Kilikia Pedias'ta Uzaktan Algılama Kullanılarak Arkeoljik Yerleşim Tespiti

Abstract

Ceyhan Ovası, Türkiye’nin güneyinde Adana sınırları içerisinde yer almaktadır. Bu bölge antik dönemde Kilikya Pedias olarak bilinmektedir. Kilikya Pedias'ta kaybolan ve keşfedilmeyen birçok antik yerleşim bulunmaktadır. Landsat görüntüsünün 3, 4 ve 5 spektral bantlarında, arkeolojik alanların modern yerleşim alanlarına yakın diğer yüzey bitki örtüsünden farklı spektral yansıma değerleri verdiği tespit edilmiştir. Özellikle yakın kızılötesi (NIR) 4. bant görüntüsünde, yer altındaki ve düzlenmiş antik yerleşimler belirlenmiştir. Görüntü analizinde 4, 3, 2 bant kombinasyonları ile Denetimsiz sınıflandırma, Histogram Eşitleme ve Temel Bileşen Analizi yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Temel Bileşen Analizi ve doğrusal yöntem ile antik yerleşimlerin modern yerleşim alanlarından ayrılabileceği tespit edilmiştir. Görsel algılamada çözünürlüğü daha yüksek olan 8. bant görüntü zenginleştirme işleminde kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca Spot ve Aster görüntüleri kullanılarak yerleşimlerin dağılımı ve mekânsal özellikleri analiz edilmiştir. Bu makalede bilinen ancak tahrip nedeniyle kaybolan antik yerleşimler dışında 42 bilinmeyen antik yerleşim tespit edilmiştir.

Keywords

• Arkeolojik Yerleşim Tespiti
• Uzaktan Algılama
• Landsat Uydu Görüntüsü
• Kilikia Pedias

Detection of Archaeological Sites Using Remote Sensing in The Cilicia Pedias

Abstract

Ceyhan Plain is located at the southern of Turkey within the borders of Adana. This region as known as Cilicia Pedias in the ancient period. There are many lost and undiscovered ancient sites in Cilicia Pedias. At 3, 4 and 5 spectral bands of Landsat image, it was determined that the archeological sites yield different spectral reflection values from other surface vegetation close to the modern settlement areas. Especially at near-infrared (NIR) 4th band image, underground and evened ancient sites were determined. The unsupervised classification, Histogram Equalization and Principal Component Analysis methods were used with Image analysis 4, 3, 2 band combinations. It was determined that the ancient sites may be distinguished from the modern settlement areas with Principal Component Analysis and linear method. The one of which the resolution is higher in the visual perception was used in 8th band imagery enhancement procedure. Also by using Spot and Aster images, the distribution and spatial features of sites were analyzed. In this paper, 42 units’ unknown ancient sites were determined except for the sites which had been known but got lost due to the destructing.

Keywords

• Archaeological site detection
• Remote Sensing
• Landsat Satellite Imagery
• Cilicia Pedias

References

1. Beck, A., (2007). Archaeological site detection: the importance of contrast, Proceedings of the Remote Sensing and Photogrammetry Society.
2. Chase, A. F., Chase, D. Z., Fisher, C. T., Leisz, S. J., Weishampel, J. F. (2012). Geospatial revolution and remote sensing LiDAR in Mesoamerican archaeology, PNAS 109 (32), 12916-12921.
3. Corrie, R. K. (2011). Detection of ancient Egyptian archaeological sites using satellite remote sensing and digital image processing. Earth Resources and Environmental Remote Sensing/GIS Applications II, 1-19.
4. Drzewiecki, M. Raczkowski, W. (2008). Following O.G.S. Crawford satellite images and field archaeology in Sudan, Advances on Remote Sensing for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management, Proceedings of the 1st International EARSeL Workshop CNR, 3-6.
5. Fernandez-Diaz, J.C., Carter, W.E. Shrestha, R. L., Glennie, C. L. (2014). Now You See It… Now You Don’t: Understanding Airborne Mapping LiDAR Collection and Data Product Generation for Archaeological Research in Mesoamerica, Remote Sensing 6, 9951-10001.
6. Fiz, I., Subias, E., Cuesta, R. (2012). Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Landscape of Oxyrhynchus Using Textual Sources, Cartography, Remote Sensing and GIS, Thinking beyond the Tool Archaeological computing and the interpretive process, (Edited by Angeliki Chrysanthi, Patricia Murrieta Flores, Constantinos Papadopoulos), BAR International Series 2344, 131-154.
7. Golden, C., Murtha, T., Cook, B., Shaffer, D. S., Schroder, W., Hermitt, E. J., Scherer, A. K. (2016). Reanalyzing environmental lidar data for archaeology: Mesoamerican applications and implications, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 9, 293-308.
8. Jensen, J.R. (1996). Introductory to Digital Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective, New Jersey, 266-285.

9. Kumar, M. (2004). Digital Image Processing, Satellite Remote Sensing and GIS Applications in Agricultural Meteorology, Proceedings of the Training Workshop 7-11 July, 2003, Dehra Dun, India, 81-102.
10. Kvamme, K. L., (2005). Handbook of Archaeological Methods (Terrestrial Remote Sensing in Archaeology) [M]. Lanham, MA: AltaMira Press.
11. Lasaponara, R., Masini, N. (2013). Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Overview, Journal of Aeronautics and Space Technologies 6 (1), 7-17.
12. Opitz, R. S., Ryzewski, K., Cherry, J. F., Moloney, B., (2015). Using Airborne LiDAR Survey to explore Historic-era archaeological landscapes of Montserrat in the Eastern Caribbean, Journal of Field Archaeology 40 (5), 523-541.
13. Parcak, S. (2007). Satellite remote sensing methods for monitoring archaeological tells in the Middle East, Journal of Field Archaeology 32, 65-81.
14. Seton-Williams, M. V. (1954). Cilician Survey, Anatolian Studies 4, 121-174.
15. Ur, J. A., (2003). Corona satellite photography and ancient road networks: a northern Mesopotamian case study, Antiquity 77 (295), 102-115.
16. Wilkinson, T. J., (2002). Archaeological survey of the Tell Beydar region, Syria, 1997: A preliminary report, In Van Lerberghe, K., Voet, G. (eds.), Tell Beydar Environmental and Technical Studies., Subartu 6, Turnhout, 1-37.