(Re)surveying Mediterranean Rural Landscapes: GIS and Legacy Survey Data

Abstract

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractLegacy data have always been important for Mediterranean archaeologists. Over the past decade, one specific category of legacy data, that deriving from regional survey, has become particularly important. Not only has the scale of research questions become larger (requiring greater reliance on others" data), but the surface archaeological record is deteriorating (diminishing the ability to recover good data). The legacy data from many individual surveys have now been subject to digitisation and GIS analysis, successfully redeploying data collected for one purpose within new theoretical and interpretive frameworks. However, a key research focus is now comparative survey -using the results of many different Mediterranean surveys side-by-side to identify regional variability in settlement organisation, economy and demography. In order to overcome the significant methodological differences between these surveys, attention has 2 focused on the documentation of metadata. Yet, many legacy data lack vital information about their creation and hence how they might be (re)interpreted and compared. GIS has been advanced as an environment in which to contain, order and analyse the data necessary for comparative survey. However, there is a danger that the technology will facilitate inappropriate use of these datasets in a way that fails to acknowledge and understand the very real differences between them. Here, emphasis is placed upon the use of GIS as a space for exploratory data analysis: a process that encompasses and emphasises the integral processes of digitisation, visualisation and simple analysis for the characterisation of datasets in order to derive an alternative form of metadata. Particular emphasis is placed upon the interaction of past human behaviour (e.g. in the Roman period) and archaeological recovery (i.e. the behaviour of archaeologists in the present, or recent past); these two sets of "social action" combine to create distinctive archaeological datasets. This search for "contextual" metadata within individual legacy survey datasets supplements more "formal" metadata and facilitates both interpretation of individual surveys and comparison between them. Case studies from Italy are used to illustrate the kind of iterative and incremental approach to legacy survey data advocated.

Missing persons? Models of Mediterranean Regional Survey and Ancient Populations

“…Similarly, the comparison of results from parallel surveys of the same territory indicates that even large and high status sites can be missed (e.g. Fentress 1993;Witcher 2008b; also Mattingly this volume). Given the medium intensity of the Liri valley survey, an initial figure of 60% will be used.…”

Examining Land-Use through GIS-Based Kernel Density Estimation: A Re-Evaluation of Legacy Data from the Berbati-Limnes Survey

“…GIS-based research within Greek archaeology has been growing at a steady pace in recent years, including studies of legacy data and other approaches that move beyond field-based data recording as part of survey and excavations (Constantinidis 2001;Farinetti 2011;Donati 2016;Jazwa and Jazwa 2017;Argyriou et al 2017). The use of GIS, of course, needs to be approached critically, since digital methods and mapping run the risk of masking uncertainties in the data and consequently in the archaeological interpretation (Sharon et al 2004;Witcher 2008). It is therefore crucial to define the methods, assumptions, and theoretical frameworks informing such research.…”

“…Previous discussions on past landscape dynamics have often involved diachronic comparisons of site numbers, including more qualitative discussions of distribution patterns (for Greece, see for example Alcock [1993], Bintliff [1997], Stewart [2013], and Weiberg and colleagues [2016]). Such approaches have been useful in illustrating settlement fluctuations linked to socio-economic developments, but are at the same time limited in the type of quantitative information they convey (Whitelaw 2000;Witcher 2008). Through the method outlined here, we demonstrate how KDE can be used to quantitatively assess landscape dynamics, moving beyond diachronic comparison of site numbers.…”

Transforming Legacy Spatial Data into Testable Hypotheses about Socioeconomic Organization

“…A dataset that archaeologists compiled to answer one research question can help archaeologists answer another. Indeed, there has been a recent push for archaeologists seeking new insights on major anthropological and archaeological topics to start their inquiry with existing data (Altschul 2016; Cook et al 2018; Kintigh 2006; Kintigh et al 2015, 2018; McManamon et al 2017; Witcher 2008). These recent calls have emphasized the need to develop new analytical techniques to transform legacy data into testable hypotheses.…”