3.8 Proceedings Paper

In with the new, out with the old? Auto-extraction for remote sensing archaeology

出版社

SPIE-INT SOC OPTICAL ENGINEERING
DOI: 10.1117/12.981758

关键词

archaeological interpretation; aerial photographs; lidar; airborne laser scanning; experience; data collection; auto-extraction; reflexive practice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper explores aspects of the inter-relationships between traditional archaeological interpretation of remote sensed data (principally visual examination of aerial photographs/satellite) and those drawing on automated feature extraction and processing. Established approaches to archaeological interpretation of aerial photographs are heavily reliant on individual observation (eye/brain) in an experience and knowledge-based process. Increasingly, however, much more complex and extensive datasets are becoming available to archaeology and these require critical reflection on analytical and interpretative processes. Archaeological applications of Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) are becoming increasingly routine, and as the spatial resolution of hyper-spectral data improves, its potentially massive implications for archaeological site detection may prove to be a sea-change. These complex datasets demand new approaches, as traditional methods based on direct observation by an archaeological interpreter will never do more than scratch the surface, and will fail to fully extend the boundaries of knowledge. Inevitably, changing analytical and interpretative processes can create tensions, especially, as has been the case in archaeology, when the innovations in data and analysis come from outside the discipline. These tensions often centre on the character of the information produced, and a lack of clarity on the place of archaeological interpretation in the workflow. This is especially true for ALS data and auto-extraction techniques, and carries implications for all forms of remote sensed archaeological datasets, including hyperspectral data and aerial photographs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据