Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:25:12.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

High-resolution satellite imagery in archaeological application: a Russian satellite photograph of the Stonehenge region

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Martin J. F. Fowler
Martin J. F. Fowler*
Affiliation:
60 Harrow Down, Badger Farm, Winchester SO22 4LZ, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The spy satellites — by repute of the thriller writers — have such good image-resolution that they can read the letters on a vehicle licence-plate. A generation after LANDSAT imagery vividly showed broad ecological zones, higher resolution pictures are now being released of a quality to allow practical archaeological application. The example printed here illustrates the Stonehenge landscape — a little patch of southern England that is among the most photographed archaeologically anywhere.

Type
Notes
Information
Antiquity , Volume 70 , Issue 269 , September 1996 , pp. 667 - 671
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, K.M.S., Green, S. W. & Zubrow, W.E.B. (ed.). 1990. Interpreting space: GIS and archaeology. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Capper, J. 1907. Photographs of Stonehenge, as seen from a war balloon, Archaeologia 60: 571, plates 69-70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chippindale, C. 1994. Stonehenge complete. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Cleal, R. M.I., Walker, K.E. & Montague, R.. 1995. Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century excavations. London: English Heritage. Archaeological Report 10.Google Scholar
Cox, C. 1992. Satellite imagery, aerial photography and wetland archaeology, World Archaeology 24: 249–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebert, J.I. 1989. Techniques, methods and theoretical goals in American archaeological remote sensing: ‘Predictive modelling’ as an example, in Kennedy, D. (ed.), Into the sun: essays in air photography in archaeology in honour of Derrick Riley: 86–101. Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications.Google Scholar
Ebert, J.L. & Lyons, T. R.. 1980. Remote sensing in archaeology, cultural resources treatment and anthropology: the United States of America in 1979, Aerial Archaeology 5: 1–19.Google Scholar
Fowler, M.J.F. 1994a. Danebury and its environs from 830 kilometres, Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society Section Newsletters new series 21: 26–30.Google Scholar
Fowler, M.J.F. 1994b. Satellite image processing for the archaeologist, Archaeological Computing Newsletter 39: 2–8.Google Scholar
Fowler, M.J.F. 1995a. High resolution Russian satellite imagery, AARGnews 11: 28–32.Google Scholar
Fowler, M.J.F. 1995b. Detection of archaeological features on multispectral satellite imagery, AARGnews 10: 7–14.Google Scholar
Mcdonald, R.A. 1995. Opening the Cold War sky to the public: declassifying satellite reconnaissance imagery, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 61: 385–90.Google Scholar
Palmer, R. 1984. Danebury, an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire: an aerial photographic interpretation of its environs. London: RCHM (E).Google Scholar
Quann, J. & Bevan, B.. 1977. The Pyramids from 900 kilometres, MASCA Newsletter 13: 12–14.Google Scholar
RCHM(E). 1979. Stonehenge and its environs: monuments and land use. Edinburgh: University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, J. 1990. The Stonehenge Environs Project. London: English Heritage. Archaeological Report 16.Google Scholar
Shennan, I. & Donoghue, M.D.N.. 1992. Remote sensing in archaeological research, Proceedings of the British Academy 77: 223–32.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. R. 1982. Airphoto interpretation for archaeologists. London: Batsford.Google Scholar