combination of panchromatic,pan-sharpened multispectral and derived imagery products (such as NDVI) withinNMP workflows as though they were georeferenced conventional air-photographs.While this necessarily reduces some of the benefits of using multispectral imagery,the focus here is on how to incorporate products from the analysis of such imagery(a specialist task) within a n existing and mature working practice with minimumdisruption. Analysis will focus on determining both how to best incorporate thesedata within NMP and which imagery products are most productive in terms of ease ofmapping and identification of archaeological features.


Experimental incorporation of a range of products derived from multispectralsatellite imagery within the NMP working routine.

Critical examination and documentation of this process culminating in a best-practice work flow guide.

3.2.2 B2 Mapping of archaeological detail apparent on imagery to NMPstandards

In this project stage the full range of archaeological detail apparent on selectedsatellite imagery for all of each study area will be mapped, using the work flowdevised in stage B1, for the entire of each study area. Features will be mapped blind(ie without reference to existing NMP mapping or other imagery) and to the commonNMP standard to allow direct comparison of the results of mapping from satelliteimagery with that from conventional sources.


Comprehensive digital mapping of archaeological detail apparent on satelliteimagery across all study areas to NMP standards.


26/58



GEOEYE-1 SPECIFICATIONS

Spatial Resolution

Panchromatic Sensor 0.41 meters x 0.41 meters

Multispectral Sensor 1.65 meters x 1.65 meters

Spectral Range 450800 nm450510 nm (blue)510580 nm (green)655690 nm (red)780920 nm (near IR)

Swath Width 15.2 km

Off-Nadir Imaging Up to 60 degrees

Dynamic Range 11 bits per pixel

Mission Life Expected > 10 years

Revisit Time Less than 3 days

Orbital Altitude 681 km

Nodal Crossing 10:30 a.m.

IKONOS SPECIFICATIONS

Spatial Resolution 0.82 meter x 3.2 meters

Spectral Range 526929 nm445516 nm (blue)506595 nm (green)632698 nm (red)757853 nm (near IR)

Swath Width 11.3 km

Off-Nadir Imaging Up to 60 degrees

Dynamic Range 11 bits per pixel

Mission Life Expected > 8.3 years

Revisit Time Approximately 3 daysOrbital Altitude 681 km

Nodal Crossing 10:30 a.m.


27/58



WORLDVIEW-2 SPECIFICATIONS

Imaging Mode Panchromatic Multispectral

Spatial Resolution .46 meter GSD at Nadir

.52 meter GSD at 20 degrees off-Nadir

1.84 meters GSD atNadir

2.08 meters GSD at20 degrees off-nadir

Spectral Range 450-800 nm

400-450 nm(coastal)450-510 nm (blue)510-580 nm (green)585-625 nm(yellow)630-690 nm (red)705745 (red edge)770895 (near IR-1)860-900 nm (nearIR-2)

Swath Width 16.4 km at nadir

Off-Nadir Imaging Nominally +/- 45 degrees off-nadir = 1,355 swath widthHigher angles selectively available

Dynamic Range 11-bits per pixel

Mission Life 7.25 years

Revisit Time 1.1 days at 1m GSD or less3.7 days at 20 degrees off-nadir or less (0.52 meter GSD)


Nodal Crossing 10:30 am

QUICKBIRD SPECIFICATIONS

Imaging Mode Panchromatic Multispectral

Spatial Resolution .61 meter GSD at Nadir 2.4 meter GSD at Nadir

Spectral Range 445-900 nm

450-520 nm (blue)520-600 nm (green)630-690 nm (red)760900 nm (near IR)

Swath Width 16.4 km at nadir

Off-Nadir Imaging 0-30 degrees off-nadirHigher angles selectively available

Dynamic Range 11-bits per pixel

Mission Life 8+ years

Revisit Time Approximately 3.5 days (depends on Latitude)


Nodal Crossing 10:30 am

Table 1. The spatial and spectral characteristics of selected high resolution satellite sensors.


28/58



3.2.3 B3 Comparison of satellite mapped information to existing NMP data

In this final analytical section of the proposal the distribution of archaeologicalinformation mapped from satellite imagery will be critically compared with that in theexisting NMP corpus.

Analysis will have a dual focus. In the first instance we wish to document the extentto which features recorded by NMP are evident on and documented from satelliteimagery. This will be accomplished by simple overlay of digital mapping from thetwo sources, coupled with examination of primary satellite and air-photographicevidence.

Additionally we wish to investigate the extent to which individual featuresdocumented by conventional aerial photography are evidence in satellite imagery;this task has some synergy and overlap with task A5. To accomplish this we willfocus on a subset of features from each study area where there is conventionalaerial photography taken in the same season as the satellite imagery used in theproject. Here, analysis will attempt to determine the extent which satellite imageryimproves on or degrades results achieved through conventional photography and theinterplay between weather, soils, geology and other cropmark affecting factors andfeature formation. In particular we are interest in whether the multispectral nature ofsatellite imagery improves the ability to detect cropmarks, even when vegetationconditions are not ideal, or whether conventional photography taken at exactly theright moment is more effective in capturing ephemeral vegetation marks; in effectcan a single landscape scale image capture the same content as a sequence oftimed images of individual sites.

This task will be accomplished through detailed cross comparison of imagery andother landscape data within the project GIS. Since it requires the skills of both theVista and EH teams to accomplish it is likely to form one of the foci of knowledgeexchange between the two organisations (Objective D).


Documentation recording the effectiveness of satellite imagery in capturingarchaeological content recorded by the NMP.

Detailed site based mapping and analysis documenting the extent to whichsatellite imagery is able to capture complex cropmarks recorded throughconventional means.


29/58



3.3 OBJECTIVE C: COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

This stage is concerned with a detailed analysis of the financial and working practiceimplications and benefits of the use of satellite imagery within the NMP workflow. It isanticipated that work will be shared between the project partners.

3.3.1 C1 Determine comparative effectiveness and overall financial burdenof satellite imagery and conventional flying on a per season basis

In this section of the project we seek to determine the basic metrics of usage forsatellite imagery and air-photography in terms of its base effectiveness in identifyingarchaeological components of landscape and the financial cost of this.

The work will be broken down into several stages. For satellite imagery we willproduce a simple metric for each study area and imagery source quantifying theproportion of the total recorded archaeological resource (as documented by NMPand supplemented by local HER) identified on the imagery and the number (if any) ofnewly identified sites or components of sites. Where relevant this information maybe broken down into sub-sets geographically (eg comparing river terrace withfloodplain in the Trent Valley).

Financial burden will be determine by calculating present costs in US dollars andsterling equivalent per 100km2 of acquiring new imagery from each of the sensorsystems examined together with the working hours required to process and interpretimagery.

For aerial photography we will look in detail at a number of individual sorties toquantify the archaeology documented per km flown. If possible we will use actualrouting information (likely to be available from the NMR for more recent surveyflights), for less recent flights, or as an alternative, we reconstruct flight details for theavailable data held by the NMR.

For conventional flying we will attempt to quantify financial burden by looking at theoverall expenditure on aerial reconnaissance in each study area over a number offlying seasons using where possible archive data.

It is anticipated that simple metrics will not reveal the entire picture. So for examplethe cost per unit area of acquiring Ikonos imagery is lower than that of WorldView(largely as a single Ikonos scene covers a larger ground footprint) but it is highlylikely that the higher resolution WorldView imagery may prove more archaeologicallyuseful. Similarly, the financial cost of conventional photography will vary greatlybetween seasons due to factors such as fuel costs, while effectiveness will be highlyvariable because of the overwhelming influence of weather, particularly rainfall, oncropmark production. For this reason we will attempt a more thorough cost-benefitanalysis as part of task C2 (below).


30/58




Simple metrics quantifying the proportion of the total archaeological resourceidentified by satellite imagery in each study area.

Calculations of cost per 100km2 of acquiring new imagery from each of thesensor systems examined.

Quantification of the archaeology documented per km flown usingconventional aerial photography across a selection of sorties and study areas.

Calculations of the financial burden of conventional flying over a number ofseasons.

3.3.2 C2 Conduct a cost-benefit analysis for use of satellite imagery tosupplement or replace conventional flying if required

In this project stage we will attempt to quantify and document the overall cost ofacquiring, processing and using satellite imagery as a supplement to conventionalaerial photography, and as a replacement, to determine what, if any, benefits accruein each scenario.

Calculation of cost will be based on costs of imagery acquisition (based on singleepoch coverage for an entire NMP study area using each imagery source) costs ofimage processing and interpretation and costs associated with the introduction ofnew equipment (software) and associated staff training costs.

Calculations of benefit will be based on metrics derived from section C1 and willinclude basic quantification of the effectiveness of satellite imagery in documentingknown archaeology and discovering new, hitherto unknown, sites.

In the case of supplementing conventional flying cost/benefit is simply a case ofdetermining the overall cost per site documented and new site discovered of usingsatellite imagery.

In the case of replacing conventional aerial photography with satellite acquiredimagery we will attempt document the per season flying costs for a number of NMPstudy areas against the number of existing sites documented and new sites

discovered to generate comparable metrics.

Comparison of the costs and benefits of each of the above cases will be used todraw overall, tentative, conclusions.


Quantification of the cost of acquiring satellite imagery against itsdemonstrated effectiveness.

Comparable cost of acquiring conventional aerial photography against itsdemonstrated effectiveness.


31/58



3.4 OBJECTIVE D: KNOWLEGDE EXCHANGE AND TRAINING

This stage is concerned with facilitating knowledge exchange between the projectpartner organisations. Work on this stage will be shared equally between projectpartners.

3.4.1 D1 KE Vista staff placement with English Heritage

The Vista research associate (RA) responsible for image processing will spend a twoweek intensive period placed with the English Heritage Aerial Survey andInvestigations Team, at the NMR Swindon, in order to gain first hand experience ofEH working practice and the NMP methodology. It seems most likely that thisplacement will take place during the completion of Objective B, development of theNMP workflows for using satellite imagery, when the focus is on using satelliteimagery within an NMP framework. The RA will be based in Swindon for anintensive two week period; resources have been allocated to provide for travel,accommodation and subsistence to accomplish this.


A two week KE placement enabling the Vista RA to lean and participate inEH/NMP working practice.

3.4.2 D2 KE English heritage staff placement with Vista

A nominated EH member of staff working on the NMP aspects of the project willspend a two week intensive placement with Vista at the University of Birmingham togain first hand experience of satellite image processing methods and practice. Itseems most likely that this placement will take place during the completion ofObjective A, image selection and analysis, when the focus is on selecting, using andprocessing satellite imagery. The member of staff will be based in Birmingham foran intensive two week period; resources have been allocated to provide for travel,accommodation and subsistence to accomplish this.


A two week KE placement enabling an EH member of staff to learn andparticipate in Vista working practice.

3.4.3 D3 Vista postgraduate student placement with English Heritage andVista

A student placement is intended to increase sector skills by providing baselinetraining for a new, graduate student. Our intention is to offer a six week placement(three weeks at Vista three at EH) to a single postgraduate student taking the UoBMA programme in landscape Archaeology and GIS during the 2012/13 academicyear. The placement will be determined by competitive interview, take place duringApril August, be unpaid but include a modest bursary to assist with living


32/58



expenses. The student will be expected to assist with project tasks as appropriateas well as participating in a more general familiarisation programme giving anoverview of both Vista and EH's work and methods

Product

The products of this project component will comprise:

A six-week graduate student training placement with EH/Vista.


33/58



3.5 OBJECTIVE E: DISSEMINATION, REPORTING AND ARCHIVE

Results of the research will be prepared for publication as a research paper in alearned journal, most probably Antiquity. In addition a summary of the work will bepresented at a UK archaeology conference (most probably the Institute for

Archaeologists Annual Conference). A short report on the work will be submitted tothe IfA journal The Field Archaeologist, in order to quickly inform other commercialand research practitioners of the results.

3.5.1 E1: Setup and maintain project Internet presence

Information about the project will be disseminated via a dedicated blog to be set upand maintained by the project personnel. The use of a blog format allows informationbe housed on public servers equally accessible to all partners for contribution andediting. The format is particularly suited to providing regular short updates onresearch and to incorporation of graphical and media rich content. Recent highprofile research projects, such as the AHRC DART project(http://dartproject.info/WPBlog/) have provided excellent examples of the use of suchblogs for dissemination of research information in a timely and accessible manner.Project personnel also have considerable experience of the use of the blog formatfor communicating research and teaching information and manage both researchblogs (secondsiteresearch.blogspot.com) and student focused teaching blogs(giarchaeology.blogspot.com).

In addition to the blog we will take advantage of other new web media includingTwitter (for timely short announcements of project results and as a signpost to morein-depth content elsewhere), Slideshare (for distributing presentations of projectwork) and YouTube/Vimeo, for distribution of video content.


Creation and maintenance of dedicated, multi-author project blog Creation and maintenance of other internet based media/accounts (Twitter,

Slideshare, Vimeo, YouTube).

3.5.2 E2: Project ReportA detailed illustrated report will be prepared at the completion of research describingthe methods and results of all analytical work in full. Hardcopies of the report will becirculated to key stakeholders. A digital version of the report will be made freelyavailable via the project blog.


Hardcopy project report distributed to key stakeholders. Report in Adobe PDF formats available for download from the project blog.


34/58



E3 Disseminate results of research through conference presentations

The project team will prepare and deliver one or more conference papers atappropriate archaeological conferences during the course of the project. Likelyconferences include the Institute for Archaeologists annual meeting, the Remote

Sensing and Photogrammetric Society Annual Meeting and the ComputerApplications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA) UK Chapter annualmeeting.


One or more conference papers delivered by the project team.

3.5.3 E4 Trade journal article

The project team will produce a paper summarising the research undertaken as partof the project for publication in The Field Archaeologist.


A paper in The Field Archaeologist.

3.5.4 E5: Academic Journal Paper

The project team will produce an academic paper summarising the researchundertaken as part of the project for publication in a suitable peer-reviewed journal.The paper will reflect both the archaeological and remote sensing aspects of theproject.


At least one academic paper in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal.

3.5.5 E6: Create and Deposit Project ArchiveA digital archive of data generated by the project ream will be prepared. The archivewill be accompanied by full metadata using the standards recommended by ADS; itwill be deposited with ADS at the completion of project work. Note that copyrightand licensing issues prevent third party data forming part of the final product archive.


A digital archive of original data generated by the project team.


35/58



WORKPLAN AND TIME MANAGEMENT


36/58



4 WORK PLAN AND TIME MANAGEMENT

4.1 IDENTIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK

The use of high resolution satellite imagery in UK archaeology is a relatively newtechnique with and the useful outcomes of its application are uncertain. For thepurposes of this project, risk has been divided into a number of sub-categories,relating to the successful completion of the project (low risk of failure) and theproduction of successful and transferable output (medium to high risk of failure)

4.1.1 Availability of Data

Low risk. Initial investigation of archive imagery indicates a good body of archive

data to select from and work with. Availability increases with older sensor systemswith longer orbital deployment. Some newer systems (eg GeoEye) have a limitedarchive of data for the UK and it may not prove possible to identify imagery acquiredat archaeologically useful times from these systems.

4.1.2 Success of Imaging

Medium to high risk. The successful imaging of archaeological features, the coreof the proposed project, represents the highest risk of failure. We believe that highresolution satellite imagery offer considerable potential for imaging features such as

archaeological cropmarks where these are extant due both to their spatial andspectral resolution. However, the limitation of satellite imagery is that it representsunguided wide area reconnaissance not specifically acquired to recordarchaeological phenomena (unlike for example conventional oblique photographywhich is taken specifically to record archaeological features). There is a risktherefore that satellite imagery may fail to show cropmark that are ephemeralbecause it was acquired when such marks were not evident. It is hoped that thewide area nature of satellite imagery will mitigate against total failure (many sites areimaged in one scene) and satellite imagery will be selected where possible tocoincide with cropmarks confirmed by conventional archive sources to allow directcomparison.

4.1.3 Timely Completion of Research

Low risk. The work plan and resources are adequate to the tasks proposed; as aconsequence we feel the risk of failure to complete research on time and on budgetis low.


37/58



4.1.4 Transferable Outcome

Low risk. The general project approach and procedures adopted herein aregenerally transferable to a variety of settings and scenarios. It is therefore highlylikely that the project will produce results that are broadly transferable beyond the

study areas.

4.2 MILESTONES AND MONITORING

Four project review points are proposed for the purposes of monitoring satisfactoryprogress on the project. These are as follows:

Review Point 1: Completion of task A5 Assessment of weather factors affectingcropmark formation.Review Point 2: Completion of task B3 Comparison of satellite imagery with existingNMP data.Review Point 3: Completion of task C2 Conduct a cost-benefit analysis for use ofsatellite imagery to supplement conventional flying if required.Review Point 4:Completion of task E6 creation and deposit archive.

4.3 THE PROJECT TEAM

Project Executive: Keith Challis, BA MPhil MSc MIfA FRGS

Keith Challis Research Fellow in remote sensing in the Institute of Archaeology andAntiquity, University of Birmingham. He specialises in archaeological applications ofGIS and remote sensing in alluvial environments, he is a member of the RemoteSensing and Photogrammetric Society and serves on the steering committee of theLidar and Archaeology Special Interest Groups. Keith will be the principal point ofcontact for the project and will act as project executive.

Co Principal Investigator: Dr A J Howard, BSc PhDDr Andy J Howard is a Senior Lecturer in Geoarchaeology and Remote Sensing inthe Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, University of Birmingham. His researchinterests include geoarchaeology and fluvial environmental change (both Pleistocene

and Holocene histories).

Co Principal Investigator: Simon CrutchleySimon is the Development and Strategy Manager, Remote Sensing Team, forEnglish Heritage. He is a landscape archaeologist and air photo interpreter with over20 years experience of mapping and interpreting features of archaeological andhistorical interest visible on aerial photographs and other aerial imagery, formerly aSenior Investigator with the Aerial Survey & Investigation section of English Heritage(EH) he has worked with Aerial Survey & Investigation for over 20 years


38/58



4.4 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND EXTERNAL VALIDATION

The project will be managed on behalf of the IBM Vista Centre by Keith Challis. It isproposed to set up a steering group for the project, with the aim of meeting oncemid-way through the research. The steering group will comprise selected

academics, representatives from English Heritage, the Aerial Archaeology ResearchGroup and the Remote Sensing and Photogrammetic Society and will meet at IBMVista for a one day workshop midway though the project.

4.5 TASK LIST AND TIME ALLOCATIONS

TASKEHRA

VISTARA

VISTAPE

A1 Determining the most suitable and available imagery sourcesfor mapping in the UK. 15 2

A2 Comparative analysis of common image sources10 2A3 Collecting and collating imagery for a range of English

landscape types 5 2A4 Determination of appropriate image processing methods and

workflows for archaeological analysis 15 2A5 Determination of weather factors affecting cropmark formation 10 5

B1 Develop trial workflow for incorporation of imagery within NMPworking practice 10 1

B2 Mapping of archaeological detail apparent on imagery to NMPstandards 10 10

B3 Comparison of satellite mapped information to existing NMPdata 5 5 2

C1 Determine comparative effectiveness and overall financialburden of satellite imagery and conventional flying on a perseason basis 2 5 3

C2 Conduct a cost-benefit analysis for use of satellite imagery tosupplement conventional flying if required 3 5 3

D1 KE Vista staff placement with English Heritage -- -- --D2 KE English heritage staff placement with Vista -- -- --D3 Vista postgraduate student placement with English Heritage

and Vista -- -- --

E1 Setup and maintain project Internet presence

4E2 Project report 10 10 12E3 Disseminate results of research through conference

presentations 3 3 5E4 Trade journal article 1 5 3E5 Academic journal paper 5 5 10E6 Create and Deposit Project Archive 1 2

TOTALS 50 105 55


39/58



4.6 GANTT CHART

Months from Project StartTask

1April

2May

3June

4July

5Aug

6Sept

7Oct

8Nov

9De

10Jan

11Feb

12March

A1

Determining the most suitable andavailable imagery sources formapping in the UK.

A2 Comparative analysis of commonimage sources

A3 Collecting and collating imageryfor a range of English landscapetypes

A4 Determination of appropriateimage processing methods andworkflows for archaeologicalanalysis

A5 Determination of weather factorsaffecting cropmark formation

B1 Develop trial workflow forincorporation of imagery withinNMP working practice

B2 Mapping of archaeological detailapparent on imagery to NMPstandards

B3 Comparison of satellite mappedinformation to existing NMP data

C1 Determine comparativeeffectiveness and overall financialburden of satellite imagery andconventional flying on a perseason basis

C2 Conduct a cost-benefit analysisfor use of satellite imagery tosupplement conventional flying ifrequired

D1 KE Vista staff placement withEnglish Heritage

D2 KE English heritage staffplacement with Vista

D3 Vista postgraduate studentplacement with English Heritage

and Vista

E1 Setup and maintain projectInternet presence

E2 Project report

E3 Disseminate results of researchthrough conference presentations

E4 Trade journal article

E5 Academic journal paper

E6 Create and Deposit ProjectArchive

VistaExclusive

EH Exclusive Shared


40/58



REFERENCES


41/58



5 REFERENCES

Altaweel, M. 2005. The use of ASTER satellite imagery in archaeologicalcontexts, Archaeological prospection12: 151166

Challis, K., Kincey, M. and Howard, A.J. 2009. Airborne geoarchaeological remotesensing of valley floors using Daedalus ATM and CASI. Archaeological Prospection.Volume 16 Issue 1: 17-33

Challis, K. 2006. Archaeologys Cold War Windfall: The Corona Programme and LostLandscapes of the Near East. Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.

Challis, K. & Howard, A.J. 2006. A review of trends within remote sensing in alluvialenvironments. Archaeological Prospection. 13

Challis, K., Priestnall, G., Gardner, A., Henderson, J. And Ohara, S 2004 CoronaRemotely-Sensed Imagery in Dryland Archaeology: The Islamic City of al-Raqqa,Syria Journal of Field Archaeology, 29: 139-153.

English Heritage 2010. National Heritage Protection Plan. The Draft Priorities forAction.

Fowler MJF, Fowler YM. 2005. Detection of archaeological crop marks ondeclassified Corona KH-4B intelligence satellite photography of southernEngland. Archaeological Prospection12(4): 257-264.

Fowler, M.J.F. 2002. Satellite remote sensing and archaeology: a comparative studyof satellite imagery of the environs of Figsbury Ring, Wiltshire, Archaeologicalprospection9: 5569.

Fowler MJF. 1996. High resolution satellite imagery in archaeological application: aRussian satellite photograph of the Stonehenge region. Antiquity70: 667671.

Ole Grn, Susanna Palmr, Frans-Arne Stylegar, Kim Esbensen, SergeyKucheryavski, Sigurd Aase, Interpretation of archaeological small-scale features inspectral images, Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 38, Issue 9, September2011, Pages 2024-2030.

Horne, P. 2009. A Strategy for the National Mapping Programme. English Heritage.

Lasaponara R, Masini N. 2011 Satellite remote sensing in archaeology: past, presentand future perspectives, Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 38, Issue 9,September 2011, Pages 1995-2002

Lasaponara R, Masini N. 2007. Detection of archaeological crop marks by usingsatellite Quickbird multispectral imagery. Journal of Archaeological Science34(2):214-221.


42/58



Lasaponara, R. and N. Masini, 2005. QuickBird-based analysis for the spatialcharacterization of archaeological sites: case study of the Monte Serico Medioevalvillage, Geophysical Research Letter32.

Masini, N., Rosa Lasaponara, 2007. Investigating the spectral capability of QuickBird

data to detect archaeological remains buried under vegetated and not vegetatedareas, Journal of Cultural Heritage, Volume 8, Issue 1: 53-60.

ivind Due Trier, Siri yen Larsen and Rune Solberg. 2009. Automatic detection ofcircular structures in high-resolution satellite images of agricultural land.Archaeological Prospection. 16, No 1: 1-15.

M.B. Rajani, A.S. Rajawat, Potential of satellite based sensors for studyingdistribution of archaeological sites along palaeo channels: Harappan sites a casestudy, Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 38, Issue 9, September 2011,Pages 2010-2016,


43/58



APPENDIX 1: CURRICULUM VITAE OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS


44/58



Keith Challis, BA, MPhil, MSc, MiFA, FRGS

SUMMARYLandscape archaeologist with a research specialism in remote sensing and geographicalinformation science, a proven record of successful grant funded international research andconsultancy, a strong publication record, with REF output already published, and an

experienced post-graduate teacher.

PROFILEI have over twenty years professional and academic experience with a record ofaccomplishment in commercial consultancy, landscape archaeology, remote sensing,geospatial research and teaching coupled with extensive international publication. At presentI am a Research Fellow in Remote Sensing in the Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity at theUniversity of Birmingham. This role involves leadership in research and consultancy focusedon applications of remote sensing and geographical information science in the historicenvironment. As programme leader for the centres MA/PGDip in Landscape ArchaeologyGIS and Virtual Environments I took a lead role in curriculum development and quality controlincluding the introduction of distance learning delivery entirely online via a VLE. I have workedand travelled in Europe, the Middle East and Central America, have a wide familiarity with

British and Middle Eastern landscapes, and speak some Arabic. My research interestsinclude the application of GIS to cultural resource management and strategic decision-making, particularly in alluvial environments and the application of airborne and satelliteremote sensing to cultural heritage and environmental management in both alluvial andupland environments.. Much of my work impacts on development of best practice and policydevelopment in heritage management and professional heritage practice. My recent researchinitiatives have led me into the fields of public and community engagement though on-linesocial media, advocacy of community digital heritage and experimentation in the use ofcomputer game technology for geospatial visualisation and community engagement. I seemy role and interests as crossing the boundaries between geography, geospatial technologyand the historic environment. I am an elected Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society andam actively pursuing Chartered Geographer (GIS) status. I have extensive editorialexperience, have acted as a guest editor for the journal Archaeological Prospection.

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

2004 Present IBMVista Centre, University of BirminghamResearch Fellow in Remote Sensing

2003 2004 York Archaeological Trust Research Officer, GIS and alluvialgeoarchaeology

2000 2003 Department of Archaeology University of NottinghamResearch Associate, Remote Sensing and GIS

1991 2003 Department of Continuing Education University of NottinghamPart-time Lecturer in archaeology and heritage conservation

1987 2003 Trent & Peak Archaeology Project Manager and Heritage Consultant

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

Member of the Institute for Archaeologists (MifA)Fellow of the Royal Geographical SocietyMember of the Association of European ArchaeologistsMember of the Remote Sensing & Photogrammetric Society (Committee Member Lidar /Archaeology SIG)Member of the Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire (Member of Council)Member of the Council for British Research in the Levant

QUALIFICATIONS

MSc (Distinction) Geographical Information Science. University of Nottingham 2001MPhil Archaeology. University of Nottingham 1992


45/58



BA(Hons) Archaeology. University of Nottingham. 1987

PERSONAL RESEARCH and CONSULTANCY INTERESTS

Environmental Remote Sensing. Environmental and heritage applications of airborne lidar

and airborne hyperspectral imaging including prospection and geoarchaeological analysis ofalluvial landscapes, mapping peat erosion in uplands, assessing visitor impacts on fragileuplands. Use of high-resolution satellite remote sensing for landscape reconstruction and fieldsurvey support in arid environments.

Geographical Information Science. The use of GIS for archaeological and geological depositmodelling, particularly in alluvial landscapes. Modelling impacts of future climate change oncultural heritage. Archaeological applications of GIS for landscape analysis and culturalresource management, including site location analysis and risk modelling.

Geospatial Applications of Computer Game Technology. Use of computer game engines toextend GIS analysis and visualisation, with particular focus on immersive visualisation ofremotely sensed data, and for public engagement with culture, heritage and landscape.

Web-based Media and Social Networking. Use of web-based technologies for teaching andtraining in particular internet mapping and the exploration and use of social networking for

understanding public engagement with heritage and landscape. Community Digital Heritage. Equipping community heritage groups with digital technologies to

engage with cultural heritage and landscape, particularly use of open source software anddata for creating community led digital environments.

Managing the Historic Environment. Project management and field investigation experience ina variety of urban and rural contexts. Experience in specifying and managing siteinvestigations including geophysical surveys, geotechnical and geoarchaeological surveys.Author of over 100 technical site investigation reports. Experience in devising culturalheritage mitigation strategies for development projects including highways, water and gaspipelines, mining, quarrying and urban redevelopment. Contributing author to EIA, expertwitness for Cultural Heritage at Public Enquiry.

CROSS-DISCIPLINARY COLLABORATIONS

Founding member and secretary of Trent Valley GeoArchaeology, a cross-disciplinary groupof stakeholders and researchers considering the environment, heritage and sustainability inthe Trent Valley.

UoB ESRI technical representative, providing technical support for ESRI products across theinstitution

UoB industry link with CryTek, a major international computer game company, UoB licenceco-ordinator for CryTek CryENGINE 3 software.

Principal investigator for Mining the Social Unconscious anEPSRC "Bridging the Gap" fundedcollaboration with colleagues in the School of Computer Science and School of Electrical andComputer Engineering UoB.

Co-investigator, FASTRAC, an English Heritage funded remote sensing initiative uniting the

interests of the aggregates industry and heritage sector, a collaborative endeavour withcolleagues from British Geological Survey and University of Leicester Department of Geology. Member of the cross-disciplinary NERC EOTC lidar group. Member of the cross-disciplinary NERC EOTC UAV group.

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS

UoB host supervisor for visi

6060 pd redacted high resolution satellite remote sensing of aggregate landscapes v1

Documents