Revolutionizing Archaeology: The Synergy of AI and Remote Sensing in Heritage Preservation

Archaeology, a discipline devoted to understanding human history through the physical remnants of past civilizations, has long relied on traditional methods such as surface surveys and excavations [1]. These approaches, while invaluable, face numerous challenges, including the limitations of physical accessibility, environmental constraints, and the subjective interpretation of findings [2]. Recent advancements, however, have ushered in a new era for archaeology, enabling researchers to uncover the past more efficiently and accurately through the integration of cuttingedge technologies such as remote sensing and Artificial Intelligence (AI) [3]. This technological revolution is not only transforming the methods of archaeological investigation but also reshaping the way cultural heritage is preserved and understood [4].

Remote sensing has proven to be a game-changer in archaeological research. By utilizing non-invasive tools such as satellite imagery, LiDAR, and drones, archaeologists can explore vast and previously inaccessible regions with heightened precision [5]. These tools enable the detection of hidden structures and features beneath the earth’s surface or within dense vegetation, reducing the need for extensive excavation [6]. Furthermore, remote sensing technologies have accelerated the discovery of long-lost settlements, irrigation systems, and buried monuments [7]. With the rise of AI, this process has been further enhanced, as machine learning algorithms can now analyze large datasets, such as drone images or satellite scans [8], to identify patterns and features that might otherwise go unnoticed.

AI-powered archaeology is revolutionizing the field by automating time-consuming tasks such as image processing and pattern recognition [9]. Through the use of machine learning and deep learning models, archaeologists can quickly analyze large volumes of data, increasing the accuracy and speed of site detection and artifact analysis [10]. For example, AI algorithms have been successfully employed to identify ancient burial mounds and map pottery distributions with remarkable precision [11]. These advancements have opened new avenues for archaeological research, particularly in cases where traditional methods are limited by time, budget, or access [12]. However, the integration of AI into archaeology is not without its challenges, including concerns about data availability, transparency, and the potential for misinterpretation due to the “black box” nature of some AI models [13]. Despite the promising potential of AI and remote sensing in archaeology, several issues must be addressed for their full potential to be realized [14]. The fragmented and incomplete nature of archaeological data poses a significant challenge for AI systems, which require large, well-organized datasets for effective training [15]. Additionally, the lack of transparency in AI algorithms raises ethical concerns about the reliability of results and the possible introduction of biases [16]. Archaeologists must also grapple with the environmental and social implications of the digital infrastructure required for AI, including the digital divide and the impact of data centers on global resources [17]. As the field continues to evolve, it is clear that while AI and remote sensing technologies offer significant benefits [18], their integration into archaeological research requires careful consideration of both technical and ethical factors.

Archaeology is a scientific discipline dedicated to studying human history through the physical remnants left by past civilizations [19]. These remains, which include monuments, tools, pottery, coins, and various artifacts, offer invaluable insights into the lifestyles, economies, and cultures of earlier societies [20]. One of the primary techniques used in the field is surface survey—specifically, pedestrian surveys—where archaeologists walk methodically across landscapes to identify and record visible artifacts on the ground [21]. This approach helps reveal the location, size, and structure of ancient settlements and human activities [22]. However, its effectiveness can be influenced by numerous factors such as vegetation density, terrain slope, weather conditions, and human development [23]. Moreover, the accuracy of such surveys is often limited by subjective interpretation, especially when conducted by untrained personnel [24]. While relatively simple in methodology, surface surveys demand careful planning and contextual analysis to yield reliable results [25]. Despite their limitations, these surveys remain essential to archaeological investigations and continue to serve as a foundation for understanding and preserving cultural heritage.

In recent decades, archaeology has been significantly enhanced by the integration of advanced technologies, particularly remote sensing (RS) and artificial intelligence (AI) [26]. Remote sensing encompasses a variety of non-invasive tools—including satellite imagery, aerial photography, UAVs (drones), LiDAR, and geophysical instruments—that allow researchers to explore archaeological landscapes without physical disturbance [27]. These tools make it possible to investigate large and often inaccessible areas with increased speed, accuracy, and cost-efficiency [28]. The availability of high-resolution data from satellites like IKONOS, Sentinel, and Landsat has revolutionized site detection and mapping efforts, while drones have enabled detailed aerial documentation at low operational costs [29]. Additionally, AI and cloud computing have become powerful allies in archaeological research by automating image analysis and pattern recognition, thereby reducing human error and enhancing data interpretation [30]. These innovations are redefining how archaeological work is conducted, enabling more thorough site assessments and better preservation strategies [31]. As the field embraces these technological advances, archaeology is entering a new era—often referred to as “remote sensing archaeology”—where the past is revealed not only through excavation but also through digital precision and computational intelligence [32].

Remote sensing has become a powerful tool in modern archaeology, offering non-invasive methods to explore ancient landscapes and buried structures [33]. By analyzing reflected electromagnetic signals from the Earth’s surface, archaeologists can detect subtle differences in soil composition, vegetation health, and temperature—all of which may indicate the presence of man-made structures [34]. Techniques such as multispectral imaging, infrared scanning, and aerial photography allow researchers to view sites from above and identify patterns that are invisible at ground level (Figure 1) [35]. The technology is broadly classified into passive and active systems: passive sensors rely on sunlight, while active systems like LiDAR and radar generate their own signals, enabling detection in low-light or obscured environments [36]. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and hyperspectral sensors further enhance this capability, providing precise data on subsurface structures and material composition [37]. These innovations have significantly reduced the need for extensive digging and help preserve the integrity of archaeological sites.

The evolution of remote sensing technology has been closely tied to advancements in satellite imagery, data processing, and digital mapping [38]. Early aerial photography was limited in scope, but the launch of satellites like Landsat in the 1970s marked a turning point, enabling multispectral imaging on a global scale [39]. Through vegetation stress indicators and thermal anomalies, researchers began identifying buried features and long-forgotten settlements [40]. Radar imaging and thermal sensors emerged in the 1980s and 1990s, enhancing the ability to peer through vegetation and shallow soil layers [41]. The 2000s saw the rise of commercial satellites like IKONOS, offering high-resolution images that allowed archaeologists to map landscapes in greater detail [42]. Drones have further democratized the technology, enabling low-cost, high-quality surveys of previously inaccessible terrain [43]. These tools have transformed how fieldwork is conducted, particularly in areas where excavation is either risky or restricted. During the COVID-19 pandemic, remote sensing played an even greater role by allowing researchers to analyze existing satellite data and continue investigations remotely [44]. This technology has led to the discovery of lost cities, ancient irrigation systems, and hidden temples without disturbing the landscape [45]. Beyond uncovering new sites, remote sensing is vital for monitoring existing ones—tracking environmental degradation, human encroachment, and structural damage [46]. Its applications in conservation are just as significant as its use in discovery [47]. With continuous improvements in sensor resolution, data analytics, and AI integration, remote sensing promises to further revolutionize archaeological research [48], helping us preserve humanity’s past while guiding future explorations..

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing archaeology by enabling more efficient, cost-effective, and high-resolution site detection and artifact analysis [49]. Leveraging Machine Learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models (Figure 2), researchers can process extensive datasets—ranging from drone-captured images to multispectral satellite and LiDAR scans—with minimal manual effort [50]. Notable examples include [51] who deployed AI algorithms to automatically locate hundreds of burial mounds over 30,000 km² using LiDAR and Sentinel-2 imagery, achieving detection rates near 90% and precision above 97% [52]. Likewise, Orengo and Garcia-Molsosa (2019) demonstrated that a drone-based ML pipeline could map pottery distributions more rapidly and accurately than traditional pedestrian surveys [53]. These successes illustrate AI’s potential to augment archaeological fieldwork, especially when time, budget, or access constraints limit conventional excavations.

Despite these advances, AI’s integration into archaeology also brings challenges and ongoing debates [54]. The “barrier of meaning”—the gap between human expert understanding and machine-learned patterns—underscores the risk of misinterpretation and the importance of rigorous model validation [55]. Issues such as biased training data, environmental variability (soil types, vegetation cover), and algorithmic errors mean that current AI tools cannot wholly replace expert judgment [56]. As Jamil et al. and Sharafi et al. have noted, applications of DL for detecting buried structures remain under-explored, and automated methods must be carefully calibrated against established survey records [57]. Moving forward, the most fruitful approach will combine AI’s large-scale data processing capabilities with archaeologists’ contextual expertise [58], fostering hybrid workflows that enhance both discovery and preservation of cultural heritage.

AI has unlocked exciting possibilities for the cultural heritage sector, especially in enhancing accessibility, improving preservation practices, and fostering new forms of creative production [59]. One of the primary advantages of AI is its ability to improve accessibility for people with disabilities, such as those with visual or physical impairments [60]. By leveraging augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), museums and galleries can offer interactive, immersive experiences that enable visually impaired individuals to engage with cultural artifacts in a meaningful way [61]. AI technologies like speech recognition and real-time tracking allow museums to create personalized, inclusive experiences that cater to diverse audiences [62]. Furthermore, AI systems can customize cultural experiences, allowing visitors to design personalized itineraries that enhance engagement and democratize access to art and history. AI is also revolutionizing the preservation of cultural heritage, addressing challenges posed by natural disasters, climate change, and human threats [63]. With technologies such as 3D modeling, deep learning, and generative adversarial networks (GANs), AI has enabled the digital reconstruction of damaged or lost monuments [64], such as those affected by the Notre-Dame fire in 2019. AI plays a crucial role in monitoring and safeguarding the structural integrity of heritage sites by predicting risks and assisting in protection efforts [65]. Additionally, AI aids in resolving attribution issues in artworks by analyzing stylistic features, providing accurate authorship identification Moreover, AI’s ability to restore ancient texts and images has opened up new avenues for cultural preservation [66]. Beyond restoration, AI is transforming artistic creation by offering new tools for artists to collaborate with technology, generating innovative works that expand the boundaries of traditional artistic expression.

Archaeology faces multiple issues when integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into its practices, including problems with data availability, transparency, and inherent technical difficulties [67]. AI algorithms often require large and well-organized datasets for effective operation, which is typically lacking in archaeological research due to the small, fragmented nature of datasets [68]. Additionally, creating new datasets from scratch can be expensive and difficult, and archaeological data itself can be difficult to define due to its complex, fragmentary nature [69]. The data may reflect both human and non-human actions over time, making interpretation more challenging. These complexities are exacerbated by a lack of universal standards for combining data from different sources, such as excavation records, satellite images, and LiDAR, and the scarcity of open-access datasets that can be used for AI training [70]. Moreover, transparency is a major concern when using AI in archaeological research. The opacity of AI algorithms, particularly in pre-trained models from large corporations, complicates the interpretation of results [71]. Ethical issues arise around biases embedded in AI systems and how these biases affect archaeological interpretations [72]. To mitigate these concerns, efforts like Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aim to make AI processes more transparent, but achieving this is difficult due to the complexity of deep learning systems [73]. Archaeology also faces issues in acknowledging the materiality of AI, which is underpinned by the infrastructure of data centers, supply chains, and human labor that often has negative environmental and social consequences [74]. These issues are compounded by factors such as the digital divide, where access to computational resources varies significantly, and the need for ongoing collaboration between archaeologists and computer scientists [75].

Table 1:Issues and Findings in Archaeology and AI Integration [67-75].

As archaeology continues to embrace advanced technologies such as AI and remote sensing, future research should focus on overcoming the limitations associated with data fragmentation and quality [76]. To enhance AI’s applicability in archaeology, efforts must be made to create comprehensive, open-access datasets that can be shared across the global archaeological community [77]. Establishing standardized protocols for data collection, storage, and sharing will not only improve the efficiency of AI algorithms but also foster greater collaboration between archaeologists and computer scientists [78]. Additionally, more research should be dedicated to developing AI models that are specifically tailored to the unique challenges of archaeological data, such as its fragmentary nature and the varying environmental contexts in which it is found [79]. By improving the accuracy and reliability of AI applications, future archaeological work can benefit from enhanced site detection, artifact analysis [80], and conservation efforts.

Moreover, to address concerns about the transparency and ethical implications of AI in archaeology, there is a need for greater emphasis on the development of explainable AI (XAI) systems [81]. These systems would enable archaeologists to better understand and trust the decisions made by AI models, ensuring that technology complements rather than replaces expert judgment [82]. Furthermore, interdisciplinary collaboration should be promoted, combining the knowledge of archaeologists, computer scientists, ethicists, and conservationists to ensure that AI is used responsibly and sustainably [83]. As remote sensing and AI technologies continue to evolve, it is essential to integrate them with traditional archaeological practices [84], balancing the benefits of technological advancements with a respect for cultural heritage and ethical research practices.

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and remote sensing technologies into archaeological research has transformed the way we explore, interpret, and preserve ancient sites and artifacts. These advancements have enabled more efficient site detection, artifact analysis, and preservation strategies, revolutionizing the field by reducing the need for invasive excavation and allowing for more precise and non-destructive investigations. The use of AI-powered tools, such as machine learning algorithms and deep learning models, has enhanced archaeological surveys, providing new insights into buried structures and settlement patterns with unprecedented accuracy. Remote sensing, including satellite imagery, drones, and LiDAR, has further expanded the scope of archaeological research, allowing scholars to access and study vast, often inaccessible landscapes in a cost-effective manner. However, the integration of AI in archaeology is not without its challenges. Issues related to data availability, transparency, and the ethical implications of using machine-driven models underscore the need for a careful, collaborative approach. As the field continues to evolve, it is crucial that archaeologists work alongside computer scientists to refine AI models, develop standardized data protocols, and ensure the ethical use of technology. By addressing these challenges, the future of archaeology can benefit from the continued synergy between traditional methodologies and cuttingedge technologies, ultimately enhancing our understanding and preservation of human history.

We extend our sincere gratitude to every person and department who supported us throughout the literature research.

“Conceptualization, Zeenat Khan and Mohsin Bilal Ahmed; methodology, Zeenat Khan and Mohsin Bilal Ahmed; formal analysis, Zeenat Khan and Mohsin Bilal Ahmed, writing-original draft preparation, Mohsin Bilal Ahmed; writing-review and editing, Zeenat Khan; supervision, Zeenat Khan. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.”

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

1. Orengo HA, Garcia-Molsosa A (2019) A brave new world for archaeological survey: Automated machine learning-based potsherd detection using high-resolution drone imagery. Journal of Archaeological Science 112: 105013.
2. Renfrew C, Bahn P (1991) What is Left? The Variety of the Evidence. In Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. London, UK: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
3. Alcock SE, Cherry JF (2004) In Side-By-Side Survey. Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World pp. 1–9.
4. De Laet V, Paulissen E, Waelkens M (2007) Methods for the extraction of archaeological features from very high-resolution Ikonos-2 remote sensing imagery, Hisar (southwest Turkey). Journal of Archaeological Science 34(5): 830-841.
5. Barone PM, Wueste E, Hodges R (2020) Remote sensing materials for a preliminary archaeological evaluation of the Giove Countryside (Terni, Italy). Remote Sensing 12(12): 2023.
6. Tapete D (2018) Remote sensing and geosciences for archaeology. Geosciences 8(2): 41.
7. Lasaponara R, Masini N (2011) Satellite remote sensing in archaeology: Past, present and future perspectives. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(9): 1995-2002.
8. Materazzi F, Pacifici M (2022) Archaeological crop marks detection through drone multispectral remote sensing and vegetation indices: A new approach tested on the Italian pre-Roman city of Veii. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 41(4): 103235.
9. Czajlik Z, Črešnar M, Doneus M, Fera M, Kramberger AH, et al. (2020) Researching archaeological landscapes across borders: Strategies, methods and decisions for the 21st century. Dissertationes Archaeologicae 299-301.
10. Hadjimitsis DG, Agapiou A, Themistocleous K, Alexakis DD, Sarris A (2013) Remote sensing for archaeological applications: Management, documentation and monitoring. Remote Sensing and Environment Integrated Approaches 57-95.
11. Davis DS, Sanger MC, Lipo CP (2018) Automated mound detection using LiDAR and object-based image analysis in Beaufort County, South Carolina. Southeastern Archaeology 38(1): 23-37.
12. Verschoof-van der Vaart WB, Lambers K (2021) Applying automated object detection in archaeological practice: A case study from the southern Netherlands. Archaeological Prospection 29(341).
13. Albrecht CM, Fisher C, Freitag M, Hamann HF, Pankanti S, et al. (2019) Learning and recognizing archaeological features from LiDAR data.
14. Mitchell M (2009) Complexity: A Guided Tour Oxford University Press: Oxford UK pp. 186-208.
15. Snitker G, Moser JD, Southerlin B, Stewart C (2022) Detecting historic tar kilns and tar production sites using high-resolution, aerial LiDAR-derived digital elevation models: Introducing the Tar Kiln Feature Detection workflow (TKFD) using open-access R and FIJI software. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 41(1): 103340.
16. Borie C, Parcero-Oubiña C, Kwon Y, Salazar D, Flores C, et al. (2019) Beyond site detection: The role of satellite remote sensing in analysing archaeological problems. A case study in lithic resource procurement in the Atacama Desert, Northern Chile. Remote Sensing 11(7): 869.
17. Davis DS (2018) Object-based image analysis: A review of developments and future directions of automated feature detection in landscape archaeology. Archaeological Prospection 26(2): 155-163.
18. Monna F, Magail J, Rolland T, Navarro N, Wilczek J, et al. (2020) Machine learning for rapid mapping of archaeological structures made of dry stones–Example of burial monuments from the Khirgisuur culture, Mongolia. Journal of Cultural Heritage 43.
19. Thabeng OL, Merlo S, Adam E (2019) High-resolution remote sensing and advanced classification techniques for the prospection of archaeological sites’ markers: The case of dung deposits in the Shashi-Limpopo confluence area (Southern Africa). Journal of Archaeological Science 102(2): 48-60.
20. Inomata T, Pinzón F, Ranchos J, Haraguchi T, Nasu H, et al. (2017) Archaeological application of airborne LiDAR with object-based vegetation classification and visualization techniques at the Lowland Maya site of Ceibal, Guatemala. Remote Sensing 9(6): 563.
21. Budka J (2020) Archaeological team building in times of COVID-19. Munich University Attab to Ferka Survey Project Blog.
22. Agapiou A, Lysandrou V (2015) Remote sensing archaeology: Tracking and mapping evolution in European scientific literature from 1999 to 2015. Journal of Archaeological Science 4(6).
23. Agapiou A, Alexakis D, Sarris A, Hadjimitsis DG (2014) Evaluating the potentials of Sentinel-2 for archaeological perspective. Remote Sensing 6(3).
24. Alexakis DD, Sarris A, Astaras T, Albanakis K (2011) Integrated GIS, remote sensing and geomorphologic approaches for the reconstruction of the landscape habitation of Thessaly during the Neolithic period. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(1): 89-100.
25. Hadjimitsis DG, Agapiou A, Alexakis DD, Sarris A (2011) Exploring natural and anthropogenic risk for cultural heritage in Cyprus using remote sensing and GIS. International Journal of Digital Earth 1-28(2).
26. Hadjimitsis DG, Themistocleous K, Agapiou A, Clayton CRI (2009) Multi-temporal study of archaeological sites in Cyprus using atmospheric corrected satellite remotely sensed data. International Journal of Architectural Computing 7(1).
27. Luo L, Wang X, Liu J, Guo H, Zong X, et al. (2016) VHR GeoEye-1 imagery reveals an ancient water landscape at the Longcheng site, northern Chaohu Lake Basin (China). International Journal of Digital Earth 10: 139-154.
28. Brivio PA, Pepe M, Tomasoni R (2000) Multispectral and multiscale remote sensing data for archaeological prospecting in an alpine alluvial plain. Journal of Cultural Heritage 1(2): 155-164.
29. Aminzadeh B, Samani F (2006) Identifying the boundaries of the historical site of Persepolis using remote sensing. Remote Sensing of Environment 102: 52-62.
30. Lasaponara R, Masini N (2007) Detection of archaeological crop marks by using satellite Quick Bird multispectral imagery. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 214-221.
31. Moore E, Freeman T, Hensley S (2007) Spaceborne and airborne radar at Angkor: Introducing new technology to the ancient site. Remote Sensing in Archaeology pp. 185-216.
32. Dore N, Patruno J, Pottier E, Crespi M (2013) New research in polarimetric SAR technique for archaeological purposes using ALOS PALSAR data. Archaeological Prospection 20(2).
33. Stewart C, Lasaponara R, Schiavon G (2014) Multi-frequency, polarimetric SAR analysis for archaeological prospection. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 28(1): 211-219.
34. Chen F, Masini N, Yang R, Milillo P, Feng D, et al. (2014) A space view of radar archaeological marks: First applications of COSMO-SkyMed X-Band data. Remote Sensing 7(1): 24-50.
35. Tapete D, Cigna F, Donoghue D (2016) ‘Looting marks’ in space-borne SAR imagery: Measuring rates of archaeological looting in Apamea (Syria) with TerraSAR-X Staring Spotlight. Remote Sensing of Environment 178: 42-58.
36. Stewart C, Montanaro R, Sala M, Riccardi P (2016) Feature extraction in the north Sinai Desert using spaceborne synthetic aperture radar: Potential archaeological applications. Remote Sensing 8(10).
37. Challis K, Howard AJ (2006) A review of trends within archaeological remote sensing in alluvial environments. Archaeological Prospection 13: 231-240.
38. Chen F, Lasaponara R, Masini N (2015) An overview of satellite synthetic aperture radar remote sensing in archaeology: From site detection to monitoring. Journal of Cultural Heritage 23(1).
39. Tapete D, Cigna F (2017) Trends and perspectives of space-borne SAR remote sensing for archaeological landscape and cultural heritage applications. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 14: 716-726.
40. Punnee W-A (1995) An archaeological application of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) in Thailand. Geocarto International 10: 65-69.
41. Bonhage A, Eltaher M, Raab T, Breuß M, Raab A, et al. (2021) A modified Mask region-based convolutional neural network approach for the automated detection of archaeological sites on high-resolution light detection and ranging-derived digital elevation models in the North German Lowland. Archaeological Prospection.
42. Pawlowicz LM, Downum CE (2021) Applications of deep learning to decorated ceramic typology and classification: A case study using Tusayan White Ware from Northeast Arizona. Journal of Archaeological Science 130(2): 105375.
43. Davis DS (2020) Defining what we study: The contribution of machine automation in archaeological research. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 18: e00152.
44. Olivier M, Verschoof-van der Vaart W (2021) Implementing state-of-the-art deep learning approaches for archaeological object detection in remotely-sensed data: The results of cross-domain collaboration. Journal of Computer Applications in Archaeology 4(1): 274-289.
45. Richards-Rissetto H, Newton D, Al Zadjali A (2021) A 3D point cloud deep learning approach using LiDAR to identify ancient Maya archaeological sites. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences VIII-M-1-2021: 133-139.
46. Berganzo-Besga I, Orengo HA, Lumbreras F, Carrero-Pazos M, Fonte J, et al. (2021) Hybrid MSRM-based deep learning and multitemporal Sentinel-2-based machine learning algorithm detects near 10k archaeological tumuli in north-western Iberia. Remote Sensing 13(20): 4181.
47. Verschoof-van der Vaart WB, Lambers K, Kowalczyk W, Bourgeois Q (2020) Combining deep learning and location-based ranking for large-scale archaeological prospection of LiDAR data from The Netherlands. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 9(5): 293.
48. Trier OD, Reksten JH, Løseth K (2021) Automated mapping of cultural heritage in Norway from airborne LiDAR data using Faster R-CNN. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 95(S1).
49. Somrak M, Džeroski S, Kokalj Z (2020) Learning to classify structures in ALS-derived visualizations of ancient Maya settlements with CNN. Remote Sensing 12(14): 2215.
50. Maxwell AE, Pourmohammadi P, Poyner JD (2020) Mapping the topographic features of mining-related valley fills using Mask R-CNN deep learning and digital elevation data. Remote Sensing 12(3): 547.
51. Orengo HA, Garcia-Molsosa A, Berganzo-Besga I, Landauer J, Aliende P, et al. (2021) New developments in drone-based automated surface survey: Towards a functional and effective survey system. Archaeological Prospection 28(4): 1-8.
52. Casini L, Roccetti M, Delnevo G, Marchetti N, Orrù, V (2020) The barrier of meaning in archaeological data science. pp. 61-65.
53. Sharafi S, Fouladvand S, Simpson I, Juan Barcelo (2016) Application of pattern recognition in detection of buried archaeological sites based on analysing environmental variables, Khorramabad Plain, West Iran. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 8: 206-215.
54. Mehrnoush S, Mehrtash A, Khazraee E, Ur J (2020) Deep learning in archaeological remote sensing: Automated qanat detection in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. Remote Sensing 12(3): 500.
55. Bundzel M, Jašcur M, Kovác M, Lieskovský T, Sincák P, et al. (2020) Semantic segmentation of airborne LiDAR data in Maya archaeology. Remote Sensing 12: 3685.
56. Orengo HA, Conesa FC, Garcia-Molsosa A, Lobo A, Green AS, et al. (2020) Automated detection of archaeological mounds using machine learning classification of multi-sensor and multi-temporal satellite data. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 117(31): 18240-18250.
57. Davis DS, Gaspari G, Lipo CP, Sanger MC (2021) Deep learning reveals extent of Archaic Native American shell-ring building practices. Journal of Archaeological Science 132: 105433.
58. Luo L, Wang X, Guo H, Guo H, Lasaponara R, et al. (2018) Google Earth as a powerful tool for archaeological and cultural heritage applications: A review. Remote Sensing 10(10).
59. Barber M (2011) A History of Aerial Photography and Archaeology: Mata Hari’s Glass Eye and Other Stories. English Heritage: Swindon UK.
60. Hutson M (2018) Has artificial intelligence become alchemy? Science 360(6388): 478.
61. Anichini F, Gattiglia G (2022) Reflecting on artificial intelligence and archaeology: the ArchAIDE perspective. Post-Classical Archaeologies 12: 69-86.
62. Gattiglia G (2022) A postphenomenological perspective on digital and algorithmic archaeology. Archeologia e Calcolatori 33(2): 319-334.
63. Roncaglia G (2023) L’architetto e l’oracolo: Forme digitali del sapere da Wikipedia a ChatGPT. Laterza.
64. Campolo A, Crawford K (2020) Enchanted determinism: Power without responsibility in artificial intelligence. Engaging Science Technology and Society 6: 1.
65. MAIA (2024) Managing artificial intelligence in archaeology.
66. Cascone K (2000) The aesthetics of failure: ‘Post-digital’ tendencies in contemporary computer music. Computer Music Journal 24(4): 12-18.
67. Cramer F (2014) What is ‘post-digital’? Aarhus Series on Artistic Research 3(1).
68. Huggett J (2021) Algorithmic agency and autonomy in archaeological practice. Open Archaeology 7(1): 417-434.
69. Bevan A (2015) The data deluge. Antiquity 89(348): 1473-1484.
70. Gattiglia G (2015) Think big about data: archaeology and the Big Data challenge.
71. Huggett J (2015) Digital haystacks: open data and the transformation of archaeological knowledge. Open Source Archaeology: Ethics and Practice pp. 6-29.
72. McCarthy J, Minsky M, Rochester N, Shannon CE (1955) A proposal for Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence.
73. Turing AM (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59: 433-460.
74. Natale S (2022) Macchine ingannevoli: Comunicazione, tecnologia, Intelligenza Artificiale. Einaudi.
75. Sarker IH (2021) Machine learning: algorithms, real-world applications and research directions. SN Computer Science 2(3): 160.
76. Han J, Pei J, Kamber M (2011) Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques. Elsevier.
77. LeCessie S, Van Houwelingen JC (1992) Ridge estimators in logistic regression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 41(1): 191-201.
78. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Machine Learning 45(1): 5-32.
79. Keerthi SS, Shevade SK, Bhattacharyya C, Krishna K (2001) Improvements to Platt's SMO algorithm for SVM classifier design. Neural Computation 13(3): 637-649.
80. Mohammed M, Khan MB, Bashier ME (2016) Machine Learning: Algorithms and Applications. CRC Press.
81. Rosenblatt F (1957) The Perceptron – a perceiving and recognizing automaton (Project PARA). Report 85-460-1, Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory.
82. Minsky M, Papert S (1969) Perceptrons: An Introduction to Computational Geometry. MIT Press.
83. Aggarwal C (2023) The backpropagation algorithm. In: Neural Networks and Deep Learning. Springer Cham: 25-62.
84. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G (2015) Deep learning. Nature 521(7553): 436-444.