Roman Urban Survey: The Mapping and Monitoring of Complex Settlement Sites with Active Aerial Photography

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Natural Science in Archaeology book series (ARCHAEOLOGY)

Abstract

In this chapter we focus on the methodology for approaching large and complex sites by way of active aerial photography survey. The example of abandoned Roman town sites is used to present aspects of best practice when dealing with the survey strategy, discovery, mapping and monitoring of such settlement sites. Examples from the Radio-Past project, as well as from other long standing research projects, are being used to illustrate some of the potential of this method and to stress the need for integration with other techniques. Some issues are mentioned regarding restrictions in the widespread application of oblique aerial photography for studying such sites, while new developments regarding aerial photography from low-altitude platforms are placed in their wider research context, as well as in the framework of future heritage management.

Keywords

Urban Site Urban Landscape Aerial Photography Airborne Laser Scanning Aerial Imagery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The case studies from the Potenza Valley Survey project were made possible thanks to support from Belgian Science Policy (Interuniversity Attraction Poles, project P6/22) and the EC funded project ‘Radiography of the Past’ (Marie Curie action, Academia-Industry partnerships). I thank several colleagues (mentioned in the captions) for supplying me with illustrations.

References

  1. Alcock S, Cherry J (eds) (2004) Side by side survey. Comparative regional studies in the Mediterranean world. Oxbow, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Barber M (2011) A history of aerial photography and archaeology. Mata Hari’s glass eye and other stories. English Heritage, SwindonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bewley R, Raczkowski W (eds) (2002) Aerial archaeology: developing future practice, vol 337, NATO science series, series I: Life and behavioural sciences. Ios Press, OhmshaGoogle Scholar
  4. Bintliff J, Snodgrass A (1985) The Cambridge/Bradford Boeotian expedition: the first four years. J Field Archaeol 12:123–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bintliff J, Kuna M, Venclová N (eds) (2000) The future of surface artefact survey in Europe. Sheffield Academic Press, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourgeois J, Meganck M (eds) (2005) Aerial photography and archaeology 2003. A century of information. Academia Press, GentGoogle Scholar
  7. Brophy K, Cowley D (2005) From the air. Understanding aerial archaeology. Stroud, TempusGoogle Scholar
  8. Christie N (2012) Urban landscape surveys: a view from the end. In: Vermeulen F, Burgers G-J, Keay S, Corsi C (eds) Urban landscape survey in Italy and the Mediterranean. Oxbow, Oxford, pp 285–289Google Scholar
  9. Christie N, Augenti A (eds) (2012) Urbes extinctae. Archaeologies of abandoned classical towns. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  10. Corsi C, Johnson PS, Vermeulen F (2012) A geomagnetic survey of the intra-mural area of Ammaia and its contribution to understanding Roman urbanism in Lusitania. J Rom Archaeol 25:121–145Google Scholar
  11. Doneus M (2001) Precision mapping and interpretation of oblique aerial photographs. Archaeol Prospect 8:13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doneus M (2004) Aerial archaeology in the landscape of Carnuntum. In: Archaeologia Aerea. Studi di Aerotopografia Archaeologica, I, 215–234. Libreria dello Stato/Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, RomaGoogle Scholar
  13. Doneus M, Neubauer W (2005) Multiple survey techniques at Roman Carnuntum. Integrated prospection of the largest archaeological landscape in Austria. In: Chris M, Roger P, Stefano C (eds) In volo nel passato. Aerofotografia e cartografia archaeological. Biblioteca del dipartimento di archaeologia e storia delle arti e sezione archaeologica, Università di Siena, Siena, pp 272–279Google Scholar
  14. Doneus M, Eder-Hinterleitner A, Neubauer W (2001) Roman Carnuntum: prospecting the largest archaeological landscape in Austria. In: Doneus M, Eder-Hinterleitner A, Neubauer W (eds) Archaeological prospection: fourth international conference on archaeological prospection, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 19–23 Sept 2001). Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, pp 47–59Google Scholar
  15. Francovich R, Patterson H (eds) (2000) Extracting meaning from plough soil assemblages. Oxbow, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaffney C, Gaffney V (2000) Non-invasive investigations at Wroxeter at the end of the twentieth century. Archaeol Prospect 7(2):63–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Groh S (2012) Strategies and results of the urban survey in the Upper City of Ephesus. In: Vermeulen F, Burgers G-J, Keay S, Corsi C (eds) Urban landscape survey in Italy and the Mediterranean. Oxbow, Oxford, pp 85–96Google Scholar
  18. Haigh JGB (2005) From photographs to maps. A collaborative development. In: Bourgeois J, Meganck M (eds) Aerial photography and archaeology 2003. A century of information. Academia Press, Gent, pp 201–212Google Scholar
  19. Keay S (2010) Iberia and Italica: issues and challenges in the comparative study of Roman urbanism. In: Corsi C, Vermeulen F (eds) Changing landscapes. The impact of Roman towns in the Western Mediterranean. Proceedings of the international colloquium, Castelo de Vide – Marvão 15–17 May 2008. Antequem, Bologna, pp 27–45Google Scholar
  20. Keay S, Millett M, Poppy S, Robinson J, Taylor J, Terrenato N (2000) Falerii Novi: a new survey of the walled area. PBSR 68:1–93Google Scholar
  21. Keay S, Millett M, Paroli L, Strutt K (eds) (2005) Portus. An archaeological survey of the port of Imperial Rome, vol 15, Archaeological monograph. The British School at Rome and Soprintendenza Archeologica di Ostia, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Keller DR, Rupp DW (1983) Archaeological survey in the Mediterranean area. B.A.R, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Macready S, Thompson FH (1985) Archaeological field survey in Britain and abroad. Society of Antiquaries of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Martens F, Mušič B, Poblome J, Waelkens M (2012) The integrated urban survey at Sagalassos. In: Vermeulen F, Burgers G-J, Keay S, Corsi C (eds) Urban landscape survey in Italy and the Mediterranean. Oxbow, Oxford, pp 111–122Google Scholar
  25. Palmer R (2005) If they used their own photographs they wouldn’t take them like that. In: Brophy K, Cowley D (eds) From the air. Understanding aerial archaeology. Tempus, Stroud, pp 94–116Google Scholar
  26. Patterson H (ed) (2004) Bridging the Tiber. Approaches to regional archaeology in the Middle Tiber Valley, vol 13, Archaeological monographs of the British School at Rome. British School at Rome, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmiedt G, Castagnoli F (1957) L’antica città di Norba – documentazione aerofotogrammetrica. L’Universo 37:125–148Google Scholar
  28. Scollar I (2002) Making things look vertical. In: Bewley R, Raczkowski W (eds) Aerial archaeology. Developing future practice. Ios Press, Ohmsha, pp 166–172Google Scholar
  29. Scollar I, Tabbagh A, Hesse A, Herzog I (1990) Archaeological prospecting and remote sensing. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Slapšak B (2012) Towards integrated non-invasive research on complex urban sites: Ljubljana research in Tanagra and beyond. In: Vermeulen F, Burgers G-J, Keay S, Corsi C (eds) Urban landscape survey in Italy and the Mediterranean. Oxbow, Oxford, pp 53–61Google Scholar
  31. Verhoeven G (2008) Imaging the invisible using modified digital still cameras for straightforward and low-cost archaeological near-infrared photography. J Archaeol Sci 35:3087–3100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Verhoeven G (2011a) Near-infrared aerial crop mark archaeology: from its historical use to current digital implementations. J Archaeol Method Theory. doi: 10.1007/s10816-011-9104-5 Google Scholar
  33. Verhoeven G (2011b) Taking computer vision aloft: archaeological three-dimensional reconstructions from aerial photographs with PhotoScan. Archaeol Prospect 18:67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Verhoeven G, Schmitt KD (2010) An attempt to push back frontiers – digital near-ultraviolet aerial archaeology. J Archaeol Sci 37:833–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Verhoeven G, Smet P, Poelman D, Vermeulen F (2009) Spectral characterization of a digital still camera’s NIR modification to enhance archaeological observation. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 47:3456–3468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Verhoeven G, Doneus M, Briese C, Vermeulen F (2012a) Mapping by matching – a computer vision-based approach to fast and accurate georeferencing of archaeological aerial photographs. J Archaeol Sci 39:2060–2070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Verhoeven G, Taelman D, Vermeulen F (2012b) Computer vision-based orthophoto mapping of complex archaeological sites: the ancient quarry of Pitaranha (Portugal-Spain). Archaeometry. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2012.00667.x Google Scholar
  38. Vermeulen F (2004) Fotografia aerea finalizzata nelle Marche Centrali: Un progetto integrato. Archeologia Aerea Studi di Aerotopografia Archeologica 1:91–118Google Scholar
  39. Vermeulen F (2011) Reviewing 10 years of aerial photography in the valley of the River Potenza (Le Marche). Archeologia Aerea Studi di Aerotopografia Archeologica 4:259–264Google Scholar
  40. Vermeulen F (2012) Potentia: a lost new town. In: Christie N, Augenti A (eds) Urbes Extinctae. Archaeologies of abandoned classical towns. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 77–95Google Scholar
  41. Vermeulen F, Verhoeven G (2004) The contribution of aerial photography and field survey to the study of urbanization in the Potenza valley (Picenum). J Rom Archaeol 17:57–82Google Scholar
  42. Vermeulen F, Verhoeven G, Semey J (2005) The integration of aerial photography and GIS in the Potenza Valley survey. In: Bourgeois J, Meganck M (eds) Aerial photography and archaeology 2003. A century of information. Academia Press, Gent, pp 371–382Google Scholar
  43. Vermeulen F, Hay S, Verhoeven G (2006) Potentia: an integrated survey of a Roman Colony on the Adriatic Coast. PBSR 74:203–236Google Scholar
  44. Vermeulen F, Burgers G-J, Keay S, Corsi C (eds) (2012a) Urban landscape survey in Italy and the Mediterranean. Oxbow, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Vermeulen F, Slapšak B, Mlekuž D (2012b) Surveying the townscape of Roman Trea (Picenum). In: Johnson PS, Martin M (eds) Archaeological survey and the city, vol 2, University of Cambridge Museum of Classical Archaeology monographs. Oxbow, Oxford, pp 261–282Google Scholar
  46. Vermeulen F, Verdonck L, Corsi C (2013) L’apport des méthodes non-destructives à l’étude de sites archéologiques complexes. Etude de cas MARIANA. In: Rebière J (ed) Conserver, Etudier, Protéger, Valoriser le patrimoine en milieu isolé (actes du colloque de Bastia-Lucciana 9–12 octobre 2008). Publication Bastia, Luciana. ISBN 978-2-906375-10-9 – EAN 9782906375109Google Scholar
  47. Whimster R (1989) The emerging past: air photography and the buried landscape. RCHM, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. White RH, Gaffney C, Gaffney V (with Baker A) (2013) Wroxeter, the Cornovii and the urban process. Final Report of the Wroxeter Hinterland Project, 1994–1997. Volume 2: Characterizing the city. J Roman Archaeol, Supplementary series. Archaeopress, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson D (2000) Air photo interpretation for archaeologists. Tempus, StroudGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchaeologyUniversiteit GentGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations