This report provides an overview of the main remote sensing methods and geodata types used in archaeological prospection and cultural heritage survey. Based on a literature review, it provides an initial survey of the state of the art nationally and internationally, followed by details on the potential usage of different methods in a Swedish context. The details include pros and cons of methods as well as information on considerations that should be taken into account when applying the methods in different situations. Examples are provided where relevant to explain specific details or illustrate important points. Particular attention has been paid to laser scanning (LiDAR) data due to its increasing prevalence and prominence in landscape and archaeological surveys.

The report continues with a preliminary evaluation of the possibilities for using data provided by Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket), obtained for other stages of the planning process, in archaeological and cultural heritage work. Specifically, the report looks at a number of geodata types obtained from The Geological Survey of Sweden (Sveriges geologiska undersökning/SGU), a nature conservation survey in report form, a ground penetrating radar technical report, terrain laser scanning (LiDAR) and orthophotos (geometrically corrected aerial photographs). The SGU geodata consist of a number of Geographical Information System (GIS) layers describing bedrock and soil types, and the nature conservation survey included accompanying, but incomplete, GIS data. This section consists of concise descriptions of the potential of each group of GIS layers or data, and is complemented by brief, bullet point summaries along with additional technical information in Appendix 1. Comments have been made where additional, related, data sources would be useful. Swedish terms are included in parenthesis where the term differs significantly from the English equivalent.

A final summary provides a compact overview of the main points of the report before providing some conclusions and ideas for further work. This is in turn followed by a list of ideas for enhancing the efficiency with which the types of data discussed can be used in infrastructure projects which have a potential to impact on archaeology/cultural heritage.

References are provided to support important or potentially contentious points or where further reading or research would be advised for a more comprehensive understanding of relevant issues.