4.3 Article Book Chapter

Rethinking the Landscape: Emerging Approaches to Archaeological Remote Sensing

Journal

ANNUAL REVIEW OF ANTHROPOLOGY, VOL 50
Volume 50, Issue -, Pages 167-186

Publisher

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110344

Keywords

satellite imagery; geophysics; drones; archaeological survey; cultural heritage; landscape archaeology

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Remote sensing technologies are becoming a revolutionary tool in archaeological research, offering innovative ways of investigating the archaeological record and providing transformative insights into human history. However, they also bring new challenges and controversies related to data access and preservation, information overload, and ethical considerations.
An emerging arena of archaeological research is beginning to deploy remote sensing technologies-including aerial and satellite imagery, digital topographic data, and drone-acquired and terrestrial geophysical data-not only in support of conventional fieldwork but also as an independent means of exploring the archaeological landscape. This article provides a critical review of recent research that relies on an ever-growing arsenal of imagery and instruments to undertake innovative investigations: mapping regional-scale settlement histories, documenting ancient land use practices, revealing the complexity of settled spaces, building nuanced pictures of environmental contexts, and monitoring at-risk cultural heritage. At the same time, the disruptive nature of these technologies is generating complex new challenges and controversies surrounding data access and preservation, approaches to a deluge of information, and issues of ethical remote sensing. As we navigate these challenges, remote sensing technologies nonetheless offer revolutionary ways of interrogating the archaeological record and transformative insights into the human past.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available