Table 1. Bivariate Matrix of Scale Factors and 
Cultural Resources Remote Sensing Tasks. 
Tasks 
A 
B 
C 
D 
E 
F 
Scale 
Ultra-large 
1:1000 
1 
2 
3 
3 
3 
2 
Large 
1:5000 
2 
1 
1 
2 
3 
1 
Medium 
1:25,000 
3 
3 
2 
2 
1 
] 
Small 
1:50,000 
3 
3 
2 
2 
1 
2 
Ultra-samll 
1:500,000 
3 
3 
2 
2 
1 
3 
Task Key: A=Site element survey/analysis 
B=Site plan survey 
C=Landscape survey, site detection 
D=Spatial analysis, sub-regional survey 
E=Regional geographic information 
F=Management of cultural resources 
Applicability Key: l=High 
2=Moderate 
3=Low or None 
Six major tasks in cultural resources remote sensing 
may be identified as follows, and virtually all 
(except f.) result in plans or maps as direct output. 
a) Site element survey and analysis: Use of ground- 
based platforms, low altitude photography from ba- 
loons, kites, miniature drones, and helicopters 
almost exclusively photographic and frequently in 
volving photogrammetric assessments. Interest is 
focused specific feature, i.e. structures, monuments 
and habitation areas. 
b) Site plan survey and internal organization: Low 
altitude aerial photography from aircraft, helicop 
ters and baloons often involving photogrammetric 
interest. Micro-topography, dimensions, plan and 
arrangement of whole settlements, internal charac 
teristics (i.e. style) and functional organization 
are interest foci. Detection of small cultural fea 
tures such as grave sites and markings, house foun 
dations and pathways. 
c) Landscape surveys, site detection and survey: 
Aerial photography and multispectral scanning from 
aircraft. Multispectral video systems are emerging 
to greatly reduce turn-around times for data analysis 
with both digital and analog data. Terrain characte 
ristics involving geomorphology, soils, vegetation, 
land use and cultural elements (i.e. roads, canals, 
moats, agricultural field patterning, etc.) in rela 
tion to abandoned settlements and their immediate 
surroundings are major topics. Detection, identifi 
cation and mapping of new or potential cultural 
resources of major importance. Delineation of histo 
ric districts. 
d) Spatial analysis and sub-regional survey: High 
altitude aerial photography and multispectral scan 
ning as well as radar, including high resolution 
satellite data. Investigation of environmental dis 
tribution (including terrain characteristics from 
above) pertinent to surveying cultural resource con 
centrations, and as input to geographic information 
system base. Spatial analysis of cultural resource 
interrelationships, networks and survey of sub 
regional patterns of diverse cultural resources. 
e) Regional geographic information: Satellite 
multispectral scanners, radar, and photography. 
Investigation of terrain characteristics (as above) 
and large-area environmental distributions showing 
temporal variations that impact on cultural resources 
(i.e. flooding, land use changes). 
f) Management: Multiple remote sensor applications. 
Planning processes, property delineation, natural 
hazards assessment, monitoring forestry and agricul 
tural practices, land use changes (i.e. urbanization), 
riverbank/shoreline erosion, intervention of other 
resource developments as for example, reservoir and 
highway construction, archeaological plundering and 
malicious destruction, and pollution effects. 
Table 1 does not address the details of methodolo 
gical problems characteristic of this area of remote 
sensing applications. These have been variously 
covered by other authors, such as Ebert (1984), Nor- 
mann (1985), and Vogt (1974)and more and are beyond 
the scope of this paper. The table presents a sample 
of the kinds of tasks that characterize cultural 
remote sensing and a subjective, albeit necessary 
scalar classification. 
Also, an "applicability rating" is shown which is 
based on both field and literature survey. It becomes 
readily apparent that the most applicable scales for 
cultural resources tasks are the large and meso-scales, 
which encompasses the range where aerial photography 
reigns while the extreme scales are more specialized 
in their application although this does not diminish 
their value in providing meaningful data for use in 
the overall scheme of things. 
A voluminous inventory of imagery already exists at 
the most applicable scales with virtually every area 
of potential cultural resource significance covered, 
and in some cases multiple coverages embracing a time 
scale of some five or six decades. The archives at 
satellite scales are also burgeoning with data, but 
all in all, there is still disparity in both quantity 
and quality in the availability of the most applicable 
scales between the developed and the developing world, 
while it is encouraging to note that satellite cove 
rage is available the world over, although there are 
severe local problems in quality. These disparities 
result in numerous difficulties in the methodological 
reaim requiring investigations to shift to more costly 
and less efficient means of survey. 
Few investigators have the opportunity to acquire 
dedicated large scale coverages and must resort to 
available imagery acquired for some other purpose. 
However, the vast archives of historic, semi-recent 
and recent large and meso-scale coverages in the 
storage boxes of various agencies around the world 
are potentially of considerable value and deserve 
attention. Also, the ingenuity of investigators should 
not be underestimated as cheaper alternatives to con 
tract aerial photo acquisition have recently been 
shown in the popular and professional literature, 
such as tethered baloon (Myers and Myers, 1985), 
drone-model airplane and kite. (Normann, 1985, Holm 
and Stridsberg, 1985) . 
past . 
and socia 
tural res 
developin 
the point 
destroyed 
common in 
still req 
Against 
been sele 
cultural 
senting a 
1-3). 
4 THE CH 
As with a 
stage, th 
cient tim 
advanced 
attempt t 
ments in 
tify the 
community 
1. The fi 
training 
area stri 
in cognat 
Just rece 
tion prov 
applicati 
versity o 
Past Land 
considera 
from geog 
preservat 
Universit 
promote e 
through i 
the Unite 
be made i 
the numbe 
gers and 
teaching 
in geogra 
engineeri 
way towar 
feed in-d 
the impor 
iown to t 
poration 
tradition 
3 MANAGEMENT AND REMOTE SENSING 
Lipe (1984:2) defines the philosophical basis for 
cultural resource management as follows: 'all cultural 
materials, including cultural landscapes, that have 
survived from the past, are potentially cultural 
resources-that is, have some potential value or use 
in the present or future'. Management implies that a 
rational policy exists based on detailed survey and 
inventory of cultural resources. Cleere (1984), sum 
marizing a range of World cultural resource manage 
ment problems from a survey conducted in twelve coun 
tries points to a need for aerial and ground survey 
which should obviate hasty rescue operations. Another 
problem area increasingly recognized by scholars is 
the matter of context. Due to the long-standing and 
still prevalent focus of archaeology on sites, 
archaeologists fail to appreciate the more diffuse 
cultural elements imprinted on the landscape at large 
(Butzer, 1982), thus, the resource content of the 
rural landscape can be overlooked. This site-oriented 
focus is showing signs of changing largely through the 
application of aerial survey methods and the emergence 
of a more problem-oriented approach to studying the 
2. A seco 
work at a 
easier ac 
detective 
courages 
and histo 
of any ki 
as a fiel 
scale ort 
produced 
tural res 
remote se 
altitude 
need to f 
of obsole 
military 
image acq 
internati 
dating, tv 
ble under 
ISPRS.