Advertisement

Surveys in Geophysics

, Volume 39, Issue 6, pp 1323–1346 | Cite as

Space-Based Identification of Archaeological Illegal Excavations and a New Automatic Method for Looting Feature Extraction in Desert Areas

  • Rosa Lasaponara
  • Nicola Masini
Article

Abstract

The identification and quantification of disturbance of archaeological sites has been generally approached by visual inspection of optical aerial or satellite pictures. In this paper, we briefly summarize the state of the art of the traditionally satellite-based approaches for looting identification and propose a new automatic method for archaeological looting feature extraction approach (ALFEA). It is based on three steps: the enhancement using spatial autocorrelation, unsupervised classification, and segmentation. ALFEA has been applied to Google Earth images of two test areas, selected in desert environs in Syria (Dura Europos), and in Peru (Cahuachi-Nasca). The reliability of ALFEA was assessed through field surveys in Peru and visual inspection for the Syrian case study. Results from the evaluation procedure showed satisfactory performance from both of the two analysed test cases with a rate of success higher than 90%.

Keywords

Satellite remote sensing Review Archaeological looting Automatic feature extraction Peru Syria 

References

  1. AAS (2015) Ancient history, modern destruction: assessing the current status of Syria’s world heritage sites using high-resolution satellite imagery. https://www.aaas.org/page/ancient-history-modern-destruction-assessing-current-status-syria-s-world-heritage-sites-using. Accessed 26 Nov 2016
  2. Abdulkarim M (2014) Directorate general of antiquities and museums annual report 2013. Ministry of Culture, Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums, DamascusGoogle Scholar
  3. Agapiou A, Lysandrou V, Hadjimitsis DG (2017) Optical remote sensing potentials for looting detection. Geosciences 7(4):98.  https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences7040098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alva W (2001) The destruction, looting and traffic of the archaeological heritage of Peru. In: Brodie NJ, Doole J, Renfrew C (eds) Trade in illicit antiquities: the destruction of the world’s archaeological heritage. Cambridge McDonald Institute, Cambridge, pp 89–96Google Scholar
  5. Anselin L (1995) Local indicators of spatial association LISA. Geogr Anal 27:93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anselin L (2018) A local indicator of multivariate spatial association: extending geary’s c. http://priede.bf.lu.lv/ftp/pub/TIS/datu_analiize/GeoDa/LA_multivariateGeary1.pdf. Access 17 May 2018
  7. Batievski J, Velarde J (2006) The protection of cultural patrimony in Peru”. In: Hoffmann BT (ed) Art and cultural heritage: law, policy, and practice; Art and cultural heritage law, policy, and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 100–104Google Scholar
  8. BBC (2016) The Syria: The story of the conflict. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868. Accessed 26 Nov 2016
  9. Bowen FW, Tofel BB, Parcak S, Granger R (2017) Algorithmic identification of looted archaeological sites from space. Frontiers in ICT.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2017.00004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowman N (2008) Transnational crimes against culture: looting at archaeological sites and the ‘grey’ market in antiquities. J Contemp Crim Justice 24(3):225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brodie NJ, Doole J, Renfrew C (2001) Trade in illicit antiquities: the destruction of the world’s archaeological heritage. McDonald Institute, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Casana J (2015) Satellite imagery-based analysis of archaeological looting in Syria. Near Eastern Archaeol 8(3):142–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Casana J, Panahipour M (2014) Satellite-based monitoring of looting and damage to archaeological sites in Syria. J Eastern Mediterranean Archaeol Heritage Stud 2(2):129–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cerra D, Pank S, Lysandrou V, Tian J (2016) Cultural Heritage Sites in Danger—Towards Automatic Damage Detection from Space. Remote Sensing 8:781.  https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8090781 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Contreras DA (2010) Huaqueros and remote sensing imagery: assessing looting damage in the Viru Valley. Peru. Antiquity 84(324):544–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Contreras DA, Brodie N (2013) The utility of publicly-available satellite imagery for investigating looting of archaeological sites in Jordan. J. Field Archaeol. 35:101–114.  https://doi.org/10.1179/009346910X12707320296838 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Conversation (2016) Inside ISIS’ looted antiquities trade. http://theconversation.com/inside-isis-looted-antiquities-trade-59287. Accessed 26 Nov 2016
  18. Cunliffe E (2012) Damage to the Soul: Damage to the soul: Syria’s Cultural Heritage in Conflict Global Heritage Fund. http://ghn.globalheritagefund.com/uploads/documents/document_2107.pdf. Accessed 26 Nov 2016
  19. Cunliffe E, Pedersen W, Fiol M, Jellison T, Saslow C, Bjørgo E, Boccardi (2014) Satellite-based Damage Assessment to Cultural Heritage Sites in Syria. UNITAR/UNOSAT: http://www.unitar.org/unosat/chs-syria. Accessed 26 Nov 2016
  20. Dirven LA (1999) The Palmyrenes of Dura-Europos: a study of religious interaction in Roman Syria. Brill, LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doering HU (1958) Bericht über archaologische Feldarbeiten in Perú. Ethnos 23(2–4):67–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Figorito B, Tarantino E (2014) Semi-automatic detection of linear archaeological traces fromorthorectified aerial images. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 26(1):458–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Geary RC (1954) The Contiguity Ratio and Statistical Mapping. The Incorporated Statistician 5(3):115–145.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2986645.JSTOR2986645 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guo H (2016) Digital earth and future earth. Int J Dig Earth 9(1)Google Scholar
  25. Hopkins C (1979) The discovery of Dura Europos. New HavenGoogle Scholar
  26. Lasaponara R, Masini N (2010) Facing the archaeological looting in Peru by local spatial autocorrelation statistics of Very high resolution satellite imagery. In: Taniar D et al (eds) Proceedings of ICSSA, The 2010 international conference on computational science and its application (Fukuoka-Japan, March 23–26, 2010). Springer, Berlin, pp 261–269Google Scholar
  27. Lasaponara R, Masini N (2016) Combating illegal excavations in Cahuachi: ancient problems and modern technologies. In: Lasaponara R, Masini N, Orefici G (eds) The Ancient Nasca world new insights from science and archaeology. Springer, Berlin, pp 605–633.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47052-8_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lasaponara R, Masini N (2017) Preserving the Past from Space: An Overview of Risk Estimation and Monitoring Tools. In: Masini N, Soldovieri F (eds) Sensing the past. From artifact to historical site. Springer, Berlin, pp 61–88.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50518-3_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lasaponara R, Danese M, Masini N (2012) Satellite-based monitoring of archaeological looting in Peru. In: Lasaponara R, Masini N (eds) Satellite remote sensing: a new tool for Archaeology. Springer, Berlin, pp 177–193.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8801-7_8. ISBN 978-90-481-8800-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lasaponara R, Leucci G, Masini N, Persico R (2014) Investigating archaeological looting using satellite images and GEORADAR: the experience in Lambayeque in North Peru. J Archaeol Sci 42:216–230.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lasaponara R, Leucci G, Masini N, Persico R, Scardozzi G (2016) Towards an operative use of remote sensing for exploring the past using satellite data: The case study of Hierapolis (Turkey). Remote Sens Environ 174:148–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.12.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Looted Heritage (2016) Looted heritage monitoring the illicit antiquities trade. https://heritage.crowdmap.com/main. Accessed 26 Nov 2016
  33. Orefici G (2012) Cahuachi. Capital Teocratica Nasca.” Lima: Universidad de San Martin de PorresGoogle Scholar
  34. Parcak S (2007) Satellite remote sensing methods for monitoring archaeological tells in the Middle East. J Field Archaeol 32(1):65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parcak S, Gathings D, Childs C, Mumford G, Cline E (2016) Satellite evidence of archaeological site looting in Egypt: 2002–2013. Antiquity 90:188–205.  https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Proulx BB (2013) Archaeological site looting in global prespective. Nature, scope and frequency. American Journal of Archaeology 117:111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Quijano J, Takahashi K, Deqitte B (2012) Numerical and observational study of the dynamics of the Paracas Wind, associated with aeolian transport into the ocean off the coast of Ica. Presentation at LMI-DISCOH Conference, Lima, 29–30th March 2012Google Scholar
  38. Silverman H (1993) Cahuachi in the Ancient Nasca World. University of Iowa Pres, Iowa CityGoogle Scholar
  39. Stone EC (2008) Patterns of looting in southern Iraq. Antiquity 82:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stone EC (2015) An Update on the Looting of Archaeological Sites in Iraq. Near Eastern Archaeology 78(3):178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tapete D, Cigna F, Donoghue DNM (2016) ‘Looting marks’ in space-borne SAR imagery: Measuring rates of archaeological looting in Apamea (Syria) with TerraSAR-X Staring Spotlight. Remote Sens Environ 178:42–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tarantino E, Figorito B (2014) Steerable filtering in interactivetracing of archaeological linear features using digital true colour aerialimages. International Journal of Digital Earth 7(11):870–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thomas DC, Kidd FJ, Nikolovski S, Zipfel C (2008) The archaeological sites of Afghanistan in google Earth. AARGnews 37:22–30Google Scholar
  44. UNESCO (1956) Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological ExcavationsGoogle Scholar
  45. UNESCO (1970) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural PropertyGoogle Scholar
  46. UNESCO (1972) General conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization meeting in Paris from 17 October to 21 November 1972, at its 17th session. http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/
  47. UNITAR (2014) Satellite-based Damage Assessment to Cultural Heritage Sites in Syria. http://unosat.web.cern.ch/unosat/unitar/downloads/chs/Dura_Europos.pdf. Accessed 26 Nov 2016
  48. United Nations Security Council (2015) Unanimously adopting resolution 2199, Security Council Condemns Trade with Al-Qaida Associated Groups, Threatens Further Targeted Sanctions. http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc11775.doc.htm. Accessed 26 Nov 2016
  49. Van Ess M, Becker H, Fassbinder J, Kiefl R, Lingenfelder I, Schreier G, Zevenbergen A (2006) Detection of Looting Activities at Archaeological Sites in Iraq Using Ikonos Imagery. Angewandte Geoinformatik, Beiträge zum (18):668–678Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research Council, CNR-IMAA (Institute of Institute of Methodologies for Environmental Analysis)Tito ScaloItaly
  2. 2.National Research Council, CNR-IBAM (Institute of Archaeological and Monumental Heritage)Tito ScaloItaly

Personalised recommendations