Editing Shadow marks (section)

=== Case studies ===
Real-world case studies demonstrate the practical value of shadow marks in archaeological detection. For instance, aerial surveys over [[Maiden Castle, Dorset|Maiden Castle]] in England revealed complex fortification structures through shadow-enhanced topography.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bewley |first=Robert H. |date=2003 |title=Aerial survey for archaeology |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.0031-868X.2003.00023.x |journal=The Photogrammetric Record |language=en |volume=18 |issue=104 |pages=273–292 |doi=10.1046/j.0031-868X.2003.00023.x |bibcode=2003PgRec..18..273B |issn=1477-9730}}</ref>  Similarly, in China, [[Synthetic-aperture radar|SAR]] imagery successfully detected shadow patterns of buried city walls beneath agricultural fields.<ref name=":15" />

These examples highlight how shadow marks often provide the first visual cue of subsurface features—especially when crop and soil marks offer limited information.<ref name=":9">{{Cite book |last=Wilson |first=David Raoul |url=https://archive.org/details/airphotointerpre0000wils/mode/2up |title=Air photo interpretation for archaeologists |date=1982 |publisher=New York : St. Martin's Press |others=Internet Archive |isbn=978-0-312-01527-5 |pages=27–69}}</ref><ref name=":1" />  Shadow marks are the most informative when they are used along with other [[remote sensing]] methodologies.<ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10">{{Cite journal |last1=Del Pozo |first1=S. |last2=Rodríguez-Gonzálvez |first2=P. |last3=Sánchez-Aparicio |first3=L. J. |last4=Muñoz-Nieto |first4=A. |last5=Hernández-López |first5=D. |last6=Felipe-García |first6=B. |last7=González-Aguilera |first7=D. |date=2017-08-18 |title=Multispectral Imaging in Cultural Heritage Conservation |url=https://isprs-archives.copernicus.org/articles/XLII-2-W5/155/2017/ |journal=The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences |language=English |volume=XLII-2-W5 |pages=155–162 |doi=10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W5-155-2017 |doi-access=free |bibcode=2017ISPAr62W5..155D |issn=1682-1750}}</ref> When combined with other forms of remote sensing, shadow marks help triangulate archaeological interpretations through complementary visual, biological, and physical indicators.<ref name=":9" />

Archaeologists today are therefore placing an emphasis on a multiproxy approach. As researchers use shadow mark analysis paired with [[Lidar|LiDAR]] (topography), GPR (subsurface readings), and multispectral band analyses (landscape development); they categorize between anthropogenic and natural features.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bitelli |first=Gabriele |date=2012 |editor-last=Lasaponara |editor-first=Rosa |editor2-last=Masini |editor2-first=Nicola |title=Satellite Remote Sensing |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-90-481-8801-7 |journal=Remote Sensing and Digital Image Processing |volume=16 |language=en |pages=113–126 |doi=10.1007/978-90-481-8801-7 |isbn=978-90-481-8800-0 |issn=1567-3200}}</ref> As more data goes into [[Geographic information system|Geographic Information Systems]] (GIS), but shadow marks could also be placed in GIS, the spatial analysis of archaeological sites can improve predictive modeling and our ability to reconstruct cultural landscapes.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Cowley |first=Dave |url=https://www.academia.edu/6730535 |title=Remote Sensing for Archaeological Heritage Management |date=2011-01-01 |isbn=978-963-9911-20-8 |pages=43–58}}</ref> Shadow marks will remain important - even if they are a relatively low technology - in the expanding toolbox of remote sensing archaeology.<ref name=":7" />