Good Science – Bad Archaeology?

This is a little different perspective on the use of LIDAR to “magically” identify ancient archaeological sites. According to this author it is not quite as simple as the press, or some commercial ventures would have you believe. Seems like LiDAR in the hands of certain people can lead to hype and unfounded claims.

In this press release from the University of Houston they take a little more cautious approach to what the bare earth model might reveal. It’s good to get a different perspective – provides a more complete understanding.

This entry was posted in cultural heritage, remote sensing, Research. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Good Science – Bad Archaeology?

  1. Joe Evans says:

    I would hesitate to be as blunt as “good science–bad archaeology,” and instead more like “Good scientists jump the gun using a great methodology”. For those of us who are technoarchaeologists and archaeogeophysists (archaeologists who are users and experts of specific methodologies, such as remote sensing, terrestrial (3D) laser scanning, or geophysics), we refer to the findings as ‘anomalies’ that merit further and future investigation. They’re NOT archaeological sites until they’re ground-truthed (i.e. someone physically confirms it).

    Therein lies the danger.

    I would hesitate

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.