Prospecting Archaeological Landscapes
The future demands on professional archaeological prospection will be its ability to cover large areas in a time and cost efficient manner with very high spatial resolution and accuracy. The objective of the 2010 in Vienna established Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection and Virtual Archaeology in collaboration with its nine European partner organizations is the advancement of the state-of-the-art by focusing on the development of remote sensing, geophysical prospection and virtual reality applications, as well as of novel integrated interpretation approaches dedicated to non-invasive spatial archaeology combining cutting-edge near-surface prospection methods with advanced computer science. Within the institute’s research program different areas for distinct case studies in Austria, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the UK have been selected as basis for the development and testing of new concepts for efficient and universally applicable tools for spatial, non-invasive archaeology. The collective resources and expertise available amongst the new research institute and associated partners permit innovative approaches to the archaeological exploration, documentation and investigation of the cultural heritage contained in entire archaeological landscapes. First promising results illustrate the potential of the proposed methodology and concepts.
Keywordsarchaeological prospection landscape archaeology remote sensing GPR magnetometry integrative interpretation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Gaffney, C., Gater, J.: Revealing the buried past: geophysics for archaeologists. Tempus (2003)Google Scholar
- 2.Conyers, L.B.: Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek (2004)Google Scholar
- 5.Scollar, I., Tabbagh, A., Hesse, A., Herzog, I.: Archaeological Prospecting And Remote Sensing. Cambridge University Press (1990)Google Scholar
- 6.Becker, H.: Caesium-magnetometry for landscape archaeology. In: Campana, S., Piro, S. (eds.) Seeing the Unseen – Geophysics and Landscape Archaeology, London, pp. 129–165 (2009)Google Scholar
- 7.Trotzig, G.: The new European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage. Antiquity 67(255), 414–415 (1993)Google Scholar
- 8.Powlesland, D.: Redefining past landscapes: 30 years of remote sensing in the Vale of Pickering. In: Campana, S., Forte, M. (eds.) From Space to Place: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Rome. BAR Int. Series, vol. 1568, pp. 197–201 (2006)Google Scholar
- 9.Doneus, M.: Vertical and oblique photographs. AARGNews 20, 33–39 (2000)Google Scholar
- 11.Devereux, B.J., Amable, G.S., Crow, P., Cliff, A.D.: The potential of airborne lidar for detection of archaeological features under woodland canopies. Antiquity 79, 648–660 (2005)Google Scholar
- 12.Doneus, M., Briese, C.: Full-waveform airborne laser scanning as a tool for archaeological reconnaissance. In: Campana, S., Forte, M. (eds.) From Space to Place: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Rome. BAR Int. Series, vol. 1568, pp. 99–106 (2006)Google Scholar
- 13.Gaffney, C., Gaffney, V., Neubauer, W., Baldwin, E., Chapman, H., Garwood, P., Moulden, H., Sparrow, T., Bates, R., Löcker, K., Hinterleitner, A., Trinks, I., Nau, E., Zitz, T., Floery, S., Verhoeven, G., Doneus, M.: The Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project. Archaeological Prospection 19, 147–155 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar