This review evaluates visualization methods in archaeological lidar research for ancient Maya landscapes, suggesting improvements for reproducibility and usability.
Airborne laser scanning (ALS, lidar) has become a key method for studying ancient Maya landscapes, offering unprecedented visibility of anthropogenic terrain modifications in densely forested environments. Despite this progress, the visualization of elevation data remains understandardized, with many researchers relying on ad hoc or aesthetically motivated methods, which reduce reproducibility and comparability of results. This paper provides a comprehensive review of visualization techniques used in archaeological lidar research of the Maya region, evaluating their effectiveness, reproducibility and suitability across varying terrain types and feature morphologies. We emphasize the importance of using standardized and reproducible visualizations, especially as collaborative and large‐scale mapping projects grow more common. Among the assessed methods, the combined Visualization for Archaeological Topography (combined VAT) is highlighted as a particularly robust base visualization, which performs well across diverse terrain types and is intuitively readable, free of significant artefacts, suited for interregional comparisons, and open‐source. The paper also outlines best practices for computing and publishing lidar‐derived images, including metadata requirements and recommendations for reproducible workflows using open‐source tools like the Relief Visualization Toolbox. The paper also outlines recommendations for computing, publishing and reporting'lidar images' including guidelines for metadata and parameter documentation. With increasing collaboration and availability of national lidar datasets, adopting more transparent and standardized visualization protocols is essential for improving archaeological interpretation, ensuring reproducibility and supporting long‐term data usability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Žiga Kokalj (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: