Dag-Øyvind Solem

Mr. Dag-Øyvind Solem

Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU)
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

7Years (2020-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
22 September 2020 in Remote Sensing
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Carmen Cuenca-GarcíaCarmen Cuenca-García
Carmen Cuenca-García
Ole RisbølOle Risbøl
Ole Risbøl
Charles BatesCharles Bates
Charles Bates
Arne Anderson StamnesArne Anderson Stamnes
Arne Anderson Stamnes
Fredrik SkoglundFredrik Skoglund
Fredrik Skoglund
Dag-Øyvind SolemDag-Øyvind Solem
Dag-Øyvind Solem
In August 2018, a group of experts working with terrestrial/marine geophysics and remote sensing methods to explore archaeological sites in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Scotland and Sweden gathered together for the first time at the Workshop ‘Sensing Archaeology in The North’. The goal was to exchange experiences, discuss challenges, and consider future directions for further developing these methods and strategies for their use in archaeology. After the event, this special journal issue was arranged to publish papers that are based on the workshop presentations, but also to incorporate work that is produced by other researchers in the field. This paper closes the special issue and further aims to provide current state-of-the-art for the methods represented by the workshop. Here, we introduce the aspects that inspired the organisation of the meeting, a summary of the 12 presentations and eight paper contributions, as well as a discussion about the main outcomes of the workshop roundtables, including the production of two searchable databases (online resources and equipment). We conclude with the position that the ‘North’, together with its unique cultural heritage and thriving research community, is at the forefront of good practice in the application and development of sensing methods in archaeological research and management. However, further method development is required, so we claim the support of funding bodies to back research efforts based on testing/experimental studies to: explore unknown survey environments and identify optimal survey conditions, as well as to monitor the preservation of archaeological remains, especially those that are at risk. It is demonstrated that remote sensing and geophysics not only have an important role in the safeguarding of archaeological sites from development and within prehistorical-historical research, but the methods can be especially useful in recording and monitoring the increased impact of climate change on sites in the North.

19 May 2020 in Remote Sensing
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Dag-Øyvind SolemDag-Øyvind Solem
Dag-Øyvind Solem
ENErich Nau
Erich Nau
Digital 3D documentation methods such as Image-Based Modelling (IBM) and laser scanning have become increasingly popular for the recording of entire archaeological sites and landscapes, excavations and single finds during the last decade. However, they have not been applied in any significant degree to miniature incisions such as graffiti. In the same period, Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) has become one of the most popular methods used to record and visualize this kind of heritage, though it lacks the benefits of 3D documentation. The aim of this paper is to introduce two new ways of combining IBM and RTI, and to assess these different techniques in relation to factors such as usability, time-efficiency, cost-efficiency and accuracy. A secondary aim is to examine the influence of two different 3D processing software packages on these factors: The widely used MetaShape (MS) and a more expensive option, RealityCapture (RC). The article shows that there is currently no recording technique that is optimal regarding all four aforementioned factors, and the way to record and produce results must be chosen based on a prioritization of these. However, we argue that the techniques combining RTI and IBM might be the overall best ways to record miniature incisions. One of these combinations is time-efficient and relatively cost-efficient, and the results have high usability even though the 3D models generated have low accuracy. The other combination has low time- and cost-efficiency but generates the most detailed 3D models of the techniques tested. In addition to cost-efficiency, the main difference between the 3D software packages tested is that RC is much faster than MS. The accuracy assessment remains inconclusive; while RC generally produces more detailed 3D models than MS, there are also areas of these models where RC creates more noise than MS.

3 April 2025 in Remote Sensing
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Kristoffer DahleKristoffer Dahle
Kristoffer Dahle
Dag-Øyvind SolemDag-Øyvind Solem
Dag-Øyvind Solem
MGMagnar Mojaren Gran
Magnar Mojaren Gran
Arne Anderson StamnesArne Anderson Stamnes
Arne Anderson Stamnes
Shielings are seasonal settlements found in upland pastures across Scandinavia and the North Atlantic. New investigations in the county of Møre and Romsdal, Norway, demonstrate the existence of this transhumant system by the Viking Age and Early Middle Ages. Sub-terranean features in these pastoral mountain landscapes have been identified by remote sensing technologies, but non-invasive methods still face challenges in terms of practical applicability and in confirming the presence of archaeological sites. Generally, aerial surveys, such as LiDAR and image-based modelling, excel in documenting visual landscapes and may enhance detection of low-visibility features. Thermography may also detect shallow subsurface features but is limited by solar conditions and vegetation. Magnetic methods face challenges due to the heterogeneous moraine geology. Ground-penetrating radar has yielded better results but is highly impractical and inefficient in these remote and rough landscapes. Systematic soil coring or test-pitting remain the most reliable options for detecting these faint sites, yet non-invasive methods may offer a better understanding of the archaeological contexts—between the initial survey and the final excavation. Altogether, the study highlights the dependency on landscape, soil, and vegetation, emphasising the need to consider each method’s possibilities and limitations based on site environments and conditions.