Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T06:21:13.034Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An archaeologist's guide to classification of cropmarks and soilmarks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Jonathan Edis,
David Macleod and
Robert Bewley
Jonathan Edis
Affiliation:
Air Photography Unit, Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, Fortress House, 23 Savile Row, London W1X 1AB
David Macleod
Affiliation:
Air Photography Unit, Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, Fortress House, 23 Savile Row, London W1X 1AB
Robert Bewley
Affiliation:
Air Photography Unit, Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, Fortress House, 23 Savile Row, London W1X 1AB
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The classification of man-made features recorded on aerial photographs depends on a combination of morphological comparison and functional interpretation. Here, a computer-based method of morphological recording and classification is described, and its advantages argued. It has special relevance in England, where the Monument Protection Programme needs to assess the relative value and importance of many thousands of buried archaeological sites that are known only from the evidence of aerial photography.

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 63 , Issue 238 , March 1989, pp. 112 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1989

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, W.Y. 1988. Archaeological classification: theory versus practice, Antiquity 62: 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, D. & Miles, D.. 1974. The Upper Thames Valley: an archaeological survey of the river gravels. Oxford: Oxfordshire Archaeological Unit.Google Scholar
Bewley, R.H. 1984a. An approach to the classification of aerial photographs, Scottish Archaeological Review 3(2): 141–5.Google Scholar
Bewley, R.H. 1984b. Prehistoric and Romano-British settlement in the Solway Plain. Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Darvill, T., Saunders, A. & Startin, B.. 1987. A question of national importance: approaches to the evaluation of ancient monuments for the Monuments Protection Programme in England, Antiquity 61: 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deuel, L. 1969. Flights into yesterday. London: Mac-Donald.Google Scholar
Hampton, J.N. (ed). 1985. The mapping of archaeological evidence from air photographs, Aerial Archaeology 11: 1–30.Google Scholar
Hampton, J.N. & Palmer, R.. 1977. Implications of aerial photography for archaeology, Archaeological Journal 134: 157–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loveday, R. & Petchey, M.. 1982. Oblong ditches: a discussion and some new evidence, Aerial Archaeology 8: 17–24.Google Scholar
Macinnes, L. 1983. Later prehistoric settlement north and south of the Forth - a comparative survey. Ph.D. thesis, Glasgow University.Google Scholar
Maxwell, G.S. 1983a. Cropmark categories observed in recent aerial reconnaissance in Scotland, Scottish Archaeological Review 2(1): 45–52.Google Scholar
Maxwell, G.S. 1983b. The impact of aerial reconnaissance on archaeology. London: Council for British Archaeology. Research Report 49.Google Scholar
Palmer, R. 1983. Analysis of settlement features in the landscape of prehistoric Wessex, in Maxwell (1983b): 41–53.Google Scholar
Palmer, R. 1984. Danebury, an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire: an aerial photographic interpretation of its environs. London: RCHME. Supplementary Series 6.Google Scholar
Palmer, R. 1988. Application of air photo-archaeology to field survey results from Thorney, Cambridgeshire, Antiquity 62: 331–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ralston, I.B. & Shepherd, I.A.G.. 1983. Archaeological air photography - the classification of the results, Scottish Archaeological Review 2(1): 53–60.Google Scholar
Riley, D.N. 1980. Early landscapes from the air. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Riley, D.N. 1987. Air photography in archaeology. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Whimster, R.P. 1980. The Cambridge University cropmark project, Aerial Archaeology 6: 44.Google Scholar
Whimster, R.P. Forthcoming. The emerging past: air photography and the buried landscape. London: RCHME.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.R. 1982. Air photo interpretation for archaeologists. London: Batsford.Google Scholar