Locating archaeological sites in the landscape: a hierarchical approach based on landscape indicators

Fry, Gary; Skår, Birgitte; Jerpåsen, Gro B.; Bakkestuen, Vegar; Erikstad, Lars

doi:10.1016/s0169-2046(03)00031-8

Cited by 52 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Analyses along these lines include explicit pointtopoint intervisibility calculations, viewshed calculations from a site or series of sites, where the visible area around the location is assessed, and cumulative viewshed calculations, where the visual prominence of areas of a landscape or structure are assessed (Tschan et al 2000). These calculations have been used as proxy data to assess the relative importance of sites, where very visible or very hidden sites are assumed to be most important, areas of control, where sites are thought to have influence over areas that can be seen from them, and connectivity, where inter visibility is part of the assessment of social connection, and to model travel across an area, where visual access is treated as a parameter for wayfinding or an attractor when modeling best or most likely paths (e.g., Fry et al 2004; Wheatley and Gillings 2000; Bernardini et al 2013; Gillings 2009; Lake and Woodman 2003. These analyses, largely carried out within quantitative and processual research traditions, brought to light valuable insights about the landscapes and settlement dynamics of the areas studied.…”

Section: Aq5mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Experiment in Using Visual Attention Metrics to Think About Experience and Design Choices in Past Places

Opitz

2017

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An experiment in using visual attention metrics to think about experience and design choices in past places. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 24(4), pp. 1203-1226. (doi:10.1007 This is the author's final accepted version.There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it.http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/142948/ AbstractThe influence of the visual properties of a built space or landscape on the behaviors of people within them and the manipulation of these visual properties to cue or constrain behaviors are subjects of longstanding archaeological interest. Advances in cognitive neurosciences and a suite of improved computational modeling tools, combined with the proliferation of detailed 3D models of archaeological complexes and landscapes, offer an opportunity for new approaches to these topics based on models of lowlevel perceptual cues and visual attention. The approach described here takes aim at the question of where people will look, rather than simply what is visible, with the goal of investigating the intentions of designers of spaces and visual aspects of the experience of a place. In simple terms, our approach involves placing detailed 3D models of built spaces or landscapes into a digital environment. An individual then virtually walks through the space and what is visible at each moment is recorded in the form of a video stream, which may be broken down into a sequence of scenes. This set of scenes is then analyzed using software that calculates and maps the visual saliency of each scene and the path of focuses of attention (FOAs) over time. This set of saliency maps, raw images, and FOA paths provide the basis for further interpretation. This paper presents an initial experiment to illustrate the approach, carried out in the eastern passage at Knowth, one of the main mounds in the Brú na Bóinne in Ireland.

show abstract

Section: Aq5mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Experiment in Using Visual Attention Metrics to Think About Experience and Design Choices in Past Places

Opitz

2017

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of past GIS archaeological predictive modelling exercises are concerned with cultural heritage management, site prospection, determining landscape and heritage sensitivities and tracing human migrations (Clark, et al, 1998;Custer, et al, 1986;Field and Petraglia, 2007;Fry, et al, 2004;Rowland & Connolly, 2002). Archaeological studies that have used predictive modelling and spatial analysis to understand lithic resource distributions have typically employed geological rather than archaeological data (Duke & Steele, 2010; but see Goings, 2003), or have used archaeological data only to a limited degree (Doelman, et al, 2008).…”

Section: A C C E P T E D Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping stone: using GIS spatial modelling to predict lithic source zones

Clarkson

Bellas

2014

Journal of Archaeological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a new approach to predicting the location of sources of flakeable stone using GIS modelling of raw material proportions obtained from site assemblage data.This approach offers a valuable tool for locating potential source areas and investigating past lithic provisioning and landuse when abundant site assemblage data is available but precise source locations are unknown. Using published and grey literature on raw material composition for 84 sites, we generate a model of varying raw material concentrations for the Moreton Region of Southeast Queensland, Australia, and test our predicted source locations against known prehistoric quarries, geology maps and ground trothing of two key predicted areas with distinctive raw materials. Our results suggest distinct source areas are identifiable, suggesting that primary outcrops are more important sources of stone in this region than large streams and rivers.

show abstract

“…Like all applications of spatial technology, these have been used in both CRM and academia; however, the vast majority of site predictive work has been aimed at managing archaeological phenomena across large, often poorly surveyed, sections of North America. Some have suggested that the more complete knowledge of archaeological site distributions in Europe explains why predictive modeling has not held wide appeal in the region (Richards 1998, p. 337; see also these examples of European modeling, Fry et al 2004;Legg and Taylor 2006).…”

Section: Site Predictive Modeling (Archaeological Locational Modeling)mentioning

confidence: 99%

New Developments in the Use of Spatial Technology in Archaeology

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial technology is integral to how archaeologists collect, store, analyze, and represent information in digital data sets. Recent advances have improved our ability to look for and identify archaeological remains and have increased the size and complexity of our data sets. In this review we outline trends in visualization, data management, archaeological prospecting, modeling, and spatial analysis, as well as key advances in hardware and software. Due to developments in education, information technology, and landscape archaeology, the implementation of spatial technology has begun to move beyond superficial applications and is no longer limited to environmental deterministic approaches. In the future, spatial technology will increasingly change archaeology in ways that will enable us to become better practitioners, scholars, and stewards.

show abstract

Locating archaeological sites in the landscape: a hierarchical approach based on landscape indicators

Cited by 52 publications

References 8 publications

An Experiment in Using Visual Attention Metrics to Think About Experience and Design Choices in Past Places

An Experiment in Using Visual Attention Metrics to Think About Experience and Design Choices in Past Places

Mapping stone: using GIS spatial modelling to predict lithic source zones

New Developments in the Use of Spatial Technology in Archaeology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About