Landscapes of death: GIS modelling of a dated sequence of prehistoric cemeteries in Västmanland, Sweden

Abstract

We will never be able to excavate everything -nor should we -but it would be good to know how to make the best use of what is visible in the landscape to write social prehistories. In this project the author creates a set of parameters for the 1000 mound-cemeteries seen north of Lake Mälaren and clusters them by period, using 51 examples that have been excavated and dated. The result is that 1000 cemeteries can now be allocated to period, with that special kind of confidence in which statisticians rejoice.

Object-based landform delineation and classification from DEMs for archaeological predictive mapping

“…Devereux et al, 2005;Humme et al, 2006;Doneus et al, 2008;Hesse, 2010). The multi-scalar landform classification routines available in LandSerf (www.landserf.org) have attracted some interest as well as additional parameters to analyse and predict archaeological site location (Löwenborg, 2009;Kay and Witcher, 2009). These advanced geomorphometric methods of landform characterization however do not seem to represent the earth's surface in a way that allows for easy archaeological interpretation, and this may explain to a large degree the lack of success of archaeological geomorphometry up to now.…”

‘Landscapes of Life’ and ‘Landscapes of Death’: The Contribution of Funerary Evidence to the Understanding of the Perception and Organisation of Roman Rural Landscapes in Northern Italy

“…Studies which are concerned with the relationship between tombs and other anthropic elements in the landscape have often tended to infer, from a given spatial position or a specifi c organisation of mortuary evidence, funerary ideology and changes in mentality/social identity (Morris 1992;Parker Pearson 1993;Stone and Stirling 2007;Eckardt et al 2009;Déderix 2014). The topographical position of funerary monuments has been frequently deemed signifi cant in terms of communal choices and intentional decisions related to economic, social, and ritual needs (Blake 2001;Llobera 2001;Löwenborg 2009;Wheatley et al 2010;De Reu et al 2011;Bongers et al 2012). That social needs 'mould' the reaction of the living to the dead, and thus infl uence their relationships, has been posited previously by Lévi-Strauss (1961).…”

“…A more landscape-oriented approach to funerary areas, frequently involving spatial and statistical analyses and the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), has been recently employed primarily by prehistorians (Blake 2001;Llobera 2001;Löwenborg 2009;Wheatley et al 2010;De Reu et al 2011;Bongers et al 2012;Déderix 2014). The crucial contribution of such studies, besides evidencing the benefi ts of new methodologies and techniques, lies in their reinforcement of the importance of a broader perspective, which takes into account the dialectic relationship between the environment and various anthropic features.…”

Modelling Archaeological and Geospatial Information for Burial Site Prediction, Identification and Management

“…Undoubtedly, burial mounds, tombs and cemeteries have been the subject in many studies, which, however, examine the correlation between topography and their location on the landscape [39][40], chronological estimations [41], viewshed and visibility [42][43][44][45] or simply included among other archaeological data, the locations of funerary monuments and cemeteries to map archaeological sites. The studies found in literature regarding exclusively the prediction of burial monuments or mounds are rare [46][47][48][49].…”