An Archaeological Landscape Survey of 6600 km² of Cherkasy Oblast, Ukraine, Using Opensource Satellite Images: First Report
In the article, methods and use of open-source images to undertake an archaeological landscape survey of part of Ukraine are described. A selection of results — feature types and their placement in the landscape — from the first year of our survey is outlined and discussed. Our results can be...
Збережено в:
| Дата: | 2023 |
|---|---|
| Автори: | , , , |
| Формат: | Стаття |
| Мова: | English |
| Опубліковано: |
Інститут археології НАН України
2023
|
| Назва видання: | Археологія |
| Теми: | |
| Онлайн доступ: | http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/199577 |
| Теги: |
Додати тег
Немає тегів, Будьте першим, хто поставить тег для цього запису!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Цитувати: | An Archaeological Landscape Survey of 6600 km² of Cherkasy Oblast, Ukraine, Using Opensource Satellite Images: First Report / R. Palmer, M. Fowler, O.V. Kariaka, V. Ward // Археологія. — 2023. — № 3. — С. 5-20. — Бібліогр.: 43 назв. — англ. |
Репозитарії
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
irk-123456789-199577 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
irk-123456789-1995772024-10-16T15:40:19Z An Archaeological Landscape Survey of 6600 km² of Cherkasy Oblast, Ukraine, Using Opensource Satellite Images: First Report Palmer, R. Fowler, M. Kariaka, O.V. Ward, V. Статтi In the article, methods and use of open-source images to undertake an archaeological landscape survey of part of Ukraine are described. A selection of results — feature types and their placement in the landscape — from the first year of our survey is outlined and discussed. Our results can be assessed and manipulated using an interactive ArcGIS web app. Проект був розроблений для проведення археологічного ландшафтного дослідження в Україні з використанням зображень з відкритих джерел. Досліджувана територія значної частини Черкаської обл. має різноманітні ґрунти, які можуть виявити зв’язок із заселенням і землекористуванням. Використані джерела зображень — Гексагон (травень 1982 р.) та нерівномірно розподілені знімки Google Earth (2007—2021 р.). Деякі демонстрували чіткі археологічні докази, інші — ні. Загальна площа обстеження становила 6600 км2, серед яких досліджувались окремі квадрати 10x10 км. Протягом року вдалось обстежити приблизно половину загальної площі та виявити особливості в посівах і голому ґрунті. Відзначено кілька типів об’єктів, з яких найбільш плідними є кургани, які можуть розташовуватись поодиноко та іноді рядами, що слідують за підвищенням місцевості. Існують також повторювані моделі того, що ми називаємо сателітними курганами, в яких один більший курган має від одного до п’яти менших насипів, що оточують його. Деякі з них можуть бути зруйнованими добувачами селітри. Проект визначає місця проживання як такі, що складаються зі скупчень невеликих насипів, які часто виникають у місці злиття двох річок. Деякі скупчення утворені великими окремими курганами, а деякі розташовані на одному кінці ряду курганів, що залежить від хронології. Наш проект також об’єднав різні переліки мегасайтів і розмістив якомога більше в нашій базі даних. Територія обстеження охоплює кілька городищ, відомих до цього часу, і невелику кількість огороджених споруд, які могли бути необоронними. Виявлені об’єкти також включають ті, які зараз залишилися з радянської епохи, такі як колгоспи, промислові та військові об’єкти, призначення яких можна визначити в розсекречених звітах розвідки США. Місцями простежено серйозні зміни в структурі села, що призвело до виникнення закинутих територій. Це також було зафіксовано як частину зміни ландшафту України. 2023 Article An Archaeological Landscape Survey of 6600 km² of Cherkasy Oblast, Ukraine, Using Opensource Satellite Images: First Report / R. Palmer, M. Fowler, O.V. Kariaka, V. Ward // Археологія. — 2023. — № 3. — С. 5-20. — Бібліогр.: 43 назв. — англ. 0235-3490 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/arheologia2023.03.005 http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/199577 [902:528.93](477.46) en Археологія Інститут археології НАН України |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| language |
English |
| topic |
Статтi Статтi |
| spellingShingle |
Статтi Статтi Palmer, R. Fowler, M. Kariaka, O.V. Ward, V. An Archaeological Landscape Survey of 6600 km² of Cherkasy Oblast, Ukraine, Using Opensource Satellite Images: First Report Археологія |
| description |
In the article, methods and use of open-source
images to undertake an archaeological landscape
survey of part of Ukraine are described. A selection
of results — feature types and their placement in
the landscape — from the first year of our survey
is outlined and discussed. Our results can be
assessed and manipulated using an interactive
ArcGIS web app. |
| format |
Article |
| author |
Palmer, R. Fowler, M. Kariaka, O.V. Ward, V. |
| author_facet |
Palmer, R. Fowler, M. Kariaka, O.V. Ward, V. |
| author_sort |
Palmer, R. |
| title |
An Archaeological Landscape Survey of 6600 km² of Cherkasy Oblast, Ukraine, Using Opensource Satellite Images: First Report |
| title_short |
An Archaeological Landscape Survey of 6600 km² of Cherkasy Oblast, Ukraine, Using Opensource Satellite Images: First Report |
| title_full |
An Archaeological Landscape Survey of 6600 km² of Cherkasy Oblast, Ukraine, Using Opensource Satellite Images: First Report |
| title_fullStr |
An Archaeological Landscape Survey of 6600 km² of Cherkasy Oblast, Ukraine, Using Opensource Satellite Images: First Report |
| title_full_unstemmed |
An Archaeological Landscape Survey of 6600 km² of Cherkasy Oblast, Ukraine, Using Opensource Satellite Images: First Report |
| title_sort |
archaeological landscape survey of 6600 km² of cherkasy oblast, ukraine, using opensource satellite images: first report |
| publisher |
Інститут археології НАН України |
| publishDate |
2023 |
| topic_facet |
Статтi |
| url |
http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/199577 |
| citation_txt |
An Archaeological Landscape Survey of 6600 km² of Cherkasy Oblast, Ukraine, Using Opensource Satellite Images: First Report / R. Palmer, M. Fowler, O.V. Kariaka, V. Ward // Археологія. — 2023. — № 3. — С. 5-20. — Бібліогр.: 43 назв. — англ. |
| series |
Археологія |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT palmerr anarchaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagesfirstreport AT fowlerm anarchaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagesfirstreport AT kariakaov anarchaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagesfirstreport AT wardv anarchaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagesfirstreport AT palmerr archaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagesfirstreport AT fowlerm archaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagesfirstreport AT kariakaov archaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagesfirstreport AT wardv archaeologicallandscapesurveyof6600km2ofcherkasyoblastukraineusingopensourcesatelliteimagesfirstreport |
| first_indexed |
2024-10-17T04:01:59Z |
| last_indexed |
2024-10-17T04:01:59Z |
| _version_ |
1813132313924468736 |
| fulltext |
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 3 55
УДК: [902:528.93](477.46)
https://doi.org/10.15407/arheologia2023.03.005
© R. PALMER, M. FOWLER, O. V. KARIAKA,
V. WARD* 2023
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE SURVEY
OF 6600 KM2 OF CHERKASY OBLAST, UKRAINE,
USING OPEN-SOURCE SATELLITE IMAGES:
FIRST REPORT
In the article, methods and use of open-source
images to undertake an archaeological landscape
survey of part of Ukraine are described. A selection
of results — feature types and their placement in
the landscape — from the first year of our survey
is outlined and discussed. Our results can be
assessed and manipulated using an interactive
ArcGIS web app.
K e y w o r d s: Cherkasy Oblast, prehistoric era,
Aerial Archaeology Research Group (AARG),
landscape survey, HEXAGON, Google Earth,
mounds, habitation sites, hillforts.
Introduction
This project was a way of showing solidarity
with the people of Ukraine after Russia’s illegal
invasion in February 2022. A project outline
was prepared that March and submitted to the
committee of the AARG (Aerial Archaeology
Research Group — see below) that proposed to
examine existing open-source satellite images to
identify archaeological features within a defined
area. Meanwhile, a search was made of on-line
Ukrainian publications to find out if:
a) anybody had already made a landscape
survey of an extensive area using aerial or
spaceborne data,
b) whether the type of work proposed may be
of any use to Ukrainian archaeologists,
c) to seek one or more Ukrainian collaborators.
The purpose of this note is to outline what we
have achieved in the first year of what may be a
three-year project, to outline some of the types of
features that have been recognised on the sources
used, and to explain our plans for making the
resource available.
Background
The AARG was founded in 1983 by a small
number of British archaeologists who were
examining aspects of post-reconnaissance uses of aerial
photographs. Some illustrated known sites, but the
majority had been taken of previously unknown buried
archaeological features in arable land which may
become visible, and recorded from above, through
their effect on crops growing above them or be seen
in bare soils. Initially the AARG was a British group
that tasked itself to understand the many thousands
of aerial photographs of archaeological targets
that had been taken by airborne archaeological
observers, briefly described, and then filed away
with a handful being published as illustrations. At
that time, the AARG members were examining
methods to gain more information by interpreting
and mapping the archaeological content of those
photographs and finding ways to classify the
mapped information. In the succeeding forty years,
the AARG’s membership has become worldwide,
* PALMER Rog — Editor, Aerial Archaeology Research
Group, ORCID: 0000-0003-0546-9273, rog.palmer@
ntlworld.com
FOWLER Martin — PhD, Member, Aerial Archaeology
Research Group, ORCID: 0000-0003-4211-3671,
danebury216@hotmail.co.uk
KARIAKA Oleksandr Volodymyrovych — PhD, Research
Fellow, the Institute of Archaeology, National Academy
of Sciences of Ukraine, Field Committee Department,
ORCID: 0000-0003-3066-3641, akarjaka@ukr.net
WARD Valerie — Member, Aerial Archaeology Research
Group, ORCID: 0000-0002-4936-3932, Valerie.C.Ward@
hotmail.com
Статтi
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 36
and the breadth of its interests has grown from that
beginning.
Aerial images of all types are seen as tools
which allow different levels of archaeological
investigation to be undertaken. These can range
from providing or adding detail to new or known
sites, to examining large areas of landscape
in detail or, as our survey intends, to provide a
basic distribution map of site types. At their most
informative, aerial images are translated into maps
or plans that show clearly and decisively what a
photo interpreter has seen. Surveys at this level
result from years of work examining remotely
sensed data (aerial and satellite images and those
from airborne laser scanning where it is available)
to produce maps of archaeological sites and
landscapes covering areas of several thousand
square kilometres (e.g. Riley 1980; Palmer 1984;
Hall, Palmer 1996; Stoertz 1997; Historic England
2023). Results of such surveys are initially multi-
period after which the incorporation of existing
knowledge and results from fieldwork enable
broad division into conventional archaeological
periods if recurrent feature types can be matched
with those known from excavation. Survey of
this type is legitimate archaeological research as
photo interpretation can provide knowledge that
helps understand relations between topography
and archaeological features that inform how past
systems of landuse and settlement may have
functioned. To the best of our knowledge, extensive
surveys of this type in Ukraine began with those by
K. V. Shyshkin and published in 1964, 1973 and
1985 (analysed and summarised by O. V. Kariaka
2023 and Ward 2023a). His publications illustrated
specific types of feature — tracks, mounds,
hillforts and Trypillia sites (megasites) — but it is
likely that he saw and mapped many others that
were excluded.
This note is not the place to provide a histography
of uses of remotely sensed information in Ukraine
(Борисов 2020). These uses range in scale and
detail from the taking and using of UAV images
(Гнера 2015; Ašandulesei 2017) to applications
of historical and satellite images (Гнера 2014;
Nebbia, Roe 2020) which, in turn, have the
potential to provide meticulous local investigations
or less detailed studies of greater areas. This range
emphasises that not all “aerial work” is the same or
comparable other than it shares a common factor
through its use of one (or more) of a multitude of
above-ground devices to capture data.
Often aerial images will be used to illustrate a
site that has been examined by other means (for
example, recently at Busurmenske (Прядко 2020,
рис. 2—3)) and there has been interest in their
uses for monitoring the archaeological heritage
both of individual objects and wider areas such as
Fig. 1. The original Sentinel 2 tile, L2A_T36UUV, with the area halved for the current project. The grid within the tile is at 10
km intervals and North is to the top. Source: background map TPC series sheet E-3C available online at the Perry-Castañeda
Library Map Collection: https://maps.lib.utexas.edu/maps/tpc/
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 3 7
erosion zones of Dnipro River reservoirs (Мало-
літнева та ін. 2021). Since the war has begun,
several organisations have been using satellite
images to identify and monitor damage to cultural
properties (e.g. Smithsonian Global 2003; Unesco
2023). However, these uses mostly study single
sites or locations rather than landscapes which is
the focus of our project. Use of remotely sensed
images has been made in Trypillia research to
look at individual sites and to compare image data
to that recovered by geophysics (Rud, Ohlrau,
Fedorov 2016). A more extensive survey of an area
having a 25 km radius centred on Nebelivka and
including part of our survey area was published
by M. Nebbia, who used high-resolution satellite
images to produce a map (Nebbia, Roe 2020
fig. 3.9) which included a distribution of mounds
that is similar to that identified by our project.
Accurately mapping large areas from aerial
information requires long-term projects and for
our own survey we had a less ambitious aim
which was to produce a dot distribution map
accompanied by a simple database that includes a
note of the type of feature we had recorded. Any
survey from aerial information will record sites
that were previously known and possibly some
that were not, and even with known sites there is
the chance of adding supplementary information.
The resulting distribution map may add context to
excavated features and there and elsewhere might
enable a new range of archaeological questions
to be asked. It is hoped that our general survey
may encourage a more detailed “phase 2” in which
smaller locations are studied in greater depth and
linked to information already known. This, in
turn, can lead to suggestions for further work as
has recently been published by A. V. Borysov and
colleagues (Борисов та ін. 2022).
With this as a background, how might a
simple type of extensive survey help Ukrainian
archaeology? Since the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown,
the AARG had been running monthly “photo
reading” online meetings for its members. “Photo
reading” is a term given to an initial level of
examination of any type of above ground images
of visual and non-visual wavelengths taken from
aerial or satellite platforms. We covered the
basic theory of how archaeological objects may
be visible on aerial images and also spent a lot
of time discussing natural and recent features
that can could be confused with archaeology in
the interpretation.This group gave us a core of
experienced archaeologists based across Europe,
who agreed to work voluntarily on the Ukrainian
survey project. However, to give the project
some credibility we really wanted at least one
active participant from Ukraine1. Since then,
O. V. Kariaka has helped with some of our
work and has been an invaluable source of
local resources that we would otherwise not
have located.
Survey area
The AARG was already undertaking a
research project to investigate if, and how, 10—
60 m resolution multi-spectral Sentinel 2 satellite
images could indicate dates when summer
crop growth may show buried archaeological
features (Palmer 2021; Broch 2021). Test areas
1 T. M. Shevchenko from Arheologia gave us names of
three archaeologists who said that they supported our
project, but were not able to work on it. Meanwhile our
reading had led us to O. V. Kariaka, from the Institute of
Archaeology of the NASU in Kyiv, who had published
three papers in which he had used satellite images to
examine mounds, tracks and Olbian chora (Kariaka
2008; Каряка 2021; Болтрик, Каряка 2021). An email
to him returned an enthusiastic reply followed by a
Skype meeting in June 2022.
Fig. 2. The survey area showing, A: The SRTM image of
the survey area shows topography and watercourses (source:
USGS 2023). The N-S course of the Syniukha River divides
the area and is fed by tributaries from the East and West. The
grid is at 10km intervals and North is to the top. B: A soil
map is superimposed on the SRTM image and shows fertile
black soils (browns) over much of the land with scattered and
smaller pockets of Podzols in yellow. Source: ESDAC 2023
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 38
were primarily in Western and Central Europe
but, as a first support for Ukraine, a Sentinel 2
tile (L2A_T36UUV) was added. It included
parts of the Cherkasy Oblast where there was a
mixture of soil types. Sentinel 2 tiles are large,
covering 110 × 110 km, and although this area was
proposed for the initial survey area of the project,
early indications of the large number of sites
being identified and the time-consuming quality-
control process for the small working group of
participants resulted in the project area being cut
back to 110 × 60 km (fig. 1). The large Sentinel 2
tile was sub-divided into 10 × 10 km blocks and
those became the working units for our survey
project. Coincidentally, this area includes several
of the well documented Trypillia megasites.
The project area lies within the Dnipro River
Upland and is divided by the Syniukha River as
it flows southwards towards the Black Sea. The
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM —
fig. 2: upper) digital elevation model shows
an undulating landscape cut by many lesser
watercourses that feed into the Syniukha River
from the East and West. Some are steeply incised
into the landscape, but in places they created broad
floodplain valleys. Topographically, there is little
major variation with an average height of 250 m
that rises in the NW. Environmentally, the area
is mainly Forest Steppe with the possibility of
Steppe in the SE part although the boundary moves
with time. Forest Steppe has been described as a
mosaic-like vegetation with woodland on drained
soils, elevated areas, and shaded slopes as well as
in river valleys, alluvial soils, and on gorge slopes.
Between the woodland, the area is dominated by
steppe meadow vegetation (Ohlrau 2020, p. 21).
Soils in the area are predominantly fertile black
soils with smaller pockets of less fertile podzol
variants on which much of the current woodland is
located (fig. 2: lower).
Data sources
Our main source material for the survey is the
freely available imagery in Google Earth Pro (GE)
which, in our project area, dated from about 2007
to 2021, but with different date ranges and dates
of cover across the larger area. We supplemented
GE images with photographs from the recently
declassified US HEXAGON KH-9 satellite
programme that had been running between 1971
and 1986 and was itself a successor to the earlier
CORONA reconnaissance satellite programme
(Fowler 2022a; Hammer, Fitzpatrick, Ur 2022).
The Earth Explorer website (USGS 2023) from
which the declassified photographs are available
identified about 500 forward-looking frames
that covered parts of our area. From those we
chose a sequence of cloud-free frames taken on
18 May 1982 that covered the whole of our area
(Fowler 2022b). These would provide an earlier
view of our project area as well as recording
many Soviet-era structures that have since been
demolished and which this project has included
as “archaeological”. HEXAGON frames were
scanned by the USGS and provided as a series of
overlapping sub images of approximately 35 × 20
km. Parts of 18 of these covered our 110 × 60 km
area. Those sub-images were georeferenced
in QGIS and were further cropped to provide
10 × 10 km tiles that could be imported in GE. Our
data sources were completed by Soviet 1:100000
maps (dating to the mid-1970s) and a topographical
survey dated 1872 that was downloaded from
Mapire (2023) historical map website. Both map
sources were georeferenced and layered in GE.
Using aerial or satellite images
Aerial images taken specifically to record buried
or upstanding archaeological features need to be
acquired at critical times of year to achieve optimum
results and even then there are some surface or crop
conditions in which nothing can be seen (e.g., Wilson
2000). For that reason, the more dates of photography
that are available for a given location, the more
reliable the result of image interpretation should be.
The selection of images in GE of our survey area
includes some dates on which the archaeological
content is spectacular, others in which some things
can be seen if you know where to look and yet
more where nothing can be seen on that particular
image. It is important to be aware that these traces of
archaeological information are not necessarily visible
all the time. Some sites may show on several dates
and thus provide reliable evidence, others may be of
lesser certainty, because they have only been recorded
on one date. Different parts of our 110 × 60 km area
have differing numbers of GE dates — some as few
as four, others have had 18 or 19 images on GE that
cover parts of one 10 × 10 km square. Examination
of images of different dates demonstrates that
absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of
absence. What this means for our survey is that we
have recorded what has been seen and confirmed
through our checking process, but that new images
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 3 9
of different dates are likely to change and add to the
results presented.
Comparing images of different dates is an essential
part of the examination process as it helps discard
features that may look genuine on one date, but are
obviously not archaeological on others. One example
was to identify a site on the East side of Novoselytsia
(our reference E08_021) that appeared to show
promise as a megasite on GE images of several dates,
but has never looked quite right. This was explained
when we checked the earlier HEXAGON photograph
that showed it as an active quarry in 1982 which had
since been backfilled to create the impression of a
megasite (fig. 3). In a similar manner, some of our
findings on GE have been explained by consultation
of the 1872 map that includes boundaries and roads
that no longer exist and areas of woodland that have
since been felled.
Working in one of the 10 × 10 km square, our
process is to systematically scan each image and
confirm anything seen on images of the other dates.
Examining images in date order also allows us to note
changing conditions of some objects (see mounds,
below) and how modern land use is affecting their
survival.
In GE, a feature will be identified using a
uniquely numbered placemark pin with a small
set of database fields completed in its description
that includes, among other things, a named
feature type, its condition, and the image dates
on which it was seen (fig. 4). As each 10 × 10 km
square is completed it is checked by a second
person after which a discussion may be necessary
before an agreed set of pins is finalised. These are
copied to a third person who processed the pins
to convert the data recorded in each pin into a
database for subsequent analysis and visualisation.
The semi-automated process involved the use
of an Excel spreadsheet to extract the formatted
data fields present in each GE pin description.
These were then combined with the latitude
and longitude coordinates of the pin and the pin
number into a master spreadsheet database. A
technical description of the process can be found
in M. J. F. Fowler’s work (2022c). The spreadsheet
data were then uploaded to ArcGIS Online and used
to produce a web application so that the pinned
data can be more easily visualised and searched
by others. This part of the project is currently in
development, but a version can be viewed online
Fig. 3. The value of comparing images taken on different dates was apparent at this site East of Novoselytsia (E08_021) that
showed suggestions of being a megasite on Google Earth images of several dates — as above (A) on 7 May 2017. E08 was one of
the first squares we examined and HEXAGON photographs arrived after we had begun. These made it clear that our “megasite”
was a result of backfiiling after quarrying that was active on 18 May 1982 (B). HEXAGON image courtesy of the US Geological
Survey: entity ID: D3C1217-100073F026
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 310
(link at the AARG, 2023) and is shown in some of
the following illustrations.
A selection of results
This section makes no claims to new
discoveries, although undoubtedly there will be
some, but the main purpose of the survey is to draw
together information over the 110 × 60 km area and
to make suggestions based on distributions rather
than individual cases as is more usual following
an excavation. These are not necessarily the right
suggestions, particularly as most of the authors
are new to this part of the world, but are more to
show what can be attempted by thinking about an
area rather than a site. One of the advantages of the
aerial/space view is that it provides the material
from which this can be done.
Most of the observed features were compacted
soil or the surviving matrix of ploughed mounds
rather than ditched features which most of us were
familiar with from work further to the West. As
would be expected, the mounds showed clearly
in bare soil, because of their colour difference,
but they were also visible in crops where they
caused poorer growth above what is likely to be
more compact or poorer soil. This can be clearly
seen in fig. 5 where the mounds show as lighter
(thinner) crop and are sometimes surrounded
by darker rings that are probably denser growth
above ditches. The same denser growth can be
seen above the numerous soil erosion gullies near
the bottom of the picture. These colour changes in
the crops also suggest that ditched features would
be expected to be visible in certain of Ukraine’s
crops but, to date, very few have been identified
by this survey.
As this note reports on work in progress, no
attempt is made to indicate numbers of feature
types found although the open access web app
(AARG 2023) allows a simple check of types
and their distribution against a small range of
backgrounds.
Mounds
The most prolific types of sites are those
we call ‘mounds’ (so as not to pre-suppose a
function, purpose or date for them) with some
3000 identified in the 50 % of the project area that
Fig. 4. Pinned site L10_150 is a levelled mound in a cultivated field. Its database fields show that it was visible on three dates
in two years which, with its clarity let us give it the highest certainty, probable, from an image source alone. Note that dates are
written in the format year-month-day to enable easy sorting. #DISP= refers to Declassified Intelligence Satellite Photographs
which at present are only HEXAGON taken on 18 May 1982. There is another mound close to its south side that has been
unpinned for this illustration. Source: Google Earth: 6 August 2017
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 3 11
has so far been studied. However, we do attempt
to distinguish mounds that may have been for
burials and/or markers of some kind from those
likely to remain from habitation sites, but these are
subjective decisions made on the basis of size and
clustering. As K. V. Shyshkin identified (Шиш-
кин 1964, c. 200), mounds can occur singly, in
groups or in rows, with the latter usually following
the high ground or breaks of slope (fig. 6). There
have also been repeating patterns of what we call
satellite mounds — where a larger mound may
have between one and five smaller mounds closely
surrounding it (fig. 7). Some, usually plough-
levelled, have just two satellites and may be former
maidans or saltpeter works that occur as extant
and levelled eathworks (fig. 8). The fact that these
patterns repeat seems of greater archaeological
relevance — perhaps indicating movement of
people or ideas — than the identification of
individual examples.
We have identified a small number of
examples where mounds, including habitation
sites, have been levelled by a farmer and the
date sequence in GE sometimes records a
before, during and after set of images (fig. 9).
Examples of this kind may help management
and protection of sites. Aerial photographs are
used for this purpose, sometimes specifically
taken to record damage to protected sites, in the
UK.
Habitation sites
Habitation sites that we have identified so
far are relatively few in number and tend to
comprise clusters or groups of small mounds.
These are enclosed in a polygon on our database
that is able to show the sum of information that
may be visible on different dates in different
fields (fig. 10). Many habitation sites include
larger mounds among the smaller ones. The
larger mounds are thought to be of later dates
and in places form one end of a row of mounds
that runs along the high ground to or from a
confluence of two rivers — a favoured location
for habitation sites of all sizes. This raises
questions about the chronological sequence of
the two kinds of feature: whether, for example,
they were contemporary or whether the later
mound builders were aware of remains of
former occupation and deliberately related their
mounds to them.
Fig. 5. A line of mounds showing as lighter (thinner) crop where growth has been restricted by the poor or compact soil of the
mound matrix. Some are surrounded by darker rings that probably indicate ditches marked by lush crop growth. The same denser
growth can be seen above the numerous soil erosion gullies near the bottom of the picture. Source: Google Earth: 12 August 2017
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 312
On rare occasions habitation sites may be
enclosed as in the example at Kobrynove in our
square D08 (as yet not pinned).
This group also includes the so-called megasites
for which one of our group, V. Ward, has collated
the several published lists of sites in our area into a
single database and located as many as possible on
Google Earth to supplement and add information
to our identifications. This has also enabled the
accurate location of some sites which have been
recorded on GE images taken after the publication
of the original lists. Some of the lists include
very small settlements under the term “megasite”
which, following recent publications (e.g.
Chapman, Gaydarska, Nebbia 2019; Gaydarska,
Chapman 2020), we would rather reserve for sites
over 100 ha in extent. At present, we are calling
the small sites from the published lists “Trypillia
sites” and noting their size in our database where
this is provided (Ward 2023b).
HEXAGON photographs have provided
some excellent records of certain megasites as
Fig. 6. Square K10 showing rows of mounds (red) on high ground among which are a few habitation sites (yellow) and Trypillia
megasites (blue). The square is 10 × 10 km with North to the top. Source: AARG Ukraine WG web app: 31 May 2023; background
map: ESRI World Topographic Map https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=7dc6cea0b1764a1f9af2e679f642f0f5
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 3 13
Fig. 7. Site J10_132 is the large extant mound located in two
differently managed fields. It has at least three smaller satellite
mounds on its North side. Source Google Earth: 8 June 2012
they were taken at a date when Soviet farming
practices required large fields. At Maidanetske,
for example, much of the site was within two
fields in 1982 which, on GE dates (from 2011)
have been managed in smaller units that, because
of their different cropping regimes, can fragment
the overview and may show only one small part
of that site (fig. 11). It is worth mentioning here
that the drawings made by K. V. Shyshkin (e.g.,
his interpretation of Maidanetske: Шишкин 1973,
рис. 2) showed circuits of lines rather than houses
and this may have been due to the small scale
(1:35000) and possibly poor resolution of the
original aerial photographs that were available
to him. Lenses and cameras have improved
significantly from the 1960s and can now provide
considerably more detail. For example, the
HEXAGON image from 1982 clearly shows many
individual houses (fig. 12), because of its higher-
resolution source.
Hillforts, defensive sites and enclosures
Ukrainian archaeological literature is rich with
studies of hillforts (e.g., recently Білинський 2018;
Каравайко 2023) and a survey of this kind is unlikely
to add new knowledge to individual sites, but it may
help provide context for them. An example comes
from square E06 that we have glanced at, but not
systematically examined. East of Vodianyky is a
small known hillfort that can be seen with various
clarity on nine GE images between 8 August 2008
and 9 October 2020. It is plough damaged and each
year’s cultivation is likely to shave further contexts
from its upper layers. HEXAGON shows that it was
also ploughed in 1982 with its outer bank being
degraded and spread. It does not appear on the
Soviet 1:100000 map, but that is not unexpected, nor
is it marked on the 1872 map although that shows
that the area was then wooded with all the problems
that brings to identifying sites on the ground. GE
also shows a slighter enclosure of similar size some
5—600m to the north-west on a lower hilltop and
it is this close proximity that raises questions about
their contemporaneity — were they both in use,
perhaps for different purposes, at the same time
or do they show sequential use? Field survey or
excavation may answer that question.
Our survey has also recorded one previously
known promontory rampart, L08_051, South of
Buda-Makiivka, that has been under cultivation
on all dates from 1982 and shows plough damage
on those dates, but especially clearly in 2019 when
the rampart can be seen to have been dragged and
spread by cultivation (fig. 13).
Enclosures of different sizes have been recorded
by our survey with one of the smallest south-west
of Tashlyk (L09_190). It shows as a ditch, some
80m across, possibly circular, but of unknown
shape as part has never been recorded. Within it is a
smaller circular feature some 20—25 m in diameter.
Elevation profiles taken in Google Earth show it to
be situated just off the crest of higher ground on
the west facing slope which may offer some shelter
from east winds.
Soviet era
The 1982 HEXAGON photographs we are
using show a record of economic activity during
Soviet times that, in most cases, no longer exists.
Predominant among these, and easy to recognise
are collective farms whose use (e.g., for dairy,
hog or poultry) is indicated on the Soviet maps of
similar date. The majority of those farms had been
abandoned by the earliest GE image dates (2007—
2008), often with buildings collapsed. Land within
the former farms was left to become scrub b-covered
and remained unused through the dates of GE.
Occasionally those farms, or parts of them, continue
in some kind of use. All this is noted in comments
in our database on the assumption that one day,
someone may be interested in structural aspects of
this former economic system. Similarly, we record
industrial and military sites from the same era, many
of which are on the map or documented in now-
declassified US intelligence reports (CIA 2023).
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 314
Former quarries are also recorded as many are now
backfilled and invisible from above, show areas of
disturbed ground where conventional archaeological
activity is unlikely now to find anything (see fig. 3).
Our project has also recorded major changes to
village structures. Occasionally complete abandon-
ment has been identified with rows of houses seen in
1982 no longer there on GE dates and with strip fields
merged into larger land units. One such example
West of Korobchyne (J10_142) may have been to
move people prior to the expansion of a large mineral
extraction development. Occasionally, villages show
evidence for ‘shrinking’, where houses and fields
have vanished since 1982, but parts of that village
Fig. 8. On the left (A) is an extant example of a maidan (saltpeter works: site E10_036) comprising a hollowed mound with
tailings to its south-west. Note other small levelled mounds around it visible as lighter discs. B shows what may be a levelled
example of something similar, but which we are describing as a mound (K06_075 on the South side) with two satellite mounds
to its North. Source Google Earth: 21 August 2018 (L) and 8 September 2017 (R)
Fig. 9. Damage to sites is sometimes apparent when viewing a sequence of images. A is from an image taken on 6 August 2017
showing two mounds as grey discs in a crop field. Both have been squared off during cultivation or as deliberate levelling. The
rectangle close to the field’s boundary was a mound in 1982 and has not been sown with crop on this date. Two years later (B),
on 8 October 2019, the image shows more deliberate signs of mound levelling with parts of each mound being dragged to the
south as a result of heavy ploughing when the field was cultivated. Traces of previously-levelled mounds are also visible on this
date. Sites L06_056-060. Source: Google Earth
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 3 15
remain inhabited. We record these, because they are
part of Ukraine’s changing landscape rather than in
anticipation of any future studies.
Confusion
Finally, we add a note about things that confused
those of us examining the images. This is part of
learning in any new area and we have more examples
from the early days of our survey than from recent
months. The most frequent examples were features
that appeared as mounds in some years, but on other
dates showed as ‘hollows’ (small pockets of lower
ground), sometimes wet and avoided in cultivation,
and sometimes showing fringes of dried minerals
around their edges. In some places, those hollows
Fig. 10. Habitation site F09_002 as it was recorded on three different dates with each showing differing amounts of information
and summised by our polygon. Source: Google Earth, left to right: A: 10 September 2012, B: 7 May 2017, C: 2 October 2019
Fig. 11. A: Maidanetske from HEXAGON (18 May 1982 — see Fig. 12 for detail) at a date when most of the site was in two
large fields, and from Google Earth (B: 19 April 2017) when the patchwork of different fields and crops showed only parts of the
site. HEXAGON image courtesy of the US Geological Survey: entity ID: D3C1217-100073F027
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 316
may be shown to be small ponds in systems of
occasional watercourses. Sites of this kind make
up the compendium that needs to become part of a
photo analyst’s mindset as they help the decision-
making process and — hopefully — mean that some
deceptive or misleading information is omitted
from our interpretation of archaeological sites. We
do record many of those that are misleading as non-
archaeological features, partly to show they have
been seen and considered and partly to share our
experience withothers.
Database accessibility
Our square-by-square results are added to an
interactive ArcGIS web app from which Fig. 6 was
taken. This can be used to provide an overview,
to highlight specific types of feature, and to show
site-specific information from our original GE
database. Already, viewing it has raised several
questions about settlement distribution, landuse
and boundaries that, with applied local knowledge,
may encourage and enable new archaeological
directions or research. Whilst the web app is
still under development, it can be examined and
manipulated at the link given in the AARG (2023).
Final thoughts
While this survey project has begun to show
support for Ukraine after the invasion of 2022, it
is hoped that it will be of some use to Ukrainian
archaeologists when we complete the initial area
after an estimated further year’s work. Landscape
studies in the UK have linked evidence from aerial
photographs with that known from other sources. For
example, a survey can identify specific or repeating
forms of feature that may have been given a date
range from field walking or excavation and may
apply that date to other similar forms to examine
how distributions may have changed or landuse has
been shared between stock and cultivation (Stoertz
1997, p. 67-73). Aerial survey has been used to add
context and shape to field walking survey (Hall and
Palmer 1996, fig. 67), and present-day commercial
archaeology in advance of development frequently
begins with aerial survey and plans specific
geophysical grids on that basis. Most such work
begins with maps made from aerial information — in
Fig. 12. A crop from the original HEXAGON image scan on which individual houses can clearly be identified at Maidanetske.
North is to the top and, by way of a scale, the E-W dimension of this figure is about 1400 m. HEXAGON image courtesy of the
US Geological Survey: entity ID: D3C1217-100073F027: 18 May 1982
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 3 17
much the same way that K. V. Shyshkin produced —
rather than the point and polygon database that
results from our survey in Ukraine. However, the
simple point distribution database can also be used
to pose certain levels of questions about the past as
have sometimes been suggested above, and results of
our project may encourage work of this kind by those
who have access to ‘local’ data such as site records
and information from annual fieldwork reports (АДУ
2023). We see our project as a beginning rather than
the end.
Since 1996, the AARG has organised and run
many field schools in Europe, most of them in former
Soviet bloc countries where aerial survey undertaken
by individuals was allowed after the collapse of the
Soviet Union. Some schools included flying and
aerial photography, but all had a “ground school”
element, some entirely so, that taught methods of
interpretation, mapping and archaeological uses
of aerial evidence. This is the kind of thing that the
AARG would be pleased to extend to Ukrainian
archaeologists either remotely, as could be done now,
or in person when political conditions allow that.
Acknowledgements
The authors thanks Carmen Miu, Simon Seyfried
and Sonia Tomaczak for active participation in
data collecting for this survey and Darja Grosman
for academic input and stimulus in the early days
of the project. We also thank the AARG Fund for
covering the cost of the scanning of the HEXAGON
photographs used for the project which can now be
freely downloaded by others. Final and grateful
thanks go to the anonymous referee who alerted us
to work we previously had not found and the need
to more precisely explain the aims and processes of
this project.
Fig. 13. A close-up of the promontory rampart South of Buda-Makiivka (L08_051) that shows plough damage to the rampart that
seems especially severe where the slope steepens on the east side. Source: Google Earth: 8 October 2019
Болтрик, Ю. В. (ред.). 2023. 2023. Археологічні дослі-
дження в Україні [online]. Режим доступу: http://vgosau.
kiev.ua/biblioteka/avu.adu
Білинський, O. O. 2018. Городища скіфського часу в
Дніпровському лівобережному лісостепу: загальна харак-
теристика, каталог, типологія. Археологія і давня історія
України, 1(26), с. 213-234.
Болтрик, Ю.В., Каряка, О.В. 2021. Сліди стародав-
ніх шляхів степової Таврії. Археологія і давня істо-
рія України, 3(40), с. 199-214. https://doi.org/:10.37445/
adiu.2021.03.13
Борисов, А. В. 2020. Використання даних аеро та кос-
мічної зйомки у археології Середньої Наддніпрянщини.
В: Малолітнева, В. К. та ін. (ред.) Археологічна спадщи-
на — погляд згори: правові та організаційні засади ви-
користання даних аерокосмічної зйомки для охорони та
дослідження археологічної спадщини. Матеріали науко-
во-практичної конференції (Київ, 6 листопада 2020 р.).
Київ: ДУ «Інститут економіко-правових досліджень імені
В. К. Мамутова НАН України», c. 138-145.
Борисов, А. В., Гнера, В. А., Мисак, В. М., Марчен-
ко, О. В. 2022. Пам’ятки м. Городища на річці Вільшан-
ка (матеріали до археологічної карти). Археологія і дав-
ня історія України, 3 (44), c. 252-262. DOI: 10.37445/
adiu.2022.03.15
Гнера, В. А. 2014. Аналіз використання дистанцій-
но пілотованих літаючих апаратів у археологічних до-
слідженнях. Праці Центру пам’яткознавства. В: Титова
О. М. та ін. (ред.) Центр пам’яткознавства НАН України і
УТОПІК, 26, c. 16-25.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 318
Hall, D. N., Palmer, R. 1996. Cambridgeshire Fenland
Survey: the Silt Fens. In: Hall D. N. (ed.) Fenland Landscapes,
Cambridgeshire, 3. East Anglian Archaeology, 79. Norwich:
Centre for East Anglian Studies.
Hammer, E., FitzPatrick, M., Ur, J., 2022. Succeeding
CORONA: Declassified HEXAGON Intelligence Imagery for
Archaeological and Historical Research. Antiquity, 96 (397),
pp. 679-695. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2022.22
Historic England 2023. Aerial Archaeology Mapping
Explorer [online]. Available at: https://historicengland.maps.
arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html
Karavaiko, D. V., 2023. Hillforts of the Scythian Period in
the Middle Course of the Seim River. Arheologia, 1, p. 20-39.
Kariaka, A. V., 2008. The Demarcation System of the
Agricultural Environment of Olbia Pontike. In: Guldager
Bilde P., Petersen J. H. (eds.), Meeting of Cultures in the
Black Sea Region between Conflict and Coexistence. Aarhus:
Aarhus Universitetsforlag, p. 181-192.
Kariaka, O. 2023. Kostiantyn Shyshkin in Soviet
Archaeology, AARGnews, 66, pp. 10-18.
Mapire 2023. Historical Map Portal [online]. Available
at: https://maps.arcanum.com/en/
Nebbia, M., Roe, J., 2020. Chapter 3: Landscape Studies.
In: Gaydarska, B. (ed.). Early Urbanism in Europe, The
Trypillia Megasites of the Ukrainian Forest-Steppe. Warsaw;
Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 60-110. https://www.degruyter.com/
document/doi/10.1515/9783110664959/pdf
Ohlrau, R., 2020. Maidanetske: Development and Decline
of a Trypillia Mega-site in Central Ukraine. Leiden: Sidestone.
Palmer, R., 1984. Danebury: an Aerial Photographic
Interpretation of Its Environs. RCHM Supplementary Series,
6.
Palmer, R., 2021. AARG’s Sentinel 2 Working Group —
Background and First Report. AARGnews, 62, pp. 9-10.
Riley, D. N., 1980. Early Landscape from the Air.
Sheffield: Collis.
Rud, V., Ohlrau, R., Fedorov, S., 2016. Satellite Images
and Geomagnetic Plans of Several Cucuteni-Trypillia Sites of
the Right Bank of Southern Bug River. In: Mischka, D., et al.
(eds.). Beyond Excavation: Geophysics, Aerial Photography
and the Use of Drones in Eastern and South-East European
Archaeology: International Colloquium: Programme and
Abstracts. Romania: Piatra-Neamţ, pp. 51-54.
Smithsonian Global 2003. Remotely Monitoring
Ukraine’s Cultural Heritage with the Conflict Observatory
[online]. Available at: https://global.si.edu/projects/remotely-
monitoring-ukraine’s-cultural-heritage-conflict-observatory
Stoertz, C., 1997. Ancient Landscapes of the Yorkshire
Wolds. Swindon: RCHME.
Unesco 2023. Damaged Cultural Sites in Ukraine Verified
by UNESCO [online]. Available at: https://www.unesco.org/
en/articles/damaged-cultural-sites-ukraine-verified-unesco
USGS, 2023. Earth Explorer [online]. Available at:
https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/
Ward, V., 2023a. Trypillia Sites: a Comparison of Google
Earth Satellite Images to Aerial Photograph Analysis by K. V.
Shyshkin. AARGnews, 66, pp. 19-26.
Ward, V., 2023b. Trypillia Database for AARG GE Project.
Document circulated to working group on 30 January 2023.
Wilson, D.R., 2000. Air Photo Interpretation for
Archaeologists. Stroud: Tempus.
Гнера, В. А. 2014. Досвід використання матеріалів
аеро- та космічної зйомки в історико-меморіальній робо-
ті. Ніжинська старовина: збірник регіональної історії та
пам’яткознавства. В: Коваленко О. Б. та ін. (ред.) Центр
пам’яткознавства НАН України і УТОПІК , 18(21), c. 10-
21.
Каряка, О. В. 2021. Давні шляхи біля Давидового Бро-
ду на Інгульці. Археологія і давня історія України, 3(40).
с. 169-174. https://doi.org/10.37445/adiu.2021.03.10
Малолітнева, В. К., Борисов, А. В., Гурова, А. М., Ма-
лишев, О. О. 2021. Основні результати наукового проєкту
«Правові та організаційні аспекти використання аерокос-
мічної зйомки для дослідження й 2021 охорони археоло-
гічної спадщини України». Науковий вісник Ужгород-
ського Національного Університету. Серія Право, 68,
с. 174-179. https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2021.68.29
Прядко, O. O. 2020. «Бусурменське» городище на
р. Іква. Археологія і давня історія України, 2(35), с. 137-
141.
Шишкін, К. В. 1964. Про використання аерофотоз-
йомки в археології. Археологія, 17, с. 199-204.
Шишкін, К. В. 1973. З практики дешифрування аеро-
фотознімків у археологічних цілях. Археологія, 10, с. 32-
41.
Шишкін, К. В. 1985. Планування трипільських посе-
лень за даними аерофотозйомки. Археологія, 52, с. 72-77.
AARG, 2023. AARG Ukraine WG web app [online].
Available at: https://satarchuk.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/
interactivelegend/index.html?appid=e6d6ccf301e7492d8f7c
d113c777c264
Ašandulesei, A., 2017. Inside a Cucuteni Settlement:
Remote Sensing Techniques for Documenting an Unexplored
Eneolithic Site from Northeastern Romania. Remote Sens, 9,
41; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9010041
Broch, M. C., 2021. Working with Normalised Difference
Vegetation and Moisture Indexes in AARG’s Sentinel 2
Working Group — the Idea, the Method and the Next Step.
AARGnews, 63, pp. 9-11.
Chapman, J., Gaydarska, B., Nebbia, M., 2019. The
Origins of Trypillia Megasites Project: Early Urbanism in
Prehistoric Europe?: the Case of the Trypillia Mega-sites.
Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/
fdigh.2019.00010
CIA, 2023. Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading
Room [online]. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/
ESDAC 2023. Soil Map of Ukraine (1977) [online]. Avail-
able at: https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/title-russia-soil-
map-ukraine
Gaydarska, B., Chapman, J., 2020. Ancient Ukrainian
“Megasites” Might Have Been the World’s First Cities [on-
line]. Available at: https://blog.degruyter.com/ancient-
ukrainian-megasites-might-have-been-the-worlds-first-cities/
Fowler, M. J. F., 2022a. The Archaeological Potential
of KH-9 HEXAGON Satellite Photographs: the Roman
Temporary Camps and Siege Works at Machaerus and
Masada. AARGnews, 64, p. 37-53.
Fowler, M. J. F., 2022b. Through the Keyhole: Exploiting
HEXAGON Spy Satellite Photographs in AARG’s Ukraine
Project. AARGnews, 65, pp. 36-45.
Fowler, M. J. F., 2022c. Taming the Unknown:
Combining Different Data Sources in AARG’s Ukraine
Project. AARGnews, 65, pp. 29-35.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 3 19
Роґ Палмер1, Мартін Фоулер2, Олександр В. Каряка3, Валері Вард4
1Науковий співробітник, Група аероархеологічних досліджень, ORCID: 0000-0003-0546-9273, rog.palmer@ntlworld.com
2PhD, науковий співробітник, Група аероархеологічних досліджень, ORCID: 0000-0003-4211-3671, danebury216@
hotmail.co.uk
3Кандидат історичних наук, науковий співробітник, Інститут археології НАН України, відділ Польовий комітет,
ORCID: 0000-0003-3066-3641, akarjaka@ukr.net
4Науковий співробітник, Група аероархеологічних досліджень, ORCID: 0000-0002-4936-3932, Valerie.C.Ward@hotmail.
com
АРХЕОЛОГІЧНА ЛАНДШАФТНА РОЗВІДКА НА 6600 КМ2 У ЧЕРКАСЬКІЙ ОБЛ. УКРАЇНИ,
З ВИКОРИСТАННЯМ СУПУТНИКОВИХ ЗНІМКІВ ВІДКРИТИХ ДЖЕРЕЛ: ПЕРШИЙ ЗВІТ
Проект був розроблений для проведення археологічного ландшафтного дослідження в Україні з використанням зобра-
жень з відкритих джерел. Досліджувана територія значної частини Черкаської обл. має різноманітні ґрунти, які можуть
виявити зв’язок із заселенням і землекористуванням. Використані джерела зображень — Гексагон (травень 1982 р.) та
нерівномірно розподілені знімки Google Earth (2007—2021 р.). Деякі демонстрували чіткі археологічні докази, інші —
ні. Загальна площа обстеження становила 6600 км2, серед яких досліджувались окремі квадрати 10x10 км. Протягом
року вдалось обстежити приблизно половину загальної площі та виявити особливості в посівах і голому ґрунті.
Відзначено кілька типів об’єктів, з яких найбільш плідними є кургани, які можуть розташовуватись поодиноко
та іноді рядами, що слідують за підвищенням місцевості. Існують також повторювані моделі того, що ми називаємо
сателітними курганами, в яких один більший курган має від одного до п’яти менших насипів, що оточують його. Деякі
з них можуть бути зруйнованими добувачами селітри. Проект визначає місця проживання як такі, що складаються зі
скупчень невеликих насипів, які часто виникають у місці злиття двох річок. Деякі скупчення утворені великими окре-
мими курганами, а деякі розташовані на одному кінці ряду курганів, що залежить від хронології.
Наш проект також об’єднав різні переліки мегасайтів і розмістив якомога більше в нашій базі даних. Територія об-
стеження охоплює кілька городищ, відомих до цього часу, і невелику кількість огороджених споруд, які могли бути нео-
боронними. Виявлені об’єкти також включають ті, які зараз залишилися з радянської епохи, такі як колгоспи, промислові
та військові об’єкти, призначення яких можна визначити в розсекречених звітах розвідки США. Місцями простежено
серйозні зміни в структурі села, що призвело до виникнення закинутих територій. Це також було зафіксовано як части-
ну зміни ландшафту України.
К л ю ч о в і с л о в а: Черкаська обл., доісторична доба, Дослідницька група повітряної археології, ландшафтна
розвідка, HEXAGON, Google Earth, кургани, поселення, городища.
References
Boltryk, Yu. V. 2023. Arkheolohichni doslidzhennia v Ukraini [online]. Available at: http://vgosau.kiev.ua/biblioteka/avu-adu
Bilynskyi, O. O. 2018. Scythian Time Hillforts in the Dnieper Left-Bank Forest-Steppe: General Characterization, Catalogue,
Typology. Archaeology and Early History of Ukraine, 1(26), p. 213-234.
Boltryk, Yu. V., Kariaka, O. V. 2021. Traces of the ancient paths in the Steppe Tavria. Archaeology and Early History of
Ukraine, 3(40), р. 199-214. https://doi.org/10.37445/adiu.2021.03.13
Borysov, A. V. 2020. Vykorystannia danykh aero ta kosmichnoi ziomky u arkheolohii Serednoi Naddniprianshchyny.
In: Malolitneva, V. K. et al. (eds.). Arkheolohichna spadshchyna — pohliad zghory: pravovi ta orhanizatsiini zasady
vykorystannia danykh aerokosmichnoi ziomky dlia okhorony ta doslidzhennia arkheolohichnoi spadshchyny. Materialy
naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii (Kyiv, 6 lystopada 2020 r.). K. DU “Instytut ekonomiko-pravovykh doslidzhen imeni
V.K.Mamutova NAN Ukrainy”, p. 138-145.
Borysov, A. V., Hnera, V. A., Mysak, V. M., Marchenko, O. V. 2022. Sites of Horodyshcha on the Vilshanka river (materials for
the archaeological map). Archaeology and Early History of Ukraine, 3 (44), p. 252-262. DOI: 10.37445/adiu.2022.03.15
Hnera, V. A. 2014. Analiz vykorystannia dystantsiino pilotovanykh litaiuchykh aparativ u arkheolohichnykh doslidzhenniakh.
Pratsi Tsentru pamiatkoznavstva. In: Tytova, O. M. et al. (eds.). Tsentr pamiatkoznavstva NAN Ukrainy i UTOPIK, 26,
p. 16-25.
Hnera, V. A. 2014. Dosvid vykorystannia materialiv aero- ta kosmichnoi ziomky v istoryko-memorialnii roboti. Nizhynska
starovyna: zbirnyk rehionalnoi istorii ta pamiatkoznavstva. In: Kovalenko, O. B. et al. (eds.). Tsentr pamiatkoznavstva
NAN Ukrainy i UTOPIK, 18(21), p. 10-21.
Kariaka, O. V. 2021. Ancient roads near Davydiv Brid at Ingulets river. Archaeology and Early History of Ukraine, 3(40),
p. 169-174. https://doi.org/10.37445/adiu.2021.03.10
Malolitneva, V. K., Borysov, A. V., Hurova, A. M., Malyshev, O. O. 2021. Osnovni rezultaty naukovoho proiektu “Pravovi
ta orhanizatsiini aspekty vykorystannia aerokosmichnoi ziomky dlia doslidzhennia y 2021 okhorony arkheolohichnoi
spadshchyny Ukrainy.” Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho Natsionalnoho Universytetu. Seriia Pravo, 68, p. 174-179. DOI
https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2021.68.29
Priadko, O. O. 2020. “Busurmenske” hill-fort on the Ikva river. Archaeology and Early History of Ukraine, 2(35), p. 137-141.
Shyshkin, K. V. 1964. Pro vykorystannia aerofotoziomky v arkheolohii. Arheologia, 17, p. 199-204.
Shyshkin, K. V. 1973. Z praktyky deshyfruvannia aerofotoznimkiv u arkheolohichnykh tsiliakh. Arheologia, 10, p. 32-41.
ISSN 0235-3490 (Print), ISSN 2616-499X (Online). Археологія, 2023, № 320
Shyshkin, K. V. 1985. Planuvannia trypilskykh poselen za danymy aerofotoziomky. Arheologia, 52, p. 72-77.
AARG, 2023. AARG Ukraine WG web app [online]. Available at: https://satarchuk.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/
interactivelegend/index.html?appid=e6d6ccf301e7492d8f7cd113c777c264
Ašandulesei, A., 2017. Inside a Cucuteni Settlement: Remote Sensing Techniques for Documenting an Unexplored Eneolithic
Site from Northeastern Romania. Remote Sens, 9, 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9010041
Broch, M. C., 2021. Working with Normalised Difference Vegetation and Moisture Indexes in AARG’s Sentinel 2 Working
Group — the Idea, the Method and the Next Step. AARGnews, 63, p. 9-11.
Chapman, J., Gaydarska, B., Nebbia, M., 2019. The Origins of Trypillia Megasites Project: Early Urbanism in Prehistoric
Europe?: the Case of the Trypillia Mega-sites. Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 6, https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2019.00010
CIA, 2023. Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room [online]. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/
ESDAC 2023. Soil Map of Ukraine (1977) [online]. Available at: https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/title-russia-soil-map-
ukraine
Gaydarska, B., Chapman, J., 2020. Ancient Ukrainian “Megasites” Might Have Been the World’s First Cities [online]. Available
at: https://blog.degruyter.com/ancient-ukrainian-megasites-might-have-been-the-worlds-first-cities/
Fowler, M. J. F., 2022a. The Archaeological Potential of KH-9 HEXAGON Satellite Photographs: the Roman Temporary Camps
and Siege Works at Machaerus and Masada. AARGnews, 64, p. 37-53.
Fowler, M. J. F., 2022b. Through the Keyhole: Exploiting HEXAGON Spy Satellite Photographs in AARG’s Ukraine Project.
AARGnews, 65, p. 36-45.
Fowler, M. J. F., 2022c. Taming the Unknown: Combining Different Data Sources in AARG’s Ukraine Project. AARGnews, 65,
p. 29-35.
Hall, D. N., Palmer, R. 1996. Cambridgeshire Fenland Survey: the Silt Fens. In: Hall, D. N. (ed.) Fenland Landscapes,
Cambridgeshire, Volume 3. East Anglian Archaeology, 79. Norwich: Centre for East Anglian Studies.
Hammer, E., FitzPatrick, M., Ur, J., 2022. Succeeding CORONA: Declassified HEXAGON. Intelligence Imagery for
Archaeological and Historical Research. Antiquity, 96 (397), pp. 679-695. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2022.22
Historic England 2023. Aerial Archaeology Mapping Explorer [online]. Available at: https://historicengland.maps.arcgis.com/
apps/webappviewer/index.html
Karavaiko, D. V., 2023. Hillforts of the Scythian Period in the Middle Course of the Seim River. Arheologia, 1, p. 20-39.
Kariaka, A. V., 2008. The Demarcation System of the Agricultural Environment of Olbia Pontike. In: Guldager Bilde P., Petersen
J. H. (eds.), Meeting of Cultures in the Black Sea Region between Conflict and Coexistence. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitets-
forlag, p. 181-192.
Kariaka, O. 2023. Kostiantyn Shyshkin in Soviet Archaeology, AARGnews, 66, p. 10-18.
Mapire 2023. Historical Map Portal [online]. Available at: https://maps.arcanum.com/en/
Nebbia, M., Roe, J., 2020. Chapter 3: Landscape Studies. In: Gaydarska, B. (ed.). Early Urbanism in Europe, The Trypillia
Megasites of the Ukrainian Forest-Steppe. Warsaw; Berlin: De Gruyter, p. 60-110. https://www.degruyter.com/document/
doi/10.1515/9783110664959/pdf
Ohlrau, R., 2020. Maidanetske: Development and Decline of a Trypillia Mega-site in Central Ukraine. Leiden: Sidestone.
Palmer, R., 1984. Danebury: an Aerial Photographic Interpretation of Its Environs. RCHM Supplementary Series, 6.
Palmer, R., 2021. AARG’s Sentinel 2 Working Group — Background and First Report. AARGnews, 62, p. 9-10.
Riley, D. N., 1980. Early Landscape from the Air. Sheffield: Collis.
Rud, V., Ohlrau, R., Fedorov, S., 2016. Satellite Images and Geomagnetic Plans of Several Cucuteni-Trypillia Sites of the Right
Bank of Southern Bug River. In: Mischka, D., et al. (eds.). Beyond Excavation: Geophysics, Aerial Photography and the
Use of Drones in Eastern and South-East European Archaeology: International Colloquium: Programme and Abstracts.
Romania: Piatra-Neamţ, p. 51-54.
Smithsonian Global 2003. Remotely Monitoring Ukraine’s Cultural Heritage with the Conflict Observatory [online]. Available
at: https://global.si.edu/projects/remotely-monitoring-ukraine’s-cultural-heritage-conflict-observatory
Stoertz, C., 1997. Ancient Landscapes of the Yorkshire Wolds. Swindon: RCHME.
Unesco 2023. Damaged Cultural Sites in Ukraine Verified by UNESCO [online]. Available at: https://www.unesco.org/en/
articles/damaged-cultural-sites-ukraine-verified-unesco
USGS, 2023. Earth Explorer [online]. Available at: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/
Ward, V., 2023a. Trypillia Sites: a Comparison of Google Earth Satellite Images to Aerial Photograph Analysis by K. V. Shyshkin.
AARGnews, 66, p. 19-26.
Ward, V., 2023b. Trypillia Database for AARG GE Project. Document circulated to working group on 30 January 2023.
Wilson, D.R., 2000. Air Photo Interpretation for Archaeologists. Stroud: Tempus.
|