CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 112

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Google Earth as a Powerful Tool for Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Applications: A Review

Luo, Lei, Wang, Xinyuan, Guo, Huadong, Lasaponara, Rosa, Shi, Pilong, Bachagha, Nabil, Li, Li, Yao, Ya, Masini, Nicola, Chen, Fulong, Ji, Wei, Cao, Hui, Li, Chao, Hu, Ningke·2018·Remote Sensing
DOI 10.3390/rs10101558
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Google Earth (GE), a large Earth-observation data-based geographical information computer application, is an intuitive three-dimensional virtual globe. It enables archaeologists around the world to communicate and share their multisource data and research findings. Different from traditional geographical information systems (GIS), GE is free and easy to use in data collection, exploration, and visualization. In the past decade, many peer-reviewed articles on the use of GE in the archaeological cultural heritage (ACH) research field have been published. Most of these concern specific ACH investigations with a wide spatial coverage. GE can often be used to survey and document ACH so that both skilled archaeologists and the public can more easily and intuitively understand the results. Based on geographical tools and multi-temporal very high-resolution (VHR) satellite imagery, GE has been shown to provide spatio-temporal change information that has a bearing on the physical, environmental, and geographical character of ACH. In this review, in order to discuss the huge potential of GE, a comprehensive review of GE and its applications to ACH in the published scientific literature is first presented; case studies in five main research fields demonstrating how GE can be deployed as a key tool for studying ACH are then described. The selected case studies illustrate how GE can be used effectively to investigate ACH at multiple scales, discover new archaeological sites in remote regions, monitor historical sites, and assess damage in areas of conflict, and promote virtual tourism. These examples form the basis for highlighting current trends in remote sensing archaeology based on the GE platform, which could provide access to a low-cost and easy-to-use tool for communicating and sharing ACH geospatial data more effectively to the general public in the era of Digital Earth. Finally, a discussion of the merits and limitations of GE is presented along with conclusions and remaining challenges.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/rs10101558

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • High-resolution satellite imagery of approximately 0.5m is now widely available and has previously been used to detect archaeological features.

    “High-resolution (approximately 0.5m) satellite imagery is now widely available and has previously been used to detect archaeological features (see Liang et al. 2018;Luo et al. 2018).”

    From A new view of hillforts in the andes: expanding coverage with systematic imagery survey (2024) · cites this paper as Luo et al. 2018

    The Introduction says high- and very-high-resolution satellite imagery has been used to identify and document archaeological features. Section 2.1 says Google Earth imagery at 1 m or finer is widely available and useful for identifying archaeological anomalies. Our copy does not establish that imagery at approximately 0.5 m specifically is widely available or was used for that purpose. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 143

  1. Lasaponara, 2011, Satellite remote sensing in archaeology: Past, present and future perspectives, J. Archaeol. Sci., 38, 1995, 10.1016/j.jas.2011.02.002 · DOI
  2. Luo, 2017, VHR GeoEye-1 imagery reveals an ancient water landscape at the Longcheng site, northern Chaohu Lake Basin (China), Int. J. Digit. Earth, 10, 139, 10.1080/17538947.2016.1214983 · DOI
  3. Brivio, 2000, Multispectral and multiscale remote sensing data for archaeological prospecting in an alpine alluvial plain, J. Cult. Herit., 1, 155, 10.1016/S1296-2074(00)00155-2 · DOI
  4. Aminzadeh, 2006, Identifying the boundaries of the historical site of Persepolis using remote sensing, Remote Sens. Environ., 102, 52, 10.1016/j.rse.2006.01.018 · DOI
  5. Lasaponara, 2007, Detection of archaeological crop marks by using satellite QuickBird multispectral imagery, J. Archaeol. Sci., 34, 214, 10.1016/j.jas.2006.04.014 · DOI
  6. Evans, 2007, A comprehensive archaeological map of the world’s largest preindustrial settlement complex at Angkor, Cambodia, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 14277, 10.1073/pnas.0702525104 · DOI
  7. Garrison, 2008, Evaluating the use of IKONOS satellite imagery in lowland Maya settlement archaeology, J. Archaeol. Sci., 35, 2770, 10.1016/j.jas.2008.05.003 · DOI
  8. Alexakis, 2009, Detection of Neolithic settlements in Thessaly (Greece) through multispectral and hyperspectral satellite imagery, Sensors, 9, 1167, 10.3390/s90201167 · DOI
  9. Rajani, 2011, Potential of satellite based sensors for studying distribution of archaeological sites along palaeochannels: Harappan sites a case study, J. Archaeol. Sci., 38, 2010, 10.1016/j.jas.2010.08.008 · DOI
  10. Agapiou, 2014, Spectral sensitivity of ALOS, ASTER, IKONOS, LANDSAT and SPOT satellite imagery intended for the detection of archaeological crop marks, Int. J. Digit. Earth, 7, 351, 10.1080/17538947.2012.674159 · DOI
  11. Luo, 2014, Integrated RS, GIS and GPS approaches to archaeological prospecting in the Hexi Corridor, NW China: A case study of the royal road to ancient Dunhuang, J. Archaeol. Sci., 50, 178, 10.1016/j.jas.2014.07.009 · DOI
  12. Agapiou, 2014, Evaluating the potentials of Sentinel-2 for archaeological perspective, Remote Sens., 6, 2176, 10.3390/rs6032176 · DOI
  13. Lasaponara, 2016, Towards an operative use of remote sensing for exploring the past using satellite data: The case study of Hierapolis (Turkey), Remote Sens. Environ., 174, 148, 10.1016/j.rse.2015.12.016 · DOI
  14. Aqdus, 2012, The potential of hyperspectral and multi-spectral imagery to enhance archaeological cropmark detection: A comparative study, J. Archaeol. Sci., 39, 1915, 10.1016/j.jas.2012.01.034 · DOI
  15. Comer, D.C., and Harrower, M.J. (2013). Multispectral and hyperspectral technology and archaeological applications. Mapping Archaeological Landscapes from Space, Springer. · DOI
  16. Agapiou, 2013, Optimum temporal and spectral window for monitoring crop marks over archaeological remains in the Mediterranean region, J. Archaeol. Sci., 40, 1479, 10.1016/j.jas.2012.10.036 · DOI
  17. Atzberger, 2014, ARCTIS—A MATLAB® Toolbox for archaeological imaging spectroscopy, Remote Sens., 6, 8617, 10.3390/rs6098617 · DOI
  18. Doneus, 2014, New ways to extract archaeological information from hyperspectral pixels, J. Archaeol. Sci., 52, 84, 10.1016/j.jas.2014.08.023 · DOI
  19. McCauley, 1982, Subsurface valleys and geoarchaeology of the eastern Sahara revealed by shuttle radar, Science, 218, 1004, 10.1126/science.218.4576.1004 · DOI
  20. Wiseman, J., and El-Baz, F. (2007). Spaceborne and airborne radar at Angkor: Introducing new technology to the ancient site. Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Springer. · DOI
  21. Dore, 2013, New research in polarimetric SAR technique for archaeological purposes using ALOS PALSAR data, Archaeol. Prospect., 20, 79, 10.1002/arp.1446 · DOI
  22. Stewart, 2014, Multi-frequency, polarimetric SAR analysis for archaeological prospection, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 28, 211
  23. Chen, 2015, A space view of radar archaeological marks: First applications of COSMO-SkyMed X-Band Data, Remote Sens., 7, 24, 10.3390/rs70100024 · DOI
  24. Tapete, 2016, ‘Looting marks’ in space-borne SAR imagery: Measuring rates of archaeological looting in Apamea (Syria) with TerraSAR-X Staring Spotlight, Remote Sens. Environ., 178, 42, 10.1016/j.rse.2016.02.055 · DOI
  25. Stewart, C., Montanaro, R., Sala, M., and Riccardi, P. (2016). Feature extraction in the north Sinai Desert using spaceborne synthetic aperture radar: Potential archaeological applications. Remote Sens., 8. · DOI
  26. Challis, 2006, A review of trends within archaeological remote sensing in alluvial environments, Archaeol. Prospect., 13, 231, 10.1002/arp.296 · DOI
  27. Nie, 2009, Applications and development of archaeological remote sensing technology in China, J. Remote Sens., 13, 940
  28. Deng, 2010, Application of remote sensing technique in archaeology: A review, J. Remote Sens., 14, 187
  29. Chen, 2017, An overview of satellite synthetic aperture radar remote sensing in archaeology: From site detection to monitoring, J. Cult. Herit., 23, 5, 10.1016/j.culher.2015.05.003 · DOI
  30. Tapete, 2017, Trends and perspectives of space-borne SAR remote sensing for archaeological landscape and cultural heritage applications, J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep., 14, 716
  31. Lasaponara, R., and Masini, N. (2012). Remote sensing in archaeology: From visual data interpretation to digital data manipulation. Satellite Remote Sensing: A New Tool for Archaeology, Springer. · DOI
  32. Wiseman, J., and El-Baz, F. (2007). Application of remote sensing to understanding and management of cultural heritage sites. Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Springer. · DOI
  33. Myers, 2010, Camp Delta, Google Earth and the ethics of remote sensing in archaeology, World Archaeol., 42, 455, 10.1080/00438243.2010.498640 · DOI
  34. Myers, 2010, Field work in the age of digital reproduction: A review of the potentials and limitations of Google Earth for archaeologists, SAA Archaeol. Rec., 4, 7
  35. Luo, 2014, Automated extraction of the archaeological tops of Qanat shafts from VHR Imagery in Google Earth, Remote Sens., 6, 11956, 10.3390/rs61211956 · DOI
  36. 1999, Editorial: Public archaeology, Eur. J. Archaeol., 2, 147, 10.1179/eja.1999.2.2.147 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Church, T., Brandon, J.R., and Burgett, G. (2000). GIS Applications in Archaeology, Method in Search of Theory, Practical Applications of GIS for Archaeologists e a Predictive Modeling Toolkit, Taylor & Francis.
  38. Woodman, 2000, A predictive model for Mesolithic site location on Islay using logistic regression and GIS, Hunter-Gatherer Landscape Archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988e1998, Archaeological Fieldwork on Colonsay, Computer Modelling, Experimental Archaeology, and Final Interpretations, Volume 2, 444
  39. Conroy, 2008, Google Earth, GIS and the Great Divide: A new and simple method for sharing paleontological data, J. Hum. Evol., 55, 751, 10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.03.001 · DOI
  40. Renner, 2009, Extending advanced geospatial analysis capabilities to popular visualization tools, Technol. Rev. J., 17, 89
  41. Yu, 2012, Google Earth as a virtual globe tool for Earth science applications at the global scale: Progress and perspectives, Int. J. Remote Sens., 33, 3966, 10.1080/01431161.2011.636081 · DOI
  42. Wood, 2007, Interactive visual exploration of a large spatio-temporal dataset: Reflections on a geovisualization mashup, IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 13, 1176, 10.1109/TVCG.2007.70570 · DOI
  43. Mccoy, 2017, Geospatial big data and archaeology: Prospects and problems too great to ignore, J. Archaeol. Sci., 84, 74, 10.1016/j.jas.2017.06.003 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Agapiou, 2017, Remote sensing heritage in a petabyte-scale: Satellite data and heritage Earth Engine applications, Int. J. Digit. Earth, 10, 85, 10.1080/17538947.2016.1250829 · DOI
  45. Craglia, 2008, Next-generation digital Earth—A position paper from the Vespucci Initiative for the Advancement of Geographic Information Science, Int. J. Spat. Data Infrastruct. Res., 3, 146
  46. Goodchild, 2008, The use cases of digital earth, Int. J. Digit. Earth, 1, 31, 10.1080/17538940701782528 · DOI
  47. Goodchild, 2012, Next-generation digital earth, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 11088, 10.1073/pnas.1202383109 · DOI
  48. Foresman, 2008, Evolution and implementation of the Digital Earth vision, technology and society, Int. J. Digit. Earth, 1, 4, 10.1080/17538940701782502 · DOI
  49. Stensgaard, 2009, Virtual globes and geospatial health: The potential of new tools in the management and control of vector-borne diseases, Geospat. Health, 3, 127, 10.4081/gh.2009.216 · DOI
  50. Pringle, 2010, Google Earth shows clandestine worlds, Science, 329, 1008, 10.1126/science.329.5995.1008 · DOI
  51. Guo, 2017, Big Earth data: A new frontier in Earth and information sciences, Big Earth Data, 1, 4, 10.1080/20964471.2017.1403062 · DOI
  52. Hansen, 2014, High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change, Science, 344, 850, 10.1126/science.1248817 · DOI
  53. Kobayashi, 2014, A New Tree Cover Percentage Map in Eurasia at 500 m Resolution Using MODIS Data, Remote Sens., 6, 209, 10.3390/rs6010209 · DOI
  54. Carroll, 2009, A new global raster water mask at 250 m resolution, Int. J. Digit. Earth, 2, 291, 10.1080/17538940902951401 · DOI
  55. Schneider, 2010, Mapping global urban areas using MODIS 500-m data: New methods and datasets based on ‘urban ecoregions’, Remote Sens. Environ., 114, 1733, 10.1016/j.rse.2010.03.003 · DOI
  56. Melchiorri, M., Florczyk, A.J., Freire, S., Schiavina, M., Pesaresi, M., and Kemper, T. (2018). Unveiling 25 Years of Planetary Urbanization with Remote Sensing: Perspectives from the Global Human Settlement Layer. Remote Sens., 10. · DOI
  57. Lesiv, M., See, L., Laso-Bayas, J., Sturn, T., Schepaschenko, D., Karner, M., Moorthy, I., McCallum, I., and Fritz, S. (2018). A global snapshot of the spatial and temporal distribution of very high resolution satellite imagery in Google Earth and Bing Maps as of 11th of January, 2017. PANGAEA. · DOI
  58. Bar-Zeev, A. (2018, April 11). How Google Earth [Really] Works. Available online: http://www.realityprime.com/articles/how-google-earth-really-works. · DOI
  59. Bailey, 2011, The role of virtual globes in geoscience, Comput. Geosci., 37, 1, 10.1016/j.cageo.2010.06.001 · DOI
  60. Visser, 2014, Unlocking the potential of Google Earth as a tool in invasion science, Biol. Invasions, 16, 513, 10.1007/s10530-013-0604-y · DOI
  61. Chien, 2011, Google earth as a tool in 2-D hydrodynamic modeling, Comput. Geosci., 37, 38, 10.1016/j.cageo.2010.03.006 · DOI
  62. Potere, 2008, Horizontal positional accuracy of Google Earth’s high-resolution imagery archive, Sensors, 8, 7973, 10.3390/s8127973 · DOI
  63. Guirado, E., Tabik, S., Alcaraz-Segura, D., Cabello, J., and Herrera, F. (2017). Deep-learning Versus OBIA for Scattered Shrub Detection with Google Earth Imagery: Ziziphus lotus as Case Study. Remote Sens., 9. · DOI
  64. Yang, X., Sun, H., Fu, K., Yang, J., Sun, X., Yan, M., and Guo, Z. (2018). Automatic Ship Detection in Remote Sensing Images from Google Earth of Complex Scenes Based on Multiscale Rotation Dense Feature Pyramid Networks. Remote Sens., 10. · DOI
  65. Chen, Z., Zhang, T., and Ouyang, C. (2018). End-to-End Airplane Detection Using Transfer Learning in Remote Sensing Images. Remote Sens., 10. · DOI
  66. Fritz, 2009, Geo-Wiki.Org: The Use of Crowdsourcing to Improve Global Land Cover, Remote Sens., 1, 345, 10.3390/rs1030345 · DOI
  67. See, 2015, Harnessing the power of volunteers, the internet and Google Earth to collect and validate global spatial information using Geo-Wiki, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 98, 324, 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.03.002 · DOI
  68. Clark, 2011, Virtual Interpretation of Earth Web-Interface Tool (VIEW-IT) for Collecting Land-Use/Land-Cover Reference Data, Remote Sens., 3, 601, 10.3390/rs3030601 · DOI
  69. Han, 2015, A web-based system for supporting global land cover data production, ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., 103, 66, 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.07.012 · DOI
  70. Bey, A., Sánchez-Paus Díaz, A., Maniatis, D., Marchi, G., Mollicone, D., Ricci, S., Bastin, J., Moore, R., Federici, S., and Rezende, M. (2016). Collect Earth: Land Use and Land Cover Assessment through Augmented Visual Interpretation. Remote Sens., 8. · DOI
  71. Parks, 2009, Digging into Google Earth: An analysis of “Crisis in Darfur”, Geoforum, 40, 535, 10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.04.004 · DOI
  72. Chang, 2009, Kulkarni, Combining Google Earth and GIS mapping technologies in a dengue surveillance system for developing countries, Int. J. Health Geogr., 8, 1, 10.1186/1476-072X-8-49 · DOI
  73. Yang, 2012, Preliminary mapping of high-resolution rural population distribution based on imagery from Google Earth: A case study in the Lake Tai basin, eastern China, Appl. Geogr., 32, 221, 10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.05.008 · DOI
  74. Trujillo, P., Piroddi, C., and Jacquet, J. (2012). Fish Farms at Sea: The Ground Truth from Google Earth. PLoS ONE, 7. · DOI
  75. Palmer, 2005, Google Maps, AARGnews, 31, 38
  76. Ur, 2006, Google Earth and archaeology, SAA Archaeol. Rec., 6, 35
  77. Parcak, S. (2009). Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology, Routledge Press. · DOI · Paper page
  78. Kaimaris, 2011, Comparative analysis on the archaeological content of imagery from Google Earth, J. Cult. Herit., 12, 263, 10.1016/j.culher.2010.12.007 · DOI
  79. Lasaponara, 2014, Beyond modern landscape features: New insights in the archaeological area of Tiwanaku in Bolivia from satellite data, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 26, 464
  80. Luo, L. (2017, January 19–22). Spatial distribution characteristics of world heritage sites in China: A geographical perspective. Proceedings of the 3rd Pan–Eurasian Experiment (PEEX) Science Conference, Moscow, Russia.
  81. Stein, A. (1928). Innermost Asia: Detailed Report of Explorations in Central Asia, Kansu and Eastern Iran, Clarendon Press.
  82. Luo, L., Wang, X., Lasaponara, R., Xiang, B., Zhen, J., Zhu, L., Yang, R., Liu, D., and Liu, C. (2018). Auto-Extraction of Linear Archaeological Traces of Tuntian Irrigation Canals in Miran Site (China) from Gaofen-1 Satellite Imagery. Remote Sens., 10. · DOI
  83. Luo, 2017, Uncovering the ancient canal-based Tuntian agricultural landscape at China’s northwestern frontiers, J. Cult. Herit., 23, 79, 10.1016/j.culher.2016.04.013 · DOI
  84. Hu, 2013, Exploring the Use of Google Earth Imagery and Object-Based Methods in Land Use/Cover Mapping, Remote Sens., 5, 6026, 10.3390/rs5116026 · DOI
  85. Kennedy, 2011, Google earth and the archaeology of Saudi Arabia: A case study from the Jeddah area, J. Archaeol. Sci., 38, 1284, 10.1016/j.jas.2011.01.003 · DOI
  86. Thomas, 2008, The archaeological sites of Afghanistan in Google Earth, AARGnews, 37, 22
  87. Hritz, 2013, A malarial-ridden swamp: Using Google Earth Pro and Corona to access the southern Balikh valley, Syria, J. Archaeol. Sci., 40, 1975, 10.1016/j.jas.2012.11.017 · DOI
  88. Sadr, 2012, Google Earth, GIS and stone-walled structures in southern Gauteng, South Africa, J. Archaeol. Sci., 39, 1034, 10.1016/j.jas.2011.11.024 · DOI
  89. Luo, 2015, Ancient stone tidal weirs in Penghu archipelago: Distribution, category, structure and function, a Google Earth and GIS approach, ISPRS—Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci., XL-5/W7, 311, 10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-W7-311-2015 · DOI
  90. Luo, L., Wang, X., Liu, J., and Guo, H. (2018). Google Earth for coastal archaeological investigation: Case study of ancient stone tidal weirs in Penghu Islands, China. under review. · DOI
  91. Stinson, 2016, The remote-sensing assessment of a threatened ancient water technology in Afghanistan, J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep., 10, 441
  92. Kempe, 2013, Desert kites in Jordan and Saudi Arabia: Structure, statistics and function, a Google Earth study, Quat. Int., 297, 126, 10.1016/j.quaint.2013.02.013 · DOI
  93. Craig, 2013, Ground truthing of remotely identified fortifications on the central coast of Perú, J. Archaeol. Sci., 38, 1680
  94. Traviglia, A., and Torsello, A. (2017). Landscape pattern detection in archaeological remote sensing. Geosciences, 7. · DOI
  95. Figorito, 2014, Semi-automatic extraction of linear archaeological traces from orthorectified aerial images, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 26, 458
  96. Lasaponara, R., and Masini, N. (2018). Space-Based Identification of Archaeological Illegal Excavations and a New Automatic Method for Looting Feature Extraction in Desert Areas. Surv. Geophys. · DOI
  97. Tripati, 2015, Khalkattapatna port: The lost archaeological heritage of Odisha, east coast of India, Curr. Sci., 109, 25
  98. Conesa, 2015, Corona photographs in monsoonal semi-arid environments: Addressing archaeological surveys and historic landscape dynamics over north Gujarat, India, Archaeol. Prospect., 22, 75, 10.1002/arp.1498 · DOI
  99. Sadr, 2016, A comparison of accuracy and precision in remote sensing stone-walled structures with google earth, high resolution aerial photography and lidar; a case study from the South African Iron Age, Archaeol. Prospect., 23, 95, 10.1002/arp.1532 · DOI
  100. Tapete, D., and Cigna, F. (2018). Appraisal of Opportunities and Perspectives for the Systematic Condition Assessment of Heritage Sites with Copernicus Sentinel-2 High-Resolution Multispectral Imagery. Remote Sens., 10. · DOI
  101. Chen, 2016, Multi-frequency satellite radar imaging of cultural heritage: The case studies of the Yumen Frontier Pass and Niya ruins in the Western Regions of the Silk Road Corridor, Int. J. Digit. Earth, 9, 1224, 10.1080/17538947.2016.1181213 · DOI
  102. Mering, 2010, Retrieving urban areas on google earth images: application to towns of West Africa, Int. J. Remote Sens., 31, 5867, 10.1080/01431161.2010.512311 · DOI
  103. Casana, 2015, Satellite imagery-based analysis of archaeological looting in Syria, Near Eastern Archaeol., 78, 142, 10.5615/neareastarch.78.3.0142 · DOI
  104. Contreras, 2010, The utility of publicly-available satellite imagery for investigating looting of archaeological sites in Jordan, J. Field Archaeol., 35, 101, 10.1179/009346910X12707320296838 · DOI · Paper page
  105. Contreras, 2010, Huaqueros and remote sensing imagery: Assessing looting damage in the Viru Valley, Peru, Antiquity, 84, 544, 10.1017/S0003598X0006676X · DOI
  106. Lasaponara, 2014, Investigating archaeological looting using satellite images and GEORADAR: The experience in Lambayeque in North Peru, J. Archaeol. Sci., 42, 216, 10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.032 · DOI
  107. Parcak, 2016, Satellite evidence of archaeological site looting in Egypt: 2002–2013, Antiquity, 90, 188, 10.15184/aqy.2016.1 · DOI
  108. Parcak, 2015, Archaeological looting in Egypt: A geospatial view (case studies from Saqqara, Lisht, and el Hibeh), Near Eastern Archaeol., 78, 196, 10.5615/neareastarch.78.3.0196 · DOI
  109. Lawler, 2014, Satellites track heritage loss across Syria and Iraq, Science, 346, 1162, 10.1126/science.346.6214.1162 · DOI
  110. Danti, M., Branting, S., and Penacho, S. (2017). The American Schools of Oriental Research Cultural Heritage Initiatives: Monitoring Cultural Heritage in Syria and Northern Iraq by Geospatial Imagery. Geosciences, 7. · DOI
  111. Hanson, K. (2016). Cultural heritage in crisis: An analysis of archaeological sites in Syria through Google Earth and Bing Map satellite imagery. J. Archaeol. Sci., in review.
  112. Casana, 2014, Satellite-based monitoring of looting and damage to archaeological sites in syria, J. East. Mediterr. Archaeol. Herit. Stud., 2, 128
  113. Casana, J., and Laugier, E.J. (2017). Satellite imagery-based monitoring of archaeological site damage in the Syrian civil war. PLoS ONE, 12. · DOI · Paper page
  114. Jedrzejas, 2009, Generating historical urban 3D-scenarios for use in Google Earth representing the medieval city of Duisburg, Photogramm. Fernerkundung Geoinf., 3, 199, 10.1127/0935-1221/2009/0015 · DOI
  115. Goy, 2013, A virtual tour of geological heritage: Valourising geodiversity using Google Earth and QR code, Comput. Geosci., 61, 83, 10.1016/j.cageo.2013.07.020 · DOI
  116. Pallares, 2014, CivisLlovera, 3D virtual itinerary for education using Google Earth as a tool for the recovery of the geological heritage of natural areas: Application in the “Las Batuecas Valley” nature park (Salamanca, Spain), Sustainability, 6, 8567, 10.3390/su6128567 · DOI
  117. Civis, 2015, Virtual 3D tour of the Neogene palaeontological heritage of Huelva (Guadalquivir Basin, Spain), Environ. Earth Sci., 73, 4609, 10.1007/s12665-014-3747-y · DOI
  118. Guo, 2014, Scientific big data and digital earth, Sci. Bull., 59, 5066, 10.1007/s11434-014-0645-3 · DOI
  119. Ellis, S., and Wallrodt, J. (2012, January 27–29). Pompeii and the iPad: An update. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology Conference, Southampton, UK.
  120. Monkkonen, 2008, Using online satellite imagery as a research tool—Mapping changing patterns of urbanization in Mexico, J. Plan. Educ. Res., 28, 225, 10.1177/0739456X08323771 · DOI
  121. Kamadjeu, 2009, Tracking the polio virus down the Congo River: A case study on the use of Google Earth™ in public health planning and mapping, Int. J. Health Geogr., 8, 4, 10.1186/1476-072X-8-4 · DOI
  122. Crampton, 2008, Keyhole, Google Earth, and 3D worlds: An interview with Avi Bar-Zeev, Cartographica, 43, 85, 10.3138/carto.43.2.85 · DOI
  123. Sheppard, 2009, The ethics of Google Earth: Crossing thresholds from spatial data to landscape visualization, J. Environ. Manag., 90, 2012, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.09.012 · DOI
  124. Ur, 2003, Corona satellite photography and ancient road networks: A northern Mesopotamian case study, Antiquity, 77, 102, 10.1017/S0003598X00061391 · DOI
  125. Bewley, 2004, Understanding the past. Aerial survey, remote sensing, interpretation and management, Archeologia Aerea Studi di Aerotopografi a Archeologica, 1, 37
  126. Hadjimitsis, 2013, Exploring natural and anthropogenic risk for cultural heritage in Cyprus using remote sensing and GIS, Int. J. Digit. Earth, 6, 115, 10.1080/17538947.2011.602119 · DOI
  127. Yu, 2018, Improved detection of archaeological features using multi-source data in geographically diverse capital city sites, J. Cult. Herit., 33, 145, 10.1016/j.culher.2018.01.001 · DOI
  128. Agapiou, 2012, Evaluation of broadband and narrowband vegetation indices for the identification of archaeological crop marks, Remote Sens., 4, 3892, 10.3390/rs4123892 · DOI
  129. Blower, J., Gemmell, A., Haines, K., Kirsch, P., Cunningham, N., Fleming, A., and Lowry, R. (2007, January 10–13). Sharing and visualizing environmental data using Virtual Globes. Proceedings of the UK e-Science All Hands Meeting, Nottingham, UK.
  130. Sazib, N., Mladenova, I., and Bolten, J. (2018). Leveraging the Google Earth Engine for Drought Assessment Using Global Soil Moisture Data. Remote Sens., 10. · DOI
  131. Hird, J., DeLancey, E., McDermid, G., and Kariyeva, J. (2017). Google Earth Engine, Open-Access Satellite Data, and Machine Learning in Support of Large-Area Probabilistic Wetland Mapping. Remote Sens., 9. · DOI
  132. Liss, 2017, Testing Google Earth Engine for the automatic identification and vectorization of archaeological features: A case study from Faynan, Jordan, J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep., 5, 299
  133. Mischke, 2017, The world’s earliest Aral-Sea type disaster: The decline of the Loulan Kingdom in the Tarim Basin, Sci. Rep., 7, 43102, 10.1038/srep43102 · DOI
  134. Moshenska, 2009, Resonant materiality and violent remembering: Archaeology, memory and bombing, Int. J. Herit. Stud., 15, 44, 10.1080/13527250902746062 · DOI
  135. Stichelbaut, B., Bourgeois, J., Saunders, N., and Chielens, P. (2009). Ulysses’ gaze: The panoptic premise in aerial photography and Great War archaeology. Images of Conflict: Military Aerial Photography and Archaeology, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  136. Hernando, 2010, Genealogies of destruction: An archaeology of the contemporary past in the Amazon forest, Archaeologies, 6, 5, 10.1007/s11759-010-9120-1 · DOI
  137. McCoy, 2009, New developments in the use of spatial technology in archaeology, J. Archaeol. Res., 17, 263, 10.1007/s10814-009-9030-1 · DOI
  138. Opitz, 2018, Recent Trends and Long-standing Problems in Archaeological Remote Sensing, J. Comput. Appl. Archaeol., 1, 19
  139. Agapiou, A., and Hadjimitsis, D.G. (2011). Vegetation indices and field spectro-radiometric measurements for validation of buried architectural remains: Verification under area surveyed with geophysical campaigns. J. Appl. Remote Sens., 5. · DOI
  140. Matney, 2014, In situ, shallow subsurface reflectance spectroscopy of archaeological soils and features: A case-study of two native American settlement sites in Kansas, J. Archaeol. Sci., 43, 315, 10.1016/j.jas.2013.11.027 · DOI
  141. Agapiou, 2013, Orthogonal Equations of Multi-Spectral Satellite Imagery for the Identification of Un-Excavated Archaeological Sites, Remote Sens., 5, 6560, 10.3390/rs5126560 · DOI
  142. Kadioglu, 2013, Identifying of buried archaeological remains with ground penetrating radar, polarized microscope and confocal Raman spectroscopy methods in ancient city of Nysa, Aydin—Turkey, J. Archaeol. Sci., 40, 3569, 10.1016/j.jas.2013.04.001 · DOI
  143. Zong, 2018, Integration of VHR Satellite Imagery, GPR Survey and Boring for Archaeological Prospection at the Longcheng Site in Anhui Province, China, Archaeometry, 60, 1088, 10.1111/arcm.12373 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Luo, L., Wang, X., Guo, H., Lasaponara, R., Shi, P., Bachagha, N., Li, L., Yao, Y., Masini, N., Chen, F., Ji, W., Cao, H., Li, C., & Hu, N.
Affiliations
  • Key Laboratory of Digital Earth Science, Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth (RADI), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Beijing 100094, China
  • International Centre on Space Technologies for Natural and Cultural Heritage (HIST) under the Auspices of UNESCO, Beijing 100094, China
  • Working Group of Natural and Cultural Heritage under the Digital Belt and Road Programme (DBAR-Heritage), CAS, Beijing 100094, China
  • Jiangsu Speed Electronics and Technology Co. Ltd., Nanjing 210042, China
  • Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology, CAS, Nanjing 210008, China
  • Hangzhou Kingo Information and Technology Co. Ltd., Jinan 250013, China
  • School of Geography and Tourism, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710062, China
ORCID
Venue
Remote Sensing
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2018-09-28
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
1558
ISSN
2072-4292
DOI
10.3390/rs10101558
Cited by
112
References
2
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (41801345)
  • Strategic Priority Research Program of the CAS (XDA19030504)
  • International Partnership Program of the CAS (131C11KYSB20160061)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review